Title: Green Lantern (2011)
Cinema is such an interesting field. As cinephiles it is very easy to get caught up with the changing of a guard, that we become complacent, spoiled if you will, with high quality fare. So it should come to no surprise, that while not a horrendous effort, the big screen debut of "The Green Lantern" is seen as nothing more mediocre, annoying at best.
The pieces all seem to be in place, engaging lead (Ryan Reynolds, slightly checking back into his "Van Wilder" days here), super-powers (a ring that makes hard-light constructs), epic mythology (OA is right there, several times), big special effects set pieces (true the effects are rather lackluster, but still). The culprit at hand here is two-fold sadly; it lacks a menacing antagonist, and has no true threat to our hero, let alone the universe. Essentially, DC decided to take 15 steps back (see: years) in it's superhero effort, and hope that it could ride the wave of everything surrounding it. If you missed the reference before, I was pointing out that most DC efforts not including a gravely voiced half detective/half ninja, named after a nocturnal animal, usually see a main threat as an almost crashing plane or helicopter. This is 2011, even an 11 month old child would expect better. Then again this is an origin story in it's truest fashion, one that still believes that cribbing from Campbell's monomyth is neither trite or overdone. Beyond even the quibbles with narrative, the film finds many instances to stop itself in it's tracks. Literally, there are at least 4 different scenes that follow action beats, which threaten to derail the entire film. Yes, the marketing analysts decided that Blake Lively needed more screen time (apparently to wear a dress and or push-up bra), but she essentially has no purpose to be wedged into the already stuffy proceedings. A lot of that blame can be placed on the 5 screenwriters & director Martin Campbell. Campbell, has a string of successes making mainstream films more entertaining than they should in GoldenEye, Casino Royale (2006), Mask of Zorro and recently Edge of Darkness under. The transition to comic book sci-fi could easily be a detractor, though most of that works despite itself. Truth be told, many of the films faults are the same ones shared by another superhero venture from the '11 summer slot, THOR. The difference between the films is that THOR coasts along with it's performances, as well as a pervading aura of "cool". When we are spending time on OA, meeting a few of the Lantern Corps best, and being handed a lot of mythology, the film feels like something special, and if they manage to make a sequel with a few tweaks behind the scenes, it could be worth your money. It's difficult to say that, because you shouldn't have to slog through a so-so film to get to a great one. Most of those films find themselves dead in the water, as the detractors come forward, picking apart all their grievances. Only in extreme cases, mostly those that involve large large profit margins, does a "next" film get picked up.
For a completely different argument, I humbly submit Green Lantern: First Flight (2009) as exhibit B-Q. Clocking in at a slim 77 minutes, the animated feature from DCAU (DC Animated Universe), comes an origin story of Hal Jordan, that is funnier, more action packed, with more heart, and a talented cast that rivals that of it's Big Screen brethren. Sure it feels crammed as well, but at 30 minutes less than the live-action venture, that's forgivable.
Green Lantern (2011) feels like it's trying to build a foundation for a bigger world without giving much reason to care. There are a few hints, and references to a possible DC Universe, but unlike the current MARVEL fiasco (seriously, enough with S.H.E.I.L.D.), it's a name dropped here,a background shot there, and a total waste of Angela Bassett*.
All these ideas again brings me back to the statement of being spoiled. Green Lantern is a perfectly solid film, if it were made between 1997 - 2001. Take out out a feel braking moments, and there is a film that the "Fantastic Four" audience would eat up. As film-goers we are getting to a point where we expect more from even the most basic of Superhero films. We want to quake in our boots at the galactic threat. We want to cheer as our hero lays the beat down on whomever gets in their way. We want to laugh as the side-kick hops in at the last minute, apologizing for their tardiness. More than anything, we want to be engaged by the events upon the screen. We want to feel a connection to the characters, because they are endearing, because they are assholes, but mostly because the people behind the picture took a few moments to establish characters over cliches. It can only be hoped that moving forward, Super Hero films try to grow with the audience that is watching them. Otherwise I assure you, we'll end up with an Aquaman film, and that's when I'll hang up my hat.
** out of *****
*- Wikipedia Amanda Waller to see how important a character she actually is in the DC Universe, as well as her portrayal in other media.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Action Monday: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)
Title: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)
How does one go about reviewing a film, whose sole purpose is to make money? That's the second thought I had after seeing the film in question. The first thought? What did I just see, and why did it happen?
There was a lot of speculation from everyone in the known world when Pirates 4 was announced. Most of it ranged from, "what is it about" to "do we need another one". Various stories leaked early, concerning the rights to various books being picked up, possible cameos and so forth. Things took a worse turn when it was publicly acknowledged that star Johnny Depp was rather uninterested in reprising his iconic role of Captain Jack Sparrow. Needless to say, all these issues are readily on display in the final product.
A movie of this magnitude, needs a few key factors in place to make it a success, or at least a decent diversion of time. Sadly it lacks in all departments, save for the fact that it eventually ends. The movie showcases 3 of it's most glaring flaws, all within the first 15 minutes. First of all, there is a very forced, and uninspired vibe to the proceedings. Instead of a natural flow, the scenes seem to exist, because the writers are convinced this is what people expect or want to see. While the audience should be an active participant in the films events, doesn't mean that it should be made directly for them. Everyone has differing tastes, and if you shoot for the middle, you can only ever just grasp mediocrity. Second, we get a line asking if Sparrow ever managed to find the Fountain of Youth (due to the fact that the map from Pirates 3 is stuffed in his shirt). His response is that he simply grew tired of it and gave up. Lastly, Sparrow is the main focus of the film. He is its central character, the hero, and not a role that he should have ever been relegated to. The reason that Captain Jack Sparrow became such an iconic character, was because he worked all the angles, was crazy, has insane luck, all the while being a lovable scamp. He is the true example of "there is such thing as too much of a good thing". The original Pirates Trilogy (yes, we are at a point of referring to it thusly), had the over arching love story of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan. Sparrow's role and story was integral, but it wasn't at the forefront. This confusing may be derived from the fact that, Depp, as big a star as he is, has his name first on the credits. Which also leads me to say, a phrase I never thought I would. The love story absence from the fourth film is a big issue. In its place there are 2 minor flirts that are never fully developed. The much publicized teaming of Penelope Cruz and Johnny Depp, and that of a Missionary and a Mermaid. The latter's story has the beginnings of something interesting, though it never develops and leads to one of the most awkward blurt outs ever. (For the life of me I can't even remember if the Missionary's name had been uttered before the scene, let alone the mermaids). This is of no consequence, as the Missionary will disappear moments later, with none of the cast being surprised or curious of his whereabouts.
On Stranger Tides is a cash-grab pure and simple. Sure that can easily be said about most of the films that are released in the summer, but most of those are at least 3 times as fun, as what's on display here.
* out of *****
How does one go about reviewing a film, whose sole purpose is to make money? That's the second thought I had after seeing the film in question. The first thought? What did I just see, and why did it happen?
There was a lot of speculation from everyone in the known world when Pirates 4 was announced. Most of it ranged from, "what is it about" to "do we need another one". Various stories leaked early, concerning the rights to various books being picked up, possible cameos and so forth. Things took a worse turn when it was publicly acknowledged that star Johnny Depp was rather uninterested in reprising his iconic role of Captain Jack Sparrow. Needless to say, all these issues are readily on display in the final product.
A movie of this magnitude, needs a few key factors in place to make it a success, or at least a decent diversion of time. Sadly it lacks in all departments, save for the fact that it eventually ends. The movie showcases 3 of it's most glaring flaws, all within the first 15 minutes. First of all, there is a very forced, and uninspired vibe to the proceedings. Instead of a natural flow, the scenes seem to exist, because the writers are convinced this is what people expect or want to see. While the audience should be an active participant in the films events, doesn't mean that it should be made directly for them. Everyone has differing tastes, and if you shoot for the middle, you can only ever just grasp mediocrity. Second, we get a line asking if Sparrow ever managed to find the Fountain of Youth (due to the fact that the map from Pirates 3 is stuffed in his shirt). His response is that he simply grew tired of it and gave up. Lastly, Sparrow is the main focus of the film. He is its central character, the hero, and not a role that he should have ever been relegated to. The reason that Captain Jack Sparrow became such an iconic character, was because he worked all the angles, was crazy, has insane luck, all the while being a lovable scamp. He is the true example of "there is such thing as too much of a good thing". The original Pirates Trilogy (yes, we are at a point of referring to it thusly), had the over arching love story of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan. Sparrow's role and story was integral, but it wasn't at the forefront. This confusing may be derived from the fact that, Depp, as big a star as he is, has his name first on the credits. Which also leads me to say, a phrase I never thought I would. The love story absence from the fourth film is a big issue. In its place there are 2 minor flirts that are never fully developed. The much publicized teaming of Penelope Cruz and Johnny Depp, and that of a Missionary and a Mermaid. The latter's story has the beginnings of something interesting, though it never develops and leads to one of the most awkward blurt outs ever. (For the life of me I can't even remember if the Missionary's name had been uttered before the scene, let alone the mermaids). This is of no consequence, as the Missionary will disappear moments later, with none of the cast being surprised or curious of his whereabouts.
On Stranger Tides is a cash-grab pure and simple. Sure that can easily be said about most of the films that are released in the summer, but most of those are at least 3 times as fun, as what's on display here.
* out of *****
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
New Release Sunday: SUPER 8 (2011)
Title: SUPER 8 (2011)
Nostalgia can be a powerful thing, for both good and bad reasons. Super 8 exemplifies both ends of the spectrum. On one hand, it harkens back to an era rich with the early works of Steven Spielberg, when ever the most jaded cinema-goer was swept up with elation, whimsy and wonder. The other hand though, begs to differ, how much joy is actually being derived from "Super 8", strictly from nostalgia alone. Don't misunderstand me, Super 8 is often a vastly entertaining film, but at the same time it is a film that wants to wallow in the glow of the past, without understanding how to make it's narrative stick.
Even if J.J. Abram's 3rd directorial effort is the greatest aping of an "Amblin" product ever, it's a testament to Abram's skill set. Looking back on such a short filmography, Abram's is a relatively easy director to pick apart. He's been lucky enough to start out on the top floor (Mission: Impossible III), move higher (Star Trek [2009]) before being allowed to write/direct his first original feature, and have it end up as a tent-pole summer event. Truth be told, each of the films, to a varying degree, endear themselves to the audience simply due to J.J. Abram's will, and the likability of said cast. The writing is never in question, thankfully, mostly because that is the glaring Achilles's Heel. Super 8 almost loses itself under the weight, though it only starts careening off a steep cliff within it's climax. If the point of the movie itself, is to recapture the woe-begone beginning days of Steven Spielberg, it's of note that the movie takes a page out of the Spielberg post 98: the inability to condense a film.
After all the harping is said and done, Super 8 is still a fantastically made film, one whose images are likely to linger with many a film-goer. The plot is rich with attention to detail, none more-so than when it tries as much as possible to entrench itself in 1979. Hair is still slightly feathered. Disco is starting to be looked down upon. People are baffled by the though of a personal cassette player, and no one, NO ONE......texts. Here kids have hobbies, and none more so than Joe, Charles, Cary, Martin and Preston. They all work tirelessly to make a horror film, under Charles watchful eye. Some of the best scenes of the film actually focus solely on the interaction between the friends, which seem as rich and true as anything in years. They enlist the help of rebellious Alice (Elle Fanning, proving that she got both the looks & talent from that family) to play a pivotal part in their little film, much to the enjoyment of our lead, Joe, who shares more of a past with Alice than he may know. One evening, the intrepid band are shooting at the local railway station, for what Charles deems "production value", and witness a horrendous train crash, one that only exists in the worst of nightmares. Little do the pint-sized guerrilla filmmakers know what lurks inside said train.
It's here that things start to split in "Super 8". One thread is creature feature, the other is a coming of age story. Each have their own share of moments, but there is a feeling that a separate film on each subject would have served the material better. A strange benefit of sorts, is that most of the time, whilst watching the actual feature, the situation is reversed. Only after removing oneself from the viewing experience do the cracks start to show. The wave of nostalgia is so strong it permeates everywhere, non-action oriented at least. J.J. Abram's hindrance is the creature feature aspect of the film. Seemingly dragged out of nowhere, the monster alien that Abram's unleashes seems a bit much. The monster eats/demolishes all that gets in his way, but the picture later asks for understanding and forgiveness. If the creature were merely a standard alien causing a ruckus, and not a large hulking mass, it wouldn't feel as diametrically opposed to the rest of the film.
Super 8 is an interesting beast. It's a summer film, but packed to the gills with lightly intriguing ideas and characters who seem real. It's a family film, a true matinee experience, but has enough blood and swearing to keep most children at bay. It's an amalgamation of "The Goonies", "Stand by Me", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "E.T.", and for the too too well versed "The Explorers". It's bustling with impeccable cinematography, winning performances, dread, suspense. It's a reminder of when films captured us......we can only hope that in the long run JJ Abrams is able to expand upon this ability and we can remember his film, rather than just those that came before.
**1/2 out of *****
Nostalgia can be a powerful thing, for both good and bad reasons. Super 8 exemplifies both ends of the spectrum. On one hand, it harkens back to an era rich with the early works of Steven Spielberg, when ever the most jaded cinema-goer was swept up with elation, whimsy and wonder. The other hand though, begs to differ, how much joy is actually being derived from "Super 8", strictly from nostalgia alone. Don't misunderstand me, Super 8 is often a vastly entertaining film, but at the same time it is a film that wants to wallow in the glow of the past, without understanding how to make it's narrative stick.
Even if J.J. Abram's 3rd directorial effort is the greatest aping of an "Amblin" product ever, it's a testament to Abram's skill set. Looking back on such a short filmography, Abram's is a relatively easy director to pick apart. He's been lucky enough to start out on the top floor (Mission: Impossible III), move higher (Star Trek [2009]) before being allowed to write/direct his first original feature, and have it end up as a tent-pole summer event. Truth be told, each of the films, to a varying degree, endear themselves to the audience simply due to J.J. Abram's will, and the likability of said cast. The writing is never in question, thankfully, mostly because that is the glaring Achilles's Heel. Super 8 almost loses itself under the weight, though it only starts careening off a steep cliff within it's climax. If the point of the movie itself, is to recapture the woe-begone beginning days of Steven Spielberg, it's of note that the movie takes a page out of the Spielberg post 98: the inability to condense a film.
After all the harping is said and done, Super 8 is still a fantastically made film, one whose images are likely to linger with many a film-goer. The plot is rich with attention to detail, none more-so than when it tries as much as possible to entrench itself in 1979. Hair is still slightly feathered. Disco is starting to be looked down upon. People are baffled by the though of a personal cassette player, and no one, NO ONE......texts. Here kids have hobbies, and none more so than Joe, Charles, Cary, Martin and Preston. They all work tirelessly to make a horror film, under Charles watchful eye. Some of the best scenes of the film actually focus solely on the interaction between the friends, which seem as rich and true as anything in years. They enlist the help of rebellious Alice (Elle Fanning, proving that she got both the looks & talent from that family) to play a pivotal part in their little film, much to the enjoyment of our lead, Joe, who shares more of a past with Alice than he may know. One evening, the intrepid band are shooting at the local railway station, for what Charles deems "production value", and witness a horrendous train crash, one that only exists in the worst of nightmares. Little do the pint-sized guerrilla filmmakers know what lurks inside said train.
It's here that things start to split in "Super 8". One thread is creature feature, the other is a coming of age story. Each have their own share of moments, but there is a feeling that a separate film on each subject would have served the material better. A strange benefit of sorts, is that most of the time, whilst watching the actual feature, the situation is reversed. Only after removing oneself from the viewing experience do the cracks start to show. The wave of nostalgia is so strong it permeates everywhere, non-action oriented at least. J.J. Abram's hindrance is the creature feature aspect of the film. Seemingly dragged out of nowhere, the monster alien that Abram's unleashes seems a bit much. The monster eats/demolishes all that gets in his way, but the picture later asks for understanding and forgiveness. If the creature were merely a standard alien causing a ruckus, and not a large hulking mass, it wouldn't feel as diametrically opposed to the rest of the film.
Super 8 is an interesting beast. It's a summer film, but packed to the gills with lightly intriguing ideas and characters who seem real. It's a family film, a true matinee experience, but has enough blood and swearing to keep most children at bay. It's an amalgamation of "The Goonies", "Stand by Me", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "E.T.", and for the too too well versed "The Explorers". It's bustling with impeccable cinematography, winning performances, dread, suspense. It's a reminder of when films captured us......we can only hope that in the long run JJ Abrams is able to expand upon this ability and we can remember his film, rather than just those that came before.
**1/2 out of *****
Sunday, June 5, 2011
New Release Sunday: KUNG FU PANDA 2 (2011)
Title: KUNG FU PANDA 2 (2011)
There is no real reason for Kung Fu Panda 2 to be any good, and by some stretch of the imagination, it isn't really all that great of a film. When it comes to the story, this panda is about as old as an original Volkswagen Beetle. You can see it's charm, but it's overpowered by how worn and grimy it look. Thankfully a ratty, and thin script can be brushed aside when a film looks, sounds and is fused with as much enthusiasm as this film is.
The film opens a few years after the end of the first entry, and we find the Dragon Warrior & Co. have been rather busy building up their name and reputation. Quickly we are treated to updates on Po's father's Noodle Shop, the peaceful status of Master Shifu (Dustin HoffmanO, and more importantly, we get to see the Furious 5 & the Dragon Warrior in battle. It's here, in the first of many action sequences, that PANDA earns it's keep. Beautifully choreographed martial arts, snippets of humor are all blended in with each of the 6 characters signature traits. Beyond this though, making it all brilliant, and almost worldly, is this: Po is still a bumbling fool. The key to however many Kung Fu Panda films we get (and there will assuredly be more, based on the ending set-up), is squared solely on Po (Jack Black) never losing track of who he is. Sure he is the Dragon Warrior, capable of kicking all kids of ass (and he does, on numerous occasions), but he is also a klutz, highly excitable, and a fanboy. These are all things that allow the audience to engage with Po in an easier manner. He is the kid inside all of us, who finally gets to live his dream, without losing sight of what is important. It goes without saying, one of the best running gags in the film is Po's insistence to calling out all of his and the team's "special moves" as they occur in battle.
The story moves quickly from set-up to set-up, with plenty of pizazz to cover up it's thin-ness and plot holes. Mostly of this sadly is thrown at the feet of Gary Oldman's Lord Shen, a white peacock with serious unresolved parental issues. Shen is glorious to look at, his design is brilliant and cut so fine, the colors a stark contrast in such a colorful film. It's even more intriguing to notice the fine delineation as to where blade are concealed amongst his feathers. There isn't much more to Shen than that though, the exile son of a rich dynasty, the majority of Shen's story is one that has been been done in a myriad of other Period Martial Arts films: the end of kung fu, by guns.
Truth be told, the other narrative thread is equally weak, that of Po wanting to learn more about what happened to his family before he came to the noodle shop, as well as his battle with "inner peace". Thankfully the film glosses over most events by keeping things moving briskly, often engaging in a series of bombastic action pieces. Panda 2 has more fights, certainly more harrowing and impressive than the original, with ounces of extra flair to boot. The joy, as previously stated, is the fact that while Po is very very adapt to beating up everyone in close proximity, his inner-fanboy causes him to misstep often, getting too caught up in the moment. Fists, feet, fur and feathers fly in all directions, and it's hard for any member of the audience, regardless of age to not get caught up in the moment. Action though, can only get you so far, and seeing as how this is a family animated feature, one has to bring up the humor. The team behind the feature have an interesting ear, and a knack for making a toilet humor joke one moment, and a more absurd low brow joke a second later. Of particular note is Mantis's running gag concerning the mating ritual of what else, a praying mantis.
Sadly, besides all the action, colorful animation, and variety of humor, there is a lack of depth in one of the most important departments of an animated feature; voice acting. With the exception of Jack Black and Seth Rogen, everyone else seems involved either due to contractual agreements, or need of a check (I'm looking at you Jean Claude Van Damme). Lines don't necessarily fall flat, as much as they merely are, and being keenly aware of how many voice actors exist out there, the question is, why pay top dollar for more than 2-3 big names. Jack Black as Po is clearly as good the second time around. It lends body and soul to an already lovable goof of a panda, and it's hard to imagine anyone besides Black having the tenacity needed to pull off such a character. Seth Rogen, on the other hand is an interesting exception. It's a little beguiling to wonder if Mantis's part was enlarged in this film due to Rogen's popularity, Matis's popularity, or if the writer's were in love with the character that much. The remainder of the Furious 5 are kind of a wash, Angelina Jolie's Tigress is given the most to work with out of them, and it falls horribly flat.
Animation is an interesting and fickle genre. Often relagated to children's features without much merit, the last 2 decades have seen a changing of the time. As readily as CGI animated features came to the forefront, there was the subtle decision to let adults enjoy these films along side there kids. From this new direction, Disney decided to crown a prince, whose voice and leadership would direct all to a bright future. In the following years the price took his rightful place on the throne, and thus far, his reign has been more then well received, barely tarnished at all. Yet, within the last few years, the black sheep of the CG Animated world has found it's rightful place as a Duke. One who is garnishing much attention rather quickly, waiting for the moment when the king becomes complacent, and the crown be removed........
**** out of *****
What does this have to do with Kung Fu Panda 2? At the end of the summer, take a look at the money vs critical acclaim when it comes to this movie and Pixar's Cars 2. A change may be coming again.
There is no real reason for Kung Fu Panda 2 to be any good, and by some stretch of the imagination, it isn't really all that great of a film. When it comes to the story, this panda is about as old as an original Volkswagen Beetle. You can see it's charm, but it's overpowered by how worn and grimy it look. Thankfully a ratty, and thin script can be brushed aside when a film looks, sounds and is fused with as much enthusiasm as this film is.
The film opens a few years after the end of the first entry, and we find the Dragon Warrior & Co. have been rather busy building up their name and reputation. Quickly we are treated to updates on Po's father's Noodle Shop, the peaceful status of Master Shifu (Dustin HoffmanO, and more importantly, we get to see the Furious 5 & the Dragon Warrior in battle. It's here, in the first of many action sequences, that PANDA earns it's keep. Beautifully choreographed martial arts, snippets of humor are all blended in with each of the 6 characters signature traits. Beyond this though, making it all brilliant, and almost worldly, is this: Po is still a bumbling fool. The key to however many Kung Fu Panda films we get (and there will assuredly be more, based on the ending set-up), is squared solely on Po (Jack Black) never losing track of who he is. Sure he is the Dragon Warrior, capable of kicking all kids of ass (and he does, on numerous occasions), but he is also a klutz, highly excitable, and a fanboy. These are all things that allow the audience to engage with Po in an easier manner. He is the kid inside all of us, who finally gets to live his dream, without losing sight of what is important. It goes without saying, one of the best running gags in the film is Po's insistence to calling out all of his and the team's "special moves" as they occur in battle.
The story moves quickly from set-up to set-up, with plenty of pizazz to cover up it's thin-ness and plot holes. Mostly of this sadly is thrown at the feet of Gary Oldman's Lord Shen, a white peacock with serious unresolved parental issues. Shen is glorious to look at, his design is brilliant and cut so fine, the colors a stark contrast in such a colorful film. It's even more intriguing to notice the fine delineation as to where blade are concealed amongst his feathers. There isn't much more to Shen than that though, the exile son of a rich dynasty, the majority of Shen's story is one that has been been done in a myriad of other Period Martial Arts films: the end of kung fu, by guns.
Truth be told, the other narrative thread is equally weak, that of Po wanting to learn more about what happened to his family before he came to the noodle shop, as well as his battle with "inner peace". Thankfully the film glosses over most events by keeping things moving briskly, often engaging in a series of bombastic action pieces. Panda 2 has more fights, certainly more harrowing and impressive than the original, with ounces of extra flair to boot. The joy, as previously stated, is the fact that while Po is very very adapt to beating up everyone in close proximity, his inner-fanboy causes him to misstep often, getting too caught up in the moment. Fists, feet, fur and feathers fly in all directions, and it's hard for any member of the audience, regardless of age to not get caught up in the moment. Action though, can only get you so far, and seeing as how this is a family animated feature, one has to bring up the humor. The team behind the feature have an interesting ear, and a knack for making a toilet humor joke one moment, and a more absurd low brow joke a second later. Of particular note is Mantis's running gag concerning the mating ritual of what else, a praying mantis.
Sadly, besides all the action, colorful animation, and variety of humor, there is a lack of depth in one of the most important departments of an animated feature; voice acting. With the exception of Jack Black and Seth Rogen, everyone else seems involved either due to contractual agreements, or need of a check (I'm looking at you Jean Claude Van Damme). Lines don't necessarily fall flat, as much as they merely are, and being keenly aware of how many voice actors exist out there, the question is, why pay top dollar for more than 2-3 big names. Jack Black as Po is clearly as good the second time around. It lends body and soul to an already lovable goof of a panda, and it's hard to imagine anyone besides Black having the tenacity needed to pull off such a character. Seth Rogen, on the other hand is an interesting exception. It's a little beguiling to wonder if Mantis's part was enlarged in this film due to Rogen's popularity, Matis's popularity, or if the writer's were in love with the character that much. The remainder of the Furious 5 are kind of a wash, Angelina Jolie's Tigress is given the most to work with out of them, and it falls horribly flat.
Animation is an interesting and fickle genre. Often relagated to children's features without much merit, the last 2 decades have seen a changing of the time. As readily as CGI animated features came to the forefront, there was the subtle decision to let adults enjoy these films along side there kids. From this new direction, Disney decided to crown a prince, whose voice and leadership would direct all to a bright future. In the following years the price took his rightful place on the throne, and thus far, his reign has been more then well received, barely tarnished at all. Yet, within the last few years, the black sheep of the CG Animated world has found it's rightful place as a Duke. One who is garnishing much attention rather quickly, waiting for the moment when the king becomes complacent, and the crown be removed........
**** out of *****
What does this have to do with Kung Fu Panda 2? At the end of the summer, take a look at the money vs critical acclaim when it comes to this movie and Pixar's Cars 2. A change may be coming again.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Action Monday: THE WARRIOR'S WAY (2010)
Title: THE WARRIOR'S WAY (2010)
One should be wary of the film there are about to see, if it should be learned that it has sat on the shelf for 2 years. Hopes may dip further, if it is revealed that it has sat on the shelf for 2 years and still needs post-production work done. What may finally send the viewer over the edge, is if you cannot tell if said film is a joke, wavering back and forth during the runtime deciding; "if this is a joke, then who all is in on it?" Welcome, to "The Warrior's Way". I would like to think that the film has it's tongue planted as firmly in cheek as possible, without penetrating through to the other side. Getting yourself to this head-space mildly works, because it's the only logical way the inclusion of Geoffrey Rush, Danny Huston and Kate Bosworth makes any sense. Bosworth may be the most in need of the money, still attempting to regain her footing from "Superman Returns", only to see that Rachel McAdams is taking the majority of her roles.
A shaggy-dog affair, if I've ever seen one, The Warrior's Way, is a pot-smoker's backyard brainstorming session with a mid-sized budget. Long long ago, there were 2 clans of Ninjas who were locked in eternal battle. One of the ninjas rose through the ranks within his clan, with the desire to become the greatest swordsman in the world, ever. After dispensing 10 men in the opening scene, and killing the man whose title he covets, Yang (our hero, who is called by name very few times, and is about all he can utter in English), find himself alone with the only surviving member of his sworn enemy.......a baby. As often happens in these cases, the ninja decides he can't kill the child. It is uncertain if this is due to a code (which would be in keeping with many samurai, or assassin tales), but there is nothing to say what exactly causes the decision. Maybe his service term amongst the clan was almost done, and he decided that running off to America, raising his enemy's last surviving member, was suitable for early retirement. Sadly his commander gets wind to this, and sends a few assassins to take care of Yang, though over an hour takes place for him to dispatch his troops to America. Why, you ask? Well otherwise there would be no film. Another reason? There wouldn't be the wonderful inclusion of the failed circus town Yang travels to, in search of an old friend. Nor would there be the time spent with the mercenary, renegade whatever, "rogue" lead by Danny Huston's appropriately named "Colonel". Honestly, writing all this out confuses me, because, in between the events the film is convinced is a cohesive narrative.....things just happen. I can't discern exactly if this is the way the film is meant to be, if it was butchered in editing, or my brain was simply convinced it was on drugs. This is a film that has the run time of about 98 minutes. Eight of those minutes are the credits. Apparently footage is lost, or they had lots of people double, or tripled up for various positions.
There is more than enough weirdness to this story, though, that recommendation still has to be made, however ill advised it may be. It's the sort of film that has to be seen, just once. A weird sort of charm carries throughout the proceedings. The events don't have to be understood exactly, but merely marveled at. A fine line exists between a failed experiment and trash. In the experiment, there is a time, or period, in which those involved are sure they are doing something brilliant. In trash, everyone knows what the end result will be varying shades of bad, but they are going to get paid, regardless. The Warrior's Way, could easily start a new form of mystery film, one where at the end everyone gets together to decide what the hell they just watched.
** out of *****
One should be wary of the film there are about to see, if it should be learned that it has sat on the shelf for 2 years. Hopes may dip further, if it is revealed that it has sat on the shelf for 2 years and still needs post-production work done. What may finally send the viewer over the edge, is if you cannot tell if said film is a joke, wavering back and forth during the runtime deciding; "if this is a joke, then who all is in on it?" Welcome, to "The Warrior's Way". I would like to think that the film has it's tongue planted as firmly in cheek as possible, without penetrating through to the other side. Getting yourself to this head-space mildly works, because it's the only logical way the inclusion of Geoffrey Rush, Danny Huston and Kate Bosworth makes any sense. Bosworth may be the most in need of the money, still attempting to regain her footing from "Superman Returns", only to see that Rachel McAdams is taking the majority of her roles.
A shaggy-dog affair, if I've ever seen one, The Warrior's Way, is a pot-smoker's backyard brainstorming session with a mid-sized budget. Long long ago, there were 2 clans of Ninjas who were locked in eternal battle. One of the ninjas rose through the ranks within his clan, with the desire to become the greatest swordsman in the world, ever. After dispensing 10 men in the opening scene, and killing the man whose title he covets, Yang (our hero, who is called by name very few times, and is about all he can utter in English), find himself alone with the only surviving member of his sworn enemy.......a baby. As often happens in these cases, the ninja decides he can't kill the child. It is uncertain if this is due to a code (which would be in keeping with many samurai, or assassin tales), but there is nothing to say what exactly causes the decision. Maybe his service term amongst the clan was almost done, and he decided that running off to America, raising his enemy's last surviving member, was suitable for early retirement. Sadly his commander gets wind to this, and sends a few assassins to take care of Yang, though over an hour takes place for him to dispatch his troops to America. Why, you ask? Well otherwise there would be no film. Another reason? There wouldn't be the wonderful inclusion of the failed circus town Yang travels to, in search of an old friend. Nor would there be the time spent with the mercenary, renegade whatever, "rogue" lead by Danny Huston's appropriately named "Colonel". Honestly, writing all this out confuses me, because, in between the events the film is convinced is a cohesive narrative.....things just happen. I can't discern exactly if this is the way the film is meant to be, if it was butchered in editing, or my brain was simply convinced it was on drugs. This is a film that has the run time of about 98 minutes. Eight of those minutes are the credits. Apparently footage is lost, or they had lots of people double, or tripled up for various positions.
There is more than enough weirdness to this story, though, that recommendation still has to be made, however ill advised it may be. It's the sort of film that has to be seen, just once. A weird sort of charm carries throughout the proceedings. The events don't have to be understood exactly, but merely marveled at. A fine line exists between a failed experiment and trash. In the experiment, there is a time, or period, in which those involved are sure they are doing something brilliant. In trash, everyone knows what the end result will be varying shades of bad, but they are going to get paid, regardless. The Warrior's Way, could easily start a new form of mystery film, one where at the end everyone gets together to decide what the hell they just watched.
** out of *****
New Release Sunday: LIMITLESS (2011)
Title: LIMITLESS (2011)
This is the classic example of an "almost" movie. It's almost great. It almost catapults it's star to true "leading man" status. It almost allows it's director to fully be appreciated for his skills and insight. The issue is though, that the film finds itself much in the same place as Bradley Cooper at the beginning of the film, staring over the edge....but instead of teetering, teasing, or even giving in, the film cautiously backs down. A quote from Hal Hartley's brilliant "Henry Fool" comes to mind "opportunity will move out of the way, to let a man pass it by." This isn't to say that LIMITLESS is a bad film, just the contrary, it is a fantastic little film, that more than entertains during the runtime. There's just a desire to see it reach further, while it limply chooses to settle for second place. This, in a sense, is probably due to one of 2 factors; the inevitable mingling of studio execs to call for a more standard, pedestrian, mediocre, but by their words "happier" ending........or the director & writer burned up most of their energies with the preceding events, choosing a simple coda of an ending. A "we'll get them next time" approach to things, if you will. There are many instances where it is easy to see that the film will eventually have to let up, otherwise newspapers, televisions, the drug dealer on the corner would be singing the praises of the film. As it stands, it's the sort of movie you'll be happy to watch when you come across it on tv, but you won't feel bad if you have to skip out before the conclusion.
So what makes everything before the ending so entertaining, if not revelatory? Neil Burger and Bradley Cooper. The vision of the director, and the charisma of the lead. It can make a bad movie entertaining, and a meddling movie better than it has any right being. Burger is a man who has flirted with the possibility of break-out, a couple times. He garnered much attention with the intriguing, but fittingly hollow "Assassination of a President." His follow up is the film most people have heard of, the other magic movie from 2006, "The Illusionist", starring Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti and Jessica Biel. That's the kind of movie that bestows a director carte blanche on their follow-up, though Burger took the road less traveled, opting instead to go with "The Lucky Ones". Here is a film that while not bad, certainly feels as if it is out of place by about 40 years. Thankfully, while Limitless isn't going to win many awards, it does show that there are plenty of creative avenues to explore, for this relatively "green" director. Which brings us to Bradley Cooper. After reading that name, there are numerous women, and a few men, whose hearts fluttered momentarily. It took him a while, but after the last 2 years, we can safely say that Bradley Cooper has "arrived". (Though I for one will mention that I had been championing his "star potential" since Alias.) Here is a man, who even dirtied up like a crack-head, could easily land plenty of women, effortlessly. It's a testament to Burger's directorial sense, and the skills of editors Tracy Adams and Naomi Geraghty, respectively, that they play down Cooper's blue eyes, until the first time the drug takes hold. The first portion of the film, really shows off the talents of everyone in front of and behind the camera. The pacing is fast and darting, getting basic exposition out of the way while also being equally engaging. The opening credits themselves are some of the best I've seen, with a penetrating clanging in the distance, laid over black, or an impossible zoom that traverses half of downtown Manhattan at a blazing speed. Quick cuts, jump cuts, overlapping, doubling, filters, a trip through the brain, all get rattled off early on. Cooper's Eddie Mora, is the poster boy for the 30 something slacker: divorced, recently dumped, gainfully unemployed, a book deal (the advance, of which has been squandered at the local watering hole). He happens to run into his former brother-in-law (as is commonplace in a city as large as New York), a reformed drug dealer, who now peddles (thankfully) with FDA-approved merchandise. He gives Eddie a taste, for old times-sake and hopefully landing a future client. After witnessing the power and potential of the drug, like a love-sick addict begging for pain, he seeks out a chance for a bigger score. That, as they say, leads him further down the Rabbit Hole.
Part of the think that keeps Limitless from feeling too shaggy, are it's supporting characters. Mostly through the shoes of Robert Di Nero, Abbey Cornish, and scene stealing Andrew Howard, as a small time Russian Mobster (and has the best arc I have seen in a secondary character, in a very very long time). He is able to infuse his scenes with a quiet ferocious intensity, masked by oddly placed, but increasingly wicked black humor. Di Nero fares the weakest of the three initially, but as his role expands, and becomes ever more present, there is a spark lit under the actor that has been missing from the last few years. Here is a movie that also turns out to be a character actors dream. There are three integral characters to the film that will have the audience members whispering to their friends, "how do I know that guy?"
While the pacing of the movie is one of it's strong suits, it's also a deterrent, because it is there also to distract. There are a few plot-holes, and numerous questions unanswered, not to mention avenues unexplored. Burger and company go through great lengths to ask about one's untapped potential, and the possibilities there-in, they even expand further, giving implications of how many other people may have taken the drug of the film, and possibly had larger experiences than our lead. To open said doors, only to close them after a peak, isn't just mean, it's sloppy. In a franchise series, or summer fare (often leading to a franchise), it can be forgivable. Here, it's a one shot picture, not to be followed by a comic book, novel, or television series. The lights come over, and the story is over. It's a lean film as is, quick, entertaining, fun, mildly engaging. The sort of film where you wish it would go on for another 20-30 minutes, not because you can't get enough of it, but so it show you more, to close the door more firmly.
*** out of *****
This is the classic example of an "almost" movie. It's almost great. It almost catapults it's star to true "leading man" status. It almost allows it's director to fully be appreciated for his skills and insight. The issue is though, that the film finds itself much in the same place as Bradley Cooper at the beginning of the film, staring over the edge....but instead of teetering, teasing, or even giving in, the film cautiously backs down. A quote from Hal Hartley's brilliant "Henry Fool" comes to mind "opportunity will move out of the way, to let a man pass it by." This isn't to say that LIMITLESS is a bad film, just the contrary, it is a fantastic little film, that more than entertains during the runtime. There's just a desire to see it reach further, while it limply chooses to settle for second place. This, in a sense, is probably due to one of 2 factors; the inevitable mingling of studio execs to call for a more standard, pedestrian, mediocre, but by their words "happier" ending........or the director & writer burned up most of their energies with the preceding events, choosing a simple coda of an ending. A "we'll get them next time" approach to things, if you will. There are many instances where it is easy to see that the film will eventually have to let up, otherwise newspapers, televisions, the drug dealer on the corner would be singing the praises of the film. As it stands, it's the sort of movie you'll be happy to watch when you come across it on tv, but you won't feel bad if you have to skip out before the conclusion.
So what makes everything before the ending so entertaining, if not revelatory? Neil Burger and Bradley Cooper. The vision of the director, and the charisma of the lead. It can make a bad movie entertaining, and a meddling movie better than it has any right being. Burger is a man who has flirted with the possibility of break-out, a couple times. He garnered much attention with the intriguing, but fittingly hollow "Assassination of a President." His follow up is the film most people have heard of, the other magic movie from 2006, "The Illusionist", starring Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti and Jessica Biel. That's the kind of movie that bestows a director carte blanche on their follow-up, though Burger took the road less traveled, opting instead to go with "The Lucky Ones". Here is a film that while not bad, certainly feels as if it is out of place by about 40 years. Thankfully, while Limitless isn't going to win many awards, it does show that there are plenty of creative avenues to explore, for this relatively "green" director. Which brings us to Bradley Cooper. After reading that name, there are numerous women, and a few men, whose hearts fluttered momentarily. It took him a while, but after the last 2 years, we can safely say that Bradley Cooper has "arrived". (Though I for one will mention that I had been championing his "star potential" since Alias.) Here is a man, who even dirtied up like a crack-head, could easily land plenty of women, effortlessly. It's a testament to Burger's directorial sense, and the skills of editors Tracy Adams and Naomi Geraghty, respectively, that they play down Cooper's blue eyes, until the first time the drug takes hold. The first portion of the film, really shows off the talents of everyone in front of and behind the camera. The pacing is fast and darting, getting basic exposition out of the way while also being equally engaging. The opening credits themselves are some of the best I've seen, with a penetrating clanging in the distance, laid over black, or an impossible zoom that traverses half of downtown Manhattan at a blazing speed. Quick cuts, jump cuts, overlapping, doubling, filters, a trip through the brain, all get rattled off early on. Cooper's Eddie Mora, is the poster boy for the 30 something slacker: divorced, recently dumped, gainfully unemployed, a book deal (the advance, of which has been squandered at the local watering hole). He happens to run into his former brother-in-law (as is commonplace in a city as large as New York), a reformed drug dealer, who now peddles (thankfully) with FDA-approved merchandise. He gives Eddie a taste, for old times-sake and hopefully landing a future client. After witnessing the power and potential of the drug, like a love-sick addict begging for pain, he seeks out a chance for a bigger score. That, as they say, leads him further down the Rabbit Hole.
Part of the think that keeps Limitless from feeling too shaggy, are it's supporting characters. Mostly through the shoes of Robert Di Nero, Abbey Cornish, and scene stealing Andrew Howard, as a small time Russian Mobster (and has the best arc I have seen in a secondary character, in a very very long time). He is able to infuse his scenes with a quiet ferocious intensity, masked by oddly placed, but increasingly wicked black humor. Di Nero fares the weakest of the three initially, but as his role expands, and becomes ever more present, there is a spark lit under the actor that has been missing from the last few years. Here is a movie that also turns out to be a character actors dream. There are three integral characters to the film that will have the audience members whispering to their friends, "how do I know that guy?"
While the pacing of the movie is one of it's strong suits, it's also a deterrent, because it is there also to distract. There are a few plot-holes, and numerous questions unanswered, not to mention avenues unexplored. Burger and company go through great lengths to ask about one's untapped potential, and the possibilities there-in, they even expand further, giving implications of how many other people may have taken the drug of the film, and possibly had larger experiences than our lead. To open said doors, only to close them after a peak, isn't just mean, it's sloppy. In a franchise series, or summer fare (often leading to a franchise), it can be forgivable. Here, it's a one shot picture, not to be followed by a comic book, novel, or television series. The lights come over, and the story is over. It's a lean film as is, quick, entertaining, fun, mildly engaging. The sort of film where you wish it would go on for another 20-30 minutes, not because you can't get enough of it, but so it show you more, to close the door more firmly.
*** out of *****
Monday, March 14, 2011
New Release Sunday: RED RIDING HOOD (2011)
Title: RED RIDING HOOD (2011)
Ever since the first Twilight film was released, it has had a variety of imitators. The thought was, how hard could it be to follow the same formula, and have the same success. It remains to be an illusive mystery that has plagued many filmmakers, as well as the stars of the original film series, whose ventures outside those hallow grounds have proved less than fruitful. It can come down to simply a built-in fan base, or having that series of books as a fall back. It may simply be a mystery that can never be cracked, for better or worse. It's a phenomenon, no matter how annoying or relentless its locomotion may run. It's always full speed ahead.
But what of it's imitators then, one that has the same director tacked on, with the same basic allure, and a female lead more girls may be able to identify better with than the tweaking antics of one Kristen Stewart? If it were a joke, then one could understand. If it was meant as nothing more than a cash-grab to lure said girls who fawn over the Twilight series, then others could understand. Yet, moment to moment of the film, not only does the tone change, as does the acting, cinematography and the demographic of the film. The there is the CGI werewolf, which will be mentioned later, if I still find the strength.
The plot.....If you happen to not be familiar with the very story of Red Riding Hood, I apologize for the horrendous childhood you may have had. Also I will mention that not much will be gleaned from this film, in connection to the actual fairy tale, save for a few of the key lines. The gist here is this, a town on the outskirts of some European country where the familial line of Godmother (Julie Christie), Mother (Virginia Madsen), and Daughter (Amanda Seyfried), exists. How this town is hidden away, but not over-run by every male from ages 16-67 is a mystery to everyone, more of a mystery than caring about who may be the wolf. There is a legend in the town that during the blood moon, a werewolf has terrorized the village for several generations. After a childhood of catching and slaughtering rabbits with her young rebellious wood-cutter friend, when she is around 16, Valerie's (Seyfried) life is turned upside down. Now it is never mentioned how long the wolf is terrorizing the countryside, at least 20 years is possibly hinted at, but it is inconceivable that a town, destroyed by such a beast on a regular basis, hasn't tried to kill it before. Though when the film gets to "Present time" (The dark ages), a group of townsmen decide to kill the beast once and for all, and are strangely lead by co-leads of 2 of the most popular shows from SyFy Channel, Michael Shanks (Dr. Daniel Jackson) of Stargate SG-1, and Michael Hogan (Col. Tigh) of Battlestar Galactica. While still a bunch of fangirls, I am not sure how much bleed over there is there with the Twilight crowd. Both are dispatched in the first half of the film, which isn't a spoiler, it just happens, and is glazed over. The selling point, outside the story and main lead, for many people, was the strange inclusion of Gary Oldman (the inclusion of Lucas Haas isn't strange or an oddity, simply because Haas is the definition of it.). What Oldman brings to the table here is insanity, pure and unbridled. He must have been paid an insane some, because he chews as much scenery as he can, certainly making the werewolf look like a mere pup. Here is a character who isn't just a religious emissary sent across the country to kill supernatural beasts, but a man who was chosen to do so, because not only was his wife a werewolf, but he killed her for being one. Further more, as if his word weren't enough, he carries around her hand in a wooden box. Of course this raises a question as to how real his tale is, and what is he using to preserve the hand, or does he find a new hand in each town he rolls through. Then, there is also the issue of the Giant Metal Elephant. The film is kind enough to explain it's purpose, but there is no explanation as to why it has to be an elephant, per se. These holes don't just apply to this section alone, but litter the whole movie, as if Swiss Termites were involved somehow.
It feels like a movie without a country, or a true sense of what it wants to be or accomplish. Whenever there are several writers attached to a project, you have to wonder how many different drafts it went through, and how many elements from each one stays on. If you have a color-coded script, that consists of 5 different colors, you need to hope you are getting paid a large sum. The key tell tale that you're film is possibly doomed? Your novelization of the project says "is this really the end of the story?" and then includes a website to check upon the films release to find out more. Either the secret is so good they're worried about it getting ruined, or they're desperate to scrounge up a few bucks. In that situation, there's no real winner.
* out of *****
Ever since the first Twilight film was released, it has had a variety of imitators. The thought was, how hard could it be to follow the same formula, and have the same success. It remains to be an illusive mystery that has plagued many filmmakers, as well as the stars of the original film series, whose ventures outside those hallow grounds have proved less than fruitful. It can come down to simply a built-in fan base, or having that series of books as a fall back. It may simply be a mystery that can never be cracked, for better or worse. It's a phenomenon, no matter how annoying or relentless its locomotion may run. It's always full speed ahead.
But what of it's imitators then, one that has the same director tacked on, with the same basic allure, and a female lead more girls may be able to identify better with than the tweaking antics of one Kristen Stewart? If it were a joke, then one could understand. If it was meant as nothing more than a cash-grab to lure said girls who fawn over the Twilight series, then others could understand. Yet, moment to moment of the film, not only does the tone change, as does the acting, cinematography and the demographic of the film. The there is the CGI werewolf, which will be mentioned later, if I still find the strength.
The plot.....If you happen to not be familiar with the very story of Red Riding Hood, I apologize for the horrendous childhood you may have had. Also I will mention that not much will be gleaned from this film, in connection to the actual fairy tale, save for a few of the key lines. The gist here is this, a town on the outskirts of some European country where the familial line of Godmother (Julie Christie), Mother (Virginia Madsen), and Daughter (Amanda Seyfried), exists. How this town is hidden away, but not over-run by every male from ages 16-67 is a mystery to everyone, more of a mystery than caring about who may be the wolf. There is a legend in the town that during the blood moon, a werewolf has terrorized the village for several generations. After a childhood of catching and slaughtering rabbits with her young rebellious wood-cutter friend, when she is around 16, Valerie's (Seyfried) life is turned upside down. Now it is never mentioned how long the wolf is terrorizing the countryside, at least 20 years is possibly hinted at, but it is inconceivable that a town, destroyed by such a beast on a regular basis, hasn't tried to kill it before. Though when the film gets to "Present time" (The dark ages), a group of townsmen decide to kill the beast once and for all, and are strangely lead by co-leads of 2 of the most popular shows from SyFy Channel, Michael Shanks (Dr. Daniel Jackson) of Stargate SG-1, and Michael Hogan (Col. Tigh) of Battlestar Galactica. While still a bunch of fangirls, I am not sure how much bleed over there is there with the Twilight crowd. Both are dispatched in the first half of the film, which isn't a spoiler, it just happens, and is glazed over. The selling point, outside the story and main lead, for many people, was the strange inclusion of Gary Oldman (the inclusion of Lucas Haas isn't strange or an oddity, simply because Haas is the definition of it.). What Oldman brings to the table here is insanity, pure and unbridled. He must have been paid an insane some, because he chews as much scenery as he can, certainly making the werewolf look like a mere pup. Here is a character who isn't just a religious emissary sent across the country to kill supernatural beasts, but a man who was chosen to do so, because not only was his wife a werewolf, but he killed her for being one. Further more, as if his word weren't enough, he carries around her hand in a wooden box. Of course this raises a question as to how real his tale is, and what is he using to preserve the hand, or does he find a new hand in each town he rolls through. Then, there is also the issue of the Giant Metal Elephant. The film is kind enough to explain it's purpose, but there is no explanation as to why it has to be an elephant, per se. These holes don't just apply to this section alone, but litter the whole movie, as if Swiss Termites were involved somehow.
It feels like a movie without a country, or a true sense of what it wants to be or accomplish. Whenever there are several writers attached to a project, you have to wonder how many different drafts it went through, and how many elements from each one stays on. If you have a color-coded script, that consists of 5 different colors, you need to hope you are getting paid a large sum. The key tell tale that you're film is possibly doomed? Your novelization of the project says "is this really the end of the story?" and then includes a website to check upon the films release to find out more. Either the secret is so good they're worried about it getting ruined, or they're desperate to scrounge up a few bucks. In that situation, there's no real winner.
* out of *****
Animation Saturday: THE GREAT MOUSE DETECTIVE (1986)
Title: THE GREAST MOUSE DETECTIVE (1986)
There are so many stories that get told, about the dark period of Disney Animation. Concerning the efforts from the 70's-80's from the great mouse, being nothing but latent missteps. What is baffling is how many of these failure are remembered fondly, and by more than a healthy douse of nostalgia. Most animation buffs place the turning of the tide coming with "The Little Mermaid". They even made a fantastic documentary covering this period, in the form of WAKING SLEEPING BEAUTY. Which will be covered on it's own entry.
Out of these films, there are a few that left an impact on me. The biggest being The Great Mouse Detective. It finds its place here as a form of animated Sherlock Holmes feature, embodied here by Basil, who happens to live in a hole in the wall of 221 Baker Street. The feature even goes so far as to include the voice of Basil Rathbone portraying Holmes, where of course our lead character gets his namesake. Dr. Dawson is of course our faithful variation of Watson, and to make things even more entertaining, they include the one, the only, Toby the bloodhound, not only for his skills, but as a means of transportation. But what would a Disney film be without a menacing villian? Well that ground is covered as well in the form of Ratigan, voiced brilliantly, with much gusto by Vincent Price. Price was on record, on many occasions, citing the role as his favorite, and it can be felt in ever utterance. It was a favorite in my childhood, but to the darkness of it's time. Over years of course, the fare feels lighter and lighter, but never less satisfying, nor it's fun diluted. That's the thing that can always be respected about a good Disney film, there is a timelessness to most of their works, so that the efforts may be enjoyed by generation after generation. There is also something majestic about hand-drawn animation. The film landscape these days is cluttered and overcrowded by uncaring CG films, with the exception of most PIXAR films. It seems that, most films makers, or studios, believe if you make something colorful enough, and cater to the smallest audience (age-wise at least), you have a sure fire hit on your hands. More and more though, the money a film rakes in, isn't a judgment based on the quality of the film itself. With bloated ticket prices, helped marginally by Disney 3d, Real D 3d and IMAX 3d, the amount event the crappiest movie can attain is staggering.
This being Disney-lite, the film clocks in just over an hour an 10 minutes, to qualify as a "feature film". In truth, this doesn't hurt the proceedings, as thing are moved at a brisk pace, without much of a let up, save for a few emotional moments, and the occasional song. Here is another of the reasons I prefer the middle efforts by Disney.......they weren't tied down to the ideas of what makes "a Disney film". There doesn't have to be a song ever 15 minutes, there doesn't have to be a comedy relief side-kick, who can easily be mass produced as a plush doll for kids. Actually, I'd be quite please if I had a child who demanded a Fidget plush. It is now a major point for me to find one. Again there is also Vincent Price as Ratigan, eating the most scenery in any animated film, ever, making every moment count. The animation sparkles, even in it's lesser state, as well as the tone of the film. The fog is thick and permeates every frame, as if from some long lost Hammer Horror entry. The story, while aimed at kids, is still thrilling, with an entertaining mystery, and grand set pieces worthy of Sherlock Holmes himself.
*** 1/2 out of *****
There are so many stories that get told, about the dark period of Disney Animation. Concerning the efforts from the 70's-80's from the great mouse, being nothing but latent missteps. What is baffling is how many of these failure are remembered fondly, and by more than a healthy douse of nostalgia. Most animation buffs place the turning of the tide coming with "The Little Mermaid". They even made a fantastic documentary covering this period, in the form of WAKING SLEEPING BEAUTY. Which will be covered on it's own entry.
Out of these films, there are a few that left an impact on me. The biggest being The Great Mouse Detective. It finds its place here as a form of animated Sherlock Holmes feature, embodied here by Basil, who happens to live in a hole in the wall of 221 Baker Street. The feature even goes so far as to include the voice of Basil Rathbone portraying Holmes, where of course our lead character gets his namesake. Dr. Dawson is of course our faithful variation of Watson, and to make things even more entertaining, they include the one, the only, Toby the bloodhound, not only for his skills, but as a means of transportation. But what would a Disney film be without a menacing villian? Well that ground is covered as well in the form of Ratigan, voiced brilliantly, with much gusto by Vincent Price. Price was on record, on many occasions, citing the role as his favorite, and it can be felt in ever utterance. It was a favorite in my childhood, but to the darkness of it's time. Over years of course, the fare feels lighter and lighter, but never less satisfying, nor it's fun diluted. That's the thing that can always be respected about a good Disney film, there is a timelessness to most of their works, so that the efforts may be enjoyed by generation after generation. There is also something majestic about hand-drawn animation. The film landscape these days is cluttered and overcrowded by uncaring CG films, with the exception of most PIXAR films. It seems that, most films makers, or studios, believe if you make something colorful enough, and cater to the smallest audience (age-wise at least), you have a sure fire hit on your hands. More and more though, the money a film rakes in, isn't a judgment based on the quality of the film itself. With bloated ticket prices, helped marginally by Disney 3d, Real D 3d and IMAX 3d, the amount event the crappiest movie can attain is staggering.
This being Disney-lite, the film clocks in just over an hour an 10 minutes, to qualify as a "feature film". In truth, this doesn't hurt the proceedings, as thing are moved at a brisk pace, without much of a let up, save for a few emotional moments, and the occasional song. Here is another of the reasons I prefer the middle efforts by Disney.......they weren't tied down to the ideas of what makes "a Disney film". There doesn't have to be a song ever 15 minutes, there doesn't have to be a comedy relief side-kick, who can easily be mass produced as a plush doll for kids. Actually, I'd be quite please if I had a child who demanded a Fidget plush. It is now a major point for me to find one. Again there is also Vincent Price as Ratigan, eating the most scenery in any animated film, ever, making every moment count. The animation sparkles, even in it's lesser state, as well as the tone of the film. The fog is thick and permeates every frame, as if from some long lost Hammer Horror entry. The story, while aimed at kids, is still thrilling, with an entertaining mystery, and grand set pieces worthy of Sherlock Holmes himself.
*** 1/2 out of *****
Friday, March 11, 2011
Sci-Fi Friday: SIR ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE'S SHERLOCK HOLMES (2010)
Title: SIR ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE'S SHERLOCK HOLMES (2010)
The movie studio ASYLUM is run by an ingenious lot, of what one would believe to be a cudgel of Pot Smokers. Their belief? If there is a large blockbuster film about to be released, we can make a bare-bones film, with roughly the same plot, similar title, and make the same kind of money, because someone is bound to grab our films, convinced it is something else. The best thing that can be said about them is that they succeed in their ruse often. By comparison, the studio makes the team behind "Vampire's Suck", "Disaster Movie", and "Meet the Spartans" look like comedic geniuses. At least they for the most part, cause me less pain on a consistent basis.
There isn't much more that can be said about one of their more recent efforts, without engaging my memory gag reflex. On paper it sounds daring, and interesting enough. Sherlock Holmes must solve a seemingly unexplainable wave of events overtaking London, which may or may not involve giant sea creatures, dinosaurs and more. His very own brother may be somehow involved, but it's not the one you think.
The most misleading aspect of the proceedings is the inclusion of "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's", before the title of the film. One would assume that this meant it was actually based on one of the authors many literary adventures of the master detective and the invaluable doctor, but we all know the saying about what happens when one assumes.
If you have seen one Asylum feature, you have seen it all. Something barely resembling a plot/script, sub-par effects that are below even the dreaded term, "Syfy Channel Exclusive", actors dropping from "D" to "Z" grade features. It's a lackadaisical paycheck for everyone involved. The main loser being the people who sit down to watch the feature. You would hope at some point, there would be a changing of the guard, and an attempt to make a worthwhile feature would spring forth. The law of averages dictates that at somehow, someway, it may eventually happen. As for now, everyone, still has to wait.
* out of *****
The movie studio ASYLUM is run by an ingenious lot, of what one would believe to be a cudgel of Pot Smokers. Their belief? If there is a large blockbuster film about to be released, we can make a bare-bones film, with roughly the same plot, similar title, and make the same kind of money, because someone is bound to grab our films, convinced it is something else. The best thing that can be said about them is that they succeed in their ruse often. By comparison, the studio makes the team behind "Vampire's Suck", "Disaster Movie", and "Meet the Spartans" look like comedic geniuses. At least they for the most part, cause me less pain on a consistent basis.
There isn't much more that can be said about one of their more recent efforts, without engaging my memory gag reflex. On paper it sounds daring, and interesting enough. Sherlock Holmes must solve a seemingly unexplainable wave of events overtaking London, which may or may not involve giant sea creatures, dinosaurs and more. His very own brother may be somehow involved, but it's not the one you think.
The most misleading aspect of the proceedings is the inclusion of "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's", before the title of the film. One would assume that this meant it was actually based on one of the authors many literary adventures of the master detective and the invaluable doctor, but we all know the saying about what happens when one assumes.
If you have seen one Asylum feature, you have seen it all. Something barely resembling a plot/script, sub-par effects that are below even the dreaded term, "Syfy Channel Exclusive", actors dropping from "D" to "Z" grade features. It's a lackadaisical paycheck for everyone involved. The main loser being the people who sit down to watch the feature. You would hope at some point, there would be a changing of the guard, and an attempt to make a worthwhile feature would spring forth. The law of averages dictates that at somehow, someway, it may eventually happen. As for now, everyone, still has to wait.
* out of *****
Horror Thursday: MURDER BY DECREE (1979)
Title: MURDER BY DECREE (1979)
The amazing thing about Sherlock Holmes, is not that he has been characterized in more than 238 film and tv productions, but the fact that there are so many different interpretations of the character. A different time, a different place, a different actor, a different studio, and a seemingly different world. It's astonishing that so much can do with a character that has already so much written about him. There aren't many gaps in his history (outside the 3 years he was believed dead). So where is the allure to changing things about him again? To start with, one must find a cast to fill the world of the great detective, his trusty side-kick, the fallible members of the Scotland Yark and the various dark dealers that surround them. Christopher Plummer heads the cast as the brilliant Sherlock Holmes, and is equaled by the fun trend-bucking James Mason as John Watson. The cast is filled out by such luminaries as Donald Sutherland, Sir John Gielgud.
Murder by Decree, decides to take things in a different light, under more nuanced changes. Here, for instance, Christopher Plummer embodies his take on Holmes than more humanity ever before conceived. This isn't to say that Sherlock Holmes isn't personable, but that often his brilliance is in direct conflict with his ability to navigate most normal social situations. Which is to say, because of the way he using his brain, he doesn't realize he's coming off as an ass to a lot of people, because they should simply know better, or get smarter if they have an issue with it. In this instance though, Plummer is able to walk the line between a brilliant mind who happens to care a great deal with people, and someone on the verge of being annoyed with anyone around them. Through this though we are given my favorite sequence of the film. Decree features one of the best mash-up ideas in all of Sherlock Holmes lore. Holmes being the brilliant detective of Victorian London, is tasked with the job of solving the murders of Jack The Ripper. He is met with obstacles at every turn. From the local law enforcement, the government, as well as various shadowy figures. Far into the story, as he nears the end of things, he is forced to visit a patient in a mental hospital on the outside of town, with information that can tip the scales of the case. The patient is more than they seem, and as she breaks down her story, in drugged addled pauses, Holmes finds himself overcome with paternal grief. To that point that he physically lashes out at the doctors and guards who come into the room to question his actions. As tears fill his eyes, we begin to witness, a Sherlock Holmes who is taking a very serious stake in a case. Not for fame, or money, or pride, but do to the overpowering need to do this person justice, who, through no harm of their own, has been destroyed by events well beyond their control. This emboldens the audience for the remainder of the film, cheering on their hero, to break through all adversity. It's a testament to both the work of Christopher Plummer and the director. The director himself starts out as a head-scratcher, though that is the definition of Bob Clark's career. The director of the beloved A Christmas Story, the genre-defining Porky's, and the beginnings of the modern slasher in Black Christmas, Clark is always the least likely choice. Here again though, he bucks the walls put up around him, to make a rousing adventure that not only blends various genre's, but stands as one of the finest Sherlock Holmes adventure's not penned by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
**** out of *****
The amazing thing about Sherlock Holmes, is not that he has been characterized in more than 238 film and tv productions, but the fact that there are so many different interpretations of the character. A different time, a different place, a different actor, a different studio, and a seemingly different world. It's astonishing that so much can do with a character that has already so much written about him. There aren't many gaps in his history (outside the 3 years he was believed dead). So where is the allure to changing things about him again? To start with, one must find a cast to fill the world of the great detective, his trusty side-kick, the fallible members of the Scotland Yark and the various dark dealers that surround them. Christopher Plummer heads the cast as the brilliant Sherlock Holmes, and is equaled by the fun trend-bucking James Mason as John Watson. The cast is filled out by such luminaries as Donald Sutherland, Sir John Gielgud.
Murder by Decree, decides to take things in a different light, under more nuanced changes. Here, for instance, Christopher Plummer embodies his take on Holmes than more humanity ever before conceived. This isn't to say that Sherlock Holmes isn't personable, but that often his brilliance is in direct conflict with his ability to navigate most normal social situations. Which is to say, because of the way he using his brain, he doesn't realize he's coming off as an ass to a lot of people, because they should simply know better, or get smarter if they have an issue with it. In this instance though, Plummer is able to walk the line between a brilliant mind who happens to care a great deal with people, and someone on the verge of being annoyed with anyone around them. Through this though we are given my favorite sequence of the film. Decree features one of the best mash-up ideas in all of Sherlock Holmes lore. Holmes being the brilliant detective of Victorian London, is tasked with the job of solving the murders of Jack The Ripper. He is met with obstacles at every turn. From the local law enforcement, the government, as well as various shadowy figures. Far into the story, as he nears the end of things, he is forced to visit a patient in a mental hospital on the outside of town, with information that can tip the scales of the case. The patient is more than they seem, and as she breaks down her story, in drugged addled pauses, Holmes finds himself overcome with paternal grief. To that point that he physically lashes out at the doctors and guards who come into the room to question his actions. As tears fill his eyes, we begin to witness, a Sherlock Holmes who is taking a very serious stake in a case. Not for fame, or money, or pride, but do to the overpowering need to do this person justice, who, through no harm of their own, has been destroyed by events well beyond their control. This emboldens the audience for the remainder of the film, cheering on their hero, to break through all adversity. It's a testament to both the work of Christopher Plummer and the director. The director himself starts out as a head-scratcher, though that is the definition of Bob Clark's career. The director of the beloved A Christmas Story, the genre-defining Porky's, and the beginnings of the modern slasher in Black Christmas, Clark is always the least likely choice. Here again though, he bucks the walls put up around him, to make a rousing adventure that not only blends various genre's, but stands as one of the finest Sherlock Holmes adventure's not penned by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
**** out of *****
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Comedy Wednesday: WITHOUT A CLUE (1988)
Title: WITHOUT A CLUE (1988)
There was a time when a light fare consisted of Ben Kingsley & Michael Caine starring in a Sherlock Holmes comedy. The twist being that Holmes hmself was merely a character played by an actor for public interest, concieved by Dr. Watson himself, the true deductive genius.
Wit, slapstick, gunfights, swordfights are all on display, in a feature that wears 'Saturday Matinee' proudly on its shoulder. It doesn't try to be anything more than you would imagine it to be, and has but every desire to show you a good time. A success in spades, no one will forget it soon, nor will the smile so quickly leave their face.
Sherlock Holmes, with his wide variety of short stories, covering numerous genres, is always open to interpertation. So it comes to no surprise, a reworking of the character was well in order. The fact is, besides making Holmes a fictional character brought to life by an actor, the key elements from his lore remain the same. Moriarty is a criminal mastermind, and the great detective's most feared nemesis. His stories are written by Watson for the publicms consumption. Lestrade is the invaluable officer of the Scotland Yard. They even make use of the much maglined Baker Street Boys, who, for the uninitiated, where a group of young orphans, who assisted Holmes in more than a few cases.
The stage, and fun is set early with Watson losing his cool as the actor portraying Holmes, drunkard reginald Kinkade, prematurely deems a case 'closed'. Due to the blunder, he decides to end the charade once and for all, asking Strand Magazine to halt further Holmes storie. Watson wants to be dutifully acknowledged as the true genius, dubbing himself "the Crime Doctor" (I tried to no avail, to keep from laughing anytime someone mentioned the moniker). Needless to say, he fails, and must further rely on the usage of Kinkade to finish the last case.
Michael Caine is one of those actors, who seems to be capable of any part put infront of him, and sinks his comedic jaws into Reginald Kinkade. A drunk, womanizing, failed actor he may be, but the part is one for the ages, and despite his lack of intelligence, Kinkade knows he will never find a bigger stage, or audience. His main issue, is how can you take credit for attempting to be the worlds greatest actor, when to expose yourself, would be career suicide. Better, or as equally brilliant as Dr. John Watson, Ben Kingsley plays the part of a brilliant mind, perpetually on the edge of losing his cool, to a public, who could more or less do without him. Then there is Lestrade, played by the fantasic staple of the 80's, Jeffery Jones. Although most people will always associate him as the principal from "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", the foolish, bumbling Lestrade will be the image i hold of him in my mind. Here again, he is chasing after a smarter, faster, more cunning beast, at many instances, like a child who just learned how to spell the most obvious word.
This being a comedy, as well as a product of the late 80's, slapstick is the main ingredient to the stew. Luckily, the writers chose to maintain much wit, and whip-fast dialouge, befitting any true Sherlock Holmes adventure. Truth be told though, it is the comedy at points, that want to see the films undoing. It comes off, at times, as too broad at the wrong moments, specially in the drawn out conclusion. Though, I will confess, a running gag earlier in the film, concerning a dog that is not too fond of Reginald Kincade, found me howling with laughter. the second issue of the film, is predictability. For a film, whose basis, is turning the very nature behind Sherlock Holmes, on it's ear, the film telegraphs events well in advance. there are no great surprises, revelations, or last minute gasps. The proceedings work, because, both Caine and Kingsley fully commit to their characters. It says a lot of the craft, and love of the filmmakers, that we can declare, as happens all to often these days, "they sure donmt make them like they used to."
*** 1/2 out of *****
There was a time when a light fare consisted of Ben Kingsley & Michael Caine starring in a Sherlock Holmes comedy. The twist being that Holmes hmself was merely a character played by an actor for public interest, concieved by Dr. Watson himself, the true deductive genius.
Wit, slapstick, gunfights, swordfights are all on display, in a feature that wears 'Saturday Matinee' proudly on its shoulder. It doesn't try to be anything more than you would imagine it to be, and has but every desire to show you a good time. A success in spades, no one will forget it soon, nor will the smile so quickly leave their face.
Sherlock Holmes, with his wide variety of short stories, covering numerous genres, is always open to interpertation. So it comes to no surprise, a reworking of the character was well in order. The fact is, besides making Holmes a fictional character brought to life by an actor, the key elements from his lore remain the same. Moriarty is a criminal mastermind, and the great detective's most feared nemesis. His stories are written by Watson for the publicms consumption. Lestrade is the invaluable officer of the Scotland Yard. They even make use of the much maglined Baker Street Boys, who, for the uninitiated, where a group of young orphans, who assisted Holmes in more than a few cases.
The stage, and fun is set early with Watson losing his cool as the actor portraying Holmes, drunkard reginald Kinkade, prematurely deems a case 'closed'. Due to the blunder, he decides to end the charade once and for all, asking Strand Magazine to halt further Holmes storie. Watson wants to be dutifully acknowledged as the true genius, dubbing himself "the Crime Doctor" (I tried to no avail, to keep from laughing anytime someone mentioned the moniker). Needless to say, he fails, and must further rely on the usage of Kinkade to finish the last case.
Michael Caine is one of those actors, who seems to be capable of any part put infront of him, and sinks his comedic jaws into Reginald Kinkade. A drunk, womanizing, failed actor he may be, but the part is one for the ages, and despite his lack of intelligence, Kinkade knows he will never find a bigger stage, or audience. His main issue, is how can you take credit for attempting to be the worlds greatest actor, when to expose yourself, would be career suicide. Better, or as equally brilliant as Dr. John Watson, Ben Kingsley plays the part of a brilliant mind, perpetually on the edge of losing his cool, to a public, who could more or less do without him. Then there is Lestrade, played by the fantasic staple of the 80's, Jeffery Jones. Although most people will always associate him as the principal from "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", the foolish, bumbling Lestrade will be the image i hold of him in my mind. Here again, he is chasing after a smarter, faster, more cunning beast, at many instances, like a child who just learned how to spell the most obvious word.
This being a comedy, as well as a product of the late 80's, slapstick is the main ingredient to the stew. Luckily, the writers chose to maintain much wit, and whip-fast dialouge, befitting any true Sherlock Holmes adventure. Truth be told though, it is the comedy at points, that want to see the films undoing. It comes off, at times, as too broad at the wrong moments, specially in the drawn out conclusion. Though, I will confess, a running gag earlier in the film, concerning a dog that is not too fond of Reginald Kincade, found me howling with laughter. the second issue of the film, is predictability. For a film, whose basis, is turning the very nature behind Sherlock Holmes, on it's ear, the film telegraphs events well in advance. there are no great surprises, revelations, or last minute gasps. The proceedings work, because, both Caine and Kingsley fully commit to their characters. It says a lot of the craft, and love of the filmmakers, that we can declare, as happens all to often these days, "they sure donmt make them like they used to."
*** 1/2 out of *****
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Drama Tuesday: THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (1970)
Title: THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (1970)
Some of the best films come from, "what could have been?" What if George Lucas had, as originally planned, been able to to film Apocalypse Now in 16mm, in the Vietnam? What if Orson Wells had actually finished Don Quixote and edited it to his liking before he died? What if Billy Wilder went with his original vision of The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, before cutting it from 3 1/2 hours, down to just over 2? The truth is we'll never know, but what we ended up with, is just as good in most respects.
The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is about as divisive a film about the great detective, as one can find. It seems to be a very love it or hate it type of film, but one that more people should see, to have the chance to decide for themselves. At the time most of the issue dealt with the underlying sexual orientation of Sherlock Holmes himself. Much like the argument in the bible, it's there only if you see it's there. Within the film there are a few lines left ambiguous, but none that ever give a finite answer one way or another. Though if you are paying attention, the film does give you answers as to which way it leans.
Director Billy Wilder was coming off the success of his film Fortune Cookie, and was given carte-blanche for his next picture. He went the direction that most people weren't expecting, making a film detailing not only the more personal side of Sherlock Holmes, but one of his few mis-steps. The film begins with a safety deposit box being opened 50 years after it was left behind, as instructed, which contains several unreleased Sherlock Holmes tales. There were originally supposed to be 4 interlocking tales, each chronicling different stages in Holmes career, most of them exposing a very personal matter, or as mentioned above, the rare failure. Unhappy with the initial scope, it's said that Wilder himself chose to cut the fat, and make a more serviceable, and he hoped at the time, profitable film. As it stands, it's a welcome and fine addition to the world of Sherlock Holmes adventures. Here again is a story partially dealing with Sherlock Holmes' cocaine usage, which Holes jokes is only a 5% solution, as he tells Watson "you don't think I know you've been diluting it behind my back?" Though Holmes himself states that he only is taking it when he's bored and not stimulated by a case, the more extraordinary, the better. It paints an interesting picture of a man, who didn't so much do something because he wanted or enjoyed it, but because of the physical need of the high it gave him. Along the "genius begets madness, and vice versa" ilk, that is. The film is divided roughly into 2 parts, the first dealing with a Russian ballerina, and the subsequent questioning of Holmes' sexuality, and the other a more rousing adventure in the classical mystery sense. The two parts though work more well as a whole, with several pieces of the first story coming to fruition in the latter portion. It's the second half where things really gel, as Holmes is seen in a more natural environment, albeit bumbling a bit more than usual. The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes would make for fantastic double-feature fodder, paired with The Seven-Per-Cent Solution. They feel like thematic brothers-in-arms, to paint a vivid, though flawed picture of the master of deductive reasoning. Wilder seems like he wanted to challenge, not only his own conventions, but see if an audience could rise with him, in support of a brilliant mind, that's not always correct, or initially on the same page.
If ever there was a true benefit of Sherlock Holmes, the character, it's that he is a chameleon. There is a large collection of stories, movies, and tv shows to model off of. The man must be arrogant, flamboyant, but brilliant and cunning. He must not be willing to trust things at face value, though does so on several occasions. It attempts to humanize a great literary figure, without ever laying on schmaltz upon him, merely mistakes are made, and vowed follow, instructing that it will never happen again. TSLOSH is brilliant, fun, and quick, as to not linger too long on that personal side, to get to the rousing adventure, which still slyly shoe-horns in the sentimental moments. Wilder was a master director of people in situations, but always added wit to the proceedings, to make them last and memorable. Sherlcok Holmes may not be at the very top-top of his game in this adventure, but a weaker Holmes is still better than most of the inane mystery thrillers available nowadays, none the less.
**** out of *****
Some of the best films come from, "what could have been?" What if George Lucas had, as originally planned, been able to to film Apocalypse Now in 16mm, in the Vietnam? What if Orson Wells had actually finished Don Quixote and edited it to his liking before he died? What if Billy Wilder went with his original vision of The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, before cutting it from 3 1/2 hours, down to just over 2? The truth is we'll never know, but what we ended up with, is just as good in most respects.
The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is about as divisive a film about the great detective, as one can find. It seems to be a very love it or hate it type of film, but one that more people should see, to have the chance to decide for themselves. At the time most of the issue dealt with the underlying sexual orientation of Sherlock Holmes himself. Much like the argument in the bible, it's there only if you see it's there. Within the film there are a few lines left ambiguous, but none that ever give a finite answer one way or another. Though if you are paying attention, the film does give you answers as to which way it leans.
Director Billy Wilder was coming off the success of his film Fortune Cookie, and was given carte-blanche for his next picture. He went the direction that most people weren't expecting, making a film detailing not only the more personal side of Sherlock Holmes, but one of his few mis-steps. The film begins with a safety deposit box being opened 50 years after it was left behind, as instructed, which contains several unreleased Sherlock Holmes tales. There were originally supposed to be 4 interlocking tales, each chronicling different stages in Holmes career, most of them exposing a very personal matter, or as mentioned above, the rare failure. Unhappy with the initial scope, it's said that Wilder himself chose to cut the fat, and make a more serviceable, and he hoped at the time, profitable film. As it stands, it's a welcome and fine addition to the world of Sherlock Holmes adventures. Here again is a story partially dealing with Sherlock Holmes' cocaine usage, which Holes jokes is only a 5% solution, as he tells Watson "you don't think I know you've been diluting it behind my back?" Though Holmes himself states that he only is taking it when he's bored and not stimulated by a case, the more extraordinary, the better. It paints an interesting picture of a man, who didn't so much do something because he wanted or enjoyed it, but because of the physical need of the high it gave him. Along the "genius begets madness, and vice versa" ilk, that is. The film is divided roughly into 2 parts, the first dealing with a Russian ballerina, and the subsequent questioning of Holmes' sexuality, and the other a more rousing adventure in the classical mystery sense. The two parts though work more well as a whole, with several pieces of the first story coming to fruition in the latter portion. It's the second half where things really gel, as Holmes is seen in a more natural environment, albeit bumbling a bit more than usual. The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes would make for fantastic double-feature fodder, paired with The Seven-Per-Cent Solution. They feel like thematic brothers-in-arms, to paint a vivid, though flawed picture of the master of deductive reasoning. Wilder seems like he wanted to challenge, not only his own conventions, but see if an audience could rise with him, in support of a brilliant mind, that's not always correct, or initially on the same page.
If ever there was a true benefit of Sherlock Holmes, the character, it's that he is a chameleon. There is a large collection of stories, movies, and tv shows to model off of. The man must be arrogant, flamboyant, but brilliant and cunning. He must not be willing to trust things at face value, though does so on several occasions. It attempts to humanize a great literary figure, without ever laying on schmaltz upon him, merely mistakes are made, and vowed follow, instructing that it will never happen again. TSLOSH is brilliant, fun, and quick, as to not linger too long on that personal side, to get to the rousing adventure, which still slyly shoe-horns in the sentimental moments. Wilder was a master director of people in situations, but always added wit to the proceedings, to make them last and memorable. Sherlcok Holmes may not be at the very top-top of his game in this adventure, but a weaker Holmes is still better than most of the inane mystery thrillers available nowadays, none the less.
**** out of *****
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Drama Tuesday: THE SEVEN-PER-CENT SOLUTION (1976)
Title: THE SEVEN-PER-CENT SOLUTION (1976)
The world of mash-ups is a hardship when it comes to movies. Inevitably my mind always comes back to "Time After Time", in which H.G. Wells builds a time machine that Jack the Ripper steals, travels to 1979, and Wells must give chase and stop him. It's more entertaining than the ridiculous synopsis would have you believe. That film was written and directed by one Nicholas Meyer, whose previous credit was writing The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, adapted from his own novel. The setup is brilliant in and of itself. Worried about his friend and compatriot's state of mind and well being, due to cocaine addiction, Dr. Watson enlists the help of Sigmund Freud. From there they embark on one of Sherlock Homes finest adventures.
Everything in the film works. From the inclusion of Sigmund Freud, the first rate casting, and an adventure worthy of, at the time, a high 12 million dollars. It's epic in scale, even if most of its proceedings deal with internal demons. Watson (an at first confusing Robert Duvall) finds Sherlock Holmes (Nicol Williamson, Merlin of "Excalibur") in the throws of a serious cocaine binge, ranting about his nemesis, Moriarty. It turns out that Holmes has been stalking him obessively, to take him down, once and for all. Though this Moriarty, it seems, is nothing more than an old doddering math tutor, who may or may not be harboring a dark link to Holmes past. After meeting with Sherlock's equally brilliant, if not more reclusive, older brother, Mycroft, Dr. Watson and he set forth a plan to lure Sherlock to Vienna, so he may be cured by Sigmund Freud (a brilliant Alan Arkin). The movie plays things even smarter by having Freud himself being the perfect foil for Holmes, even though he himself states he is merely using the tools that Holmes does and adapting them as his own. The cocaine usage has become a much used tool when navigating the Sherlock Holmes landscape, but none more so brilliantly than here and "The Private Life of Sherlock Homes". To see one of the most brilliant deductive minds almost reduced to rubble, is as sad as it is thrilling. It makes one care about the well being of the character, garnering a personal stake in the matter. Thankfully director Herbert Ross and Meyer never try and play it for laughs, more so showing the dark side of addiction and the crippling blow it can cause.
Seeing as how this is an adventure tale, the film isn't solely fixated on the treatment of the addiction, but also a rousing case that has to be solved. Enter Vanessa Redgrave as Lola Deveraux, another patient of Freud's, who first relapses, and then goes missing. Seeing Holmes, Watson, and Freud launch into a case together is thrilling in all the right ways. The deductive minds all combine, bringing something to the table, and propelling things forward at the briskest of paces. The dialogue sparkles as Freud and Holmes match wits, and Watson gets to be much more than a joke several times. The film also features 2 of my favorite usages of a train ever committed to celluloid. One is a sword fight that takes place both inside, and on top of said train. The other......a train chase. It. Is. Awesome. Just when I think I have seen it all in a movie, I see a film of yesteryear with a scene that makes me ask, "why the hell didn't anyone tell me about this?" Whomever had to sit down with the producers of the film, and get the scene passed, is officially my hero. It's more entertaining than the entirety of "Unstoppable", without a doubt. To see an entire boxcar dismantled while the train is moving, to catch up with another train, is a thing of wonder.
Here is a film that wants to be remembered. It doesn't beg, it doesn't plead, it merely wants that of you, then gives you numerous reasons to do so. It's light, it's fun, always engaging, at times a serious study of one of literature's greatest creations, and day I say it "a rip-snorting good time". The Seven-Per-Cent Solution invariably gets passed over, because it was made in a time, where all studios were taking big chances. This is right during the independent movement of the 70's, where the films being made where trying to change the language of cinema. So a film hearkening back to characters of old, the child in all of us, well it isn't hard to deduce what was to become of it. Thankfully, not all films are lost, and with the technology of today, films once passed by, can be celebrated and championed again. Here's to hoping, this classic, gets its moment again, and often.
**** out of *****
The world of mash-ups is a hardship when it comes to movies. Inevitably my mind always comes back to "Time After Time", in which H.G. Wells builds a time machine that Jack the Ripper steals, travels to 1979, and Wells must give chase and stop him. It's more entertaining than the ridiculous synopsis would have you believe. That film was written and directed by one Nicholas Meyer, whose previous credit was writing The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, adapted from his own novel. The setup is brilliant in and of itself. Worried about his friend and compatriot's state of mind and well being, due to cocaine addiction, Dr. Watson enlists the help of Sigmund Freud. From there they embark on one of Sherlock Homes finest adventures.
Everything in the film works. From the inclusion of Sigmund Freud, the first rate casting, and an adventure worthy of, at the time, a high 12 million dollars. It's epic in scale, even if most of its proceedings deal with internal demons. Watson (an at first confusing Robert Duvall) finds Sherlock Holmes (Nicol Williamson, Merlin of "Excalibur") in the throws of a serious cocaine binge, ranting about his nemesis, Moriarty. It turns out that Holmes has been stalking him obessively, to take him down, once and for all. Though this Moriarty, it seems, is nothing more than an old doddering math tutor, who may or may not be harboring a dark link to Holmes past. After meeting with Sherlock's equally brilliant, if not more reclusive, older brother, Mycroft, Dr. Watson and he set forth a plan to lure Sherlock to Vienna, so he may be cured by Sigmund Freud (a brilliant Alan Arkin). The movie plays things even smarter by having Freud himself being the perfect foil for Holmes, even though he himself states he is merely using the tools that Holmes does and adapting them as his own. The cocaine usage has become a much used tool when navigating the Sherlock Holmes landscape, but none more so brilliantly than here and "The Private Life of Sherlock Homes". To see one of the most brilliant deductive minds almost reduced to rubble, is as sad as it is thrilling. It makes one care about the well being of the character, garnering a personal stake in the matter. Thankfully director Herbert Ross and Meyer never try and play it for laughs, more so showing the dark side of addiction and the crippling blow it can cause.
Seeing as how this is an adventure tale, the film isn't solely fixated on the treatment of the addiction, but also a rousing case that has to be solved. Enter Vanessa Redgrave as Lola Deveraux, another patient of Freud's, who first relapses, and then goes missing. Seeing Holmes, Watson, and Freud launch into a case together is thrilling in all the right ways. The deductive minds all combine, bringing something to the table, and propelling things forward at the briskest of paces. The dialogue sparkles as Freud and Holmes match wits, and Watson gets to be much more than a joke several times. The film also features 2 of my favorite usages of a train ever committed to celluloid. One is a sword fight that takes place both inside, and on top of said train. The other......a train chase. It. Is. Awesome. Just when I think I have seen it all in a movie, I see a film of yesteryear with a scene that makes me ask, "why the hell didn't anyone tell me about this?" Whomever had to sit down with the producers of the film, and get the scene passed, is officially my hero. It's more entertaining than the entirety of "Unstoppable", without a doubt. To see an entire boxcar dismantled while the train is moving, to catch up with another train, is a thing of wonder.
Here is a film that wants to be remembered. It doesn't beg, it doesn't plead, it merely wants that of you, then gives you numerous reasons to do so. It's light, it's fun, always engaging, at times a serious study of one of literature's greatest creations, and day I say it "a rip-snorting good time". The Seven-Per-Cent Solution invariably gets passed over, because it was made in a time, where all studios were taking big chances. This is right during the independent movement of the 70's, where the films being made where trying to change the language of cinema. So a film hearkening back to characters of old, the child in all of us, well it isn't hard to deduce what was to become of it. Thankfully, not all films are lost, and with the technology of today, films once passed by, can be celebrated and championed again. Here's to hoping, this classic, gets its moment again, and often.
**** out of *****
Action Monday: SHERLOCK HOMES (2009)
Title: SHERLOCK HOLMES (2009)
The greatest thing about Sherlock Holmes as a character, is there are almost and infinite amount of way to adapt him to the big screen. There are, in the official Sir Arthur Conan Doyle canon, 4 novels, and 54 short stories. Not to mention the various novels that other authors have taken the liberty to write, featuring Holmes as the lead or side character. Interesting fact concerning the canon stories, is that all but 4 stories are narrated by Dr. Watson. Of the other 4, Holmes himself narrates 2, while the remaining 2 are strangely written in the 3rd person. IMDB states that there have been 238 productions to feature Sherlock Holmes, covering TV, Feature Films, and Shorts. All this is to say, there are numerous variations on the theme that is Sherlock Holmes, and he is sure not to go anywhere, anytime soon.
All this leads to Guy Ritchie's take on the immortal Detective Holmes. First off is this, it's really really fun. The last thing I would ever call the latest variation of the great detective is boring. There have been numerous people to take issue with the film since it isn't a classical take on Holmes, isn't directly taken from any of Doyle's stories, and that Robert Downey Jr. is plain odd. Most of these comment are thankfully unfounded, and based on some rather harsh opinions. At least 3 films spring to mind that house wonderful Sherlock Holmes adventures, though none of them are direct adaptations. "Murder by Decree", "The Seven-Per-Cent Solution" and "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes." They all do the character justice, just as does Downey's version. Personally I was more so impressed by the fact that Guy Ritchie had finally found the perfect outlet for his creative juices.
The story of the film is simple enough. Sherlock Holmes must solve a case that has everyone else totally baffled, both his reputation and the very lives of others teeter on the brink. What the movie does to shake off the cob-webs of all previous interpretations of Holmes is to release itself of some of the more singular images. Ritchie decided early on that the phrase, "Elemetary, my dear Watson", would not be included, nor would Holme's defining Deerstalker. Neither of which are missed in the least. He also went out of his way to have a stronger Dr. Watson, in the form of Jude Law, second only to the actively engaging take on the character by Robert Duvall. Luckily Law is British and has no need to fake a horrendous accent. His Watson is very much the do-er, often standing up to Downey's Holmes, even if it is to much avail. It is readily apparent that Holmes needs Watson, though his very pride would never allow himself to admit it. The adventure at hand is one of the few takes on the character to put him at odds with a changing world. At the outset it feels as if there is going to be a strong supernatural bent to the film, along the lines of "The Hound of the Baskervilles", but as the film moves along, it reveals itself to be rather grounded. It's the technology in the film that is making the most strides to confound Holmes to some degree, though he is quick to ascertain the meaning behind each foil. One imagines that in between his cases, before or during his cocaine binges, he does an awful lot of reading.....of everything, at all times. Though it is just a tad over 2 hours, it moves along at a break-neck speed. Mostly this is due to the film being a string of various set-pieces, one larger, than the last. Which is the strength and downfall of this Holmes. It is a blockbuster film. It's made to be accessible to all audiences of most ages, and their respective attention span. True there are many moments where there is more than a slight spark of intelligence written into the dialogue, that does not pertain to name-calling, or flatulent dogs (only once), but that's, as one could dubb it "Holmes-speak". He must rattle off an explanation of the unfounded, not only because the audience may be lot without it, but it is in the very core of his being. The best of which, honestly feels as if it's saying to the audience, "really, you couldn't have put that together yourself."
Sherlock Holmes is one of the greatest characters ever, because he gets to be an arrogant SOB, and while many may find him annoying, they simply have to groan and shake their heads, because 90% of the time (believably less if your name is Mycroft) he's right.
Guy Ritchie does leave the movie open for the inevitable sequel, but does so in the best fashion possible, by peppering moments of Moriarty, throughout the proceedings. Audiences will clamor inevitably to theaters to see that film. The more learned readers hoping to forage into familiar ground, with one of the few literary characters, who will always survive, as long as people are curious enough to ask "Whodunit and how did they do it?" If they are patient enough they will hear the reply, "Now that you're sitting comfortably, I shall begin...."
*** 1/2 out of *****
The greatest thing about Sherlock Holmes as a character, is there are almost and infinite amount of way to adapt him to the big screen. There are, in the official Sir Arthur Conan Doyle canon, 4 novels, and 54 short stories. Not to mention the various novels that other authors have taken the liberty to write, featuring Holmes as the lead or side character. Interesting fact concerning the canon stories, is that all but 4 stories are narrated by Dr. Watson. Of the other 4, Holmes himself narrates 2, while the remaining 2 are strangely written in the 3rd person. IMDB states that there have been 238 productions to feature Sherlock Holmes, covering TV, Feature Films, and Shorts. All this is to say, there are numerous variations on the theme that is Sherlock Holmes, and he is sure not to go anywhere, anytime soon.
All this leads to Guy Ritchie's take on the immortal Detective Holmes. First off is this, it's really really fun. The last thing I would ever call the latest variation of the great detective is boring. There have been numerous people to take issue with the film since it isn't a classical take on Holmes, isn't directly taken from any of Doyle's stories, and that Robert Downey Jr. is plain odd. Most of these comment are thankfully unfounded, and based on some rather harsh opinions. At least 3 films spring to mind that house wonderful Sherlock Holmes adventures, though none of them are direct adaptations. "Murder by Decree", "The Seven-Per-Cent Solution" and "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes." They all do the character justice, just as does Downey's version. Personally I was more so impressed by the fact that Guy Ritchie had finally found the perfect outlet for his creative juices.
The story of the film is simple enough. Sherlock Holmes must solve a case that has everyone else totally baffled, both his reputation and the very lives of others teeter on the brink. What the movie does to shake off the cob-webs of all previous interpretations of Holmes is to release itself of some of the more singular images. Ritchie decided early on that the phrase, "Elemetary, my dear Watson", would not be included, nor would Holme's defining Deerstalker. Neither of which are missed in the least. He also went out of his way to have a stronger Dr. Watson, in the form of Jude Law, second only to the actively engaging take on the character by Robert Duvall. Luckily Law is British and has no need to fake a horrendous accent. His Watson is very much the do-er, often standing up to Downey's Holmes, even if it is to much avail. It is readily apparent that Holmes needs Watson, though his very pride would never allow himself to admit it. The adventure at hand is one of the few takes on the character to put him at odds with a changing world. At the outset it feels as if there is going to be a strong supernatural bent to the film, along the lines of "The Hound of the Baskervilles", but as the film moves along, it reveals itself to be rather grounded. It's the technology in the film that is making the most strides to confound Holmes to some degree, though he is quick to ascertain the meaning behind each foil. One imagines that in between his cases, before or during his cocaine binges, he does an awful lot of reading.....of everything, at all times. Though it is just a tad over 2 hours, it moves along at a break-neck speed. Mostly this is due to the film being a string of various set-pieces, one larger, than the last. Which is the strength and downfall of this Holmes. It is a blockbuster film. It's made to be accessible to all audiences of most ages, and their respective attention span. True there are many moments where there is more than a slight spark of intelligence written into the dialogue, that does not pertain to name-calling, or flatulent dogs (only once), but that's, as one could dubb it "Holmes-speak". He must rattle off an explanation of the unfounded, not only because the audience may be lot without it, but it is in the very core of his being. The best of which, honestly feels as if it's saying to the audience, "really, you couldn't have put that together yourself."
Sherlock Holmes is one of the greatest characters ever, because he gets to be an arrogant SOB, and while many may find him annoying, they simply have to groan and shake their heads, because 90% of the time (believably less if your name is Mycroft) he's right.
Guy Ritchie does leave the movie open for the inevitable sequel, but does so in the best fashion possible, by peppering moments of Moriarty, throughout the proceedings. Audiences will clamor inevitably to theaters to see that film. The more learned readers hoping to forage into familiar ground, with one of the few literary characters, who will always survive, as long as people are curious enough to ask "Whodunit and how did they do it?" If they are patient enough they will hear the reply, "Now that you're sitting comfortably, I shall begin...."
*** 1/2 out of *****
Welcome to Sherlock Holmes week
Time to try out a special edition here at MFD. To honor this first special edition, I have chosen Sherlock Holmes, every day is sure to be covered correctly, save for Sunday, but that's only because the newest Holmes adventure isn't released till later this year
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Animation Saturday/New Release Sunday: RANGO (2011)
Title: RANGO (2011)
We live in a time where the Animation market has been over-run by numerous offerings by Dreamworks and Disney/Pixar, that smaller houses seem to be trying in vain to steal a little bit of coin. For every Monsters vs. Aliens or Toy Story, there are 5 Alvin & The Chipmunks and Gnomeo & Juliets. Then there was "Rango". If ever there was a film destined to be something, it was this film. Directed by Gore Verbinski of the Pirates Trilogy, as well the American Ring remake and The Weather Man. Voiced by a veritable who's who of character actors, while being headlined by the always bankable Johnny Depp. Photography consulting by 9 time Oscar nominee Roger Deakins. More over seminal powerhouse, and effects giants Industrial Light & Magics first full leap into the world of animated films. It should have been a game changer, and it nearly was. Do not misunderstand me, Rango, is truly a marvel to behold. It's also a movie for movie people, though truth be told, therein lays it's undoing. For every image, every vista, or nuanced reaction within the film, outside of it's vision, there is a lack of originality. The basic plot of the film, underneath it all, can be described as "A Western Chinatown, without the sexual under/overtones". It's not so much a deterrent, as it is merely a weakness. Then again there is a saying that one shouldn't swing for greatness straight out of the gate, one must be worthy of attaining it. If this film was merely a warm up for ILM, sign me up for the moment it says it's swinging for the fences.
Negatives aside Rango is still rather special in it's own light. A great deal of though, heart, and work went into the film, and it drips from every shot. Rango is one of those films you see, that you instantly want to own the moment it comes out on blu-ray. There is no doubt it will become the standard Demo Disc, that Target, Wal-Mart and Best Buy will have playing consistently on all their top of the line televisions for months. The greatest thing about that is, they will not be trying to swindle you into buying a 3D tv for it either, for you see, Rango was made in glorious, mouth-watering, non-dimmed 2D. Just mentioning the images from the film, I can instantly see them vividly in my mind. It's often a testament to film when it stays with you, for better or worse.
Johnny Depp makes strides again in earning his mark as "the hardest working actor in Hollywood." Sure in recent years many of his films have fallen more so into the Mainstream film league, but he still works tirelessly, regardless of the project of material. Outside of the voice itself, one can easily imagine Depp in the vary role, further pushed home by the fact that before the animation was begun, all the actors were filled acting out on a green screen as a reference point. The other big thing that the film has going for it, is that it truthfully is a real unabashed Western. No question about it at all. Kids will love the imagery, parents will find it better than ok, while Western fans will be consistently smiling and laughing. There is a great reveal to Timothy Olyphant's character, which has probably been ruined by the internet, that I shall not repeat here, that when I saw it, a large smile swept across my face. It's a decidedly "by-the-number" affair, though there aren't lots of grey areas in the realm of PG animated films. Specially if the film is supposed to be geared for the most part to children. Which in and of itself is intriguing, because I would easily call this "the most adult Nickelodeon" film ever perceived. It works as an adventure, a comedy, flairs of dramatic, leans on melodramatic, all the while having a colorful cast of characters and a few flatulence jokes, for good measure. In the end, when leaving the theater I wondered what ILM's plans for the future were. Luckily, Rango had the answer. "Now?............We Ride!"
**** out of *****
We live in a time where the Animation market has been over-run by numerous offerings by Dreamworks and Disney/Pixar, that smaller houses seem to be trying in vain to steal a little bit of coin. For every Monsters vs. Aliens or Toy Story, there are 5 Alvin & The Chipmunks and Gnomeo & Juliets. Then there was "Rango". If ever there was a film destined to be something, it was this film. Directed by Gore Verbinski of the Pirates Trilogy, as well the American Ring remake and The Weather Man. Voiced by a veritable who's who of character actors, while being headlined by the always bankable Johnny Depp. Photography consulting by 9 time Oscar nominee Roger Deakins. More over seminal powerhouse, and effects giants Industrial Light & Magics first full leap into the world of animated films. It should have been a game changer, and it nearly was. Do not misunderstand me, Rango, is truly a marvel to behold. It's also a movie for movie people, though truth be told, therein lays it's undoing. For every image, every vista, or nuanced reaction within the film, outside of it's vision, there is a lack of originality. The basic plot of the film, underneath it all, can be described as "A Western Chinatown, without the sexual under/overtones". It's not so much a deterrent, as it is merely a weakness. Then again there is a saying that one shouldn't swing for greatness straight out of the gate, one must be worthy of attaining it. If this film was merely a warm up for ILM, sign me up for the moment it says it's swinging for the fences.
Negatives aside Rango is still rather special in it's own light. A great deal of though, heart, and work went into the film, and it drips from every shot. Rango is one of those films you see, that you instantly want to own the moment it comes out on blu-ray. There is no doubt it will become the standard Demo Disc, that Target, Wal-Mart and Best Buy will have playing consistently on all their top of the line televisions for months. The greatest thing about that is, they will not be trying to swindle you into buying a 3D tv for it either, for you see, Rango was made in glorious, mouth-watering, non-dimmed 2D. Just mentioning the images from the film, I can instantly see them vividly in my mind. It's often a testament to film when it stays with you, for better or worse.
Johnny Depp makes strides again in earning his mark as "the hardest working actor in Hollywood." Sure in recent years many of his films have fallen more so into the Mainstream film league, but he still works tirelessly, regardless of the project of material. Outside of the voice itself, one can easily imagine Depp in the vary role, further pushed home by the fact that before the animation was begun, all the actors were filled acting out on a green screen as a reference point. The other big thing that the film has going for it, is that it truthfully is a real unabashed Western. No question about it at all. Kids will love the imagery, parents will find it better than ok, while Western fans will be consistently smiling and laughing. There is a great reveal to Timothy Olyphant's character, which has probably been ruined by the internet, that I shall not repeat here, that when I saw it, a large smile swept across my face. It's a decidedly "by-the-number" affair, though there aren't lots of grey areas in the realm of PG animated films. Specially if the film is supposed to be geared for the most part to children. Which in and of itself is intriguing, because I would easily call this "the most adult Nickelodeon" film ever perceived. It works as an adventure, a comedy, flairs of dramatic, leans on melodramatic, all the while having a colorful cast of characters and a few flatulence jokes, for good measure. In the end, when leaving the theater I wondered what ILM's plans for the future were. Luckily, Rango had the answer. "Now?............We Ride!"
**** out of *****
Thursday, March 3, 2011
HORROR THURSDAY: HATCHET 2 (2010)
Title: HATCHET 2 (2010)
Every film has an analogy that sums it up. Some films even have a scene or line that completely conveys all that follows. "Hatchet 2" is by no means an exception to the rule, or any rule that is, unless it involves a bunch of winking, cliches, and moments "it" and only "it" define as subversively cool. The scene comes early on when the big bad of the film comes along one of his prey. He holds in his hand the titular "hatchet" (which gets far less or more use than it deserves, depending on your view). He decides to go against conventional wisdom, turns the hatchet over, and but the victim in the face with blunt, flat head of the weapon. Over and over and over and over again. Over, and over. One more time for good measure, and again. This is cut to obvious shots of more blood escaping what was once the face of one of our hapless adventurers. Yet the feeling that comes out of the scene, is like so many others encased herein. "Yeah, fun, get on with it." Not out of disgust at all, but more so out of boredom. One could argue that the scene could work if it was coming from a Hanke or an early Romero, but there is nothing that the scene has to say, other than, "look at my bloody effects!". There is the whole issue with "Hatchet 2", it spends to much time grand-standing, trying to win a certain audience or filmmaker. To have their film defined as "cool', or "cult". The weakness of being a die hard fan of something, is that if all you do is cover common ground in your film, it doesn't prove anything other than you have seen the previous films of that ilk, and can decidedly emulate that/ Even bad horror has something to say nowadays. I'd be willing to throw more credit, or aplomb to "Repo the Genetic Opera", which I hate, because at least there was a passion (albeit misguided), steering its course. Maybe I can blame it on my age. If I want trash, there are a slew of perfectly good 70's, 80's and 90's films to take a look at. I just can't commit myself to new waste, will the advances in technology, the language of films, and hopefully an intellectual leap over the years, you'd think someone would get the picture. Part of the issue could be laid at the feet of the director. Adam Green, so far has 4 entries to the horror genre, 1 of which is a sequel to a film he made. Out of the 4, only moments of "Frozen" showed a director with a sense of life, who may have been spending his time within the wrong genre. If you are a fan or an expert in something, it doesn't mean that you can make it any better.
Horror films in America, in particular, have had a bad run of things for around 10 years now. It can't exactly be deciphered if it's the talent or the stories that have run dry. Mostly now, it feels as if there is an equation that needs to be followed, often catering to the lowest common denominators. The invention of blu-ray and the decline of dvd re-issues has made it more difficult to show the new generation old seminal classics. True every once and a while there will be a decent remastering, but the results are few and far between.
"Hatchet 2" picks up directly after the events of the first film. After the perfunctory 20-30 minutes of "real world", it's back to the swamp, and the killings begin again. When did the first horror/sci-fi/fantasy film deem it important that a sequel had to take a moment, stop all the action in the film, and expand the mythology. Few franchises have ever benefited from suck logic. Just look at "Star Wars" or the "Halloween Series" (Druids? Really, Druids?) Dialogue is another avenue that takes a backseat in horror films. In the past decades characters sounded stupid because no one cared about the script, and wanted to make a few bucks. Here in the Aughts, we have screenwriters, who are attempting to make characters sound stupid on purpose, as if it makes them wittier or more satirical. The only way they could do that is if they have a republican atheist pregnant girl who is grappling with abortion even though she comes from a family where she was adopted herself, oh yeah, because her father may or may not be a homicidal maniac. In the end she would have accepted her family's curse to kill her own dad, but then would kill her baby, or go on a rampage that the authorities blame on postpartum depression. That movie, would certainly be 10 times better than "Hatchet 2". The issue with Hatchet 2 is that it feels as if it's made for friends, or it's so cool you, you have to be in the know to get it. I enjoy brainless horror as much as the next guy, even getting several friends together to drink and watch it. But there is a difference between a great horror film, a fun horror film, a bad but enjoyable horror film, and annoying horror film because it wants to seem like it's better than you. I just hope that Adam Green can learn the difference in the future.
*1/2 out of *****
Every film has an analogy that sums it up. Some films even have a scene or line that completely conveys all that follows. "Hatchet 2" is by no means an exception to the rule, or any rule that is, unless it involves a bunch of winking, cliches, and moments "it" and only "it" define as subversively cool. The scene comes early on when the big bad of the film comes along one of his prey. He holds in his hand the titular "hatchet" (which gets far less or more use than it deserves, depending on your view). He decides to go against conventional wisdom, turns the hatchet over, and but the victim in the face with blunt, flat head of the weapon. Over and over and over and over again. Over, and over. One more time for good measure, and again. This is cut to obvious shots of more blood escaping what was once the face of one of our hapless adventurers. Yet the feeling that comes out of the scene, is like so many others encased herein. "Yeah, fun, get on with it." Not out of disgust at all, but more so out of boredom. One could argue that the scene could work if it was coming from a Hanke or an early Romero, but there is nothing that the scene has to say, other than, "look at my bloody effects!". There is the whole issue with "Hatchet 2", it spends to much time grand-standing, trying to win a certain audience or filmmaker. To have their film defined as "cool', or "cult". The weakness of being a die hard fan of something, is that if all you do is cover common ground in your film, it doesn't prove anything other than you have seen the previous films of that ilk, and can decidedly emulate that/ Even bad horror has something to say nowadays. I'd be willing to throw more credit, or aplomb to "Repo the Genetic Opera", which I hate, because at least there was a passion (albeit misguided), steering its course. Maybe I can blame it on my age. If I want trash, there are a slew of perfectly good 70's, 80's and 90's films to take a look at. I just can't commit myself to new waste, will the advances in technology, the language of films, and hopefully an intellectual leap over the years, you'd think someone would get the picture. Part of the issue could be laid at the feet of the director. Adam Green, so far has 4 entries to the horror genre, 1 of which is a sequel to a film he made. Out of the 4, only moments of "Frozen" showed a director with a sense of life, who may have been spending his time within the wrong genre. If you are a fan or an expert in something, it doesn't mean that you can make it any better.
Horror films in America, in particular, have had a bad run of things for around 10 years now. It can't exactly be deciphered if it's the talent or the stories that have run dry. Mostly now, it feels as if there is an equation that needs to be followed, often catering to the lowest common denominators. The invention of blu-ray and the decline of dvd re-issues has made it more difficult to show the new generation old seminal classics. True every once and a while there will be a decent remastering, but the results are few and far between.
"Hatchet 2" picks up directly after the events of the first film. After the perfunctory 20-30 minutes of "real world", it's back to the swamp, and the killings begin again. When did the first horror/sci-fi/fantasy film deem it important that a sequel had to take a moment, stop all the action in the film, and expand the mythology. Few franchises have ever benefited from suck logic. Just look at "Star Wars" or the "Halloween Series" (Druids? Really, Druids?) Dialogue is another avenue that takes a backseat in horror films. In the past decades characters sounded stupid because no one cared about the script, and wanted to make a few bucks. Here in the Aughts, we have screenwriters, who are attempting to make characters sound stupid on purpose, as if it makes them wittier or more satirical. The only way they could do that is if they have a republican atheist pregnant girl who is grappling with abortion even though she comes from a family where she was adopted herself, oh yeah, because her father may or may not be a homicidal maniac. In the end she would have accepted her family's curse to kill her own dad, but then would kill her baby, or go on a rampage that the authorities blame on postpartum depression. That movie, would certainly be 10 times better than "Hatchet 2". The issue with Hatchet 2 is that it feels as if it's made for friends, or it's so cool you, you have to be in the know to get it. I enjoy brainless horror as much as the next guy, even getting several friends together to drink and watch it. But there is a difference between a great horror film, a fun horror film, a bad but enjoyable horror film, and annoying horror film because it wants to seem like it's better than you. I just hope that Adam Green can learn the difference in the future.
*1/2 out of *****
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
COMEDY WEDNESDAY: CABIN BOY (1994)
Title: CABIN BOY (1994)
First off, yes this is the immortal classic that features David Lettermans's one scene, with a line referring to the possible offer of the the purchase of a monkey. Beyond that lays a strange absurdest fantasy, the likes of which we rarely see nowadays. It's interesting to look at the movie landscape and how much it has changed since the 90's. The types of films that make it to the theaters vs. the films that land straight to video. How and if of a movie like "Cabin Boy" getting made now, is hard to fathom. The story behind it, is even murkier. "The Lost Tim Burton film" is certainly one avenue, as it was originally to be a directing vehicle for him, though all that is left if a production credit. Yet his fingerprints, a la "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure", are all over this project. It was also seen as a star making picture for Chris Elliott, coming off a short SNL stint and his under-appreciated sitcom "Get A Life'.
"Cabin Boy" is first and foremost a stupid picture. It knows this and revels in it at every turn. Keeping this in mind, coupled with the secondary talent it carries with it, it should be a cult classic, being shown all the time on late night cable, college dorms, and midnight movie revivals. There's a lot to like and be confused by herein. I always thought the film was some weird period piece, taking place when sailors ruled the seas, under the fearful watchful eye of the Queens and Kings of old. Not so much. The film opens in modern times with Elliott as the titular Cabin Boy attending a finishing school, producing "Fancy Lads". After taking a wrong turn to board his fathers cruise ship, he enters a seaport much out of place and time. He stumbled upon a rickety ship called "The Filthy Whore" which is being watched over by a rather youngish Andy Richter. What follows is a classic fish out of water tale, but done with an absurdist touch that is thick with satire and farce. The great thing is that the film and everyone involved know the film is a joke. There is no possible way to look at it otherwise. The ship's crew does all they can to break the spirits of Elliott, but end up falling short. At 80 minutes, the pacing is brilliant, and fast, if a scene doesn't work, no worries, it will be moving on as soon as possible. Knowing what I did going into the film, it's obvious of Tim Burton's involvement. From the humor, to the various set pieces, it feels like a natural fit. "Nightmare Before Christmas" and "James and the Giant Peach" are his sandwiched producing credits surrounding the film, with "Ed Wood" being the film he directed the same year. Stupidity in comedy is always a fine line to walk, you can play it for heart or sadness, but the best route is humor. If you don't allow the audience to question the stupidity, they can focus more so on the inherent humor. This works even better if your lead is an insufferable stuff-shirt, who doesn't see the error of his ways. An audience can get behind that, for they don't like them based on instinct. Chris Elliott has often gotten a lot of flack for the kinds of characters he plays, as well as his homeliness. What's never made sense to me, is that while Elliott has to scrape by, Rob Schneider is capable of having film after film thrust upon the masses, via theatrical release. Guess it is the old adage of "it's not what you know, it's who you know." Cabin Boy is often met with groans, which is unfounded, due to the fact that it is actually a really funny movie. Nothing about it is grand, pretentious, over-wrought, watered down. It wants to make you laugh, turn your head to the side, while thinking "what?". but with a grin on your face/ Fun it is, and unabashedly so.
The 90's were an easier time for films. A time where virtually any film could be made, shown in theaters for profit. Experimentation was the key. Movies were cheaper to make, show, profit off of. With the booming home video market, producers could easily rest hoping to make their money back that way. I often miss those days. There was only a handful of summer blockbuster fare, and comedies, both big and small, had a chance to find some sort of fans. "Cabin Boy" will be a film I return to often, when I just want to laugh, without thinking much at all. A fine afternoon of 90's post-SNL work would be "Tommy Boy", "Dirty Work", "PCU" and "Cabin Boy".
*** out of *****
First off, yes this is the immortal classic that features David Lettermans's one scene, with a line referring to the possible offer of the the purchase of a monkey. Beyond that lays a strange absurdest fantasy, the likes of which we rarely see nowadays. It's interesting to look at the movie landscape and how much it has changed since the 90's. The types of films that make it to the theaters vs. the films that land straight to video. How and if of a movie like "Cabin Boy" getting made now, is hard to fathom. The story behind it, is even murkier. "The Lost Tim Burton film" is certainly one avenue, as it was originally to be a directing vehicle for him, though all that is left if a production credit. Yet his fingerprints, a la "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure", are all over this project. It was also seen as a star making picture for Chris Elliott, coming off a short SNL stint and his under-appreciated sitcom "Get A Life'.
"Cabin Boy" is first and foremost a stupid picture. It knows this and revels in it at every turn. Keeping this in mind, coupled with the secondary talent it carries with it, it should be a cult classic, being shown all the time on late night cable, college dorms, and midnight movie revivals. There's a lot to like and be confused by herein. I always thought the film was some weird period piece, taking place when sailors ruled the seas, under the fearful watchful eye of the Queens and Kings of old. Not so much. The film opens in modern times with Elliott as the titular Cabin Boy attending a finishing school, producing "Fancy Lads". After taking a wrong turn to board his fathers cruise ship, he enters a seaport much out of place and time. He stumbled upon a rickety ship called "The Filthy Whore" which is being watched over by a rather youngish Andy Richter. What follows is a classic fish out of water tale, but done with an absurdist touch that is thick with satire and farce. The great thing is that the film and everyone involved know the film is a joke. There is no possible way to look at it otherwise. The ship's crew does all they can to break the spirits of Elliott, but end up falling short. At 80 minutes, the pacing is brilliant, and fast, if a scene doesn't work, no worries, it will be moving on as soon as possible. Knowing what I did going into the film, it's obvious of Tim Burton's involvement. From the humor, to the various set pieces, it feels like a natural fit. "Nightmare Before Christmas" and "James and the Giant Peach" are his sandwiched producing credits surrounding the film, with "Ed Wood" being the film he directed the same year. Stupidity in comedy is always a fine line to walk, you can play it for heart or sadness, but the best route is humor. If you don't allow the audience to question the stupidity, they can focus more so on the inherent humor. This works even better if your lead is an insufferable stuff-shirt, who doesn't see the error of his ways. An audience can get behind that, for they don't like them based on instinct. Chris Elliott has often gotten a lot of flack for the kinds of characters he plays, as well as his homeliness. What's never made sense to me, is that while Elliott has to scrape by, Rob Schneider is capable of having film after film thrust upon the masses, via theatrical release. Guess it is the old adage of "it's not what you know, it's who you know." Cabin Boy is often met with groans, which is unfounded, due to the fact that it is actually a really funny movie. Nothing about it is grand, pretentious, over-wrought, watered down. It wants to make you laugh, turn your head to the side, while thinking "what?". but with a grin on your face/ Fun it is, and unabashedly so.
The 90's were an easier time for films. A time where virtually any film could be made, shown in theaters for profit. Experimentation was the key. Movies were cheaper to make, show, profit off of. With the booming home video market, producers could easily rest hoping to make their money back that way. I often miss those days. There was only a handful of summer blockbuster fare, and comedies, both big and small, had a chance to find some sort of fans. "Cabin Boy" will be a film I return to often, when I just want to laugh, without thinking much at all. A fine afternoon of 90's post-SNL work would be "Tommy Boy", "Dirty Work", "PCU" and "Cabin Boy".
*** out of *****
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
DRAMA TUESDAY: SOMEWHERE (2010)
Title: SOMEWHERE (2010)
Magic exists in movies, in variable forms. Even within a directors oeuvre. While she covers some of the same ground in "Lost in Translation", the magic of "Somewhere", swells differently. Long languid shots without much dialogue, much like it's character, the film is searching something, even for a moment of true clarity. We often think of all the glitz and glamor that come with celebrity. In recent years, and the blur of the internet, we've come to see their raw and exposed side for their darker moments. What gets left on the floor, is their life. Sometimes without answers, often without meaning, even to themselves, they exist, not for themselves, but some innate drive. Until the time comes, that they, or someone else, put them out to pasture.
Stephen Dorff excels at the thankless task of showing people that he can actually act. Restrained, soulful, and lost, Dorff takes one of the finer qualities of an actor and puts it on display. The ability to convey what one is thinking, without telling you, directly to your face. Things take an upturn of sorts, possibly for the better when his 11 year old daughter Cleo (Elle Fanning) spends sometime with him, after his ex-wife decides she needs to "take sometime" for herself.
The greatest thing a film can do, is make it seem as if nothing is happening. No lessons learned, no grand standing, no action beats, no promises of getting better. Not everything is fixed in the confines of a movie. Often you get a slice of life. Some insight to the goings on of a person, and just when you think you know where things or going, or you start to care, or wonder "what if?".....the screen fades to black. To me the films i enjoy, or more so respect, are the ones I find myself thinking of days latter. This shot. This look. This piece of music. This line. A director can be respected for giving it their all, even if they fall short. You can applaud them. Too many times, do people feel that everything they do has to have a huge monetary groundswell. Just because you made a lot of money, you did good. In a sense, just because it was successful, doesn't mean you succeed.
The movie itself is hard to fit into a traditional review. Certainly it can be said that it's "love it or hate it" kind of film. It's a film you have to see and experience what it does to you. Not everyone will feel something, lot's will simply find themselves annoyed or bored. It's a special kind of movie that, no matter what, you have some feeling towards it, good or bad, ambivalence doesn't enter into this equation. The synopsis? Short and simple. Dorff is an actor inbetween projects after his latest film. He spends his time in a well known Hollywood hotel, drinking, eating, falling asleep to twin pole-dancers in his room, sleeping with anyone who comes his way. He brakes his wrist foolishly. Spends time with his daughter before she goes, taking her to italy for the opening of his movie and an award ceremony. There may be growth, there may be acceptance.
Regardless of what you feel about the movie, no one can fault Sofia Coppola for her determination as a female director, to make the kind of film she wants,without compromising a thing. Certainly a trait she got from her father,propelling him to much success, and one can only hope she passes down, to the next generation.
****1/2 out of *****
Magic exists in movies, in variable forms. Even within a directors oeuvre. While she covers some of the same ground in "Lost in Translation", the magic of "Somewhere", swells differently. Long languid shots without much dialogue, much like it's character, the film is searching something, even for a moment of true clarity. We often think of all the glitz and glamor that come with celebrity. In recent years, and the blur of the internet, we've come to see their raw and exposed side for their darker moments. What gets left on the floor, is their life. Sometimes without answers, often without meaning, even to themselves, they exist, not for themselves, but some innate drive. Until the time comes, that they, or someone else, put them out to pasture.
Stephen Dorff excels at the thankless task of showing people that he can actually act. Restrained, soulful, and lost, Dorff takes one of the finer qualities of an actor and puts it on display. The ability to convey what one is thinking, without telling you, directly to your face. Things take an upturn of sorts, possibly for the better when his 11 year old daughter Cleo (Elle Fanning) spends sometime with him, after his ex-wife decides she needs to "take sometime" for herself.
The greatest thing a film can do, is make it seem as if nothing is happening. No lessons learned, no grand standing, no action beats, no promises of getting better. Not everything is fixed in the confines of a movie. Often you get a slice of life. Some insight to the goings on of a person, and just when you think you know where things or going, or you start to care, or wonder "what if?".....the screen fades to black. To me the films i enjoy, or more so respect, are the ones I find myself thinking of days latter. This shot. This look. This piece of music. This line. A director can be respected for giving it their all, even if they fall short. You can applaud them. Too many times, do people feel that everything they do has to have a huge monetary groundswell. Just because you made a lot of money, you did good. In a sense, just because it was successful, doesn't mean you succeed.
The movie itself is hard to fit into a traditional review. Certainly it can be said that it's "love it or hate it" kind of film. It's a film you have to see and experience what it does to you. Not everyone will feel something, lot's will simply find themselves annoyed or bored. It's a special kind of movie that, no matter what, you have some feeling towards it, good or bad, ambivalence doesn't enter into this equation. The synopsis? Short and simple. Dorff is an actor inbetween projects after his latest film. He spends his time in a well known Hollywood hotel, drinking, eating, falling asleep to twin pole-dancers in his room, sleeping with anyone who comes his way. He brakes his wrist foolishly. Spends time with his daughter before she goes, taking her to italy for the opening of his movie and an award ceremony. There may be growth, there may be acceptance.
Regardless of what you feel about the movie, no one can fault Sofia Coppola for her determination as a female director, to make the kind of film she wants,without compromising a thing. Certainly a trait she got from her father,propelling him to much success, and one can only hope she passes down, to the next generation.
****1/2 out of *****
Monday, February 28, 2011
ACTION MONDAY: ROBOGEISHA (2009)
Title: ROBOGEISHA (2009)
What can really be said about RoboGeisha.......Maybe, that it feels like insanity personified. Of course, now adays when it comes to the Japanese film market, about 50% of it's offerings can fall into that category. What with the likes of 'Fish Story', 'Machine Girl', and 'Tokyo Gore Police', out there to choose from.
The thing that helps Geisha apart, though, is it's tounge-blade firmly planted in the cheeks of all involved. Besides it's outlandish imagery, is a savegly feirce humor, of the slapstick variety, often engaging in moments of, 'I assure you, none of us take any of these proceedings seriously'. It helps the film, and it's audience find it's footing, and relax accordingly. Assuridly the film is loaded with various WTF! moments, but for clarity sake, attempts to put a narrative wedged into things. It certainly is a crazy crazy story for that part, one that found me grinning from ear to ear, with glee, as well as a fair share of horror.
Geisha opens with an assassination attempt that it interrupted by the title character. She then proceeds to tell her story, of how she came to be here (though the film never flashes back at the end, saddlyl. We learn the the struggles of 2 sisters, one a geisha, and one the glorified servant girl, to said geisha. the disappoint thing about the film, is this is a 'show, don't tell' affair. An instance where, first viewing should be withe a group of friends. Second would be forcing a friend who missed out on the festivities, so watch it will you, while constantly chiding....'just wait'.......
The filmmakers are very strong when it comes to the stage of truly running with a concept, no matter the concequences. I can't think of any film in recent history, that is supposed to include shoddy cgi, as an enhancement. It reinforces the heightened reality of the film. Any time (save for the not flashing back to the present at the end) you find yourself question the things said, or shown on screen.....someone answers it.
RoboGeisha isnmt a good film by any stretch of the imagination. Inspired, insane, fun, and memorable? yes
*** out of *****
What can really be said about RoboGeisha.......Maybe, that it feels like insanity personified. Of course, now adays when it comes to the Japanese film market, about 50% of it's offerings can fall into that category. What with the likes of 'Fish Story', 'Machine Girl', and 'Tokyo Gore Police', out there to choose from.
The thing that helps Geisha apart, though, is it's tounge-blade firmly planted in the cheeks of all involved. Besides it's outlandish imagery, is a savegly feirce humor, of the slapstick variety, often engaging in moments of, 'I assure you, none of us take any of these proceedings seriously'. It helps the film, and it's audience find it's footing, and relax accordingly. Assuridly the film is loaded with various WTF! moments, but for clarity sake, attempts to put a narrative wedged into things. It certainly is a crazy crazy story for that part, one that found me grinning from ear to ear, with glee, as well as a fair share of horror.
Geisha opens with an assassination attempt that it interrupted by the title character. She then proceeds to tell her story, of how she came to be here (though the film never flashes back at the end, saddlyl. We learn the the struggles of 2 sisters, one a geisha, and one the glorified servant girl, to said geisha. the disappoint thing about the film, is this is a 'show, don't tell' affair. An instance where, first viewing should be withe a group of friends. Second would be forcing a friend who missed out on the festivities, so watch it will you, while constantly chiding....'just wait'.......
The filmmakers are very strong when it comes to the stage of truly running with a concept, no matter the concequences. I can't think of any film in recent history, that is supposed to include shoddy cgi, as an enhancement. It reinforces the heightened reality of the film. Any time (save for the not flashing back to the present at the end) you find yourself question the things said, or shown on screen.....someone answers it.
RoboGeisha isnmt a good film by any stretch of the imagination. Inspired, insane, fun, and memorable? yes
*** out of *****
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Animation Saturday: The ILLUSIONIST (2010)
Title: THE ILLUSIONIST (2010)
Sometimes images with the absence of words, convey the human emotion best. Coupled with the right music, and you have a heartbreaking pure moment of art. The Illusionist by Sylvain Chomet has several of these, none as effecting as the last few moments of the film. I knew the moment was coming, knew it's meaning, yet when it arrived, i found myself trying has hard as possible to hold back the welling. This speaks to the skill of the artist at work, and 2 films in, Chomet is certainly that. There is a beauty and artistry that hand-drawn animation has to it. The subtle lines and curves, the crush of colors. One is able to buy more into the emotions and story at hand due to the disconnect. Herein lies the issue with CG animated features, the added texture may look beautiful, yet the mind know it is something not real, attempting to be. We, as an audience find ourselves more guarded to these films, in a sense because they are a threat to what we believe, can't possibly be. Personally though, it's never been an argument for me, while there are plenty of CG animated features that i do enjoy, it's more so the story they are telling, rather than the sight, i am engaged in. It's a testament to many artist out there, that in the last 2 years, the dark horse in the Oscar category of Best Animated Feature, is a non-major produced hand animated film.
The story of and behind The Illusionist has been written about many times over. It concerns an unproduced script by Jacques Tati of "Mon Oncle", "M. Hulton's Holiday" and "PlayTime". It became well documented that a member of Tati's family wrote a revealing and exposing (though not forthcoming) letter to Roger Ebert (click here). I feel though that the film should be viewed on it's own merits, as it's own piece of work. Tati may have wished his film to be different, and Chomet says that story was by Tati, and himself is credited as adapting it.
The film takes place over an unnamed period in 1959. An aging, and faltering magician (based off of Tati himself), makes his way across the british countryside, taking his show where he can. During a stop on an island, he is befriends Alice, who subsequently follows him on his journey to Edinburgh. To help support his and her lives, he takes various odd jobs whilst trying to keep his act a foot. It's episodic in nature, with long pieces and short pieces combined. The animation is gorgeous through and through, and as a testament to it, Chomet has English, and French spared through out, along with gibberish, so that everyone can understand what is happening in the film. This isn't a disney or dreamworks film here. The note that is left for Alice is exceptionally heart-aching. There are many dark stretches throughout as we may often find in life. It's a film without any real twists, with something to say if you are willing to listen. If there is any justice in the world, it will win the Oscar on the 27th of February.
**** 1/2 out of *****
Sometimes images with the absence of words, convey the human emotion best. Coupled with the right music, and you have a heartbreaking pure moment of art. The Illusionist by Sylvain Chomet has several of these, none as effecting as the last few moments of the film. I knew the moment was coming, knew it's meaning, yet when it arrived, i found myself trying has hard as possible to hold back the welling. This speaks to the skill of the artist at work, and 2 films in, Chomet is certainly that. There is a beauty and artistry that hand-drawn animation has to it. The subtle lines and curves, the crush of colors. One is able to buy more into the emotions and story at hand due to the disconnect. Herein lies the issue with CG animated features, the added texture may look beautiful, yet the mind know it is something not real, attempting to be. We, as an audience find ourselves more guarded to these films, in a sense because they are a threat to what we believe, can't possibly be. Personally though, it's never been an argument for me, while there are plenty of CG animated features that i do enjoy, it's more so the story they are telling, rather than the sight, i am engaged in. It's a testament to many artist out there, that in the last 2 years, the dark horse in the Oscar category of Best Animated Feature, is a non-major produced hand animated film.
The story of and behind The Illusionist has been written about many times over. It concerns an unproduced script by Jacques Tati of "Mon Oncle", "M. Hulton's Holiday" and "PlayTime". It became well documented that a member of Tati's family wrote a revealing and exposing (though not forthcoming) letter to Roger Ebert (click here). I feel though that the film should be viewed on it's own merits, as it's own piece of work. Tati may have wished his film to be different, and Chomet says that story was by Tati, and himself is credited as adapting it.
The film takes place over an unnamed period in 1959. An aging, and faltering magician (based off of Tati himself), makes his way across the british countryside, taking his show where he can. During a stop on an island, he is befriends Alice, who subsequently follows him on his journey to Edinburgh. To help support his and her lives, he takes various odd jobs whilst trying to keep his act a foot. It's episodic in nature, with long pieces and short pieces combined. The animation is gorgeous through and through, and as a testament to it, Chomet has English, and French spared through out, along with gibberish, so that everyone can understand what is happening in the film. This isn't a disney or dreamworks film here. The note that is left for Alice is exceptionally heart-aching. There are many dark stretches throughout as we may often find in life. It's a film without any real twists, with something to say if you are willing to listen. If there is any justice in the world, it will win the Oscar on the 27th of February.
**** 1/2 out of *****
Friday, February 25, 2011
Sci-Fi Friday: DANTE 01 (2008)
Title: Dante 01 (2008)
There was a time that the duo of Jeunet & Caro meant something. With "Delicatessen" and "City of Lost Children" under their respective belts, it seemed like they were going to blaze a cinematic trail for years to come. "Alien Resurrection" had a hand in changing things, with Jeunet bumped up to taking the directing reigns himself, while Caro was simply in charge of the respective art departments. Jeunet would go on to make "Amelie", "A Very Long Engagement", as well as most recently "Micmacs", and Caro has only "Dante 01" to add to his directorial notches.
The problem with Dante is that it could have been an excellent film. Early on it is noticed that Jeunet brought the whimsy and fantasy to the duo, and Caro brought the dark and grime. That would never seem to be a bad thing, yet since he didn't have the catalog built as his colleague, so his effort crumbles under the weight. It's simply a case, where the end of a film completely, utterly destroys any good will of the proceedings. Budget restrictions be damned, plenty of successful directors have made a weakness into a strength, using their creativity and cinematic knowledge to overcome, surprising everyone. To say that Caro misses the opportunity is not only sad, but just sort of depressing.
The film begins in the far reaches of space, at an experimental prison facility, where inmates have agreed to take part in corporate experiments, in exchange for clemency regarding their sentences. A new doctor shows up, hoping to test some of the corporations new radical protocols, as well as bringing a new unknown inmate along, who was found floating in a bloodied spacecraft alone. The atmosphere is rich, thick and dense with grime, darkness, and shadows. The low lightning not only helps distract from the low budget, but also sets the stage for the type of film he is hoping to make. The titular character is christened Saint-Georges by one of his fellow inmates. If you are smart you are noticing the name of the film, that characters name and you are wondering if there are any more religious or literary references. If so, you would be dead on. Details like that help the Dante immensely in it's early stages, from the minor pontificating by Persephone (you gotcha) and Elisa, or the introduction to the prisoners. Amongst them, Dominique Pinon stands out as he always does, as Caesar, the leader of the prisoners. Pinion is instantly recognizable from either directors films, along with his picture in the dictionary next to the definition for "unfortunate face". He glowers, and oozes the little power he wields, while recognizing he is only a minor cog, though relishes at a chance to snap "take care of them." What good prisoner leader wouldn't? Saint-Georges, meanwhile, in unable to speak. He spends his time seeing visions, whilst writhing in pain. No one thinks much of it. The a prisoner is near death, and who but Georges himself, miraculously saves him. There are many intriguing questions and strands brewing by this point in the film. On one side the doctor Elisa is eying the top spot in the station by administering the new protocol of using nanobots on the prisoners, for means of controlling their outbursts. The other concerns the weird insight/powers of Saint-Georges who seems to be eradicating nanobots of a different sort. Caro keeps everything close and tense, ratcheting up the intriguing with each passing moment.........Then, the last 10 minutes of the film happen, destroying everything. I had to go back a chapter a few times, checking the current time on the film to see if there was any skipping going on. There wasn't. Frustration, anger, disappointment grew inside me. It comes off as the biggest slap in the face ending I have ever seen. Had the film been poorly shot, horrendously acted, in the vein of "The Room", "Troll 2" or "Birdemic", then the ending would have been par. Dante 01 though felt as if it was going to be something else. Caro has said in numerous interviews that he was disappointed with the ending of the film, but that when the budget was cut from 8 million euros to 4 million, it's an understandable issue. Just makes you wonder, when he took that big of a hit, if he felt less inclined to work on the film, besides contractual obligation.
Who knows how the rest of the film would have played out. Hopefully it will be a lessened learned, because for all it's faults, "Dante 01", whilst an oddity, shows that Caro can still put a film together. Here's to hoping he can find a studio willing to back him all the way, next time.
** out of *****
There was a time that the duo of Jeunet & Caro meant something. With "Delicatessen" and "City of Lost Children" under their respective belts, it seemed like they were going to blaze a cinematic trail for years to come. "Alien Resurrection" had a hand in changing things, with Jeunet bumped up to taking the directing reigns himself, while Caro was simply in charge of the respective art departments. Jeunet would go on to make "Amelie", "A Very Long Engagement", as well as most recently "Micmacs", and Caro has only "Dante 01" to add to his directorial notches.
The problem with Dante is that it could have been an excellent film. Early on it is noticed that Jeunet brought the whimsy and fantasy to the duo, and Caro brought the dark and grime. That would never seem to be a bad thing, yet since he didn't have the catalog built as his colleague, so his effort crumbles under the weight. It's simply a case, where the end of a film completely, utterly destroys any good will of the proceedings. Budget restrictions be damned, plenty of successful directors have made a weakness into a strength, using their creativity and cinematic knowledge to overcome, surprising everyone. To say that Caro misses the opportunity is not only sad, but just sort of depressing.
The film begins in the far reaches of space, at an experimental prison facility, where inmates have agreed to take part in corporate experiments, in exchange for clemency regarding their sentences. A new doctor shows up, hoping to test some of the corporations new radical protocols, as well as bringing a new unknown inmate along, who was found floating in a bloodied spacecraft alone. The atmosphere is rich, thick and dense with grime, darkness, and shadows. The low lightning not only helps distract from the low budget, but also sets the stage for the type of film he is hoping to make. The titular character is christened Saint-Georges by one of his fellow inmates. If you are smart you are noticing the name of the film, that characters name and you are wondering if there are any more religious or literary references. If so, you would be dead on. Details like that help the Dante immensely in it's early stages, from the minor pontificating by Persephone (you gotcha) and Elisa, or the introduction to the prisoners. Amongst them, Dominique Pinon stands out as he always does, as Caesar, the leader of the prisoners. Pinion is instantly recognizable from either directors films, along with his picture in the dictionary next to the definition for "unfortunate face". He glowers, and oozes the little power he wields, while recognizing he is only a minor cog, though relishes at a chance to snap "take care of them." What good prisoner leader wouldn't? Saint-Georges, meanwhile, in unable to speak. He spends his time seeing visions, whilst writhing in pain. No one thinks much of it. The a prisoner is near death, and who but Georges himself, miraculously saves him. There are many intriguing questions and strands brewing by this point in the film. On one side the doctor Elisa is eying the top spot in the station by administering the new protocol of using nanobots on the prisoners, for means of controlling their outbursts. The other concerns the weird insight/powers of Saint-Georges who seems to be eradicating nanobots of a different sort. Caro keeps everything close and tense, ratcheting up the intriguing with each passing moment.........Then, the last 10 minutes of the film happen, destroying everything. I had to go back a chapter a few times, checking the current time on the film to see if there was any skipping going on. There wasn't. Frustration, anger, disappointment grew inside me. It comes off as the biggest slap in the face ending I have ever seen. Had the film been poorly shot, horrendously acted, in the vein of "The Room", "Troll 2" or "Birdemic", then the ending would have been par. Dante 01 though felt as if it was going to be something else. Caro has said in numerous interviews that he was disappointed with the ending of the film, but that when the budget was cut from 8 million euros to 4 million, it's an understandable issue. Just makes you wonder, when he took that big of a hit, if he felt less inclined to work on the film, besides contractual obligation.
Who knows how the rest of the film would have played out. Hopefully it will be a lessened learned, because for all it's faults, "Dante 01", whilst an oddity, shows that Caro can still put a film together. Here's to hoping he can find a studio willing to back him all the way, next time.
** out of *****
Thursday, February 24, 2011
HORROR Thursday: Black Death (2010)
Title: Black Death (2010)
Historical Horror. The genre just has a decidedly disgusting ring to it, not in the favorable sense mind you. It's a sub-genre that almost screams of trying to hard, when it seems like the elements would flow together. The history of mankind is littered with horrendous, stupefying, startling events. Seems ripe for the picking. Though, as with most things, the easier things appear, the harder they are to piece together. In 2011, I myself have barred witness to 2 films, both historical horror in nature, taking place during the dark ages, surrounding themselves with possible witchcraft pertaining to the Black Plague, and the men of god who deal with the sussing out of things. No 2 films, so closely matching on paper, could ever, ever be as different. On one side is "Season of the Witch", a film I do not wish anyone to see (the less said about monks transforming into zombies the better). The other is "Black Death", by Christopher Smith, the director of such genre efforts, "Severance", and "Creep".
The greatest strength of "Black Death" comes in the form of its characterization. Sure not everyone is made 3-dimensional, but every character has his moment, and are acted in a style both refreshing and missed. This is to say the film has everything one would want (action, gore, magic, horses), but doesn't forget that you are going to spend 90+ minutes, where people have to eventually talk. Talk they do, at great lengths about religion, family, honor. This is a true "men-on-a-mission" film, men with a goal, as well as purpose worth dying for. The film opens in 1348 (I believe, those years blend together), the plague has swept the land, killing thousands indiscriminately. A young monk offers his services to the immortally bad-ass Sean Bean, who elevates any dark ages piece, to guide him to a village, that is said to have been, as of yet, untouched by the pestilence. Though this band, hired by the Bishop, isn't going to see god's work in the town, word has spread that a demon is held up and worshiped there in his steed. Less be said beyond that, for this is a film that is quick, sometimes terse, certainly visceral, but every part of it an experience. Smith's direction here goes from simply engaging an audiences gag reflexes, to inflicting pain on their mind, which is to say, "think".
The movie surprised me in its stark briskness, that could be due to the fact that it was a smaller budgeted film, or it could be due to the fact that Smith was aware that most audiences knew rudimentary information about the period of the film, and that it was best to move along with the actual story. Monk has conflict of conscious, the band of mercenaries of god have varied checkered paths, nothing is at it seems.
Through out the film, I found myself thinking about "Season of the Witch", wondering where a film goes so wrong. Here before me was a film that didn't skimp on the visceral, both mental and meat, whilst not betraying history, insulting the audience or having a character walk around with a non-appropriate timed accent. The question can be raised, is it simply the desire to make more money that can rob a film of it's intellectual ideas. Can't audiences plunk down their hard-earned money to see a film that has people pontificating intellectually, soundly, and then have something blow-up in the background? 2010 found something in a form of that, with "Inception", though at times it felt as if Christopher Nolan was holding back ever so slightly, not to bite the hand that forked over so much money to him. "Black Death" though, feels as if it's being cast aside, not only because it's being sent out to a world littered with DTV fantasies, but that it was never given a chance to prove its worth. Throughout the world, where they actually appreciate films? Sure. Yet North American distribution is now a days, akin to being drafted in the first round, it doesn't mean that you're better than anyone, it just meant the loudest people wouldn't stop talking about you for 2 seconds, to hear how this lesser known individual is most decidedly better.
Perhaps this is to be the true use of the internet, and the merry band of internet film critics. Let us stand up for the "true" underdog, the film that is worth your time, and effort, to find and enjoy. I'm not speaking of an old film, a classmate found a clip of online because 50 other sites said that one scene was funny. I mean films that truly deserve to be enjoyed, passed around and discussed. The way we all used to before the internet, and on demand, and downloading.......there was a point in time that people paid for bootlegs, because they were legitimately rare. This film, had it come out in that time, I would have paid greatly for.
This is a film where people discuss religions, the ideas behind them, following blindly. It discusses different people of different gods, discussing who is right and who is wrong. It is a film that then says that the victor, may not be who you would first expect. It asks how far you are willing to go to survive, to fight for what you believe in, and how much of your life, is really in your own hands. It's not an amazing film, it's a very rather good one, but we live in a time, where such things seem to be rather rare.
**** out of *****
(pssst.....click on that link up top, you can rent it from amazon)
Historical Horror. The genre just has a decidedly disgusting ring to it, not in the favorable sense mind you. It's a sub-genre that almost screams of trying to hard, when it seems like the elements would flow together. The history of mankind is littered with horrendous, stupefying, startling events. Seems ripe for the picking. Though, as with most things, the easier things appear, the harder they are to piece together. In 2011, I myself have barred witness to 2 films, both historical horror in nature, taking place during the dark ages, surrounding themselves with possible witchcraft pertaining to the Black Plague, and the men of god who deal with the sussing out of things. No 2 films, so closely matching on paper, could ever, ever be as different. On one side is "Season of the Witch", a film I do not wish anyone to see (the less said about monks transforming into zombies the better). The other is "Black Death", by Christopher Smith, the director of such genre efforts, "Severance", and "Creep".
The greatest strength of "Black Death" comes in the form of its characterization. Sure not everyone is made 3-dimensional, but every character has his moment, and are acted in a style both refreshing and missed. This is to say the film has everything one would want (action, gore, magic, horses), but doesn't forget that you are going to spend 90+ minutes, where people have to eventually talk. Talk they do, at great lengths about religion, family, honor. This is a true "men-on-a-mission" film, men with a goal, as well as purpose worth dying for. The film opens in 1348 (I believe, those years blend together), the plague has swept the land, killing thousands indiscriminately. A young monk offers his services to the immortally bad-ass Sean Bean, who elevates any dark ages piece, to guide him to a village, that is said to have been, as of yet, untouched by the pestilence. Though this band, hired by the Bishop, isn't going to see god's work in the town, word has spread that a demon is held up and worshiped there in his steed. Less be said beyond that, for this is a film that is quick, sometimes terse, certainly visceral, but every part of it an experience. Smith's direction here goes from simply engaging an audiences gag reflexes, to inflicting pain on their mind, which is to say, "think".
The movie surprised me in its stark briskness, that could be due to the fact that it was a smaller budgeted film, or it could be due to the fact that Smith was aware that most audiences knew rudimentary information about the period of the film, and that it was best to move along with the actual story. Monk has conflict of conscious, the band of mercenaries of god have varied checkered paths, nothing is at it seems.
Through out the film, I found myself thinking about "Season of the Witch", wondering where a film goes so wrong. Here before me was a film that didn't skimp on the visceral, both mental and meat, whilst not betraying history, insulting the audience or having a character walk around with a non-appropriate timed accent. The question can be raised, is it simply the desire to make more money that can rob a film of it's intellectual ideas. Can't audiences plunk down their hard-earned money to see a film that has people pontificating intellectually, soundly, and then have something blow-up in the background? 2010 found something in a form of that, with "Inception", though at times it felt as if Christopher Nolan was holding back ever so slightly, not to bite the hand that forked over so much money to him. "Black Death" though, feels as if it's being cast aside, not only because it's being sent out to a world littered with DTV fantasies, but that it was never given a chance to prove its worth. Throughout the world, where they actually appreciate films? Sure. Yet North American distribution is now a days, akin to being drafted in the first round, it doesn't mean that you're better than anyone, it just meant the loudest people wouldn't stop talking about you for 2 seconds, to hear how this lesser known individual is most decidedly better.
Perhaps this is to be the true use of the internet, and the merry band of internet film critics. Let us stand up for the "true" underdog, the film that is worth your time, and effort, to find and enjoy. I'm not speaking of an old film, a classmate found a clip of online because 50 other sites said that one scene was funny. I mean films that truly deserve to be enjoyed, passed around and discussed. The way we all used to before the internet, and on demand, and downloading.......there was a point in time that people paid for bootlegs, because they were legitimately rare. This film, had it come out in that time, I would have paid greatly for.
This is a film where people discuss religions, the ideas behind them, following blindly. It discusses different people of different gods, discussing who is right and who is wrong. It is a film that then says that the victor, may not be who you would first expect. It asks how far you are willing to go to survive, to fight for what you believe in, and how much of your life, is really in your own hands. It's not an amazing film, it's a very rather good one, but we live in a time, where such things seem to be rather rare.
**** out of *****
(pssst.....click on that link up top, you can rent it from amazon)
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Comedy Wednesday: Mystery Team (2010)
Title: Mystery Team (2010)
There is a big difference between a stupid movie, and a movie whose characters are stupid. "Mystery Team" is certainly a member of the latter. The brainchild of YouTube sensations "Derrick Comedy", the film reveals in its love of manchildren (in a platonic, from afar way) and mines whatever comedy can be brought from any situation. ANY. Of course there are some faults laying around, thankfully though, most of them are minor.
The films conceit is simple. The titular Mystery Team were a big deal when they were about 7 years old, much to the delight of the whole town. The problem is, QQ years later, the boys, now High School seniors, still act, and dress, as if they were still "Boy" Detectives. They spend their time solving crimes for 10 cents, which at worst involve, "who put their fingers in the boysenberry pie?" The opportunity to truely prove themselves, comes in the plea of an 8 year old girl, who wants the team to find out her mother's killers. Of course, things get out of hand and the boys find themselves breaking into houses, lumber mills, and "gentleman's clubs". An air of innocence, lost and found hangs over the proceedings, and if it weren't for some strong performances, and clever writing, the film would feel flat and trite.
For a film like this to work, not only does the audience have to find themselves invested, but the actors as well. Thankfully the comedy team have a great chemistry, with Donald Glover the obvious standout. For those uninitiated, I highly suggest checking out season 1 of "Community" for Glover's portrayal of Troy. The film is also litered with cameo apperances from numerous NBC comedys, including "SNL", "30 Rock" and "Parks & Recreation", and Matt Walsh, king of doing any part in any comedy, since his glory days with "UCB".
Lots of comedies these days tend to be episodic in nature, with a sagging middle, so to say that Mystery Team avoids that, is astonishing. True this isn't a film for everyone's taste. I for one would rather see something this purely fun, than another Kevin James, or Rob Schneider piece of drivel. Outlandish? Yes. Ridiculous? Rightfully so. In comedy forevery low-brow fart-a-thon, and every high concept witty talk piece, that has to be a middle ground. a film to have its cake, eat it too, then laugh at their friend who has frosting on their nose. Sometimes, like the gang in the move themselves, it's a good idea to step outside our comfort zone, and allow ourselves to be surprised.
*** 1/2 out of *****
(Apologizes for any spelling or grammatical errors, my internet went down, so i wrote this all on my droid 2's browser, so wednesday would be covered)
There is a big difference between a stupid movie, and a movie whose characters are stupid. "Mystery Team" is certainly a member of the latter. The brainchild of YouTube sensations "Derrick Comedy", the film reveals in its love of manchildren (in a platonic, from afar way) and mines whatever comedy can be brought from any situation. ANY. Of course there are some faults laying around, thankfully though, most of them are minor.
The films conceit is simple. The titular Mystery Team were a big deal when they were about 7 years old, much to the delight of the whole town. The problem is, QQ years later, the boys, now High School seniors, still act, and dress, as if they were still "Boy" Detectives. They spend their time solving crimes for 10 cents, which at worst involve, "who put their fingers in the boysenberry pie?" The opportunity to truely prove themselves, comes in the plea of an 8 year old girl, who wants the team to find out her mother's killers. Of course, things get out of hand and the boys find themselves breaking into houses, lumber mills, and "gentleman's clubs". An air of innocence, lost and found hangs over the proceedings, and if it weren't for some strong performances, and clever writing, the film would feel flat and trite.
For a film like this to work, not only does the audience have to find themselves invested, but the actors as well. Thankfully the comedy team have a great chemistry, with Donald Glover the obvious standout. For those uninitiated, I highly suggest checking out season 1 of "Community" for Glover's portrayal of Troy. The film is also litered with cameo apperances from numerous NBC comedys, including "SNL", "30 Rock" and "Parks & Recreation", and Matt Walsh, king of doing any part in any comedy, since his glory days with "UCB".
Lots of comedies these days tend to be episodic in nature, with a sagging middle, so to say that Mystery Team avoids that, is astonishing. True this isn't a film for everyone's taste. I for one would rather see something this purely fun, than another Kevin James, or Rob Schneider piece of drivel. Outlandish? Yes. Ridiculous? Rightfully so. In comedy forevery low-brow fart-a-thon, and every high concept witty talk piece, that has to be a middle ground. a film to have its cake, eat it too, then laugh at their friend who has frosting on their nose. Sometimes, like the gang in the move themselves, it's a good idea to step outside our comfort zone, and allow ourselves to be surprised.
*** 1/2 out of *****
(Apologizes for any spelling or grammatical errors, my internet went down, so i wrote this all on my droid 2's browser, so wednesday would be covered)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)