No question about it, comedies have come back in full force this year. There have been so many excellent comedies that finding laughter and a solid story is ridiculously easy. That's not to say that there haven't been poor comedies lately. In fact, seeing "How To Lose Friends and Alienate People" shortly after viewing "Sex Drive" made me realize just how bad some comedies can be.
The premise of "Sex Drive" is a relatively simple one, yet the movie is done with such heart that it comes across as rather fresh. Ian (Josh Zuckerman) is a recent high school graduate who can't seem to get rid of his perceived virginity stigma. He's your stereotypical nice guy, always a friend, never anything more. He bends over backwards to help girls, and he gets stepped on. His best friend Lance (Clark Duke) wouldn't seem from his chubby, spectacled exterior to be a ladies man, yet somehow he pulls it off with relative ease. Despite Lance's efforts to help Ian out, Ian just cannot seem to follow through.
In the meantime, Ian has been chatting up "Ms_Tasty" (30 Rock's Katrina Bowden), an online companion to whom he has been presenting himself as a college football player and practicing being a jerk. So after she claims that she'll have sex with him if he drives from Chicago to Knoxville, TN, he packs up his bags and attempts to hit the road with Lance. As it always is in movies such as this, things don't go quite as planned.
What really works is that at the center of this movie, the story is overwhelmingly solid. Sure there are plenty of unbelievable moments, but the characters all react in ways that make sense and are internally consistent. At the same time, the wacky situations are tempered by corresponding sweetness that allows you to be pulled further into the story. The actors especially really work to drive it home, especially Ian's brother Rex, played by the hilarious James Marsden. Marsden hasn't really been in many comedies over the years, normally playing the brooding, serious guy who gets his girlfriend stolen from someone else. But here, he really uses everything that he's given and highlights the film anytime he is on screen. Others, such as Ian's best friend Felicia (Amanda Crew), really help to ground the movie by not allowing all the male stuff to get too out of hand.
The movie follows all the road movie touchstones, including a run-in with a rather knowledgable Amish man named Ezekiel (Seth Green) who helps them along their journey when they run into car trouble. Overall, there are a few elements of predictability that you can see coming from the get-go, which can be seen as a negative. But fortunately the humor quotient is so high that it renders these issues rather pointless.
What is certainly great to see though is story-based comedy that doesn't have gags for the sake of gags but the humor develops from the story. This is the type of teen comedy that will hopefully last for a while and not be the forgettable movie a lot of people are expecting it to be. And if nothing else, see it for the giant donut costume. I sometimes I wish I had one of those. (Okay, all the time.)
GRADE: B
Monday, October 13, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
"HOW much?!"
Ah, the glory of working at a movie theater. Nothing sticks out in my mind more than the rare times that I would be asked to work at the box office. And inevitably, the question would come up with every few people, "Did the prices go up?" or "This is ridiculous. Way too much." (As they'd hand over their card, as well.) Sometimes the prices had, sometimes they hadn't. Yet, they continued to purchase tickets.
Eventually, though, people stop. Despite the perceived quality of movies being better in 2008 in comparison to 2007, movie attendance is still down 5% according to the Associated Press. But ticket prices continue to rise. What seems to be happening is studios, and by extension individual theaters, are raising prices, and knocking more people out of the ability to see movies. Revenues are similar year-to-year, but attendance is down. Could it be that these rising prices are pricing people out of movies in general? Could it be possible that by keeping prices relatively static, that you would in effect have MORE people coming to see movies? I don't know the answer to that, but if it were me, and I was running the studio, I'd probably want more people to see my movie and have more potential from that customer in the long term, than to get them the one time they go out.
Arguments made when the complaint of expensive movie tickets are brought up over how much more of a value going to the movies is as opposed to going to a sporting event or a concert. Well, yeah, obviously. When you go to a sporting event, whether basketball or baseball or football, whatever, every game is going to be unique. There will never be two games that will be played out in exactly the same way. They are playing live in front of your face. This is an experience that cannot be replicated. Therefore, the barrier to entry is going to be much more expensive.
Movies on the other hand are unique in their own right. They can inspire, elicit emotional reactions, excite, entertain, all of that. But you can replay those effects over and over again. A movie, while often times a dynamic experience, is a static form of entertainment. No matter how many times you go see The Empire Strikes Back, Darth Vader will always admit to being Luke's father. So of course movies need to be much cheaper. The great thing is that it allows you to see movies again and again. There's always something new to be seen.
And let's not forget the potential of having a ruined experience. Loud patrons, kids running around, poor presentation can all bring something a feeling of rushed excitement to a screeching halt. All things that need to be looked at in the future.
Sure, home theaters, surround sound systems, and high definition televisions are getting closer to recreating that silver screen adventure, but they aren't quite there yet and probably never will be. Nothing compares to having your entire vision engulfed to the point where you find yourself fully immersed in this world placed in front of you.
While movies will probably still continue to go up, along with their delicious counterparts at the concession stand, I hold out hope that one day they will slow up their expedient rises and bring people back to the theater where they can best experience a movie.
Eventually, though, people stop. Despite the perceived quality of movies being better in 2008 in comparison to 2007, movie attendance is still down 5% according to the Associated Press. But ticket prices continue to rise. What seems to be happening is studios, and by extension individual theaters, are raising prices, and knocking more people out of the ability to see movies. Revenues are similar year-to-year, but attendance is down. Could it be that these rising prices are pricing people out of movies in general? Could it be possible that by keeping prices relatively static, that you would in effect have MORE people coming to see movies? I don't know the answer to that, but if it were me, and I was running the studio, I'd probably want more people to see my movie and have more potential from that customer in the long term, than to get them the one time they go out.
Arguments made when the complaint of expensive movie tickets are brought up over how much more of a value going to the movies is as opposed to going to a sporting event or a concert. Well, yeah, obviously. When you go to a sporting event, whether basketball or baseball or football, whatever, every game is going to be unique. There will never be two games that will be played out in exactly the same way. They are playing live in front of your face. This is an experience that cannot be replicated. Therefore, the barrier to entry is going to be much more expensive.
Movies on the other hand are unique in their own right. They can inspire, elicit emotional reactions, excite, entertain, all of that. But you can replay those effects over and over again. A movie, while often times a dynamic experience, is a static form of entertainment. No matter how many times you go see The Empire Strikes Back, Darth Vader will always admit to being Luke's father. So of course movies need to be much cheaper. The great thing is that it allows you to see movies again and again. There's always something new to be seen.
And let's not forget the potential of having a ruined experience. Loud patrons, kids running around, poor presentation can all bring something a feeling of rushed excitement to a screeching halt. All things that need to be looked at in the future.
Sure, home theaters, surround sound systems, and high definition televisions are getting closer to recreating that silver screen adventure, but they aren't quite there yet and probably never will be. Nothing compares to having your entire vision engulfed to the point where you find yourself fully immersed in this world placed in front of you.
While movies will probably still continue to go up, along with their delicious counterparts at the concession stand, I hold out hope that one day they will slow up their expedient rises and bring people back to the theater where they can best experience a movie.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Eww! Gross!
What fascinates me these days is the obsession with box office that so many of the mainstream media and followers of film have. The most recent obsession seems to be with people wanting "The Dark Knight" to take down "Titanic" in US grosses. Except it won't. And even if it surpasses that $600 million mark, that means nothing. Since, according to Box Office Mojo, when adjusted for inflation, "The Dark Knight" would currently only be hovering around $340 million in 1997 dollars, and Titanic itself is only number 6 on that list.
The problem with the way film measures success is that the benchmark continuously changes. A platinum selling record is one that sells a million copies. A smash hit television show is in the 10s of millions of viewers. The benchmarks in most other industries is one in units. How many units of this item were sold? And through that, one can figure out a long-term success pattern. But this is not the case for movies. In the many years I've been involved with movies, I have never once seen an amount of tickets sold number. When I have searched them out, I can usually find them, but never are they reported.
But people get so attached to these numbers. Dark Knight breaks the Spider-Man record. Great. So what? Does this inherently mean that one is better than the other? Absolutely not. They are completely different movies. I can think of plenty of movies that made very little at the box office that were still incredibly successful overall. The most prescient example that comes to mind is "The Shawshank Redemption." Currently at or near the top of most "Best Ever" lists, it grossed only $28 million total when it was released in 1994.
I believe that film fans all around should begin to put these numbers behind us, and pay less attention to them. The only reason I want films to make lots of money is so that other films like it will continue to be made. I'm glad The Dark Knight has made so much money, because it secures the franchise in the minds of most executives and they will continue making more Batman films. Beyond that, there is no care for me. I was certainly disappointed to see Speed Racer make so little money overall, as I would have enjoyed seeing sequels to that movie, but its comparitive success or failure has little bearing on whether or not I enjoyed that movie on its own merits. My appreciation for that movie would not be vindicated by a higher box office gross or massive DVD sales because I continue to love it regardless.
And then you have situations like the upcoming "Watchmen." Frankly, it's irrelevant whether or not that movie makes $1 or $1 billion. The movie is made, it cannot be a franchise, and it's done. If it's a good movie (which I expect it will be) then I will certainly be happy to see it succeed if it does. But if it doesn't, and I still enjoy it, it will make little difference to me.
All I want is for studios to continue to make good movies or focus on quality again (I'm looking at you, 20th Century Fox). And maybe, somewhere down the road, we can focus on benchmarking through admissions instead of inflated box office numbers.
The problem with the way film measures success is that the benchmark continuously changes. A platinum selling record is one that sells a million copies. A smash hit television show is in the 10s of millions of viewers. The benchmarks in most other industries is one in units. How many units of this item were sold? And through that, one can figure out a long-term success pattern. But this is not the case for movies. In the many years I've been involved with movies, I have never once seen an amount of tickets sold number. When I have searched them out, I can usually find them, but never are they reported.
But people get so attached to these numbers. Dark Knight breaks the Spider-Man record. Great. So what? Does this inherently mean that one is better than the other? Absolutely not. They are completely different movies. I can think of plenty of movies that made very little at the box office that were still incredibly successful overall. The most prescient example that comes to mind is "The Shawshank Redemption." Currently at or near the top of most "Best Ever" lists, it grossed only $28 million total when it was released in 1994.
I believe that film fans all around should begin to put these numbers behind us, and pay less attention to them. The only reason I want films to make lots of money is so that other films like it will continue to be made. I'm glad The Dark Knight has made so much money, because it secures the franchise in the minds of most executives and they will continue making more Batman films. Beyond that, there is no care for me. I was certainly disappointed to see Speed Racer make so little money overall, as I would have enjoyed seeing sequels to that movie, but its comparitive success or failure has little bearing on whether or not I enjoyed that movie on its own merits. My appreciation for that movie would not be vindicated by a higher box office gross or massive DVD sales because I continue to love it regardless.
And then you have situations like the upcoming "Watchmen." Frankly, it's irrelevant whether or not that movie makes $1 or $1 billion. The movie is made, it cannot be a franchise, and it's done. If it's a good movie (which I expect it will be) then I will certainly be happy to see it succeed if it does. But if it doesn't, and I still enjoy it, it will make little difference to me.
All I want is for studios to continue to make good movies or focus on quality again (I'm looking at you, 20th Century Fox). And maybe, somewhere down the road, we can focus on benchmarking through admissions instead of inflated box office numbers.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
A Summer 2008 Retrospective
Well, summer is officially over. And as a result, the blockbusters are ushered out and the award movies are brought in.
To say that 2008 was a better summer than 2007 would be a vast understatement. Sure, one could look at the numbers that have been released regarding box office and notice that attendance is actually down year-over-year, but that has more to do with franchising than any respectable amount of quality.
2007 was sincerely my most anticipated movie summer ever. My favorite franchise of all time, Spider-Man was receiving its third installment, while 5 other movies were given 3-quels that summer and a few other run-of-the-mill sequels as well. My excitement was so high going into last May, only to dash all of my hopes as the weeks went on. Spider-Man 3 was a pretty big disappointment overall. Shrek the Third was horrific. Ocean's 13 was less boring then 12, but still a far cry from the fun of 11. The only sequel that truly appeared to surpass its predecessors was The Bourne Ultimatum. Everything else was mildly entertaining at best.
So coming into 2008, I kept my expectations in check. No longer would I allow my expectations for a film overshadow what it is able to deliver. No, this would be a summer where I would attempt to put all those feelings aside and just enjoy movies for what they are.
And I did.
The summer started out with some serious (and some would say very surprising) quality in Iron Man. The perfect embodiment of the role, Robert Downey, Jr. delivered a believable and exciting turn as Tony Stark that also led to the beginning of a larger Marvel Universe. Having Downey make an appearance in The Incredible Hulk was not only a lot of fun, but helped a lot to tie these universes together.
Unfortunately, Hulk did not see the success that Iron Man did, despite many in the internet community seeing it as a welcome upgrade from Ang Lee's 2003 version. Whether or not Universal, and by extension, Marvel Studios, sees it as a success is something unknown to me as its overall box office was not too different from the original.
The following week, my hopes were still high, as I experienced one of my favorite movies of the whole summer, Speed Racer. This was surprisingly one of the most divisive movies of the year, in that a very small minority (myself included) absolutely LOVED this movie, while the vast majority of the critical press panned it as juvenile and much too long. I was holding out hopes for a sequel, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards anytime soon, given its $100+ million price tag and lack of box office overall. I still want this movie to succeed on DVD and will be singing the praises to anyone who will listen.
Narnia was decent, but nothing great, and it was a good holdover until Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Indy 4 was worth seeing strictly on the basis of the fact that it was Indiana Jones and for the first time in my life I was able to see him adventure on the big screen. Since I was a baby when Temple of Doom came out, and only 5 when Last Crusade was released, this was my first (and possibly only) chance to see and hear the excitement for myself. While the actual story I had some serious issues with, it was definitely still worth checking out.
I ended up missing Sex and the City (it wasn't hard for a male to do), but I certainly marveled at the amount of women who went to go see it. I guess never underestimate the potential for a girls' night out.
A few animated movies really stood out from the pack this summer. Kung Fu Panda was a surprisingly solid entry from Dreamworks, who normally seems to rely on pop culture jokes at the expense of story. This time around, they really kept their focus on story first, and the movie was helped tremendously by this. And who could forget Wall-E, perhaps my favorite movie of the year thus far? I'm really hoping to see a Best Picture nomination, but that could just be a pipe dream of mine.
But what this summer was really great for though was comedies. From Pineapple Express, to Step Brothers, to Tropic Thunder, there were so many quality comedies this year that I found it difficult to contain my laughter when just thinking about them afterward. Less successful, but still entertaining, comedies such as Get Smart and You Don't Mess with the Zohan at least offered a few humorous moments. And it pains me to write even the words "The Love Guru." I'll leave it at that.
Overall, this was a different summer. A summer filled with all sorts of different kinds of movies and one that I was able to enjoy much more because I didn't allow myself to get hyped to levels that would only set me up for disappointment. No, I just enjoyed being a movie fan this summer, because it allowed me to spend some good times with friends, having fun discussions, and watching crazy things happen.
So, thanks 2008. And we'll just say that my hopes are even LOWER for 2009's summer, since there really isn't much happening there at all. Except for Transformers 2. I love giant robots.
To say that 2008 was a better summer than 2007 would be a vast understatement. Sure, one could look at the numbers that have been released regarding box office and notice that attendance is actually down year-over-year, but that has more to do with franchising than any respectable amount of quality.
2007 was sincerely my most anticipated movie summer ever. My favorite franchise of all time, Spider-Man was receiving its third installment, while 5 other movies were given 3-quels that summer and a few other run-of-the-mill sequels as well. My excitement was so high going into last May, only to dash all of my hopes as the weeks went on. Spider-Man 3 was a pretty big disappointment overall. Shrek the Third was horrific. Ocean's 13 was less boring then 12, but still a far cry from the fun of 11. The only sequel that truly appeared to surpass its predecessors was The Bourne Ultimatum. Everything else was mildly entertaining at best.
So coming into 2008, I kept my expectations in check. No longer would I allow my expectations for a film overshadow what it is able to deliver. No, this would be a summer where I would attempt to put all those feelings aside and just enjoy movies for what they are.
And I did.
The summer started out with some serious (and some would say very surprising) quality in Iron Man. The perfect embodiment of the role, Robert Downey, Jr. delivered a believable and exciting turn as Tony Stark that also led to the beginning of a larger Marvel Universe. Having Downey make an appearance in The Incredible Hulk was not only a lot of fun, but helped a lot to tie these universes together.
Unfortunately, Hulk did not see the success that Iron Man did, despite many in the internet community seeing it as a welcome upgrade from Ang Lee's 2003 version. Whether or not Universal, and by extension, Marvel Studios, sees it as a success is something unknown to me as its overall box office was not too different from the original.
The following week, my hopes were still high, as I experienced one of my favorite movies of the whole summer, Speed Racer. This was surprisingly one of the most divisive movies of the year, in that a very small minority (myself included) absolutely LOVED this movie, while the vast majority of the critical press panned it as juvenile and much too long. I was holding out hopes for a sequel, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards anytime soon, given its $100+ million price tag and lack of box office overall. I still want this movie to succeed on DVD and will be singing the praises to anyone who will listen.
Narnia was decent, but nothing great, and it was a good holdover until Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Indy 4 was worth seeing strictly on the basis of the fact that it was Indiana Jones and for the first time in my life I was able to see him adventure on the big screen. Since I was a baby when Temple of Doom came out, and only 5 when Last Crusade was released, this was my first (and possibly only) chance to see and hear the excitement for myself. While the actual story I had some serious issues with, it was definitely still worth checking out.
I ended up missing Sex and the City (it wasn't hard for a male to do), but I certainly marveled at the amount of women who went to go see it. I guess never underestimate the potential for a girls' night out.
A few animated movies really stood out from the pack this summer. Kung Fu Panda was a surprisingly solid entry from Dreamworks, who normally seems to rely on pop culture jokes at the expense of story. This time around, they really kept their focus on story first, and the movie was helped tremendously by this. And who could forget Wall-E, perhaps my favorite movie of the year thus far? I'm really hoping to see a Best Picture nomination, but that could just be a pipe dream of mine.
But what this summer was really great for though was comedies. From Pineapple Express, to Step Brothers, to Tropic Thunder, there were so many quality comedies this year that I found it difficult to contain my laughter when just thinking about them afterward. Less successful, but still entertaining, comedies such as Get Smart and You Don't Mess with the Zohan at least offered a few humorous moments. And it pains me to write even the words "The Love Guru." I'll leave it at that.
Overall, this was a different summer. A summer filled with all sorts of different kinds of movies and one that I was able to enjoy much more because I didn't allow myself to get hyped to levels that would only set me up for disappointment. No, I just enjoyed being a movie fan this summer, because it allowed me to spend some good times with friends, having fun discussions, and watching crazy things happen.
So, thanks 2008. And we'll just say that my hopes are even LOWER for 2009's summer, since there really isn't much happening there at all. Except for Transformers 2. I love giant robots.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Ghost Town Review
Ricky Gervais is easily one of the funniest men on the planet. I have never seen something that he has put effort into that has come out poorly. Unless you count "Night at the Museum" in which he was the museum curator. But he was only in it for a few minutes.
Regardless, despite the seemingly tired premise, I was anticipating this movie if only for the chance to see how Gervais fared in carrying a movie all on his own. Fortunately, he succeeds handily in a well constructed movie in its own right.
Gervais plays Burtram Pincus, a dentist in New York City who cares nothing else for the lives of others. Content living his own dissatisfied life, he makes no effort to help others in any way. Yet, after a routine colonoscopy goes awry and he dies on the operating table for 7 minutes, he awakes with the ability to see the ghosts that have yet to cross over. One of these ghosts is Frank Herlihy (Greg Kinnear), who convinces Pincus to help break up his widow, Gwen's (Tea Leoni) new engagement with Richard (Billy Campbell).
The story seems pretty straightforward from the outset, but writer/director David Koepp provides enough originality to keep you interested. Sure, plenty of the ghost movie cliches are here, but many are delivered with such humor that it becomes rather easy to forgive the lack of originality in these moments. The story also takes a few rather heartfelt turns, but not at the expense of the humor. Underneath it all lies a story of a man who refuses to see the joy that letting other people into his life can bring.
When all is said and done, the movie does not exactly come close to greatness, but is an excellent showcase for Gervais' comedic talents and a step up from Koepp's previous directorial effort, Secret Window with Johnny Depp. Overall, the film is just a well-crafted, somewhat unconventional romantic comedy that succeeds in being both engaging and hilarious throughout the duration of its run time.
GRADE: B
Regardless, despite the seemingly tired premise, I was anticipating this movie if only for the chance to see how Gervais fared in carrying a movie all on his own. Fortunately, he succeeds handily in a well constructed movie in its own right.
Gervais plays Burtram Pincus, a dentist in New York City who cares nothing else for the lives of others. Content living his own dissatisfied life, he makes no effort to help others in any way. Yet, after a routine colonoscopy goes awry and he dies on the operating table for 7 minutes, he awakes with the ability to see the ghosts that have yet to cross over. One of these ghosts is Frank Herlihy (Greg Kinnear), who convinces Pincus to help break up his widow, Gwen's (Tea Leoni) new engagement with Richard (Billy Campbell).
The story seems pretty straightforward from the outset, but writer/director David Koepp provides enough originality to keep you interested. Sure, plenty of the ghost movie cliches are here, but many are delivered with such humor that it becomes rather easy to forgive the lack of originality in these moments. The story also takes a few rather heartfelt turns, but not at the expense of the humor. Underneath it all lies a story of a man who refuses to see the joy that letting other people into his life can bring.
When all is said and done, the movie does not exactly come close to greatness, but is an excellent showcase for Gervais' comedic talents and a step up from Koepp's previous directorial effort, Secret Window with Johnny Depp. Overall, the film is just a well-crafted, somewhat unconventional romantic comedy that succeeds in being both engaging and hilarious throughout the duration of its run time.
GRADE: B
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Dark Knight Review
Few, if any, movies have been hyped to the degree that The Dark Knight has. After the successful reboot of a series that was languishing in exile after nearly a decade, the deadly serious interpretation of this classic character from Christopher Nolan was just waiting for the sequel everyone knew it was going to get. And after the tragic death of Heath Ledger, things kicked into overdrive with the hyperbolic talk of Oscar nominations and The Joker literally causing Ledger to go insane.
Yet, when walking into the theater last night, I attempted to put all of that aside. Forget the reviews, forget the hype, and forget all the talk about Ledger's interpretation of The Joker. Just enjoy the movie for what it is and accept what is up on screen.
Fortunately, The Dark Knight delivers, but not in the way that some reviewers or fans would have us all believe. The Dark Knight is in fact an incredibly solid movie, a complex morality tale that finds itself wading in shades of gray, where other movies in this genre often take a strictly black and white approach to evil.
The story picks up shortly after the end of Batman Begins. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is the new DA, the human face of Gotham who tries desperately to clean up the city in a legal way. He is currently dating Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, who replaces Katie Holmes), an assistant DA. Meanwhile, The Joker (Heath Ledger) starts a crime wave throughout the city and offers the mob bosses a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rid the world of Batman for good as Batman continues to do his vigilante thing that he does so well.
Much has been said about Ledger's performance as The Joker, and much of it is true. His origins are shrouded in mystery. No one knows anything about him, nor do they have any leads. He is a master of misdirection and offers no real clues as to where he came from. No, he is little more than an insane individual who just relishes in evil. By appearance he seems to be motivated by little else than being Batman's foil, Batman's opposite incarnate. The Joker is equally brilliant as he is mad, hatching incredibly complex plans that often go precisely as he expects them to, regardless of Batman's attempts to stop them. And Ledger plays it with such a ferocity and so calculated that you can just buy it instantly. He is increasingly entertained by carnage and the most disgusting facets of the human experience and that excitement is undoubtedly scary. This is truly the greatest iteration of The Joker to be placed upon screen and frankly, I do not see how it could possibly be duplicated. But whether or not it is Oscar worthy is certainly up for debate. While I would love to see actors nominated for a movie like this, I fear that the only reason the award train is moving so quickly is because of the tragic demise of Ledger. While I certainly cannot think of any other such memorable performances this year, we are only half way through the year and prime awards season does not even start until late fall. So I will reserve my judgment on that for now.
Less has been said, however, about Aaron Eckhart's turn as Harvey Dent. This is a man who exhibits true bravery, who is unrelenting in the face of undeniable evil. He truly believes that Gotham can be a better place and does everything in his power to make that the case. Yet, slowly but surely things begin to change. And, without spoiling anything, Dent's transition from upstanding DA to the villain known as Harvey Two-Face is not only believable, but incredibly compelling. You buy his descent into insanity, if insanity is what you want to call it. To devote so much of your life towards a goal, only to see much of that shattered, well, those are certainly valid reasons to lose one's mind. And not only the character, but the Two-Face effects are incredible. With imagery reminiscent of the animated series, whenever Two-Face is on screen you can't help but be mesmerized by the character.
But that's not to say that other performances are weak. On the contrary, everyone in the entire film delivers solid performances. From Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) to Lt. Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) to even smaller players like the mayor of Gotham (Nestor Carbonell), everyone comes through with compelling conviction.
Bruce Wayne in particular is tormented. While he has become the symbol that Gotham needs, Gotham needs more than he can give. And not only that, he's inspiring people both positively and negatively and doesn't know whether or not it is worth it to continue his journey down this path. There is not a clear cut answer that he can take. If he quits, then things could end up getting worse, but if he continues, then things, again, could also end up getting worse. There doesn't seem to be an easy way out of all of this. But the one strong point, essentially Bruce's moral compass, is Alfred (Michael Caine). Alfred understands what Bruce provides for this city, and Caine plays him with such a history that you understand where he is coming from with the advice that he gives. It is obvious Alfred is more than just a butler and the concern he has for Bruce and for the city delves deep for him.
The complexities of this story and the force with which The Joker delivers on many of the anarchic promises he makes place many of the individuals in this movie in impossible situations. Decisions need to be made for the greater good, but without losing one's soul. Sure, Batman could easily shoot The Joker in the head and be done with it, but that's not what he does. He needs to stay true to himself and resisting that temptation to become the thing he hates the most is a struggle, and it becomes a struggle for all characters with a solid moral center in this movie. The way Nolan explores these themes is not only effective but also a welcome change from a lot of the lighter fare often released during the summer months. Strip away the costumes and the comic book history and at its core, The Dark Knight is a human drama based in the reality we see around us today. How do you fight evil without losing yourself in the process? And are humans as disgusting as The Joker interprets them to be? Questions that do not have easy answers and questions that are explored in many interesting ways in this movie.
Yet, interestingly enough, on a strictly entertainment level, the film doesn't deliver as much as it could. The first hour and a half felt like nearly three hours. I was surprised when I had realized that there was still another hour to go. I was engaged, but not fully entertained by what was placed before me. I found myself zoning out in some parts, but I think much of that is because it goes against your expectations on what a "Batman" movie should be. By taking a different route and only occasionally going the more predictable route (which is pretty close to never), sometimes it does affect the base entertainment value of the movie. Yet, the last hour essentially grabs on and doesn't let up until its over. And what made this even more interesting was the way that the movie took turns that I didn't exactly expect. Not "plot twists" exactly in the Sixth Sense way, but just going in unexpected directions. And as a result, I find myself a little conflicted about where it leaves the characters going into a third movie.
I can easily recommend this movie to just about anyone. The performances alone are worth the price of admission but there is also so much more to it as well. And one thing is for sure, this seems to be a movie that will continue to add layers upon each viewing, so on that note, I can't wait to go see it in IMAX.
GRADE: A
Yet, when walking into the theater last night, I attempted to put all of that aside. Forget the reviews, forget the hype, and forget all the talk about Ledger's interpretation of The Joker. Just enjoy the movie for what it is and accept what is up on screen.
Fortunately, The Dark Knight delivers, but not in the way that some reviewers or fans would have us all believe. The Dark Knight is in fact an incredibly solid movie, a complex morality tale that finds itself wading in shades of gray, where other movies in this genre often take a strictly black and white approach to evil.
The story picks up shortly after the end of Batman Begins. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is the new DA, the human face of Gotham who tries desperately to clean up the city in a legal way. He is currently dating Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, who replaces Katie Holmes), an assistant DA. Meanwhile, The Joker (Heath Ledger) starts a crime wave throughout the city and offers the mob bosses a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rid the world of Batman for good as Batman continues to do his vigilante thing that he does so well.
Much has been said about Ledger's performance as The Joker, and much of it is true. His origins are shrouded in mystery. No one knows anything about him, nor do they have any leads. He is a master of misdirection and offers no real clues as to where he came from. No, he is little more than an insane individual who just relishes in evil. By appearance he seems to be motivated by little else than being Batman's foil, Batman's opposite incarnate. The Joker is equally brilliant as he is mad, hatching incredibly complex plans that often go precisely as he expects them to, regardless of Batman's attempts to stop them. And Ledger plays it with such a ferocity and so calculated that you can just buy it instantly. He is increasingly entertained by carnage and the most disgusting facets of the human experience and that excitement is undoubtedly scary. This is truly the greatest iteration of The Joker to be placed upon screen and frankly, I do not see how it could possibly be duplicated. But whether or not it is Oscar worthy is certainly up for debate. While I would love to see actors nominated for a movie like this, I fear that the only reason the award train is moving so quickly is because of the tragic demise of Ledger. While I certainly cannot think of any other such memorable performances this year, we are only half way through the year and prime awards season does not even start until late fall. So I will reserve my judgment on that for now.
Less has been said, however, about Aaron Eckhart's turn as Harvey Dent. This is a man who exhibits true bravery, who is unrelenting in the face of undeniable evil. He truly believes that Gotham can be a better place and does everything in his power to make that the case. Yet, slowly but surely things begin to change. And, without spoiling anything, Dent's transition from upstanding DA to the villain known as Harvey Two-Face is not only believable, but incredibly compelling. You buy his descent into insanity, if insanity is what you want to call it. To devote so much of your life towards a goal, only to see much of that shattered, well, those are certainly valid reasons to lose one's mind. And not only the character, but the Two-Face effects are incredible. With imagery reminiscent of the animated series, whenever Two-Face is on screen you can't help but be mesmerized by the character.
But that's not to say that other performances are weak. On the contrary, everyone in the entire film delivers solid performances. From Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) to Lt. Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) to even smaller players like the mayor of Gotham (Nestor Carbonell), everyone comes through with compelling conviction.
Bruce Wayne in particular is tormented. While he has become the symbol that Gotham needs, Gotham needs more than he can give. And not only that, he's inspiring people both positively and negatively and doesn't know whether or not it is worth it to continue his journey down this path. There is not a clear cut answer that he can take. If he quits, then things could end up getting worse, but if he continues, then things, again, could also end up getting worse. There doesn't seem to be an easy way out of all of this. But the one strong point, essentially Bruce's moral compass, is Alfred (Michael Caine). Alfred understands what Bruce provides for this city, and Caine plays him with such a history that you understand where he is coming from with the advice that he gives. It is obvious Alfred is more than just a butler and the concern he has for Bruce and for the city delves deep for him.
The complexities of this story and the force with which The Joker delivers on many of the anarchic promises he makes place many of the individuals in this movie in impossible situations. Decisions need to be made for the greater good, but without losing one's soul. Sure, Batman could easily shoot The Joker in the head and be done with it, but that's not what he does. He needs to stay true to himself and resisting that temptation to become the thing he hates the most is a struggle, and it becomes a struggle for all characters with a solid moral center in this movie. The way Nolan explores these themes is not only effective but also a welcome change from a lot of the lighter fare often released during the summer months. Strip away the costumes and the comic book history and at its core, The Dark Knight is a human drama based in the reality we see around us today. How do you fight evil without losing yourself in the process? And are humans as disgusting as The Joker interprets them to be? Questions that do not have easy answers and questions that are explored in many interesting ways in this movie.
Yet, interestingly enough, on a strictly entertainment level, the film doesn't deliver as much as it could. The first hour and a half felt like nearly three hours. I was surprised when I had realized that there was still another hour to go. I was engaged, but not fully entertained by what was placed before me. I found myself zoning out in some parts, but I think much of that is because it goes against your expectations on what a "Batman" movie should be. By taking a different route and only occasionally going the more predictable route (which is pretty close to never), sometimes it does affect the base entertainment value of the movie. Yet, the last hour essentially grabs on and doesn't let up until its over. And what made this even more interesting was the way that the movie took turns that I didn't exactly expect. Not "plot twists" exactly in the Sixth Sense way, but just going in unexpected directions. And as a result, I find myself a little conflicted about where it leaves the characters going into a third movie.
I can easily recommend this movie to just about anyone. The performances alone are worth the price of admission but there is also so much more to it as well. And one thing is for sure, this seems to be a movie that will continue to add layers upon each viewing, so on that note, I can't wait to go see it in IMAX.
GRADE: A
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Hancock Review
Will Smith is currently the most bankable star in Hollywood, and with good reason. The man never gives a less-than-entertaining performance. Everything he does, he seemingly does with such conviction that it becomes very easy to accept whatever role he is playing. Smith's charisma just emanates off the screen and it's difficult to think of one time where he, personally, has failed in his attempt.
No, the problem is never Will. The problem lies with something else, and that's precisely the issue that Hancock has. Hancock is a tonally inconsistent mishmash of a movie that presents a number of really great ideas but never actually follows through on any of them.
The story is simple enough. Superhero Hancock (Smith) is drunk and disorderly, but still is committed to stopping bad guys, collateral damage be damned. He doesn't seem to care about the financial toll he takes on his heroics, but is apparently still inspired to attempt heroics in general. When PR executive Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is saved by Hancock, Ray makes it his duty to turn around the public's perception of Hancock and make him a true hero for the ages through a series of PR stunts.
A premise such as this is ripe with possibilities. Many people disagree with me, but I've always thought that one of the most fascinating superhero stories would be if Superman just got fed up with trying to help people and stopped giving a damn or attempted to take things into his own hands regarding the world power (in a more dictatorial role than in Superman IV, in which he asks, and everyone enthusiastically complies, in getting rid of all nuclear weapons). Instead, what Hancock delivers is a watered down version of a similar premise that attempts to cram a number of different ideas into a 92 minute run time while giving them very little time to breathe.
That's not to say there isn't some exquisite imagery in a large portion of the movie, because there certainly is. The way director Peter Berg films this movie is slightly reminiscent of the pseudo-documentary style he employs in "Friday Night Lights", which does ground this movie in a sense of realism. His biggest problems are two-fold. First, the tone switches in such a jarring way that it can sometimes pull you out of the movie. When you're expecting certain themes to be explored, only to have them be inexplicably dropped and another is picked up, the movie isn't helped by this. Of course, this could be rectified by a few extra transitional scenes that would exist to string the movie along a more solid focus. Secondly, the way he telegraphs a plot twist is much too obvious. The lingering shots in a scene that doesn't require lingering shots draws you out of the experience and makes you contemplate the nature of these shots instead of allowing the movie to unfold in a more naturalistic way. The twist certainly should have been alluded to in some way, but it was much too obvious from the outset.
John Powell also turns in a questionable score. I've heard his music before, and none of it was this inconsistant. This is certainly not a score I'm going to be seeking out anytime in the future.
If it feels like I'm being too negative on this movie, it shouldn't. I just find it frustrating when you see the skeleton of what could be an amazing superhero movie, only to be let down. What's so great about Hancock was the way that you could essentially create any story for him. There aren't any comic books or TV shows or old movies based upon this character; no, he was a completely unique character with his own mythology. You can go in with no preconceptions at all about who Hancock is or what he is. A true blank slate. Yet, with the exception of a few small monologues, we never really delve into that history. Why does Hancock choose to save people at all? He obviously has some sort of moral compass, a moral center that allows him to see right from wrong on a base level, but beyond the loneliness, what makes him who he is? What drives him at all? I don't necessarily feel that an origin story is necessary, but answers to these questions would have made the movie all the better for it. I can't really get into any more without getting into spoilers, so I suppose I'll stop with those questions here.
On a strictly entertainment level though, Hancock does deliver. Watching Will Smith tear through the streets of LA with a vague idea of what he's planning on doing does have an inherent entertainment value to it all. The banter between Smith and Jason Bateman is hilarious and they both have their own styles of humor that add immensely to the film. There were plenty of truly funny moments delivered by both characters, yet in very unique ways. Bateman once again plays the straight man and he succeeds just about every time. (Where's that Arrested Development movie, anyway?!) Charlize Theron is somewhat of a weaker point in this movie, but it has nothing to do with her performance, since not only is she playing attractive again (FINALLY it seems!) but you can tell she's actually putting effort into this role, depsite its "type" of movie.
Overall, this is a movie that gets by because of the star power of Will Smith. Giving this role to a weaker, less charasmatic actor could have doomed the movie from having any entertainment value at all. But fortunately this was not the case. The movie was absolutely worth seeing, it was just unfortunate that a structure of what could have been is laid out there, but never truly taken advantage of. I find it difficult to really qualify this movie, but I do think it falls somewhere along a continuum, one that doesn't really have a clear cut answer. So I give it a:
GRADE: B-
No, the problem is never Will. The problem lies with something else, and that's precisely the issue that Hancock has. Hancock is a tonally inconsistent mishmash of a movie that presents a number of really great ideas but never actually follows through on any of them.
The story is simple enough. Superhero Hancock (Smith) is drunk and disorderly, but still is committed to stopping bad guys, collateral damage be damned. He doesn't seem to care about the financial toll he takes on his heroics, but is apparently still inspired to attempt heroics in general. When PR executive Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is saved by Hancock, Ray makes it his duty to turn around the public's perception of Hancock and make him a true hero for the ages through a series of PR stunts.
A premise such as this is ripe with possibilities. Many people disagree with me, but I've always thought that one of the most fascinating superhero stories would be if Superman just got fed up with trying to help people and stopped giving a damn or attempted to take things into his own hands regarding the world power (in a more dictatorial role than in Superman IV, in which he asks, and everyone enthusiastically complies, in getting rid of all nuclear weapons). Instead, what Hancock delivers is a watered down version of a similar premise that attempts to cram a number of different ideas into a 92 minute run time while giving them very little time to breathe.
That's not to say there isn't some exquisite imagery in a large portion of the movie, because there certainly is. The way director Peter Berg films this movie is slightly reminiscent of the pseudo-documentary style he employs in "Friday Night Lights", which does ground this movie in a sense of realism. His biggest problems are two-fold. First, the tone switches in such a jarring way that it can sometimes pull you out of the movie. When you're expecting certain themes to be explored, only to have them be inexplicably dropped and another is picked up, the movie isn't helped by this. Of course, this could be rectified by a few extra transitional scenes that would exist to string the movie along a more solid focus. Secondly, the way he telegraphs a plot twist is much too obvious. The lingering shots in a scene that doesn't require lingering shots draws you out of the experience and makes you contemplate the nature of these shots instead of allowing the movie to unfold in a more naturalistic way. The twist certainly should have been alluded to in some way, but it was much too obvious from the outset.
John Powell also turns in a questionable score. I've heard his music before, and none of it was this inconsistant. This is certainly not a score I'm going to be seeking out anytime in the future.
If it feels like I'm being too negative on this movie, it shouldn't. I just find it frustrating when you see the skeleton of what could be an amazing superhero movie, only to be let down. What's so great about Hancock was the way that you could essentially create any story for him. There aren't any comic books or TV shows or old movies based upon this character; no, he was a completely unique character with his own mythology. You can go in with no preconceptions at all about who Hancock is or what he is. A true blank slate. Yet, with the exception of a few small monologues, we never really delve into that history. Why does Hancock choose to save people at all? He obviously has some sort of moral compass, a moral center that allows him to see right from wrong on a base level, but beyond the loneliness, what makes him who he is? What drives him at all? I don't necessarily feel that an origin story is necessary, but answers to these questions would have made the movie all the better for it. I can't really get into any more without getting into spoilers, so I suppose I'll stop with those questions here.
On a strictly entertainment level though, Hancock does deliver. Watching Will Smith tear through the streets of LA with a vague idea of what he's planning on doing does have an inherent entertainment value to it all. The banter between Smith and Jason Bateman is hilarious and they both have their own styles of humor that add immensely to the film. There were plenty of truly funny moments delivered by both characters, yet in very unique ways. Bateman once again plays the straight man and he succeeds just about every time. (Where's that Arrested Development movie, anyway?!) Charlize Theron is somewhat of a weaker point in this movie, but it has nothing to do with her performance, since not only is she playing attractive again (FINALLY it seems!) but you can tell she's actually putting effort into this role, depsite its "type" of movie.
Overall, this is a movie that gets by because of the star power of Will Smith. Giving this role to a weaker, less charasmatic actor could have doomed the movie from having any entertainment value at all. But fortunately this was not the case. The movie was absolutely worth seeing, it was just unfortunate that a structure of what could have been is laid out there, but never truly taken advantage of. I find it difficult to really qualify this movie, but I do think it falls somewhere along a continuum, one that doesn't really have a clear cut answer. So I give it a:
GRADE: B-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)