Archive for January, 2005

189 – Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

After a series of attacks by giant robots, a spunky reporter teams up with a renegade flyboy to save the world from imminent destruction in this reimagining of the past as future.

Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) thinks she’s on to the story of her life when she insists on tagging along with the heroic Joe (Jude Law) as he tries to figure out who’s behind the giant-robot attacks – and why they’ve kidnapped his loyal sidekick, Dex (Giovanni Ribisi). The trail leads the intrepid duo from land to the sky to the sea and back again, often in Joe’s amazing fighter plane.

The story is told in the tradition of 1940′s-era serials, complete with an evil mastermind, cliffhangers (and plenty of them), whiz-bang effects, and a paper-thin script. People die, although there’s no blood shed. In fact, since this is a PG-rated film, much of the violence takes place offscreen.

The movie plays heavily on the futuristic fears of the past. Perhaps you can remember reading The War of the Worlds for the first time, or even hearing Orson Welles’ production of it in 1938. Comics at the time – and even into the fifties – spoke of robots and alien encounters on a purely sci-fi basis; now they belong more in the realm of reality. Science-fiction movies of yesteryear preyed on the fear of the unknown. Since everyday people were less inclined to be as technologically as they are today, science could be portrayed as the root of all evils – or the solution to them. Back then, one could easily imagine a fleet of flying robots, or an amphibious airplane, or a rocketship of doom.

Jude Law is aces as Joe, the Sky Captain of the title. Joe is fearless, shrewd, daring, smart, and charming – everything one would expect to see in a hero in an oldtime movie serial. If there’s a solution, the audience knows somehow Joe will find it. Indiana Jones, remember, was cast in the same basic mold, and I think the characterization holds up today – unlike so much else from the old serials. Kudos are also due to Angelina Jolie, an RAF commander and former colleague/flame of Joe. Jolie has limited screen time (about twenty minutes or so), but she certainly makes the most of it. Hers was probably the strongest performance of the cast; compelling, vibrant, and dominating. She looked right for the role, too, complete with black eye patch to mask her exquisite looks.

To balance out the fantastic work turned in by Law and Jolie, Paltrow phones in an absolutely horrid performance that wasn’t helped at all by a poor script. But see, good actresses should be able to overcome bad scripts, at least to some degree. Paltrow’s Polly started out smart and appealing, but that facade was quickly lifted, and she became a snippy, annoying, selfish witch. (This is a family-oriented review, so I’ll refrain from strong language.) It’s important to understand that the scripts and plots of oldtime serials weren’t exactly Annie Hall, but somehow Law and Jolie were able to rise above their transparent lines and give commanding performances. Paltrow looked way out of her league; I was openly rooting for her to die. That’s hardly ever good for a leading lady, you’d think. But alas and alack, since this is patterned after oldtime serials, that sort of ending was never very likely.

The overall writing is actually quite good, at least in terms of the plot. Watch Indiana Jones, for example, and you’ll notice the plot whisks you along without your having to stop and consider what might happen next. Sky Captain does this as well, travelling from exotic locale to exotic locale, from set piece to set piece without a pause. That’s the good feature of the writing. The bad is that all in all, the characterizations aren’t very deep; they’re simple characters for a simple time. You know, to put it simply. (Polly utters a “goddamn!” at one point, but is too ashamed later to say “naked.” Weird.)

But beyond the acting and the writing, the one aspect that overshadows all in its gosh-darn, gee-whiz-bang awe are the special effects. The entire movie was shot against a blue screen; everything except the main characters was computer generated. That’s pretty amazing, really; the computerized scenery blends so seamlessly with the actors (for the most part) that one easily forgets their origin. Paltrow’s performance at times made my brain hiccup a little, as it tried to reconcile her actions with the background. The actors had some idea of what they were supposed to be doing, but essentially they acted in front of a blue screen, and then they were digitally added to the existing footage. Since the movie wasn’t shot on a set, exactly, there’s a scene at the beginning that made me hesitate a little: Polly is trying to take a picture of the invading robots, and she drops her camera (of course). As she tries to rescue it from a drain, she doesn’t seem particularly afraid of the hundreds-of-feet-tall rampaging robots. This is just poor acting on the part of Paltrow.

Well cast, and somewhat well written, Sky Captain is an homage to and revival of those old wild-eyed sci-fi classics, the ones that made you gaze in wonderment toward the skies and to the future.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow: ***

, , , , ,

1 Comment

188 – I, Robot

Forget the title. Those of you who recognize its relevance would be severely disappointed to see few elements of Isaac Asimov’s stories in this movie, and those of you who don’t recognize the relevance will find a plethora of other problems to kvetch about.

The year is 2035, and robots are everywhere. They’re intelligent, sentient beings, kind of, and can perform quite an array of tasks. They’ve become so commonplace that their morality are never in question, thanks to the Three Rules of Robots, which prevent a robot from causing harm to humans.

Not everyone’s drinking the robot kool-aid, though. Detective Del Spooner (Will Smith), who hates robots with a passion, is assigned to a case in which a preeminent robotics scientist (James Cromwell) appeared to have jumped through a window many, many stories up, splattering himself all over the lobby of his office building. Grimacing and muttering all the while, Spooner sets out to investigate what seems like a suicide. But our intrepid hero – as well as 99.9999% of the viewing audience – thinks something else is afoot.

(Which reminds me. In movies such as this, look at what the lead character does and says when we first meet him. Rarely are lines said for the sake of natural feel; they all Mean Something to the plot, however small.)

The beauty of megabad movies is that they offer so much fodder for humor. For example, nearly every character is a caricature, from the tough-love police lieutenant (Chi McBride, typecast) to the cute- intellectual female scientist to Spooner’s wise and doting grandmother. The makers of this crap could have just used cardboard cutouts with the stereotype written on them in permanent marker.

As Spooner unearths more evidence and more people become convinced he’s losing his mind, the audience is relegated to counting the cliches and the cereal-box writing. I swear, if I hear Smith say, “Oh HELL no!” in one more movie, I’m gonna upchuck my Milk Duds. His wisecracks are neither wise nor cracky. At one point, his lieutenant kicks him off the force, asking him for his badge. And just his badge – he’s allowed to keep his gun. Good thing, because he needed it for the rest of the movie, as it turned out.

The plot is nonsensical if one looks at it too closely. Guy dies. Cop blames a robot. Everyone else blames guy and laughs at the cop, who has a history of violence against robots. Who’s right? Who cares, anyway? It’s all a soulless, turgid mountain jibberish. There’s not an honest or original thought in the movie. You’ll be several jumps ahead of the criminially stupid Spooner. In real life, Spooner would have been gutted by his fellow humans; he wouldn’t be able to make a dopey analytical statement and then follow it with a high-larious side-splitting witticism without being drawn and quartered. Or so one would hope.

The only saving grace is the effects. 2035 (not too far from now, kiddies!) looks like a pretty cool place to be, much more so than most futures look on the silver screen. There’s no postapocalyptic nightmare. No maurauding bands of hellions looking for water, or dry land, or both. Everything looks gee-whiz-bang; in the middle of them is Spooner as anachronism, complete with Converse sneakers, a stereo that works by remote and not verbal commands, and manual driving. You know, rather than letting those bad ol’ robots drive.

But see, this is old news. Go watch Demolition Man (1993). Instead of Bridget Moynahan in this one, you’d get Sandra Bullock. And instead of Will Smith, you’d get real action stars, like Sly Stallone and Wesley Snipes. And it’s more fun, because it never takes itself too seriously. This movie does, even though it’s far more style than substance. The underlying problem here is that director Alex Proyas and writers Jeff Vintar and Akiva Goldsman chose to use 2004 sensibilities and behavior in a movie set in 2035.

I, Robot is a bottomless pit of dung. There, I said it. This movie is like graffitti in the otherwise-respectable wall of Will Smith’s career. But what I, Robot teaches us, boys and girls, is that Will Smith is not so much an actor as a Movie Star. He’s resplendent in all of his Smithisms; all that’s missing is a white guy to whom Smith can impart sage advice.

I, Robot: *1/2

, , , , , ,

No Comments

187 – Silver City

While fishing during a political commercial during his campaign for governor, candidate Dickie Pilager (Chris Cooper) hooks a dead body. Pilager’s manager, Chuck Raven (Richard Dreyfuss) hires Danny O’Brien to investigate, thinking an old enemy of Pilager is trying to sabotage the campaign. O’Brien soon finds out that the gig isn’t as easy as it looks, and soon he has more questions than suspects.

Director John Sayles’ jab at George Walker Bush and his political campaign comes off as lightweight fluff, particularly because Sayles’ scripts are usually so poignant and barbed. This one seems so defanged, it feels as if it originally aired as a made-for-television movie. At first, the viewer thinks he’s in for a treat of thinly veiled references to political glad-handing, the spoils system, and other double-dealings. But sadly, it’s just not meant to be. Sayles’ story is nothing more than a who-killed-so-and-so movie with politics as a (somewhat distant) background.

The movie’s biggest flaw, though, is in the casting of the lead role, O’Brien. Sayles chose Danny Huston, son of John, grandson of Walter, and half-brother of Anjelica. Huston has all of 18 credits on the Internet Movie Database, most of them minor roles. His lack of experience is sorely evident here; his character is at times annoying, charming, eager, and jaded. It’s as if Huston couldn’t quite decide how his character was supposed to react from scene to scene. As a result – and especially since he’s working for the proverbial bad guys from the beginning – the audience isn’t really sure whether they should be rooting for him or not. A sure bad omen for a film is a lead character about him the audience is at best ambivalent.

Another debit is the sheer quantity of characters; there are so many recognizable actors who have small roles that you tend to forget who they were the next time they appeared onscreen. In addition to Dreyfuss (who has a few scenes, and chews them up), Michael Murphy, Mary Kay Place, Daryl Hannah, James Gammon, Tim Roth, Miguel Ferrer, and Kris Kristofferson pop on and offscreen like hiccups. In a way, Silver City is more reminiscent of a Robert Altman movie than a John Sayles movie, except for the shorter running time.

I was never drawn into the mystery of the dead body, or the political machinations, or even the human aspect (Pilager is portrayed as dumb as a post), so for me the movie failed to deliver. Silver City was a real disappointment to me; in this day of skewering politicians, and considering Sayles’ usual crisp writing, it falls fall short of the mark. Impeach it.

Silver City: **

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

186 – Garden State

Garden State is a sweet, sometimes somber tale of Andrew (Zach Braff), a struggling actor who returns to his childhood home in New Jersey to attend the funeral of his mother. Andrew is numb to everything, least of all his mother’s death, owing in no small part to the constant stream of medication he’s been on most of his life. While at home, he hooks up with some old friends, including Mark (Peter Sarsgaard), and finds a new friend, Sam (Natalie Portman).

Andrew’s struggle to find himself, to find out where he is, where he’s going, and how to deal with what may come, is at the nexus of the story; his mother’s funeral is simply a gateway to strong introspection. At 26 years old, Andrew is past the point in his life where he can count on the future to solve his problems – he has to decide in the here and now how he will handle the problems he’ll encounter.

A major catalyst in Andrew’s journey is Sam, a young lady who appears to have at least as many psychological problems as Andrew does. Can Andrew depend on Sam to be his rock of sanity? Or is she more unstable and therefore unreliable?

This is also a movie about relationships: Andrew’s with Sam, Andrew’s with Mark and other old friends, and Andrew’s with his dad (Ian Holm). For each of his relationships, Andrew must decide to some degree whether he wishes to remain a reactor or to become a actor.

There’s also unfinished business between Andrew and his father, especially regarding Andrew’s mother. He has not been home since being sent to boarding school nine years prior, and understandably communication between the two has been rather strained for many years. The death of Andrew’s mother serves as an impetus for them to find a way to reconcile.

The film has generated a lot of praise among critics, and it was nominated for a Grand Jury prize at the 2004 Sundance festival. In my opinion, the hype matches the product. Garden State is understated and powerful at the same time, a very tough trick to pull off for anyone, least of all a rookie director; Braff wrote and directed the movie as well as starred in it, and all accolades are well deserved. His Andrew is archetypal for the prodigal son, as well as for the young adult who hasn’t yet grown up.

Sarsgaard is aces as the dreaming and scheming, hedonistic Mark. And you have to admire someone who refuses to take money – even as a loan – instead opting for somewhat-illegal means. But through and through, he’s a strong friend to Andrew.

Portman still looks too young for grownup roles, even though she’s now 23 years old. Still, despite her small stature, she ably pulls off what’s really a complex role in Sam. Portman manages somehow to look adorable and serious at the same time; if one squints, one can see the sincerity behind her eyes.

Clever, complex, and utterly charming, Garden State is a real treat, thanks to a tight script and spot-on performances. The excellent soundtrack, produced by Braff, is icing.

Garden State: ***1/2

, , , ,

2 Comments

185 – Shaun of the Dead

If you see only one zombie romantic comedy, this should be it. It’s a perfect complent to (or substitute for, depending on your outlook) 28 Days Later or Dawn of the Dead, the two most recent zombie movies.

Shaun (Simon Pegg) is a salesman at a small electronics store. He lives with flatmates Ed (Nick Frost) and Pete (Peter Serafinowicz) and hangs out with his girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield) at the local pub, the Winchester. Shaun’s life is pretty stagnant at this point. He’s 28 but directionless. Liz notices this problem and tells him to take a hike after Shaun bungles the reserving of a table for dinner. Dazed, Shaun gets drunk at the Winchester with Ed. It’s not until after a few days of their bender that Shaun and Ed notice the walking dead.

The zombies are more or less a metaphor for Shaun’s life to that point; that he’s just drifting from experience to experience without actually making anything of himself. He likes Ed, but he can’t rely on him as a friend (Ed is also jobless); no one else in his social circle can stand Ed. Liz’s flatmates don’t like Shaun too much, because they think he neglects her. But Shaun isn’t dislikable, he’s just not all that.. there.

The arrival of the living dead – their genesis is never explained, but it’s moot – gives Shaun a chance to show he’s not some senseless slacker who’d rather play video games or hang around in a pub. And it’s at this point that the movie mirrors the earlier, more-serious zombie films, as he and his friends try to escape the clutches of the zombies.

Shaun’s personality doesn’t change drastically, however; it’s not as if he’s suddenly transformed into Indiana Jones. He makes mistakes, but one thing is certain – Shaun. He appears full of life and confidence, inspiring his followers to .. well, to follow.

Going from the promos, one would think this was full of nonstop laughs. Now, there were plenty of moments when I did laugh out loud, but a lot of the movie – especially the final 30 minutes or so – is fairly serious. Lighter than your usual run-of-the-mill living-dead movie, but not a hilarious film full of wacky hijinks. In some respect, that may have hurt the movie a little – people crack jokes when it seems more drama would be in order. And some of the characters are pretty darn unlikeable, and that never helps unless they’re definitely the bad guys.

Shaun of the Dead: ***

, , ,

No Comments