Archive for March, 2006

260 – Serenity

If you were a diehard fan of the cult-favorite TV series Firefly, then Serenity will surely satisfy you. If not, then you’re probably better off skipping it entirely. The heavyhanded writing and direction by Joss Whedon, coupled with the hamfisted, cardboard acting of Nathan Fillion, reduce this big-screen offering to just another mishmashy sound-and-fury action movie.

The setting is 500 years in the future. Owing to overpopulation, denizens of Earth have emigrated to other worlds, known as the Core planets, where life is pretty darn good, and trade and communication betwixt the planets is booming. Mal Reynolds (Fillion) and the crew of his Firefly-class spaceship Serenity travel the heavens, taking on jobs that usually skirt the edge of legality, and sometimes dive headfirst over said edge into a pool of sin.

Mal’s crew includes his second in command; Zoe (Gina Torres); pilot Wash (Alan Tudyk); muscular hothead Jayne (Adam Baldwin); mechanic Kaylee (Jewel Staite); and three passengers-turned-crew – Simon, the doctor (Sean Maher), Simon’s sister River (Summer Glau), and Inara (Morena Baccarin), a Companion (otherwise known as a high-class call girl). Over the course of fifteen episodes, the crew becomes used to one another, just as devotees of the series will have grown accustomed to their faces. This is key; the more you know a character in a TV series, the more forgiving you’ll be if the subsequent movie doesn’t explain everything sufficiently, because you’ll have the requisite background information already.

Simon and River are fugitives; Simon busted his sister out of a government facility, where faceless drones picked apart and brain and drove her quite crazy. Trouble is, no one knows what she’s capable of, and throughout the series she’s shown flashes of skills beyond that which a typical teenage girl should possess. In the movie, River’s instability is making things tough on the crew; because the government is looking for her and Simon, Mal must turn down jobs in order to fly below everyone’s radar. So times are tough, and tensions are running high.

When River – apparently directed subliminally – engages in a melee against a fewscore men (and wins) and Simon subdues her with a safe word, the pressure for Serenity to hand over the fugitives increases dramatically. Just before succumbing to the safe word, River utters her own mysterious word – “Miranda.” Who or what is Miranda?

Warning: Don’t read further if you’re a big Firefly fan. You’re not going to like it…

Serenity felt to me like an amateur-hour show. Yes, the effects are pretty cool, although nothing spectacular. But the writing’s subpar. Whedon seems to have a pretty good sense of plot movement – no time for exposition or reflection needed – but he’s not so adept in characterizations. I got the distinct feeling that the actors, for the most part, rose above their stilted dialog to turn in fine, appealing performances. Particularly effective was Baldwin as the scoundrel Jayne; he does get some of the funniest lines, but more importantly he knows how to deliver a comedic performance. Appropriately adorable is Staite as Kaylee (dig those everlit eyes), and flawlessly elegant is Baccarin as Inara.

But the one character on whom the entire show and movie rest is also the one that’s the most confounding – Malcolm Reynolds. Ethical vagueness is a very good descriptor for your characters to have; why announce his or her intentions every step of the way? But this can be problematic when the character is constantly changing attitudes and approaches, and those changes don’t make a heck of a lot of sense.

For example, there have been numerous times in which Mal has performed some sort of loyal act for his crew, even the fugitives. That’s honorable. But then there have also been numerous times in which he’s laid down the law, tyrant style, to that same crew. I don’t mean with a simple my-way-or-the-highway approach, because that’s certainly not unacceptable from the captain of the ship. I mean in a cruel, hateful manner. Here’s what it boils down to for me – you can be a lovable Han Solo rogue, or you can be a mean despot, but it’s really tough for any actor to play a character who’s both. A good actor, perhaps, could pull this off, and Fillion is not a good actor. He has very little range; when he’s joking, he wears this weird half-smile, not quite as developed as a sly grin, and when he’s upset, his voice gets thick as week-old jelly. And that’s about it.

But back to the movie itself. I liked the plot, although certainly the fact that the show was over by the time filming begun played a huge role. The problem with this kind of approach is that a movie can feel as if plot devices were thrown in just for the sake of throwing everything into the mix. To clarify that statement would be folly; I’d risk spoiling some fun for you who haven’t watched the movie yet. What I’m saying is that although there are plenty of surprises, since the movie is based on a well-known TV series, you get this sense of nothing really mattering – it’s not as if there’ll be a Season 2 with the consequences of those surprises apparant.

I think Serenity (which, sorry, sounds more like adult diapers than a ship name) looks merely like a TV movie writ large; it’s not as exciting or intruiging as the show was, for all its foibles, and I think that although blinded-by-the-Whedon acolytes will no doubt think it’s the bee’s knees, the rest of us can do better.

Serenity: **

, , , , ,

2 Comments

Dig it, man.

Saw a little movie last night called The Beatniks (1960). Now, you know that with a title like that, you’re not going to get Hamlet, right? Nowadays, I think of a beatnik as someone who’s just too cool for school, daddio, at least 1950s school and whatnot. Beatniks to me are kind of laid back, precursors to hippies, doing their own thing, you dig? Or not.

Well, in this one they’re hoodlums, petty criminals, gang members, and so on. You know the type – they drink, they smoke, they even stay out late at night! (Horrors!) The leader of the gang here is Eddie, who sports an Elvisian pompadour. Or maybe Sinatraian. With a little cowlick in the back. Eddie is the “good guy.” Turns out the lad can sing, you see, so an agent named Bayliss signs him to a deal. This doesn’t sit to well with Eddie’s gang, but he starts to like the opportunity for success, thanks in part to a new girl, Helen. Which, naturally, doesn’t sit too well with Eddie’s current girl, Iris, who’s as dumb as a post and as quiet as an auctioneer.

Aside from the oh-so-clever good girl/bad girl dichotomy, there’s also a murder and a stabbing, a “crazy” gang member, a gang member who gets himself seriously injured, and a nondescript gang member. So most cliches are hit pretty solidly in this one, which isn’t nearly as much fun as it seems. I got it on DVD for $1, and that includes the legendary Wild Guitar (1962), which follows some of the same plot line and most of the cliches, too.

No Comments

King of the Zombies

Tonight it was another el cheapo horror movie, 1941′s King of the Zombies. There’s no one of note in it, but it’s thankfully pretty short, as most el cheapos are. Three men crash land on a remote island in the Caribbean and are taken in by an ominous-looking “doctor” who, it turns out, is involved with voodoo and hypnotism and zombies and such. Madcap hilarity ensues.

There’s nothing to recommend about this except for the odd (but welcome) comic stylings of Mantan Moreland, although his “acting” is more along the lines of a minstral show. He plays the valet (!) of one of the he-man heroes, and he gets all the funny lines.

Still, it’s pretty much a waste of time. Hey, I watch ‘em so you don’t hafta.

No Comments

259 – Corpse Bride

Tim Burton’s work will probably never be described as banal or ordinary; rather, he is merely the poster child of inventive, creative cinematic storytelling. Corpse Bride is told using stop-action animation, but using more-advanced methods than those in Burton’s legendary The Nightmare before Christmas.

Victor (Johnny Depp) is a shy, clumsy groom to be who has trouble saying his vows during the wedding rehearsal. After flubbing his lines once too many times, he dashes into the Victorian night and practices them while walking along an icy, moonlit path. After Victor places the wedding ring on a nearby branch and recites his vows, a figure rises from the frozen ground – a corpse bride!

The Bride (Helena Bonham Carter) thinks she’s found her true love in Victor, and she spirits him to the Land of the Dead, populated by myriad dancing and talking skeletons. But Victor doesn’t love The Bride and pines for his own lost bride, Victoria (Emily Watson). Complicating matters further is that their marriage was to be one of convenience, as Victoria’s family needs the money that Victor’s family might bring.

The movie has many eye-popping (ha!) visuals, including the Bride’s own eyeball, which seems to pop out every so often, and the sheathing and unsheathing of a long sword buried in the back of a skeleton made to resemble Napoleon Bonaparte (known as Bonesaparte in the credits). Wonderful musical numbers abound as well, featuring the beautiful voice of Danny Elfman – especially a complex jazz/scat number.

It’s really tough to find fault with any of the voices, which feature a number of former Burton collaborators, such as Depp, Elfman, Christopher Lee, Michael Gough, and even Deep Roy, who played the Oompa Loompahs in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Although this film was up for a Best Animated Feature Oscar, don’t think for a moment that your three-year-old is going to like it, musical numbers or not. The tone isn’t as dark as Nightmare before Christmas, but the settings sure are. I mean, the movie takes place mostly at night, either in a dark forest, inside a dark, stark mansion, or the Land of the Dead. Not exactly the place you might find pastels and a lava lamp.

Watching Corpse Bride, it’s easy to forget it’s not animated in the traditional way, or even the nouveau-artiste, computer way. Fourteen puppets of the Bride and of Victor were used in the making of this movie, and some 109,000 individual frames were filmed. The attention to detail is preposterously exquisite and should leave the average viewer properly dumbfounded.

Corpse Bride: ***

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

258 – V for Vendetta

The Wachowski Brothers’ stab at stylistic sociopolitical commentary is visually arresting, compelling stuff, a fine homage to its graphic novel source. It’s artful, if perhaps missing a dash or a smidge of subtlety, but not so much that one is entirely distracted from the somewhat pedestrian, familiar plot.

V is a vigilante, a lone avenger who wears a Guy Fawkes mask and wants to extol the masses of a somewhat-futuristic London to rise up against their oppressors, throw off the yoke of totalitarianism, and watch their favorite buildings explode.

It’s the near future. Britain no longer has a queen or prime minister; instead, it has a chancellor, an ominous man named Setler (John Hurt) who appears on giant TV screens, a la Big Brother. And freedoms have been seriously curtailed, especially free speech, owing to three terrorist incidents in which nearly 100,000 people die. This leads to state-controlled media, secret police, and so-called black baggers, the men who come in the middle of the night to round up people deemed Bad by the government.

When a young Londoner named Evey (Natalie Portman) is caught out after a state-imposed curfew by the secret police and is then attacked by said defenders of the realm, a debonair, eloquent masked marvel springs to her aid, dispatching with her aggressors with all due speed. He quotes Shakespeare and looks like a Musketeer, complete with swirling black cape and superpointy blades, but wears a portentous mask – that of noted British rebel/hero Guy Fawkes, who once tried to blow up Parliament some 400 years ago. The mysterious man rescues Evey and spirits her away to his secret lair. Later, he shows her part of his plans as a famed statue detonates.

“You can call me V,” the man says, and although the letter stands for Vendetta in the title, it’s also a good stand in for Vengeance, Vituperation, and Vanquishment. Clearly, V is harboring some kind of grudge on someone, and he’s going to try to turn the country upside down, show the populace how corrupt and Fascist their government – which they’ve elected – has become. He’s an anarchist at his heart, it seems, but could there also be a more personal vendetta rampaging in his mind? V sees Evey as a necessary ally and enlists her in his cause, an entreaty she accepts. But is she willing to go as far as V is? From the scared-kitten look on Portman’s face through much of the movie, one would assume she’s not quite sure she’s made the right choice.

At times, the movie is very powerful propaganda, demanding that the viewer draw parallels between the celluloid events and those occurring in the real world today. But it’s not heavy handed in its execution; everything that we see on screen is quite plausible, at least in the context of the fictional futuristic London.

There are some similarities between this film and the Matrix series, also by the Wachowskis, including the overall look and feel of the set designs and the idea that we’re all being controlled by someone or something else. But unlike The Matrix, V for Vendetta isn’t terribly deep of a movie; it’s not a movie that invites endless philosophical discussions about Who We Are and Why We’re Here. We know just enough for the sake of the movie, and we’re not left wanting to know more. There aren’t many twists, nothing to keep your brain hopping along, always wondering what might come next.

There IS one big twist, however. Some viewers might think of it as a shaggy-dog outcome, though, and others might completely buy into it. It’s the kind of twist that may well make you scratch your head and wonder if the actions in the twist were really all that necessary – the old ends-justifies-the-means adage.

Hugo Weaving, so wonderful as Agent Smith in the Matrix movies, plays V, and although we never once get to see Mr. Weaving’s face, he turns in a powerful, commanding performance. You can feel what V feels, and without the crutch of a countenance on which to make expressions, this is fantastic acting indeed. Portman is okay as Evey, but her character wasn’t sufficiently substantive, which is my way of saying I don’t think it was Portman’s fault. I think she did an admirable job considering what she had to work with; in this movie, Evey is relegated to less-than-sidekick status.

And I would be remiss if I did not add that the final scene is both satisfying and unsatisfying, which makes it a little frustrating. Part of it grabbed my heart and made it soar, but part also did seem a tad expected.

V for Vendetta is, at times, invigorating, exciting, revolutionary, and terrifying, but it’s a little slicker than its subject material should indicate.

V for Vendetta: ***

, , , ,

No Comments

257 – Red Eye

Do what I say or your (dad, brother, son, whole darn family) gets it, says the evil killer, who’s usually male and quite insecure with himself otherwise. In this film, purportedly by one-time horror great Wes Craven, pretty hotel manager Lisa (Rachel McAdams) is the victim-protagonist, the tough woman-in-jeopardy who must do what one must do to save her pa (Brian Cox) and the director of Homeland Security (wha?), while some 30,000 feet in the air, from smarmy dweeb Jackson (Cillian Murphy).

This preposterous movie is nothing more than your typical damsel-in-distress plot, except it’s set almost exclusively on a plane, where the limitations of the storyline, the acting, and especially the directing are painfully obvious. This red eye could use a real shot of Visine, or maybe just an eyepatch.

There really isn’t much more to say about the movie, which is thankfully short. If you think there might be a serious question as to whether she’ll save her pappy from the long gun of the assassin, this is the movie for you. You probably won’t even wonder at the stupidity of all involved, or even the perfunctory, underwhelming thanks shown at the end for a job well done. You might not even mind that a hotel manager was able to save the world from a greater evil pretty much all by her lonesome, without needing to cave in and call real professionals.

McAdams gives it a good try, but she just can’t carry the film herself, and the burden of also having to put up with a crappy script is too much. Murphy makes for a dopey, cardboard villian – maybe he should stick to playing henchmen – and Cox is solid as always. Still, one expects a little oomph from a Craven film, some style, something, but this one’s utterly faceless.

Red Eye: *1/2

, , , ,

No Comments

Oscars 2006

For many years, Oscar night would come and I’d have seen maybe two or three of the nominees, total. Part of the reason was that I’d watch them on video, and the movies weren’t released on video in time for the Oscars.

This year, I decided to be more proactive and watch as many of the nominees – many in the theater – as I could. So I do feel qualified now, in some regard, to pontificate on the awards.

Best Picture

What should win: Good Night, and Good Luck
What will win: Brokeback Mountain

I thought Brokeback Mountain was pretty bad, all things considered, with poor acting and poor directing. This wasn’t a romance story – this was a story about getting two guys to have sex on the screen. But there’s a huge amount of momentum in this movie’s camp, so I think it’ll sadly take the prize. Capote was a bit more interesting, but there wasn’t much to the movie other than Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Method acting. So how could it be among the best of the year? Crash was stunningly awful, a mere pastiche of funky coincidences in which bad people do good things but are still sort of bad. Senseless and slapdash, it was among the worst of the year. Good Night, and Good Luck, on the other hand, was perfectly assembled, focusing on the battle between Murrow and McCarthy instead of just Murrow. It’s perfectly honest, straightforward filmmaking about an especially shameful time in American history. Munich, directed by Academy favorite Steven Spielberg, was a humane treatment of another terrifying moment in recent history, the kidnapping and murder of Israeli athletes at the Olympics. It’s a passionate, morally ambiguous tale that belies its own complexities.

Best Director

Who should win: George Clooney, Good Night, and Good Luck
Who will win: Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain

I didn’t thnk that Lee’s approach to Brokeback was particularly effective. It seemed to me that the director equated a laconic attitude with deep soulfulness. He did know enough to zoom in on his studly stars, but the movie was deadeningy paced. Clooney, on the other hand, showed a much surer hand with Good Night, showing us only the facets of each primary player that we needed to see for the purposes of the film; that is, he didn’t indulge in fluff. One notable touch was that he showed producer Fred Friendly crouching down right next to Murrow, giving him instructions – this showed how cramped the studio was (especially then) and symbolized the symbiotic relationship between the two men.

Best Actor

Who should win: David Strathairn, Good Night, and Good Luck
Who will win: Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain

Ledger’s Ennis del Mar spoke seldom, and when he did he mumbled through a mouth of chaw. This limited his abilities somewhat, but he didn’t exactly overcome the limitation through other means, such as an expressive face. del Mar was a cipher and a poor excuse for a human being – he lied to, cheated on, and otherwise mistreated everyone he came in touch with. And for this he’s the hero. Strathairn’s Murrow, though, was intrepid, honorable, and honest at a time when such journalists weren’t easy to come by. Strathairn perfectly embodied the role, right downt to Murrow’s omnipresent cigarette.

Best Actress

Who should win: Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line
Who will win: Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line

Hooray, we agree! Witherspoon really was dead on as June Carter Cash, and who could have seen that coming? Her voice, her look, everything about her seemed perfectly sincere. It doesn’t hurt that she played a strong (if slightly vulnerable) woman who help poor ol’ Johnny when he most needed it. And there’s quite an upswell of support for Witherspoon for this, her breakout role. Plus, she sang her own songs. (Note: Why not also pick Joaquin Phoenix, who played Cash? He was fantastic, but not quite as good as Strathairn – still, it would be no huge surprise if he did win it.)

Best Supporting Actor

Who should win: Paul Giamatti, Cinderella Man
Who will win: George Clooney, Syriana

First there was this outrage because Giamatti didn’t get nominated for Sideways last year. Then Cinderella Man came out, and people said, “Well, he darn well better get nominated!” And he was. But then public opinion forgot him and instead focused on Clooney, mainly because his character is tortured. It’s not a fun scene to watch, but it is a short scene; in fact, he’s not onscreen all that long, all told. But conventional wisdom is that Clooney will get this win to make up for not getting Best Director for Good Night, and Good Luck. That’s the thinking, anyway. I’d give it to Giamatti, who was inspiring as James Braddock’s (Russell Crowe) manager. Giamatti’s a great actor, and he really nailed this one.

Reviews of other nominated films:

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
The Chronicles of Narnia
The Constant Gardener
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
A History of Violence
Hustle and Flow
Junebug
King Kong
Match Point
North Country
Star Wars Episode III – Revenge of the Sith
War of the Worlds

I’m interested in knowing who of you is actually going to see the Oscars (any of it) tomorrow night. And, of course, in knowing what you think of the above picks.

No Comments

256 – Walk the Line

If you’d told me, oh, a year ago that there would be this big-budget movie about Johnny Cash, and it would star Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon, there’s no way I would have been looking forward to seeing it. Joaquin Phoenix, the bad guy in Gladiator, as Cash? Reese Witherspoon, the cutie pie in Legally Blonde, as June Carter? It would have sounded like a flop borne of hubris and greed.

But Phoenix and Witherspoon turn in incredible performances, surely the best of their short careers and among the very best of the year. Phoenix IS Cash – singing the Man in Black’s song in perfect imitation. Witherspoon is smashing in what’s hopefully a breakout role for her, after so many fluffy, nondescript comedies.

Like most biopics, this is a story of redemption, of rising and falling and finding that those who remain with you in your time of need are the ones that should be kept around, their reluctance to do so be damned. We follow Johnny from his early childhood, including the tragic loss of his brother and the rejection of his father, to his opportune recording for Sam Phillips, and his meeting, courtship of, touring with, and proposal to June Carter. In between, we get a pretty good glimpse, courtesy of Phoenix’s stunning performance, of the ghosts that haunted Cash throughout his life.

It’s no surprise that the music is so good, since they’re all old Cash tunes, but the fact that Joaquin Phoenix is singing them does offer up a bit of a curveball. Both Phoenix and Witherspoon so completely immerse themselves in the well-known characters of Johnny and June that one would almost expect some caricature, but there’s nary a dishonest, insincere beat to their incredible work here.

Director James Mangold, who previously directed Girl, Interrupted, hits no false notes here, where even the slightest misstep might have had rabid Cash fans clamoring for his head on a spike. Vividly shot, the film is highly evocative; you feel at times that you’re crawling inside Cash’s brain, the atmosphere is so intense.

And although this is a movie about a man’s rising from his own ashes, one of its core themes is also its most wonderfully realized, that of true love and friendship. June Carter stands by her man through all of the bad times, even when his family, particularly his shrewish wife, abandon him out of selfishness and spite. From the first moment Witherspoon and Phoenix share the screen, you can tell they’re made for each other, with dazzling chemistry that ultimately lifts the movie to its greatest heights.

Walk the Line: ***1/2

, , ,

2 Comments