Well, folks, it's finally here: SKYFALL's full trailer.
The longer preview for the latest Bond film was released earlier today - and it looks quite smashing. We get more of a sense of the plot, as well as the characters. Bond looks great, as does Eve as his comradess-in-arms. And Severine is absolutely breathtaking as the "is-she-bad-or-is-she-good" mystery lady. Then there's M, who clearly plays a major role in the unfolding story. And let's not forget the introduction of a much younger Q. And last but in no way least is Silva - who is both magnetic and menacing as the main baddie. The normally dark-haired Javier Bardem looks kind of odd with all that blond hair, but then again Bond movies are supposed to have villains that stand out from the norm.
At any rate, SKYFALL is shaping up to be a major return to form after the atypical but interesting QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Please find below the domestic and international full trailers for SKYFALL, the 23rd Bond Adventure that will mark the 50th Anniversary of the series. From what we can tell, the main difference between the two trailers is that Severine appears more in the international trailer.
SKYFALL U.S. Trailer:
SKYFALL International Trailer:
Please expect more Bond-related posts as we ramp up our celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the franchise leading up to SKYFALL release in October.
Also, please expect the archived reviews for MOONRISE KINGDOM, MAGIC MIKE, BRAVE, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, THE WATCH, and TO ROME WITH LOVE to post one by one until they're all posted by Sunday. Don't want to overwhelm you folks with a seven-reviews-at-once post.
Have a good evening...
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
# 468 - MADAGASCAR 3 (2012)
MADAGASCAR 3 (2012 - COMEDY / ANIMATED / FAMILY) **** out of *****
(Where the HELL is Animal Control?!?! Oh, wait... there she is)
CAST: Voices of Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, David Schwimmer, Jada Pinkett Smith, Frances McDormand, Sacha Baron Cohen, Cedric The Entertainer, Andy Richter.
DIRECTORS: Eric Darnell, Tom McGrath, Conrad Vernon.
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and more zoo-escapees trying to get their furry asses back to the Big Apple - straight ahead...
IT'S LIKE THIS: In 2005's MADAGASACAR, we met pretty-boy lion Alex (Ben Stiller), crackhead zebra Marty (Chris Rock), nervous giraffe Melman (David Schwimmer), and sensible hippo Gloria (Jada Pinkett Smith) when all four of 'em were unexpectedly and unceremoniously uprooted from their cushy NYC zoo home - and transported via seafaring cramped cargo crates to the lovely isle of, uh, Madagascar. There, our comedic foursome discovered Mother Nature can be a bitch - and made the acquaintances of: (1) King Julian (Sacha Baron Cohen), a bizarro lemur who makes Marty look like the epitome of normalcy; (2) Maurice (Cedric The Entertainer), Julian's much more normal number # 2; (3) Mort (Andy Richter), Julian's tremulous bitch-boy who is forever in fear of his own shadow - and everyone else's; and, last but certainly the craziest: (4) The Penguins (Tom McGrath, Christopher Knights, Chris Miller, Conrad Vernon), four nutty tuxedo birdies who will make you rethink your idea of penguins as harmlessly cute zoo animals.
Then, in 2008's MADAGASCAR 2, we further followed the furry foursome's continuing misadventures and growing pains as they realized that they really, really, REALLY missed the Big Apple. Enough to put their faith on those four fucking insane penguins and a plan to get off the island that makes your average James Bond plot look downright believable. It involves: (1) a plane with no engine; and (2) putting their faith on those four fucking insane penguins and (3) a plan to get off the island that makes your average James Bond plot look downright believable. Only they end up on the mainland continent of Africa, which our furry foursome decided was good enough. Right. Four prima donnas who are used to the amenities of the En-Why-Cee? Let's see how long that lasts. Compared to where they just came from, anything is a step up. But not for long. At least the Penguins prove to be fairly smart after all: they see the writing on the wall (i.e., they will be bored out of their skulls in, like, three days), take that rickety-ass plane, and hightail it to Europe. Monte Carlo, to be exact. The End.
Which brings us to MADAGASCAR 3 - which starts with Alex, Marty, Melman, and Gloria getting a traveler's version of The Seven Year Itch. In other words: "what's our next destination?" Seems they've gotten really bored with Africa, and Alex plans on using the Penguins' plane to fly them all to NYC - when they return from Monte Carlo, that is. Now, folks, I don't have to tell you that this plan depends on one very big assumption: that those goddamned tuxedo birds are even going to come back in the first place. Think about it... if you were a crazy-ass party-animal penguin, would you hang out in the glam environs of Monte Carlo where booze and music and money runs wild - or would you stay in the quiet savannahs of Africa where there's more than a passing chance of getting eaten by something very big with sharp teeth? Yes, folks, Alex should not hold his breath.
Before you know it, Alex and his three buds decide to, ahem, snorkel to Monte Carlo. Hey, if the fucking Muppets can "travel by map", then our furry foursome can snorkel around the Cape of Good Hope, up along the West Coast of Africa, duck through the Strait of Gibraltar, hang a left past Spain, and make a beeline for the shores of... Monte Carlo. Personally, I would've just paraglided - and steered straight for Europe. Like I tried to do a couple of months ago when some Californian friends and I decided to add paragliding to our list of adventures (next up: bungee jumping and Great White Shark Cage diving). I tried to steer the parachute to Los Angeles, which did not please my tandem partner/paraglide pilot at all. On our next flight, I tried to steer towards San Francisco. Still a no-go. Well, we're going paragliding again next month because I'm getting a Paraglide Adventure Package as a present for another friend - and this time I'm aiming for Maui. Wish me luck. Maybe the third time will be the charm.
Unfortunately, owing that there are no paraglide agencies at all on Madagascar, our heroes decide to just swim for it. It doesn't come as huge surprise that they make it to Monte Carlo, no problem. Since this is an animate film, anything goes. It takes even less time for Alex, Melman, Marty, and Gloria to track down those crackhead penguins. Apparently, our tuxedo birdbrains have (with the help of a couple of even nuttier monkeys) decided to impersonate a human being (don't even ask), and try their luck at the gambling tables. After a botched interception attempt that aims to ape the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE setpieces, but fails miserably, our furry foursome, the tuxedo birdbrains, and the two lunatic monkeys have to go on the run through the streets of Monte Carlo.
Which normally wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately, it appears that Monte Carlo Animal Control has an agent who is like Catherine Banning (Renee Russo) from THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR - but even more relentless, sharp, and formidable (if that's even possible). She is Chantal DuBois (Frances McDormand). And, evidently, she always get her man. Or her lion, zebra, hippo, giraffe, penguins, and monkeys. In other words: run, animals, RUN!!!!
And, run they do. Let's just say that Alex and co. quickly realize just how unstoppable Chantal is - and try to vamoose it out of there. Unfortunately, their rickety-ass plane does what rickety-ass planes do well - fall out of the fucking sky. And just like that, our lovable and furry dipshits are stuck in France without a ride home. You'd think at this point, these fucking animals would FINALLY go to the nearest paraglide shop and try to float and steer their way across the Atlantic to Noo Yawk (this is a cartoon, after all - it's totally do-able). But, no... our quadriped (except for the insane penguins who are bipeds) heroes decide to travel across Europe by... joining the circus. I wish I was kidding, folks, but somehow these cretins think they can "blend" in with the other animals and perform with them so well, that a talent agent from Noo Yawk will hire them and transport them to the Big Apple. As I said before, don't even ask.
So... will Alex, Gloria, Marty, and Melman succeed with their "circus plan"? How will the animals of the circus react? Will they embrace them? Or refuse to let them join? How will Stefano the Italian Seal (Martin Short), Vitaly the Russian Tiger (Bryan Cranston), and Gia the Ukrainian Tigress (Jessica Chastain) help our furry heroes? Will they work together as a team? Or will Vitaly's ego ruin their hard work? Will our furry foursome ever see the Big Apple ever again?
Who cares. They asked for it by joining the Circus and not paragliding their asses across the ocean. I mean, come one: if they can snorkel across the Indian Ocean, the East Atlantic Ocean, and across the Mediterranean Sea, they can sure as hell float all the way to New York. Hell, I almost made it to L.A. and San Francisco - before my dumbass pilot put a stop to that shit. Damn it.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: Following on the heels of the clever and immensely enjoyable MADAGASCAR (2005) and MADAGASCAR 2: ESCAPE TO AFRICE (2008), MADAGASCAR 3 provides the same delightful blend of beautiful animation and irreverent hilarity that the series is known for. What's great about this installment, though, is that it turns all the characters - even Julian, Maurice, Mort, the Penguins and the Monkeys - into "fishes-out-of-water". Whereas Alex, Marty, Melman, and Gloria were the "odd men out" because of their "city mouse" origins, the entire cast is out of their element in the Monte Carlo setting.
Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, David Schwimmer, and Jada Pinkett Smith once again bring razor-sharp comic timing and charisma to their roles - and are all stellar. Sacha Baron Cohen is once again a loony delight as King Julian. Unapologetically bizarre and flamboyant, Julian came close to stealing the first two movies - and almost does the same here. Same goes for the goofy quartet of Penguins whose appearance automatically signals some truly hilarious setpieces. Quite simply, these guys are a hoot. As for Mort and Maurice, Andy Richter and Cedric The Entertainer give them their moments in the sun, so to speak, are great support.
Martin Short, Jessica Chastain, and Bryan Cranston are great as the new characters: Stefano, the goofy Italian Seal; Gia, the sultry Ukrainian Tigress; and Vitaly, the potentially villainous Russian Tiger. Each of them aquit themselves well and manage to stand tall next to the veterans of the first two films.
One of the best elements of the new film, though, is Frances McDormand as the determined and implacable "animal detective" Chantal Dubois. McDormand makes Chantal a formidable adversary for our group of animal heroes, and it's great that the writers decided to make the character female. Lesser writers would've gone a predictable route and made Chantal male. The character works better as a woman, and even though she's animated, Chantal brings echoes of Catherine Banning (Renee Russo) from THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR, Gin Baker (Catherine Zeta-Jones) from ENTRAPMENT, and Karen Sisco (Jennifer Lopez) from OUT OF SIGHT - similarly determined female law enforcement agents hot on the heroes' trails.
As with the best animated films, MADAGASCAR 3 combines intelligent and irreverent humor, with great visuals and a genuinely warm sense of community. I cannot wait for the (inevitable) MADAGASCAR 4. And an added plus: the MADAGASCAR theme is one of the most energetic and stirring themes I've ever heard. In fact, when we went paragliding in California two months ago, this music was inexplicably playing through my head as we walked over the edge. Actually, it's the music that plays in my head anytime we do anything adventurous: scuba diving, mountain biking, cliff jumping, or anything outdoorsy. Awesome theme that signifies adventure. Love it. Never fails to send shivers of excitement down my spine.
In closing, MADAGASCAR 3 is just as good as the first two films - maybe even a little better because of the new avenues the story forces our characters down. And because of Chantal Dubois - who is one formidable (and hilarious) opponent.
Please revel in the thrilling MADAGASCAR themes by that wondrous talent named Hans Zimmer:
Then there's the other song that the MADAGASCAR series is famous for: "I Like To Move It" by King Julian and his crew...
(Where the HELL is Animal Control?!?! Oh, wait... there she is)
CAST: Voices of Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, David Schwimmer, Jada Pinkett Smith, Frances McDormand, Sacha Baron Cohen, Cedric The Entertainer, Andy Richter.
DIRECTORS: Eric Darnell, Tom McGrath, Conrad Vernon.
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and more zoo-escapees trying to get their furry asses back to the Big Apple - straight ahead...
IT'S LIKE THIS: In 2005's MADAGASACAR, we met pretty-boy lion Alex (Ben Stiller), crackhead zebra Marty (Chris Rock), nervous giraffe Melman (David Schwimmer), and sensible hippo Gloria (Jada Pinkett Smith) when all four of 'em were unexpectedly and unceremoniously uprooted from their cushy NYC zoo home - and transported via seafaring cramped cargo crates to the lovely isle of, uh, Madagascar. There, our comedic foursome discovered Mother Nature can be a bitch - and made the acquaintances of: (1) King Julian (Sacha Baron Cohen), a bizarro lemur who makes Marty look like the epitome of normalcy; (2) Maurice (Cedric The Entertainer), Julian's much more normal number # 2; (3) Mort (Andy Richter), Julian's tremulous bitch-boy who is forever in fear of his own shadow - and everyone else's; and, last but certainly the craziest: (4) The Penguins (Tom McGrath, Christopher Knights, Chris Miller, Conrad Vernon), four nutty tuxedo birdies who will make you rethink your idea of penguins as harmlessly cute zoo animals.
Then, in 2008's MADAGASCAR 2, we further followed the furry foursome's continuing misadventures and growing pains as they realized that they really, really, REALLY missed the Big Apple. Enough to put their faith on those four fucking insane penguins and a plan to get off the island that makes your average James Bond plot look downright believable. It involves: (1) a plane with no engine; and (2) putting their faith on those four fucking insane penguins and (3) a plan to get off the island that makes your average James Bond plot look downright believable. Only they end up on the mainland continent of Africa, which our furry foursome decided was good enough. Right. Four prima donnas who are used to the amenities of the En-Why-Cee? Let's see how long that lasts. Compared to where they just came from, anything is a step up. But not for long. At least the Penguins prove to be fairly smart after all: they see the writing on the wall (i.e., they will be bored out of their skulls in, like, three days), take that rickety-ass plane, and hightail it to Europe. Monte Carlo, to be exact. The End.
Which brings us to MADAGASCAR 3 - which starts with Alex, Marty, Melman, and Gloria getting a traveler's version of The Seven Year Itch. In other words: "what's our next destination?" Seems they've gotten really bored with Africa, and Alex plans on using the Penguins' plane to fly them all to NYC - when they return from Monte Carlo, that is. Now, folks, I don't have to tell you that this plan depends on one very big assumption: that those goddamned tuxedo birds are even going to come back in the first place. Think about it... if you were a crazy-ass party-animal penguin, would you hang out in the glam environs of Monte Carlo where booze and music and money runs wild - or would you stay in the quiet savannahs of Africa where there's more than a passing chance of getting eaten by something very big with sharp teeth? Yes, folks, Alex should not hold his breath.
Before you know it, Alex and his three buds decide to, ahem, snorkel to Monte Carlo. Hey, if the fucking Muppets can "travel by map", then our furry foursome can snorkel around the Cape of Good Hope, up along the West Coast of Africa, duck through the Strait of Gibraltar, hang a left past Spain, and make a beeline for the shores of... Monte Carlo. Personally, I would've just paraglided - and steered straight for Europe. Like I tried to do a couple of months ago when some Californian friends and I decided to add paragliding to our list of adventures (next up: bungee jumping and Great White Shark Cage diving). I tried to steer the parachute to Los Angeles, which did not please my tandem partner/paraglide pilot at all. On our next flight, I tried to steer towards San Francisco. Still a no-go. Well, we're going paragliding again next month because I'm getting a Paraglide Adventure Package as a present for another friend - and this time I'm aiming for Maui. Wish me luck. Maybe the third time will be the charm.
Unfortunately, owing that there are no paraglide agencies at all on Madagascar, our heroes decide to just swim for it. It doesn't come as huge surprise that they make it to Monte Carlo, no problem. Since this is an animate film, anything goes. It takes even less time for Alex, Melman, Marty, and Gloria to track down those crackhead penguins. Apparently, our tuxedo birdbrains have (with the help of a couple of even nuttier monkeys) decided to impersonate a human being (don't even ask), and try their luck at the gambling tables. After a botched interception attempt that aims to ape the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE setpieces, but fails miserably, our furry foursome, the tuxedo birdbrains, and the two lunatic monkeys have to go on the run through the streets of Monte Carlo.
Which normally wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately, it appears that Monte Carlo Animal Control has an agent who is like Catherine Banning (Renee Russo) from THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR - but even more relentless, sharp, and formidable (if that's even possible). She is Chantal DuBois (Frances McDormand). And, evidently, she always get her man. Or her lion, zebra, hippo, giraffe, penguins, and monkeys. In other words: run, animals, RUN!!!!
And, run they do. Let's just say that Alex and co. quickly realize just how unstoppable Chantal is - and try to vamoose it out of there. Unfortunately, their rickety-ass plane does what rickety-ass planes do well - fall out of the fucking sky. And just like that, our lovable and furry dipshits are stuck in France without a ride home. You'd think at this point, these fucking animals would FINALLY go to the nearest paraglide shop and try to float and steer their way across the Atlantic to Noo Yawk (this is a cartoon, after all - it's totally do-able). But, no... our quadriped (except for the insane penguins who are bipeds) heroes decide to travel across Europe by... joining the circus. I wish I was kidding, folks, but somehow these cretins think they can "blend" in with the other animals and perform with them so well, that a talent agent from Noo Yawk will hire them and transport them to the Big Apple. As I said before, don't even ask.
So... will Alex, Gloria, Marty, and Melman succeed with their "circus plan"? How will the animals of the circus react? Will they embrace them? Or refuse to let them join? How will Stefano the Italian Seal (Martin Short), Vitaly the Russian Tiger (Bryan Cranston), and Gia the Ukrainian Tigress (Jessica Chastain) help our furry heroes? Will they work together as a team? Or will Vitaly's ego ruin their hard work? Will our furry foursome ever see the Big Apple ever again?
Who cares. They asked for it by joining the Circus and not paragliding their asses across the ocean. I mean, come one: if they can snorkel across the Indian Ocean, the East Atlantic Ocean, and across the Mediterranean Sea, they can sure as hell float all the way to New York. Hell, I almost made it to L.A. and San Francisco - before my dumbass pilot put a stop to that shit. Damn it.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: Following on the heels of the clever and immensely enjoyable MADAGASCAR (2005) and MADAGASCAR 2: ESCAPE TO AFRICE (2008), MADAGASCAR 3 provides the same delightful blend of beautiful animation and irreverent hilarity that the series is known for. What's great about this installment, though, is that it turns all the characters - even Julian, Maurice, Mort, the Penguins and the Monkeys - into "fishes-out-of-water". Whereas Alex, Marty, Melman, and Gloria were the "odd men out" because of their "city mouse" origins, the entire cast is out of their element in the Monte Carlo setting.
Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, David Schwimmer, and Jada Pinkett Smith once again bring razor-sharp comic timing and charisma to their roles - and are all stellar. Sacha Baron Cohen is once again a loony delight as King Julian. Unapologetically bizarre and flamboyant, Julian came close to stealing the first two movies - and almost does the same here. Same goes for the goofy quartet of Penguins whose appearance automatically signals some truly hilarious setpieces. Quite simply, these guys are a hoot. As for Mort and Maurice, Andy Richter and Cedric The Entertainer give them their moments in the sun, so to speak, are great support.
Martin Short, Jessica Chastain, and Bryan Cranston are great as the new characters: Stefano, the goofy Italian Seal; Gia, the sultry Ukrainian Tigress; and Vitaly, the potentially villainous Russian Tiger. Each of them aquit themselves well and manage to stand tall next to the veterans of the first two films.
One of the best elements of the new film, though, is Frances McDormand as the determined and implacable "animal detective" Chantal Dubois. McDormand makes Chantal a formidable adversary for our group of animal heroes, and it's great that the writers decided to make the character female. Lesser writers would've gone a predictable route and made Chantal male. The character works better as a woman, and even though she's animated, Chantal brings echoes of Catherine Banning (Renee Russo) from THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR, Gin Baker (Catherine Zeta-Jones) from ENTRAPMENT, and Karen Sisco (Jennifer Lopez) from OUT OF SIGHT - similarly determined female law enforcement agents hot on the heroes' trails.
As with the best animated films, MADAGASCAR 3 combines intelligent and irreverent humor, with great visuals and a genuinely warm sense of community. I cannot wait for the (inevitable) MADAGASCAR 4. And an added plus: the MADAGASCAR theme is one of the most energetic and stirring themes I've ever heard. In fact, when we went paragliding in California two months ago, this music was inexplicably playing through my head as we walked over the edge. Actually, it's the music that plays in my head anytime we do anything adventurous: scuba diving, mountain biking, cliff jumping, or anything outdoorsy. Awesome theme that signifies adventure. Love it. Never fails to send shivers of excitement down my spine.
In closing, MADAGASCAR 3 is just as good as the first two films - maybe even a little better because of the new avenues the story forces our characters down. And because of Chantal Dubois - who is one formidable (and hilarious) opponent.
Please revel in the thrilling MADAGASCAR themes by that wondrous talent named Hans Zimmer:
Then there's the other song that the MADAGASCAR series is famous for: "I Like To Move It" by King Julian and his crew...
Sunday, July 29, 2012
FIRST LOOK: CLOUD ATLAS
Probably the Fall/Winter Season film we are most excited to see is CLOUD ATLAS, the sure-to-be striking adapation of the best-selling novel that explores our emotional and spiritual connections to one another, in our current and past lives, and how an act of love can reverberate through time and space and effect great changes. The first glimpse of the film is below, and it is a hypnotic thing of beauty, with a mesmerizing Tom Hanks, Susan Sarandon, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant, and many, many more talented folks in the cast. Halle Berry, in particular, appears to finally have the post-Oscar role that perfectly showcases her haunting beauty and talent.
Prepare to have your breath taken away...
Prepare to have your breath taken away...
MOVIE MUSIC TRACK OF THE WEEK: "Forever Young"
Hello, folks...
The rest of the July reviews were supposed to post today, but we've been busy with scuba diving and other outdoor stuff this weekend - and, frankly, exhausted doesn't even begin to cover it. In any case, it'd be best to release the movie reviews gradually over the coming week - and not in one giant post. For now, though, please relax to the tunes of Alphaville's "Forever Young" - from the soundtrack of LISTEN TO ME, that rarely-seen Kirk Cameron-Jami Gertz debate flick. So-so film, great soundtrack.
The rest of the July reviews were supposed to post today, but we've been busy with scuba diving and other outdoor stuff this weekend - and, frankly, exhausted doesn't even begin to cover it. In any case, it'd be best to release the movie reviews gradually over the coming week - and not in one giant post. For now, though, please relax to the tunes of Alphaville's "Forever Young" - from the soundtrack of LISTEN TO ME, that rarely-seen Kirk Cameron-Jami Gertz debate flick. So-so film, great soundtrack.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
AURORA...
Good morning, folks... A week is nowhere near long enough for a period of silence for our friends that died or were injured in Aurora, Colorado last week. But even as we move forward, we will always be looking back in respect and remembrance.
With that in mind, please expect the reviews for MADAGASCAR 3, MOONRISE KINGDOM, MAGIC MIKE, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, BRAVE, and THE WATCH to all post tomorrow. They've already been written for awhile, but we've held off in posting out of consideration for the terrible events last week. Nor will we be able to post them today due to social events all day long and a friend's birthday bash....
.
For now, to further pay homage to our friends and their families in Aurora, Colorado, please find below a piece that film composer Hans Zimmer (creator of the music for THE DARK KNIGHT trilogy) created in tribute to them. Please follow the link to YouTube, where information on how to donate to the survivors of the Aurora, Colorado incident is located.
We are also posting the newly-released teaser trailers for MAN OF STEEL, the "Superman" reboot slated for a Summer 2013 release. Produced by Christopher Nolan (director of THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY), the film promises to be a deeper, more realistic interpretation of the "Superman/Clark Kent" mythos. It also will emphasize Clark Kent's path towards manhood and his destiny - becoming an example of good for mankind. To inspire them to be better than they are. In these troubled times when incidents like the one in Aurora, Colorado remind us of how brutal and random life can be, it's important not to forget that there are just as many examples of heroism, goodness, love, and sacrifice everywhere.
We've always thought of movies as reality seen through the filter of art - so we can understand life better, something we can all enjoy and learn from as a community. And MAN OF STEEL promises to tap into mankind's capacity for good - and how Superman/Clark Kent inspires them. Now, more than ever, we need to remember that capacity. We cannot let the destructive, hurtful actions of one sick man make us lose faith in each other's inherent goodness. Otherwise, he will have won. Don't let him win.
Without further ado, Hans Zimmer's quietly moving tribute to the victims and survivors of last week's tragic incident, simply titled "Aurora"...
... and MAN OF STEEL's inspiring and moving teaser trailers. The first one is narrated by Jor-El (Russell Crowe), Superman's birth father. The second one is narrated by Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner), Clark Kent's adoptive father. Both speeches eloquently and movingly emphasize the importance of the path that Clark must follow for the good of humanity.
Jor-El (Crowe) version:
Jonathan Kent (Costner) version:
Have a wonderful day, folks...
With that in mind, please expect the reviews for MADAGASCAR 3, MOONRISE KINGDOM, MAGIC MIKE, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, BRAVE, and THE WATCH to all post tomorrow. They've already been written for awhile, but we've held off in posting out of consideration for the terrible events last week. Nor will we be able to post them today due to social events all day long and a friend's birthday bash....
.
For now, to further pay homage to our friends and their families in Aurora, Colorado, please find below a piece that film composer Hans Zimmer (creator of the music for THE DARK KNIGHT trilogy) created in tribute to them. Please follow the link to YouTube, where information on how to donate to the survivors of the Aurora, Colorado incident is located.
We are also posting the newly-released teaser trailers for MAN OF STEEL, the "Superman" reboot slated for a Summer 2013 release. Produced by Christopher Nolan (director of THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY), the film promises to be a deeper, more realistic interpretation of the "Superman/Clark Kent" mythos. It also will emphasize Clark Kent's path towards manhood and his destiny - becoming an example of good for mankind. To inspire them to be better than they are. In these troubled times when incidents like the one in Aurora, Colorado remind us of how brutal and random life can be, it's important not to forget that there are just as many examples of heroism, goodness, love, and sacrifice everywhere.
We've always thought of movies as reality seen through the filter of art - so we can understand life better, something we can all enjoy and learn from as a community. And MAN OF STEEL promises to tap into mankind's capacity for good - and how Superman/Clark Kent inspires them. Now, more than ever, we need to remember that capacity. We cannot let the destructive, hurtful actions of one sick man make us lose faith in each other's inherent goodness. Otherwise, he will have won. Don't let him win.
Without further ado, Hans Zimmer's quietly moving tribute to the victims and survivors of last week's tragic incident, simply titled "Aurora"...
... and MAN OF STEEL's inspiring and moving teaser trailers. The first one is narrated by Jor-El (Russell Crowe), Superman's birth father. The second one is narrated by Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner), Clark Kent's adoptive father. Both speeches eloquently and movingly emphasize the importance of the path that Clark must follow for the good of humanity.
Jor-El (Crowe) version:
Jonathan Kent (Costner) version:
Have a wonderful day, folks...
Sunday, July 22, 2012
In Memoriam...
Good morning, folks. Due to the terrible tragedy in Aurora, Colorado at a Thursday midnight screening of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, we will not be posting any movie reviews between this weekend and next Friday - for a period of mourning, reflection, remembrance, and respect for the dead and injured. Our hearts go out to the survivors and the families of the fallen, and we pray for them during this very difficult time.
Please expect the reviews to resume posting next weekend. Thanks for your understanding...
Please expect the reviews to resume posting next weekend. Thanks for your understanding...
Monday, July 16, 2012
MOVIE MUSIC TRACK OF THE WEEK: "Wicked Game" and IL DIVO...
Last week's Movie Music Track Of The Week was Black's "Wonderful Life". I mentioned that it was my # 2 favorite song of all time. Which then led to some questions from some readers as to what my #1 favorite song of all time is...
The answer: it's a tie. A tie between Eddie Money's "Take Me Home Tonight" and... "Wicked Game" by Chris Isaak. Sexy, mysterious, seductive, and quietly intense, "Wicked Game" is something of a modern musical classic. Its evocative and provocative harmony and lyrics are now iconic and near-legendary. "Wicked Game" made its film debut on the soundtrack of David Lynch's WILD AT HEART in 1991, but has since made appearances in many other films and TV shows. That's how hypnotic and memorable this song is.
There's another reason we've chosen "Wicked Game" as our Movie Music Track Of The Week: On July 24, the Italian pop opera band IL DIVO (composed of four very handsome and talented Italian men) will be playing live at the Paramount Theatre in downtown Seattle - and their version of "Wicked Game" is the best one since Chris Isaak's original. In fact, IL DIVO's new album is also titled "Wicked Game". The only way this beautiful song could be made even lovelier is to sing it in Italian. You don't have to be psychic to figure out that we've got killer seats for the concert. Cannot wait. And cannot wait to hear their version of "Wicked Game" - live.
Without further ado, I present to you my # 1 favorite song of all time from WILD AT HEART's soundtrack: "Wicked Game" by Chris Isaak.
And IL DIVO's equally sensual Italian version from their album "Wicked Game":
Please expect the movie reviews to resume posting after the Sounders vs. Chelsea international friendly on Wednesday night. Ciao ciao...
The answer: it's a tie. A tie between Eddie Money's "Take Me Home Tonight" and... "Wicked Game" by Chris Isaak. Sexy, mysterious, seductive, and quietly intense, "Wicked Game" is something of a modern musical classic. Its evocative and provocative harmony and lyrics are now iconic and near-legendary. "Wicked Game" made its film debut on the soundtrack of David Lynch's WILD AT HEART in 1991, but has since made appearances in many other films and TV shows. That's how hypnotic and memorable this song is.
There's another reason we've chosen "Wicked Game" as our Movie Music Track Of The Week: On July 24, the Italian pop opera band IL DIVO (composed of four very handsome and talented Italian men) will be playing live at the Paramount Theatre in downtown Seattle - and their version of "Wicked Game" is the best one since Chris Isaak's original. In fact, IL DIVO's new album is also titled "Wicked Game". The only way this beautiful song could be made even lovelier is to sing it in Italian. You don't have to be psychic to figure out that we've got killer seats for the concert. Cannot wait. And cannot wait to hear their version of "Wicked Game" - live.
Without further ado, I present to you my # 1 favorite song of all time from WILD AT HEART's soundtrack: "Wicked Game" by Chris Isaak.
And IL DIVO's equally sensual Italian version from their album "Wicked Game":
Please expect the movie reviews to resume posting after the Sounders vs. Chelsea international friendly on Wednesday night. Ciao ciao...
Sunday, July 15, 2012
HAPPY SUNDAY EVENING!
Hello, folks... I had hoped to get the reviews for MADAGASCAR 3, MAGIC MIKE, MOONRISE KINGDOM, SIN NOMBRE, and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS posted this weekend, but the siren call of friends and partying took precedence. Nothing like good friends and good drinks and great conversation and awesome karaoke and stellar dancing.
With that in mind, please expect us to get caught up with the reviews at the end of week. With the monumental Sounders vs Chelsea friendly international match this Wednesday night, the reviews will again have to take a back seat. We will also be releasing the Movie Music Track Of The Week in a few days...
Until then, have a wonderful week and enjoy!
With that in mind, please expect us to get caught up with the reviews at the end of week. With the monumental Sounders vs Chelsea friendly international match this Wednesday night, the reviews will again have to take a back seat. We will also be releasing the Movie Music Track Of The Week in a few days...
Until then, have a wonderful week and enjoy!
Sunday, July 8, 2012
# 467 - THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN (2012)
THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN (2012 - SUPERHERO / ACTION / ROMANCE) ***** out of *****
(Finally - a Spiderman with BALLS!!! YEAH!!!)
CAST: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Sally Field, Martin Sheen, Campbell Scott, Embeth Davidtz, Rajit Ratha, Chris Zylka.
DIRECTOR: Marc Webb
WARNING: Some awesome web-slinging antics (one awesome web-slinger) straight ahead...
IT'S LIKE THIS: First, there was BATMAN BEGINS in 2005, which "rebooted" the Batman franchise after the potential coffin-nailer that was BATMAN & ROBIN in 1997. Then there was CASINO ROYALE in 2006, which "rebooted" the James Bond franchise after the potential Extinction Level Event that was DIE ANOTHER DAY in 2002. Now, we have.... THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN.... which intends to reboot (note the lack of quotes this time) the Spiderman franchise after the three-ring circus clusterfuck that was SPIDERMAN 3 in 2007. Some folks are a bit skeptical since the original SPIDERMAN came out just 10 years ago, and are questioning the need to start again from square one so soon. Me, personally? I say, BRING IT!!!! All I want from my Spiderman movies are: (1) a Peter Parker/Spidey who is noble AND ballsy; (2) a villain who is complex AND scary; (3) a heroine who is sweet AND resourceful; and (4) action scenes that are dazzling AND realistic. THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN delivers on all counts, but more about that later in the BUT, SERIOUSLY portion of the review.
For now, let's reboot, er, recap. Like SPIDERMAN '02, we meet our hero Peter Parker. Unlike SPIDERMAN '02, he is played by Andrew Garfield and NOT Tobey Maguire - which is a very good thing. But, again, more on that later. As with the original movie, we learn that Peter is living with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field). Unlike the original flick, though, we get the backstory of what happened to Peter's parents. Or rather, some pieces of it. Seems Dr. Richard Parker (Campbell Scott), Peter's pops, was involved in some sort of top secret experiment that forced him and his wife (Embeth Davidtz) to go on the run - and leave their son behind. Hmmmm... what could Dr. Parker have been working on that was so dangerous that he would leave behind his beloved kid in the care of Aunt May and Uncle Ben - and go on the run? Ahem?
Anyhow, little Peter grows up into big Peter. Unfortunately, in addition to carrying around a knapsack in school, big Peter also carries around the scars of abandonment. He seems completely oblivious to the fact that he looks a lot like Andrew Garfield, and skulks around campus like he looks like Gollum from the HARRY POTTER series. He also has a serious jones for Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), one of those driven and brilliant chicks who are destined to end up becoming ridiculously hot scientists. You know? The kind that appear in James Bond movies? Paging Dr. Christmas Jones? Unfortunately, Peter is too shy to make his feelings known to Gwen known, and prefers to dance around her orbit. I suppose it doesn't help that Gwen's dad is Captain Stacy of the NYPD - and is a bit of an asshole.
While the Peter-Gwen drama is going on, Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who is also a former colleague of Peter's father, is busy trying to continue Richard's research and try to develop a serum that will allow people with missing limbs to regrow their, uh, missing limbs. And since we all know lizard can regenerate their severed tails, it should come as no surprise that Dr. Connors has been ransacking the DNA of his lizard test subjects to boost the serum - which he eventually will test on himself because he is missing an arm. Say it with me now: none of this will end well, Curt. Oh, and I forgot to mention the little tiny detail of Peter being bitten by a special spider in Dr. Connors' labs.
Sure enough, before you know it, Peter is displaying the agility of a.... well, it really looks like the agility of a cat. Judging by the way he pounces off wall after wall and climbs up really high places and slinks through narrows spaces like he's trying to give Casper and Guido a run for their money. But I supposed to call this movie THE AMAZING CATMAN when it's already been advertised as THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN would just be stupid. Besides, he got bit by a spider. Not a crazy cat - which is basically my daily story. I'm surprised I haven't transformed into Halle Berry yet. Anyhow, let's just say Peter is as nimble as, um, as a spider now. Which, I guess, would explain why he can now shoot a shitload of webbing from his wrists. See what happens when animals attack?
Back on the other side of town, our misguided friend Dr. Connors injects himself with the regeneration serum. And it works. For about thirty minutes. Then he turns into an ugly-ass lizard. How's that for significant results? And just like that, we got ourselves a full-fledged villain, folks. Before you know it, Lizardman (what the fuck else should we call him?) is smashing his way through the city, just a little bit pissed off that he's got gross scaly skin now. I supposed advising him to invest in some Neutrogena Body Oil would be a waste of time at this point. And just like that, the countdown to the Spiderman/Lizardman smackdown begins.
Who will win this battle? Spiderman? Lizardman? Will Gwen get caught in the crossfire? Will Captain Stacy ever discover that the "masked vigilante" in a red and blue spandex suit is the same guy dating his daughter? How long can Gwen resist the sight of Andrew's, er, Peter's, er, Spiderman's small but perfect bubble butt in that spandex suit?
My money's on Andrew, er, Peter, er, Spiderman... and on that small but perfect butt.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: The best way to seriously review THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN is to compare it to SPIDERMAN 2002. We will focus on five main areas: (1) Hero, (2) Heroine, (3) Villain, (4) Supporting Cast, (5) Plot, and (6) Action.
1. Hero:
In SPIDERMAN 2002, Peter Parker and Spiderman were played by Tobey Maguire. In AMAZING SPIDERMAN, they are played by Andrew Garfield. While Maguire was okay in the role, and reasonably captured the character's sense of isolation and loneliness, he was also just a tad too wimpy and blank in the role. The flaws of Maguire's performance are highlighted by the strength of Garfield's. In the new film, Garfield gives us a Spiderman who is still vulnerable and fragile, but also has some real backbone and fire - which flares when the chips are down. This also makes Garfield a much more believable action figure when he switches to Spiderman mode. It also helps considerably that the 6-foot-tall Garfield's long, lean, muscular body looks much more graceful and dynamic in the Spiderman suit than Maguire's short and diminutive one. There's a huge difference between watching the Garfield Spiderman swing from building to building and watching the Maguire Spiderman do the same thing.
Also, there's no getting around it: Garfield is just a far better actor than Maguire. There were scenes in AMAZING SPIDERMAN where we were tearing up because of the way Garfield played Peter's angst. Some key scenes: Peter finally venting his pain over his parents abandoning him; Peter making a dying character a vital promise; and Peter distancing himself from Gwen to keep her safe. There are others, but these are the three standout scenes. They're as powerful as they are because of how subtly but powerfully Garfield expresses all of Peter's conflicted feelings. Put it this way: whenever Maguire emoted in his movies, he sounded like a whiny little kid. When Garfield does it here, it's the pain of a young man navigating the hard road life has given him. Basically, you end up wanting to slap Maguire's Peter. By contrast, you want to comfort Garfield's Peter. That is great acting.
Also, Garfield is terrific at suggesting the strength and conviction under Peter's tender surface. Even before he turns into Spiderman, Peter has real courage and stands up for the other downtrodden students at the school. From his very first scenes, Garfield gives us a hero with real intensity inside him without changing the original damaged nature of the character. This is a far more compelling lead than one who shuffles around and squeaks like a mouse, as Maguire played Peter back then. To be clear, Maguire isn't bad as Peter Parker or Spiderman - he's just nowhere near as good or as interesting as Garfield's much more intense interpretation.
I first noticed Garfield several years ago in the British film BOY A, where he played a 24-year old recently released from prison for killing someone when he was just 10. You could tell then that this guy has not only screen presence - but also real talent. We then saw him the haunting NEVER LET ME GO, where he further proved his ability to blend strength and vulnerability and held his own against Keira Knightley and Carey Mulligan. He then played real-life Brazilian-American Eduardo Saverin, the co-founder of Facebook, in THE SOCIAL NETWORK. I have not seen that film, but I have seen most of Garfield's scenes on various sites, and I agree 100% with certain quarters who feel he should've been nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars. And when I heard he'd been cast as Peter Parker in THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN last year, I knew he would do something special with this role. And, once again, he doesn't disappoint. This guy is, as his movie says, amazing.
2. Heroine:
Another reason THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN is vastly superior to SPIDERMAN 2002 is because of its leading ladies. While Kirsten Dunst is an actress I've always liked, and while she does an okay job playing Mary Jane Watson, in the end character is just a relentless and passive damsel-in-distress. While the Peter-Mary Jane relationship is the trilogy's emotional fulcrum, and while it did elevate the superior SPIDERMAN 2 over its predecessor, there's no escaping the fact that this woman is mainly there to be kidnapped and imperiled so that Peter will have to rescue her and confront the bad guys. A friend of mine jokes that Mary Jane should walk around carrying a battle-axe at the rate that she gets snatched by the bad guys. I understand completely. There's nothing I love more than a resourceful and clever heroine - and Mary Jane is never given any opportunities to contribute to the plotline. You could argue that she is there to help flesh out Peter's emotions, but after awhile that gets old. Give her something to do besides pout, fret, and be abducted. Or replace her.
Which brings us to Gwen Stacy. Emma Stone is one of my favorite actresses and has starred in some of my favorite films (EASY A, THE HELP), and she is given a character who is not a damsel-in-distress and plays a vital role in the unfolding story. And here's the best part: not once is she kidnapped or held hostage in THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN. Amazing, isn't it? Considering you could pretty much set your watch by the frequency of Mary Jane's kidnappings from the first three movies? This isn't to say that Gwen doesn't find herself in dangerous situations or scary encounters with Dr. Connors/Lizardman. She does - but she takes care of herself and uses her wits and skills to escape the situation. Not once does she rely on Peter to rescue her. That alone puts her ahead of the near-useless Mary Jane.
Also, Stone brings the same fire to her role that Garfield brings to his - which sparks their chemistry considerably. There were times when I was watching Maguire and Dunst as Peter and Mary Jane in the first films where I would think, "Gosh, this is one downer couple." There just always seemed to be a curious lack of energy between them. This is not the case with Stone and Garfield as Peter and Gwen. Their relationship has a nice cat-and-mouse aspect where you're never quite sure who's chasing who. They also convey a lot of feeling through short lines, small gestures, and fleeting expressions. Watch for the look on Gwen's face - a mix of fear, surprise, and excitement - when she realizes that Peter is Spiderman, right before he kisses her. Great look - and great scene.
Then there's the scene near the end where Gwen manages to escape (on her own) from Lizardman's laboratory - and runs into her father and his armada of cops waiting outside. She wants to go back in to find Peter, but Captain Stacy orders his men to forcefully take her away to safety while he goes inside to help Peter himself. Gwen says one line to him before he goes: "Make sure he's okay!" The way Stone tearfully but bravely delivers this plea is a textbook example of how to get maximum reaction and subtext from a single line.
In fact, so potent is Garfield and Stone's on-screen chemistry here that it spilled over into real life: they are now in a relationship. Not surprising.
3. Villain:
In SPIDERMAN 2002, our baddies was the Goblin AKA Norman Osborne (Willem Dafoe). He was a very good villain with the right degree of complexity. Goblin was easily the main strength of the movie. In AMAZING SPIDERMAN, Lizardman AKA Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) is cut from the same cloth - a decent, noble figure who is driven over the edge by personal tragedy. In this area, both SPIDERMAN 2 and AMAZING SPIDERMAN are equal. Both Dafoe and Ifans do themselves proud, turning in low-key but riveting performances.
4. Supporting Cast:
In the original SPIDERMAN, I always thought that Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) and Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) were a little too "Quaker Oat Meal" for me. In other words, the felt like movie or comic book "characters" - and not relatable, dimensional human beings. Not sure if this was the writing, or how the roles were played, but I find Martin Sheen and Sally Field much more compelling in the same roles in AMAZING SPIDERMAN. As a result, Uncle Ben's death in the new film is much more affecting than the one in the older film - and it's largely due to how Martin Sheen portrays the character. Sally Field is also a much more colorful and interesting presence than Rosemary Harris - who felt like a stereotype. Then there's Denis Leary who, just as in THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR 1999, plays an acerbic-but-noble cop who is torn between duty - and doing the morally right thing. Sheen, Field, and Leary easily trump the supporting cast of SPIDERMAN 2002 - who felt like comic book cartoons. Fine for a comic book - but not for a movie.
5. Plot:
Both SPIDERMAN 2002 and AMAZING SPIDERMAN deal with the troubled psyche of Peter Parker. But THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN gives Garfield more compelling issues to tackle - mainly his abandonment by his parents - and he does so in a very classy and soulful way. As opposed to Maguire's Peter - who was basically just moping and moping and moping and moping over Mary Jane. There's also a melancholy undercurrent to the new movie that is just right - and not heavy-handed like in the original film. AMAZING SPIDERMAN also has a central threat that actually feels threatening and not cartoonish (Lizardman spreading a reptilian contagion) - much like the main danger in BATMAN BEGINS. In the original film, I could never feel a sense of danger. It felt like a comic book. Again: fine for a comic book - but not for a movie. THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN feels like a real film.
6. Action Scenes:
I'm told that the original Spiderman was very heavy on CGI - and it shows. I remember feeling curiously detached from all of Spidey's swinging and slinging. I felt like I was watching a video game. And I still feel that way anytime I watch any of the last three movies. In THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN, there's supposed to be more reliance and actual high-wire stunts and real action setpieces. There's still some CGI, but not as much as the original film - and it shows. You actually feel like you are swinging along with Peter as he slings from building to building. And that makes a huge difference.
In closing, THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN is superior to SPIDERMAN 2002 for the reasons listed above. It feels like a real adventure, and not a comic book. And the presence of Andrew Garfield as the new Peter Parker cannot be overstated. No offense to Tobey Maguire, but Mr. Garfield knocks him right out of the water.
(Finally - a Spiderman with BALLS!!! YEAH!!!)
CAST: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Sally Field, Martin Sheen, Campbell Scott, Embeth Davidtz, Rajit Ratha, Chris Zylka.
DIRECTOR: Marc Webb
WARNING: Some awesome web-slinging antics (one awesome web-slinger) straight ahead...
IT'S LIKE THIS: First, there was BATMAN BEGINS in 2005, which "rebooted" the Batman franchise after the potential coffin-nailer that was BATMAN & ROBIN in 1997. Then there was CASINO ROYALE in 2006, which "rebooted" the James Bond franchise after the potential Extinction Level Event that was DIE ANOTHER DAY in 2002. Now, we have.... THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN.... which intends to reboot (note the lack of quotes this time) the Spiderman franchise after the three-ring circus clusterfuck that was SPIDERMAN 3 in 2007. Some folks are a bit skeptical since the original SPIDERMAN came out just 10 years ago, and are questioning the need to start again from square one so soon. Me, personally? I say, BRING IT!!!! All I want from my Spiderman movies are: (1) a Peter Parker/Spidey who is noble AND ballsy; (2) a villain who is complex AND scary; (3) a heroine who is sweet AND resourceful; and (4) action scenes that are dazzling AND realistic. THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN delivers on all counts, but more about that later in the BUT, SERIOUSLY portion of the review.
For now, let's reboot, er, recap. Like SPIDERMAN '02, we meet our hero Peter Parker. Unlike SPIDERMAN '02, he is played by Andrew Garfield and NOT Tobey Maguire - which is a very good thing. But, again, more on that later. As with the original movie, we learn that Peter is living with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field). Unlike the original flick, though, we get the backstory of what happened to Peter's parents. Or rather, some pieces of it. Seems Dr. Richard Parker (Campbell Scott), Peter's pops, was involved in some sort of top secret experiment that forced him and his wife (Embeth Davidtz) to go on the run - and leave their son behind. Hmmmm... what could Dr. Parker have been working on that was so dangerous that he would leave behind his beloved kid in the care of Aunt May and Uncle Ben - and go on the run? Ahem?
Anyhow, little Peter grows up into big Peter. Unfortunately, in addition to carrying around a knapsack in school, big Peter also carries around the scars of abandonment. He seems completely oblivious to the fact that he looks a lot like Andrew Garfield, and skulks around campus like he looks like Gollum from the HARRY POTTER series. He also has a serious jones for Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), one of those driven and brilliant chicks who are destined to end up becoming ridiculously hot scientists. You know? The kind that appear in James Bond movies? Paging Dr. Christmas Jones? Unfortunately, Peter is too shy to make his feelings known to Gwen known, and prefers to dance around her orbit. I suppose it doesn't help that Gwen's dad is Captain Stacy of the NYPD - and is a bit of an asshole.
While the Peter-Gwen drama is going on, Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who is also a former colleague of Peter's father, is busy trying to continue Richard's research and try to develop a serum that will allow people with missing limbs to regrow their, uh, missing limbs. And since we all know lizard can regenerate their severed tails, it should come as no surprise that Dr. Connors has been ransacking the DNA of his lizard test subjects to boost the serum - which he eventually will test on himself because he is missing an arm. Say it with me now: none of this will end well, Curt. Oh, and I forgot to mention the little tiny detail of Peter being bitten by a special spider in Dr. Connors' labs.
Sure enough, before you know it, Peter is displaying the agility of a.... well, it really looks like the agility of a cat. Judging by the way he pounces off wall after wall and climbs up really high places and slinks through narrows spaces like he's trying to give Casper and Guido a run for their money. But I supposed to call this movie THE AMAZING CATMAN when it's already been advertised as THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN would just be stupid. Besides, he got bit by a spider. Not a crazy cat - which is basically my daily story. I'm surprised I haven't transformed into Halle Berry yet. Anyhow, let's just say Peter is as nimble as, um, as a spider now. Which, I guess, would explain why he can now shoot a shitload of webbing from his wrists. See what happens when animals attack?
Back on the other side of town, our misguided friend Dr. Connors injects himself with the regeneration serum. And it works. For about thirty minutes. Then he turns into an ugly-ass lizard. How's that for significant results? And just like that, we got ourselves a full-fledged villain, folks. Before you know it, Lizardman (what the fuck else should we call him?) is smashing his way through the city, just a little bit pissed off that he's got gross scaly skin now. I supposed advising him to invest in some Neutrogena Body Oil would be a waste of time at this point. And just like that, the countdown to the Spiderman/Lizardman smackdown begins.
Who will win this battle? Spiderman? Lizardman? Will Gwen get caught in the crossfire? Will Captain Stacy ever discover that the "masked vigilante" in a red and blue spandex suit is the same guy dating his daughter? How long can Gwen resist the sight of Andrew's, er, Peter's, er, Spiderman's small but perfect bubble butt in that spandex suit?
My money's on Andrew, er, Peter, er, Spiderman... and on that small but perfect butt.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: The best way to seriously review THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN is to compare it to SPIDERMAN 2002. We will focus on five main areas: (1) Hero, (2) Heroine, (3) Villain, (4) Supporting Cast, (5) Plot, and (6) Action.
1. Hero:
In SPIDERMAN 2002, Peter Parker and Spiderman were played by Tobey Maguire. In AMAZING SPIDERMAN, they are played by Andrew Garfield. While Maguire was okay in the role, and reasonably captured the character's sense of isolation and loneliness, he was also just a tad too wimpy and blank in the role. The flaws of Maguire's performance are highlighted by the strength of Garfield's. In the new film, Garfield gives us a Spiderman who is still vulnerable and fragile, but also has some real backbone and fire - which flares when the chips are down. This also makes Garfield a much more believable action figure when he switches to Spiderman mode. It also helps considerably that the 6-foot-tall Garfield's long, lean, muscular body looks much more graceful and dynamic in the Spiderman suit than Maguire's short and diminutive one. There's a huge difference between watching the Garfield Spiderman swing from building to building and watching the Maguire Spiderman do the same thing.
Also, there's no getting around it: Garfield is just a far better actor than Maguire. There were scenes in AMAZING SPIDERMAN where we were tearing up because of the way Garfield played Peter's angst. Some key scenes: Peter finally venting his pain over his parents abandoning him; Peter making a dying character a vital promise; and Peter distancing himself from Gwen to keep her safe. There are others, but these are the three standout scenes. They're as powerful as they are because of how subtly but powerfully Garfield expresses all of Peter's conflicted feelings. Put it this way: whenever Maguire emoted in his movies, he sounded like a whiny little kid. When Garfield does it here, it's the pain of a young man navigating the hard road life has given him. Basically, you end up wanting to slap Maguire's Peter. By contrast, you want to comfort Garfield's Peter. That is great acting.
Also, Garfield is terrific at suggesting the strength and conviction under Peter's tender surface. Even before he turns into Spiderman, Peter has real courage and stands up for the other downtrodden students at the school. From his very first scenes, Garfield gives us a hero with real intensity inside him without changing the original damaged nature of the character. This is a far more compelling lead than one who shuffles around and squeaks like a mouse, as Maguire played Peter back then. To be clear, Maguire isn't bad as Peter Parker or Spiderman - he's just nowhere near as good or as interesting as Garfield's much more intense interpretation.
I first noticed Garfield several years ago in the British film BOY A, where he played a 24-year old recently released from prison for killing someone when he was just 10. You could tell then that this guy has not only screen presence - but also real talent. We then saw him the haunting NEVER LET ME GO, where he further proved his ability to blend strength and vulnerability and held his own against Keira Knightley and Carey Mulligan. He then played real-life Brazilian-American Eduardo Saverin, the co-founder of Facebook, in THE SOCIAL NETWORK. I have not seen that film, but I have seen most of Garfield's scenes on various sites, and I agree 100% with certain quarters who feel he should've been nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars. And when I heard he'd been cast as Peter Parker in THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN last year, I knew he would do something special with this role. And, once again, he doesn't disappoint. This guy is, as his movie says, amazing.
2. Heroine:
Another reason THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN is vastly superior to SPIDERMAN 2002 is because of its leading ladies. While Kirsten Dunst is an actress I've always liked, and while she does an okay job playing Mary Jane Watson, in the end character is just a relentless and passive damsel-in-distress. While the Peter-Mary Jane relationship is the trilogy's emotional fulcrum, and while it did elevate the superior SPIDERMAN 2 over its predecessor, there's no escaping the fact that this woman is mainly there to be kidnapped and imperiled so that Peter will have to rescue her and confront the bad guys. A friend of mine jokes that Mary Jane should walk around carrying a battle-axe at the rate that she gets snatched by the bad guys. I understand completely. There's nothing I love more than a resourceful and clever heroine - and Mary Jane is never given any opportunities to contribute to the plotline. You could argue that she is there to help flesh out Peter's emotions, but after awhile that gets old. Give her something to do besides pout, fret, and be abducted. Or replace her.
Which brings us to Gwen Stacy. Emma Stone is one of my favorite actresses and has starred in some of my favorite films (EASY A, THE HELP), and she is given a character who is not a damsel-in-distress and plays a vital role in the unfolding story. And here's the best part: not once is she kidnapped or held hostage in THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN. Amazing, isn't it? Considering you could pretty much set your watch by the frequency of Mary Jane's kidnappings from the first three movies? This isn't to say that Gwen doesn't find herself in dangerous situations or scary encounters with Dr. Connors/Lizardman. She does - but she takes care of herself and uses her wits and skills to escape the situation. Not once does she rely on Peter to rescue her. That alone puts her ahead of the near-useless Mary Jane.
Also, Stone brings the same fire to her role that Garfield brings to his - which sparks their chemistry considerably. There were times when I was watching Maguire and Dunst as Peter and Mary Jane in the first films where I would think, "Gosh, this is one downer couple." There just always seemed to be a curious lack of energy between them. This is not the case with Stone and Garfield as Peter and Gwen. Their relationship has a nice cat-and-mouse aspect where you're never quite sure who's chasing who. They also convey a lot of feeling through short lines, small gestures, and fleeting expressions. Watch for the look on Gwen's face - a mix of fear, surprise, and excitement - when she realizes that Peter is Spiderman, right before he kisses her. Great look - and great scene.
Then there's the scene near the end where Gwen manages to escape (on her own) from Lizardman's laboratory - and runs into her father and his armada of cops waiting outside. She wants to go back in to find Peter, but Captain Stacy orders his men to forcefully take her away to safety while he goes inside to help Peter himself. Gwen says one line to him before he goes: "Make sure he's okay!" The way Stone tearfully but bravely delivers this plea is a textbook example of how to get maximum reaction and subtext from a single line.
In fact, so potent is Garfield and Stone's on-screen chemistry here that it spilled over into real life: they are now in a relationship. Not surprising.
3. Villain:
In SPIDERMAN 2002, our baddies was the Goblin AKA Norman Osborne (Willem Dafoe). He was a very good villain with the right degree of complexity. Goblin was easily the main strength of the movie. In AMAZING SPIDERMAN, Lizardman AKA Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) is cut from the same cloth - a decent, noble figure who is driven over the edge by personal tragedy. In this area, both SPIDERMAN 2 and AMAZING SPIDERMAN are equal. Both Dafoe and Ifans do themselves proud, turning in low-key but riveting performances.
4. Supporting Cast:
In the original SPIDERMAN, I always thought that Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) and Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) were a little too "Quaker Oat Meal" for me. In other words, the felt like movie or comic book "characters" - and not relatable, dimensional human beings. Not sure if this was the writing, or how the roles were played, but I find Martin Sheen and Sally Field much more compelling in the same roles in AMAZING SPIDERMAN. As a result, Uncle Ben's death in the new film is much more affecting than the one in the older film - and it's largely due to how Martin Sheen portrays the character. Sally Field is also a much more colorful and interesting presence than Rosemary Harris - who felt like a stereotype. Then there's Denis Leary who, just as in THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR 1999, plays an acerbic-but-noble cop who is torn between duty - and doing the morally right thing. Sheen, Field, and Leary easily trump the supporting cast of SPIDERMAN 2002 - who felt like comic book cartoons. Fine for a comic book - but not for a movie.
5. Plot:
Both SPIDERMAN 2002 and AMAZING SPIDERMAN deal with the troubled psyche of Peter Parker. But THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN gives Garfield more compelling issues to tackle - mainly his abandonment by his parents - and he does so in a very classy and soulful way. As opposed to Maguire's Peter - who was basically just moping and moping and moping and moping over Mary Jane. There's also a melancholy undercurrent to the new movie that is just right - and not heavy-handed like in the original film. AMAZING SPIDERMAN also has a central threat that actually feels threatening and not cartoonish (Lizardman spreading a reptilian contagion) - much like the main danger in BATMAN BEGINS. In the original film, I could never feel a sense of danger. It felt like a comic book. Again: fine for a comic book - but not for a movie. THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN feels like a real film.
6. Action Scenes:
I'm told that the original Spiderman was very heavy on CGI - and it shows. I remember feeling curiously detached from all of Spidey's swinging and slinging. I felt like I was watching a video game. And I still feel that way anytime I watch any of the last three movies. In THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN, there's supposed to be more reliance and actual high-wire stunts and real action setpieces. There's still some CGI, but not as much as the original film - and it shows. You actually feel like you are swinging along with Peter as he slings from building to building. And that makes a huge difference.
In closing, THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN is superior to SPIDERMAN 2002 for the reasons listed above. It feels like a real adventure, and not a comic book. And the presence of Andrew Garfield as the new Peter Parker cannot be overstated. No offense to Tobey Maguire, but Mr. Garfield knocks him right out of the water.
# 466 - TED (2012)
TED (2012 - COMEDY) ****1/2 out of *****
(Safe to say this teddy ain't your average bear)
CAST: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, voice of Seth McFarlane, Joel McHale, Patrick Warburton, Matt Walsh, Jessica Barth.
DIRECTOR: Seth McFarlane
WARNING: Some rather bizarre examples of male friendship - straight ahead...
IT'S LIKE THIS: Remember how Yoko Ono allegedly broke up the Beatles? Basically telling John Lennon, "It's them or me, bucko..."? Well, our next review deals with what happens when Boston hottie Lori (Mila Kunis) gives her live-in boyfriend John (Mark Wahlberg) a similar ultimatum: "It's either Ted or me, bucko...." In case you're wondering, Ted (Seth McFarlane) is John's roommate - and they've been best buds and have lived together since John was just a little tyke. So far, so standard female behavior, right? Forcing a guy to choose between her twat and his buds? And since all guys - gay, straight, or in-between - only have enough blood to fill one head at a time, it doesn't come as a surprise that John chooses Lori's nether regions - and asks his oldest, bestest friend in the whole world to move out and find his own place.
I guess now would be a good time to drop the bombshell that Ted isn't your average best bud and roommate. Nope, not even close. You see, he's a teddy bear. No, I don't mean a hairy guy who is also adorable and hot (I have a few of those, thanks), but an actual "teddy bear". You know? The kind that Mattell and Hasbro and Fisher Price churn out en masse to fill toy store shelves and shove at kids during Christmas and birthdays? In fact, that's how Teddy first entered John's life - as a fucking Christmas present. Then one night, John wished upon a star (what else?) and asked it to bring Ted to life. Before you know it, the little stuffed fucker sprung to life and started chattering away like a monkey on crack. Well, I guess a teddy bear on crack would be more exact. Anyhow, John's pretty much as happy as a cat in a tuna cannery now that he has a permanent sidekick.
Unfortunately, both John and Ted have to grow older (but not necessarily "grow up") and end up becoming the kind of stoner slackers that big cushy couches and crunchy snacks were invented for. As in, the better to sink your lazy ass in and munch on while sucking a bong within an inch of its life. Trust me, you have not lived until you've seen a teddy bear wrap his lips around a massive pipe and slurp like there's no tomorrow. And, no, I'm not even making a blowjob innuendo (that's later). Anyway, this brings us full circle to Lori's ultimatum to John. I guess she's concerned that Ted is a bad influence on him - and would like to separate the two before it's too late.
So, out goes Ted into his own apartment. Of course, he needs a job to go along with it, and he finds one as - wait for it - a cashier at a supermarket. Again, you have not lived until you've seen a teddy bear dry hump a grocery scanner and basically use a candy bar to face fuck himself to impress the bimbo cashier in the next lane. Why can't I have crazy shit like this happen at my local grocery store? The cashiers there all act like smiling robot people. And to top it off, Ted gets a promotion for his creative use of profanity. Which is another reason why I would love to live in Boston: cursing like a sailor is actually considered normal. Which is a good thing for Ted, because he makes Eric Cartman look like a politically-correct bore.
But how long can John and Ted live apart? Considering they've been friends all their lives without leaving one another's sides? Is Lori really worth choosing over Ted? Can she really make John happy? Or is this pretty much Step # 1 of the "12 Step Emasculation Process" that will end with John being a pussy-whipped husband who jumps at Lori's every command? Will John take this lying down? Or will he fight for his friendship with Ted? Will he put the "Bro" before the "Ho"? How long can he continue to have a relationship with a teddy bear anyway?
Hard to say. All I know is a girl forcing you to give up your buddies is the first sign of the Testosterone Apocalypse - and Yoko Syndrome...
BUT, SERIOUSLY: At dinner the other night, a friend told me he believed that the # 1 reason people go to the movies is to laugh. Whether or not this is actually true is arguable, but I do know that people go to the movies to experience emotion. They may think they are going "to be entertained", but it's really to feel something. Think about it: if something doesn't move you, you will not be entertained - you will be bored and indifferent to it. A movie should provoke an emotional response from you, hopefully a positive one - and not the negative emotional response that stems from having just watched a truly bad or stupid film. Like THIS MEANS WAR (review #466), which also told the story of two male friends at loggerheads over one woman, but fumbled the execution through shallow, posturing characters. TED, on other hand, gets it right.
TED is a movie that would be very hard to be indifferent to. You will either love it or hate it. Raucous, raunchy, unapologetically politically-incorrect, but also sweet, real, and intelligent, this film will likely provoke a negative emotional response from folks who are not fans of edgy-but-smart humor. If so, steer clear of this one and go see a "safe" movie like any of a thousand mundane and conventional romantic comedies out there. Everyone else, though, should react favorably to TED; that is, they will have the appropriate emotional response: laughter.
What makes TED a winner is not just its deft deployment of some truly inspired comic lunacy and craziness, but also its refusal to compromise its characters for the sake of the comedy. The laughs all stem from the characters' traits, interactions, and relationships. Also, writer/director/voice actor Seth McFarlane wisely recognizes that the human core of this film is John's friendship with Ted, first, then his relationship with Lori, second. McFarlane does a very good job of drawing us into the rhythms of each connection. Anyone in a close and solid male friendship will relate to the spiky-but-sincere relationship between John and Ted. The fact that the latter is a teddy bear is almost incidental. McFarlane makes us believe in these characters because he makes them complex and more important than the plot. Which cannot be said for the leads of THIS MEANS WAR, who were basically unlikable ciphers.
Mark Wahlberg does drama well, but he is at his best in comedies. He has this way of being in on the joke but not excluding the audience from it, which is a highly appealing ability. He also isn't afraid to make himself look foolish or turn into the butt of the joke, which is also very engaging. He makes John into a believable mix of immaturity, sincerity, and wisdom, and meshes well with Mila Kunis as Lori, who side-steps turning the character into a bossy ballbuster. Lori could've easily become unsympathetic with the wrong actress playing her, what with her repeated demands, but Kunis delivers a wisely understated performance that turns aggressive only when needed.
The star of the show, of course, is Ted. As voiced by McFarlane, he is simply a comic gem. You're never sure of what will come out of his mouth next, and some of the punchlines and zingers are destined to be quoted over and over again. McFarlane's delivery is definitive proof that comedy is not simply about material - but also timing. Someone less deft and confident might've fumbled the jokes. Fortunately, McFarlane sends volley after volley into the comedic net, scoring goal after goal. We actually found ourselves laughing to the point where we couldn't laugh anymore, making TED one of the most memorable cinematic experiences ever.
Which, I guess, proves my friend's point: we go to the movie mainly to laugh. Movies like TED remind us of that. I'm not really a fan of McFarlane's FAMILY GUY TV show (too random even for my tastes), but TED is more like SOUTH PARK: loud, lewd, raunchy, smart, and deeply, deeply hilarious.
Now, bring on the sequel!
(Safe to say this teddy ain't your average bear)
CAST: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, voice of Seth McFarlane, Joel McHale, Patrick Warburton, Matt Walsh, Jessica Barth.
DIRECTOR: Seth McFarlane
WARNING: Some rather bizarre examples of male friendship - straight ahead...
IT'S LIKE THIS: Remember how Yoko Ono allegedly broke up the Beatles? Basically telling John Lennon, "It's them or me, bucko..."? Well, our next review deals with what happens when Boston hottie Lori (Mila Kunis) gives her live-in boyfriend John (Mark Wahlberg) a similar ultimatum: "It's either Ted or me, bucko...." In case you're wondering, Ted (Seth McFarlane) is John's roommate - and they've been best buds and have lived together since John was just a little tyke. So far, so standard female behavior, right? Forcing a guy to choose between her twat and his buds? And since all guys - gay, straight, or in-between - only have enough blood to fill one head at a time, it doesn't come as a surprise that John chooses Lori's nether regions - and asks his oldest, bestest friend in the whole world to move out and find his own place.
I guess now would be a good time to drop the bombshell that Ted isn't your average best bud and roommate. Nope, not even close. You see, he's a teddy bear. No, I don't mean a hairy guy who is also adorable and hot (I have a few of those, thanks), but an actual "teddy bear". You know? The kind that Mattell and Hasbro and Fisher Price churn out en masse to fill toy store shelves and shove at kids during Christmas and birthdays? In fact, that's how Teddy first entered John's life - as a fucking Christmas present. Then one night, John wished upon a star (what else?) and asked it to bring Ted to life. Before you know it, the little stuffed fucker sprung to life and started chattering away like a monkey on crack. Well, I guess a teddy bear on crack would be more exact. Anyhow, John's pretty much as happy as a cat in a tuna cannery now that he has a permanent sidekick.
Unfortunately, both John and Ted have to grow older (but not necessarily "grow up") and end up becoming the kind of stoner slackers that big cushy couches and crunchy snacks were invented for. As in, the better to sink your lazy ass in and munch on while sucking a bong within an inch of its life. Trust me, you have not lived until you've seen a teddy bear wrap his lips around a massive pipe and slurp like there's no tomorrow. And, no, I'm not even making a blowjob innuendo (that's later). Anyway, this brings us full circle to Lori's ultimatum to John. I guess she's concerned that Ted is a bad influence on him - and would like to separate the two before it's too late.
So, out goes Ted into his own apartment. Of course, he needs a job to go along with it, and he finds one as - wait for it - a cashier at a supermarket. Again, you have not lived until you've seen a teddy bear dry hump a grocery scanner and basically use a candy bar to face fuck himself to impress the bimbo cashier in the next lane. Why can't I have crazy shit like this happen at my local grocery store? The cashiers there all act like smiling robot people. And to top it off, Ted gets a promotion for his creative use of profanity. Which is another reason why I would love to live in Boston: cursing like a sailor is actually considered normal. Which is a good thing for Ted, because he makes Eric Cartman look like a politically-correct bore.
But how long can John and Ted live apart? Considering they've been friends all their lives without leaving one another's sides? Is Lori really worth choosing over Ted? Can she really make John happy? Or is this pretty much Step # 1 of the "12 Step Emasculation Process" that will end with John being a pussy-whipped husband who jumps at Lori's every command? Will John take this lying down? Or will he fight for his friendship with Ted? Will he put the "Bro" before the "Ho"? How long can he continue to have a relationship with a teddy bear anyway?
Hard to say. All I know is a girl forcing you to give up your buddies is the first sign of the Testosterone Apocalypse - and Yoko Syndrome...
BUT, SERIOUSLY: At dinner the other night, a friend told me he believed that the # 1 reason people go to the movies is to laugh. Whether or not this is actually true is arguable, but I do know that people go to the movies to experience emotion. They may think they are going "to be entertained", but it's really to feel something. Think about it: if something doesn't move you, you will not be entertained - you will be bored and indifferent to it. A movie should provoke an emotional response from you, hopefully a positive one - and not the negative emotional response that stems from having just watched a truly bad or stupid film. Like THIS MEANS WAR (review #466), which also told the story of two male friends at loggerheads over one woman, but fumbled the execution through shallow, posturing characters. TED, on other hand, gets it right.
TED is a movie that would be very hard to be indifferent to. You will either love it or hate it. Raucous, raunchy, unapologetically politically-incorrect, but also sweet, real, and intelligent, this film will likely provoke a negative emotional response from folks who are not fans of edgy-but-smart humor. If so, steer clear of this one and go see a "safe" movie like any of a thousand mundane and conventional romantic comedies out there. Everyone else, though, should react favorably to TED; that is, they will have the appropriate emotional response: laughter.
What makes TED a winner is not just its deft deployment of some truly inspired comic lunacy and craziness, but also its refusal to compromise its characters for the sake of the comedy. The laughs all stem from the characters' traits, interactions, and relationships. Also, writer/director/voice actor Seth McFarlane wisely recognizes that the human core of this film is John's friendship with Ted, first, then his relationship with Lori, second. McFarlane does a very good job of drawing us into the rhythms of each connection. Anyone in a close and solid male friendship will relate to the spiky-but-sincere relationship between John and Ted. The fact that the latter is a teddy bear is almost incidental. McFarlane makes us believe in these characters because he makes them complex and more important than the plot. Which cannot be said for the leads of THIS MEANS WAR, who were basically unlikable ciphers.
Mark Wahlberg does drama well, but he is at his best in comedies. He has this way of being in on the joke but not excluding the audience from it, which is a highly appealing ability. He also isn't afraid to make himself look foolish or turn into the butt of the joke, which is also very engaging. He makes John into a believable mix of immaturity, sincerity, and wisdom, and meshes well with Mila Kunis as Lori, who side-steps turning the character into a bossy ballbuster. Lori could've easily become unsympathetic with the wrong actress playing her, what with her repeated demands, but Kunis delivers a wisely understated performance that turns aggressive only when needed.
The star of the show, of course, is Ted. As voiced by McFarlane, he is simply a comic gem. You're never sure of what will come out of his mouth next, and some of the punchlines and zingers are destined to be quoted over and over again. McFarlane's delivery is definitive proof that comedy is not simply about material - but also timing. Someone less deft and confident might've fumbled the jokes. Fortunately, McFarlane sends volley after volley into the comedic net, scoring goal after goal. We actually found ourselves laughing to the point where we couldn't laugh anymore, making TED one of the most memorable cinematic experiences ever.
Which, I guess, proves my friend's point: we go to the movie mainly to laugh. Movies like TED remind us of that. I'm not really a fan of McFarlane's FAMILY GUY TV show (too random even for my tastes), but TED is more like SOUTH PARK: loud, lewd, raunchy, smart, and deeply, deeply hilarious.
Now, bring on the sequel!
Saturday, July 7, 2012
# 466 - THIS MEANS WAR (2012)
THIS MEANS WAR (2012 - ACTION / ROMANCE / COMEDY) *1/2 out of *****
(Whatever happened to "Bros Before Hos?")
CAST: Reese Witherspoon, Chris Pine, Tom Hardy, Til Schweiger, Chelsea Handler, John Paul Ruttan, Rosemary Harris.
DIRECTOR: McG
WARNING: Some rather sad examples of male "friendship" - straight ahead...
IT'S LIKE THIS: Remember that awful GSA scandal that broke earlier this year? Where it was revealed that around $800,000 worth of taxpayer money was blown on an over-the-top 2010 Las Vegas conference that decidedly and firmly overturned the usually stringent Federal rule of "conservative" and "inexpensive" conferences? Well, the two dipshit "heroes" of our next film should be the subjects of a Congressional oversight committee for two reasons: (1) wasting colossal amounts of taxpayers' money and misuse of government property to cock-block each other over some girl; and (2) basically destroying their "friendship" over a mundane piece of ass, thereby proving they weren't really best friends - or even just friends - at all.
They are FDR (Chris Pine) and Tuck (Tom Hardy). FDR is so-named because, I guess, his mother had the serious hots for Franklin Delano Roosevelt and naming her son after him was a way to show her loyalty and affection. Or perhaps the screenwriters of this POS movie were trying to be "cute" and "clever". They failed. And Tuck is so-named because... well, who gives a shit. Anyhow, FDR and Tuck are CIA agents who are also supposed to be best buds. They've been on a lot of missions together, have saved each others' asses repeatedly, and have seen each other naked several times. I know your heads are probably spinning at that last revelation, but let me assure you the script goes out of its way (waaaaay out of its way) to point out the fact that Tuck and FDR have glimpsed each other's schlongs. Hmmmmmmm....
Their "bond" is soon tested when they find out that they are dating the same chick. She is Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), one of those chicks who always listens to the bad advice her best friend gives her. In this case, her best friend is Trish (Chelsea Handler), who is basically an amalgam of all the chicks from SEX IN THE CITY. Meaning her brain is in her vagina - and all her decisions spring from the same place. It comes as no shock that Trish encourages Lauren two secretly date Tuck and FDR and kind of compare them to each other - until she can figure out which guy she wants. Meanwhile, FDR and Tuck have forgotten they're supposed to be accomplished and responsible CIA agents - and basically devolve into two strutting peacocks trying to prove whose plumage is, uh, bigger.
What ensues is a tiresome and sad "war" as these two guys who are supposed to have each other's backs proceed to throw each other under the bus just to look good in the eyes of a chick who, let's face it, isn't that great of a person anyway. But even if she were Mother Teresa and Emma Stone and Sandra Bullock rolled into one, Lauren would still not be worth stabbing your best friend in the back for. But instead of graciously talking this out and one of them walking away to do the right thing, FDR and Tuck continue to display the maturity level and nastiness of two spoiled little boys fighting over a toy truck. Which is bad enough, but then they start using (or misusing) the CIA's assets and manpower to throw a monkey wrench in each other's plans - and basically stalk each other and Lauren. Ugh.
So... anyway. How will this all end? Will FDR win Lauren? Will Tuck win Lauren? Will FDR and Tuck's friendship survive? Or should someone teach these assholes that you do not throw a friend under the bus to try to look good to someone of the opposite sex? Will the CIA cotton on to their colossal abuse of resources and power in the name of poontang - and do the right thing? That is, toss their asses into the nearest paper shredder.
That scandal would surely dwarf the GSA one.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: One of the films that I really detest is BRIDE WARS, the 2009 "comedy" where Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway played two best friends who suddenly become bitter enemies when they both try to book a ritzy NYC hotel for the same wedding date. Instead of graciously talking this out and one sacrificing for the other, or just compromising, these two launch into a petty, vindictive, and nasty battle to humiliate and smear each other. The thing I dislike about BRIDE WARS is how it belittles and trivializes the concept of friendship - and reduces it to something to be tossed aside in pursuit of material gain or lust. Of course, anyone who would do that is not a friend or a decent person to begin with. Which makes it hard to develop any sympathy or rooting interest in the main characters. Which makes it difficult to like, let alone watch, the movie.
We encounter the same problem now with THIS MEANS WAR, which is basically BRIDE WARS - but with two similarly immature and shallow men as the leads. And instead of fighting for a coveted wedding venue, they are squabbling over a woman who is fairly bland and uninteresting. For all their talk of loyalty and friendship, Tuck and FDR are shockingly quick to stab each other in the back (and the front) to gain ground with Lauren. The script tries to play it for laughs, but the underlying message is disturbing: friendship is expendable as long as one looks good in the eyes of a member of the opposite sex.
As a result THIS MEANS WAR fails as both a comedy and a romance. It does have some merit as an action film, but the action only comes in the very beginning and the very end, and is almost not even worth noting. Audiences must've seen through the glossy facade and slick veneer of this film to spot the ugliness at its core - and stayed away. THIS MEANS WAR performed well below expectations - and there's a reason for it: there is no one worth rooting for here. Everyone in it is pretty, but shallow and self-absorbed.
Reese Witherspoon isn't so much acting as she is working her way down a playbook of tics and cheery mannerisms to try to gain our sympathies. It doesn't work. Lauren is her most negligible role to date. Meanwhile, Chris Pine tries to invest his trademark energy into the character of FDR, but it somehow doesn't work either. Even when the script tries to invest some shading and nuance into FDR by revealing the reason for his lothario ways, it feels stale and predictable and doesn't ring true. Then there's Chelsea Handler as Trish, whose comic one-liners are occasionally amusing, but they're mostly off. In fact, the only one who isn't completely off is Tom Hardy as Tuck, and he manages this by bringing some trademark British cool reserve and class to the role. There are moments where it appears that Tuck will wake up and do the gracious thing, but the script keeps betraying the character by having him behave just as badly as FDR. It's a testament to Tom Hardy's talent that he elicits what little interest this movie gets - or deserves. But he's not enough to raise it from being crap.
Let me be clear that this movie is technically well-made. It's handsomely produced and directed by McG, who did the fun CHARLIE'S ANGELS. The difference between CHARLIE'S ANGELS and THIS MEANS WAR, though, is that we had a group of likable characters in the former and absolutely none in the latter. Plus, CHARLIE'S ANGELS theme of friendship, sisterhood, and female empowerment easily papered over the ridiculousness of its plot twists and action setpieces. THIS MEANS WAR, on the other hand, has nothing to save it from being nothing but a film that was shot and assembled in a sleek way - but with nothing underneath. It reminds me of that saying, "Shiny on the outside - rotten on the inside..."
I reviewed this film on request by a reader, and I hated it so much that I was reluctant to post the review for fear of hurting her feelings. But then a friend alerted me to a couple of other reviews that pretty much echoed my sentiments, and I felt better about posting my own opinion. Please find below a link to two reviews for THIS MEANS WAR that were written by a couple of much more esteemed critics - they basically took the words right out of my head. Bottom line: this movie - and its message - totally sucks. Sorry, but there it is....
(Blogger's link tool isn't working, so you'll have to cut and paste the links into your browser)
http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/18700/blu-ray-review-terrible-this-means-war-denies-its-obvious-romantic-subtext
http://www.justpressplay.net/reviews/9495-this-means-war.html
(Whatever happened to "Bros Before Hos?")
CAST: Reese Witherspoon, Chris Pine, Tom Hardy, Til Schweiger, Chelsea Handler, John Paul Ruttan, Rosemary Harris.
DIRECTOR: McG
WARNING: Some rather sad examples of male "friendship" - straight ahead...
IT'S LIKE THIS: Remember that awful GSA scandal that broke earlier this year? Where it was revealed that around $800,000 worth of taxpayer money was blown on an over-the-top 2010 Las Vegas conference that decidedly and firmly overturned the usually stringent Federal rule of "conservative" and "inexpensive" conferences? Well, the two dipshit "heroes" of our next film should be the subjects of a Congressional oversight committee for two reasons: (1) wasting colossal amounts of taxpayers' money and misuse of government property to cock-block each other over some girl; and (2) basically destroying their "friendship" over a mundane piece of ass, thereby proving they weren't really best friends - or even just friends - at all.
They are FDR (Chris Pine) and Tuck (Tom Hardy). FDR is so-named because, I guess, his mother had the serious hots for Franklin Delano Roosevelt and naming her son after him was a way to show her loyalty and affection. Or perhaps the screenwriters of this POS movie were trying to be "cute" and "clever". They failed. And Tuck is so-named because... well, who gives a shit. Anyhow, FDR and Tuck are CIA agents who are also supposed to be best buds. They've been on a lot of missions together, have saved each others' asses repeatedly, and have seen each other naked several times. I know your heads are probably spinning at that last revelation, but let me assure you the script goes out of its way (waaaaay out of its way) to point out the fact that Tuck and FDR have glimpsed each other's schlongs. Hmmmmmmm....
Their "bond" is soon tested when they find out that they are dating the same chick. She is Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), one of those chicks who always listens to the bad advice her best friend gives her. In this case, her best friend is Trish (Chelsea Handler), who is basically an amalgam of all the chicks from SEX IN THE CITY. Meaning her brain is in her vagina - and all her decisions spring from the same place. It comes as no shock that Trish encourages Lauren two secretly date Tuck and FDR and kind of compare them to each other - until she can figure out which guy she wants. Meanwhile, FDR and Tuck have forgotten they're supposed to be accomplished and responsible CIA agents - and basically devolve into two strutting peacocks trying to prove whose plumage is, uh, bigger.
What ensues is a tiresome and sad "war" as these two guys who are supposed to have each other's backs proceed to throw each other under the bus just to look good in the eyes of a chick who, let's face it, isn't that great of a person anyway. But even if she were Mother Teresa and Emma Stone and Sandra Bullock rolled into one, Lauren would still not be worth stabbing your best friend in the back for. But instead of graciously talking this out and one of them walking away to do the right thing, FDR and Tuck continue to display the maturity level and nastiness of two spoiled little boys fighting over a toy truck. Which is bad enough, but then they start using (or misusing) the CIA's assets and manpower to throw a monkey wrench in each other's plans - and basically stalk each other and Lauren. Ugh.
So... anyway. How will this all end? Will FDR win Lauren? Will Tuck win Lauren? Will FDR and Tuck's friendship survive? Or should someone teach these assholes that you do not throw a friend under the bus to try to look good to someone of the opposite sex? Will the CIA cotton on to their colossal abuse of resources and power in the name of poontang - and do the right thing? That is, toss their asses into the nearest paper shredder.
That scandal would surely dwarf the GSA one.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: One of the films that I really detest is BRIDE WARS, the 2009 "comedy" where Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway played two best friends who suddenly become bitter enemies when they both try to book a ritzy NYC hotel for the same wedding date. Instead of graciously talking this out and one sacrificing for the other, or just compromising, these two launch into a petty, vindictive, and nasty battle to humiliate and smear each other. The thing I dislike about BRIDE WARS is how it belittles and trivializes the concept of friendship - and reduces it to something to be tossed aside in pursuit of material gain or lust. Of course, anyone who would do that is not a friend or a decent person to begin with. Which makes it hard to develop any sympathy or rooting interest in the main characters. Which makes it difficult to like, let alone watch, the movie.
We encounter the same problem now with THIS MEANS WAR, which is basically BRIDE WARS - but with two similarly immature and shallow men as the leads. And instead of fighting for a coveted wedding venue, they are squabbling over a woman who is fairly bland and uninteresting. For all their talk of loyalty and friendship, Tuck and FDR are shockingly quick to stab each other in the back (and the front) to gain ground with Lauren. The script tries to play it for laughs, but the underlying message is disturbing: friendship is expendable as long as one looks good in the eyes of a member of the opposite sex.
As a result THIS MEANS WAR fails as both a comedy and a romance. It does have some merit as an action film, but the action only comes in the very beginning and the very end, and is almost not even worth noting. Audiences must've seen through the glossy facade and slick veneer of this film to spot the ugliness at its core - and stayed away. THIS MEANS WAR performed well below expectations - and there's a reason for it: there is no one worth rooting for here. Everyone in it is pretty, but shallow and self-absorbed.
Reese Witherspoon isn't so much acting as she is working her way down a playbook of tics and cheery mannerisms to try to gain our sympathies. It doesn't work. Lauren is her most negligible role to date. Meanwhile, Chris Pine tries to invest his trademark energy into the character of FDR, but it somehow doesn't work either. Even when the script tries to invest some shading and nuance into FDR by revealing the reason for his lothario ways, it feels stale and predictable and doesn't ring true. Then there's Chelsea Handler as Trish, whose comic one-liners are occasionally amusing, but they're mostly off. In fact, the only one who isn't completely off is Tom Hardy as Tuck, and he manages this by bringing some trademark British cool reserve and class to the role. There are moments where it appears that Tuck will wake up and do the gracious thing, but the script keeps betraying the character by having him behave just as badly as FDR. It's a testament to Tom Hardy's talent that he elicits what little interest this movie gets - or deserves. But he's not enough to raise it from being crap.
Let me be clear that this movie is technically well-made. It's handsomely produced and directed by McG, who did the fun CHARLIE'S ANGELS. The difference between CHARLIE'S ANGELS and THIS MEANS WAR, though, is that we had a group of likable characters in the former and absolutely none in the latter. Plus, CHARLIE'S ANGELS theme of friendship, sisterhood, and female empowerment easily papered over the ridiculousness of its plot twists and action setpieces. THIS MEANS WAR, on the other hand, has nothing to save it from being nothing but a film that was shot and assembled in a sleek way - but with nothing underneath. It reminds me of that saying, "Shiny on the outside - rotten on the inside..."
I reviewed this film on request by a reader, and I hated it so much that I was reluctant to post the review for fear of hurting her feelings. But then a friend alerted me to a couple of other reviews that pretty much echoed my sentiments, and I felt better about posting my own opinion. Please find below a link to two reviews for THIS MEANS WAR that were written by a couple of much more esteemed critics - they basically took the words right out of my head. Bottom line: this movie - and its message - totally sucks. Sorry, but there it is....
(Blogger's link tool isn't working, so you'll have to cut and paste the links into your browser)
http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/18700/blu-ray-review-terrible-this-means-war-denies-its-obvious-romantic-subtext
http://www.justpressplay.net/reviews/9495-this-means-war.html
# 465 - CHRONICLE (2012)
CHRONICLE (2012 - ACTION / THRILLER) ***1/2 out of *****
(You give three guys a video camera and too much free time, and this is eventually what happens...)
CAST: Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell, Michael B. Jordan, Michael Kelly, Ashley Hinshaw, Bo Petersen, Anna Wood.
DIRECTOR: Josh Trank
WARNING: Three would-be superheroes who turn out to be three super-doofs - straight ahead...
IT'S LIKE THIS: Three Seattle teens attend a rave in a rural barn and discover something more disturbing than party animals who haven't bathed in a week: a meteor (or something) that has crashed into a field nearby. Of course, being smart kids who know better than to do stupid things, they immediately jump into the hole and investigate without any kind of special protective suits - which leads to them getting contaminated (or something). Which leads them to acquiring super powers of flight, strength, and speed. Or something. They are: (1) geeky video nerd Andrew (Dane DeHaan), (2) laid-back stud Matt (Alex Russell), and (3) goofy jokester Steve (Michael B. Jordan). And let's just say that they're not exactly Bruce Wayne, Peter Parker, or Clark Kent. Before you know it, our Seattle threesome are exhibiting some rather cool abilities: (1) moving things around just by thinking about it; (2) lifting objects a thousand times heavier than they are; and best of all: (3) flying through the air like Superman.
Before you start thinking that Andrew, Matt, and Steve proceed to don some skin-tight blue spandex suits with red speedos on the outside, let me assure you this is no superhero movie. That would require our boys to do something, you know, heroic. Nope. Instead, they basically spend all day goofing around with their powers. To wit: (1) Matt uses his super-speed to pluck a piece of gum out of some other dude's mouth; (2) Steve uses his telekinesis to freak some little girl out by making a teddy bear come to life and do an impersonation of Ted from, uh, TED (review coming); and (3) Andrew uses his new bird-like abilities to teach the others to fly like a birdie. It's safe to say that three dorks aren't going to be useful in a doomsday scenario. They'd be too busy doing loop-de-loops and figure eights around the Space Needle while screaming "Dude, that is fucking WICKED!!!"
But, as they say, it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt. And, sure enough, someone does: while driving home from, well, wherever one day, our boys are tailgated by a dumbass redneck. Before you know it, Andrew does the thing we all secretly wish we could do when being tailgated by some dumb shit: he uses his telekinetic power to force the hick's car off the road and into a ditch. Boo-yah! Except Matt and Steve act all horrified and shit and get all pissy because they have to rescue the redneck now. This leads to Matt, the de facto leader, enforcing some rules about superpower usage. Which Andrew doesn't really care for since that's kind of like abstaining from sex for three years, then going to a whorehouse, and finding out you can't touch any of the whores because management is afraid you might get a little rough with them because you're so frickin' horny. In other words: DENIED.
It doesn't help that Andrew's home and school life is a little (okay, a lot) fucked up. For starters: (1) his dad (Richard Kelly) routinely unleashes cans of Whoop-Ass on him; (2) his mom (Bo Petersen) is dying of cancer; and (3) his schoolmates pretty much treat him like those snooty bitches treated Molly Ringwald in PRETTY IN PINK. Soon, the stress from home and school is driving Andrew closer and closer to the edge - and it's really looking like that incident with the redneck's car may just be the beginning of the heinous shit that Andrew can unleash when seriously pissed.
Will Andrew's abuse at the hands of his dad and schoolmates create a grunge version of CARRIE? Will Matt be able to influence Andrew and pull him back from the edge? What about Steve? Is he good for anything besides cracking jokes every few minutes and being the token black guy? Or will he pitch in somehow and save the day? What happens when Andrew finally blow his top? Will he obliterate Seattle with his superpowers? Will Andrew be able to stop him? And the most important question of all: boys, is that the best you could do with those superpowers? Snatching gum out some dude's mouth? Scaring little girls with flying teddy bears?
Hell, I'd used my telekinesis to rip the uniforms right off the Sounders in the middle of their game tonight. NAKED SOCCER!
BUT, SERIOUSLY: We're running late for the Sounders vs. Colorado Rapids game at 8 PM, so this is going to be a fast one: CHRONICLE is a solidly engaging amalgam of the "Found Footage" and "Superhero" genres. The lead trio of Alex Russell, Dane DeHaan, and Michael B. Jordan create distinct and sharply drawn characters that we can have a strong rooting interest in. In the end, though, CHRONICLE leaves behind the traits of the two genres that ostensibly inspired it, and becomes more of an homage of sorts to CARRIE, with the persecuted Andrew using his fearsome powers against his tormentors.
My only quibble with this film is this: did it have to be told in "Found Footage" style? It could've just as easily been filmed in a straightforward and conventional way. While this format lends some quirks and occasionally interesting viewpoints, it also restricts the film in certain parts and leads to some awkwardness as director Josh Trank struggles to find a way to plausibly record the events. Still, CHRONICLE is an atypical mingling of two genres that have been exhausted in the past few years. With a change in viewpoint and filming style, it could've rated higher. As it is, though, it's a good movie that tells an old story (teens gain super powers) in a new way.
Now, in keeping with CHRONICLE's Seattle setting, it's off to Century Link Field for us. GO SOUNDERS!!!
(You give three guys a video camera and too much free time, and this is eventually what happens...)
CAST: Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell, Michael B. Jordan, Michael Kelly, Ashley Hinshaw, Bo Petersen, Anna Wood.
DIRECTOR: Josh Trank
WARNING: Three would-be superheroes who turn out to be three super-doofs - straight ahead...
IT'S LIKE THIS: Three Seattle teens attend a rave in a rural barn and discover something more disturbing than party animals who haven't bathed in a week: a meteor (or something) that has crashed into a field nearby. Of course, being smart kids who know better than to do stupid things, they immediately jump into the hole and investigate without any kind of special protective suits - which leads to them getting contaminated (or something). Which leads them to acquiring super powers of flight, strength, and speed. Or something. They are: (1) geeky video nerd Andrew (Dane DeHaan), (2) laid-back stud Matt (Alex Russell), and (3) goofy jokester Steve (Michael B. Jordan). And let's just say that they're not exactly Bruce Wayne, Peter Parker, or Clark Kent. Before you know it, our Seattle threesome are exhibiting some rather cool abilities: (1) moving things around just by thinking about it; (2) lifting objects a thousand times heavier than they are; and best of all: (3) flying through the air like Superman.
Before you start thinking that Andrew, Matt, and Steve proceed to don some skin-tight blue spandex suits with red speedos on the outside, let me assure you this is no superhero movie. That would require our boys to do something, you know, heroic. Nope. Instead, they basically spend all day goofing around with their powers. To wit: (1) Matt uses his super-speed to pluck a piece of gum out of some other dude's mouth; (2) Steve uses his telekinesis to freak some little girl out by making a teddy bear come to life and do an impersonation of Ted from, uh, TED (review coming); and (3) Andrew uses his new bird-like abilities to teach the others to fly like a birdie. It's safe to say that three dorks aren't going to be useful in a doomsday scenario. They'd be too busy doing loop-de-loops and figure eights around the Space Needle while screaming "Dude, that is fucking WICKED!!!"
But, as they say, it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt. And, sure enough, someone does: while driving home from, well, wherever one day, our boys are tailgated by a dumbass redneck. Before you know it, Andrew does the thing we all secretly wish we could do when being tailgated by some dumb shit: he uses his telekinetic power to force the hick's car off the road and into a ditch. Boo-yah! Except Matt and Steve act all horrified and shit and get all pissy because they have to rescue the redneck now. This leads to Matt, the de facto leader, enforcing some rules about superpower usage. Which Andrew doesn't really care for since that's kind of like abstaining from sex for three years, then going to a whorehouse, and finding out you can't touch any of the whores because management is afraid you might get a little rough with them because you're so frickin' horny. In other words: DENIED.
It doesn't help that Andrew's home and school life is a little (okay, a lot) fucked up. For starters: (1) his dad (Richard Kelly) routinely unleashes cans of Whoop-Ass on him; (2) his mom (Bo Petersen) is dying of cancer; and (3) his schoolmates pretty much treat him like those snooty bitches treated Molly Ringwald in PRETTY IN PINK. Soon, the stress from home and school is driving Andrew closer and closer to the edge - and it's really looking like that incident with the redneck's car may just be the beginning of the heinous shit that Andrew can unleash when seriously pissed.
Will Andrew's abuse at the hands of his dad and schoolmates create a grunge version of CARRIE? Will Matt be able to influence Andrew and pull him back from the edge? What about Steve? Is he good for anything besides cracking jokes every few minutes and being the token black guy? Or will he pitch in somehow and save the day? What happens when Andrew finally blow his top? Will he obliterate Seattle with his superpowers? Will Andrew be able to stop him? And the most important question of all: boys, is that the best you could do with those superpowers? Snatching gum out some dude's mouth? Scaring little girls with flying teddy bears?
Hell, I'd used my telekinesis to rip the uniforms right off the Sounders in the middle of their game tonight. NAKED SOCCER!
BUT, SERIOUSLY: We're running late for the Sounders vs. Colorado Rapids game at 8 PM, so this is going to be a fast one: CHRONICLE is a solidly engaging amalgam of the "Found Footage" and "Superhero" genres. The lead trio of Alex Russell, Dane DeHaan, and Michael B. Jordan create distinct and sharply drawn characters that we can have a strong rooting interest in. In the end, though, CHRONICLE leaves behind the traits of the two genres that ostensibly inspired it, and becomes more of an homage of sorts to CARRIE, with the persecuted Andrew using his fearsome powers against his tormentors.
My only quibble with this film is this: did it have to be told in "Found Footage" style? It could've just as easily been filmed in a straightforward and conventional way. While this format lends some quirks and occasionally interesting viewpoints, it also restricts the film in certain parts and leads to some awkwardness as director Josh Trank struggles to find a way to plausibly record the events. Still, CHRONICLE is an atypical mingling of two genres that have been exhausted in the past few years. With a change in viewpoint and filming style, it could've rated higher. As it is, though, it's a good movie that tells an old story (teens gain super powers) in a new way.
Now, in keeping with CHRONICLE's Seattle setting, it's off to Century Link Field for us. GO SOUNDERS!!!
# 464 - GAME CHANGE (2012)
GAME CHANGE (2012 - POLITICAL DRAMA) **** out of *****
(Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out that you could see Russia from Alaska? Just asking...)
CAST: Julianne Moore, Ed Harris, Woody Harrelson, Jamey Sheridan, Sarah Poulson, Ron Livingston, Peter MacNicol, David Barry Gray.
DIRECTOR: Jay Roach
WARNING: Several dozen cringe-inducing moments (and we weren't even part of the campaign) straight ahead...
IT'S LIKE THIS: Remember how we discussed the enigmas that are Johnny Depp and Will Smith in our reviews for DARK SHADOWS (review #459 ) and MEN IN BLACK 3 (review #461). Well, in our latest review, we turn our attention to the mystery that is Sarah Palin. Well, "mystery" or "enigma" might be a bit of a stretch for the former Republican Vice Prez candidate. Perhaps "carnival attraction" or "three-ring circus" might be a more fitting description. Our next review is GAME CHANGE, which is based on the book by the same name.
But here's the kicker: the book was actually about so much more than Sarah Palin - it was about the entire 2008 Presidential Campaign, both elephant and donkey side. It also had entire sections on Hilary Clinton, President Obama, Joe Biden (or "O'Biden" as La Palin would say) and John McCain. The producers behind the movie, however, realized where the real juicy stuff (and dirt) was, and decided to jettison all the boring stuff and focus exclusively on the astonishingly incredible chapters of Madame Palin. If anyone actually gave a shit about Sarah Palin, they would almost say she was being picked on by this method of adapting the book. But they don't, so they didn't.
Anyhow, GAME CHANGE traces the rise of Sarah Palin from being the Governor of Alaska/wife/Wasilla MILF to ending up on the Republican ticket as could-be-Vice Prez/wife/possible screeching banshee MILF. It's all here, folks: the campaigners slowly realizing with abject horror that Sarah P. knows as much about World Events, Foreign Policy, and Global History as I do about abstinence and American football; the excruciating interviews with Katie Couric and others where we learned that Russia is a lot closer to the U.S. than originally thought; the revelation that the background check of Madame Palin took about as long as it takes to boil an egg; the behind-the-scenes brouhahas, including the lovely one where uber-aide Nicole Wallace (Sarah Poulson) pretty much tells strategist Steven Schmidt (Woody Harrelson) that she'd rather have a bottle rocket shot up her ass before working with La Palin ever again. Ouch.
So... how will this all end? Will Madame Palin end up becoming this great nation's vice president - even if my cats Casper and Guido know more about current events than she does? Will the Republican party continue to keep her on the ticket even after realizing the colossal bonehead blunder they committed in choosing her? Or will they do the noble thing and drop her ass? Will Barack and Joe triumph?
Well, unless you slipped into a coma before the election in 2008, you know exactly what happened. But if you believe in alternate universes, there's conceivably one out there where the utterance "Vice President Palin" is a daily occurrence. Go ahead - it's okay to tremble with fear.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: Whatever your personal feelings for Sarah Palin and her role in the 2008 presidential campaign, the one thing you have to admit after seeing this film is that GAME CHANGE does an even-handed and fair job of portraying her - and Julianne Moore refuses to give us a feature-length impression or caricature. Instead, Moore digs deep and gives us a full-bodied and full-blooded performance that reveals all of Palin's sides: her enthusiasm, arrogance, vulnerability, flaws, drive, mistakes, and humor. Anyone concerned about watching a two-hour long riff on Tina Fey's hilarious impersonation of Palin can rest easy: in GAME CHANGE, we see a human being - not a cartoon.
If the book version of GAME CHANGE was indeed factual, as it is touted to be, then the 2008 Republican Republican Presidential Campaign must have been quite the harrowing ride. As with the best dramatic cinematic moments, the most effective scenes are the seemingly small nuggets: Steven Schmidt and Nicole Wallace slowly realizing that Sarah Palin knows next to nothing about foreign policy; a crack team being quickly assembled to school Palin "overnight" on everything she needs to know about World History; Palin slowly buckling under all the pressure and refusing to participate in vital preparatory sessions with Paulson; Paulson being unfairly blamed later by Palin for her own non-participation; and the gracious and diplomatic Paulson finally becoming fed up and asking to be transferred back to McCain's side.
The more notorious incidents - such as the infamous Katie Couric interview - are also re-enacted here, and they are just as cringe-inducing, but they also tend to overshadow the smaller but just as trenchant moments listed above. Most audiences will seek out those infamous moments, because those are the ones they are most familiar with. But GAME CHANGE refuses to take the simple route of lambasting Palin and pigeonholing her into an easy niche. Instead, it and Moore play fair by also showing Palin's devotion to her family, as well as her eventual understanding that she is in over her head. There's a nice scene before Palin steps out to give her nomination acceptance speech, where she quietly clasps Wallace's hand with her head bowed, and Wallace looks at her with sisterly support and gives her words of encouragement.
But they also don't let her off the hook for the eventual hubris and narcissism that overtakes and ultimately proves to be her undoing after her resurgence in the polls following the successful debates with Joe Biden. In short, GAME CHANGE is not interested in portraying Sarah Palin in one simple judgmental color. It paints her in many contradictory shades - and leaves it up to us to come to our own conclusions. A friend of mine who also saw the film said he felt the movie couldn't make up it's mind about whether to paint Palin as a victim, heroine, or villainess. My response: "It paints her as all of those things - because she's human." As I mentioned before, GAME CHANGE refuses to take the easy route.
Ed Harris is just as strong as Moore in portraying John McCain as a man of many levels. In his hands, McCain is both a tenacious bulldog and a gracious gentleman, and Harris makes both sides of the character ring true. He is especially great in a scene with Woody Harrelson's Steven Schmidt where he admits that Palin was essentially thrown into the deep end. And as with Moore and Palin, Harris is made to resemble McCain to such a degree that you forget you are watching an actor playing a role; it's like you are watching the actual person.
Woody Harrelson, Sarah Paulson, Ron Livingston, Peter MacNicol, and Jamey Sheridan all give solid turns are the various members of the Republican campaign who slowly realize their missteps - and desperately try to enforce increasingly complicated forms of damage control. Harrelson and Paulson are the real standouts as, respectively: (1) the brilliant strategist Steven Schmidt who initially broached the idea of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate; and (2) Nicole Wallace, the sharply brilliant aide who does everything she can to help Palin, but ultimately gives up. Schmidt and Wallace have a nice scene towards the end where Wallace confesses to Schmidt that she refused to vote - because she didn't want to cast a vote for someone she couldn't believe in - and is ashamed about it. In a movie wherein the best scenes mostly involve Moore as Palin, Harrelson and Paulson elevate this brief exchange as top contender.
In the end, the 2008 Presidential Campaign will go down in history for many remarkable reasons, the top two being: (1) the first African-American candidate to not only run but also be successfully elected; and (2) the whole controversy of Sarah Palin. And GAME CHANGE does a very good job of exploring the latter.
(Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out that you could see Russia from Alaska? Just asking...)
CAST: Julianne Moore, Ed Harris, Woody Harrelson, Jamey Sheridan, Sarah Poulson, Ron Livingston, Peter MacNicol, David Barry Gray.
DIRECTOR: Jay Roach
WARNING: Several dozen cringe-inducing moments (and we weren't even part of the campaign) straight ahead...
IT'S LIKE THIS: Remember how we discussed the enigmas that are Johnny Depp and Will Smith in our reviews for DARK SHADOWS (review #459 ) and MEN IN BLACK 3 (review #461). Well, in our latest review, we turn our attention to the mystery that is Sarah Palin. Well, "mystery" or "enigma" might be a bit of a stretch for the former Republican Vice Prez candidate. Perhaps "carnival attraction" or "three-ring circus" might be a more fitting description. Our next review is GAME CHANGE, which is based on the book by the same name.
But here's the kicker: the book was actually about so much more than Sarah Palin - it was about the entire 2008 Presidential Campaign, both elephant and donkey side. It also had entire sections on Hilary Clinton, President Obama, Joe Biden (or "O'Biden" as La Palin would say) and John McCain. The producers behind the movie, however, realized where the real juicy stuff (and dirt) was, and decided to jettison all the boring stuff and focus exclusively on the astonishingly incredible chapters of Madame Palin. If anyone actually gave a shit about Sarah Palin, they would almost say she was being picked on by this method of adapting the book. But they don't, so they didn't.
Anyhow, GAME CHANGE traces the rise of Sarah Palin from being the Governor of Alaska/wife/Wasilla MILF to ending up on the Republican ticket as could-be-Vice Prez/wife/possible screeching banshee MILF. It's all here, folks: the campaigners slowly realizing with abject horror that Sarah P. knows as much about World Events, Foreign Policy, and Global History as I do about abstinence and American football; the excruciating interviews with Katie Couric and others where we learned that Russia is a lot closer to the U.S. than originally thought; the revelation that the background check of Madame Palin took about as long as it takes to boil an egg; the behind-the-scenes brouhahas, including the lovely one where uber-aide Nicole Wallace (Sarah Poulson) pretty much tells strategist Steven Schmidt (Woody Harrelson) that she'd rather have a bottle rocket shot up her ass before working with La Palin ever again. Ouch.
So... how will this all end? Will Madame Palin end up becoming this great nation's vice president - even if my cats Casper and Guido know more about current events than she does? Will the Republican party continue to keep her on the ticket even after realizing the colossal bonehead blunder they committed in choosing her? Or will they do the noble thing and drop her ass? Will Barack and Joe triumph?
Well, unless you slipped into a coma before the election in 2008, you know exactly what happened. But if you believe in alternate universes, there's conceivably one out there where the utterance "Vice President Palin" is a daily occurrence. Go ahead - it's okay to tremble with fear.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: Whatever your personal feelings for Sarah Palin and her role in the 2008 presidential campaign, the one thing you have to admit after seeing this film is that GAME CHANGE does an even-handed and fair job of portraying her - and Julianne Moore refuses to give us a feature-length impression or caricature. Instead, Moore digs deep and gives us a full-bodied and full-blooded performance that reveals all of Palin's sides: her enthusiasm, arrogance, vulnerability, flaws, drive, mistakes, and humor. Anyone concerned about watching a two-hour long riff on Tina Fey's hilarious impersonation of Palin can rest easy: in GAME CHANGE, we see a human being - not a cartoon.
If the book version of GAME CHANGE was indeed factual, as it is touted to be, then the 2008 Republican Republican Presidential Campaign must have been quite the harrowing ride. As with the best dramatic cinematic moments, the most effective scenes are the seemingly small nuggets: Steven Schmidt and Nicole Wallace slowly realizing that Sarah Palin knows next to nothing about foreign policy; a crack team being quickly assembled to school Palin "overnight" on everything she needs to know about World History; Palin slowly buckling under all the pressure and refusing to participate in vital preparatory sessions with Paulson; Paulson being unfairly blamed later by Palin for her own non-participation; and the gracious and diplomatic Paulson finally becoming fed up and asking to be transferred back to McCain's side.
The more notorious incidents - such as the infamous Katie Couric interview - are also re-enacted here, and they are just as cringe-inducing, but they also tend to overshadow the smaller but just as trenchant moments listed above. Most audiences will seek out those infamous moments, because those are the ones they are most familiar with. But GAME CHANGE refuses to take the simple route of lambasting Palin and pigeonholing her into an easy niche. Instead, it and Moore play fair by also showing Palin's devotion to her family, as well as her eventual understanding that she is in over her head. There's a nice scene before Palin steps out to give her nomination acceptance speech, where she quietly clasps Wallace's hand with her head bowed, and Wallace looks at her with sisterly support and gives her words of encouragement.
But they also don't let her off the hook for the eventual hubris and narcissism that overtakes and ultimately proves to be her undoing after her resurgence in the polls following the successful debates with Joe Biden. In short, GAME CHANGE is not interested in portraying Sarah Palin in one simple judgmental color. It paints her in many contradictory shades - and leaves it up to us to come to our own conclusions. A friend of mine who also saw the film said he felt the movie couldn't make up it's mind about whether to paint Palin as a victim, heroine, or villainess. My response: "It paints her as all of those things - because she's human." As I mentioned before, GAME CHANGE refuses to take the easy route.
Ed Harris is just as strong as Moore in portraying John McCain as a man of many levels. In his hands, McCain is both a tenacious bulldog and a gracious gentleman, and Harris makes both sides of the character ring true. He is especially great in a scene with Woody Harrelson's Steven Schmidt where he admits that Palin was essentially thrown into the deep end. And as with Moore and Palin, Harris is made to resemble McCain to such a degree that you forget you are watching an actor playing a role; it's like you are watching the actual person.
Woody Harrelson, Sarah Paulson, Ron Livingston, Peter MacNicol, and Jamey Sheridan all give solid turns are the various members of the Republican campaign who slowly realize their missteps - and desperately try to enforce increasingly complicated forms of damage control. Harrelson and Paulson are the real standouts as, respectively: (1) the brilliant strategist Steven Schmidt who initially broached the idea of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate; and (2) Nicole Wallace, the sharply brilliant aide who does everything she can to help Palin, but ultimately gives up. Schmidt and Wallace have a nice scene towards the end where Wallace confesses to Schmidt that she refused to vote - because she didn't want to cast a vote for someone she couldn't believe in - and is ashamed about it. In a movie wherein the best scenes mostly involve Moore as Palin, Harrelson and Paulson elevate this brief exchange as top contender.
In the end, the 2008 Presidential Campaign will go down in history for many remarkable reasons, the top two being: (1) the first African-American candidate to not only run but also be successfully elected; and (2) the whole controversy of Sarah Palin. And GAME CHANGE does a very good job of exploring the latter.
Friday, July 6, 2012
MOVIE MUSIC TRACK OF THE WEEK: "Wonderful Life" and The Score Of THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN...
Hello, folks...
I had hoped to post these tracks last weekend, but was busy with Euro 2012 soccer stuff, and preparations for our Fouth of July celebration. In honor of Spain's Euro 2012 victory (if Italy had to lose, at least it was to Spain), I present to you Black's "Wonderful Life" from the soundtrack of IT'S A WONDERFUL AFTERLIFE (from Gurider Chadha, director of BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM). "Wonderful Life" is also my # 2 favorite song of all time - as well as, shall we say, our theme song. The perfect romantic song - and I do a halfway decent Karaoke serenade of it...
We also feature a snippet of THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN's sweeping and powerful score by James Horner. THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN features a sexy and soulful performance by Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spidey that will make you say "Tobey Who?" Please expect the movie's review to hit this weekend. This music track is called "I Can't See You Anymore" and it plays over a key scene of sacrifice towards the end of the movie, where Peter must make a heartbreaking choice to keep Gwen safe.
For now, enjoy Black's "Wonderful Life" from the soundtrack of IT'S A WONDERFUL AFTERLIFE and James Horner's "I Can't See You Anymore" from the original score of THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN:
"Wonderful Life":
"I Can't See You Anymore":
Please expect the reviews to resume throughout the weekend. Thanks for your patience...
I had hoped to post these tracks last weekend, but was busy with Euro 2012 soccer stuff, and preparations for our Fouth of July celebration. In honor of Spain's Euro 2012 victory (if Italy had to lose, at least it was to Spain), I present to you Black's "Wonderful Life" from the soundtrack of IT'S A WONDERFUL AFTERLIFE (from Gurider Chadha, director of BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM). "Wonderful Life" is also my # 2 favorite song of all time - as well as, shall we say, our theme song. The perfect romantic song - and I do a halfway decent Karaoke serenade of it...
We also feature a snippet of THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN's sweeping and powerful score by James Horner. THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN features a sexy and soulful performance by Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spidey that will make you say "Tobey Who?" Please expect the movie's review to hit this weekend. This music track is called "I Can't See You Anymore" and it plays over a key scene of sacrifice towards the end of the movie, where Peter must make a heartbreaking choice to keep Gwen safe.
For now, enjoy Black's "Wonderful Life" from the soundtrack of IT'S A WONDERFUL AFTERLIFE and James Horner's "I Can't See You Anymore" from the original score of THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN:
"Wonderful Life":
"I Can't See You Anymore":
Please expect the reviews to resume throughout the weekend. Thanks for your patience...
Belated Happy Fourth.....
A tardy "Happy Independence Day!" to all fellow Yanks here in the States and around the world. Apologies for not getting any movie reviews or anything else posted this past week. With the Fourth of July festivities and celebrations, and other social engagements, it's been quite busy. It's fun but a bit awkward throwing a Fourth of July celebration on Hump Day. But we managed it anyway. Par-tay!
The movie reviews should start posting over the weekend. For now, please expect our much-delayed Movie Music Track Of The Week to post...
Wherever you are in the World, hope you're enjoying the summer.
The movie reviews should start posting over the weekend. For now, please expect our much-delayed Movie Music Track Of The Week to post...
Wherever you are in the World, hope you're enjoying the summer.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
BUMMER....
Sadly, Italy fell to Spain today in the Euro 2012 finals, 4-0. Very, very, very disappointing. We really wanted Italy to win. Having Spain win yet another championship is somehow so... mundane. When half-time hit, and Italia was behind two goals, I just couldn't watch anymore because it was too painful. I actually had to leave, because I had a feeling it was going to be an uglier second half. I wish I turned out to be wrong, but Spain scored another two goals, upping the score to 4-0.
Still, it is what it is, and we should just be grateful for Italia's stellar and feisty performance in this race. Savor their great moments, like their bracing semi-final battle against Germany last Wednesday.
Congratulations, Espana. But, as always, VIVA ITALIA!
Still, it is what it is, and we should just be grateful for Italia's stellar and feisty performance in this race. Savor their great moments, like their bracing semi-final battle against Germany last Wednesday.
Congratulations, Espana. But, as always, VIVA ITALIA!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)