Finally, the first trailer for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince has been released. You can watch it below or for better quality, go here.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Why so larcenous?
Looks like someone got lost on their way to ComicCon...
From AP:
From AP:
THREE RIVERS, Mich. (AP) — Police in Michigan have arrested a man who they say tried to steal posters and other items related to the new Batman movie from a cinema lobby while dressed up as the Joker.
Detective Mike Mohney said Monday 20-year-old Spencer Taylor of Three Rivers has been booked for investigation of larceny and malicious destruction of property.
Taylor is scheduled to be arraigned Aug. 5 in St. Joseph County District Court.
There is no telephone listing under his name in the Three Rivers area.
Mohney says officers who were dispatched early Sunday to the theater arrived to find employees restraining a man wearing a purple suit, a green wig and face paint in the style of Batman's nemesis in "The Dark Knight."
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Global Harming
So barely a month after it's initial release, M. Night Shyamalan's latest, The Happening is already at the budget theater (ouch!). Despite it's poor box office performance, I've been a fan of his previous work (sans The Lady in the Water) so I decided to check it out.
My experience watching it? In a word...painful. And while some of that is attributable to the film, a lot of the pain unfortunately came from an unrelated experience. Before the film began, a couple of different people in the theater claimed they saw a rat scurrying around on the floor. I never saw the thing personally, but if it did exist, I wasn't about to let it brush up against me or even bite me. So I ended up having to watch the film with my legs propped up and wedged between the two seats in front of me. Thank goodness the movie only lasted 90 minutes; there's no way I could have lasted like that through The Dark Knight.
Anyways, onto the movie...the film's premise revolves around a bizarre occurance in Central Park that has caused everyone there to become disoriented and eventually commit suicide. Soon, these occurances are happening more frequently throughout the east coast. Nobody knows what's causing this; whether it be some kind of terrorist attack or the plants of the world evolving and distributing this poison into the air as a defense mechanism. The only cue in the film to indicate the virus is approaching is the sound of the wind blowing. In terms of scare tactics, that ranks pretty low on the fright-o-meter.
In fact very little in this film seemed genuinely scary, despite this being Shymalan's first R rated film. Based on the audience's reaction, you would have thought this was a comedy rather than a horror/thriller. At the times that the audience did give a frightened reaction, it seemed more obligatory rather than genuine. This is a steep decline from Shymalan's first feature, The Sixth Sense. This director started off by making films that had that great combination of engaging story with legitimate scares. He soon downgraded with films like The Village to having still a decent story, but the thrills became more hokey. Now with this movie, he seems so consumed with a specific vision for his work that he doesn't stop to think whether either the story or the scares click.
Shymalan's tunnel vision certainly prevented him from helping direct the primary actors of the film. The main characters are Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel as a couple who's relationship has been on the rocks lately. But the actor seem more seperate than the characters they are portraying. There's no emotion or realism behind what they are saying to each other. During the intended deep moments of the film, everything remains artificial thanks to their poor acting.
John Leguizamo is also in this film as a friend/co-worker of Wahlberg's, but his character is only in the first half of the film and doesn't receive proper closure as to why he's never seen again. Instead, the second half of the film features a bizarre appearance by Betty Buckley as a woman who's lived in the woods away from civilization for some time. Her character does deliver some legitimate creepy moments, but her presence seems unrelated to the rest of film.
If the cheesiness factor from the acting wasn't enough, the visual effects in this film are equally as bad. It would be one thing if they just came off as computer generated, but it's worse than that. There's a scene with a lion mauling someone that's been affected by this virus and the scene looks like it belongs in a Sci-Fi channel made for TV movie. Shymalan needed to show the restraint he had in his previous films at letting the unseen be just as terrifying as the seen. Think back to Signs and how scary just that brief shot of the alien was. The added gore in this film just reeks of desperation. It's as if the studio felt the story wasn't strong enough, so they added more blood and guts in order to earn an R rating and generate a bit more interest.
I think what's ultimately most disappointing is the film's lack of purpose. I have no problem with a lack of proper explanation for how and why this event occured. That is fine and can spur debate amongst readers. What I do have a problem with is that we get no sense as to why we needed to revolve the story around Mark Wahlberg's character. With Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable and Mel Gibson in Signs, the main characters had to go through some personal journey that was somehow related to the supernatural events that surrounded the film. With Wahlberg's character, we never get that sense of his connection to these events, nor do we really see any growth in him as a human being. And any developments made in his relationship with Deschanel's character are undercut by the film's coda. I would have much rather seen him use this same freaky occurance and frame it from a broader approach to see how Americans at a whole react to this. There are glimpses of that here, but just as it seems to head in that direction, it heads back to the aimless wanderings of milqutoast Wahlberg.
If you've never been a fan of Shymalan's work, I see no reason to recommend this film to you. If you have been a fan, this may be worth a rental, if for no other reason than comparative purposes. While sad, I still think it's interesting to see the decline in the quality of his work. Maybe if his fans can continue to point out where he's gone wrong, there can be hope that the ship can be corrected. Then again, if the stories about his ego and stubbornness are true, we may never see another decent film from him. That would be really a shame. His failure to produce another successful film may end up being as mysterious as the events of The Happening. Grade: C-
My experience watching it? In a word...painful. And while some of that is attributable to the film, a lot of the pain unfortunately came from an unrelated experience. Before the film began, a couple of different people in the theater claimed they saw a rat scurrying around on the floor. I never saw the thing personally, but if it did exist, I wasn't about to let it brush up against me or even bite me. So I ended up having to watch the film with my legs propped up and wedged between the two seats in front of me. Thank goodness the movie only lasted 90 minutes; there's no way I could have lasted like that through The Dark Knight.
Anyways, onto the movie...the film's premise revolves around a bizarre occurance in Central Park that has caused everyone there to become disoriented and eventually commit suicide. Soon, these occurances are happening more frequently throughout the east coast. Nobody knows what's causing this; whether it be some kind of terrorist attack or the plants of the world evolving and distributing this poison into the air as a defense mechanism. The only cue in the film to indicate the virus is approaching is the sound of the wind blowing. In terms of scare tactics, that ranks pretty low on the fright-o-meter.
In fact very little in this film seemed genuinely scary, despite this being Shymalan's first R rated film. Based on the audience's reaction, you would have thought this was a comedy rather than a horror/thriller. At the times that the audience did give a frightened reaction, it seemed more obligatory rather than genuine. This is a steep decline from Shymalan's first feature, The Sixth Sense. This director started off by making films that had that great combination of engaging story with legitimate scares. He soon downgraded with films like The Village to having still a decent story, but the thrills became more hokey. Now with this movie, he seems so consumed with a specific vision for his work that he doesn't stop to think whether either the story or the scares click.
Shymalan's tunnel vision certainly prevented him from helping direct the primary actors of the film. The main characters are Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel as a couple who's relationship has been on the rocks lately. But the actor seem more seperate than the characters they are portraying. There's no emotion or realism behind what they are saying to each other. During the intended deep moments of the film, everything remains artificial thanks to their poor acting.
John Leguizamo is also in this film as a friend/co-worker of Wahlberg's, but his character is only in the first half of the film and doesn't receive proper closure as to why he's never seen again. Instead, the second half of the film features a bizarre appearance by Betty Buckley as a woman who's lived in the woods away from civilization for some time. Her character does deliver some legitimate creepy moments, but her presence seems unrelated to the rest of film.
If the cheesiness factor from the acting wasn't enough, the visual effects in this film are equally as bad. It would be one thing if they just came off as computer generated, but it's worse than that. There's a scene with a lion mauling someone that's been affected by this virus and the scene looks like it belongs in a Sci-Fi channel made for TV movie. Shymalan needed to show the restraint he had in his previous films at letting the unseen be just as terrifying as the seen. Think back to Signs and how scary just that brief shot of the alien was. The added gore in this film just reeks of desperation. It's as if the studio felt the story wasn't strong enough, so they added more blood and guts in order to earn an R rating and generate a bit more interest.
I think what's ultimately most disappointing is the film's lack of purpose. I have no problem with a lack of proper explanation for how and why this event occured. That is fine and can spur debate amongst readers. What I do have a problem with is that we get no sense as to why we needed to revolve the story around Mark Wahlberg's character. With Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable and Mel Gibson in Signs, the main characters had to go through some personal journey that was somehow related to the supernatural events that surrounded the film. With Wahlberg's character, we never get that sense of his connection to these events, nor do we really see any growth in him as a human being. And any developments made in his relationship with Deschanel's character are undercut by the film's coda. I would have much rather seen him use this same freaky occurance and frame it from a broader approach to see how Americans at a whole react to this. There are glimpses of that here, but just as it seems to head in that direction, it heads back to the aimless wanderings of milqutoast Wahlberg.
If you've never been a fan of Shymalan's work, I see no reason to recommend this film to you. If you have been a fan, this may be worth a rental, if for no other reason than comparative purposes. While sad, I still think it's interesting to see the decline in the quality of his work. Maybe if his fans can continue to point out where he's gone wrong, there can be hope that the ship can be corrected. Then again, if the stories about his ego and stubbornness are true, we may never see another decent film from him. That would be really a shame. His failure to produce another successful film may end up being as mysterious as the events of The Happening. Grade: C-
Saturday, July 26, 2008
And just for the heck of it, some Wii news too!
The posts just keep coming today...this is what happens when I actually have some time to step away from my work.
So I visited IGN for the first time in a while and saw that while the lineup for upcoming games for the Wii still looks a little thin, there were a couple of sequels that will be out soon that piqued my interest.
First, is Game Party 2. Now I'll be the first to admit that the first Game Party had some severe limitations that ruined what could have been potentially a very fun game. Since the potential was there, I'm willing to keep an open mind on the sequel, especially if they keep it at the $20 range that the first game sold for. It seems like they've fixed some things (create a character is better than choosy from the assortment of creepy hillbillies that you had in the first one) and added some interesting new games as well (Jarts! Cornhole!). You can check out a trailer for the new game (due out Sept. 30) below:
There is also going to be a quasi-sequel to Wii Sports, entitled Wii Sports Resort. The sporting competitions seem to have a beach theme to them (jetskiing, frisbee toss), which isn't entirely enticing. What is intriguing is that this game will be the first to use the new Wii peripheral, Wii Motionplus. Apparently, this add on will allow for more life like hand motions for the characters you are playing with (i.e. the character's wrist will angle like your wrist when throwing a frisbee). There are a lot of video from E3 on this new title and you can check all of them out here.
So I visited IGN for the first time in a while and saw that while the lineup for upcoming games for the Wii still looks a little thin, there were a couple of sequels that will be out soon that piqued my interest.
First, is Game Party 2. Now I'll be the first to admit that the first Game Party had some severe limitations that ruined what could have been potentially a very fun game. Since the potential was there, I'm willing to keep an open mind on the sequel, especially if they keep it at the $20 range that the first game sold for. It seems like they've fixed some things (create a character is better than choosy from the assortment of creepy hillbillies that you had in the first one) and added some interesting new games as well (Jarts! Cornhole!). You can check out a trailer for the new game (due out Sept. 30) below:
There is also going to be a quasi-sequel to Wii Sports, entitled Wii Sports Resort. The sporting competitions seem to have a beach theme to them (jetskiing, frisbee toss), which isn't entirely enticing. What is intriguing is that this game will be the first to use the new Wii peripheral, Wii Motionplus. Apparently, this add on will allow for more life like hand motions for the characters you are playing with (i.e. the character's wrist will angle like your wrist when throwing a frisbee). There are a lot of video from E3 on this new title and you can check all of them out here.
Bond countdown: Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
OK, I should be all caught up now on the Bond countdowns. From here on out, the reviews will be coming once a week.
Plot: While investigating mysterious activities in the world diamond market, 007 (Sean Connery) discovers that his evil nemesis Blofeld (Charles Gray) is stock-piling the gems to use in his deadly laser satellite. With the help of beautiful smuggler Tiffany Case (Jill St. John), Bond sets out to stop the madman - as the fate of the world hangs in the balance!
Firsts: Actor returns to play Bond
Gadgets: Fake fingerprint, grappling gun, miniature voicebox
Girls Bond slept with: Tiffany Case, Plenty O'Toole (almost)
Elaborate murder attempt that Bond escapes (tie): Death by cremation, buried alive in a pipe
Personal review: Quel fromage! This is one of my least favorite Bond films. For me virtually nothing works here. Let's begin with Connery, who came back to play Bond after being given a ridiculous salary, yet looked completely bored throughout the entire film. Then you have one of the worst Bond girls of all time in Tiffany Case. Jill St. John's portrayal of her is annoying, unsympathetic, and unsexy. I cringe everytime she's on the screen. You also have some off-putting henchmen in Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint. They just add to the creepy, cheesy vibe of the film. And then you have the total character assassination of Blofeld here. He's made to look particularly cartoonish in this film. This is due both to how the character is portrayed in the film and the way Charles Gray depicts him. I did enjoy the opening sequence of Bond hunting down Blofeld as it tied nicely into the previous film, but things rapidly went downhill from there. While some may argue that On Her Majesty's Secret Service was too serious, this film is a worse offender in the opposite direction. This seemed closer to an episode of the Adam West version of Batman than it did a Bond film. I am glad everyone involved realized changes needed to be made in the franchise and they certainly came in the next film. 5/10
Plot: While investigating mysterious activities in the world diamond market, 007 (Sean Connery) discovers that his evil nemesis Blofeld (Charles Gray) is stock-piling the gems to use in his deadly laser satellite. With the help of beautiful smuggler Tiffany Case (Jill St. John), Bond sets out to stop the madman - as the fate of the world hangs in the balance!
Firsts: Actor returns to play Bond
Gadgets: Fake fingerprint, grappling gun, miniature voicebox
Girls Bond slept with: Tiffany Case, Plenty O'Toole (almost)
Elaborate murder attempt that Bond escapes (tie): Death by cremation, buried alive in a pipe
Personal review: Quel fromage! This is one of my least favorite Bond films. For me virtually nothing works here. Let's begin with Connery, who came back to play Bond after being given a ridiculous salary, yet looked completely bored throughout the entire film. Then you have one of the worst Bond girls of all time in Tiffany Case. Jill St. John's portrayal of her is annoying, unsympathetic, and unsexy. I cringe everytime she's on the screen. You also have some off-putting henchmen in Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint. They just add to the creepy, cheesy vibe of the film. And then you have the total character assassination of Blofeld here. He's made to look particularly cartoonish in this film. This is due both to how the character is portrayed in the film and the way Charles Gray depicts him. I did enjoy the opening sequence of Bond hunting down Blofeld as it tied nicely into the previous film, but things rapidly went downhill from there. While some may argue that On Her Majesty's Secret Service was too serious, this film is a worse offender in the opposite direction. This seemed closer to an episode of the Adam West version of Batman than it did a Bond film. I am glad everyone involved realized changes needed to be made in the franchise and they certainly came in the next film. 5/10
CATFIGHT!!
I don't know if there's been something in the water lately or what, but everywhere I look women just can't seem to get along. Take a look...
TV Guide tidbits
A couple interesting stories that I found on TVGuide.com that I wanted to share with you...
First up is some exciting casting news for Reaper (which is scheduled to return for Season 2 next February):
And secondly, some casting news for the remake of The Prisoner. I never saw the actual show (I gotta rememeber to Netflix it), but from spoofs I've seen and stuff I've read about it, it sounds like a very cool show. And given some of the people they've got for this new edition, it sounds like we could be in for a treat when it debuts in 2009.
First up is some exciting casting news for Reaper (which is scheduled to return for Season 2 next February):
Reaper's Sock is going to get socked by infatuation — with no less than his stepsister! Eriko Tamura, who played a Samurai princess on Heroes, is joining the CW comedy as a recurring player this coming midseason. Tamura will play Kristin, Sock's new sis by way of his mom's remarriage. Thing is, Sock will have it bad for the new family member, while she sees him as her kindly "big brother." This could lead to tickle fights that are playful for some (her), agonizing for others (him).
Reaper's second season also will introduce Sean Patrick Thomas (Save the Last Dance) as Alan, an escaped soul who, when Sam tries to send him back to Hell, instead sends Sam on a surprising, brand-new journey. Thomas thus far is only booked for the premiere, but could get bumped up to recurring.
And secondly, some casting news for the remake of The Prisoner. I never saw the actual show (I gotta rememeber to Netflix it), but from spoofs I've seen and stuff I've read about it, it sounds like a very cool show. And given some of the people they've got for this new edition, it sounds like we could be in for a treat when it debuts in 2009.
Following the recent announcement of Jim Caviezel and Ian McKellen as the stars of AMC's miniseries reimagining of the 1960s series The Prisoner, the network has named a few more actors it plans to lock up.
Joining Caviezel's Number Six and McKellen's Number Two (insert childish joke here!) are Golden Globe-nominated actress Ruth Wilson (Jane Eyre, Capturing Mary) as Number 313, Hayley Atwell (Mansfield Park) as Number 41-5, Lennie James (Jericho) as Number 147 and Jamie Campbell-Bower (Sweeney Todd) as Number 11-12.
The miniseries is updating the original — an espionage thriller set during the Cold War — to focus on security and surveillance while retaining the franchise's trademark socio-economic commentary. The six-part event is set to debut in 2009.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Bond countdown: On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)
Plot: Agent 007 (George Lazenby) and the adventurous Tracy Di Vicenzo (Diana Rigg) join forces to battle the evil SPECTRE organization in the treacherous Swiss Alps. But the group's powerful leader, Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Telly Savalas) is launching his most calamitous schme yet: a germ warfare plot that could kill millions!
Firsts: New actor playing Bond, Bond falls in love, Bond's office is shown, M's private home is shown
Gadgets: Safe-cracking device/photocopier, radioactive lint (unused)
Girls Bond slept with: Tracy Di Vicenzo, Ruby Bartlett, and Nancy
Elaborate murder attempt that Bond escapes: Death by avalanche
Personal review: Perhaps the best word to describe this Bond film is unfortunate. There is a lot to like about this film, which I'll get to in a minute, but it just seems like it was designed to fail. There were too many moments in the film that encouraged the audience to reminisce about Sean Connery rather than appreciate the new Bond. You have Lazenby's line early on about 'the other guy', the opening credit sequence features clips from the previous films, and there's a scene with Bond in his office looking fondly at gadgets from past films. The film needed to give us reasons to like the new Bond, not yearn for the old one. On top of the nods to past films, they also do Lazenby no favors with his wardrobe. Outside of the standard tuxedo, most of the outfits he wears are pretty ridiculous looking. He does not come off as dapper or suave looking that way.
Now if you can get over those problems, buried inside is a pretty sweet film. The Swiss Alps locale was beautiful and provide yet another fresh change of scenery. The germ warfare plot, while a bit far-fetched is still very interesting and also new to this franchise. And I really love Diana Rigg as Tracy. For me, she may be one of the hottest Bond girls and she didn't even have to flaunt it like so many others before and after her. You can see why Bond would fall for her. She's not your typical 'Oh James' girl. I really want to like this film, but the producers give me so many reasons not to. Still, if you've never watched this one because of Lazenby, I would suggest you check it out. It's certainly not as terrible as some make it out to be. 7/10
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
ODMR: Jumper
My Netflix account is still on hold, but I got a coupon for a free movie on Time Warner On-Demand, so I took advantage of it and saw Jumper, which was a modest hit earlier this year. After watching it though, I can only imagine people under the age of 18 enjoyed this one. Everything from the characterization to the visual styling of the film is aimed at a teenage market. The film had an interesting enough premise; Hayden Christiansen discovers he can jump to anywhere he wants in the world and Samuel L. Jackson is out to kill him. Sadly, the film never rises about this concept. The war between 'jumpers' and the bad guys, known as Paladins is never fully explained. The film also introduces some moral, social, religious, and pyschological issues yet never delves into any of them. It's bad enough that the film never answers any questions, but it's even worse that none of the characters in the film seem bothered enough by what's going on to even ask the questions. Perhaps most baffling is the film's protagonist, David (Christiansen). He doesn't use his power for good and doesn't have any real redeeming qualities. He's not an anti-hero; he's a slacker who uses his power for menial, selfish gains. Which is why I said the film probably appeals to a lot of teenagers. The visuals of the jumping are initially cool, but grow tiresome after a while. At a brisk 88 minutes, it's inoffensive enough to be considered mindless entertainment, but it's a shame to see an interesting story get watered down into nothing more than eye candy. Rating: **
Thumbs down
From MSN.com...
It's a real shame that the Disney corporation has destroyed this show. But, I'm sure Richard will be able to get another review show and we can continue to hope that Roger gets better after after rough years of medical problems. It's still hard to believe that after all this time, it appears that the balcony will soon be closed permanently.
CHICAGO (AP) -- Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert says he's cutting ties with the television show that he and the late Gene Siskel made famous.
In an e-mail to The Associated Press on Monday, Ebert said Disney-ABC Domestic Television had decided to take the show "in a new direction" and he won't be associated with it.
His announcement came a day after Chicago Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper said he was leaving the nationally syndicated "At the Movies With Ebert & Roeper."
Roeper said in a statement Sunday that he had failed to agree on a contract extension with Disney-ABC Domestic Television so his last appearance on the show will air the weekend of Aug. 16-17.
"Several months ago, Disney offered to extend my contract, which expires at the conclusion of the 2007-08 season," Roeper said. "I opted to wait. Much transpired after that behind the scenes, but an agreement was never reached, and we are all moving on."
A message seeking comment was left for a spokeswoman for Disney-ABC Domestic Television early Monday.
Roeper said he intends to "proceed elsewhere ... as the co-host of a movie review show that honors the standards established by Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert more than 30 years ago."
"I will be free to share the details on that program in the near future," he said.
He also said he wishes Disney "the best of luck with their new show, whatever form it may take."
Roeper joined Sun-Times movie critic Roger Ebert on the show in 2000, after Ebert's original co-host, Chicago Tribune film critic Gene Siskel, died of a brain tumor in 1999.
Siskel and Ebert had begun reviewing movies on television together in 1975 on Chicago public broadcasting's WTTW, which eventually took their program national. The pair jumped to commercial television through the Tribune Co.'s TV syndication wing in 1982, switching to Disney in 1986.
Roeper was chosen from among a large group of contenders to be the permanent replacement for Siskel after his death.
Ebert has been sidelined the last two years because of health issues that have robbed him of his voice.
"Over the last two seasons, as Roger has bravely coped with his medical issues, I've continued the show with a number of guest co-hosts," Roeper said. "It's never been the same without Roger, but I'm proud of the work we've done and I'm grateful to all the co-hosts who stepped in — and to the viewers that stayed loyal to the show."
It's a real shame that the Disney corporation has destroyed this show. But, I'm sure Richard will be able to get another review show and we can continue to hope that Roger gets better after after rough years of medical problems. It's still hard to believe that after all this time, it appears that the balcony will soon be closed permanently.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Clowning achievement
I may have been a bit lax on getting to see some of the big summer movies this year, but there was no way I was going to wait to see The Dark Knight. I saw this on opening day and clearly I'm not the only one (Dark Knight Sets New Opening Day Record). With some movie franchises, there is a bit of worry with each new entry that it won't be as good as the last. However, given the capable hands of director Christopher Nolan I was confident this film would deliver and boy does it.
This was the most intense movie experience I have had in a long time and that's a good thing. The Dark Knight is just non-stop in both its action and storytelling. They pack so much into this film, yet the time absolutely flies by. This thing pulls you in and doesn't let go until the credits roll.
After doing such a good job in casting with Batman Begins, it's nice to see all the main players back for this one. The only exception is Maggie Gyllenhaal replacing Katie Holmes in the Rachel Dawes role and it was a definite upgrade. She's not only a better actress, but seems more suited for the role as well. But as for the returning cast, each of these terrific actors has plenty of screentime and does a superb job once again. Christian Bale has been able to figure out how to properly play both Batman and Bruce Wayne (something none of the previous Caped Crusaders could do), Gary Oldman once again plays Lt. Gordon (and gets a much larger role this time), and while Michael Caine as Alfred and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox have smaller roles, their presence is always welcome on screen. They are a couple of veterans who know how to get the most out of their roles.
But of course, while we can justly praise the returning cast, it is the new cast members, which are garnering the most attention. Clearly, all eyes are on Heath Ledger's Joker as this will ultimately be his final full role in a film after his tragic death last January. When we first got a glimpse of his take on the Joker, fans were amazed. As more and more footage was released, some people actually began considering this as an Oscar-worthy performance. Discussion of that months ago was way too premature. But after seeing it fully, I would have no problems with him getting a nomination. This is just an amazing performance. He absorbs himself into this role completely to the point that if it wasn't so well known that Heath Ledger was playing this part, you may not have known who it was. Heath's performance absolutely nails what the Joker character is all about based on the way the villain is depicted in the comics. He finds that perfectly balance of exhbiting clowning behavior with homicidal tendencies. There are so many nuances that he brings to this character, that you can't help but sit back and watch in awe. And as great as the performance is, it's not overbearing in any way. He doesn't dominate the screentime and he doesn't overshadow his other cast members. It is just a pure joy to watch him work; which is a weird thing to say given the terrible things he does to people in this film.
The other newcomer is Aaron Eckhart playing Gotham DA Harvey Dent. With the amount of coverage being devoted to Heath, some may not think he has a large role in this film, but they would be mistaken. Dent is a major character in this film and Eckhart plays him in a way where you can see why the Gotham citizens would view him as their savior. The alliance that is formed between Dent, Gordon and Batman is crucial to this story and is done well. And if you're a Batman fan, then you know that Harvey Dent eventually becomes famous criminal Two-Face. Without giving away too much, I'll say that you will get to see him as Two-Face in this film and he looks amazing. The way they visually create the character is awesome and I'm glad I avoided seeing pictures ahead of time, because the reveal was a lot more fun within the context of the movie.
As noted earlier, they pack so much story into this film. And unlike certain films that feel bloated because they try for too much (coughSpider-Man 3cough) all of sequences in this story seem organic. There are several points in the film where it feels like it could be the end, but it just keeps going and revealing more. With all the action going on in here, Nolan is able to give the audience a real sense of terror and anxiety that is occuring in Gotham as the Joker runs amok. With each successive crime that the Joker commits, you feel the anarchy mounting within the city. I really feel I need to watch it again just to truly understand what was going on because when you watch it that first time, you are just spun around in a dizzying array of crime and fear.
If I have one complaint of the film, it's about its visual style. That's not to say that the film doesn't look good. Rather, I was disappointed that there was very little that visually connected this film to Batman Begins. Gotham looks totally different now than it did in the first film. This time, Gotham is basically Chicago, whereas in Batman Begins it looked like a generic, run-down city. Also, there is no Wayne Manor or Batcave here. So for as good as this film is, it doesn't look like a direct sequel to Batman Begins. One could easily think the two films were made by different directors.
But while the film lacks visual continuity, it looks impressive nonetheless. One of the nice things about this film is how little it relied on CGI. Most of the stunts are done with basic camera techniques and stunt work. And what little CGI there is in this film is added in seemlessly. This film continues to show me why Christopher Nolan is such a talented director.
I would easily suggest going out to see this, but I have a feeling you didn't need my review to tell you that. Most that read this have probably already seen the film for themselves or are planning on seeing it soon. Given what a huge Batman fan I am, I am so pleased to see this franchise get properly ressurected after Joel Schumacher nearly killed it. I fully expect to see this film again and soon. I'm anxious to see if it improves upon a second viewing. I am now also anxious to see what they have in store for the next film. Watching The Dark Knight, I felt this is comparable to The Empire Strikes Back. It's the second film, has a much darker tone, and will no doubt be the favorite of many fans. The Batman universe has plenty of wonderful characters to choose from, so I have no doubt that when another one is made, they'll make the right choices and deliver another gem. Until then, I'm happy enjoying this one. This one easily shoots up to the number one slot on my top ten list. Grade: A-
This was the most intense movie experience I have had in a long time and that's a good thing. The Dark Knight is just non-stop in both its action and storytelling. They pack so much into this film, yet the time absolutely flies by. This thing pulls you in and doesn't let go until the credits roll.
After doing such a good job in casting with Batman Begins, it's nice to see all the main players back for this one. The only exception is Maggie Gyllenhaal replacing Katie Holmes in the Rachel Dawes role and it was a definite upgrade. She's not only a better actress, but seems more suited for the role as well. But as for the returning cast, each of these terrific actors has plenty of screentime and does a superb job once again. Christian Bale has been able to figure out how to properly play both Batman and Bruce Wayne (something none of the previous Caped Crusaders could do), Gary Oldman once again plays Lt. Gordon (and gets a much larger role this time), and while Michael Caine as Alfred and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox have smaller roles, their presence is always welcome on screen. They are a couple of veterans who know how to get the most out of their roles.
But of course, while we can justly praise the returning cast, it is the new cast members, which are garnering the most attention. Clearly, all eyes are on Heath Ledger's Joker as this will ultimately be his final full role in a film after his tragic death last January. When we first got a glimpse of his take on the Joker, fans were amazed. As more and more footage was released, some people actually began considering this as an Oscar-worthy performance. Discussion of that months ago was way too premature. But after seeing it fully, I would have no problems with him getting a nomination. This is just an amazing performance. He absorbs himself into this role completely to the point that if it wasn't so well known that Heath Ledger was playing this part, you may not have known who it was. Heath's performance absolutely nails what the Joker character is all about based on the way the villain is depicted in the comics. He finds that perfectly balance of exhbiting clowning behavior with homicidal tendencies. There are so many nuances that he brings to this character, that you can't help but sit back and watch in awe. And as great as the performance is, it's not overbearing in any way. He doesn't dominate the screentime and he doesn't overshadow his other cast members. It is just a pure joy to watch him work; which is a weird thing to say given the terrible things he does to people in this film.
The other newcomer is Aaron Eckhart playing Gotham DA Harvey Dent. With the amount of coverage being devoted to Heath, some may not think he has a large role in this film, but they would be mistaken. Dent is a major character in this film and Eckhart plays him in a way where you can see why the Gotham citizens would view him as their savior. The alliance that is formed between Dent, Gordon and Batman is crucial to this story and is done well. And if you're a Batman fan, then you know that Harvey Dent eventually becomes famous criminal Two-Face. Without giving away too much, I'll say that you will get to see him as Two-Face in this film and he looks amazing. The way they visually create the character is awesome and I'm glad I avoided seeing pictures ahead of time, because the reveal was a lot more fun within the context of the movie.
As noted earlier, they pack so much story into this film. And unlike certain films that feel bloated because they try for too much (coughSpider-Man 3cough) all of sequences in this story seem organic. There are several points in the film where it feels like it could be the end, but it just keeps going and revealing more. With all the action going on in here, Nolan is able to give the audience a real sense of terror and anxiety that is occuring in Gotham as the Joker runs amok. With each successive crime that the Joker commits, you feel the anarchy mounting within the city. I really feel I need to watch it again just to truly understand what was going on because when you watch it that first time, you are just spun around in a dizzying array of crime and fear.
If I have one complaint of the film, it's about its visual style. That's not to say that the film doesn't look good. Rather, I was disappointed that there was very little that visually connected this film to Batman Begins. Gotham looks totally different now than it did in the first film. This time, Gotham is basically Chicago, whereas in Batman Begins it looked like a generic, run-down city. Also, there is no Wayne Manor or Batcave here. So for as good as this film is, it doesn't look like a direct sequel to Batman Begins. One could easily think the two films were made by different directors.
But while the film lacks visual continuity, it looks impressive nonetheless. One of the nice things about this film is how little it relied on CGI. Most of the stunts are done with basic camera techniques and stunt work. And what little CGI there is in this film is added in seemlessly. This film continues to show me why Christopher Nolan is such a talented director.
I would easily suggest going out to see this, but I have a feeling you didn't need my review to tell you that. Most that read this have probably already seen the film for themselves or are planning on seeing it soon. Given what a huge Batman fan I am, I am so pleased to see this franchise get properly ressurected after Joel Schumacher nearly killed it. I fully expect to see this film again and soon. I'm anxious to see if it improves upon a second viewing. I am now also anxious to see what they have in store for the next film. Watching The Dark Knight, I felt this is comparable to The Empire Strikes Back. It's the second film, has a much darker tone, and will no doubt be the favorite of many fans. The Batman universe has plenty of wonderful characters to choose from, so I have no doubt that when another one is made, they'll make the right choices and deliver another gem. Until then, I'm happy enjoying this one. This one easily shoots up to the number one slot on my top ten list. Grade: A-
Bond countdown: You Only Live Twice (1967)
Plot: When U.S. and Soviet manned spaceships are hijacked in Earth's orbit, Agent 007 (Sean Connery) must race to prevent a nuclear war between the superpowers. His dangersou mission takes him to Japan, where he battles the evil SPECTRE organization and its diabolical leader, Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Donald Pleasence)
Firsts: Blofeld's face is revealed, Bond gets married
Gadgets: Safe-cracking device and the portable helicopter, Little Nellie
Girls Bond slept with: Ling, Aki, Helga Brandt, and Kissy Suzuki
Elaborate murder attempt that Bond escapes: Poison dripped from a string
Personal review: This is a near-perfect Bond outing thanks largely due to a solid script involving an engaging storyline. Things get started nicely with fake murder of Bond. Having the majority of the film takes place in Japan provided a nice change of scenery and provided a number of interesting characters for Bond to interact with like Tiger. We finally get to see Blofeld here, which helps bring some gravitas to the 'take over the world' scheme in this film. I mentioned that this is a near-perfect film because there is one plot point that I've never cared for. Watching Bond's makeover to become Japanese is ludicrous on so many levels. How anyone could be fooled into thinking he is actually Japanese is beyond me. It really didn't seem necessary and just came off as laughable. But beside that, this is another strong film with just the right balance of action, humor and romance. 9/10
Friday, July 18, 2008
Trailers: TV edition
With the networks' press tour happening this week and Comic-Con looming, we're actually starting to get some news about what we can expect on the upcoming seasons of many of our favorite shows. Below is a couple of trailers from shows we haven't seen in a long time.
Heroes may have hit some stumbling blocks in Season 2, but I have to think that by focusing on villains, new and familiar, next season that things can only get better.
Just so you're clear, this is a trailer for a special 2-hour movie of 24 that will air this November. The events of this movie will then tie in to the upcoming season which begins in January.
Heroes may have hit some stumbling blocks in Season 2, but I have to think that by focusing on villains, new and familiar, next season that things can only get better.
Just so you're clear, this is a trailer for a special 2-hour movie of 24 that will air this November. The events of this movie will then tie in to the upcoming season which begins in January.
AMG is ABD
I typically don't put a lot of personal stuff on here, but this is too good of news not to share. For those of you who haven't heard yet, Wednesday I had my oral exams and passed unconditionally. I am now considered 'ABD', which means 'all but dissertation'. It is now such a huge relief to have passed that hurdle. It hasn't always been easy, but I made it. Now all that's left is that pesky little dissertation. But I'm sure I'll be able to knock that out in a couple of hours. But for right now, what this all means is that I am done with taking college courses. After being in a classroom for so long, it'll be weird not taking any classes this fall. Somehow though, I think I'll get over it pretty quickly.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Bond Countdown: Thunderball (1965)
Plot: The thrills never stop as Agent 007 (Sean Connery) goes above the call of duty - and to the bottom of the ocean - to track down a villainous criminal who's holding millions hostage and threatening to plunge the world into a nuclear holocaust!
Firsts: Opening scene revealed in gun barrell
Gadgets: Jet pack, underwater camera, geiger counter watch, minature breathing apparatus, homing device pill
Girls Bond slept with: Patricia Fearing, Fiona Volpe, Domino Derval
Elaborate murder attempt that Bond escapes (tie): Trapped in an enclosed swimming pool with sharks, trapped on a stretching machine set on full speed
Personal review: After the success of Goldfinger, the franchise's excesses begin to show in this installment. This one attempt to do everything that the previous films did, but on a larger scale. Sometimes this works, and other times it comes off looking ridiculous. What gets lost amongst all the gadgets and action is a decent story. The film tries to cover up it's simple 'steal a nuke and hold the world ransom' plot with a bunch of glitz and glamour. And while the eyepatch gives the film's primary villain, Largo, a cool factor, he'll go down as one of the dumbest Bond villains for failing to kill Bond despite numerous easy opportunities to do so. Domino, the main Bond girl in this one has been the most boring up to this point and had no chemistry with Connery. I was also disappointed to see Terrance Young back as director of this film (He directed the first two). The way he edits and paces his films do not compare with Guy Hamilton's direction in Goldfinger. A lot of the individual fights scenes look pretty bad as a result. However, the film is saved from all of it's ridiculousness with a badass underwater brawl between Largo's thugs and British secret agents. The scene is doubly impressive considering that you didn't see a lot of stuff like that in films back then. This one has its moments, but definitely lacks the quality and/or novelty that the previous films in the series had. 7/10
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Good-bye Gil Grissom
Shocking news on EW.com this morning regarding the 10th episode of the upcoming season of CSI being William Petersen's last episode as a series regular...
All together now, CSI fans: Breathe. Executive producer Carol Mendelsohn assures me that her team was anything but blindsided by the upcoming departure of William Petersen. "We do have a plan," she says. And that plan includes not only Grissom's sure-to-be-stellar swan song, but also the arrival of some new blood (one with funky DNA), the return of some old blood (welcome back, Jorja Fox!) and an episode that's been nearly nine years in the making. Here, Mendelsohn and fellow EP Naren Shankar offer an exclusive preview of what will go down when this sure-to-be-controversial season starts up.
* Jorja Fox will be back for "multiple" episodes, beginning with September's season premiere -- an hour that will also feature an appearance by Gary Dourdan's Warrick, who was seemingly shot to death in last May's finale. "We're not saying whether or not Warrick lives or dies," hedges Mendelsohn, "but we will say that the premiere may be the last time our loyal fans see the entire original CSI cast together."
* Previously-announced addition Lauren Lee Smith (The L Word) joins the cast in the third episode as new CSI Riley Adams. "She will come in to ostensibly replace Sara Sidle," says Mendelsohn. "She has a very distinct personality... a very wry sense of humor. She doesn't take herself too seriously." Adds Shankar: "This is a person who, unlike the rest of our gang, has not had Grissom as a mentor. So there's a very different relationship between Riley and Grissom."
* Another new CSI, this time a male, will be brought in later this fall, but "he will not appear on the landscape as a CSI to begin with," teases Mendelsohn. "He's a professor with background in pathology. He will appear when Grissom is investigating what will be a two-part case. He will help Grissom and the team bring the perpetrator to justice, and then this character will stay around and ultimately become a CSI." And although Mendelsohn says the new guy (who will possess a very rare genetic abnormality) will "not necessarily [replace Grissom as] supervisor," he'll inevitably be branded Petersen's replacement -- if for no other reason than the caliber of actor being sought for the role: Kurt Russell, Laurence Fishburne and John Malkovich are said to be at the top of CBS' wish list. Of the three, Mendelsohn would only confirm that Malkovich was approached, adding that "scheduling conflicts" had quickly taken him out of the running.
* Current cast members Liz Vassey (lab rat Wendy) and David Berman (coroner David) have been upped to full-fledged series regulars. Wallace Langham's Hodges, meanwhile, will become more prominent.
* Arguably the drama's most infamous serial menace to date, the Miniature Killer, "will come back for an episode," Mendelsohn reveals. "Grissom will cross paths with her."
* Finally, the show will celebrate its landmark 200th episode this spring with a blockbuster installment helmed once again by Petersen's good friend (and To Live and Die in L.A. director) William Friedkin. Is it fair to assume that this could be the episode in which Petersen debuts as a very special CSI guest star? "Billy will definitely be on the set for Mr. Friedkin's episode -- whether it's behind the camera or in front of the camera is TBD," Mendelsohn teases. "I don't think you'll be able to keep him away once he's back in L.A."
Heroes Webisodes: Chapter 1 - A Nifty Trick
Looks like Heroes is getting in on the webisode fun this summer too...
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Bond countdown: Goldfinger (1964)
Plot: Special agent 007 (Sean Connery) has just come face to face with one of the most notorious villains of all time. And now he'll have to outwit and outgun this powerful tycoon to prevent him from cashing in on a devious scheme to raid Fort Knox - and obliterate the world economy!
First appearances: Bond's Aston Martin, Q branch
Other firsts: Title song sung over opening credits
Gadget: Loaded Aston Martin equipped with rotating license plate, smoke screen, ejector seat, wheel scythe, oil slick, bullet-proof shield, machine guns, and homing device tracker.
Girls Bond slept with: Jill Masterson, Pussy Galore
Elaborate murder attempt that Bond escapes: Castration via laser beam
Personal review: You may think this would get an immediate glowing review from me given its classic status, but I actually had to rewatch it again to be convinced. The previous few times I had watched, I actually found it to be slow at times. I must have just been tired though, because watching it again convinced me of its greatness. Clearly, by the third film they had all the pieces in place: You've got a classic villain (Auric Goldfinger), who's devised an over-the-top scheme for world domination (set off nuclear bomb in Fort Knox) and is helped by a unique henchman (Oddjob). You also have one Bond girl memorbably die (epidermal asphyxiation after being painted gold) and another one with an unforgettable name (Pussy Galore). When you add in on top of all that a car with so many gadgets ahead of its time, you have the perfect recipe for a spy film. If all of that weren't enough, you have Connery really starting to understand the character by finding that right balance of action and humor. Everything just clicks here and makes it one of the best Bonds ever. If you want to start watching the Bond films and you don't care about watching them in chronological order, then start with this one because it is the epitome of what this franchise is all about. 10/10
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Credible Hulk
So I'm still trying to catch up with all the summer movies I've missed lately and ended up seeing The Incredible Hulk a few days ago. I never saw the 2003 Hulk film, but from general consensus, I didn't miss much. While some may think that it was too soon to do a Hulk reboot, I can understand why it was done. I would compare it to the Ocean's Eleven franchise. Ocean's Twelve was a critical disaster and those involved felt it was necessary to make another to appease fans. Given how beloved the Hulk is in the comic book universe, I think Marvel had a similar mentality in wanting to do another film. And while I'll assume this was better than the 2003 film, this latest incarnation of the big green guy still fails to deliver a home run that will be remembered in the annals of great comic book movies.
This time around Edward Norton plays Bruce Banner. Through an opening credits montage we see the origins of the Hulk, and then start the film with Banner hiding in Brazil. The first half of the film focuses on Banner always being on the run trying to elude the military led by General Thaddeaus 'Thunderbolt' Ross (William Hurt). While this is a familiar storyline for the Hulk, I really felt that this film tried to focus on it now as a result of the popularity of the Bourne films. This film tried to have the same vibe of 'tortured guy on the run from the government', but it lacked the intelligence or intensity that those films have.
Edward Norton is certainly a talented actor and does fine here, but is not helped by his surrounding cast. Both Hurt and Tim Roth (playing soldier Emil Blonsky, who eventually becomes the Hulk's archnemesis, the Abomination) underplay their roles. Neither guy gets an opportunity to let loose and exhibit any traits that would make the audience truly hate them. Liv Tyler as Banner's girlfriend, Betty Ross, is miscast here. There was no sense of chemistry between her and Norton. And her milquetoast performance never allows to audience to sympathize with her as she watches her boyfriend going through this unfortunate metamorphisis.
The second half of the film does provide plenty HULK SMASH moments, but the scenes have a sense of destruction for destruction's sake rather than being meaningful. I couldn't help but think while watching Hulk and the Abomination go at it in the streets of New York that people should lay off of Hancock for his destructive ways given all of the damage that this superhero imposes on a city.
Without getting emotionally invested in the characters, I found myself picking up on small things that annoyed me; things I probably would have ignored in a better film. For instance, there is a lengthy action sequence with the military attacking the Hulk on a college campus, yet there doesn't appear to be a soul around. If these events took place at my college, there would be mass hysteria, plus a strong likelihood of many students getting injured amongst all the carnage that is taking place. On the flip side, later on in the film we see the Abomination destroying everything in his sight on a New York street. Minutes later, the Hulk finally arrives to do battle, yet there are still a large number of citizens hanging out in the streets. Wouldn't most of these people have already fled in fear at this point? While these are clearly minor things in the scope of the film's quality, they stuck out at me nonetheless and caused the film to lose its realism (as real as a film about a giant green man could get, that is).
What's interesting about The Incredible Hulk is how workmanlike it is. The film isn't bad, just completely ordinary. There is no real sense of fun found in the film. For a film that is about a larger than life character, the film is anything but. Everybody goes about making this film as if it is just another job. At no point do you get the sense from anyone involved with the film that they have a passion for this character and they want to share it with the millions of fans who love this character.
After two underwhelming efforts, I have a feeling that the Hulk is Marvel's equivalent to Superman when it comes to film. While both are wildly popular characters, neither are engaging enough to make entertaining films about them. They are both simply too strong to make them relatable. I think if either one makes a return to the big screen, it should be as part of an ensemble; a JLA movie for Superman and the Avengers for Hulk.
Speaking of the Avengers, this movie does provide a few more hints that such a film could soon become a reality. Shame on the marketing department for spoiling the Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark cameo in this film, but kudos to the filmmakers for adding that scene in. It's one of the few moments in the film where you actually feel some electricity and excitement. Part of that was just the natural charisma of Downey, but it was also due to the fact that in that scene you got a sense of something significant will happen beyond the mindless destruction offered by the Hulk alone.
Like so many other films this summer, this one seems to have its heart in the right place, it just doesn't quite put everything together to make it a sucess. If this film was done merely to help establish the Avengers franchise, I can live with that. But if there are any legitimate plans to continue making Hulk movies, they better go back to the drawing board again because some fixes still need to be made. If you haven't seen this already, I'd suggest just waiting for DVD. It's not like there aren't any other comic book movies out there to see if you want to watch one. Save your money and go see The Dark Knight next week. I have a feeling that one might be a bit better. Grade: B-
This time around Edward Norton plays Bruce Banner. Through an opening credits montage we see the origins of the Hulk, and then start the film with Banner hiding in Brazil. The first half of the film focuses on Banner always being on the run trying to elude the military led by General Thaddeaus 'Thunderbolt' Ross (William Hurt). While this is a familiar storyline for the Hulk, I really felt that this film tried to focus on it now as a result of the popularity of the Bourne films. This film tried to have the same vibe of 'tortured guy on the run from the government', but it lacked the intelligence or intensity that those films have.
Edward Norton is certainly a talented actor and does fine here, but is not helped by his surrounding cast. Both Hurt and Tim Roth (playing soldier Emil Blonsky, who eventually becomes the Hulk's archnemesis, the Abomination) underplay their roles. Neither guy gets an opportunity to let loose and exhibit any traits that would make the audience truly hate them. Liv Tyler as Banner's girlfriend, Betty Ross, is miscast here. There was no sense of chemistry between her and Norton. And her milquetoast performance never allows to audience to sympathize with her as she watches her boyfriend going through this unfortunate metamorphisis.
The second half of the film does provide plenty HULK SMASH moments, but the scenes have a sense of destruction for destruction's sake rather than being meaningful. I couldn't help but think while watching Hulk and the Abomination go at it in the streets of New York that people should lay off of Hancock for his destructive ways given all of the damage that this superhero imposes on a city.
Without getting emotionally invested in the characters, I found myself picking up on small things that annoyed me; things I probably would have ignored in a better film. For instance, there is a lengthy action sequence with the military attacking the Hulk on a college campus, yet there doesn't appear to be a soul around. If these events took place at my college, there would be mass hysteria, plus a strong likelihood of many students getting injured amongst all the carnage that is taking place. On the flip side, later on in the film we see the Abomination destroying everything in his sight on a New York street. Minutes later, the Hulk finally arrives to do battle, yet there are still a large number of citizens hanging out in the streets. Wouldn't most of these people have already fled in fear at this point? While these are clearly minor things in the scope of the film's quality, they stuck out at me nonetheless and caused the film to lose its realism (as real as a film about a giant green man could get, that is).
What's interesting about The Incredible Hulk is how workmanlike it is. The film isn't bad, just completely ordinary. There is no real sense of fun found in the film. For a film that is about a larger than life character, the film is anything but. Everybody goes about making this film as if it is just another job. At no point do you get the sense from anyone involved with the film that they have a passion for this character and they want to share it with the millions of fans who love this character.
After two underwhelming efforts, I have a feeling that the Hulk is Marvel's equivalent to Superman when it comes to film. While both are wildly popular characters, neither are engaging enough to make entertaining films about them. They are both simply too strong to make them relatable. I think if either one makes a return to the big screen, it should be as part of an ensemble; a JLA movie for Superman and the Avengers for Hulk.
Speaking of the Avengers, this movie does provide a few more hints that such a film could soon become a reality. Shame on the marketing department for spoiling the Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark cameo in this film, but kudos to the filmmakers for adding that scene in. It's one of the few moments in the film where you actually feel some electricity and excitement. Part of that was just the natural charisma of Downey, but it was also due to the fact that in that scene you got a sense of something significant will happen beyond the mindless destruction offered by the Hulk alone.
Like so many other films this summer, this one seems to have its heart in the right place, it just doesn't quite put everything together to make it a sucess. If this film was done merely to help establish the Avengers franchise, I can live with that. But if there are any legitimate plans to continue making Hulk movies, they better go back to the drawing board again because some fixes still need to be made. If you haven't seen this already, I'd suggest just waiting for DVD. It's not like there aren't any other comic book movies out there to see if you want to watch one. Save your money and go see The Dark Knight next week. I have a feeling that one might be a bit better. Grade: B-
Friday, July 11, 2008
The Office webisodes: Kevin's Loan (Episode 1)
It's summertime and The Office has decided to once again grace us with a series of webisodes. The first episode debuted this week and it already delivers. I can't wait to see the following installments each week. Enjoy!
Holmes vs. Holmes
In recent years, we've seen some epic battles between Hollywood films that are released close to one another and have the same basic premise: Deep Impact vs. Armageddon, Dante's Peak vs. Volcano, The Illusionist vs. The Prestige. But viewers better brace themselves, because another feud is brewing and this one promises to be...murder.
That's right, in the past week, news has leaked that there are two films being made about Sherlock Holmes. In one corner, you have Guy Ritchie directing Sherlock Holmes, with Robert Downey Jr. signed on to play the titular character (Read here). In the other corner, you have the presumably more comedic take on the famous detective with Sasha Baron Cohen (Borat) playing the sleuth and Will Ferrell playing his assitant, Watson (Read here)
The earliest either film will come out is 2010, so that leaves us plenty of time to speculate on their potential success. So I'll leave up to you movie gumshoes...based on the clues thus far, which movie will prevail and which will perish in the Mystery of the Two Holmes?
That's right, in the past week, news has leaked that there are two films being made about Sherlock Holmes. In one corner, you have Guy Ritchie directing Sherlock Holmes, with Robert Downey Jr. signed on to play the titular character (Read here). In the other corner, you have the presumably more comedic take on the famous detective with Sasha Baron Cohen (Borat) playing the sleuth and Will Ferrell playing his assitant, Watson (Read here)
The earliest either film will come out is 2010, so that leaves us plenty of time to speculate on their potential success. So I'll leave up to you movie gumshoes...based on the clues thus far, which movie will prevail and which will perish in the Mystery of the Two Holmes?
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Bond countdown: From Russia With Love (1963)
So I ended up forgetting to bring along the Bond DVDs with me when I went on vacation to Cleveland, which has put me behind on my countdown. I'm going to have to play catch-up this week in hopes of getting back on track soon enough.
Plot: James Bond (Sean Connery) squares off against the evil SPECTRE organization in a pulse-pounding race to seize the Soviet Lektor decoding machine. His mission thrusts him into a thrilling boat chase, a brutal helicopter attack and a deadly brawl aboard the Orient Express, proving once again that Agent 007 can't be stopped!
First appearances: Q, Ernst Blofeld
Other firsts: Dancing silhouetted women in title sequence, Promise that 'James Bond will return' in end credits
Gadget: Loaded briefcase fitted with knife, gun, and knockout gas
Girls Bond slept with: Sylvia Trench (the only Bond girl to make a return appearance), two gypsy girls (presumed), and Tatiana Romanova (multiple times)
Elaborate murder attempt that Bond escapes: Klebb's poison-tipped shoe
Personal review: In this second outing, things were beginning to look more and more like the Bond films we would come to expect and love. This one established certain things that would become staples of the franchise like Bond girls and the mysterious presence of SPECTRE. On the positive side, Kerim Bay is much better second banana than Quarrel was in Dr. No. And Tatiana (played by Daniela Bianchi) was just as hot as Ursula Andress was. I loved SPECTRE playing both the British and the Soviets off one another and they almost get away with it. In addition to the ambiguous introduction of Blofeld, this one has some decent villains with Grant and Klebb. The biggest complaint with the film is that it's awfully slow in the beginning. Bond doesn't actually get the Lektor until about halfway through the film. Then after nearly no action for the first 3/4ths of the movie, they cram way too many action sequences (train fight, helicopter attack, boat chase, duel with Klebb) in the last half hour. If they could have balanced things out better this would have been an excellent film. Instead, it's just another solid entry in the Bond franchise. 8/10
Plot: James Bond (Sean Connery) squares off against the evil SPECTRE organization in a pulse-pounding race to seize the Soviet Lektor decoding machine. His mission thrusts him into a thrilling boat chase, a brutal helicopter attack and a deadly brawl aboard the Orient Express, proving once again that Agent 007 can't be stopped!
First appearances: Q, Ernst Blofeld
Other firsts: Dancing silhouetted women in title sequence, Promise that 'James Bond will return' in end credits
Gadget: Loaded briefcase fitted with knife, gun, and knockout gas
Girls Bond slept with: Sylvia Trench (the only Bond girl to make a return appearance), two gypsy girls (presumed), and Tatiana Romanova (multiple times)
Elaborate murder attempt that Bond escapes: Klebb's poison-tipped shoe
Personal review: In this second outing, things were beginning to look more and more like the Bond films we would come to expect and love. This one established certain things that would become staples of the franchise like Bond girls and the mysterious presence of SPECTRE. On the positive side, Kerim Bay is much better second banana than Quarrel was in Dr. No. And Tatiana (played by Daniela Bianchi) was just as hot as Ursula Andress was. I loved SPECTRE playing both the British and the Soviets off one another and they almost get away with it. In addition to the ambiguous introduction of Blofeld, this one has some decent villains with Grant and Klebb. The biggest complaint with the film is that it's awfully slow in the beginning. Bond doesn't actually get the Lektor until about halfway through the film. Then after nearly no action for the first 3/4ths of the movie, they cram way too many action sequences (train fight, helicopter attack, boat chase, duel with Klebb) in the last half hour. If they could have balanced things out better this would have been an excellent film. Instead, it's just another solid entry in the Bond franchise. 8/10
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Secret Identity
As I mentioned a couple of days ago, I saw a pair of summer movies while up in Cleveland. The second of which was Hancock, the latest from Will Smith. Smith has become synonymous with the 4th of July as he has had several hits open during the holiday. Despite their big box office numbers, most of these movies haven't been what I considered good. Some, like Wild, Wild West and Men in Black II were just plain awful. And I feel Independence Day and the first Men in Black are both highly overrated. But despite that track record, I had hopes for Hancock given I've enjoyed a lot of Will's more recent films and the trailers indicated that this one had an interesting story. Sadly, my hopes were doused and Will continued his run of underwhelming, yet successful 4th of July films.
Based on the trailers and advertisements, the film is about Hancock (Smith), a man with superpowers, but not necessarily a good guy. His rescue efforts are sloppy and he tends to do more damage than good when on missions. Part of this is due to his attitude, while some of it could be attributed to the fact that he's also an alcoholic. When the city of Los Angeles gets fed up with his antics, a PR agent (played by Jason Bateman) steps in to help Hancock with his image. While some of this story seems to be borrowed from The Incredibles, the plot seems intriguing nonetheless.
But for some reason, about halfway through the film, a major plot twist comes into play and the whole reckless superhero storyline is thrown out the window. Once the film transitions to this new plot point, the whole concept of Hancock rehabbing his image is ignored. This could have been tolerated had the plot twist taken the film into an interesting direction, but it doesn't. I wish I could explain it more, but I'd rather not give away this key point of the film. Worst of all, this plot twist is never really explained fully for the audience to understand. Instead, they seemed content to fill the remainder of the film with a bunch of action scenes, hoping the audience would be easily distracted by the destruction and loud noises.
What it boils down to is that the film ends up being like two television pilots put together. Each one provides an interesting beginning to a story, but neither one are given enough time to properly tell that story or provide any sense of closure. I'm not sure why the writer felt the need to make such a drastic change in storytelling, but it doesn't work at all. In fact, this film really fails to tell us anything. It certainly did not tell the story I was expecting. And while it appears to have a message, Hancock does not sufficiently get it across to the audience. Some have said that the film is using Hancock as a metaphor for the United States, but I didn't feel that those themes were drawn out enough (which is probably for the better considering how weary I'm getting of Hollywood feeling the need to add political commentary to every single film that's made).
The acting in this film is sufficient. Will Smith has fun (initially) poking at his own clean cut image by portraying the less-than-reputable Hancock. Jason Bateman also provides a few funny lines that only he can produce; although he's a bit more reined in here than I would have liked. The film could have used more scenes involving him snarking on Hancock's bad behavior. Charlize Theron is also in this (although you wouldn't know that from the advertisements) and is suitable in her role as Bateman's wife. However, even though each of the main stars' performances is perfectly acceptable, it is also inconsequential as most people aren't going to be checking this film out for the fine performances.
Equally nice, but also insignificant is the action sequences. It's fun seeing freeway signs get obliterated or whales tossed back into the ocean, but if there isn't a decent story connecting these action sequences together. If the audience can't follow along with what's happening or if they aren't invested in what happens to the characters, then all the CGI in the world isn't going to save your film.
The door was certainly left open at the end of the film for a Hancock sequel, but at this point, I'm not sure I would be interested in seeing it. I would have to see some significant changes in how the characters are presented and the storyline associated with them before I would be willing to check it out. And given how deceptive the advertising was for this one, I'm not sure I could even trust the trailers to tell me if improvements had been made. Will Smith is usually careful in the projects he picks, so let's hope he either decides to forego a sequel or pulls his weight in order to get a better story written for Hancock's second go.
This movie isn't terrible, it's just wildly disappointing. It showed a lot of promise in its premise and advertising and then failed to deliver on its bill of goods. If you're content on seeing mindless summer entertainment, you'll probably some value in this film. My recommendation though would be to make sure you lower your expectations before checking it out so you won't have the same sense of disappointment I had with it. This is a film that aims to soar through the air, but ends up never leaving the ground. Grade: C
Based on the trailers and advertisements, the film is about Hancock (Smith), a man with superpowers, but not necessarily a good guy. His rescue efforts are sloppy and he tends to do more damage than good when on missions. Part of this is due to his attitude, while some of it could be attributed to the fact that he's also an alcoholic. When the city of Los Angeles gets fed up with his antics, a PR agent (played by Jason Bateman) steps in to help Hancock with his image. While some of this story seems to be borrowed from The Incredibles, the plot seems intriguing nonetheless.
But for some reason, about halfway through the film, a major plot twist comes into play and the whole reckless superhero storyline is thrown out the window. Once the film transitions to this new plot point, the whole concept of Hancock rehabbing his image is ignored. This could have been tolerated had the plot twist taken the film into an interesting direction, but it doesn't. I wish I could explain it more, but I'd rather not give away this key point of the film. Worst of all, this plot twist is never really explained fully for the audience to understand. Instead, they seemed content to fill the remainder of the film with a bunch of action scenes, hoping the audience would be easily distracted by the destruction and loud noises.
What it boils down to is that the film ends up being like two television pilots put together. Each one provides an interesting beginning to a story, but neither one are given enough time to properly tell that story or provide any sense of closure. I'm not sure why the writer felt the need to make such a drastic change in storytelling, but it doesn't work at all. In fact, this film really fails to tell us anything. It certainly did not tell the story I was expecting. And while it appears to have a message, Hancock does not sufficiently get it across to the audience. Some have said that the film is using Hancock as a metaphor for the United States, but I didn't feel that those themes were drawn out enough (which is probably for the better considering how weary I'm getting of Hollywood feeling the need to add political commentary to every single film that's made).
The acting in this film is sufficient. Will Smith has fun (initially) poking at his own clean cut image by portraying the less-than-reputable Hancock. Jason Bateman also provides a few funny lines that only he can produce; although he's a bit more reined in here than I would have liked. The film could have used more scenes involving him snarking on Hancock's bad behavior. Charlize Theron is also in this (although you wouldn't know that from the advertisements) and is suitable in her role as Bateman's wife. However, even though each of the main stars' performances is perfectly acceptable, it is also inconsequential as most people aren't going to be checking this film out for the fine performances.
Equally nice, but also insignificant is the action sequences. It's fun seeing freeway signs get obliterated or whales tossed back into the ocean, but if there isn't a decent story connecting these action sequences together. If the audience can't follow along with what's happening or if they aren't invested in what happens to the characters, then all the CGI in the world isn't going to save your film.
The door was certainly left open at the end of the film for a Hancock sequel, but at this point, I'm not sure I would be interested in seeing it. I would have to see some significant changes in how the characters are presented and the storyline associated with them before I would be willing to check it out. And given how deceptive the advertising was for this one, I'm not sure I could even trust the trailers to tell me if improvements had been made. Will Smith is usually careful in the projects he picks, so let's hope he either decides to forego a sequel or pulls his weight in order to get a better story written for Hancock's second go.
This movie isn't terrible, it's just wildly disappointing. It showed a lot of promise in its premise and advertising and then failed to deliver on its bill of goods. If you're content on seeing mindless summer entertainment, you'll probably some value in this film. My recommendation though would be to make sure you lower your expectations before checking it out so you won't have the same sense of disappointment I had with it. This is a film that aims to soar through the air, but ends up never leaving the ground. Grade: C
Fall TV scoopage
TV Guide recently published some tidbits on the upcoming seasons on some of our favorite sci-fi shows, so I figured I'd share the news with you here:
Heroes: Season 3 kicks off September 22 with an all-Heroes night - a one-hour red-carpet special with previously unseen clips, followed by the first two hours of "Villains," a 13-episode story arc "that's not as obvious as its title might sound," says Zachary Quinto, who plays the brain-snatching Sylar. "There's an event at the Company that releases a whole host of Level 5 prisoners - all very dangerous killers - but 'Villains' will cast a much wider net than that. We'll explore the darkness and villainy in everybody. Even the good guys. Each has a line - what does it take for them to cross it?" The season premiere picks right up after last December's cliff-hanger, when Nathan was shot by an assassin and Niki seemingly died in an explosion. Hiro inherits his late father's business empire and gets a new nemesis, Daphne (Friday Night Lights' Brea Grant), who moves at supersonic speed. Meredith (Jessalyn Gilsig) returns to teach daughter Claire how to protect herself after an attack by Sylar. But who's going to protect her in the future? A flash-forward in time finds a very different Claire Bear. "She becomes mean, damaged and kinda nuts - the 180-degree opposite of the character we know," Panettiere reports. "Future Claire is a real badass."
Chuck: No big surprise, the life of Chuck Bartowski will be in danger - only this season it's his National Security protector Casey who's assigned to rub him out. "When the Intersect is rebuilt, Chuck becomes obsolete and expendable," says cocreator Josh Schwartz of the top-secret database implanted in Chuck's brain. "The government wants him to 'disappear' and that mission falls to Casey." CIA agent Sarah comes face-to-face with her high-school nemesis (Nicole Richie). Tony Hale (Buster from Arrested Development) joins the cast as a new assistant manager at the Buy More, who's determined to get to the bottom of Chuck's mysterious absences. John Larroquette guests as an alcoholic ex-spy who teaches Chuck how to seduce a black widow, played by The O.C.'s Melinda Clarke, and Michael Clarke Duncan plays baddie-for-hire Mr. Colt. "There's a catastrophic event at the end of the season premiere," Schwartz adds. "We're coming out with all guns blazing. We're not saving anything."
Reaper: Life gets no easier for the Devil's bounty hunter, Sam and his buds Sock and Ben when Season 2 premieres. The trio returns from an extended vacation only to hunt an escaped soul with his own loophole out of Hell. "this is a guy who broke a deal with the Devil," says exec producer Michele Fazekas. "So it turns into the search for the one-armed man." Meanwhile, demon assassins keep looking for marked man Sam. And though Sam's dad survived live burial last season, he'll keep Sam mourning a bit longer. And, says Fazekas, "By the end of the season, you will know more about his parents' deal with the Devil and what it all means."
Heroes: Season 3 kicks off September 22 with an all-Heroes night - a one-hour red-carpet special with previously unseen clips, followed by the first two hours of "Villains," a 13-episode story arc "that's not as obvious as its title might sound," says Zachary Quinto, who plays the brain-snatching Sylar. "There's an event at the Company that releases a whole host of Level 5 prisoners - all very dangerous killers - but 'Villains' will cast a much wider net than that. We'll explore the darkness and villainy in everybody. Even the good guys. Each has a line - what does it take for them to cross it?" The season premiere picks right up after last December's cliff-hanger, when Nathan was shot by an assassin and Niki seemingly died in an explosion. Hiro inherits his late father's business empire and gets a new nemesis, Daphne (Friday Night Lights' Brea Grant), who moves at supersonic speed. Meredith (Jessalyn Gilsig) returns to teach daughter Claire how to protect herself after an attack by Sylar. But who's going to protect her in the future? A flash-forward in time finds a very different Claire Bear. "She becomes mean, damaged and kinda nuts - the 180-degree opposite of the character we know," Panettiere reports. "Future Claire is a real badass."
Chuck: No big surprise, the life of Chuck Bartowski will be in danger - only this season it's his National Security protector Casey who's assigned to rub him out. "When the Intersect is rebuilt, Chuck becomes obsolete and expendable," says cocreator Josh Schwartz of the top-secret database implanted in Chuck's brain. "The government wants him to 'disappear' and that mission falls to Casey." CIA agent Sarah comes face-to-face with her high-school nemesis (Nicole Richie). Tony Hale (Buster from Arrested Development) joins the cast as a new assistant manager at the Buy More, who's determined to get to the bottom of Chuck's mysterious absences. John Larroquette guests as an alcoholic ex-spy who teaches Chuck how to seduce a black widow, played by The O.C.'s Melinda Clarke, and Michael Clarke Duncan plays baddie-for-hire Mr. Colt. "There's a catastrophic event at the end of the season premiere," Schwartz adds. "We're coming out with all guns blazing. We're not saving anything."
Reaper: Life gets no easier for the Devil's bounty hunter, Sam and his buds Sock and Ben when Season 2 premieres. The trio returns from an extended vacation only to hunt an escaped soul with his own loophole out of Hell. "this is a guy who broke a deal with the Devil," says exec producer Michele Fazekas. "So it turns into the search for the one-armed man." Meanwhile, demon assassins keep looking for marked man Sam. And though Sam's dad survived live burial last season, he'll keep Sam mourning a bit longer. And, says Fazekas, "By the end of the season, you will know more about his parents' deal with the Devil and what it all means."
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Boobie prizes
Someone has compiled a video of what they are claiming to be the 10 worst McDonald's Happy Meal toys:
I'll admit most of those are pretty lame (although I don't think the E.T. posters are that bad). I think my favorite is the generic "prize" one. I believe that's fast food speak for "We're clearing out the storage locker and you'll get whatever we give you".
I'll admit most of those are pretty lame (although I don't think the E.T. posters are that bad). I think my favorite is the generic "prize" one. I believe that's fast food speak for "We're clearing out the storage locker and you'll get whatever we give you".
Monday, July 7, 2008
Bye Bye C.C.
Brewers land Sabathia in big deal
The C.C. trade just puts an exclamation point on a thoroughly depressing season for the Indians and their fans. It's hard to say how I should feel about this news. On one hand, I'm glad C.C. is going to a team like Milwaukee and not someone like Chicago or Boston. I'll be much happier seeing them succeed over some of these other overrated and/or annoying teams. Also, for as good as C.C. is/was, he had yet to prove himself to be a clutch pitcher and I would have hated to see him continue to take us to the playoffs, only to disappoint us each time. But from a negative perspective, this is just another example of the Indians once again losing to their greatest enemy; money. We continue to establish stars in this league, only to lose them due to greed before they can take us to the promised land. And with the injuries piling up and guys playing below expectations, this C.C. deal makes me wonder how long it'll be before we are a contender again.
As for what we got in return for C.C. it's way to early to determine if we got screwed on this deal or not. On the surface, we're getting four minor leaguers with varying levels of promise. At best, we could hope for similar results to what we got in the Bartolo Colon trade that saw us getting Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee, and Brandon Phillips. At worst, we could be stuck with a bunch of Andy Martes. Clearly, it will be a while before we truly know the impact of this deal. Until then we're stuck suffering through yet another summer of disappointment from our beloved Tribe.
The C.C. trade just puts an exclamation point on a thoroughly depressing season for the Indians and their fans. It's hard to say how I should feel about this news. On one hand, I'm glad C.C. is going to a team like Milwaukee and not someone like Chicago or Boston. I'll be much happier seeing them succeed over some of these other overrated and/or annoying teams. Also, for as good as C.C. is/was, he had yet to prove himself to be a clutch pitcher and I would have hated to see him continue to take us to the playoffs, only to disappoint us each time. But from a negative perspective, this is just another example of the Indians once again losing to their greatest enemy; money. We continue to establish stars in this league, only to lose them due to greed before they can take us to the promised land. And with the injuries piling up and guys playing below expectations, this C.C. deal makes me wonder how long it'll be before we are a contender again.
As for what we got in return for C.C. it's way to early to determine if we got screwed on this deal or not. On the surface, we're getting four minor leaguers with varying levels of promise. At best, we could hope for similar results to what we got in the Bartolo Colon trade that saw us getting Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee, and Brandon Phillips. At worst, we could be stuck with a bunch of Andy Martes. Clearly, it will be a while before we truly know the impact of this deal. Until then we're stuck suffering through yet another summer of disappointment from our beloved Tribe.
Playing it Smart
After what seems like forever, I finally made it to the theater to check out a couple new movies, one of which I'll review here and then the other will be forthcoming soon. First up is Get Smart, which is yet another in a seemingly endless line of films that are adapted from small screen hits. Unlike most of them, I was anticipating one because I was such a fan of the television show. Even though I am a child of the 80s, I saw reruns of the 60s spy comedy (created by Mel Brooks and Buck Henry) when I was a kid and thought it was hilarious, even if I didn't always understand the Cold War humor.
One of the film's strengths, and a large reason why I had high hopes for it, was its cast. They picked the perfect people for the roles. And I'm not just talking about the leads, but all of the minor characters as well. There could be no other man but Steve Carell to take over the Don Adams role of Maxwell Smart, aka Agent 86. Anne Hathaway is also great as romantic foil Agent 99. At times I felt she was vocally reminiscent of the original 99, Barbara Feldon. Alan Arkin was the right choice for the Chief and again plays well off Carell, just as he did in Little Miss Sunshine.
The rest of the cast is a wonderful bounty of familiar faces: The Rock, David Koechner, Terrance Stamp, Terry Crews, Masi Oka, Ken Daviditian, and Patrick Warburton all have a lot of fun in their limited roles. Credit to the filmmakers for not only adding all of these funnymen to the cast but then using them as beloved minor characters from the original show. In addition to all of these roles, there are a handful of entertaining cameos as well. These were particularly enjoyable because they weren't spoiled for me ahead of time.
As evidenced by the solid casting, the filmmakers clearly had a love for the original show and tried to pay homage to it as best they could, which cannot be said for all films that were adapted from TV shows. Unlike some films which are made simply to cash in further on a recognizable name, the people behind Get Smart took the time to include a lot of what made the original show so enjoyable into their film.
When one of these TV adapatation films is made, there seems to be two methods of creating them. One is to create a general story and then try to shoehorn a few references from the original show to justify using the title. For instance, Starsky and Hutch. That movie was just an ordinary action comedy starring Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson. It just so happens that their names are Starsky and Hutch. The other approach is to identify key aspects of the original show that need to be a part of the movie and then create the story around them. Get Smart is an example of this. Many of the show's classic catchphrases, punchlines and objects are all found in here and come across for the most part naturally.
While the approach Get Smart took does right by its source material, it doesn't always equate a solid story. That is certainly the case here. The central plot is a little weak and at times, the pacing of the film was uneven. They would belabor on certain points and rush through others. For instance, they really hammered home the antagonistic beginnings of 86 and 99's relationship (Typically, "I'm the expert, you're the rookie, leave the crimefighting to me" stuff). But then they really rushed through the part where 99 not only learns to trust Max, but also falls for him. It seemed the film could have used another 20 mins. or at least cut out some of the earlier scenes and added more near the end.
Even though I applaud the filmmakers for paying proper homage to the original show, they did include some things in the film that I felt were unnecessary. One was a minor plot point about how Max used to be really overweight and then lost a bunch of pounds in order to become an agent. This didn't bother me from a continuity perspective as much as I just found it to be unfunny. They had enough quality material to work from the original show without needing to add some lame fat jokes. The other added annoyance was James Caan playing the President as a complete boob in a thinly veiled jab at our current Commander in Chief. At this point, Hollywood's stance at the current administration has become tiresome and it had really no place in this film. I especially felt sorry for an esteemed actor like James Caan to be reduced to such a hack role like this.
I've focused a lot on the film's comedy, but it is worth noting that this film is as much an action film as it is a comedy. I was impressed with a lot of the action sequences here as they more involved and realistic than you would find in most comedies. The action doesn't rival something you'll find in a pure action movie like Die Hard, but they clearly spent some money in order to make the film look as impressive as possible. I think if you're a comedy or an action fan, you'll have a good time with this one.
This is not a perfect movie ("missed it by that much"), but for summer escapism fare, I've seen a lot worse. I hope all of the Get Smart fans out there go see this movie and appreciate the job the producers did in adapting this film to the big screen, because I sure did. This film did just enough to make me hope they end up doing a sequel. They clearly have the right cast in place and with a stronger story, they could have a very successful action-comedy franchise for years to come. Grade: B
One of the film's strengths, and a large reason why I had high hopes for it, was its cast. They picked the perfect people for the roles. And I'm not just talking about the leads, but all of the minor characters as well. There could be no other man but Steve Carell to take over the Don Adams role of Maxwell Smart, aka Agent 86. Anne Hathaway is also great as romantic foil Agent 99. At times I felt she was vocally reminiscent of the original 99, Barbara Feldon. Alan Arkin was the right choice for the Chief and again plays well off Carell, just as he did in Little Miss Sunshine.
The rest of the cast is a wonderful bounty of familiar faces: The Rock, David Koechner, Terrance Stamp, Terry Crews, Masi Oka, Ken Daviditian, and Patrick Warburton all have a lot of fun in their limited roles. Credit to the filmmakers for not only adding all of these funnymen to the cast but then using them as beloved minor characters from the original show. In addition to all of these roles, there are a handful of entertaining cameos as well. These were particularly enjoyable because they weren't spoiled for me ahead of time.
As evidenced by the solid casting, the filmmakers clearly had a love for the original show and tried to pay homage to it as best they could, which cannot be said for all films that were adapted from TV shows. Unlike some films which are made simply to cash in further on a recognizable name, the people behind Get Smart took the time to include a lot of what made the original show so enjoyable into their film.
When one of these TV adapatation films is made, there seems to be two methods of creating them. One is to create a general story and then try to shoehorn a few references from the original show to justify using the title. For instance, Starsky and Hutch. That movie was just an ordinary action comedy starring Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson. It just so happens that their names are Starsky and Hutch. The other approach is to identify key aspects of the original show that need to be a part of the movie and then create the story around them. Get Smart is an example of this. Many of the show's classic catchphrases, punchlines and objects are all found in here and come across for the most part naturally.
While the approach Get Smart took does right by its source material, it doesn't always equate a solid story. That is certainly the case here. The central plot is a little weak and at times, the pacing of the film was uneven. They would belabor on certain points and rush through others. For instance, they really hammered home the antagonistic beginnings of 86 and 99's relationship (Typically, "I'm the expert, you're the rookie, leave the crimefighting to me" stuff). But then they really rushed through the part where 99 not only learns to trust Max, but also falls for him. It seemed the film could have used another 20 mins. or at least cut out some of the earlier scenes and added more near the end.
Even though I applaud the filmmakers for paying proper homage to the original show, they did include some things in the film that I felt were unnecessary. One was a minor plot point about how Max used to be really overweight and then lost a bunch of pounds in order to become an agent. This didn't bother me from a continuity perspective as much as I just found it to be unfunny. They had enough quality material to work from the original show without needing to add some lame fat jokes. The other added annoyance was James Caan playing the President as a complete boob in a thinly veiled jab at our current Commander in Chief. At this point, Hollywood's stance at the current administration has become tiresome and it had really no place in this film. I especially felt sorry for an esteemed actor like James Caan to be reduced to such a hack role like this.
I've focused a lot on the film's comedy, but it is worth noting that this film is as much an action film as it is a comedy. I was impressed with a lot of the action sequences here as they more involved and realistic than you would find in most comedies. The action doesn't rival something you'll find in a pure action movie like Die Hard, but they clearly spent some money in order to make the film look as impressive as possible. I think if you're a comedy or an action fan, you'll have a good time with this one.
This is not a perfect movie ("missed it by that much"), but for summer escapism fare, I've seen a lot worse. I hope all of the Get Smart fans out there go see this movie and appreciate the job the producers did in adapting this film to the big screen, because I sure did. This film did just enough to make me hope they end up doing a sequel. They clearly have the right cast in place and with a stronger story, they could have a very successful action-comedy franchise for years to come. Grade: B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)