The A-Team - **1/2
The A-Team is a revamped big-screen adaptation of the '80s television show with the same name, so it should be obvious how it would-- or should-- pan out. It's a more violent, more action-packed, and more modern than it's small-screen counterpart, and it sometimes strays too far for it to be considered fun.
Updated for today, The A-Team is a story about four Iraq War veterans (as opposed to Vietnam veterans) who are accused of a crime they didn't commit. In the show, the "crime they didn't commit" was barely ever discussed except for an episode or two near the end, where their past catches up to them. However, the movie gives specifics on what happened in the first act; that is, after showing how Hannibal (Liam Neeson), Face (Bradley Cooper), Murdock (Sharlto Copley), and B.A. Baracus (Quinton "Rampage" Jackson) meet for the first time.
The story? While trying to take down a corrupt Mexican general (or sheriff? I wasn't sure which, but never mind), Hannibal recruits B.A. to help save Face from being burned alive by the Mexican after Face's libido gets the best of him. They then hid out in a US Veterans' hospital located, for some reason, in Mexico. There, they recruit Murdock, who, as I'm sure you no doubt seen in the trailer, has tried to escape by jump-starting an ambulance with a defibrillator. This'd be clever if it weren't repeated so many times in television commercials. The four of them in a daring escape, use the hospital evac helicopter to lure the corrupt Mexican-- I'll stop, since what happens is rather clever.
Having spent eight years together in Iraq, they're relaxing before being sent home, but not before they're given one last mission by a CIA agent Lynch (in the show, Colonel Lynch was the man originally tasked with capturing the A-Team, but he was just a Military Police officer who led a squad) to recover plates used by Saddam Hussein's forces to counterfeit American currency. But there's another snag: the person in charge is Captain Sosa (Jessica Biel)... Face's ex, who warns him that the case is hers, and if anyone interferes... I'm still not clear on that part. Rest assured, that the A-Team take the mission, and it goes off without a hitch... until they're betrayed by a group of thugs: the movie's equivalent of a Blackwater team. Hired guns. The A-Team are arrested, then escape, and go after who's responsible.
If it seems as if I've said a lot, it's because the introduction and the set-up take a lot longer than I think they should have. It's as if they expanded the set-up because there wasn't enough plot to justify two hours on the screen, and-- if you haven't seen the show-- there was never much plot with the A-Team to begin with. I guess you can't have a movie where the A-Team keeps pulling wonderful plans, but somehow never get the bad guy.
Still, some of the plans are wonderful to see, even though a lot of the time, I sat there wondering what incredible luck they have for these plans to succeed, since a lot of the time, these plans act like three intertwined Rube Goldberg devices.
While the movie benefits by an increased movie budget as well as modern effects, the action isn't exactly up to par. Yes, there are more sleek explosions, and yes, they do have the benefit of CGI now, but there's also a heavy overuse of the so-called "shaky-cam," which includes sharp cuts that are very disorienting to the viewer (I know that the use of the word "shaky-cam" in reviews is cliched, but then so is it's use). Part of the charm of the TV series was that the action was explicitly spelled out for you, and you knew who was where, since part of the fun was seeing it as an elaborate game of chess.
Still, the movie knows it's fun (for the most part), and there is no over-the-top violence, though a lot of people DO get shot or blown up or die in one form or another, unlike the TV series where it was mostly guns being fired but no hits. And there's no graphic romance other than some slight innuendo, few kisses and Face's charm, so it's not a ridiculous "sex for the sake of sex"-type movie. The actors fit their roles: Sharlto Copley as the crazy fool Murdock was especially wonderful, and "Rampage" Jackson wasn't imitating Mr. T. Though I think casting Liam Neeson was a bit of a stretch. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a wonderful actor, but Neeson doesn't have that constant smirk that George Peppard's Hannibal did, reassuring the audience that it's only a fun TV show, and that no one's really hurt. Neeson's Hannibal smiles a lot, and has fun, but it's not quite the same.
June 19, 2010
May 27, 2010
MacGruber - Review
MacGruber - **1/2
MacGruber is the latest in a long line of movies based upon sketches and skits from Saturday Night Live. In fact, we've had so many of these that it's unavoidable to compare them to those that came before. And as we all know, the majority of them have been crap. So that when I say that MacGruber is light on humour, but give it two and a half stars, you'll know that my expectations were low to begin with.
MacGruber stars Will Forte as the eponymous hero based from a series of 30-second Saturday Night Live sketches. Based on the name and the clothing, almost anyone can infer that it's a MacGyver parody. Well, it is and it isn't. The character is based on MacGyver--MacGruber also refuses to carry guns, and instead improvises sometimes really ridiculous items, but for a completely different reason--but the story is far from it.
MacGruber begins with the hijacking of a Russian nuclear missile, by the "untouchable" Dieter Von Cunth (Val Kilmer); the name, thankfully, is played straight. To stop Cunth, MacGruber--just "MacGruber"--is taken out of retirement from a monastery, and given the details. MacGruber rallies the best of the best (played by about six professional wrestlers), but MacGruber's ineptitude forces him to instead go with Lt. Piper (Ryan Philippe), who MacGruber instantly dislikes. Why? Who cares? It's funny. Eventually, Piper proves himself a valuable ally, especially when helping MacGruber convince their third teammate, Vicki St. Elmo (Kristen Wiig), to join.
Now, I should point out that a lot of humour comes from MacGruber's ineptitude, and if you've seen the skits, you'd know that. Still, MacGruber does have skills, despite the fact that things never go the best route; they just happen to work out.
MacGruber is a fun little movie, and the actors certainly give it their 110%, but the movie is certainly light on laughs. Considering it's a comedy, that's pretty scathing indeed. Still, it was fun, no joke really bombed for me, and it's entertaining as long as you assume it's a ridiculous movie with the occasional laugh. I credit first-time feature director Jorma Taccone who, along with fellow Lonely Islanders Akiva Schaffer and Andy Samberg are responsible for most of Saturday Night Live's current Digital Shorts, which are arguably the most consistent segments on the show. These guys are pretty funny, and did a wonderful little movie a few years back called Hot Rod.
But how does MacGruber stack up against other SNL movies? Reasonably well. The movie certainly isn't boring, and it's not brain-dead. It's not close to the league of Wayne's World and its sequel, but it's a far cry from the recent tripe like The Ladies Man or A Night at the Roxbury (which I will admit is a guilty pleasure of mine sometimes), let alone It's Pat! Fans of the MacGruber skits may very well enjoy this movie, but anyone expecting a lot of frequent laughs may be disappointed.
Still, it may be worth it just to see Val Kilmer act evil and taunt MacGruber.
MacGruber is the latest in a long line of movies based upon sketches and skits from Saturday Night Live. In fact, we've had so many of these that it's unavoidable to compare them to those that came before. And as we all know, the majority of them have been crap. So that when I say that MacGruber is light on humour, but give it two and a half stars, you'll know that my expectations were low to begin with.
MacGruber stars Will Forte as the eponymous hero based from a series of 30-second Saturday Night Live sketches. Based on the name and the clothing, almost anyone can infer that it's a MacGyver parody. Well, it is and it isn't. The character is based on MacGyver--MacGruber also refuses to carry guns, and instead improvises sometimes really ridiculous items, but for a completely different reason--but the story is far from it.
MacGruber begins with the hijacking of a Russian nuclear missile, by the "untouchable" Dieter Von Cunth (Val Kilmer); the name, thankfully, is played straight. To stop Cunth, MacGruber--just "MacGruber"--is taken out of retirement from a monastery, and given the details. MacGruber rallies the best of the best (played by about six professional wrestlers), but MacGruber's ineptitude forces him to instead go with Lt. Piper (Ryan Philippe), who MacGruber instantly dislikes. Why? Who cares? It's funny. Eventually, Piper proves himself a valuable ally, especially when helping MacGruber convince their third teammate, Vicki St. Elmo (Kristen Wiig), to join.
Now, I should point out that a lot of humour comes from MacGruber's ineptitude, and if you've seen the skits, you'd know that. Still, MacGruber does have skills, despite the fact that things never go the best route; they just happen to work out.
MacGruber is a fun little movie, and the actors certainly give it their 110%, but the movie is certainly light on laughs. Considering it's a comedy, that's pretty scathing indeed. Still, it was fun, no joke really bombed for me, and it's entertaining as long as you assume it's a ridiculous movie with the occasional laugh. I credit first-time feature director Jorma Taccone who, along with fellow Lonely Islanders Akiva Schaffer and Andy Samberg are responsible for most of Saturday Night Live's current Digital Shorts, which are arguably the most consistent segments on the show. These guys are pretty funny, and did a wonderful little movie a few years back called Hot Rod.
But how does MacGruber stack up against other SNL movies? Reasonably well. The movie certainly isn't boring, and it's not brain-dead. It's not close to the league of Wayne's World and its sequel, but it's a far cry from the recent tripe like The Ladies Man or A Night at the Roxbury (which I will admit is a guilty pleasure of mine sometimes), let alone It's Pat! Fans of the MacGruber skits may very well enjoy this movie, but anyone expecting a lot of frequent laughs may be disappointed.
Still, it may be worth it just to see Val Kilmer act evil and taunt MacGruber.
May 15, 2010
The Ghost Writer - Review
The Ghost Writer - ****
Roman Polanski's The Ghost Writer pulls you into the story in much the same way that a Scientologist pulls you in by promising a "free personality test," but in a good way. I find the trailers for it are a double-edged sword: on the one hand, they tell you about the movie. On the other hand, they tell you it's a thriller. The problem with this is that the thriller part creeps up on you. Just as you get used to the characters and the setting, events start creeping in. In fact, me telling you that sort of ruins it. Then again, people get interested in the word "thriller." What to do, what to do.
The movie stars Ewan McGregor as a writer who's been hired by a publishing company in New York to ghost write the autobiography of former British prime minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan), a politician so obviously modelled after former PM Tony Blair that I'm surprised no jokes about George W. Bush were made. The writer is asked to take the job with a strict deadline of one month, but he's not starting from scratch. He's taking over for the original ghost writer who had already finished a manuscript. What happened to the original writer? He died while shadowing Lang in his Martha's Vineyard escape. Suicide or accidental drowning due to drinking, they say. He meets Lang's wife, Ruth (Olivia Williams) and Lang's assistant/secretary (I was never sure which), Amelia (Kim Cattrall), while they help him get accustomed (in different ways) to Lang and his new surroundings.
I've told you the set-up, but I'm afraid that if I go any deeper than that, I'll raise your expectations. Not in terms of quality, but in terms of plot details. It's best if you just let yourself be absorbed by the story.
The movie sets up events in such careful, detailed points that you delve deeper and deeper into this world. Polanski, with help from the book's novelist Robert Harris, has skill in his ability to edge you into the hot water like making a hard-boiled egg by starting in cold water ("hard-boiled," get it?). It's a well-made story, and I barely noticed that he uses the traditional Raymond Chandler-esque (his name is almost mandatory when talking about stories like these) devices like introducing characters one by one throughout the story, as well as following the protagonist and witnessing only things he sees. Then again, you can't not do that when you're presenting a mystery (or mysteries? oooh) to both a protagonist and the audience at the same time.
If you didn't get my "hard-boiled" joke by now, then you probably don't know who Raymond Chandler was, either.
Roman Polanski's The Ghost Writer pulls you into the story in much the same way that a Scientologist pulls you in by promising a "free personality test," but in a good way. I find the trailers for it are a double-edged sword: on the one hand, they tell you about the movie. On the other hand, they tell you it's a thriller. The problem with this is that the thriller part creeps up on you. Just as you get used to the characters and the setting, events start creeping in. In fact, me telling you that sort of ruins it. Then again, people get interested in the word "thriller." What to do, what to do.
The movie stars Ewan McGregor as a writer who's been hired by a publishing company in New York to ghost write the autobiography of former British prime minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan), a politician so obviously modelled after former PM Tony Blair that I'm surprised no jokes about George W. Bush were made. The writer is asked to take the job with a strict deadline of one month, but he's not starting from scratch. He's taking over for the original ghost writer who had already finished a manuscript. What happened to the original writer? He died while shadowing Lang in his Martha's Vineyard escape. Suicide or accidental drowning due to drinking, they say. He meets Lang's wife, Ruth (Olivia Williams) and Lang's assistant/secretary (I was never sure which), Amelia (Kim Cattrall), while they help him get accustomed (in different ways) to Lang and his new surroundings.
I've told you the set-up, but I'm afraid that if I go any deeper than that, I'll raise your expectations. Not in terms of quality, but in terms of plot details. It's best if you just let yourself be absorbed by the story.
The movie sets up events in such careful, detailed points that you delve deeper and deeper into this world. Polanski, with help from the book's novelist Robert Harris, has skill in his ability to edge you into the hot water like making a hard-boiled egg by starting in cold water ("hard-boiled," get it?). It's a well-made story, and I barely noticed that he uses the traditional Raymond Chandler-esque (his name is almost mandatory when talking about stories like these) devices like introducing characters one by one throughout the story, as well as following the protagonist and witnessing only things he sees. Then again, you can't not do that when you're presenting a mystery (or mysteries? oooh) to both a protagonist and the audience at the same time.
If you didn't get my "hard-boiled" joke by now, then you probably don't know who Raymond Chandler was, either.
May 12, 2010
Iron Man 2 - Review
Iron Man 2 - ***
Y'know, I'm really starting to sense a pattern with Marvel superhero movies. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a formula, but hear me out. Most, if not all, of these current superhero movies are usually following into the pattern of a trilogy; that's fine enough. I mean, most of our fiction (not just film) follows a traditional three-act structure for the simple reason that it's recognizable and it works with the human psyche: a beginning, middle and end. The first movie establishes the hero and their powers, problems and world. Of course, since we all need to start somewhere. The bad guy in the first movie is someone the hero has known for almost their whole lives: with Spider-Man, it was Norman Osborn; with the X-Men, it was Magneto and the later-named Brotherhood of Mutants; and with Iron Man, it was Obadiah Stane. In the sequel it's someone who pops up out of nowhere... you can see the rest from here.
But I'll bet you're saying, "Ok, so what about Iron Man 2?" I'm getting to that.
Iron Man 2 follows the tradition of what I've mentioned before with giving Iron Man/Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) an enemy distantly-related to him: that's Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke). Vanko is the son of a former Russian partner of Tony's father (John Slattery, present in old films suspiciously similar to Walt Disney. Or is that just me?) who passed his vast engineering knowledge to his son and makes him swear revenge on the Stark name and empire. He fashions a chest piece similar to Iron Man's that allows him to hold two powerful electrical whips in each hand (and how he controls them, I will never know). He encounters Stark in a Formula One racing strip where Stark is racing one of his own racers. Why? Because he's dying. The arc reactor -- the one that's keeping him alive, though you'd think that the shrapnel near his heart would've stopped by now -- is killing him: palladium poisoning. So he's taking a bit more of a reckless streak, including giving a very public verbal middle finger to a senator that wants to capture the Iron Man technology for the United States "and her interests." And it's in this meeting that we're introduced to a less-than-impressive Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), one of Stark's biggest competitors, whose products aren't exactly up to Stark Industries' standards. Which is why he strikes up a partnership with Vanko, after his stunt on Iron Man.
I know there's a lot to take in. In fact, there's a few more subplots. This sequel is certainly not light on plot. In fact, I'd say it's more well-paced than the first Iron Man. But what is missing is any semblance of characterization. In the first Iron Man, we got a sense of what kind of man Tony Stark was, including the long and painful change from being the arrogant-yet-brilliant billionaire playboy arms dealer to world-on-his-shoulders Iron Man. But now there are so many plot strands that the relationships and character progressions are side-lined in favour of plot and action sequences.
Don't get me wrong, the action scenes are top-notch, especially when there's a mix of CG and live action and miniatures, and things like that. And it was fun to see them. Especially a drunk Iron Man (that's not a metaphor for "Tony Stark is Iron Man" in much the same way that "Bruce Wayne is Batman"). And it is really obvious that they are setting up a larger Marvel universe world in film (especially with continuous mentions of S.H.I.E.L.D., the Avengers, and an expanded role for Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury). But I can't help but think that the palladium poisoning from Stark's chest reactor is a metaphor for the story at large.
Y'know, I'm really starting to sense a pattern with Marvel superhero movies. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a formula, but hear me out. Most, if not all, of these current superhero movies are usually following into the pattern of a trilogy; that's fine enough. I mean, most of our fiction (not just film) follows a traditional three-act structure for the simple reason that it's recognizable and it works with the human psyche: a beginning, middle and end. The first movie establishes the hero and their powers, problems and world. Of course, since we all need to start somewhere. The bad guy in the first movie is someone the hero has known for almost their whole lives: with Spider-Man, it was Norman Osborn; with the X-Men, it was Magneto and the later-named Brotherhood of Mutants; and with Iron Man, it was Obadiah Stane. In the sequel it's someone who pops up out of nowhere... you can see the rest from here.
But I'll bet you're saying, "Ok, so what about Iron Man 2?" I'm getting to that.
Iron Man 2 follows the tradition of what I've mentioned before with giving Iron Man/Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) an enemy distantly-related to him: that's Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke). Vanko is the son of a former Russian partner of Tony's father (John Slattery, present in old films suspiciously similar to Walt Disney. Or is that just me?) who passed his vast engineering knowledge to his son and makes him swear revenge on the Stark name and empire. He fashions a chest piece similar to Iron Man's that allows him to hold two powerful electrical whips in each hand (and how he controls them, I will never know). He encounters Stark in a Formula One racing strip where Stark is racing one of his own racers. Why? Because he's dying. The arc reactor -- the one that's keeping him alive, though you'd think that the shrapnel near his heart would've stopped by now -- is killing him: palladium poisoning. So he's taking a bit more of a reckless streak, including giving a very public verbal middle finger to a senator that wants to capture the Iron Man technology for the United States "and her interests." And it's in this meeting that we're introduced to a less-than-impressive Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), one of Stark's biggest competitors, whose products aren't exactly up to Stark Industries' standards. Which is why he strikes up a partnership with Vanko, after his stunt on Iron Man.
I know there's a lot to take in. In fact, there's a few more subplots. This sequel is certainly not light on plot. In fact, I'd say it's more well-paced than the first Iron Man. But what is missing is any semblance of characterization. In the first Iron Man, we got a sense of what kind of man Tony Stark was, including the long and painful change from being the arrogant-yet-brilliant billionaire playboy arms dealer to world-on-his-shoulders Iron Man. But now there are so many plot strands that the relationships and character progressions are side-lined in favour of plot and action sequences.
Don't get me wrong, the action scenes are top-notch, especially when there's a mix of CG and live action and miniatures, and things like that. And it was fun to see them. Especially a drunk Iron Man (that's not a metaphor for "Tony Stark is Iron Man" in much the same way that "Bruce Wayne is Batman"). And it is really obvious that they are setting up a larger Marvel universe world in film (especially with continuous mentions of S.H.I.E.L.D., the Avengers, and an expanded role for Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury). But I can't help but think that the palladium poisoning from Stark's chest reactor is a metaphor for the story at large.
May 7, 2010
How to Train Your Dragon - Review
How to Train Your Dragon - ***
It's always been fun to imagine -- especially as a kid -- that you can live on a remote island in a nature-like (yet suspiciously clean without any dirt whatsoever) village where you can have the chance for adventure. Well, that's what How to Train Your Dragon gives us. The story is about that exact kind of village inhabited by vikings whose sole purpose seems to be to grow up and become big and strong just so they can kill a dragon whenever gangs -- ok, packs -- of dragons show up to pilfer livestock and destroy livelihoods.
The hero is a Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel), a young man who would be otherwise considered a boy if not for his dweeby-yet-decidedly older voice. Hiccup (the name is honestly played straight) is a blacksmith's apprentice (Craig Ferguson) who dreams of being taken on the journey to destroy the dragons' nest, only to be shunned by the entire village for being too scrawny, which is made even worse when his father (Gerard Butler) says there's something wrong with "this," referring to all of Hiccup in a single gesture.
But Hiccup has an obvious-to-the-audience advantage: his brains. During a fateful (really, when are they not fateful?) dragon attack, he demonstrates an invention of his that hits a dragon from far away, but instead becomes a pariah when his demonstration, unfortunately seen by no one, damages the town way more than usual. Still, his father believes that dragon training may straighten him out, so he gets his chance. Unfortunately for Hiccup, he finds the injured dragon, and notices something in the dragon. I'd call it humanity, but dragons aren't human. Nevertheless, Hiccup spares the injured dragon's life, and endeavours to understand more about the dragon, since all of the dragons in the dragon textbook (yes, the training involves a conveniently-placed textbook) have little more than "kill on sight." The dragon that Hiccup injured, however, is one whose entry states repeatedly "unknown," and "run away from immediately." Eventually, Hiccup discovers that the dragon now suffers from a permanent disfigurement, and after a long time of shadowing the dragon, he discovers how to help the dragon, and learns that the dragons are more than just instinctive murderers.
The story isn't a unique one, but it did offer quite a few original turns to the setting, including a secret regarding the dragons' nest that I dare not reveal. The movie was fun, and I suspect that kids will enjoy this one. I certainly did, anyway. The characters were nothing special, including the usual run of father-and-son cliches, as well as the gaggle of Hiccup's fellow obnoxiously-ambitious trainees (including former Superbad friends Jonah Hill and Christopher Mintz-Plasse). There was one in particular that stood out to me: Astrid (voice by America Ferrera). Not surprising, considering she is the object of Hiccup's eye. Astrid is one of the most obnoxious young girls I've seen. I get that Hiccup keeps screwing up in the beginning (duh), but her personality does a one-eighty no less than two times, and it's rather jarring to see her go from super-annoyed to super-jealous to... well, you know.
As for the subject of projection: yes, I did see it in 3D. I saw it in a half-empty cinema on a cheaper Tuesday night and paid almost the equivalent of a non-3D ticket on any other day. The 3D is not Avatar-good, but because this is a movie that was done three-dimensionally in the first place, it doesn't suffer from either strange things popping out at you (Avatar, in my opinion, had this problem with things like futuristic computer screens, etc.) or from being a live-action movie post-processed to be in 3D. But it does, like Avatar, use the 3D to bring more depth to the landscape, including a lot of flying scenes. There are a few scenes where yes, Hiccup does ride the eventually-named Toothless, and the glasses add a sense of awe among the landscape. I hope that 3D doesn't become a mainstay of cinema like this without vast improvements (I don't want to keep wearing those stupid glasses), including the darker picture, but once in a while, a well-made 3D movie that gives us an entire new world (or just new land) to gawk at would be a nice treat.
It's always been fun to imagine -- especially as a kid -- that you can live on a remote island in a nature-like (yet suspiciously clean without any dirt whatsoever) village where you can have the chance for adventure. Well, that's what How to Train Your Dragon gives us. The story is about that exact kind of village inhabited by vikings whose sole purpose seems to be to grow up and become big and strong just so they can kill a dragon whenever gangs -- ok, packs -- of dragons show up to pilfer livestock and destroy livelihoods.
The hero is a Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel), a young man who would be otherwise considered a boy if not for his dweeby-yet-decidedly older voice. Hiccup (the name is honestly played straight) is a blacksmith's apprentice (Craig Ferguson) who dreams of being taken on the journey to destroy the dragons' nest, only to be shunned by the entire village for being too scrawny, which is made even worse when his father (Gerard Butler) says there's something wrong with "this," referring to all of Hiccup in a single gesture.
But Hiccup has an obvious-to-the-audience advantage: his brains. During a fateful (really, when are they not fateful?) dragon attack, he demonstrates an invention of his that hits a dragon from far away, but instead becomes a pariah when his demonstration, unfortunately seen by no one, damages the town way more than usual. Still, his father believes that dragon training may straighten him out, so he gets his chance. Unfortunately for Hiccup, he finds the injured dragon, and notices something in the dragon. I'd call it humanity, but dragons aren't human. Nevertheless, Hiccup spares the injured dragon's life, and endeavours to understand more about the dragon, since all of the dragons in the dragon textbook (yes, the training involves a conveniently-placed textbook) have little more than "kill on sight." The dragon that Hiccup injured, however, is one whose entry states repeatedly "unknown," and "run away from immediately." Eventually, Hiccup discovers that the dragon now suffers from a permanent disfigurement, and after a long time of shadowing the dragon, he discovers how to help the dragon, and learns that the dragons are more than just instinctive murderers.
The story isn't a unique one, but it did offer quite a few original turns to the setting, including a secret regarding the dragons' nest that I dare not reveal. The movie was fun, and I suspect that kids will enjoy this one. I certainly did, anyway. The characters were nothing special, including the usual run of father-and-son cliches, as well as the gaggle of Hiccup's fellow obnoxiously-ambitious trainees (including former Superbad friends Jonah Hill and Christopher Mintz-Plasse). There was one in particular that stood out to me: Astrid (voice by America Ferrera). Not surprising, considering she is the object of Hiccup's eye. Astrid is one of the most obnoxious young girls I've seen. I get that Hiccup keeps screwing up in the beginning (duh), but her personality does a one-eighty no less than two times, and it's rather jarring to see her go from super-annoyed to super-jealous to... well, you know.
As for the subject of projection: yes, I did see it in 3D. I saw it in a half-empty cinema on a cheaper Tuesday night and paid almost the equivalent of a non-3D ticket on any other day. The 3D is not Avatar-good, but because this is a movie that was done three-dimensionally in the first place, it doesn't suffer from either strange things popping out at you (Avatar, in my opinion, had this problem with things like futuristic computer screens, etc.) or from being a live-action movie post-processed to be in 3D. But it does, like Avatar, use the 3D to bring more depth to the landscape, including a lot of flying scenes. There are a few scenes where yes, Hiccup does ride the eventually-named Toothless, and the glasses add a sense of awe among the landscape. I hope that 3D doesn't become a mainstay of cinema like this without vast improvements (I don't want to keep wearing those stupid glasses), including the darker picture, but once in a while, a well-made 3D movie that gives us an entire new world (or just new land) to gawk at would be a nice treat.
April 20, 2010
Top 10 of 2009
10. Star Trek
A reboot of the continuity and a reimagining of the style, Star Trek takes us back to the roots of the Star Trek franchise: life-long relationships, revenge-promising villains, and space opera. There were better movies released in 2009, but operatic sci-fi movies like this are released sparingly by studios. In fact, the last good operatic sci-fi movie I saw was 2005’s Serenity. A four-year gap between movies is not good enough, especially in the post-Star Wars era. It was definitely lacking that ‘little something’ that makes Star Trek as a franchise stand out against other sci-fi operas, but it’s a welcome attempt to bring the fold back, especially after the dismal failures of the last two movies.
9. An Education
A coming-of-age story about a British high school near-graduate (as in “almost done high school” and not “didn’t graduate”) who meets an older man that seems too good to be true. Jenny (Carey Mulligan) discovers that there’s more to life than just working toward a possible future; that the ability to enjoy life is just as important. This isn’t the theme of the movie, but the set-up. The movie acts as a sort of deconstruction of a “smarter than the average bear”, seemingly-worldly sixteen-year-old near the end, and without this, the movie wouldn’t be nearly as good. Nevertheless, a solid performance from newcomer Mulligan (though I must admit that I saw her as the main character in a Doctor Who episode from 2008 called “Blink.” A wonderful episode, and she plays it well).
8. A Serious Man
The Coen brothers’ version of the Book of Job, where a man struggles with a constant parade of misfortune. A whole bunch of bad things happen to Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), and all he can do is continue. Why? He can’t find any other reason than because he’s supposed to. Somewhat of a dark comedy, the Coen brothers have captured a man in a situation that would put other men at the end of their ropes. But not Larry. Like the little engine that could, maybe there’s some light at the end. We all know there won’t be. But then again, we’re all not Larry Gopnik.
7. (500) Days of Summer
A non-romantic comedy—and I mean that in the non-clichéd “romantic movie with one small twist that makes a movie stick in your mind, but is really formulaic so it’s non-threatening to the lemming-like audience of romantic comedies”—that reminds you that not all romances end with a happy ending. (500) Days of Summer plays with time to jump around a relationship where we see each of Tom’s (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) hopes of “the one” dashed in a subsequent scene of cold-hard reality. But don’t fret. Like a light at the end of a tunnel, the movie reminds us that Summer is not the only season. It’s as realistic of a romance as a movie can portray, and it proves that not all romantic comedies (oops, did I call it that?) are formula-driven, star’s-paycheque, non-threatening movies (I’m looking at you, Did You Hear About the Morgans? and The Bounty Hunter). And a word of caution: don’t see this movie with your boyfriend or girlfriend. Maybe an ex.
6. Broken Embraces
It’s a pity that this was not nominated for an Academy Award. Pedro Almadovar dives into the depths of how a filmmaker came to be the way he is: blind, and insistent on using the name “Harry Caine”; and how he became that. Using a framing story about a knock at the door from his past, we find out that this lonesome man was once a productive film director, whose only mistake was falling in love with a rich man’s beautiful mistress, and blinding himself to reality. Perhaps that was his punishment. Nevertheless, the film is certainly not lacking in beautiful vistas of Spain and Almadovar’s ability to produce colour in most of his sets. This movie makes me wonder, because foreign film actors are not recognized by the Academy, if Penelope Cruz’ Oscar nomination was a way for them to recognize her work in Broken Embraces, and Nine happened to be convenient.
5. Up in the Air
While the subject matter of this movie is directed mostly to the current economic crisis, I don’t believe that this is the only reason for this movie’s success. Jason Reitman weaves a tale with sly, sardonic humour on its side. Perhaps that’s the only way to deal with such a recent wound in our society. No, the movie’s not a comedy, but this is precisely the kind of movie that illustrates that you can’t always have a sour attitude toward life. There is no man better for the role than George Clooney, who looks like a man so sure of what his life is like, even when he says things we disagree with, we listen and believe because of that look. It makes us (and members of a motivational seminar) believe that he must be doing something right. The only thing that made me wonder was Anna Kendrick’s relative new performance: she seemed to be an odd fit. Eventually, I decided that that was the role: she was a newbie to the job; fresh out of school, and of the mentality that experience is for people that couldn’t make it through college. There are people like this, and if there is a God, they usually fall flat on their asses when real life rears it’s ugly head. But this time, schadenfreude never did show up.
4. Up
This movie is a perfect example of what I’ve believed for a long time: animated movies can have just as much punch and wit to them as some of the best live-action movies. In fact, animated movies can go farther than live-action in certain ways. And as I said, this movie is a perfect example of that. Did I mention that Up is the perfect example of the wonders of animation? Oh. Anyway, Up delivers an emotional tour de force with as much wit and emotion as any movie I’ve seen, animated or otherwise. It has a lot of advantages over other movies, least of which is the ability to use rich colour palettes to sway emotion. I know you were expecting me to say something like “a great way to bring imagination to screen” or something like that, and you’d be right. It is.
3. Inglourious Basterds
Who else but Quentin Tarantino would have the audacity to rewrite World War II? (For the spoiler-conscious, assume I’m referring to the existence of Operation Kino). Inglourious Basterds is a loud, film & pop culture nerd-fueled exercise in style and wish fulfillment. But it’s also nuanced, cleverly written, and one of the best-looking natural movies I’ve seen in a while. It’s obvious that Tarantino loves film, and has an eye for how to use his tools. Where other directors have trouble balancing between playing it straight and over-the-top, Tarantino brings in both Christoph Waltz and Brad Pitt to fill those respective roles (the latter of which quite deservedly won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor).
2. Avatar
What else can I say about a $500 million juggernaut that easily recouped it’s cost? Seeing this movie is how it must’ve been like seeing Star Wars for the first time in 1977. The movie is a spectacular triumph of translating visual imagination, and it awakens the awe-inspired child in all of us. Avatar, I suspect, is going to herald a new wave of technologically-realized fantasy movies, not unlike the post-Star Wars boom in the late 70-early 80s. Sure, the story isn’t exactly complex and the characters barely go past their archetypal origins, but this isn’t a character study.
1. The Hurt Locker
A taught war drama about a bomb disposal unit during the Iraq War that deservedly won its six Oscars, including Best Picture. The movie throws increasingly dangerous situations at the three soldiers—not all of them about bomb disposing, but those are the most tense—and observes how they react. It doesn’t lay its message on thick. It doesn’t force a political viewpoint. It merely presents the situations, and proves it’s opening caption: “War is a drug.” And it does it with intensity.
OK, so The Hurt Locker was released officially in 2008, but it didn't really get any steam until 2009. So if the Oscars can award it in 2009, why can't I?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)