"X-Men: First Class"

in ,

Like most kids, I was a big fan of superheroes growing up. Batman was my favorite but I had admiration for all the standard comic book legends and had the action figures to prove it. My superhero fascination kicked into high gear, however, when FOX started running a Saturday morning cartoon called “X-Men.” It was a life changing series for a kid who loved superheroes but had never really read a comic book. Much more mature and well-written than the average cartoon, it was the thin note of darkness that made “X-Men” so engrossing for me. These guys ran in a much more complex world than Superman or Batman did at the time and it was certainly a far cry from the cheesiness of “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.” I quickly kicked “TMNT” to the curb (sorry, Raphael) and dove full boar into the “X-Men” universe. As such, I love the first two films, tolerate the third because I can’t bring myself to hate it, and was more than a little upset by “Wolverine.” I confess that last entry dulled my interest in the franchise and I really only gave “First Class” a passing glance every now and then as news of its production hit the internet. But as the film’s debut got closer and closer, I found myself unable to forgo my typical anticipation and expecting a great deal. I wasn’t disappointed.

“First Class” is an origin film that tells the story of how Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Eric Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender), aka Professor X and Magneto, came to be the almost unwilling enemies they are in the other “X-Men” films. Set in the early 60s, we are first introduced to the radically different worlds that Charles and Eric inhabit. Charles, an intellectual prodigy who uses his abilities to further his career, is a product of unending prosperity and opportunity. Eric, meanwhile, developed his abilities under the pressure of Nazi scientist Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), whose sick methods fueled the rage and pain that already ran through a young victim of the Holocaust. While teaming with the US government to track down Shaw, Charles and his pseudo-sister Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) come in contact with Eric who had just been foiled in his attempt to kill Shaw who has become a highly powerful mutant even compared to Charles and Eric. The two men become fast friends and with the help of a mutant-tracking invention designed by Hank McCoy (Nicholas Hoult), who will later become Beast, they begin recruiting and training a team of young mutants. Their solidarity, however, is constantly tested as Charles pushes for peace and integration into the human society while Eric would have the group head off another Holocaust by exerting their dominance now. These differences are briefly put aside when the team learns that Shaw is pushing the US and the USSR into nuclear war via the Cuban Missile Crisis. As the two nations head toward World War III, Charles and Eric take on a joint mission to stop the planet’s destruction and kill Shaw.

There is a TON to like about “First Class” but let’s get two small complaints out of the way up front. First, if you’re an “X-Men” comic book lover, you’re probably not going to be a fan of this movie’s narrative. I don’t know all there is to know about the comics but my brother does and he was more than a little hacked off concerning the disregard for the already-established storyline. Second, there is a real clash of attitudes within “First Class.” It is at times disturbingly dark and at others almost overly campy. In one of the opening scenes we see Shaw murder Eric’s mother right in front of him. Later on, we get not one but two 80s-style montage scenes and another in which the young X-Men come up with their hero names. As a friend of mine said, it’s like director Matthew Vaughn went for a fun, campy comic book movie then realized what a goldmine of intense, dark action he had when he got into editing. I would argue that the real attempt was to illustrate the difference between the worldview’s of Charles and Eric but there’s no question that the clash is a bit of a detriment to the overall flow of the film. It’s less an identity crisis and more the on-screen personification of two roommates whose differences boil slightly under the surface but who like each other too much to let the conflict leak out.

That said, whether you’re looking from an action, comic book, or prequel standpoint, “First Class” is an extremely high-quality piece of work. Each of the actors do an admirable job of conveying the mixed emotions these mutants would go through. McAvoy and Fassbender are the keys, obviously, (more to come on these two), but most of the others, including Rose Byrne (Moira MacTaggert), Hoult, Caleb Landry Jones (Banshee), and Lucas Till (Havok), do their part as well. Bacon and Lawrence, meanwhile, are both magnificent. Shaw has to be the embodiment of abject evil in order for Magneto to become who we know he is in the later films and while that’s not an easy task, Bacon comes through with one of his best performances in years. Likewise, Lawrence is stunningly brilliant. I’ve said this before but it bears repeating: no matter what she’s doing, no matter how important or unimportant her place is in a scene, Lawrence ALWAYS manages to draw your eyes to her, even when she’s masked in a CGI blue scaly skin. In many ways Mystique is the starting point for the battle between Charles and Eric and Lawrence displays the weight of that battle with pinpoint accuracy. I cannot wait to see what this girl does in “The Hunger Games” films.

The mix of fiction and history is inspired and brings just enough realism so that surface objections to the alternative history can be satisfied but not so much as to delve into the obvious absurdity of a bunch of mutants preventing the escalation of the Cold War. (There’s a stroke of genius in that mix that might go unnoticed but I was highly impressed.) The dialogue is all at once simple and yet very smart and witty. It is a balance that should make “First Class” approachable to kids and adults alike which can be a big key for summer blockbusters. And the action sequences are dynamic and completely satisfying. One scene in particular, when Shaw and his cronies attack the mutant complex, is incredible.

But as I said above, the real meat of “First Class” is in the performances of McAvoy and Fassbender. I’m not a big fan of McAvoy and I admit I was truly disappointed when he was cast as Professor X. I’ve just never understood his charm. I do now. Xavier from “First Class” begins s a much less serious, intense character than he does in the original “X-Men” movies and McAvoy embraces that beautifully. The gradual change in his demeanor from carefree would-be ladies’ man to begrudging leader of a mutant resistance is much more harrowing and painful than you might expect and McAvoy absolutely nails it. Even more impressive, however, is the powerful performance that Fassbender puts out. Eric (or Magneto) is the PERFECT example of the tiny differences between a hero and villain. A different choice here or there and Magneto would be a great asset on Xavier’s team. Instead, the torment he underwent as a child and the anger that has burned through his soul leads him down a darker path. But the thing with Magneto is, he thinks he’s right, that he’s doing what needs to be done to preserve his race. That’s absolutely crucial to this story. If Fassbender plays Magneto as evil or if he doesn’t seem conflicted, this entire franchise falls apart. Magneto has to be torn by his actions, he has to struggle with morality, and he has to hate himself for fighting against his best friend. Fassbender displays all of that and then some, creating an unforgettable on-screen experience. In the pantheon of great comic book film characters, this version of Magneto is right up there with Downey’s Tony Stark, Ledger’s Joker, and any other superstar you can think of. It may not have started out this way but by the end of “First Class”, it is clear that this movie belongs to Fassbender. He almost singlehandedly propels the film to greatness when it probably should have been just “pretty good.”

The finished product is a proud achievement in the canon of superhero/comic book films. “First Class” wipes the palate of the less-than-stellar “Wolverine” (though Hugh Jackman does have an AWESOME cameo) and sets the stage wonderfully for whatever the franchise has in store for us in the future. It’s a film that nerds and casual movie goers of all ages should enjoy and represents the standard that we can only hope the rest of this summer’s movies can follow.

Grade: A-

Gambit was always my favorite X-man,
Brian

Blu Ray Review: "The Switch"

in ,

Wally (Jason Bateman) and Cassidy (Jennifer Aniston) are best friends with a brief dating history in their distant past. With their younger days waning, Cassidy decides she's going to have a baby through artificial insemination and evens asks for Wally's help in picking the donor, a guy named Roland (Patrick Wilson). At the insemination party (I'm not making that up), Wally gets drunk and accidentally flushes the sample and makes the brash decision to replace it with his own. He, of course, forgets that this happened and goes on with his life after Cassidy and her newborn move to Minnesota. A few years later, however, she moves home and Wally begins to see similarities between himself and the child, Sebastian (Bryce Robinson), and this forces an awkward confrontation between old friends.

"The Switch" essentially comes down to a clash between the what happens on screen and what takes place behind the camera. Off screen, this movie is an absolute, unmitigated disaster. Directors Josh Gordon and Will Speck ("Blades of Glory") and writer Allan Loeb ("Just Go With It") hamstring "The Switch" from the get go with a pointless, antiquated voiceover narration that never pays off. I'm not against narration as a principle but it can definitely be the first sign of bad things to come. This one is one of the most worthless I can remember. On top of that, "The Switch" has no idea whether it is supposed to be a romantic comedy with heart of a slapstick comedy. The concept in and of itself seems like a Farrelly Brothers-like comedy but either Gordon and Speck don't know how to make this kind of film or they don't have the stones to go as far down the "stupid funny" road as you have to make it work. Even the characters themselves are up-and-down and unbalanced, particularly Bateman's Wally, who has almost no consistency throughout the first half of the film. The supporting characters are also painfully cliche or one note.

With that said, and I'm as shocked by this as you are, the chemistry between Aniston, Bateman, and even Robinson is excellent. I would not have believed that statement had I not said it myself. I love Bateman (who doesn't?) but let's be frank, he often takes the shotgun approach. That is to say, he'll make three, four, five movies in a year and hope that one hits the mark. He's not exactly trustworthy. Meanwhile, Aniston's career failures have been well documented though, I guess out of sympathy more than anything else, most of us tend to continue rooting for her. My point is, you wouldn't think that these two (and the kid who brings them together) would be able to completely and totally hold a movie together. But they really do. Their relationship is remarkably natural in a film that is WHOLLY unnatural and absurd. In addition, the dynamic between Bateman and Robinson is a quirky take on the father-son relationship. All of these actors truly give "The Switch" their all which is both highly respectable and sad considering what an awful film they're working with. The chemistry isn't enough to make this a "good" movie but it's certainly enough to turn a world class atrocity into a reasonably decent effort.

Grade: C+

Blu Ray Review: "The Mechanic"

in ,

Arthur Bishop (Jason Statham) is a hitman. Working for an international organization that matches him up with potential hits, Bishop finishes his assignments with detached efficiency. The only real relationship in his life is the one he has with his handler, Harry McKenna (Donald Sutherland), who treats him almost like a son. When Bishop is presented with evidence of McKenna's treachery, he puts his mentor down himself but takes no pride in what he was forced to do. Soon after, McKenna's son, Steve (Ben Foster), shows up and asks Bishop to take him on as a pseudo-apprentice. The pair work together successfully until Bishop learns that Harry was set up by the agency that employed them both while Steve begins to become suspicious of Bishop's involvement in his father's death.

A remake of a Charles Bronson flick, "The Mechanic" has the classic Jason Statham flare mixed with a touch of old school action. You can't call this a full-on homage to the Bronson era but you can see it was a major influence in the film's production. I, for one, quite enjoyed the combination. I've bagged on Statham in the past for being a one trick pony and for making occasionally awful films ("In the Name of the King", anyone?) but at the same time, you have to appreciate a man who gets the most out of his one skill and manages to provide passable entertainment more often than not. I mean, if you were given the option of seeing a Statham film or a Nic Cage film, is there any question that Statham would be the choice? This film plays well with Statham's sensibilities and is chock full of explosions, shootouts, and various action stunts.


"The Mechanic" is also, however, much smarter than I would have expected going in. It's not rocket science, mind you, and Christopher Nolan certainly didn't write the script. But it does progress with more sophistication than the average hitman action movie and that keeps the plot from bogging down or becoming tiresome. The only real issues I have with "Mechanic" are the ending (unfitting to the rest of the narrative and unsatisfying) and the dynamic between Statham and Foster. I get the casting choice. Statham is smooth and debonair, almost care free while Foster's intensity always burns to near homicidal levels. (Seriously, if you met Foster in a bar, wouldn't you be scared of him?) On paper that combination sounds good but for me, the two contrast so much that it almost feels like a fight to see who's style will win out. It's not awful chemistry but it doesn't consistently push the film along on the right path. Still, "The Mechanic" is high quality entertainment and contains excellent action sequences that should satisfy your jonesing for explosions and gunplay.

Grade: B

Blu Ray Review: "Morning Glory"

in ,

After losing her job at an early morning New Jersey talk show, Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams) finds her life at an impasse. Desperate for a break, she accepts a job as the executive producer for Daybreak, once a hallmark of the IBS network that has now all but vanished from the public consciousness. With one host position filled by Colleen Peck (Diane Keaton), Becky exploits a contract loophole to force longtime newsman and current curmudgeon Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford) to fill the open seat. Peck and Pomeroy do not click and before too long, Daybreak is on the verge of being cancelled. With one last shot, Becky galvanizes her show with quirky ideas and out of the box thinking, topped off by a Pomeroy news piece that puts the show back on the map. But will her new found success take Becky off to bigger and better things or will the little family she created at Daybreak be enough to hold her in place?

I rooted long and hard for "Morning Glory." I wanted it to be great and in fact, there are several truly strong elements in play here. The tone is refreshingly light and easy; there's very little depth or darkness to the film and I mean that as a compliment. Some movies aren't meant for deeper pools (storylines) and this is one of them. It is colorful and bright which makes Ford's cranky, bitter Pomeroy all the more apparent. McAdams, meanwhile, fits the film's overtones perfectly. She is frantic and all over the place, but overwhelmingly sunny and determined. Perhaps this makes Becky a bit less likable than McAdams' normal character but for me this wasn't so much a detriment to my enjoyment of the film as it was an indication of her ability to create a fitting character, ala Kate Hudson in "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days." In other words, Becky is supposed to be slightly obnoxious and overbearing. (Admittedly, however, the integrity of this point is in question as my unabashed love for McAdams could definitely overwhelm my sense of reason.) Even Ford, while somewhat wooden (as he has been prone to for the last fifteen years or so), seems to invest in his performance in a way that he hasn't in some time. It's not great, mind you, but at least he's trying.

What holds "Morning Glory" back is its script (written by Aline Brosh McKenna) and director Roger Mitchell's use of said script. Honestly, this movie is a script away from being an excellent film instead of just ho-hum pretty good. The dialogue is often weak; other times it's downright oppressive, severely limiting anything that the actors might be able to do. And while I didn't find "Glory" to be overly cliche, many of the more important scenes and emotional moments are just hollow. The movie moves far too fast, too, jumping from scene to scene with very little to hold it together. It plays out as if Brosh McKenna wrote her script then ripped out every third page and that's what they took into production. It is impossible to connect with the characters or to revel in what should have been witty banter and that robs "Glory" of its real impact. Fun and entertaining, this movie is worth a viewing, to be sure, but it misses out on being the powerhouse it should have been.

Grade: B-

The Documentary Project - Volume 7: "Restrepo"

in ,

Throughout 2007, filmmakers Tim Heatherington and Sebastian Junger followed The Men of Battle Company 2nd of the 503rd Infantry Regiment 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team. During their tour of Afghanistan, this group of soldiers were assigned the task of taking and holding the Korangal Valley, one of the most dangerous battlefields in the world. "Restrepo" takes an in depth look at the lives of these courageous men throughout the length of their tour.

I'm not sure I'll ever write a shorter review for a film as stirring as "Restrepo" is. The kind of access that Heatherington and Junger got to shoot this film is unheard of and you see why early on when the camera winds up basically down and in the dirt after the platoon is ambushed along a mountain road. Soon after, the soldiers establish Camp Restrepo (named for the first man in their company who was killed in action) atop a large hill and find themselves caught between the horrifying violence that takes place in the Korangal Valley and the almost-as-bad boredom that sets in between battles. Mixing the footage shot during the tour and interviews done after they returned stateside, Heatherington and Junger do a magnificent job of literally putting the audience into the shoes of these men and displaying just what sort of hell they've been put through. They also manage to pull no punches (including a harrowing scene in which the men are attacked and one of their number dies just off camera) without glorifying the awfulness of war. And in addition to all of that, perhaps the greatest stroke of genius lies in the fact that "Restrepo" is completely void of politics. From the first moment to the last, this film is about the men and nothing else and regardless of your political leaning, it presents a message that we can all get behind.

"Restrepo" is a tough, gritty, REAL look at war and as such, is not for the faint of heart. But if you can muster up the stomach to sit through it, then I highly recommend a viewing. Incredible film.

Grade: A

Blu Ray Review: "I Am Number Four"

in ,

John Smith (Alex Pettyfer) is an alien. A refugee hiding out on planet earth and on the run from a vicious rival species that destroyed his world, John moves from town to town with his only friend, Henri (Timothy Olyphant). a warrior from his planet who serves as his guardian and poses as his father. There are nine refugees on earth and the enemy race (called Mogadorians) is systematically tracking them down one by one. John, naturally, is Number Four and knows he's next on the list. After moving into a small town in Ohio, John meets Sam (Callan McAuliffe), his first true friend in years, and falls for Sarah (Dianna Agron). His relative happiness, however, is quickly unraveled with the Mogadorians show up and force a dynamic battle in which he is joined by Number Six (Teresa Palmer) to create an unstoppable team.

The big problem with "I Am Number Four" is readily apparent after the first two scenes. Scene one involves the nighttime attack and subsequent murder of a pre-adolescent alien (Number Two). Scene two shows John and his Florida buddies riding jet skis while a Kings of Leon track blares in the background. This movie has no identity. It is all at once a teen drama, a sci-fi thriller, and a horror/suspense film with a coming-of-age-in-the-Midwest undercurrent. Each scene seems to combat with the one before and the one after and no middle ground is ever established. I quite like the work of director DJ Caruso ("Disturbia") in many ways but he has an absolute mess on his hands here and the constant mix of genres is like drinking a Suicide, that mix of soda that you make at a pizza buffet when you're 10. It's awesome when you're a kid, not so much when you're 28. Is it "Twilight," "Star Trek," or "Hancock" because it can't be all three.

This convoluted mix really frustrates me, too, because, nerd that I am, there are some really cool sci-fi ideas on display here. It bums me out that these concepts are wasted on a movie that plays out like an episode of "One Tree Hill." Olyphant is solid even if he isn't given much to work with script-wise and Agron brings the charm she exhibits on "Glee" to the big screen with relative ease. I would also go so far as to say that the relationship between John and Sarah is, shockingly, not that bad. Plus, the soundtrack is killer, even if it is a bit too hip for its own good.

None of that is enough, however, to even come close to overshadow the nails-on-a-chalkboard acting of the rest of the cast. I'll stop short of calling Pettyfer a bad actor; he's just unseasoned. This is one of only nine credits to his name and obviously he's gotten where he is based on looks, not ability. In my mind, there's no question that he has some talent; it'll just be up to him (and the roles he takes) to determine if that talent can be brought out or not. McAuliffe, meanwhile, is as one-note as they come and Palmer is just...I mean, awful. Since this script was obviously not well written, perhaps I should give her the benefit of the doubt but seriously, her limited lines are by far the worst moments of the film, only challenged by any scene that involves any of the supporting/background characters from smalltown Ohio. Painful. I tried to find the good in "I Am Number Four" but there just wasn't enough to grasp hold of as I slipped further and further into the void of worthlessness.

Grade: C-

"Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides"

in ,

Back in 2003, I was caught completely off guard by the original “Pirates of the Caribbean.” I wasn’t quite so in touch with the movie industry back then and I certainly didn’t have an awesome blog or anything like Movie News Today (shameless plug). I simply walked into a half-full theater with a couple of friends expecting to see a throwaway summer action film. Instead, I was introduced to a cultural phenomenon that made a ridiculous sum of money, garnered an Oscar nomination for one of the more unique characters of the decade, and spawned two of the most financially successful sequels ever. Who would have thought all of that could come from a rather mediocre amusement park ride? With “Stranger Tides,” the franchise is back from a four year hiatus with a few changes to the cast and crew and a stripped down plotline that will only marginally pacify the average “Pirates” fan.

We open on Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) up to his normal shenanigans, this time breaking out of the custody of a British duke and looking for a ship with which to sail forth to find the mythical Fountain of Youth. Soon afterward, he runs into Angelica (Penelope Cruz), an old flame who has been posing as Sparrow to draw a crew for a very similar quest. After being drugged, Jack awakens to find himself aboard the Queen Anne’s Revenge, a treacherous ship helmed by the famed pirate Blackbeard (Ian McShane), who turns out to be Angelica’s father. Having recently heard a prophesy concerning his own death, Blackbeard is hard on the trail of the Fountain of Youth, only just ahead of the Spanish who wish to claim the Fountain for their own uses. Just behind the Spanish is a British ship, captained by Jack’s old nemesis Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush). With three potential enemies closing in on his prey, Jack must think fast and come with a scheme that (per usual) calls for multiple double crosses and the pitting of each group against the others.

It’s clear from the outset that director Rob Marshall was given the directive to simplify his first venture into “Pirate” territory. One of the staples of the first three films is an overdone, convoluted plot that twists and turns so many times that it causes the viewer to simply fish or cut bait; you end up just saying, “yeah, sure” or “this is stupid and I’m out” pretty early on. This is especially prevalent in the sequels. That confusion is at the same time genius in that it covers up a multitude of plot holes and frustrating in that you spend half your time trying to figure out who just double crossed who (and more importantly why) and that ultimately takes away from your enjoyment. Or so I thought, anyway. As it turns out, the simplification of the plot results in what boils down to a pair of meaningless, shallow love stories that do their very best to stop the momentum of the film at every single turn. While the on-again-off-again, “maybe we’ll just kill each other, no wait, let’s make out instead” fling between Jack and Angelica is at least relevant to the story, the budding relationship between a young priest (Sam Claflin) and a captured mermaid (Astrid Berges-Frisbey) registers as nothing but noise and time filler. Their chemistry makes the connection between Thor and Doctor Jane Foster seem comparable to that of Harry and Sally. These wasted scenes combined with one of the biggest plot holes ever in the history of action movies (spoiler free version: pretty much everything to do with the Spanish) really detract from the value and enjoyableness of “Stranger Tides.”

That’s not to say it’s all bad. For one thing, I would say the fight scenes here are better (and even, dare I say, slightly more realistic) than in any of the previous “Pirates” films. Excellent, well-staged sword work abounds. In addition, the sets and settings are incredible. I expected this as each of the previous films, even at their worst, featured dynamic effects, sets, and landscapes and “Strangers Tides” certainly doesn’t disappoint. And all three of the leading men each have moments of brilliance. McShane, one of my very favorite actors and a menacing presence even in such lowbrow fare as “Hotrod,” is excellent as Blackbeard. Rush, meanwhile, does what he does best which is steal scenes with style and flair. In my mind, Barbossa is the most underrated part of this franchise as a whole. And then there’s Jack who I found to be a slightly more progressed version of himself here as opposed to when we last saw him in 2007. I felt that these new elements of (slight) maturity and morality complimented his usual quirky, jester-like persona. I’ve seen some reviews who have criticized Jack’s new sense of reality and the extra attention that he receives without Orlando Bloom or Kiera Knightley around to draw the camera away and I quite understand those points. At the end of the day, however, I think the majority of people who go to see “Stranger Tides” are doing so because they want to see Jack Sparrow and he doesn’t disappoint.

“Stranger Tides” definitely has some fantastic moments, though most take place in the first 30 minutes. In the end, I’m not sure how much better or worse this movie is than its two predecessors, quite honestly (though it’s clearly not in the same league as the original). It is meant to be nothing more than summer fun and yet its entertainment value is hampered by the missteps that keep it from ever getting traction. The end result is decent enough but not overwhelmingly enjoyable as it could have been.

Grade: B-

Pointless love stories are my nemesis,
Brian

Care for a second opinion? Check out Marshall and the Movies slightly less positive take.

Blu Ray Review - "The Way Back"

in ,

In 1941, a small group of prisoners escape from a Soviet gulag with the intention of making it to freedom across the Mongolian border. Led by a falsely imprisoned Pole named Janusz (Jim Sturgess) and an American soldier known only as Mr. Smith (Ed Harris), the crew braves the treacherous Siberian weather and battles starvation before reaching the lake they plan to follow to salvation. Along the way they add a member to their group, a "gypsy" girl named Irena (Saoirse Ronan) who raises the spirits of the men and proves to be a hardy survivalist. Upon reaching the border, their celebrations are cut short when they realize that Mongolia, too, has come under the influence of Communism. With few choices, Janusz leads his friends further overland in an attempt to make it to India, some 4,000 miles from where they originally started.

With a great cast and a compelling storyline, "The Way Back" should be a lot better than it is. The performances are all admirable if underwhelming and each actor holds his own within what they're given to work with. Harris is a calming influence over the whole film, Sturgess is good as the quiet-yet-strong man with the plan, and Ronan sufficiently provides a little bit of sunshine to the darkness. The cinematography is INCREDIBLE. From the Siberian forests to the Gobi desert, the landscape shots are plentiful and magnificent, perfectly embodying the vast and desolate settings the group continually finds themselves in.

Yet for all its merits, "The Way Back" is surprisingly void of emotion or at least it was for me. I liked all the characters and wanted them to survive (naturally) but it wasn't painful to watch them struggle or inevitably succumb to nature. Director Peter Weir simply tells a story rather than pulling you into the narrative and the movie suffers drastically because of this. You get the feeling that there was so much to this story (which is based on a supposedly non-fiction book) that Weir and his writing partners had to trim a lot of fat to bring the runtime down and in doing so, they cut out all connection and exposition. It's like reading a rather long magazine article on these events rather than taking in an epic, two hour story of survival. "The Way Back" is still worth a viewing and I certainly didn't hate my life while watching, but it is a case of what you get when "what could have been" is a great deal more than "what actually is."

Grade: B-

"THOR"

in ,

For me, the beginning of summer isn’t signified by the length of daylight or the end of the school year since that has zero impact on me these days. It’s certainly not a change in the weather. I live in Texas; it’s been hot enough to count as summer for a month. No, the beginning of summer is fluid; it changes year-to-year and it’s based on one thing and one thing alone: when does the first real summer blockbuster open? With that in mind, dear readers, let me officially tell you it’s time to break out the flip flops and swimsuits, crank up the AC, and fire up the grill. “Thor” is here and it’s brought summer with it.

The son of the great Norse god Odin (Anthony Hopkins), Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is an arrogant, brutish king-in-waiting within the kingdom of Asgard. Already strong, Thor is emboldened by the power of a mighty hammer with which he seeks war and destruction. After inciting a battle with an ancient foe (frost giants), Thor is stripped of his power and banished to earth along with the hammer he so cherishes. Stumbling through a dark New Mexico desert, Thor is struck by a van carrying scientist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and her pair of companions (Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings) who take him in and help him acclimate to his new surroundings. After failing to remove the hammer from its resting place (while it is being watched and examined by our old friends S.H.I.E.L.D., the organization that pops up throughout the Marvel universe), Thor resigns himself to a mortal life. At the same time, however, his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has taken the throne in Asgard and given into his darker nature, causing a ton of trouble that only Thor can stop.

There is an awful lot to like about “Thor.” Kenneth Branagh seemed an odd choice to direct such an FX-heavy, comic book flick. I mean, I love Stan Lee but he’s no Shakespeare. Surprisingly, Branagh seems a natural. The scene structure, backgrounds, and cinematography are all brilliant, not to mention the stunning special effects which are truly awesome. Branagh (and a host of screenwriters) also does an excellent job of giving us the basic information about Thor and the world he lives in without bogging the film down in an extensive origin story. There are a lot of nerds out there who have grown weary of origin films and while I’m not sure I’m in that camp, I can understand the discontent. What you get here is really a crash course in the mythology of one of Marvel’s lesser known superstars. (I know several people who only knew of Thor as he relates to “Adventures in Babysitting.”) There’s no doubt “Thor” is a setup for sequels and “The Avengers” movie next year, and at times that thinness shows through, but for the most part that’s easy to overlook and a light hearted, brighter superhero movie is kind of refreshing these days.

From an acting standpoint, I think “Thor” comes down directly to the writing. Some of the actors were given good source material to work with and their characters shine through. Some were not and these characters are flat and underdeveloped. Hemsworth embodies the attitude, physique, and behavior of Thor magnificently. Much like Robert Downey, Jr. was the perfect choice to play Tony Stark, Hemsworth gives you the impression that he is Thor in a way. He seems comfortable in what amounts to his first leading role and the film feeds off of his confidence. Hopkins, meanwhile, gives a performance that temporarily makes you forget the laughable career choices he’s made over the past decade. He even has a few moments that harken back to his former glory wherein he commands your attention. I honestly can’t remember the last time he was able to do that. Skarsgard and Clark Gregg (reprising his role as S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Coulson) also chime in with flair and Skarsgard even shows a hint of comedic timing. And as the gatekeeper who makes it possible for the Asgardians to cross into their other realms, Idris Elba steals every scene he’s in. I would watch an entire movie just about that guy.

On the flip side, the rest of the supporting cast is seriously hamstrung by corny dialogue and weak plot points. Loki, for one, is poorly developed. His mischievous nature and fascination with the gray parts of morality is more stated than illustrated which takes away from his impact. Hiddleston does an admirable job but the character is just too threadbare to allow for much surprise when he does turn the corner toward evil. Thor’s warriors (led by Ray Stevenson) are all horribly cliché and left me wincing more than once. Likewise, as an intern to Dr. Foster, Dennings is neither humorous nor relevant to the film in any way. She could have been cut out without “Thor” missing a beat. Personally, I’ve yet to enjoy Dennings in anything. I don’t get her appeal and this character did nothing to enhance that view.

More importantly, Portman’s Dr. Foster is an extremely monotone, one dimensional character. Unlike her intern, Foster is important to both this film and the inevitable sequels and yet Portman is given next to nothing to work with which I don’t understand on any level. If you’re going to write a throwaway female character, then save some money and cast Megan Fox or someone similar. In no way am I saying I want to see someone like Fox playing a genius scientist (remember Denise Richards in “The World Is Not Enough”?). I’m just saying it doesn’t make sense to cast someone as talented as Portman and give her a mindless character that borders on damsel-in-distress foolishness. This simply isn’t a well-rounded script and in no area is that on display more than in the shallow love story shared by Thor and Foster. The pair knows each other for approximately 48 hours before Thor goes off to save the world and yet somehow their connection somehow transcends the vast universe. Weaksauce.

I don’t wish to sound overly critical of “Thor.” For the most part, it is a great deal of fun and a more than solid introduction to the hero himself and continuation of the “Avengers” series. I just wanted a little more from the story and more quality material for the outstanding cast to work within. Still, “Thor” is at times magical and gives Hemsworth a chance to literally burst into the mainstream consciousness. And if nothing else, it is exactly the type of movie you crave to jumpstart the summer and get this year’s movie calendar moving in the right direction.

Grade: B+

I can’t be alone in my dislike of Kat Dennings,
Brian

NOTE: If you’re a true nerd, make sure you stay through the ending credits for a sneak peak of things to come.

Care for another take? Check out Movie Muse's eerily similar opinion. (Every once in a while it's nice to link to someone who just about agrees with me.)

A Life In Movies

in ,

Fandango Groovers Movie Blog is hosting an event called "A Life in Movies" this weekend. The idea is to list your favorite film from each year of your life. This is my entry and I encourage you all to head over to Groovers and check out the full project. Some pretty cool lists out there.

1983 - "Return of the Jedi" - Easiest choice on the list. If I'd been alive in 1977 or 1980, "Star Wars" and "Empire" would top those years as well.
1984 - "Ghostbusters" - Not a great year for movies all around but "Ghostbusters" is still a comedic classic and probably has my favorite Bill Murray performance.

1985 - "The Goonies" - Tough call between "Goonies" and "Back to the Future" but I had to go with my heart. Goonies R Good Enough, after all.

1986 - "Stand by Me" - The quintessential coming of age film in my opinion.

1987 - "The Untouchables" - Sure, it's a bit over the top at times but "Untouchables" has two or three of my all time favorite scenes. The train station shootout...amazing.

1988 - "Die Hard" - Greatest action movie ever. 'Nuff said.

1989 - "When Harry Met Sally" - Debated between this and "Batman." In the end, "WHMS" is my favorite romance ever and "Batman" is slightly overshadowed by "Dark Knight."

1990 - "Home Alone" - The most quotable film of my lifetime until "Anchorman."

1991 - "Terminator 2" - Not a lot of choices for '91 but this is definitely one of the best sci-fi action movies ever. Arnie's best?

1992 - "Patriot Games" - There's just something awesome about Harrison Ford and Sean Bean trying to kill each other.

1993 - "Jurassic Park" and "Tombstone" - This was a "Sophie's Choice" situation that I just couldn't handle. Both of these are in my top 10 favorite movies ever. I can't choose and you can't make me.

1994 - "The Shawshank Redemption" - There are some GREAT movies from 1994 ("Forrest Gump" is not one of them, by the way) but "Shawshank" is my continual choice for "Best Movie Of All Time" and I imagine I will argue that to my grave.

1995 - "Heat" - Tough three way race here between "Heat," "Braveheart," and "Toy Story." "Heat" is almost a perfect movie, though, hard to go against.

1996 - "Independence Day" - Hey, this list is "favorite movies" not "best movies." This was the first real summer blockbuster that I was a part of.

1997 - "LA Confidential" - Noir classic that's exceedingly rewatchable.

1998 - "Saving Private Ryan" - Best war movie ever in my book. Each viewing brings me a new respect for this film and a renewed hatred for "Shakespeare in Love."

1999 - "Office Space" - A cult classic and one of the funniest movies I've ever seen.

2000 - "Almost Famous" - Gets almost no love anymore but very few movies make me happier than "AF." Top 10 favorite movie. Simply glorious.

2001 - "Ocean's 11" - I would wager that since I started purchasing DVDs about a decade ago, I haven't watched any movie as many times as I have "O11."

2002 - "Signs" - Totally underrated film that I still argue about with friends and family.

2003 - "Lord of the Rings" - I'm combining all three chapters of LOTR because really, they're all one giant, epic film, and anyway it wouldn't have been fun to list "Fellowship" in '01, "Towers" in '02, and "King" in '03, which is what I'd have to do otherwise.

2004 - "Anchorman" - Tough call between this and "The Incredibles," I just couldn't make a list of favorite movies without listing "Anchorman." The most rewatchable film of the decade.

2005 - "Serenity" - Sci-fi nerdiness aside, "Serenity" would be a really good action-comedy in its own right. Then you add in the "Firefly" mythos...so good.

2006 - "Casino Royale" - Not my favorite year in film but "Casino Royale" will always hold a special place in my heart for reinvigorating a stale James Bond series. Second place goes to "The Departed."

2007 - "Into the Wild" - Based upon what is probably my favorite non-fiction book, "Into the Wild" manages to crush me every time I watch it. Honorable mention to "No Country For Old Men," the Coen's masterpiece.

2008 - "Dark Knight" - Greatest superhero movie of all time.

2009 - "It Might Get Loud" - The only documentary to make the list, I am completely enthralled by "Loud" every time I watch. It just doesn't get much better than Jack White and Jimmy Page in the same room. Could have gone with "Star Trek" here, too, though.

2010 - "Inception" -  I don't think I will ever forget the feeling I had after seeing "Inception" for the first time. Complete and total genius.

HBO Special - "Bram Stoker's Dracula"

in ,

A supposedly-accurate retelling of the literary classic, "Dracula" begins with the creation of the great vampire (Gary Oldman) himself and the events which led to his decision. Some years later, a young law clerk named Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) is sent to Dracula's Translyvanian estate to investigate the man who has bough up a chunk of property in London. Dracula soon realizes that Harker's fiance, Mina, is the reincarnation of his lost love. Imprisoning Harker, Dracula makes haste to London where he first bites and enslaves Mina's best friend, Lucy (Sadie Frost), drawing upon her life and making himself appear young again, a trait which allows him to seduce Mina. All of these strange events draw the attention of Doctor Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins), who soon realizes that the king of all vampires is on the loose and setting the stage for a dramatic battle between good and evil.

I found "Dracula" to be a bit of a roller coaster. There are some truly inspired moments and then some that completely fall flat. The very idea of Gary Oldman as a classic villain is, of course, magnificent and Oldman holds up his end of the bargain. If there's a better actor than Oldman, I don't know who it is. His Dracula is menacing but alluring, a perfect balance for the role. Likewise, director Francis Ford Coppola creates a dark, tension-filled atmosphere for his characters to work within and that suits "Dracula" well. The shot selection and scene setting is excellent, even if the scenes don't always flow together brilliantly. There's also a natural vein of fear that runs through this movie and I imagine some of the scenes would be quite scary if I was viewing in a dark theater instead of my home TV during the middle of the day. And I, for one, felt the film's open ended conclusion is glorious and fitting, a point I know other viewers might dispute.

On the down side, "Dracula" suffers from 80s hangover wherein it occasionally falls into unnecessary moments of over-the-top absurdity. Some of the more "frightening" moments are hindered by ridiculous, cliche dialogue and some of the special effects seem like they belong in a Stephen King made-for-TV movie, not a $50 million dollar horror epic. There's also a scene or two that I understand are based upon the novel but probably should have been left on the book stand. And then we come to Keanu Reeves. Good gracious. What an incredible drain he is on this movie. Every time he spoke I felt myself slip closer and closer to a coma and was only revived by Oldman ripping the place apart with awesomeness. Reeves has a place in Hollywood (see: "Matrix" and "Bill and Ted's") but this isn't it. He is horribly miscast and the only saving grace concerning this decision is that his role is fairly limited; otherwise, I'm not sure I could have made it through. Just...I mean...what were you thinking, FFC?! Painful. These missteps don't completely overshadow an excellent performance from Oldman or the glorious, appealingly dark overtones of "Dracula" as a whole but they do take away from the overall impact and left me wanting more.

Grade: B

"Fast Five"

in ,

I went into “Fast Five” in the company of two guys who had never seen any of the previous films in the series. After giving them a brief primer on the extensive storyline that they were about to walk into, we sat down for what proved to be a gloriously absurd open that fits beautifully. Only a minute or two in, one of my friends gave me the, “that’s not possible” look and began to register an appropriate complaint. I quickly cut him off and said simply, “Either set your sense of reality aside for the next two hours or leave right now.” He obliged and darnit if he didn’t have himself a stinking good time. And that’s the key to “Fast Five” or any action film like it: either get on board for the fast paced ridiculousness that’s about to unfold or stay out of its path altogether. If you do that, you’re almost bound to enjoy yourself because man, this movie is a blast.

Starting where its predecessor left off, “Fast Five” opens on Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker) and Mia Toretto (Jordana Brewster) breaking Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) out of a prison bus and immediately going on the run to Rio De Janeiro. Soon the trio has joined a crew undertaking a risky heist at the behest of Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida), a crime boss with a vast influence in Brazil. Inevitably, the job goes awry and garners the attention of the American feds who send special agent Hobbs (The Rock) and his team to track our heroes down. While being pursued by both Reyes and Hobbs, O’Connor and the Torettos assemble a crack team of fellow thieves to take on a huge job which has very little chance of success.

At times “Fast Five” plays out more like a sequel to “The Italian Job” than another entry in the “FF” series. The fact that it’s set in Brazil only adds to that “Italian Job” feel. (For the uninitiated, the oft-rumored, oft-denied “Italian Job” sequel was supposed to be set in Brazil and would be titled, obviously, “The Brazilian Job.”) There are far fewer car races and chases than in the other “FF” movies and much more attention is made to the story element, something that this franchise has been known to ignore at times in the past. “Fast Five” is a heist movie first, car movie second and for me, the combination works. It isn’t a great story, mind you; rather, it’s not a perfectly executed story. There are an ABUNDANCE of plot holes that are covered over by one character or another saying something to the effect of, “Just trust me” or “You don’t want to know.” The first time this happened I was annoyed but the subsequent instances just added to the “yes, we know this is ridiculous” vibe that the entire movie (and really the entire franchise) relishes in. “Fast Five” embraces the spirit of “Italian Job” and the “Ocean’s” movies but lacks some of the wit and intelligence that those films displayed.

On the flip side, whereas those movies tread lightly (relatively speaking) on the more ridiculous elements of their storylines, “Fast Five” throws the throttle back and runs right through all rules of realism. In short, I feel like the makers of “Italian Job” would have you believe that most of the events of that movie could happen whereas the geniuses behind “Fast Five” want to make sure you know that they know that none of this could ever happen. This fact gives the viewer complete freedom to ignore the laws of physics and gravity and simply enjoy the ride. I, for one, really appreciate this because the action sequences are dynamic and wholly entertaining and it would be a shame to take away from these with the restrictions of reality. The final sequence alone is one of the most insane, ridiculous, and deliciously satisfying action scenes I’ve ever seen and demonstrates exactly why director Justin Lin is fast becoming a go-to guy in the industry.

Performance wise, “Fast Five” gives you exactly what you expect. Walker is kind of an awful actor in my book but he fits O’Conner well, a quality that allows him a comfort zone wherein you don’t notice how bad he sucks (like Keanu Reeves with Ted Logan). Diesel, meanwhile, is his usual menacing, baller self. I’m a big fan of Diesel and if I’m being honest, I would wish for him more meaningful roles that Dom Toretto. But at the end of the day, you have to take what work you can get and if he’s not going to get superstar roles, I would much prefer to see Diesel at his cool and head-cracking best here than in “Babylon A.D.” or the like. In an action movie, the next best thing to hiring great actors is hiring actors who have great chemistry and this cast has that in bunches. The supporting actors, including Tyrese Gibson and Chris (Ludacris) Bridges, all work seamlessly within the framework of the movie. In all honesty, The Rock is the only actor who doesn’t quite fit in with the others, at least in the beginning. Granted, he is given next to nothing to work with from a dialogue standpoint. But while Diesel and Walker thrive in the tongue-in-cheek, fun atmosphere that Lin creates, The Rock struggles mightily to find his tone. He seems to take his role too seriously and as a result, his lines are painfully flat. As the movie progresses, he works his way into a groove but seriously, some of his early scenes are ROUGH.

As I said in the opening paragraph, chances are your level of enjoyment when it comes to “Fast Five” will depend directly on your ability (see: “willingness”) to ignore that nagging voice that says, “you can’t jump out of a fast moving car into a river 100 feet below and live to tell the tale.” Again I say, if you can’t do that, there are other movies for you to see. I myself, though, had no qualms about leaving the baggage of reality at the door and what a rockin’ awesome time I had because of it. The heist plotline, even if it is done a bit shoddily, adds an exciting element to “Fast Five” and makes it perhaps the best of the franchise.

Grade: B+

Vin Diesel has to be the best stage name ever,
Brian

Blu Ray Review - "Faster"

in ,

Immediately following his release from prison, a convict (The Rock) known only as "Driver" walks into an office building and shoots a cubicle-dwelling employee (Courtney Gains). When a detective named Cicero (Carla Gugino) and an aging officer referred to as "Cop" (Billy Bob Thornton) pick up the case, they soon discover that Driver was once the driver (shocking, I know) for a crew led by his brother (Matt Gerald). After their last heist, which put Driver in jail, they were ambushed by another group who stole their ill-gotten goods, slit the brother's throat, and put a bullet in the back of Driver's head, an injury from which he miraculously lived through. Now armed with a list of all those involved with his brother's death, Driver is out for vengeance, two steps ahead of the cops and only one step ahead of a hired killer (Oliver Jackson-Cohen) intent on bringing him down.

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of The Rock. I'm learning, however, that my dislike for the guy has more to do with the roles that he gets shoehorned into. If he's asked to be just an action star, I can dig him. If he's asked to make me laugh, however, I want out immediately. So in essence, "Faster" is the perfect movie for him. I mean, his character doesn't even have a name! How could he not excel in that setting? The result is a perfectly reasonable, "It's late and I still have some work to do and I've already watched Sportscenter twice so I'll watch this" action movie. I actually enjoyed it and I didn't really expect to. It's absurd, of course, and contains a fair number of action movie cliches that were beaten into the ground long before 2010 rolled around. But as far as action sequences go, "Faster" brings the goods and even implements a few unexpected touches (Killer, in particular, is a cool concept in theory) that add to the experience.

What keeps this from being a "B" or "B-" in my book is the use of the aforementioned Killer. An exceedingly interesting character who has made billions in the technology industry and takes only $1 for each of his hits, Killer is never developed properly. He and his girlfriend, Lily (Maggie Grace), take up a prominent side plot in "Faster" but ultimately do nothing but allow time for Driver to get from one victim to the next, like a bad "SNL" bit that sits between two elaborate (and better) sketches. I was left to want either more or less of Killer; either leave him in the shadows and allow him to stay a mysterious figure or fully flesh out his character in a manner that is more fitting of his potential awesomeness. Instead we get the middle ground which was a real bummer for me. Still, though, if you're looking for an adrenaline-filled 98 minutes, you could do a lot worse than "Faster."

Grade: C+

Blu Ray Review - "Hereafter"

in ,

Following the "Crash" method, "Hereafter" tells its story in three parts, three vignettes about death that ultimately tie together. The first story concerns a French reporter named Marie (Cecile De France). While on vacation on a tropical island, Marie very nearly dies during a tsunami. After being rescued at the very last possible moment, she remembers the visions that she had while underwater and believes that she has touched the void, an experience that obviously changes her. The second story follows Jason and Marcus (Frankie and George McLaren), twin boys with a drugged-out mother. After being sent on an errand, Jason is chased by a gang of teenagers and ends up running into traffic where a truck hits and kills him. The loss throws Marcus into a tail spin and he spends the majority of his subsequent screen time looking for answers about death. The third story revolves around George (Matt Damon), a man blessed (or cursed) with a genuine psychic ability. After years of dealing with death, George has abandoned his calling and works at a factory to the chagrin of his brother, Billy (Jay Mohr). After Billy talks him into rediscovering his ability, George skips town and comes in contact with our other two protagonists, bringing the stories together.

While it positions itself as part character study, part exploration into the realm of spirituality, "Hereafter" leans much more heavily upon the character side of that equation, requiring a lot of its actors. I'm not sure the majority of the cast was up for this. Damon is strong as always. George's battle between his own desire to keep his talent hidden and the constant push to the contrary of almost everyone around him is the most emotionally relevant portion of the movie. I was far more invested in Damon's vignette than I was the others, though I am an unabashed Damon fan and may not be entirely unbiased. For her part, France provides a fairly compelling performance but one that doesn't truly connect with the viewer. Perhaps she wasn't given a lot to work with as I found Peter Morgan's script to be lacking, but regardless, Marie comes across as somewhat hollow. And then we have the McLaren twins. I doubt you will ever see me bash on a child actor for being a bad actor. They're kids, most of them aren't so great as of yet. That said, I will never understand a seasoned, established director casting children who simply cannot act to play important roles. These poor kids are kind of awful and they suck the momentum out of every scene that they're in. Near the conclusion, what should be the most riveting and touching scene of the movie is instead cut down by a kid trying to be an actor and falling miserably short. The McLarens try hard, bless them, but in all honesty, their involvement robs "Hereafter" of its best storyline.

"Hereafter" is a strange departure from the norm for director Clint Eastwood and it kind of leaves you wondering what was going on in his own life when he decided to make this film. There's a definite sense of questioning within the very fabric of the movie's makeup which could have been drawn upon with more intensity and significance than it ultimately is. The special effects are good, the shot selection and use of color is excellent, resulting in what is, at times, a technically beautiful film, yet it lacks the heart needed to live up to its promise. "Hereafter" is a bit shallow when it's all said and done. It is a surface exploration into the Unknown that leaves the viewer feeling dissatisfied.

Grade: B-

Netflix Instant Review - "Eight Met Out"

in ,

The concept of cheating in sports is nothing new or even that shocking anymore. Point shaving scandals pop up in basketball every now and then, baseball was riddled with steroids for a decade, and you basically can't run a clean college football program anymore. But in an era that has been desensitized by revelations of athletic misconduct, the idea of throwing games, and more importantly, almost an entire team participating in the throw, is shocking and almost unheard of in American professional sports. That is, with the exception of the infamous Black Sox scandal, the events of which are illustrated in "Eight Men Out." 1n 1919, at least eight members of the Chicago White Sox, disgruntled by the unfair treatment they received from the team's owner and money being scarse, took $10,000 apiece to do the unthinkable. Led by Chick Gandil (Michael Rooker) and Eddie Cicotte (David Straithairn), the Sox threw the World Series, allowing the Cincinnati Reds to take home the title and prompting an investigation that in some ways would revolutionize the game of baseball and all other professional sports leagues in America.

The real heart (and tragedy) of "Eight Men Out" lies in the stories of Shoeless Joe Jackson (D.B. Sweeney) and Buck Weaver (John Cusack). The film (and the book upon which it is based) shows Weaver taking part in the initial meeting with his teammates but reneging on his decision to help throw the games. Weaver, in fact, had an outstanding World Series for himself. Jackson, meanwhile, is depicted as having never participated in the fix, though he knew what his teammates were up to. A simple man who couldn't even read, Jackson seemed an unlikely type to throw a game and historically speaking, each of the players involved in the Black Sox scandal professed Jackson's innocense. Still, however, Jackson and Weaver were grouped with the rest of the cheaters and while a jury found the White Sox innocent, Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis (John Anderson), the first commissioner of baseball, eventually handed out lifetime bans to all of the players involved, including Jackson and Weaver. To this day, Jackson, considered to be one of the greatest players of all time, is not in the Hall of Fame because of the events of "Eight Men Out."

That's a longer summary than I usually like to give but I actually knew a bit about this story to begin with and have always been slightly enamored with these events. I'm not sure why it's taken me so long to see this film for myself. From a movie standpoint, you could do a LOT worse than "Eight Men Out." The cast is excellent with a number of recognizable faces playing even small parts throughout. Cusack and Sweeney are both convincing in their sympathetic positions (even if I am weirded out by how similar those two looked in 1988; seriously, they could be brothers). Maybe more importantly, though, the rest of the cast do an excellent job of conveying the various emotions and situations that led to the players' decisions to throw the Series. Some are natural gamblers, some know their time on the field is nearing its conclusion, some, like Straithairn's Cicotte, just need some financial stability that the franchise isn't providing. This isn't a black-and-white issue as it seems at first glance and the John Sayles script allows the actors a lot of room to operate within the gray. (Sayles also directed and plays a very important part.)

There is a definite hint of over-the-top ridiculousness that plagued the 80s and the baseball action itself is, at times, somewhat lame. I also have no idea how accurate the movie is (though it is based on the 1965 book that is considered to be the definitive authority on the events) and I think you can certainly pick out some moments that have the Hollywood feel to them. But none of this takes away from the overall entertaining and thoroughly engrossing tale of "Eight Men Out."

Grade: B+

Blu Ray Review - "Skyline"

in ,

In Los Angeles for his best friend's (Donald Faison) birthday party, Jarrod (Eric Balfour) and his girlfriend Elaine (Scottie Thompson) awaken to a whole new world. Aliens have come to earth, dropping floating beams of electric blue lights that draws humans in like a moth to flame. They watch as people in the streets are literally sucked up into the light and disappear inside the various alien craft that now litter the skies of Los Angeles. Foiled in their attempts to escape (and losing members of their group along the way), the friends hole up inside a luxury condo and watch as the world they knew comes crashing down.

If that summary made "Skyline" sound even remotely appealing, please accept my profuse apology and give serious attention to the following paragraph.

I see a lot of movies, dear readers. Way more than the average person. And my love for science fiction has been well documented. I've willingly rewatched "Starship Troopers" and recently at that. So take that into consideration when I say "Skyline" is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Under no circumstances should ANYONE see this movie and I feel like the cast of this atrocity would probably agree with me. When trying to decide whether a bad movie is simply that or if it belongs in the "worst I've ever seen" category, I look for only one thing: were there ten good/enjoyable minutes somewhere in said movie's runtime? Just ten short minutes that didn't make me want to scratch my own eyeballs out. The answer here is a resounding "no". Every single aspect of "Skyline" is abysmal.

Let's start with the casting. What is Donald Faison doing in this movie?! His scenes (which are SPOILER ALERT mercifully cut short) play out as if he thought he was working on a sci-fi spoof and no one on set had the heart to tell him otherwise. I'm a Faison fan but gracious, his screen time is almost unbearable. The other actors, while more fitting of their characters, do not, for one scene, give you the feeling that any of them have acted before. Ever. ANYWHERE. Like Faison, I actually quite like Balfour and think he's got something to offer as a supporting actor. But I would hope he doesn't even put this on his resume. He appears lost and unconvincing, though I guess I can't really blame him (or anyone else) given the source material they had to work with. Directing partners the Brothers Strauss continually put their characters in dumb, cliche, and even at times boring situations that do little to impress. The dialogue is oppressive, the character interactions are meaningless, and the special effects are clunky and super CGI-y.

Then we come to the aliens that, for lack of a better term, suck. Their major weapon is bascially a human-sized bug zapper. Weaksauce. There's no backstory as to why they're here, setting the stage for what I can only guess was supposed to be a shocking reveal that (SPOILER ALERT) they're only here to harvest our brains. I think. Honestly, I'm not even sure that's the point, that was just what I could glean in between sticking forks in my eyes and ears. I completely checked out when our hero, full of adrenaline, punches an alien to death. Mind you, this scene came after we witnessed aliens not only surviving but thriving while being hacked with an axe, rammed with a Cadillac Escalade, and thumped with a NUCLEAR BOMB. So, yeah, of course they would be susceptible to fisticuffs. It absolutely shocks me that trustworthy critics went so fervently after "Battle: Los Angeles" and for all intents and purposes, left this train wreck alone by just calling it a bad movie. It's not a bad movie. It's a TERRIBLE movie! I would rather watch "The Last Airbender" again over sitting through another viewing of this heap of garbage, which is without question the worst movie I've seen from 2010. I implore all of you to stay away from "Skyline."

Grade: F

"Hanna"

in ,

There are times in life when it becomes readily apparent that your opinion is not the widely held view. Whether it is politics and religion or something less serious but no less important like sports or movies, you know that, for good or bad, when you speak your opinion, it will be unpopular. I’m not unfamiliar with this phenomenon (I’m a born and raised Texan and I hate the Cowboys) but it’s rare that it happens to me in the movie realm. That is, after all, the point of The Soap Box Office: to deliver movie reviews for the average movie fan, written by the average movie fan. Sure, I often disagree with the hardened, disillusioned critics but I usually expect, relatively speaking, to agree with the majority of my friends around the blogosphere and the average moviegoer who comes across this platform. That is not the case this time around. But I believe that there’s no point in having an opinion if you’re not going to defend it (and isn’t that what blogging is all about, anyway?) so let’s just go ahead and get everything out in the open: I hated “Hanna.”

Up to the outset of “Hanna”, the title character (Saoirse Ronan) has spent her entire life living an amenity-free lifestyle in a shack near the Arctic Circle with her father, ex-superspy Erik Heller (Eric Bana). Hanna is just your typical 16 year old girl. Her hobbies include speaking multiple languages, hunting elk with a bow, and learning new ways to kill a man. Heller has been preparing her for a fight with CIA bigwig Marissa Wiegler (Cate Blanchett) who is responsible for the little family’s forced hibernation. Soon, Hanna feels she is ready for her challenge and Heller allows Wiegler to be alerted to her presence. After being captured, Hanna’s true abilities are put on display when she kills a Wiegler impersonator and escapes from a high-security holding facility, going on the run to meet back up with Heller. Wiegler pursues and her goon, Isaacs (Tom Hollander), pursue, however, and the result is a tension-filled chase through some of the seedier areas across Eurasia.

I can’t ever remember fighting with more vigor to like a movie I ended up not liking than I did with “Hanna.” Going in, I expected to come out with a positive review and I tried really, really hard to make that happen. Alas, it just wasn’t to be. I should note, first of all, that Ronan gives a tremendous performance. A fine actress to begin with, this could be one of those defining roles that dictates a higher-quality of offers as her career progresses. She brings the appropriate mix of creepiness and naïve curiosity that you would expect from a teenage killing machine who, for the first time, has been given an ounce of freedom. Her portrayal is award worthy. I also appreciate what director Joe Wright is trying to do here and there’s no denying he knows how to create a scene. Some of the scenes in “Hanna” are magnificent, particularly the action sequences which mesh a bit of the stylized flash of the “Bourne” series with the more traditional look of older action flicks.

But those great scenes are part of my problem with “Hanna.” For me, they are almost stand-alone moments of greatness that don’t connect; there’s no fluidity from one scene to the next. In fact, I often felt that each sequence had a completely different tone than the next, almost like reading a book by two different authors who took turns penning alternating chapters. I get that Wright and his screenwriters (Seth Lochhead and David Farr) tried to capture the conflict between Hanna’s training and the undeniable desire to just be a teenage girl but there’s a real struggle to establish the balance between those two concepts, creating an identity crisis or at least an unsteady tone. It comes across as if Jason Bourne and Nell had a socially retarded love child which is frustrating given, again, how much Ronan gives to the role. In addition, I had a great deal of trouble connecting with any of the characters (outside of Hanna). They weren’t so much caricatures as they were simply inhuman. The hippie parents Hanna comes across during her escape, the strange ally who resides inside a defunct amusement park, and the vicious bad guy who is certainly creepy but only to the extent of a CBS procedural…none of them are relatable. Wright brings to the audience’s attention more creeps and weirdos than have been seen on screen since “Freaks.” That would be fine if they were compelling or even disturbing characters. Instead, they are just confusing and distracting, which brings me to the score.

Never in my life have I been more distracted by a score than I was throughout “Hanna.” Let me clarify: I quite liked the score and I’m generally a fan of the techno/progressive score that has become popular lately. When used correctly, I think there’s no questioning the asset a score like this one (done by the Chemical Brothers) can be for a film. It’s just used horribly. Really, it’s not just the score. It’s the shot selection, lighting, and various production elements combined with the score that completely ruined “Hanna” for me. Wright doesn’t use the score to drive his film; instead, he blows your eardrums out with it and even makes a point of highlighting it. One scene in particular, when Hanna escapes from her prison, feels like it was designed with the specific intention of playing to the score rather than the other way around. The overwhelmingly loud sound mix is obnoxious and the flashing lights/scene cuts are to the level of inducing a seizure. Maybe I’m just getting old but I’m not kidding when I say my head was pounding upon leaving the theater. These were huge missteps in my opinions, not to mention exceedingly distracting.

In the end, “Hanna” is, to quote the Bard, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” I can’t call it a bad movie; not with Ronan’s fine acting performance and some truly awesome scenes (not to mention the positive reviews of many people whom I trust). I just hate it. It has a strong story and an excellent concept, to be sure, but the execution is porous in my book and I could not get over the potholes in the road it travels.

Grade: C

I’m a little ticked at myself for not liking this,
Brian

Care for a second opinion? Check out Cinema Slants much more positive (and probably more accurate, given the buzz around my favorite blogs) review here.

The Documentary Project - Volume 6: "Exit Through the Gift Shop"

in ,

"Exit Through the Gift Shop" is sort of a documentary within a documentary. Or at least that's what it positions itself as, which is indeed a big part of its intrigue. We begin with Thierry Guetta, a French businessman whose feels his Los Angeles lifestyle isn't complete without a video camera in his hands. He films everything from normal, every day occurrences to the big events of his family. Upon a visit to France, Thierry meets a cousin of his who goes by the name Space Invader and is a well known figure in the underground street art world (read: "graffiti"). Fascinated by Invader's work, Thierry begins following him and his compatriots around at night, filming their exploits and soon becomes a fixture of the street art world himself. Thierry sets his sights higher, though, and uses his connections to get an introduction to Banksy, the world's preeminent street artist. Thierry does several projects with Banksy, all the while shooting footage for a film that doesn't really exist. When Banksy asks Thierry to show him his documentary, Theirry puts together a hasty, haphazard film that alerts Banksy to the fact that his would-be biographer (as it were) is simply a determined fan. Intrigued, Banksy flips the script and turns the camera on Thierry, tasking him with developing his own brand of street art and documenting the results for the viewer.

I can hardly think of a film that has caused me more writer's block than "Gift Shop." I've had a devil of a time trying to frame my thoughts into words and more importantly, to pinpoint what exactly there is to analyze. In truth, there's not a whole lot of content in this movie to critique or discuss. That's not to say it's a bad movie. In fact it is extremely well made and wholly compelling. I rarely sit and watch a movie without at least flipping through Twitter on my phone or doing a bit of work on my laptop. That's just what I do. Otherwise the ADD takes over and I can't concentrate on the film. With "Gift Shop", however, I sat staring at the screen for 87 minutes, my brow furrowed and my arms crossed, trying to decipher what in the world I was watching. It is clear (whether you've followed the movie's backstory to this point or simply come across it on Netflix Instant) that the goal of "Gift Shop" is to mess with your head first and inform (read: "advertise") second.

Banksy is a shrouded figure, his face un-shown and his voice auto tuned. Yet it becomes readily apparent that the relationship between himself and Thierry is much closer than documenter and subject (even after they switch places). I'm not sure exactly what that relationship is and I suppose that's the point. It seems easy to me to say that Banksy and Thierry are the same person or at least are working together to display Banksy's work and heighten his notoriety. But that feels overly simple and the presentation is so obvious as to leave me wondering if that isn't exactly what Banksy/Thierry/whoever the freak this guy is wanted me to think. The mind game would be quite annoying, honestly, if it weren't so darn interesting. In the days following my "Gift Shop" viewing, I routinely found myself absentmindedly thinking about the film, trying to figure out what my own personal conclusion is. And to be frank, dear readers, I'm still not sure. It's a weird, twisted, even frustrating documentary (if it can even be called a documentary which I'm not sure it really qualifies for) that you should honestly just see for yourself so that you, too, can be confused and maddeningly intrigued.

Grade: B+