If you have access to On Demand and are interested in the corporate thriller genre, here's one you might like to catch up on from earlier this year. Mel Gibson is a police detective and grieving Dad out for revenge in "Edge of Darkness". It fits into the recent spate of Boston crime dramas that have been making a splash since Hollywood discovered Dennis LeHane, although in this case the source material comes from a TV series.
This film has a good pedigree. Written by William Monahan, who won an Oscar for "The Departed" and directed by Martin Campbell, who was at the helm of the best Bond film in a while, "Casino Royal", this is a pretty satisfying genre piece. Mel Gibson puts on his angry revenge face and is convincing enough, but Ray Winstone as a rogue operative and Danny Huston as a corporate war-monger are excellent. Winstone steals scenes.
If you're looking for a good, twisty, blame-it-on-a-secret-government-agency thriller and don't mind a little revenge-style violence, this one is worth the extra charge on your cable bill. Oh, and forgive the Boston accents.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Persian Popcorn
I had low expectations for "The Prince of Persia". After all it's Bruckheimer. You know what you're going to get with Bruckheimer. Plus this hasn't been the best summer season so far. "Iron Man 2" was a minor disappointment. "Robin Hood" was a major disappointment. But this is the time for popcorn-chompers so if there's some fun action and it isn't completely silly you're ahead of the game. "The Prince of Persia", I'm happy to say, may not be ahead of the curve but at least it breaks even.
Jake Gyllenhaal takes a stab at the action hero thing and comports himself admirably. Listen, if Toby McGuire can be an action hero, who's to judge. There is a dagger that turns back time and life as we know it is at stake...blah, blah, blah. Plot is peripheral in films based on video games. The strength of this summer movie is in the characters. The director is Mike Newell, a veteran of both small indie films and even a Harry Potter (#4). He allows his characters to talk to each other, to actually relate to each other. They can be sexy and angry and even funny. The smartest thing he did is cast Alfred Molina as a conniving, ostrich-racing con artist. The setting for this extravaganza is the desert and the production design takes advantage of the exotic, if somewhat comic-booky locals. All of that is pretty fun stuff.
Here's the problem. Bruckheimer lives off silly action sequences like a vampire lives off AB negative. Seventeen flips off a rooftop and nobody breaks a bone, except maybe the editors who may have broken their wrists from all that rapid-fire cutting. It's silly and degrades what might have been a good summer flick. It's simple. Bruckheimer thinks he makes great action movies but in fact he ruins them. It's sad.
Still Mike Newell does what he can before the video game geeks take over the editing room. He saves it just enough to call it even. The summer season may be in intensive care, but with "The Prince of Persia", it still has a pulse.
Jake Gyllenhaal takes a stab at the action hero thing and comports himself admirably. Listen, if Toby McGuire can be an action hero, who's to judge. There is a dagger that turns back time and life as we know it is at stake...blah, blah, blah. Plot is peripheral in films based on video games. The strength of this summer movie is in the characters. The director is Mike Newell, a veteran of both small indie films and even a Harry Potter (#4). He allows his characters to talk to each other, to actually relate to each other. They can be sexy and angry and even funny. The smartest thing he did is cast Alfred Molina as a conniving, ostrich-racing con artist. The setting for this extravaganza is the desert and the production design takes advantage of the exotic, if somewhat comic-booky locals. All of that is pretty fun stuff.
Here's the problem. Bruckheimer lives off silly action sequences like a vampire lives off AB negative. Seventeen flips off a rooftop and nobody breaks a bone, except maybe the editors who may have broken their wrists from all that rapid-fire cutting. It's silly and degrades what might have been a good summer flick. It's simple. Bruckheimer thinks he makes great action movies but in fact he ruins them. It's sad.
Still Mike Newell does what he can before the video game geeks take over the editing room. He saves it just enough to call it even. The summer season may be in intensive care, but with "The Prince of Persia", it still has a pulse.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Shrek-The Big Green Money Machine
The Shrek franchise has made a mint based on the ability to sneak slightly more adult jokes past an unsuspecting underage audience. Some good-natured toilet humor for the kids, some innuendo for the adults and funny likable characters for everybody. Cha-ching. If the critics quibbled, it was because Shrek had become increasingly dependent on the inside pop culture reference, riffing on cultural icons by transferring them into a big, green, ogre-populated setting. Starbucks in Far, Far, Away land and so forth. Cute but easy. The Fourth installment of the Shrek series has paid attention to the critical sniping. It really avoids the easy pop culture joke. Instead it takes it's cue from a cinematic icon. It is a knock off of "It's a Wonderful Life" with a big green Ogre cast in the Jimmy Stewart role.
Shrek makes a pact with the bad guy, a wheeler-dealer named Rumpelstiltskin who trades Shrek a day from his childhood for a day in which he can roar like an ogre instead of being a hen-pecked hubby and dad. Thank goodness there's an out clause or his old life might be gone forever. Shrek gets to see a world without him in it and of course it isn't pretty.
It's fun enough and the characters carry the day in a familiar sort of way but just like the Capra classic, this is a pretty dark and angry world, maybe even a little inappropriate for the very young or over-sensitive so be careful Moms and Dads. It's dark and really not as funny as the rest of the franchise but redemption comes and it all works out. The kids will find that this last installment in the series makes it to the finish line just in time for a good time to be had by all. Good thing, because this whole Shrek thing seems to be ending just as it runs out of steam.
Shrek makes a pact with the bad guy, a wheeler-dealer named Rumpelstiltskin who trades Shrek a day from his childhood for a day in which he can roar like an ogre instead of being a hen-pecked hubby and dad. Thank goodness there's an out clause or his old life might be gone forever. Shrek gets to see a world without him in it and of course it isn't pretty.
It's fun enough and the characters carry the day in a familiar sort of way but just like the Capra classic, this is a pretty dark and angry world, maybe even a little inappropriate for the very young or over-sensitive so be careful Moms and Dads. It's dark and really not as funny as the rest of the franchise but redemption comes and it all works out. The kids will find that this last installment in the series makes it to the finish line just in time for a good time to be had by all. Good thing, because this whole Shrek thing seems to be ending just as it runs out of steam.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Guest Blogger Kicks Ass
I won't see "Kick Ass". I choose not to give this production my money. I dislike Nicholas Cage as an actor intensely. I don't believe it's ok to allow a film character who is 11 years old to perform acts of ultra-violence on others and to have acts of violence done to her. I don't believe that you should hold up as a superhero an eleven year old girl who uses language like the c-word with abandon. And as I have said before in this blog, I am not a comic book geek. But I will not blog about this because it is unfair to criticize a film I haven't seen. Others in my blogosphere have seen this film and liked it. So today I have invited a guest blogger to talk about this film. So John DeFelice, take it away......
Kick Ass
Did you ever wonder what kind of movie John Hughes and Quentin Tarantino would make if they ever collaborated? Well Kick Ass is that movie. The question is do people want to see this kind of schizophrenic movie? During the first half I wasn’t sure what kind of movie director Mathew Vaughn wanted to make. There’s the story Dave, the likable kid who hangs out with his geek friends. Dave, a comic book fan, wonders why there are no real life super heros and then decides he’s the man for the job. He's busy fighting crime and trying to get the girl of his dreams to notice him. Then there’s the in your face violence which includes a man exploding in a giant microwave and finally there’s Nicolas Cage doing a variation of Batman. And not the Dark Knight Batman but the Batman of the campy 60’s series. All of these different elements make the first half feel a little unfocused and disjointed. I thought Vaughn had a similar problem with Stardust, a movie with so many different styles I was never able to buy into the world he was trying to create. But I did end up believing the world of Kick Ass.
At a certain point, the movie becomes more focused and all the elements that preceded it suddenly gel together in a rather exciting second half. The script does have moments of wit but the true credit goes to the cast. Love him or hate him, Nicolas Cage knows how to make a role uniquely his own, Aaron Johnson perfectly captures the sweet, gawky kid searching for his inner hero and Christopher Mintz-Plasse who just as he did in Superbad and Role Models has the ability make the loner/geek kid believable. And then there’s Chloe Moretz as Hit Girl. Yes, there are lots of people who do not want to see a 13 year old variation of The Bride in Kill Bill. I admit in the beginning it was a bit jarring to hear the language, including the C word, coming out of her mouth or to see her standing there as her father teaches her how to take a bullet but by the movies end it was the character, not the actress I was seeing. Does that justify having a character like this? This will be an ongoing debate but this won’t be the last we’ll see of characters like this. Think back to 13 year old Jodie Foster playing a prostitute in Taxi Driver. For better or worse, the arts will continue to push the envelope. Controversy aside, Moretz is a true find. Some people may remember her from "(500) Days of Summer", where she was also a stand out as Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s little sister. With a role in the upcoming remake of "Let the Right One In", I think we are going to be seeing much more of Moretz.
This movie is not going to be for everyone. I have never read the comic that it was based on but if it has a similar style I credit the filmmakers for sticking to their creative guns. This movie could have easily been toned down in hopes of attracting more of a mainstream audience but if they chose to stay true to the source material I applauded that. With a sequel in the works the question is will they stay the course or will Hit Girl be downgraded to a PG-13? ----John DeFelice
Kick Ass
Did you ever wonder what kind of movie John Hughes and Quentin Tarantino would make if they ever collaborated? Well Kick Ass is that movie. The question is do people want to see this kind of schizophrenic movie? During the first half I wasn’t sure what kind of movie director Mathew Vaughn wanted to make. There’s the story Dave, the likable kid who hangs out with his geek friends. Dave, a comic book fan, wonders why there are no real life super heros and then decides he’s the man for the job. He's busy fighting crime and trying to get the girl of his dreams to notice him. Then there’s the in your face violence which includes a man exploding in a giant microwave and finally there’s Nicolas Cage doing a variation of Batman. And not the Dark Knight Batman but the Batman of the campy 60’s series. All of these different elements make the first half feel a little unfocused and disjointed. I thought Vaughn had a similar problem with Stardust, a movie with so many different styles I was never able to buy into the world he was trying to create. But I did end up believing the world of Kick Ass.
At a certain point, the movie becomes more focused and all the elements that preceded it suddenly gel together in a rather exciting second half. The script does have moments of wit but the true credit goes to the cast. Love him or hate him, Nicolas Cage knows how to make a role uniquely his own, Aaron Johnson perfectly captures the sweet, gawky kid searching for his inner hero and Christopher Mintz-Plasse who just as he did in Superbad and Role Models has the ability make the loner/geek kid believable. And then there’s Chloe Moretz as Hit Girl. Yes, there are lots of people who do not want to see a 13 year old variation of The Bride in Kill Bill. I admit in the beginning it was a bit jarring to hear the language, including the C word, coming out of her mouth or to see her standing there as her father teaches her how to take a bullet but by the movies end it was the character, not the actress I was seeing. Does that justify having a character like this? This will be an ongoing debate but this won’t be the last we’ll see of characters like this. Think back to 13 year old Jodie Foster playing a prostitute in Taxi Driver. For better or worse, the arts will continue to push the envelope. Controversy aside, Moretz is a true find. Some people may remember her from "(500) Days of Summer", where she was also a stand out as Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s little sister. With a role in the upcoming remake of "Let the Right One In", I think we are going to be seeing much more of Moretz.
This movie is not going to be for everyone. I have never read the comic that it was based on but if it has a similar style I credit the filmmakers for sticking to their creative guns. This movie could have easily been toned down in hopes of attracting more of a mainstream audience but if they chose to stay true to the source material I applauded that. With a sequel in the works the question is will they stay the course or will Hit Girl be downgraded to a PG-13? ----John DeFelice
Robin Hood
Tell me that Ridley Scott is teaming up with Russell Crowe for a historical epic and I'm excited. Throw in the fact that it's their take on a classic legend like Robin Hood and I'm surfin' the internet for early tickets especially considering that the last time someone donned the hood in the wood it was Kevin Costner who defiled the legend almost beyond recognition. Crowe and a bow has to be better. Well, it is better but only marginally. This Robin Hood is a prequel, Robin before he took up residence in Sherwood Forest. We first meet him and a few of his merry band on the way back from the Crusades with Richard the Lionheart. The King promptly storms a French castle and is killed. Already we know that this Robin Hood isn't traditional. King Richard won't be showing up at the last minute to save Robin from an evil sheriff. We don't know exactly where this story is going. Unfortunately, this could also be said for the filmmakers. This Robin Hood meanders, both literally and narratively around the English countryside. It makes the film a murky tale, not even fully explaining Robin's past to any satisfaction, which a prequel really should be able to achieve. The journey is interesting at times but aimless. So what do you do when a wayward story needs an ending? If your Ridley Scott that's easy. Battle scene. Scott knows his way around battle scenes and this one on the beach in Northern England is no exception. Real bloody fun.
Crowe's approach to Robin Hood is decidedly low key. That's me being nice to Russell. Some other blogger might call the performance flat, or unimaginative, or even dull. Certainly this take on the character doesn't take advantage of Crowe's considerable ability to get under a character's skin. His Robin is all glowering warrior, no playfulness with his woman or his merry men. It's hard to see why anyone would follow this guy. He strong but fairly unlikeable as a man, more of a mercenary than a leader. It's like the film powers-that-be chose the middle road for everyone involved, even the extraordinary Cate Blanchett, who is solid but unremarkable. Look at who they cast as Friar Tuck. They put on their collective casting thinking caps and came up with Mark Addy (the chubby guy from "The Full Monty") Man, that's inside-the-box thinking. It all hamstrings this film's creativity.
But it's still a historical epic, and I LUV historical epics. True, Robin Hood is not a historical character but you still get to place him in historical surroundings. There's slimy King John, the Magna Carta, medieval battle techniques and political turmoil-13th century edition. All of these elements are present and all of them are underused. This is a historical epic that isn't all that concerned with history. There's even some details that I might take issue with. When the French come ashore at an English beachhead, they use landing craft that look remarkably like wooden versions of the D-Day landing craft from "Saving Private Ryan", you know, the ones that drop the front grid for a quick beach exit. Really? In the early 12 hundreds? Maybe they had them. Maybe the design of a landing craft never changed in 740 years. I'd research it, but this film doesn't really inspire me to do that. And that's a good way to sum up. "Robin Hood" isn't a bad ride, but it doesn't inspire me.
Crowe's approach to Robin Hood is decidedly low key. That's me being nice to Russell. Some other blogger might call the performance flat, or unimaginative, or even dull. Certainly this take on the character doesn't take advantage of Crowe's considerable ability to get under a character's skin. His Robin is all glowering warrior, no playfulness with his woman or his merry men. It's hard to see why anyone would follow this guy. He strong but fairly unlikeable as a man, more of a mercenary than a leader. It's like the film powers-that-be chose the middle road for everyone involved, even the extraordinary Cate Blanchett, who is solid but unremarkable. Look at who they cast as Friar Tuck. They put on their collective casting thinking caps and came up with Mark Addy (the chubby guy from "The Full Monty") Man, that's inside-the-box thinking. It all hamstrings this film's creativity.
But it's still a historical epic, and I LUV historical epics. True, Robin Hood is not a historical character but you still get to place him in historical surroundings. There's slimy King John, the Magna Carta, medieval battle techniques and political turmoil-13th century edition. All of these elements are present and all of them are underused. This is a historical epic that isn't all that concerned with history. There's even some details that I might take issue with. When the French come ashore at an English beachhead, they use landing craft that look remarkably like wooden versions of the D-Day landing craft from "Saving Private Ryan", you know, the ones that drop the front grid for a quick beach exit. Really? In the early 12 hundreds? Maybe they had them. Maybe the design of a landing craft never changed in 740 years. I'd research it, but this film doesn't really inspire me to do that. And that's a good way to sum up. "Robin Hood" isn't a bad ride, but it doesn't inspire me.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
City Island
City Island is an isolated section of The Bronx that looks more like a Cape Cod fishing village than a New York City suburb. If you seek it out you'll probably be impressed by its rough edged charm and quaint feel or at least as close to quaint as New York City can get. So I guess it's got a lot in common with the small ensemble indie film of the same name. "City Island" is a diamond in the rough.
This film came out early in the year to a mixed bag of reviews, but it seemed to have legs. When I saw that it was still in the art houses some six or seven weeks after release, I knew audiences must be spreading the word, giving the film life long after the critics had placed it on life support. With independent film, I usually trust audiences at least as much as the arts and letters guys. Here the audiences are right.
Andy Garcia and Julianna Marguiles head an oddball New York family who make an art out of keeping secrets from each other. There's a college age daughter who is hitting the stripper pole harder than the books, a teen-age son who spends his time on sexy web sites watching oversize women "cook" in the kitchen and Garcia, who plays the prison guard patriarch who finds a son that no one knows about in the lock-up for grand theft auto. Dad is also attending regular "poker games" that make his wife more than a little suspicious. Turns out he's attending acting classes in the City taught by Alan Arkin. And they all smoke. The family expends a lot of effort keeping all these secrets from each other which means this film is a little plot heavy and relies on a fair amount of coincidence to keep all of it afloat. Yeah it's a stretch but by the time it all comes together you have pretty much bought in to the fun.
Every year it seems that the independent film circuit provides us with gems like "City Island". If you can't find it in art house near you, wait for pay-per-view, but see it and enjoy the ensemble as they take you to a part of New York City you've probably never been before.
This film came out early in the year to a mixed bag of reviews, but it seemed to have legs. When I saw that it was still in the art houses some six or seven weeks after release, I knew audiences must be spreading the word, giving the film life long after the critics had placed it on life support. With independent film, I usually trust audiences at least as much as the arts and letters guys. Here the audiences are right.
Andy Garcia and Julianna Marguiles head an oddball New York family who make an art out of keeping secrets from each other. There's a college age daughter who is hitting the stripper pole harder than the books, a teen-age son who spends his time on sexy web sites watching oversize women "cook" in the kitchen and Garcia, who plays the prison guard patriarch who finds a son that no one knows about in the lock-up for grand theft auto. Dad is also attending regular "poker games" that make his wife more than a little suspicious. Turns out he's attending acting classes in the City taught by Alan Arkin. And they all smoke. The family expends a lot of effort keeping all these secrets from each other which means this film is a little plot heavy and relies on a fair amount of coincidence to keep all of it afloat. Yeah it's a stretch but by the time it all comes together you have pretty much bought in to the fun.
Every year it seems that the independent film circuit provides us with gems like "City Island". If you can't find it in art house near you, wait for pay-per-view, but see it and enjoy the ensemble as they take you to a part of New York City you've probably never been before.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Iron Man 2
Ah, the summer film season begins. Computer generated fun is in the air. 'Tis the season to blow stuff up. Robert Downey Jr. has stashed his Golden Globe for "Sherlock Holmes" (a travesty that will rank with the Pia Zadora win for sheer lunacy) and he's gone back to work, this time donning the iron suit that brought him and director Jon Favreau to hero status for comic book geeks all over the world.
I am not a comic book geek. I am a geek, just not a comic book geek. But I did love the quirkiness of the first Iron Man. The breezy improv-ed dialogue, the plausible storyline, the engaging characters. It was the best blockbuster of 2-ought-8 by far.
And I liked this one too. It's just that the dialogue seems more forced, the story less plausible, and somehow these same characters aren't nearly as engaging. Go figure.
Iron Man 2 is a more standard entry in the genre of summer blockbuster than the first, but for a standard blockbuster it's got a lot to offer. Downey Jr. and Paltrow have their rapid fire Tracy/Hepburn exchanges. But here, a little forced. There's a good bad guy with cool electricity whips for hands (really, Mickey Rourke doesn't need 'em, he's plenty scary on his own). And as for story, well, this Iron Man doesn't overly concern itself with plot, ya know, just like most action blockbusters. It's not as good as the first but get butter on the popcorn and munch away happily for two hours like I did.
One thing this film does have. Scarlett Johanson's leather-wrapped rump gets a lot of well deserved screen time (teenage boys of all ages, rejoice!) Generally, I'm not the kind of guy who thinks that a great butt can save a movie, but this is really quite spectacular. It must be worth at least an extra 18 mil over the life of the run.
Oh and geeky fanboys, y'all should stay for the credits. I mentioned that I am not a comic book geek, but I run in their circles, and I have been schooled this weekend. Schooled in Norse mythology to be precise. Stick it out through the 37,000 people who made IM 2 and you might find a little present from Thor. Let the 2011 Summer games begin!
I am not a comic book geek. I am a geek, just not a comic book geek. But I did love the quirkiness of the first Iron Man. The breezy improv-ed dialogue, the plausible storyline, the engaging characters. It was the best blockbuster of 2-ought-8 by far.
And I liked this one too. It's just that the dialogue seems more forced, the story less plausible, and somehow these same characters aren't nearly as engaging. Go figure.
Iron Man 2 is a more standard entry in the genre of summer blockbuster than the first, but for a standard blockbuster it's got a lot to offer. Downey Jr. and Paltrow have their rapid fire Tracy/Hepburn exchanges. But here, a little forced. There's a good bad guy with cool electricity whips for hands (really, Mickey Rourke doesn't need 'em, he's plenty scary on his own). And as for story, well, this Iron Man doesn't overly concern itself with plot, ya know, just like most action blockbusters. It's not as good as the first but get butter on the popcorn and munch away happily for two hours like I did.
One thing this film does have. Scarlett Johanson's leather-wrapped rump gets a lot of well deserved screen time (teenage boys of all ages, rejoice!) Generally, I'm not the kind of guy who thinks that a great butt can save a movie, but this is really quite spectacular. It must be worth at least an extra 18 mil over the life of the run.
Oh and geeky fanboys, y'all should stay for the credits. I mentioned that I am not a comic book geek, but I run in their circles, and I have been schooled this weekend. Schooled in Norse mythology to be precise. Stick it out through the 37,000 people who made IM 2 and you might find a little present from Thor. Let the 2011 Summer games begin!
Sherlock Holmes
It is beyond me how a film can be so complex and convoluted and still manage to be so vapid at the same time. This film disrespects the cherished characters of both Holmes and Watson, turning them into a pair of Victorian ninjas in a bad Hong Kong karate movie knock off. Arthur Conan Doyle is spinning in his grave like a Vegas slot machine. Don't waste your time. That's all the petulant sarcasm I can muster for this piece o' crap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)