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 *****
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
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 *****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)