After two months of fairly solid action movies (okay, so two months of "The Avengers" and...everything else), it's about time for the other staple of Summer Movie Season -- the R-rated comedy. Don't believe me? "The Hangover" (2009), "The Hangover Part 2", "Bridesmaids", and "Bad Teacher" (2011) all have had exquisite success during the Summer season.
"Ted" manages to do what "The Dictator" and "That's My Boy" failed to do earlier in the year and fill the void simply being original.
It's a story as old as time. Little John Bennett, having no friends of his own, gets a large plush bear John names Teddy and instantly becomes his best friend. After wishing Teddy could really talk, in classic 80s movie tradition, Teddy comes to life!
Here's where it gets interesting...we see what happens when both John (played by Mark Wahlberg) and Ted (voiced by Seth MacFarlane) grow up. John, now 35, has a great girlfriend Lori (Mila Kunis) while Ted lives with them, freeloading, smoking weed, guzzling beer, and ordering hookers while John and Lori are out. Fed up with Ted's shenanigans, Lori gives John an ultimatum -- either her or Ted.
From the brilliant of "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane comes "Ted". MacFarlane, who directed this movie from a script he co-wrote with fellow "Family Guy" scribes Alec Sulkin and Wesley Wild, makes an acerbic, crass, and surprisingly intelligent movie about a talking stuffed animal that quickly turns into a movie about friendship and maturity. I know maturity is never the word you think about when you think about "Family Guy", but this is lightyears ahead of where "Family Guy" is.
Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis are wonderful together on screen. Wahlberg has completely found his calling as a comedy actor, and Mila Kunis shines like she does in everything. And with Kunis comes many of the other "Family Guy" cast members with her -- Patrick Warburton, Alex Borstein, and Mike Henry all have minor roles here. But how can you ignore Seth MacFarlane as Ted? Foul-mouthed, sexually extroverted, and perpetually stoned or drunk, Ted is fluffy little nightmare that will go straight to your heart.
"Ted" is not only hilarious (by far the funniest movie of the year), but poignant and heartfelt -- something that you would never expect from the trailers. Perfectly narrated by Patrick Stewart (yes...THAT Patrick Stewart), skewering many celebrities we either love or hate (or love to hate), and making you laugh until you hurt, "Ted" is the comedy this year has desperately needed.
Oh yeah, and if you're a parent and take your 9-year old to see this, you're an awful person. Period.
FINAL VERDICT: Fan of "Family Guy" or not, "Ted" is Seth MacFarlane's finest hour by far. Funny and poignant, crude and romantic, the movie will make you laugh, touch your heart, and give you something to laugh about long after the credits have rolled.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Two Cent Review: "John Carter"
I tried, folks. I gave it more than the old college try. But after about thirty minutes or so, I had to turn off "John Carter". It was just too much.
Looking like a bizarre mixture of "Cowboys and Aliens" (perhaps a fitting analogy seeing this was on Jon Favreau's slot before doing "Iron Man" and the previous aforementioned movie), "Star Wars", and Sam Raimi's first "Spider-Man", "John Carter" is (or at least as much as I could glean from the plot) about Captain John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) who gets mysteriously whisked away to Mars (or as they call it, Barsoom), where he is caught between a war between Jeddak ("king") Tars Tarkas (voiced by Willem Dafoe) and Jeddak Sab Than (Dominic West). Sab Than proposes a cease fire and end of the war by marrying the Princess of Helium Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), daughter of Jeddak Tardos Mors (Ciaran Hinds). When Dejah meets Carter, she believes him to be a savior, and, of course, everyone wants to kill him after that.
Director Andrew Stanton ("Wall-E", "Finding Nemo"), who co-wrote the script with Mark Andrews ("Brave") and Michael Chambon ("Spider-Man 2"), has honestly done the the film justice...and by that, I mean make a movie so bad the book "John Carter From Mars" has to be better by default. The action is forced, the dialogue contrived, and the special effects were impressive about a decade ago.
Perhaps there was a reason the film got buried into the dregs of box office scraps and bombed as bad as it did. The sad thing is that, in a year that showed wonderful human-vs-alien battles in "The Avengers" and "Men In Black 3", "John Carter" falls incredibly short in comparison.
The biggest tragedy is Taylor Kitsch's movie career. First this movie drops a bomb, then "Battleship" almost makes the box office charts look like Hiroshima in comparison. Both featuring the "True Blood" star. I would say there could be hope for him yet, but he just passed on a key part in "The Hunger Games" sequel "Catching Fire". Oops.
MY TWO CENTS: I know I didn't watch the whole thing, but, in the end "John Carter" wasn't worth finishing. Perhaps if you're curious to see how this movie ends, do yourself a favor and pick up the book. Sure, finding time to read the book will be taxing, but getting your time back from watching the movie will be fruitless.
Looking like a bizarre mixture of "Cowboys and Aliens" (perhaps a fitting analogy seeing this was on Jon Favreau's slot before doing "Iron Man" and the previous aforementioned movie), "Star Wars", and Sam Raimi's first "Spider-Man", "John Carter" is (or at least as much as I could glean from the plot) about Captain John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) who gets mysteriously whisked away to Mars (or as they call it, Barsoom), where he is caught between a war between Jeddak ("king") Tars Tarkas (voiced by Willem Dafoe) and Jeddak Sab Than (Dominic West). Sab Than proposes a cease fire and end of the war by marrying the Princess of Helium Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), daughter of Jeddak Tardos Mors (Ciaran Hinds). When Dejah meets Carter, she believes him to be a savior, and, of course, everyone wants to kill him after that.
Director Andrew Stanton ("Wall-E", "Finding Nemo"), who co-wrote the script with Mark Andrews ("Brave") and Michael Chambon ("Spider-Man 2"), has honestly done the the film justice...and by that, I mean make a movie so bad the book "John Carter From Mars" has to be better by default. The action is forced, the dialogue contrived, and the special effects were impressive about a decade ago.
Perhaps there was a reason the film got buried into the dregs of box office scraps and bombed as bad as it did. The sad thing is that, in a year that showed wonderful human-vs-alien battles in "The Avengers" and "Men In Black 3", "John Carter" falls incredibly short in comparison.
The biggest tragedy is Taylor Kitsch's movie career. First this movie drops a bomb, then "Battleship" almost makes the box office charts look like Hiroshima in comparison. Both featuring the "True Blood" star. I would say there could be hope for him yet, but he just passed on a key part in "The Hunger Games" sequel "Catching Fire". Oops.
MY TWO CENTS: I know I didn't watch the whole thing, but, in the end "John Carter" wasn't worth finishing. Perhaps if you're curious to see how this movie ends, do yourself a favor and pick up the book. Sure, finding time to read the book will be taxing, but getting your time back from watching the movie will be fruitless.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
In Memoriam: Nora Ephron (1941-2012)
Last night, we lost one of the great filmmakers of my generation. Though not as well-known now as she was in the late 80's or early 90's, Nora Ephron made simple movies that were honest, funny, and touching.
I remember growing up with her films "When Harry Met Sally..." (1989), "My Blue Heaven" (1990) and "Sleepless In Seattle" (1993). While other kids were fussing over Jim Carrey and "Star Wars", I was watching these movies. Okay, so it was mainly due to my mother being obsessed with these movies and never varying them for weeks at a time, but it doesn't matter.
"When Harry Met Sally..." and "Sleepless In Seattle" are two timeless movies about relationships in the modern age, are still hailed today as the best romantic comedies out there.
Also making such movies as "Michael" (1996), "Mixed Nuts" (1994), "Hanging Up" (2000), and her final movie "Julie & Julia" (2009), Nora Ephron showed a different side, providing honest looks at family, religion, our own obsessions and simply how crazy life can get.
As a writer and director, Nora Ephron showed us the world, not only how she saw it, but as it truly is -- how beautifully screwed up it can be and how it's somehow perfect the way it is. Her movies were never about the stories, but about people and being human. How neurotic we all are at our core, but how wonderful we are at the same time just by being who we are.
Nora Ephron will truly be missed as a filmmaker, and will more than likely never be replaced.
I remember growing up with her films "When Harry Met Sally..." (1989), "My Blue Heaven" (1990) and "Sleepless In Seattle" (1993). While other kids were fussing over Jim Carrey and "Star Wars", I was watching these movies. Okay, so it was mainly due to my mother being obsessed with these movies and never varying them for weeks at a time, but it doesn't matter.
"When Harry Met Sally..." and "Sleepless In Seattle" are two timeless movies about relationships in the modern age, are still hailed today as the best romantic comedies out there.
Also making such movies as "Michael" (1996), "Mixed Nuts" (1994), "Hanging Up" (2000), and her final movie "Julie & Julia" (2009), Nora Ephron showed a different side, providing honest looks at family, religion, our own obsessions and simply how crazy life can get.
As a writer and director, Nora Ephron showed us the world, not only how she saw it, but as it truly is -- how beautifully screwed up it can be and how it's somehow perfect the way it is. Her movies were never about the stories, but about people and being human. How neurotic we all are at our core, but how wonderful we are at the same time just by being who we are.
Nora Ephron will truly be missed as a filmmaker, and will more than likely never be replaced.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Shameless Self-Promotion: I'm on Facebook!
Hey everybody!
I've been getting a lot of traffic on the page here, and I figured...what the hell?!? I want more views! So I created a Facebook page!
Check it out at http://www.facebook.com/WillAndTheMovies!
Also, I created my own email address special for this site. Feel free to email me at willandthemovies@gmail.com with any questions, comments, or requests!
I've been getting a lot of traffic on the page here, and I figured...what the hell?!? I want more views! So I created a Facebook page!
Check it out at http://www.facebook.com/WillAndTheMovies!
Also, I created my own email address special for this site. Feel free to email me at willandthemovies@gmail.com with any questions, comments, or requests!
Monday, June 25, 2012
Movie Review: "Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World"
What's a Summer Movie Season without a film about the Apocalypse? Sure, it's been about thirteen years since "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon" duked it out for box office supremacy, but the end of humanity has been touched on by many Summer blockbusters in recent memory, such as "The Avengers", "War of the Worlds" and every "Men In Black" movie.
"Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World" is definitely an unconventional movie that covers this topic, going the route of dark romantic comedy/drama than big budget action, but, seeing that we've already had more than our fair share of big budget explosions and Hollywood glam this season, a little change is more than welcome.
An asteroid, nicknamed Matilda, is on a collision course towards the Earth, and all attempts by the world's top scientists and astronauts have failed (think of it as the alternate universe where Ben Affleck and Bruce Willis didn't succeed). Here we find Dodge (Steve Carell). Upon the breaking news that the world is going to end, his wife leaves him, his friends start acting crazy (swingers parties, illegal drug use, etc), his coworkers start killing themselves, and Dodge is left feeling empty and apathetic, with only a dog that is abruptly left in his care.
Suddenly, his eccentric neighbor Penny (Keira Knightley) shows up on his fire escape in tears about missing the final plane to England to visit her parents. When a riot breaks out in the middle of their street, Dodge makes a deal with Penny that he will get her to her parents in England (he knows a man with his own plane) if he will come with her to track down the girl that got away from him. Along the way, they encounter looters, assassination attemptees, an orgy at an Applebee's knock-off, and, somehow, find the beauty that surrounds us when there's nothing left to lose.
Writer/director Lorene Scafaria (feature directorial debut, while previously having written the under-rated "Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist") knocks it out of the park with this arthouse take on the end of the world. Playing down the asteroid angle and focusing on the human interactions, Scafaria shows the wit, wisdom, fear, loneliness and catharsis that can come when the chips are stacked against us, and how it's okay to let go.
While there are notable bit parts from the likes of Martin Sheen, Rob Corddry, Adam Brody, and Patton Oswalt (not to mention a cameo by Steve Carell's real-life wife Nancy Carell as his estranged wife Linda), Steve Carell and Keira Knightley dominate the screen for the most of the movie. And it should not come as a shock that they're wonderful. Carell's subtle charm is perfect for Dodge, and Knightley hasn't been better in recent memory. While Carell has been taking on slightly more serious roles such as in "Dan in Real Life" and "Little Miss Sunshine", Knightley lightens up here and is vastly more bubbly than in her other recent movies such as "Atonement". And while both Carell and Knightley are great on their own, their chemistry lights up the screen despite the dark subject matter.
There's always a scene stealer in movies like this, and it comes from actor Mark Moses (TV's "Mad Men" and "Desperate Housewives") as the TV anchorman covering the asteroid. His calm poise and assuring tone sets the mood and keeps going until his final broadcast where he gives an Edward Murrow-like monologue. Perhaps only a bit player at best, Moses officially steals the show here.
For a long time now, distributor Focus Features has been a favorite imprint of mine, releasing many of my favorite films like "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and the aforementioned "Dan in Real Life". What makes "Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World" so special is how low key it is. We never see the asteroid. We never see the failed NASA attempt to stop it. It's not about survival. It's about the human condition. The film shows an answer to the age-old question "What would you do if you knew the world was going to end?". Consequences aside, we see not just what our protagonists would do, but what many people would do throughout the film, and it's often beautiful and disturbing, but it's overall human.
I fear many audiences will not understand this film (at least not American audiences). Granted, I base this statement on the young woman who sat in back of me in the theater who blurted out "That was sooo awful!" once the credits started rolling, but I fear she may not be the only one. And it all goes back to my previous statements -- this is low key. This isn't Ben Affleck and Bruce Willis destroying an asteroid. This isn't Elijah Wood and Morgan Freeman frantically trying to survive the blast and fallout. This is two people making one final journey together to get the last out of life. If you need more than that, this film is not for you. But, for those of us who love a good story for the story's sake, this film more than fits the bill, making it the best movie of the year thus far.
FINAL VERDICT: While the cineplexes are chocked full of big budget action films, "Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World" is not only a wonderful alternative, but, by far, the best movie of Summer 2012 (at least by this point). True, it's probably one of the darkest comedies I've seen in a long time, the sweet, beautiful story -- along with wonderful performances from Steve Carell and Keira Knightley -- make this film timeless.
"Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World" is definitely an unconventional movie that covers this topic, going the route of dark romantic comedy/drama than big budget action, but, seeing that we've already had more than our fair share of big budget explosions and Hollywood glam this season, a little change is more than welcome.
An asteroid, nicknamed Matilda, is on a collision course towards the Earth, and all attempts by the world's top scientists and astronauts have failed (think of it as the alternate universe where Ben Affleck and Bruce Willis didn't succeed). Here we find Dodge (Steve Carell). Upon the breaking news that the world is going to end, his wife leaves him, his friends start acting crazy (swingers parties, illegal drug use, etc), his coworkers start killing themselves, and Dodge is left feeling empty and apathetic, with only a dog that is abruptly left in his care.
Suddenly, his eccentric neighbor Penny (Keira Knightley) shows up on his fire escape in tears about missing the final plane to England to visit her parents. When a riot breaks out in the middle of their street, Dodge makes a deal with Penny that he will get her to her parents in England (he knows a man with his own plane) if he will come with her to track down the girl that got away from him. Along the way, they encounter looters, assassination attemptees, an orgy at an Applebee's knock-off, and, somehow, find the beauty that surrounds us when there's nothing left to lose.
Writer/director Lorene Scafaria (feature directorial debut, while previously having written the under-rated "Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist") knocks it out of the park with this arthouse take on the end of the world. Playing down the asteroid angle and focusing on the human interactions, Scafaria shows the wit, wisdom, fear, loneliness and catharsis that can come when the chips are stacked against us, and how it's okay to let go.
While there are notable bit parts from the likes of Martin Sheen, Rob Corddry, Adam Brody, and Patton Oswalt (not to mention a cameo by Steve Carell's real-life wife Nancy Carell as his estranged wife Linda), Steve Carell and Keira Knightley dominate the screen for the most of the movie. And it should not come as a shock that they're wonderful. Carell's subtle charm is perfect for Dodge, and Knightley hasn't been better in recent memory. While Carell has been taking on slightly more serious roles such as in "Dan in Real Life" and "Little Miss Sunshine", Knightley lightens up here and is vastly more bubbly than in her other recent movies such as "Atonement". And while both Carell and Knightley are great on their own, their chemistry lights up the screen despite the dark subject matter.
There's always a scene stealer in movies like this, and it comes from actor Mark Moses (TV's "Mad Men" and "Desperate Housewives") as the TV anchorman covering the asteroid. His calm poise and assuring tone sets the mood and keeps going until his final broadcast where he gives an Edward Murrow-like monologue. Perhaps only a bit player at best, Moses officially steals the show here.
For a long time now, distributor Focus Features has been a favorite imprint of mine, releasing many of my favorite films like "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and the aforementioned "Dan in Real Life". What makes "Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World" so special is how low key it is. We never see the asteroid. We never see the failed NASA attempt to stop it. It's not about survival. It's about the human condition. The film shows an answer to the age-old question "What would you do if you knew the world was going to end?". Consequences aside, we see not just what our protagonists would do, but what many people would do throughout the film, and it's often beautiful and disturbing, but it's overall human.
I fear many audiences will not understand this film (at least not American audiences). Granted, I base this statement on the young woman who sat in back of me in the theater who blurted out "That was sooo awful!" once the credits started rolling, but I fear she may not be the only one. And it all goes back to my previous statements -- this is low key. This isn't Ben Affleck and Bruce Willis destroying an asteroid. This isn't Elijah Wood and Morgan Freeman frantically trying to survive the blast and fallout. This is two people making one final journey together to get the last out of life. If you need more than that, this film is not for you. But, for those of us who love a good story for the story's sake, this film more than fits the bill, making it the best movie of the year thus far.
FINAL VERDICT: While the cineplexes are chocked full of big budget action films, "Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World" is not only a wonderful alternative, but, by far, the best movie of Summer 2012 (at least by this point). True, it's probably one of the darkest comedies I've seen in a long time, the sweet, beautiful story -- along with wonderful performances from Steve Carell and Keira Knightley -- make this film timeless.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Movie Review: "Brave"
Another year, another Pixar film. It seems like clockwork really. The studio best known for "Toy Story", "Monsters Inc", and "Finding Nemo" -- some of the most original animated movies around fit for all audiences -- has lately faltered by releasing unnecessary sequels to their films and/or making films hell-bent on making their audiences cry while focusing on what they can do with computer animation rather than a compelling story. "Brave" is triumphant return to form for Pixar.
Set in the old Scottish Highlands, "Brave" tells the tale of Merida (Kelly MacDonald), a head-strong princess who would rather sharpen her skills as an archer than sharpen her etiquette. While this doesn't bother her father King Fergus (Billy Connolly), Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson) does everything in her power to groom Merida for her betrothal. When Merida finds a way to change her fate with the help of a mysterious witch (Julie Walters) that goes completely awry, Merida is now faced with a race against time to make things better before an outright war with the other three clans -- led by Lord Dingwall (Robbie Coltrane), Lord MacGuffin (Kevin McKidd) and Lord MacIntosh (Craig Ferguson) -- destroys the land.
Directors Mark Andrews (feature film debut), Brenda Chapman ("The Prince of Egypt"), and Steve Purcell (creator of "Sam and Max Freelance Police"), who all had a hand in writing the script as well with Irene Mecchi ("The Lion King", 1996's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"), create a masterpiece blended with magic, laughs, suspense, and action. Making Pixar's first original movie since 2009's "Up" (and Pixar's first good movie since 2008's "Wall-E"), this team clearly knows how to win audiences of all ages over with a script that doesn't pander or go over anyone's head, beautiful landscapes and art direction, and a wonderful story that will make you laugh and touch your heart.
Like every good Disney film and Pixar film, a good protagonist is key. And Merida makes not only the perfect protagonist, but the perfect heroine little girls can look up to. Many critics are likening Merida to "Twilight" heroine Bella Swan, but this is a horrible comparison, seeing that Merida chooses to fight for her own destiny rather than to fight to become part of someone else's. No, if you want a good comparison, look no further than Katniss Everdeen of "The Hunger Games". Not only do both have a strong proficiency with a bow and arrow, but both are girls who refuse to let society dictate how they act or make falling in love priority uno (Bella, we're glaring at you). Both Merida and Katniss take the reigns of their fates and ultimately come on top for doing so. Parents, think about it: wouldn't you rather have your daughter(s) looking up to a heroine like that rather than one who gives up friends, family, and personal choice all for a boy (Bella, we're scornfully glaring at you)?
Pixar truly returns to form here, not only by making an original movie, but one that doesn't only think about tugging at heart-strings. "Brave" lets the emotions flow naturally, allowing the audience to take in the beauty of the film without being reminded how depressing the film could be. Much like the aforementioned "Wall-E", "Brave" is a beautiful film, not just visually, but emotionally. This is not just another commercial animated film mainly used as a marketing tool to encourage your kids to want bright-colored toys ("Madagascar 3", we're glaring at you). A fine tribute to Steve Jobs, who was one of the head honchos of Pixar before dying last year.
FINAL VERDICT: Disney/Pixar's "Brave" is in line to become the next true masterpiece. Without forced emotion or a pandering script, "Brave" truly bridges the gap between young and adult audiences, and will more than likely become the next hit movie for both Disney and Pixar. But unlike other properties like "Cars" that seemed it was primarily a commercial marketing movie, "Brave" is true art. (Oh yeah, and bring tissues...you might need them.)
Set in the old Scottish Highlands, "Brave" tells the tale of Merida (Kelly MacDonald), a head-strong princess who would rather sharpen her skills as an archer than sharpen her etiquette. While this doesn't bother her father King Fergus (Billy Connolly), Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson) does everything in her power to groom Merida for her betrothal. When Merida finds a way to change her fate with the help of a mysterious witch (Julie Walters) that goes completely awry, Merida is now faced with a race against time to make things better before an outright war with the other three clans -- led by Lord Dingwall (Robbie Coltrane), Lord MacGuffin (Kevin McKidd) and Lord MacIntosh (Craig Ferguson) -- destroys the land.
Directors Mark Andrews (feature film debut), Brenda Chapman ("The Prince of Egypt"), and Steve Purcell (creator of "Sam and Max Freelance Police"), who all had a hand in writing the script as well with Irene Mecchi ("The Lion King", 1996's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"), create a masterpiece blended with magic, laughs, suspense, and action. Making Pixar's first original movie since 2009's "Up" (and Pixar's first good movie since 2008's "Wall-E"), this team clearly knows how to win audiences of all ages over with a script that doesn't pander or go over anyone's head, beautiful landscapes and art direction, and a wonderful story that will make you laugh and touch your heart.
Like every good Disney film and Pixar film, a good protagonist is key. And Merida makes not only the perfect protagonist, but the perfect heroine little girls can look up to. Many critics are likening Merida to "Twilight" heroine Bella Swan, but this is a horrible comparison, seeing that Merida chooses to fight for her own destiny rather than to fight to become part of someone else's. No, if you want a good comparison, look no further than Katniss Everdeen of "The Hunger Games". Not only do both have a strong proficiency with a bow and arrow, but both are girls who refuse to let society dictate how they act or make falling in love priority uno (Bella, we're glaring at you). Both Merida and Katniss take the reigns of their fates and ultimately come on top for doing so. Parents, think about it: wouldn't you rather have your daughter(s) looking up to a heroine like that rather than one who gives up friends, family, and personal choice all for a boy (Bella, we're scornfully glaring at you)?
Pixar truly returns to form here, not only by making an original movie, but one that doesn't only think about tugging at heart-strings. "Brave" lets the emotions flow naturally, allowing the audience to take in the beauty of the film without being reminded how depressing the film could be. Much like the aforementioned "Wall-E", "Brave" is a beautiful film, not just visually, but emotionally. This is not just another commercial animated film mainly used as a marketing tool to encourage your kids to want bright-colored toys ("Madagascar 3", we're glaring at you). A fine tribute to Steve Jobs, who was one of the head honchos of Pixar before dying last year.
FINAL VERDICT: Disney/Pixar's "Brave" is in line to become the next true masterpiece. Without forced emotion or a pandering script, "Brave" truly bridges the gap between young and adult audiences, and will more than likely become the next hit movie for both Disney and Pixar. But unlike other properties like "Cars" that seemed it was primarily a commercial marketing movie, "Brave" is true art. (Oh yeah, and bring tissues...you might need them.)
Movie Review: "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter"
Summer Blockbuster Season is the time of year for superheroes.
Iron Man.
Batman.
Lincoln...?
That's right! Who would have thought that Abraham Lincoln was a superhero? But in "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" the liberator of the slaves becomes the secret bad-ass we always wanted a president to be, and the results couldn't be more explosive.
As a boy, young Abraham Lincoln watched as his mother die by the hands of vampire Jack Barts (Martin Csokas). Fueled by rage, Lincoln, now in his 20s (now played by Benjamin Walker) attempts to kill his mother's supernatural assassin, failing in the process, but succeeding in meeting Henry Sturgess (Dominic Cooper), a mysterious stranger who educates young Lincoln about vampires and how to kill them -- more importantly, how to wield an axe lethally against the fanged bastards. Years go by, Abe starts getting help by his friends Henry, Joshua Speed (Jimmi Simpson), Will Johnson (Anthony Mackie) and young wife Mary Todd Lincoln (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as Lincoln becomes more and more involved in politics and the eventual presidency, while fighting not only the Confederate nation, led by Stephen Douglas (Alan Tudyk) and the vampire leader Adam (Rufus Sewell).
Based on his New York Times Best-Selling novel of the same name, screenwriter/producer Seth Grahame- Smith ("Dark Shadows", best-selling novel "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies"), along with producer Tim Burton and director Timur Bekmambetov ("Wanted") play fun with history and show the motivations behind imfamous parts of American history like the slave trade and the Civil War. Bekmambetov's visual style of shooting combined with Grahame-Smith's brilliant script make the Summer action film you never imagined. Whether it's the soaring speeches delivered by Walker's Lincoln or the sprawling bullet-time battle sequences, you'll be left breathless by the end.
Jimmi Simpson, Anthony Mackie, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Rufus Sewell are all brilliant as always. When you can assemble a cast like this, you can always expect great things. But the true gems of this film are Benjamin Walker and Dominic Cooper. Cooper's Henry Sturgess is dark, spry and subtle in his urgency while aiding Lincoln to his ultimate goal. But, in the end, it's Benjamin Walker as the titular character that steals the show. It's not even the gradual transformation Walker goes through to eventually look like the iconic Lincoln, but each mannerism, facial twitch, and subtly delivered line and speech makes you think you're watching the actual Lincoln himself. Hell, even when Walker is dispatching hordes of the undead with his trusty axe, you, at one point or another, can't help but think "Wow! Lincoln is a bad-ass!"
Now, I read the actual book in preparation of seeing this movie. If you have done the same, do yourself a favor and DO NOT COMPARE THE TWO! There are so few elements from the book, it's almost like Seth Grahame-Smith spent less time adapting his book for the big screen and more time making a brand new film with the same concept. But, in the end, the author made the movie, so who cares? Because if you had read the book, you would realize how difficult it would have been to make this film to begin with if Grahame-Smith had tried to do a straight adaption.
The true beauty of "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is how serious it takes itself. Yes, the concept of the film and book were very tongue and cheek (very much like "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies"), but it's Grahame-Smith's brilliant screenplay that showed this is a film not to be reckoned with. Unlike his last film "Dark Shadows", Grahame-Smith left the goofiness and satire out in lieu of pulse-pounding suspense, beautifully crafted action sequences, and dialogue that flows smoother than most of the films I've seen this Summer thus far. And that is something you can vote for.
FINAL VERDICT: Though completely nothing like the book, "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is the history lesson we've all been waiting for. With action sequences that are visual poetry and dialogue that is not only easy on the ears, but moving and inspiring, what could have been the tongue-and-cheek fest its premise puts out is, in actuality, one of the best films of the year by far. It's honest film-making you can sink your teeth into.
Iron Man.
Batman.
Lincoln...?
That's right! Who would have thought that Abraham Lincoln was a superhero? But in "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" the liberator of the slaves becomes the secret bad-ass we always wanted a president to be, and the results couldn't be more explosive.
As a boy, young Abraham Lincoln watched as his mother die by the hands of vampire Jack Barts (Martin Csokas). Fueled by rage, Lincoln, now in his 20s (now played by Benjamin Walker) attempts to kill his mother's supernatural assassin, failing in the process, but succeeding in meeting Henry Sturgess (Dominic Cooper), a mysterious stranger who educates young Lincoln about vampires and how to kill them -- more importantly, how to wield an axe lethally against the fanged bastards. Years go by, Abe starts getting help by his friends Henry, Joshua Speed (Jimmi Simpson), Will Johnson (Anthony Mackie) and young wife Mary Todd Lincoln (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as Lincoln becomes more and more involved in politics and the eventual presidency, while fighting not only the Confederate nation, led by Stephen Douglas (Alan Tudyk) and the vampire leader Adam (Rufus Sewell).
Based on his New York Times Best-Selling novel of the same name, screenwriter/producer Seth Grahame- Smith ("Dark Shadows", best-selling novel "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies"), along with producer Tim Burton and director Timur Bekmambetov ("Wanted") play fun with history and show the motivations behind imfamous parts of American history like the slave trade and the Civil War. Bekmambetov's visual style of shooting combined with Grahame-Smith's brilliant script make the Summer action film you never imagined. Whether it's the soaring speeches delivered by Walker's Lincoln or the sprawling bullet-time battle sequences, you'll be left breathless by the end.
Jimmi Simpson, Anthony Mackie, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Rufus Sewell are all brilliant as always. When you can assemble a cast like this, you can always expect great things. But the true gems of this film are Benjamin Walker and Dominic Cooper. Cooper's Henry Sturgess is dark, spry and subtle in his urgency while aiding Lincoln to his ultimate goal. But, in the end, it's Benjamin Walker as the titular character that steals the show. It's not even the gradual transformation Walker goes through to eventually look like the iconic Lincoln, but each mannerism, facial twitch, and subtly delivered line and speech makes you think you're watching the actual Lincoln himself. Hell, even when Walker is dispatching hordes of the undead with his trusty axe, you, at one point or another, can't help but think "Wow! Lincoln is a bad-ass!"
Now, I read the actual book in preparation of seeing this movie. If you have done the same, do yourself a favor and DO NOT COMPARE THE TWO! There are so few elements from the book, it's almost like Seth Grahame-Smith spent less time adapting his book for the big screen and more time making a brand new film with the same concept. But, in the end, the author made the movie, so who cares? Because if you had read the book, you would realize how difficult it would have been to make this film to begin with if Grahame-Smith had tried to do a straight adaption.
The true beauty of "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is how serious it takes itself. Yes, the concept of the film and book were very tongue and cheek (very much like "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies"), but it's Grahame-Smith's brilliant screenplay that showed this is a film not to be reckoned with. Unlike his last film "Dark Shadows", Grahame-Smith left the goofiness and satire out in lieu of pulse-pounding suspense, beautifully crafted action sequences, and dialogue that flows smoother than most of the films I've seen this Summer thus far. And that is something you can vote for.
FINAL VERDICT: Though completely nothing like the book, "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is the history lesson we've all been waiting for. With action sequences that are visual poetry and dialogue that is not only easy on the ears, but moving and inspiring, what could have been the tongue-and-cheek fest its premise puts out is, in actuality, one of the best films of the year by far. It's honest film-making you can sink your teeth into.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Movie Review: "Rock of Ages"
DISCLAIMER: I have not seen the stage musical of the same name, so, if my review indicates a certain ignorance, it's more than likely due to that.
Every now and then, someone gets a wild AquaNet hair up their ass and decides to do something relating to 80s nostalgia. And sometimes it's so profoundly retro it hearkens back to Jim Breuer's SNL character Goat Boy bleating "Do you remember the 80s? I doooo!" In 2010, one had to look no further than "Hot Tub Time Machine" to get an 80s fix.
"Rock of Ages", based on the smash hit Broadway musical, is such a movie that will either make you yearn to remember the 80s or make you begin the long arduous process of forgetting the era again. Fairly cleverly weaving huge rock hits from such bands Bon Jovi, Def Leopard, Poison, and Boston into a familiar story of love, fame, and rock-and-roll, "Rock of Ages" is a movie that ain't nothing but a good time.
Set in 1987 Hollywood, we see three stories weave the tapestry that is this movie: young country gal Sherrie (Julianne Hough) gets off the bus with big city dreams of becoming the next rock goddess (or at least a singer in general), and, with the help of beer back Drew (Diego Boneta), gets a job at the famous/notorious Bourbon Room, where many bands have gotten their big breaks; meanwhile, the Bourbon Room owner Dennis Dupree (Alec Baldwin) and his rock junkie assistant Lonny (Russell Brand) are trying to stay afloat in the midst of rock possibly becoming a dying genre...and the smear campaign against the Bourbon Room, spear-headed by Patricia Whitmore (Catherine Zeta-Jones), wife of Senator Mike Whitmore (Bryan Cranston), both of whom are trying to clean up the streets of L.A. for the future generations; and legendary rock band Arsenal, fronted by the imfamous rock god Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise), is playing their last show before Jaxx goes solo at the advice of his manager Paul Gill (Paul Giamatti), signifying the end of the era.
You, of course, can start to guess what happens from here: Drew has to choose between fame and love, Sherrie has to find who she is, Stacee Jaxx has to come to terms with who HE is, and Dennis and Lonny have to put all their eggs in one basket to ensure their club is still a safe haven from rock against the Bible-thumpers who want nothing more to see the club burned to the ground. Of course, all to the tunes we all remember (for better or worse) from the hair band days.
Director Adam Shankman (2007's "Hairspray", "Bedtime Stories"), along with screenwriters Justin Theroux ("Iron Man 2"), Allen Loeb ("21"), and Chris D'Arienzo (the writer for the stage musical "Rock of Ages"), do not reinvent the wheel here, but make you remember why the wheel is good. While Shankman's direction lights the stages, fuels the pyrotechnics, and makes every shot count, the screenwriters do nothing more than pay homage to what some still argue as the best time for rock music with a premise that, yes, is old as time itself, but still endearing.
Of course, the performances are the key to a musical like this, and "Rock of Ages" supplies many good ones. Alec Baldwin, Russell Brand, and Paul Giamatti are, as usual, golden here (and who knew Baldwin and Giamatti could sing?). This movie will more than likely do for the careers of Diego Boneta and Julianne Hough what 2008's film adaptation of "Mamma Mia" did for Amanda Seyfried's career: give them the breakthrough they need to make it. Like Seyfried, Boneta and Hough have a lot of potential acting talent and a lot of singing talent, and should have no problem finding stardom after this (let's just hope they make better movie choices than Seyfried did, though). Catherine Zeta-Jones and Bryan Cranston are great together and great on their own in this movie. It's too bad they weren't given a lot of screen time to actually show how great they were.
The scene stealer, though, is Tom Cruise as Stacee Jaxx. It's like they put a wig on him, inked him and dressed him like Axel Rose, and told him to act like Gary Busey. It's incredible. The bizarre, surreal things that come out of Jaxx's mouth are accented by Cruise's flawless performance as the flawed rock icon. What could have easily been ruined by a far-lesser actor, the role of Jaxx is solidified by Cruise, whether he's self-medicatedly stumbling around (while still maintaining that massive rock star swagger, by the way) or amazingly belting out songs like "I Wanna Know What Love Is" or "Pour Some Sugar On Me", a song I admittedly hate, but somehow works here while in the context of displaying Jaxx's arrogant and over-the-top stage personna.
It almost seems that Shankman's adaptation of "Hairspray" five years ago has since made the Summer musical a tradition almost every year during the Summer, continuing with such movies like "Mamma Mia", "Hamlet 2" (both in 2008), and "Get Him To The Greek" (2011). Though "Rock of Ages" is more along the lines of "Mamma Mia" and 2007's "Across The Universe", where they take songs that are already in existence and try to put them into the context of the movie's plot. Where "Mamma Mia" and "Across The Universe" take far too many liberties and force a song to fit in (painfully so with "Across the Universe"), "Rock of Ages" feels a bit more organic -- probably because it takes from an era of music rather than one artist's collection of work ("Mammia Mia" with ABBA, "Across The Universe" with The Beatles). And while there are times when you wish better music would've been chosen (I can let Alec Baldwin and Russell Brand singing "I Love Rock'n'Roll" slide, but "We Built This City (On Rock and Roll)"? Really?), in the end, the movie is still the perfect blend of rock and tenderness to help you leave the theater with a smile on your face.
***PARENTAL WARNING***
Unlike "Hairspray" or "Mamma Mia", this film is NOT for young kids. This movie embodies all things rock and roll, and that includes all the sex. A lot of it. Singing strippers. Bryan Cranston dominated by a political aide. Shooting Tom Cruise through a woman's legs. Two men serenading each other to "Can't Fight This Feeling" before kissing. Consider yourself warned.
FINAL VERDICT: "Rock Of Ages" doesn't bring anything new to the table, but it certainly fills you up and allows you to leave happy. Sure, it doesn't provide Christopher Nolan-like depth (or pretend depth like "Prometheus"). But if you were looking for depth in a movie where Tom Cruise wears a crystal demon head codpiece and belts out "Wanted Dead Or Alive", you're sadly banging on the wrong jukebox.
Every now and then, someone gets a wild AquaNet hair up their ass and decides to do something relating to 80s nostalgia. And sometimes it's so profoundly retro it hearkens back to Jim Breuer's SNL character Goat Boy bleating "Do you remember the 80s? I doooo!" In 2010, one had to look no further than "Hot Tub Time Machine" to get an 80s fix.
"Rock of Ages", based on the smash hit Broadway musical, is such a movie that will either make you yearn to remember the 80s or make you begin the long arduous process of forgetting the era again. Fairly cleverly weaving huge rock hits from such bands Bon Jovi, Def Leopard, Poison, and Boston into a familiar story of love, fame, and rock-and-roll, "Rock of Ages" is a movie that ain't nothing but a good time.
Set in 1987 Hollywood, we see three stories weave the tapestry that is this movie: young country gal Sherrie (Julianne Hough) gets off the bus with big city dreams of becoming the next rock goddess (or at least a singer in general), and, with the help of beer back Drew (Diego Boneta), gets a job at the famous/notorious Bourbon Room, where many bands have gotten their big breaks; meanwhile, the Bourbon Room owner Dennis Dupree (Alec Baldwin) and his rock junkie assistant Lonny (Russell Brand) are trying to stay afloat in the midst of rock possibly becoming a dying genre...and the smear campaign against the Bourbon Room, spear-headed by Patricia Whitmore (Catherine Zeta-Jones), wife of Senator Mike Whitmore (Bryan Cranston), both of whom are trying to clean up the streets of L.A. for the future generations; and legendary rock band Arsenal, fronted by the imfamous rock god Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise), is playing their last show before Jaxx goes solo at the advice of his manager Paul Gill (Paul Giamatti), signifying the end of the era.
You, of course, can start to guess what happens from here: Drew has to choose between fame and love, Sherrie has to find who she is, Stacee Jaxx has to come to terms with who HE is, and Dennis and Lonny have to put all their eggs in one basket to ensure their club is still a safe haven from rock against the Bible-thumpers who want nothing more to see the club burned to the ground. Of course, all to the tunes we all remember (for better or worse) from the hair band days.
Director Adam Shankman (2007's "Hairspray", "Bedtime Stories"), along with screenwriters Justin Theroux ("Iron Man 2"), Allen Loeb ("21"), and Chris D'Arienzo (the writer for the stage musical "Rock of Ages"), do not reinvent the wheel here, but make you remember why the wheel is good. While Shankman's direction lights the stages, fuels the pyrotechnics, and makes every shot count, the screenwriters do nothing more than pay homage to what some still argue as the best time for rock music with a premise that, yes, is old as time itself, but still endearing.
Of course, the performances are the key to a musical like this, and "Rock of Ages" supplies many good ones. Alec Baldwin, Russell Brand, and Paul Giamatti are, as usual, golden here (and who knew Baldwin and Giamatti could sing?). This movie will more than likely do for the careers of Diego Boneta and Julianne Hough what 2008's film adaptation of "Mamma Mia" did for Amanda Seyfried's career: give them the breakthrough they need to make it. Like Seyfried, Boneta and Hough have a lot of potential acting talent and a lot of singing talent, and should have no problem finding stardom after this (let's just hope they make better movie choices than Seyfried did, though). Catherine Zeta-Jones and Bryan Cranston are great together and great on their own in this movie. It's too bad they weren't given a lot of screen time to actually show how great they were.
The scene stealer, though, is Tom Cruise as Stacee Jaxx. It's like they put a wig on him, inked him and dressed him like Axel Rose, and told him to act like Gary Busey. It's incredible. The bizarre, surreal things that come out of Jaxx's mouth are accented by Cruise's flawless performance as the flawed rock icon. What could have easily been ruined by a far-lesser actor, the role of Jaxx is solidified by Cruise, whether he's self-medicatedly stumbling around (while still maintaining that massive rock star swagger, by the way) or amazingly belting out songs like "I Wanna Know What Love Is" or "Pour Some Sugar On Me", a song I admittedly hate, but somehow works here while in the context of displaying Jaxx's arrogant and over-the-top stage personna.
It almost seems that Shankman's adaptation of "Hairspray" five years ago has since made the Summer musical a tradition almost every year during the Summer, continuing with such movies like "Mamma Mia", "Hamlet 2" (both in 2008), and "Get Him To The Greek" (2011). Though "Rock of Ages" is more along the lines of "Mamma Mia" and 2007's "Across The Universe", where they take songs that are already in existence and try to put them into the context of the movie's plot. Where "Mamma Mia" and "Across The Universe" take far too many liberties and force a song to fit in (painfully so with "Across the Universe"), "Rock of Ages" feels a bit more organic -- probably because it takes from an era of music rather than one artist's collection of work ("Mammia Mia" with ABBA, "Across The Universe" with The Beatles). And while there are times when you wish better music would've been chosen (I can let Alec Baldwin and Russell Brand singing "I Love Rock'n'Roll" slide, but "We Built This City (On Rock and Roll)"? Really?), in the end, the movie is still the perfect blend of rock and tenderness to help you leave the theater with a smile on your face.
***PARENTAL WARNING***
Unlike "Hairspray" or "Mamma Mia", this film is NOT for young kids. This movie embodies all things rock and roll, and that includes all the sex. A lot of it. Singing strippers. Bryan Cranston dominated by a political aide. Shooting Tom Cruise through a woman's legs. Two men serenading each other to "Can't Fight This Feeling" before kissing. Consider yourself warned.
FINAL VERDICT: "Rock Of Ages" doesn't bring anything new to the table, but it certainly fills you up and allows you to leave happy. Sure, it doesn't provide Christopher Nolan-like depth (or pretend depth like "Prometheus"). But if you were looking for depth in a movie where Tom Cruise wears a crystal demon head codpiece and belts out "Wanted Dead Or Alive", you're sadly banging on the wrong jukebox.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Soapbox Commentary: In Defense Of...Nickeback
Nickelback.
In the thirty years I've been on this earth, I've never known a more polarizing word, much less name. You either love them or hate them. There never seems to be any middle ground.
Now, I will say that I rather enjoy Nickelback. No, they are not my favorite group. No, they are not the best rock group to ever live. They are neither insightful nor intelligent by any stretch of the imagination, but I never thought that mainstream rock had to be. I am not ashamed to admit I enjoy listening to Nickelback's music -- I own all of their albums, and have enjoyed each of them in one way or another -- and yet, when I tell some people that I listen to them, I am looked upon and treated like I have done something strange and socially unacceptable. I am greeted with various responses, ranging from strained politeness ("Oh...that's...nice...", for example) to aggressive, insulting statements ("Well, you must not know shit about music then!").
Why? Why is this one band the subject of so much angst? Allow me to break down the arguments that I've heard in the past ten-plus years I've been listening to them.
1. "All their songs sound the same!"
This is the most common argument I've heard since their album "Silver Side Up" came out in 2001 (on 9/11, by the way). This is also one of the most ridiculous arguments. Ever.
Take any classic or contemporary rock artist. No matter how many albums you go through, more than likely the one thing linking any two of these bands is that all their songs pretty much sound alike. Don't believe me? Here's an experiment for you then. Remember that little stunt some chatboard junkie pulled where he played Nickelback's songs "How You Remind Me" and "Someday" simultaneously and they (supposedly) sounded like the same song? I dare you to try the same thing with any two AC/DC songs. Or Coldpay songs. Or Muse. Hell, Creedence Clearwater Revival! You're going to get the same result. The songs are going to sound the same.
Here's the thing. When it comes to modern rock music, you're not always going to find bands like Fleetwood Mac or Biffy Clyro who have actual variance in sound on a consistent basis. With the modern rock band, you have two different types of songs -- fast...and ballad. Each band has their own little spin on both of these types, but, essentially, it's the same with any band. The most revered rock band pretty much ever, Metallica, knows this better than anyone. Hell, they made a long-standing career from it. And, let's face it, anyone who tells you there are epic differences between "Nothing Else Matters" and "The Unforgiven" is simply full of shit.
The only difference between Nickelback and every other band right now on the market is that, while it seems to be okay for everyone else to get away with it, Nickelback is chastised and ridiculed for it.
2. "All their songs are lame-ass love songs!" or "All their songs are too filthy!"
Perhaps a bit more valid of an argument than the last, but, alas, an uneducated one nonetheless. Yes, the band garnered the majority of their popularity from the songs they play on the radio...and, admittedly, the majority of the songs they play on the radio are either ballads or, as of late, some of their dirtier songs.
Starting in 2001 with their "Silver Side Up" album, Nickelback broke into mainstream with the ballad "How You Remind Me". It's an excellent song, and pretty much the only one of their slower songs I like. What people fail to take the time to know is that they had not one, but TWO albums come out before this one: "The State" in 2000 (which is when I started listening to them) and "Curb" back in 1996 (which eventually was re-released by Roadrunner Records in 2002).
Unlike the tone of all their other albums, "Curb" is a dark album. And I'm not talking about Metallica's "Black Album" dark. I mean DARK. Take the first song off the album, entitled "Little Friend". The song is sung in the first person in the perspective of a man who kidnaps, and eventually kills, a little girl, and watches as the family frantically looks for their little girl -- from the search party to the eventual turn to mystical advice -- and the smart-ass pleasure he derives from the spectacle. Yeah. Not what I would call radio-friendly by any means.
When Nickelback was signed to Roadrunner Records, they released "The State". Unlike the only U.S. single from the album "Leader of Men" (which, by the way, gets little to no airplay), the rest of the songs from "The State" range from the pulse-pounding anthem ("Breathe") to the sullen, yet fast-paced ("Cowboy Hat", "Old Enough") to the down-right creepy ("Not Leavin' Yet", which starts off with the opening lyrics "Come right next to me Jesus Christ/Holes in hand where a cross used to fit just right"). Quite a bit more polished and friendly than "Curb", but still a ways off from the band we know now.
Modern radio listeners loved Nickelback's ballads, and so they included more and more of them on their albums, like "Photograph" from the album "All The Right Reasons", "Someday" from "The Long Road", and "Gotta Be Someone" from "Dark Horse". The problem is, as soon as Nickelback delivered, the critics turned on them.
Fellow Canadian rockers Theory of a Deadman (which Nickelback frontman Chad Kroeger discovered), though also popular for their ballads ("Santa Monica", "Hurricane") are more notoriously known for their misogynistic anthems like "Bad Girlfriend" and "The Bitch Came Back". And so, naturally, Nickelback decided to join the band wagon and started releasing similar songs of their own on the radio, like "Animals" and "Something In Your Mouth". Why? Because the demand was there, and, once again, Nickelback delivered. And, once again, they were criticized heavily for it.
As much as we love to idealize the world, the music business...is a business like any other. If something works, do it. If something works consistently, do it more. And if your record label (mainstream or independent) wants you to pump out one type of song to increase airplay, you're going to do it. Sure, you can call it selling out. But that's the way of the world. You put out one song you may not like so you make 11 other songs that you do and get paid for it? Why the hell not?
3. "They embody all that's wrong with the music industry!"
This one is my favorite. Why? Because, when I ask "How?", no one has any proof other than the previous two arguments.
And this statement is completely off basis as well. Before you think that Nickelback is only out to make a buck, think about this: in 2006, after Katrina and other natural disasters were hitting parts of the world, Nickelback donated 100% of the proceeds from the digital downloads of their single "If Everyone Cared" to Amnesty International and the International Children's Awareness Canada program. That's right. All the money earned from the sales.
Another thing to keep in mind is what Chad Kroeger has done for other developing artists. Not only did he lend a hand and get Theory of a Deadman noticed, but he also produced Default's debut album "The Fallout" in 2001, which featured radio favorite "Wasting My Time", as well as the new up-and-coming band My Darkest Days, who became an instant YouTube sensation with their over-the-top video for the song "Porn Star Dancing". Kroeger also started 604 Records, which helps many up-and-coming bands get a start on their dreams.
If that's what's wrong with the music industry, I'd love to see what's right with it.
After all of this, do you know what I think it all REALLY boils down to?
4. Nickelback...is popular
It's that simple, really.
Look, this is not the first time this kind of nonsense has occurred. Once a band becomes popular, and after the newness of the band dies down a little, it soon becomes instantly cool...to hate them.
Don't believe me? One word...Creed.
Creed blew up on the charts in 1997, and instantly became the cool band to listen to, all starting with song "My Own Prison". And then, in 1999, they became larger than life when "Higher" took to the radio waves. Once their third album "Weathered" came out in 2001, though, things were not so cool. Creed soon became a joke. Are they a Christian band? Why does the lead singer sound like Eddie Vedder? All their songs sound the same!
Wait. What was that last one?
That's right! Creed was put on the same hooks Nickelback is being placed on now!
Need more proof? Exhibit B...Limp Bizkit.
In 1998, Limp Bizkit, with the help of Jonathon Davis from Korn, became the next big thing when they reached #1 with their metal tongue-in-cheek cover of George Michael's "Faith". In 1999, Limp Bizkit made the smash hit album "Significant Other", which spawned the hit singles "Nookie", "Disconnected" and "All 2gether Now". Life couldn't have been better for the band. They became so big, Fred Durst was hired as Vice President of A&R for Interscope Records, where he signed bands Puddle of Mudd and Staind, and helped them start to achieve stardom before they, too, blew up on the charts themselves.
But then they, too, got too popular as it would seem.
By the release of 2000's "Chocolate Starfish and the Hotdog Flavored Water", Limp Bizkit was considered a joke. Specifically Fred Durst, whose antics and trash-talking became the punchline to many a critic's anecdote. By the time "Results May Vary" was released in 2003 and the little known EP "The Unquestionable Truth Volume 1" came out in 2005, Limp Bizkit was nothing more than a stain on the music industry's sheets that needed to be treated immediately, being cited as what is truly wrong with the music industry (sound familiar?).
How did Creed and Limp Bizkit handle the criticism? They broke up.
First Creed in 2002, followed by Limp Bizkit in 2005, these bands, amidst the struggles of people simply hating their music, both had inner-turmoil in the groups until they couldn't go any further and disbanded. (Ironically, both Creed and Limp Bizkit are back together recording since Nickelback is the new popular scapegoat).
Now, the music critics and fanboys have their hateful sights on Nickelback, who arguably are one of the biggest contemporary groups on the scene. The problem? Nickelback, for the most part, is handling the criticism well. They still play big venues, sell tons of albums, and are gaining more fans by the day.
Whether you like them or hate them, I don't really care. But don't hate other people for liking them just because you don't. It just makes you look stupid.
In the thirty years I've been on this earth, I've never known a more polarizing word, much less name. You either love them or hate them. There never seems to be any middle ground.
Now, I will say that I rather enjoy Nickelback. No, they are not my favorite group. No, they are not the best rock group to ever live. They are neither insightful nor intelligent by any stretch of the imagination, but I never thought that mainstream rock had to be. I am not ashamed to admit I enjoy listening to Nickelback's music -- I own all of their albums, and have enjoyed each of them in one way or another -- and yet, when I tell some people that I listen to them, I am looked upon and treated like I have done something strange and socially unacceptable. I am greeted with various responses, ranging from strained politeness ("Oh...that's...nice...", for example) to aggressive, insulting statements ("Well, you must not know shit about music then!").
Why? Why is this one band the subject of so much angst? Allow me to break down the arguments that I've heard in the past ten-plus years I've been listening to them.
1. "All their songs sound the same!"
This is the most common argument I've heard since their album "Silver Side Up" came out in 2001 (on 9/11, by the way). This is also one of the most ridiculous arguments. Ever.
Take any classic or contemporary rock artist. No matter how many albums you go through, more than likely the one thing linking any two of these bands is that all their songs pretty much sound alike. Don't believe me? Here's an experiment for you then. Remember that little stunt some chatboard junkie pulled where he played Nickelback's songs "How You Remind Me" and "Someday" simultaneously and they (supposedly) sounded like the same song? I dare you to try the same thing with any two AC/DC songs. Or Coldpay songs. Or Muse. Hell, Creedence Clearwater Revival! You're going to get the same result. The songs are going to sound the same.
Here's the thing. When it comes to modern rock music, you're not always going to find bands like Fleetwood Mac or Biffy Clyro who have actual variance in sound on a consistent basis. With the modern rock band, you have two different types of songs -- fast...and ballad. Each band has their own little spin on both of these types, but, essentially, it's the same with any band. The most revered rock band pretty much ever, Metallica, knows this better than anyone. Hell, they made a long-standing career from it. And, let's face it, anyone who tells you there are epic differences between "Nothing Else Matters" and "The Unforgiven" is simply full of shit.
The only difference between Nickelback and every other band right now on the market is that, while it seems to be okay for everyone else to get away with it, Nickelback is chastised and ridiculed for it.
2. "All their songs are lame-ass love songs!" or "All their songs are too filthy!"
Perhaps a bit more valid of an argument than the last, but, alas, an uneducated one nonetheless. Yes, the band garnered the majority of their popularity from the songs they play on the radio...and, admittedly, the majority of the songs they play on the radio are either ballads or, as of late, some of their dirtier songs.
Starting in 2001 with their "Silver Side Up" album, Nickelback broke into mainstream with the ballad "How You Remind Me". It's an excellent song, and pretty much the only one of their slower songs I like. What people fail to take the time to know is that they had not one, but TWO albums come out before this one: "The State" in 2000 (which is when I started listening to them) and "Curb" back in 1996 (which eventually was re-released by Roadrunner Records in 2002).
Unlike the tone of all their other albums, "Curb" is a dark album. And I'm not talking about Metallica's "Black Album" dark. I mean DARK. Take the first song off the album, entitled "Little Friend". The song is sung in the first person in the perspective of a man who kidnaps, and eventually kills, a little girl, and watches as the family frantically looks for their little girl -- from the search party to the eventual turn to mystical advice -- and the smart-ass pleasure he derives from the spectacle. Yeah. Not what I would call radio-friendly by any means.
When Nickelback was signed to Roadrunner Records, they released "The State". Unlike the only U.S. single from the album "Leader of Men" (which, by the way, gets little to no airplay), the rest of the songs from "The State" range from the pulse-pounding anthem ("Breathe") to the sullen, yet fast-paced ("Cowboy Hat", "Old Enough") to the down-right creepy ("Not Leavin' Yet", which starts off with the opening lyrics "Come right next to me Jesus Christ/Holes in hand where a cross used to fit just right"). Quite a bit more polished and friendly than "Curb", but still a ways off from the band we know now.
Modern radio listeners loved Nickelback's ballads, and so they included more and more of them on their albums, like "Photograph" from the album "All The Right Reasons", "Someday" from "The Long Road", and "Gotta Be Someone" from "Dark Horse". The problem is, as soon as Nickelback delivered, the critics turned on them.
Fellow Canadian rockers Theory of a Deadman (which Nickelback frontman Chad Kroeger discovered), though also popular for their ballads ("Santa Monica", "Hurricane") are more notoriously known for their misogynistic anthems like "Bad Girlfriend" and "The Bitch Came Back". And so, naturally, Nickelback decided to join the band wagon and started releasing similar songs of their own on the radio, like "Animals" and "Something In Your Mouth". Why? Because the demand was there, and, once again, Nickelback delivered. And, once again, they were criticized heavily for it.
As much as we love to idealize the world, the music business...is a business like any other. If something works, do it. If something works consistently, do it more. And if your record label (mainstream or independent) wants you to pump out one type of song to increase airplay, you're going to do it. Sure, you can call it selling out. But that's the way of the world. You put out one song you may not like so you make 11 other songs that you do and get paid for it? Why the hell not?
3. "They embody all that's wrong with the music industry!"
This one is my favorite. Why? Because, when I ask "How?", no one has any proof other than the previous two arguments.
And this statement is completely off basis as well. Before you think that Nickelback is only out to make a buck, think about this: in 2006, after Katrina and other natural disasters were hitting parts of the world, Nickelback donated 100% of the proceeds from the digital downloads of their single "If Everyone Cared" to Amnesty International and the International Children's Awareness Canada program. That's right. All the money earned from the sales.
Another thing to keep in mind is what Chad Kroeger has done for other developing artists. Not only did he lend a hand and get Theory of a Deadman noticed, but he also produced Default's debut album "The Fallout" in 2001, which featured radio favorite "Wasting My Time", as well as the new up-and-coming band My Darkest Days, who became an instant YouTube sensation with their over-the-top video for the song "Porn Star Dancing". Kroeger also started 604 Records, which helps many up-and-coming bands get a start on their dreams.
If that's what's wrong with the music industry, I'd love to see what's right with it.
After all of this, do you know what I think it all REALLY boils down to?
4. Nickelback...is popular
It's that simple, really.
Look, this is not the first time this kind of nonsense has occurred. Once a band becomes popular, and after the newness of the band dies down a little, it soon becomes instantly cool...to hate them.
Don't believe me? One word...Creed.
Creed blew up on the charts in 1997, and instantly became the cool band to listen to, all starting with song "My Own Prison". And then, in 1999, they became larger than life when "Higher" took to the radio waves. Once their third album "Weathered" came out in 2001, though, things were not so cool. Creed soon became a joke. Are they a Christian band? Why does the lead singer sound like Eddie Vedder? All their songs sound the same!
Wait. What was that last one?
That's right! Creed was put on the same hooks Nickelback is being placed on now!
Need more proof? Exhibit B...Limp Bizkit.
In 1998, Limp Bizkit, with the help of Jonathon Davis from Korn, became the next big thing when they reached #1 with their metal tongue-in-cheek cover of George Michael's "Faith". In 1999, Limp Bizkit made the smash hit album "Significant Other", which spawned the hit singles "Nookie", "Disconnected" and "All 2gether Now". Life couldn't have been better for the band. They became so big, Fred Durst was hired as Vice President of A&R for Interscope Records, where he signed bands Puddle of Mudd and Staind, and helped them start to achieve stardom before they, too, blew up on the charts themselves.
But then they, too, got too popular as it would seem.
By the release of 2000's "Chocolate Starfish and the Hotdog Flavored Water", Limp Bizkit was considered a joke. Specifically Fred Durst, whose antics and trash-talking became the punchline to many a critic's anecdote. By the time "Results May Vary" was released in 2003 and the little known EP "The Unquestionable Truth Volume 1" came out in 2005, Limp Bizkit was nothing more than a stain on the music industry's sheets that needed to be treated immediately, being cited as what is truly wrong with the music industry (sound familiar?).
How did Creed and Limp Bizkit handle the criticism? They broke up.
First Creed in 2002, followed by Limp Bizkit in 2005, these bands, amidst the struggles of people simply hating their music, both had inner-turmoil in the groups until they couldn't go any further and disbanded. (Ironically, both Creed and Limp Bizkit are back together recording since Nickelback is the new popular scapegoat).
Now, the music critics and fanboys have their hateful sights on Nickelback, who arguably are one of the biggest contemporary groups on the scene. The problem? Nickelback, for the most part, is handling the criticism well. They still play big venues, sell tons of albums, and are gaining more fans by the day.
Whether you like them or hate them, I don't really care. But don't hate other people for liking them just because you don't. It just makes you look stupid.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Movie Review: "Prometheus"
I've known for a long time (at least the last ten years or so) that I've been getting more and more cynical when it comes to Summer sci-fi (potential) blockbusters. More and more, they are becoming the same film, and I've grown weary of complaining about them, so I simply don't. Perhaps, now that I'm 30, my once-latent cynicism can no longer remain silent.
Once on the planet, the crew does not find the "Engineers" (the supposed creators of humanity), but several dead humanoid bodies and large vases of mysterious black ooze in a metallic cavernous tunnel structure. The more they investigate, the more dangerous the mission becomes.
"Prometheus", the latest (potential) sci-fi blockbuster to be released this Summer season, is an example of why movie aficionados like me are becoming less and less tolerant of movies of this ilk. What could have been a bleek, wonderful opus turned into nothing more than inevitable proof Hollywood sometimes does not fully understand the audiences it is playing to.
The year is 2089. Anthropologists (at least that's what I'm labeling them as since the film never did) Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) make the discovery of a lifetime -- the same image of a large man pointing to five celestial objects in the sky from 6 different civilizations, the earliest dating back over 35,000 years. After doing hardcore research, Shaw and Holloway, along with aging trillionaire Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), discover a solar system vastly outside of our own, which could very well have, at least at some point, sustained life. In hopes of finding out how humans were truly created, Shaw and Holloway are whisked off to the unknown planet on the spaceship Prometheus, along with a motley crew of geologists, doctors, scientists, corporate tag-along Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), an android named David (Michael Fassbender) and the flight crew, captained by the eclectic Janek (Idris Elba, "Thor").
Once on the planet, the crew does not find the "Engineers" (the supposed creators of humanity), but several dead humanoid bodies and large vases of mysterious black ooze in a metallic cavernous tunnel structure. The more they investigate, the more dangerous the mission becomes.
Director Ridley Scott ("Blade Runner", "Alien") makes his long-awaited return to sci-fi with some fairly effective results. Where the crux of the film's problems lies is with the rather horrific screenplay by Jon Spaihts ("The Darkest Hour") and Damon Lindelof ("Cowboys and Aliens").
Where many action films like this lose me is the simple fact that special effects are cool, but they can't carry the movie. This is where James Cameron's "Avatar" completely lost me. If the script doesn't compel me, it doesn't matter how beautiful the film looks. Ridley Scott is a very visual director for the most part, and the visuals in "Prometheus" are indeed fascinating. The set design alone is quite mesmerizing, let alone the graphics and cinematography. But the script is what caused everything to come unglued.
Like "Avatar", the writers, though having moments of genius, designed this for the lowest common denominator. It's not just that they clearly over-explain what's obvious to those of us paying attention, but the parts of the story that are actually compelling are never fully developed. By the end of the film, it's clear the filmmakers were less concerned about making a clever, original movie, and more concerned with trying to start a new franchise and/or tie it in to one that already exists.
Some of the performances are outstanding. Noomi Rapace has come a long way since her cold, unflinching performance in the original "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo", bringing an emotional intensity the film more than likely wouldn't have had otherwise. On the complete opposite spectrum, Michael Fassbender's portrayal as the soulless, unfeeling David brought chills to my spine. However, once again, Charlize Theron's performance is atrocious. How this woman ever earned an Oscar in her lifetime is yet another secret this film fails to uncover. Similar to her performance in June's other budding blockbuster "Snow White and the Huntsman", power-hungry and bitchy is not a difficult thing to pull off, and yet, Theron always gets cast in those roles and people swoon. I don't quite understand it, and probably never will.
I've never had a very consistent relationship with Ridley Scott. It seems like the less he tries, the better he is (and vice versa). "Blade Runner"? Great. "Kingdom of Heaven"? Awful. "Alien"? Scary as hell! "Hannibal"? What the hell?!? "Matchstick Men"? Completely underrated. "Gladiator"? Completely overrated. I always walk into a movie with an open mind, but sometimes my biases are correct.
Another thing that made this movie hard to watch was the poor 3D conversion. Perhaps not quite as bad as "Captain America: The First Avenger", but pretty bad. This normally wouldn't be something I would care about too greatly, but when we've already seen flawless 3D with "Men In Black 3" and "The Avengers", putting out a movie with this much hype and fail to use the 3D technology we have to the fullest extent is a rather horrible choice.
FINAL VERDICT: In a Summer Blockbuster Season where we've seen how brilliant sci-fi can be, even when the film is not wholly original, "Prometheus" drops the ball big time. Even with the moments of brilliance and pre-requisite scariness, the film chooses special effects rather than true depth, making it simple box office fodder instead of letting it live up to its true potential. "Prometheus" marks the first true disappointment of the Summer. Let's pray it's the last.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Movie Review: "Haywire"
Action films are often polarizing. They're either really cool...or a "Fast and the Furious" installment. Put the right director behind the film, and that often means the difference between quality and shit.
"Haywire" is an example of how an action film can be done right. What could've easily turned into another "Salt" or "Alias" became something more -- with nothing more than quality writing, cast and direction. No heavy special effects needed.
Mallory Kane (MMA fighter Gina Carano) is in serious trouble. What was to be a simple kidnapping job in Barcelona for a covert US government group has gone wrong, and now, she's on the hook for murder and several other charges she's not responsible for. In order to track down those responsible, she has to go through her handler Kenneth (Ewan McGreggor), US Government agent Coblenz (Michael Douglas), head of the Barcelona job Rodrigo (Antonio Banderas), and fellow agents Paul (Michael Fassbender) and Aaron (Channing Tatum) to find the truth. The problem is...with every answer comes two more questions, and the web of deceit keeps getting more tangled.
Cult classic director Steven Soderbergh ("Ocean's 11/12/13", "School of Rock", "The Good German", amongst MANY others) takes the reigns of "Haywire" in attempts to make one of the few truly intelligent action movies. From a script by Lem Dobbs ("The Score", "Dark City"), "Haywire" disposes of the explosions, catch phrases and muscular men from East Germany, and focuses on the story.
When you get a cast like this together, it's hard not to enjoy the top notch performances, especially from Tatum, Fassbender and McGreggor, who usually put in amazing performances in what they do anyhow. The major surprise here is MMA fighter-turned-actress Gina Carano. Perhaps not the seamless transition Quentin "Rampage" Jackson in "The A-Team", Carano manages to maintain her presence in the league of vastly bigger names. By keeping her performance low-key in the midst of high-tension situations, Carano takes the lead role by the reigns and makes her mark wonderfully.
Like many of Soderbergh's films, the key to success is subtlety. Much like last year's great "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy", the action is kept to a minimal and the score is underplayed, intensifying the dialogue and situations so that the action is more meaningful.
Keep one thing in mind: this film is NOT for the typical action fan. The main reason this film didn't succeed with audiences but did with critics is that subtlety and action don't really combine well for the typical contemporary audience. While people came expecting Milla Jovavich left empty handed, while those knowing Soderbergh's work know exactly what they were getting out of it.
FINAL VERDICT: "Haywire" proves the existence of the intelligent action film without being as visually spectacular as "Inception" nor as explosion-ridden and blood-thirsty as "The Expendables". Low-key and dialogue-heavy, yet still enough pulse-pounding action to keep your attention going, "Haywire" is a great break from the normal action film.
"Haywire" is an example of how an action film can be done right. What could've easily turned into another "Salt" or "Alias" became something more -- with nothing more than quality writing, cast and direction. No heavy special effects needed.
Mallory Kane (MMA fighter Gina Carano) is in serious trouble. What was to be a simple kidnapping job in Barcelona for a covert US government group has gone wrong, and now, she's on the hook for murder and several other charges she's not responsible for. In order to track down those responsible, she has to go through her handler Kenneth (Ewan McGreggor), US Government agent Coblenz (Michael Douglas), head of the Barcelona job Rodrigo (Antonio Banderas), and fellow agents Paul (Michael Fassbender) and Aaron (Channing Tatum) to find the truth. The problem is...with every answer comes two more questions, and the web of deceit keeps getting more tangled.
Cult classic director Steven Soderbergh ("Ocean's 11/12/13", "School of Rock", "The Good German", amongst MANY others) takes the reigns of "Haywire" in attempts to make one of the few truly intelligent action movies. From a script by Lem Dobbs ("The Score", "Dark City"), "Haywire" disposes of the explosions, catch phrases and muscular men from East Germany, and focuses on the story.
When you get a cast like this together, it's hard not to enjoy the top notch performances, especially from Tatum, Fassbender and McGreggor, who usually put in amazing performances in what they do anyhow. The major surprise here is MMA fighter-turned-actress Gina Carano. Perhaps not the seamless transition Quentin "Rampage" Jackson in "The A-Team", Carano manages to maintain her presence in the league of vastly bigger names. By keeping her performance low-key in the midst of high-tension situations, Carano takes the lead role by the reigns and makes her mark wonderfully.
Like many of Soderbergh's films, the key to success is subtlety. Much like last year's great "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy", the action is kept to a minimal and the score is underplayed, intensifying the dialogue and situations so that the action is more meaningful.
Keep one thing in mind: this film is NOT for the typical action fan. The main reason this film didn't succeed with audiences but did with critics is that subtlety and action don't really combine well for the typical contemporary audience. While people came expecting Milla Jovavich left empty handed, while those knowing Soderbergh's work know exactly what they were getting out of it.
FINAL VERDICT: "Haywire" proves the existence of the intelligent action film without being as visually spectacular as "Inception" nor as explosion-ridden and blood-thirsty as "The Expendables". Low-key and dialogue-heavy, yet still enough pulse-pounding action to keep your attention going, "Haywire" is a great break from the normal action film.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Soapbox Commentary: Video Game...or Interactive Movie?
Since it's Summer Blockbuster Season, and there are many glitzy Hollywood films to be seen and talk about, my girlfriend and I were talking about movies as usual at lunch today. Eventually, the topic fell on video game movies.
Now, I own a PlayStation 3. If you haven't attempted to play a game on the PS3 or XBox 360 in the last few years, let me tell you something...they've come a LONG way since "Pac-Man" and "Super Mario Bros."
What was once a simple side-scrolling romp through pipes and prairies, or a little yellow circle eating dots and being chased by ghosts, now is something that plays out like a 10-hour movie (or it is if you play games like I do).
Hollywood is planning some adaptations of recent video game release from the last 5 years. The problem is that so many of these planned adaptions are titles where the story is so involved and epic, it would take at least two or three movies...just to adapt one video game.
Take "God of War" for example. The first "God of War" game was released for the PlayStation 2 in March of 2005. In the game, our anti-hero protagonist Kratos, once a vigilant servant for Ares, the god of war, is tasked by the gods of Olympus to to kill Ares before he destroys Athens completely. Almost as complicated as your typical "Legend of Zelda" game, Kratos has to talk to an oracle, gain powers from several of the Greek gods, retrieve a bunch of other crap, track down the fallen titan Chronos in the desert, climb up his back, enter one labyrinth, unlock the way to Pandora's Box, find your way through ANOTHER labyrinth, get Pandora's Box, get killed by Ares, fight your way through all the levels of Hades, and finally, you take on Ares.
I mention all this because, since "God of War" has been so popular, since spawning two main sequels, two in-between games, and a prequel to be released next year, Hollywood has been wanting to make a movie out of the franchise. This would be a huge mistake, even if Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson teamed up for this one too.
Take a look at the video games they HAVE adapted for the big screen. "Super Mario Bros.", "Double Dragron", "Mortal Kombat", "Street Fighter", "Final Fantasy", "Doom" and "Tomb Raider". Let me ask you this...were any of these movies good? Not really.
"Doom" was good, but still couldn't avoid being campy at times. "Tomb Raider" was at least fun, though hardly anything to write home about, even if the sequel was pretty good (and, yes, I am being kind). "Final Fantasy" at least didn't try to make a live-action adaptation, deciding a 3D movie was a better idea. It was a better idea, but the movie also flopped so bad that it bankrupted Squaresoft, the company that released all the original "Final Fantasy" video games. The others? Well, let's just say I'm still waiting for the RiffTrax on them (assuming they don't already exist).
Do you know why there aren't any talks of a "Zelda" or "Castlevania" movie? Because the games are too involved, complicated, take too long to tell the story. If the game has save points, it's too damn complicated for a movie adaptation.
But why would you need one? Games today are amazing, often utilizing Hollywood talent to do voice acting for the games. "God of War 3" featured Rip Torn and Malcom McDowell. Mark Hamill does voice work for many video game adaptations, including "Batman: Arkham Asylum" and "Batman: Arkham City", which featured many of the voices from the "Batman" animated series from the 90s. The "cinematics" of the games now (or, for those who are not initiated in gamer speak, the in-between-the-action movies where the story unfolds) are often amazing, and should be considered movies all on their own.
Here are some other video games that have captured my attention away from the movies...
"INFAMOUS" (2009) and "INFAMOUS 2" (2011)
When courier Cole MacGrath delivers a package that nearly obliterates Empire City and finds himself in the center of the blast, he obviously should be dead. But somehow he manages to survive...and wakes up to find that he has the strange ability to manipulate lighting with his hands.
The awesome thing about these two games is that you can choose to be the city's protector, or choose to only look out for yourself -- and it affects the gameplay in a major capacity, especially when it comes to the second game, where it affects the side dialogue and story.
"UNCHARTED" (3 titles in series: "Drake's Fortune" (2007), "Among Thieves" (2009), and "Drake's Deception" (2011))
Think of it as "Indiana Jones" for the new generation. Nathan Drake is a snarky treasure hunter always looking for the next big score. Along with his old pall Sullivan (or Sully, as he's often called), Drake will find him in some very bizarre, exotic locations all throughout the world, wherever the next clue will take him to find the next "treasure trove of a lifetime". Too bad other fortune seekers are always looking for the same treasure...and always seem to be lead by someone Drake has pissed off in the past.
The movie adaptation for "Drake's Fortune" has been in the works for a long time now, but has faced a plague of problems since they started trying. No director seems to want to be a part of it, and casting leading man Nathan Drake has been a problem. Rumor has it that "Limitless" director Neil Burger has picked up the reigns as director, and that Nathan Fillion (TV's "Firefly" and "Castle") is interested to star in the film, but no concrete news has come about.
"DARKSIDERS" (2010; "Darksiders II" comes out August 2012)
The End of Days has fallen. Heaven and Hell are in a war, and humanity is in the middle of it. War, one of the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse, is charged with inciting the war and breaking the treaty between Heaven and Hell. Insisting he is innocent, War demands that he be allowed to prove his innocence. In order to do that, he must traverse a post-apocalyptic Earth to seek vengeance on those who would see him take the fall for this crime.
Think that "Legend of Zelda" is too family friendly? "Darksiders" is for you. With similar puzzle structures to "Zelda", along with stunning cinematics and animation, this game will have you begging for more. The sequel is a parallel storyline where you fight as the horseman Death. Yeah. That sounds awesome.
"SLY COOPER" (3 titles in series: "Sly Cooper and the Thievious Raccoonus" (2002), "Sly 2: Band of Thieves" (2004), and Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves" (2005); "Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time" comes out late 2012)
Sly Cooper is a raccoon who is the last remaining member of the Cooper Clan, a family band of thieves famous for stealing from other master criminals. When Sly's parents are murdered one night, Sly is left an orphan, and meets Murray (a hippo), the muscle and wheelman, and Bentley (a turtle), the tech expert. Now, as an adult, Sly has his own Cooper Gang and stealing from the greatest master criminal minds out there -- all the while avoiding Inspector Carmelita Fox, who is always hot on the gang's tale.
What seems like a cute little cartoon turns out to be quite a dark little tale about thievery and murder. But hey, it's addicting as hell. I've played the original three games all the way through several times now. It's quite an amazing series, and I'm really excited for the next chapter. It's quite cheesy and ridiculous at times, but it's addicting and hilarious.
"HEAVY RAIN" (2010)
When a little boy is taken from a park, the search is on before it's too late. The story follows Ethan (the young boy's father), Scott Shelby (a private detective), FBI Agent Norman Jayden, and Madison Paige (a photojournalist) as they all do their parts to solve the mystery before the Origami Killer takes another young life.
You don't get more interactive movie than this, folks. Everything that happens in the game pushes the story in a different direction. If one character dies, the other characters still go on, and so does the story. There are multiple endings to this game, so it's a different experience every time. Talk about value!
Now, I own a PlayStation 3. If you haven't attempted to play a game on the PS3 or XBox 360 in the last few years, let me tell you something...they've come a LONG way since "Pac-Man" and "Super Mario Bros."
What was once a simple side-scrolling romp through pipes and prairies, or a little yellow circle eating dots and being chased by ghosts, now is something that plays out like a 10-hour movie (or it is if you play games like I do).
Hollywood is planning some adaptations of recent video game release from the last 5 years. The problem is that so many of these planned adaptions are titles where the story is so involved and epic, it would take at least two or three movies...just to adapt one video game.
Take "God of War" for example. The first "God of War" game was released for the PlayStation 2 in March of 2005. In the game, our anti-hero protagonist Kratos, once a vigilant servant for Ares, the god of war, is tasked by the gods of Olympus to to kill Ares before he destroys Athens completely. Almost as complicated as your typical "Legend of Zelda" game, Kratos has to talk to an oracle, gain powers from several of the Greek gods, retrieve a bunch of other crap, track down the fallen titan Chronos in the desert, climb up his back, enter one labyrinth, unlock the way to Pandora's Box, find your way through ANOTHER labyrinth, get Pandora's Box, get killed by Ares, fight your way through all the levels of Hades, and finally, you take on Ares.
I mention all this because, since "God of War" has been so popular, since spawning two main sequels, two in-between games, and a prequel to be released next year, Hollywood has been wanting to make a movie out of the franchise. This would be a huge mistake, even if Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson teamed up for this one too.
Take a look at the video games they HAVE adapted for the big screen. "Super Mario Bros.", "Double Dragron", "Mortal Kombat", "Street Fighter", "Final Fantasy", "Doom" and "Tomb Raider". Let me ask you this...were any of these movies good? Not really.
"Doom" was good, but still couldn't avoid being campy at times. "Tomb Raider" was at least fun, though hardly anything to write home about, even if the sequel was pretty good (and, yes, I am being kind). "Final Fantasy" at least didn't try to make a live-action adaptation, deciding a 3D movie was a better idea. It was a better idea, but the movie also flopped so bad that it bankrupted Squaresoft, the company that released all the original "Final Fantasy" video games. The others? Well, let's just say I'm still waiting for the RiffTrax on them (assuming they don't already exist).
Do you know why there aren't any talks of a "Zelda" or "Castlevania" movie? Because the games are too involved, complicated, take too long to tell the story. If the game has save points, it's too damn complicated for a movie adaptation.
But why would you need one? Games today are amazing, often utilizing Hollywood talent to do voice acting for the games. "God of War 3" featured Rip Torn and Malcom McDowell. Mark Hamill does voice work for many video game adaptations, including "Batman: Arkham Asylum" and "Batman: Arkham City", which featured many of the voices from the "Batman" animated series from the 90s. The "cinematics" of the games now (or, for those who are not initiated in gamer speak, the in-between-the-action movies where the story unfolds) are often amazing, and should be considered movies all on their own.
Here are some other video games that have captured my attention away from the movies...
"INFAMOUS" (2009) and "INFAMOUS 2" (2011)
When courier Cole MacGrath delivers a package that nearly obliterates Empire City and finds himself in the center of the blast, he obviously should be dead. But somehow he manages to survive...and wakes up to find that he has the strange ability to manipulate lighting with his hands.
The awesome thing about these two games is that you can choose to be the city's protector, or choose to only look out for yourself -- and it affects the gameplay in a major capacity, especially when it comes to the second game, where it affects the side dialogue and story.
"UNCHARTED" (3 titles in series: "Drake's Fortune" (2007), "Among Thieves" (2009), and "Drake's Deception" (2011))
Think of it as "Indiana Jones" for the new generation. Nathan Drake is a snarky treasure hunter always looking for the next big score. Along with his old pall Sullivan (or Sully, as he's often called), Drake will find him in some very bizarre, exotic locations all throughout the world, wherever the next clue will take him to find the next "treasure trove of a lifetime". Too bad other fortune seekers are always looking for the same treasure...and always seem to be lead by someone Drake has pissed off in the past.
The movie adaptation for "Drake's Fortune" has been in the works for a long time now, but has faced a plague of problems since they started trying. No director seems to want to be a part of it, and casting leading man Nathan Drake has been a problem. Rumor has it that "Limitless" director Neil Burger has picked up the reigns as director, and that Nathan Fillion (TV's "Firefly" and "Castle") is interested to star in the film, but no concrete news has come about.
"DARKSIDERS" (2010; "Darksiders II" comes out August 2012)
The End of Days has fallen. Heaven and Hell are in a war, and humanity is in the middle of it. War, one of the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse, is charged with inciting the war and breaking the treaty between Heaven and Hell. Insisting he is innocent, War demands that he be allowed to prove his innocence. In order to do that, he must traverse a post-apocalyptic Earth to seek vengeance on those who would see him take the fall for this crime.
Think that "Legend of Zelda" is too family friendly? "Darksiders" is for you. With similar puzzle structures to "Zelda", along with stunning cinematics and animation, this game will have you begging for more. The sequel is a parallel storyline where you fight as the horseman Death. Yeah. That sounds awesome.
"SLY COOPER" (3 titles in series: "Sly Cooper and the Thievious Raccoonus" (2002), "Sly 2: Band of Thieves" (2004), and Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves" (2005); "Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time" comes out late 2012)
Sly Cooper is a raccoon who is the last remaining member of the Cooper Clan, a family band of thieves famous for stealing from other master criminals. When Sly's parents are murdered one night, Sly is left an orphan, and meets Murray (a hippo), the muscle and wheelman, and Bentley (a turtle), the tech expert. Now, as an adult, Sly has his own Cooper Gang and stealing from the greatest master criminal minds out there -- all the while avoiding Inspector Carmelita Fox, who is always hot on the gang's tale.
What seems like a cute little cartoon turns out to be quite a dark little tale about thievery and murder. But hey, it's addicting as hell. I've played the original three games all the way through several times now. It's quite an amazing series, and I'm really excited for the next chapter. It's quite cheesy and ridiculous at times, but it's addicting and hilarious.
"HEAVY RAIN" (2010)
When a little boy is taken from a park, the search is on before it's too late. The story follows Ethan (the young boy's father), Scott Shelby (a private detective), FBI Agent Norman Jayden, and Madison Paige (a photojournalist) as they all do their parts to solve the mystery before the Origami Killer takes another young life.
You don't get more interactive movie than this, folks. Everything that happens in the game pushes the story in a different direction. If one character dies, the other characters still go on, and so does the story. There are multiple endings to this game, so it's a different experience every time. Talk about value!
Soapbox Commentary: SUMMER BOX OFFICE BATTLE 2012 -- Batman vs The Avengers
Summer blockbuster season is usually ripe for rivalry, and 2012 is no exception. Last year, it was "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" and "Transformers: Dark of the Moon", which was fairly fun to watch, even though it was fairly one-sided.
This year it's an almost repeat of what we faced in 2008 when "Iron Man" squared off against "The Dark Knight. Indeed, this year we have "The Avengers" about to square off against "The Dark Knight Rises" for 2012 Box Office Supremacy. With "The Avengers" already grossing $552 million domestically, which beats out "The Dark Knight" from its original #3 spot on the All-Time Domestic chart (not to mention being #3 on the All-Time Worldwide chart with about $1.36 billion), it seems that "The Dark Knight Rises" may have its hands full.
Or does it?
Let's look at few different factors from each movie and see if we can figure this out.
"THE AVENGERS"
1. HYPE FACTOR: THE SUPERHERO SUPER-MOVIE.(Advantage)
In 2008, before "The Dark Knight" stunned the box office world with its impressive record-breaking run, Marvel Studios was making already doing the legwork to make "The Avengers". First we had "Iron Man", which had quite the impressive box office run itself. By the end of "Iron Man", we had our introduction to Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) from the Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement, and Logistics Division ("Just call us "S.H.I.E.L.D."), our first glimpse of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, and the idea of "The Avengers Initiative". The same year, we saw the release of "The Incredible Hulk", a sequel-reboot hybrid (re-quel?) of Ang Lee's "Hulk", now with Edward Norton as Bruce Banner. In a small scene during the credits, we see General Ross (William Hurt) talking to Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) about a "special project" he's working on.
In 2010, we saw the release of "Iron Man 2", which once again had Agent Coulson and Nick Fury intervening in Tony Stark's life, but introduced us to three big nods to "The Avengers": the introduction of Natasha Romanoff (aka The Black Widow, played by Scarlett Johansson), Captain America's shield, and, in a post-credits scene, we see Agent Coulson in New Mexico discovering Thor's hammer.
In 2011, the rest of the puzzle was complete. "Thor" was released in May, which introduced Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki, but also introduced Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) and Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) into the mix. Agent Coulson shows up again, and, in the post-credits scene, so does Nick Fury...with the Tessuract. July saw the release of "Captain America: The First Avenger". The title says it all. "The First Avenger". Steve Rogers (Chris Evans, who played Johnny Storm in both "Fantastic Four" movies for Marvel in 2005 and 2007) was introduced, as was a young Howard Stark and the Super Soldier serum which made an appearance 3 years prior in "The Incredible Hulk". In the post-credits scene, we have Nick Fury hiring Rogers to save the planet, followed by the first unofficial trailer for "The Avengers".
Marvel Studios weaved a tapestry quite brilliantly, making the road to "The Avengers" flawless. True, I don't think even the heads at Marvel would have guessed the grosses the film has made at this point (especially seeing that "Thor" and "Captain America" were originally seen as under-performers at the box office), but, in the end, you keep teasing the fanboys, and they will come in droves.
2. JOSS WHEDON (Advantage)
What's better than having the ultimate geek movie? Having the ultimate geek icon write and direct it! And Joss Whedon fits that bill perfectly!
After years of working as a writer on different film projects without much fanfare ("Toy Story", "Titan A.E.", "Alien: Resurrection"), Joss used his immense popularity from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and spin-off series "Angel" to create "Firefly", which spawned the 2005 movie "Serenity", both being HUGE cult classics in the fanboy circuit. And Whedon is no stranger to Marvel, having written for "The Astonishing X-Men" with much critical and fanboy acclaim.
Whedon loves comic books, and, putting someone who loves the source material behind the camera was the smartest thing Marvel could've done with this film.
3. RELEASE DATE (Disadvantage)
Since 2002's "Spider-Man", Marvel has, for the most part, released their big tentpole Summer movies in May. Both Iron-Man movies. "Spider-Man" 1 and 3. "Thor". You get my point.
And clearly, releasing "The Avengers" in May has been a smashing success at this point. However, we have a problem.
When "Avatar" was released in December of 2009, it got the major bucks it did by simply not having a whole lot of competition. Go ahead and think back to what movies were released then. Aside from "Sherlock Holmes", you're probably coming up with nothing. And that's my point.
With "The Avengers" opening in May, the beginning of Summer Blockbuster Season, it allows other big tentpole movies to hone in on its territory. Yes, it walked all over "Dark Shadows", and had no problem with mediocre may films "Battleship", "What To Expect When Expecting" and "The Dictator" -- movies that were never going to be huge at the box office. But then you have "Men In Black 3" and "Snow White and the Huntsman" come out, and, before "The Dark Knight Rises" is released, we'll see "Prometheus", "Madagascar 3", "Rock of Ages", "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter", Disney/Pixar's "Brave", "The Amazing Spider-Man", "Savages", and "Ice Age: Continental Drift" released. And that's not even including all the more minor films (like "Ted" and "Magic Mike") coming out in that time period too. Timing is everything, and, in the upcoming months, we'll see grosses on "The Avengers" slow significantly. Hopefully it can squeak out another $50 million domestically to a $600 million total.
"THE DARK KNIGHT RISES"
1. HYPE FACTOR: THE FINAL CHAPTER (Advantage)
If the last "Harry Potter" and "Transformers" films taught us anything, it's that the final chapters of a movie franchise are golden at the box office.
With "The Dark Knight Rises" being advertised as "the epic conclusion" of the Dark Knight series, it's safe to say people will be coming out in droves to see this -- fanboy or otherwise. With the sheer amount of advertising that Warner Bros has been doing for this movie, hyping it up as the last movie (when the hell did Sports Center become this obsessed with movies?), this title has been on the tip of everyone's tongue since the first teaser trailer was released last December with "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows".
Another thing that has many people salivating over "The Dark Knight Rises" is that this chapter almost didn't get made. After "The Dark Knight", following the death of Heath Leger and visual effects artist Conway Wickliffe, director Christopher Nolan almost did not come back for this installment. Under duress from career and emotional stress over the release, Nolan publicly said he needed time to think about whether or not he was coming back. Many assumed he was not returning when he opted to make "Inception" in 2010 instead, without remembering he made "The Prestige" in 2006, making a similar 4-year gap between "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight". But it still stands within reason that, because "The Dark Knight" was loved by so many and broke all the previous box office records (now, ironically, all owned by "The Avengers"), this film could do so again.
2. CHRISTOPHER NOLAN (Advantage)
Let's face it right now. There is no other director in the same ballpark as Christopher Nolan.
The man keeps making gold. Starting from his breakout movie "Memento" in 2001, Nolan made a name for himself very early on in his career. Coming to Warner Bros soon after with 2002's American remake of "Insomnia", which was his first film to gross $100 million worldwide, which also gained a lot of attention from critics as well as audiences. By the time "Batman Begins" left theaters, movie goers finally had a craving for Batman movies again, and wanted to see more.
Christopher Nolan, unlike his predecessors, knows exactly how to handle the Batman franchise. Tim Burton made it too dark and twisted. Joel Schumacher made it too cartoony and ridiculous. Abandoning all that was built before him, Batman had the first official reboot of a franchise, making it relevant and cool for the first time in over a decade.
3. RELEASE DATE (Advantage)
Where "The Avengers" has competition from MANY potential blockbusters this season, once "The Dark Knight Rises" is released, it virtually has no competitors for the rest of the Summer.
Indeed, the only real competition it will face isn't until November when "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2" is unleashed unto the unwitting public. That's almost a full 4 months of practically open box office.
Here's something fun to look at. Go to your local theater and look at the posters. Many are for movies that are either coming out in June...or movies coming out MUCH later. Do you know why? Because NO ONE wants to open against "The Dark Knight Rises". It's a fool's errand. Most movie execs knew this going into this year, and that's why many of the films being released in the subsequent months are the B-movies. This isn't to say many of these movies aren't going to be good. Hell, "The Bourne Supremacy" opens in August, and I'm sure it's going to rock...but I doubt it's going to make too much in the wake of "The Dark Knight Rises". Another example of a great film coming out is "Looper", starring Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Leavitt. It looks incredible, but it's distributed by an independent film company, so it's probably not going to make bank.
Like I said before, timing is everything. When you release a blockbuster before the real competition, you set the tone for the season, but ultimately you leave yourself vulnerable because nothing else has come out, but inevitably will come out. When you open up a little later on when others KNOW you're bound to steal business from them, the field is yours.
4. SUPERHERO/VILLAIN OVERLOAD? (Disadvantage)
If 1998's "Batman and Robin" truly taught us anything (other than George Clooney makes a shitty Batman and Arnold Schwarzenegger is an even shittier actor), it's that too many characters can ruin a movie. Fast.
In the original "Batman", we only had one villain -- The Joker (played by Jack Nicholson), because, let's face it, that's all you need. Then in "Batman Returns", you had The Penguin (Danny DeVito) and Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer). In Schumacher's "Batman Forever", you had The Riddler (Jim Carrey) and Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), as well as the introduction of Robin (Chris O'Donnell). In ever-so-hated final chapter in this franchise, "Batman and Robin", you had Robin come back, along with Batgirl (Alicia Silverstone), squaring off against Mr. Freeze (Schwartzenegger), Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman) and Bane (Jeep Swenson). That's right kiddies! Bane was in that too!
Nolan's films have fairly consistently had two main baddies per film. "Batman Begins" had Ra's Al-Ghoul (Liam Neeson) and Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy). Sure, it also had Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) in it as well, but he was more of a villain to Bruce Wayne than to Batman, so it can be forgiven. "The Dark Knight" had Two Face again (this time played by Aaron Eckhart), but most featured The Joker (this time played by the late Heath Leger).
And now we have "The Dark Knight Rises", which has the return of Bane (now played by Tom Hardy) and Catwoman (now played by Anne Hathaway). But we may also have a third villain. Joseph Gordon-Leavitt plays a character named John Blake, a character Warner Bros has yet to release too much information on. He appears on the surface to be working for the Gotham P.D., but that's it. One rumor flying around since the film's inception (pun is only slightly intended) is that John Blake is really Robin, where another rumor says that John Blake is Alberto Falcone, who is not only son of Carmine Falcone but also The Holiday Killer from the comic story arcs "The Long Halloween" and "Batman: Dark Victory".
Whether any of these rumors are true or not, the sheer idea of another overloaded Batman movie doesn't seem like a good idea. Though it probably wouldn't affect the opening box office at all, the backlash would cause bad word-of-mouth, which kills movies like this very quickly.
***FINAL VERDICT***
So far, "The Dark Knight Rises" has a lot to live up to. By the time it comes out, "The Avengers" will probably have $600 million (or at least something damn close to it), so playing catch up will be fairly difficult. However, seeing that the only other movie fanboys have not-so-patiently been waiting for as much as "The Avengers" (if not more) is "The Dark Knight Rises", and, with close to four months going virtually unopposed, it could very well be another Year of the Bat.
Movie Review: "Snow White and the Huntsman"
Once in a while, Hollywood decides that it wants to release two movies that are similar in plot and theme relatively close to one another...and they think this is a good idea. In 1997, we had two disaster movies revolving around volcanoes with "Dante's Peak" (with Pierce Brosnan) and "Volcano" (with Tommy Lee Jones). 1998 saw two asteroid movies with "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon". A bit more recently in 2006, we saw two magician movies with Neil Burger's "The Illusionist" and Christopher Nolan's "The Prestige" (this was one time I didn't complain because both movies, for once, were extraordinary).
This is no different. Before "Snow White and the Huntsman" came out, "Mirror Mirror" was released a little over 2 months prior. While "Mirror Mirror" left a lot to be desired (and luckily was obscured by "The Hunger Games"' second weekend), "Snow White and the Huntsman", though facing two strikes against it from the get-go, was a breath of fresh air.
Instead of trying to Disney-fy it and make it soley for the kiddies, "Snow White" goes a different route, making it close to the original Grimm tale while adding its own little twists to make it truly unique. Here, on the night of her wedding to the king, the now-Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron) murders the king in cold blood and brings her dark army into the kingdom to rule, not only with an iron fist, but to bring the kingdom into a literal dark period where it's always a bitter winter and no wildlife can be sustained. To maintain that she is "the fairest in the land", she locks the king's only daughter Snow White in the castle's tower, and tells her subjects that the girl is dead.
At least a decade goes by. The queens powers to keep her from aging are starting to wane. Obsessed with eternal beauty, Queen Ravenna literally sucks the life out of any young woman who she deems pretty enough to sustain her visage. However, once Snow White (now played by "Twilight"'s Kristen Stewart) becomes "of-age", she is deemed "more fair" (which is a bit of a stretch) and she is deemed the reason Ravenna's powers are waning due to her pure and chaste heart (...okay, I'll buy that). The "magic mirror" tells the queen that, to gain immortality, she must have Snow White's heart. When her brother Finn (Sam Spruell) retrieves her from the tower, Snow White escapes and flees the kingdom and into the Dark Forest. Desperate to have Snow White return, Ravenna hires The Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth, "The Avengers", "Thor"). Reluctantly, The Huntsman ventures to find Snow White, only to discover that things are not quite what they seem, and The Huntsman soon realizes he's in over his head as Snow White begins to realize her true destiny.
Where "Mirror Mirror" opted to use actual "little people" to play the dwarves, "Snow White" uses the same technology that "Lord of the Rings" used to make the actors appear small. Here, the dwarves are Muir (Bob Hoskins), Coll (Toby Jones, "Captain America: The First Avenger", "The Hunger Games"), Beith (Ian McShane), Quert (Johnny Harris), Duir (Eddie Marsan), Gort (Ray Winstone), Nion (Nick Frost, "Shawn of the Dead"), and Gus (Brian Gleeson).
At first it was difficult to leave by biases at the door, seeing that I've never cared for Charlize Theron's work to any great extent, and, well, "Twilight" just sucks. For the last four years, audiences have been flocking to see Kristen Stewart not act in that franchise, and it's hard for me to see her in anything else without making cracks at her expense. But, as a critic, I know I have to leave these things behind and see the movie for what it is. And this movie does not disappoint at all.
Director Rupert Sanders makes his debut here from a script written by Evan Daughtery (also his debut), John Lee Hancock ("The Blind Side"), and Hossein Amini ("Drive", 2002's "The Four Feathers"). Sanders makes an outstanding first outing, showing that he is capable behind a camera with the excellent choreographed battles and stirring images, and the script is amazing, adding more depth to the original tale, something that "Mirror Mirror" had the chance to do, but opted to be more glitzy and bubblegum instead.
The true surprise of "Snow White" is Kristen Stewart herself. Her performance here is reminiscent of pre-"Twilight" films such as "Panic Room" or "The Messengers" where she was allowed to actually give a performance rather than simply phoning it in. True, it's still a stretch calling Stewart "the fairest in the land", but she still pulls off the role beautifully, and the "rally the troops" speech she gives towards the end is quite moving indeed. Chris Hemsworth, as always, is brilliant. Like his performance in "Thor", Hemsworth adds depth and dimension to his character by simply immersing himself in it. Not once do you think about him as Thor (a feat not quite achieved with Stewart's performance, but Hemsworth also hasn't played the same character in four mediocre movies either), and he steals the show every time.
In terms of the cast, the weakest link is Charlize Theron. Playing dark and plotting isn't that difficult (ask Eva Green in "Dark Shadows". There were only two emotions Theron exuded in the entire 2+ hours of the film: creepy and intimidating. And it was always easy to tell when she wanted to be intimidating because she would scream her bloody head off every time. The problem is that she screamed too much, often to the point I'd find myself laughing because it just seemed silly after a while. Though the film shifted my opinion about Stewart, it solidified my opinion on Theron.
There were parts of "Snow White and the Huntsman" that I found to be challenging as well. During Snow White's exodus sequence, after running through back alleys, sewers, and eventually swimming in the ocean, she comes to land and finds a white horse just conveniently sitting there, waiting for her. Really? I know it's based on fairy tale, and, seeing that all the fairies and trolls and the like make an appearance at one point or another, this is an odd thing to bitch about, I know. And it's not the only thing that I had a problem with either. But, overall, the movie was quite a visual treat and one of the few movies of this ilk to actually exceed my expectations.
If you're looking for a romantic movie, this is NOT it. A bold move on the writers' part was to remove the "true love" aspect of the film, and, quite frankly, thank God. It would have made too many comparisons to "Twilight", and the filmmakers already had an uphill battle with cynical moviegoers like me who almost passed on this film because of Stewart simply being in the film to begin with. Instead, they allow the characters to become intertwined through destiny and respect. It's not about Snow White finding a prince and "happily ever after" ("Mirror Mirror", we're looking at you). It's about something much more than that.
FINAL VERDICT: "Snow White and the Huntsman" is the fairy tale all grown up. A stirring script and stunning visuals make this film well worth the price of admission, and more than worthy to be part of Univeral's 100 Year Anniversary celebration. Sure, there are moments where you might want to make a crack at "Twilight" while watching it, but don't let it ruin the movie for you. Because this film is pretty special.
This is no different. Before "Snow White and the Huntsman" came out, "Mirror Mirror" was released a little over 2 months prior. While "Mirror Mirror" left a lot to be desired (and luckily was obscured by "The Hunger Games"' second weekend), "Snow White and the Huntsman", though facing two strikes against it from the get-go, was a breath of fresh air.
Instead of trying to Disney-fy it and make it soley for the kiddies, "Snow White" goes a different route, making it close to the original Grimm tale while adding its own little twists to make it truly unique. Here, on the night of her wedding to the king, the now-Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron) murders the king in cold blood and brings her dark army into the kingdom to rule, not only with an iron fist, but to bring the kingdom into a literal dark period where it's always a bitter winter and no wildlife can be sustained. To maintain that she is "the fairest in the land", she locks the king's only daughter Snow White in the castle's tower, and tells her subjects that the girl is dead.
At least a decade goes by. The queens powers to keep her from aging are starting to wane. Obsessed with eternal beauty, Queen Ravenna literally sucks the life out of any young woman who she deems pretty enough to sustain her visage. However, once Snow White (now played by "Twilight"'s Kristen Stewart) becomes "of-age", she is deemed "more fair" (which is a bit of a stretch) and she is deemed the reason Ravenna's powers are waning due to her pure and chaste heart (...okay, I'll buy that). The "magic mirror" tells the queen that, to gain immortality, she must have Snow White's heart. When her brother Finn (Sam Spruell) retrieves her from the tower, Snow White escapes and flees the kingdom and into the Dark Forest. Desperate to have Snow White return, Ravenna hires The Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth, "The Avengers", "Thor"). Reluctantly, The Huntsman ventures to find Snow White, only to discover that things are not quite what they seem, and The Huntsman soon realizes he's in over his head as Snow White begins to realize her true destiny.
Where "Mirror Mirror" opted to use actual "little people" to play the dwarves, "Snow White" uses the same technology that "Lord of the Rings" used to make the actors appear small. Here, the dwarves are Muir (Bob Hoskins), Coll (Toby Jones, "Captain America: The First Avenger", "The Hunger Games"), Beith (Ian McShane), Quert (Johnny Harris), Duir (Eddie Marsan), Gort (Ray Winstone), Nion (Nick Frost, "Shawn of the Dead"), and Gus (Brian Gleeson).
At first it was difficult to leave by biases at the door, seeing that I've never cared for Charlize Theron's work to any great extent, and, well, "Twilight" just sucks. For the last four years, audiences have been flocking to see Kristen Stewart not act in that franchise, and it's hard for me to see her in anything else without making cracks at her expense. But, as a critic, I know I have to leave these things behind and see the movie for what it is. And this movie does not disappoint at all.
Director Rupert Sanders makes his debut here from a script written by Evan Daughtery (also his debut), John Lee Hancock ("The Blind Side"), and Hossein Amini ("Drive", 2002's "The Four Feathers"). Sanders makes an outstanding first outing, showing that he is capable behind a camera with the excellent choreographed battles and stirring images, and the script is amazing, adding more depth to the original tale, something that "Mirror Mirror" had the chance to do, but opted to be more glitzy and bubblegum instead.
The true surprise of "Snow White" is Kristen Stewart herself. Her performance here is reminiscent of pre-"Twilight" films such as "Panic Room" or "The Messengers" where she was allowed to actually give a performance rather than simply phoning it in. True, it's still a stretch calling Stewart "the fairest in the land", but she still pulls off the role beautifully, and the "rally the troops" speech she gives towards the end is quite moving indeed. Chris Hemsworth, as always, is brilliant. Like his performance in "Thor", Hemsworth adds depth and dimension to his character by simply immersing himself in it. Not once do you think about him as Thor (a feat not quite achieved with Stewart's performance, but Hemsworth also hasn't played the same character in four mediocre movies either), and he steals the show every time.
In terms of the cast, the weakest link is Charlize Theron. Playing dark and plotting isn't that difficult (ask Eva Green in "Dark Shadows". There were only two emotions Theron exuded in the entire 2+ hours of the film: creepy and intimidating. And it was always easy to tell when she wanted to be intimidating because she would scream her bloody head off every time. The problem is that she screamed too much, often to the point I'd find myself laughing because it just seemed silly after a while. Though the film shifted my opinion about Stewart, it solidified my opinion on Theron.
There were parts of "Snow White and the Huntsman" that I found to be challenging as well. During Snow White's exodus sequence, after running through back alleys, sewers, and eventually swimming in the ocean, she comes to land and finds a white horse just conveniently sitting there, waiting for her. Really? I know it's based on fairy tale, and, seeing that all the fairies and trolls and the like make an appearance at one point or another, this is an odd thing to bitch about, I know. And it's not the only thing that I had a problem with either. But, overall, the movie was quite a visual treat and one of the few movies of this ilk to actually exceed my expectations.
If you're looking for a romantic movie, this is NOT it. A bold move on the writers' part was to remove the "true love" aspect of the film, and, quite frankly, thank God. It would have made too many comparisons to "Twilight", and the filmmakers already had an uphill battle with cynical moviegoers like me who almost passed on this film because of Stewart simply being in the film to begin with. Instead, they allow the characters to become intertwined through destiny and respect. It's not about Snow White finding a prince and "happily ever after" ("Mirror Mirror", we're looking at you). It's about something much more than that.
FINAL VERDICT: "Snow White and the Huntsman" is the fairy tale all grown up. A stirring script and stunning visuals make this film well worth the price of admission, and more than worthy to be part of Univeral's 100 Year Anniversary celebration. Sure, there are moments where you might want to make a crack at "Twilight" while watching it, but don't let it ruin the movie for you. Because this film is pretty special.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)