Valkyrie, available this week on DVD and Blu-Ray is based on actual events concerning a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler at the height of WWII by his own officers. Bryan Singer's film is a fast paced suspenseful thriller that feels like a plot from Mission Impossible. The star studded film keeps the action going and even intriguing even for those that know the history of the failed assassination attempt. However, it's not enough to try to kill Hitler but you also have to plan to take over the government and here is where some of the finer scenes of the film take place in the frenetic chase between the conspirators and the loyal Nazi party members eager to stamp out the traitors. The film does a good job of being clear as to why these particular men wanted to overthrow the Nazi regime and restore Germany's tattered reputation in the world.
The main problem for me is the lack of German accents or language in the film. We are basically seeing the whole internal battle of German soldiers/politicians and their Nazi counterparts all played by mostly British and American actors, led by Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg. Now, a lot of negative feedback has been given about Mr. Cruise's performance and I cannot disagree with a lot of it. He appeared to be a boy surrounded by men and was certainly not the strongest actor of any scene he was in when compared with Kenneth Branaugh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson and Terence Stamp. Ok, he was better than Eddie Izzard, but not by much. He seemed to just be reciting his lines with no connection or feeling behind them and when feeling did come out, it felt forced and rarely could I feel him having clarity about the person he was portraying, who happens to be a German hero. All these fine veteran actors were living out their circumstances meaningfully. I was not impressed by the few lines of German spoken by Mr. Cruise at the opening of the film but then we hear good old English the rest of the way. I mean why bother? There wasn't even any German accents, with the exception of two; David Bamber as Hitler and Thomas Kretschmann as Major Otto van Remer.
Aside, from that, this is a good film that is worth seeing. The writing was crisp and engaging, while Bryan Singer's direction was sure and confident. It's a pity that Tom Cruise could not catapult this film to be great, but then again, that is a rare occurrence. I give Valkyrie 3 out of 5 stars.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Reviewer Conjured Angels and Demons
The somewhat anticipated sequel to The DaVinci Code; Ron Howard's Angels and Demons has arrived and all I can say out of the shoot is...I'm not impressed.
The story based on Dan Brown's best selling novel is actually a prequel to The DaVinci Code but the filmmakers decide to make it a sequel and add a couple of glib references to DaVinci lest we should forget that whole controversial plot.
Tom Hanks reprises his role as Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, who is called upon by the Vatican to uncover a supposed plot by the secret society and Catholic hatin' Illuminati. Apparently, they are back and ready for revenge. The story takes place amidst the death of the Pope and the successor process known as the Conclave. What transpires in the tedious 138 minutes is a whirlwind of Wikipedia references and jaunts into Vatican archives and catacombs in a race against time to stop a killer and to prevent a cataclysmic event. Who else would you call but a symbologist to solve the case? The film like it's predecessor is replete with intrigue, betrayal and pseudo history. However, unlike the DaVinci Code, which the entire Christian world was dead set against, I did not feel this was an anti-Catholic film as many Catholic spokespersons would lead you to believe. Sure there are references about the Catholic Churchs' long history that are not too flattering but I didn't find the overall message to be negative, just fear based.
The film left me feeling flat and bored. The action is manufactured and the acting, uninspired. Tom Hanks looked a lot like he was going through the motions, waiting for the film to end. For a guy who was racing against time, he seemed to forget a lot about how much of a hurry he was in. In acting parlance, this made his activity less meaningful & unimportant which leads us to not care about his success in the end. At times, his acting chops shone brightly, but they were quite few and far between. Ewan McGregor plays Camerlengo Patrick McKenna who is essentially the Pope's assistant. I felt like he wanted to have a strong feeling about what he was saying but it didn't come across that way. Stellan Skarsgard who plays Commander Richter played it close to the vest and with the right amount of authority but little else. Ayelet Zurer plays scientist Vittoria Vetra. She didn't connect with Hanks at all, it was an awkward relationship. However, she actually had a fleeting moment of connection with Ewan. Armin Mueller-Stahl plays Cardinal Strauss with his usual cold, calculating control. Lastly, Nikolaj Lie Kaas is the Assassin and talk about someone with no clarity about his character at all. He had no feeling about the what and why about doing what he was doing. It was quite annoying.
The screenplay by David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman is full of forced historical references to show how smart they are but there is no substance to the words. Ron Howard's direction is fundamentally fine but he gives us a film that ultimately lacks depth or excitement. It's just flat. I did enjoy the Cinematography and really loved seeing the art and sculpture of Vatican City and Rome, especially showcasing Bernini's Ecstasy of St. Teresa.
Overall, Angels and Demons is a contrived, plodding film that has no heart but features a hopeful message. I give the film 2 out of 5 stars and is currently playing at a theater near you.
The story based on Dan Brown's best selling novel is actually a prequel to The DaVinci Code but the filmmakers decide to make it a sequel and add a couple of glib references to DaVinci lest we should forget that whole controversial plot.
Tom Hanks reprises his role as Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, who is called upon by the Vatican to uncover a supposed plot by the secret society and Catholic hatin' Illuminati. Apparently, they are back and ready for revenge. The story takes place amidst the death of the Pope and the successor process known as the Conclave. What transpires in the tedious 138 minutes is a whirlwind of Wikipedia references and jaunts into Vatican archives and catacombs in a race against time to stop a killer and to prevent a cataclysmic event. Who else would you call but a symbologist to solve the case? The film like it's predecessor is replete with intrigue, betrayal and pseudo history. However, unlike the DaVinci Code, which the entire Christian world was dead set against, I did not feel this was an anti-Catholic film as many Catholic spokespersons would lead you to believe. Sure there are references about the Catholic Churchs' long history that are not too flattering but I didn't find the overall message to be negative, just fear based.
The film left me feeling flat and bored. The action is manufactured and the acting, uninspired. Tom Hanks looked a lot like he was going through the motions, waiting for the film to end. For a guy who was racing against time, he seemed to forget a lot about how much of a hurry he was in. In acting parlance, this made his activity less meaningful & unimportant which leads us to not care about his success in the end. At times, his acting chops shone brightly, but they were quite few and far between. Ewan McGregor plays Camerlengo Patrick McKenna who is essentially the Pope's assistant. I felt like he wanted to have a strong feeling about what he was saying but it didn't come across that way. Stellan Skarsgard who plays Commander Richter played it close to the vest and with the right amount of authority but little else. Ayelet Zurer plays scientist Vittoria Vetra. She didn't connect with Hanks at all, it was an awkward relationship. However, she actually had a fleeting moment of connection with Ewan. Armin Mueller-Stahl plays Cardinal Strauss with his usual cold, calculating control. Lastly, Nikolaj Lie Kaas is the Assassin and talk about someone with no clarity about his character at all. He had no feeling about the what and why about doing what he was doing. It was quite annoying.
The screenplay by David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman is full of forced historical references to show how smart they are but there is no substance to the words. Ron Howard's direction is fundamentally fine but he gives us a film that ultimately lacks depth or excitement. It's just flat. I did enjoy the Cinematography and really loved seeing the art and sculpture of Vatican City and Rome, especially showcasing Bernini's Ecstasy of St. Teresa.
Overall, Angels and Demons is a contrived, plodding film that has no heart but features a hopeful message. I give the film 2 out of 5 stars and is currently playing at a theater near you.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Reviewer Goes to Underworld: Rise of the Lycans
Those incorrigible Vampires and Lycans (werewolves) are back for the 3rd installment in the Underworld series, Rise of the Lycans; out this week on DVD and Blu Ray. This time it's a prequel to see what started the war in the first place. Fans of the series will no doubt be pleased with the result, especially if you're an adolescent boy (man if I was 13 I would've rocked this film). This installment is kind of like Romeo and Juliet meets Spartacus. All you need to know of the story is this. In the Dark Ages, the Vampire Coven leader Viktor (Bill Nighy) finds the first human born werewolf hybrid Lycan child, who he called Lucian (Michael Sheen) and raised him as a slave to create more hybrids for labor purposes (I mean, a vampire can’t get his nails dirty building castles now can he) and to serve as protectors of the Vampires from the dreaded pure blood Lycans. Now, Viktor has a rebellious daughter, Sonja (Rhona Mitra) and the 2 fall in love and the star crossed lovers have a clandestine affair and after a piece of nasty business by Victor towards Lucian, she helps slave Lucian escape to dire consequences from dear old daddy. But not before Lucian inspires his fellow slaves to revolt. Meaning, the war is on.
The whole film is pretty anti-climactic because in the first Underworld, the whole origin of the war was explained to us. We are just witnessing what transpired. If you are new to the Underworld series. You could simply start by watching this film and then go back to Underworld. The choice is yours.
Aside from the overly predictability and clichés, the film has a plethora of battle scenes which still feature Matrix like choreography mixed with Lord of the Rings style combat. In a word, it’s unoriginal. The cgi effects of the werewolves are laughable in there simplicity. As for the acting. Michael Sheen and Bill Nighy reprise their roles from the first film as Lucian and Victor. Michael Sheen does a pretty good job again as Lucian. He has clearly gone onto bigger and better things but he took the role seriously and still brought clarity and emotion to the character, especially when it came to whom Sonja and Viktor were to him. Bill Nighy, on the other hand was more over the top than he was in the original and at times becomes silly when he would throw a fit. I also didn’t feel he had any connection to his fellow cast, especially the relationship with his daughter Sonja. Which leads me to Rhona Mitra. She is a strikingly beautiful woman (the Director of Photography must surely have been smitten, judging from all the pretty close ups of her). But, they pretty much tried to make her be a clone of Selene (Kate Beckinsale’s role in the first 2 films) and she did not do a good job. Try as she might, I didn’t believe her relationship with either her father or Lucian and therefore didn’t feel any connection to her at all..
Overall, Director Patrick Tatopoulos gives us a faithful prequel in the Underworld series and considering they made a profit more stories in the Underworld series are likely to follow. I give Underworld: Rise of the Lycans 2 out of 5 stars.
The whole film is pretty anti-climactic because in the first Underworld, the whole origin of the war was explained to us. We are just witnessing what transpired. If you are new to the Underworld series. You could simply start by watching this film and then go back to Underworld. The choice is yours.
Aside from the overly predictability and clichés, the film has a plethora of battle scenes which still feature Matrix like choreography mixed with Lord of the Rings style combat. In a word, it’s unoriginal. The cgi effects of the werewolves are laughable in there simplicity. As for the acting. Michael Sheen and Bill Nighy reprise their roles from the first film as Lucian and Victor. Michael Sheen does a pretty good job again as Lucian. He has clearly gone onto bigger and better things but he took the role seriously and still brought clarity and emotion to the character, especially when it came to whom Sonja and Viktor were to him. Bill Nighy, on the other hand was more over the top than he was in the original and at times becomes silly when he would throw a fit. I also didn’t feel he had any connection to his fellow cast, especially the relationship with his daughter Sonja. Which leads me to Rhona Mitra. She is a strikingly beautiful woman (the Director of Photography must surely have been smitten, judging from all the pretty close ups of her). But, they pretty much tried to make her be a clone of Selene (Kate Beckinsale’s role in the first 2 films) and she did not do a good job. Try as she might, I didn’t believe her relationship with either her father or Lucian and therefore didn’t feel any connection to her at all..
Overall, Director Patrick Tatopoulos gives us a faithful prequel in the Underworld series and considering they made a profit more stories in the Underworld series are likely to follow. I give Underworld: Rise of the Lycans 2 out of 5 stars.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
The Reviewer Beames Up for Star Trek
The eagerly anticipated reboot of the the Star Trek series finally has arrived with (technically the 11th film in the series) the self titled Star Trek by the popular new action/drama wunderkind JJ Abrams at the helm. In full disclosure I need to point out that I have been a huge Star Trek fan (mainly Next Generation) for a long time. When I heard they wanted to give a much needed jump start to the franchise by making a prequel, I was skeptical. I mean, c'mon, do we really need to see a movie of Kirk and Spock Go to Starfleet. But, for all intent and purpose, JJ Abrams has done a pretty good job of making a younger, slicker and action packed Star Trek that introduces us to these beloved characters that have been satirized and joked about for decades.
The film straddles the two worlds of hardcore Trekkies and non Trekkies alike by exploring the origins of the two main characters...James Tiberius Kirk and a half human/half Vulcan named Spock. Unbeknown to them, they share a common bond of family tragedy in their lives. We meet them both as precocious children in their own right. The rebellious Kirk and the ever logical Spock. But, what I liked is they give Spock more freedom of expression than what we would see in the original series and the subsequent first 6 films. Mercifully, we are quickly taken through their days of Star Fleet and how they came to join the Academy. Their paths of getting there were similar in its guise and it is here that we also are introduced to Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy who quickly befriends Kirk. All this while, the evil Captain Nero of the enemy Romulans is wrecking havoc on the galaxy and it is up to our young and inexperienced heroes traveling in the newly christened Enterprise to save the day, which you know they will...it's Star Trek.
Before I get into what is good about the film let me say what I didn't like about it. Aside from the usual predictability and necessary suspension of disbelief. I was not at all interested in the evil Romulan threat, it wasn't interesting enough. And of course, in Star Trek world, when in doubt throw in a time travel plot line. I also felt JJ rushed through the introductions of the characters and giving some of them like McCoy cute dialogue that is representative of how we have come to know these characters in the past. The climax was also quick and clean, without any real suspense. It also seemed that you can go higher in rank pretty easy in Starfleet. I'll get into the acting soon enough. What I liked about the film was the special effects were fantastic, seeing Leonard Nimoy again as Spock. He certainly still remembers the characterization very well. Trekkies will love bringing in Captain Pike but he seemed to be an afterthought once we are settled on to the Enterprise. Finally, I really enjoyed the push/pull relationship between Kirk and Spock. The all important element of chemistry is evident and like all great duo's, without the solid chemistry between them, the film would just fall flat. That was JJ's best handiwork.
As for the acting. First of all, before I get slammed with angry messages, let me just say that Star Trek is not a story that demands stellar acting. However, as an actor, good work is demanded of you at all times to make the story truthful. Chris Pine who portrays the iconic James T Kirk grows on you. He embody's the characteristics we know about Kirk, a horny, rebel who plays by his own rules. But, except for one occasion he made Kirk his own with no trace of William Shatner and I applaud him for that. Zachary Quinto (Sylar from Heroes) brought emotional depth underneath all that logic and I thought he was the best of them all. The great Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead himself) was pretty funny as Scotty and I welcomed his comic relief. As for Karl Urban as McCoy. He was highly irritating. He essentially mimicked DeForest Kelley's work as McCoy and although you hear imitation is the finest form of flattery, it's not in this case. Create your own character. Same goes for Anton Yelchin as Chekov, he just mimicked. Walter Koenig. Some found it cute. I didn't. John Cho did a decent job as Sulu, we certainly see a new side of him. Zoe Saldana as Uhura also decided to create her own character and even though she is essentially filler, she made the most of her scenes. There is an interesting twist to her love life from the original series that's for sure. Finally, Eric Bana as Captain Nero was boring and completely devoid of interest for me. He was indicating badly to the point of annoyance. Great Star Trek villains like Ricardo Montelban as Khan, Christopher Plummer as General Chang and Alice Krige as the Borg Queen all made me feel something about who they are and the reasons why they did what they did. I hope JJ takes note of that in the next one.
Overall, Star Trek is entertaining with all it's faults (there are gaps in the writing). I would rate it the 4th best in the film series. It's not a great film but it exceeded my expectations. As far as prequels go, this was one of the better ones I've seen. Yes, it's is even better than Star Wars Episode 1. However, I would recommend in the sequel that JJ take his time and not rush through sequences and make the villains have more depth. I give Star Trek 3 stars and is out now in a theater near you.
The film straddles the two worlds of hardcore Trekkies and non Trekkies alike by exploring the origins of the two main characters...James Tiberius Kirk and a half human/half Vulcan named Spock. Unbeknown to them, they share a common bond of family tragedy in their lives. We meet them both as precocious children in their own right. The rebellious Kirk and the ever logical Spock. But, what I liked is they give Spock more freedom of expression than what we would see in the original series and the subsequent first 6 films. Mercifully, we are quickly taken through their days of Star Fleet and how they came to join the Academy. Their paths of getting there were similar in its guise and it is here that we also are introduced to Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy who quickly befriends Kirk. All this while, the evil Captain Nero of the enemy Romulans is wrecking havoc on the galaxy and it is up to our young and inexperienced heroes traveling in the newly christened Enterprise to save the day, which you know they will...it's Star Trek.
Before I get into what is good about the film let me say what I didn't like about it. Aside from the usual predictability and necessary suspension of disbelief. I was not at all interested in the evil Romulan threat, it wasn't interesting enough. And of course, in Star Trek world, when in doubt throw in a time travel plot line. I also felt JJ rushed through the introductions of the characters and giving some of them like McCoy cute dialogue that is representative of how we have come to know these characters in the past. The climax was also quick and clean, without any real suspense. It also seemed that you can go higher in rank pretty easy in Starfleet. I'll get into the acting soon enough. What I liked about the film was the special effects were fantastic, seeing Leonard Nimoy again as Spock. He certainly still remembers the characterization very well. Trekkies will love bringing in Captain Pike but he seemed to be an afterthought once we are settled on to the Enterprise. Finally, I really enjoyed the push/pull relationship between Kirk and Spock. The all important element of chemistry is evident and like all great duo's, without the solid chemistry between them, the film would just fall flat. That was JJ's best handiwork.
As for the acting. First of all, before I get slammed with angry messages, let me just say that Star Trek is not a story that demands stellar acting. However, as an actor, good work is demanded of you at all times to make the story truthful. Chris Pine who portrays the iconic James T Kirk grows on you. He embody's the characteristics we know about Kirk, a horny, rebel who plays by his own rules. But, except for one occasion he made Kirk his own with no trace of William Shatner and I applaud him for that. Zachary Quinto (Sylar from Heroes) brought emotional depth underneath all that logic and I thought he was the best of them all. The great Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead himself) was pretty funny as Scotty and I welcomed his comic relief. As for Karl Urban as McCoy. He was highly irritating. He essentially mimicked DeForest Kelley's work as McCoy and although you hear imitation is the finest form of flattery, it's not in this case. Create your own character. Same goes for Anton Yelchin as Chekov, he just mimicked. Walter Koenig. Some found it cute. I didn't. John Cho did a decent job as Sulu, we certainly see a new side of him. Zoe Saldana as Uhura also decided to create her own character and even though she is essentially filler, she made the most of her scenes. There is an interesting twist to her love life from the original series that's for sure. Finally, Eric Bana as Captain Nero was boring and completely devoid of interest for me. He was indicating badly to the point of annoyance. Great Star Trek villains like Ricardo Montelban as Khan, Christopher Plummer as General Chang and Alice Krige as the Borg Queen all made me feel something about who they are and the reasons why they did what they did. I hope JJ takes note of that in the next one.
Overall, Star Trek is entertaining with all it's faults (there are gaps in the writing). I would rate it the 4th best in the film series. It's not a great film but it exceeded my expectations. As far as prequels go, this was one of the better ones I've seen. Yes, it's is even better than Star Wars Episode 1. However, I would recommend in the sequel that JJ take his time and not rush through sequences and make the villains have more depth. I give Star Trek 3 stars and is out now in a theater near you.
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Reviewer is Curious About Benjamin Button
This week, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has come out on DVD and Blu Ray. David Fincher's tale of a man who ages backwards and the adventures and lessons that he learns along the way. Based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald and adapted by Eric Roth (who also wrote Forrest Gump which I'll get to later). Benjamin's story is told through his diary to Daisy (Cate Blanchett), an elderly woman on the verge of death by her daughter Caroline (Julia Ormond). This film looks like a labor of love by Fincher and Brad Pitt who stars as the backwards aging Benjamin. We share Benjamin's life from his birth as an old man, all the way back to his infancy. What we experience is an unconventional love story that is held together by Cate Blanchett's superb work and Brad Pitt's lack thereof. There are other great performances as well by Taraji Henson, Tilda Swinton and briefly, Elias Koteas. But they are not enough to make this a great film.
There are a lot of metaphors incorporated through the film and they all seem to be centered on the affect that time has on all of our lives. I found the prevailing themes of redemption and live life to its fullest as the primary message which could be construed as corny but I found comforting. The ever present refrain of "You never know what's comin for ya." is spoken throughout the film and is a warning to us all. Hurricane Katrina is also a very visceral metaphor in the film and it seems to embody that mantra. Essentially, nothing lasts, but it's choice as a metaphor for this film is...well...curious
A lot of great special effects were used to depict Benjamin from birth until about half way into the film when the real Brad finally shows up. All throughout, Benjamin's voice is narrating to us, sharing his adventures and his simple wisdom for us all. It is because of this that the film has a Forrest Gump like quality and especially Brad's accent and voice inflection is very similar to Tom Hanks who played Gump (I've seen Forest Gump and you Mr. Button are no Forest Gump). Whether it was a conscious or unconscious choice is irrelevant, I personally thought it sounded forced and as we like to say in the acting world, indicated. That is not to say that his acting is bad overall but he seemed to focus too much on his accent and not enough on his the spine of his character. But, to his credit, there are times when he does a decent job of finding the emotional reality of the character, except for a few scenes which his lack of emotion is glaring. The scenes with Julia Ormond staying with Blanchett as she is dying didn't do much for me. I enjoyed Blanchett's elderly characterization but I found Ormond to not have clarity about her character which left me feeling nothing about her relationship and how she really felt about her dying mother. The Cinematography by Claudio Miranda is outstanding. I just love the way the shots were framed and the wonderful use of color. One of my favorite shots is in an elevator with Tilda Swinton...sumptuous.
The film deservedly received 3 Oscars for Art Direction, Visual Effects and of course, Makeup. I agree that it should not have won Best Picture but the film's message of seizing life was beautiful and especially as I am entering a turning point in my life, just passing 40, the point is quite powerful for me. I commend David Fincher, (who is a great director) for creating a modern fable and trying to bring magic back into movies. I just wish there was more magical moments to enjoy. But, I was still entertained overall and I give Benjamin 3 out of 5 stars.
There are a lot of metaphors incorporated through the film and they all seem to be centered on the affect that time has on all of our lives. I found the prevailing themes of redemption and live life to its fullest as the primary message which could be construed as corny but I found comforting. The ever present refrain of "You never know what's comin for ya." is spoken throughout the film and is a warning to us all. Hurricane Katrina is also a very visceral metaphor in the film and it seems to embody that mantra. Essentially, nothing lasts, but it's choice as a metaphor for this film is...well...curious
A lot of great special effects were used to depict Benjamin from birth until about half way into the film when the real Brad finally shows up. All throughout, Benjamin's voice is narrating to us, sharing his adventures and his simple wisdom for us all. It is because of this that the film has a Forrest Gump like quality and especially Brad's accent and voice inflection is very similar to Tom Hanks who played Gump (I've seen Forest Gump and you Mr. Button are no Forest Gump). Whether it was a conscious or unconscious choice is irrelevant, I personally thought it sounded forced and as we like to say in the acting world, indicated. That is not to say that his acting is bad overall but he seemed to focus too much on his accent and not enough on his the spine of his character. But, to his credit, there are times when he does a decent job of finding the emotional reality of the character, except for a few scenes which his lack of emotion is glaring. The scenes with Julia Ormond staying with Blanchett as she is dying didn't do much for me. I enjoyed Blanchett's elderly characterization but I found Ormond to not have clarity about her character which left me feeling nothing about her relationship and how she really felt about her dying mother. The Cinematography by Claudio Miranda is outstanding. I just love the way the shots were framed and the wonderful use of color. One of my favorite shots is in an elevator with Tilda Swinton...sumptuous.
The film deservedly received 3 Oscars for Art Direction, Visual Effects and of course, Makeup. I agree that it should not have won Best Picture but the film's message of seizing life was beautiful and especially as I am entering a turning point in my life, just passing 40, the point is quite powerful for me. I commend David Fincher, (who is a great director) for creating a modern fable and trying to bring magic back into movies. I just wish there was more magical moments to enjoy. But, I was still entertained overall and I give Benjamin 3 out of 5 stars.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Reviewer Meets "Wendy and Lucy"
Wendy and Lucy breaks down to a simple theme of; woman loses dog. However, if that is all there is to it, it would be a bust, but Wendy and Lucy offers some poignant moments as well. We find out it's not just the dog who is lost.
Michelle Williams is Wendy, a woman who is looking to start a brand new life in Alaska, driving across country from Indiana with her beloved dog Lucy. The film opens with Wendy and Lucy playing together in a park where Lucy run off and finds some friendly transients who tell her how wonderful things are in Alaska. We then see Lucy who has a little money sleeping in her car when she is rudely awakened by a security guard and she has to leave the parking lot. Unfortunately, her car won't start. Here is where everything starts falling apart for Lucy. In a stupid act, Wendy, commits shoplifting in a supermarket and an overzealous grocery clerk catches her and calls the police and has her arrested, leaving poor Lucy tied up outside. (It isn't clear why the police would not make arrangements for the dog as well). After, being released with a fine, Wendy goes back to the supermarket to get Lucy and finds she is gone. Now she is really in trouble. Then comes Wendy's attempts to find Lucy and her difficulties intensify. Not to mention, she still has to get her car fixed, which she thinks is just a simple problem. Luckily, Wendy gets help from a samaritan, in the guise of the security guard, (played sweetly by Wally Dalton). After, a harrowing experience in a park, Wendy finds out that Lucy has been found, but that her car is pretty much dead. So, she has to make a choice, will she choose to get Lucy and keep going somehow to Alaska or go back home without her. The time of her decision is a touching scene.
Wendy and Lucy is a simple film that has heart. The spine of the film is loss. Michelle Williams gives an overall good performance but her acting is inconsistent. There are times when I just didn't feel she was desperate to find her dog, even though she was playing the given circumstance of her character. I had to ask myself a few times, how does she feel about that? Other times, she did well and performed with the given emotion that is required. Veteran, Will Patton has a small role as the distracted owner of the auto mechanic shop and he too did a decent job. His character was not too difficult and therefore not much was expected of him I felt. I feel like it was a wasted role overall. Kelly Reichardt wrote and directed and did a good job. The plot points were clear and the theme of loss is quite apparent. I give Wendy and Lucy 3 stars and is currently out on dvd.
Michelle Williams is Wendy, a woman who is looking to start a brand new life in Alaska, driving across country from Indiana with her beloved dog Lucy. The film opens with Wendy and Lucy playing together in a park where Lucy run off and finds some friendly transients who tell her how wonderful things are in Alaska. We then see Lucy who has a little money sleeping in her car when she is rudely awakened by a security guard and she has to leave the parking lot. Unfortunately, her car won't start. Here is where everything starts falling apart for Lucy. In a stupid act, Wendy, commits shoplifting in a supermarket and an overzealous grocery clerk catches her and calls the police and has her arrested, leaving poor Lucy tied up outside. (It isn't clear why the police would not make arrangements for the dog as well). After, being released with a fine, Wendy goes back to the supermarket to get Lucy and finds she is gone. Now she is really in trouble. Then comes Wendy's attempts to find Lucy and her difficulties intensify. Not to mention, she still has to get her car fixed, which she thinks is just a simple problem. Luckily, Wendy gets help from a samaritan, in the guise of the security guard, (played sweetly by Wally Dalton). After, a harrowing experience in a park, Wendy finds out that Lucy has been found, but that her car is pretty much dead. So, she has to make a choice, will she choose to get Lucy and keep going somehow to Alaska or go back home without her. The time of her decision is a touching scene.
Wendy and Lucy is a simple film that has heart. The spine of the film is loss. Michelle Williams gives an overall good performance but her acting is inconsistent. There are times when I just didn't feel she was desperate to find her dog, even though she was playing the given circumstance of her character. I had to ask myself a few times, how does she feel about that? Other times, she did well and performed with the given emotion that is required. Veteran, Will Patton has a small role as the distracted owner of the auto mechanic shop and he too did a decent job. His character was not too difficult and therefore not much was expected of him I felt. I feel like it was a wasted role overall. Kelly Reichardt wrote and directed and did a good job. The plot points were clear and the theme of loss is quite apparent. I give Wendy and Lucy 3 stars and is currently out on dvd.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
The Reviewer Takes on Wolverine
The summer blockbuster movie season is upon us. After months (seemingly years) of endless promotion Wolverine...X Men: Origins, has finally slashed its way onto the big screen. Let me first start out by saying that I have not read any of the Wolverine comics, never was the biggest fan of X Men. But Wolverine is a pretty cool character and so I wanted to see where he came from. We find out where he came from all right, but it is not very clear as to how someone who is born in the 1840's is alive and kicking today. We understand that Wolverine has regenerative powers (only from previous X men films and if you hasn't seen those, you would be lost) but regenerative powers does not longevity make, or so I thought. He has all this longevity and can never die as well, except for cutting his head off. (If you just read that and think he's a vampire, I sympathize but you would be mistaken). I understand, it's a comic book movie and therefore you need more than the usual suspension of disbelief. However, that is a pretty important plot point to clue the audience in I would say. We learn all of this in a good montage in the opening credits where our hero Logan aka Wolverine played by Hugh Jackman (as if you didn't know by now) who's power is having his bones jut out of his hands like knives and his half brother Victor who also has the same longevity and regenerative powers but has claws and acts like a big cat and who's name is Sabretooth ( although they never say it, again you have to have watched the first X Men film for that) played by Liev Schreiber are seen fighting in the American Civil War, World Wars 1 and 2, Korea and Vietnam. The funny thing is, they are Canadian. Setting aside, nationality and historical semantics for a while, we also learn that Victor is a pretty sick cat (pun intended) and that Logan has to constantly remind him to chill. But, as fate would have it, Victor goes too far in Vietnam, which causes both him and Logan to be executed by a firing squad. Surprise, they don't die and are sent to a stockade instead. Enter, Colonel William Stryker (Danny Huston) who recognizes their powers and entices them to join his secret team of mutants to go on missions.
From here, the film becomes fairly predictable. We meet the team of mutants, including Wade, who is the most sarcastic of the bunch (played by Ryan Reynolds, who can't seem to play anything else and note to Ryan it is not cute, it's annoying as hell). They go on a certain mission in Africa which rubs Logan entirely the wrong way and he quits the team. Although, hasn't he learned from other action films, that you just can't quit a military operation without consequences. So, Logan becomes a lumberjack in British Columbia, meets and falls in love with a school teacher when his past comes calling. Obviously he turns it down, but when tragedy strikes, Logan is hell bent on revenge. Victor is back to his old killing tricks and it's up to Logan to take him down. But, Logan needs an edge in killing his older brother, so Stryker convinces Logan to let him experiment on him by injecting an indestructible metal (Adamantium) onto Logan's skeletal structure. Hence, the metallic claws are born. Here, Stryker wants to erase Logan's memories to make him an obedient soldier. Logan overhears this while underwater and decides he wants no part of it. He escapes and the adventure truly begins.
From here, the film descends into predictable Hollywood formulaic action plot twists about Logan being double crossed and going after both Victor and Stryker and meeting other mutants along the way, including a fan favorite...Gambit who for some reason was not in the previous 3 X Men films. They did a good job with the ending, which helps explain why Logan, in the other X Men films, doesn't seem to remember who or what he is. There is a pretty comical sequence with The Blob (Kevin Durand).
Wolverine is a typical action film, so I will not be overly critical of the acting but I give Hugh Jackman a lot of credit. This is his 4th time brandishing Wolverine's claws and he didn't phone it in and still gave a lot of life to his character. Liev Schreiber did a good job as the villanous Victor and Danny Huston was also pretty good as Stryker. They all seemed to understand their characters and lived out their imaginary circumstances fairly well. The writing for the most part was better than the previous X Men films but for some reason the folks who write X Men films, have a terrible time with catchy one liners (see Halle Berry in the first X Men for probably the worst one liner ever). Aside from that, Gavin Hood did a good job with the directing. If you are a big action buff, you will not be disappointed. For me, the Dark Knight is still the new gold standard for comic book films and Wolverine is not in its league and it's not supposed to be and that's alright. Wolverine is a good popcorn film. I give it 2.5 stars.
From here, the film becomes fairly predictable. We meet the team of mutants, including Wade, who is the most sarcastic of the bunch (played by Ryan Reynolds, who can't seem to play anything else and note to Ryan it is not cute, it's annoying as hell). They go on a certain mission in Africa which rubs Logan entirely the wrong way and he quits the team. Although, hasn't he learned from other action films, that you just can't quit a military operation without consequences. So, Logan becomes a lumberjack in British Columbia, meets and falls in love with a school teacher when his past comes calling. Obviously he turns it down, but when tragedy strikes, Logan is hell bent on revenge. Victor is back to his old killing tricks and it's up to Logan to take him down. But, Logan needs an edge in killing his older brother, so Stryker convinces Logan to let him experiment on him by injecting an indestructible metal (Adamantium) onto Logan's skeletal structure. Hence, the metallic claws are born. Here, Stryker wants to erase Logan's memories to make him an obedient soldier. Logan overhears this while underwater and decides he wants no part of it. He escapes and the adventure truly begins.
From here, the film descends into predictable Hollywood formulaic action plot twists about Logan being double crossed and going after both Victor and Stryker and meeting other mutants along the way, including a fan favorite...Gambit who for some reason was not in the previous 3 X Men films. They did a good job with the ending, which helps explain why Logan, in the other X Men films, doesn't seem to remember who or what he is. There is a pretty comical sequence with The Blob (Kevin Durand).
Wolverine is a typical action film, so I will not be overly critical of the acting but I give Hugh Jackman a lot of credit. This is his 4th time brandishing Wolverine's claws and he didn't phone it in and still gave a lot of life to his character. Liev Schreiber did a good job as the villanous Victor and Danny Huston was also pretty good as Stryker. They all seemed to understand their characters and lived out their imaginary circumstances fairly well. The writing for the most part was better than the previous X Men films but for some reason the folks who write X Men films, have a terrible time with catchy one liners (see Halle Berry in the first X Men for probably the worst one liner ever). Aside from that, Gavin Hood did a good job with the directing. If you are a big action buff, you will not be disappointed. For me, the Dark Knight is still the new gold standard for comic book films and Wolverine is not in its league and it's not supposed to be and that's alright. Wolverine is a good popcorn film. I give it 2.5 stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)