British director Danny Boyle (of TRAINSPOTTING and 28 DAYS LATER, among others) apparently wants to become the master of all genres. He stretches into the sci-fi territory with SUNSHINE, an on-the-surface brother to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and other intellectual science fiction films. Yet in an effort to appeal to as many sci-fi fans as possible, plot twists taken in the last half of the film propel it to a whole different, disappointing level. When all is said and done, it goes from a thought-provoking metaphorical study piece to a mash-up of a monster movie and Agatha Christie in Space.
As the first line in the film tells us, our sun is dying. After a failed attempt to reignite the sun using nuclear energy seven years ago, a small group of people have set forth in the ominously-named Icarus II to try again. Contact between Earth and Icarus II’s predecessor was lost once the ship entered the “dead zone,” and the mission was considered lost. Yet when the crew of Icarus II detects a distress signal coming from the lost ship, they must decide whether to continue on as planned or attempt to rendezvous with the vessel. To say anymore would require revealing key plot twists, which occur often and in rapid succession.
The film starts off fascinatingly; Boyle’s touch for visuals has never been more apparent than it is here. Each frame gleams with a polished coldness, only enhanced by the blinding rays of the sun that peek around every corner. The alienation on board the ship all feels familiar; the crew are nameless faces that, though ably played by its cast, could easily have been recruited from other films. There’s even an unemotional computer that they hold conversations with. But while the film is not novel in that respect, its impact is not lessened. Several compelling arguments are made about faith, humanity and the limits of survival. Even as the film nears it close, it manages to retain some of these themes.
The major downfall of the film is its second half, when it enters the same horror-movie aspect that played so well in Boyle’s earlier film 28 DAYS LATER. The characters are killed off one by one, and it is soon discovered that there is… GASP! An unknown person on board. While the suspense sequences that follow this are filmed with gusto, and are indeed frightening, it is a marked difference from the quiet meditation of the first part of the film. It’s as if Boyle and writer Alex Garland knew a great deal of sci-fi fans were going to be put off by the lack of action, and were attempting to make the film as marketable as possible. While this is bound to please some, it turns the film into an unfortunately shallow mash-up of two conflicting sci-fi subgenres: the intellectual and the thriller.
While the two parts of the film work fine on their own, they are both negatively affected when put together. The film is saved from being a failure, though, thanks to Boyle’s inventiveness; no matter what happens, the viewer is glued to the screen, wondering what they will see next. On a purely visual level, the film is hard to beat. If only the script had decided which kind of film it wanted to be, a new sci-fi classic could have been born.
**
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
The Simpsons Movie
It’s the event 18 years in the making. For lifelong fans of “The Simpsons” on TV, this could very well be the event of the year. Yet the negative word that has haunted the film from day one is the noticeable decline in quality over the past few years. Would the team be able to fight this and successfully expand the show into 90 minutes of pure Simpsons magic, or would it merely be a longer retread of recent episodes? The answer lies somewhere in between; while it by no means reaches the comedic heights of the series’ early years, THE SIMPSONS MOVIE is an enjoyable, laugh-filled film that passes by in no time and leaves the viewer satisfied.
The film’s plot (which has been kept mostly top secret), unsurprisingly has Homer bringing Springfield to the brink of destruction, inevitably reaching a state where only America’s favorite family can save it. There are side plots for each family member, including Homer and Marge’s ever romantic/always turbulent marriage, a new love for Lisa and Bart’s yearning for an honorable father figure. The main plot, which involves a national emergency isn’t even established until well into the film, as it should be; the film is more concerned with the humorous antics of the family than anything else. In focusing on the family, many Simpsons fans are likely to be disappointed; while the filmmakers have stuck as many supporting characters in the film as they possibly could, most of them are limited to one joke and not much more. Don’t expect a wide array of new characters either; aside from a government official (voiced by Albert Brooks), “President Schwarzenegger” and a cameo from a Hollywood A-lister, nearly every face is familiar.
But the big relief is that there are many genuinely hilarious moments in the film. The film format and PG-13 rating have allowed for many “shock” laughs, the most effective of which is used quite early in the film. It’s a joke that’s bound to upset the parents; for a brief moment, we are reminded of the edgier days when the Simpsons team was called on for public apologies. But the formula of joke after joke begins to falter; the film begins to drag near its middle, the gags become repetitive and more typical of recent episodes. When the jokes fail (more often than not, they are the jokes used in the many previews; by now, they’ve lost their humor), the film seems to die a bit. While the pace picks up as the film reaches its finale, it never quite recreates the edgy joy the writers clearly felt when they weren’t restrained to a plot. The film also attempts a number of large action sequences, poking fun at the summer blockbuster while trying to gain some excitement in its own right. These become a mixed blessing; the expanded, almost epic scope is neat for a while, but the film only comes alive when it returns to the suburban-level comedy it knows best.
What is quite surprising about this film is the level of honesty and seriousness it portrays. Unlike other comedies of its type, “The Simpsons” has always seemed earnest, especially when it concerns Homer and Marge. But here they break new ground; a videotaped monologue by Marge halfway through the film may be the most dramatic thing they’ve ever attempted, and it pays off. In those few moments, THE SIMPSONS MOVIE becomes truly dramatic, almost heartbreaking. It was a risky move to implement such a dramatic element in such a film, yet it is a complete triumph.
The film never reaches the heights of the series as a whole; there are no instantly classic lines, and the filmmakers struggle to create a thoroughly involving 90-minute film, but it is far from a disaster. Actually, the greatest achievement here may be the further characterization of the dynamic Simpson family themselves. Moments of brilliance early in the film show why the Simpsons have lasted all these years, and the rest of the film is solid enough to make THE SIMPSONS MOVIE a successful TV-to-film transfer.
***
The film’s plot (which has been kept mostly top secret), unsurprisingly has Homer bringing Springfield to the brink of destruction, inevitably reaching a state where only America’s favorite family can save it. There are side plots for each family member, including Homer and Marge’s ever romantic/always turbulent marriage, a new love for Lisa and Bart’s yearning for an honorable father figure. The main plot, which involves a national emergency isn’t even established until well into the film, as it should be; the film is more concerned with the humorous antics of the family than anything else. In focusing on the family, many Simpsons fans are likely to be disappointed; while the filmmakers have stuck as many supporting characters in the film as they possibly could, most of them are limited to one joke and not much more. Don’t expect a wide array of new characters either; aside from a government official (voiced by Albert Brooks), “President Schwarzenegger” and a cameo from a Hollywood A-lister, nearly every face is familiar.
But the big relief is that there are many genuinely hilarious moments in the film. The film format and PG-13 rating have allowed for many “shock” laughs, the most effective of which is used quite early in the film. It’s a joke that’s bound to upset the parents; for a brief moment, we are reminded of the edgier days when the Simpsons team was called on for public apologies. But the formula of joke after joke begins to falter; the film begins to drag near its middle, the gags become repetitive and more typical of recent episodes. When the jokes fail (more often than not, they are the jokes used in the many previews; by now, they’ve lost their humor), the film seems to die a bit. While the pace picks up as the film reaches its finale, it never quite recreates the edgy joy the writers clearly felt when they weren’t restrained to a plot. The film also attempts a number of large action sequences, poking fun at the summer blockbuster while trying to gain some excitement in its own right. These become a mixed blessing; the expanded, almost epic scope is neat for a while, but the film only comes alive when it returns to the suburban-level comedy it knows best.
What is quite surprising about this film is the level of honesty and seriousness it portrays. Unlike other comedies of its type, “The Simpsons” has always seemed earnest, especially when it concerns Homer and Marge. But here they break new ground; a videotaped monologue by Marge halfway through the film may be the most dramatic thing they’ve ever attempted, and it pays off. In those few moments, THE SIMPSONS MOVIE becomes truly dramatic, almost heartbreaking. It was a risky move to implement such a dramatic element in such a film, yet it is a complete triumph.
The film never reaches the heights of the series as a whole; there are no instantly classic lines, and the filmmakers struggle to create a thoroughly involving 90-minute film, but it is far from a disaster. Actually, the greatest achievement here may be the further characterization of the dynamic Simpson family themselves. Moments of brilliance early in the film show why the Simpsons have lasted all these years, and the rest of the film is solid enough to make THE SIMPSONS MOVIE a successful TV-to-film transfer.
***
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
By the time most franchises have reached their fifth installment, it has either undergone a drastic reinterpretation or has become so tired and repetitive that it’s hardly worth a look. What a joy, then, to see that the HARRY POTTER franchise is still going strong, with its newest actually improving upon its immediate predecessor. Also, unlike the first two films, it manages to create a nice balance between the need to be an adaptation of the much-beloved book but also work on an entirely cinematic level for the uninitiated. This balance strips the tale down to its barest bones, which works both for and against the film in the end.
Since the evil Lord Voldemort’s return in the previous film, all of the wizarding world has been held in suspense. A strong sense of paranoia haunts the governmental Ministry of Magic, casting doubt on fearless hero Harry Potter and his previous experiences. This doubt about his proclamation of Voldemort’s return follows him all the way back to Hogwarts, where he finds himself isolated from most of the students. All the while, hormones are still raging as Harry tentatively steps forward with his relationship with Cho Chang (a constantly charming Katie Leung, their chemistry strong enough to produce one of the more memorable screen kisses in recent years). And in the background, evil and deception lurks in the typical parade of British Acting All-Stars, featuring the franchise debuts of Imelda Staunton as one of the most despicable, evil characters created for a family film and Helena Bonham Carter, reveling in off-kilter delight in her brief role as a Death Eater.
As is the main problem with all the HARRY POTTER films, the key to its success lies in the adaptation of the lengthy novels. At 138 minutes, this is the shortest film yet and the story is cut down as much as it can be. As a result, many of the supporting characters are pushed aside. Veterans like Maggie Smith, Emma Thompson, Robbie Coltrane, Brendan Gleeson and David Thewlis are relegated to just a few minutes of screen time, popping in here and there to say a line or two. Several subplots are largely ignored, also leaving intriguing new characters (mainly Natalia Tena as Tonks) regrettably underused. In an attempt to speed things along, many important plot points are left to be explained through dialogue, not only jumbling the plot and potentially confusing the viewer but skipping the opportunity to delve even more into the Potter universe. The purpose of the “Order” in the main title is only explained in one line, and the actual group is only seen together once or twice.
The major breakthrough in the film is the performances of those who get enough time to warrant attention. It’s been said in many places that the three main stars (Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint) have improved their skills with each passing film, and this is certainly no exception. Radcliffe is a revelation; leaps and bounds ahead of his admirable work in the past two films, he imbues his performance here with an aggressive frustration that is attention-grabbing, sympathetic and always genuine. Finally the film becomes entirely his and he holds focus like never before. Watson and Grint, while given less to do, are still solid and serve as a reminder of the more carefree days of the past. The three together have an undeniable chemistry that invites the viewer in. Evanna Lynch gives a memorable debut performance as the dazed Luna Lovegood, alternating perfectly between comic relief and genuine sadness. Staunton and Bonham Carter both give delightfully evil, freewheeling performances, with Staunton in particular crafting the careful portrayal every Harry Potter sadist dreamed Dolores Umbridge would be. Returning cast members Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman and Michael Gambon continue their solid characterizations, with Rickman in particular adding a new dynamic to his previously cold character that stretches beyond merely what he says.
British director David Yates makes his big-budget debut here and couldn’t be in finer shape. Not only does he guide the cast to series-best performances, but many of the technical aspects are simply superb, from Stuart Craig’s intricate production design to Slawomir Idziak’s simply stunning photography; a palette of nightmarish grays, blues and greens that help make this film far darker than any others before it. The film is almost too dark for its own good; the level of seriousness is almost relentless, with only a few moments taken off to inject some comedy into the mix.
While not as distinguished as HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN, this film is a worthy continuation of the franchise. It improves on several problems in the previous film and shows an irresistibly intriguing development in design and performance. Though the film is bleak and dark, and it rushes through the plot a bit too quickly, Yates has only served to drive up anticipation for the next installment. Once again, HARRY POTTER proves that it is one of the few modern franchises that deserves every single penny it earns.
***
Since the evil Lord Voldemort’s return in the previous film, all of the wizarding world has been held in suspense. A strong sense of paranoia haunts the governmental Ministry of Magic, casting doubt on fearless hero Harry Potter and his previous experiences. This doubt about his proclamation of Voldemort’s return follows him all the way back to Hogwarts, where he finds himself isolated from most of the students. All the while, hormones are still raging as Harry tentatively steps forward with his relationship with Cho Chang (a constantly charming Katie Leung, their chemistry strong enough to produce one of the more memorable screen kisses in recent years). And in the background, evil and deception lurks in the typical parade of British Acting All-Stars, featuring the franchise debuts of Imelda Staunton as one of the most despicable, evil characters created for a family film and Helena Bonham Carter, reveling in off-kilter delight in her brief role as a Death Eater.
As is the main problem with all the HARRY POTTER films, the key to its success lies in the adaptation of the lengthy novels. At 138 minutes, this is the shortest film yet and the story is cut down as much as it can be. As a result, many of the supporting characters are pushed aside. Veterans like Maggie Smith, Emma Thompson, Robbie Coltrane, Brendan Gleeson and David Thewlis are relegated to just a few minutes of screen time, popping in here and there to say a line or two. Several subplots are largely ignored, also leaving intriguing new characters (mainly Natalia Tena as Tonks) regrettably underused. In an attempt to speed things along, many important plot points are left to be explained through dialogue, not only jumbling the plot and potentially confusing the viewer but skipping the opportunity to delve even more into the Potter universe. The purpose of the “Order” in the main title is only explained in one line, and the actual group is only seen together once or twice.
The major breakthrough in the film is the performances of those who get enough time to warrant attention. It’s been said in many places that the three main stars (Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint) have improved their skills with each passing film, and this is certainly no exception. Radcliffe is a revelation; leaps and bounds ahead of his admirable work in the past two films, he imbues his performance here with an aggressive frustration that is attention-grabbing, sympathetic and always genuine. Finally the film becomes entirely his and he holds focus like never before. Watson and Grint, while given less to do, are still solid and serve as a reminder of the more carefree days of the past. The three together have an undeniable chemistry that invites the viewer in. Evanna Lynch gives a memorable debut performance as the dazed Luna Lovegood, alternating perfectly between comic relief and genuine sadness. Staunton and Bonham Carter both give delightfully evil, freewheeling performances, with Staunton in particular crafting the careful portrayal every Harry Potter sadist dreamed Dolores Umbridge would be. Returning cast members Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman and Michael Gambon continue their solid characterizations, with Rickman in particular adding a new dynamic to his previously cold character that stretches beyond merely what he says.
British director David Yates makes his big-budget debut here and couldn’t be in finer shape. Not only does he guide the cast to series-best performances, but many of the technical aspects are simply superb, from Stuart Craig’s intricate production design to Slawomir Idziak’s simply stunning photography; a palette of nightmarish grays, blues and greens that help make this film far darker than any others before it. The film is almost too dark for its own good; the level of seriousness is almost relentless, with only a few moments taken off to inject some comedy into the mix.
While not as distinguished as HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN, this film is a worthy continuation of the franchise. It improves on several problems in the previous film and shows an irresistibly intriguing development in design and performance. Though the film is bleak and dark, and it rushes through the plot a bit too quickly, Yates has only served to drive up anticipation for the next installment. Once again, HARRY POTTER proves that it is one of the few modern franchises that deserves every single penny it earns.
***
Monday, July 9, 2007
Hairspray
Obviously a big-budget, flashy musical remake of a John Waters film is never going to be as subversive or as comically edgy as its predecessors, but one of the good things about HAIRSPRAY is that it never intends to be. It fully embraces the cheesy, over-the-top aspect of a movie musical from frame one, a trait that most other current films of its type try to avoid. In a welcome change from the summer drudgery of explosions and CGI, this film is a pure feel-good crowd pleaser where excitement and energy rise above all.
Tracy Turnblad (newcomer Nikki Blonsky) is a short, overweight Baltimore girl who has a problem with “hair height” and dreams of becoming famous. Despite protestations from her protective, house-locked mother Edna (John Travolta), she auditions to be a dancer on “The Corny Collins Show”, a riff on American Bandstand, and quickly becomes Baltimore’s newest sensation. All this, coupled with a crush on the local high school dreamboat (Zac Efron) and her strive for complete societal integration makes Tracy a hero for all times and ages, proving that you don’t have to be skinny and blonde to be all you can be, despite the opposition of the local television station manager (Michelle Pfeiffer, in her first film in five years) and her equally blonde, equally villainous daughter Amber (Brittany Snow). Yes, the film is uplifting in the “beauty is found within” vein, but that is part of the film’s charm.
HAIRSPRAY boasts an impressive ensemble cast, including a sampling of today’s biggest stars, both aged and young; Christopher Walken, James Marsden, Amanda Bynes, Queen Latifah and Allison Janney are featured in supporting roles, while cameos from original stars Ricki Lake, Jerry Stiller and director John Waters are sprinkled through the film. Everyone in the cast gives able performances; even Travolta who, in drag and a fat suit, seems at first off-putting, beginning a one-joke “hey I’m a man in a dress!” performance, quickly grows into his own as Edna does, becoming the most crowd-pleasing character by the film’s end. It’s a pleasure to see a former GREASE-r returning to what made him famous, but Travolta proves surprisingly agile in the comedy department, especially during his song and dance numbers. Pfeiffer gives an appropriately vampy villainous performance, reveling in the same carefree, fun comedic style as Travolta. Walken is simply Walken, doing his usually amusing weird-guy shtick in an enjoyable manner. Janney also provides the laughs as the ultra-conservative emblem of a 50s mother, becoming instantly memorable in just a few short scenes. Queen Latifah shows glimpses of a depth she never has before, especially as she organizes and participates in a march against segregation.
The real enjoyment here, however, and the truly great performances are given by the younger members of the cast. Every single teenager in the film, from the leads to the chorus boy in the back of the room are injected with an unshakable, undeniable energy that reaches through the screen and captivates the viewer. This rings true especially for the film’s two major finds: newcomers Nikki Blonsky and Elijah Kelly. Both of them have that instant star quality, a charisma and charm that make them instantly likable. Kelly displays simply astounding singing and dancing skills, while Blonsky easily carries the entire film of her shoulders, becoming the heart and soul of the movie with one hip thrust.
Director/choreographer Adam Shankman, whose previous credits include duds like CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN 2, THE PACIFIER and BRINGING DOWN THE HOUSE has made a huge leap forward in his skills. Every one of the musical numbers are spectacularly shot and edited, keeping the pace moving and providing endless opportunity for humorous surprises. Shankman has a clear talent for musicals and the work done here is much more admirable than recent films of the genre. The sparkling production values make it clear; this film is cheesy and proud of it.
HAIRSPRAY has nothing much to offer besides two hours of entertainment and escapism, but it offers it in spades. It is a pure joy to watch from beginning to end and a welcome change of pace from the big-budget action film that surround its release. Yes, it’s a musical and yes, it’s over-the-top, but the audience is sold on that point from the first moment Tracy opens her mouth and the audience cannot help but be sucked in.
***
Tracy Turnblad (newcomer Nikki Blonsky) is a short, overweight Baltimore girl who has a problem with “hair height” and dreams of becoming famous. Despite protestations from her protective, house-locked mother Edna (John Travolta), she auditions to be a dancer on “The Corny Collins Show”, a riff on American Bandstand, and quickly becomes Baltimore’s newest sensation. All this, coupled with a crush on the local high school dreamboat (Zac Efron) and her strive for complete societal integration makes Tracy a hero for all times and ages, proving that you don’t have to be skinny and blonde to be all you can be, despite the opposition of the local television station manager (Michelle Pfeiffer, in her first film in five years) and her equally blonde, equally villainous daughter Amber (Brittany Snow). Yes, the film is uplifting in the “beauty is found within” vein, but that is part of the film’s charm.
HAIRSPRAY boasts an impressive ensemble cast, including a sampling of today’s biggest stars, both aged and young; Christopher Walken, James Marsden, Amanda Bynes, Queen Latifah and Allison Janney are featured in supporting roles, while cameos from original stars Ricki Lake, Jerry Stiller and director John Waters are sprinkled through the film. Everyone in the cast gives able performances; even Travolta who, in drag and a fat suit, seems at first off-putting, beginning a one-joke “hey I’m a man in a dress!” performance, quickly grows into his own as Edna does, becoming the most crowd-pleasing character by the film’s end. It’s a pleasure to see a former GREASE-r returning to what made him famous, but Travolta proves surprisingly agile in the comedy department, especially during his song and dance numbers. Pfeiffer gives an appropriately vampy villainous performance, reveling in the same carefree, fun comedic style as Travolta. Walken is simply Walken, doing his usually amusing weird-guy shtick in an enjoyable manner. Janney also provides the laughs as the ultra-conservative emblem of a 50s mother, becoming instantly memorable in just a few short scenes. Queen Latifah shows glimpses of a depth she never has before, especially as she organizes and participates in a march against segregation.
The real enjoyment here, however, and the truly great performances are given by the younger members of the cast. Every single teenager in the film, from the leads to the chorus boy in the back of the room are injected with an unshakable, undeniable energy that reaches through the screen and captivates the viewer. This rings true especially for the film’s two major finds: newcomers Nikki Blonsky and Elijah Kelly. Both of them have that instant star quality, a charisma and charm that make them instantly likable. Kelly displays simply astounding singing and dancing skills, while Blonsky easily carries the entire film of her shoulders, becoming the heart and soul of the movie with one hip thrust.
Director/choreographer Adam Shankman, whose previous credits include duds like CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN 2, THE PACIFIER and BRINGING DOWN THE HOUSE has made a huge leap forward in his skills. Every one of the musical numbers are spectacularly shot and edited, keeping the pace moving and providing endless opportunity for humorous surprises. Shankman has a clear talent for musicals and the work done here is much more admirable than recent films of the genre. The sparkling production values make it clear; this film is cheesy and proud of it.
HAIRSPRAY has nothing much to offer besides two hours of entertainment and escapism, but it offers it in spades. It is a pure joy to watch from beginning to end and a welcome change of pace from the big-budget action film that surround its release. Yes, it’s a musical and yes, it’s over-the-top, but the audience is sold on that point from the first moment Tracy opens her mouth and the audience cannot help but be sucked in.
***
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Transformers
Riding on the biggest ad campaign of the year to avoid another Island-sized disaster for Michael Bay (what, you thought the MTV Movie Award for “Best Summer Movie You Haven’t Seen Yet” was an actual award that a film actually won?), TRANSFORMERS provides quite a bit of food for thought: can a toy franchise be translated into a successful film? The true answer is yet to be determined, as TRANSFORMERS is too bogged down in all the typical Michael Bay action clichés to be much of anything else.
The slim story is another variation on the alien invasion/end of the world plot. This time, the fate of mankind rests between two warring sides of alien robots, the Autobots (led by the iconic Optimus Prime) and the Decepticons. The two sides were expelled from their wasteland of a planet and followed the mysterious Allspark to Earth, an object that holds the key in mankind’s potential destruction. The Decepticons use their disguises and human images to track down the Allspark while the Autobots struggle to stop them and protect the human race. And, yes, there are humans too; an average-Joe high schooler (Shia LaBeouf) discovers that his rusty car is in fact one of the Autobots, propelling him into the center of the robot battle.
All this plot should be just an excuse to get to big action scenes, but the overlong film unnecessarily attempts to develop itself for the first hour or so. At 144 minutes, this is no walk in the park, and the film could easily be trimmed at least a half hour. The first hour of the film basically serves as set-up, introducing and cultivating characters who aren’t that interesting in the first place. A few brief sequences in the Middle East provide some excitement during this time, but the film’s momentum sputters out when it turns its focus to LaBeouf’s character and the apple of his eye, a laughably stereotypical not-just-a-pretty-face supermodel/high schooler (an attractive but ultimately banal Megan Fox).
Much has been made about LaBeouf’s quick rise to stardom, and he is indeed a likeably unorthodox action hero and has grown a great deal from his awkward, usually unfunny sidekick turns in I, ROBOT and CONSTANTINE. His natural charisma and relatability are strong enough to rise above the material he’s given. The other performers don’t make nearly as much of an impression, giving the requisite action movie movements and nothing more: staring at things in awe, screaming in panic, running away and giving the occasional wisecrack. Only Julie White (in a small role as LaBoeuf’s mother) manages to imbue her scenes with genuine comedy, while John Turturro and Jon Voight come very close to embarrassing themselves.
The robots are serviceable, rendered with some very impressive CGI work. Where they fall flat is the obvious, awkward dialogue they are given. Yes, it’s nice to see that the robots have good working relationships and can joke around with each other, but the audience really wants to see them in action; something that is more or less denied until the final part of the film. Yet even when the film finally gets into the nonstop action it promises, it is stuck in one final battle sequence, which itself runs overlong and begins to tire.
Director Michael Bay seems unable to shake the clichés that harm his films so much; the bloated and overblown action isn’t enough, but he follows the recent pattern of shooting action scenes in tight, handheld shots, making it exceedingly difficult to grasp what exactly is going on. His characters have an annoying habit of always seeming to be covered in a glaze of sweat (no matter the situation), and by the time two characters stare lovingly at each other across a pile of debris, their hands reaching towards in each other in a slow-motion shot, you come to realize that he’s hit every cliché in the book at least three times. This wouldn’t be such a problem if the film didn’t feel so needlessly long.
Since it is the summer, some of these decisions should be forgivable. But the film takes far too long to really get going, never fully recovering and beginning to tire before its conclusion. The filmmakers clearly thought their subject more important than it actually is. TRANSFORMERS could have been a thoroughly enjoyable, exciting summer film, but Bay’s insistence on overblown and bloated films nearly makes it a chore to get through. The audience must wait 90 minutes for prolonged excitement it promises, and that’s really all the film has to offer.
*1/2
The slim story is another variation on the alien invasion/end of the world plot. This time, the fate of mankind rests between two warring sides of alien robots, the Autobots (led by the iconic Optimus Prime) and the Decepticons. The two sides were expelled from their wasteland of a planet and followed the mysterious Allspark to Earth, an object that holds the key in mankind’s potential destruction. The Decepticons use their disguises and human images to track down the Allspark while the Autobots struggle to stop them and protect the human race. And, yes, there are humans too; an average-Joe high schooler (Shia LaBeouf) discovers that his rusty car is in fact one of the Autobots, propelling him into the center of the robot battle.
All this plot should be just an excuse to get to big action scenes, but the overlong film unnecessarily attempts to develop itself for the first hour or so. At 144 minutes, this is no walk in the park, and the film could easily be trimmed at least a half hour. The first hour of the film basically serves as set-up, introducing and cultivating characters who aren’t that interesting in the first place. A few brief sequences in the Middle East provide some excitement during this time, but the film’s momentum sputters out when it turns its focus to LaBeouf’s character and the apple of his eye, a laughably stereotypical not-just-a-pretty-face supermodel/high schooler (an attractive but ultimately banal Megan Fox).
Much has been made about LaBeouf’s quick rise to stardom, and he is indeed a likeably unorthodox action hero and has grown a great deal from his awkward, usually unfunny sidekick turns in I, ROBOT and CONSTANTINE. His natural charisma and relatability are strong enough to rise above the material he’s given. The other performers don’t make nearly as much of an impression, giving the requisite action movie movements and nothing more: staring at things in awe, screaming in panic, running away and giving the occasional wisecrack. Only Julie White (in a small role as LaBoeuf’s mother) manages to imbue her scenes with genuine comedy, while John Turturro and Jon Voight come very close to embarrassing themselves.
The robots are serviceable, rendered with some very impressive CGI work. Where they fall flat is the obvious, awkward dialogue they are given. Yes, it’s nice to see that the robots have good working relationships and can joke around with each other, but the audience really wants to see them in action; something that is more or less denied until the final part of the film. Yet even when the film finally gets into the nonstop action it promises, it is stuck in one final battle sequence, which itself runs overlong and begins to tire.
Director Michael Bay seems unable to shake the clichés that harm his films so much; the bloated and overblown action isn’t enough, but he follows the recent pattern of shooting action scenes in tight, handheld shots, making it exceedingly difficult to grasp what exactly is going on. His characters have an annoying habit of always seeming to be covered in a glaze of sweat (no matter the situation), and by the time two characters stare lovingly at each other across a pile of debris, their hands reaching towards in each other in a slow-motion shot, you come to realize that he’s hit every cliché in the book at least three times. This wouldn’t be such a problem if the film didn’t feel so needlessly long.
Since it is the summer, some of these decisions should be forgivable. But the film takes far too long to really get going, never fully recovering and beginning to tire before its conclusion. The filmmakers clearly thought their subject more important than it actually is. TRANSFORMERS could have been a thoroughly enjoyable, exciting summer film, but Bay’s insistence on overblown and bloated films nearly makes it a chore to get through. The audience must wait 90 minutes for prolonged excitement it promises, and that’s really all the film has to offer.
*1/2
Monday, July 2, 2007
Ratatouille
After the disappointing and lumber some CARS, Pixar returns to its usual level of brilliance with Brad Bird’s RATATOUILLE. Bird does the improbable; takes a film about the least-cuddly of rodents, makes them adorable and puts them into the world of fine cooking, a place where children are usually not to be found. It is Pixar’s least accessible film thus far, yet there are still plenty of laughs to be had for people of all ages.
The film follows the adventures of Remy (voiced by Patton Oswaldt), the most lovable French rat you’ll ever find, and his quest to find decent food. After inadvertently destroying his family’s hideout, he finds himself separated from them and wandering the streets of Paris. He happens upon Gusteau’s Restaurant, once the greatest restaurant in all of Paris, where he meets a clumsy garbage boy named Linguini (Lou Romano). After they connect and find a puppet/puppeteer relationship between them, both begin to benefit.
As can be judged by the story’s outline, this is definitely the most low-key Pixar film yet. It is a rather laid-back affair, and even when the characters are placed in peril, the situations are never exceedingly grim. The story’s two villains, a dwarfish chef (Ian Holm) that embodies nearly every French stereotype out there and a gothic food critic (Peter O’Toole, firmly in the Christopher Lee school of line delivery) modeled after Nosferatu are rarely intimidating, but the film is more concerned with its main characters than anything else. The story between these characters remains light and breezy, with plenty of humor found in them and among the wonderfully shady members of the Gusteau’s kitchen staff, including a man who has served time for any number of reasons.
The design of the film is sumptuous, and this is easily the most visually inventive Pixar film yet. The camera is set on Remy’s level, gliding effortlessly through cracks in the wall, under tables and underwater, not to mention through Linguini’s hat. Every frame is beautifully composed, vividly illustrating a timeless Paris and giving astonishing detail to the various dishes served up. The attention to detail here alone shows the filmmaker’s quality, something sorely lacking in most animated films nowadays.
While slighter and much less accessible than previous offerings, RATATOUILLE is still a completely enjoyable ride and a step above other recent films of the same genre. Pixar once again proves it is the leading force in American animation; the film is much more refined and nuanced with dynamic characters and filled with more genuine humor than what passes for family films nowadays. Director Brad Bird takes a tricky subject for a children’s film and trusts his audiences will pick up on it. This rather risky project is a complete success. RATATOUILLE is great fun, a carefree time at the movies for people of all ages.
***1/2
The film follows the adventures of Remy (voiced by Patton Oswaldt), the most lovable French rat you’ll ever find, and his quest to find decent food. After inadvertently destroying his family’s hideout, he finds himself separated from them and wandering the streets of Paris. He happens upon Gusteau’s Restaurant, once the greatest restaurant in all of Paris, where he meets a clumsy garbage boy named Linguini (Lou Romano). After they connect and find a puppet/puppeteer relationship between them, both begin to benefit.
As can be judged by the story’s outline, this is definitely the most low-key Pixar film yet. It is a rather laid-back affair, and even when the characters are placed in peril, the situations are never exceedingly grim. The story’s two villains, a dwarfish chef (Ian Holm) that embodies nearly every French stereotype out there and a gothic food critic (Peter O’Toole, firmly in the Christopher Lee school of line delivery) modeled after Nosferatu are rarely intimidating, but the film is more concerned with its main characters than anything else. The story between these characters remains light and breezy, with plenty of humor found in them and among the wonderfully shady members of the Gusteau’s kitchen staff, including a man who has served time for any number of reasons.
The design of the film is sumptuous, and this is easily the most visually inventive Pixar film yet. The camera is set on Remy’s level, gliding effortlessly through cracks in the wall, under tables and underwater, not to mention through Linguini’s hat. Every frame is beautifully composed, vividly illustrating a timeless Paris and giving astonishing detail to the various dishes served up. The attention to detail here alone shows the filmmaker’s quality, something sorely lacking in most animated films nowadays.
While slighter and much less accessible than previous offerings, RATATOUILLE is still a completely enjoyable ride and a step above other recent films of the same genre. Pixar once again proves it is the leading force in American animation; the film is much more refined and nuanced with dynamic characters and filled with more genuine humor than what passes for family films nowadays. Director Brad Bird takes a tricky subject for a children’s film and trusts his audiences will pick up on it. This rather risky project is a complete success. RATATOUILLE is great fun, a carefree time at the movies for people of all ages.
***1/2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)