Aug 20
AndrewMovies
The irony of The Switch, the new Jennifer Aniston film about finding her baby daddy, is the happily ever after. Maybe it’s expected for this kind of predictable romantic comedy, but the movie opens up with a lengthy voice over from Jason Bateman’s character Wally about how life is a rut. It’s a wholly sympathetic point of view that is too obviously contradicted in a flat finale.
The other irony is that Jennifer Aniston is the star vehicle pushing The Switch, but she is outshined by Bateman and their child co-star Thomas Robinson. Aniston is pitch-perfect as the anguished mom-to-be, then independent single mother Cassie who likes her best friend Wally but won’t consider him as a sperm donor. Instead she finds hunky Roland (played with a kind of crazy-Watchmen glint in his eyes by Patrick Wilson that was missing from his character in the Watchmen) whose donation is swapped with Wally’s and hilarity ensues.
The Switch is funny. It’s cute. It’s formulaic. It’s also insanely fast paced. The only time the movie slows down is scenes between Wally and Sebastian (played with adorable quirkiness by Robinson). Only then does the movie give credit to the story its pushing, and it is in those moments that makes The Switch worth watching.
But that’s the heart of the problem really. This isn’t a boy meets girl romantic comedy (see The Back-up Plan). It’s a story about a father building a relationship with his six-year old son and realizing that its the relationships in his life that gives it meaning and purpose. Even his friendship with his coworker (played by Jeff Goldblum) makes this point nicely, even if you wish you could have seen more of it during the movie. That’s why, when he eventually gets the girl (believe me, not a spoiler), it’s kind of besides the point.
May 21
AndrewMovies
The filming of Captain America: The First Avenger has been moved entirely to London to capitalize on a 25% tax break for a film that is loaded with a reportedly $140 million budget. Originally slated to film most of the film in Los Angeles (part of the film is actually set in London) the move was in response to California’s burdensome levy on films. In the wake of economic stress from all corners of the globe, producers are looking to cut whatever corners can be cut.
It is purely a business move, but for some, it raises the question of patriotism in America’s stalwart patriotic superhero. Los Angeles may be sorry to see the film head overseas, but it’s unlikely to have an impact on the film’s success. The film will be judged on the quality of the storytelling and the ability of star Chris Evans to distinguish Captain America from his last superhero role as the Human Torch (also a Marvel Comics character). If the Fantastic Four meet Captain America (likely, if at least off screen) can he pull off both? And if, like the Iron Man franchise, Captain America: The First Avenger can extend its influence beyond the fanboy comic crowd, no one will remember one day that the story of Captain America was of decidedly British origin.
Mar 08
AndrewMovies
The second half of Alice in Wonderland, the new film by the Tim Burton machine, is vastly better than the first half. Maybe it’s because the movie’s first hour relies heavily on the Disney source material and comes across as Tim Burton doing Disney instead of Tim Burton doing Alice in Wonderland. But once Burton’s hybrid plot picks up steam, so does the film. The result is a fun PG romp through a Disney classic.
Any time Tim Burton directs a movie, you can expect a few givens. One, roles for Burton-favorites Johnny Depp and the exquisite Helena Bonham Carter. Two, manic landscapes that make your eyes water. Three, one or two moments of majestic filmmaking that just take your breath away.
Alice in Wonderland is a recreation of the classic Disney animated cartoon mixed with the Lewis Carroll source material Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass and Burton’s own inescapable imagination. It all works largely because Burton is a master of making zany “safe” and in part because of Mia Wasikowska, who plays the jaded Alice to perfection. The scenery and animation are flawless centerpieces at a table set for all the craziness the movie can handle. In retrospect, its impressive that Burton managed to keep the entire affair PG-appropriate, but Alice is entirely safe for all ages. The amount of violence is minimal and flies by so fast there’s no chance to even absorb it. The movie effectively manages to disguise large chunks of dialogue and introduce dozens of characters without ever slowing up the pace, keeping kids and adults alike engaged.
If you don’t know the story, Alice falls down the rabbit hole and into Wonderland. In this case, it’s Alice’s second trip to Wonderland but her memory of her first trip is a little fuzzy. That’s really all you need to know. Alice meets a lot of characters along the way, including the White Queen played by Anne Hathaway and Depp’s take on The Mad Hatter. Just take it all in. There are a lot of names and a lot of things happening and chances are that at least once during the film, you won’t have a clue what Johnny Depp is actually saying. The plot itself is pretty straightforward. Alice is being recruited to save Wonderland from the Red Queen and pretty much everyone is rooting for her.
The new trend of turning every movie into RealD is more of a distraction to Alice in Wonderland than a bonus. The level of visual detail Burton puts into his film is washed out in 3D and the moments where the 3D effect really shine are few and far between.
Dec 18
AndrewMovies
Last night, we watched An Affair to Remember. I slept through 60% of it but the parts I saw made me recognize that Deborah Kerr’s character could be No. 2 on my list of the biggest movie bitches who were portrayed as virtuous. Mary Poppins in No. 1. (Don’t even tell me she doesn’t manipulate Mr. Banks into taking his kids to the bank and then “suggest” to them that they donate their toppins to the bird lady knowing nothing good would come of it -- all because he dressed her down for a tea party on the ceiling…I’m just saying.)
Terry McKay (Kerr) ditches a fine looking boyfriend who clearly wants to marry her and happens to be excessively wealthy for a sketchy playboy played by Cary Grant who apparently never had to earn an honest dime in his entire life (his current girlfriend is a rich heiress). Granted, Grant is a hunk. But he’s also manipulative and full of shit (and in 1957, pushing 53).
As the story goes, not only is McKay dishonest with him, she saddles her otherwise fine looking boyfriend (played by Richard Denning *hunk* -- and ten years younger than Grant at the time of filming) with the responsibilities of her convalescence (long story short -- car accident) even though she doesn’t love him and couldn’t afford the care without his money. So she encourages his unrequited love while she recovers with the hope that she can eventually make up with Grant’s character. And of course, she’s perfectly honest with her bf that she’s using him, just to twist the dagger deeper into his back.
In other news, Kerr in this movie is exquisite looking. It’s like she’s made of porcelain.
Mar 07
AndrewMovies Comic Book Adaptation, Films, Movies
Maybe the big joke about Watchmen is how completely devoid of humanity the film itself is. Leaving the theater, it might be something worth pondering, or if you’re like me, you might inclined just to forget the whole thing ever happened.
I am a huge fan of well-told comic book adaptations, and I will credit director Zac Snyder and writers David Hayter and Alex Tse for having a thorough and unrelenting vision when it comes to Watchmen. The problem is, it is so saturated with intent, there is nothing really fun about it. The film is improbable in a way that defies the historical context within which it rests. The Watchmen are a group of retired, strung out superheroes shutdown by Nixon (apparently in his fifth term in office) who come out of hiding when it appears that someone is trying to kill them off one by one.
Except the truth is murkier than that. And by the time it comes to light that there is, in fact, no serial superhero killer, you don’t really care. By then you have sat through origin stories of all the principal characters and watched an almost three-hour morality play unfold that makes Gibson’s Passion a bit tepid after all. But that’s the joke really, Watchmen is brutally unpleasant to watch. The historical backdrop and cameo appearances by legendary figures (Lee Iacocca takes bullet in the film) serve as distractions and not in a good way. The main characters are street fighters, picking fights with the scourge of the earth and suffering almost without injury through battle after battle (though fortunately they can beat up on each other and do some damage). The film’s questionable moral center is less food for thought and more just a reason to turn away.
I was most distracted by the use of both film and superhero cliches. The ejaculation of fire when two characters climax during sex seems more like a fanboy’s fantasy of superheroes having sex than the real thing. And how come the heroes never seem to get hurt? None of them, except the atomic man Dr. Manhattan (played by Billy Crudup, whose blue penis needs its own film, honestly, more penis or less, please) seemingly have actual super powers. Yet they punch, kick, body slam and fire bomb their way through scores of villains and rarely take any damage themselves, armed as they all are with lightning quick reflexes, super(man)-strength and Mortal Kombat fighting skills. Even the film’s (in my opinion unnecessary) American-centric narrative perspective seemed to just emphasize how incongruous the whole story was.
Visually, the film is stunning. It’s gorgeous in the fashion of 300 and Sin City. And Snyder wisely moves the camera away once in a while instead of forcing us to watch one brutal retribution scene after another. Atomic explosions, hand saws, broken fingers, and scalding hot oil are just some of the treats on the Watchmen menu, dished out by our supposed heroes. The characters are well-developed, to the point that film’s most violent, unforgiving hero Rorschach (played brilliantly by Jackie Earle Haley who gets the best lines to boot) becomes its only heartbeat.
I have heard from fans that Snyder managed a laudable adaptation of the Watchmen graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Having not read it, I was able to watch Watchmen with fresh eyes. There is no question that the film is a deliberate, thoughtful story. But it is also completely soulless and vaguely threatening, and not even a little fun at that.
Feb 03
AndrewMovies Blockbusters, Films, Movies, Previews, Summer Blockbusters
Question: If you had to pick a movie right now to be the blockbuster of the summer, would it be Star Trek or G.I. Joe?
Answer: What, we are already giving up on Harry Potter and the Half-Finished Film?
So, here is the short list films that I would wager have the potential for being crowned the champ:
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Star Trek
Angels and Demons
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (May 1)
Leading off the summer, we can only hope that this is a better representation of the X-Men franchise than The Last Stand. It’s directed by Gavin Hood, a relative unknown with few films to his credit. But it stars Hugh Jackman, who can carry a film without the claws, and includes an assortment of mutants from the Marvel Universe.
Liev Schreiber takes a run at a more cerebral version of Sabertooth, there’s Gambit, the Blob, and Deadpool to round out the new characters. It looks stunning. And Wolverine certainly came out of the franchise as the most popular of the X-characters (in no small part to Jackman). All signs of a dominant summer run.
Star Trek (May 8 )
The past was the only way to go with the franchise, having bottomed out with Enterprise series and the dreadful installment Nemesis. So back to the future we go, with a hot cast and slick production, and fanbase rapid for some new blood. This one is the pick of the summer. They will come in droves to see this film. J.J. Abrams has a good track record (with Lost especially) and the trailers have fans salivating for opening weekend.
Angels and Demons (May 15)
I’m including this one because films about religious nuttery tend to attract the crowds (like The Passion of Christ) even more so when they have sprinkled with Hollywood glitter and star Tom Hanks.
The trailer looks murky and seems fixated on said demons of the title without giving away much of the plot. But if you’ve read the Dan Brown book it is based on, you can be well-assured that any changes will be minimal. Brown has managed the daring feat of turning sensational religious revisionism into a mainstream fodder, made his character Robert Langdon an icon and transformed what are really a pair of trashy, vacant novels into an industry (many Langdon spin-off novels to come, no doubt). Chances are good the movie will suck. Chances are equally good that it won’t matter.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (July 17)
On the one hand, this installment of Harry Potter is based on the weakest book in the series. The trailers look confused and unhappy. But Harry Potter has two things going for it. 1) Nobody will want to miss this installment if nothing else to set up the next two films. 2) It’s dead in the middle of summer and is not in competition with any of the other blockbuster films on this list. So yeah, I guess it has a chance.
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (August 9)
Until the trailers went mainstream this week during the Super Bowl, buzz about this film was mixed. But frankly, the trailers sold me even though I already hate the cast.
Older Entries
RSS
