Reviews

90 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
GONE BABY GONE : Evidence That Affleck Has Potential As A Director, But Not A Perfect Piece...
19 February 2008
GONE BABY GONE

As an avid non-fan of Ben Affleck, I disregarded GONE BABY GONE when it first hit theatres because of my skepticism. When the reviews hit, it started to seem like I wasn't giving Affleck a fair chance b/c critics were favorable. But I allowed myself to believe the positive reviews Affleck received for HOLLYWOODLAND and go see the movie with an open mind... let's just say HOLLYWOODLAND was not a good experience for me and I fervently disagree with the critics on that one! So I was wary of GONE BABY GONE from the start. However, as the film managed to keep some presence through awards-season (for both Amy Ryan and Ben Affleck as a debut filmmaker) my curiosity got the better of me. I'm glad it did.

Not to say that GONE BABY GONE is a perfect film, it does feel a little like a first-time directorial effort. However, it's a film that shows Affleck might have promise as a director that he does not hold as an actor. GONE BABY GONE is a solid crime drama that tells the story of an abducted young girl through the eyes of a private investigator with no experience on this kind of case.

Casey Affleck, in a solid performance, plays Patrick Kenzie, a young man who's lived in Boston his whole life and now works as an independent investigator alongside his girlfriend Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan). Angie and Patrick are roped in to "enhance" the ongoing investigation that is taking place to locate a young girl named Amanda McReady. She is the daughter of a drug-runner (Amy Ryan), and she has disappeared under mysterious circumstances from an unhappy home. With the help of Detective Remy Bressant (Ed Harris), Patrick tries to find a way to balance his ethical beliefs with the necessary decisions his line of work present him with. But as Patrick and Angie uncover more of the truth, it becomes apparent this is nothing close to a typical abduction.

The film spends the first half of it's running time exploring the story as if it is your standard kidnapping investigation, but in the second half there is a major shift that brings the film into a totally different direction. The film has received comparisons to both MYSTIC RIVER and THE DEPARTED for basic reasons... using the Boston landscape most obviously. But the film does feel like a blend of the two films, that doesn't quite find the perfect balance to make it all work. Half of the film focuses on the human drama of an abduction like this (like MYSTIC RIVER), while the other half explores corruption vs. honor (like THE DEPARTED). These two parts never come together perfectly for GONE BABY GONE, but it still never goes completely off the rails.

Casey Affleck carries the film well and offers the movie's most nuanced and fully felt performance for my tastes. He proves that he is able to take his conversational and laid back approach to dialogue and lace it with gravitas just as well as he is able to lace it with humor (as exemplified in the OCEAN'S films). Amy Ryan has received a great deal of critical acclaim and awards attention for her performance as the burnt-out mother of the abducted child, and she does a phenomenal job of fully embodying Helene McReady. However, her screen time is limited and the character doesn't really have a change of heart. She is a one-note mess of a woman, and a frustrating one at that. Ed Harris and Morgan Freeman offer typically solid performances, but it's nothing new to see from them. Meanwhile, Monaghan escapes unscathed, but her character has virtually no definition. Though she is always present, she feels remarkably unnecessary and her relationship with Frankie does little to strengthen the films primary themes.

Overall, GONE BABY GONE is a solid, though unremarkable film. It vastly exceeded any expectations I would have placed on a Ben Affleck film however, and I won't avoid his film in theatres next time.

... B- ...
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
PANS LABRYINTH : This Adult Fairy Tale Is 2006's Most Visually Stunning & Absorbing Film...
18 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
PANS LABRYINTH

With PANS LABYRINTH, Guillermo Del Toro has managed to create an adult fairy tale that pays homage to classically dark children's stories like ALICE IN WONDERLAND without ever abandoning a purely adult tone. The film is a masterpiece on many levels, but perhaps what is most impressive about PANS LABYRINTH is the fact that it can seamlessly blend such dangerously varied genres (fairy tales, war films, coming-of-age drama, horror film, etc) into a piece that is capable of reaching fans of each genre without alienating the other. PANS LABYRINTH is a film that truly could, and should, be enjoyed by everyone over the age of 15.

The movie tells the story of Ofelia (played with stunning maturity by Ivana Baquero) as she moves in with her new step-father, Captain Vidal (Sergi Lopez, in an intimidating performance). Ofelia's mother is pregnant, and Captain Vidal's only reason for taking on this new family is to ensure that he has a son to carry on his legacy. Captain Vidal is a brutal man, willing to kill anyone who presents opposition to him, and young Ofelia, with a wandering imagination, wants out.

One of the most delightful elements of PANS LABYRINTH is the way Del Torro never seems to make a concrete decision as to whether the fantasy elements are reality or not. It's the same approach used in THE WIZARD OF OZ and ALICE IN WONDERLAND, in which the viewer is left wondering if Dorothy ever really left Kansas, or if Alice ever really went down a rabbit hole. Once Ofelia arrives at her new home, fantastic things start to happen to her. First, a fairy visits her at night and leads her to the bottom of Capt. Vidal's backyard Labyrinth. It is here that Ofelia meets Pan, the faun. Ofelia learns that she may in fact be a long lost princess of the underworld, and only by completing three very specific tasks can she ever escape the nightmare that is Post-War Spain.

PANS LABYRINTH can be appreciated on many levels. From some angles, it seems like an interpretation of what heaven may be to the young girl. In another way, it acts as a propaganda film for keeping our earth healthy and alive. Perhaps some might see the movie as an exploration of how one's sanity is destroyed in war. And from yet another viewpoint, PANS LABRYINTH is simply an engrossing fairy tale with high stakes and incredible tension. Masterfully wrapped together by the hands of Guillermo Del Toro, the film works on all these levels.

Alongside the LOTR trilogy, PANS LABYRINTH is one of the greatest examples of how incredible a fantasy film can be if it isn't given the care and attention it deserves. The creativity is literally pouring from the screen, and believe me, PANS LABYRINTH is without a doubt the most stunningly visual film of the year (though THE FOUNTAIN is a strong second). The creatures that inhabit this fantasy world are simply incredible to look at, whether they are lovable (the image of a praying mantis-like creature trying to take on the appearance of a fairy) or downright terrifying (the image of an eyeless creature who rests in slumber till a child comes for dinner), PANS LABRYINTH's creatures are never second rate.

Absolutely everybody should see PANS LABYRINTH. It will mean different things to different audiences, depending on the viewers skepticism and age. However, one thing is for sure... no matter what feelings PANS LABYRINTH stirs for it's viewer, it is the most absorbing 2 hours of cinema released in 2006. Del Torro has relished in the fact that his film never has a set structure or audience, and in doing so he has blessed us with one of the most creatively exuberant fantasies ever.

... A+ ...
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Volver (I) (2006)
8/10
VOLVER : A Film That Potentially Takes To Many Risky Leaps, But Somehow Lands Them All...
18 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
VOLVER

Watching VOLVER, I was never quite sure where the film was taking me. Going into it I was anticipating a comedic film dealing with the return of a dead mother, back to set her daughter's lives straight. Turns out the impression reviews had left me with was only the most simplistic explanation possible for what turns out to be one of the years most delightfully twisted plots.

Pedro Almodovar has always been a man in love with female beauty, but VOLVER should probably be considered his greatest homage to the female. The film is almost vulgar at times in its pursuit of capturing it's leading star's radiance, with camera angles shooting down necklines. However, Penelope Cruz's incredible performance roots the film with a dignity that overpowers any crude camera angle Almodovar could dream up. A rather stilted actress in English, Penelope Cruz offers a stunning performance here, in which her emotions bubble over through her gorgeously full yet mysteriously dark eyes.

Cruz plays Raimunda, a young mother who has left the village she grew up in in favor of the city. Both Raimunda and her sister Sole (played by Lola Dueñas) return home at the start of the film to visit the town they grew up in, and when there they hear rumors that their dead mother's ghost has returned to care for their dying aunt. As time goes by, the women discover that this rumor might in fact be rooted in some truth. When their mother (Carmen Maura) appears to her children, secrets from the past are revealed that will shed incredible light on what makes these women who they are. The work between the ensemble is a joy to watch, yet Cruz remains front and center in a star-revitalizing performance fully deserving all the critical and award attention she has received this year.

VOLVER leaps between comedy and tragedy more then once in it's two hour running time... but isn't that essentially how life works? Though the film becomes a bit too far fetched at times in terms of the dramatics that go on around it, Almodovar makes it work. VOLVER is a modern day version of the great Greek tragedies. I would never want to live the lives of these characters, but to watch their lives and troubles unfold certainly makes for a compelling movie.

... B+ ...
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dreamgirls (2006)
10/10
DREAMGIRLS : A Movie Musical To Re-Ignite The Genre With It's Soaring Energy...
9 January 2007
DREAMGIRLS

Firstly, it would be unfair to review a film like DREAMGIRLS without acknowledging some of it's many flaws. After a year of hype, DREAMGIRLS proves a slight disappointment in terms of emotional gravitas & depth. When a film is hyped for an entire year as the front-runner for the Academy Award, film-goers have every right to go into the film expecting fully-developed characters, rich emotion, & detailed storytelling. However, film-goers be warned... you aren't bound to get what you expect. DREAMGIRLS is rather shallow in terms of character development & genuine plot. However, if you go in expecting the film to be a stunning spectacle of entertainment & fun, you will not be disappointed.

Whatever DREAMGIRLS may lack in terms of complexity, it makes up for with sheer energy & relentless commitment to entertain its audience. The admittedly thin story revolves around the discovery & rising stardom of a trio of young women from Detroit; Deena Jones (Beyonce Knowles), Lorrell Robinson (Anika Noni Rose) & Effie White (Jennifer Hudson). After meeting manager Curtis Taylor (Jamie Foxx) at an amateur night, the girls find themselves on tour with one of the country's leading African-American entertainers named Jimmy Early (Eddie Murphy). As they tour the country, Curtis romances the girl's lead singer Effie White & slowly develops the girls as a solo act named the Dreams.

However, once the Dreams are ready to cross-over on their own, the dynamic changes completely & the happy rise to stardom becomes troublesome. In order to market the group to white audiences, Curtis replaces Effie with Deena as lead singer, causing a rift in the group dynamic which leads to Effie's retaliation & inevitable dismissal from the group. While the first half of the film focuses on the rise to stardom, the second half focuses on the continued stardom of Deena, who is now married to Curtis, & the struggle of Effie to make it on her own. As is clear from the plot description, the actual twists & turns of the plot are rather complex... but the depth with which they are examined is very lacking.

Nonetheless, what makes DREAMGIRLS one of the most thrilling cinematic experiences of the year is the sheer energy & talent of it's inarguably incredible cast. From the very first notes, it is clear that DREAMGIRLS is a return to the grandest of musical formats. Bill Condon has decided not to hold back in any way. The costumes, the lighting, the music, & the choreography are so "in your face" incredible that once this movie gets going the audience can't slow down. Bill Condon does a decent job of incorporating some racial tones into the film with the Detroit Riots and "I Have A Dream".. but these racial elements can't eclipse the glitz & glamor that makes DREAMGIRLS what it is.

No review of DREAMGIRLS would be complete without acknowledging the contributions of it's incredibly talented cast. Jamie Foxx in the role of conniving businessman Curtis Taylor Jr. brings a subtlety to the screen that is almost off-putting at first when you consider how flashy his performances usually are. However, Foxx's subtle sliminess makes the slow revelation that Curtis is a man virtually devoid of emotion all the more unsettling. Meanwhile, Beyonce Knowles as front-woman Deena Jones is certainly the most beautiful screen presence to reach the silver screen in years. But it would be an understatement to simply acknowledge Beyonce's beauty, as she manages to travel leaps & bounds above her previous screen efforts. On the page, Deena is an incredibly underdeveloped character, but in the few moments of depth we see in Deena, it is clear that the script short-changed Beyonce's potential here.

Eddie Murphy is a sheer joy in one of his best roles, & he exhibits a singing voice that sounds like it was plucked straight out of Motown's heyday. Again, like Deena Jones, Jimmy Early is rather underdeveloped on paper with a drug addiction that seems more like a plot contrivance than a genuine character flaw... but Eddie Murphy gives the sub-plot more resonance than one would expect from the script. His relationship with Lorrell (played by a delightful Anika Noni Rose) is surprisingly the most well developed romantic pairing in the film.

Finally, one can't possibly review DREAMGIRLS without acknowledging the fact that this will go down in history as the moment the world was truly introduced to the talents of Jennifer Hudson. As the most crucial role of the film, Effie White is the most emotionally rich character in the entire piece, while also being a scene stealer both vocally & attitude-wise. Hudson delivers on all levels, especially in the vocal department. If she does not go on to be a significant force in the music industry, it only goes to show that the industry sometimes has no clue what to do with genuine talent. In the acting department, Hudson doesn't shine quite as strongly as she does vocally... but for a reality star's film debut this is a transcendent performance richly deserving of the awards attention she has received.

Overall, one might ask why a film like DREAMGIRLS, with it's numerous flaws and shortcomings is still ranked with a 10 by myself. Personally, I think sometimes a film does not have to be graded simply on it's depth & complexity. There's a place in this world for movies that soar as sheer entertainment just as much as there is a place for heavy, dramatic pieces. DREAMGIRLS isn't the type of film that will change your life or reach it's audience on a deep level. However, it is the type of film I could watch over & over on DVD & still not absorb every detail. DREAMGIRLS might not be the "Best" motion picture of the year, but it certainly is the most entertaining motion picture I've seen in years.

... A ...
33 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS : Transcends The Dangerously Sappy Formula With Genuine Emotion...
9 January 2007
THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

Going into a film like THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, the audience can basically assume that in the end, that happ"y"ness will be found in the end... leading to a tear-jerking finale of overwhelming emotion. As one would expect, that's exactly how THE PURSUIT OF Happiness ends, but even though there is virtually no level of surprise, this Will Smith vehicle somehow manages to stand above similarly themed sap-fests.

THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS tells the true story of Christopher Garndener (played by Will Smith in a very touching performance), a down-on-his luck salesman who finds himself raising his son on his own in the hardest of financial times. In an attempt to make life better for himself and his young son (played by Smith's real life son Jaden), Chris embarks on a demanding internship at the firm Dean & Whitter. It's an unpaid position with no promise of a job afterwords, but Gardener sees it as his only choice and despite being homeless and broke, he carries out the internship with determination to be the one man chosen for a job with the firm.

The movie follows a very conventional format, but it does so in a refreshingly unconventional manner. Gabrielle Muccino, the film's director, embraces a grittier look for the film and wisely chooses to not emphasize the emotions at every possible moment. Too often a film like this seems to be gunning for tears from it's audience at every possible moment, but Muccino shows genuine restraint and instead lets the drama play out very naturally.

Many times throughout the movie, it seemed impossible how difficult this poor mans life... and knowing that this actually happened to someone makes the film all the more powerful. Will Smith grounds the familiar story with a quiet, humble, and stoic determination to succeed that is only overshadowed by a love for his son. Smith conveys the conflicting feelings of love, failure, stress, and anger without ever losing the gentle hearted soul that makes Christopher Gardener. One of my largest reservations about the film was the casting of Smith's real-life son, however it turns out to be a very wise choice. Jaden Smith is so at ease acting opposite his father that he succeeds in avoiding the cloyingly annoying sweetness of most child actors. It's a very natural relationship between the two that works very well.

THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS transcends it's conventionally inspirational story by taking many unconventional approaches as mentioned above. However, there are a few moments that stand out as slightly manipulative... in particular, a sequence in which Smith and his son spend a night in a subway pretending to hide from Dinosaurs. However, in a genre that is usually overflowing with sap, THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS makes it through the majority of its 2 hour running time without overdoing it. For that, THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS exceeded my expectations, and Smith's performance is deserving of award-consideration at year's end.

... B+ ...
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
King Kong (1976)
8/10
KING KONG : The Weakest Version Still Has Enough Heart To Carry It Through...
26 September 2006
KING KONG (1976)

When I first saw this film in the late 80's, I was in awe of how real the giant beast appeared. Gone was the obvious claymation and now what appeared before me was an ape that could actually move and interact with living actors. At the time, I was 9 years old. Now I am 23, and for various reasons I have come to realize that the 1976 version of KING KONG is clearly the weakest of the three adaptations. However, it does bring a level of heart and feeling to the story that was missed in the original version.

The original KING KONG portrayed the giant ape as little more then a dangerous beast. After capturing his beauty Ann Darrow, little was done to humanize the monster. This time around, the character of Kong becomes a living, breathing creature with feelings (both sexual and friendly). Aside from giving the ape more subtext, the 1976 changes the time period and original mission of the crew. Instead of setting off to shoot a movie, the original objective of Fred Walker (played by Charles Grodin) is to set off for a remote island that will prove to be the best oil reserve in the world. Also on board the ship is Jack Prescott (played by Jeff Bridges), an environmental missionary out to explore the new world and see if rumors he's heard of a fantastic creature on the island are true. While headed toward the island, the crew picks up Dwan (Jessica Lange in her film debut), the only survivor from a massive shipwreck. Aside from these changes, the story is very familiar. They arrive on the island, meet the unfriendly natives, Dwan gets captured by Kong, and everyone sets off to rescue her.

Unfortunately, everything that impressed me so much when I was 9 is now dated and far from awe-inspiring... and the advancement of technology exposes certain flaws in the 1976 De Laurentis version that might not have been so apparent in the past. The film seems to have wasted so much money on their trick shots and special effects that they forgot to infuse everything with a visual style. While the 1933 original's special effects are no longer cutting edge, the film as a whole embraces the special effects and stylizes them in a way so that they never feel dated. KING KONG ('76) simply displays the special effects without the slightest artistic integrity. This is special effects showboating w/o artistic infusion... and as a result the film can't escape the "dated" label.

However, on the flip side, now that the films special effects are less distracting, it's easier to see some of the more subtle qualities in this version. The original KING KONG was happy to only tell the first half of it's "Beauty & The Beast" tale, the half in which Beauty never stops fearing the Beast. The 1976 version goes on to tell the full emotional tale of "Beauty & The Beast". For the first time we see a genuine bond and appreciation between Dwan and Kong. Slowly Dwan realizes how pure Kong's heart is, and she sees him as a well-intentioned victim once he's shipped over to New York for all to make money off of.

Also, despite a high camp factor, the film manages to have its moments. For example, the sacrifice scene in which Dwan is hypnotized by the gyrations of the natives is arguably the most interesting of the three versions. Other scenes that really help to strengthen the emotional bond between Kong and Dwan take place on the journey home to New York. While both the original version and the 2005 remake decided to jump straight from Skull Island back to New York, this film examines the changes that take place in its leading characters during this transitional time.

It's impossible for me to see the 70's KING KONG as anything more then the weakest of three interesting films. But the story of KING KONG is one that has fascinated me every time. Just like with the original and the newest version, I can watch this film over and over, year after year. What I can especially appreciate in this version is it's emphasis on compassion and creating a bond between man and ape. Unfortunately, in it's efforts to do so it loses some of the excitement and adrenaline that the original had. Thankfully, we have the 2005 version to perfectly blend the best qualities of the previous versions into one thrilling masterpiece! ... B- ...
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
THE BLACK DAHLIA : 2006's Best Film Noir So Far... Not Saying That Much, But It's Something
26 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
THE BLACK DAHLIA

Perhaps THE BLACK DAHLIA gets off easy because when viewed in close succession to the similarly themed HOLLYWOODLAND... it soars in comparison. When it comes to 2006 film noir efforts, THE BLACK DAHLIA is vastly superior in terms of direction, style, performances, and structure. But being better then HOLLYWOODLAND doesn't mean much in my book.

THE BLACK DAHLIA explores the mystery behind the murder of Elizabeth Short (played hypnotically by Mia Kirshner). In the 1940's, the young Ms. Short, an aspiring actress, was found roadside cut into two hollowed out shells of a corpse. The investigation of her murder led the L.A.P.D. in a whirlwind, with the centerpieces being Dwight "Bucky" Bleichert (Josh Hartnett) and Leland "Lee" Blanchard (Aaron Eckhart).

Lee and Bucky are new partners on the force, but old friends who live in an odd romantic triangle with a woman named Kay Lake (a wooden and stuffy Scarlett Johansson). Though Kay is clearly with Lee, the tension between her and Bucky is apparent. However, as Lee descends into madness, Bucky's world shifts. Kay expresses more need for him as he becomes entangled in a romantic affair with Madeleine Linscott (Hillary Swank, wonderful in a sexy role). As one can assume, the film does not stick to the truth behind the case very closely.

Directed by Brian DePalma, THE BLACK DAHLIA has a strong visual structure and is always captivating to watch. DePalma manages to create quite an impact with the footage of Short before her death, and his camera-work on scenes such as the Linscott dinner and the boxing match between Lee and Bucky. However, while DePalma excels at visual structure, he falters in terms of actual plot structure.

While THE BLACK DAHLIA has many of the ingredients for great film noir, it never gels due to a problematic script. It's never clear where our sympathy should lie, nor is it ever clear who the primary suspect is. Though we find out in the end who the killer is and it is placed blatantly before our eyes... all the bits and pieces that add up to this don't really make sense. By giving virtually every character in the film a dark twist, the audience can't follow who did what.

THE BLACK DAHLIA left me intrigued, but entirely confused. Still, I enjoyed the film enough to revisit it again in the future to see if my confusion could only be blamed on a complicated plot that is difficult to absorb on one viewing. The film also bolsters a handful of surprising performances. Never has Josh Hartnett been this believable in an adult role, and he proves that he might have what it takes to cross over into a respected career. In a similar vein, though Hillary Swank has always been captivating to watch, this is the first time she has proved that her incredible acting talents can remain apparent even while playing a sexy woman. Finally, Mia Kirshner is incredibly captivating even with her limited screen name as the murder victim. However, even more resonant then the good performances is the disappointing one offered by Hollywood It-Girl Scarlett Johannson. In a role that seems perfectly catered to her sexy beyond her years persona, Johannson can't even so much as smoke a cigarette convincingly here... what happened?! In the end, THE BLACK DAHLIA is a film that still has promise after one viewing. I will certainly see it again and be able to more properly assess it's quality when I give the twists and turns in the plot a closer inspection. For now, though flawed, it can safely be labeled the best 1940's film noir of 2006... leagues ahead of the abysmal HOLLYWOODLAND.

... C+ ...
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hollywoodland (2006)
1/10
HOLLYWOODLAND : Ben Affleck Proves He Still Can't Act In The Biggest Disappointment Of The Year So Far...
23 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
HOLLYWOODLAND

When I first saw the trailer for HOLLYWOODLAND attached to DEVIL WEARS PRADA, I saw something that promised to be one of the most solidly structure film noir mysteries one could expect. The trailer was exciting, forcibly paced, featured interesting performances, had a nice visual style, and boasted a wonderful cast. Apparently, all credit for that belongs to the editor of the film's trailer, because none of those qualities are apparent in the full-length version of HOLLYWOODLAND.

Exploring the theories behind TV's Superman George Reeves (played by a ridiculous over-praised Ben Affleck), the movie aims to cover so much ground that it never becomes a cohesive piece. As an L.A. investigator (Adrien Brody) gains a renewed interest in the suspicious suicide of Mr. Reeves, he becomes fascinated by the many different theories behind the true cause of the mans death.

As the investigator, named Louis Simo, begins to realize more about Reeves' sordid past more light is shed onto various theories. One focuses on his long lasting love affair with Toni Mannix (played by an underused Diane Lane), the wife of studio head Eddie Mannix (played a barely registering Bob Hoskins). The other theory explores his late-in-life attachment to Leonore Lemmon (Robin Tunney), a Los Angeles party girl. The final theory explores George Reeves' deep-rooted depression and discomfort with being type cast. Believe me, the theories don't blend well to make one movie.

Unfortunately, it seems that neither the films director Allen Coulter, nor the films screenwriter Paul Bernbaum never decided on a distinct direction the film could take. HOLLYWOODLAND simply goes through the motions of explaining each theory without ever gaining the audience's emotional attachment because the film never leans towards one explanation. By not choosing to proclaim one theory as the definitive truth, the film seems to be on a path to no resolution.

If the filmmakers were afraid to proclaim one theory as reality for fear that the public might not realize it's a mystery still unsolved, they should have chosen a more complex theme. Personally, I believe the film could have been an interesting study of why people refuse to accept that even heroes can fall. Perhaps it could have explored the frustration Louis Simo might feel by having his investigation constantly muddled by personal feelings and a nationwide association of Reeves with the unstoppable. With a framework of exploring the worlds reluctance to admit to a "national heroes" downfall, perhaps HOLLYWOODLAND could have been a fascinating study of American ideals and confidentiality at the time.

As is, HOLLYWOODLAND simply is not ambitious enough. Despite some solid costumes, sets, and camera-work... the film really disappoints. Though heavy praise has been laid on Ben Affleck for his "return to form", the performance really isn't anything to write home about. Affleck does little aside from resting on shmarmy charm and amateur emoting in capturing this dark figure. Perhaps the fact that he has earned so much praise makes me like the performance even less, but unfortunately Affleck as an actor is exactly like the movie he stars in... all pretty surface, no substance.

The rest of the cast does little to improve their blandly written roles. Brody, Lane and Hoskins can usually be expected to be great in everything they do, here they are just okay. It can't help that their characters are polluted with cliché dialogue, but not one of them manages to rise above.

HOLLYWOODLAND is a major disappointment when you consider it's potential and the genuine thrill the previews provided. It seems like everyone involved simply didn't deliver what was needed, and as a result the whole product feels hollow. When expectations are high, the disappointment can be much stronger... and that's the case with HOLLYWOODLAND.

... D- ...
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE : A Childhood Favorite That Holds Up With Every Viewing...
23 September 2006
THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE

There are some movies that I could watch all my life and never grow tired of them, and this nostalgic favorite is one of them. THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE was a 1987 attempt to bring the old favorites back to the forefront of animation, this time on the big screen. In an age when Disney dominated the film industry in terms of animation quality and box office, THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE stands as one of the best animated films that Disney didn't produce in the 80's.

The story is simple and elementary, having Alvin, Simon & Theodore compete in an around-the-world race with the Chipettes (Janette, Eleanor, & Brittany). However, as the chipmunks encounter exotic dangers, they are unaware that they are the pawns in a major diamond heist.

THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE never was and never will be a film that soars thanks to an engrossing plot. And to people who didn't love it as a child, the film will probably never be more then an enjoyable, yet forgettable, animated movie. But for me, it will always be a little known masterpiece. Something about the film just clicks for me in a way few films do.

Every song is fun, upbeat, and harmless. Highlights include the Chipettes in a slightly risqué Arabian dance to calm snakes. There's also a very sweet song in which the Chipmunks sing about traveling the world and we get to see them at major landmarks throughout the globe. One thing about the Chipmunk characters is that, despite the potentially annoying vocals, the songwriters always managed to write songs that were catchy without ever being grating. This film is no exception... it actually boasts one of the best Animated movie soundtracks of the 80's if you ask me.

Every joke is cute, sincere and amusing. The bits between the bad guys and a pampered puppy are very amusing. And the shock of seeing the Chipettes nearly forced into marriage by a child emperor is as well. The comedy manages to constantly play to the kids so that they don't miss anything, but everything remains charming for the adults with enough nostalgia to keep them entertained.

It's really just a fun trip that is completely humble in it's ambitions. THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE never aims to be anything more then it is, harmless fun. I'll be the first to admit this is a biased review because I have such a nostalgic fondness for THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE that I would never be able to give it a bad review... but nonetheless, it fills me with such a childish contentment while watching it. Everyone has their random favorite from childhood that no one knows, and for me it's this movie. And any film that I can watch over and over whether I am 5, 12, 23 or older is a great film in my eyes.

... A- ...
22 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Idlewild (2006)
3/10
IDLEWILD : Too Much Creativity Muddled Together Into An Incohesive Disappointment...
13 September 2006
IDLEWILD

On the heels of great success in the music industry, the boys of Outkast have attempted a crossover into film in a major way with IDLEWILD. Starring Andre Benjamin and Big Boi, this film is an incredibly ambitious mixing of genres. It is both a musical and a period piece. It is a surreal trip that also touches on reality. It is an outlandish comedy, but also a blunt drama. IDLEWILD sets out to be all these things, but as a whole the film never matches the potential certain moments show.

IDLEWILD tells the story of Percival (Andre Benjamin) and Rooster (Big Boi), two life-long friends from different walks of life. Both are passionate about music, but Percival has grown up trapped in his father's funeral home while Rooster has lived a life of success and popularity while fooling around with the law. In an era of bootlegging and gangsters, both men work at the most popular nightclub/brothel in Idlewild. However, things get complicated when Big Boi's mentor in bootlegging is killed off by Trumpy (Terrence Howard), a gangster dead set on seeing all the fortunes from the nightclub swung his way.

In select moments, like it's beautiful opening sequence, IDLEWILD feels like it could have been a truly revolutionary piece. Their is some amazing camera-work going on here... and their is a refreshing since of abandon from any formula. It is when IDLEWILD tries to develop a complicated and involving plot that it completely loses track of itself. The visual craziness that is such fun to look at at first becomes an annoying distraction once the plot gets rolling. And to top it off, the plot really isn't engrossing to begin with.

IDLEWILD should have embraced the idea of being a period piece of outlandish visual style and musical energy. It would have allowed it's director Bryan Barber more freedom to use the visual tricks he excels at. Many of the musical numbers and montages are incredibly well done, yet Barber shows no skill for balancing such an outlandish movie with a legitimate storyline. IDLEWILD could have been a musical film event, but it buckles under the pressure to have stereotypical elements of film and all the magic is killed.

Andre Benjamin proves that is a musician with some significant acting talent after praised turns in FOUR BROTHERS and BE COOL. However, Big Boi isn't able to have the same appeal and magnetism despite the fact that he has the more "fun" role. Supporting cameos from Patti LaBelle and Ben Vereen are basically wasted late in the movie long after IDLEWILD has lost all it's charms.

It's unfortunate that a project with so much fascinating and diverse creative energy fails so miserably in the end. However, the promise it shows in it's first moments doesn't make up for the boring jumble it becomes. It's not often that I say I wish there wasn't a plot in a movie, but I wish there hadn't been a plot in IDLEWILD. And if there had to be it should have remained much more simple. As is, IDLEWILD simply can't walk the fine line between creative freedom and structural clarity that it sets out to achieve.

IDLEWILD is a big failure for me, but in a disappointing manner. I think many people involved in this project have the potential to lend great talent and influence to many industries. Unfortunately, this is nothing but an unsuccessful attempt at blending those talents into one piece.

... D ...
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Beerfest (2006)
7/10
BEERFEST : Not A Classic... But Still A-Lot Of Harmful Fun
13 September 2006
BEERFEST

The latest from the idiots at Broken Lizzard tells the story of two American's named Jan & Todd who are given the task of scattering their grandfather's ashes at Octoberfest. However, when they arrive at the festival, they are introduced to an age old, underground tradition called "Beerfest". This underground festival is an Olympics for Beer in which the best drinkers from every country compete to prove their worth. However, when Jan and Todd arrive, an age-old family secret that includes a whore for a grandmother and the stealing of a coveted beer recipe is revealed to them.

Of course, as would have to be the solution to any conflict in a movie entitled BEERFEST... the only way for Jan and Todd to regain family honor is to gather together the best drinkers in America and come back to win the festival next year. Luckily BEERFEST wastes very little time establishing a gripping plot and it dives right into the crude and uncensored comedy provided by grown man whose job for a year is to drink more and more beer.

BEERFEST doesn't stand out as a classic when compared to similar comedies of it's kind. It also lacks a certain clever quality that was more apparent in Broken Lizzard's SUPER TROOPERS. Even so, there's always going to be something funny in a movie as shameless as this film.

Often times it is easy to write off a comedy that only manages to muster laughs with burp jokes, abundant nudity, and politically incorrect humor as nothing but crude. But I can't deny the fact that BEERFEST was able to make me laugh consistently in spite of it's lack of intelligence.

The performances are not really there to be criticized, b/c a characters integrity will always be sacrificed if a laugh is at stake. However, Broken Lizzard should count it's blessings to get such established actors as Cloris Leachman and Donald Sutherland (the most hysterical part of the film is his 5 minutes on screen) to spice things up.

Overall, BEERFEST is a lot of fun. Maybe I shouldn't be laughing at this type of humor as easily as I did... but I did. It was a harmless movie that managed to cater to the college bing-drinker in all of us... at least in me. BEERFEST certainly isn't a classic to share with the kids, but it's an undoubtedly fun time at the movie theater.

... B ...
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dick Tracy (1990)
10/10
DICK TRACY : Should Be Seen As An Example Of What A Comic Book Movie Should Be...
13 September 2006
DICK TRACY

Warren Beatty's 1991 adaptation of the classic Dick Tracy comic books has only improved with age. At the time of it's release, DICK TRACY's visual style was unlike anything the movies had seen and perhaps some of the public didn't know what to make of it. Beatty decided to have a color palette of just 7 crisp colors, the same colors that were available when the Dick Tracy comics were first published. By doing so, he has created a cinematic world that has the miraculous ability of never feeling dated. This is incredibly refreshing when you consider that fact that the continuous development of computer technology and special effects has caused so many great movies of the past to lose some of their magic over the years. Not the case with DICK TRACY.

Warren Beatty has certainly proved himself over the years to be an incredible contributor to the art form of film with a resume including REDS, BUGSY, BONNIE & CLYDE and more. However, never before and never since has Beatty put out a film full of such nostalgic excitement and fun.

Though there were many different comics and story lines regarding everyone's favorite cop Dick Tracy, Beatty managed to consolidate them all into one engrossing film. DICK TRACY begins with Big Boy Caprice (played by Al Pacino with a great deal of abandon and fun) starting to gather together all the city's gangsters for one unified deal. Together, all of them can rule the city.

Big Boy's plan includes buying out the nightclub where Breathless Mahoney (played by Madonna, in perhaps her best performance) sings and then turning it into a den for underground gambling. Meanwhile, Dick Tracy and his ever-faithful girlfriend Tess Trueheart (Glenne Headley) have just taken under their wing a young orphan (an incredible Charlie Korsmo) with an endless appetite for food and action. As Dick Tracy tries to get to the bottom of Big Boy's plan, he sees his only link to getting to the truth is Breathless Mahoney... a woman who's not willing to help him until he shows interest in having her as his woman.

The plot is simple, but it is more then compelling enough as a compliment to the incredible visual flair of Beatty's comic book adaptation. Everything including the special effects, make-up, costumes, music, and all the performances are perfectly suited to the film's tone. Everything has a comical cartoonish quality to it, including the dialogue, however everyone involved seems so aware of this quality that they've successfully embraced it and incorporated into their work.

For such a unique film, it's amazing that all the pieces can come together and blend so wonderfully as a cohesive whole... but I suppose that's just a credit to Beatty's directing here. He has managed to literally bring the world of the Dick Tracy comic strips to life on screen in a manner that has only been matched by Robert Rodriguez's SIN CITY. They are two films very different in substance, however their ability to create a unique world so powerfully is unmatched by other comic adaptations.

One of DICK TRACY's most entertaining qualities is the cast it has gathered together. The ensemble is a who's who of great actors even down to the smallest of roles (watch for Kathy Bates and Catherine O'Hara in "blink & you miss them" cameos). Everyone here is having fun without losing focus. Pacino's Big Boy is a thrillingly over-the-top bad guy opposite Beatty's cool and collected all-American hero. Also, the two leading females offer polar opposite performances of equal appeal. Madonna has never been so compelling in a role (aside from a refreshing performance in A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN) and she embodies a Marilyn Monroe gone bad like no other could have. Glenne Headley is so engagingly sweet that you don't even notice how spineless she is... she's the epitome of "damsel in distress". And Charlie Korsmo as the kid offers one of the most brashly confident child performances captured on film in recent years.

To top it off, DICK TRACY also features some incredible original music from Stephen Sondheim. Music plays a major role in DICK TRACY from the montages to the live performances, and yet it only enhances the film. DICK TRACY is just an example of all the elements adding up to make a great whole... and there's no single element that ruins it for the rest of them. This is a movie that made me feel like I was a kid again in awe of the new things that only film can show me. It's a shame DICK TRACY isn't more fondly remembered then it is... b/c for today's filmmaker this should be held up high as an example of what to aim for when creating a comic book adaptation.

... A ...
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
BATMAN & ROBIN: So Campy It's Definitely Entertaining... Just Not Necessarily Good
30 August 2006
BATMAN & ROBIN

Unanimously deemed the worst BATMAN film in the franchise, the fourth installment is crushed by the weight of Joel Schumacher obsession with glitz and superfluous sequins. BATMAN & ROBIN follows the Dark Knight as he embarks on a partnership with Robin. There partnership is tested as they take on the evil Mr. Freeze (played by Arnold Schwarzenegger) and the seductress Poison Ivy (played by Uma Thurman). BATMAN & ROBIN has received more flack from critics and audiences then I would ever lay upon it, because to me the film is a good deal of fun to watch. It certainly could have used a dose of tranquilizer or something to calm down the manic camera-work and the over-the-top production design. However, at times BATMAN & ROBIN is a very entertaining movie... sometimes as a decent action movie and something as a "so-bad-it's-good" movie.

The thing with BATMAN & ROBIN is that it's drenched with the stink of Schumacher's awful direction. What audience did this man think was going to see this film as he filmed close ups on Batman's ass in the suit... or Robin's codpiece? Did he honestly think fans of Batman needed to see all the campy razzle-dazzle in a film about someone known as the "Dark Knight"? And what was Schumacher thinking when he cast Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl? Watching this movie I feel bad for the girl as she looks like a deer-in-headlights at every turn.

But while half of the blame for this film's failure should be blamed on Schumacher... the other half should be blamed on the script-writer. If ever there was an unbalanced Batman screenplay this is it. The script creates villains that couldn't be played as anything other then camp. But meanwhile, it creates such a dramatic storyline regarding Batman's butler Alfred that requires the heroes to be played in a very serious manner. Unfortunately, as a result, George Clooney and Chris O'Donnell offer the most awkwardly inhabited performances of their very different careers.

Nonetheless, the saving grace of the film is Arnold and Uma. As Mr. Freeze, Arnold Schwarzenegger clearly has fun playing an incredibly exaggerated version of himself. There is nothing subtle about Mr. Freeze, from the costume, to his abilities, to dislodge like "A storm is coming" and much more. However, Schwarzenegger pulls it off with a genuine sense of fun. And Thurman as the seductive Poison Ivy has never been this fun before or since. Granted, Thurman has offered better performances in other films... but she has never succeeded at capturing such a sense of fun abandonment. Her Poison Ivy is incredibly one-note, but that one-note is the most captivating piece of entertainment in the film.

The villains are so much fun they make the entire movie watchable. But watchable does not equal satisfactory. It goes against all logic that the audience for a comic-book film would root for the villains, and yet that's how Schumacher's BATMAN & ROBIN plays. In a way, it's so easy to write a bad review for this film, and yet it's the kind of movie I can watch over and over. Because the film's faults are so blatant, it adds to the camp factor. However, watching BATMAN BEGINS, it becomes clear that any quality Batman movie should never be defined purely by "campiness".

... C+ ...
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Invincible (2006)
7/10
INVINCIBLE: Refreshingly Not "Schmaltzy" & Entertaining... But Nothing Spectacular
30 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
INVINCIBLE

Here we have Disney offering up another family-friendly, inspirational movie about football in the tradition of REMEMBER THE TITANS. This time it tells the story of Vincent Papale (played by Mark Whalberg), an average-joe bartender in Philadelphia who manages to land a spot on the Philadelphia Eagles by attending an open call. After making it into training with the losing sports team, Papale must fight to keep up with the pros and prove he not only has what it takes to earn a spot on the team... but he has what it takes to make them winners.

INVINCIBLE follows the many clichés one can expect from a sports movie like this. Every character has a redemption, everything feels uplifting, and everything is going to work out in the end with a climactic football game. However, INVINCIBLE manages to utilize all those clichés without ever getting overtly sappy.

The usual downfall of an "uplifting" movie is that it constantly teeters back and forth between schmaltzy and genuinely compelling territory. INVINCIBLE manages to remain on the "genuinely compelling" side longer then the "schmaltzy" side and a great deal of that belongs to the director and his star.

Ericson Core, in his feature-film directorial debut, manages to find camera tricks that capture the football field in ways I've never seen before. Especially compelling is his opening scan over a crowded snowy parking lot as the camera makes it's way over to the field. Aside from interesting camera-work, Core manages to keep the tone realistic at most times, keeping his actors from over-emoting or playing scenes for maximum emotional impact. There's a subtlety here that kept me from every feeling manipulated... for example, we're spared the cliché final monologue of motivational excess.

Mark Whalberg proves again that he is a better actor then many people give him credit for. He has always excelled at playing an honest everyman with honest aspirations for success. He did it in BOOGIE NIGHTS, ROCK STAR (yes, I liked it), and now here. Whalberg's acting style mixes perfectly with Core's tone. Whalberg has never been an actor who seems to be overplaying his emotions... as a matter of fact, he often underplays them in this film. Letting all his anger, all his happiness remain very internal. As a result, Whalberg's Papale feels more like a real person then a puppet used to draw tears from it's audience.

Nonetheless, despite it's quality production, INVINCIBLE remains incredibly predictable. And though it succeeds at never over-playing it's emotions... it also doesn't manage to really thrill the audience either. I found myself entertained by INVINCIBLE but not necessarily moved. Overall, it's a good effort and all performers do good work... but INVINCIBLE, though solid and entertaining, is not a stand-out in the genre.

... B- ...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
POTC - DEAD MAN'S CHEST : Tons Of Fun, Even If It's Not Quite As Creative As The Original...
24 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN : DEAD MAN'S CHEST

Though this blockbuster sequel fails to capture the intelligence or the overall-quality that the first film holds, DEAD MAN'S CHEST opts to take the no-holds-barred approach. In CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL, though there were many special effects and exciting moments, they all seemed to branch out of one strong storyline. In DEAD MAN'S CHEST, the plot seems to be created in order to accommodate the many different action set-pieces that the creators could come up with.

That's not to say the story on hand isn't a great deal of fun or rather engrossing. DEAD MAN'S CHEST follows Jack Sparrow as he struggles to free himself of a debt he owes Davy Jones. Turns out he was promised the right to be Captain of the Black Pearl for only a certain number of years before he will be forever a member of Davy Jones' underwater crew. However, when Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann show up in an attempt to clear their names with the government, they get tangled up in Jack's plan for escaping his debt.

The plot is engrossing, though not complete. However, that can be blamed on the fact that this piece is merely the first half of a two part film, to be later wrapped up with the third installment. As a single film, the plot is engrossing, but not rewarding. However, it does set up some interesting story lines that will inevitably make for an exciting final chapter in the franchise.

Something about this film lacks the freshness of the original, where Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow was a complete revelation. Also, at that time the high-seas adventure hadn't been brought to the silver screen in such a way for many many years. Though the formula is more familiar this time, the creators have come up with so many thrilling special effects and action sequences that one forgets for a moment that what they are watching isn't very original.

In the end, DEAD MAN'S CHEST delivers on it's promise to be one of the best times you can have at the theatre this summer. It's constantly entertaining, with the Kraken sequences and the island natives providing some of the most fun. Also, the character of Davy Jones is a visual feast. It's absolutely incredible to watch a character brought to life so realistically through CGI (only KING KONG eclipses this in quality)... and on top of that, Nighy's performance is a great deal of fun to watch. Johnny Depp still manages to ring every possible laugh out of the character of Jack Sparrow, and Keira Knightley continues to prove that she has an incredible charisma on screen.

Overall, DEAD MAN'S CHEST didn't need to be "rewarding" for me, because it kept me so thoroughly entertained for it's entire 2 1/2 hour running time. And above all things, it managed to make me a bigger fan of the successful series... someone who can't wait to see how these story lines are wrapped up and brought together in the final chapter. Sure, it's not of the same quality as the first film on many levels, but it's just as much fun. DEAD MAN'S CHEST (aside from X-MEN:THE LAST STAND) is at this point the only summer blockbuster to fully live up to it's hype for me, and that's not too shabby.

... B+ ...
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Descent (2005)
10/10
THE DESCENT : Incredibly Scary... Please Have All Horror Movies Made By Foreign Directors!
24 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
THE DESCENT

Finally, for the first time since 28 DAYS LATER a horror movie has come along that filled me with genuine fear. THE DESCENT is hands down the best horror movie released in recent years, and though it features a great deal of gore and violence, it refreshingly does not draw it's largest scares from these elements. THE DESCENT is a brilliantly shot film that captures the idea of claustrophobic insanity perfectly. Perhaps it's no coincidence that the two best horror films of the past decade have had their origins outside of the United States, and it's time for American film-makers to look past the "slasher" clichés.

THE DESCENT tells the story of a group of friends who have experienced an enormous tragedy just one summer ago. One year later, in an attempt to move on, a group of females choose to go on an expedition traveling through an ominous cave located in the middle of nowhere. It starts out as planned, a vacation that re-affirms friendships and shows signs of new hope in their lives. However, as they go deeper and deeper into the earth, things get more and more terrifying.

THE DESCENT leaves the remainder of it's story open for interpretation. As the girls begin to realize they are not alone in the caves, it is not 100% clear as to whether the bat creatures that hunt them are real or if they are representations of one character's slow descent into insanity. However, either way you interpret this (and I still haven't made up my mind), director Neil Marshall keeps his film constantly frightening.

For me personally, the scariest part of THE DESCENT comes before any monsters arrive. Through brilliant lighting, camera-work, and direction, this film manages to makes it's audience feel the claustrophobia to an uncomfortable extent. The sequences in which the girls must crawl on their elbows through passageways that have dust constantly falling from the roof made me physically uncomfortable. Often times we see nothing more then the beam of light from a flashlight and the jagged rocks it passes over. And yet, despite the limited options for scenery, Marshall manages to keep the film feeling alive. It never drones on or gets boring b/c of the small environment, instead it thrives.

Then when the monsters do appear, Marshall lets the blood fly. However, it is never the blood and gore that offer the real thrills. While films like SAW and HOSTEL relied completely on disgusting their audience to incite fear, THE DESCENT merely uses the gore to emphasize the terror, not create it. What's also very cool is the amount of references you can find in THE DESCENT to many of the greatest horror films in history, including:

THE SHINING - as the girls drive up the mountain to the cave entrance

CARRIE - as one character rises from a pool of blood, it's unmistakably similar to the prom scene

SILENCE OF THE LAMBS - the use of night-vision goggles while in the caves

28 DAYS LATER - waking in the hospital in the very beginning of the movie

There were more but I can't remember them too well b/c my mind was so engrossed in the movie. Clocking in at a brisk 99 minutes, THE DESCENT packs the kind of punch far too many horror films don't. It scares it's audience while also engrossing them into a gripping emotional story (not to mention the fact that the cast offers strong performances). Also, it can be enjoyed as either a mindless thrill ride, or an incredibly complex examination of mental insanity.

It's a shame the film isn't finding a larger audience here in the states while films like WHEN A STRANGER CALLS can be the equivalent of a cinematic fart and still open at #1. However, I would place my bets on the fact that THE DESCENT will go on to continually find a larger audience in subsequent years... perhaps even becoming a cult film of sorts. It's simply too good to not be remembered as an incredible horror film.

... A- ...
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Monster House (2006)
7/10
MONSTER HOUSE : Fine Entertainment & Great Animation... But Who's It For?
24 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
MONSTER HOUSE

MONSTER HOUSE is the second film by Robert Zemeckis to utilize the digital capture of human actors in creating a CGI world. Personally, the animation from this procedure has improved greatly since it's introduction with THE POLAR EXPRESS, however, the film itself is slightly misguided. MONSTER HOUSE tells the story of two neighborhood children, D.J. and Chowder, who are fascinated by what goes on at the house across the street. Anything that touches the yard incites immediate fury from the old man who lives there, and once something lands on his grass it is brought into the house never to be seen again.

One day D.J. and Chowder trespass in an attempt to prove their maturity. Then when the old man comes out to scold them in his usual manner, the man suffers from what appears to be a heart attack and dies. This leaves D.J. and Chowder thinking the evil on their street is over. However, slowly they realize it was never actually the man wreaking havoc on their neighborhood... instead, it was the house itself, which turns out to be alive and has an appetite for anyone who steps upon it's yard.

MONSTER HOUSE is an interesting concept that I've been leery of since I first heard of it. It seems too far fetched to have a living, breathing house living on a block with normal everyday Americans. However, MONSTER HOUSE manages to make things believable enough in the context of the film. The animation truly is something to behold, and even though I didn't see the film in it's 3-D format, there were moments where the picture seemed to be leaping out at me.

The influence of Steven Spielberg (a producer on the film) is also strongly apparent. Though entirely different in concept, the film follows a similar structure to those you'd see in some of Spielberg's best adventure films (INDIANA JONES or THE GOONIES for example). Like those films, MONSTER HOUSE is consistently entertaining and well-paced with a great balance of humor and thrills.

The problem with the film though is where those humor and thrills are being aimed. Essentially, this is a kid's movie because it was marketed as such. Granted, it is rated PG, but no previews seemed to genuinely warn parents of the extent to which this film pushes the boundaries of family entertainment. With a great deal of jokes regarding puberty, underage drinking, children ****ing into bottles, and more... the film left me uncomfortable at times. Not because I personally was offended by the jokes (as a matter of fact, many of them are very funny), but I constantly caught myself thinking... this doesn't seem right! On top of that, MONSTER HOUSE definitely doesn't skimp on the actual scares. Some moments genuinely made me jump, and I can't imagine how a young audience would feel watching the movie.

On it's own MONSTER HOUSE is a good source of entertainment, however it doesn't seem to really know what it's audience is. That doesn't mean I didn't have a fun night at the movies, but I can't bring myself to fully appreciate the piece. It doesn't seem well suited for the audience it's marketed for (youth), nor does it appeal fully to an older market. Nonetheless, I was incredibly leery of the concept from the day I first read about it and the film at least managed to eclipse those reservations. It's entertaining and exciting, but not very cohesive.

... B- ...
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Barnyard (2006)
5/10
BARNYARD : Rips Off "The Lion King" & Can't Balance The Drama W. Comedy
24 August 2006
BARNYARD

For severe lack of options currently in theaters, I found myself seeing a movie I thought you wouldn't have been able to pay me to see... BARNYARD. I couldn't have had less interest in seeing this movie, however a friend of mine swore that when they took the kids they were babysitting, they laughed so hard they snorted. So I figured, why not.

I can honestly say the film is enjoyable, and I'll get to the reasons why later on in this write up. But their are some glaringly bad qualities to these movies that need to be mentioned. The animation is simply not up to par for what other studios are offering right now. It all feels non-dimensional and simple. Character designs lack creativity and the execution could have been much better. Also, the voice work does little to improve the material (with the exception of David Koechner as the villainous Coyote). To be honest, people like Courtney Cox have never been worse or less engaging.

I would describe the plot here, however it's easier to say watch THE LION KING. Except here, the film tries to mix the most dramatic elements of THE LION KING with slapstick/crude humor that doesn't mix. THE LION KING's humor had some class to it which allowed the drama to feel real. However, when BARNYARD attempts to be dramatic it just feels awkward because two seconds before you watched a mouse crap pellets onto the head of a pig. Not only are main plots stolen from THE LION KING, but the villains are painfully reminiscent of the Hyenas in that better film.

Nonetheless, BARNYARD has some genuinely funny moments. While other family CGI films seem to excel at balancing wonderful storytelling with intelligent humor and social commentary (Pixar for example), this film simply goes for the laugh at all costs. This takes away virtually all artistic merit for the film. But then again, it's not as if BARNYARD was ever aiming for artistic merit. BARNYARD was gunning for mindless humor that would appeal to kids and adults, and it succeeds to great extents in some sequences. In particular, there is a scene in which the farmer witnesses the other life his animals lead and they hilariously try to convince him it was all a hallucination.

While this works well for kids, I couldn't help but want a more engrossing plot. The plot is too familiar and the animation does nothing to enhance it with a visual flair. Though the film kept me laughing, anytime I wasn't laughing at some stupid joke I found myself anxious for it all to be over. In general, BARNYARD is good for a hearty laugh, but not as a full movie.

... C ...
15 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Monster (2003)
7/10
MONSTER : The Film Is The Performance, & Theron Is Brilliant
13 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
MONSTER Watching this film proves that, despite the boredom and predictability of the Best Actress race in '04, Charlize Theron is one of the most deserving Oscar winners in recent years. It's amazing how such an average film holds up so beautifully in repeat viewings solely on the shoulders of Theron's unbelievable performance as Aileen Wournos in MONSTER.

MONSTER tells the story of Wournos, a homeless street-walking loner with a grim outlook on life. Although her rage doesn't manifest itself to murder till later in the film, it is clear that Wournos' ability to live in a world with men is shaky. She holds loathing and hatred towards the men that belittled her as a child, and instead of removing herself from those situations... she has chosen to live a life where her survival depends on men's carnal desires. However, after finding happiness in a relationship with a young girl named Selby (played by Chrisina Ricci), that rage that has been simmering deep down unleashes itself in a murdering frenzy as Aileen becomes one America's first female serial killers.

Virtually all of MONSTER's acclaim was focused on Charlize Theron and her startlingly good performance. And though it was certainly warranted... it should also be noted that MONSTER is a solid effort on it's own as well. It's a simple film told from a rather simple point of view. However, by remaining simple first time feature-director Patty Jenkins manages to keep the film well balanced. MONSTER never takes sides on the issue of violence, it is clear that Wournos is not justified to do what she does... but it is also clear that is not entirely her fault the her emotional state ever got to the place it was. If the film had taken sides, it would have been far less gripping. Thankfully Jenkins, with the help of Theron, manages to make this film an accurate portrait of this woman's life.

Aside from Theron, the only other performance that registers in the film is that of Christina Ricci. Her's is a polarizing performance, because it's hard to tell whether the incredibly annoying aspects of her character come from Ricci's acting, or Selby's personality. Personally, I think it's a little bit of both. Nonetheless, Ricci's performance works in the context of the film... and Theron obviously has no difficulty playing opposite her.

Though MONSTER is an solid film, it's clear it would have been nothing without the conviction of Charlize Theron in the leading role. Much flack has been given to the Best Actress category in recent years for being too quick to award any Hollywood actress who "de-glams". However, I think such a generalized criticism is unfair because it slightly taints Charlize Theron's win. Yes, she "de-glammed" and got fat... but even without that, her performance is one of the most emotionally hypnotizing female performances I've seen in years. This film IS her performance, and she's brilliant here.

... B- ...
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
SUPERMAN RETURNS : We Don't Need Another Bruce Wayne, We Simply Want Our "Man Of Steel"
6 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
SUPERMAN RETURNS

Nearly twenty years after the release of the original SUPERMAN, Warner Bros. entrusted one of its most significant properties to director Bryan Singer, the man who successfully launched the X-Men franchise. Judging from the critical and public reception of Singer's most recent film, X2 : X-MEN UNITED, he seemed the perfect choice to helm the project. Instead of starting the franchise all over again, Singer wrote a script that would act as a follow-up to the first two Superman films (wisely omitting the critically reviled 3rd and 4th films).

SUPERMAN RETURNS begins with the return of the "Man Of Steel" after a 5-year absence from Metropolis. Following the events of the two original films, Superman (played by newcomer Brandon Routh) left Earth in order to search for the remains of his home planet Krypton, only to discover a deeper loneliness when he sees that Krypton is indeed no more. When he returns to earth, he discovers that the world he left 5 years ago, a world where people considered him a savior, is no more. No longer does society need to look "up in the skies" for an answer to their problems, and they show no immediate signs of returning to old habits.

The world's new indifference towards Superman has been heavily influenced by none other then Superman's true love, Lois Lane (played by a wretchedly mis-cast Kate Bosworth). It turns out Lois, now engaged and with a grown child, is set to be awarded the Nobel Prize for a piece entitled "Why The World Doesn't Need Superman". In the wake of Superman's departure, Lois became a woman deeply scorned by the demigod she had loved so fiercely 5 years. However, Superman's arch-enemy Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) has escaped from prison and his newest plan to take over the world will force the planet to realize just how much they need Superman.

SUPERMAN RETURNS is a definite improvement over the comedic absurdity of SUPERMAN III and the bland mess that was SUPERMAN IV : THE QUEST FOR PEACE, but it fails to capture the magic of the two original films. What made the original films so wonderful was their ability to balance a fun and light-hearted comedic edge with an exciting adventure story. Here, Bryan Singer has made Superman and Lois Lane so muted by their inner demons that the fun slowly drains from the picture. What has made Superman so All-American all these years was an endearing simplicity to his character. He was a man with two things on his mind; saving the world and loving Lois Lane. That endearingly simple definition of the man somehow managed to balance out the sheer absurdity of his strength and powers before, and now the balance is lost in Singer's film.

The film does offer a few exciting action sequences including a disastrous plane crash and thrilling shipwreck, but these moments are overwhelmed by a ploddingly heavy emotional story. There's simply not enough excitement here. Bryan Singer focuses too much on making Superman a more complex and layered character, but the public simply does not need another Bruce Wayne… or Peter Parker… or Bruce Banner for that matter. America has always loved Superman for his undying loyalty to helping the human race survive in a dangerous world, not for his inner struggles and personal traumas. Perhaps Singer felt pressure to add a dark quality to the film because of the recent success that strategy has achieved for other heroes, but in SUPERMAN RETURNS it does not work as well.

Nonetheless, the film is not a total misfire. Brandon Routh is a wonderful discovery for the role, and he brings a light comedic quirkiness to his performance as Clark Kent that exemplifies much of what the rest of the film is missing. Also Kevin Spacey clearly has a great deal of fun playing Lex Luthor opposite Parker Posey, in a scene-stealing supporting role as Luthor's moll Kitty Kowalski. The film is made better by these three performers, as they infuse the film with its only joyful energy. However, Kate Bosworth is completely wrong on all accounts. From the very beginning Bosworth should not have been cast in the role, as she is far too young and lacks the conviction of a hard-hitting reporter. In the end, her performance fails to rise above her pre-disposed hurdles and without a good Lois Lane, SUPERMAN RETURNS suffers.

Warner Brothers and Brian Singer should have told themselves from the beginning of production that… "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Simply put, this film need to maintain the comedic undertones and breezy fun of the originals, and yet instead it chooses to abandon them. Superman has been an American icon for nearly 70 years, so shouldn't it be clear that the audience has always liked him the way he is. Sadly, the bleaker approach SUPERMAN RETURNS takes ends up dragging the film down into a jumbled mess that lasts about an hour longer then need be. It is a real shame when you consider the film gathered a talented team (with the exception of Bosworth) that had the potential to make a great film. Singer's proves here that he has the ability to shoot a movie beautifully, however his storytelling is way off. Let's just hope that if Superman "returns" again for a sequel, it's more fun. Otherwise, it's just not a genuine "Superman" movie.

... C- ...
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
LADY IN THE WATER : Shyamalan Challenges His Loudest Critics & Doesn't Win
27 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
LADY IN THE WATER

LADY IN THE WATER takes place entirely in a Philadelphia apartment complex named The Cove. It is here that we meet Heep (played wonderfully as always by Paul Giamatti), the grounds-keeper who silently goes about taking care of the resident's tiny problems. Heep is a man with little to be passionate about, and he therefore devotes himself fully to a job he does not care about. He lives a mundane existence of distant relationships and closeted sadness, until one day a strange being appears in The Cove's swimming pool.

One night, as Heep makes his rounds ensuring that no residents are swimming in The Cove's pool after hours, he is saved by a mysterious woman. Her name is Story (Bryce Dallas Howard), and she is a Narf sent from the "Blue World" to find her other half in the world of man. As Story explains her reason for living in The Cove's pool, Heep slowly comes to realize that she is a character straight out of a bed-time story, and only with the help of his fellow residents can he bring this bed-time story to its "Happily Ever After" ending.

While watching the film, the plot is every bit as far-fetched and ridiculous as it sounds. However, a ludicrous plot is not what makes LADY IN THE WATER such a polarizing film. As always, Shyamalan has managed to ground the film with a sense of realism, enabling his audience to suspend their disbelief and go along for the ride. Actually, I found LADY IN THE WATER's story to be its most engrossing element. What does end up hurting the film however are the indulgences Shyamalan allows himself far too freely.

Had Shyamalan been satisfied to bring LADY IN THE WATER to the screen with a more peaceful and loving tone, perhaps it would have been better. Unfortunately, he has infused this uplifting story of normal humans finding their purpose with a bitter and defensive tone that only taints its message. It's funny that of all The Cove's eccentric residents, including a man who only works out half of his body and a child who sees messages in cereal boxes, the most deconstructive character to the film is a simple film critic, named Mr. Farber (Bob Balaban). In one scene, after thinking that Mr. Farber holds the key to unlocking the secret behind the Narf, we are told that his opinions never really mattered. The film clearly states that a film critic is nothing more than a man delusional enough to believe that his opinion is all that matters, and clearly no man with such blind arrogance could ever understand the true meaning of the Narf's story.

Effectively, Shyamalan seems to be saying that any critic who doesn't like his film clearly lacks the ability to see the film's true meaning. It makes one wonder, if Shyamalan has such undying faith in his creative visions, why is he so confrontational and defensive throughout its presentation? It is this defensive and self-righteous attitude that slowly overtakes the film, dragging it down from what is an intriguing first half. The film continues to suffer as the film finds all too convenient ways to develop its plot. Solutions come all too easily and with little explanation. Perhaps had Shyamalan wisely omitted his obtrusive sub-plot involving Mr. Farber, the solutions could have been reached with more explanation and development.

The things that Shyamalan has always excelled at continue to be his film's strongest asset. He casts his films very well, from the leading role played so richly by Paul Giamatti, to the ensemble cast of eccentrics that surround him. Though Bryce Dallas Howard relies too heavily on simply being "other-worldly" as opposed to developing a layered character, Shyamalan is able to frame her performance in such a way that it never detracts from the film. My only qualm in the casting is another example of the director's indulgence. Shyamalan has cast himself in a primary role for the first time in one of his films, and though he does a serviceable job, his presence is more of a distraction then anything. It also seems that perhaps the time he spent in front of the camera would have been better spent at home tightening the script or behind the camera giving the film a sweeter tone.

Nonetheless, LADY IN THE WATER is a beautifully filmed movie with a distinct visual style and a powerful voice. Though not perfect, it certainly doesn't deserved to be called "pretentious, paralyzing twaddle" as Rex Reed so cruelly put it. In this era, it is a wonderful thing to have a director like M. Night Shyamalan even when his movies are not up to par. Whether good or bad, his movies always spark conversation. Even though LADY IN THE WATER will be viewed by many as an enormous disappointment, it is still a valiant (though misguided) attempt and it had this audience member talking all the way out of the theater. Let's just hope that after the dust settles over LADY IN THE WATER, Shyamalan listens to the advice of the film critics he seems to loathe so much and he loses a bit of his arrogance. Whether he does or not, I'll be in line to see what he comes up with next.

... C- ...
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA : Cinematic Equivalent To Wal-Mart Clothing, Enriched By A Killer Performance
12 July 2006
THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA

In one of THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA's most interesting moments, Lucifer herself Miranda Priestley (played like dry ice by Meryl Streep) discloses to her unknowing assistant Andy just how deeply layered fashion's influence on the world is. Whether others see it or not, Miranda knows that fashion determines everything. Even an article of clothing as hideous and offensive as Andy's Wal-Mart sweater was born from Miranda Priestley's knowledge of fashion. Everything from the most expensive Prada handbag to the cheapest department store purchase was born from Miranda Priestley's influence. In other words, fashion is more then just pretty clothes... it's art. Or at least that's how the boss from hell sees it in this high-style comedy directed by David Frankel.

THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA tells the story of Andy Sachs (played by Anne Hathaway), a recent graduate with dreams of a being a real journalist in the big city. One morning, she finds herself interviewing for one of the most coveted positions in the fashion industry, an industry she knows nothing about. Andy interviews to be the second assistant for Miranda Priestley, Editor-In-Chief of "Runway" Magazine... and by some twist of fate she lands the job. Despite a lack of passion for fashion, Andy takes the job because after one year she'll have the only thing she currently lacks... power in her industry. However, life in this industry proves more jarring then Andy could have ever imagined.

It's ironic that, despite Miranda Priestley's eloquently stated belief in the importance of fashion, the film that depicts that industry is nothing but a fun and expensive display of pretty clothes. Granted, the clothes and styles on screen in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA are incredibly beautiful, and this is sure to please the fashion conscious world that will make up most of the films audience. However, for someone like me, it would have been nice to have a director take the reigns in a Miranda Priestly style. By refusing to accept anything that is mere fluff, and demanding depth and precision at every turn, this film could have really soared. Sadly, the aforementioned scene in which Miranda lectures Andy on fashion was the only moment in this film where I felt the movie had a distinct voice.

Aside from that moment, I left THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA thinking "Yes, it was fun... but what was the point?" The film has been heavily promoted as a comedy, yet I didn't find myself laughing. On top of that, I never cared about a single character more then I would in a run-of-the-mill romantic comedy. So why did I still find THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA to be a decent film? I think the appeal lies in that carnal curiosity everyone has since grade school. The desire to see what it's like to be the most popular kid in the room... even though every ounce of common sense tells you the popular kids are not worth your time. Miranda Priestley represents the cruelest of the cool kids, as she flaunts her power and money in the cruelest way. Her life is one people yearn for even while she cuts them down with an evil glare for simply breathing in her air. This living devil of a woman is captured brilliantly in a magnetic performance from Meryl Streep. Much fuss has been made over this being Meryl's best "comedic" performance ever... I disagree. As a matter of fact, I didn't find anything funny in the entire movie. Nonetheless, the performance is fascinating to watch. What a pleasure to watch a performance so lived in given by such a great actress. Every fiber of her being wreaks of evil.

Aside from Meryl Streep, THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA does feature an enjoyable performance from Anne Hathaway and some killer clothes... but not much more. The story is formulaic, and every twist and turn is cliché. It's just decorated a little more expensively then your average romantic comedy. As I think back on how well Streep was able to convey the importance of fashion in one scene, it becomes clearer why this movie disappointments. If you take away the fancy clothes and Streep's performance, this movie feels as familiar and ordinary as the Wal-Mart sweaters that "Runway" magazine looks upon with unabashed disgust.

... B- ...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION : Charming & Enjoyable In It's Own Passive, Forgettable Way
6 July 2006
A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION Hope, happiness, protection, and caring guidance. These are the things we find that the Angel of Death provides to her victims at their final hour. A distraction from the oncoming doom that consequentially enlightens the dying man to realize what he fears is in actuality nothing much to worry about. And judging by how much fun Robert Altman's A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION is, it is clear that the Angel of Death's presence at the final performance of the classic radio show has filled all it's characters with that happy sense of distraction.

Even though Robert Altman's latest piece takes place at the closing of an era... it's a refreshing film that shows ends don't have to mean anything if you don't want them to. They can simply be the happy thing that they've always been since the beginning. As Garrison Keillor begins his final radio performance of "A Prairie Home Companion" before the theater is closed down... we see it's apparent this is a performance that will get no special treatment. All it's performers still manage to be late for cues, disobey rules, and bicker on-stage because, well, that's what "A Prairie Home Companion" is.

It's hard to waive the allure of trying to figure out a deeper meaning in Altman's film because the presence of Virginia Madsen as the Angel of Death is such a jarringly radical idea to include in the proceedings. It seems to hint at bigger ideas and complicated messages... however, Altman uses such a distractingly odd character in a way that only reinforces the simplicity of the story. The Angel of Death exists to provide comfort, and simple distraction in times of depressing situations... and that's exactly what the performers in "A Prairie Home Companion" have done all these years leading up to the final performance.

The performers include the Johnson Sisters (Meryl Streep & Lilly Tomlin), Dusty & Lefty (Woody Harrelson & John C. Reilly), and Garrison Keillor himself... and the film is merely a visual capture of the radio show. All the flaws are there but so is all the heart. And it's a simple pleasure to watch... whether it's the laugh out loud crude humor of Dusty & Lefty's "Bad Jokes" or it's the touchingly sincere performance Yolanda Johnson (Meryl Streep, 100% believable as always) offers in memory of her mother.

Altman's A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION never reaches heights of greatness because it never seems to aim for it. It seems to enjoy itself as a a piece of genuine entertainment that doesn't particularly care if it is remembered or not in the end... so long as people enjoyed it while it was there. In one important scene, Yolanda's daughter Lola (played by Lindsay Lohan, who never stands out but blends well with the incredible cast) asks Keillor why he won't create a moment to honor the final performance and Keillor responds, "I don't want to ask to be remembered." A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION doesn't ask it's audience to remember it, it simply hopes they enjoy themselves. And like the Angel of Death that looms over the theater, as this Mid-Western staple comes to an end we are guided through the final moments with sensitivity, compassion, joy and sincerity. Sure the film is flawed and it under-uses certain actors while overusing others... but aside from that, it's hard to dislike a film that seems to just want to be enjoyed.

A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION might not go down in history as Robert Altman's crowning achievement... and it might not even be remembered in 10 years. But like the radio show, at least it keeps it's audience happy while it's around, and that's more then enough.

... B+ ...
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
THE DAVINCI CODE : Ron Howard's Numerous Mistakes Make For A Big Disappointment
20 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
THE DAVINCI CODE

It took me a while to get out to the theaters to see this one because I wanted to be sure I'd finished reading the book first. From the very first previews for this film, I had faith it was going to be good. I'd yet to even read one page of the best-selling novel and yet Ron Howard's trailers had me enticed from day one. I was able to put aside my disappointment for Ron Howard's past film-work and believe he might have finally created a great film. And after reading the book, there was no doubt in my mind the source material was wonderful. Unfortunately, Ron Howard failed in all the same ways he has in the past... and his adaptation of THE DAVINCI CODE is one big, clunky disappointment.

Granted, to adapt a book with so many complications and so many different characters would have been a challenge for anyone... however, the results could have been much better. The film tells the story of Robert Langdon (played by a miscast Tom Hanks) and Sophie Neveu (played by a miscast Audrey Tatou) as they scramble to unearth the secret of the Holy Grail following the murder of Neveu's grandfather. In the moments before his death, Neveu's grandfather left numerous clues which would lead his granddaughter towards a family secret that would shock the world.

It's impossible to review THE DAVINCI CODE without comparing it to the superior book. Perhaps that's unfair, but if the book was such a daunting thing to be compared to... why did Howard stick so close to it? I felt throughout the entire film that Howard and the production team weren't quite sure what to do with the movie. Should they make a faithful adaptation even though it would be difficult, or should they re-arrange the story a bit to make it more cinematic...? It appears they never made a decision and just straddled that line throughout the entire development process.

Sadly, it appears things were off from the very start. Though Tom Hanks can usually handle any type of role, he is radically out of place in this film. He appears to be too old... and not so much in age, but in body. I never got the sense that finding the Holy Grail filled Langdon/Hanks with a wild curiosity and intense desire like it should have. Instead, Hanks just seemed to be going through the motions. And the same can be said for Tatou's performance as Sophie Neveu. Firstly, she is too young for the role. Secondly, Neveu needed to be the emotional centerpiece for the film when you consider how Howard chose to end things, and yet Tatou's performance didn't have a single extra layer to it. She seemed to be a beautiful shell of a Cryptologist who knows she must figure out the mystery... yet she appears to have no passionate need to know the truth. Without Langdon and Neveu's desperation, none of this mystery is exciting.

The other major casting mistake was Paul Bettany as Silas. While Silas does not necessarily need to look like a monstrosity, he definitely should not be attractive. Yet, nothing is done to downplay Bettany's natural good looks. Sure there are scratches all over his body and he's white as a sheet, but his body is sculpted beautifully and his face normal. And why may I ask did an Albino have blue eyes? All albinos have no pigmentation in their eyes leaving them a red-ish color... so why did Bettany keep blue eyes which only added to the physical attractiveness? Aside from the casting however, Howard's input does nothing to save the film. Instead, Ron Howard uses identical gimmicks as he has in the past (the code breaking in this film is stylized exactly the same as it was in A BEAUTIFUL MIND). In general the film just feels like its spread out too evenly without any significant dips or lulls in the action. In the book, the race between Langdon and the French Police seemed to be an ever shifting game of cat & mouse. In Dan Brown's novel, the police would get closer and closer only to fall back moments later... but in Howard's film, the police seem to be 10 minutes behind our heroes right up until the very end.

Finally, I don't think Ron Howard or Brian Grazer ever sat down at the very beginning of things and firmly decided exactly what perspective they were going to tell this story from. Is he simply telling the story of an interesting mystery? Is he offering an emotional tale of an abandoned child who yearns to know where they came from? Is he telling the story of man's obsession with knowing the truth? I think Howard tried to tell them all... and as a result he has an unfocused film on his hands.

It's hard to pin-point specific things that went wrong with the film... b/c in the end it isn't one specific element that ruined what could have been one of Cinema's most thrilling mysteries ever. It is the entire mixture. The casting is wrong, the direction poorly paced, the story too impersonal, and the mystery too unclear. While THE DAVINCI CODE has a few redeeming factors, such as Ian McKellen's engaging turn as Lee Teabing and some wonderful scenery, it is far too much of a disappointment when you consider the potential. In the end, although it's not the most boring 2 1/2 hours of my life by any means... I could never get past the fact that nothing in it is as good as it could have been. And when the most constant word in your head while watching a movie is "disappointment", then it's not a good sign.

... D ...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cars (2006)
9/10
CARS : Not Pixar's Best, But Still Better Then Many Movies Today...
16 June 2006
CARS

It's dangerous to do what Pixar has done over the past few years. If you build up an empire and flawless reputation for producing some of the best films released in modern years... inevitably something has got to give. Leading up to its release, it looked like CARS could potentially be that film. Trailers weren't as awe-inspiring as they've been the past, the story looked a little cliché, and the concept seemed a bit forced. And along with the inevitable fall of the empire, there's no doubt going to be people looking to bring you down... or at least people who have come to expect sooooo much from you that they will inevitably be disappointed. Personally, I think CARS is suffering that fate.

And it's a shame, because CARS is far from being a "disappointment". Pixar's latest CGI-film tells the story of Lightning McQueen (voiced by Owen Wilson), a stuck up race car with nothing on his mind besides his own pride and glory. While en route to the final race for the Piston Cup, Lightning McQueen gets himself lost and in trouble in the abandoned city of "Radiator Springs". What was once a thriving stop on Route 66 has now become a resting place for a group of rag tag vehicles. They include the reclusive leader Doc Hudson (Paul Newman), Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), and Sally the Porsche (Bonnie Hunt). Initially, Lightning couldn't possibly get out of "Radiator Springs" fast enough... however, as time goes by Lightning begins to realize the importance of slowing down and admiring the scenery.

True, the story is the most familiar of all the Pixar films yet... and it's not given as many layers as past screenplays had. Also, at times the story lags a bit more then others. The film is never boring, although it seems the producers were wasting a little time building up some minor characters that ultimately didn't effect the story that much. Yet still, CARS is an endearingly light-hearted tale of enjoying the simple things in life, so why shouldn't the story be simple as well? It might lower the prestige of CARS, but not necessarily it's entertainment value.

In terms of providing it's audience with a good time, Pixar still has not failed. CARS opens at a stadium filled with vehicles of all type doing waves, cheering, flashing the crowd, and more as the first major race for the Piston Cup takes place. It is in this opening sequence where Pixar really gets to showcase their skills as computer artists. The gleaming lights off the hoods of the race-cars, the details all the way down to the little pebbles on the racetrack, and the highly detailed background are just a few of things in this movie that truly impress. All the more impressive, these visual elements are blended in with sound editing and effects that match the very best in film today. All these factors combine to create some of the most exciting footage of race-cars captured on film, fake or not.

Pixar also shows they are still the masters of finding visual gags and slapstick humor without having to resort to pop-culture references and crude humor. Whereas most animated films today evoke their humor from "hip" and "edgy" pop-culture (SHREK, OVER THE HEDGE, and ICE AGE are all guilty of this... though they are still entertaining movies). Pixar's ability to evoke humor from the actual storyline instead of the outside world is what will ensure their films remain fresh and funny forever. They have managed to make films that will never feel dated. My personal favorite gags in this film came when we saw the Cars in their natural environments... on the roads cruising.

The voice-work in CARS is a fun addition as well. Though the limitation of having all the characters by automobiles limits the variety of characters that was welcoming through TOY STORY, BUGS LIFE and more... the actors still manage to infuse their characters with a distinct heart. Larry the Cable Guy, though probably the least gifted actor of the bunch, manages to come off best in a perfect marriage of voice-actor and machine.

Overall, CARS is possibly the best piece of family entertainment to be released this year. It seems unfair that a film with as many good elements as Pixar's CARS get deemed a "disappointment" simply because it can't meet the insane standards set up by the studio's last few films. Who cares if the movie is stretched a little bit longer then it needs to be... it's not like we get enough Pixar anyway! And who cares if it's a little less impressive then past efforts... it's still a worth addition to Pixar's credits and it shows they are continuing to develop in the visuals department! In the end, while CARS isn't close to being the best Pixar film yet, it is certainly the best animated film I've seen all year... and for that it deserves the credit it would receive whether it was being compared to past Pixar films or not.

... B+ ...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed