Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
(Insert Star Wars pun here)
Here's the trailer for Family Guy's spoof of The Empire Strikes Back, entitled Something Something Something Dark Side.
Theatrical turkeys
In light of the holiday, here's an article from Yahoo news talking about the biggest film bombs of the past decade. A fun read for sure and makes you ask, 'What were they thinking?' with each one.
10. THE SPIRIT
* Release date: December 25, 2008
* Estimated cost: $60 million
* Domestic gross: $19.8 million
Frank Miller, the man who created the comics "300" and "Sin City," and who redefined Batman and Daredevil for the modern age, directed this adaptation of Will Eisner's comic-strip hero. Starring Samuel L. Jackson and a bevy of beauties, it may have looked good on the page. But onscreen, the heavily stylized, nearly black-and-white results were disastrous. The expensive movie was killed by comic fans, who wanted Miller to go back to comics, and critics, who trashed the movie's over-the-top tones and aesthetics. Consequently, the partners at the company behind the production, Odd Lot Entertainment, parted ways after 23 years together. It even killed plans for a Miller-directed version of "Buck Rogers."
9. GRINDHOUSE
* Release date: April 6, 2007
* Estimated cost: $67 million
* Domestic gross: $25 million
Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez managed to turn twice the filmmaking firepower into half the box office (and a third of the critical praise). With "Grindhouse," what began as an explicit exercise in joyous B-movie cinema homage -- a double bill of '70s-style schlock, one film from each director -- ended up aping its scuzzy genre ancestors a little too closely in the receipts department. After the three-hour-plus "Grindhouse" opened to a mere $11.6 million, Harvey Weinstein split the film's two parts -- "Death Proof" and "Planet Terror" -- and shuttled them to international markets individually. While that recouped a little of the Weinstein Co.'s money, it incurred the wrath of purists who were angry that the original film had been corrupted. Tarantino and Weinstein are famously loyal to each other, and while the writer-director eventually made good on the losses with the $120 million-grossing "Inglourious Basterds" this year, "Grindhouse" was one instance where loyalty nearly brought down the house.
8. ROLLERBALL
* Release date: February 8, 2002
* Estimated cost: $70 million
* Domestic gross: $19 million
Norman Jewison's 1975 comment on violence, corporatism and spectacle has its place in the paranoid '70s-era cult film pantheon. John McTiernan's remake, on the other hand, would be totally forgettable if it weren't so spectacularly misconceived in every way. The cast -- Jean Reno, Chris Klein, LL Cool J and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos -- was a C-list mishmash closer to reality TV than big-budget studio moviemaking. McTiernan had long since dented his box-office bona fides with "Last Action Hero" and "The 13th Warrior." And the studio releasing it -- MGM -- was so aware of its bomb-worthiness that it pushed the release back four times, out of the summer 2001 field and into the barren wasteland of February. In a last act of desperation, the movie was also re-edited from an R to a PG-13 rating, sabotaging any last chance it had at an audience. Ultimately, it pretty much wrecked McTiernan's career (he has directed only one film since).
7. THE INVASION
* Release date: August 17, 2007
* Estimated cost: $80 million
* Domestic gross: $15.1 million
Nicole Kidman couldn't have started the decade any hotter, scoring with "Moulin Rouge," "The Others" and "The Hours." But after 2002, her career went cold in the U.S. ("Stepford Wives," "Bewitched," "Australia" and "The Golden Compass"); it's as if the actress was abducted by some sort of soul-draining body snatcher. But wait, isn't that what she's fighting in "The Invasion," Hollywood's latest remake of the 1956 film "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? This time around, the eerie premise, based on a novel by Jack Finney, failed to catch fire. The Wachowski brothers' second unit director, James McTeigue, was called in to shoot additional scenes written by the "Matrix" whiz kids after original director Oliver Hirschbiegel was sent packing, having filmed the bulk of the movie. In an omen of things to come, Kidman suffered an on-set fender-bender during the reshoots. When the film arrived in theaters more than a year late, Kidman's regal bearing took another dent.
6. CATWOMAN
* Release date: July 23, 2004
* Estimated cost: $100 million
* Domestic gross: $40 million
It was inevitable after Michelle Pfeiffer stole scenes as Catwoman in "Batman Returns" that her black-latexed anti-heroine would get a spinoff of her own. But when the inevitable occurred in 2004, this time with Halle Berry playing the character, audiences tried hard to cover up the kitty litter. No one involved with the movie came out unscathed. Not Berry, who just two years earlier had won an Oscar for "Monster's Ball"; not Sharon Stone, who chewed up the scenery as the movie's villainess; and not Pitof, the French filmmaker making his American directorial debut. He went back to his native land and hasn't directed a theatrical feature since. The movie is another example cited by studios in their long-held contention that female superhero movies just don't work.
5. TOWN & COUNTRY
* Release date: April 27, 2001
* Estimated cost: $90 million
* Domestic gross: $6.7 million
Twenty-five years after he seduced audiences in "Shampoo," Warren Beatty decided the time was ripe for another sex comedy, albeit one with a somewhat older circle of friends. He somehow persuaded New Line, which usually concentrated on the youth market, to foot the bill. And what a bill it was: With the script still furiously going through rewrites, Peter Chelsom began shooting in June 1998; 10 months and take after take after take later, the film was still shooting. That's when co-stars like Diane Keaton and Gary Shandling had to leave to fulfill other commitments. A full year later, the whole cast regrouped to finish the shoot, which had escalated to more than twice its original $44 million price tag. The completed film was actually something of a tepid affair. Beatty dithers as a New York architect who cheats on his wife with several women; Shandling's his best pal trying to come out as gay. And then there's Charlton Heston, playing against type, as a gun nut.
4. GIGLI
* Release date: August 1, 2003
* Estimated cost: $54 million
* Domestic gross: $6.1 million
If the course of true love rarely runs smoothly, then "Gigli" is an object lesson in how rocky it can get. As the new century dawned, Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez -- tabloid code name: Bennifer -- were the couple of the moment. With an Oscar for writing "Good Will Hunting" and starring roles in "Pearl Harbor" and "The Sum of All Fears," his movie career was in high gear; she could boast a solid-gold music resume and rom-com appeal in movies like "The Wedding Planner" and "Maid in Manhattan." Onscreen romantic sparks seemed made to order. So what went wrong? Start with that title, "Gigli," that no one was sure how to pronounce. Add lots of lovey-dovey media appearances that erased a bit of their mystique. And then there was Martin Brest's film itself: a low-rent-mobster-boy-meets-enforcer-chick tale complete with a kidnapping, severed thumbs and Al Pacino in high dudgeon. Bennifer split in 2004, just before sharing the bill in another film not too far away on the flop-o-meter, "Jersey Girl."
3. LAND OF THE LOST
* Release date: June 5, 2009
* Estimated cost: $100 million
* Domestic gross: $65 million
Producer/puppeteers Sid and Marty Kroft were masters of the weird and cheesy; their old Saturday morning TV show, "Land of the Lost," is remembered fondly by kids who grew up in the '70s. But the material experienced something of a time warp when director Brad Silbering tried to give it a hipster spin this summer with the help of Will Ferrell, playing a paleontologist who journeys to a parallel universe where he meets the Sleestaks. Normally, any movie with a rampaging Tyrannosaurus (see "Journey to the Center of the Earth," "Night at the Museum") can't miss, but "Lost" was, well, lost in translation. The movie's PG-13 rating wasn't a comfort to many families when word got around of its toilet humor. Older moviegoers weren't interested, and Kroft purists weren't amused. Over the years, Disney and Sony had both held remake rights, but ultimately this hot potato landed at Universal, where it was one of the factors that resulted in the ouster of the studio's two top executives in October.
2. BATTLEFIELD EARTH
* Release date: May 12, 2000
* Estimated cost: $75 million
* Domestic gross: $21 million
Blame it on the Thetans if you want, but John Travolta's space oddity "Battlefield Earth" virtually imploded on the launching pad. Travolta's career was enjoying a resurgence in the wake of "Pulp Fiction" when he wagered a big chunk of his newfound credibility, as well as some of his own coin, on this passion project. "Battlefield Earth" was based on a 1972 sci-fi novel by Scientology guru L. Ron Hubbard, which Travolta promised would be "like 'Star Wars,' only better." Studios shied away, but Travolta found financing from Franchise Pictures, which would later be sued by investors for overstating the movie's costs as $100 million. Originally, Travolta hoped to play the young hero who leads a rebellion against the alien race that enslaves Earth, but the film took so long to assemble he ultimately opted instead to don dreadlocks and platform shoes to play the villain, barking lines like "Execute all man-animals at will, and happy hunting!" A planned sequel, which would have covered the second half of the novel, never materialized. "Some movies run off the rails," observed Roger Ebert. "This one is like the train crash in 'The Fugitive.'"
1. THE ADVENTURES OF PLUTO NASH
* Release date: August 6, 2002
* Estimated cost: $100 million
* Domestic gross: $4.4 million
Eddie Murphy is some kind of miracle. Five of his recent films lost more than $250 million, and yet he not only still gets hired but also commands his salary quote. But on the flop-o-meter, one Murphy title towers above even "Meet Dave," "Showtime" and "I Spy": Trumpets, please, for "The Adventures of Pluto Nash," whose release was delayed for 14 months. It instantly became the "Cleopatra" of our age. A sci-fi gangster comedy, complete with robot sidekick, set on the moon, "Pluto" was neither fish nor fowl -- but mostly foul. But unlike most stars who are tarnished by a mega-flop, Murphy -- who did take time off from broad comedies to redeem himself with his Oscar-nominated turn in "Dreamgirls" -- just keeps going and going and going.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Star praising
Summer movie catch-up continues and this time it's one of the biggest blockbusters from earlier this year, J.J. Abrams' reboot of the Star Trek franchise. Now admittedly, I am anything but a Trekkie or Trekker or whatever their fanbase prefers to be called these days. With that said, my hat goes off to J.J. and everyone else associated with this movie. This is phenomally fun while doing everything in its power to remain faithful to the original series.
Clearly no stranger to science fiction, J.J. does a great job, along with screenwriters Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, of creating an engaging science fiction film that has broad appeal. Everything looks awesome here from the sets, to the action sequences, to the visual effects. It seems about as realistic as a sci-fi film set in space is going to look. Watching it, I was struck by how cheesy the most recent Star Wars films look in comparison. George Lucas always claimed that he waited so long to do the prequels because he was waiting for the technology to catch up to his 'vision'. But those movies look like they were done by a kid with a Mac in comparison to this film. The look of the film immediately sucks you in to the point where you completely buy into the world that's being presented.
All the money in the world can buy you good looking visual effects, but if you don't have a decent cast you'll fail to be able to bring your movie to life. That isn't the case here as the casting is superb. The actors chosen were absolutely perfect. They each do a great job of re-introducing us to these well known characters without resorting to parodies or homages of the previous portrayers. It also helps that the script allows each of them to have a moment(s) to shine. John Cho, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin, Karl Urban and Zoe Saldana all bring something to the table to make their character interesting while not detracting from the story. Of course, you also have Zachary Quinto playing Spock. I think most had confidence that Quinto would do a worthy job and he didn't disappoint. He is wonderful at portraying the level headed Vulcan, who chooses to keep his raw emotion buried deep with inside himself.
As good as everyone is though, for me, the real star was Chris Pine as Kirk. Based on initial judgments I had severe reservations about this casting. It seemed like they were trying to appeal to the younger generation by just sticking a pretty face in the lead role. I was glad to say I was wrong, as Pine bring such energy to this role. It's a testament to the performance that the guy can play someone who comes off so cocky, yet equally likable. I heard someone compare his Kirk to Harrison Ford's portrayal of Han Solo, which I think is an apt comparison in many ways. The casting of Pine was probably the film's biggest hurdle. You look at a film like G.I. Joe and their casting of Channing Tatum. There was a guy with moderately good looks but the personality of a stump and the acting chops to match it. In that case, the lack of a good lead sagged the film down. Here, Pine's performance drives the film and was one of the main reasons why Star Trek won me over.
In terms of the story, they kept everything relatively simple so as to devote more time to re-introduce these characters to a new audience. There's just enough peril going on, thanks to evil Romulan, Nero (played by an unrecognizable Eric Bana) to keep the audience motivated in seeing the Enterprise crew prevail. Some people may complain about the time travel aspects introduced in the story, especially because of the narrative headaches it can produce. However, I thought it worked well enough here and allowed the filmmakers some wiggle room to tell future stories without having to be considered with devoted fans playing the role of continuity cops.
It's a lot tougher to write reviews when films are really well made. And since I really can't think of too many other faults with the movie, I guess I'll just wrap things up. I'll admit that I had some severe reservations, even as far as 20 minutes into the film. However as soon as the main story kicks into gear, I was hooked and remained that way for the rest of the movie. This film works on multiple levels and is sure to please virtually all audiences. There is a little something for everyone here and I cannot compliment J.J. and the rest of his crew for doing the unthinkable; making Star Trek cool again. If you have any doubts, please give this a try and you too will be pleasantly surprise with how much you will like it. Grade: A-
Clearly no stranger to science fiction, J.J. does a great job, along with screenwriters Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, of creating an engaging science fiction film that has broad appeal. Everything looks awesome here from the sets, to the action sequences, to the visual effects. It seems about as realistic as a sci-fi film set in space is going to look. Watching it, I was struck by how cheesy the most recent Star Wars films look in comparison. George Lucas always claimed that he waited so long to do the prequels because he was waiting for the technology to catch up to his 'vision'. But those movies look like they were done by a kid with a Mac in comparison to this film. The look of the film immediately sucks you in to the point where you completely buy into the world that's being presented.
All the money in the world can buy you good looking visual effects, but if you don't have a decent cast you'll fail to be able to bring your movie to life. That isn't the case here as the casting is superb. The actors chosen were absolutely perfect. They each do a great job of re-introducing us to these well known characters without resorting to parodies or homages of the previous portrayers. It also helps that the script allows each of them to have a moment(s) to shine. John Cho, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin, Karl Urban and Zoe Saldana all bring something to the table to make their character interesting while not detracting from the story. Of course, you also have Zachary Quinto playing Spock. I think most had confidence that Quinto would do a worthy job and he didn't disappoint. He is wonderful at portraying the level headed Vulcan, who chooses to keep his raw emotion buried deep with inside himself.
As good as everyone is though, for me, the real star was Chris Pine as Kirk. Based on initial judgments I had severe reservations about this casting. It seemed like they were trying to appeal to the younger generation by just sticking a pretty face in the lead role. I was glad to say I was wrong, as Pine bring such energy to this role. It's a testament to the performance that the guy can play someone who comes off so cocky, yet equally likable. I heard someone compare his Kirk to Harrison Ford's portrayal of Han Solo, which I think is an apt comparison in many ways. The casting of Pine was probably the film's biggest hurdle. You look at a film like G.I. Joe and their casting of Channing Tatum. There was a guy with moderately good looks but the personality of a stump and the acting chops to match it. In that case, the lack of a good lead sagged the film down. Here, Pine's performance drives the film and was one of the main reasons why Star Trek won me over.
In terms of the story, they kept everything relatively simple so as to devote more time to re-introduce these characters to a new audience. There's just enough peril going on, thanks to evil Romulan, Nero (played by an unrecognizable Eric Bana) to keep the audience motivated in seeing the Enterprise crew prevail. Some people may complain about the time travel aspects introduced in the story, especially because of the narrative headaches it can produce. However, I thought it worked well enough here and allowed the filmmakers some wiggle room to tell future stories without having to be considered with devoted fans playing the role of continuity cops.
It's a lot tougher to write reviews when films are really well made. And since I really can't think of too many other faults with the movie, I guess I'll just wrap things up. I'll admit that I had some severe reservations, even as far as 20 minutes into the film. However as soon as the main story kicks into gear, I was hooked and remained that way for the rest of the movie. This film works on multiple levels and is sure to please virtually all audiences. There is a little something for everyone here and I cannot compliment J.J. and the rest of his crew for doing the unthinkable; making Star Trek cool again. If you have any doubts, please give this a try and you too will be pleasantly surprise with how much you will like it. Grade: A-
Friday, November 20, 2009
Fern-tastic
Check out the latest installment of the 'award-winning' Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifinakis
Coming down to Earth
There are very few certainties in life. Namely, you can count on death and taxes. And for the last fifteen years, you could also add Pixar movies. With every entry added to their library they create another masterpiece that is well done and a delight for everyone from age 8 to 80. In their latest entry, Up (which ironically has two main characters represented by those ages), however, fail to hit their standard homerun.
That is not to say that this film isn't well done. Once again, the Pixar crew has created a gorgeous looking film. Even on my crummy, bubble-tube television the colors pop off the screen in a glorious visual array. As per usual, the animators have made every effort to put in every last detail into what they are depicting. I can only imagine what this film looked like in 3-D. Unlike so many of these films that are trying to cash in on the fad, this is a movie that didn't need 3-D, yet can still be enhanced by the added technology.
For all its beauty, where Up falters is with its storytelling. If you don't know the plot, it's about an elderly man named Carl (voiced by Ed Asner), who, after his wife's passing, decides to fly to a South American destination that they always wanted to go as a couple but never had the opportunity to. Not wanting to part with his house, Carl rigs up thousands of balloons to float him and his humble abode to this location. Unbeknownst to him until after takeoff, Carl discovers a neighborhood boy has stowed away on his porch. Once arriving in South America, the real adventure for the two takes off.
Throughout this adventure, there are some truly excellent scenes that remind us of why these films are typically excellent. The montage at the beginning of the film chronicling Carl's relationship with his wife is touching and heartbreaking and more moving than most scenes in live action films. There are also several inspired comedic moments as well. Many of them come from the keen observations made about the behavior of dogs. The two main characters encounter several dogs, including the scene-stealing Dug, once they arrive in South America. The filmmakers ability to have the dogs speak like humans, yet still act like dogs provide some of the film's most clever moments.
Overall though, my main problem with the film was that I just never bought into the world that they tried to create in this film. It may seem like an odd thing to say about a cartoon, but this is what happens when Pixar sets the bar so high for themselves. The quality of their previous films have allowed me to buy into concepts like talking toys and gourmet rats. This time they ended up trying to have their cake and eating it too. The opening montage that I spoke about earlier is so rooted in reality that when things get cartoonish later on it becomes all the more jarring. I had problems with both the quickness with which Carl was able to concoct this balloon house plan and that someone his age would be able to pull it off. Then the film really plays fasts and loose with the laws of physics once they arrive in South America. Somehow Carl is able to tether himself to his house and drag it along like its a kite. I kept waiting for some sort of explanation for why all of these outlandish events were happening, but it never came.
Perhaps their problem was entering into PG territory for the first time. It may not seem like a big leap, but obviously there are increased expectations once you move out of the G rating. It was clear that Pixar was reaching for the sky with this film, I just don't think they quite made it. Let it be known that this is not a negative review for the film. I still believe that this is an enjoyable movie that is worth your time to check out now that it is out on DVD. However, I believe that this proved that perhaps Pixar cannot simply skate (or in this case float) by on their name alone. Like all good filmmakers they've got to continually earn the praise they receive for their work. The interesting thing though is that with the Oscars allowing 10 Best Picture nominees this year, there is a chance this might receive one. That would be a shame considering some of the far superior films that have come from this company and have been ignored in the past by the Academy. I won't be too upset though, because Pixar certainly deserves the recognition even if Up failed to reach the heights of some of their other classics. Grade: B+
That is not to say that this film isn't well done. Once again, the Pixar crew has created a gorgeous looking film. Even on my crummy, bubble-tube television the colors pop off the screen in a glorious visual array. As per usual, the animators have made every effort to put in every last detail into what they are depicting. I can only imagine what this film looked like in 3-D. Unlike so many of these films that are trying to cash in on the fad, this is a movie that didn't need 3-D, yet can still be enhanced by the added technology.
For all its beauty, where Up falters is with its storytelling. If you don't know the plot, it's about an elderly man named Carl (voiced by Ed Asner), who, after his wife's passing, decides to fly to a South American destination that they always wanted to go as a couple but never had the opportunity to. Not wanting to part with his house, Carl rigs up thousands of balloons to float him and his humble abode to this location. Unbeknownst to him until after takeoff, Carl discovers a neighborhood boy has stowed away on his porch. Once arriving in South America, the real adventure for the two takes off.
Throughout this adventure, there are some truly excellent scenes that remind us of why these films are typically excellent. The montage at the beginning of the film chronicling Carl's relationship with his wife is touching and heartbreaking and more moving than most scenes in live action films. There are also several inspired comedic moments as well. Many of them come from the keen observations made about the behavior of dogs. The two main characters encounter several dogs, including the scene-stealing Dug, once they arrive in South America. The filmmakers ability to have the dogs speak like humans, yet still act like dogs provide some of the film's most clever moments.
Overall though, my main problem with the film was that I just never bought into the world that they tried to create in this film. It may seem like an odd thing to say about a cartoon, but this is what happens when Pixar sets the bar so high for themselves. The quality of their previous films have allowed me to buy into concepts like talking toys and gourmet rats. This time they ended up trying to have their cake and eating it too. The opening montage that I spoke about earlier is so rooted in reality that when things get cartoonish later on it becomes all the more jarring. I had problems with both the quickness with which Carl was able to concoct this balloon house plan and that someone his age would be able to pull it off. Then the film really plays fasts and loose with the laws of physics once they arrive in South America. Somehow Carl is able to tether himself to his house and drag it along like its a kite. I kept waiting for some sort of explanation for why all of these outlandish events were happening, but it never came.
Perhaps their problem was entering into PG territory for the first time. It may not seem like a big leap, but obviously there are increased expectations once you move out of the G rating. It was clear that Pixar was reaching for the sky with this film, I just don't think they quite made it. Let it be known that this is not a negative review for the film. I still believe that this is an enjoyable movie that is worth your time to check out now that it is out on DVD. However, I believe that this proved that perhaps Pixar cannot simply skate (or in this case float) by on their name alone. Like all good filmmakers they've got to continually earn the praise they receive for their work. The interesting thing though is that with the Oscars allowing 10 Best Picture nominees this year, there is a chance this might receive one. That would be a shame considering some of the far superior films that have come from this company and have been ignored in the past by the Academy. I won't be too upset though, because Pixar certainly deserves the recognition even if Up failed to reach the heights of some of their other classics. Grade: B+
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Trick in a Box
In the new thriller The Box, a mysterious man (played by the great Frank Langella) gives Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz) and her family an plain box with a button inside. Langella tells her that if she pushes the button, someone in the world will die, but she will receive $1 million dollars (cue Dr. Evil laugh). The proposition is certainly alluring for Norma. We as the audience are equally intrigued by the thought of a movie centered around this moral dilemma. Sadly, for both the audience and the characters the offer isn't all that it seems.
Director Richard Kelly has great source material to work with (the film is loosely based on a short story by Richard Matheson), but fails to pull it together to deliver a wholly engaging film. At moments, the film evokes genius as it dabbles with moral ambiguity. However, simply dealing with this question isn't enough for Kelly who bogs the film down in sci-fi hokum.
The film comes off for the most point as a wannabe Twilight Zone episode. It tries to create this moody atmosphere that comes off more cheesy than thrilling. The worst offense of this is the film's scores. Trying to fill certain moments with danger and dread, the usage of piano and violins here detracts from the film instead of adding to it.
When the film centers on the actions related to what the characters choose to do with the box, the film works. Those scenes, however, only bookend the film. In the middle is where the film begins to sag. Several elements are continuously added that only cause confusion for the audience members. I couldn't appreciate anything that was happening in the here and now because I was so consumed with trying to figure out how each new, strange twist fit within the context of the film. To the film's credit, it does about as good of a job as possible in explaining everything. None of the answers though were what I considered satisfying.
Kelly attempts to fill the film with symbolism as themes of disfigurement, altruism, free will, and even the work of Sartre are introduced throughout the film. Each alone could have been thought-provoking and worthwhile to explore. However, by cramming all of them into this simple film, none of them get the attention that they deserve. I'm not sure if this is a worst offense than not including any, however since removing them would leave a pretty shallow, empty film.
Unfortunately, The Box is too much work with not enough payoff. The film peppers in moments of inspiration that continue to make you think it's going to turnaround and be something special, but none of them pan out. Instead, what's left is a murky mess that fails to make good on its potential. The film requires your whole attention, so for that reason I would probably suggest you see it at theaters instead of at home if you're still interested in checking it out. However, for most, I suggest you don't push the button and return The Box back to sender. Grade: C
Director Richard Kelly has great source material to work with (the film is loosely based on a short story by Richard Matheson), but fails to pull it together to deliver a wholly engaging film. At moments, the film evokes genius as it dabbles with moral ambiguity. However, simply dealing with this question isn't enough for Kelly who bogs the film down in sci-fi hokum.
The film comes off for the most point as a wannabe Twilight Zone episode. It tries to create this moody atmosphere that comes off more cheesy than thrilling. The worst offense of this is the film's scores. Trying to fill certain moments with danger and dread, the usage of piano and violins here detracts from the film instead of adding to it.
When the film centers on the actions related to what the characters choose to do with the box, the film works. Those scenes, however, only bookend the film. In the middle is where the film begins to sag. Several elements are continuously added that only cause confusion for the audience members. I couldn't appreciate anything that was happening in the here and now because I was so consumed with trying to figure out how each new, strange twist fit within the context of the film. To the film's credit, it does about as good of a job as possible in explaining everything. None of the answers though were what I considered satisfying.
Kelly attempts to fill the film with symbolism as themes of disfigurement, altruism, free will, and even the work of Sartre are introduced throughout the film. Each alone could have been thought-provoking and worthwhile to explore. However, by cramming all of them into this simple film, none of them get the attention that they deserve. I'm not sure if this is a worst offense than not including any, however since removing them would leave a pretty shallow, empty film.
Unfortunately, The Box is too much work with not enough payoff. The film peppers in moments of inspiration that continue to make you think it's going to turnaround and be something special, but none of them pan out. Instead, what's left is a murky mess that fails to make good on its potential. The film requires your whole attention, so for that reason I would probably suggest you see it at theaters instead of at home if you're still interested in checking it out. However, for most, I suggest you don't push the button and return The Box back to sender. Grade: C
Friday, November 6, 2009
NMR: G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
I didn't expect much here and that's about what I got. This movie was already going to be a tough sell for me since I was never really a fan of the comic books and/or 80s cartoon series, so I had no real affinity for any of the characters. Then again, with the laughable acting by most of the main characters, perhaps it was better I wasn't a fan because I didn't have to worry about seeing beloved characters getting butchered like they were here. If you're able to completely shut off your brain this movie can be palatable at times. But for the most part, it's a noisy mess. The film runs through a gamut of cliches, however, they go from one to the next so quickly you don't even have enough time to groan over their inclusion. I will be real interested to see whether or not a sequel is made. The film ends suggesting one is forthcoming, but the box office for the film was just ok. If they do, let's hope they choose to use the X-Men model, not the Transformers model for creating a second film. As for this film, you're probably better off giving it a pass. Rating: **/Grade: C-
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Hostile takeover
A quick note...I had a free coupon to rent a movie from one of those Redbox machines, so I used it to rent The Taking of Pelham 123. That's why technically this isn't a NMR and why I'll do a bit longer review for this one. I know that's totally arbitrary reasoning, but hey it's my blog, so my rules.
So this is a remake/reimagining of the 1974 Walter Mathau film of the same name. This time around it's John Travolta who hijacks a NYC subway and Denzel Washington, playing the subway dispatcher who is trying to stop him. These two actors have been around long enough to know how to play these characters convincingly. The strength of the film lies in the interplay between them. There are several scenes involving them engaging in conversations about their pasts, their beliefs, and their roles in this situation. Anytime the film gives them this time to do some character disection, the film works. You get drawn in to the games each of them are trying to play in order for this whole ordeal to play out the way they want it to go.
Unfortunately, those moments of dialogue and continuously interrupted with frenetic action scenes that do not really add anything to the film. Travolta's character is demanding a large sum of money, so we see several scenes of the caravan of cop cars racing through NYC in order to get him the money to him before he kills one of his hostages. These scenes, shot with a whip-like nature, are so disparagingly different from the scenes of dialogue between the two main characters that you begin to wonder if you're watching two different films.
You can credit director Tony Scott for the nature of these action sequences. They have his fingerprints all over them. The quick jumps, the zoom maps, the abrupt crashes all here once again, just like they are in so many of his other films. In some cases, like with Enemy of the State, a story needs the infusion of adrenaline that Scott's style can bring. For a film like this or Spy Game, it's just over the top and unnecessary. This could have been such a better film if it just had more faith in letting the actors tell a good story.
In addition to Washington and Travolta, you also get some reliable performances from guys like John Tuturro and James Gandolfini in supporting roles. Gandolfini, playing the mayor of New York, has a particularly engaging performance. There seemed to be a lot more to this guy than just being a figurehead and I wish the film would have delved into his character more.
Like so many action movies, there are a lot of plot holes/gaps in logic. And things kind of break down as the film heads to its conclusion. In a lot of cases, I can look past these indiscretions if the rest of the film is entertaining. However, in this case, those problems got amplified when they are being done with in the hyperkinetic style that Scott used for this film.
There are certainly a lot worse action movies that are made. And the performances by the leads are strong enough to make this worthy of a rental if you're looking for some action. It's just a shame that Tony Scott felt it was necessary to ramp up the adrenaline when a more quite, cerebral film with this story would have worked just fine. Grade: C+
So this is a remake/reimagining of the 1974 Walter Mathau film of the same name. This time around it's John Travolta who hijacks a NYC subway and Denzel Washington, playing the subway dispatcher who is trying to stop him. These two actors have been around long enough to know how to play these characters convincingly. The strength of the film lies in the interplay between them. There are several scenes involving them engaging in conversations about their pasts, their beliefs, and their roles in this situation. Anytime the film gives them this time to do some character disection, the film works. You get drawn in to the games each of them are trying to play in order for this whole ordeal to play out the way they want it to go.
Unfortunately, those moments of dialogue and continuously interrupted with frenetic action scenes that do not really add anything to the film. Travolta's character is demanding a large sum of money, so we see several scenes of the caravan of cop cars racing through NYC in order to get him the money to him before he kills one of his hostages. These scenes, shot with a whip-like nature, are so disparagingly different from the scenes of dialogue between the two main characters that you begin to wonder if you're watching two different films.
You can credit director Tony Scott for the nature of these action sequences. They have his fingerprints all over them. The quick jumps, the zoom maps, the abrupt crashes all here once again, just like they are in so many of his other films. In some cases, like with Enemy of the State, a story needs the infusion of adrenaline that Scott's style can bring. For a film like this or Spy Game, it's just over the top and unnecessary. This could have been such a better film if it just had more faith in letting the actors tell a good story.
In addition to Washington and Travolta, you also get some reliable performances from guys like John Tuturro and James Gandolfini in supporting roles. Gandolfini, playing the mayor of New York, has a particularly engaging performance. There seemed to be a lot more to this guy than just being a figurehead and I wish the film would have delved into his character more.
Like so many action movies, there are a lot of plot holes/gaps in logic. And things kind of break down as the film heads to its conclusion. In a lot of cases, I can look past these indiscretions if the rest of the film is entertaining. However, in this case, those problems got amplified when they are being done with in the hyperkinetic style that Scott used for this film.
There are certainly a lot worse action movies that are made. And the performances by the leads are strong enough to make this worthy of a rental if you're looking for some action. It's just a shame that Tony Scott felt it was necessary to ramp up the adrenaline when a more quite, cerebral film with this story would have worked just fine. Grade: C+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)