Sherlock Holmes
A Sherlock Holmes movie doesn’t really cry out “action-adventure”, even more so than with the stereotypical image of Sherlock Holmes as the calm, collected, steel-nerved thinking machine. Take that and add in that Guy Ritchie is directing (Snatch, RockNRolla, Revolver) and Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man) is starring, there’s the possibility that this movie could simply attach a known name to a film that bares little resemblance to the spirit of the material. It’s to this film’s credit that this portrayal of Doyle’s most famous character gives it new life and calls previous incarnations into question.
There’s an interesting scene near the beginning in which Holmes is seated at a restaurant waiting to meet Watson and his fiancee. As he’s waiting, he notices little details: bit of a conversation, the sound of the silverware, a watch ticking. Soon these details grow and intensify with Holmes struggling to maintain composure. It’s a very interesting theory that Holmes brain is wired differently than other people in that he can’t NOT notice the details we all miss. It works to give Holmes a humanity we can appreciate. Another scene takes Joel Silver’s almost patented slow-motion fight sequence and adds Holmes using his deduction to reason the best moves to see a fight through. It works very well.
For the main plot, Holmes and Watson must discover and attempt to foil the plans of Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong, who played Archy in ‘RockNRolla’), a villain who seems to hold supernatural power. Strong plays him well, making him menacing and giving him real character. Rachel McAdams does a great job portraying Irene Adler, possibly the only woman who has ever bested Holmes and could keep his interest. McAdams doesn’t have as much material to draw upon as other actors do for their characters, and I think that freedom to play comes through in the confidence and charisma of her Adler.
The movie is shot in an industrial England that thankfully doesn’t drown in black, but uses gray and heavy desaturation in the colors. It’s a visual choice I don’t think I’ve ever seen Ritchie work with in his previous films, but one that gives the film a unique identity. This is also true of the music, which uses a lot of smaller orchestrations and string quartets to give definition to the time period.
This was well worth seeing in the theater at least once, and it’s worth a purchase once it’s released to homes. A very good action film with some brains behind it.
Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel
Filed under: Media, One Thumbs Up, Review, Uncategorized
You know what’s really hard to animate? Fur. Think about it. You have all these individual strands of hair that can move independently of each other yet they need to move a certain way to look believable. It takes some skill to be able to control fur on an animated character. There’s also something of a challenge when the characters are less than a foot high and they are constantly dwarfed by regular-sized human beings and objects. If those characters are the star, then a director must constantly be thinking about camera angles and tricks to make sure those characters are the center of attention all the time. It takes a fair amount of creativity to think about types of shots that you wouldn’t normally have to consider.
Why am I talking about computer-generated fur and shot composition? Because that’s what was keeping me interested during this film. Rhythm and Hues did a great job animating all the chipmunks and gave them some great physical personality and amusing scenes (including a nice chase sequence with remote controlled helicopters and motorcycles), but all in all, nothing else in the movie really kept me interested. There is a character, Toby (Zachary Levi) who is the chipmunks’ guardian, that is irresponsible, unfocused, clumsy and an avid video gamer, and I could not even muster any animosity toward the filmmakers because it was such an obvious and tired stereotype (also a bit hypocritical as there will most likely be a videogame tie-in coming out).
If the filmmakers meant for this to be a film that would appeal to all ages, then they didn’t succeed. I had DJ with me when I saw it and he thought it was really funny. So if your a Chipmunks fan or a kid, you will probably enjoy this film better than I did and you’ll probably be buying it for them when it’s released.
The Twilight Saga: New Moon
One of the benefits of writing these reviews without being beholden to a strict deadline is that I can distance the hype surrounding a movie from the movie itself. With the phenomenon that is the Twilight series (excuse me, the Twilight SAGA), waiting this long to see New Moon is highly necessary to attain some level of objectivity. So what happens when you subtract the crazed fangirls, the massive marketing machine and tabloid rumors from this pic?
You get a movie that wasn’t worth seeing in the theater.
The story is told decently enough. Bella and Edward have some semblance of normalcy in their relationship when suddenly he has to leave, driving Bella to depression, reckless acts and Jake, a local Native-American boy
Also, it’s not fair to point out the outlandishness of the vampire/werewolf/love story combination. Fantasy and sci-fi are designed to take feelings and issues and blow them out beyond normal boundaries to see them in a different light. However, one thing I noticed is the movies the characters watch are so far-fetched (a romantic comedy is called “Love Spelled Backwards is ‘Love’” and an action film is called “FacePunch”) that I pondered how cartoonish those movies had to be to make the Twilight world seem believable by comparison.
The direction on this film is an improvement over the last. Although montages are used to denote the passage of time more than once, there were actually done quite creatively. There were some excellent action sequences as well, especially the fights between vampires and between vampires and werewolves. The were very interesting and combined wirework and CG to show a supernatural conflict that was really enjoyable. Having said that, some shots, particularly some on the cliffdiving sequence felt a bit fake. I think even someone who isn’t versed in special effects could find those shots a bit fake in their composition. It would have been nice if care was taken to keep the quality of the effects consistent overall.
The acting was good overall, but I must say the Volturi (the highest authority of vampires) were a too over-the-top and ended up looking more cartoonish-B-movie-villains than creepy vamp-Illuminati. Except for Dakota Fanning. She seemed to get her part just right.
New Moon is a good rental, maybe even a decent purchase, but that’s about it. It’s a decent story and if you watch it at home and avoid the crowd of people getting worked up over Eclipse (Forgive me again, “THE TWILIGHT SAGA: Eclipse”).
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
I don’t really find myself calling movies ‘charming’. It feels like a trite thing to just say about a movie. To me it feels like a word marketers slap on to a movie’s advertising that’s code to parents meaning it’s safe for kids to see. So you will understand my point of view when I think I can truly say that The Fantastic Mr. Fox is a charming movie.
Roald Dahl’s work tends to have a dark edge to is (the more recent Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a good example) which is absent in this story, but it’s also not material one would typically consider a children’s story either. We come across the main character, Mr. Fox, at what looks like the end of his daring adventures, working as a newspaper columnist, settling down buying a better house (tree, actually) for him and his family. But then Mr. Fox gets the urge to pull one last ‘job’ and trying to avoid the wrath of the three big farmers from which he plunders. It touches on the ideas of family, community and being true to who you are. I say touches. It’s far and away from a heavy-handed Disney moral tale, and it’s told with a sophistication that can appeal to all ages, which is no mean feat.
With animals wearing suits and ties, badgers acting as lawyers, and rats acting as security guards I started to think that Wes Anderson probably could have simply turned all the characters human and made this a live action film. However, his films are very visually rich and this serves him well when he turned to animation. Many choices he made point to making this a very warm approachable film, like the choice of using stop-motion animation rather then computer animation. One of the benefits of going this route is that it gives this world very rich textures from the animals fur to the natural wood of the outdoors and furniture. This film was shot digitally and I saw this film in a digital projection theater and those textures really pop and give the world life that is frankly missing from the smooth, sterile, clay-like surfaces of most current CG films. Wes also chose a very nice natural autumn color palette with reds, oranges and browns which make the film vivd without becoming candy-coated bright. Another striking things is the framing of shots that’s very straightforward. Characters are usually framed head-on or facing straight left or right. Action moves in these limited directions as well. I think these simple visual choices help offset the more complicated grown-up issues the story tackles.
The humor in the film is well-done too, emanating more from the characters rather than catchphrase one-liners and gags (although there was a pretty funny running gag of characters saying ‘cuss’ rather then actually swearing.) The role of Mr. Fox is perfectly suited to George Clooney, adept at playing charismatic con men. Jason Schwartzman also plays a role similar to his strengths, the insecure Ash, son of Mr. Fox. These people aren’t doing ‘voices’ as much as they’re doing characters, and while in some instances this could end up looking lazy, here it comes out as natural, letting people play to their strengths. Having said that, I need to mention Willem Dafoe as Rat. He managed to disappear into this deranged character well and was the only voice that surprised me when the credits rolled. The lively dialogue is probably also due to the fact that instead of compartmentalizing everyone into soundbooths and recording each one separately, Anderson had everyone record lines together in various outdoor locations. It give the conversations real rhythm and weight.
This is a film that I highly recommend seeing. Definitely worth seeing it in a theater, especially one with digital projection. It’s also a worth a purchase as a hi-def digital download or Blu-ray (if you’re still into that sort of thing).
Ninja Assassin
Sometimes a ninja assassin movie is just a ninja assassin movie. This is what this movie aspires to be and it does it very well.
This doesn’t mean it’s one-dimensional by any means. While the story is fairly simple, telling of Raizo’s (Rain) training by his clan, his fall from their ranks and the fight for his life, it’s not merely a frame for a set of fight sequences. The filmmakers actually saw fit to tell this story well. While I felt there was a small drag at the beginning to set the plot up (especially after a gripping opening action sequence), the rest of the movie did a very good job of balancing action with plot. It helped give the characters depth that made the ensuing fight scenes that much more impact.
And the action really delivers. A lot of people behind the Matrix movies were involved in making this movie and that expertise shows here. The fight sequences are as engaging as anything you would expect from the producers of the Matrix movies. These are also enhanced by some very interesting digital work. Raizo’s main weapon is a chain whip dagger and using CG to show the deadly path it forges creates some very cool scenes that would have been impossible to make practically. That along with the copious amounts of blood and gore. The carnage, while plentiful, doesn’t feel gratuitous. It serves to show things like the deadly effectiveness of the ninja and the brutal nature of clan training.
Rain, known more as a singer/entertainer in South Korea, does a great job in this movie, bringing not only his physical training to the role, but also some good acting chops showing the pain and discipline this character has gone through. Also performing well in this is Naomie Harris (also known for her role as Tia Dalma in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies) as government agent Mika whose investigations into ninjas get her involved.
This was fun to see in the theater and is definitely worth a purchase once it’s released to the home market. A very good action film that does just what it does and does it very well.
Where The Wild Things Are
Spike Jonze has made the first emo children’s movie.
If I had limited time to give you a summary review of this movie, that would be it. Whenever a movie is made out of a source that doesn’t seem to have enough material to qualify for a half-hour TV special (do they even make those anymore?) let alone a full movie, there is the risk ruining the movie version by adding to the original. It is to Jonze’s credit that the choices he and co-writer Dave Eggers made are not effects-laden filler, but real strides to flesh out the story.
However, this doesn’t add up to a typical ‘kid’ movie. It’s very obvious that Jonze sees this story as a sad one. His Max is lonely, misunderstood and trying to find a place where he can be accepted. Something that a lot of kids and adults can relate to. It goes a long way in creating sympathy for the character by not just being a brat who got sent to his room for bad behavior. The creatures that he comes across when he runs away are just as sad and lonely as he is, and on the verge of dissolving as a family until Max talks his way into making him their king.
The look of this movie is quite different from any recent kid’s movie by a long shot. The natural color palatte of the wild things’ world are a welcome break from the fully saturated rainbow colors of most kid’s films, but it doesn’t make the landscapes any less awe-inspiring. The dark forests and windy deserts manage to have a very otherwordly feel to them, perfectly matching the creatures. I have to admit a bias here, being a long-time fan of anything involving Jim Henson. His Creature Shop created the full-body puppets that stay very true to Sendak’s original illustrations yet fit into the natural landscapes quite well. These are enhanced by using CG to make the monster’s faces talk and emote. The computer work is subtle and seamless and gives these creatures an added believability.
As imaginative as their outward appearance is, their names and voices are very ordinary. Carol? Alexander? Ira? For me, the names weren’t an issue. These are obviously monsters and giving them names like Treepuncher or King Furball would have been too distracting. The voices follow the same logic, as no one is trying to voice a ‘monster character’ as they are just acting out a character, and this works except for James Gandolfini. I couldn’t help being reminded of Tony Soprano whenever he spoke. Gandolfini is a good actor and does Carol justice in this movie, but it might have been better served to have a less distinctive voice fill this role.
In all, I’m glad I saw this movie in the theater. Don’t know if I’d buy it though. Like the movie, it was a very enjoyable ride, but sooner or later you get over being sad and then you need to get back on the boat and go home.
Surrogates
Today’s technology makes it easier for most anyone to hide behind a digital mask. Everything from the personas some project in chat rooms, posts and tweets that say things they might never even whisper in real life to the domination of Photoshop applied to models on magazine covers and MySpace pages that are decried as unattainable, to the stories of singers’ voices being automatically corrected with Autotune.
In this movie a majority of the population lives through their titular surrogates: robots that transmit all sensory input to their controller sitting in a remote control chair in their home. If there was any type of setting that is ripe allegory for our online habits, this is it. The problem is that it doesn’t dive very deep at all. We are to believe that surrogates can look like anything the owner can imagine, but aside from one shot on a subway with one surrogate covered in metallic blue skin sitting next to a female with mohawk of actual spikes the main character’s robots are not much more than idealized versions of the actors with impeccable hair and skin just on the unrealistic side of smooth. Considering at least one character’s emotional and physical scars (Greer’s wife, played by Rosamund Pike) it would seem to me that her surrogate might be a chance to adopt a wildly different appearance in order to distance herself from her past.
While controlling a surrogate, one is not supposed to be able to be harmed. Your surrogate get crushed, burned, or otherwise destroyed, you’re still safe in your chair. Yet someone has found a way to kill people through their surrogates. This idea was something that could really add some unique twists to the usual murder/investigation plot. Yet this too felt a bit pedestrian. When FBI agents Greer (Bruce Willis) and Peters (Rahda Mitchell) relate that this is the first murder to occur in years, they do it with an inexplicable air of nonchalance. It didn’t make this event very significant for me. It might as well have been another body on Law and Order. A story like this should bring characters who aren’t what they seem, so in a setting where anyone can be anything, it doesn’t lend itself to a surprise the audience couldn’t foresee. I blame another part of this on the trailers released for this movie. This is unfortunately one of those instances where the trailer pretty much gives away the ending of the movie. I tried to find a trailer to embed here that didn’t have any of that footage, but all of them have that footage, so I’m not even embedding one in this post. This is probably one of the worst offenses marketing has made on a film’s trailer.
The movie isn’t bad. It’s certainly not unwatchable. The tribe and I were entertained by this movie. Bruce Willis, who has played the investigator role many times before does a great job in the lead. Rosamund Pike did some excellent work in creating distinct performances for when she was controlling her surrogate and when she was herself. Many of the other players in this film could have taken cues from her, as this was one of the few things that really touched on how people behave in public and private.
In the end I’d say this is worth seeing as a matinee once or when it comes out for rent. It might be worth a purchase. But that’s about it. Decent story. Interesting setting. But it leaves you with a sense that a lot more could have been made from the material.
9
9 is the name/number of the main character, a burlap-covered creature who literally comes to life in the beginning of the film who must find his way through a landscape demolished by human war and sparsely populated by other numbered creatures and find a way to defeat the giant robotic machine that seems capable of sucking the soul out of whoever it encounters.
Anyone who saw the ads or posters for this movie might look at the funny-looking creatures on them and guess that this might be a kid’s film while they ignore the bleak backdrops these ragdolls occupy. This reflects the film quite accurately, in fact. This film dives into very heavy concepts: war, death, fear, humanity’s inner drive to create as well as destroy, even drug addiction, all serving as the setting for the adventure of these bizarrely cute little creatures.
The tone of this film is something you would expect from something with that involves Tim Burton (he executive produced) but it doesn’t feel like a film that would get the type of advertising exposure it has received. It’s a very atmospheric film, happy to let characters’ actions speak for them if at all possible. I like the fact that although they used many celebrities to provide voices (Elijah Wood as 9, Jennifer Connelly as 7, Christopher Plummer as 1, Crispin Glover as 6, John C. Reilly as 5), they are all very excellent actors who bring character to their roles and not just fall into the usual convention of ‘big-name actor lends voice to cartoon’.
When I was younger one of the major yearly events for me was when the animation festival would come to the local theater. It was always amazing to see the different styles and designs that animators could conjure onto the screen beyond what was fed to us on Saturday mornings and showed how truly versatile the art of animation was. However in doing so, the art could be raised above the story, which tended to be the most uneven part of the event. True, there was some brilliant pieces that could make me laugh much harder or reflect on concepts much more deeply than any live-action film could, but some films were so caught of in their visuals that the animators lost sight the story. I was reminded of these festivals when I was watching 9. This made even more sense when after doing some research I found that this was based on a short film from 2005 by director Shane Acker, one that most likely made the rounds in similar festivals, that served as the basis for this film (I’ve included the Youtube post of that film in this review). There’s a lot of questions about the characters and the world that both the short film and the feature film leave up in the air. While this works for the short film to keep focus on the main plot, it doesn’t quite work in the feature. There is a lot more room in the feature to expound on why things are the way they are so the audience doesn’t get lost and this room wasn’t used to it’s fullest capacity. A little mystery is good, of course, but I don’t think I had enough information or familiar ground to see why I should care about the creatures and their plight, and in one part of the story the characters’ actions actually made me lose quite a bit of sympathy for them and question why they would act this way in the first place.
This film is really beautiful, with a some imaginative visuals and some good action and distinctive characters, but I would have felt ripped off seeing this at evening price in the theater. It was worth seeing as a matinee and It might be worth the purchase of a download. However, this doesn’t really get beyond more than eye candy for me. It would have been nice to have an equally compelling story to match the visuals.
Gamer
TheJoe, DJ and I saw this Friday at the AMC in the Santa Monica Promenade.
Movies about video games suck. They’re either lackluster and disappointing adaptations of a game or a half-hearted attempt to ‘connect’ to the gaming culture by dropping a few gaming terms that Hollywood hopes will be enough to connect with the gaming crowd yet not be so alien as to confuse the average viewer.
Nothing about Gamer struck me as something that was going to impress me, either. The main plot about an inmate fighting for his life in a violent game against other inmates (It’s MORE than a game! It’s REEEAAAALLL!) has been done in other movies and games before, and the idea that the main character is being controlled in the game by someone else has also been explored before (and seems to be the trendy story hook used in upcoming movies like Surrogates and Avatar).
This is the mindset I had going into this movie. The most exciting thing I was looking forward to was checking out this theater I’d never been in and whether the popcorn was any good.
The story concerns a very dystopian world where the opiate of the masses is in the form of games where real people are willingly placed under direct neural control of a gamer with enough money to make they’re character do whatever they want. This takes the form of two games: “Slayers”, a massive first-person-like shooter where violent inmates use overpowered firearms to survive and make it to through enough matches to win their freedom, and it’s predecessor, “Society”, a very Sims/Second Life-like MMO where lower-class people fortunate enough to be pretty enough earn a living as ‘characters’ that follow the (usually) sexual whims of whatever gamer is in control.
When I got out of this movie I wanted to give it no thumbs up. As I was talking to TheJoe about the movie I talked about how gamers really weren’t put in the best light in this movie. There’s the cocky young gamer who controls are protagonist who talks trash and has a bloated ego from being the top player. There’s the wife of the protagonist working in “Society” that’s really controlled by an overweight male shut-in. There’s the juvenile, nonsensical names characters are given in “Society”. When I was complaining about all this to TheJoe, his response was basically, ‘isn’t that what gamers do right now?’ I realized that I was taking the material too personally. I also realized that this movie was made by people who understand the gaming world and I was giving a lot of thought to the concepts presented by a summer action movie.
This movie was written and directed by the team of Neveldine and Taylor, the same guys behind the Crank movies, which I thought of as movies about a video game character that had yet to be created, never mind the numerous video game references in the movie itself. These are definitely two people that understand the gaming culture (and the internet culture) and have more accurately portrayed it onscreen than anyone has done lately, giving it a future-tech sheen of 360-degree surround sound screens and ‘the-computer-just-translates-my-movement-into-action’ controller schemes. I wasn’t bored by this movie by any means. The story moves along OK, and it goes beyond it’s action movie shell to make statements about control and class. These people indeed DO behave the way gamers and internet surfers behave these days. The act of giving those actions real consequences to real humans tends to expose a mindset that some would consider very ugly. Like I said, I had to step back from this part of the movie. I play a LOT of first-person shooters.
I had no complaints about any of the acting in this film. Gerard Butler delivers as the top Slayer Kable trying to get out of the game and back to his wife (Amber Valletta) and daughter (Brighid Fleming). Michael C. Hall plays Ken Castle, the mastermind behind the technology driving the games and richer than God and Bill Gates. He plays him with a full evil and cockiness he doesn’t get to flex in his role as TV’s Dexter. Ludacris works well as the face and leader of the underground hacker group Humanz. An unexpected cameo is made by Milo Ventimiglia as “Society” character Rick Rape. Despite the name, his turn is actually amusing.
Not everyone is going to ‘get’ this movie. Although many more people play games now than in the past, some people might still get lost in the use of concepts like ping, mods, and memes. For those people this is a one thumbs up movie. For those that game like me, this could very well be a two-thumbs up. I’m glad I saw it in the theater and will definitely download it upon release. It’s one of those few movies that, for me, will actually be different upon repeated viewings.
Video game movies suck. But then comic book movies used to suck too. Then people who understood the culture of comics started making movies that took it as the legitimate art form it is and realized that there were real stories to be told from this medium. I don’t think this is the turning point for game movies, but it is a step in the right direction.
District 9
District 9 at the Mann's Chinese Theater
An interesting campaign for this movie was launched in Los Angeles. On busses, benches and billboards, graphics declared areas as “humans only” with a phone number to call and a website to visit should one spot any alien activity. It was a very simple design that brought one of the issues of the movie to the attention of the passerby. This campaign is an excellent match for the movie, which takes racism and other issues and uses sci-fi to twist to these issues into new perspectives for people to examine. Those people who wished the recent reboot of “Star Trek” had more allegory with its’ action will find plenty to like with this film.
The tribe and I caught this at Mann’s Chinese Theater on the main screen and we enjoyed it very much. It was a very well-done movie with a lot of over-the-top sci-fi action. The big screen really showed off the crisp digital picture (this film was shot on high-end RED cameras) and the excellent digital sound. I was very entertained by this film.
So why only two thumbs up? You really have no idea how close this film was to getting the full three. Really. It’s soooo close.
Neil Blomkamp has spent more of his career as a visual effects artist (Dark Angel, Stargate SG-1, Smallville) and he definitely puts as much of the budget onscreen as he could and it shows. The aliens and the spaceship look amazing and the interaction with humans is very realistic. Great care was taken to blend the CGI with the real world as seamlessly as possible. There is no no doubt of Blomkamp’s skill in this area. He is also the writer and director, though, and for all of his creativity in the visual effects field, the story is very pedestrian. I could see the plot progression coming a mile away. I’m usually able to let myself go along for the ride in a good sci-fi movie and not notice these things but the story was very obvious. However, Blomkamp’s talent as a director really helps make up for this weakness. While the story is nothing new, it is told excellently. I could guess what happens next, but I was certainly not bored waiting for the next thing to happen.
Peter Jackson’s name was hyped the most in the movie’s advertising even though he’s a producer and not a director, which makes sense business-wise, but the influence on this movie is not from the Lord of the Rings fanatic most of the public knows. This movie has more in touch with the guy who splattered his way through “Bad Taste”, “Meet the Feebles”, and “Braindead” (“Dead Alive” in the US) and if you’ve ever wondered what THAT Peter Jackson would do with a bigger budget, this is the answer. One scene in particular paid homage to the grisly opening of “Braindead”, putting the protagonist in an almost identical predicament.
Speaking of protagonists mention must be made of Sharlto Copley who plays the lead role of Wikus van de Merwe. According to my research, he is more of a writer and producer and had no plans or even aspirations to act or have any type of part in front of the camera, PLUS he improvised most of his dialogue. Coming from this background, I have to say he does an amazing job taking an unlikely wimp like Wikus and making him a sympathetic character. Part of this is probably due to the fact that many of the other human characters are very UNsympathetic and out to get Wikus for reasons that I’d rather not venture into spoiler country to explain, but Copley does a good job of making sure we like this guy. If he didn’t want to act before, he’d better learn to start turning down offers.
Maybe it’s the shifting of roles (effects artist-turned-writer/director, producer-turned-actor) or the fact that the story doesn’t take more risks (including setting itself up for an inevitable sequel), but there’s just a small amount that separates this very good film from a great film. It was well worth seeing in the theater, maybe even twice, and it is a solid digital download. If there is more from this story in the future, I really hope they step it up a notch.