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 *****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)