If you are going to make a silent, black-and-white film, you damn well better make it good, and director Michael Hazanavicius has done so with "The Artist." Do not take this to mean, though, that his movie is deserving of the extreme Best Picture hype it is receiving--"The Artist" is still a small film, a lighthearted rom-com above all else.
Indeed, the stated premise--a silent actor, George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), falls from grace with the rise of talkies--has been exhausted by the end of the first half hour. What remains is a sweet love story between the downward-spiraling Valentin and Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), a talkie star whose ascent to stardom was aided by Valentin's kindness during the filming of one of his spy thrillers years before. The lack of color and sound are put cleverly to use by Hazanavicius, and the movie features several homages to the early age of film.
What is most impressive about "The Artist," without a doubt, is that, even in an age in which we expect flashing lights and loud explosions in our movies, its characters are impossible to not care about. This is due largely to the leading duo--Dujardin and Bejo, French comedians without a notable American film credit, are sensational. Dujardin's work in the film, in particular, is worth singling out for his nuanced facial expressions and emotional handle on his character.
But "The Artist" is an incredibly ambitious effort, and it does fail to deliver anything beyond what the average well-made rom-com, aside from its black-and-white/silent presentation gimmick. The commentary on the history of film, the deeper examination of the transition to sound in film, the big-picture reflections, are missing. In short, "The Artist" does not have the little bit of extra oomph that one looks for in an Oscar candidate. But that doesn't mean it isn't a splendid achievement nonetheless.
Score: 3.5/4
Thursday, December 29, 2011
The Muppets (2011)
Jason Segel's long-awaited reboot of the Muppets franchise, aptly titled "The Muppets," pulls out all the stops: celebrity cameos, new Muppet songs, old Muppet songs, new Muppets (or one, at least, a shy little guy named Walter), and, of course, old Muppets. Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Gonzo, and the rest are all featured in the film, though Segel's desire to showcase every old Muppet, as well as himself and his co-stars Amy Adams, Chris Cooper, and the newly created Walter, stretches screen time thin.
There is no one clear protagonist in the new "Muppets," though it is ostensibly Walter; perhaps it was Segel's (and his co-writer Nicholas Stoller's) intention to make the focus on the entire collection of Muppets rather than on any one in particular. Still, as always, Fozzie is the star of the show and should be on screen for at least twice the time he is given, while the world's best hecklers, Statler and Waldorf, also deserved far more lines.
Still, the anticipated effect of the film, and probably the reason for its making, is to revive the Muppets and create a market for plenty of sequels and who-knows-what-else, and this script is well-designed to hook in new viewers and bring back old ones. There are enough nostalgic moments for grown-up Muppets fans (the singing of "Rainbow Connection" at the film's climax, for instance), and enough stupid 2-year-old jokes and cute puppets to get toddlers excited about the Muppets.
As a movie, though, "The Muppets" is slightly disappointing, if only because the idea of a Segel-led team that included many "Flight of the Conchords" personnel (co-creator James Bobin directed, co-star Bret McKenzie wrote the new Muppets songs) reviving Jim Henson's revered Muppets seemed too good to be true. By no means is "The Muppets" a flop--it is still quite good--but it did fall short of my monumental expectations. The Muppets are certainly back, but they have left themselves plenty of room for improvement.
Score: 3/4
There is no one clear protagonist in the new "Muppets," though it is ostensibly Walter; perhaps it was Segel's (and his co-writer Nicholas Stoller's) intention to make the focus on the entire collection of Muppets rather than on any one in particular. Still, as always, Fozzie is the star of the show and should be on screen for at least twice the time he is given, while the world's best hecklers, Statler and Waldorf, also deserved far more lines.
Still, the anticipated effect of the film, and probably the reason for its making, is to revive the Muppets and create a market for plenty of sequels and who-knows-what-else, and this script is well-designed to hook in new viewers and bring back old ones. There are enough nostalgic moments for grown-up Muppets fans (the singing of "Rainbow Connection" at the film's climax, for instance), and enough stupid 2-year-old jokes and cute puppets to get toddlers excited about the Muppets.
As a movie, though, "The Muppets" is slightly disappointing, if only because the idea of a Segel-led team that included many "Flight of the Conchords" personnel (co-creator James Bobin directed, co-star Bret McKenzie wrote the new Muppets songs) reviving Jim Henson's revered Muppets seemed too good to be true. By no means is "The Muppets" a flop--it is still quite good--but it did fall short of my monumental expectations. The Muppets are certainly back, but they have left themselves plenty of room for improvement.
Score: 3/4
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011)
Tom Cruise is probably clinically insane, is nearing 50 and a likely mid-life crisis, and doesn't get too many roles again. None of which are things that mattered to the producers of the newest Mission Impossible movie, "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol." And that's OK, because this is still Cruise's series, scientology or no scientology, Katie Holmes or no Katie Holmes.
Of course, this time around, there is a beefed up supporting cast that includes perennial almost-budding star Jeremy Renner, way-underrated-babe Paula Patton, and an out-of-his-element Simon Pegg, plus a brief appearance by Tom Wilkinson. Renner is in comfortable territory; Patton and Pegg, the other members of Cruise aka Ethan Hunt's team are not--Patton was last seen (ignoring two stupid movies no one cared about) in "Precious," and Pegg is the star (with his comedic partner Nick Frost) of "Shaun of the Dead," "Hot Fuzz," and "Paul."
Still, the script does a decent job of incorporating Pegg as the comic foil/bumbling and inexperienced field agent who is deft with technology, and Patton is attractive enough that it doesn't matter that she is nowhere near an action star. Renner is comfortable here (his career-making role was in the gem "The Hurt Locker," which could be considered an action movie of sorts), and of course this is Cruise's territory.
The bigger problem with this movie, which is premised around the agents having to take on a crazed nuclear scientist who is hoping to destroy the world, is that, for all the special effects, there is a dearth of real action. There are essentially two elongated scenes to the film, three-quarters of each of which is spent showcasing all the ridiculous gadgets that no real spy has ever used. The remaining quarter is spent on some quality material, like Cruise hanging by adhesive gloves from a 130-story building, but when a movie's appeal is predicated entirely on such moments, one expects there to be more of them.
To be sure, "Ghost Protocol" is entertaining enough--after all, it is a Brad Bird ("The Incredibles") movie, and Paramount poured bazillions of dollars into its production. It is, in essence, the espionage thriller opposite of "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," which makes one yearn for a spy movie that splits the difference between gaudy and artless ("MI") and slow and plot-based ("Tinker")--something like a quality "James Bond" film, maybe, or another "Manchurian Candidate".
Score: 2.5/4
Of course, this time around, there is a beefed up supporting cast that includes perennial almost-budding star Jeremy Renner, way-underrated-babe Paula Patton, and an out-of-his-element Simon Pegg, plus a brief appearance by Tom Wilkinson. Renner is in comfortable territory; Patton and Pegg, the other members of Cruise aka Ethan Hunt's team are not--Patton was last seen (ignoring two stupid movies no one cared about) in "Precious," and Pegg is the star (with his comedic partner Nick Frost) of "Shaun of the Dead," "Hot Fuzz," and "Paul."
Still, the script does a decent job of incorporating Pegg as the comic foil/bumbling and inexperienced field agent who is deft with technology, and Patton is attractive enough that it doesn't matter that she is nowhere near an action star. Renner is comfortable here (his career-making role was in the gem "The Hurt Locker," which could be considered an action movie of sorts), and of course this is Cruise's territory.
The bigger problem with this movie, which is premised around the agents having to take on a crazed nuclear scientist who is hoping to destroy the world, is that, for all the special effects, there is a dearth of real action. There are essentially two elongated scenes to the film, three-quarters of each of which is spent showcasing all the ridiculous gadgets that no real spy has ever used. The remaining quarter is spent on some quality material, like Cruise hanging by adhesive gloves from a 130-story building, but when a movie's appeal is predicated entirely on such moments, one expects there to be more of them.
To be sure, "Ghost Protocol" is entertaining enough--after all, it is a Brad Bird ("The Incredibles") movie, and Paramount poured bazillions of dollars into its production. It is, in essence, the espionage thriller opposite of "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," which makes one yearn for a spy movie that splits the difference between gaudy and artless ("MI") and slow and plot-based ("Tinker")--something like a quality "James Bond" film, maybe, or another "Manchurian Candidate".
Score: 2.5/4
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)
The latest iteration of the "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" franchise--first a John Le Carre novel, then a BBC miniseries--is Tomas Alfredson's tense feature film. The plot centers around a search for a Russian rat at the top of Britain's intelligence agency led by George Smiley (Gary Oldman), a former top spy forced into retirement a year earlier. Smiley must comb through information--most of which we are not privileged enough to hear about--to figure out whether the spy is Tinker (Toby Jones), Tailor (Colin Firth), Soldier (Ciaran Hinds), or Poorman (David Dencik).
Sounds simple enough--but it isn't. First of all, those who have read the many-paged novel or watched the seven-part miniseries have mentioned that the film covers only a fraction of the original material, which may partially explain why it is so bloody (as the characters would say) hard to follow. Much of the background is missing, and many of the plot twists are crammed together or simply unexplained.
That said, the acting is fantastic (the casting people were outdone only by, say, Harry Potter, in assembling top-notch British acting talent), led by an elegantly restrained performance by Oldman. Director Tomas Alfredson does his best to keep the film somewhat comprehensible, but his more adept work comes in setting an enjoyably ominous mood throughout.
In all, "Tinker" turns out to be a fine film, though one that would do well to be a bit longer or a bit less complicated. Those who have not yet seen it may wish to opt for the book or miniseries first--after all, you can only consume one without knowing the ending, and I regret starting with the film, which is likely the weakest of the bunch. Still, if you are just looking for a perfectly entertaining and well-done movie on a night out, you could do much worse.
Score: 2.5/4
Sounds simple enough--but it isn't. First of all, those who have read the many-paged novel or watched the seven-part miniseries have mentioned that the film covers only a fraction of the original material, which may partially explain why it is so bloody (as the characters would say) hard to follow. Much of the background is missing, and many of the plot twists are crammed together or simply unexplained.
That said, the acting is fantastic (the casting people were outdone only by, say, Harry Potter, in assembling top-notch British acting talent), led by an elegantly restrained performance by Oldman. Director Tomas Alfredson does his best to keep the film somewhat comprehensible, but his more adept work comes in setting an enjoyably ominous mood throughout.
In all, "Tinker" turns out to be a fine film, though one that would do well to be a bit longer or a bit less complicated. Those who have not yet seen it may wish to opt for the book or miniseries first--after all, you can only consume one without knowing the ending, and I regret starting with the film, which is likely the weakest of the bunch. Still, if you are just looking for a perfectly entertaining and well-done movie on a night out, you could do much worse.
Score: 2.5/4
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
The Descendants (2011)
The first thing that should be said for Alexander Payne's newest film, "The Descendants," is that it far outperforms its horrendous-looking trailer. To be sure, it may not seem strong from the start--the film improves in thirds, from subpar in the first third to quite good in the second third to exceptional in the final third.
The plot is uneven--it centers mainly around Matt King (George Clooney) coping with his wife falling into an irreversible coma and subsequently learning she had been cheating on him. There is also a wholly unnecessary and predictable subplot revolving around King needing to sell a huge tract of virginal Hawaiian land that has been in the family for centuries to developers hungry to turn it into a resort.
Clooney's performance is fantastic: nuanced and quite convincing as a bit of a schmo who is in way over his head. He is often outdone, however, by an unlikely candidate (Shailene Woodley of ABC Family's "Secret Life of The American Teenager"). Woodley gives a career-making turn as King's troubled daughter, shining brightest in her interchanges with Clooney, some of which are the film's strongest points.
Sadly, the two leads are surrounded by a cast of strange characters, many of whom do not seem to fit the narrative. The acting is uniformly strong, but fairly one-dimensional, caricatured personalities like King's daughter's semi-boyfriend Sid (Nick Krause) and family friends the Mitchells (Mary Birdsong and Rob Huebel) make it hard to tell how seriously we are suppose to take the film and its message.
The misfortune of having a release trumpeted as the next big thing then immediately berated as a moderate letdown has befallen George Clooney twice this year--first with "The Ides of March," then with "The Descendants." In this case, the reaction is fairly justified; certainly, "The Descendants" is a very good movie, but best picture material it is not.
Score: 3/4
The plot is uneven--it centers mainly around Matt King (George Clooney) coping with his wife falling into an irreversible coma and subsequently learning she had been cheating on him. There is also a wholly unnecessary and predictable subplot revolving around King needing to sell a huge tract of virginal Hawaiian land that has been in the family for centuries to developers hungry to turn it into a resort.
Clooney's performance is fantastic: nuanced and quite convincing as a bit of a schmo who is in way over his head. He is often outdone, however, by an unlikely candidate (Shailene Woodley of ABC Family's "Secret Life of The American Teenager"). Woodley gives a career-making turn as King's troubled daughter, shining brightest in her interchanges with Clooney, some of which are the film's strongest points.
Sadly, the two leads are surrounded by a cast of strange characters, many of whom do not seem to fit the narrative. The acting is uniformly strong, but fairly one-dimensional, caricatured personalities like King's daughter's semi-boyfriend Sid (Nick Krause) and family friends the Mitchells (Mary Birdsong and Rob Huebel) make it hard to tell how seriously we are suppose to take the film and its message.
The misfortune of having a release trumpeted as the next big thing then immediately berated as a moderate letdown has befallen George Clooney twice this year--first with "The Ides of March," then with "The Descendants." In this case, the reaction is fairly justified; certainly, "The Descendants" is a very good movie, but best picture material it is not.
Score: 3/4
Monday, December 26, 2011
A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas (2011)
There is a very serious problem with "A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas." It is not that Harold at some point shoots Santa Claus, only for him to heal and wind up sharing a joint with the two heroes. It is not that the protagonists at some point become claymated, whereupon Kumar shows off an enormous clay member. It is not that a key plot point revolves around a socially awkward man in his late 20s or early 30s taking the virginity of a high-schooler he has never met. It is not even that a toddler-aged girl ingests a series of progressively more potent illicit substances--marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine.
No, the problem is none of these things; the problem is that the movie is not very funny. In fact, you could very well watch the preview, rewatch the previous two installments in the franchise, skip the actual new movie, and consider yourself no worse off. It is hard not to get the feeling that Harold (John Cho) and Kumar (Kal Penn) have aged past the point of doing this anymore--Penn was working in the White House for the past two years after doing serious work on "House" while Cho had, too, dipped into roles less laden in penis-talk.
Still, it should again be said the whole mess would have been tolerable as long as the end product had its laughs. It simply does not, save perhaps for a few throwaway lines and a semi-humorous appearance by the ubiquitous Neal Patrick Harris, who, for one, still seems to be enjoying himself. Sadly, this seems like a halfhearted attempt to capitalize on a successful brand name rather than a genuine effort to make another over-the-top but harmlessly funny stoner comedy. You could certainly do worse in this genre, but you can also do quite a bit better.
Score: 1.5/4
No, the problem is none of these things; the problem is that the movie is not very funny. In fact, you could very well watch the preview, rewatch the previous two installments in the franchise, skip the actual new movie, and consider yourself no worse off. It is hard not to get the feeling that Harold (John Cho) and Kumar (Kal Penn) have aged past the point of doing this anymore--Penn was working in the White House for the past two years after doing serious work on "House" while Cho had, too, dipped into roles less laden in penis-talk.
Still, it should again be said the whole mess would have been tolerable as long as the end product had its laughs. It simply does not, save perhaps for a few throwaway lines and a semi-humorous appearance by the ubiquitous Neal Patrick Harris, who, for one, still seems to be enjoying himself. Sadly, this seems like a halfhearted attempt to capitalize on a successful brand name rather than a genuine effort to make another over-the-top but harmlessly funny stoner comedy. You could certainly do worse in this genre, but you can also do quite a bit better.
Score: 1.5/4
The Ides of March (2011)
Ryan Gosling. George Clooney. Philip Seymour Hoffman. Marisa Tomei. Paul Giamatti. Jeffrey Wright. Evan Rachel Wood.
Sure, a cast like that can lead to inflated expectations. But one gets the feeling that audiences were already disappointed before even seeing "The Ides of March," a cutting political drama that moves quickly and purposefully through a drama-wrought primary campaign. The performances, as one would expect, are terrific (Gosling continues his march towards being Hollywood's most sought-after actor), but the social commentary is what is truly impressive.
Clooney directed (and co-wrote) the film, and he clearly has firm control on his material. Events unfold rapidly, but never too rapidly, and Clooney adds all the right touches--dark colors, ominous music, and supremely believable dialogue. We have seen too many political campaigns go down the same path as this one (Clooney plays the trailblazing candidate opposite Gosling's campaign manager) to not take what the film says about the state of American politics seriously.
To be sure, there are rough edges that could use some ironing out, particularly in the character development arena; the script feels in parts as if it is written more to convey a tone or message than to fit with what the previous scenes have established. Still, "Ides" ends with a flourish, and lingers in the mind long after the end credits. It may not be the absolute best film of the year, but it well may be the most timely.
Score: 3.5/4
Sure, a cast like that can lead to inflated expectations. But one gets the feeling that audiences were already disappointed before even seeing "The Ides of March," a cutting political drama that moves quickly and purposefully through a drama-wrought primary campaign. The performances, as one would expect, are terrific (Gosling continues his march towards being Hollywood's most sought-after actor), but the social commentary is what is truly impressive.
Clooney directed (and co-wrote) the film, and he clearly has firm control on his material. Events unfold rapidly, but never too rapidly, and Clooney adds all the right touches--dark colors, ominous music, and supremely believable dialogue. We have seen too many political campaigns go down the same path as this one (Clooney plays the trailblazing candidate opposite Gosling's campaign manager) to not take what the film says about the state of American politics seriously.
To be sure, there are rough edges that could use some ironing out, particularly in the character development arena; the script feels in parts as if it is written more to convey a tone or message than to fit with what the previous scenes have established. Still, "Ides" ends with a flourish, and lingers in the mind long after the end credits. It may not be the absolute best film of the year, but it well may be the most timely.
Score: 3.5/4
Attack the Block (2011)
While you were watching "Super 8" this summer (or maybe you weren't, because you do things besides watch movies, but that's no fun), a much better kids-versus-aliens movie was playing at your local arthouse theater. "Attack the Block," though is not an arthouse movie at all, but rather a low-budget British sci-fi/comedy/lightweight horror movie that is roughly about a bunch of wannabe-gangster-15-year-olds fighting shaggy dog-like aliens.
The beauty of "Attack the Block" is that is isn't trying to be anything in particular besides what it is--the story of some kids fighting some aliens. Can some of the humans get their faces ripped off? Sure. It doesn't have to have a 100% happy ending. Can they all smoke lots of weed in the middle of the alien invasion? Yeah, why not? Can it start off without any real attempt at humor for 15 minutes and still be a wholly satisfying comedy? Definitely.
The script is a delight, but the acting (from a cast of unknown quantities--John Boyega, Jodie Whittaker, Alex Esmail, Leeon Jones, Franz Drameh, Luke Treadaway--plus Simon Frost) is unprecedentedly good. The clear threat in a movie mostly about teenagers is the teenagers actually having to speak, but everything is smooth here; Boyega and Esmail are particularly good.
Certainly, "Attack the Block" is not a refined cinematic experience. Viewers looking for an Oscar-winning drama should probably pass, but those in search of a more enjoyable alternative to Hollywood's latest formulaic, special-effects-laden but content-devoid action/adventure movies will find the film a treat.
Score: 3.5/4
The beauty of "Attack the Block" is that is isn't trying to be anything in particular besides what it is--the story of some kids fighting some aliens. Can some of the humans get their faces ripped off? Sure. It doesn't have to have a 100% happy ending. Can they all smoke lots of weed in the middle of the alien invasion? Yeah, why not? Can it start off without any real attempt at humor for 15 minutes and still be a wholly satisfying comedy? Definitely.
The script is a delight, but the acting (from a cast of unknown quantities--John Boyega, Jodie Whittaker, Alex Esmail, Leeon Jones, Franz Drameh, Luke Treadaway--plus Simon Frost) is unprecedentedly good. The clear threat in a movie mostly about teenagers is the teenagers actually having to speak, but everything is smooth here; Boyega and Esmail are particularly good.
Certainly, "Attack the Block" is not a refined cinematic experience. Viewers looking for an Oscar-winning drama should probably pass, but those in search of a more enjoyable alternative to Hollywood's latest formulaic, special-effects-laden but content-devoid action/adventure movies will find the film a treat.
Score: 3.5/4
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Moneyball (2011)
It would be easy, as a fan of the Oakland Athletics, to lambast Bennet Miller’s adaptation of Michael Lewis’s book, "Moneyball," about the 2002 A’s. I do feel the need to do so, but I will be brief—the A’s had the Most Valuable Player (Miguel Tejada) and the Cy Young (Barry Zito) that year, along with major stars like Eric Chavez, Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, and Billy Koch. None of these players are present in the film aside from, in the case perhaps of Chavez and Hudson, being implied or alluded to.
Additionally, the substitution of the fictional Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) for the real-life Paul DePodesta is frustrating, though apparently unavoidable due to conflicts with DePodesta over his portrayal. It should also be noted that the film indicates that the A’s had the league’s lowest payroll, which is simply false. There are, of course, many other inaccuracies and inconsistencies—to throw in one more, Beane claims in the book not to care about the playoffs, but in the film he is irate over the team’s loss.
The movie itself, however, is a work of art. Making a film of Lewis’s book seemed like a joke of an idea when it was first announced, and it is no surprise that the script went through several rewrites and directors. Yet somehow, out of it all, Miller creates an unconventional but thoroughly engaging movie by mixing character study (of Brad Pitt’s protagonist, general manager Billy Beane), comedy, live game footage, and (the weakest portion) reenacted, dramatized baseball action.
The only sin “Moneyball” commits is taking too much onto its plate—two hours is not nearly long enough to satisfactorily wrap up all of the storylines: Beane’s personal and professional struggles; the team’s early trials and tribulations, rise to glory, and eventual downfall (permanent, for the record—another detail that should have been mentioned in the film is the A’s frustrating mediocrity); the career crises and renaissances of the players the film focuses on, Scott Hatteberg and David Justice.
What subplots Miller (and his screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, who reworked Steve Zaillian’s screenplay) does fail to tie up are an afterthought. The central drama—the team’s 20-game win streak and Beane’s fight to prove himself (and Brand) to the world, plus a smaller and somewhat touching bit about Beane’s relationship with his daughter (damn those child actors)—holds us in well enough. The greatest feat is simply in bringing a memorable and enjoyable sports story to life.
Score: 4/4
The Truman Show (1998)
The rollercoaster ride that has been Jim Carrey’s career has had far more dips than peaks—look no further than his most recent film, “Mr. Popper’s Penguins.” Still, there have been high points, and perhaps none is as glorious as 1998’s “The Truman Show,” one of those rare films that succeed both as entertainment and social commentary.
Carrey is unusually adequate (actually quite good) as Truman, a man who is unknowingly the protagonist of a 24/7 television show fittingly titled “The Truman Show.” Everything in Truman’s world exists solely for him, which he discovers at a quickening pace as the film progresses. The show’s creator, Christof (Ed Harris) is concerned more for the continued existence of his passion project than its living, breathing, subject.
Indeed, though other subplots carry their own weight, Christof’s attempts at successfully quelling Truman’s growing bewilderment provide the film’s main intrigue. Christof is so compellingly played by Harris that it seems a film about him might be even more worthwhile, though, to be sure, we can make do with the one about Truman.
The true magic of “The Truman Show” (like its fictional eponymous TV show) is its ability to make even the most detached viewer passionate about its subject matter. By the end, everyone is pulling for Truman. Not only that, but we feel like we are in some way pulling for ourselves, too—for the good of humanity. And, luckily, we have some fun along the way, too.
Score: 4/4
Memento (2000)
Christopher Nolan’s best what-the-hell-just-happened mind-bender has nothing to do with Leonardo DiCaprio or dreams within dreams within dreams within dreams that do not really make sense in the first place. Instead, it is “Memento,” which stars the offensively underused Guy Pearce as a man who cannot form new memories.
Working backwards in time, Nolan slowly pieces together a work of masterful suspense, slowly building the tension and excitement with each scene. The premise itself is clever and conceivable enough that, unlike certain other Nolan films that rhyme with Shminshmeption, the viewer does not spend half of his time rolling his eyes at the ridiculousness of it all.
Indeed, “Memento” is a mind-blowingly terrific film, one that lingers in the mind long past the closing credits. It spares itself the grandeur and flashing lights of Nolan’s more recent work (not only “Inception” but “Dark Knight” as well) but enthralls the viewer far more. Among films in its suspense-action-mystery subgenre, “Memento” is a definite classic.
Score: 4/4
J. Edgar (2011)
Clint Eastwood’s recent directorial efforts certainly have not set too high of a precedent (look no further than the unbearably melodramatic, woodenly acted “Gran Torino”) which is good, because otherwise “J. Edgar” would appear an even bigger failure than it already does. The film, whose flaws will be enumerated shortly, squandered an ambitious premise and a role in J. Edgar Hoover of Oscar-winning potential.
The most obvious problem with “J. Edgar,” besides that it is roughly an hour too long, is the preposterous makeup job done on the stars, who are aged 50 years over the course of the film. Armie Hammer (playing the sidekick/partner of Leonardo DiCaprio’s title character) looks by the end of the film like something that walked out of a lake filled with nuclear waste. DiCaprio, for his part, just looks to have a face made of plastic.
Of course, bad makeup does not by itself make a film bad. In the case of “J. Edgar,” the makeup issues only begin to scratch at the surface of what went wrong. Why does the film introduce a great deal of conflict in Hoover’s personal life, only to resolve it briefly and inconclusively? Why does it sidetrack to cover completely nonessential portions of the story of the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh’s son? Why do all the actors seem to have begun working on accents and then stopped practicing?
The list goes on, though it is difficult to pick out the many flaws of “J. Edgar” because the film loses its intrigue after perhaps a half an hour and becomes difficult to focus on. This, it should be noted, is a shame, because there are a few wonderful scenes of exchange between DiCaprio and Hammer later on in the film, the lone bright spots in Eastwood’s slow slog through the 20th century. But by then the audience has stopped caring, and Eastwood’s direction and Dustin Lance Black’s script have proved tremendous disappointments.
Score: 1.5/4
The Sword in the Stone (1963)
Mowgli, the protagonist of Rudyard Kipling’s “A Jungle Book” and its animated Disney film adaptation, and Wart, the protagonist of T.H. White’s “The Sword in the Stone” and its animated Disney film adaptation, are not, at last check, the same person. Looks like someone forgot to tell Disney—Wart is a light-skinned Mowgli in Disney’s “The Sword in the Stone,” a half-hearted, horrendous screen version of White’s novel.
Score: .5/4
Certainly, those who have read White’s masterpiece will find the film all the more despicable, but it does not take a connoisseur of semi-satirical fantasy literature to recognize how poor Disney’s work is. Viewers will find watching more than ten consecutive minutes of Wart and his “tutor,” the magician Merlyn, stumbling around the screen learning often inscrutable life lessons, as unbearable as Wart’s brother Kay finds Wart.
Perhaps the film’s greatest offense of all is a scene not found in any copy of White’s novel known to man in which Wart turns into a squirrel, and then is seduced semi-sexually by a female squirrel. It is hard to put into words all of the things wrong with the way-too-long and incredibly uncomfortable flirtation between Wart and his squirrel counterpart, but suffice it to say that for a movie made only briefly after the period when movies depicting couples sharing beds were still risqué, this is some messed-up stuff.
In summation, you should watch “The Sword in the Stone” only if you are forced to by, say, your English teacher, or if someone is threatening you with a lethal weapon. It has zero redeeming features, unless you are a fan of bad children’s sing-a-longs, which you should not be, so do not see this movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)