Review: Cinderella – “A missed opportunity for greatness”

It’s well crafted… But it feels like a missed opportunity for greatness.

Cinderella is, of course on of the classic examples of an older
tale codified by Disney. The tale was darker before and darker still
before that but that couldn’t matter less. Cinderella is, as far as
society is concerned, Disney’s classic classic. Theirs to reinvent when
the time came.

This 2015 version unfortunately isn’t a reinvention. As a film it’s
a perfectly executed translation of cartoon to live action, but Disney,
terrified of taking the risks that made Alice in Wonderland the 17th highest grossing film of all time, play it as safe and you could possibly play it. In the process that robs, robs,   the film of any of it’s potential.

One of the things that is surprisingly difficult to work out is the
indented audience – I have goddaughters who would have fallen apart
with glee at the ballroom scenes, but the attention span needed to get
there is a trek for me and I’m not seven years old.  Every couple of
scenes there’s a hint that someone wanted it to be a musical, and that’s
the film in a nutshell – it feels like a musical without the songs.Branagh
doesn’t do anything by accident – you feel that he has decided that if
he’s making something safe he’s making something beautiful and to hell
with the box office. So what you get is a slow paced festival of
fabulously constructed shots and amazing costumes, with the set
decorator showing much more creativity than the script.

…and the script is… Okay.  The problem being that there are so few
risks taken that it feels like a collection of missed opportunities.

The script does at least give Prince Charming a much more fleshed
out role, and while he’s still a tiny amount of screen time I’ll admit
that one of his scenes with his father moved me to tears. Still more
would have been better though – he doesn’t exist before the midpoint of
the movie.  More to the point, Richard Madden manages to play a prince without coming across badly and that’s a difficult trick for any money.

The biggest sin is the wasting of Cate Blanchett
as the evil stepmother. She’s given a minor amount of development later
on but the early scenes are cartoonishly evil. Giving her an even
slightly more nuanced character would have worked wonders, and given the
film a serious boost. The step-sisters manage to be too comic to be a
threat and nowhere near comic enough for comic relief.

The cast is actually very solid just massively underused by the script.  Lily James is a beautiful, charming, elegant and likeable heroine who, although not stretched is at least used well. Helena Bonham Carter
as the fairy godmother is show stealing by dint of channelling both
Jennifer Saunders and Johnny Depp, but it’s not a difficult show to
steal. More to the point, it’s difficult to watch her as adult without
thinking of her iconic “You know, the condom is the glass slipper of our
generation. You slip it on when you meet a stranger. You dance all
night, then you throw it away.” from Fight Club.

The best thing about the cinema trip to see Cinderella is also the worst. It’s packaged with the seven minute Frozen Fever,
which has all of Frozen’s Magic. It’s cute, fun, stylish, funny, and
solid. So you see a solid example of Disney at it’s very best before
being dropped into Disney at it’s most risk averse.

| Live for Films

Guardians of the Galaxy Review: Shut Up and Go See It

Let's not mince words here. Guardians of the Galaxy is awesome, hilarious, super fun, and you should go see it.

[This review will contain ZERO spoilers, because spoilers are dumb.]

My
disclaimer is that I'd never read the comics and was going into this
completely blind. Although given that the title it's based on isn't
particularly popular relative to the other Marvel blockbusters, there's a
good chance you're coming from the place of blessed ignorance.

Whether you're devoted to the source material or not, the most important thing to know about Guardians of the Galaxy is
that it's tonally perfect, riding the line between silliness and
excellent action sequences as well as any summer fun movie in recent
memory. It's exactly what a comic book movie should be. The bad guys are
extra bad, the heroes are appropriately flawed. It's also much, much
funnier than any of the other superhero movies of the modern era.

Super-brief plot outline: Our hero, Peter Quill a.k.a.
Star Lord, is a space thief. He steals a cool orb thing. Bad guys try
to kill him for it, as does an otherwise perfectly pleasant green lady
named Gamor. They're joined by bounty-hunters Rocket and Groot (a
cybernetically-enhanscd raccoon and a tree-creature, respectively), who
are after Quill for some money. He's an in-demand kind of guy.

Quill,
Gamor, Rocket, and Groot proceed to get arrested for fighting in public
and are thrown into a truly terrifying prison where they meet Drax, a
gigantic alien who is very good at breaking things. That's about as far
in the plot as I can go without giving away spoilers, but suffice it to
say that universe-saving mayhem ensues.

ExpandHow
about the cast? Chris Pratt as Peter Quill is super likable, really fun
and engaging, and, not surprisingly, very funny. Zoe Saldana as Gamora
is super bad ass and oh my god please marry me. I don't care if our
babies are green. Then there's former MMA and current WWE star Dave
Batista as Drax, who has surprisingly good comic timing for such an
impossibly huge and scary human being.

Groot and Rocket are voiced
by Vin Diesel and Bradley Cooper, respectively, both of whom do wonders
with a difficult job. I admit I was skeptical when I saw there was a
talking raccoon and a human-like tree-thing in this movie, but I bought
right into it, no problem. Lee Pace as Ronan (the Big Bad) is just the
right amount of scary and mean. Also mean. Did I mention mean? Dude is
hella mean. As for John C. Reilly as Corpsman Dey, well as always, Brule
rules. The supporting cast and cameos are all quality, too. It's a very
well-acted movie, which can't be easy when two of the main crew are
completely CGI.

If I had one criticism to level at Guardians of the Galaxy
it's that the exposition is sometimes so heavy-handed that you're
thrown out of the moment. I get why they have to be there; this is a
whole new world with its own rules, and the filmmakers rightly don't
want to slow down the story. Jamming it into one big run-on sentence is
sometimes your only option. Luckily, these lines are at least effective,
and and everything moves on so quickly once they're done that they only
constitute minor speed bumps.

Meanwhile, the visual effects and
special effects are both absolutely fantastic. You can't have a raccoon
and a tree-thing as main characters if they look bad, especially if
they're in nearly every scene. Not only do you believe Rocket and Groot
every step of the way, you become very engaged with them as characters,
which ain't easy to pull off. Also, there are a ton of high-intensity
spaceship fights and crazy battles and explosions, all of which look
awesome. If you're coming for the eye-candy, you won't be disappointed.

Are there plot holes? Sure. Does it require suspension of disbelief? Only constantly. But Guardians of the Galaxy
is one of those rare movies that's so fun you don't have time to care..
This is the summer blockbuster we've been waiting for. Just go see it.

Audiences Love Lucy. Hollywood, Take Note.

My brain melted on Saturday night and I can blame it all on Scarlett Johansson in the Luc Besson-directed Lucy. But I’m not the only one; the female-led film bested the box office beating out even the baby oil-covered Hercules. Hollywood, let us use this opportunity to once again remind you that ladies like movies!

Besson has a cult following thanks to previous films like The Professional, La Femme Nikita and The Fifth Element, which no doubt partially accounted for his success this weekend, but nothing in his filmography left my mouth hanging open like Lucy. The action-filled, neuroscience-nerd screenplay kept my attention...and the ending? Forget it. I loved it.
But the takeaway for Hollywood? Women Can Carry Movies That Make Money. Clearly. Give us girls more lady-led movies and we will offer up our hard earned coins. And this request is not just for films like Sense and SensibilitySteel Magnolias,Aliens or even Bridesmaids. Surprise us, Hollywood brass, and even give a new filmmaker the chance to entertain us — if you fund it, we will come.

The Original Ending Of 'World War Z' Was MUCH Different... -

I actually like the new ending for World War Z (read Brad’s review). And not many people seem to mind, it’s Brad Pitt’s biggest opening weekend ever. For me, the ending provides a welcome respite from all the explosions – and you finally see the zombies behave as zombies. It’s actually suspenseful.

But it’s always interesting to think what might have been and, in this case, what was actually shot. Over 45 minutes was discarded from the original cut in favor of the new ending and Movies.com has a really nice, in depth look at what the changes were.

A few bullet points below.

– Originally the plane didn’t crash. It landed in Russia and (after executing the old and sick onboard), the military drafts everyone onboard into military service.

– You may have missed Matthew Fox in the film, he’s barely in it as one of the crew of the helicopter that rescues Pitt and his family early in the film. But he didn’t show up just to make a cameo, originally his part was much larger. In fact, when Mireille Enos and her daughters are sent off the ship and to the camp – she has to trade her body to survive. Matthew Fox is on the receiving end of this bargain.

– Cold slows down the zombies, making them easier to kill. Something Gerry learns from his months spent fighting them in Russia in the original 3rd act.

Hit the source link for more!

Review: Mama Is a Horrifying Psychological Drama Trapped Inside a Mostly Routine Ghost Story

Mama

2013 100 minutes rated PG-13

There is potential for an absolutely fascinating character study hidden within Andrés Muschietti's Mama, but unfortunately the film feels content to follow the road oft-traveled in its genre.  The film's first 10 minutes or so are absolutely superb, and the opening credits are among the best in rest years, if only for how succinctly they offer copious exposition in a way that is downright chilling in its simplicity.  In a sea of remakes and franchise reboots, it is indeed admirable that Mama attempts to tell an original horror story, and I'd be lying if I didn't say that it's often quite creepy.  But the real-world horror that we are presented with is actually scarier and far more disturbing than the supernatural elements at play, which puts the viewer in an odd position of wanting less horror and more drama.  The picture is well-acted and contains a few genuine surprises during its relatively brief 100-minute running time.  But the film somewhat hampers its intentions by coming out of the gate so strong that what it offers for much of its running time is merely the wrong kind of horror.

James Franco: The Cynical Wizard of Oz

via gawker.com

Sam Raimi's greatest contribution to the land of Oz is the very modern act of tribute through mockery. Though his prequel Oz the Great and Powerful takes place about 20 years before 1939's The Wizard of Oz, James Franco's Oscar Diggs floats in a hot air balloon from Kansas (of course) and regards the foreign soil of Oz with the amused irony of someone beamed in from 2013. He has a shit-eating grin and quip for virtually all that he encounters: a winged monkey in a bellhop uniform, a porcelain doll that can talk, hot babes, good witches, bad witches, the idiotic tinkers and munchkins of Oz.

Those aforementioned characters are weird and old-fashioned, conversing in the stilted manner you'd hear coming from a Golden Age MGM soundstage, or at least, in the stilted manner of actors attempting that stilted Golden Age manner. Franco's Wizard of Oz is not. He's smarter than they are, as aware of their ridiculousness as we are, like a producer on a pseudo-sociological reality show who can't believe the material that's unfolding before him. To save these people from a pair of terrorist witches, he must fool them with smoke and mirrors (literally) and (spoiler alert) he does so exactly because he knows so much better than they do.

Franco's Oz character is fascinating because he's something of a straight man amongst all of these gasping, despairing, jolly caricatures of actual humans; but at the same time, he's the comic relief. If only screenwriters David Lindsay-Abaire and Mitchell Kapner could have spread around the depth. While Franco's dimensionality pops precisely because the characters that he shares the screen with don't, having so many actors (especially Oscar winner Rachel Weisz and Oscar nominee Michelle Williams) who are better than the scraps that they are given in what is essentially a $200 million game of dress up gets tedious. Mila Kunis, whose magnetism is so intense that she can make a Justin Timberlake rom-com watchable, is rendered virtually insufferable. She's drab and miscast, a desperate romantic that rejection drives to witchy madness. I usually can't take my eyes off this highly unique creature, but for the duration of Oz the Great and Powerful, I wanted nothing more than for her to leave the screen forever.

After Oscar lands, he makes his way through a gorgeous (albeit more spaced out and bare-landscape heavy) rendering of Oz and what unfolds is a story parallel to its predecessor. Raimi's CGI-rooted version of Oz is lovely, with giant sunflower fields, blooming gems, monstrous snap dragons with glowing eyes and rainbow-translucent bubbles. Though magic abounds, the best Williams' Glinda can usually muster is bubbles: she travels via them and repeatedly conjures thick fog that rolls out onto the ground like suds from an overflowing washing machine. Oz must deceive people into thinking that he is the magician that the prophecy says he is, and the moral of the ultimately cynical story is that a lie embraced by the masses is as powerful as the truth.

Will pop culture ever tire of this trope? It's a rehash of the end of The Dark Knight, and like the similarly eye-popping Life of Pi, it's an attempt to illustrate the practical use of religion. Lies are like witches, and a good one yields salvation. This is the note we end on (while keeping things entirely open for a sequel, which is apparently already happening) and it's just like when Dorothy Gale realized she needn't look any further than her back yard to find her heart's desire. This idea was already waiting for us in the multiplex. That we already knew all of it underscores how unneeded this mildly enjoyable revenue generator of a prequel really is.

Oz the Great and Powerful review, by Vince Mancini for FilmDrunk.

“What has one thumb and looks like it’s bored to be in this movie?”

There are some really great things about Oz the Great and Powerful and some really bad things, but at the very least, it’s not the forgettable trifle I expected it to be.

I liked Oz the Great and Powerful, and I mean that only in the most defensive-sounding way possible. It’s hard to even write this review without coming off a huge Sam Raimi apologist. Raimi has this highly-saturated, schlocky aesthetic that’s a little melodramatic and not quite realistic, but never quite camp, which a lot of people understandably hate. Whereas Tarantino almost always puts clear signposts to indicate when he’s being serious and when he’s being tongue-in-cheek, Sam Raimi’s scenes are always sort of breakdancing on the line between the two. To me this approach has always seemed a bit rock n’ roll, a way to say “yeah, this is silly but I’m doing it anyway because it’s fun.” He seems so blasé about whether you think his films are “Important” or not, and it’s refreshing.

Oz the Great and Powerful is not a great movie, but I don’t think anyone set out to make a “great movie.” I usually hate when critics use this excuse to give a movie a pass. Just because you made a bad movie on purpose I’m supposed to ignore that it’s bad? But if I look at any “comparable” title – Alice in Wonderland, The Hobbit, Snow White and the Huntsman – Oz is just much better. Even the simple idea that “Oz” might all be a figment of James Franco’s character’s imagination gives it a subtextual richness that the aforementioned films all lacked. All of them, Oz included, are essentially about magical faeries punching each other. But Oz at least hints at the idea that it’s not just about magical faeries punching each other.

James Franco plays Oscar Diggs – “Oz” is his stage name – a struggling sideshow magician whose ambition to become a cross between Harry Houdini and Thomas Edison keeps him from settling down and marrying his sweetheart, Michelle Williams, looking all soft and innocent in a gingham dress and push-up bra (blondes and boobs are kind of Raimi’s thing, in case you haven’t noticed). Being a bit of a player, a bimbro if you will, Oz gets chased out of his tent by the circus strongman after he gets caught trying to seduce his girlfriend, and flees into a conveniently-placed hot-air balloon (I mean, it is a circus). Oz flies away, despite the balloon having no apparent heat source for the hot air that’s supposedly powering it, but not before his assistant Zach Braff can toss him his trusty top hat and magician’s satchel (full of doves and scarves and shit, presumably). The balloon gets sucked into a tornado, and away we go, off to Oz.

When Oz gets to Oz, obviously everyone thinks he’s the emperor come to save them, because how else could you possibly explain that coincidence? It’s the same reason Hirohito named his son “Japan.” I kid, but the fact that Oz shows up to a mystical land named after him, where the good witch is played by the same actress as his gingham sweetheart, and where he almost immediately meets a flying monkey voiced by his former assistant who becomes his assistant in Oz, seems like a pretty clear hint – a bazooka that shoots a flag that says “HINT,” really -  that the land of Oz is supposed to represent Oscar Digg’s internal landscape somehow. The film never really follows this idea through, but it at least makes you think about it a little, which is something.

From here, the film has basically two somewhat conflicting messages. The first is basically “we are what we pretend to be,” which is not only one of my favorite Kurt Vonnegut quotes, but a surprisingly not-f*cked-out sentiment to see in a Disney movie. Oz shows up in Oz where everyone thinks he’s their savior, and from there he has basically two choices: be the amoral shithead he’s been all his life, or be something more. And the only way to do that is to fake it until it’s true. For me, this is right up there with holding your friends closer on the way to the smelting pit in Toy Story 3 when it comes to surprisingly heartfelt symbolism from kids’ movies. The other great twist is that Oz’s power is that he’s not magic. He’s an illusionist and a liar. This gives the film a logic. How do you make the magical happen without a series of bullshit deus ex machinas like The Hobbit? Well, the first step is that you have to write something a little more intricate than “Gandalf says ‘abra cadabra.’” Oz isn’t Nam, there are rules.

The other sentiment of the film is a bit more problematic. Basically, every problem in Oz can trace its roots to three broads who can’t get along. Chicks, am I right? Theodora (Mila Kunis) and her sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz) are feuding with their stepsister, Glinda (Michelle Williams). Oz rolls into town and first seduces the innocent Theodora, before eventually falling for Glinda (blonde, boobs, remember?). This is the shaky rationale for Theodora becoming the green-faced monster that the theater majors among you will all recognize from Wicked (her witch make-up is horrible, incidentally, and not dissimilar to Willem Dafoe’s Green Goblin mask). Basically, the villain is the chick whose only crime was buying James Franco’s BS in the first place and then getting all bitchy when he dropped her for acting too clingy, and the “good’ witch is the one who goes along with whatever he does when he’s done nothing up to this point except be a dick. Also, she’s blonde and has boobs, so obviously he likes her more. Neither here nor there, but Oz is also super mean to the monkey for pretty much the entire movie for absolutely no reason.

Needless to say, this part of the message ain’t so great, to say nothing of the basic theme of pretty = good, ugly = bad running through the entire thing. Now, you’re going to think I’m joking when I say this, but I’m serious. I think the residents of Oz – the tinkers and the winkies and the munchkins – should all have been played by disabled people. Wheelchairs, cerebral palsy, crutches, Down Syndrome, dystrophics, cleft palates – it would’ve made the whole thing feel more magical, and it wouldn’t have made it feel so much like good, honest folk should all look like stock photo models. Oz is all too nice and sanitized. What is this, the fifties? Anyway, just a thought.

The movie eventually ends with two armies clashing (oh God, please, can we stop doing this one, pleeease?), but it at least does it in a more clever way than The Hobbit or Alice or Snow White. Because again, rules. And I’m actually glad they didn’t talk the evil chick out of being evil with a big schmaltzy speech like the ending of Paranorman. Baby steps, I suppose. Still, the fact that it’s a prequel that has themes and actually makes sense puts it above most of the movies in the same category.

GRADE: B-

via filmdrunk.uproxx.com

The 14 Most Annoying Things About The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Kindly avoid getting anything twisted—I fucking love The Hobbit. When I was a little girl, my dad (WHO DIED, okay, so this sentimentality is HARDCORE) read The Hobbit and/or Lord of the Rings and/or the Chronz of Narnia out loud to me every night before bed. I remember him nodding off in the chair, his pace and pitch winding down like he was running out of batteries—Bifur, Bofur, Bommmmbuuurrrrrrrrrrrrr. It was the best. So at this point, no matter the context, if someone even mentions riding a barrel down the Celduin to Lake-town at the gates of Erebor, The Lonely Mountain (even if they're just talking about spring break!), I collapse in a heap of sniffles.

I am the target audience for The Hobbit. I just want to make that clear. Because The Hobbit...is terrible.

It's the kind of terrible where I love it, and the kind of terrible where I will probably watch it 700 more times before I die of rickets because I haven't left my hobbit hole in nine years (for this is what I must do with all wizard-related materials), but it is TARRAHHBUUULLLLLL nonetheless. Here are the reasons why, in chronological order according to how soon in the movie they annoyed me:

1. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. At the beginning of the movie, just so we know we're dealing with an extremely gravitassy mega-epic here and not some trifling whimsy parade (but psych! It's that too!), we're saddled with approximately 105 minutes of the world's flattest, corniest narration about dwarf emotions and rocks. Basically, for a long time, King Thror and his bros lived in this mountain and everything was cool and they had heeeeeeeeeella gold because they were awesome at digging. But then one day Smaug the Dragon comes up and is all, "I wanna know where the gold at. I want the gold! Give ME the gold! I want the gold!" And everyone's like, "UUUUUUGH, THROR YOU DICK, WHY DID YOU KEEP ALL THIS GOLD LYING AROUND WHEN YOU KNOW IT IS THE #1 CAUSE OF A DRAGON RUINING OUR SOCIETY." (Nice victim-blaming, BTW, J-Tolk.) So there's this big battle, and of course the elves don't help at all because they're too busy pretending to look for a hair tie or something, and the dwarves get the fuck decimated out of them. Oh and they set up this completely manufactured bloodfeud between Thorin Oakenshield and some giant albino orc, and it lasts for the entire movie even though everyone definitely would have died of sepsis before they had a chance to raise their cudgels. Now the dwarves are homeless and need some rando hobbit to help them for literally no reason. On to our story! FUCKING FINALLY!

2. Omph Gromph Gromph Nomph Omph Gromph Omph Omp Omp Om Grom Grom. So the dwarves show up at Bilbo Baggins's hole-house, because Gandalf totally pranked everyone (he's like the Ashton Kutcher of the Istari), and they all sit down to talk about gold. This is the part where the dwarves famously raid Bilbo's pantry and sing the first of many whimsical dwarf songs. So, here is my question: Bilbo is a very tiny confirmed bachelor who lives alone in a hole in a paradise of permanent springtime. Why does he have SO MANY WHEELS OF CHEESE??? Dude has enough cheese to last 4000 nuclear winters—and they don't even have nuclei in Middle Earth. Not that it matters, because the dwarves just go ahead and eat Bilbo's entire apartment. Because they are insufferable dicks. But get used to it, because you're about to spend the whole movie hanging out with them.

3. Do You Like Four Hours of Dwarf Comedy, but Wish that You Could Also Have a Headache? You're in luck, friend! Just strap this claustrophobic headache machine to your face and then sit back for a bloated, frenetic, neverending action movie! I realize that we all liked Coraline very much, and congratulations to us all for that, but I fail to see how one Coraline justifies the creation of nine million shitty, unnecessary 3D movies. The 3D in The Hobbit is a disaster. Instead of adding dimensionality, it flattens everything out—an effect which, when combined with the film's relentless kaleidoscopic action, oily 48 frames per second, and tediously uniform depth of field (tell me what to look at just once, Peter!), gives The Hobbit the feeling of a bunch of laminated paper dolls dropped in front of a fan. Even in its most grandiose moments it seems paradoxically chintzy, like a Syfy original on a blockbuster budget (Dinogandalf vs. Sarumansquito!).

4. The Unstoppable Doldrums of Thorin Oakenshield. Seriously, dude, can you get a grip? You're really harshing the road trip here. Do I need to send my dog who is also a clock to tow you out of that funk?

5. WACKY RADAGAST CAMEO. Okay, so it should be noted that The Hobbit's source material is much, much lighter and more "fun" than Lord of the Rings, and Peter Jackson certainly doesn't shy away from that aspect here, but was anyone really clamoring for a whimsical Radagast side-quest? And does he have to be such an incompetent, hysterical clown? I mean, he's a FAMOUS WIZARD. Jackson's Radagast is likable enough, and helpful (sort of, eventually), but I always imagined the dude doing a lot more striding and a lot less blubbering.

6. Rivendell Looks Like a Thomas Kinkade Painting. Also everyone is constantly playing the flute and smiling enigmatically and eating salad. (Elves only eat salad.) Like, hey, elves, could you be more of a parody of elves? I know that whimsy reigns right now because you think Sauron is still gone from the world and evil is deceased, but have some goddamn self-respect.

7. There's This Part Where Gandalf Is Chilling with Saruman and Galadriel and He Mentions Radagast and Then RECORD SCRATCH!!! Saruman freaks out and is all, "Do not speak to me of Radagast!!!" and says that he can't even deal with that dude anymore because of "his excessive consumption of mushrooms." And then Gandalf makes this horrible naughty face, like "Who, me???" and it's fucking awful. Also I think Galadriel is the only female creature in this entire movie.

8. WHY WOULD GOLLUM WANT TO DO RIDDLES? He lives in a subterranean lake and hasn't been outside for like 400 years. He doesn't know anything. Why wouldn't he challenge Bilbo to, say, a hillbilly handfishin' contest or something? ANYTHING BUT LAND-OF-THE-LIVING TRIVIA 101.

9. And for that matter, "What have I got in my pocket?" is NOT A RIDDLE. Seriously, Bilbo, you should have been DQ'd for that shit. When I'm the High Chancellor of Cave Riddlin' I'll run a tighter ship.

10. All of that said... The Bilbo/Gollum cave scene is actually fucking great, and it's the moment that the movie finally starts to feel like a movie instead of very expensive made-for-TV fairy tale theater (minus Shelley Duvall, so rip-off).

11. Why Are You Guys Not Dead. The reason that most of The Hobbit doesn't feel like a movie is that it's really just one long, sustained climax—a nearly unbroken string of massive action set pieces, each finishing with an increasingly improbable deus ex machina. (Tell me again why they don't just skip the month of thankless trudging and get Gwaihir & Co. to fly them straight to the Lonely Mountain in the first place? And Mt. Doom too, for that matter? Get your shit together, 'Dalf.) By the 67th miraculous escape it starts to feel like a dumb joke. Like, there's no way they wouldn't have lost at least Oin to the storm giants. Come on. Come on.

12. Oh, These Magic Eagles and Gandalf Are Just Totally Tight Bros. No big.

13. Oh, Thx 4 Leaving Us on This Impassable Crag, Eagles. Nice "rescue."

14. Oh, the Movie's Over. I'm still totally excited for the next one. Because sniffs.

via jezebel.com

 

Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

 

 

NOTE: this review tackles the 2D, 24fps version.

Echoes of a collective groan emanated from the deepest, darkest bowels of the Internet when it was announced that Peter Jackson’s latest tackling of Tolkien literature would be split into three (yes, three) separate films. Rightly or wrongly jeered, there are always a number of  Jackson certainties a film of such magnitude box ticks: grandiose spectacle, jaw-dropping CGI and masses of indulgence. The Hobbit – all 169 minutes of it – bodes well in terms of the first two, but in typical Jackson fashion, is slightly bogged with sentimentality in the cutting room.  But that’s not to say this first instalment isn’t a good one, though.

As young Bilbo is introduced (Martin Freeman) in the quaint vibrancy of The Shire, aesthetically it feels as viable and convincing as the multi-Oscar winning excellence of The Lord of the Rings. New characters are introduced as fluently as old ones are reacquainted, notably the divine Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf, as both premise and context are established, the following set up is more akin to The Fellowship of the Ring, as it practically retraces its steps. This comparison can be detected throughout, and whilst it may seem a mild hindrance, it doesn’t necessarily stifle the film.

Visually the entire film is a marvel. Wonderfully conceived and executed, it’s sure to be a strong contender for Oscars in technical achievements, not simply due to the breathtaking CGI for Andy Serkis’ Gollum, which is noticeably superior to Weta’s efforts a decade previous, but also for its conscientious strive to dazzle and amaze, much like LotR did. The journey that Bilbo, Gandalf and band of dwarves embark on is fundamentally a series of escapades that differ from whimsy adventure to life-threatening peril, yet are linked by stunning set pieces and special effects that make these moments all the more exceptional.

Once the film’s overarching expedition does kick in, audiences are whisked into Middle-Earth to bear witness to misadventures that literally encumber their progress. However, it’s the beginning of the film that opens laboriously, taking its sweet time to get things going. The pace is noticeably gradual and will no doubt frustrate some, but can be forgiven because the entirety doesn’t drag as one might imagine. Occasional scenes see it plod, but Martin Freeman forges a fresh take on Bilbo Baggins that’s quintessentially British that proves hugely charming in both quips and subtlety of facial expression. Similarly, Sir Ian McKellen is on top form as Gandalf, too, as such established characters stand out against the largely indistinct band of dwarves (including James Nesbitt) that form the backbone of the travelling party.

The Hobbit is more whimsy, accessible and light-hearted than some of the darker and frankly more terrifying aspects of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, but still crams so much in and exudes an epic severity the impending excursion is about to offer, and does so in gorgeous style with unrivaled special effects.  In honesty, with two further films to come, it does feel a tad stretched for a single 320-pager, but possesses more than enough good to quash the bad; Freeman begins his quest to Lonely Mountain on a positively delightful note.

‘Skyfall’ Review

Skyfall, the latest installment in the long-running saga based on Ian Fleming’s James Bond character, forces the British action-hero to dig into his own past if he intends to overcome a dangerous new foe. Director Sam Mendes (American Beauty and Jarhead) ditches the inter-connected “Quantum” narrative of the last two Bond films, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, in favor of an entirely new storyline that plays on larger connections to the overarching character canon and sets the stage for a more “refined” version of 007.

Considering many fans have celebrated Craig’s rough and gritty interpretation of the iconic character (currently enjoying a big screen 50th anniversary), did Mendes successfully produce a James Bond film with all the essentials (a smart story, memorable villain, and beautiful women) – while at the same time successfully balancing the updated franchise direction with the re-introduction of a few “traditional” Bond elements?

Shop Online With Lazada

Philippine's Online Shopping Mall Free Delivery Nationwide Available

www.lazada.com.ph/tabletpc

Ads by Google

In Skyfall, Mendes easily provides one of the more inspired James Bond installments to date, painfully digging into the backstories of both 007 and M (Judi Dench) in an attempt to say something meaningful about fallible people instead of simply showcasing iconic characters in motion. Apart from its franchise appeal, Skyfall would still be a sharp character-focused spy drama with plenty of intriguing as well as thrilling set pieces; however, interestingly, the film’s various attempts to fit Bond into a more “customary” mold (especially his womanizing ways) are ultimately the weakest aspects of the endeavor. That said, while the subtle course-corrections over-complicate a relatively straightforward story, without adding much to the well-established character mold, they shouldn’t distract too much from the quality of the larger Skyfall adventure.

Javier Bardem as Silva in ‘Skyfall’

After a botched MI6 operation leads to a scramble across Istanbul, M gambles with Bond’s life – in a desperate attempt to procure a stolen data disk containing the identities of undercover operatives around the globe. Unfortunately, she makes the wrong call and with Bond missing in action, the disk is lost. Months later, when news of a deadly attack on MI6 headquarters catches up to Bond, who has been hiding out in a seaside paradise “enjoying death,” the 00 agent is pulled out of his self-mandated retirement to investigate the looming threat and recover the disk. Unfortunately, the time away from his secret agent life has left Bond worn-down and physically broken. Can 007 get up to speed in time to stop terrorist leader Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem) – a dangerous man with an equally mysterious connection to M and the MI6 agency?

Despite an awkward pacing to the larger plot points and a core storyline that isn’t quiet as unique (or smart) as its premise, in a franchise that rarely takes the time to consider Bond, the man, separate from his iconic characteristics (and numerous sexual conquests), Skyfall successfully digs deeper than most entries in the series – showcasing a version of the character that isn’t all polish and slick one-liners. Instead, Mendes offers a Bond that is actually capable of walking away from his responsibilities – drowning his anger and bitterness in the bottom of tequila glasses instead of chasing after evildoers. It’s an intriguing exploration of a familiar character’s limits (a subject that is rarely explored in the film franchise). It isn’t until Bond sees the flaming image of MI6 headquarters that he decides to put aside his grievances and get back to work.

Unsurprisingly, Craig revels in the chance to continue fleshing out Bond’s deep-seeded issues – instead of just hitting series action beats. As mentioned, the resurrected Bond presents a lot of fun opportunities for Craig to toe-the-line between his Casino Royale character, a man that would smash through walls to accost a fleeing bad guy, and a more “familiar” variation of 007 – basically, as Q (Ben Whinshaw) says while describing Bond’s new Walther PPK-S, ”less of a random killing machine, more of a personal statement.” Still, for moviegoers who crave hard-hitting action set pieces, Craig is afforded plenty of rough-and-tumble butt kicking – especially during the film’s opening and finale sequences.

Daniel Craig and Judi Dench in ‘Skyfall’

While the last few Bond movies have delivered competent adventures, it’s been awhile since a modern Bond film included a villain that could stand shoulder to shoulder with memorable rogues like Oddjob, Goldfinger, and Ernst Stavro Blofeld. However, in spite of his homicidal tendencies, Skyfall terrorist Silva is very fun to watch – relying on a smart juxtaposition of charm and ruthless bloodlust to mirror Bond’s own demons. Unlike recent 007 villains who, even with their own unique quirks, are little more than human faces superimposed onto malevolent organizations, an extremely shaded performance from Bardem will, for many, remind them of the “love to hate him” experience of Heath Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight – cementing the character as a worthy addition to the list of James Bond scoundrels.

A new batch of supporting players also help to make everyone on the MI6 team relevant in the moment, not just pre-mission exposition machines. For example, the interactions between Bond and Ben Whishaw’s Q are especially entertaining – but the character’s utility isn’t just limited to equipping 007 with gadgets, he’s also integral to the larger movie narrative. Similar to Bond, Q, along with characters like Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), and Eve (Naomie Harris), are developed human beings with their own personal arcs that interweave with 007′s secret agent antics. The result is a much richer world for Bond to inhabit – one that, subsequently, gives audiences an amusing collection of fleshed out personalities to enjoy.

Skyfall also makes a strong argument for the impact of practical effects – especially in an industry where eye-popping 3D visuals are increasingly becoming the go-to approach for blockbuster filmmakers. Few of the action set pieces rely on CGI fillers and the result is a grounded and immersive experience that, in lieu of over-the-top gimmicks, allows for a number of entertaining cat and mouse chases, hard-hitting hand-to-hand fisticuffs, and a surprisingly impactful finale that’s as big on emotion as it is explosives. Additionally, Mendes, and cinematographer Roger Deakins, convey a number of breathtaking images (especially in Shanghai) that rank among the most captivating visuals ever depicted in a Bond film (or quite possibly film in general).

Ben Whishaw as Q in ‘Skyfall’

Still, for all the film does right, Skyfall‘s attempt to bring 007 in harmony with Fleming’s iconic creation often work against the success of the experience – at times dropping nuanced character exploration in favor of showing Bond engaging in his usual “iconic” antics. There’s no shortage of sexual encounters in the film but one in particular, a mid-movie shower rendezvous, serves absolutely no purpose in developing the character or advancing the plot. Some viewers will no doubt defend the scene by saying, “Bond is a womanizer” but, given the insight that Mendes attempts to supply for the man behind the legend, it’s an abrupt shift when the director then subverts the man and recklessly glorifies the legend for no greater purpose.

Nevertheless, as mentioned, Skyfall‘s few shortcomings are not enough to derail enjoyment of the film. Scene to scene, moment to moment, the movie offers one of the richest and most interesting Bond adventures – even if the core premise isn’t quite as sharp as the various characters scrambling around the screen. For every awkward misstep in Skyfall, Mendes provides several standout moments – resulting in an especially entertaining and provocative 007 adventure.

If you’re still on the fence about Skyfall, check out the trailer below:

-

What did you think of 'Skyfall'?

• 5 stars (63%)

• 4 stars (27%)

• 3 stars (5%)

• 1 star (4%)

• 2 stars (1%)

Total Votes: 81

-

Let us know what you thought of the film in the comment section below. If you’ve seen the movie and want to discuss details about the film without worrying about spoiling it for those who haven’t seen it, please head over to our Skyfall Spoilers Discussion.

For an in-depth discussion of the film by the Screen Rant editors check back soon for our Skyfall episode of the SR Underground podcast.

Follow me on Twitter @benkendrick for future reviews, as well as movie, TV, and gaming news.

Skyfall is Rated PG-13 for intense violent sequences throughout, some sexuality, language and smoking. Now playing in regular and IMAX theaters.

Our Rating:

4 out of 5

Tags: james bond, skyfall

"Follow us if you want to live."

via screenrant.com

The Dark Knight Rises – Review (2)

via insidepulse.com

For well over a year now I’ve tried to accomplish an almost impossible task in this day and age, and that was to avoid any and all things related to The Dark Knight Rises. That’s right, no trailers, no TV spots, no Internet stories (all 15 billion of them), and no on-set pictures; hell, I never even looked up a simple tagline. Nothing. I don’t know how I did it, but somehow I did. All I knew was that Bane and Catwoman were in it (as if that could be avoided), but other than that I went in completely blank, unprepared in any way for what I was about to see. And what I ended up witnessing was the conclusion of one of the greatest trilogies ever created done to perfection.

Director Christopher Nolan has created a film that will blow away any and all expectations that anyone could have going in, as there’s simply no better way that he could have wrapped up this epic tale of the legend known as Batman. A saying began a while back that goes, “In Nolan we trust,” as his legions of fans have come to realize that whatever he chooses to do, he does for a reason. Even if a certain casting decision may not make sense to the fans of the comic books, or even fans of the previous films, they take a deep breath and realize that nobody knows what they’re doing better than Nolan right now – and he proves it once again with The Dark Knight Rises.

Nolan and his brother Jonathan (with a story credit also going to Batman Begins co-writer David S. Goyer, who’s helped shape the trilogy in a story capacity) have created a story that brings their tale of Bruce Wayne full circle in the best way possible. The story goes back to its roots, as Wayne must rediscover himself in this film in order to combat the evil that threatens to destroy Gotham once and for all. The structure to the story is fairly balanced, with a slower build leading into an epic climax that rivals that of The Avengers. That’s all I’ll say about the story, as there’s not much more I can talk about without spoiling even a fragment of this masterpiece. In short, this is a film is an experience, and it’s one that must be seen (especially in IMAX, if possible) in order to be fully appreciated.

One of the most vital aspects to this experience is the fantastic musical score by composer Hans Zimmer. His music for this series hasn’t been recognized by the Academy as of yet, but that will likely change, as his score adds so many epic layers to almost every scene that the movie wouldn’t be the same without it. Then again, I thought Alan Silvestri deserved to be nominated last year for Captain America: The First Avenger, and that didn’t happen, so maybe I don’t know what they’re looking for in the music category.

Major credit must also be given to the special effects team, set designers, sound department, cinematography, editing; honestly, the entire production crew deserves any and all accolades that this film will receive as they’ve all done a fantastic job creating a Gotham City that actually feels like it exists somewhere in the United States. Doing such a wonderful job at this helps make the film that much more engrossing, as everything that happens within Gotham feels that much more real.

On the acting side of things, all the major players are back, and they all bring their A-game. Christian Bale returns once again as Bruce Wayne/Batman, and as both Nolan and Bale have stated, this is the last time they’ll work on a Batman film. While it’s understandable after so many years, it’s still sad to see Bale go, as he truly is the definitive Bruce Wayne/Batman.

Also returning are: Michael Caine, as Wayne’s butler and guardian Alfred; Morgan Freeman as the always entertaining go-to man for gadgets, Lucius Fox; and Commissioner Gordon himself, Gary Oldman. These three have done their roles proud throughout this series, and each give wonderful final performances this time out, which is no surprise.

As for the new blood to the series, there are three major players that are a welcome addition to the franchise. First, there’s the film’s main villain, Bane, played by Tom Hardy. Hardy gained 30 pounds for the role and looks absolutely menacing, giving him an astonishing intimidation factor that really ups the ante physically for Batman like never before. In the previous films, there was never a moment where the audience thought Batman may not win. In the first film, Ra’s Al Ghul is a formidable foe, but he’s also one we know Batman can overcome, while in the sequel the Joker is a criminal mastermind who uses brains over brawn, as he’s someone that Batman can throw around like a rag doll. With Bane, there’s an overwhelming feeling that this is a guy who can honestly break the Batman. The voice of Bane (which is also Hardy) takes a minor amount of adjustment to get used to, though it’s never incomprehensible, and it adds a unique flair to his character as well.

The second new major role to the series is Selina Kyle, aka Catwoman, played by Anne Hathaway. While her part isn’t as prominent as some may have initially thought, it actually works perfectly with how it’s handled, and much like Bale, Hathaway proves herself to be the best big-screen version of Catwoman yet. Finally, the third new major character is officer John Blake of the Gotham Police Department, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Gordon-Levitt is a great talent (as Nolan likely realized when he worked with him on Inception) and the addition of his character to this franchise is a welcome one.

There are plenty of new minor characters to go around as well, which may throw some people for a loop for the first few scenes; however, the Nolans do a good job of giving everyone a clear role and purpose, with nobody ever just being thrown to the wayside, or just being placed in the story for the hell of it. There’s a plan for everyone, even if it’s just a minor one that simply helps underline or push forward the themes of the film.

Back in 2008 there was a major uproar when The Dark Knight wasn’t nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards; however, I believe things will be different come awards season next year. And while some may think that a Best Picture nomination will be given to it simply to make up for the Dark Knight mishap, or to finally pay heed to the final chapter of a magnificent trilogy (much like what happened with The Lord of the Rings films), I don’t believe that will be the case. No, you see, The Dark Knight Rises deserves that nomination because it’s earned it. It’s the best picture of the year thus far, a brilliant conclusion to an epic trilogy, and just another reason why when it comes to creating something extraordinary, “In Nolan we trust.”

Movie Review The Amazing Spider Man Leaves Us Tinglin

via eonline.com

Review in a Hurry: Though the very idea of rebooting Spider-Man only five years after the last sequel enraged geeks everywhere, The Amazing Spider-Man is just that. Andrew Garfield is less the so-earnest-it-hurts Peter Parker that Tobey Maguire portrayed, and more the wouldn't-it-be-cool to actually be Spider-Man variety.

Best of all, the 3-D visuals deliver webswinging and webslinging that finally look—we're saying it—amazing.

READ: The Amazing Spider-Man Off to "Healthy" Box-Office Start—Yes, Already

The Bigger Picture: The worst that can be said about The Amazing Spider-Man is that if not for an emotionally invested Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben, the origin plot feels unnecessary. Part of this is because—and here's where the fans are right to complain—we just saw Parker bitten by a radioactive spider in 2002. The other is that the new back story involving the mystery of what happened to Peter's parents is done via lame flashbacks and never really pays off.
Play”The Campaign” actor debates with costar Will Ferrell about upcoming propositions. See which one of his ideas earns cheers from the crowd!
PlayAre “The Campaign” stars Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis qualified to participate in the 2012 London event? Hear their proposal.
PlayGary Oldman reveals that one actor’s career will be changed by this film. Find out who! Plus, the star-studded cast shares their bittersweet goodbyes.

However, once Spidey starts experimenting with his newfound abilities, director Marc Webb spins a web of pure popcorn fun.

Spider-Man himself much funnier. Meaning, he's actually funny this time. Not just with snappy one liners, but moments that are lighthearted, too.

Starting with Garfield, the whole cast is strong. His Parker is still an insecure angsty teen, but not so much that you can't suspend disbelief that he could land adorable classmate Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). With Garfield 28, and Stone 23, they look like they haven't attended a high school in years. Thankfully, both are funny, charming and together have plenty of chemistry. Rhys Ifans convinces as Dr. Curt Conner/The Lizard.

Download the new-and-improved but equally free E! Online app for iPhone, iPod touch and Android mobile devices

The special effects work trumps the previous films, which should surprise no one since effects have come a long way since 2007's Spider-Man 3. The highlight is a fight between Spidey and The Lizard in a library with a great surprise cameo.

Though the plot is pretty much the same as the Maguire original, there are tweaks. Spidey still wears the mask (most of the time) but the whole secret identity thing is mercifully toned down. While The Lizard has no love for the wall crawler, his ultimate goal is not the de facto kill Spider-Man angle. Parker is very much a science geek, fashioning his own web-shooters like he did in the original comics. Let's hear it for staying in school! Finally, Gwen Stacy isn't merely a damsel in distress, but she's also quite brave.

MORE: Amazing Spider-Man Director Marc Webb Talks Avengers, Sequels and Supervillains!

Through it all, Spidey swings to and from danger with the ease of good stuntman. Some shots do look computer-generated though. Still, there's such propulsion and weight to him that he feels absolutely real.

Although Spider-Man 2 is still the best overall, with more effective story elements, engaging characters and superior visuals, Amazing bodes well for future installments.

The 180—a Second Opinion: The score by James Horner, like the one Danny Elfman did for the earlier installments, is pretty forgettable. A rousing theme for the webslinger still evades this series.

Is New "Spider-Man" The Most Amazing Yet?

toofab caught an early screening of "The Amazing Spider-Man" last week, where reviewers and fanboys alike were asking, "Do we really need ANOTHER Spider-Man movie?"

You see, it's only been ten years since the first "Spider-Man" film starring Tobey Maguire came out, and only five years since "Spider-Man 3."

So where does the latest Spidey film -- with new lead Andrew Garfield -- fall in the realm of superhero reboots? Does it breathe new life into the comic legend like "Batman Begins" does, or suck it out like "Superman Returns?" In this reviewer's opinion, it falls right about in the middle.

With his big hair and lanky figure, Garfield is physically different than his predecessor. He plays a younger, cooler Peter Parker. Whereas Maguire was bookish and shy, Garfield is more of a rebel -- a skateboarder who stands up to the school bully. Like Maguire, his weakness is girls -- in this case his classmate Gwen Stacy (played by Garfield's real-life girlfriend Emma Stone).

Director Marc Webb does little to tweak with Spider-Man's origin story. Peter gets bitten by an augmented arachnid and enters a life of crime-fighting after a family tragedy. Each scene in the first hour unfolds predictably. There's a fun sequence where Peter tries out his new powers in a warehouse, but you've seen everything else before. The plot picks up with the introduction of Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), whose quest for a world without illness results in him transforming into the reptilian Lizard.

The Lizard is by far the scariest Spider-Man villain to grace the big screen (sorry, but Dr. Octopus was more corny than creepy). He and Spider-Man get into some pretty spectacular fights -- and Spidey employs some inventive uses of his webbing to track and battle his foe.

Other plot points feel like bit of stretch. Peter and Gwen are classmates who just happen to be two of the most brilliant young scientific minds in the country. A feel-good post-9/11 moment before the final battle had some rolling their eyes.

However, there's a lot to enjoy too. Sally Field plays a concerned mother figure to Peter (a role she perfected on "Brothers & Sisters") perfectly. And the chemistry between Garfield and Stone is undeniable. Combined with strong special effects, "The Amazing Spider-Man" becomes a fun, if predictable, ride. It just takes some time for the engine to rev up.

 

via toofab.com

 

Prometheus review: Depth is an alien concept for Ridley Scott

Prometheus (15)
      Rating:

Like so many now classic horror films, Alien (1979) was critically under-rated and even vilified on its release, as was Sir Ridley Scott’s other venture into sci-fi, Blade Runner (1982).

Perhaps that’s why he has taken his time to go back to the future.

It’s not giving too much away to say that Prometheus is a prequel to Alien, though another film will be needed to bridge the time gap between the two.

 

Space odyssey: Noomi Rapace and Michael Fassbender as explorers who find themselves in a fight to protect the human race

Scott even recycles elements from his 1979 movie: a blue-collar crew on a spaceship (called Prometheus), an aloof android (Michael Fassbender taking over the Ian Holm role to droll effect) and not one but two strong female characters — Noomi Rapace (the original Girl With The Dragon Tattoo) as the tough-guy heroine and Charlize Theron as the corporate boss who matronises the mostly masculine astronauts.

There’s more philosophising than in Alien, for the crew’s mission is nothing less than to discover the origin of mankind, why we were created and by whom. To accomplish this, they visit a distant planet where all kinds of unpleasantness awaits them.

 

 

More...

• Out of this world! Charlize Theron is simply stunning in chic mini dress at Prometheus premiere
• Out of this world numbers! Prometheus set to break records with £500,000 advance ticket sales

 

The film is on a much grander scale than its predecessor. There are sufficient epic vistas to have satisfied David Lean, whose Lawrence Of Arabia is quoted from throughout (not a great idea, as there’s no doubt which is the better film), and enough space gadgetry to satisfy the most obsessive Top Gear presenter.

Less impressive is the film’s split personality. It starts out as a thoughtful take on Darwinian versus Creationist theory and as an investigation of faith, but it turns into a fairly conventional monster movie, with icky special effects catering for the grisliest of fanboy tastes.

 

Blockbuster: Prometheus cost a reported £85 million to make, but it is set to overtake box office records previously set by hits such as Avatar and Batman The Dark Knight

The sequence about a self-inflicted Caesarean is even more gruesome than Alien’s famous exploding stomach scene involving John Hurt. Do not watch if you are expecting a baby.

As a piece of speculative fiction, Prometheus falls well short of greatness, but it shows abundant visual panache and, as a horror flick, delivers plenty of nasty shocks. Technically, the film is a triumph.

Disappointingly, it leaves its deeper questions unanswered, which comes across as a cop-out. Though solemn and portentous, Scott doesn’t get any closer to the meaning of the universe than Douglas Adams did in The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy.

Much of the movie takes place inside an enormous, hollow, alien structure, and that is all too apposite a metaphor for the whole movie. There’s little sense of human contact between the crew, and we are not encouraged to feel much as they are exploded and eviscerated. 

With the exception of Noomi Rapace’s leading character, the others are as sketchy and undeveloped as in the most sub-standard slasher flick, so the experience is emotionally underwhelming.

Prometheus isn’t a classic, unlike Alien and Blade Runner, but there are enough quality ingredients to make me hope Scott gets the money to make the sequel.via dailymail.co.uk

 

Movie Review: Dark Shadows' Johnny Depp Rises With Throwback Laughs

Warner Bros. Entertainment

Grade - B

Review in a Hurry: After 200 years in a casket, vampire Barnabas Collins awakens to the swinging 1970s. Unfortunately, the witch who cursed (and buried) him is also still around. Through Michelle Pfeiffer teaming up with Burton for the first time since she slipped into that skintight Eva Green) got him into trouble since she turned out to be a witch. Spells are cast, true love was lost and a vampire Barnabas became.

Flash forward to 1972 with plenty of jokes about lava lamps, Alice Cooper and bellbottoms.

 

 

    Johnny Depp Slams Split Rumor

 

Depp's take on Barnabus is much more grounded than his eccentric Jack Sparrow-types. He is in white makeup the whole time with a severe ye olde English accent, but it works because Depp is quite funny playing everything deadpan. He's less a vampire and more a really old dude, which is what most vamps really are anyway.

The rest of the cast, which includes Jonny Lee Miller, each get a moment to be eccentric or glum, whichever is his or her preference. The standout is Eva Green as Angelique. Green's enthusiasm toward her witchy ways is wicked.

But the script by Seth Grahame-Smith (who also wrote the upcoming Burton-produced

Inside Pulse | The Avengers – Review

via insidepulse.com

“Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson
By the time this film is released nationally, I will have seen it twice. That’s not me bragging; it’s me illustrating that as a writer and lover of film – usually seeing more than 130 films theatrically in a given year – I typically only see them once in a darkened auditorium. However, a film like The Avengers begs to be seen multiple times. It’s that good.
My initial impressions, which I shared as I exited the first screening, was simply, “That movie was [expletive deleted] awesome.” But that’s not to insinuate I’m a Marvel Comics fanboy. I’ve enjoyed all the movies that comprise the Marvel Cinematic Universe, in general, and had strong expectations that Joss Whedon’s vision would be at or near the movies that have come before it. I never expected the final product to set the bar of what future Marvel movies would aspire to be.
While it doesn’t transcend the genre like The Dark Knight – Avengers’ foe Loki (Tom Hiddleston) recently wrote a piece for The Guardian noting that Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker “changed the game,” and added that the late actor “raised the bar not just for actors in superhero films, but young actors everywhere; for me.” – the movie has an overriding sense of enthusiasm (hence the Emerson quote above). This is good news for Joss Whedon fans that have championed the cult status work (more so for TV’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly; not his screenwriting contribution to Alien: Resurrection) of the multifaceted magician of all things media. Here he has produced something that is very entertaining while at the same time exuding a sort of confidence we haven’t seen since the first Iron Man.
For those who have been emotionally invested in all the films of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe, which Robert Downey Jr. once described in an interview were used as a means of “cross-pollinating our superheroes,” then you know that Marvel Studios has been building to this release for quite some time. Rather than try to shoehorn characters into a massive comic-book movie epic, The Avengers has been preceded by five superhero movies meant to establish a universe where characters and plot elements are shared. It began with 2008’s Iron Man and continued with The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger.
With all that build up expectations were to be had. This is the ultimate endgame after all; a superhero dream team joining together to stop a baddie (Thor’s Loki) with long-stemming family issues. Up until now the previous films felt like episodes of a TV series leading up to a thrilling season finale. So it makes sense that the man pulling the strings would be someone who comes from a TV background. Whedon’s own experience as a comic-book writer, having done multiple story arcs for Marvel’s Astonishing X-Men and Runaways, is also an asset. That background helps, especially knowing that Whedon’s key ear for writing witty dialogue with pithy remarks and pop culture references that come into play. The references aren’t used as a way to stick out and be distracting – this isn’t George Clooney saying, “This is why Superman works alone” – each remark or put-down helps underline the characters. Of course, Robert Downey Jr. gets the lion’s share because that’s Tony Stark’s MO. But The Hulk, here played by Mark Ruffalo (replacing Edward Norton), has at least three moments that turn the film from one of the most action-packed to one of the funniest you’re likely to see this summer.
Additionally, Whedon goes as far as to give each character a shining moment so that he or she isn’t forgotten, left to stand around in the background. The best example would be Black Widow, aka Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson). As the lone female in a group of male heroes with superhuman abilities, she is just a leather-clad femme with a Ph.D. in ass-kickery. So she’s got the attitude to hang with the boys, but her appearance in Iron Man 2 didn’t reveal much about her character. Before the title screen appears we learn quite a bit, and her history is later explored in a scene featuring her and Loki. No explosions take place or punches thrown, but it has one of those nice “gotcha” moments that make it more than just filler before the grand finale.
In a business that thrives on sequels, remakes and franchises, Marvel Studios has succeeded in building a universe with The Avengers as its brass ring. The films prior have told individual stories of all the major players within the faction while also building up the eventual emergence of the superhero team. So while much of the Iron Man sequel felt like the zero issue of The Avengers with all the Avengers Initiative exposition presented, the payoff is justly rewarded. Overall, this is easily the best film in the Marvel canon, and it leaves you to wonder how things could have been if Marvel Comics hadn’t licensed some of its characters to other studios. Imagine the crossovers that could have been possible had Spider-Man not web-slinged his way to Columbia Pictures or Wolverine raised Adamantium-claw hell over at 20th Century Fox.
Up until now the best superhero movies have revolved around a singular character. I’m looking specifically at Richard Donner’s Superman and Christopher Nolan’s Batman. While Nolan’s “realistic” approach to The Caped Crusader has brought the superhero film to unparalleled heights, Joss Whedon embraces the outrageousness of his creation. But he does it with respect. Whereas Superman has a strong moral compass that, to this day, continues to fascinate cultural theorists, and Batman is a vigilante yet watchful protector of the fictional Gotham City, the Avengers are known as “Earth’s Mightiest Heroes,” fighting the “foes no single superhero can withstand.” And judging from the climatic 30-minute battle at the end they hold true to this theme.
Outside of the action and comedy, what really struck me is the sense of community and all the work that goes into to corralling egos (or in this case, Superegos) and have them function as a unit. The X-Men films (not including X-Men: First Class) had the team aspect pretty much in place from the start so the biggest ego to contain was that of Wolverine. Here we see how those characters already introduced in the five previous Marvel movies form relationships through a convergence of events that sometimes see our heroes square off against one another in mini skirmishes.
As far as the actors go, everyone plays their roles pitch perfect. Robert Downey Jr., brilliantly cast in the role of the genius-billionaire-playboy-philanthropist Tony Stark, again steals the show. Chris Evans as Steve Rogers (aka Captain America) reveals a gullibility that’s instantly relatable to anyone who can’t see the forest for the trees. Because for Cap, in his mind, yesterday he was battling Nazis, now he’s in the present day acclimating himself to the world and its overriding sense moral decay and cynicism. Chris Hemsworth, who got the role of Thor while acting in Whedon’s production of The Cabin in the Woods (which finally saw release this year after being on the shelf since 2009), is an awesome Thunder God taking on as much punishment as he can dish out, including a great knockdown drag out with everyone’s favorite misunderstood Not-So-Jolly Green Giant.
Twice already they have had different origin stories for The Hulk. First, it was Ang Lee’s flawed look at Dr. Bruce Banner’s transformation into Hulk with Eric Bana in the starring role. Then, five years later, Louis Leterrier’s Incredible Hulk tried to begin again with Edward Norton in the Banner role. But neither film utilized The Hulk to his full potential. Now with Mark Ruffalo as Banner the third time was definitely the charm. Next to Tony Stark he may very well be the standout character in the film and the one most discussed.
Members of S.H.I.E.L.D. are also given their moments of glory. Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury gets to be Sam Jack with an eye patch and be the leader of the team he was meant to become. Cobie Smulders, who previously had a screen credit as “Beautiful Eye Candy in Car” in 2004’s Walking Tall, plays an agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. and serves her purpose well. Then there’s Clark Gregg as Agent Coulson. A suit and tie guy with a deadpan sense of humor, here he is rewarded for being “that agent who just happens to be the smartest guy in the room (when it comes to random, yet important, exposition).”
Clocking in at two hours and twenty minutes, The Avengers never feels long. It has so much going for it in terms of plot, character and action that it almost feels too good to be true. This is a blockbuster that delivers in convincing fashion and with a confidence that most intended blockbusters lack. Having characters to believe in and cheer for helps, and it makes the payoff that much sweeter.

'John Carter' Movie Review

via ropeofsilicon.com

For a movie about a former Civil War captain whisked off the face of the Earth to the surface of Mars, John Carter is a rather simple story. Alien politics are essentially boiled down to the most simplistic form of good vs. evil as a mysterious group called the Holy Therns aid the inevitable destruction of the planet's inhabitants. Why? Because that's the way it is. As a result, you are likely to read a wide range of opinions on the film and most of them will be valid, it just all depends on your perspective.
For as uncomplicated as the story is and for as weak as the dialogue is, John Carter remains well made and well told by a director that knows a thing or two about keeping an audience interested. Andrew Stanton follows in the recent footsteps of Brad Bird (Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol) moving from animated films to live action after bringing us Finding Nemo and WALL-E. He now trains that purposeful and understated storytelling to the "real" world, although not without a few several nods to the past and some uncharacteristic bumps along the way.

Throughout the history of cinema several sci-fi films have been inspired by the work of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Burroughs created the character of John Carter in 1912 and his stories have influenced a generation of filmmakers including George Lucas, James Cameron and Steven Spielberg. So if you see bits of Star Wars, Avatar and Indiana Jones inside John Carter don't be surprised.

You'll watch Taylor Kitsch, as the titular character, involved in scenes that seem as if they were ripped directly out of prior films, the Star Wars saga in particular, as an arena battle bears a striking resemblance to a similar scene in Attack of the Clones and the speeder race from Return of the Jedi is now taken to the streets of Helium, the fictional city on Mars that serves as the home for John Carter's soon-to-be love interest, Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins).

It wasn't until 52 years after Burroughs introduced the world to his Mars series that the title of one of his stories actually included John Carter. Instead he began the series in 1912 with "A Princess of Mars", a title that refers to Dejah Thoris. Here her city is under the threat of complete annihilation as Sab Than (Dominic West), the Prince of Zodanga, is under the influence of the leader of the Therns, Matai Shang (Mark Strong). Than's offer is simple, either Dejah accepts his hand in marriage or Helium will be destroyed. Not too keen on the arranged marriage idea, in order to save her people, Dejah eventually teams up with John Carter whose path to Mars is anything but conventional.

John Carter is told from the perspective of its author as we meet a young Edgar Rice Burroughs (Daryl Sabara) whom we learn is the nephew of the recently deceased John Carter. Willed all of Carter's belongings with special emphasis on his diary, Burroughs immediately opens to page one and begins reading as the story moves to Arizona 1861.

Here John Carter is on his own and in search of gold, but the former Confederate soldier is brought into custody and asked to rejoin the fight. Refusing, he flees only to have a run-in with a band of Native Americans end in the discovery of a mysterious cave and Carter's resulting transportation to Mars (or Barsoom as it's referred to by its native inhabitants) as a result of what he finds inside.

Carter's initial landing on Mars finds him first acclimating himself to the difference in gravitational pull, a detail that gives him superhuman strength and jumping ability. His ability is witnessed by Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe), the leader of an alien race known as Tharks whom you will recognize by their green skin, four arms, nine-foot tall bodies and faces with tusks. Other than that, they look just like you and I.

He reluctantly becomes a Thark warrior and injects himself into an eventual aerial battle between Zodanga and Helium warships. In the process he helps Dejah and reveals himself and his abilities to Sab Than and his Thern compatriots. The stage is set, but there will be the eventual moments where Carter questions whether or not he wants to help Dejah and her people or just get back to Earth. Considering Lynn Collins is gorgeous and their relationship doesn't appear to be more than skin deep, it's pretty easy to figure out what his choice will be.

Never mind the similarities to previous sci-fi and fantasy features, those aspects I can rather easily overlook considering Stanton does a good job making them his own inside the desolate Mars landscape. It's John Carter's overall ease and acceptance of his situation that bothered me more than anything else. This, along with the rather simplistic nature of each and every relationship and plot point.

Once Carter finds himself on Mars he's confused but needs to quickly rely on his survival skills, believing Tars Tarkas and those that accompany him mean him harm. From that point on he essentially accepts everything else that happens. Considering we're talking about a guy used to a world that is basically made up of cowboys and Indians, the idea he'd so quickly become comfortable around nine-foot tall aliens with four arms, floating warships and a weapon that disintegrates anything in its path is a bit of a stretch. I know I'd be freaking out.

Yet, somehow Stanton and his cast make it easy to overlook most of the film's shortcomings. If there is ever a hitch in delivery it's largely due to screenwriting that makes the film's characters seem a bit slow on the uptake. "You're John Carter of Earth?" Dejah asks. "Yes ma'am," Carter replies. Seriously? You've been palling around the dusty landscape of Mars for the last day or so and you're having this conversation now and why does it have to be "John Carter of Earth"?

Stanton is better than this, something he showed with WALL-E, a film that doesn't need declarative statements such as this to get its point across. A glance and a realization is all that's needed. Dejah wasn't convinced Carter was from Earth, now she is, I don't think she needs to verbalize it. Moments like this happen on more than one occasion, which is a shame in an otherwise entertaining feature.

Surprisingly enough, the best performances come from the trio of actors featured as Tharks. Willem Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church and Samantha Morton get the most time as the nine-foot tall green beings and whether it's their voice work, the performance capture or a combination of all three, I really thought their characters came alive and were the most complex additions to the film.

There are also a few action beats that stand out, particularly an operatic slaughter engineered by Carter that I never expected, especially when you see the Disney logo in front of the film.

The strongest piece of the story is the film's ending, once you've accepted all that's come before it and see what Stanton was going for and aspiring to accomplish. There's a reason the film is titled John Carter and not John Carter of Mars and I felt the final moments firmly established that, setting up the potential for a great franchise if given a chance. Hopefully, if they get that chance, some more complicated themes can be explored in future installments. I've never actually read Burroughs' "Barsoom" series, but just in skimming their plots there are plenty more interesting themes and scenarios to discover. Fingers crossed.

GRADE: B-