Perennially popular anime SPEED RACER makes the jump from cartoon to live action, courtesy of the Wachowski Brothers. Unfortunately, these once-heralded directors showed signs of being a one-hit wonder with their preposterous MATRIX sequels, and this film pushes even further towards that description. Using a dizzying visual style that can only be compared to exploding paint cans, the film vainly tries to revolutionize “cool.” And in doing this, they forgot to add in the fun that would seem obvious when adapting a kid’s cartoon show.
Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) is a young hot-rod making history on the racetrack. Driven to succeed by the memory of his dead brother Rex, Speed only knows how to race and he does it well. But when he refuses a deal from a monopolistic CEO (Roger Allam), he finds himself and his entire family (including father John Goodman and mother Susan Sarandon) in the mercy of the powerful company. Determined to destroy the corporations’ hold on the world of racing, Speed teams with the mysterious Racer X (Matthew Fox) and girlfriend Trixie (Christina Ricci) to defeat the corporate-sponsored drivers race by race, starting with the same treacherous rally that took the life of his brother.
There’s a lot of drama in a movie supposedly aimed toward children; hardly surprising, looking at who’s responsible for the film. The Wachowskis seem to forget they were making a fun action movie; most of the film is spent on long dramatic scenes surrounding each member of the Racer family that slows momentum to a complete standstill. There is so much time spent on studying the inner working of Mom and Pops Racer that Speed seems a mere afterthought until well into the film. As a result, the film is easily a half hour too long and the action sequences never quite rouse the viewer out of the distant stupor the rest of the film puts them into.
Not that any inkling of sense or understanding can be gotten from the action sequences. The film’s color scheme, obviously the filmmakers’ attempt to create a real-life anime is even more dizzying and headache-inducing than their 2D counterpart. The editing is so fast and the movement so mind-boggling (in the worst way possible) that we are forced to wait until the race ends to get a semblance of what happened. The only sequence that elicits any real excitement is one of the few hand-to-hand combat scenes in the film, and also one of the few that are devoid of extensive special effects. Even if that sequence does start off with an act that is either a strangely-placed homage to James Bond or evidence that the Wachowskis have simply run out of ideas.
The cast certainly doesn’t do any favors, though they aren’t given much to begin with. As Speed, Hirsch clearly looks the part but looks and sounds awkward when forced to deliver the stereotypical “let’s see what I can do” lines to his competing racers. Sarandon and Goodman invest into their characters far too much, with their teary-eyed performances out of place in the bright colors and flashing lights. And as Speed’s younger brother Spritle, Paul Litowsky finds himself stuck with some of the least funny comedic relief dialogue seen in quite some time and gives the worst child performance this side of Spencer Breslin. Only Ricci makes a positive impression, mostly due to the fact that she is the only element of the movie that looks like an anime convincingly brought to life.
If the Wachowskis wanted to make a serious action drama about racing, they shouldn’t have chosen SPEED RACER as their inspiration. Their heavy melodramatics conflict wildly with the Candyland/Japanese infused world they set the film in. While some will likely see this film as the next phase in the evolution of cool, thanks to its bloated script and completely incorrect sense of self importance, there’s only one thing to say: SPEED RACER drags.
*1/2/****
Friday, May 9, 2008
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Iron Man
The summer season starts off with a bang as IRON MAN explodes into theatres everywhere. Thanks in no small part to an invigorated and energetic leading man in Robert Downey, Jr., the film is fast, fun and smart – everything that a successful superhero film should be. Balancing Batman-style dramatics with the sense of humor that made the first Spider-Man films so popular, IRON MAN proves to be a film that comic book haters can enjoy.
Billionaire weapons manufacturer Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) is on a business trip to Afghanistan when he is attacked and kidnapped by a terrorist organization. After installing an arc reactor in his chest to keep shrapnel from entering his heart, the terrorists demand that Stark build them an all-powerful rocket that will wreck havoc all over the country. Stark uses the pretense of working on the rocket to build a seemingly indestructible suit to craft his escape. After witnessing the widespread damage his products are inflicting on both sides of war, Stark uses his newfound technology to transform him into an indestructible flying weapon on legs. All the while, he juggles intrusions from his business partner Obadiah Stone (Jeff Bridges) and the military, embodied by Air Force officer Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard) and an increasingly personal relationship with his ever-capable assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow).
Superhero movies have never been more grounded in real life than here. The film’s entire set-up, a weapons manufacturer captured by terrorists in the Middle East to build their weapons, seems like a situation that could easily be seen on the news. Combined with the military presence and the ever-popular “how corrupt are major businesses?” scenario and you’ve got one realistic comic book movie. But thanks to Jon Favreau’s tasteful direction and the smart script, the film is topical without seeming preachy or drawn-out; when a script has two co-writers of Alfonso Cuaron’s CHILDREN OF MEN, it’s a safe assumption that the film is going to be deftly topical. But this doesn’t mean there isn’t plenty of fun to be had. The action scenes, while rather small in number, are intense, exciting and spectacular. And thanks to the strength of Downey’s performance, there’s always fun to be had.
It’s unusual that a big-budget summer action film these days would star Robert Downey, Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow, but each prove more than able in their roles. While Pepper doesn’t do much more than the standard superhero love interest, Paltrow successfully sheds the alienating snootiness that’s affected her in the past. And as Stark, Downey may have found his signature role. Tony Stark isn’t merely a character Downey is playing; it’s an extension of the man himself. Imbuing every line with his trademark humor, Downey channels his public perception into Stark’s womanizing and careless lifestyle, making the transformation into Iron Man an examination of what the public doesn’t see. Downey completely embodies the role, finally giving the world a superhero that can truly balance the lightness and darkness of his personality with superb skill.
IRON MAN is a rip-roaring start to the summer. It doesn’t rely on in-jokes that would only be understood by fans, nor is it too broad in a vain attempt to appeal to everyone. Instead, it tells a solid story with a surprising injection of real-world drama and finely-tuned comedy. The film is a thrill ride from beginning to end, never letting up or losing steam. In a day where only bleak action films can be called smart and only dumb action films can be called fun, it’s a breath of fresh air to see something that excels so easily at combining the two.
***/****
Billionaire weapons manufacturer Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) is on a business trip to Afghanistan when he is attacked and kidnapped by a terrorist organization. After installing an arc reactor in his chest to keep shrapnel from entering his heart, the terrorists demand that Stark build them an all-powerful rocket that will wreck havoc all over the country. Stark uses the pretense of working on the rocket to build a seemingly indestructible suit to craft his escape. After witnessing the widespread damage his products are inflicting on both sides of war, Stark uses his newfound technology to transform him into an indestructible flying weapon on legs. All the while, he juggles intrusions from his business partner Obadiah Stone (Jeff Bridges) and the military, embodied by Air Force officer Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard) and an increasingly personal relationship with his ever-capable assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow).
Superhero movies have never been more grounded in real life than here. The film’s entire set-up, a weapons manufacturer captured by terrorists in the Middle East to build their weapons, seems like a situation that could easily be seen on the news. Combined with the military presence and the ever-popular “how corrupt are major businesses?” scenario and you’ve got one realistic comic book movie. But thanks to Jon Favreau’s tasteful direction and the smart script, the film is topical without seeming preachy or drawn-out; when a script has two co-writers of Alfonso Cuaron’s CHILDREN OF MEN, it’s a safe assumption that the film is going to be deftly topical. But this doesn’t mean there isn’t plenty of fun to be had. The action scenes, while rather small in number, are intense, exciting and spectacular. And thanks to the strength of Downey’s performance, there’s always fun to be had.
It’s unusual that a big-budget summer action film these days would star Robert Downey, Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow, but each prove more than able in their roles. While Pepper doesn’t do much more than the standard superhero love interest, Paltrow successfully sheds the alienating snootiness that’s affected her in the past. And as Stark, Downey may have found his signature role. Tony Stark isn’t merely a character Downey is playing; it’s an extension of the man himself. Imbuing every line with his trademark humor, Downey channels his public perception into Stark’s womanizing and careless lifestyle, making the transformation into Iron Man an examination of what the public doesn’t see. Downey completely embodies the role, finally giving the world a superhero that can truly balance the lightness and darkness of his personality with superb skill.
IRON MAN is a rip-roaring start to the summer. It doesn’t rely on in-jokes that would only be understood by fans, nor is it too broad in a vain attempt to appeal to everyone. Instead, it tells a solid story with a surprising injection of real-world drama and finely-tuned comedy. The film is a thrill ride from beginning to end, never letting up or losing steam. In a day where only bleak action films can be called smart and only dumb action films can be called fun, it’s a breath of fresh air to see something that excels so easily at combining the two.
***/****
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
It’s a familiar story: someone spurned by their ex-lover goes abroad to escape, only to find their ex everywhere they go. Yet in FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL, actor/writer Jason Segel uses the type of R-rated humor that made producer Judd Apatow’s films so popular to amusing effect, even if the film struggles to reach the genuine emotion that made the producer’s works so critically acclaimed.
Composer Peter Bretter (Segel) was just dumped by his longtime girlfriend, television star Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell). Unable to forget his past girlfriend and unable to attempt a physical relationship without bursting into tears, Bretter goes to a luxury hotel in Hawaii, a place he remembered Sarah talking about. Sure enough, the first people he runs into are his ex-girlfriend and her new beau, British rock star Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). He tries to avoid them, but finds himself near them all the time. The only way he manages to escape from them is to turn to his burgeoning relationship with hotel employee Rachel (Mila Kunis). As he spends more time in the hotel, he begins to know more about himself and about the value of living.
As has been common with recent comedies, Segel and director Nicholas Stoller strive to create a film that’s not just about the laughs. And although it does contain a level of sweetness and sincerity that is still surprising in such a raunchy comedy, it is no more genuine or sweet than an average romantic comedy. Peter is a flawed character, but the negative effect his behavior has on people is touched on all too briefly. And aside from the always affirming “stop worrying and just live life” sentiment, the film is primarily successful in making jokes.
And the film is funny. Very funny. Segel already has gotten notices for his daring full-frontal nudity (which begins mere minutes into the film), but as a leading man he’s a bit on the bland side. He handles the jokes extremely well, but is nothing more than serviceable when trying to be dramatic. He is lucky that the amount of real drama required is rather small, and clearly knows where he excels. Bell and Kunis are pleasant as the women in Peter’s life; they inject their characters with mounds of personality but obviously got the short end of the stick when it comes to the jokes. Cameos from Apatow regulars give the film some of its lightest moments. However, the film truly belongs to Russell Brand. As the philandering and ridiculously spiritual rock star, every line he speaks packs a punch. He steps just across the line of being over-the-top, but does it with enough confidence to keep attention on him at all times.
FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL will never be the juggernaut that films like KNOCKED UP and SUPERBAD turned into, but that shouldn’t speak for its quality. It is still a tremendously enjoyable film that keeps you laughing throughout. It moves past the shock laughs of the frank nudity and sex jokes typical in a film like this to demonstrate a great deal of thought and wit. Slim but fast-paced, the film is a perfect exercise into escapism.
***/****
Composer Peter Bretter (Segel) was just dumped by his longtime girlfriend, television star Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell). Unable to forget his past girlfriend and unable to attempt a physical relationship without bursting into tears, Bretter goes to a luxury hotel in Hawaii, a place he remembered Sarah talking about. Sure enough, the first people he runs into are his ex-girlfriend and her new beau, British rock star Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). He tries to avoid them, but finds himself near them all the time. The only way he manages to escape from them is to turn to his burgeoning relationship with hotel employee Rachel (Mila Kunis). As he spends more time in the hotel, he begins to know more about himself and about the value of living.
As has been common with recent comedies, Segel and director Nicholas Stoller strive to create a film that’s not just about the laughs. And although it does contain a level of sweetness and sincerity that is still surprising in such a raunchy comedy, it is no more genuine or sweet than an average romantic comedy. Peter is a flawed character, but the negative effect his behavior has on people is touched on all too briefly. And aside from the always affirming “stop worrying and just live life” sentiment, the film is primarily successful in making jokes.
And the film is funny. Very funny. Segel already has gotten notices for his daring full-frontal nudity (which begins mere minutes into the film), but as a leading man he’s a bit on the bland side. He handles the jokes extremely well, but is nothing more than serviceable when trying to be dramatic. He is lucky that the amount of real drama required is rather small, and clearly knows where he excels. Bell and Kunis are pleasant as the women in Peter’s life; they inject their characters with mounds of personality but obviously got the short end of the stick when it comes to the jokes. Cameos from Apatow regulars give the film some of its lightest moments. However, the film truly belongs to Russell Brand. As the philandering and ridiculously spiritual rock star, every line he speaks packs a punch. He steps just across the line of being over-the-top, but does it with enough confidence to keep attention on him at all times.
FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL will never be the juggernaut that films like KNOCKED UP and SUPERBAD turned into, but that shouldn’t speak for its quality. It is still a tremendously enjoyable film that keeps you laughing throughout. It moves past the shock laughs of the frank nudity and sex jokes typical in a film like this to demonstrate a great deal of thought and wit. Slim but fast-paced, the film is a perfect exercise into escapism.
***/****
Friday, April 4, 2008
Leatherheads
George Clooney has often been called the Cary Grant of our generation, a comparison he clearly hopes to capitalize on in LEATHERHEADS, a true sports story via screwball comedy that makes one long for the cleverness of the old days rather than fondly recall them, as a good homage should do. While the filmmakers mean well, the script is not snappy enough and the stars not as charismatic as their 1930s counterparts to be consistently funny.
The year is 1925, and the Duluth Bulldogs are struggling to survive in the failing world of professional football. Coach Dodge Connelly (Clooney) sticks as many dirty tricks into plays as he can to ensure his team’s success, but they are nearing the end of their rope. Suddenly, Dodge has an idea; recruit a major figure onto the team to get publicity. He sets his sights on Carter Rutherford (John Krasinski) a college football star and decorated war hero. He lures him to the team with a large contract, but finds a snag accompanies it. Newspaper reporter Lexie Littleton (Renee Zellweger) has been sent by her editor to interview Rutherford and expose the truth behind his supposed heroics. Soon, Dodge and Rutherford are fighting for Lexie’s affections as national football, led by the Bulldogs, begins to gain momentum.
Most sports movies deal almost exclusively with the bond between the players, but this film has almost none of that. In fact, Rutherford is rarely seen speaking to the other players, since most of his scenes are either tender interviews with Lexie or jealous bantering with Dodge. This is one of the film’s main faults; the story is set around a very significant time in the world of sports, but it is rarely touched upon. Aside from a few montages and the obligatory Big Game climax, actual scenes of playing are rare. Instead, Clooney focuses on the romantic triangle of the film and the screwball nature of their relationships. Here again is another one of its faults. The lines are meant to be delivered fast, a la HIS GIRL FRIDAY, but they have little of the zip or wit of its inspiration.
The cast is likable enough, even if they are underserved by their roles. Clooney puts himself in full Cary Grant comedy mode, all extorted facial expressions and one-step-ahead delivery. Krasinski charms throughout, even if his actual comic abilities are only allowed to show in a few scenes; a drunken argument between the three main characters is the highlight of the film, thanks to Krainski. Zellweger proves a decent match for both men, though she is far too sweet and demure to convincingly fill the Rosalind Russell-esque role of ruthless newspaper gal.
Clooney seems far less adept at directing comedy than performing it. While the production values are spectacular and the film is beautifully shot, there is little excitement in the comedic sequences. Any laughs gotten from the film come exclusively from the actors, and while Clooney does inspire humor from his co-stars as an actor, he does them no favors stylistically. So while the film offers fantastic production values and a rousing score from Randy Newman, it never manages to be anything more than cute. And considering the talent involved, cute is a major disappointment.
*1/2/****
The year is 1925, and the Duluth Bulldogs are struggling to survive in the failing world of professional football. Coach Dodge Connelly (Clooney) sticks as many dirty tricks into plays as he can to ensure his team’s success, but they are nearing the end of their rope. Suddenly, Dodge has an idea; recruit a major figure onto the team to get publicity. He sets his sights on Carter Rutherford (John Krasinski) a college football star and decorated war hero. He lures him to the team with a large contract, but finds a snag accompanies it. Newspaper reporter Lexie Littleton (Renee Zellweger) has been sent by her editor to interview Rutherford and expose the truth behind his supposed heroics. Soon, Dodge and Rutherford are fighting for Lexie’s affections as national football, led by the Bulldogs, begins to gain momentum.
Most sports movies deal almost exclusively with the bond between the players, but this film has almost none of that. In fact, Rutherford is rarely seen speaking to the other players, since most of his scenes are either tender interviews with Lexie or jealous bantering with Dodge. This is one of the film’s main faults; the story is set around a very significant time in the world of sports, but it is rarely touched upon. Aside from a few montages and the obligatory Big Game climax, actual scenes of playing are rare. Instead, Clooney focuses on the romantic triangle of the film and the screwball nature of their relationships. Here again is another one of its faults. The lines are meant to be delivered fast, a la HIS GIRL FRIDAY, but they have little of the zip or wit of its inspiration.
The cast is likable enough, even if they are underserved by their roles. Clooney puts himself in full Cary Grant comedy mode, all extorted facial expressions and one-step-ahead delivery. Krasinski charms throughout, even if his actual comic abilities are only allowed to show in a few scenes; a drunken argument between the three main characters is the highlight of the film, thanks to Krainski. Zellweger proves a decent match for both men, though she is far too sweet and demure to convincingly fill the Rosalind Russell-esque role of ruthless newspaper gal.
Clooney seems far less adept at directing comedy than performing it. While the production values are spectacular and the film is beautifully shot, there is little excitement in the comedic sequences. Any laughs gotten from the film come exclusively from the actors, and while Clooney does inspire humor from his co-stars as an actor, he does them no favors stylistically. So while the film offers fantastic production values and a rousing score from Randy Newman, it never manages to be anything more than cute. And considering the talent involved, cute is a major disappointment.
*1/2/****
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Stop-Loss
Acclaimed director Kimberly Peirce’s second feature length film (after 1999’s BOYS DON’T CRY) is the latest entry in the recent wave of war-themed films that appear to be anti-war while never really pushing the envelope. STOP-LOSS could best be described as “VARSITY BLUES Goes to War” – a rather unsurprising connection, since both were produced by MTV Films. A melodrama that targets twentysomethings instead of the generation that made this war, it gives a few poignant glimpses of the devastating affects war has on soldiers while never being brave enough to show the outrage it feels.
The film centers on a small group of Texas All-Americans (friends since elementary school, all championship football players in high school, etc.) returning home after fighting inIraq Iraq Brandon
The film does well on examining the humanity of war and the devastating after-effects it has on its soldiers. Unfortunately, the film is plagued with wooden or over-the-top performances that never fully translate the impact of the characters’ actions. As Steve, Tatum remains expressionless most of the time, marginally summoning actual emotion only when it is absolutely essential. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who delivered a fantastically nuanced performance in last year’s THE LOOKOUT, rants and raves here. He fills the typical role of dark, moody wild child but adds no further dimension to it between his manic ups and downs. Couple that in with spotty southern accents from most of the cast and you’ve got what this film offers; a bunch of attractive, marketable faces with no real substance underneath.
However, any success the film has must be credited to Phillippe and Cornish. The real impact of the film rests onBrandon
Director and co-writer Peirce clearly set out to make an anti-war film; the only character in the film who doesn’t find the stop-loss procedure completely repulsive is the army general. But she never drives the film to a point of ending as anti-war, seemingly for fear of offending anyone. It may be because the focus was meant to be aimed at the characters rather than the war itself, but when every person in the film is negatively affected by the war (whether they are stop-lossed, wounded, killed, experience violent flashbacks or return to a destroyed home life), the viewer doesn’t really come out of the film feeling that these people were glad for their experiences.
The filmmakers make it clear that the act of stop-loss is a terrible thing, but focuses its argument almost exclusively on that. The affects of war are touched on explicitly, but no statement is ever really defined, leading the film to an ending that feels incomplete. While it does raise questions for the viewer to contemplate themselves, they will inevitably be influenced by the anti-war track followed throughout most of the film. And despite the strong presence of Phillippe and Cornish, add in the mixed message with the unconvincing performances and you’ve got STOP-LOSS. It is a film that has all the makings for greatness but settles for mediocrity, so as not to offend anyone.
**/****
The film centers on a small group of Texas All-Americans (friends since elementary school, all championship football players in high school, etc.) returning home after fighting in
The film does well on examining the humanity of war and the devastating after-effects it has on its soldiers. Unfortunately, the film is plagued with wooden or over-the-top performances that never fully translate the impact of the characters’ actions. As Steve, Tatum remains expressionless most of the time, marginally summoning actual emotion only when it is absolutely essential. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who delivered a fantastically nuanced performance in last year’s THE LOOKOUT, rants and raves here. He fills the typical role of dark, moody wild child but adds no further dimension to it between his manic ups and downs. Couple that in with spotty southern accents from most of the cast and you’ve got what this film offers; a bunch of attractive, marketable faces with no real substance underneath.
However, any success the film has must be credited to Phillippe and Cornish. The real impact of the film rests on
Director and co-writer Peirce clearly set out to make an anti-war film; the only character in the film who doesn’t find the stop-loss procedure completely repulsive is the army general. But she never drives the film to a point of ending as anti-war, seemingly for fear of offending anyone. It may be because the focus was meant to be aimed at the characters rather than the war itself, but when every person in the film is negatively affected by the war (whether they are stop-lossed, wounded, killed, experience violent flashbacks or return to a destroyed home life), the viewer doesn’t really come out of the film feeling that these people were glad for their experiences.
The filmmakers make it clear that the act of stop-loss is a terrible thing, but focuses its argument almost exclusively on that. The affects of war are touched on explicitly, but no statement is ever really defined, leading the film to an ending that feels incomplete. While it does raise questions for the viewer to contemplate themselves, they will inevitably be influenced by the anti-war track followed throughout most of the film. And despite the strong presence of Phillippe and Cornish, add in the mixed message with the unconvincing performances and you’ve got STOP-LOSS. It is a film that has all the makings for greatness but settles for mediocrity, so as not to offend anyone.
**/****
Monday, March 17, 2008
Funny Games
Acclaimed German filmmaker Michael Haneke makes his English language debut with FUNNY GAMES, a remake of his 1997 film. Unlike most American remakes of foreign films, FUNNY GAMES manages to retain the same visceral impact of its source, especially to those who have never seen it before. For those who have, there are no surprises (it is, after all, a shot-for-shot remake) save for the uniformly spectacular performances and the sadistic joy of watching the uninitiated become more and more disturbed.
The premise is simple. A small family of well-to-do vacationers (Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart) is settling down in their blindingly white home-away-from-home when two strange faces (Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet) come to the door. After a small number of decidedly eerie encounters, the two young men reveal the real reason for their presence; they are sadistic killers who throw the family into a series of violent and degrading “games” to make the whole process entertaining. Who is being entertained, however, is the question.
The film is made with no intent to be liked by anyone. In fact, anyone who says they love it should be ready for all sorts of strange looks from the others who’ve seen it. The family makes all the wrong decisions when attempting to escape, and Haneke relishes devilishly in what we expect from it. The film is alienating and accusatory in the same way it was before. Unfortunately, Haneke takes a slightly subtler approach to the film’s meaning and it loses some of its bite. It will still shock and offend many, even if it isn’t as wicked or biting as before.
Aside from a few entirely plausible cell phone-related additions to the film, it remains entirely the same. The main interest for viewers to revisit the film’s world is the performances, which are very strong. While Roth and Pitt suffer in comparison to their German-language counterparts, they still commit strong, manipulative and gut-wrenching performances. Pitt in particular eschews his typical whiny poutiness and manages to be truly intimidating. However, Watts and the young Gearhart provide the film with the images that will stay in audiences’ minds. Any sympathy that one feels while watching is due largely to them. Their perpetual state of humiliation and terror is exhaustive; the audience often feels just as traumatized as they do. As Ann, Watts has never been better. Her desperation is emotional without ever being melodramatic. Ann walks a fine line between being sympathetic and being cold and unlikable but Watts maneuvers around it perfectly; a feat that Susanne Lothar was not always successful at in the original film.
FUNNY GAMES is essentially an American translation of the original Austrian film. It is a shocking and thrilling experience, daring you to stay and expecting you to leave before the film is over. Those going in having seen the original will know exactly what to expect and will put themselves in for another exercise in hopelessness. Unless they want to see the others squirm.
***/****
The premise is simple. A small family of well-to-do vacationers (Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart) is settling down in their blindingly white home-away-from-home when two strange faces (Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet) come to the door. After a small number of decidedly eerie encounters, the two young men reveal the real reason for their presence; they are sadistic killers who throw the family into a series of violent and degrading “games” to make the whole process entertaining. Who is being entertained, however, is the question.
The film is made with no intent to be liked by anyone. In fact, anyone who says they love it should be ready for all sorts of strange looks from the others who’ve seen it. The family makes all the wrong decisions when attempting to escape, and Haneke relishes devilishly in what we expect from it. The film is alienating and accusatory in the same way it was before. Unfortunately, Haneke takes a slightly subtler approach to the film’s meaning and it loses some of its bite. It will still shock and offend many, even if it isn’t as wicked or biting as before.
Aside from a few entirely plausible cell phone-related additions to the film, it remains entirely the same. The main interest for viewers to revisit the film’s world is the performances, which are very strong. While Roth and Pitt suffer in comparison to their German-language counterparts, they still commit strong, manipulative and gut-wrenching performances. Pitt in particular eschews his typical whiny poutiness and manages to be truly intimidating. However, Watts and the young Gearhart provide the film with the images that will stay in audiences’ minds. Any sympathy that one feels while watching is due largely to them. Their perpetual state of humiliation and terror is exhaustive; the audience often feels just as traumatized as they do. As Ann, Watts has never been better. Her desperation is emotional without ever being melodramatic. Ann walks a fine line between being sympathetic and being cold and unlikable but Watts maneuvers around it perfectly; a feat that Susanne Lothar was not always successful at in the original film.
FUNNY GAMES is essentially an American translation of the original Austrian film. It is a shocking and thrilling experience, daring you to stay and expecting you to leave before the film is over. Those going in having seen the original will know exactly what to expect and will put themselves in for another exercise in hopelessness. Unless they want to see the others squirm.
***/****
Monday, March 3, 2008
The Other Boleyn Girl
There’s nothing more fascinating than royals. When it involves Henry VIII’s relationship not only with Anne Boleyn but her sister as well, it was only a matter of time before Hollywood caught on. Adapted from the trend-setting 2001 bestseller, THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL is a bodice-ripper of the most melodramatic kind. The whole film is a bit ridiculous, but made manageable by its outstanding production values and a surprising performance from Scarlett Johansson.
Young Anne (Natalie Portman) and Mary (Johansson) are the Boleyn sisters, growing up in the midst of Henry VIII’s (Eric Bana) court. But his marriage with Catharine of Aragon is failing; after the latest failed attempt to give birth to a male heir, the girls’ uncle (David Morrissey) is certain that the king will be looking for a mistress, and believe Anne is the perfect candidate that could catapult the entire Boleyn family into wealth and power. But not all goes as planned; the king turns his eye to the recently-wed Mary, and a bitter rivalry ignites between the sisters. The tryst goes on for years, with both sisters playing for the king’s affections until Anne decides to put herself in the highest place of all; as Henry’s queen.
The film would not be quite so insufferably soap opera-ish were it not for the jealous, seething and ruthless portrayal of Anne Boleyn. Midway through the film, when Anne is called from France to return to court and seduce the king, she is given a montage as if Freddy Kruger or Michael Meyers were being resurrected. What surrounds it is a large quantity of Anne either glaring at people or delivering sexually-tinged comebacks. It is a credit that Portman manages to lose her typical cutesiness and inject a few moments of genuine smolder, but she becomes rather trying and overtly weepy towards the end. It’s understandable that one would be upset when about to be decapitated, but when all she does is cry for the final half-hour of the film, it gets a bit old.
The real (and only) surprise here is Johansson, who gives an impressive performance playing against type. Anne is every bit the demure and innocent girl who finds herself in over her head. As she begins to realize the extent of the relationship between her sister and the man she loves, her emotions are effective without falling into the level of melodrama that everyone else falls victim to. As Henry, Bana is not much more than a thing to be looked at or, more often, talked about.
The production values are understandably impressive, with the exception of the film’s grubby cinematography and curious use of handheld cameras. Director Justin Chadwick tries to inject the film with the same kind of modernity found in the most recent PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, but seems to think that shaking the camera around a bit is the only way to do this. Peter Morgan’s script is a far cry from the sharp wit and affecting nature of his work for THE QUEEN two years earlier.
All in all, the film may be a diversion for those who appreciate a decent period film, especially if they can get past the historical inaccuracies, which are doubtlessly many. The premise has enough potential, but when the entire thing plays like an expensive episode of DAYS OF OUR LIVES, everything comes off a bit forced and fake. Royals are still fascinating, but surely they must have done something other than betray each other, have sex and cry. Supposedly they ran countries as well, but THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL apparently doesn’t find that worthy of examination.
**/****
Young Anne (Natalie Portman) and Mary (Johansson) are the Boleyn sisters, growing up in the midst of Henry VIII’s (Eric Bana) court. But his marriage with Catharine of Aragon is failing; after the latest failed attempt to give birth to a male heir, the girls’ uncle (David Morrissey) is certain that the king will be looking for a mistress, and believe Anne is the perfect candidate that could catapult the entire Boleyn family into wealth and power. But not all goes as planned; the king turns his eye to the recently-wed Mary, and a bitter rivalry ignites between the sisters. The tryst goes on for years, with both sisters playing for the king’s affections until Anne decides to put herself in the highest place of all; as Henry’s queen.
The film would not be quite so insufferably soap opera-ish were it not for the jealous, seething and ruthless portrayal of Anne Boleyn. Midway through the film, when Anne is called from France to return to court and seduce the king, she is given a montage as if Freddy Kruger or Michael Meyers were being resurrected. What surrounds it is a large quantity of Anne either glaring at people or delivering sexually-tinged comebacks. It is a credit that Portman manages to lose her typical cutesiness and inject a few moments of genuine smolder, but she becomes rather trying and overtly weepy towards the end. It’s understandable that one would be upset when about to be decapitated, but when all she does is cry for the final half-hour of the film, it gets a bit old.
The real (and only) surprise here is Johansson, who gives an impressive performance playing against type. Anne is every bit the demure and innocent girl who finds herself in over her head. As she begins to realize the extent of the relationship between her sister and the man she loves, her emotions are effective without falling into the level of melodrama that everyone else falls victim to. As Henry, Bana is not much more than a thing to be looked at or, more often, talked about.
The production values are understandably impressive, with the exception of the film’s grubby cinematography and curious use of handheld cameras. Director Justin Chadwick tries to inject the film with the same kind of modernity found in the most recent PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, but seems to think that shaking the camera around a bit is the only way to do this. Peter Morgan’s script is a far cry from the sharp wit and affecting nature of his work for THE QUEEN two years earlier.
All in all, the film may be a diversion for those who appreciate a decent period film, especially if they can get past the historical inaccuracies, which are doubtlessly many. The premise has enough potential, but when the entire thing plays like an expensive episode of DAYS OF OUR LIVES, everything comes off a bit forced and fake. Royals are still fascinating, but surely they must have done something other than betray each other, have sex and cry. Supposedly they ran countries as well, but THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL apparently doesn’t find that worthy of examination.
**/****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)