Posts Tagged ‘review’
63 items.
As Cami pointed out, we finally got around to seeing one of the five Best Picture nominees this weekend: Slumdog Millionaire.
I’ve been kind of wrestling with this movie a little bit. Like Cami, I thought the performances were winning and the child actors in particular were amazing. I thought it was well directed, tense at times and very engaging. But it didn’t quite make my heart soar like all everyone said it would.
It was difficult for me to get caught up in the movie’s tale of star-crossed lovers because the film does not pull any punches in it’s depiction of India’s poverty, squalor and corruption. Maybe this is the wrong thing to focus on, but it left me feeling guilty for accepting the story as entertainment. I left the theater thinking about what I could do to help.
I’m not completely naive. I have heard about orphaned children being maimed and put on the street to beg. But later I became conflicted and started to wonder if the movie was promoting some kind of stereotype. Isn’t India one of the largest growing business centers in the world? What about their advances in education?
Turns out I’m not alone. Time Magazine recently published an article that tackles the same question.
I know it’s not fair to ask one movie to provide a thorough examination of the social and economic strata of the entire sub-continent. Especially when it only wants to tell the story of two people. I mean, I doubt non-American audiences watch movies like Goodfellas and assume that the country is overrun by gangsters. I’m just saying it was a distraction, that’s all.
Slumdog Millionaire is a good movie. Experty assembled and told with an effective time-bending narrative. Will it make you shoot rainbows out of your eyes after you see it? Well, in my case it didn’t. In that respect, it didn’t live up to the hype. Ignore the critics and commercials and see it with reasonable expectations and you’ll have a good time.
EDIT: Here is a another article written by Slate’s Dennis Lim that confronts Slumdog Millonaire’s confounding moral compass. Lim says a few things more acutely than I could in my review.
“If Slumdog has struck a chord, and it certainly seems to have done so in the West, it is not because the film is some newfangled post-globalization hybrid but precisely because there is nothing new about it. It traffics in some of the oldest stereotypes of the exoticized Other: the streetwise urchin in the teeming Oriental city… And not least for American audiences, it offers the age-old fantasy of class and economic mobility, at a safe remove that for now may be the best way to indulge in it.
Slumdog has been so insistently hyped as an uplifting experience (“the feel-good film of the decade!” screams the British poster) that it is also, by now, a movie that pre-empts debate. It comes with a built-in, catchall defense—it’s a fairy tale, and any attempt to engage with it in terms of, say, its ethics or politics gets written off as political correctness.
A slippery and self-conscious concoction, Slumdog has it both ways. It makes a show of being anchored in a real-world social context, then asks to be read as a fantasy.”
Food for thought.
[ 2 Comments ]
Reviews are starting to trickle in for Terminator Salvation and while I am trying to avoid them for the most part, I did read Tom Charity’s review over at CNN.
It’s kind of a pan, but I was more interested in how he chose to end his review…
“…the gap between the Terminator movies and Transformers is diminishing along with any vestige of adult entertainment. In the virtual era, nobody we care about stays dead for long; there is always a second life just around the corner. They’ve even stopped numbering the sequels now.”
This taps into something I’ve been feeling about action movies for a while now.
Dropping the sequel number isn’t a big deal. That’s just a marketing maneuver to make franchises feel like chapters in a larger story rather than a long-in-the-tooth money making scheme. But Charity is completely right about there being nothing at stake. No one ever stays dead and rarely does it feel like anything is at stake. Movies are starting to feel more and more like comic books.
That’s not a dig against comic books. Comic books are meant to refresh themselves every few years to stay viable. Trying writing 12 months of content and NOT dragging out old characters people once thought were dead.
But what happened to the movie as a stand-alone story? I look at a movie like The Matrix and how, even though the ultimate conclusion wasn’t told, it felt open-ended enough that you could imagine how things went for Neo and the human resistance. Then the sequels came along and. were so overblown and boring. It was all just filler to get you to that ultimate conclusion – the humans win.
So what?
Now movie franchises just go on and on and on and never really deliver anything new. Everything in the old movies is swept under the rug or explained away so producers and studios can have another run at the trough. Audiences are learning not to trust storytellers and that’s a big problem when the ENTIRE POINT of movies is to remove the audience from their surrounding and place them inside your world for two hours.
How can death in the movies have significance when the same through it running through everyone’s mind?
“They’re gonna bring that guy back for the sequel.”
[ 4 Comments ]
Nov11
With 9 smash films and nearly 15 years of film making under their belts, one might assume that Pixar would celebrate in grand fashion with their 10th theatrical release. Instead, with Up, Pixar has delivered their most unconventional and absurdly layered film to date.
Carl Fredricksen, the 78 year-old widower at the heart of Up is an unusual protagonist. Arthritic, grumpy and boxed in by life, he is partnered by the youthful and exuberant “Wilderness Explorer” Russell as he sets off for adventure to South America.
Up hooked us with its visual signature of a tiny house being lofted into the air by tens of thousands of balloons. But the story takes an unusual left turn when Carl and Russell finally land in South America.
Surrounded by strange vistas and a lush, but harsh environment, the duo is greeted by the affable and endearing Dug, the talking dog. Things only get weirder from there as the pair encounters a 13 foot tall iridescent bird, a crazed long-forgotten explorer and dirigibles.
The unusual details of the story are what sets Up apart from previous Pixar films. But it’s the rich metaphors and subtext that make Up truly engaging.
At its core, Up is a movie about lost opportunities, obsession the struggle to “fix” the past ruins the opportunity to enjoy the present.
Each of the main characters deals with this in some way. Russell uses over achievement and collects Wilderness Explorer badges to attract the attention of his absent father. There is one small space left on his sash full of accomplishments – a badge for “Helping the Elderly” and it’s missing directly over his heart.
Carl is trying to make up for lost time by going on the adventure his never got to go on with his wife. But since he can’t bear to leave behind his belongings and all of his memories, he takes them with him by setting the house aloft. The house becomes a symbol for his wife – something he has to learn to let go of by the end of the film.
Muntz, the story’s villain, is corrupted completely by his obsession to trap a rare bird in order to bring it to civilization and repair his damaged reputation. His relentless pursuit is ultimately what leads to his literal downfall.
These story elements are framed beautifully by the bevy of mini-documentaries among the Blu-ray’s bonus materials. The character studies for Carl and Russell are particularly insightful.
Carl, for example, is one of Pixar’s most stylized human characters and the decision to make him so was very deliberate.
Animators noted that, as a septuagenarian, Carl’s movements would very limited. His physical restrictions mirror his world view as every shot Carl appears in before going to South America he is placed inside some kind of box. He is either looking out of a window or the camera is looking at him through a door frame. He lives a very interior life. As a result, Carl himself became very square shaped, with hard-edged and inflexible features. A boxy character living in a boxed-in world.
Alternatively, the rotund Russell is almost egg-shaped. This reflects the nurturing he requires in the absence of his father. It becomes Carl’s instinct to take care of him.
Another fantastic bonus feature is the original story concept behind the 10 minute montage of “Married Life” – the emotional gut punch the starts the movie and leads Carl toward his adventure.
Assembled through animatics (animated storyboard concept drawings) and set against Michael Giacchino’s brilliant score, the alternate version of “Married Life” is just as emotional and affecting as what ended up in the movie – a testament to Pixar’s storytelling process.
It should be noted that there is also an excellent piece on Ciacchino’s contributions and how he transformed a simple, heart wrenching four-note melody into a glorious score.
Another great example of the lengths Pixar animators will go to capture their subject material is the engrossing :22 minute documentary “Adventure Is Out There,” which details how directors Pete Docter and Bob Peterson traveled with a team of animators to remote and nearly inaccessible tepius mountains of Venezuela.
Other features include audio commentary, the theatrical short “Partly Cloudly,” a second animated short called “Dug’s Special Mission” (that runs parallel to the main storyline in Up) and several other production features detailing the care, craft and precision Pixar executed to bring their unique vision to the screen.
The direct digital transfer to Blu-ray looks sumptuous as one might expect and the Blu-ray edition of the film comes with a digital copy and regular DVD copy as well (for your portable DVD player, I assume?)
Up may not be Pixar’s best film, but it is certainly one if it’s most ambitious. Despite its eccentricities, the emotional core of the story is potent – easily making it one of the best movies of the year.
[ 6 Comments ]
In 2001, the proposition of Monsters, Inc. must have been a scary one for Disney / Pixar.
Coming fresh off the success of Toy Story 2, A Bug’s Life and the original Toy Story (all directed by Pixar King John Lasseter)Pixar put an unproven director in the driver’s seat for Monsters, Inc. – Pete Docter.
Of course, time would prove that Docter’s madcap vision of a world inhabited by monsters who collect the screams of human children to power their communities proved to be a smash hit. But it’s interesting to learn about the behind-the-scenes hand wringing that occurred at Pixar before the release of the film.
One of the bonus features of the movie is a film makers round table with Docter, co-director Lee Unkrich, producer Darla Anderson, and script supervisor Bob Peterson (who also lent his voice to the surly clerical worker Roz in the movie). In their round table, they discuss not only their uncertainty over the somewhat complex idea of a world powered by screams, but also the real-life intrusions that threatened the success of the film.
For example, I had completely forgotten how Monsters, Inc. had come out one short month after the terrible events of 9/11. An even that lead Pixar to wonder if they should push the film back. Ultimately, according to the feedback they received, the film became a refuge for families looking to steer themselves away from the unending and horrible coverage of that day. The insight that the round table provides certainly adds a layer of enjoyment to hard-core fans of the film.
Eight years after its theatrical release Monsters, Inc. holds up incredibly well and the Blu-ray transfer gives the film a candy-coated shot in the arm. Colors are richer, details are more pronounced. Even the hair on Sully’s arms looks more refined. A more perfect version of the film I can’t imagine unless you were sitting in Pixar’s offices, watching it over the shoulder of one of the animators.
In terms of extras, the Blu-ray doesn’t bring much that’s new to the table. A short documentary about a Monsters, Inc. ride at Disneyland Toyko made me want to hop a flight to Japan immediately and an interactive game featuring over 100 doors intimidates more than it inspires gameplay.
Additional features include those already packaged on the Collector’s Edition that was released in 2002. The animated shorts “Mike’s New Car” and “For the Birds”, storyboards, a database of monsters featured in the film, and multiple gag reels.
However, the Blu-ray package gives you a bevy of formats including a digital copy of the film as well as a DVD copy of the film, which are nice bonuses.
As a Pixar fan, I have no problem replacing all of my DVD copies with Blu-ray editions of the film. I believe they are the most authentic reproductions of the movies possible and a visual treat. However, it would have been nice to see a few more extras with the film and I probably wouldn’t have minded waiting another 2 years for a 10th anniversary edition if it meant getting additional content.
[ No Comments ]
PREFACE: I originally wrote this review to Iron Man 2 back in May when the movie originally came out. However, I was also wrapping up one of my Masters courses at the same time and couldn’t finish the review when it would have been timely. So I just kind of tucked it away for a rainy day.
Considering that Iron Man 2 is now out on DVD and this week’s comic is late due to the fact that we moved into a new home last week, now seem liked a good time to dust it off and post it to the site.
I hope to have a new comic for you later in the week. But hopefully, until then, this review will tide you over. Thanks for your patience and understanding!
# # # # #
I had to watch Iron Man 2 twice before writing this review. As the die-hard Iron Man fan you know me to be, that should cause you some concern.
After watching the film the first time a week ago, I was undoubtedly entertained. But I left the theater questioning if I actually liked the film.
I enjoyed the movie much more the second time through. While it lacks the sense of discover and wonder of the first film, I still appreciate the final product. I like both films. They’re just different from each other.
First, let’s talk about the performances.
It should go without saying that Robert Downey Jr. owns this film six ways from Sunday. His improvisational style is loose, yet hyper-kinetic. You can’t help but watch the guy as he plays Stark as a genius whose mouth can’t keep up with his brain.
Compared to RDJ, however, the rest of the cast looks like stuttering wallpaper. Gwyneth Paltrow tries to match wits as Stark’s Girl Friday – Pepper Pots, but comes of like much more of a pecking hen then she did in the first movie.
Don Cheadle (stepping in for Terrance Howard) as Stark’s friend and confidant James “Rhodey” Rhodes isn’t given much to do except glower and become frustrated by Stark’s antics.
Similarly, Mickey Rourke – who plays the most tan Russian you’ve ever seen, the villain Ivan Vanko – is also curiously mute. His performance is relegated largely to sideways glances, the occasional chuckle and muttered Russian sentences.
Rourke tries to add texture to Vanko by giving him a parrot as a pet and an omnipresent toothpick on which to chew. He has also appeared to have stolen some of Viggo Mortensen’s character research from Eastern Promises, adorning Vanko with a tapestry of Russian prison tattoos. We’re supposed to believe this grimy ball of eccentricities is a brilliant engineer and physicist?
Lastly, Scarlet Johansson – as S.H.I.E.L.D. undercover operative Natasha Romanoff – sucks the life out of nearly every scene she’s in. Is Downey Jr. is 100% charm, Johansson is anti-charm. Like the rest, she’s given very few lines of dialogue, so she spends most of the time trying to pose like a bad-ass while clomping around in knee-high stilettos. It’s as awkward as it sounds
The only performer besides RDJ that looks like he’s having any fun is Sam Rockwell as Stark’s corporate rival, Justin Hammer. It is as if director Jon Favreau instructed Rockwell to do a bad Robert Downey Jr. impression and let him off the chain. He prances, he preens, he makes Hammer look like a wolf in sheep’s clothing trying WAY too hard to sell you something and ALL of it works. I’m curious how much of Rockwell’s performance was improvised considering how much of his performance mirrors Downey Jr. in its tone.
Ultimately, Iron Man 2’s biggest problem is its script by Justin Theroux. If not for the charm and improvisational skills of RDJ and Rockwell, one wonders if the film has anything original to say at all.
Sure, there are plot points that propel the movie forward – the US government wants to Tony to turn over the Iron Man technology, meanwhile, the RT unit in Tony’s chest is killing him. Ivan Vanko wants to avenge his father who once worked with Tony’s father. Pepper is appointed to CEO of Stark Industries and Rhodey steals the Mark II – but the script lacks the connective tissue to form a cohesive experience. Taken in chunks, Iron Man 2 is fascinating. Stitched together? Less so.
I presumed since the first movie was so successful that we might get to see more of the Iron Man armor in action, but that’s not entirely the case.
While the initial confrontation between Tony and Whiplash debuts the awesome suitcase armor, it’s on-screen briefly and is dismantled pretty quick. Fan favorite War Machine makes an appearance, but spends most of it standing around at the Stark Expo. When it DOES launch into action, Rhodey’s not even in control of it! The suit’s programming has been commandeered by Whiplash.
Free of Whiplash’s influence in the final confrontation, War Machine and Iron Man put the smack down on a platoon of robot drones. But this battle is effectively meaningless considering that these are robot drones we’re talking about and there’s nothing really at stake.
By the time Whiplash shows up in a more souped up version of his laser-whip rig, there’s barely any time left in the movie to showcase a proper fight. It’s edited horribly and over way too soon.
Something that any good superhero movie does is give the audience the sense of wonder and discovery of the protagonist discovering their powers. Sam Raimi did an excellent job of this in the first Spider-Man and Favreau did a great job as well in the first Iron Man.
Considering Stark’s penchant for upgrades, it would be very easy to reinsert that sense of wonder and discovery into a sequel – new technology, new features of the armor and so on. While the suitcase armor was a step in the right direction, they didn’t push the concept far enough. The third act feels like a huge step back.
Did I love Iron Man 2? Of course I did. But I’m also a crazed fan.
That said, I’m not so blinded by my undying admiration for the character that I can’t recognize that the film has problems. Whereas the first movie rocketed out of theaters with energy and a sense of purpose that breathed fresh air the super hero genre (“I am Iron Man.” – END CREDITS!), Iron Man 2 stagnates and doesn’t fulfill the promise of the first film.
[ 13 Comments ]
Having heard about Exit Through The Gift Shop for the better part of a year, I finally had a chance to sit down and watch it last night with Cami when she asked “What documentaries do we have in our Netflix queue?”
For the record, she balked on watching Helvetica. So watching famed British street artist Banksy’s documentary was kind of a compromise.
Despite effusive praise of the movie from both friends and reviewers a like, I didn’t have a concept of what the film was actually about. I was pleasantly surprised.
It’s not the definitive documentary of the street art movement, if that’s what you’re looking for. It’s not filled with a bunch of talking heads discussing the sociological imprint of this bastardized version of pop art. The history of street art informs the narrative, but Exit Through The Gift Shop is not explicitly about that subject.
Instead, Banksy takes footage assembled by a French shop owner (by way of Los Angeles) named Theirry Guetta and slowly turns the camera on him.
Guetta is presented as a passionate (if someone guileless) chronicler of the street art movement. He obsessively videotapes everything and after visiting with his cousin – the renown street artist known as “Invader” – does he fall head first into their world.
Despite the threat of prosecution for what is (in the law’s eyes) graffiti and destruction of prosecution, several street artists agree to be captured by Theirry’s lens under the assumption that he will cut together a documentary about their medium. Their art is temporary and often quickly removed. It deserved to be documented.
As the movement grows, Banksy is introduced as Guetta’s white whale. Highly prolific, satirical, political and elusive, Guetta is convinced his “documentary” cannot be completed until he captures Banksy on film. He eventually befriends the artist and gains his trust. But things turn south after Banksy prompts Guetta to make the film he’s long alluded to.
With no film making skills of his own, Guetta produces an unwatchable mess called Life Remote Control. A spastic, channel-surfing montage of footage with no coherent narrative.
It is at this point that Banksy convinces Guetta to leave the raw footage with him and prompts him to become a street artist in his own right.
Just as Guetta was once consumed with chronicling the lives and work of street artists, he takes to the streets of Los Angeles pasting buildings with his work under the pseudonym “Mr. Brainwash.”
What follows is an astonishing turn of events as Guetta creates a studio, hires hundreds of artists to construct pieces of his vision and launches a gallery show and becomes an art celebrity in record time.
The film pulls no punches by portraying Guetta’s work as manufactured and derivative. Nor does it spare any scorn for art scenesters who go along with the fraud so readily.
What ultimately emerges is an incisive critique of the art world and how something as intentionally guerrilla and ideologically subversive as street art can be co-opted, homogenized and turned into a product by enterprising entrepreneurs like Thierry Guetta.
“There’s no one like Thierry,” admits Banksy. “Even though his art looks like everyone else’s.”
Fans of street art movement might not get all of their questions answered by watching Exit Through The Gift Shop. But they’ll get an unflinching look at the role authenticity plays in creating meaning from art.
[ 5 Comments ]
It’s probably been decades since I’ve seen the Disney animated classic Bambi. So, when the opportunity arose to review the film’s Diamond Blu-ray release, I must confess that I merely curious by the prospect and not exactly anticipating it.
By that I mean I wasn’t waiting by the mailbox for the review copy to arrive. I don’t mean to be cruel. I’m thankful for the chance. It’s just that, well… Bambi was never one of those movies that connected with me as a child.
I don’t know if it’s the pro-nature theme, the gender ambiguous names of the characters like Bambi and Flower or if it has something to do with one of animation’s starkest bummer scenes. And if you know the story of Bambi, you know what I’m talking about.
What I discovered rediscovered instead was a very thoughtful, organic and beautifully composed film that rightly deserves its revered status among the Disney classics.
Watching Bambi as an adult, I was struck by its painterly style. Specifically, I’m talking about the lush watercolor backgrounds that allude to nature without ever overpowering the scenes.
They characters, too, remind the audience of the raw power and delicate grace of nature in a way that is practically uncanny. The ability for the animators to infuse human characteristics and personality traits into the mix demonstrates the raw talent in the pool during production of what was only their fifth film.
So why is there such a profound disconnect in my mind? I actually blame Disney for that. To a point.
Having marketed the film to the home video audience on and off for the last 30 years, Disney has reduced the scope of the movie to the cute, stumbling fawn that we are introduced to in the first half of the movie. Slipping on the ice, learning how to say the word “bird,” yelling “FLOWER!” at a skunk so forcefully he rolls back into a bed of daisies. I’m sure you can easily envision these scenes just from reading my brief descriptions.
However, the marketing completely ignores the second half of the movie where Bambi, now mature, takes a mate and confronts the scourge of Man. Incidentally, it never occurred to me how heavily The Lion King borrows from Bambi in this regard.
Now, granted, if I were going to pick a theme to push to unindoctrinated audiences, I’d probably go with the happy, fuzzy, lighter first act. All I’m saying is that the second act is so thematically jarring to me – largely due to my own hazy memory – that Bambi almost feels like two completely different movies.
In fact, the environmentalist theme in the second act is so profound, those who criticized Wall-E for having an agenda would probably explode from outrage watching this film. Disney’s message pulls no punches. “Nature is beautiful and should be preserved. Man ruins everything he touches.”
Wisely, is never shown in the film. But the brilliant musical score tells you exactly when he’s near. But when the swirling, pacing strings of “Man’s Theme” rise from the background, there’s no confusion that danger is present. In fact, it’s so simple, even a 4 year-old could recognize it. Watching the film with my son, nervously he would ask “What does that bad sound mean?”
I can think of no clearer example of how Disney pushed the medium of animation and film to communicate emotion without clubbing you over the head with it. That deft and steady hand is felt throughout the film.
The Diamond Edition Blu-ray is stacked with features that are exceptionally thorough – especially when you consider the film is over 65 years old. Probably the most interesting extra feature included on the disc is “Inside Walt’s Story Meetings-Enhanced Edition.” Reading from notes taken during story meetings, voice-over artists bring life to the words of Walt Disney, his writers and animators as they pitch ideas on how scenes will play out before one frame of animation was ever completed. The care and attention to detail these artists paid to the story is evident in these re-enactments.
In fact, the feature plays almost like an audio commentary. But instead of the actors and directors sitting around the room talking about what they thought worked and what they would have tried differently, Walt and his team talk about what will be and stay alarming true to their vision. Animation junkies and/or historians will be facinated by this opportunity to be a fly on the wall.
The Blu-ray also includes two “deleted scenes,” cobbled together from discarded storyboard drawings as well as a deleted song – “Twitterpaited” – which is basically about springtime and falling in love. Additional features made previously available in the DVD release of the film are also included.
Going back to the point I made previously about Bambi being two films and the softer pallet that has been sold to us by Disney over the years… I guess what brought this into focus for me was a specific bonus included with extras – the original trailer for the film from 1942. View it for yourself.
Now compare it to this advertisement for the Diamond Edition Blu-ray.
I don’t mean to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I find it interesting that audiences in 1942 were tantalized with promises of romance, action and heroism with nary a reference to Bambi as a child. Meanwhile, today’s audience is set up for an entirely different experience.
Bambi IS both films and it is a credit to Disney’s storytelling that the film works for both children and adults alike.
But if you were anything like me and was convinced that Bambi was a Technicolor cliche, you owe it to yourself to watch the film and reintroduce yourself to the splendor and refined artistry of Disney’s Halcyon days. You won’t regret it.
[ 3 Comments ]
As it’s 50th animated feature film, Tangled is very much the summation of Disney’s previous output. Depending on your opinion of the House of Mouse, that could be either a good or bad thing.
Personally, I think it’s a good thing. Disney has finally figured out a way to align itself with current animation trends and attitudes similar to what Dreamworks and their contemporaries at Pixar are doing without sacrificing the traditional story elements that make a film uniquely Disney. The animations has a snappy feel, a fairy tale princess is front and center and the dialogue is wry without sailing completely over the heads of children.
Most importantly, it’s entertaining. It’s easy for me to say that Tangled is the most fun I’ve had watching a Disney movie since Aladdin. Frankly, its wit and pop makes it one of the few Disney movies I can imagine watching proactively instead of through the filter of nostalgia.
By now you’re probably familiar with the premise behind Tangled. It’s basically a modified take on the German fairy tale of Rapunzel. But, smartly, what directors Nathan Greno and Byron Howard did was expand the mythology and gave us a much more satisfying reason why Rapunzel was locked away in that tower lo’ so many years ago.
While pregnant, Rapunzel’s mother, the Queen becomes very ill. The kingdom sets out in search of a golden flower rumored to have healing properties. The flower has been hidden away by the selfish crone Gothel, who uses the flower to keep her young. But once the magical flower is found, it restores the queen to health – and infuses its healing abilities in the strands of the young princess’s hair. Gothel steals the child away in the night and locks her in a secluded tower, cut off from society, as she continues to use the healing magic to keep her young.
“Why dat hair gotta be so long?” the audience demands. Easy. Cut the hair and it loses its magical power. Well played, Greno and Howard. Well played.
Of course, the problem with writing a movie about an isolated character is that there has to be some drama or change in the status quo for the plot to move forward. Meet Flynn Rider, a thief and a rouge looking for a place to hide after stealing the kingdom’s crown jewels.
Cynically, critics complained that Flynn the Adventurer was introduced as a marketing tool to attract boys (who would be otherwise turned off by a “princess” story) to the film. Considering the disappointing box office on The Princess and The Frog, it’s easy to see why some might jump to that conclusion. Certainly the flim’s marketing and Disney’s decision to name the movie Tangled and not “Rapunzel” would seem to support this theory.
But it actually makes a great deal of sense to have the smarmy and charismatic Flynn as Rapunzel’s guide in the real world. It’s Rapunzel’s dream to investigate the floating lanterns she sees in the distance every year on her birthday. She doesn’t realize that it’s actually a symbolic ceremony from her kingdom longing for the return of the kidnapped princess.
Rapunzel, despite her wonder, is so closed off from the outside world she doesn’t even wear shoes. You need a fast-talking character like Rider to essentially provide both sides of the dialogue. Otherwise you’d be left with a movie where the heroine walks around, clutching a frying pan and looking confused for two acts.
Despite being the Disney movie with the longest running time since Fantasia, Tangled’s 100 minutes never lags or bores. In fact, if anything, it almost feels short. Time flies by as Rapunzel and Flynn explore the soft, rounded, painterly world developed by Disney animators using techniques they were tasked with inventing in order to achieve their look. Typically, whenever Disney sets out to create techniques to develop their films, the results are always memorable.
If I could be critical of Tangled at all, I think they almost made the process too easy. This familiarity with the traditional fluidity of Disney’s style probably made audiences feel as Tangled was something they had seen before. Considering some of the visual cues the film picks up on from Disney’s past (the romantic kiss in the boat from The Little Mermaid or Flynn “surfing” down the trench of a water wheel like Tarzan “surfed” across mossy tree branches) it’s understandable.
As a Disneyphile, I found the references endearing and appropriate for Disney’s 50th animated feature. In fact, these references were very similar to the visual cues producers of the James Bond films did for their 20th franchise film, Die Another Day back in 2002.
In terms of Blu-ray extras, I found them a little light on substance. A short behind-the-scenes feature called “Untangled: The Making of a Fairy Tale” played more like a bunch of bumpers ported from the Disney Channel and were stitched together with narration from the film’s stars, Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi.
There are a handful of “deleted scenes” (or, rather, slightly enhanced animatics), a couple of extended songs and two alternate versions of the film’s opening sequence. They’re interesting, but not substantive.
Most entertaining are the “9 Tangled Teasers” – a collection of parody commercials made for the theatrical release of the films that utilize the film’s characters.
Ultimately, the success of Tangled relies in its unique ability to be respectful of the Disney fairytale tradition while also keeping it pliable enough to have fun with it. The movie keeps things snappy, but never looks down its nose at you for enjoying traditional storytelling. The movie is a fine addition to any animation fan’s library.
[ 1 Comment ]
Last night I had an opportunity to see Thor, which I was excited about because the last film I saw in the theater was Cedar Rapids and that’s kind of pathetic.
On the whole, I would say that I found Thor extremely entertaining and it was perhaps helped by my diminished expectations of the film.
I will say that at nearly 2 hours long, the film never dragged for me. And despite the final conflict feeling a little slapdash, I definitely wanted to see more!
I’ve talked with a few people in the comments section of the last two comics about my concerns the Thor is another set up for The Avengers in a similar vein to Iron Man 2. It is and it isn’t. The film tells a crafty origin story that is unfortunately a little light on Asgardian ass-kicking. A little too much time spend on Earth in civilian clothes is good for character development, but it didn’t exactly send my geek heart racing.
But, like I said, the film is entertaining and well-crafted. I can’t criticize it for what I wanted it to be. I can only criticize it for what it is. And I would say it’s pretty darn good!
The following are some random thoughts and observations about Thor. Let’s see if any of them ring true to you, shall we?
- It’s easy to see why Chris Hemsworth was cast as Thor. He is confident, likable and not at all the dumb jock that I kind of think of Thor as being.
- That said, whatever color they dyed Hemsworth’s beard and eyebrows was really distracting in close ups.
- I kind of wish they had Hemsworth wear Thor’s winged helmet for more than one scene.
- Director Kenneth Branagh did an admirable job with the direction, providing a few fake out moments and non-linear storytelling devices that kept me engaged throughout.
- Let it also be known that Kenneth Branagh never met a Dutch angle he didn’t like. This film is littered with them, but it works. It adds to the aura of comic book dramatics without going overboard like Ang Lee’s Hulk did.
- People credit Branagh for bringing “Shakespearean gravitas” to the movie. But the fatherly themes in the plot are so pronounced, I wonder if anyone would be making that observation if, say, Martin Campbell were directing.
- Natalie Portman is very, very pretty.
- Why the hell is Natalie Portman in this movie? I mean, I know she’s no stranger to big-budget science fiction and fantasy (Hello, Queen Amidala!) but at this point, a movie like Thor seems a little below her station, don’t you think?
- There is almost no need for Kat Dennings’ character except to provide comic relief, but she makes the most of every scene she’s in and damn near walks off with this movie. I was more interested in the things her character had to say than anything Natalie Portman’s character had to say.
- I love that Clark Gregg’s Agent Coulson is running around in the background. Gregg plays him perfectly with a touch of playful impatience.
- Everyone caught Jeremy Renner’s cameo as the future Avenger Hawkeye during the scene where Thor first tries to reclaim his hammer, right?
- Jeremy Renner kind of looks like Daniel Craig’s younger brother to me. They both have a heavy brow.
- Even though I know Ray Stevenson (who most recently played The Punisher) was the actor who played Volstagg, every time I saw him on screen, I was convinced it was Chris Noth.
- Hey, is that Renee Russo as Thor’s mom? Long time, no see!
- Yes, Anthony Hopkins kills it as Odin. But he could do a role like this in his sleep.
- I feel like I’m supposed to say something about Tom Hiddleston as Loki. He did a good job making him a sympathetic villain at the outset, but kind of tipped over into cartoonish super-villainy at the end.
- The Destroyer is awesome and I want an action figure, please.
- RE: The Destroyer “Is that one of Stark’s?” “I don’t know. That guy never tells me anything.” The humor in Thor was pretty sharp.
- Bonus points for the Donald Blake reference – Thor’s mortal alter ego in the early comics. Kudos for the writers for not getting bogged down in that and telling a straightforward original story. Well, as straightforward a story about inter-dimensional warriors using weapons crafted with equal parts magic and science as you can.
- I was also very impressed with how the effects department brought Thor’s unique powers to the screen. They could have easily had him hitting stuff with his hammer or call down lightning and leave it at that. But having him take flight, carried behind Mjolnir was very well done. Similarly, Thor twirling Mjolnir around by the strap was something I didn’t think they’d be able to translate from the comics as well as they did.
- Production design for this movie is off the charts. From the costumes, to the Frost Giants, to the rich detail and rendering of Asgard – these images were truly otherworldly and God-like.
- With this in mind, the fictional town in New Mexico where Thor lands looks faker than fake. In fact, I’m not sure there were even any roads that lead to or from that town. It literally looks like it sprung up overnight by a Hollywood construction crew.
- Did anyone else find the use of the Foo Fighters song “Walk” over the end credits completely out of place?
- Stick around after the credits for a bonus scene. I probably don’t have to tell you that, but it doesn’t hurt to remind you.
That’s all I’ve got on Thor. It’s quite a bit, actually! What are your thoughts? Leave your comments below!
[ 14 Comments ]
If you’ve been following this blog at all, then you know that I’ve been having a good time taking the piss out of X-Men: First Class for the last couple of months.
Some of it I think was deserved. While I will admit that the marketing for the film has gotten better in the last few weeks, this movie was practically tripping over itself as it tried to make itself look appealing to an audience who had become VERY skeptical of 20th Century Fox helming another X-Men movie after the debacle that was Wolverine: Origins.
I will admit to having my bias. Wolverine: Origins was a colossal cluster eff because the producers of that film essentially decided to throw out three movies worth of continuity and start over with their own while still trying to toss in callbacks to the original films. It was a sloppy mess and it didn’t make very much sense.
On the surface, X-Men: First Class appears to do the same thing. As any comic book geek worth their weight in adamantium will tell you, the first class of X-Men was Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Iceman, Angel and Beast. Not Banshee, Havok, Beast, and Mystique.
But, in truth, the film is a slave to continuity in an unexpected way. Very easily you can see the rag-tag group of mutants Professor X has grouped together to be the beta version of the classic X-Men lineup. The film appeared to have ignored the fans to service its own selfish whims. When really it creates a foundation for the X-Men franchise that could potentially pay huge dividends going forward.
In other words, X-Men: First Class is an reboot of the franchise with a head on its shoulders. It does this by answering questions you never thought to ask like “How did the X-Men get their hands on a super-sonic jet?” or “Where did Magneto get his helmet from?” or “When did Mystique decide to align with Magneto and why?”
The film also creates relationships where you don’t expect them. I was kind of confused by the relationship between Professor X and Mystique at the beginning, but ultimately, it works. That detail plus several others ALL work because the film sets rules for itself and explores those areas carefully. We’re not confronted with a big crazy monster at the end just because the heroes need something to fight. The characters have motivation and the stakes feel real.
There are a couple of duds and dead ends in he film, of course. January Jones as the telepath Emma Frost gives the worst performance in the movie. She’s wooden and unconvincing – an unfortunate prop to hang lingerie from.
In fact, most of the bad guys in the movie don’t really go anywhere or do anything. The sword-wielding teleporter Azazel I think gets two lines in the whole movie. Another baddie who and create massive winds (apparently Riptide) doesn’t speak at all. It feels like a waster opportunity.
Kevin Bacon doesn’t exactly bring the aristocratic smarm to Sebastian Shaw that I would have liked but they put an interesting spin on the character that makes him more of a hidden threat.
The film’s best performances go to it’s two leads – James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender. They bring a noble conviction to their roles that makes them a pleasure to watch. They have a natural chemistry that I hope can be bottled and recaptured in a second movie very soon.
Fassbender in particular makes Magneto a tragic figure. Driven by hatred and revenge, we don’t really fault him for his negative world view. Like every great (potential) villain, he is the hero in his own story.
There was talk of a Magneto: Origins movie at one point. We see a little bit of his origins in this movie. Or, at least what became of Magneto during the time between his experiences as a child in World War II and his time with the X-Men.
I will say this… Erik Lehnsherr: Nazi Hunter is a movie I would totally pay to see.
Believe the hype, people. X-Men: First Class is the real deal.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ll be over here in the corner… eating crow.
[ 6 Comments ]
