There is a certain melancholy spirit lingering after the finale of "Lost," so I wanted to present to you another older review of an atmospheric and mournful film featuring an uncharacteristically grim performance by Will Smith.
Originally written April 26, 2009
"SEVEN POUNDS" Directed by Gabriele Muccino
*** (three stars)
When "Seven Pounds" was released this past winter and met an onslaught of negative reviews, a major criticism against the film was how manipulative it was which therefore took a sense of reality away from the story. While I do kind of understand what those critics were getting at, I do however feel that addressing a film as "manipulative" in a negative way is a strange comment to make as ALL MOVIES ARE MANIPULATIVE. Films tell stories and because of the nature of visual storytelling especially, films are designed to bring out certain responses within the viewers who watch them. Filmmakers want you to laugh, cry, be afraid, get your heart racing, take you to a meditative state and all manner of emotions. How successful they are at those feats is up to each and every film goer. That's just what films are and "Seven Pounds," brought to us by the second collaboration between Will Smith and Director Gabriele Muccino (who previously gave us the terrific "The Pursuit Of Happyness"), is no exception.
"Seven Pounds" is a decidedly somber, moody affair that I will describe as discreetly as I am able to not produce spoilers. Smith plays Ben Thomas, a deeply tormented man who is feverishly trying to positively alter the lives of seven complete strangers, including Woody Harrelson as a blind man and Rosario Dawson, an artisan forced to cease producing her work due to a heart condition. With that description, I am certain that you astute movie watchers out there can see where at least some of the roads the film is going to travel and again, I can understand the criticism. There is a convoluted nature to the story which does feel a tad false here and there. I know I was annoyed at the somewhat cryptic discussions between characters that felt forced and prefabricated such as:
CHARACTER #1: Remember the thing I gave you?
CHARACTER #2: I remember. Do you remember what I gave you?
CHARACTER #1: Yeah (dramatic pause) I remember.
And then it's on to the next scene.
For a few moments, I felt as if the filmmakers were trying to emulate something akin to M. Night Shymalayan's work and it was frustrating me. In fact, even some of the film's evocative music score, which features one badly thumped piano note--signifying Dawson's broken heart perhaps--seemed silly. But then, somehow it began to weave a spell over me and I was ultimately taken in.
"Seven Pounds" may be one of those films where the honesty comes from emotional truths regardless of how preposterous the proceedings may be. A filmmaker who performs that feat for me consistently is Writer/Director Wes Anderson whose "Rushmore," "The Royal Tenenbaums" and "The Darjeeling Limited" often feel like stories from some other universe but they are always emotionally truthful to me as their melancholy spirits take hold and I can see how his fractured tales of family and loss resonate fully. Muccino orchestrates the film with a steady, empathetic hand never allowing the film to slide into grand melodrama even as it threatens to in a number of sequences. And by the film's end it really did build to a certain power of catharsis. The predominant theme of death certainly made it a companion piece to last year's much more successful winter films "The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button" and the highly artful "Synecdoche, New York" as it pursued the push-pull tension of lives failing and lives rising.
My greatest credit towards this film is the performance of Will Smith, an actor who continues to surprise and amaze. I really think of him as being in the same league as someone like Tom Cruise, strong actors who are actually quite underrated as the enormity of their celebrity may cloud people's views of their actual talent. While Smith utilizes his unbreakable determination again, it is through a character where Smith is forced to travel down some extremely dark emotional tunnels--previously unseen by him on screen.
Appearing as if he were the adult version of his character from "Six Degrees Of Separation," he is by turns charming (a Smith trademark), eerie and even at points, sinister. Mostly, Smith portrays the weight of a man crushed by a past tragedy and he lives in a crippled, broken state of sadness. His redemptive path by improving those aforementioned lives of the seven strangers is a suicidal one and the duality of seeing him wanting to shed light while he himself lives in an emotional black hole makes for a honest, riveting performance. When he says, "I think about dying every day," you believe it, the effect is simultaneously chilling and sorrowful and that is a testament to the power of Smith's stunning performance.
By the moment the end credits began to scroll, I realized how much "Seven Pounds" actually moved me. I know some elements may provide unintentional laughs or moments of disbelief with some viewers (including a much maligned jellyfish--I won't get into it here) but somehow, it felt just right. The poetry of it all worked for me.
As the flesh fails, the soul prevails and in the film's final moments, I think Muccino and Smith delivered that sentiment in an unusual, sometimes needlessly complicated yet decidedly honest fashion where the manipulation on display never felt like a cheat. I am happy to recommend this film to all of you.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
WHEN TV ECLIPSES THE MOVIES: a tribute to "Lost"
...And now it is finished.
Last night, the world saw the outstanding and soul shaking conclusion to "Lost," one of the most groundbreaking serialized television programs of the 21st century and in every conceivable way, I was enormously satisfied. At this time, I wanted to take a few moments to pay tribute to this television series that captured my imagination and spirit for the previous six years. Now, dear readers, you may be wondering why I am going to spend time writing about a TV show on Savage Cinema. I will explain shortly, asking you to understand that there is a connection. However, I will tell you that as I ponder everything that I saw last night, it still amazes me that for a time, I almost did not even watch this show and I only, and graciously, have my wife to thank for steering me towards it. Maybe like the island itself, it called to me and I was meant to watch it!
Six years ago, I remember the intrigue I felt when I first saw the advertisements depicting a new television series set on an island, featuring a large cast of characters who had been shipwrecked somehow. The only familiar faces to me where the ones of Matthew Fox (previously from "Party Of Five") and Dominic Monaghan (whom I was happy to see had found new work after "The Lord Of the Rings" trilogy), uttering his now iconic phrase, "Guys, where are we?" Despite my curiosity, I kept telling myself that I just did not want to get myself involved with any new series and that it would be better for me if I did not watch it at all.
On the night of its premiere in September 2004, I actually happened to not be home--either pleasantly out with a friend or miserably engulfed within a school staff meeting. Upon returning home, my wife greeted me with the vehement admonition, "YOU HAVE TO WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!"
"Was it really that good?" I asked.
"YOU HAVE TO WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!" she said again, even more emphatically.
Fortunately for me, the ratings for the premiere went through the roof and the network repeated the two hour premiere that very weekend. Still not desiring the vortex of a new program to get myself involved with, I somewhat reluctantly sat down to watch.
"Lost" began six years ago with a shot of an eye suddenly opening, gradually revealing the body of a man, lying on his back in a field of bamboo staring up at the sky. Over the course of the following ten minutes or so, we are as disoriented as this man as he discovers himself upon an island after a horrific plane crash. He races from one wounded victim to another through a cacophony of sights and sounds, all presented with a level of such intensely gripping visual heft, that after those first ten minutes, I said out loud to my wife," This is better than most movies!!" I was immediately hooked, previous trepidation be damned.
From there, we are formally introduced to the man with the newly opened eyes as Dr. Jack Shephard (beautifully played by Fox), and our strange, lengthy, difficult, sometimes frustrating and at times furiously harrowing and tragic odyssey has officially begun. As you all know by now, "Lost" began with the cataclysmic mid-air destruction of flight Oceanic 815 and subsequent crash onto a mystical island housed somewhere in the South Pacific. We are introduced to a diverse cast of survivors including, along with the good doctor, a fugitive, a con man, a married Korean couple, a previously estranged Father and son, a young pregnant woman, a drug addicted rock musician, and most notably, a paraplegic who now has regained the usage of his legs among others.
As the survivors attempt to find their collective ways back home, "Lost" dove tailed into a myriad of mysteries that delved into a dense, deeply convoluted and epic morality tale. Utilizing concepts and story lines depicted through intensely detailed and heartbreakingly emotional character flashbacks and flashforwards, "Lost" featured time travel, quantum physics, mysticism, mythology, as well as a hefty dose of biblical allegory mixed with spiritual and philosophical debates concerning fate, destiny, free will, reason, science, faith and mortality. Yet, what grounded the series from the very beginning was its emotional core via its commitment to the inner lives of the characters, an assortment of lost souls before their plane crash, now on their own respective roads to redemption or damnation. And without any disregards to all of the brilliantly executed head spinning questions and concepts, what kept me coming back to this program was my devotion to these characters, their pasts, their developments and their futures. And again, many, many, many times over the course of this six year series, I said to myself, "This is better than most movies!!"
Last night's finale, entitled "The End," was a masterful achievement. If this were a theatrical movie, it would easily garner four stars and earn a spot as one of the best films of the year from me. It had it all! From an epic clash of good vs. evil, to piercingly intimate moments where you could not help but to find lumps in the throat followed by tears flowing down your cheeks, the final episode of "Lost" spoke to the heart and the soul while being consistently pulse pounding and supremely haunting.
Without going into plot descriptions and remaining SPOILER FREE for the benefit of those who have not seen the finale as of yet, I will say that it reminded me in many ways of how I felt about the conclusions to both "Star Wars" trilogies, the final installment of the Harry Potter book series as well as the conclusions to both the book and film versions of "The Lord Of The Rings." The series finale of "Lost" left me wanting for nothing and concluded every thread of its massive amount of story lines in the most honest, emotionally wrenching and satisfying way. It was a definitive ending which brought the complete series full circle while also leaving room for interpretations. It was an episode, and ultimately a series, to cherish, savor, re-visit, and remember. And again, this finale proved that at its best, "Lost" is better than most movies being released week to week in our cinemas these days.
When a television program of this caliber ends, like "The Wire," David Simon's unbelievably extraordinary five year Dickensian series for HBO, the remainder of what is actually shown on television looks depressingly trite. "Lost" is a series in the same caliber as "The Wire" as week to week, the actors, writers, producers, directors and everyone else behind the scenes worked at the peak of their collective talents to deliver the very best television could possibly offer on a consistent basis. It pushed the medium forward while delivering the best of classic storytelling. Certainly there are aspects of TV that cannot be duplicated in film, most notably having the luxury of taking hundreds of hours to develop characters and stories instead of a motion picture's two or three hour limitations. Aside from that, the commitment to storytelling should be the same for both mediums.
What I would hope is for current filmmakers and screenwriters to take the time to study a series like "Lost" and witness how filmmaker J.J. Abrams, program head writers and executive producers Damon Lindelof and Carleton Cuse and the show's full artistic staff constructed and weaved their deeply imaginative fabric to create a program that was downright literary. "Lost" transcended its own science fiction and mythological genres to plunge straight into the viewer's heart and speak directly to the human condition, our spiritual beliefs and questions and hopes for what may lie beyond the world as we know it. In some ways, "The End" also reminded me of the brilliant 2008 film "Synecdoche, New York" from Writer/Director Charlie Kaufman, as it forced me to think of the very issues I would rather not think about. But, it did so in a way that filled me with a hope of the utmost bittersweetness. It was a luscious sorrow, A gorgeous melancholy. A painfully beautiful sweep of feeling that only this series could deliver so handsomely.
I hope this series is nominated again for a collection of Emmy Awards, with acting nominations especially for Fox and Terry O'Quinn (who portrayed the once wheelchair bound and tragic man of faith, John Locke), whose joint battle of wills was the centerpiece of the series as a whole. But, beyond the awards, I sincerely hope that new viewers discover this series and watch it from beginning to end and see that when television wants to get it right, they can do it to the level where it becomes an artistic expression of the highest order.
Now, I will not recount my favorite memories from this series for they are too many in quantity. Are you kidding me???? I have to spout out a few! In addition to those very first ten minutes of the pilot...
1. The opening of the hatch.
2. The capture of Walt.
3. The numbers....
4. The aching love stories of Sun & Jin, Sawyer & Juliet, Desmond & Penny, Hurley & Libby, Daniel Farraday & Charlotte and even Bernard & Rose
5. Dharma in the 1970s
6. Hurley's enormous heart
7. The sound of the smoke monster
8. Michael Giacchino's elegiac music score
9. The sacrifices of Charlie, Sawyer and Sayid
10. Jughead's explosion
...and so much, much more...
I must say that due to the dense and nearly impenetrable nature of the series, I was unsure if I actually wanted to sift through it all over again. But, I have to say that after last night's finale and seeing an ending this complete, I am compelled to watch it all over again.
Was every single episode perfect? No. Some did indeed drag their feet while other episodes prolonged frustration as I just wanted to have some answers. And there was one time-waster of an episode as it was inconsequential to the series as a whole. But, just when I was at the point of giving up, there would be yet another home run that made me say again and again, "This is better than most movies!!!" Now having seen the entire series, start to finish, and having the knowledge not present during the initial run, perhaps the series can been seen with newly opened eyes, giving the series an even more profound depth. I have already re-watched that very first episode, nearly six years after having seen it the first time and I was amazed at how many elements were conceptually in place from Day 1!
What a GIGANTIC hole "Lost" has left for all of us who do indeed watch television. And what an equally GIGANTIC lesson it is for filmmakers who churn out cinematic garbage for too much of the calendar year. What a shame it is for people blessed with the gifts, means and opportunity to create works that we end up regretting spending our hard-earned money on...especially when, over the last six years, you could receive the high quality of "Lost" for FREE!
For now, I save my vitriol and produce only grace as I deeply thank all involved for "Lost." Thank you for producing a series that not only entertained greatly but greatly spoke to our collective humanity. We all have our own islands to travel, be tested by, be vanquished by and to conquer in life. The journey of Jack Shephard and all of the passengers of flight Oceanic 815 was one to behold and in the end, I was so deeply moved and forever changed by it.
I wonder how and when television can recover from this loss! "Lost," including its profoundly exceptional finale, was indeed better than most movies and I wish, most of all, for movies to catch up and reach the bar that this television program has so dramatically raised.
Last night, the world saw the outstanding and soul shaking conclusion to "Lost," one of the most groundbreaking serialized television programs of the 21st century and in every conceivable way, I was enormously satisfied. At this time, I wanted to take a few moments to pay tribute to this television series that captured my imagination and spirit for the previous six years. Now, dear readers, you may be wondering why I am going to spend time writing about a TV show on Savage Cinema. I will explain shortly, asking you to understand that there is a connection. However, I will tell you that as I ponder everything that I saw last night, it still amazes me that for a time, I almost did not even watch this show and I only, and graciously, have my wife to thank for steering me towards it. Maybe like the island itself, it called to me and I was meant to watch it!
Six years ago, I remember the intrigue I felt when I first saw the advertisements depicting a new television series set on an island, featuring a large cast of characters who had been shipwrecked somehow. The only familiar faces to me where the ones of Matthew Fox (previously from "Party Of Five") and Dominic Monaghan (whom I was happy to see had found new work after "The Lord Of the Rings" trilogy), uttering his now iconic phrase, "Guys, where are we?" Despite my curiosity, I kept telling myself that I just did not want to get myself involved with any new series and that it would be better for me if I did not watch it at all.
On the night of its premiere in September 2004, I actually happened to not be home--either pleasantly out with a friend or miserably engulfed within a school staff meeting. Upon returning home, my wife greeted me with the vehement admonition, "YOU HAVE TO WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!"
"Was it really that good?" I asked.
"YOU HAVE TO WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!" she said again, even more emphatically.
Fortunately for me, the ratings for the premiere went through the roof and the network repeated the two hour premiere that very weekend. Still not desiring the vortex of a new program to get myself involved with, I somewhat reluctantly sat down to watch.
"Lost" began six years ago with a shot of an eye suddenly opening, gradually revealing the body of a man, lying on his back in a field of bamboo staring up at the sky. Over the course of the following ten minutes or so, we are as disoriented as this man as he discovers himself upon an island after a horrific plane crash. He races from one wounded victim to another through a cacophony of sights and sounds, all presented with a level of such intensely gripping visual heft, that after those first ten minutes, I said out loud to my wife," This is better than most movies!!" I was immediately hooked, previous trepidation be damned.
From there, we are formally introduced to the man with the newly opened eyes as Dr. Jack Shephard (beautifully played by Fox), and our strange, lengthy, difficult, sometimes frustrating and at times furiously harrowing and tragic odyssey has officially begun. As you all know by now, "Lost" began with the cataclysmic mid-air destruction of flight Oceanic 815 and subsequent crash onto a mystical island housed somewhere in the South Pacific. We are introduced to a diverse cast of survivors including, along with the good doctor, a fugitive, a con man, a married Korean couple, a previously estranged Father and son, a young pregnant woman, a drug addicted rock musician, and most notably, a paraplegic who now has regained the usage of his legs among others.
As the survivors attempt to find their collective ways back home, "Lost" dove tailed into a myriad of mysteries that delved into a dense, deeply convoluted and epic morality tale. Utilizing concepts and story lines depicted through intensely detailed and heartbreakingly emotional character flashbacks and flashforwards, "Lost" featured time travel, quantum physics, mysticism, mythology, as well as a hefty dose of biblical allegory mixed with spiritual and philosophical debates concerning fate, destiny, free will, reason, science, faith and mortality. Yet, what grounded the series from the very beginning was its emotional core via its commitment to the inner lives of the characters, an assortment of lost souls before their plane crash, now on their own respective roads to redemption or damnation. And without any disregards to all of the brilliantly executed head spinning questions and concepts, what kept me coming back to this program was my devotion to these characters, their pasts, their developments and their futures. And again, many, many, many times over the course of this six year series, I said to myself, "This is better than most movies!!"
Last night's finale, entitled "The End," was a masterful achievement. If this were a theatrical movie, it would easily garner four stars and earn a spot as one of the best films of the year from me. It had it all! From an epic clash of good vs. evil, to piercingly intimate moments where you could not help but to find lumps in the throat followed by tears flowing down your cheeks, the final episode of "Lost" spoke to the heart and the soul while being consistently pulse pounding and supremely haunting.
Without going into plot descriptions and remaining SPOILER FREE for the benefit of those who have not seen the finale as of yet, I will say that it reminded me in many ways of how I felt about the conclusions to both "Star Wars" trilogies, the final installment of the Harry Potter book series as well as the conclusions to both the book and film versions of "The Lord Of The Rings." The series finale of "Lost" left me wanting for nothing and concluded every thread of its massive amount of story lines in the most honest, emotionally wrenching and satisfying way. It was a definitive ending which brought the complete series full circle while also leaving room for interpretations. It was an episode, and ultimately a series, to cherish, savor, re-visit, and remember. And again, this finale proved that at its best, "Lost" is better than most movies being released week to week in our cinemas these days.
When a television program of this caliber ends, like "The Wire," David Simon's unbelievably extraordinary five year Dickensian series for HBO, the remainder of what is actually shown on television looks depressingly trite. "Lost" is a series in the same caliber as "The Wire" as week to week, the actors, writers, producers, directors and everyone else behind the scenes worked at the peak of their collective talents to deliver the very best television could possibly offer on a consistent basis. It pushed the medium forward while delivering the best of classic storytelling. Certainly there are aspects of TV that cannot be duplicated in film, most notably having the luxury of taking hundreds of hours to develop characters and stories instead of a motion picture's two or three hour limitations. Aside from that, the commitment to storytelling should be the same for both mediums.
What I would hope is for current filmmakers and screenwriters to take the time to study a series like "Lost" and witness how filmmaker J.J. Abrams, program head writers and executive producers Damon Lindelof and Carleton Cuse and the show's full artistic staff constructed and weaved their deeply imaginative fabric to create a program that was downright literary. "Lost" transcended its own science fiction and mythological genres to plunge straight into the viewer's heart and speak directly to the human condition, our spiritual beliefs and questions and hopes for what may lie beyond the world as we know it. In some ways, "The End" also reminded me of the brilliant 2008 film "Synecdoche, New York" from Writer/Director Charlie Kaufman, as it forced me to think of the very issues I would rather not think about. But, it did so in a way that filled me with a hope of the utmost bittersweetness. It was a luscious sorrow, A gorgeous melancholy. A painfully beautiful sweep of feeling that only this series could deliver so handsomely.
I hope this series is nominated again for a collection of Emmy Awards, with acting nominations especially for Fox and Terry O'Quinn (who portrayed the once wheelchair bound and tragic man of faith, John Locke), whose joint battle of wills was the centerpiece of the series as a whole. But, beyond the awards, I sincerely hope that new viewers discover this series and watch it from beginning to end and see that when television wants to get it right, they can do it to the level where it becomes an artistic expression of the highest order.
Now, I will not recount my favorite memories from this series for they are too many in quantity. Are you kidding me???? I have to spout out a few! In addition to those very first ten minutes of the pilot...
1. The opening of the hatch.
2. The capture of Walt.
3. The numbers....
4. The aching love stories of Sun & Jin, Sawyer & Juliet, Desmond & Penny, Hurley & Libby, Daniel Farraday & Charlotte and even Bernard & Rose
5. Dharma in the 1970s
6. Hurley's enormous heart
7. The sound of the smoke monster
8. Michael Giacchino's elegiac music score
9. The sacrifices of Charlie, Sawyer and Sayid
10. Jughead's explosion
...and so much, much more...
I must say that due to the dense and nearly impenetrable nature of the series, I was unsure if I actually wanted to sift through it all over again. But, I have to say that after last night's finale and seeing an ending this complete, I am compelled to watch it all over again.
Was every single episode perfect? No. Some did indeed drag their feet while other episodes prolonged frustration as I just wanted to have some answers. And there was one time-waster of an episode as it was inconsequential to the series as a whole. But, just when I was at the point of giving up, there would be yet another home run that made me say again and again, "This is better than most movies!!!" Now having seen the entire series, start to finish, and having the knowledge not present during the initial run, perhaps the series can been seen with newly opened eyes, giving the series an even more profound depth. I have already re-watched that very first episode, nearly six years after having seen it the first time and I was amazed at how many elements were conceptually in place from Day 1!
What a GIGANTIC hole "Lost" has left for all of us who do indeed watch television. And what an equally GIGANTIC lesson it is for filmmakers who churn out cinematic garbage for too much of the calendar year. What a shame it is for people blessed with the gifts, means and opportunity to create works that we end up regretting spending our hard-earned money on...especially when, over the last six years, you could receive the high quality of "Lost" for FREE!
For now, I save my vitriol and produce only grace as I deeply thank all involved for "Lost." Thank you for producing a series that not only entertained greatly but greatly spoke to our collective humanity. We all have our own islands to travel, be tested by, be vanquished by and to conquer in life. The journey of Jack Shephard and all of the passengers of flight Oceanic 815 was one to behold and in the end, I was so deeply moved and forever changed by it.
I wonder how and when television can recover from this loss! "Lost," including its profoundly exceptional finale, was indeed better than most movies and I wish, most of all, for movies to catch up and reach the bar that this television program has so dramatically raised.
Friday, May 21, 2010
FROM THE ARCHIVES 8: a review of "Coraline"
Now that my review of "How To Train Your Dragon" has been posted, here's another trinket from the archives...
Originally written February 9, 2009
"CORALINE" Written and Directed by Henry Selick
Based upon the novel by Neil Gaiman
*** (three stars)
I have been told that fairy tales usually consist of three basic components: the opening "Once Upon A Time...," the positive "..and they lived happily ever after" as conclusion and all of the excitement occurs in the middle.
When I was a child, my favorite fairy tale was the eternal classic, "Jack and the Beanstalk." I never tired of it and truly relished the high tension of Jack entering into the giant's castle, stealing from him and hiding in various places to avoid being eaten. The story's set-up got me ready and the climactic chase down the beanstalk was deeply thrilling but it was the middle portion I liked the best. It was deeply frightening and as I have gotten older and have even watched children explore the same classic fairy tales many adults are now trying to shield them from, I have to wonder what is the magic found in the terror of classic children's stories and what fears are the children trying to work through on their own through their play? As adults try to keep toning things down in order for the children to not be frightened, children keep seeking healthy fears to overcome.
Now we are presented with a new film aimed at children that is a throwback on two fronts: the attempts to strongly evoke the style and tone of the brothers Grimm and the usage of the painstaking hand crafted, stop-motion animation in the digital age.
Writer/Director Henry Selick mostly succeeds in his adaptation of Neil Gaiman's novel "Coraline," the dark cautionary tale of a neglected and rightfully sullen pre-teen girl sucked into an alternate universe where the world is colorful with delightful surprises around every corner and most importantly, her parents are interesting, fun, and appear to be more loving than her real parents. But of course, in stories such as these, there is always a catch--and that is our heroine has to sew a pair of buttons over her eyes and remain in this now dangerous world forever, relinquishing her soul to the evil "Other Mother."
There are articles popping up everywhere wondering if this story will be too frightening for children. That's hard to say as it would depend upon each child's sensibilities. But, this is a creepy fable that dances to the edge of nightmares but never fully plunges into them. It's more "Hansel and Gretel" than anything truly harrowing. That said, I found myself not terribly involved or even scared during this film. Selick certainly captures the right tone and an eerie pace but sometimes, he lets his gorgeous animation get the better of him in sequences devoted to Coraline's grotesque and eccentric neighbors in scenes that go on a little too long and bog the main storyline down a bit.
If I could rate this film purely on style and technique, I would give it the four star rating without question. But, the story is what makes it all pop and while Selick does conjure up moments that reminded me of Terry Gilliam's "Time Bandits" and Miyazaki's astounding "Spirited Away," "Coraline" never built upwards into a full experience for me. "
"Finding Nemo" was a film that was almost exhausting...in a good way and that was due to the story's construction, pacing and execution. That said, don't let my slight detractions steer you away. "Coraline" is a worthy effort told in high style and if you look over your shoulder here and there after it's over, then that's even better.
Originally written February 9, 2009
"CORALINE" Written and Directed by Henry Selick
Based upon the novel by Neil Gaiman
*** (three stars)
I have been told that fairy tales usually consist of three basic components: the opening "Once Upon A Time...," the positive "..and they lived happily ever after" as conclusion and all of the excitement occurs in the middle.
When I was a child, my favorite fairy tale was the eternal classic, "Jack and the Beanstalk." I never tired of it and truly relished the high tension of Jack entering into the giant's castle, stealing from him and hiding in various places to avoid being eaten. The story's set-up got me ready and the climactic chase down the beanstalk was deeply thrilling but it was the middle portion I liked the best. It was deeply frightening and as I have gotten older and have even watched children explore the same classic fairy tales many adults are now trying to shield them from, I have to wonder what is the magic found in the terror of classic children's stories and what fears are the children trying to work through on their own through their play? As adults try to keep toning things down in order for the children to not be frightened, children keep seeking healthy fears to overcome.
Now we are presented with a new film aimed at children that is a throwback on two fronts: the attempts to strongly evoke the style and tone of the brothers Grimm and the usage of the painstaking hand crafted, stop-motion animation in the digital age.
Writer/Director Henry Selick mostly succeeds in his adaptation of Neil Gaiman's novel "Coraline," the dark cautionary tale of a neglected and rightfully sullen pre-teen girl sucked into an alternate universe where the world is colorful with delightful surprises around every corner and most importantly, her parents are interesting, fun, and appear to be more loving than her real parents. But of course, in stories such as these, there is always a catch--and that is our heroine has to sew a pair of buttons over her eyes and remain in this now dangerous world forever, relinquishing her soul to the evil "Other Mother."
There are articles popping up everywhere wondering if this story will be too frightening for children. That's hard to say as it would depend upon each child's sensibilities. But, this is a creepy fable that dances to the edge of nightmares but never fully plunges into them. It's more "Hansel and Gretel" than anything truly harrowing. That said, I found myself not terribly involved or even scared during this film. Selick certainly captures the right tone and an eerie pace but sometimes, he lets his gorgeous animation get the better of him in sequences devoted to Coraline's grotesque and eccentric neighbors in scenes that go on a little too long and bog the main storyline down a bit.
If I could rate this film purely on style and technique, I would give it the four star rating without question. But, the story is what makes it all pop and while Selick does conjure up moments that reminded me of Terry Gilliam's "Time Bandits" and Miyazaki's astounding "Spirited Away," "Coraline" never built upwards into a full experience for me. "
"Finding Nemo" was a film that was almost exhausting...in a good way and that was due to the story's construction, pacing and execution. That said, don't let my slight detractions steer you away. "Coraline" is a worthy effort told in high style and if you look over your shoulder here and there after it's over, then that's even better.
A BOY AND HIS DRAGON: a review of "How To Train Your Dragon"
“HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON”
Co-Written and Directed by Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders
Based upon the original novel by Cressida Cowell
**** (four stars)
Extraordinary!!! How and furthermore, why did I wait so long to see this outstanding animated film?!! Dreamworks Animation Studio’s “How To Train Your Dragon,” co-written and directed by Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders and based upon the original novel by Cressida Cowell, is everything anyone could ask for. It proves once again, along with the recent daring features from the wizards of Pixar (2007’s “Ratatouille,” 2008’s “Wall-E,” and 2009’s “Up”), plus Director Spike Jonze’s ground breaking “Where The Wild Things Are” and Writer/Director’s Wes Anderson’s hugely clever and entertaining “Fantastic Mr. Fox” from just last year, that films aimed at young audiences need not be propulsive day-glo colored, hellzapoppin’ brain melting time-wasters filled with gratuitously flatulent pop culture driven humor. “How To Train Your Dragon” shows that in the best of hands, with complete respect for its audience and with a vision and heart as wide as the open sky, children’s film entertainment can perform and ultimately be of the highest cinematic quality. If you have not seen this film yet, I strongly urge you to go immediately after reading this review. (Why waste time? Go see it before reading this review! It’ll be here when you get back.) If you already have seen it, immediately go see it again. The bar has been raised as this is a film to treasure for the ages.
Our story begins in the mythical Viking village of Berk, described as the “midland to misery” by our teen aged hero, the unfortunately named Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel, from “Tropic Thunder” as well as a member of filmmaker Judd Apatow’s key repertory players). This lanky, klutzy, mop top haired boy is the misfit of the village teens (featuring the voices of voices of Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plaase and Kristin Wiig), the put-upon assistant to blacksmith Gobber (voiced by Carig Ferguson) and is hopelessly in love with Viking teen dream Astrid (voiced by America Ferrera). Yet most of all, Hiccup harbors enormous dreams of becoming an acclaimed dragon killer, not only for his village, but for the long sought approval of his Viking warlord Father, Stoick (voiced be Gerard Butler). During the film’s opening battle sequence between the Vikings and a slew of dangerous dragons, all possessing fearsome names like “Gronckle,” “Deadly Nadder,” “Hideous Zippleback” and the terrifying “Monstrous Nightmare,” Hiccup impetuously sneaks away from the melee with his self-made bolas cannon weapon in tow. Surprisingly, he shoots down the most dreaded dragon of all, the always unseen "Night Fury," an unprecedented feat which no one believes the hapless Hiccup could accomplish on his own.
Stoick grudgingly enrolls Hiccup into Dragon Training with his peers, where the winner has the opportunity to kill a dragon in full view of the entire village. After his first disastrous lessons, Hiccup wanders through the woods to a secluded section and discovers the roped and wounded Night Fury dragon. Armed with his dagger, Hiccup prepares to kill the sleek black creature with the huge, piercing and soulful eyes and almost feline features, yet finds himself unable to do so. He sets the dragon free and in turn, just as the dragon aims to kill Hiccup, it elicits a mighty roar and scurries away, setting Hiccup free. This curious meeting inspires Hiccup to return to the secluded area where he discovers that the dragon has lost one of its tail wings and is now unable to fly. Naming the dragon “Toothless” due to its retractable teeth, the pair make their first tentative steps towards understanding and friendship.
Their repeated secretive meetings not only strengthens their bond towards each other but also clues Hiccup into the ways of the dragon species (they enjoy gentle strokes on their skin and roll around in grass as if it were cat-nip, love to eat fish and despise eels), all the while increasingly realizing that everything he had ever learned abut dragons had been completely wrong. Hiccup’s newfound knowledge ultimately makes him a local celebrity in his non-violent dragon training sessions, where he appears to be the master of the beasts. Hiccup gains the pride of his Father, the envy of his peers and more than a little bit of reciprocated interest from Astrid and then…his secret is discovered, painfully impacting his relationship with his Father, the safety of Toothless and placing the collective fates of the dragon and Viking races in dire jeopardy.
“How To Train Your Dragon” is superlative entertainment and the perfect antidote to a somewhat sluggish beginning to my 2010 movie-going experiences--a beginning where even the mighty Martin Scorsese stumbled a little and Tim Burton fell flat on his artistic face. Despite some gems (“The Runaways,” “Iron Man 2,” and “Hot Tub Time Machine”), I just hadn’t sent that “home run” of a movie just yet. But, this film more than fits the bill as it is beautifully rich in artistic detail and its overall presentation is expertly written and directed.
Yes, the film contains familiar themes of individuality, the power of trust, unity and community as well as tenuous parent/child relationships yet this film makes all of these well-worn themes feel brand new. The pace is brisk but not rushed. Surprises are consistently abound and every moment is completely engaging. The entire voice cast is uniformly excellent, the animation is gorgeous and all of the humor is contained within the constraints of the characters and story—no flatulent pop culture driven humor is anywhere to be found. The epic climax never overstays its welcome and is honestly breathtaking, thrilling, heartbreaking and always spectacular without becoming bombastic or shorting itself on heart and humor.
The film succeeds strongest in three specific areas. First of all, is the relationship between Hiccup and Toothless as it fully understands the deep spiritual bond between animals and humans through several nearly wordless sequences that never grow portentous or saccharine. The elegant courtship between Hiccup and Toothless are some of the most graceful and poignant animal/human bonding sequences I have seen since those long ago glorious island scenes between boy and horse from Director Carroll Ballard’s “The Black Stallion” (1979). They are also, of course, happily reminiscent of cherished moments from Steven Spielberg’s “E.T.:The Extra Terrestrial” (1982).
Secondly, I absolutely loved the care and attention placed upon all of the dragon characters as each and every creature had its own physical and emotional features, character and presence and they were completely unique from each other. The sheer and extremely complex characteristic detail displayed throughout the film opened up this magical world even wider for me and I relished seeing, hearing and learning about each dragon’s particular traits. Every detail contributed to the cumulative effect of the story as a whole and nothing was superfluous, not even for one moment.
Best of all are the flying sequences, of which there are many, and all of them are nothing less than majestic—and I saw this film is 2D!! You see and feel the scope of the landscapes in relation to the sky and clouds. You sense the speed, grace, occasional danger and euphoria of flight as Hiccup and Toothless learn how to jointly navigate this method of travel as well as their new relationship together. When it takes to the air, the film soars even higher.
Right now, I have to address a topic that is not meant to re-open any cinematic wounds but I do think is apropos. This topic is in regards to the hefty comparison this film has been receiving between itself and a certain 2 BILLION DOLLAR (and counting) box office behemoth known as “Avatar.” I do think the comparisons between the two films are more than fair as they share specific visual and thematic elements, most especially the theme of discovering where your allegiances lie: with the family you are born to or the family you have created for yourself. Where “Avatar” left me completely under whelmed as that endless film suffered under the weight of its own pretentiousness and self-congratulatory heft (in addition to the derivative and badly presented storyline), “How To Train Your Dragon” bests that film at its own game and in every conceivable way...and in nearly half of the running time! The late, great Gene Siskel and still great Roger Ebert long ago expressed that for many successful films, it is not due to what the films are about but how they are about what they are about. The stars were definitely aligned for “How To Train Your Dragon” as somehow, someway, all of the time tested elements and forward thinking technology combined to create cinematic alchemy. As Writer/Director James Cameron heads into preparation for the inevitable "Avatar 2," perhaps he should take a long look at this film, which strongly and always emphasizes story over special effects and shiny new filmmaking toys and maybe he can come up with a new film that can exist in the same neighborhood as this one.
Although the Dreamworks Animation Studio has had it share of box office smash hits, not many of them appealed to me very much aside from the original “Shrek” (2001) and the enjoyable “Kung Fu Panda” (2008) as they seemed to be too reliant upon the aforementioned pop-culture driven humor and high profile voice cast in relation to simple strong storytelling. With “How To Train your Dragon,” however, Dreamworks has now elevated itself to the repeated gold standards set by Pixar…so much so that Pixar should take notice and perhaps begin looking up over its shoulder! I can only imagine the healthy competition between these two animation studios if the quality of their respective outputs continues this highly. But, that's the future…
For now we have this glowing achievement, a familiar story with familiar themes told in a thrillingly fresh, vibrant, emotional way. This is not simply a movie to see as “How To Train Your Dragon” is not designed to be watched passively. This is a movie to feel and feel deeply as it obviously wants you to become as enthralled with the sights and spectacle in the same ways that our young hero Hiccup is.
“How To Train Your Dragon” has easily soared to being one of the very best films of 2010.
Co-Written and Directed by Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders
Based upon the original novel by Cressida Cowell
**** (four stars)
Extraordinary!!! How and furthermore, why did I wait so long to see this outstanding animated film?!! Dreamworks Animation Studio’s “How To Train Your Dragon,” co-written and directed by Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders and based upon the original novel by Cressida Cowell, is everything anyone could ask for. It proves once again, along with the recent daring features from the wizards of Pixar (2007’s “Ratatouille,” 2008’s “Wall-E,” and 2009’s “Up”), plus Director Spike Jonze’s ground breaking “Where The Wild Things Are” and Writer/Director’s Wes Anderson’s hugely clever and entertaining “Fantastic Mr. Fox” from just last year, that films aimed at young audiences need not be propulsive day-glo colored, hellzapoppin’ brain melting time-wasters filled with gratuitously flatulent pop culture driven humor. “How To Train Your Dragon” shows that in the best of hands, with complete respect for its audience and with a vision and heart as wide as the open sky, children’s film entertainment can perform and ultimately be of the highest cinematic quality. If you have not seen this film yet, I strongly urge you to go immediately after reading this review. (Why waste time? Go see it before reading this review! It’ll be here when you get back.) If you already have seen it, immediately go see it again. The bar has been raised as this is a film to treasure for the ages.
Our story begins in the mythical Viking village of Berk, described as the “midland to misery” by our teen aged hero, the unfortunately named Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel, from “Tropic Thunder” as well as a member of filmmaker Judd Apatow’s key repertory players). This lanky, klutzy, mop top haired boy is the misfit of the village teens (featuring the voices of voices of Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plaase and Kristin Wiig), the put-upon assistant to blacksmith Gobber (voiced by Carig Ferguson) and is hopelessly in love with Viking teen dream Astrid (voiced by America Ferrera). Yet most of all, Hiccup harbors enormous dreams of becoming an acclaimed dragon killer, not only for his village, but for the long sought approval of his Viking warlord Father, Stoick (voiced be Gerard Butler). During the film’s opening battle sequence between the Vikings and a slew of dangerous dragons, all possessing fearsome names like “Gronckle,” “Deadly Nadder,” “Hideous Zippleback” and the terrifying “Monstrous Nightmare,” Hiccup impetuously sneaks away from the melee with his self-made bolas cannon weapon in tow. Surprisingly, he shoots down the most dreaded dragon of all, the always unseen "Night Fury," an unprecedented feat which no one believes the hapless Hiccup could accomplish on his own.
Stoick grudgingly enrolls Hiccup into Dragon Training with his peers, where the winner has the opportunity to kill a dragon in full view of the entire village. After his first disastrous lessons, Hiccup wanders through the woods to a secluded section and discovers the roped and wounded Night Fury dragon. Armed with his dagger, Hiccup prepares to kill the sleek black creature with the huge, piercing and soulful eyes and almost feline features, yet finds himself unable to do so. He sets the dragon free and in turn, just as the dragon aims to kill Hiccup, it elicits a mighty roar and scurries away, setting Hiccup free. This curious meeting inspires Hiccup to return to the secluded area where he discovers that the dragon has lost one of its tail wings and is now unable to fly. Naming the dragon “Toothless” due to its retractable teeth, the pair make their first tentative steps towards understanding and friendship.
Their repeated secretive meetings not only strengthens their bond towards each other but also clues Hiccup into the ways of the dragon species (they enjoy gentle strokes on their skin and roll around in grass as if it were cat-nip, love to eat fish and despise eels), all the while increasingly realizing that everything he had ever learned abut dragons had been completely wrong. Hiccup’s newfound knowledge ultimately makes him a local celebrity in his non-violent dragon training sessions, where he appears to be the master of the beasts. Hiccup gains the pride of his Father, the envy of his peers and more than a little bit of reciprocated interest from Astrid and then…his secret is discovered, painfully impacting his relationship with his Father, the safety of Toothless and placing the collective fates of the dragon and Viking races in dire jeopardy.
“How To Train Your Dragon” is superlative entertainment and the perfect antidote to a somewhat sluggish beginning to my 2010 movie-going experiences--a beginning where even the mighty Martin Scorsese stumbled a little and Tim Burton fell flat on his artistic face. Despite some gems (“The Runaways,” “Iron Man 2,” and “Hot Tub Time Machine”), I just hadn’t sent that “home run” of a movie just yet. But, this film more than fits the bill as it is beautifully rich in artistic detail and its overall presentation is expertly written and directed.
Yes, the film contains familiar themes of individuality, the power of trust, unity and community as well as tenuous parent/child relationships yet this film makes all of these well-worn themes feel brand new. The pace is brisk but not rushed. Surprises are consistently abound and every moment is completely engaging. The entire voice cast is uniformly excellent, the animation is gorgeous and all of the humor is contained within the constraints of the characters and story—no flatulent pop culture driven humor is anywhere to be found. The epic climax never overstays its welcome and is honestly breathtaking, thrilling, heartbreaking and always spectacular without becoming bombastic or shorting itself on heart and humor.
The film succeeds strongest in three specific areas. First of all, is the relationship between Hiccup and Toothless as it fully understands the deep spiritual bond between animals and humans through several nearly wordless sequences that never grow portentous or saccharine. The elegant courtship between Hiccup and Toothless are some of the most graceful and poignant animal/human bonding sequences I have seen since those long ago glorious island scenes between boy and horse from Director Carroll Ballard’s “The Black Stallion” (1979). They are also, of course, happily reminiscent of cherished moments from Steven Spielberg’s “E.T.:The Extra Terrestrial” (1982).
Secondly, I absolutely loved the care and attention placed upon all of the dragon characters as each and every creature had its own physical and emotional features, character and presence and they were completely unique from each other. The sheer and extremely complex characteristic detail displayed throughout the film opened up this magical world even wider for me and I relished seeing, hearing and learning about each dragon’s particular traits. Every detail contributed to the cumulative effect of the story as a whole and nothing was superfluous, not even for one moment.
Best of all are the flying sequences, of which there are many, and all of them are nothing less than majestic—and I saw this film is 2D!! You see and feel the scope of the landscapes in relation to the sky and clouds. You sense the speed, grace, occasional danger and euphoria of flight as Hiccup and Toothless learn how to jointly navigate this method of travel as well as their new relationship together. When it takes to the air, the film soars even higher.
Right now, I have to address a topic that is not meant to re-open any cinematic wounds but I do think is apropos. This topic is in regards to the hefty comparison this film has been receiving between itself and a certain 2 BILLION DOLLAR (and counting) box office behemoth known as “Avatar.” I do think the comparisons between the two films are more than fair as they share specific visual and thematic elements, most especially the theme of discovering where your allegiances lie: with the family you are born to or the family you have created for yourself. Where “Avatar” left me completely under whelmed as that endless film suffered under the weight of its own pretentiousness and self-congratulatory heft (in addition to the derivative and badly presented storyline), “How To Train Your Dragon” bests that film at its own game and in every conceivable way...and in nearly half of the running time! The late, great Gene Siskel and still great Roger Ebert long ago expressed that for many successful films, it is not due to what the films are about but how they are about what they are about. The stars were definitely aligned for “How To Train Your Dragon” as somehow, someway, all of the time tested elements and forward thinking technology combined to create cinematic alchemy. As Writer/Director James Cameron heads into preparation for the inevitable "Avatar 2," perhaps he should take a long look at this film, which strongly and always emphasizes story over special effects and shiny new filmmaking toys and maybe he can come up with a new film that can exist in the same neighborhood as this one.
Although the Dreamworks Animation Studio has had it share of box office smash hits, not many of them appealed to me very much aside from the original “Shrek” (2001) and the enjoyable “Kung Fu Panda” (2008) as they seemed to be too reliant upon the aforementioned pop-culture driven humor and high profile voice cast in relation to simple strong storytelling. With “How To Train your Dragon,” however, Dreamworks has now elevated itself to the repeated gold standards set by Pixar…so much so that Pixar should take notice and perhaps begin looking up over its shoulder! I can only imagine the healthy competition between these two animation studios if the quality of their respective outputs continues this highly. But, that's the future…
For now we have this glowing achievement, a familiar story with familiar themes told in a thrillingly fresh, vibrant, emotional way. This is not simply a movie to see as “How To Train Your Dragon” is not designed to be watched passively. This is a movie to feel and feel deeply as it obviously wants you to become as enthralled with the sights and spectacle in the same ways that our young hero Hiccup is.
“How To Train Your Dragon” has easily soared to being one of the very best films of 2010.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
FROM THE ARCHIVES 7: a review of "Religulous"
Originally written March 8, 2009
"RELIGULOUS" Directed by Larry Charles Produced by Bill Maher
*1/2 (one and a half stars)
This film was frustrating and the more I think about it, the angrier I feel. If you have ever had an argument with someone who was not even remotely interested in hearing or attempting to understand your side of the issue--or even cared in the first place, then you will understand the experience of watching Bill Maher's "documentary" about the hypocrisy in the world's religions. This was so unfortunate as Maher is someone I truly count on to go into the media and passionately cut through the double speak that plagues our ears and minds on a daily basis. From his series "Politically Incorrect" to his current "Real Time With Bill Maher," he always has the final word--hey, it is HIS show--yet, he always makes the time to have differing points of view on his stage for healthy and hilarious debates about the state of the world. The programs make for consistently riveting television and with his brilliant jabs at life's absurdities, and politics in particular, it is also raucously funny. That is why this enormously hypocritical film is a strangely confusing and disappointing one. I expect so much more from Maher and unfortunately he tragically succumbed to his own dogma.
In the film's opening segments, we meet members of Maher's own family and learn that he was raised Catholic although his Mother is Jewish. His family left the church when Maher was 13 years old, most likely due to the church's stance on birth control and he has never returned. Maher then voices his spiritual doubts as an agnostic and decides to head out into the world and speak with people about religion, faith and all spiritual matters in order to better understand people's ties to issues that cannot be proven. But, if only he did this honestly. Yes, it is his movie and he can do whatever he wants with it but he spends the entire time talking out both sides of his mouth. Maher claims to essentially be an agnostic but most of what he spews is clear atheism--which would be just fine if he were honest about his motives.
While opening scenes may feel a bit more authentic and filled with Maher's trademark blistering sarcasm and challenging nature, the film quickly nose dives into Maher essentially going around the world and telling everyone that their need to have faith is wrong because there is no God, no Christ or any unproven faith that one subscribes to. He comes off as a bully by refusing to allow people to speak, mocking them constantly and refuting anything anyone says, even if it is something reasonable to ponder. A telling sequence is a discussion between Maher and an actor portraying Jesus Christ at an outdoor crucifixion re-enactment facility. When speaking of the possibility of the Holy Trinity, the actor makes an analogy of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being something similar to water, as it can exist in the three different substances of steam, liquid and ice while always being water. Maher gives it a moment and then slaps it down as hogwash. When the actor gently challenges Maher and asks him, "What if you are wrong?" Maher doesn't give it an honest thought. He evades it entirely with a childish, "What if YOU are wrong?" For someone that claims to want to understand, that is a close-minded way to show it.
From there, the film gets worse as Maher essentially speaks only with a variety of fanatics to prove his own point of how religion is hostile and hypocritical. How people, evangelists, religious leaders, man-made organizations, and world leaders have consistently used the Bible as a weapon to discriminate, to pass judgement, to wage wars and so on. But why didn't he speak with average everyday people about their ties to religion and faith to provide a counter-balance? I just don't believe he was interested at all. And besides that, crazy fanatics make for a better movie, don't they?
It is when he approaches Muslims that the film came to a deeply disturbing point as his footage essentially presents a jingoistic view of the world and a view he completely rallies against within his own television show. While I do not feel that Maher is a racist, I have to admit to being confused and hurt by this stage of his movie. Are you really trying to say that all Muslims everywhere in the world are all fanatics and suicide bombers ready to subscribe to a faith and kill us all? It was demeaning and ugly and I found it to be contradictory to his nature as presented on his show and comedy routines for decades.
Even as a movie, it is a disappointment as his sole point could be uttered in ten minutes. Since he had nothing else to say other than his main point, the running time makes for slow going, despite a laugh here and there. The finale of the film is a nearly ten minute rant similar to his brilliant "New Rules" segment, in which he makes his point yet again and ultimately says that everyone in the world should toss religion aside, put away their unshakable certainty with all things unproven and belong to a religion of doubt because the fact that no one really knows is the only thing we know. Great point, yet it is presented with the precise unshakable certainty he has spent the entire movie condemning.
I should say at this time that my critique is not coming from a place of faith. I am not a church-goer and I haven't been one since my adolescence. My church upbringing was a positive one and I hold nothing against that experience. I had a wonderful Pastor and I remember a conversation we had before my confirmation in which I asked him about the Holy Trinity and how did that work. He was actually unable to answer. I never held that against him because he was a brilliantly good man who led his church with tolerance and grace and whose faith was a powerful one. I just knew that I had some questions that maybe I needed to find answers to on my own spiritual path. As a dear friend once said to me a few years ago, "There are many roads up the same mountain." It is because of that friend, I left my agnostic thoughts of my 20s behind and found a stronger place of faith today. But...I still have my questions.
There are many of Bill Maher's points that I agree with. The man-made structure and the hypocrisy behind it just does not work for me and at times enrages me as world leaders arrogantly used the word of God to commit crimes against humanity. But what does that have to do with my friends who believe, who go about their lives the best way they are able, who have friends and families of their own and hurt no one? I would never and could never begrudge anyone else's faith or need to have it. How is that hurting anyone? I have often consulted with friends more deeply involved with their church organizations and have found every discussion and source of spiritual perspective enlightening and helpful. I thank those people for being gracious enough to share.
My criticism of this film is coming from a place of fairness. How can Bill Maher have a film covering the wide range of religion itself and only speak to a small fraction of fanatical people on the fringes? It inadvertently lumped everyone who believes in any sort of a higher power together in the same boiling pot of crazy. It is a disjointed, aimless, mean-spirited movie that is beneath the character I want to believe Bill Maher has. It was Maher against the world and since in his mind, as depicted in this film, he's always right, there is no room for any other differing points of view whatsoever. And isn't that the very issue he wanted to tear down in the first place?
"RELIGULOUS" Directed by Larry Charles Produced by Bill Maher
*1/2 (one and a half stars)
This film was frustrating and the more I think about it, the angrier I feel. If you have ever had an argument with someone who was not even remotely interested in hearing or attempting to understand your side of the issue--or even cared in the first place, then you will understand the experience of watching Bill Maher's "documentary" about the hypocrisy in the world's religions. This was so unfortunate as Maher is someone I truly count on to go into the media and passionately cut through the double speak that plagues our ears and minds on a daily basis. From his series "Politically Incorrect" to his current "Real Time With Bill Maher," he always has the final word--hey, it is HIS show--yet, he always makes the time to have differing points of view on his stage for healthy and hilarious debates about the state of the world. The programs make for consistently riveting television and with his brilliant jabs at life's absurdities, and politics in particular, it is also raucously funny. That is why this enormously hypocritical film is a strangely confusing and disappointing one. I expect so much more from Maher and unfortunately he tragically succumbed to his own dogma.
In the film's opening segments, we meet members of Maher's own family and learn that he was raised Catholic although his Mother is Jewish. His family left the church when Maher was 13 years old, most likely due to the church's stance on birth control and he has never returned. Maher then voices his spiritual doubts as an agnostic and decides to head out into the world and speak with people about religion, faith and all spiritual matters in order to better understand people's ties to issues that cannot be proven. But, if only he did this honestly. Yes, it is his movie and he can do whatever he wants with it but he spends the entire time talking out both sides of his mouth. Maher claims to essentially be an agnostic but most of what he spews is clear atheism--which would be just fine if he were honest about his motives.
While opening scenes may feel a bit more authentic and filled with Maher's trademark blistering sarcasm and challenging nature, the film quickly nose dives into Maher essentially going around the world and telling everyone that their need to have faith is wrong because there is no God, no Christ or any unproven faith that one subscribes to. He comes off as a bully by refusing to allow people to speak, mocking them constantly and refuting anything anyone says, even if it is something reasonable to ponder. A telling sequence is a discussion between Maher and an actor portraying Jesus Christ at an outdoor crucifixion re-enactment facility. When speaking of the possibility of the Holy Trinity, the actor makes an analogy of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being something similar to water, as it can exist in the three different substances of steam, liquid and ice while always being water. Maher gives it a moment and then slaps it down as hogwash. When the actor gently challenges Maher and asks him, "What if you are wrong?" Maher doesn't give it an honest thought. He evades it entirely with a childish, "What if YOU are wrong?" For someone that claims to want to understand, that is a close-minded way to show it.
From there, the film gets worse as Maher essentially speaks only with a variety of fanatics to prove his own point of how religion is hostile and hypocritical. How people, evangelists, religious leaders, man-made organizations, and world leaders have consistently used the Bible as a weapon to discriminate, to pass judgement, to wage wars and so on. But why didn't he speak with average everyday people about their ties to religion and faith to provide a counter-balance? I just don't believe he was interested at all. And besides that, crazy fanatics make for a better movie, don't they?
It is when he approaches Muslims that the film came to a deeply disturbing point as his footage essentially presents a jingoistic view of the world and a view he completely rallies against within his own television show. While I do not feel that Maher is a racist, I have to admit to being confused and hurt by this stage of his movie. Are you really trying to say that all Muslims everywhere in the world are all fanatics and suicide bombers ready to subscribe to a faith and kill us all? It was demeaning and ugly and I found it to be contradictory to his nature as presented on his show and comedy routines for decades.
Even as a movie, it is a disappointment as his sole point could be uttered in ten minutes. Since he had nothing else to say other than his main point, the running time makes for slow going, despite a laugh here and there. The finale of the film is a nearly ten minute rant similar to his brilliant "New Rules" segment, in which he makes his point yet again and ultimately says that everyone in the world should toss religion aside, put away their unshakable certainty with all things unproven and belong to a religion of doubt because the fact that no one really knows is the only thing we know. Great point, yet it is presented with the precise unshakable certainty he has spent the entire movie condemning.
I should say at this time that my critique is not coming from a place of faith. I am not a church-goer and I haven't been one since my adolescence. My church upbringing was a positive one and I hold nothing against that experience. I had a wonderful Pastor and I remember a conversation we had before my confirmation in which I asked him about the Holy Trinity and how did that work. He was actually unable to answer. I never held that against him because he was a brilliantly good man who led his church with tolerance and grace and whose faith was a powerful one. I just knew that I had some questions that maybe I needed to find answers to on my own spiritual path. As a dear friend once said to me a few years ago, "There are many roads up the same mountain." It is because of that friend, I left my agnostic thoughts of my 20s behind and found a stronger place of faith today. But...I still have my questions.
There are many of Bill Maher's points that I agree with. The man-made structure and the hypocrisy behind it just does not work for me and at times enrages me as world leaders arrogantly used the word of God to commit crimes against humanity. But what does that have to do with my friends who believe, who go about their lives the best way they are able, who have friends and families of their own and hurt no one? I would never and could never begrudge anyone else's faith or need to have it. How is that hurting anyone? I have often consulted with friends more deeply involved with their church organizations and have found every discussion and source of spiritual perspective enlightening and helpful. I thank those people for being gracious enough to share.
My criticism of this film is coming from a place of fairness. How can Bill Maher have a film covering the wide range of religion itself and only speak to a small fraction of fanatical people on the fringes? It inadvertently lumped everyone who believes in any sort of a higher power together in the same boiling pot of crazy. It is a disjointed, aimless, mean-spirited movie that is beneath the character I want to believe Bill Maher has. It was Maher against the world and since in his mind, as depicted in this film, he's always right, there is no room for any other differing points of view whatsoever. And isn't that the very issue he wanted to tear down in the first place?
SAVAGE CINEMA'S SHORT TAKES #5: MEN OF ACTION
With my review of "Iron Man 2" written and published in cyberspace, I wanted to add some older reviews about some other recent men of action. Enjoy!
"QUANTUM OF SOLACE" Directed by Marc Foster
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
I have to admit, I was never the greatest fan of James Bond. Yes, the mythology of the character and the great theme music was always a point of interest but I have to say that for very few movies, I was actually involved with the proceedings. Perhaps it was too much myth and not enough humanity for me to truly care. Then came "Casino Royale," a visceral reboot of the series with Daniel Craig grandly stepping into the iconic role and completely making it his own as we trace Bond's first steps into becoming the secret agent for the ages.
With "Quantum Of Solace," we have our first direct sequel which I enjoyed perhaps as much the previous installment. There has been much criticism for the velocity of the film and confusing plot (always a Bond standard if you ask me) but I think what we are witness to this time is a race through Bond's psyche as he hurtles himself through this tale of revenge, hoping to find that "quantum of solace" in his broken heart and compromised soul but never slowing down enough to try and fully capture it. Craig is perfectly brutal and unforgiving in the role and his rapport with Judi Dench's "M" continues to solidify as she seems to represent not just a motherly figure to Bond but the remaining fragments of his conscience and better judgements.
Like "Royale," there are flaws. "Royale" was a bit too long and perhaps "Solace" feels like a footnote at times. But, what struck and impressed me about both films is that Bond is finally a human being. He makes mistakes, he bears emotional scars and I love that he doesn't rely solely on those fancy gadgets--which are cool but sometimes boring. Even the villains are more "real world" and I must give special mention to Mathieu Amalric's slithery performance as a member of the still mysterious organization of Q.U.A.N.T.U.M. who dabbles in government coups and environmental terrorism.
Overall, I highly enjoyed this latest installment and I am looking forward to future adventures with Craig at the helm. This is a James Bond I would follow nearly anywhere.
Originally written December 2008
"Taken" Directed by Pierre Morel
**1/2 (two and a half stars)
What a difference the right actor makes! In the case of the recent bare knuckled thriller "Taken," from the brain of filmmaker Luc Besson (the director of the equally bare knuckled thriller "The Professional" as well as the sci-fi dreampop confection "The Fifth Element"), the right actor is Liam Neeson and his brawny, brainy and ferocious performance not only elevated the leading role but also the entire film itself...to a degree. You may not respect yourself for liking this somewhat scuzzy piece of pulp fiction but it certainly is entertaining, involving and effective.
There's actually not much to the plot. Neeson stars as Bryan Mills, a divorced and retired CIA agent (and self-described "preventer") who is deeply devoted to continue nurturing a relationship with his beloved daughter Kim (Maggie Grace in a performance of such forced virginal innocence it borders to near goofiness). Mills' cautious nature is placed to the test when he allows his daughter to travel to Paris for the summer with a girlfriend, under the impression that they will be staying with "cousins." Not even three seconds off of the plane, Kim and her friend are accosted by a mysterious stranger complete with party invites and within a possible hour, they are both abducted from their home by Albanian sex traffickers! Thankfully, Kim is able to place one frantic phone call to Mills who immediately springs into action with an unrepentant, punishing fury that would make John McClaine, Jason Bourne and even the Terminator beg for a level of mercy which they would not receive.
That is essentially the plot and in around 90 swift minutes, the tale has been told and the endless damage done. Now, while this movie definitely kept me involved and excited, I'm not really certain as to how much I actually liked it. It's sort of like an old Steven Segal movie--and it doesn't contain the "A level" presentation of say "Die Hard" or "Lethal Weapon." The film is a fairly ugly experience that does contain a particular veiled racism (Don't send your gorgeous blonde daughters overseas where they will undoubtedly and instantly be sold into sex slavery by dark skinned foreigners!) and a nasty worse-case-scenario for Kim (remember, her Dad described himself as a "preventer"--what do you think he is trying to prevent with this storyline?). The violence is pitched at such a grisly and gruesome (yet bloodless) level that I am honestly stunned it received a PG-13 rating.
Yet, maybe because of the nature of this storyline with it's father/daughter relationship, the overall brutality of the piece is warranted which ultimately makes the film much less about escapism and more about something primal. What would you do if someone abducted your child? There is a savage satisfaction to watching this father's level of rampage. Where other movie heroes may let a bad guy live because they wouldn't want to be "brought down to their level," Mills doesn't care a whit about any of that hokum. He wants his daughter back and nothing will stop him. He is a loving parent and mad dog all in one and you really want him on your side in a bar fight!
And here is where I head back to my original point...any success this film has rests securely on the shoulders of Liam Neeson. I really do not think that any other actor could've pulled this off so well. He is sensitive enough for the parenting sequences, intelligent enough for spy matters and his physicality is unquestionable and formidable for the relentless action sequences. He makes what could've been an unwatchable film compulsively watchable. His level of gravitas weighs this film down to Earth and makes it somewhat credible--even in a silly early sequence (Mills is assigned to bodyguard a pop star) which is designed to establish Neeson's skill as a "preventer." Again, this is really a dirty feeling film with a meanness that mainstream audiences don't tend to flock to when it's not presented through a horror filter. Even with Quentin Tarantino's ultraviolence, there is a delirious filmmaking and writing joy that is palpable to me but for this film, it got under my skin a bit and I not sure why I didn't simply dismiss it.
I cannot help to have some curiosity as to how this film earned well over $100 million dollars at the box office early this year. We are living in dark times and there is much blame to be passed around and perhaps this film was a way for viewers to channel the vengeance we all would wish to inflict on someone or something that has wronged us if only we could.
Originally written July 21, 2009
"QUANTUM OF SOLACE" Directed by Marc Foster
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
I have to admit, I was never the greatest fan of James Bond. Yes, the mythology of the character and the great theme music was always a point of interest but I have to say that for very few movies, I was actually involved with the proceedings. Perhaps it was too much myth and not enough humanity for me to truly care. Then came "Casino Royale," a visceral reboot of the series with Daniel Craig grandly stepping into the iconic role and completely making it his own as we trace Bond's first steps into becoming the secret agent for the ages.
With "Quantum Of Solace," we have our first direct sequel which I enjoyed perhaps as much the previous installment. There has been much criticism for the velocity of the film and confusing plot (always a Bond standard if you ask me) but I think what we are witness to this time is a race through Bond's psyche as he hurtles himself through this tale of revenge, hoping to find that "quantum of solace" in his broken heart and compromised soul but never slowing down enough to try and fully capture it. Craig is perfectly brutal and unforgiving in the role and his rapport with Judi Dench's "M" continues to solidify as she seems to represent not just a motherly figure to Bond but the remaining fragments of his conscience and better judgements.
Like "Royale," there are flaws. "Royale" was a bit too long and perhaps "Solace" feels like a footnote at times. But, what struck and impressed me about both films is that Bond is finally a human being. He makes mistakes, he bears emotional scars and I love that he doesn't rely solely on those fancy gadgets--which are cool but sometimes boring. Even the villains are more "real world" and I must give special mention to Mathieu Amalric's slithery performance as a member of the still mysterious organization of Q.U.A.N.T.U.M. who dabbles in government coups and environmental terrorism.
Overall, I highly enjoyed this latest installment and I am looking forward to future adventures with Craig at the helm. This is a James Bond I would follow nearly anywhere.
Originally written December 2008
"Taken" Directed by Pierre Morel
**1/2 (two and a half stars)
What a difference the right actor makes! In the case of the recent bare knuckled thriller "Taken," from the brain of filmmaker Luc Besson (the director of the equally bare knuckled thriller "The Professional" as well as the sci-fi dreampop confection "The Fifth Element"), the right actor is Liam Neeson and his brawny, brainy and ferocious performance not only elevated the leading role but also the entire film itself...to a degree. You may not respect yourself for liking this somewhat scuzzy piece of pulp fiction but it certainly is entertaining, involving and effective.
There's actually not much to the plot. Neeson stars as Bryan Mills, a divorced and retired CIA agent (and self-described "preventer") who is deeply devoted to continue nurturing a relationship with his beloved daughter Kim (Maggie Grace in a performance of such forced virginal innocence it borders to near goofiness). Mills' cautious nature is placed to the test when he allows his daughter to travel to Paris for the summer with a girlfriend, under the impression that they will be staying with "cousins." Not even three seconds off of the plane, Kim and her friend are accosted by a mysterious stranger complete with party invites and within a possible hour, they are both abducted from their home by Albanian sex traffickers! Thankfully, Kim is able to place one frantic phone call to Mills who immediately springs into action with an unrepentant, punishing fury that would make John McClaine, Jason Bourne and even the Terminator beg for a level of mercy which they would not receive.
That is essentially the plot and in around 90 swift minutes, the tale has been told and the endless damage done. Now, while this movie definitely kept me involved and excited, I'm not really certain as to how much I actually liked it. It's sort of like an old Steven Segal movie--and it doesn't contain the "A level" presentation of say "Die Hard" or "Lethal Weapon." The film is a fairly ugly experience that does contain a particular veiled racism (Don't send your gorgeous blonde daughters overseas where they will undoubtedly and instantly be sold into sex slavery by dark skinned foreigners!) and a nasty worse-case-scenario for Kim (remember, her Dad described himself as a "preventer"--what do you think he is trying to prevent with this storyline?). The violence is pitched at such a grisly and gruesome (yet bloodless) level that I am honestly stunned it received a PG-13 rating.
Yet, maybe because of the nature of this storyline with it's father/daughter relationship, the overall brutality of the piece is warranted which ultimately makes the film much less about escapism and more about something primal. What would you do if someone abducted your child? There is a savage satisfaction to watching this father's level of rampage. Where other movie heroes may let a bad guy live because they wouldn't want to be "brought down to their level," Mills doesn't care a whit about any of that hokum. He wants his daughter back and nothing will stop him. He is a loving parent and mad dog all in one and you really want him on your side in a bar fight!
And here is where I head back to my original point...any success this film has rests securely on the shoulders of Liam Neeson. I really do not think that any other actor could've pulled this off so well. He is sensitive enough for the parenting sequences, intelligent enough for spy matters and his physicality is unquestionable and formidable for the relentless action sequences. He makes what could've been an unwatchable film compulsively watchable. His level of gravitas weighs this film down to Earth and makes it somewhat credible--even in a silly early sequence (Mills is assigned to bodyguard a pop star) which is designed to establish Neeson's skill as a "preventer." Again, this is really a dirty feeling film with a meanness that mainstream audiences don't tend to flock to when it's not presented through a horror filter. Even with Quentin Tarantino's ultraviolence, there is a delirious filmmaking and writing joy that is palpable to me but for this film, it got under my skin a bit and I not sure why I didn't simply dismiss it.
I cannot help to have some curiosity as to how this film earned well over $100 million dollars at the box office early this year. We are living in dark times and there is much blame to be passed around and perhaps this film was a way for viewers to channel the vengeance we all would wish to inflict on someone or something that has wronged us if only we could.
Originally written July 21, 2009
Friday, May 14, 2010
METAL MACHINE MUSIC: a review of "Iron Man 2"
“IRON MAN 2” Directed by Jon Favreau
*** ½ (three and a half stars)
As the Marvel comic book universe expands its reach into our Cineplexes with a new collection of features films slated to hit our screens over the next several years, I strongly feel that Director Jon Favreau should be given the keys to the Marvel kingdom…or at the very least a hefty raise and bonus. As he was the guiding force behind the fledgling studio’s flagship film “Iron Man” which set the box office on fire and firmly placed Marvel on the movie studio map two years ago, Favreau’s skill and craftsmanship should be greatly celebrated, by Marvel as much as audiences. My high praise continues because Favreau has done it again with “Iron Man 2,” his more emotionally complex, exquisitely wittier, more exciting and almost defiantly story driven sequel. He has not rested upon any creative laurels as he, along with his priceless leading man, Robert Downey Jr., have opened the 2010 summer movie season in grand, highly entertaining style.
Our story begins immediately six months after billionaire playboy/scientific genius Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) had revealed to the world, via press conference, his identity as the metal clad superhero. Stark’s ego in the meantime has not settled into a humble existence due to his newfound purpose by any means. On the contrary, there is not enough space in the world for his seemingly megalomaniacal peacock strut, which is only matched by his rapid-fire cocksure patter. As “Iron Man 2” opens, Stark is jointly involved with two events in the style of the MAJOR proportions that have become his trademark. First, there is the annual Stark Expo convention, presented with requisite fireballs, hot pants wearing dancing girls and Stark/Iron Man is the white hot main attraction. Stark is also the white hot main attraction during a contentious Senate hearing (led by a deliciously nasty Garry Shandling) where Stark models himself a “peace profiteer” who absolutely refuses to turn over his Iron Man suit(s) and all designs and technology pertaining to it to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Certainly, there are eyes watching everywhere including seriously unwanted ones. Rival scientific engineer Justin Hammer (a great Sam Rockwell), obviously channeling his deep jealous envy of Stark into a bizarre emulation of him, continuously attempts to ape Stark’s revolutionary technology for his own gain. More dangerously is the presence of Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), a renegade physicist of bottomless patience and rage. Vanko, upon the death of his Father, plots his revenge against Tony Stark, due to scientific transgressions and possible theft committed toward his Father by Stark’s Father, by creating his own destructive hybrid “Iron Man” suit (known in the comic book series as “Whiplash”). Also, behind the scenes is secret agent Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) who continues his covert attention on Stark’s whereabouts and actions and who is Natalie (Scarlett Johansson) that new, curvaceous assistant in Stark’s company and what are her motives?
Tony Stark also has profound inner demons to confront as his own technology, which allows him to survive, is also inadvertently killing him. Fearing his demise, Stark’s already eccentric behavior becomes erratic thus yielding some positive results (the promotion of Gwyneth Paltrow’s assistant Pepper Potts to C.E.O. of Stark’s company) to negative (staging certain death wish scenarios including an escalating bout with alcoholism-inspired by the comic’s groundbreaking “Demon In A Bottle” storyline from the 1970s). As the inner and outer tensions continue to build, Stark begins to lose grounding with Potts, and his long-frustrated best friend Lt. Col. James “Rhodey” Rhodes (Don Cheadle, taking over for Terrence Howard from the previous installment), leaving the fate of his relationships, company, the world at large and his soul hanging precariously over a potentially grim future.
For my money, Favreau (who also acts in the film as Stark's chauffeur and bodyguard Happy Hogan) has made a film that only improves upon the impressive original film. It not only takes the most successful elements and makes them bigger, sleeker and more polished, it is through his commitment to character and story that carries this film valiantly to the finish line. Maybe this achievement arrived partially through Favreau’s experience as a screenwriter himself (he wrote the 1996 indie film hit “Swingers”), because he understands how successful films are crafted and constructed from the conception stage through celluloid premiere. In many respects, I would say that “Iron Man 2” is a character driven sequel more than a plot driven sequel, although there is a hefty amount of plot to travel through. Unlike Director Sam Raimi’s dangerously bloated “Spider-Man 3” (2007) where even The Sandman, one of the film’s four villains, was superfluous to the point of being unnecessary and inconsequential to the overall plot, Favreau and his screenwriter Justin Theroux firmly tied every plot and character thread together. The omission of one element would have certainly unravelled the entire piece.
I particularly loved Favreau’s loose hand with his actors. Instead of too many summer movies that cram every moment and inch of the frame with visual and sonic details, Favreau allows his scenes to breathe, giving his actors proper space to be in character and play their verbal gymnastics. Again, I must make special note of Theroux’s strong, loquacious and consistently droll and clever screenplay (which I am certain worked in conjunction with some ad-libbing). For audiences accustomed to being pummeled and bludgeoned into a brain melting submission by their summer movies, “Iron Man 2” may feel more than a little chatty, especially during the mid-section. Yes, you will get a lot of bang for your buck with the CGI heavy climax. But when that climax arrives, we care about what happens and to whom because of those dialogue heavy sequences. It is that riveted attention to the characters and their motivations plus the knowledge that special effects should be used as a storytelling tool and not as the basis for the entire film itself, that makes these characters people to become and remain invested in once the explosions begin rocking the movie theater.
To think, Favreau almost lost this job because he wanted to take more time to weave an excellent film than Marvel Entertainment would allow. He remained on board through Marvel’s constraints due to his emotional connection to the source material and desire to ensure quality control for the sake of the audience who greatly embraced the first film. The feverish pace at which this film must have been made seemed to infuse the filmmaking with greater purpose and commitment to getting it right and the results have paid off handsomely as we are given not just a superhero movie, but a romantic comedy, corporate satire and excellent character study as well!
Robert Downey Jr.’s performance is again…ahem…marvelous! It is amazing to me that this man, who was once a person thought to be unimaginable in a role of this sort, has turned this character into something no one else can play. His unpredictable talent and skill plus his physical and verbal agility often makes me think of Downey Jr. as a real world “Bugs Bunny.” He knows all of the angles and he is always three to five steps ahead of everyone in the room, almost daring anyone playing a scene with him to keep up. This particular trait keeps the acting energy electric between all of the cast members and also shows that while he is the film’s star, he is a team player, as he elevates everyone’s game to achieve cinematic gold.
Downey Jr’s subtle ability to expose the various layers of Tony Stark’s emerging soul and conscience continues to impress. Of course, there is the juxtaposition of Stark’s remaining and rampant teenage rebellion (I loved the scenes of him working within his personal laboratory as he listens to The Clash, the kings of anti-establishment rock and roll—it was like viewing a petulant kid in his basement) against his supremely adult responsibilities of owning a massive corporate conglomerate. All of these exploits, plus his heroics, are extensions of his wild narcissism and Downey Jr. seems to be having a blast keeping you guessing in regards to the truth of his motives. Is Stark is truly this much in love with himself or is it simply an act for the entire world stage or a melding of the two? In the film’s emotionally darker sections, you think that he cares more humanely than he lets on and even moreso, he cares, quite possibly, more than he even understands himself. It is, again, a remarkable performance that continues to illustrate that Robert Downey Jr. is a gift to cinema and any filmmaker who is fortunate to utilize his immense and seemingly effortless talents.
*** ½ (three and a half stars)
As the Marvel comic book universe expands its reach into our Cineplexes with a new collection of features films slated to hit our screens over the next several years, I strongly feel that Director Jon Favreau should be given the keys to the Marvel kingdom…or at the very least a hefty raise and bonus. As he was the guiding force behind the fledgling studio’s flagship film “Iron Man” which set the box office on fire and firmly placed Marvel on the movie studio map two years ago, Favreau’s skill and craftsmanship should be greatly celebrated, by Marvel as much as audiences. My high praise continues because Favreau has done it again with “Iron Man 2,” his more emotionally complex, exquisitely wittier, more exciting and almost defiantly story driven sequel. He has not rested upon any creative laurels as he, along with his priceless leading man, Robert Downey Jr., have opened the 2010 summer movie season in grand, highly entertaining style.
Our story begins immediately six months after billionaire playboy/scientific genius Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) had revealed to the world, via press conference, his identity as the metal clad superhero. Stark’s ego in the meantime has not settled into a humble existence due to his newfound purpose by any means. On the contrary, there is not enough space in the world for his seemingly megalomaniacal peacock strut, which is only matched by his rapid-fire cocksure patter. As “Iron Man 2” opens, Stark is jointly involved with two events in the style of the MAJOR proportions that have become his trademark. First, there is the annual Stark Expo convention, presented with requisite fireballs, hot pants wearing dancing girls and Stark/Iron Man is the white hot main attraction. Stark is also the white hot main attraction during a contentious Senate hearing (led by a deliciously nasty Garry Shandling) where Stark models himself a “peace profiteer” who absolutely refuses to turn over his Iron Man suit(s) and all designs and technology pertaining to it to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Certainly, there are eyes watching everywhere including seriously unwanted ones. Rival scientific engineer Justin Hammer (a great Sam Rockwell), obviously channeling his deep jealous envy of Stark into a bizarre emulation of him, continuously attempts to ape Stark’s revolutionary technology for his own gain. More dangerously is the presence of Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), a renegade physicist of bottomless patience and rage. Vanko, upon the death of his Father, plots his revenge against Tony Stark, due to scientific transgressions and possible theft committed toward his Father by Stark’s Father, by creating his own destructive hybrid “Iron Man” suit (known in the comic book series as “Whiplash”). Also, behind the scenes is secret agent Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) who continues his covert attention on Stark’s whereabouts and actions and who is Natalie (Scarlett Johansson) that new, curvaceous assistant in Stark’s company and what are her motives?
Tony Stark also has profound inner demons to confront as his own technology, which allows him to survive, is also inadvertently killing him. Fearing his demise, Stark’s already eccentric behavior becomes erratic thus yielding some positive results (the promotion of Gwyneth Paltrow’s assistant Pepper Potts to C.E.O. of Stark’s company) to negative (staging certain death wish scenarios including an escalating bout with alcoholism-inspired by the comic’s groundbreaking “Demon In A Bottle” storyline from the 1970s). As the inner and outer tensions continue to build, Stark begins to lose grounding with Potts, and his long-frustrated best friend Lt. Col. James “Rhodey” Rhodes (Don Cheadle, taking over for Terrence Howard from the previous installment), leaving the fate of his relationships, company, the world at large and his soul hanging precariously over a potentially grim future.
For my money, Favreau (who also acts in the film as Stark's chauffeur and bodyguard Happy Hogan) has made a film that only improves upon the impressive original film. It not only takes the most successful elements and makes them bigger, sleeker and more polished, it is through his commitment to character and story that carries this film valiantly to the finish line. Maybe this achievement arrived partially through Favreau’s experience as a screenwriter himself (he wrote the 1996 indie film hit “Swingers”), because he understands how successful films are crafted and constructed from the conception stage through celluloid premiere. In many respects, I would say that “Iron Man 2” is a character driven sequel more than a plot driven sequel, although there is a hefty amount of plot to travel through. Unlike Director Sam Raimi’s dangerously bloated “Spider-Man 3” (2007) where even The Sandman, one of the film’s four villains, was superfluous to the point of being unnecessary and inconsequential to the overall plot, Favreau and his screenwriter Justin Theroux firmly tied every plot and character thread together. The omission of one element would have certainly unravelled the entire piece.
I particularly loved Favreau’s loose hand with his actors. Instead of too many summer movies that cram every moment and inch of the frame with visual and sonic details, Favreau allows his scenes to breathe, giving his actors proper space to be in character and play their verbal gymnastics. Again, I must make special note of Theroux’s strong, loquacious and consistently droll and clever screenplay (which I am certain worked in conjunction with some ad-libbing). For audiences accustomed to being pummeled and bludgeoned into a brain melting submission by their summer movies, “Iron Man 2” may feel more than a little chatty, especially during the mid-section. Yes, you will get a lot of bang for your buck with the CGI heavy climax. But when that climax arrives, we care about what happens and to whom because of those dialogue heavy sequences. It is that riveted attention to the characters and their motivations plus the knowledge that special effects should be used as a storytelling tool and not as the basis for the entire film itself, that makes these characters people to become and remain invested in once the explosions begin rocking the movie theater.
To think, Favreau almost lost this job because he wanted to take more time to weave an excellent film than Marvel Entertainment would allow. He remained on board through Marvel’s constraints due to his emotional connection to the source material and desire to ensure quality control for the sake of the audience who greatly embraced the first film. The feverish pace at which this film must have been made seemed to infuse the filmmaking with greater purpose and commitment to getting it right and the results have paid off handsomely as we are given not just a superhero movie, but a romantic comedy, corporate satire and excellent character study as well!
Robert Downey Jr.’s performance is again…ahem…marvelous! It is amazing to me that this man, who was once a person thought to be unimaginable in a role of this sort, has turned this character into something no one else can play. His unpredictable talent and skill plus his physical and verbal agility often makes me think of Downey Jr. as a real world “Bugs Bunny.” He knows all of the angles and he is always three to five steps ahead of everyone in the room, almost daring anyone playing a scene with him to keep up. This particular trait keeps the acting energy electric between all of the cast members and also shows that while he is the film’s star, he is a team player, as he elevates everyone’s game to achieve cinematic gold.
Downey Jr’s subtle ability to expose the various layers of Tony Stark’s emerging soul and conscience continues to impress. Of course, there is the juxtaposition of Stark’s remaining and rampant teenage rebellion (I loved the scenes of him working within his personal laboratory as he listens to The Clash, the kings of anti-establishment rock and roll—it was like viewing a petulant kid in his basement) against his supremely adult responsibilities of owning a massive corporate conglomerate. All of these exploits, plus his heroics, are extensions of his wild narcissism and Downey Jr. seems to be having a blast keeping you guessing in regards to the truth of his motives. Is Stark is truly this much in love with himself or is it simply an act for the entire world stage or a melding of the two? In the film’s emotionally darker sections, you think that he cares more humanely than he lets on and even moreso, he cares, quite possibly, more than he even understands himself. It is, again, a remarkable performance that continues to illustrate that Robert Downey Jr. is a gift to cinema and any filmmaker who is fortunate to utilize his immense and seemingly effortless talents.
Mickey Rourke, in a role that requires him to speak surprisingly little dialogue, is Downey Jr’s reticent equal. His Ivan Vanko is also a character who seems to be three to five steps ahead of everyone in the room as his endgame is crystal clear only to himself which makes him a deadly adversary of supreme intelligence. Always watch his eyes as other characters attempt to relate to him and a sinister world is visible to the audience. Rourke invests a sizable level of humanity through nice details (the love he has for his deceased father, a relationship he shares with a bird, for instance) in this character, extending Vanko far beyond the realm of burly super-villain.
Although Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johansson portray emerging characters whose fullness will be revealed over the course of several new films from Marvel as they continue to roll out subsequent characters to build into their “Avengers” film, they both make lasting impressions. Don Cheadle makes the transition from Terence Howard a seamless one with his eloquent performance that also allows him increased participation into the actions sequences as he dons a metal suit and becomes “War Machine.” And when did Gwyneth Paltrow become so foxy? She also remains Downey Jr’s equal as she continues her shrewd, alluring and crafty performance as Pepper Potts. She has the ability to volley all of Downey Jr.’s verbal asides even when it seems that he is running rings around her. But, when you view her “cat that ate the canary” grin, you realize how much influence she indeed holds over this metal clad ego-maniac.
As terrific as “Iron Man 2” is, is this a game changer like Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” (2008) or as superlative as Raimi’s “Spider-Man 2” (2004)? Not quite, but it is pretty close as it is a forward thinking film that also functions as a throwback to a time when films of this sort concentrated solely on delivering a strong story populated with a collective of equally strong actors as the mind blowing special effects serve as an enhancement of the experience as a whole. Jon Favreau and his terrific band of collaborators know how to sing this cinematic song and they have hit all of the right notes. I’m all set for number 3!!
As with the previous installment, STAY THROUGH THE ENTIRE ENDING CREDITS and view a bonus scene that will foreshadow the arrival of a new Marvel superhero!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)