Directed by: Zack Snyder3.21.2009
Watchmen
Directed by: Zack Snyder3.16.2009
One Week
Directed by: Michael McGowan I can still hear the Sam Roberts song that has become synonymous with this film, a road movie love letter to Canada (with a disregard for the East Coast--every bit as beautiful but apparently not in line with this film's direction). It's a classic marriage of movie and music that becomes a defining memory of each medium.
Not since Goin' Down the Road has a film been driven to be more "Canadian" in its unabashed depiction of Canadian travel and imagery. This is opposed to the more typical disguising of Canadian landmarks in Canadian films trying to appear American, or to an even greater extent, American films shooting in Canada that try to disguise Canadian cities, while neglecting the huge Sam the Record Man spinning records lights in the background.) Indeed, One Week picks up exactly where Garth and Gord and Fiona and Alice left off in Toronto, taking Joshua Jackson's character on a cross road adventure as far west as he can go in Canada.
The premise is universal and philosophical. What would you do if you were told you had one week to live? In true Canadian fashion, the film takes a low key approach to the lead character's response, as he reexamines his life. Narration by Campbell Scott elevates the film, as he is the Canadian equivalent of Morgan Freeman, a voice like no other. His comedic reading coupled with Jackson's subtle acting generate a lot of non-verbal emotion, tension, and revelation.
Though the film takes a few shortcuts towards its conclusion, the old adage, "less is more" applies in this instance. Oftentimes, Canadians film come up short due to budget constraints or the like, but this film's abruptness works, as it leaves the viewer with more to think about, more to contemplate should we find ourselves in the lead character's shoes. It begs us to take less for granted, and to get out and see this great, big, beautiful country of ours. Not a perfect film by any means, but a satisfying slice of Canadiana that is best seen in theatres, if not in real life.
Grade: B+
3.15.2009
Let the Right One In
Directed by: Tomas Alfredson Spooky, enthralling, and everything a young teenage vampire romance should be. Let the Right One In does for the vampire genre what Ginger Snaps did for the werewolf film. Playing the premise very real, on a shoestring budget, gives the supernatural element of the genre an immediacy and rawness that makes a believer out of anyone. Focusing on the character of the vampire, and what it would mean for someone bitten at youth, the film situates the story in a realistic setting, filled with real teenage problems. In fact, this is more a film about bullying and fitting in, that just so happens to have a vampire character.
The two young leads are irrepressible in their ability to compel us to watch and root for them. Despite its darkness, the film yearns to be uplifting, even with its stunning, disturbing conclusion that is open to interpretation and mixed emotions. As all vampire films are about love, eroticism, and carnal behaviour, by positioning this one within the age where youth is discovering and uncomfortable with it all, allows for some interesting, unexplored territory.
Thought provoking, suspenseful, and eerily paced, Let the Right One In is a refreshing take on a genre that has had its fair share of attention and become somewhat tired and overblown. Instead, this treatment is like a "Year One" take, more akin to classic Vampire lore and film, than modern goth lite vampire chic. Definitely a film that will stick in your mind.
Grade: A-
3.14.2009
Hotel for Dogs
Directed by:Thor Freudenthal Not as syrupy and silly as i thought it would be, Hotel for Dogs is actually a lost art. A live action family film that doesn't pander to its young audience, yet remains entertaining and uplifting. Cheadle adds a nice dramatic presence to the film and supplies some of the bigger laughs. The young leads are likeable, and the dogs don't become too cute or too much of a focus, hence distraction. The story remains front and center and some of the inventive designs of the titular hotel conjures up Pee Wee Herman or Wallace and Grommit. Still, i can't grade the film much higher, as it delivers on expectations, while offering few, if any surprises. A decent rental for families with young children.
Grade: C+
2.08.2009
Coraline
Directed by: Henry Selick Selick has done it again, crafting an animated film that is equally entertaining for adults, children, and art school film buffs. When a project based on the youth novel by Neil Gaiman is taken on by someone as equally skilled at disturbing yet accessible work, one can breathe a sigh of relief. However, the expectations become huge, and the chance of disappointment quickly emerges. Yet, after seeing Coraline, in 3-D no less, that sigh quickly becomes an exasperated awe.
True to the tone of Gaiman's work, Coraline looks every bit as stunning as it reads. Though a little hesitant to bring my young daughter to see it, i was hoping it wouldn't provoke the nightmares the way Inkheart has (for both myself and my daughter). On the opposite end, i was hoping the movie version wouldn't kiddie down the darkness underlying Gaiman's tome of childhood disappointment. Thankfully, the movie delights all ages, with mesmerizing set pieces that tickle the tiny eyes in the audience, while tantalizing the adult brain that attempts to wrap their head around the stunning animation. The brisk third act seems to happen so fast with such fabulous art work that it begs to be immediately watched once again.
The voice casting is good, and the musical numbers exquisite. It was a delight to hear They Might Be Giants, for both young and old, while the images set to the score brought the entire film to fantastic heights. Groundbreakingly designed, with a nod to classic 2-D animation beauty, Coraline will definitely find a place in my Blu-Ray collection. I'm just not sure who will want to watch it more, me or my daughter?
Grade: A
2.01.2009
Inkheart
Directed by: Iain Softley Perfectly cast, yet so disturbingly wrong. Straight out of the pages of the deeply involving series of children's books, Inkheart begs to be translated to film, yet makes such a feat very difficult due to the elements that make the book such an interesting read.
First off, Inkheart is a reader's read. A book for book lovers. The allusions the author makes to classic children's literature give much pleasure to a well read book enthusiast. Unfortunately, this doesn't make for good movie making. Instead, the talent involved in Inkheart, the movie, would have done well by referencing classic children's films, in lieu of the classic novels quoted in the text. Apart from the tornado sequence that evokes The Wizard of Oz, there isn't a lot of clever winks and nods happening.
Rather, it feels more like Fraser can't escape his Mummy series casting, as he plays reluctant hero to a series of computer generated FX, which is a shame, because he is well cast as Mo, the "Silvertongue" that reads books to life. Serkis makes a great villain and Bennett is wonderful in the lead role of Mo's daughter, a very plucky and tough heroine to nail down, and part of the reason why the book works so well. Bettany is smart casting for Dustfinger, as he can play both sides of the fence with equal skill and clever dialogue delivery. The coup de grace is the casting of recent Oscar winner Mirren, who can slip into the skin of ornery Elinor with much delight.
Yet, despite all the spot-on casting, none of the performances materialize, as each actor is boiled down to bare characteristics, with just enough screen time to barely string along the narrative. Suspense is limited, and key strengths of the book (effortless shifts in narrative perspective, balancing elements of old and new settings and surroundings, slow reveal of character, motive, and history) fall by the wayside. Had the adaptation been given the care, love and attention as The Lord of the Rings trilogy or the Harry Potter films, Inkheart would have been a real triumph and the birth of a new trilogy based on a child's classic. Instead, we are left wishing for something more.
Grade: D
1.05.2009
Ghost Town
Directed by: David Koepp12.31.2008
The Best and Worst Films of 2008
8. Once
7. Shoot 'em Up
5. Iron Man
3. WALL-EHonourable mentions: The Darjeeling Limited, Balls of Fury, American Gangster, Horton Hears a Who, No Country for Old Men, Madagascar 2: Escape to Africa, Gone Baby Gone, I Am Legend, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, The Incredible Hulk, The X-Files: I Want to Believe, Journey to the Center of the Earth and Bolt (both in 3-D). All worth renting.
And now, the 5 Worst movies of 2008 are...
4. Wanted
1. Across the UniverseThis is everything the other worst films are and then some. Full of promise, like Indy and Wanted, this film's imagination and style is more than enough reason to enjoy it. Visually splendid and choreographed, it confirms the director, Julie Taymor, as a unique artist that paints with celluloid. Sadly, even the finest artist can do wrong when asked to paint with the materials of classic artists such as the Beatles. Normally, it would be a dream job to be handed the musical library of pop gods and given free reign to weave their magic with a cinematic lens. I mean, how can you screw up the fab four's timeless melodies? A chihuahua movie is screwed from the beginning. A Beatles film is almost impossible to screw up. But indeed, Taymor does everything in her power to desecrate and destroy all the power and pleasure found in the Beatles' catalogue. From weepy renditions of peppy tunes sung through whiney voices of good looking but bad singing actors to tripped out remixes of songs that need not be touched, ruined by honest to goodness rock stars (apparently Bono can perform acts that border on human rights violations), Across the Universe doesn't exactly fail on it's individual parts (though some moments are horrific). Rather, it's the sum of the parts, the overall arc of the film, that leaves us wanting for something more, something better, something more worthy of the film's soundtrack. Despite some good artistic flourishes and some decent renditions (Martin Luther and Dana Fuch's songs create new and bold stylistic impressions), as a whole, Across the Universe leaves a sour taste in our mouths and an infection in our ears. I wouldn't mind seeing this film again, with the volume turned down and the original versions blasting through my stereo. Now that would be something worth seeing and hearing, rather than the nauseating effect this film had on me, not unlike my eyes feasting on candy while my ears are slowly bleeding from an aural assault of sinful proportions. A visual feast, but an audio attrocity.
Dishonourable mentions: P.S. I Love You, Jumper, Igor, The Tale of Despereaux
12.28.2008
The Tale of Despereaux
Directed by: Sam Fell and Robert StevenhagenStarring: Matthew Broderick, Dustin Hoffman, Emma Watson, Tracey Ullman, Kevin Kline, William H. Macy, Stanley Tucci, Robbie Coltrane, Richard Jenkins
Running Time: 1h 40min
Grade: C-
12.25.2008
Hamlet 2
X-Files: I Want to Believe
Directed by: Chris Carter12.16.2008
Bolt
11.16.2008
Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa
Directed by: Eric Darnell, Tom McGrathStarring: Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, David Schwimmer, Jada Pinkett Smith, Sacha Baron Cohen, Cedric the Entertainer, Andy Richter, Bernie Mac, Alec Baldwin, Will i Am
Running Time: 1h 29min
Grade: A-
10.13.2008
Beverly Hills Chihuahua
Directed by: Raja GosnellStarring: Drew Barrymore, Piper Perabo, Andy Garcia, George Lopez, Cheech Marin, Paul Rodriguez, Plácido Domingo, Edward James Olmos, Loretta Devine, Jamie Lee Curtis, Luis Guzmán
Running Time: 1h 31min
Grade: D-
9.28.2008
Igor
Directed by: Anthony Leondis8.14.2008
Tropic Thunder
Directed by: Ben Stiller7.25.2008
The Dark Knight
Directed by: Christopher NolanStarring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Monique Curnen, Cillian Murphy, Eric Roberts, Anthony Michael Hall
Running Time: 2h 32min
The Dark Knight gets everything right. From top to bottom, it is cinematic bliss, comic book eye candy that thrills, chills, and promises to make a Batman lover out of you! Structured and tailored like a crime movie, yet thematically rich in the sense of the original comic books, Nolan has delivered what could very well be the untopable film of the franchise.
Slightly attached to its predecessor, Batman Begins, but very much its own film, The Dark Knight dives right into the action and never lets the audience look back. Free from the unnecessary need of retelling origins, the script is very tight and well layered, to please fans of the character, and fans of thought provoking films. The war allegories are apparent, and nicely thread into the myths surrounding Batman and his conflicting status as hero or vigilante, crime fighter or crime agitator.
Utilizing the Joker and Harvey Dent/Two-Face as the main protagonists enables the aforementioned theme of good and evil, justice and anarchy, to be fully played out throughout the cast. Casting two fine actors like Ledger and Eckhart only adds to the phenomenal cast from the first film, (Oldman, Caine, Freeman), who surprisingly get a lot more screen time and more fully fleshed characters. Oldman is especially amazing as the most down to earth, everyman hero in the film, Gordon, who is heroic in his family ideals and lieutenant role. Caine nails the wisdom and sauciness that is Bruce Wayne's butler, Alfred, and Freeman does great work, almost like Q from the Bond films, in his disapproving manner of Wayne's way with toys and gadgetry. Another big plus is the casting of Gyllenhaal in place of Katie Holmes from the previous film, as she is much more convincing as a love interest/legal eagle than Holmes could ever hope to be.
Still, the film belongs to Ledger and Eckhart, who embody their premier rogues gallery villains to a tee. Eckhart has enough charisma and menace to form the dual personality of Two-Face, while Ledger turns in a career performance, crafting a Joker that is unlike any psychotic we've seen on film. His mannerisms, tics, and vocal styling are unnerving and frightening, yet he still manages to find the sick humour and fearlessness that makes the Joker so enjoyably dangerous. Just when you think he's down, he gets back up, and his unpredictable nature is what makes him such a match for the Bat.
Now all this and nary a mention of the dark knight himself, which was cause for alarm as the first run of films fell into the trap of the ever decreasing Bat part. However, Nolan knows to keep the Batman at the center of it all, developing him as he rethinks his reason for existence, and keeps his intelligence featured as his greatest weapon. Sure, all the toys he has make for an amazing amount of stunts and chases (the batmobile/motorcycle is a wicked machine) but his cunning and puzzle solving remain key, just as they are in the comic books.
The beauty of the film is that it packs a powerful amount of visual excitement, while staying true to the essence of the characters. It comes across as a well crafted film, that just happens to be about a guy in a bat suit. There's plot twists and surprises, great lines and tense moments, and gorgeous camera work, but underneath it all is a brilliant script that has comic book elements, but plays like a psychological thriller, in the vein of Nolan's already great resume of films. Though it seems to run long, there isn't a moment that isn't worth the wait. Prepare to be blown away, because pop culture icons have never been this good on film.
Grade: A+
Journey to the Center of the Earth
Directed by: Eric BrevigStarring: Brendan Fraser, Josh Hutcherson, Anita Briem, Seth Meyers, Kaniehtiio Horn
Running Time: 1h 32min
Brendan Fraser must be crowned the new king of goofy fun, if he hasn't been crowned already. He established himself as a dashing leading man, with a little Harrison Ford wink, in the the Mummy series (which he returns to this month) and can't help but be liked in this similar B-movie effects film, Journey to the Center of the Earth. Note, this film is available in 3-D, a trend which is being revived as of late.
Based on the Jules Verne novel, but cleverly not an outright adaptation of the text, the movie begins with Fraser's scientist character agreeing to have his deceased brother's son come visit for awhile, just as his laboratory is being shut down due to minimal results coming out of his seismic activity research. Thankfully, the film doesn't bog us down in too much back story, or too much scientific hoo-ha, and just lets it rip right into the journey at the center of the film.
Soon the uncle nephew team find themselves in Iceland with a young guide that they both claim "dibs" on. This silliness continues throughout the film, and it's a good thing that it doesn't take itself too seriously. The three discover the same hole in the earth that Fraser's brother must have a decade ago, and chaos ensues. The imagery from Verne's book is used as a guide and the audience is treated to mutated life form after another, all in eye popping grand visual effects. Unfortunately, the theatre i saw this in did not have 3-D capabilities, but the shot selection made it pretty apparent what glasses wearing audiences would be in for. And it's a whole lot of fun.
Sure, the movie is a throwback to another era of film making. This could very well have been made in the late fifties/early sixties and you wouldn't know it from the script. But the modern effects and stunts make it an enjoyable ride, as it briskly moves from scene to scene, and the three leads are neither too irritating nor too interesting to make you care either way. They mostly get out of the way or react fervently to the wild surroundings. Pure cheese, and a tasty one at that, Journey to the Center of the Earth is worth the time, as long as you check your brain at the door and dive right in.
Grade: B7.01.2008
WALL-E
Directed by: Andrew Stanton Pixar has become synonymous with excellence, so one comes to expect nothing less when it comes to their first foray into space, with the futuristic tale of WALL-E. Rather different in tone than typical Pixar fare, WALL-E starts out almost in a silent film style, with the small titular robot cleaning up an uninhabited Earth. Sight gags pepper the start while we are fed a brief explanation for what has happened to our planet, and the human race. These are quickly done through old video footage and contain some clever and funny comments about our society, as all good science fiction pieces do.
What amazes me the most about Pixar's films is how they realistically and stunningly recreate new worlds with each successive film. The animation is incredible, in the way that Finding Nemo captured the colours of the ocean, and A Bug's Life looked as lush as the green scenery it was set in. Pixar's animators have made a spectacular depiction of outer space, while remaining true to realistic properties of robotic development as we know it today. They sure do dream at Pixar, but they are always conscious of realism and context.
WALL-E is a prototypical Disney lead. Cute, fumbling, and prone to mischief, the tiny robot spends his days on Earth alone, save for a cockroach companion, and has gathered an extensive collection of oddities from his garbage collecting/sorting. His robot functions allow for only so much original behaviour, and once he meets the sleek, Mac inspired sex tech of a robot, EVE, he is in love at first byte (sorry, couldn't resist). This unlikely relationship drives WALL-E to new heights, and the film begins to whiz along at an incredible rate, packing in a lot of robot mishaps and shenanigans that are classic comedy routines, lovingly played out in a new forum.
Tonally, the movie is a little darker than you'd expect, but the slapstick and childlike behaviour of WALL-E nicely keeps the film on target for the younger audience. A little bit Johnny 5, and a little bit the lovestruck Buster Keaton, WALL-E is set in the future but feels like a film from the past. Building on themes and scenes we've seen before, the animation takes us places we haven't been, and crafts a tale of caution, romance, friendship and fun. Though not as entertaining or enjoyable as recent fare like Kung Fu Panda, or previous Pixar achievements like Ratatouille or Monsters, Inc., WALL-E can proudly sit upon the same shelf of high standards that Pixar continues to aspire to.
Grade: A-
6.29.2008
Wanted
Directed by: Timur BekmambetovStarring: James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman, Angelina Jolie, Terence Stamp
Running Time: 1h 50min
Sold on the body of Jolie, and the style of The Matrix, Wanted offers little more than what you see in the overplayed trailers and TV commercials. Big on style and low on substance, this adaptation of a comic book series has a lot going for it, but fails to deliver, and is found wanting.
Snazzy special effects and hip, anti-corporate cool can only be sustained by a decent script, and are not sufficient enough on their own to make a good film. Trying too hard to be Fight Club meets The Matrix, in its use of narration and bullet time slow-mo, the movie comes off as an impostor of a good film. Wanted is the celluloid equivalent of Coke Zero. Bold, new packaging, claiming to be of equal taste, but when you get to it, it really doesn't measure up to the real thing it's claiming to be. Wanted tries so hard to craft a clever premise to go along with its dynamic special effects, however, it is too in love with itself that the story gets buried in the overuse of time altering slow motion effects.
Though Jolie and Freeman do their best to keep this thing afloat, they just can't give any dramatic power or substantial weight, when the film's lead McAvoy comes across as a little boy man who stumbled off the O.C. and into a sci-fi film. His face is one only a mother could love, and makes you wonder how it could co-exist in the same universe as Jolie's trim and sexy body, put into sexually suggestive positions straight out of a teenage boy's video game playing fantasy.
It happens all the time, but all the good bits are in the trailer. Jolie's fifteen or twenty odd screen minutes are the key to the advertising campaign, and those wicked shots are all that's worth watching in this film. Once you get the gist of the FX, they become tedious and boring, as there's nothing to back them up. The film tries so hard to be cool, so hard to be hip, that it's easy to dismiss it as anything but. Certainly, there's a lot to be interested in from this film, as there is some genuine excitement and eye candy. Perhaps a short film would have sufficed, because once it's over, it sure seems like overkill.
Grade: C+
The Incredible Hulk
Directed by: Louis LeterrierStarring: Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth, William Hurt, Tim Blake Nelson
Running Time: 1h 54min
Revisiting a superhero franchise that had a false, yet interesting starting attempt in Ang Lee's The Hulk, it comes as a surprise that the big green monster would get another go around so soon. And, not being much of a fan of the character in the first place, i was pleasantly surprised with what was accomplished with The Incredible Hulk this time around.
Edward Norton has given us plenty of film work to suggest that he has a knack for selecting smart, thought provoking films. So, seeing him star as perhaps the dumbest character in comic books, whose claim to fame is the one liner, "Hulk Smash!", seemed like a serious mismatch. Thankfully, Norton does the smashing here, hammering out a winning performance and a clever script (Norton apparently had some say in the film's direction), resulting in a much more balanced film, that is realistically approached and rendered.
The idea of the Hulk, a mild mannered man whose rage causes him to lose control and hulk out, as it were, is a very interesting concept. However, i never cared for the comics that waited for that moment for Bruce Banner to turn green and wreak havoc and destruction. i did enjoy a storyline that had the "grey" Hulk remain highly intelligent whilst in the rage of the Hulk, and Norton's take on the green machine is more closely in tune with the Hulk that has his wits about him, even in the moment of rage.
Playing the character as an afflicted, intelligent man, desperately trying to control and solve his rage issues makes him much more relatable. Norton takes a long time before succumbing to the rage that gives him a super strength makeover, and the result of that wait and the emotional impact surrounding it plays out nicely. The fact that he seems somewhat aware of his actions and cleverly strategizes his movements pays off in a true sense realism and tragedy that the character needs.
As with other recent super hero success stories, the supporting cast is every bit as important as the lead, and this film's stars don't disappoint. Hurt is good as an old army man with a dark past, and Roth goes over the top with much fun and flavour to give the film a little bit of that comic book cartoonery. Tyler gets very little to work with, and spends much of her time screaming and looking on in horror, but she looks good doing it. You could have told me her part was played by Jennifer Connelly and i wouldn't have noticed.
For such a limited character who really only has one story to tell, this film does a great job nailing it. There really isn't any other direction to go with this beast who poses a threat to all the people he loves, and hopefully there isn't a sequel. That being said, this is an excellent installment in the Marvel series of films, and Norton and company should be proud of their ability to pull off what a talented director like Lee had some difficulty doing half a decade ago.
Grade: B+
6.15.2008
Jumper
Directed by: Doug LimanStarring: Hayden Christensen, Samuel L. Jackson, Diane Lane, Jamie Bell, Rachel Bilson, Michael Rooker
Running Time: 1h 28min
Jumper deserves to be much better than what this 88 minutes of wooden acting and flish flash mumble jumbo turns out to be. An intriguing power such as teleportation begs for a much more interesting script, and considering the script comes from the hands of the adaptor of Fight Club, which got the novel so right, one would expect a well developed, character driven, multi-layered approach to how a young teen would handle discovering he has this unbelievable power to transport himself anywhere on the planet.
Add to this, the fact that Jumper comes from the guy who brought us Swingers, The Bourne Identity franchise, and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, one would think this film would have a great balance of humour, action, and intense scenes. Perhaps the answer as to why this film fails so miserably is in the fact that there are two more listed screenwriters (one of which is responsible for Blade and the recent Batman revival), which is rarely a good sign.
Jumper starts off as a teen romance narrated by a snotty jerk. Which immediately makes the lead character unlikable. When it turns out that the lead character is played by Hayden Christensen, a low rate Ryan Phillippe, (who is approaching the 14th minute of his own 15 minutes of fame), it makes him all the more unlikeable. Eventually, an altercation straight out of the Tony Atlas sand kicking school of bullying, causes our hero to discover his powers. Yet unlike most superhero films, where the newly discovered powers are tested out amongst the hero's surroundings, we flash forward to a time where the lead is an even bigger jerk, and sadly, still loves his high school sweetie, who has grown up to be less interesting and less beautiful than she was, making the film even less believable, from a character standpoint.
Quickly, we learn that there are a group of hunters who seek out the jumpers and kill them in the name of God (an age old reason if there ever was one). Their leader is none other than Samuel L. Jackson, who could have used a little more Jules to his sinister Jumper hunter, and perhaps some hair dye for that ridiculous white hairdo of his. He looks like Chris Tucker's character from The Fifth Element after he reaches his fifties. Perhaps a little kookier swagger would have made his role more interesting. He tries to be a little Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive, to no avail.
What makes Jumper so disappointing is that there's a real interesting premise here that just gets no time to develop in its 88 minutes. It's like the film itself "jumped" through it's good parts. The effects used to portray the teleportation work well; not too flashy but not too simple. Still, we have seen it done well in The Matrix sequel and with Nightcrawler in X-Men. What is nicely established are "rules" for "jumping", which shows the thought that goes into this sci-fi kind of concept.
With word that there is a Jumper 2 in the works, it bodes well for a film franchise that has set the groundwork for future. Unfortunately, that foundation is as shaky as Japanese fault lines. There is so much promise that is not fulfilled in this first film. Hopefully in the sequel, the lead characters get killed and we're introduced to a greater battle between Jumpers and Jumper hunters, that uses a little more mystery and stealth and a lot less hokey love line plot threads. This film should be able to be summarized in a good three minutes at the start of Jumper 2, so avoid it now at all costs.
Grade: C-
6.08.2008
Kung Fu Panda
Directed by: Mark Osborne and John StevensonStarring: Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, Ian McShane, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, Lucy Liu, David Cross, Randall Duk Kim, James Hong, Dan Fogler, Michael Clarke Duncan
Running Time: 1h 32min
The best animated feature since Ratatouille, Kung Fu Panda is original, exciting, funny and wonderfully animated, and deserves to sit amongst some of the best animated films of our time. This is high praise, and deservedly so, coming from a lover of animated kids' fare, and kung fu film fighting. Going in with high expectations, i was thrilled to leave having all those expectations met, and then some.
What made Ratatouille so good is also what makes Kung Fu Panda stand out from the pack. It is its own film. It isn't trying to spoof on other films, it isn't delving in pop culture references, and it's not succumbing to the tired old family film pattern. It's establishing new characters that aren't derivatives of older ones, excepting for the fact that it is sticking true to the Kung Fu film stock characters, with much respect to the genre. This film isn't poking fun at Kung Fu films, it is faithfully having some fun within the genre.
The story line is typical, in that a young panda named Po, unhappy with his plight in life, dreams of something bigger. He gets the chance and makes the most of it in a startling way that teaches us that "there are no accidents". He is bestowed with the title of Dragon Warrior and must fulfill his destiny. The storyline is very faithful to Kung Fu legends, and unfolds at an excellent pace for adults and kids. All the elements that make a great Kung Fu film are in place, as well as what makes for a great animated adventure. The melding of the two genres is marvelously mastered, as though the perfect combination of the two have joined forces in an unbeatable yin-yang harmony. By bridging the best of both film worlds, Kung Fu Panda has elevated both genres to new heights.
The voice work is well cast and superbly suited for the film. Black's voice is easier to take without his typical insanity, as it's easier to watch him do his shtick as a lovable panda, and not a middle aged man. The Furious Five all make the most of their screen time, which can be expected from the talented bunch that they are. But the real great voice work comes from Hoffman, channelling his inner David Carradine as the mentor Shifu, and Kim as the wise old turtle Oogway. Their exchanges really ground the film's Kung Fu angle, and allow the silliness to float around the Chinese wisdom that gives the film its gravity.
Much of the levity comes from the panda and his attempts at action. The animated fighting that ensues is fine martial arts, quite literally, as the animated format allows the audience to experience Kung Fu in a way like never before. The moves are straight out of a chop socky fight fest, but the angles are purely animated impossibility, making it quite awesome to behold. The tag line couldn't be more accurate: Prepare for Awesomeness!
Grade: A
6.01.2008
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Directed by: Steven SpielbergStarring: Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen, Shia LaBeouf, Ray Winstone, John Hurt, Jim Broadbent
Running Time: 2h 04min
i fell asleep watching this, so as i get more of my memory of the movie back, i'll write more. As for now, it was a disappointment that couldn't keep me awake.
Grade: B-
Iron Man
Directed by: Jon FavreauStarring: Robert Downey Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow
Running Time: 2h 06min
Perfect casting has made a new slew of superhero films great beyond belief. A well cast role can give a film its pop, its flow, its rhythm. In Iron Man, Robert Downey Jr. is all this and more, as billionaire Tony Stark. He throws himself into the character, inhabiting all the facets that the role demands.
Iron Man has always been Marvel Comics' answer to DC's Batman. Like Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark is a rich playboy without mutant superpowers derived from a freak accident, (albeit with a gazillion dollars--much better than any chemical spill or radioactive spider bite). Unlike Wayne, Stark has a little less moral value, gaining vast wealth through the selling of weapons of mass destruction. When he is on business in the war zone, his own source of wealth almost costs him his life, and he is forced to construct a suit of armour that would put King Arthur to shame.
What ensues is a quick paced origin story that doesn't feel like a nostalgic retelling but rather an organic exploration and development of the natural life of Tony Stark. Downey's presence instantly makes Stark a complex character, and equally enjoyable both in, and out of the armour. His dialogue exchanges with supporting players Bridges, Paltrow and Howard are as exciting and exhilarating as the flight scenes, a testament to the Oscar worthy cast as much as it is to the directorial talents of Favreau, no stranger to slick dialogue himself.
The effects work to serve the story, but it is the actors that steal the show, perhaps more due to Favreau's strengths behind the camera. The film plows ahead with the speed of Downey's quick delivery, and doesn't let up. It has a drive equal to Stark's mechanical minded genius, and turns what is essentially a B-list superhero into one of the better superhero installments we've seen. Here's to an equally enticing sequel!
Grade: B+
5.17.2008
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
What Happens in Vegas
P.S. I Love You
Directed by: Richard LaGraveneseStarring: Hilary Swank, Gerard Butler, Lisa Kudrow, Gina Gershon, Kathy Bates, Harry Connick Jr., Jeffrey Dean Morgan
Running Time: 2h 6min
Creepy beyond belief, the words P.S. I Love You take on a whole new, ominous meaning in this film about a young woman whose deceased husband haunts her from the grave. Honestly, that's not the intention. In fact, the husband's messages delivered posthumously are intended to be romantic love letters from a thoughtful (really thoughtful, really, really thoughtful) and caring lover. Only, the film does a poor job establishing the relationship between Swank and Butler, which make these afterlife exchanges seem more like sadistic controlling behaviour rather than sweet eternal love.
If you can get over this aspect (i couldn't), then you may enjoy the humour and heartbreak that this film manages to balance equally. I have to commend the director, LaGravenese, for his ability to explore middle aged women in a complete and honest fashion. Swank's character comes off a little less interesting than Holly Hunter in one of my favourite films from LaGravenese, Living Out Loud. Indeed, it is LaGravenese's past success (he also wrote The Fisher King, another favourite of mine) which makes this film a bit of a disappointment.
LaGravenese's scripts have a genuine sense of humanity. His dialogue is very honest (see Harry Connick Jr.'s role) and realistic, and covers the gamut of emotions that we feel throughout each and every day of our lives. He situates his characters in real life moments that are drastically stressful and follows them through on those journeys. It is in these moments that we connect to his films and characters, and this film is no exception. There is some superb acting here, especially from the supporting cast. Bates is a standout, and frankly, the supporting players put the leads to shame.
This is where it all falls down. Neither of the leads is exceptionally likeable, and it makes it hard for us to care where they are headed. Both are funny at times, but not sympathetic. Swank comes off as whinny and self centered, and even when she has a right to be that way, it still resonates with annoyance. Butler's character is too inconsistent, being all things at all times. Perhaps this was intentional, as we often remember people the way we wanted them to be, rather than how they truly were. However, it makes his letters seem borderline psychotic, and as Swank dwells in their past instead of facing her future, she seems prone to bouts of insanity.
Maybe I'm being too harsh and unsympathetic to the enormity of the movie's premise. I did enjoy the flow of the film, but felt it was too uneven and dreamt up at times to recommend. There are some humorous bits, and on its own, the film is worth a rental. Yet, in relation to his previous efforts, P.S. I Love You is nothing but a post script to a more endearing film resume.
Grade: C+












