Archive for December, 2008
426 – Valkyrie
Tom Cruise’s traditional one-note performance prevents this true-life suspense thriller from being anything but a predictable, pointless exercise in hubris. Although most of the accents seem inauthentic anyway, Cruise’s dull, toneless American dialect is about as sincere as Kevin Costner’s legendary Robin Hood accent, without the sweeping sense of purpose. In the end, the movie is largely forgettable; given the large amount of negative publicity surrounding it and its star, this is faint praise indeed.
Colonel von Stauffenberg (Cruise) is a disillusioned German officer during World War II who decides that he and he alone must thwart the Fuhrer and save Germany from itself. He quickly discovers, though, that he’s not exactly alone in that attitude, as various fellow officers (played by such luminaries as Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, and Terence Stamp) have been trying to take Hitler out for some time. All they need is a good plan and a good organizer.
The trouble, Stauffenberg quickly realizes, isn’t the assassination itself but rather the aftermath. You can’t just kill Hitler and waltz in with a new chancellor, since he does have plenty of supporters. So Staffenberg decides to co-opt an existing plan, called Valkryie, and adopt it for his own purposes. Valkyrie is intended to be the contingency plan should the Allies break through to Berlin, but Stauffenberg (rather easily) rewrites it so that one set of Germans is blamed for the assassination of Der Fuhrer, thus allowing them to be imprisoned by another set of Germans. Quite crafty.
But as any casual student of world affairs in the twentieth century can attest, this isn’t how thins panned out. As we all know, Hitler eventually committed suicide in his bunker in 1945, as the war was nearing its conclusion. So obviously the Stauffenberg plan was an abject failure, which sort of removes a lot of suspense. But director Bryan Singer still manages to make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, particularly during the explosion that ostensibly kills Hitler (and his cabinet); you know it’s coming, but it arrives so suddenly and so organically, without any good-guy slow-motion theatrics, that it’s very jarring and effective.
In addition, Singer pays less attention to What This All Means to the world (and Germany in particular) and concentrates instead on the psychological makeup of the conspirators, particularly the reticent General Olbricht (Nighy) and the decisive Stauffenberg. What happens to influence their plan? What happens that they hadn’t counted on at all? Most importantly, what happens when the plan ultimately fails? So I have to give Singer a lot of credit here, building up some suspense when the outcome is already knowable to everyone.
But the overall probably, as usual, is Cruise himself: he’s simply not credible in the role of a long-serving German military officer. Cruise always seems to feel that since he’s such a Great Actor, he can simply slap on some accessory – in this case, an eyepatch – and he’s immediately transformed into that character. Not the same guy, Stauffenberg and Cruise! Not the same guy at all! The fact is, though, that the eyepatch has more personality; Cruise is neither serious enough nor solid enough in the role for you to believe he’s anything other than Tom Cruise, Movie Guy. He even rolls through his standard two or three expressions, and when that’s done, he’s done.
Cast with another Stauffenberg, Valkryie might have soared a bit higher, but Cruise’s flawed performance is more reminiscent of an albatross than an eagle.
**1/2
425 – The Wrestler
In Darren Aronofsky’s brilliant character drama The Wrestler, Randy “The Ram” Robinson (Mickey Rourke) is a down-and-almost-out pro wrestler who grapples with his own mortality and a fear of being alone and desperate. Rourke is phenomenal, delivering a powerful, highly physical performance that will knock your socks off as much as if he’d clotheslined you himself. Rourke’s Randy is intrepid, a scarred battle cruiser who desperately needs to be in the ring to survive, a man who’s emotions are kept as close to the vest as possible, a man with nothing else going for him other than his time in the spotlight.
The Ram, probably an amalgam of several real-life wrestlers (chief among them, Randy “Macho Man” Savage), is a relic of the 1980s, a man who wistfully counts the scars and cuts on his body and remembers with great fondness his greatest ring moment, a pay-per-view battle against The Ayatollah. But twenty years later, he’s wrestling in high-school gymnasiums, barely able to put on a decent show but still basking in any glory he can find. But the gigs hardly pay at all, and more than once The Ram is unable to pay the rent on his mobile home.
Meanwhile, two people enter (and reenter) Randy’s life. Cassidy (Marisa Tomei) is a stripper at a low-rent club that Randy frequents. Cassidy is just about the only person in the world that Randy can talk to; he’s lonely, spending most of his postmatch time either drinking alone or patching up any new wounds. He’s treading water; with no life outside of wrestling, he’s just trying to make it through the night intact.
Reentering Randy’s life is his long-estranged daughter, played by Evan Rachel Wood, who’s hated her dad for years after he abandoned the family. Randy, in case you’re still not certian, is not meant to be an entirely sympathetic figure; you know why he is how he is, and you do feel bad for him, but you also understand that just about everything that’s made him who he is today is due to his own decisions. The Ram is not a victim.
Aside from the simple I’m-getting-too-old-for-this angle, there’s a serious medical angel that presents itself early in the movie – keep on wrestling, the doctor warns, and you’ll likely die in the ring. And to his credit, Randy does attempt to stop his own livelihood, but he quickly – and harshly – realizes how incredibly difficult that is. The real world doesn’t want him, The Ram thinks. They only want what’s in the ring.
Rourke is outstanding, perhaps sparking his own career renaissance, and Tomei is simply terrific as Cassidy. Tomei is a perfect physical fit for the role of the rapidly aging stripper; she’s still gorgeous, but there are just enough lines on her face to make her age believable. Tomei continues to make excellent role choices, and she completely knocks this one out of the park. Her Cassidy hurts as much on the inside – and what movie stripper doesn’t? – as Randy appears to on the outside, and they have much in common. It’s gratifying to see Cassidy’s feelings toward Randy evolve throughout the movie.
There are also several matches featuring The Ram, one of which should really appeal to wrestling fans: a hardcore match. In this kind of match, literally anything goes – barbed wire, windows, tables, chairs, anything. Yes, we all know that pro wrestling is fake, but it’s fake really only in terms of the final outcome, with just a few guidelines worked out between the competitors beforehand (e.g., I’ll hit you low, then you leg whip me). And of course these particular matches were staged and scripted, but man did they ever look real. You want to see something scary, check out Randy after the hardcore match, when staples – from a staple gun – are removed from his body.
The Wrestler is a gritty, raw look at one man’s desire to keep on keepin’ on, trying to survive the only way that’s still open to him, while trying desperately to connect with someone emotionally as he ages. It’s heartwarming but also heart-wrenching, and the somewhat-ambiguous ending is sure to confound people who like their movies to end tidily. It’s a masterpiece for Rourke, another tour-de-force for Tomei, and an award-worthy effort for Aronofsky.
***1/2
Benjamin Button
Posted by frothy in Curious Case of Benjamin Button on December 26, 2008
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button opened in theaters yesterday, so I wanted to point to my initial review.
Another to anticipate in ’09: The Wolf Man
Posted by frothy in 2009 Preview on December 24, 2008
I had forgotten another biggie coming out in 2009, because the two places I had looked to for inspiration didn’t list it: The Wolf Man, starring the great – and tonsorial – Benicio del Toro. It comes out November 6.
Back in 1941, Lon Chaney, Jr. – trying desperately to escape the huge shadow left by his legendary pop – took on the role of Larry Talbot, an American returning to his ancestors’ homeland who winds up being bitten by a werewolf. The atmosphere was typical of the Universal monster movies of the era, with a lot of low-lying fog and mood lighting, not to mention the usual black-and-white cinematography. In another star-making turn, the great Claude Rains played Talbot’s dad, and the cast also included Bela Lugosi and Maria Ouspenskaya, both luminaries of spooky early horror films.
The movie was remade with a contemporary slant in 1994, with Jack Nicholson, an urbane book editor, playing the werewolf role. It was okay, but awfully campy. Nicholson hams it up – watch him mark his territory in the men’s room! Yeah.
So del Toro looks suited to the role, but we’ll just have to see if he’s up to the task. Nicholson, it was said, was born for the role as well, and he didn’t scare as much as entertain mirthily. Which is now a word.
If (as) I find more movies coming out in 2009 that I wanna see, I’ll post them. And please let me know about yours! As you might have noticed, there are virtually no comments. But I do know that some read this – some I know first hand – and maybe there’s just nothing here worth commenting on. Maybe I’m so awesome that you don’t disagree!
Laurie Strode to return in next Halloween?
Posted by frothy in News/Rumors on December 22, 2008
Rob Zombie’s redo of the Halloween franchise was pretty good – stylish, kept to the basic storyline while adding background information. His followup supposedly will pickup right where the last one left off, just as Halloween 2 did. The big rumor right now is that the character of Laurie Strode will appear in the new one. Of course, I don’t know what the big fuss is. She was in the original Halloween II, too. She did okay (spoiler!) in the remake. So why wouldn’t she be in the new H2?
2009 Movies I’m Anticipating to Some Degree
Posted by frothy in 2009 Preview, Previews on December 22, 2008
Here are some of the movies I’m at least kinda-sorta looking forward to in 2009. There’s bound to be a metric buttload later in the year, as we approach awards shows and such, but it’s too early to know.
So what do you think of these guys? Are there any others you’re keen to see in ’09?
Watchmen (March 6). The trailer looks excellent, and there’s certainly been a lot of buzz about it already. Will it live up to its press? Probably. The downside of this kind of movie is that moviegoers don’t have the benefit of a backstory going in to the theater; they have to figure things out as the movie plays out. Taking time to explain motives to an audience can be time consuming, but I get the impression that won’t be a problem here.
Monsters versus Aliens (March 27). Some might say this could be the WALL-E of 2009, but I think it’ll be more like the Monsters, Inc.: fun, cute, very well done, but not a box-office smash. Me, I loved Monsters, Inc, so I’m all for this one. Plot? See title. Monsters, in this case, are on our side. Don’t get used to it.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (May 1). I liked X-Men. X2, not so much. Liked X-Men: The Last Stand a lot, which might say more about me than about the movie. This movie will tell us how Logan came to be Wolverine, apparently, which is something I thought we’d learned in X2. Still, the preview looks pretty badass. Expect a lot of grunting, grimacing, and angst.
Star Trek (May 8). This totally looks freaking fantastic, not to get all fanboy on you. Everyone’s young! Spock is torn between being logical and being human! Kirk is a troublemaker with an eye for the ladies! Scotty’s played by a Englishman! There’s a cool cameo at the end of the trailer, just to get your anticipatory juices flowing even more readily.
Bruno (May 15). Sacha Baron Cohen’s follow up to Borat could be twelve kinds of awesome. This time, he’s a homosexual Austrian reporter, a character he originated on Da Ali G Show. Borat worked because people couldn’t tell he was a total fraud (and some were pissed later), and I suspect Bruno will be able to show people their own bigotry just as easily. Maybe this time he’ll obsess over Heidi Klum. I can’t find a trailer yet, so here’s a clip of Cohen doing Bruno on his show.
Angels and Demons (May 15). The Da Vinci had box-office mojo, so why not return to that well? The novel’s supposedly better than TDC was, but that’s little relief. I read the novel, and it’s better, yes, just not very good. In fact, the plot might seem a bit familiar. Tom Hanks returns in this prequel to TDC, and I see that Obi-Wan Kenobi, er, Ewan McGregor is there as well. I bet it grosses $150 million and incurs the wrath of the Pope. I see that the Illuminati are involved in the plot. They’re always handy for that.
Terminator: Salvation (May 22). John Connor’s now grown up, and he’s leading the fight against those nasty skull-stomping machines. Then a dude shows up -- is he from the past sent by his mom, or from the future? This is what happens when you muck with time travel. Anyway, Connor is played by Christian Bale -- is it possible he could revive TWO franchises? (He even sounds like Bruce Wayne.) Then again, McG -- yes, the one-named McG -- is the director.
Up (May 29). Another from Pixar, this one has a 70-year-old man using a bevy of balloons to fly to South America, with a stowaway aboard. Christopher Plummer stars. Don’t know much else about it, but I hope Pixar finally shows us well-animated (i.e., not creepy, not too realistic) humans for once. It does look cute and endearing.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (June 26). I’m getting an Empire Strikes Back vibe here, since the good guys won at the end of the last Transformers movie. This could be a mountain of suck, a loud, PG-13-violent cacaphony of heavy metal and CGI, but it could also be almost not quite that bad. Your mileage, or kilometerage, may vary quite a bit, depending on how deaf you are. You might get the impression I’m not anticipating this. Here’s the trailer, not that it tells you much.
Public Enemies (July 1). Johnny Depp is John Dillenger! Christian Bale (again) is the Johnny Law on his trail. Yes, it’s Batman verus Jack Sparrow in a tommy-gun duel. Depp rarely makes a mistep nowadays, and I anticipate his making this character quirky in some way. I expect Bale to be dependable and resolute, sort of like how Kevin Costner was in The Untouchables. No trailer yet; here’s a picture.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (July 17). If you’ve read the books and have seen any of the movies, there’s no way you’re missing this one -- you have too much invested to give up now. Harry’s getting older and is facing more-adult challenges. Will he survive? Well, there IS a seventh book, which’ll be turned into not one but two movies (the seventh and eighth). The surprise, for those who have not read the books, will involve the death of someone imporant in the book. I have liked all of the movies. As they’ve progressed, they have become darker, more terrifying in tone. The first one was almost a kid’s movie, but now we’re into Serious Stuff.
The Taking of Pelham 123 (July 31). The original starred Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. Replacing them in the remake will be Denzel Washington and John Travolta. Kind of an upgrade, aesthetically speaking. This could be a huge winner. We did see Washington play the curious, intrepid cop working a caper case in The Inside Man recently, so we know he can handle this kind of lifting. Travolta will likely ham it up, though. And the bad guys don’t seem to have the color nicknames that Shaw’s character gave them in the original! What gives? Here’s a picture of Travolta looking porky with weird facial hair.
Two worlds collided, and they can never tear us apart
Posted by frothy in When Worlds Collide (1951) on December 21, 2008
In 1951′s When Worlds Collide, a planet is predicted to approach Waaaayy too close to Earth, causing calamity even greater than the scientific kerfluffle in The Day after Tomorrow. Volcanos erupting! Ice caps melting! Tidal waves! Dogs and cats, living together! The scientists are understandably laughed out of the UN. What, you expect us to believe disaster’s about to strike? It’s so nice out!
The scientists sequester themselves atop some mountain and build a spaceship. Why, you ask? So they can fly to the rogue planet, where apparently they think they can live out their days while the Earth is reduced to a smouldering cinder. Now, this is set in the “present day” of 1951, a full eighteen years before man set foot on the moon, so flying anywhere in outer space would have been pretty much unthinkable. But these guys aren’t daunted. They get funding from rich industrialists desperate to keep their DNA propagating through the solar system, and they build their ship.
The new planet makes a pass at the Earth, and bad crap happens. Mass hysteria! Well, not really, because almost everyone else on the planet dies, except the people making cigar-shaped rocketships. (I liked how there were volcanoes right next to the ship-building headquarters – you’d think scientists would have realized that. I also liked how everyone stares at the countdown calendar the final day before the planet makes its first pass, unbuckled, untethered, unprotected in any possible way. Of course, they pretty much all make it.)
I don’t want to give away the complex, twisty (note: not true) plot, but let me point this fun bit. Dave Randall (Richard Derr) is a pilot who’s wound his way into the building process and is in like with the daughter (Barbara Rush) of the chief scientist (Larry Keating), even though she’s involved with a doctor (Peter Hansen). The chief scientist wants Randall to go on the rocketship, and so does daughter Joyce, and this is his argument to Randall: I want you to go, to ensure my daughter’s chances. Meaning, I want you to go so you can have hot sex with my daughter and continue the human race. Scientist-dude also says his reason for wanting Randall onboard is a selfish one. Now picture this. There are hundreds of men and women working to build this ship. Only 40 will actually be ON the ship. The others will stay on Earth and die. As far as this guy’s concerned, whether someone would be useful to the mission isn’t as important as whether his daughter will like them.
And then! – again, not giving anything up – The damn planet looks about as close as the moon, just hovering there. Hovering! How could a freaking planet be that close and have zero effect on everyone on Earth? Good lord, the fifties were full of dumb people. I also love how there aren’t actual, you know, astronauts here – since, hello, no space program – so they figure anyone who can fly a fixed-wing plane would work out just peachy.
Oh, and also! Randall and the doctor rescue a little boy – because what disaster would be complete without one – and of COURSE he has to go on the rocketship! Yes, every pound counts, boys, but we need this 40-pounder!
This would be a great movie to do a MST3K number on, and maybe that’s happened. The movie was shot in Technicolor, the better to show up those massive explosions and other light violence, but it just as well would have been shot in black and white. Somehow, an Oscar was awarded for Best Special Effects, but if that means detonating explosives and little else, then hooray.
So. Check your brain at the door. No, check it on a transatlantic flight, and then stay home. This movie deserves no analysis. It’s Swiss cheese, complete with giant holes in its plot.
**
Coraline trailer
Coraline, in theaters on Februrary 6, is another stop-motion-animation movie from the guy who brought us The Nightmare before Christmas. No, not Tim Burton, the other guy -- Henry Selick, the director. Coraline is a young girl who lives in a somewhat dilapidated apartment with her quiet, listless parents. Until one day… (cue ominous music) when she discovers a parallel world, right there in her apartment! Coraline loves what she finds, but the wonders of the new world can be hers only for a steep price. Is Coraline ready?
Based on a Neil Gaiman novel, Coraline doesn’t have the endless (but exciting) songs of Nightmare, but it does have the same unique blend of whimsical and creepy stop-motion animation. On the basis of the trailer alone, I was impressed with the range of expressions Coraline exhibits. This looks to me to be a highly imaginative, creative look at what many of us create in our minds when we’re little kids, an alternate universe that’s familiar but better than our current one, an escape route from everyday drudgery. (Some of us do this as adults, too.)
424 – Doubt
Doubt, a story about a priest accused by a nun of unspeakable (in the film, at least) crimes against a young student, is well crafted with an exceedingly top-notch cast that expertly lifts the movie when there’s a pause in the tension. However, it does not completely escape its stage origins, as the film relies perhaps a little too heavily on words, rather than action, to get its muddied points across.
Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep) is the forbidding principal of a Catholic school, of which Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is the priest. When the naive Sister James (Amy Adams) reluctantly comes to Sister Aloysius with concerns about Father Flynn’s relationship with the only black child in the school (the film’s set in 1964), the headmistress decides to get to the bottom of things -- no matter the cost.
Streep’s role as the domineering, terrifying nun seems tailor made for another Oscar run -- she’s been nominated 15 times -- but don’t kid yourself; her towering performance will have you shaking in your boots if you ever attended Catholic school, and if you never did, like me, you’ll be glad you didn’t. She doesn’t rap knuckles, because she doesn’t need to. She is judge, jury, and executioner in her school -- except she reports to the priest. Oops.
What makes Streep’s character work is that she’s mean in the beginning and still mean at the end, so it’s not as if she undergoes deep character development in two hours. Still, she’s not without compassion, so when word reaches her that the priest -- whom she does not particularly like -- might have plied an altar boy with wine and then blamed the boy, her hackles, shall we say, get raised. Here, Streep brings the fire and brimstone with a vengeance. Her eyes blaze with fury so often you’ll be worried she’ll set the school on fire. (Like any good, disciplinary nun.)
Streep’s not alone with her strong performance. Hoffman is perfectly oily as the smarmy, condescending Father Flynn, a Good Guy who hobnobs with the bishop and is a pal to the kids, particularly the lone black kid. He seems, on the outside, to be a wonderful, beloved priest, and it’s his progressive ways -- let’s have a secular song in our Christmas pageant! -- that set Sister Aloysius before the impropriety even occurs. When confronted by the sisters, Father Flynn is ambiguous, then defensive, then explosive, and Hoffman powerfully depicts a man either losing control or in complete, unadulterated control.
Completing the troika is the young Sister James, played by the lovely Amy Adams, who looks -- dare I blaspheme -- absolutely adorable in a nun’s habit. Adams is good here, definitely, and she provides the necessary innocence to offset the jaded veneer of Streep and the callous bluster of Hoffman, but sometimes her character just seemed to exist for the purpose of comic relief. Which seemed incongruous, since this movie tackles such serious subjects.
Doubt is good to have, Father Flynn tells his flock, because it’s a shared emotion; we all doubt. And the ending of John Patrick Shanley’s movie (he adapted from his play) is so ambiguous that you’re likely to feel what the protagonists are feeling, that what you had thought earlier might not be the truth of the matter at all.
***
Are you gonna watch Watchmen?
Undoubtedly the three or four of you who read this thing have heard of Watchmen, a comic-book (sorry, graphic novel) adaptation coming to a boatload of theaters in 2009.
The story’s set in an alternate 1985, one in which superheroes walk among us as prevalent as, say, Amway salesmen or Jehovah’s witnesses, only with capes and cowls and such. Now, there aren’t any superdudes you and I might recognize, because, see, this is an alternate 1985, one in which there’s no Superman, even in literature. But there’s a problem: Superpeople are outlawed. I know, right? And then one of their number gets whacked, and some of them go vigilante, and basically all hell breaks loose. Let’s look at the trailer:
So. Gonna see it in March?
423 – Slumdog Millionaire
Posted by frothy in Slumdog Millionaire on December 14, 2008
A young man sits in a chair under bright lights, his face a cypher. He is on the popular Indian game show “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,” and he’s just correctly answered a question worth ten million rupees. As the episode ends – a cliffhanger! – the young man is arrested and taken to police headquarters on charges of cheating in the game. How could a boy from the poorest area of the country do so well on this knowledge show?
The tale unfolds under the withering questions by the police inspector. Jamal (Dev Patel) explains how he came to be able to answer the show’s questions by describing his life, from his impoverished beginnings in Mumbai to his involvement with a Fagin-like misanthrope to his stint as an illicit tour guide at the Taj Mahal. Through it all, Jamal’s relationships with the two closest people to him – his brother Salim and their new friend Latika – strongly inform his own decision-making abilities. Jamal’s love for Latika, who we shortly learn is the impetus behind Jamal’s appearing on the game show, and his envy (or fear) of Salim are the crucial cogs in Jamal’s frightening existence.
Director Danny Boyle doesn’t just show us the life and times of a poor Indian boy; if anything, that might make the movie more of a maudlin rags-to-riches story. No, this is a romance story, full of passion and undying love. No matter how many times Latika is separated from Jamal – he always finds her again, his heart pounding whenever she is near. It is for her that Jamal is on this game show, and as we learn, he knows the answer to each question he’s been asked because he remembers a specific event in his life on the run that connects him to that question.
Jamal’s journey from boyhood to early adulthood is fraught with danger; his mother is bludgeoned to death in front of him by an anti-Muslim mob, and the Fagin-like creep who takes the brothers in does horrible things to boys like them, especially if they can’t carry a tune (and thus make money). But no matter what happens or where he lands in life, his thoughts are first and foremost with the beautiful Latika. Jamal believes it is written that they will be reunited, and because he believes it so strongly, we believe it, too.
Hardly a false note is rung in this spellbinding, electrifying movie. Everything feels authentic, not a show staged for the pursuit of Western dollars. (There cast is composed of mostly Indian actors, not ringer Americans with “Indian” accents.) Boyle’s commanding, sure hand tells the dual stories of Jamal’s upbringing and his time on the game show, bringing them both to the same – and powerfully emotional conclusion. Dry eyes are not likely in the final third of this movie.
***1/2
-
You are currently browsing the archives for December, 2008
People Had This to Say