Archive for January, 2006
242 – King Kong (2005)
Posted by frothy in King Kong (2005) on January 30, 2006
King Kong is a colossal spectacle. Marquees of the day would label epics as stupendous, amazing, fantastic, incredible, and so on, and this remake of the 1933 original fits the bill perfectly. Unlike its ’33 counterpart, though, it’s quite long, clocking in at a mere 187 minutes, but it almost never feels like it, thanks to a relentless barrage of heart-pounding action and heart-stopping suspense. Oh, and romance.
The story is your typical girl-meets-giant-ape, giant-ape-tries-to-eat-girl, girl-performs-a-soft-shoe, ape-falls-in-love-with-ape tale, except there’s also dinosaurs and giant insects and primitive native tribes that would put the headhunters from Gilligan’s Island to shame. Carl Denham (Jack Black, looking quite a bit like Orson Welles), a down-on-his-luck movie director, charts a ship to take him to a distant island: Skull Island. On this mysterious island, Denham plans to shoot his new picture with his leading lady Ann Darrow (the exquisite Naomi Watts) and he-man action star Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler); also along for the ride is playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), who’s busily writing the script to Denham’s movie – on the way to the location, naturally.
The movie can be divided into three unequal parts: the voyage to the island (and the prefatory material contained therein), the travails on the island, and the Broadway showing of Kong, back in New York. Much of the movie focuses on the first two parts, especially the time on the island, and this is time well spent. SEE! the natives kidnap Ann and attempt to sacrifice her to Kong! SEE! our heroes attempt to rescue Ann and defeat Kong! SEE! Kong fight not one, not two, but THREE, yes, THREE big ol’ dinosaurs!
Remember how dinosaurs were depicted in old TV shows like Land of the Lost, or in old movies like The Lost Continent? Now, we can look back at those and marvel at how far we’ve come – just look at the dinos in Jurassic Park for comparison. But the creatures in King Kong put those in JP to shame, because of the excellent attention to detail and full articulation. No mere man in a monkey suit is Kong, no sir.
Despite having to work against a blue screen – or air – the blood-and-guts actors of King Kong pull more than their share of the load. Watts is wonderful, her expressive eyes revealing much and little simultaneously. Brody is her equal as the determined scribe, a devil who falls for the lovely Miss Darrow instantly (despite her mistaking someone else for him, poor girl). Both actors have earned their accolades. Black is perfectly hammy as the loquacious, megalomaniacal Denham, who, for all his faults, is of indomitable spirit and verve.
There are indeed plenty of scary scenes in King Kong, so the little ones probably should stay at home – or watch it with you when the movie is available on home video, so you can skip some of the more intense parts. Still, it’s only violence, and we all love our cartoony violence, don’t we?
King Kong: ****
241 – The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
Posted by frothy in Chronicles of Narnia on January 30, 2006
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is a magnificent movie, a paradoxically quick epic that doesn’t rely on the viewers’ being familiar with the source material. It’s about four young London siblings who are sent away from home after the Blitz to live with relatives in the country, and who stumble upon an amazing new world entered through the back of an old closet.
Anyone who’s read C. S. Lewis’s books will instantly fall for the elegant way this story is told, from the gorgeous scenery to the wide-eyed innocence and brilliant performances of its mostly young cast. Often with a group of young actors, there’s little to distinguish one novice thespian from another, no quirks in personality other than the most rudimentary. But Narnia’s Lucy, Susan, Edmund, and Peter are each their own person; and what’s more, each grows in his and her own way throughout the movie, however subtly.
Tilda Swinton is riveting as the evil White Witch, dancing a mighty thin line between hammy and calculating. I believe her screen gravitas alone gave encouragement to the young foursome, headed by Georgie Henley as Lucy, the waif who first stumbles upon the then-frozen land of Narnia. But as I said, each of the Pevensie kids distinguishes themselves in the film, no small task when the indomitable Ms. Swinton is aboard.
The movie would be little more than a live-action cartoon, though, if not for the fantastic, realistic CGI used for the animals, particularly that of the enigmatic lion Aslan, voiced by the great Liam Neeson. Not to be outdone, Ray Winstone’s Mr. Beaver was a true Cockney treat. All of the graphics, though, were quite believable with nary a moment’s hesitation. Well done, indeed. The Chronicles of Narnia should garner a Academy Award nomination for visual effects or set design, I would think.
The movie is fairly rated PG for some frightening moments, but it’s nothing your kids can’t handle (probably). If you’ve read the books, you know there’s one particular scene that might be a tad upsetting to the juniors, but rest assured all will be aright one way or another in the end.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe: ***
240 – Wedding Crashers
Posted by frothy in Wedding Crashers on January 24, 2006
Wedding Crashers, about two guys who invite themselves to weddings to hook up with women, is crude, filthy raunch. I loved it! There's nothing more beautiful and romantic than taking the maid of honor to bed during the reception. But I digress.
Thanks in no small part to the excellent on-screen chemistry of Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, the movie is a few notches above typical lowest-common-denominator fare. Oh, let’s be honest – Pride and Prejudice, this ain’t. But in its own idiom, Wedding Crashers is just plain good laugh out loud comedy.
So this is what John (Wilson) and Jeremy (Vaughn) do. They get into their nice suits and crash weddings AND receptions. They cozy up to the hot guests, make balloon animals, dance, flirt, and eventually wind up with someone. And the next day or weekend, they do it again. Then one day John falls for his mark, Claire (Rachel McAdams), the daughter of the Treasury Secretary (Christopher Walken). Oops; in violation of all of their rules of wedding crashing, the boys spend the weekend with the secretary and his upper-crust family. Claire’s engaged to be engaged to Sack, who’s thoroughly obnoxious and creepy. You know, just in case you thought she’d have to really choose between him and John, who’s, well, Owen Wilson.
Also thrown into the mix are Claire’s younger sister Gloria, who has the hots for Jeremy – and who may or may not be a virgin; her brother Todd, a bitter, repressed artist; her mom, played by the usually prim Jane Seymour, who has the hots for Jeremy, too; a gramma, and a wise and all knowing butler. It’s madcap mayhem, I tell you!
Often, this type of chaotic, door-slamming comedy doesn't work in American films, but Wlson and Vaughn are talented enough to pull it off. And it helps that the movie is well written (by Steve Faber and Bob Fisher), with plenty of one liners and running gags.
Sure, it’s a tad predictable (gee, do you think true love will win?), but who cares? It's loads of fun, with some fantastically hysterical scenes.
Wedding Crashers: ***
239 – Match Point
Posted by frothy in Match Point on January 18, 2006
Match Point is Woody Allen’s latest offering. The director of such gems as Manhattan, Annie Hall, Zelig, Bullets over Broadway, and Hannah and Her Sisters has been the king of the American art-house film for decades. Sometimes his movies are poignant, and sometimes they’re slapstick hilarity. This offal, however, never even hints at Allen’s writing or directing abilities; indeed, it may as well have been directed by John Badham for all of the flavor and panache it expresses.
Even though the movie’s appeared on many must-see lists as people gear up for the Oscar nominations, Match Point is a travesty of a sham of a mockery of an entertaining film. It’s a longwinded load of dung. Nearly every scene is deadeningly dull, and the few that aren’t are instead serve as perfect cliches.
Jonathan Rhys-Meyers plays Chris, a tennis pro who falls for Chloe, the daughter of a rich British family (the movie’s set in London), played by Emily Mortimer. Chris’ best pal is Tom (Matthew Goode), Chloe’s sister. Rounding out the main quartet is American actress Nola (Scarlett Johansson), who’s engaged to Tom. Wouldn’t you know it, seconds after meeting Nola – after already being partnered with Chloe – Chris falls for the flaxen-haired lass, who’s strong-willed and outspoken where her British counterparts are a little more complacent.
Can Chris keep his lust a secret from Tom and Chloe? And what of the parents, the richer-than-rich Eleanor (Penelope Wilton) and Alec (Brian Cox)? They dote on Chris, showering him with money and gifts and a job. How could Chris give all of that up to be with Nola?
Several things work against the movie aside from the faceless direction and writing. For one thing, Chris is utterly unappealing. A protagonist certainly does not need to be likeable, but there must be something about him or her that makes the audience want to see what happens to him or her. The appalling acting by Rhys-Meyers doesn’t help matters at all; he’s lifeless, utterly devoid of emotion. He can’t even seem to conjure enough strength to show a good facial expression. He’s a blank, a cipher no one wants to learn more about. Allen didn’t write the character well at all, to make matters worse. It’s a little too easy to figure out Chris’ intentions, but his motivations are sometimes a mystery. And for goodness’ sake, someone give this boy a spine transplant! How can a lead character be so terminally wishy washy?
Of the supporting cast, only Johansson and Cox emerge unscathed. Cox is a veteran actor and could probably have played this role in his sleep, and Johansson is a rising star, capable of fantastic range. She was given very little to work with (her character doesn’t really possess any unique traits), and it showed.
The pacing is mind numbing. I cannot tell you how many times I checked my watch to see how much time remained in the movie. It’s plodding and aimless, certain to bore even the most rabid Merchant-Ivory fan, even though those masters had nothing to do with this one. Instead, we’re given the vagrant stepchild of a true master American filmmaker. Allen would have been much better off removing his name from the credits for the pseudonymous Alan Smithee. Another annoying debit: Despite the title, tennis takes place for maybe three scenes.
If you’re not a fanatic of tedious, overwrought melodramas, please adjust this rating down at least half a star.
Match Point: *1/2
238 – Syriana
I’m not an exceptionally dumb person, but sometimes a plot will simply confound me. And if I have trouble following it, then it’s pretty much dead to me. Complicated plots are one thing, because sometimes one can just mentally separate the more important story strands from the seemingly inconsequential, but the ones that just aren’t too clear do me in.
Syriana is one of the latter class. I can see the overarching theme, that Big Oil sometimes does nefarious things to innocent people, things that affect peoples around the globe, but some of the threads that added up to that grand theme were a little tough to keep track of. This made watching Syriana not a terribly enjoyable or rewarding experience. You, as viewer, know you’re supposed to come away with a sense of disgust and dismay, of self-righteous indignation, but I came away simply relieved it was over.
George Clooney plays Bob Barnes, a CIA operative who's been to war zones in Beirut and Tehran. He’s captured and tortured, he’s released, he’s sent back, and so on. Then there is an emir with three sons, one of whom has been proactive and feels he deserves the kingdom when his father departs (shades of King Lear?). And then there’s an energy analyst (Matt Damon) who’s helping one of the sons. Somehow all of these little themes tie in together, but it’s tough to see that during the first half or so of the movie.
Had this been a straightforward spy movie (focusing on Barnes), or even a political thriller (focusing on the emirate and Damon’s character), I think the theme would have been better realized. It’s not a question of identifying bad guys and good guys, because that’s fairly evident; it’s that the movie leaps from setting to setting with little to link the disparate scenes.
Clooney, who packed on the pounds for his role, is fantastic, but he’s not onscreen enough. Damon, on the other hand, is onscreen too often; even at 35, he still looks like a high schooler. Imagine someone from your senior class acting as an energy analyst! He looks like he’s giving an oral book report. It’s not bad acting, it’s bad casting. On the other hand, Amanda Peet, as his wife, is very solid in a small role – another actress might have been much less noticable. And along for the ride is the elegant, yet ancient Christopher Plummer, looking every one of his 86 years.
Hollywood tends to oversex its movies, adding bombs and breasts to boost box office. I hate to say it, but some bombs might have helped considerably here. There’s little action in the movie, although what’s there is pretty good. For a movie that should be steeped in intrigue, it wasn’t very intriguing.
Syriana: **
237 – Dark Water
Posted by frothy in Dark Water on January 16, 2006
I’ve long been an admirer of Jennifer Connelly’s work and have followed her career for some time, from the child role Labryinth to the one-dimensional sex role of Career Opportunities to her evolution into one of America’s premier actresses (Pollock, A Beautiful Mind, House of Sand and Fog, Requiem for a Dream). She’s a fantastic talent, with tremendous range that prevents her (to a degree) from being pigeonholed.
But her latest, Dark Water, is a senseless pile of dung. Not to slight the more-sensitive piles of dung out there, of course, but this one just isn’t terribly comprehensible. It’s schizophrenic – does it want to be a psychological thriller, a la Gaslight, or does it want to be a haunted-apartment thriller? Let me tell you, this movie couldn’t carry Gaslight’s water, pun strongly intended. It has twelve times the special effects but one hundreth the quality. There’s no real chills, nothing that’ll set your teeth on edge.
Dahlia Williams (Connelly) is newly separated from her husband and they’re bitterly fighting over their young daughter, Ceci. Dahlia moves into an old apartment building to start a new life, but she quickly runs into a couple of major problems: the giant leak in her apartment and the sudden appearance of an invisible friend for Ceci.
If you’ve seen Hide and Seek, or any movie in which an invisible friend appears (oh no, another pun), you know how adults react in these movies: They don’t believe the kid. Ceci insists her new friend Natasha is real, and yet there are no other children in the apartment building, according to building owner Mr. Murray (John C. Reilly). And so Ceci acts out in her new class, and the leak grows and grows..
Is Dahlia going crazy? Is her husband trying to drive her insane, so she’ll give up the custody battle? Some evidence points to him, and then it’s quickly dropped as a story thread. To buttress the case for Something Being Awry, we’re given a bit of Dahlia’s own history; apparently her mother was a neglectful drunk, and something about the rain and water and such, and you can see how Dahlia might go bonkers with water leaking in her tiny apartment.
I can forgive an awful lot in movies – you have to, really; it’s call suspension of disbelief – but when a movie trots out all kinds of possible explanations and never seems to settle on one, I’m not so forgiving. What should have been suspenseful was merely amusing; what should have startled me I saw coming. I think you will, too.
Dark Water: *1/2
The Killer Shrews (1959)
Posted by frothy in Uncategorized on January 8, 2006
A scientist on a remote island has created mutant shrews weighing up to 100 pounds – and now they’re hungry! And there’s a hurricane coming! And they have poison in them! And they can shoot frickin’ laser beams from their eyes! Okay, I made that last one up.
All kidding aside, this is much better than it looks, with reasonable pacing and suspense on a shoestring budget. The only recognizable name in the cast is James Best, who some twenty years later would be known to millions as Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane on The Dukes of Hazzard. True, it’s from the late fifties and has “killer” in the title, but it’s still a decent movie, albeit a relic of its time.
The Killer Shrews: ***
236 – Mr. and Mrs. Smith
Posted by frothy in Mr. and Mrs. Smith on January 8, 2006
John Smith (Brad Pitt) is an assassin for hire. Jane Smith (Angelina Jolie) is, too. They work for different companies, and neither one knows the other’s true occupation. Until they’re hired to kill each other. *cue suspense music*
Thanks to the excellent chemistry between Pitt and Jolie and some riveting action scenes, the movie manages to lift itself above most others in the genre. That is to say, it’s not just another dumb shoot-em-up, although not as brainy as, for example, The Bourne Identity.
The mutual disovery that their spouse is a hit man doesn’t occur until a good half hour into the film, but once it does, you’re treated to a series of fast-paced scenes in the tradition of The War of the Roses, including a decimation of the couple’s home. The trouble is that I can’t give you too much of the plot without telling you the twists, because there aren’t that many to begin with. But as long as you concentrate on the combined hotness of the starring duo – so smoldering that sparks flew off-set as well – you’ll be fine. Don’t let the story distract you!
Doug Liman, who gave us such instant classics as Swingers, Go, and The Bourne Identity, keeps things moving pretty quickly, although a peek at the goofs page on IMDb will show that enough errors were made to make one question the editing. Still, the action scenes pack quite a wallop, particularly the close hand-to-hand combat between the Smiths in their house.
The story varies for the most part from implausible to improbable, as is often the case with action films. But Pitt and Jolie both look right for their respective parts, including handling firearms and other weapons. What impressed me is that neither character seemed particularly moralistic about their line of work. For example, no “oh, we kill only bad guys!” junk – they kill whomever, whenever, wherever. Particuarly amusing is the scene in which they reveal to each other how many kills they’ve had.
Vince Vaughn is on hand as Eddie, who works with John, and even though his role is very small, he manages to walk off with every scene he’s in. That’s because Jolie and Pitt wisely underplay their roles, leaving the fireworks to take center stage. Oh, and their obvious good looks, too.
Mr. and Mrs. Smith: ***
Saturday Night Fever (1977)
Posted by frothy in Uncategorized on January 7, 2006
John Travolta’s high-octane performance took his stardom (earned on Welcome Back, Kotter) to otherworldly levels. His Tony Manero isn’t a perfectly nice Brooklyn kid, but he’s also not a rotten jerk. He’s 19, has a job that he enjoys (selling paint at a hardware store), and at night he’s the king of the dance floor at the height of the disco age.
The movie is very dated – as most movies that rely on topical music score and fashion must be – but the theme runs true. Tony dances to build his own self-esteem, since he gets little in the way of positive enforcement from a family that dotes upon his older brother, a priest. He hangs with his arrested-development pals, drinking and dancing and carousing and fighting.
Travolta is fantastic as Tony; he’s not as loud and arrogant as his friends, but he’s clearly their leader. He’s not terribly bright, but he’s smart enough to know his limitations. He’s a little thoughtful, but not too reflective, choosing to live in the present. Until, that is, he meets the slightly older Stephanie (Karen Lynn Gorney).
It’s easy to see why audiences flocked to this one, with its strong soundtrack (all Bee Gees, all the time) and electric atmosphere. The movie’s uncharacteristically well directed by John Badham, and Travolta’s supporting cast is appropriate, not slipping into caricatures.
Saturday Night Fever: ***
235 – Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Posted by frothy in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on January 6, 2006
Amazing sets and catchy tunes aside, this remake of the 1971 original suffers a bit from an intentionally effected performance by Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka but is buoyed tremendously by Freddie Highmore, playing Charlie Bucket. Whimsical and highly imaginative, Tim Burton’s latest melange of creativity is wholesome without being entirely pure, although the edge of the original film (and Roald Dahl’s story) is somewhat blunted.
Wonka’s world-famous candy factory has been closed to the public – anyone, really – for decades, although candy still emerges each morning, neatly packed and ready to ship. Then one day, Wonka himself announces he has placed Golden Tickets in five Wonka Bars distributed throughout the globe. The children who find the five tickets are thereupon invited to a Grand Tour of the mysterious factory, and one of the kids will get a Veddy Special Prize at the end.
The kids are the same as in the first film: snotty spoiled brat Veruca Salt, overachiever Violet Beauregarde, glutton Augustus Gloop, hostile Mike Teavee, and waiflike Charlie Bucket. Throughout the tour, each exposes his or her own self as a greedy, conniving fiend – except, of course, for poor (literally) Charlie, who’s accompanied by his superold grandpa (David Kelly, who’s fantastic).
The sets are stunning, from the chocolate river to the squirrels’ QC lab, and this allows one to forget how annoying Depp’s Wonka is. He’s intentionally unique, which is sort of a euphemism for “we want him to be as strange as possible, the better to distance him from the people from the outside world.” Some have said that Depp was consciously aping Michael Jackson in his mannerisms, but I don’t really see it. Heck, his Wonka doesn’t even like kids, and he detests any kind of familial arrangement. I admire Depp for trying to make the role his own (and thus differentiating his work from that of Gene Wilder), but his Wonka was a little too loopy for me – it was tough to get a handle on him. And when you did think you knew what he was about, he’d say something that disproved that; sometimes that seemed to be a heavyhanded approach, a way to cynically manipulate the audience. If it was supposed to keep us on our toes, it failed, because I got tired of the character’s contrarian attitude.
A real treat, added just for the movie, is Wonka’s father, played by the estimable Christopher Lee. The senior Wonka is a dentist (of course he is) who has not seen his only son since the latter left home to become a chocolatier. Which brings up an interesting question. How come Dr. Wonka looks older when he reunites with Willy than when they’re together in flashbacks… but Willy doesn’t? In fact, Willy Wonka looks pretty young – Lee looks more like his grandfather. Depp still has quite the boyish look about him; he appears to be in his late twenties, possible midthirties.
I also enjoyed the Oompa Loompas, played by exactly one guy – Deep Roy. Roy repeated the movements of the Oompa Loompahs hundreds of times, and then he was digitally repeated over and over again, creating the illusion that he was many instead of one. A fine, fun job.
Highmore is a truly great find; he played Peter in Finding Neverland, also starring Depp. Depp recommended Highmore to Tim Burton for the role of the angelic Charlie, and it turned out to be a most excellent recommendation. Charlie is alternately sage and blissfully naive, wise beyond his few years but still innocent at heart.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory isn’t as meanspirited as its predecessor, but it does have better scenery and fine performances – even the kids, so horribly bratty in the original, are merely rotten in this one. Burton proves again he has the visual part of directing down pat, although sometimes the heart eludes him.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: **1/2
Suspect (1987)
Posted by frothy in Uncategorized on January 6, 2006
Cher plays a tireless, put-upon defense attorney who’s handed a seemingly winless case, the murder trial of a homeless man (Liam Neeson) who also happens to be deaf and mute. With the aid of a trusty, nosy juror (Dennis Quaid), she solves the crime. The film is set in Washington, D.C., so you know there are machinations and duplicity and such, so it’s really a question of whether Cher and company can make the twists and turns seem plausible. (Hint: Not especially.)
Stuck in a high-pressure, dead-end job as public defender, Kathleen Riley is handed a thankless assignment – defend a homeless man accused of killing a young woman. Physical evidence is on the side of the prosecutor, but her client insists he’s innocent. A concerned juror decides to help her out, illegally. What follows in an intricate web of deceit and such that’s a basic carbon copy of most legal thrillers.
Cher’s not bad, although she would fare far better the following year with Moonstruck. There is one scene in which she’s carjacked (early in the film, nonincidental to the plot) and cries out a very stilted and unbelievable EEK! Seriously, it sounded like a pretend-yell, as in “Eek, help, I’m being attacked by a killer beagle!” Even so, Cher was appealing and acceptable in the lead role.
Dennis Quaid was good as well, although his character wasn’t exactly deep. First of all, I can’t imagine anyone making a concerted effort to aid a lawyer in a case in which he or she is a juror – unless the juror has a vested interest in doing so. Second, the chemistry between Quaid and Cher was barely palpable – they looked like they’d be more comfortable playing siblings. Third, Quaid’s character manages to show up at all the right times, sometimes incredibly so. Made it all that much tougher to swallow.
Rounding out the notables in the cast are Joe Mantegna as the prosecutor and John Mahoney in a great role as the presiding judge.
Suspect would have been a winner if the writing had been a little tighter. I think movies in which there’s a strong female lead who’s about to nab the bad guys but OH NO they’re meaner and tougher and she goes to pieces. You know what I mean? You rarely see female leads that are strong emotionally, intellectually, and physically.
Suspect:**1/2
-
You are currently browsing the archives for January, 2006
People Had This to Say