Baltasar Kormákur was the star in the Icelandic movie Reykjavík-Rotterdam. And now he is the director of American remake. In the original, we have a small flick about a sailor kicked off his ship after getting caught smuggling. He lives an unsatisfactory life as a security guard and with the help of a friend, gets back on the boats in order to take one more try at lucrative smuggling. In the remake, Mark Wahlberg is an ex-smuggler who got out of the business before it ruined his life. He was a legend in the life and it is his rep that drags him back into it, after his nephew gets in too deep with a nasty thug, played by Giovanni Ribisi.
I am not sure how the star of one movie gets the job to direct a remake of his biggest role and I am even less sure it worked out. It is a very typical hollywood caper thriller but not as big-style as I think it should have been. They introduce Wahlberg's Farraday as a legendary retired smuggler. He was known for creative methods on getting big ticket items past the dock authorities. But the job we get to see just doesn't seem all that big. Oh sure, it is big ticket and it has a few twists and turns, but it never really gets to the impress me stage. I felt let down.
But there was something about the movie, something about the small performances, which may have actually been the charm of the original flick. I like to think that the original movie was about the small desperate life of a man working on board freighters between Iceland and the Netherlands. Kormákur gets a great performance out Mark Wahlberg, Ben Foster (who I really think is going to be the next Ryan Gosling) and especially Ribisi, who really revels in being the outrageous thug. There was also the hint of where the movie could have shone more brightly, onboard the ship, captained by the ever wonderful JK Simmons. It obviously takes an experienced crew to pull off the smuggling jobs that happen on ships that trade through international waters. This is where the movie should have focused, on the intricacies of small jobs instead of trying for the bigger waters of an american-style caper. At that, it failed.
In the last few years, amidst the spate of remake-reboot-everything, a few of the most popular franchises from my childhood have been resurrected. Halloween done by Rob Zombie was a decent film not only catching the notes of the original but adding some additional background elements. It was definitely a labor of love on Rob's part. Texas Chainsaw Massacre played the same tune, remaking for the most part but adding more explanation. I have not seen the new Friday the 13th. But why? Why not new horror material instead of all these reboots? The reason most of these had such an impact was because they were fresh and new for their time. That doesn't always work as a premise to do a movie now, anymore than you showing your favourite 80s movie to a teenager of today works -- the audience will not be in the same mindset as you were. They won't get it.
Now, I applaud that the makers of this movie wanted a darker tone. Freddie Kreuger has become far too much the Saturday Night Live skit version of himself. He is the joke that he tells his victims in the movies. Jackie Earle Haley was a brilliant choice as the new Kreuger, a creepy actor (no disrespect meant) capable of sinister dialogue and a dark nature. They also decided to return to Freddy actually abusing the kids, as opposed to just killing them. In today's age of murder spree and serial killers on TV every week, a spree killer of kids is just not that horrifying but child abuse still rings a horror bell. So, they had the basis of a decent reboot. So what went wrong?
The movie ends up being very by the book, which is disappointing. It just lacks any of the actual creepiness of the originals, despite a lower comedic quip factor. It also seemed to be missing something that I did not actually look for in the original. A why? Why did Freddy come back as a vengeful spirit? Normally, following the rules of vengeful spirits, he would have had to have been wronged. But really, he was just foiled. Haley's Kreuger just seemed pathetic as the man, without the psychic fortitude to return as a dream controlling evil spirit. They make him very much the evil man, which lifts us one layer above the unexplained boogey man he was in the original. That movie drew upon the urban myth concept of evil men becoming monsters even after they are destroyed. This one had him just becoming... because. But even with that ignored, the rest of the story and plot around it was just very very straight forward. I doubt we have a rebooted franchise here.
OK, paragraph one starts the reminiscing. You see, when I was a kid, I lived in a neighbourhood which was often the waystation for international engineers taking a job with the local steel production plant or mining corporation. They would come to town for a job, buy a house in the new subdivision, bring in their families and work for a few years before moving on to the new job. Some were from the US, some from Asia and some from the UK. The kids in those families had the best toys and comics. One particularly memorable item I was exposed to were european style comics, those large format hard covered books, the primary ones I remember being Asterix & Obelix and Tin Tin. I loved these books and the adventures within but for some reason, when the kids moved on with their families, so did my fascination. It probably had to do with lack of access. So, Tin Tin remains as not so much a developed interest, as more of a memory of a great interest. I remember thinking it was the greatest thing ever.
One thing I came away from my minor exposure to the series was that they were incredible adventure stories written for adolescent and teen boys. Well, of course girls, but you know demographics from times past -- they knew girls would read them but they were still focused towards boys. They were adventure stories set in the early twentieth century which danced from location to location, from exotic situation to exotic situation. TinTin (who I later learned to pronounce tan-tan, soft n) is a boy reporter without the trappings of family or responsibility (outside his reporting) and gets himself mixed up in crime, treasure hunting and plots to be foiled. As I write this (out loud) I am taken with how much this is the description of what I loved best as an adolescent -- adventure! And yet, I guess the intentional blandness of TinTin himself contributed to my not so lasting fondness for the character.
So, here we are, done with the reminiscing. Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson get together over story telling and CGI technology to tell an adventure story that should be perfectly grand, wonderful and exciting to me. Yet, here we are months after seeing it, and the bright colors and dashing escapades have faded, much like my memories of exactly why I loved TinTin. The CG was impecable, cartoony enough to avoid uncanny valley and realistic enough to get lost in the story. The acting was incredible, especially Andy Serkis as Haddock, the grumpy drunken sailor who I still adore. And there were some scenes, such as the chase down to the harbor, that are so bright and daring, they stuck with me, but in general the movie faded. That kind of peeves me! It shouldn't have! It should have carried me along on a rollercoaster, reviving my love for adventure, not assisting the fading of the past. And I cannot put my finger on exactly why it did not quite work. I wish I had been ill or drunk when watching it, as then I would have an excuse, but really I have to blame Spielberg --- the movie impressed me but just didn't stick with me, and that is a shame.
There's over a month's worth of distance between me and Super 8 right now, which means that the film is hardly fresh in my mind, and I'm having difficulty remembering exactly what I thought of it. Most of what I'm left with is a vague impression of being underwhelmed. I like JJ Abrams, I like what he does with genre material, making it big and thoughtful. The man isn't necessarily a visionary, I don't think he ever truly breaks new ground, but he's just really damn good at what he does. With Super 8, he attempted to replicate "that Spielberg touch" from the late-'70's through early-'80's, and nailed it right on the head, which may, in fact, be the reason why I was left unimpressed by the picture.
Truth is, I understand how amazing a filmmaker Spielberg is, and yet I'm not all that excited by most of his output. In recent years, it's been his inability to close out a film without a lengthy, and unnecessary fourth act, but even in most of his older films, I don't really connect with what he's doing. Spielberg has definite technical proficiency, a prodigal way with the camera, and an understanding of the language of cinema that few other directors do, and for some reason I find the results kind of lackluster. I understand his language, I just don't get too excited by what he has to say.
So with Abrams replicating the Spielberg formula in this film so precisely (but with more lens flares), I have the same detachment I had (still have) with E.T., Close Encounters, the Indiana Jones films and Jaws (yes, darling, even Jaws), all films Abrams cribbed from for Super 8. The story seems like a different take on the set-up of another Abram's production, Cloverfield, but taking a completely different turn with the giant monster angle. In which a group of ambitious teens make their own Super 8 movies, and happen to be filming at the scene of a massive train derailment (immediately stretching the limits of disbelief by having the train miss the kids and their car but decimate everything else around them) which lets loose a (seemingly) malevolent alien life form.
The focus of the film, in true Spielberg-ian style is as much on the characters and their drama as the events happening around them. The kids have their own romantic and strained friendship drama, while also having tremendous parental drama. Meanwhile, the town sheriff tries to figure out what's what when the military seems to be all too tight lipped about the situation. Of course it's up to the kids to figure it all out, and they do, and a hopeful ending for all results.
It's quite formulaic, this movie, but it's Spielberg's formula, as viewed through the lens of JJ Abrams, thus the quality level is damn high. It's a great looking picture with solid acting, top notch effects, grand score, but truly it feels familiar, almost like I've seen it before. There's not a lot of surprises as the story unfolds, and, for me at least, not a lot of excitement. The character drama, which is what should set this apart from the typical summer blockbuster fare, seems if not at odds with the scope of the film, then at least uncomplimentary.
I didn't hate it. I didn't love it. I don't dislike it. I don't really like it either. Just a mild, tepid, neutral reaction.
2009, Miguel Arteta (hey, he also did Cedar Rapids) -- netflix
2011, Richard Ayoade (hey, Moss from IT Crowd) -- netflix
The common mistake people who dislike Michael Cera make about Michael Cera is that he has no range. He has range, narrow range though it is, but range nonetheless. He has range in the same way Woody Allen-the-actor (not Woody Allen-the-writer/director) has range. The characters he plays are all some extension of his normal way of being. To step outside of himself too drastically would more than likely find Cera in awkward, uncomfortable waters. He's not chameleonic. He can't stretch the way a Sam Rockwell or Mark Ruffalo can. If he's going to be an action hero, well, it has to be the whiny, ineffectual Scott Pilgrim. He won't be seen in spandex, not seriously anyway. If he's going to be the romantic lead, as he has been numerous times, they're going to be the quasi-bumbling, fumbling, mumbling type he's played since departing the role of George Michael Bluth in Arrested Development. It's kind of his thing. It's not his only thing, but he has it down, and if you're paying even the smallest amount of attention you will catch the differences between Juno Michael Cera, Superbad Michael Cera, Nick and Nora's... Michael Cera and here, Youth In Revolt's Michael Cera.
In YinR, Cera plays Nick Twisp, an intelligent yet awkward teen (surprise), hyper-aware of his terrible name, and ever keen to find romance, moreover, sex. But given his lowly social status, his unconventional appearance, and his never-not-embarrassing mother and stepfather (a well cast Jean Smart and Zach Galifianakis) achieving his objective takes nothing short of leaving for a trailer park on a summer retreat and running headlong into the hyperconfident, hyper-intelligent Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday), daughter of two overbearing Christian parents looking for any means to subvert their control. Part of which includes manipulating an incredibly game Nick into vying for her affections to ever-alarming degrees.
Youth in Revolt doesn't play out in typical fashion, as it winds over not just a summer but an extended period of time and distance during Nick manufactures a second personae -- the smooth, cool, mustachioed, French-ish Francois -- who acts as the devil on his shoulder, provoking him to further extreme actions in his attempt to be with and woo Sheeni. The dichotomy between Nick and Francios truly highlights what Cera is capable of as an actor, creating two distinct personalities for the same character that also feel natural as a whole isn't as easy as it seems, but he pulls it off. The cast is universally excellent, including some great cameos from Steve Buscemi, Fred Willard, and Ray Liotta. Based on the novel by C.D. Payne, there's a heavy narrative component and an archness that's equally sly and trying too hard. In the end it's an enjoyable movie, but feels too much like Wes Anderson-lite, weird but not weird enough, and clever but not clever enough.
Compare this with Richard Ayoade's directorial debut, Submarine, and you will see two films that are flip sides of the same coin. They both are, essentially, telling the same type of story, in a similar genre, in a similar style, but achieving two very different results.
Ayoade's film, like YinR, features a young protagonist, Oliver Tate, not exactly the most popular sort in his class, seeking a romantic relationship but not quite sure how to go about it, until it happens on its own in an organic fashion. Whereas YinR takes a more fantasy-laden approach to the subject matter, Submarine goes naturalistic, dispensing with most attempts at being clever and achieving a more personal connection to the material. Oliver's romance has to contend with school beatings, the looming marital troubles of his parents, and his object of desire's mother's brain tumor. These aren't things played for laughs yet there is a natural spark amidst the darkness of the story that keeps it from getting morose.
There's also less... scriptyness, if I can make up a word, to Submarine's young romance. Although the narration from Craig Roberts is just as florid and excessively insightful into the inner workings of our protagonist's mind as that of Michael Cera, the story and how it is told feels far more organic, how the characters act and the events that occur seeming more realistic and less a plot device.
What happens in Submarine is a story that could happen anywhere, but the setting in Swansea gives the background personality. Many young directors will make films that act as love letters to their hometowns or regions they're particularly fond of, and spend a lot of extra time visually lingering in the surroundings, but Ayoade uses the environments sparingly, keeping the focus on Oliver's emotional core rather than getting distracted by his trappings. There's a definite sense of familiarity that all the players have with their surroundings, and it's this comfort, rather than any overt tactic on the director's part, that forms a living atmosphere to the picture.
I'm certain I laughed more with Submarine than I did with YinR, and I'm also certain I empathized more with Oliver Tate than Nick Twisp. Where the flourishes that occur in YinR's story are meant to be entertaining, and they are to a degree, Submarine for me was the more engaging film. The emotional core of Ayoade's film was far more real, less plot-driven. Pitting them head to head, I would vouch for Submarine over YinR, and I'm not dismissing the latter for the former as both present a solidly enjoyable product. At the same time, I wouldn't outright comment that either are mandatory viewing. The genre in which they play is a well worn one, and both present a nice take thereof, still not enough in either propels them to the upper echelon, or beyond.
I can't believe it's taken this long for either David or myself to get to writing about The Avengers... but really, for the biggest movie of the year, what is there to say about it (oh, I'm sure lots as I get going)?
I have to admit to going into The Avengers with some trepidation, afterall of the Marvel films from the past half decade, only the first Iron Man really wowed me. The Captain America and Thor movies both fell flat, as did Iron Man 2, and the Incredible Hulk was pretty much negated as a prequel after Ed Norton pulled out of the ensemble. All these films were high profile, but none of them quite delivered the comic book experience on screen. They were either trying too hard, not hard enough, or not at all (in the case of the Incredible Hulk they were attempting to emulate the TV show more than the comics). But, if there was anyone in Hollywood who could pull the disparate elements of four different cinema franchises together into one film that will both franchise itself and equally require inspiration from the source to succeed, it would be Joss Whedon.
Even still, Joss hasn't fully proven himself as a big feature director (although, for my money, Serenity is hands down the best space opera since the original Star Wars trilogy) and the amount of studio interference as well as being hamstrung with dangling plot threads from a handful of not-quite-prequels made this thing a long-shot to actually satisfying the fanboy that I am. (Let's not even mention that, in spite of three decades of comic reading, I'm not an Avengers fan at all).
But Whedon got it, and brought it all together beautifully. While he hasn't made the greatest movie ever, he's come the closest anyone has to approximating the feel of reading a superhero comic book while watching a movie. Whedon, fanboy that he is, knows these characters, knows them from their roots. Forget what was done with them in their own movies, he brings Cap, Tony Stark, Black Widow, the Hulk, Hawkeye, Thor, Loki and Nick Fury all back to those roots, still without betraying what was built out of them already.
Perhaps Whedon's greatest skill is his ability to craft an ensemble. He did it on TV with Buffy, Angel and Firefly, and in comics on Astonishing X-Men, and he does it again here, and surprisingly it's this cast building that not only dominates the picture, but makes it satisfying, far more than any assembly of fight sequences ever could. The conversations between Tony Stark and Bruce Banner are as exciting as the throw down Iron Man and Thor, if not moreso, because there's an actors craft behind it, more than just CGI cartoons. Everyone gets a moment or two to shine, and this really turned out to be an actors comic book movie.
But lets not sell the fighting and action short, because it is pretty spectacular. I amused myself following the film, comparing the massive third-act action sequence to the one in Transformers: Dark of the Moon. They are, bluntly, the exact same concept. The heroes need to close down a portal -- opened by some kind of machine atop a very tall building -- having to wade through a morass of bad guys spewing out of the crack in space in order to do so. The difference between the two pictures is in the characters. Whereas all the Transformers are, well, virtually indistinguishable from one another, have no clearly defined fighting style or powers, the Avengers really showcases what makes each hero unique in a combat situation. Whedon takes the time to highlight what each of them can do, and do well, and how their personality affects how they fight. Transformers 3 may have been an even bigger spectacle, but the Avengers is far more satisfying to watch.
With it's incredible box office success, and it's resoundingly positive feedback, there's invariably going to be a backlash against the Avengers for being "not that good". But the thing about really successful entertainment is not how good it is, but how capable it is of appealing and entertaining to the largest audience possible. That Whedon managed to do it why staying so true to its comic book roots, not having to pander to the geeks, nor having to dumb it down or "class it up" for the non-geek audience, is the greatest achievement of the film. Every other comic book movie needs to take note of how it was done. These comic book properties have amused and entertained millions over the past 80+ years. Diverging from the source material to make it more "palatable" for the "everyman" is what ultimately makes it less enjoyable. The Avengers should be the recipe, and hopefully the system understands the ingredients and that substitutions rarely make it taste better.
(Spoiler heavy discussion below... if you haven't seen the Cabin in the Woods, and still wish to, it's best to avoid any exposure to trailers or reviews beforehand)
I didn't like this movie so much as I was impressed by it, especially in hindsight. It seems every few years there's an absolutely terrific horror production that just bends the genre on its ear, exploiting all of its warped conventions for both laughs and scares. Scream wasn't the first to do it, just the most notable for blowing the meta-horror into the mainstream. Behind The Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon is another great meta-horror that approaches the genre from an exceptionally nerdy, deconstructionist angle, as if it were more thesis on the nature of slasher movies.
What Scream did was place its characters in a world where slasher films exist, where all the cliches are known by the characters who realize that they're in a scenario much like the movies. In Behind the Mask, the much more difficult conceit is the documentary angle following a slasher killer, Leslie Vernon, who's just doing his job murdering teenager by the conventions of, well, the trade as it has been plied before him.
What Cabin in the Woods does that neither of these, or any other meta-horror film has done in the past is incorporate the meta as an actual functioning element of the story. What's so impressive about the film is that the cliches of just about every horror sub-genre are plausible and possible within the context of the story. The horrific elements are manufactured in a sense, with the a team working deep below the titular cabin setting establishing the entire scenario, and stacking the deck to make sure it happens as planned.
It's actually the crew we're introduced to first, even before we meet the college kids who are going to be the unwitting subjects of this grand guignol. Goddard and co-writer Joss Whedon cleverly jump back and forth between the puppeteers and the potential victims, which explains a lot right away and still not enough, as the puzzle is continuously pieced together with each additional scene.
The fact that we're aware that strings are being pulled, that the college kids' lives are in a somewhat controlled scenario, at first, early on lowers the tension into a comfort of cleverness. But as things escalate, and the scheme starts unfolding into something far more nefarious, the actual meat of horror, and not just its casings show, and the excitement ratchets up.
Once the grand scheme is revealed, once the audience is made aware of what's really going on and that the on-screen deaths aren't, in fact, feeding our bloodlust as an audience (not in the story context at least), Goddard and Whedon have developed a fun little conundrum for the audience to process, and blown up the endless potential for other stories to unfold out of this one. The conceit may not be perfectly crafted, but the "big bad" of the film is a far more etherial one than just a slasher killer, merman, or cenobyte and the glimpse of what is done on a global scale to keep the evil in check sends the mind racing in a thousand delightful directions.
This film underperformed at the box office, but it's one that will live on and on and on in the aftermarket. It's got so many little easter eggs that it was designed for multiple viewings. At the same time, I'm sure approaching the film with fresh eyes and repeat viewings alike provide two distinct experiences with the story and the world that was built within.
This is a film built with love for the genre lovers, a meta-horror that embraces its tropes and exploits them without ever looking down on them.
(Sorry for the long absence of reviews folks. Work has been sapping me of all my mental energies of late. Hopefully I can clear my docket in short order, as I attempt to write reviews base on fuzzy memories and the remnants of whatever impression the films had on me).
I've heard a lot of trash talk surrounding The Hunger Games (most of it stemming from various participants on Doug Loves Movies, so take that for what you will), however most of the complaints I've been hearing - not gory enough, too many close-ups, slow pacing - I found to be actual strengths of the film. Gary Ross hasn't a wealth of directorial experience, but his past works, Pleasantville specifically, had a very strong sense of style that directly impacted the feel and tone of the story. It's the same here with The Hunger Games where he shows contrasting worlds of the rural poor districts in grimy, grainy greys and browns, and the wealthy cities clad in obscenely ridiculous wardrobes, hairstyles, accessories and the likes amidst a cityscape of neon that would make Vegas look modest in comparison. Ross also seems to be a fan of the 70's style of "futurism", with the (and I may get this wrong) Reapers who collect the children for the Games wearing a monochromatic track suit-sneakers-helmet combination that recalls Fahrenheit 451, Rollerball, Logans Run and THX-1138 the same. There's a decided retro-aesthetic that Ross was gunning for and largely succeeded in achieving.
Ross' frequent use of the extreme close-up, meanwhile, I found an almost essential requirement in order to invest in the characters, especially at the onset where we need to really understand how they feel about their situation. Without any real score to carry the emotional cues forward, Ross truly relied on the emoting of his actors to carry it all across. Jennifer Lawrence is as exotically alluring as she is captivating an actress. We're slowly accumulating a stockpile of strong, powerful female action heroes and Lawrence sells every minute of it. Whatever you think of the name, Katniss Everdeen is a role model for young women, and a reminder to young men how capable the fairer sex is.
The film is not without its faltering points, but overall, it's a meticulously paced story, and well- developed environment for the characters to reside in. Ross managed to make what became an "event movie" feel like an intimate, independent production. It doesn't pull punches and reign it in too far to be a kiddie movie. No, it isn't gory, but what you don't see actually has a bigger impact. It stacks up well against others in the "hunted for sports-entertainment" genre, with a lot more maturity than the Running Man, and a lot less extreme than Battle Royale. I still prefer Series 7: The Contenders, but this has it's many charms too. A second and third chapter aren't wholly necessary, but at this point they'll be welcome (unless they get too... Hollywood).
2011, Mark Neveldine, Brian Taylor (Crank, Gamer) -- download
OK, the duo nymed as Neveldine/Taylor definitely have a style and it was a style I incorrectly dubbed as a euro-style as I watched Spirit of Vengeance. I hadn't remembered that these guys were the pair responsible for the ever-so-popular, ever-so-terrible Crank movies. I should have recognized the pop-eyed camera-at-the-end-of-his-nose motif that they like so much. And they definitely like the idea of characters who are always on the edge of ... something. And in this not-quite-sequel to the original Nick Cage as Johnny Blaze, Nick is his I-am-not-quite-sure-he's-acting crazy that he carries off so well these days. But I am not sure I like the idea of Zarathos being off his rocker instead of an embodiment of rage & retribution. But Nick does it so well, and you can assume the character would be a little unhinged, spending most of his nights pushing a demon down deep in his boots, with a little help from booze and drugs.
In this episode, we find Johnny hiding out in eastern Europe. Why? Running away to another continent might help but I cannot think why. It also explains why he has a new motorcyle, as shipping the old one overseas would have been a bitch. Introduce Idris Elba as Moreau, an also rather-unhinged servant of a higher power on a motorcycle wearing worn leather. This one serves God; I gather he is a freelancer who works for bizarre monkish orders, providing his well worn street skills, in times of trouble. He is just spectacular, the fake golden contacts he is wearing almost made me think he might have a bit of an angel in him. His calm yet manic bravado works well beside Blaze's manic instability. Moreau is trying to protect the son of the particular incarnation of the Devil that chained up Johnny and Zarathos. Moreau makes use of the Rider's desire to be free to drag Johnny into the fight.
The movie is not particularly terrible but neither is it particularly good. Things happen just so we can have big booms of fire and even bigger crowds of mooks for the Rider to burn to ash with his chains. We get a few brief moments of him forcing the bad guys to face their sins, but it was almost as if the CGI of the effect was missing, because he just sort of scowled (as well as a skeleton head can scowl) at them and hissed, but no soul sucking was performed. We do get a new bad boss guy soooo much better than the bad boy band of the last movie, a risen revenant with the ability to force decay with his touch. But honestly, if I was to compare Nick Cage's other movie about a hell-connected protagonist (Drive Angry), I would much prefer that one.
2012, Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo, Wall-E) -- cinema
Like, Graig, I had high expectations for Mr. Stanton doing a movie, a story, in the calibre of some of the best animated films out there. Albeit, translating from directing animators to directing people, even green screened people, must be difficult but I am glad the best (Brad Bird being the last one) of the lot are doing it. So, I will give him that credit, where it is due, and not be too miffed this movie was not handled as well as it should have. But to also give credit, it was handled incredibly badly in the marketing department. For one thing, John Carter ?? Seriously, if you are going to handle the Barsoom stories then start right off calling them Warlord of Mars or something along that line. Get the attention of the audience that this is a space adventure movie, set on a Mars out of a fantasy that knows nothing of the science of the place!! Excite people, not expect them to be drawn in just because its Disney. I watched the trailers excitedly for months and just wasn't... excited. That sucked.
Now, a little background. I don't know the stories. When I was a kid, and I think I have already mentioned this, I didn't particularly like mixing my fantasy and scifi. Carter swings swords and wears skimpy Conan armor but he also fights aliens and has flying ships. Meh. Teenager me was much more divisive. But still, something about the stories always intrigued me, those tall 4-armed green guys with tusks and the idea of Carter being stronger and more agile because he was on a planet with different gravity. Did Burroughs know the truth of that? Dunno, but I liked the idea. But my only exposure stayed as Frazetta paintings and probably a handful of old comics. I will admit nothing when it comes to the story element of saving the princess wearing the harem outfit... nope, admit nothing.
The movie? Oh yeah, that is why we are here, right? I liked it. Yeah, not high praise. You see, it is a visual spectacle, as it should have been --- grand, glorious, BIG and exciting. But the story was in some need of tightening. For one, why three openings? Start with Burroughs getting tailed, no start with a recollection via diary of living in the old west, no START ON MARS. True, you have to establish some sort of get-the-man-to-mars story but the early part seemed tacked on. Bleah. Did I mention there is also a monologue that sets up Mars for us? Double bleah. The best part of the movie is Carter's introduction to the Green Martians, given to us as Tharks, and their warrior-culture. The CG is top notch, the alieness of them drew me in. Meanwhile the story of the Red Martians and their civil war did nothing for me, let alone the meddling of the godlike White Martians. There is a story about being against war but also doing what needs to be done, when it needs to be done. There is also a story about science run rampant vs the use of clean science. And of course, there is the "i just met you but I love you" story that should have been left to Up where it is easier to accept. Its a fine movie, probably to be added to my shelf of swords & sandals but it could have been so much better.
Despite some definite Katie Holmes hate-on in our household, we were eager to see this because Guillermo del Toro wrote the screenplay. If I have a favourite movie creator these days, it would be him. His influence is very obvious on this movie, visually as well as the script. In this remake of a 70s TV movie, nasty little faerie creatures are the protagonist, very del Toro creatures reminiscent of those seen in Hellboy II and Pan's Labyrinth. They scrabble through the walls and substructure and come out at night to make trouble. And they have an unsavoury fondness for human teeth, the younger the better.
Guy Pearce and Katie move into one of those ancient old American homes that nobody but the ultra wealthy could afford these days. Decrepit and falling apart, the couple are renovating the house for the consortium of Mr. Jacoby. They hope to make their name as designers/renovators doing this reno. Add to the mix Pearce's daughter, handed over unexpectedly as part of the ex-war. The house is creepy as hell but I probably more saw the place through their eyes because, damn is it gorgeous !! The little girl, left to fend for herself as the adults work, is both frightened by the house (and its scrabbling inhabitants) as well as intrigued. The fact she is drugged up by her mother doesn't help the situation.
It was a sufficient movie. Yeah, not high praise, but it is one of those movies where the characters are required to do things not quite logically to allow the tension to rise. Everything is quite atmospheric and I was quite happy to see the wizened little creatures emerge from the dark almost immediately after having been accidentally summoned via a bowl of teeth. From there it is a war between the little girl's credibility and the trouble the creatures create for her. I will blame it on the drugs or her age but why she didn't immediately freak out that this 6" dark pixie was real is beyond me. When the adults are finally brought into play, they react as they usually do, seeking evidence and explanation instead of just getting the fuck out of Dodge. And they pay the price. First time director Nixey shows through here as the supporting elements, art work and creature design, are more enthralling than the actual story direction. But Guillermo got him his break into film and he does respectably well with it.
2010, Pierre Morel (Banlieue 13, Taken) -- download
I admit, I never caught the James Bond reference from the title. Oh this is a spy movie but really, it is the opposite of Bond's style. With all intention this is American style business, with guns blazing and things exploding and collateral damage out the wazoo. From Paris with Love is a small movie from the director of one of my favourite small movies, Taken. But really, the only reason this is a small one is that the focus is on shooting people, not a focused plot. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is completely out of place here as a minor CIA guy in Paris performing (badly) small spy functions but dreaming but becoming "active". He gets that wish (insert familiar adage here) fulfilled with the arrival of John Travolta's Charlie Wax at the airport. Wax is exactly the American spy as envisioned by all the European viewers of this movie -- loud, crude, anti-stylish and completely racist. He also has no concern for the laws of the land he is in, not that any spy in a movie ever does, but at least Bond tried to do it subtly. There is nothing subtle about Charlie Wax.
Meyers' Reece is dragged along behind Wax's crusade, first by shooting just about everyone in a chinese restaurant, bus boys included. He gets to comically carry a vase full of cocaine around so Wax can get a snuff here and there. Then they follow the drugs to Pakistani importers who... well, of course they are, using the drug running to fund terrorism. You can tell Luc Besson, writer of the story here, sees the loud American (in general) as at least being effective if not delicate in his handling. Wax is completely over the top but he is also very very capable at what he does. He connects dots, shoots straight and offends just about everyone. He fires a rocket launcher on a crowded highway. He shoots a dinner party guest. But he does save the day and get the girl, albeit not in the way we should expect.
We are not supposed to like Wax. But I guess we are supposed to have a grudging respect for him. I cannot help but think this is all a scriptwriter way of making references to Americans, by Europeans. Wax is the worst kind of American tourist in Paris, with just about all the opinions from the stereotype, and he has a gun. We may not like the way he does things, but he gets things done. Is this what Besson would have us believe? Are Americans actually affective in their war on terrorism? True, the US does have less bombings and random extremist violence than Europe does these days. But at what cost? The cost in the movie is unbelievably high and the final decision made by Reece states loudly that sometimes the worst decision is the only one.
2010, Hiromasa Yonebayashi (artist and animator on other Ghibli projects) -- download
Studio Ghibli has produced some of the most memorable anime movies I have ever seen. Howl's Moving Castle, Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away are popular enough to have reached across the oceans and made impacts world wide. Getting connected with Disney didn't help. But it will always be stories such as My Neighbor Totoro and Grave of the Fireflies, so very very Japanese in their character, that will typify the studio for me. This is by no means their only adaptation, as many of their stories come from other sources, but I think this is the first time they adapted a children's story from Europe. Also making this story stand out less is the lack of Hayao Miyazaki as director; to be frank, it was his presence on other stories that make them stand out so much more.
So, you probably got the hint that this one was not one of my favourites. It's true, the story is wonderfully told, beautifully animated and just lovely to behold. But it was lacking a sense of investment. The full original story is there in the key elements, of a lonely ill child discovering the existence of the borrowers, little people living in his house. The conflict with one nosy adult is there. And the isolation felt by young Arrietty is there as her family is the only group of borrowers she has ever seen. The movie also does a lovely job of portraying the parts I love best, the creative interaction with the big world that these little people have, the mountain climbing around the kitchen, the use of dollhouse furniture and the scale sized items building Arrietty's home. It is also so lovely to behold. But...
But there was something lacking, something I cannot quite put my thumb on. I guess it was plot based in that the story never really got anywhere. I suspect that in their attempt to draw upon the main plot of the first Borrower book they forgot they had a standalone movie here. The story is about introducing the borrowers and their world and the conflicts they deal with. Things never really come to a conclusion, more a climax of this one episode. But we want more than just this small revelation, we want to see the rest of the series. A series that does not exist.
2012, Jonathan Liebesman (Darkness Falls, Battle Los Angeles) -- cinema
So, if you read the last review, you know the basic plot of this movie as well. Someone (Hades this time) wants to release the Titans in order to destroy the world and it is up to our hero with the attention of the gods (Perseus this time; son of a god no less) to defeat them. This one is the sequel to the moderately popular remake of the Clash of the Titans. The original was one of the handful of formative D&D movies in my childhood stable. At least one of my characters had a mechanical owl and all of us wanted a Pegasus. But this is not about a remake but a sequel to a remake but one that would fit well into my adult collection of "only if its cheap" collection of D&D formative movies. Hell, just about any movie where the heroes fight with swords and CGI monsters are defeated enters that stable.
Again, I found this movie is quite enjoyable -- and I remember saying this about the first movie -- unless you pay attention to the dialogue. Oh Em Gee, what comes out of their mouths is so extraneous. The plot (???) is incredibly focused so anything they say really doesn't matter, and it was almost as if the script writers knew that. I felt like a typical action fanboy talking in my head (where they scream it out loud to the screen), "Blah blah blah, quit talking!! Swing your sword !!" The hero is dragged out of his "i don't need the gods even if one is my father" life and into the sibling battle between Hades and Zeus against their dad Chronos, the Titan they imprisoned in order to become the sole rulers of the world. Their power has been waning ever since Perseus proved you don't really need the gods around so they need the prodigal son's help again. Perseus has to trek to the bowels of Mount Tartarus to try and stop Hades from releasing grampa. As you see in the trailers, he doesn't succeed so we get another titanic battle. Yes, you can groan at that comment.
Again, this one isn't remotely related to the mythos it supposedly bases itself on. Again we get an insertion of a labyrinth (brilliant performance by Bill Nighy as Hephaestus) and a Minotaur. Again, it doesn't really matter to the story. At least Hephaestus had his buddies the cyclops, which was a nice touch. Andromeda is back, but he saved her from being chained to a rock in the last one, so this time she is the powerful queen with an army at her back, an army setup to be slaughtered by the Titans. I never got that part -- not only did the queen not evacuate the unfortunate village on the slopes of Tartarus nor did she turn her army around and RUN when Chronos is released. Its not like a couple of thousand men the size of his little toe have a chance to defeat a mountain sized walking magma golem. Meh, makes for a good battle scene I guess. Like all hollywood sequels, we have to recreate a key scene from the original -- this time, Perseus swoops and dives as he flies Pegasus around Chronos, like a boss battle in the PS3 adaptation of the movie. Or the trench run in Star Wars -- you choose your analogy.
You probably know the director as just Tarsem, the visually stunning director who did The Cell all those years ago, and was then known for directing the video for R.E.M's Losing My Religion. And now he just did Mirror, Mirror ?!? Anywayz, his style is clearly his signature -- the color palate, the costuming and the set dressing are all incredible, works of art unto themselves. But where does that fit into movie making? Does it make good movie? Is it just extraneous window dressing to mask bad or uninspired films? There is probably just not enough of a body of work to answer the question, but unto itself, with just this movie -- maybe.
Immortals is a snapshot of the greek myths, the story being that King Hyperion wants to free the Titans to have them destroy the world, in revenge for the loss of his family. The Gods place Theseus, the slave with the heart of steel, in his way. When you say "based on" in this context, you mean "not at all". Theseus was the guy who killed the Minotaur but never wrangled with the Titans or Hyperion. There is a minotaur in this movie but the connection is loose. Amusingly, this movie has the basic plot as Wrath of the Titans where a reluctant hero is also forced to foil the freeing of the Titans from Tartarus.
You would think I didn't like the movie, but in fact, I enjoyed it immensely. I am not hung up on purity of myth adaptations, enjoying them being redone for the sake of a good swords & sandals movie. The use of Tarsem's visual style as well as his continued use of CGI to supplement the look just made me enjoy it more. He is allowed to make things BIG and awe-inspiring. This is over the top as a myth should be. The battle scenes are horrific and stunning. Mickey Rourke as Hyperion is creepy and dangerous, a solid villain. There is magic, incredible and powerful! The supporting cast, and by that I mean the actors all supported the look & feel, is settled in their roles and invested. This was by no means a good movie but something to be enjoyed for what it is, a visual play for the eyes for fans of swords & fantasy battles.
Maybe it was my mood, maybe it was the movie but unlike Kent, I didn't much care for The Raid: Redemption. There was the hint of a movie I should love, a small movie, a movie in a closed environment with a very tight focus. Unfortunately, that focus was about beating the crap out of each other without much concern for the why's or who-cares. I was expecting a slight rendition of Assault on Precinct 13 or maybe even a building-related human-only version of La Horde, a french zombie movie set in a urban project tower controlled by criminals. But the trappings of cops raiding the building owned by bad guys was almost a pretense. It really did not mean much to the plot.
As you probably know, I am completely fine with bare bones plots as long as they are focused on the goal. If this movie had been only about a group of cops raiding a building to arrest the crime lord and did the floor-by-floor battle, I would have been fine. But no, they eliminated most of the cops right off the bat and we get stuck with the melodrama between a couple of good cops and a couple of bad cops each with their own idea of why they are raiding the building. But even that decently attractive plot thread is overshadowed by the pounding on each other. Yeah, I am sure all the mixed martial arts guys were dribbling in their pants over the combat scenes but I found myself just being bored after a few rounds. The cliche of knocking down one guy, onto the next until a circle completes and the first guy gets back up, just got tired tired tired. Or maybe I was tired. The few times where he (and really, there is one focused character, the survivor) actually took out a foe in two hits, I cheered. The boss battle seemed like someone was pumping quarters in to no end. Yes, dated analogy. Hitting respawn better?
Also... redemption? There is no redemption. There may be a turn of events but its all circumstantial and not about redemption at all. In the end, after all the cops are dead and the last lone hero escapes the building, we are left with the clear idea that it was all for naught -- another crime lord will control the building and lone hero will lead the assault in the sequel. And there will be a sequel; these movies are often made as if the writer was already eager to write that movie and this was an inconvenience. Evans may have had a hint of style, I will give him that, but he was also trapped by the melodrama that this genre seems to like to cling to. Tortured hero, crooked cop and familial connections are common enough, but to be frank I like them when they are even more over the top, so I can get a sense they would end up as part of a cheese-fest for another theatre's double-bill, another night.
Now, speaking of cheese, it was grand to see Felicia Jollygoodfellow bulked up for a (and really, is there any other comparison) Snake Plisken role !! Oh, I am sure I could find a few more action flicks in his IMDB listing but none more muscle bound than this one. Rogue CIA operative framed for the murder of a friend slash coworker sent to sleep away his life in a cryogenic SuperMax prison... in SPACE !! OK, low earth orbit but I just wanted to say, "in SPACE !!" Hee. This is a movie that really embraces the cheese factor it could only know it was going to emit. Hell, it is another Luc Besson vehicle so I guess it's pretty much expected.
Yes, a prison in orbit filled with the lowest, nastiest most evil criminal element all frozen into scum-sicles. Enter "the president's daughter" investigating the place for violations of human rights -- the scum-sicles seem to occasionally wake up crazier than before they went to sleep. Oops. But we get an even worse oopsy-daisy when a key interview candidate gets the upper hand and frees all his buddies, and his brother. Joseph Gilgun dominated the scenery for me. I know him better as the crassest character on Misfits but he is transformed into this cyberpunk, psycho irishman with an accent that probably was subtitled in the US. Almost all the rest of the released criminals were set dressing in orange though the brother (Vincent Regan) does carry some dramatic weight of intelligence amidst all the brain-deads.
The movie is really just about Pearce cutting one liners while doing his best tough guy impression. He is skilled enough to know he can accomplish the goal (get the daughter, get out) and heroic enough to handle the no-win scenario. We get cliche creative deaths, tit-for-tat between rogue & daughter and... well, we also get a lot of really badly done CGI. It was as if they spent it all on something else (sets? sure wasn't the script) and were left with early 2000s computer work. And at the end, when we should get an exciting, over the top escape by parachuting from orbit (yes, you read that right) we get low-grade Star Wars (huh? don't find key points, just blow the fucker up from a distance !!) and a rush to the "now we are safe on the ground and kissing" scene. Wait, how did they get down and rescued by EMTs? Did I blink? But still, I laughed, I cringed, I enjoyed myself. And woke up from the first movie.
Unfortunately, this isn't a feature length picture of Troy and Abed enjoying Michael Haggins' smooth-jazz classic(#sixseasonsandamovie)
Instead, Daybreakers is a cleverly conceived yet poorly executed future sc i-fi vampire action/drama. Set in 2019 (10 years in the future, three years ago), vampires are the dominant species after a viral outbreak. With humanity on the verge of extinction, so too is the vampire's "food" supply. Ethan Hawke plays a scientist looking for a synthetic blood substitute, only to get entangled with the human resistance and learn that there is, in fact, a procedure for curing people of their vampirism. Of course, it's not as simple as it sounds as Hawke must contend against the might of the corporation that controls the blood supplies and his own brother, who's charged with corralling any remaining humans.
There's great ideas in the film, including the societal breakdown as the blood supplies start running low as well as the mutation of the virus when the vampires begin to starve, and yet it's all so clunkily executed, on the level of a low-budget, syndicated genre TV show. The German Spierig Brothers, acting as both writers and directors, don't seem to know what they want out of their own film, as early on they seem to strive for a Gatta-like seriousness, yet constantly undermining it with cheesy dialogue or overly transparent foreshadowing. By the third act of the film the Brothers abandon any sense of drama in favour of an exceptionally awkward and poorly constructed action finale/bloodbath which is either painful or funny, depending on how high or drunk you are. I don't think that either reaction is what the brothers were after.
I seem to recall discussion that writer David Goyer had originally planned a similar plot for the third Blade movie, a world in which the vampires won, human were cattle, and Blade was to lead the resistance. Somehow, between Blade 2 and getting the directorial gig for Blade Trinity the concept changed completely and became a Blade and the Scooby Gang vs. Dracula instead. I was hoping Daybreakers would capitalize upon Blade's loss and that this great idea would finally be executed on screen. Alas. Exceptionally skippable.
The Raid: Redeption - 2011, Gareth Evans Lockout - James Mather, Stephen St. Leger
I don't remember the last time I've watched two movies in the theatre back to back. I'm going to guess it was a festival, probably four years ago or more. It's actually something I used to do more frequently when I was single and childless, with no real constraints or demands upon my time and having long ago gotten comfortable attending the cinema by my lonesome. The opportunity presented itself to cram in two films in one evening, with David no less, although such an endeavor required, well, not so much strategic planning as a willingness to watch whatever it was that fit the scheduled block of time.
There's not a a whole lot of connective tissue between The Raid: Redemption and Lockout, although both are international productions, with The Raid shot in Indonesia with an Indonesian cast by a Welsh director, and Lockout starring a bevvy of international talent, and a product of French producer Luc Besson's steadily churning action movie brain. As well, both seem to owe a tremendous debt to John Carpenter, not that he's the sole source for either story or structure for these films, but he's certainly the most prominent namecheck.
The Raid: Redemption is a throwback to the 70's in-over-their-heads, rock-and-a-hardplace action movies, ala Assault on Precinct 13 or The Warriors. It's a completely stripped down plot and script, practically threadbare, with just enough of a story, and a pinch of characterization to hang its relentless martial-arts extravaganza hat on.
The premise of the film finds a compact police SWAT team attacking a notoriously impenetrable apartment complex in Jakarta which is the headquarters of the city's most prominent drug kingpin. Very quickly the team finds that they are outnumbered, outgunned, and, worst of all trapped in the middle floors, unable to retreat or advance. One of their numbers has a personal stake in the raid, which seems to fuel him further and provide him the resilience to survive despite the odds.
Director Gareth Evans, as the story goes, after getting married to a woman of Indonesian descent, was pushed by her to direct a documentary on the country's martial art, Pencak Silat. Somewhat entranced by the fighting style, he went on to make the cult film Merantau after discovering Raid star Iko Uwais. The Raid is a stylized film, heavy on the blue, yellow and brown tones, creating a grimy atmosphere suitable for a poorly maintained drug fortress fronting as an apartment building.
Evans' spotlight on Silat differs from traditional martial arts films, which tend to glorify its practitioners as superheroes in a certain light. Here, instead, the combatants are quite readily seen as mortal, blood and bone, prone to fatigue and flaws. Evans pulls the camera back and gives the expertly orchestrated fights their due, keeping the edits to a minimum and the action in focus. This isn't a Greengrass Bourne film, where the fighting is masked by quick cuts to exaggerate momentum and intensity, instead the technique is quite on display, left raw, in the open, brutal but impressive.
The film is not without its directorial flourish, in which Evans would jostle the camera slightly during the fight sequences, particularly during the copious firearms exchanges. The particularly motion-sensitive may feel the effect, others might not even not even notice.
Lockout, unlike The Raid, is a clean-cut, far more traditional b-movie action movie with sci-fi trappings, again owing a generous debt to John Carpenter and his Snake Plissken vehicles, although instead of reaching for the dirty, tawdry, darker look and feel of the early '80's Escape From New York, the film cops quite liberally from the early 90's, glossy, cgi and technology-enabled Escape From L.A., that it's more like Plissken fan-fiction than anything approaching an original concept.
Guy Pierce's Snow subs in for Kurt Russell's Snake as the sarcastic, tough-as-nails mercenary who has connections high and low as eager to help him as to kill him. When the president's daughter is amongst the civilians trapped aboard an orbital supermax prison, Snow is the only man for the job of infiltrating the escapees and getting the girl... to safety, and without any options to do so.
The sequence of events that follows is rote b-movie material carried forth with pithy, if not entirely clever dialogue. The film frequently borrows from other genre pics, including a horrendous lifting of the Death Star trench assault sequence which seems not only entirely extraneous but a waste of effects budget that could have been put to better use refining those throughout the rest of the film.
Despite his quite lengthy resume, Pierce hasn't really played the tough guy or conventional action star too often, if at all, yet somehow beat Jason Statham to the part. While he doesn't exactly wear it comfortably, he seems to have fun with it. Maggie Grace, Besson's new go-to girl-in-distress, isn't really given a concrete character to work with, changing face and temperament as the script demands. The leads don't entirely radiate chemistry, and there's little investment from the actors all around, but the end result is passably entertaining, if unmemorable.
Oh, one final connection... the posters, both of the drab, generic variety implying the man-alone-against-great-odds scenario. Uninspired and not at all embracing their retro leanings.
2010, Mikael Salomon (hard working TV director including Band of Brothers, The Andromeda Strain and Camelot) -- download
This is one of those situations where I find out about a movie on some blog that I have already forgotten about. This was post-apocalypse (PA) fiction starring Sean Bean. OK, not exactly starring Sean Bean but he has a strong role, and guess what, he is not killed horribly. I am rather fond of PA fiction, especially the less-than-stellar stuff like ... weird, I cannot think of anything that is anything other than less than stellar. So, stuff like Max Max 2: The Road Warrior, The Postman, Steel Dawn and The Book of Eli. They take place long after an apocalypse but not so long after that the remnants of the old world are forgotten about. Also, some element of the plot focuses on how things were, such as finding old tech or exploring lost cities or living off the detritus. Geez, if I was to make this genre one of my '31 Days of...', I would again spend a lot of time saying why some movies are on my list and some would not be.
Anywayz, a plague basically wiped out mankind and many of those left are mutated into horrible beastly killing machines. The group of survivors we meet have been primitive for enough generations they don't have knowledge of the old world; basically they are pretty cave people. They hide inside an area they deem safe from the plague and the mutants and know little of the outside world. I think there must have been some climate shifts as well because they all sound British but its the warmest, prettiest PA Britain I have ever seen. One hunting group strays too far and brings back the mutants and the plot establishes as the young & brave have to go on a quest to bring back a cure for their village before all become monsters in sub-par makeup.
It is a very basic plot, as my favourites of this genre often are, about travelling to the unknown land, surviving its dangers, locating the object of the quest and bringing it back to save the day. Very fantasy-based, very Hero's Journey. Sean Bean is here as a source of knowledge, a once-member of a group of skilled explorers and plague detectors, aware of the cure as well as a collector of the old world. He directs the young ones, a mentor of sort, and draws out the needed heroism in them. While very very TV low budget, as many of this genre are, it was still not as bad as most of the 80s & 90s examples.
2011, Glen Ficarra, John Requa (I Love you Philip Morris) -- download
OK, the idea of two directors isn't usually a good idea but these guys are a long time writing duo (Two Angry Beavers) and their first movie, which I haven't seen yet, got some pretty good acclaim. We will let them try this out for a while. And yes, I do like romcoms. I remember hearing that it was a cut above other expected Steve Carell romcoms and that usually defines whether I will like it, that being a cut above the average dribble. Yes, dribble not drivel. I like something just above what a comedy actor normally does. And that is pretty much what I got.
Its a midlife crisis comedy, but what else could it be starring Steve? He does hurt & befuddled so well. He loves his life, his middleclass suburban family and father life but when his wife has sex with her coworker, a breakup is hatched. Steve goes and gets drunk in a local nightclub in his schlumpy clothes and his schlumpy Steve attitude, to only catch the attention of Ryan. We have already seen this nightclub as the basis for Emma Stone, smart educated and in love with her boyfriend, to reject Ryan Gosling (playing Leisure Suit Larry in this movie) who is astounded a woman spurned his advances. Meanwhile a highschool girl is in love with Steve because he is the perfect, nice guy. Meanwhile Steve's son is in love with the highschool girl. There are lots of meanwhiles in this movie.
This is a connected to the connected movie that wants to be a smart comedy. And it succeeds for the most part. The intertwined plot has some surprises and a lot of cute paths cross. The dialogue is charming and for the most part, the movie focuses on Jacob (Gosling) taking broken bird Cal (Carell) under his wing and teaches him how to respect himself enough to get any girl he wants. Jacob is just sleazy enough to be effective (law of averages kinda guy) and disarming enough that we root for him when he falls for Hannah (Stone) who originally rejected him. The plot weaves around a bit but comes back to a final backyard party where a number of things are revealed and.... which totally surprised me, Cal does not immediately get back together with his wife (Julianne Moore).
In the year of the faerie tale re-imagined including TV shows Once Upon a Time and Grimm and the other terrible Snow White movie, Mirror Mirror, but lacking any property made from the comic Fables, I was disappointed that nothing lent itself to the D&D player in me. Until I saw the trailers for this movie. Dual axe-wielding, leather armored Chris Hemsworth (who, in all honesty, will always be Kirk's day to me) cried out to be made into an NPC in my game. Kristen Stewart was not whatsoever an image of Snow White to me, but in a re-imagining where she wields a sword and fights along side an army, I am cool with that. And Charlize Theron as the Evil Queen.... be still my heart and command me, my Queen. Snicker. And double yay when Kent gave me an early pass to see the movie!
So, basically what I got was exactly what I wanted -- a light fantasy fare, light on the faerie tale connection and strong on the generic fantasy. Queen Ravenna is a wandering beauty who bewitches Kings and steals their kingdoms and the life of the kingdom & its women. She is hundreds if not thousands of years old and sucks the life from maidens for her youth & beauty and magical power. But when she takes Snow White's kingdom, she kind of takes a liking to young Snow and rather than killing her, locks her in a tower until her early 20s. When Snow escapes and a prophecy proves to the Queen that the girl should have been dead long ago, she sends the drunken, mead-swilling Huntsman after the girl. Prophecy becomes destiny and it is up to Snow White and the rebel heroes of the kingdom to defeat Ravenna and take back her father's throne.
This is brilliant generic fantasy, and by generic I mean that it is not all that tied to a specific world. Faerie tales may be set on our earth and often in Germany or France, but this does not tie there at all. There are hints that more connection may have been dropped on the cutting room floor as there were a few disconcerting and completely unneeded references to Christianity in the movie. The rest is dark fantasy with haunted forests, faerie glades and magnificent gothic castles !! Kristen Stewart may not be the best Snow White in history (yes to pale skin but no red lips and limp, brown hair) but she does look rather fetching in armor wielding a sword. And the 8 no 7 dwarves were brilliant grumpy ex-miners who had recognizable CGIed faces (think Captain America) and voices on real dwarf bodies. This movie looked great, sounded great and I could watch Charlize have psychotic rages all day long. Heh.
