Foster on Film » Page 39

Earthstorm (2006)

Oct 042006

A meteor strike on the Moon causes it to crack, and drop a bunch of really big rocks onto the Earth. I’d use a more scientific term, but science has no place in this movie. Not surprisingly, the people of Earth are concerned, particularly because this means a quarter of the Moon is going to split off and kill us all. A hot babe scientist knows how to save the world; she just needs the aid of all-around-swell guy and demolitions expert John Redding (Stephen Baldwin). As a building-implosion expert, he obviously knows how to use nuclear bombs on the Moon to weld shot the crevice. Of course they have to work around a nasty government agent (Dirk Benedict), who causes problems because… Because… I guess he causes problems because he’s a dick. There’s no other reason. Well, I suppose he might find it unlikely that a construction worker can do planetary calculations in his head while flying over the moon in on a space shuttle, but no one mentions that, so probably not.

If you’re familiar with low I.Q. sci-fi, the plot should be familiar. This is a cheap rip-off of Armageddon, with even less brains. That doesn’t mean it’s a worse movie. Once you reach a certain level of stupidity, additional silliness is actually a boon. And Earthstorm is the Olympic pole vault champion of stupidity. It is wildly, joyously stupid. There isn’t a single moment that makes sense on a character, plot, or scientific level. The dialog is laughable and the sets can best be called quaint. This is a film where mission control operates out of one small room, gets its electricity off of the city grid, and has one back-up generator with enough diesel for about an hour.

This is a dumb movie, and because of that, not in spite of it, I enjoyed it. Not a lot, but a little is something. It is completely free of self-importance. There are no pompous speeches, and no one is pretending that somebody’s death will emotionally effect anyone. It’s fast moving and sticks to its plot. The filmmakers were aware that the audience was not going to care about these people, so no time is wasted in unnecessary and tedious character development. There’s the hot girl with a mission, the nice guy who blows things up, the dedicated pilot, the snotty presidential advisor, and the efficient manager. That’s all the personality the characters have. What more do they need?

I’d have liked more scenes of destruction. This is a disaster movie. The obviously CGI fireballs hitting Mexico City are a start, but there’s not nearly enough to go with them. Couldn’t they have clobbered a major governmental building? Guess it wasn’t in the budget.

Earthstorm is a movie to laugh at, not with. As long as you can take it in that vein, perhaps downing a shot whenever a law of physics is violated, you’ll be able to sit through it, and even smile.

Disaster, Reviews Tagged with: Two Reels

Forgiving the Franklins (2006)

Oct 042006

The four members of the stodgy, conservative, ultra-religious Franklin family live their lives around what is proper, until a car crash puts Frank (Robertson Dean), Betty (Teresa Willis), and their son Brian (Vince Pavia) into direct contact with Jesus, who removes their sense of shame. Returned to Earth, the three find new meaning in life, but their behavior upsets daughter Caroline (Aviva), shocks their friend Peggy (Mari C. Blackwell), and alienates them from society.

It is not uncommon for the film festival circuit to be filled with unengaging, pretentious, slice-of-life pictures that say nothing of interest or importance. They exist on the screen for two hours, and then disappear, only to appear at other film festivals before disappearing forever. The SunDance Film Festival’s booklet, which tends to describe every movie as if it is a documentary on depressed, inner-city, single mothers, gave little reason to think Forgiving the Franklins would be anything unusual. Ah, I love it when I’m surprised, and this is a movie that surprises in almost every way. Smart, accessible, and fall-from-your-chair funny, Forgiving the Franklins is everything that film should be.

Writer-director-producer Jay Floyd presents us with rigid, repressed people that may look more familiar than anyone would like to admit. The Franklins are upstanding members of their town and church. These are the kind of people that can always be counted on, that get things done, and are completely humorless. Then he twists them, using them to examine all the hypocrisies of modern life. Rapidly, it becomes as difficult for the viewer to understand shame as it is for the Franklins. Certainly a majority of the satire is focused on conservative Christian institutions and behaviors, but this is not an anti-religious film. Nor is it a simple one. It isn’t even always a comedy. Floyd has a better handle on humor than tragedy, and the film is at its most effective when it is light, but the more serious elements are reminders that this isn’t material to simply enjoy and then forget. This is a movie that will stick with you.

While the script is what places Forgiving the Franklins high above normal cinematic fare, it wouldn’t work without a cast that can handle the extremes of emotion and tone, and this cast has no weak members. Aviva (who misplaced her last name sometime in the last few years) and Pavia have long careers ahead of them, as does the captivating Blackwell. Dean displays an uncommon ease with comedy while acting as a powerful presence, but it is Willis who is a revelation. Her role as the bland, holier-than-thou housewife who becomes a sexy, caring icon of what life is about, is the pivotal one in the picture, and few actresses could carry it off. I was astonished at how sexless she appeared at the movie’s start, and how desirable she became as it progressed, without a noticeable change in makeup or other non-acting aids.

One of the best films of the year (if it had been released a month earlier, it would have deserved Oscar nominations in at least three of the major categories), Forgiving the Franklins has yet to be picked up for distribution. Perhaps the big companies fear it will be a difficult sell, with its controversial subject matter, candid discussion of sexuality, and nudity, but don’t most people enjoy the latter two? As for the first, Forgiving the Franklins isn’t controversial, just insightful. No one left the SunDance screening ready to argue. But everyone seemed ready to think.

For now, keep an eye on your local festivals.

Miscellaneous, Reviews Tagged with: Four Reels

Mission: Impossible III (2006)

Oct 042006

Super agent and all around swell guy Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) has given up field work with the Impossible Mission Force in favor of instructing, and lying to his fiancée, Julia (Michelle Monaghan)—but she doesn’t have enough personality to talk about, so lets forget about her. When cute-as-a-bug agent Lindsey Farris (Keri Russell) is captured by evil weapons dealer Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Ethan overacts for a bit, then joins team members Luther (Ving Rhames), Declan (Jonathan Rhys Meyers), and Zhen (Maggie Q) in a ridiculous planned rescue operation that, thankfully, even his boss (Laurence Fishburne) thinks is stupid. More overacting helps Ethan decide to save the day by going on an unauthorized mission to get the arms dealer. Ah, but might his attempt be thwarted by a traitor in the ranks? If you don’t know the answer to that, you haven’t seen the previous films.

Tom Cruise rapes the television series Mission Impossible for the third time, but for this session he has director J.J. Abrams (TV shows: Felicity, Alias, Lost) to help hold it down. The two manage to craft a silly, slow, and pompous action thriller, that is seldom exciting and never emotionally compelling. There’s plenty of bullets, helicopter gun battles, and falls from high places, and not for a minute is it satisfying on any level. Seldom has a popcorn movie been so drab.

Cruise returns as overly emotional IMF agent, Ethan Hunt, displaying all the acting ability he’s become known for. Have you seen Eye’s Wide Shut? Yeah, that’s what you’ll have to suffer through. With a clever script that plays to a star’s strengths, an action film can get away with poor acting (think of almost anything with Arnold Schwarzenegger). Let the star show a bit of charm, keep things fast and light, add in a few wow!-inducing set pieces, and you have at least middling entertainment. But MI3 takes itself very seriously. You can almost hear Abrams shouting, “This is Theater! Act, damn you. Act!” Apparently he thought he was making Romeo and Juliet, (Ethan’s main squeeze in named Jules and he drinks “poison” in order to see her) which leaves Cruise in the position of having to show actual human feelings. It’s not a pretty sight. In between explosions, Ethan dwells on his love for Jules, his fear that she could be hurt, and other sentiments that fall far outside Cruise’s limited abilities. The boy looks good and can do a stunt or two. Shakespeare is not his bag.

But it isn’t just Cruise’s inability to play melodrama that sinks the picture. Abrams, using the shaking camera and greenish pallet so prevalent among directors who can’t figure how to make a scene legitimately exciting, submerges the whole film in an atmosphere of cruelty and unpleasantness. He doesn’t understand the difference between a fun spy movie and Reservoir Dogs. If he was looking for deep and meaningful human drama, than he needed to dump the over-the-top action, and get a different star. For pure matinee fun, he needed to have added in some…well…fun. What he gives us is some overused stunts and an overly precious wedding. Is that ever a good idea in an espionage flick?

Hoffman is a believable, barbaric villain in a movie that didn’t need a believable, barbaric villain. A clever and twisted bad guy would have worked much better. His scenes with Cruise only serve to point out the lead’s inadequacies. The rest of the cast falls somewhere between adequate and barely noticeable. Ving Rhames doesn’t embarrass himself, which makes him the most successful person on screen. Poor Michelle Monaghan is given the role of the lackluster girl friend who may not have a single character trait. You’re unlikely to remember her when she’s not in the frame.

I like my spy pics to have a few clever moments. Hey, they’re spies. But over the three films, the IM Force has gotten dimmer and dimmer, so that now they rely on rushing in with guns blazing and hope that luck gets them out. Time after time, our hero survives by random chance. Suspension of disbelief? No way.

Every once in a while, an action movie will come along with real wit behind it (True Lies). Then there are the extremely rare instances when all the planets come into perfect alignment (Die Hard). For all the rest, it’s simple: the filmmakers need to study the James Bond movies. If the project is reminiscent of Goldfinger or GoldenEye, things are in good shape. If On Her Majesty’s Secret Service or License to Kill come to mind, things are grim. MI3 is constructed from those latter titles, without even living up to their minimal standards.

Action, Miscellaneous, Reviews Tagged with: One Reel

Children of Men (2006)

Oct 042006

It’s 2027, and the last baby was born over eighteen years ago. The infertility of the human race has caused most societies to crumble, with violent anarchy the rule. Britain survives under a fascist government that cruelly carries out its no-immigration policy. Theo (Clive Owen), an apathetic, alcoholic, office worker, is brought into the fray by his ex-girlfriend/wife/lover, Julian (Julianne Moore), the leader of pro-immigrant terrorists. She’s found a girl (Claire-Hope Ashitey) who has become pregnant, and wants Theo’s help in getting her out of the country to the secretive Human Project.

Bleak, brutal, and compelling, Children of Men is a parable for the last six years, told with bullets, bombs, and a constant feeling of dread. Somehow, it manages to be fun to watch, but it is more impressive than enjoyable.

While Michael Caine, supplying the few light moments as a hippy living secretly in the woods, and Julianne Moore, as a cold, but perhaps too idealistic “freedom fighter,” have been getting a good deal of press, the film belongs to Clive Owen and Claire-Hope Ashitey, and mainly to Owen. It is a journey, physically and emotionally with one individual, and we’re along for the hellish ride. Owen is the man for the part. Be it depression, pain, shock, loss, or the discovery of hope, Owen captures every moment, making Theo one of the most compelling figures in recent cinema.

The plot is old hat in apocalyptic B-science fiction, coming uncomfortably close to that of the less-than-stellar American Cyborg: Steel Warrior. A man protects the world’s only fertile woman on a trek to reach a mysterious boat which will take her to safety. The ending is even the same. But it isn’t about the story, but the execution. Children of Men presents a believable near-future (believable under the circumstances), with thousands lamenting the death of the worlds youngest person (he was eighteen), black-clad military police on every corner, and immigrants kept in cages. Director Alfonso Cuarón (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) displays this dystopian world with gritty realism. The climactic urban warfare is the most stunning piece of filmmaking since Blackhawk Down. The audience around me jumped, winced, and sighed through the last fifteen minutes.

The themes are as powerful as the imagery. While the story is taking place twenty-one years in the future, the situations it is referring to are taking place now: The plight of immigrants and the simplistic way it is perceived, the loss of civil rights connected to the fear of terrorism, how people who just want to survive suffer for other people’s ideals. There’s a lot of Iraq in the film, as well as current U.S. and British political thought.

While I could get lost in the picture, I was pulled out repeatedly by the lack of information I was given. The sheer number of unanswered questions is distracting. Why was no one fertile for 18 years? Why have no artificial techniques been developed? Why do all the immigrants want to get into the U.K. when it is such a horrible, fascist state that is so cruel to immigrants? Why doesn’t Theo go to the press? Why does he need five thousand pounds? Does the Human Project exist, and if so, what will they do? Is Kee a fluke or will lots of women become pregnant? I welcome a film that, for a change, sticks with one character, letting us know only what he knows. But I’d have liked him to know a bit more.

But I have a bigger problem with Children of Men. It assumes it would be a good thing for the human race to survive. I suppose that’s a reasonable thing to expect an audience to accept, but I didn’t. In general, I like it when a film supports even its most popular positions, but lack of support isn’t the issue here. Rather Children of Men makes a forceful argument for the elimination of mankind. It paints a dismal picture of the species, and even when individuals aren’t sludge, it demonstrates over and over that people cannot interact with each other in larger numbers than two or three without dire consequences. If I’m supposed to care about the fight to save humanity, I need to be given some, small reason, to think its a good idea for us not to leave it all to the hamsters. I did care about Theo and Kee, but I didn’t want them to succeed, just escape. Children of Men will one day be an honored film, seen by all young hamsters so that they will feel no sorrow for those that have gone before them.

Dystopia, Reviews Tagged with: Three Reels

Return to Halloweentown (2006)

Oct 032006

Teen witch Marnie “Cromwell” Piper (Sara Paxton) heads off to college in Halloweentown, where evil forces plan to use her to enslave the friendly monsters. But first, Marnie must deal with bitchy college girls and other things that reach new heights of banality.

The fourth outing in the Halloweentown franchise (Halloweentown, Halloweentown II: Kalabar’s Revenge, Halloweentown High) raises the question: When, oh for God’s sake when, will it all end? I’m guessing not for a long time. These flicks have got to be cheap. They certainly look it. And if the producers are paying anything over minimum wage for the script, they’re being cheated. The movies last an hour and a half and couldn’t cost much more than three episodes of a Disney-channel, live action sitcom. Pumping out another lets the Mouse-House folks preempt some show they’ve already repeated five times and claim they’ve got a special event. Well, think short bus special.

Return to Halloweentown is no worse than its predecessors, which I suppose is some kind of accomplishment. But if your first film isn’t worth watching, making three more that also aren’t worth watching is a pretty minimal achievement. The first was insulting to the intelligence of children, and so is this one. Hey, more consistency! The only substantial changes are in the cast. Sara Paxton (Aquamarine) replaces Kimberly J. Brown as Marnie. Rumor has it that Brown had another job, but I can’t help but think Disney wanted to go younger—frightening since Brown was born in ’84. Paxton is pretty and heroin-chic thin. She shows no signs of being able to act, but it is unfair to judge her based on Return to Halloweentown since no one shows any signs of being able to act. Debbie Reynolds, the star draw in the earlier flicks, is technically in the film, popping up on witch-phone calls for close to a minute. She isn’t missed, though her absence spawns the ridiculous contrivance around which the plot spins. If she’d been in the film for two minutes, then Grandma Aggie could have explained what was going on and the movie could have ended right there. Damn. One minute more could have saved me an hour and a half.

While Marnie might be in the dark about the malevolent deeds taking place around her, the viewer isn’t. Everything is made clear within the first few minutes, so then it’s just a matter of waiting for Marnie to catch up. Wow, nothings more exciting than watching someone slowly figure out what you already know.

While the first film was intended for youngsters, it’s a bit unclear what the target audience is this time around. Since much of the time (far too much time) is spent on the difficulties a girl might have when leaving home for college, I’d normally guess such a movie was meant for sixteen to eighteen-year-old girls. But everything else is still geared toward the Barbie set. Perhaps the goal was to make a movie that would be entertaining to brilliant six-year-olds who finished high school at the same time as preschool. But anyone who can be described by the word “brilliant” isn’t going to be impressed.

The Disney label can mean good family fun, but don’t make the mistake of assuming that’s always the case. Sometimes, that label means you’ve found a disease that will rot your child’s mind.

Halloween, Reviews, Witches Tagged with: One Reel

Bah Humduck!: A Looney Tunes Christmas (2006)

Oct 032006

Rich, cruel, and greedy Daffy Duck misuses his employees and ignores the true meaning of Christmas. I think we all know what happens next: three spirits of Christmas show up to compel him to change his ways. 46 min.

A Christmas Carol? Again? I like the book. Really, I do. And several of the movies. But enough is enough. Children are now born with the tale coded into their DNA. Is there anyone in the Western Hemisphere who can’t recite it, and write their own version? Warner Brothers had already stuck the Looney Tunes into the story in 1979 with Bugs Bunny’s Christmas Carol. Is it so tricky to come up with a new plot? It would be nice to see a little imagination at work.

But lack of imagination runs through every facet of Bah Humduck!: A Looney Tunes Christmas. It isn’t bad. It just isn’t interesting, funny, or innovative in any way. I’d never know from watching this that fifty years ago, Bugs Bunny and company set the standard for witty animated shorts. Oh well, this is no What’s Opera Doc.

I suppose I’m being harder on this insignificant cartoon than it deserves, but it is pertinent that it’s all been done before. Perhaps because of that, the visits of the three spirits is given short shrift, leaving more time for slapstick. I’m happy to see anything added that puts a different spin on the material, but the myriad moments of irrelevant violence don’t alter the basic story. They are minorly amusing, which is about as good as it gets.

In place of clever writing, most of the old Looney Tunes characters are marched out in hopes that fans require nothing more than seeing them to be happy. Daffy, Porky, Sylvester, Granny & Tweety, Yosemite Sam, and The Tasmanian Devil at least have roles in the story. Also on hand are Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, Pepe Le Pew, Marvin the Martian, The Road Runner, Willy E. Coyote, Speedy Gonzales, Foghorn Leghorn, Miss Prissy, The Bears, Claude the Cat, the mice Hubie and Bertie, Pete Puma, Ralph the Dog, the sad Penguin, and others I’d need a picture-list of Looney Tunes characters to name. Some have lines, while others stand around in the background to be counted by observant viewers.

Are these characters too well known, too untouchable, to ever be funny again? That could be the problem. A bit of the old Looney Tunes zing was visible in Tiny Toon Adventures and Pinky and the Brain, but is sorely lacking here. The timing is off, as if the new animators aren’t sure what made the old cartoons funny. Young kids won’t mind spending an hour with this reminder of better days, but it’s a bore to anyone older.

Other short takes on Dickens’s story reviewed on Foster on Film: Mickey’s Christmas Carol, Beavis and Butt-Head: Huh-Huh-Humbug!, Bugs Bunny’s Christmas Carol, and Mister Magoo’s Christmas Carol.

Christmas Shorts, Christmas Shorts, Reviews Tagged with: Two Reels

School for Scoundrels (2006)

Oct 022006

Annoying waste-of-flesh Roger (Jon Heder) is abused by his betters (who really are better) till he breaks down weeping. A friend gives him information about a secret class taught by the mysterious Dr. P (Billy Bob Thornton) that should make him less of a loser. Once there, he is abused by Dr. P and his assistant, Lesher (Michael Clarke Duncan) until he wins a paintball game. This causes Dr. P to become “competitive” and steal Amanda, Roger’s girl (Jacinda Barrett). Can Roget defeat Dr. P? Will failed student and recluse Lonnie (Ben Stiller) get to anally rape Lesher? Will Sarah Silverman fire her agent for getting her a tiny part in a movie she’s far too good for? Will you wake up when the credits roll wondering where you are?

Obviously, this isn’t a Post-War British Comedy (unless the war is Vietnam—or maybe the Gulf War?—and Britain is a town just north of L.A.), but the original School for Scoundrels was. I like to take a look at remakes of the movement’s films and see if they provide a clever updating of the concepts, or are an abomination before man, God, and movie critic. So far, things haven’t looked too good. Oh who am I kidding? They’re all abominations. 2004’s The Lady Killers was to comedy what salt and a cheese grater are to first degree burns. This unholy remake in not so painful, mainly because it isn’t competent enough. It’s just flacid.

I doubt director and co-writer Todd Phillips ever saw the 1959 version. Perhaps, during a drunken evening, he heard a few garbled sentences about a weak willed guy and a school to make him win and a tennis game. Those are about the only similar elements. He certainly missed the comic basis of the movie: it was a school for scoundrels, where the students learned how to appear to be gentlemanly while making others feel weak and foolish. Phillips gives us a school for assholes. Dr. P yells until everyone learns to be aggressive and unpleasant. Since nothing makes them tough, being aggressive would just get them beaten up, which is touched on, and then ignored.

OK, so he missed the scoundrels aspect. Fine. He could still make a moderately funny movie from a different concept. But he doesn’t. No one connected to the film seems to know what they are making. Jacinda Barrett is in a romantic, date-friendly comedy with heart. Too bad her love interest, Jon Heder, isn’t in that film. (Wait a minute. Jon Heder, i.e. Napoleon Dynamite, is the love interest? Were they high when casting this flick?) Heder is in a sophomoric Revenge of the Nerds rip-off. He hyperventilates and falls down a lot. Billy Bob Thornton is in a dark, edgy, shock comedy. Well, call it a PG-13, emasculated, dingy, rounded-edged, mildly uncertain comedy. It looks like once he got on set and found the film had no teeth that he just took a nap. Thornton’s more bored performing than I was watching, and I only stayed awake speculating on what bland bit of comedy they’d fail to execute next.

I suppose I’m being unfair. There’s somewhere between 1 and 3 funny gags in the movie, depending on your taste. Though if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve got most the laughs your going to get. Yes, Heder hitting Thornton with a tennis ball my get a chuckle out of you. Him doing it twice is even better. Three times is pretty good. But you know, four isn’t an improvement. And starting an actual fight kills the comedy dead. Corpse-like. Which is what most of the film reminds me of. A drab, slightly rotting corpse. It doesn’t stink enough to offend, but it’s not something you want to spend time with.

The romance and Roger’s transformation are presented as if we’re supposed to be taking it seriously. Since there’s nothing on screen to make anyone think Amanda would even slow down if she found Roger under the tires of her car, and Roger’s only a new man because the script says so (can Heder do anything besides his Napoleon Dynamite shtick?), you’re not going to be glued to your seat for the drama. It all ends in a bizarrely unfunny, unromantic, and unrealistic segment that proves Todd Phillips hasn’t been near an airport in the last five years.

The film can be summed up by the recurring anal rape bit. Repeatedly, it’s implied that Lesher and/or Dr. P rape…somebody. And that’s it. Apparently, Phillips and company thought the mere mention of rape was a knee slapper. Hey, I’m not saying a joke about rape isn’t possible, just that no one connected to this picture is clever enough to pull it off. Or knows someone who is. Or has seen someone is passing who might be. “Clever” isn’t a word that’s used often when discussing this picture. OK, back to rape (because it’s so funny, right?). There’s two ways to go with a comedy when considering a rape joke. Either forget it (the best move 90% of the time), or go for it, gung ho with a dagger in your teeth, and an insane glint in your eye. Go nuts. Be extreme. You’ll upset a lot of people, but you might hit on some outlandish gold (anyone remember a little film called Pulp Fiction?). But School for Scoundrels doesn’t take the balls-to-the-wall route. It becomes hesitant, delicately sliding mumbled comments about sodomy in and hoping no one notices. If you plan it right, you can manage not to notice the movie at all.

Post-War British Comedy, Reviews Tagged with: Toxic

Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)

Oct 012006

Young Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) travels with her fragile and pregnant mother (Ariadna Gil) to the outpost of her new stepfather (Sergi López), a fascist captain entrusted with exterminating the remaining “rebels” hiding in the hills in the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War. Confronted by the cruelty of the world, Ofelia finds temporary refuge in an ancient labyrinth, where a faun (Doug Jones) informs her she is the long lost princess of the Underworld, and if she will complete three tasks, she can return to that land. While she faces magical threats, Mercedes (Maribel Verdú), the housekeeper, acts as an informant for the rebels.

A dark, harsh, bloody fantasy, Pan’s Labyrinth is a fable for a generation brought up on Saving Private Ryan and, perhaps, Hellraiser. It is the Brothers Grimm, cutting off the wicked stepsister’s toes and plucking out eyes, but with 5.1 surround sound. It is unrelenting and not for the squeamish, or anyone prone to nightmares.

It is also beautiful.

Guillermo del Toro is the most stylish director working, with only Tim Burton as close competition. He has an eye for what looks magical on film, and an affinity for monsters. Both are evident. Shot after shot (Ofelia in the labyrinth, Pan greeting her, the fairy-bug on the edge of the bed, the dying tree) could stand without the rest of the film, as artwork to be hung in museums. This is masterful stuff. His creations are marvels as well. Pan is impressive, and has been getting most of the press, but the Pale Man (also portrayed by mime-artist Doug Jones, best known as amphibian-psychic Abe Sapien in Hellboy) is the real accomplishment. A fiend with removable eyes that fit into his palms, if he can’t mentally stunt your prepubescent child, nothing can.

But it is the moments that are great accomplishments, not the whole, and a movie is more than the sum of its parts. The story is too simple. I should say “stories.” The fantasy segment is disconnected from the war plot, and while featured in all the advertising, gets short shrift onscreen. It is a very simple tale, with the predictability of a children’s book. The war story isn’t much more complex, and compared to almost any other war movie, little happens. The movie is two unremarkable stories, and that doesn’t add up to one interesting one.

It doesn’t help that we’re not given a consistent point of view. Why don’t we stay with Ofelia? It seems to be her story, yet she is abandoned for long periods as we follow Mercedes, the captain, and even the doctor for a time. This lessens the intimacy of the film, making us not confidants of a girl stuck in a tragic situation, but voyeurs to a long past struggle.

Pan’s Labyrinth owes much (too much) to del Toro’s previous examination of the Spanish Civil War, The Devil’s Backbone. It too had a child encountering dark magic while the “real” world produced greater horrors. It isn’t the first time that a director copied himself (Hitchcock made a career out of it), but I’d have preferred originality not only in the art direction. Like The Devil’s Backbone, people act in stupid ways just to move the plot. (If someone has the nerve and the reason to stab an enemy multiple times, including a particularly gruesome face slash, why not kill the person? The only reason here is that the enemy is needed in the next scene.) Also like Backbone it gets tiring waiting for things that are obviously going to happen. When Ofelia is given her pretty new dress, it is clear that she’s going to ruin it, so why is it presented with great drama and suspense? When she’s told not to eat anything in the fantasy land, everyone in the theater knows she will (although we know this only because it is a cliché; it is a ridiculous action, even for a child). When the sleeping drug is put, drop by drop into a glass, and the bottle is placed center stage, I sighed, knowing when and in what circumstances I’d see it used again.

Pan’s Labyrinth is filled with perfectly fashioned moments, and those are enough for me to recommend it, for one viewing anyway. But put together, they don’t amount to enough.

Back to Fantasy

Fantasy, Foreign Language, Reviews Tagged with: Three Reels

Minotaur (2006)

Oct 012006

Theo (Tom Hardy), the son of the tribal elder (Rutger Hauer), chooses to be one of the sacrifices required every five years of their village. He and the other “youths” travel to the capitol where King Deucalion (Tony Todd) casts them into the catacombs to be killed by the half-god minotaur. But Theo has his own plans: to kill the beast. He is aided by Princess Raphaela (Michelle Van De Water), who hates Deucalion and asked a seer to find a hero to slay the monster.

A teen Fantasy/Horror retelling of Theseus and the Minotaur, the emphasis in Minotaur is on frights and impaling late teens/early twenty-year-olds. It’s all about finding a way to get a young body on a bull’s horn.

Calling this a version of the Greek myth is being generous. Don’t expect any clever ways of getting out of the labyrinth. There’s a giant undead bull who’s called The Minotaur and a guy named Theseus, although he goes by Theo. Beyond that, there are screaming teens and unexplainable gas vents. The inspiration is cheap budget horror movies. There’s little of Greece here.

Fantasy flicks are expensive to make, so when money is scarce, the corner-cutting can be painful. As endless speeches and pseudo-emotional heart-to-hearts are less expensive than epic battles, walks through flowing cities, or brightly lit creatures, Minotaur is filled with talking. Our heroes run from the monster, and then find a nice spot to chat for ten minutes. Another brief chase and they’ve found a hiding place to tell their stories. Most of the discussions are irrelevant to the plot; they just fill in time.

On the plus side are the old pros taking supporting roles. Rutger Hauer (Blade Runner, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Omega Doom) and Tony Todd (Night of the Living Dead, Candy Man,) are far from their best here, but they are always a kick to watch. Hauer is only around long enough to give some energy to the proceedings, but Todd gets plenty of time to wax philosophical with his lilting tones. Ex-sex goddess Ingrid Pitt (The Wicker Man) makes a cameo as a leprous soothsayer, which doesn’t use any of her skills, but its nice to know she’s still around.

The not-that-youthful youths are generic, but that’s as much a function of the drab, monochrome cinematography as their acting. Ten minutes after it is over, I doubt if you’d be able to pick them out on the street. The exception is the uncommonly beautiful Michelle Van De Water, who is at least distinctive with her performance, and is so attractive that her other skills are irrelevant.

Minotaur was a good idea for a film, but money and talent were in too short supply for the final product to be anything but a grim time waster.

Back to Fantasy

Fantasy, Reviews Tagged with: One & 1/2 Reels

The Restless {Joong-Cheon} (2006)

Sep 292006

Demon Hunter Yi Gwak (Woo-sung Jung) saves a village from demons and is betrayed for his troubles. Drugged, he escapes to fall unconscious in the woods, awakening in Mid-heaven, the land the dead go to before passing on to Heaven and being reincarnated. But Yi Gwak isn’t dead, a fact that is some consternation to everyone. Previously, his wife, Yon-hwa (Tee-hee Kim) had been murdered by superstitious villagers for being a witch. Yi Gwak had gone on to join the empire’s elite demon hunting squad, lead by Ban-chu (Jun-ho Heo), who understood his pain having lost his own wife. All of the team except Yi Gwak then died when Ban-chu lead them against the corrupt nobles. The afterlife is supposed to be free of such strife, but instead the protectors of the realm are being wiped out by demons, lead by Ban-chu and supported by the old hunter gang. Yi Gwak is stuck opposing then when he finds his wife, the last surviving protector, but she is now an archangel renamed So-hwa who has had her memory erased. Her goal is to save Mid-heaven; Yi Gwak’s is to save her.

The Restless, a Korean sword-fantasy-romance also known as Demon Empire, is harsh for someone in mourning, like me. In part that is because it spoke to me. Yes, this is a film filled with flashing swords and magic, but action isn’t the point. Grief and the meaning of life is the focus and The Restless knows what it is doing with those.

Sure, if what you want is wire-fu, you’ll be happy. There’s a lot of leaping and slashing. Magic swords are the norm and the demons and their ilk fight with chains and an infinite supply of short throwing spears. It looks good, particularly the deaths as bodies dissolve like burning paper. The scenery is better. Apparently almost everything is computer generated and it is beautiful.

But there are plenty of Asian costume-fantasies with fancy fight choreography. The Restless stands out on theme. The world presented is shades of gray. Stereotypically good people are hard to find. Villagers are murderers. The government is filled with raping creeps and everyone is willing to kill those in their way. But there are also few purely bad guys. Those villagers were desperate, just trying to survive. The main villains, the demon hunters, are generally noble and desperately trying to put an end to corruption and suffering. And we really don’t know the situation with the rulers—our information on them is second and third hand. As for the gods and protectors, there’s some question if the entire system of the heavens isn’t a mess based on foolish philosophy. Is rebirth really a goal if it strips you of what you are? If you want to do the right thing in life, The Restless says give up on that—there is no right thing, and even if there were, you’d fail. The only thing worth clinging to is love, even if it makes you miserable. That’s a philosophy I can work with.

All that theme comes off best when it is originating from or directed at So-hwa. She is the definition of adorable, with anime features and doe eyes. She is also perpetually perplexed, which, of course, is the point. Without memories, she only has the unbending rules of Mid-heaven to guide her. But she’s just a student protector in way over her head, and while the enemy seems clear to her, the logic of those unbending rules is not.

Not everything comes off so well. Woo-sung Jung overplays the tortured swordsman and I really want to give him a comb to tame is 2000’s rock-star hair. Other reviews have praised the martial arts, but it was my least favorite element of the film. It’s too elongated. But that’s true of every aspect of the picture. Be it swinging a sword or gazing into another’s eyes, every shot is held a beat too long. If feels like a spaghetti western. I want to go in a pull every 10th frame. Still, beauty and theme win out over excessive pausing, making The Restless one of the best martial arts films of this century.

Fantasy, Foreign Language, Reviews Tagged with: Three & 1/2 Reels

A.I. Assault (2006)

Sep 282006

A plane, carrying two unstable, intelligent, killing robots, crashes on a Pacific island. A military team is sent in to retrieve the robots before they learn too much and become unstoppable. To complicate matters, a gang of criminals, escaping their latest caper in a helicopter, lands on the same island.

Some movies have important themes that help you to understand your existence. Some have intricate characters with which you can empathize. Some have complicated plots that will stretch your mind. A.I. Assault has cool CGI robots.

This is grade-A, family, schlock cinema. Now, keep in mind that anything called “schlock” can only be so good, and when it’s family friendly, that knocks it down further. But for an hour and a half, if you can be contented with a pair of giant robots clanking around and cutting up people with their tentacles, and nothing more, you’ll be happy.

The job of everything that isn’t a robot is to not lower the level of the production. So, the acting is good enough not to be noticed and the characters are generically acceptable. The cinematography is adequate. Only the simplistic dialog calls attention to itself, and that is only at times. Mostly, everyone speaks in clichés. The scientist even says, when referring to a plan, “It’s crazy enough to work,” but I took that as a deliberate joke.

A.I. Assault may be the new king of cameos. Or perhaps I should phrase that, “the new master of misleading advertising.” It is being sold based on genre actors who are barely on screen. The online poster and TV commercials name Robert Picardo, Alexandra Paul, and Michael Dorn. None of them are major characters. Seven well-known actors (in the sci-fi community) have bit parts. Most never share a frame with the leads, and rarely with anyone else. They obviously showed up when they had a few hours, recited their lines on a quickly made backdrop, and then took off. They are:

George Takei (Star Trek: original series) – cameo.
Michael Dorn (Star Trek: The Next Generation) – periphery.
Robert Picardo (Star Trek: Voyager) – cameo.
Alexandra Paul (Baywatch) – cameo.
Hudson Leick (Xena) – secondary.
Bill Mumy (Lost in Space) – periphery.
Tim Thomerson (Trancers) – periphery.

If you are watching for one of these actors, only fans of Xena‘s Callisto will be mildly satisfied.

So, you’ve got CGI robots. That’s it. Look for more and you’ll be disappointed. But who doesn’t like a big spidery robot?

Reviews, Robots Tagged with: Two & 1/2 Reels

The Prestige (2006)

Aug 242006

Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) is an unpleasant and unlikable aid to an older magician. Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman), who may or may not be unpleasant and unlikable, but becomes so after his wife dies, is a second aid. When the aforementioned wife drowns during a trick, most likely due to Borden’s tying a knot too tightly, the two enter into an insufferable competition, to be the best magician and to hurt the other. Borden acquires a wife and child. Angier picks up the old magician’s trick designer, Cutter (Michael Caine) and an assistant, Olivia (Scarlett Johansson). After a series of unpleasant events, Angier comes to believe that Tesla (David Bowie) built Borden’s greatest trick so goes off to get his own copy. And if things weren’t bleak enough before, they are from that point on.

(Spoilers for the second act)
The Prestige is a cheat in a cheat wrapped in a cheat. Some of those cheats are clever. Some aren’t. But they are all cheats that rip the foundation of the film apart. One of those cheats is why I’m reviewing the film. I don’t generally review period dramas, so there’s obviously something else going on. And that something else is real magic dressed up as science fiction. Angier believes that Tesla can build a devise that will allow the appearance of teleportation, but that turns out to be one of the many twists as he was fooled into that assumption. But wouldn’t you know it, Tesla actually can create an actual teleportation machine. So a movie that demands that all is real, and insists that you watch very closely to see how everything is truly being done just sticks in a teleporter that has a very specific glitch (but that’s an additional spoiler…).

Christopher Nolan, who played a clever trick on his audience with Memento just goes nuts with The Prestige. It’s not surprising that a film about stage magicians has a few twists but I must say The Prestige really outdoes any other film I can think of. And a majority of those twists are also cheats. He is so intent on showing you how clever he is—which the teleporter destroys—that he never bothers to think about if it makes any sense or would work. The teleporter is the only entry into science fiction or real magic, but it isn’t the hardest thing to believe. That would be a twist that involves Victorian-era makeup being far superior to anything we know now. OK, I take back my science fiction comment. The only way the makeup trick would work is if we are in the distant future of Mission Impossible mask making. Plus… No, too many spoilers. Just assume that if it is a twist, it probably is a cheat, and it probably won’t hold up to any kind of inspection. And yes, most films have a hole or two, but most films don’t demand that you study them looking for the oh-so-clever bread crumbs laid out for you.

And all of that makes the film sound both worse and better than it is. As I said, some of those twists and cheats are fun. It is a bizarrely literal film—that’s part of Nolan playing clever. Outside of the teleporter, every other twist is literally told to you. But, Nolan rightly thinks you won’t believe what you are told. And, that’s smart, or would be in a different film. Some of the ideas are good as long as there’s no world around them or time to dwell. The thing about an idea is that an idea does not make a feature film. An idea is the heart of a short story, not a novel, and so, is the basis for short film. You want a feature, you think about character. Nolan has ideas for two or three great ten minute shorts.

All the plot cheats wouldn’t damn the film if the characters could carry it. But they can’t. Borden (or Bale, I really can’t tell the difference) is distasteful to watch. There’s no character depth or anything interesting about him—by design as all is illusion—so we’re left with a lousy person doing repulsive things. As for Angier, I spent over two hours just wanting to slap him. And both of these characters should have been sympathetic—perhaps not likeable, but sympathetic. For God’s sake, Angier’s wife died. I am the easiest audience in existence for a man in mourning and I wanted to push him down a flight of stairs. If Nolan couldn’t manage sympathetic, then he absolutely had to make them compelling, but they aren’t. There’s no stakes in their feud, not for the audience. Who cares who wins? Who cares who get the greatest trick or who destroys whom? We are given no reason to care.

I can put up with a lot of inconsistency and foolishness in a film if you give me some characters I want to follow. And those ideas, even the ones that fail, make me want to like The Prestige, but it is a bad time at the theater.

The film makes a big deal out of the rules for any magic trick. It must have three parts: 1) The Presentation where all looks normal; 2) The Turn where the impossible happens; 3) The Prestige where all is returned to normalcy. This is meant to apply not only to the tricks, but to this film. But The Prestige has no prestige. It shows the world, mucks things up, and then ends. For a time I was sure that we had an unreliable narrator as that’s the only way this could work, but that’s pulled out from under our feet. Nope. What we see is what we get, and what we get is senseless and a chore to sit through.

Reviews, Science Fiction Tagged with: One Reel

1 2 … 37 38 39 40 41 … 131 132