2 GUNS (2013)

August 3, 2013

2 guns1 Greetings again from the darkness. The bar has been set with buddy flicks that mix comedy and action … Lethal Weapon and 48 Hours. The vast majority, including this one, fall short even while blatantly copying many elements from those classics. Guns blazing, rapid-fire repartee and huge explosions are requirements in this genre, as is an on screen bond between the two leads.

The good news is that instead of the original (tired) pairing of Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, we get Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg. Denzel plays the straight man role just fine, but Wahlberg is way over the top. He is in his typical strained-too loud-frenzied talking mode that just comes across as trying too hard. Instead of a truckin’ t-shirt, he should have worn one that said ‘kiss me I’m cute and funny’.

2 guns3 For some reason, most of these movies make the vital mistake of not providing a fully developed and menacing villain. Somehow the script manages to waste the great Edward James Olmos as a drug lord. He does what he can with what he’s given, but it’s frustrating to see him become the punchline of lame joke. Bill Paxton seems to be the only one who was given much to work with in the script and he chews the scenery every chance he gets. We also get a quick scene with Fred Ward and I think we would all rather have more from him here and less from the generic James Marsden. Of course, all of these movies require the presence of a female and in this case we get Paula Patton, who 2 guns2not only suffers through horrific dialogue, but also some absurd gratuitous nudity.

As you might guess from the trailer, corruption and double-crosses abound, and the Denzel/Wahlberg duo produces a few sparks, but this script based on the Boom! graphic novel just doesn’t hold up for a feature length movie. Icelandic director Baltasar Kurmakur, whose previous outing was the ultra-serious action drama Contraband (also with Wahlberg) falls victim to the weak dialogue and inconsistent villainy.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you fall for Wahlberg’s “charms” OR your preferences leans towards Tango and Cash style

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF:  a juicy villain and smart dialogue is a requirement for your enjoyment of action-comedies

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVNe3RK2fgI


PACIFIC RIM (2013)

July 15, 2013

pacific rim1 Greetings again from the darkness. Plain and simple … this is not my kind of movie. I fully understand there exists many movie-goers who are thrilled that director Guillermo del Toro‘s latest has finally hit theatres, but I really struggled with this mash-up of Transformers, Battleship and Godzilla, as well as what I believe to be a new world record for noise level. That being said, I do have some positive comments to make.

The technological aspects of the movie are exceptional. It has a unique look with some of the best CGI ever seen. There is no shortage of action, which is typically good for an action movie … but here, it seemed that one monster vs robot fight led right into the next one, and the next. The cast is very talented and represent some of the most entertaining shows on TV: “Sons of Anarchy”, “True Blood”, “Homeland”, “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” and “Justified”. The downside is many of them don’t seem overly excited to be spouting some of the worst dialogue of the year.

pacific rim4 The basic story is a war between mankind and the Kaiju – monsters from another world. World leaders work together to develop the Jaeger program … fighting robots co-piloted by two people who are drift-compatible (a kind of mind meld that let’s them fight as one). After years of struggling against the Kaiju, the world leaders decide instead to build a security wall around the main cities. Clearly they had not seen World War Z or read any of the “fence” stories from the US/Mexico border. No surprise, but the robots have to be reactivated for the climactic battle scene.

pacific rim3 Iris Elba runs the Jaeger program and commands the pilots that include Charlie Hunnam, Rinko Kikuchi, Max Martini, and Robert Kazinski. Hunnam is battling inner demons after the death of his brother (Diego Klattenhoff). For some reason, Hunnam plays his part with an overdose of bland. He seems to have been cast for his effectiveness in his shirtless scenes. Martini and Kazinski stand out here, probably because competition is so uninspired … oh and they have a dog. Ms. Kikuchi seems to be under the impression that her scenes were rehearsals as she can’t quite hash out a consistent approach (translated: she is painful to watch). The usually great Elba alternates between a mumbled whisper and a full-out yell … neither working too well. His “canceling the apocalypse” speech seems to be right out of Independence Day.

pacific rim2 The comedy relief is provided by the shared scenes of Charlie Day and del Toro favorite Ron Perlman. Day is at his screechiest and Perlman at his most flamboyant, but it’s not enough of the story to salvage much hope. Instead we get an endless number of hand-to-hand combat scenes  the Jaeger and Kaiju. And they mostly all look the same fight: waist deep in water while its dark and rainy. Unless they happen to be completely underwater, where it’s even darker.

For all the negatives tossed out here, it must be ended with the reminder that the movie is a technical marvel to look at. I much prefer del Toro in the Pan’s Labyrinth mode, and I would even prefer the old Japanese Godzilla monster-fests to this, but he has raised the bar for robotic and monster CGI. Maybe that’s enough for your eyes and ears.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you are fan of CGI and prefer your movies BIG and LOUD!

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you don’t have ear protection

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef6vQBGqLW8

 

 


THE LONE RANGER (2013)

July 6, 2013

lone ranger Greetings again from the darkness. The Western genre has always appealed to me. I love the clear division between good and bad. Heroes and Villains face-off and the good guys usually win, thereby protecting those too weak to protect themselves. TV had an impressive string of popular westerns: “The Rifleman”, “Maverick”, “The Big Valley”, “Rawhide”, “Bonanza”, and “Gunsmoke” (1955-75).

One of the most popular got it’s start on the radio in 1933: “The Lone Ranger“. When it hit TV in 1949, the great Clayton Moore donned the mask and badge, accompanied by Jay Silverheels as Tonto. Though they filmed a couple of movies, they were best known on the small screen. Then in 1981,  The Legend of the Lone Ranger was released in theatres. It was directed by William Fraker and starred Klinton Spilsbury. If you have never seen it … Mr. Fraker never directed another movie and Mr. Spilsbury never acted again. Enough said.

lone ranger2 Thirty-three years later, producer Jerry Bruckheimer, director Gore Verbinski and mega-star Johnny Depp have teamed up for a re-imagined Tonto and the Lone Ranger story. Yes, that is the proper order since this is mostly the story of Tonto, told by Tonto, with the camera focused on Tonto (Depp). There is very little respect for the roots of the story, and that’s probably because it would not be politically correct these days to have a subservient Comanche taking orders from a masked white man.

We first meet an aging Tonto as the “Noble Savage” in a 1933 Old West traveling museum. This approach reminds me of the far superior Little Big Man featuring Dustin Hoffman. Tonto proceeds to tell a young boy his version of history. We are never really sure if this is a tall tale or just a commentary on how our memory recalls events solely from our own perspective. Tonto’s character is given a full backstory, but John Reid, the square and square-jawed prosecutor who Tonto mentors into becoming the lone ranger4Lone Ranger (played by Armie Hammer) is presented as a naive buffoon. Reid’s courageous brother Dan is played by James Badge Dale, and the bad guys are played by Tom Wilkinson (Cole, the train baron), and William Fichtner (Butch Cavendish, the notorious outlaw who wiped out the Rangers).

It seems apparent that Verbinski was striving to create the next Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. The template is familiar … lots of action and wise-cracking, replete with the newest caricature in the Johnny Depp repertoire. Though Depp has many critics, I am not one. To me, he is a modern day Red Skelton, and I admire the nuances of his Captain Jack Sparrow, Wily Wonka, Mad Hatter, and of course, Edward Scissorhands. Tonto is another feather in his cap (so to speak) and his decision to base the look on Kirby Sattler’s painting “I Am Crow” adds a stark look along with fodder for comedy.  Depp performs an impressive stunt featuring a tall ladder and two trains … it plays like a tribute to the great Buster Keaton.

lone ranger3 Many film critics have been bashing the production – some even before the film’s release. In this day of information overload, we all are aware of the battle between the filmmakers and the studio. The final product does in fact wear the scars of entirely too many writers and budget mismanagement and limitations that come with the Disney brand. What should have been a perfect fit (ultimate good guy Lone Ranger) turned into a jumbled mess at times. The 2 1/2 hour movie easily could have been a full hour shorter. Maybe building two new locomotives worked great for realism, but was tough on the budget. With so few young movie-goers even aware of the Lone Ranger, creative freedom to re-imagine the character makes sense, but making him a klutzy sidekick probably doesn’t. So what we get are pre-release headlines telling us the film is a bomb. I find that unfair. It certainly appeared that most of the audience I was part of enjoyed the movie, though there were cracks about how long it was.

There are some very impressive segments within the film and having Rossini’s William Tell Overture playing over the heart-pounding climax adds a level of fun that most movies don’t have. The use of Monument Valley in Utah put me in the mood for a John Ford movie marathon.  So while I fully agree that the movie is much too long, the script should have been tightened, and more respect paid to the main character, it seems highly likely that the movie will be remembered much more fondly than film critics would have us believe … at least by those who give it a shot.

**NOTE: if you are unfamiliar with the legend, Britt Reid who became The Green Hornet, is the great nephew of John Reid (The Lone Ranger).

**NOTE: I totally missed the significance or tie-in of the blood-thirsty rabbits in this movie, though they did remind me of Monty Python’s Killer Rabbits.  If you “get” this, please explain to me.

**NOTE: Helena Bonham Carter.  ugh

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you can ignore the critics and accept this as another blockbuster summer fun flick OR you want to see the latest addition to the Johnny Depp Hall of Oddity

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you are expecting the All-American hero as seen in the long ago TV series (this is really not his story)

Below are two videos.  The first is the 27 second opening to the TV series.  The second is one of the full trailers to the new movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td4RHvyAFsM

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L5pbgKyWs4


WHITE HOUSE DOWN (2013)

June 30, 2013

WHD1 Greetings again from the darkness. Director Roland Emmerich loves destroying buildings. In Godzilla, he crushed Manhattan. The Statue of Liberty was trashed in The Day After Tomorrow. Independence Day saw The White House explode, and, as you would expect by the title, The White House gets pretty banged up again in his latest. We have come to expect summertime big, slightly dumb, action-packed popcorn movies, and this one certainly fits the bill (emphasis on dumb).

Relased just 3 months after Olympus Has Fallen, the plot is similar, but the approach is diametrically opposite. Emmerich seems to think he gets a free pass thanks to a steady stream of punchlines … spread amongst most every character. Hey, it’s a parody of action films so if you don’t like it, you must not “get it”. Unfortunately, we do get it and it’s just not that funny … the action is weak … the CGI appears shortcut … and the characters ring hollow. Through it’s numerous similarities and tips of the cap, Emmerich seems to beg us to compare it to the class of this genre … Die Hard (1988). WHD2We’ve all seen Die Hard, and sir, this is no Die Hard.

Channing Tatum takes on the lead action role, though he is working with a safety net … the buddy picture element supplied by Jamie Foxx. Unfortunately Tatum has neither the acting chops or the screen presence to pull off the lead, and Foxx’s President Sawyer is simply a poorly conceived character. Tatum’s daughter is played by Joey King, who was so good in Crazy Stupid Love.  Here she plays the role of smarter-than-adults kid and is clearly designed to be the patriotic heart of the film.

For these type of films to work, we need a nasty bad guy. James Woods is fun to watch as he chews scenery as the Secret Service Director. He holds one of the numerous personal grudges against the government and the faceless “Military WHD3Industrial Complex”. Woods’ number one guy on the assault team is Jason Clarke, who was last seen in a key role in Zero Dark Thirty (no coincidence, I’m sure). The rest of the supporting cast is pretty much wasted, including a miscast Maggie Gylenhaal, Richard Jenkins, and the always fun Michael Murphy (where has he been?).

There is nothing wrong with pure escapism, but rather than compare this to the classic 1988 Die Hard, it really has more in common with this year’s mediocre A Good Day to Die Hard. If you prefer your White House terrorist attack movies to be serious and full out action, then Olympus Has Fallen is the better call. Instead, if your preference is strained one-liners, an awkward buddy-film and hazy bad guy motivation, then White House Down might do it for you.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: three months is the maximum amount of time you can go without a new attack on the White House action flick OR you just need some pure escapism with a stream of punchlines during what should be a high-tension event

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you prefer your action flicks to focus on action and not slapstick comedy OR you are already convinced Channing Tatum is less talented than Jason Statham despite his appearance in most movies these days (admitted exaggeration)

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AXbiCdmXgw


WORLD WAR Z (2013)

June 24, 2013

wwz1 Greetings again from the darkness. Max Brooks’ hugely successful novel was put through the proverbial wringer on it’s road to the big screen. Numerous script re-writes, many scenes re-shot, a re-worked third act, an all new ending, and a 6 month delay in release date. The final product is something that fans of TV’s “The Walking Dead” will probably appreciate and many others will find it entertaining enough.

Brad Pitt gives an earnest effort as a former United Nations investigator who now enjoys his new role as house-husband. In fact, director Marc Foster (Quantum of Solace, Monster’s Ball) zaps us with the first zombie action just after Pitt serves up pancakes to his two daughters and wife Karin (Mireille Enos, “The Killing”). It turns out Pitt is more than just an expert at flapjacks. His expertise is needed in this global zombie crisis brought on by a wwz2virus …or bacteria, that started in India … or Israel … or Asia. See, those details don’t really matter because the infection has spread to every corner of the globe.

I actually enjoyed Pitt more in the “quiet” moments than in the big CGI action sequences. He is quite believable as a doting husband and father, less so as the world’s savior. Still, the issues with this movie are not on Mr. Pitt. Four writers (in addition to the novelist) rarely deliver a coherent script’ however, since it’s an apocalyptic zombie thriller, they almost get away with it! If you haven’t visited the zombie genre in a few decades, be prepared … these aren’t wwz3the sluggish zombies made famous by George Romero. Instead, these are blazingly fast and able to leap tall buildings, flying helicopters … and the great wall of Jerusalem. Yes, Jerusalem. In one of the more unusual movie features, this one plays like “Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?”. Pitt globe trots more than James Bond or Jason Bourne.

For many, the zombie sequences and global apocalyptic theme will provide sufficient cinematic entertainment. For the rest of us, it’s fine, but will forgotten as quickly as I am Legend. (06/24/13 UPDATE: the very talented and influential writer Richard Matheson passed away yesterday.  Among his work was the novel I AM LEGEND, which was the basis for the Will Smith movie that I referenced in my ending wisecrack.  I don’t blame Mr. Matheson’s fine work for that lackluster film.  His death is a great loss.)

**NOTE: Israeli newcomer Daniella Kurtesz (age 23) has an interesting screen presence and I look forward to seeing more of her work

**NOTE: Matthew Fox has a blink and you’ll miss him scene as part of the rooftop helicopter rescue team. The original third act had him playing a bigger role.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you are a fan of the Zombie craze OR you never miss a chance to see a long-haired Brad Pitt

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you are bothered more by muddled story-telling than the global threat of a rapidly spreading zombie virus.

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md6Dvxdr0AQ


MAN OF STEEL (2013)

June 19, 2013

MOS1 Greetings again from the darkness. 75 years ago, the first Superman comic book was published. It would be quite challenging to find very many kids who have not imagined themselves as Superman at some point during that time. Numerous Superman re-boots have occurred in various media: comics, TV, movies, video games, toys, etc.; and the bigger the fan, the more etched in mind what the Man of Steel should look and act like. Woe to the filmmaker who doesn’t share that fan’s vision.

Enter director Zack Snyder, writer David S Goyer, and writer/producer Christopher Nolan. This cinematic triumvirate has been responsible for such comic based movie material as The Dark Knight franchise, 300, Watchmen, and Blade. Some of the criticisms of this most recent Superman presentation include a lack of fun, the absence of humor, no love story, too much backstory, an overabundance of action and CGI, and a hero that is much too MOS2serious … and that’s a list ignoring the outcry over the redesigned suit sans red briefs! As with anything, the closer to the heart, the less amenable to change folks become. At least no one is complaining about the lack of phone booths!

This movie has quite the balance of visual effects and backstory. It’s clearly designed to be the first in a series, and because of that, we get the foundation of Superman: the rare natural born baby on the planet Krypton – a planet speeding towards destruction. Jor-El (Russell Crowe) executes his plan to save his newborn son Kal-El by rocketing him off to Earth. While that’s happening, General Zod (a raging, wide-eyed Michael Shannon) stages one of the most ill-timed coups ever … he tries to seize control of the dying planet. This opening sequence is filled with some of the biggest, loudest effects MOS3of the whole movie. It’s a jolting start that I wasn’t particularly fond of, but it’s obviously well done and with purpose.

Kal-El lands on earth and becomes known as Clark Kent, adopted son of Kansas farmers played by Diane Lane and Kevin Costner. Most of Clark’s childhood is glimpsed through flashbacks of specific events, and serves the purpose of giving us a taste, while not delaying the appearance of Superman … though that name is only heard once (maybe twice). In an attempt to hide his powers, Clark becomes a drifter. However, it’s impossible to keep your superhero powers secret when you rescue a group of oil rig workers by walking through fire and using your super strength.

MOS5 Enter “Daily Planet” super-reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams). She’s good at her job and easily figures out the big secret. But rather than contact TMZ for a giant pay day, Lois understands that this may be something the world just isn’t ready to learn. Wise lady. The relationship between Lois and Clark is rudely interrupted by the reappearance of General Zod and his right hand lady-warrior (Antje Traue). See, Zod thinks he can takeover Earth and re-establish his Krypton roots … and Superman holds the key to his plan.

If you are a Superman fan, all of this makes perfect sense. If not, I suspect this movie will not hold much interest for you. If you are a fan of the 1978 version with the late, great Christopher Reeve, I would encourage you to keep an open mind. While that version flashed frivolous whimsy, this one is darker and more philosophical … more in line with what you might expect from an alien with super powers. Still, the subtle humor abounds here if you keep your eyes open. LexCorp references appear along with little touches that can bring a smile (12th ranked Kansas Jayhawks football??).

MOS4 The acting is superb throughout. Henry Cavill was the runner-up to Daniel Craig for the James Bond role, but he immediately stakes his claim to the Man of Steel. His overall look and amazing physique leave little doubt that he is Superman, and as a bonus, he is plenty of reason for the ladies to purchase a ticket. Hans Zimmer makes no attempt to one-up John Williams’ iconic score from the 1978 film, yet he makes his mark, especially during the action sequences. Be prepared as this one is heavy on the Sci-Fi angle, and there is also an interesting Jesus comparison that can be made (he is 33 years on Earth).

Doing the right thing has always been the recurring theme for Superman and this movie version helps us understand where the moral fiber was born … the hint is in the Royals shirt Clark wears. In addition to a terrific Smallville set, we get Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, a role which will surely be expanded in the sequel. It’s very interesting to see the Snyder, Goyer, Nolan vision, and if you are still clinging to 1978, you might find yourself asking … Why so serious?

**EDITORIAL NOTE: There has been much movie talk recently about the superhero overload and the over-the-top CGI onslaught.  “Too many explosions“.  “Too many special effects“. “No focus on the story“.  “Enough with the superheroes“.   While I certainly can understand that movie preferences may run 180 degrees from The Avengers, Iron Man, and Man of Steel, my response to these voices is two-fold.  First, movies are considered an art form, but never forget that it’s also a business.  The goal of a business is to turn a profit. When you look at the financial returns of the above mentioned movies, as well as Nolan’s Dark Knight series, one might allow a bit of leeway to Hollywood studios and producers. There are only so many legal ways to earn a half billion dollars, and superhero movies are on the short list.  My second response is to encourage the haters to accept the role of these blockbuster films, while continuing to seek out the more personal and intimate independent films that gain distribution. My personal taste in movies runs the gamut from Iron Man to Mud to Toy Story to the most recent documentaries. I am in awe of the wide variances and multi-talented people involved in movie making.  So while I may avoid the latest Kate Hudson rom-com, I do understand there exists a group of people who are giddy in anticipation.  Rather than expend negative engergy towards the blockbuster explosions, know that the billion dollar box office hit keeps a multitude of artists working.  And that’s a good thing.


AFTER EARTH (2013)

June 4, 2013

after earth1 Greetings again from the darkness. If you have read many of my reviews, you are aware that if I didn’t enjoy watching it, I won’t enjoy writing about it. Also, I (foolishly?) refuse to give up hope on writer/director M Night Shyamalan. If such a creative mind (The Sixth Sense) can go so flat, what possible chance do I have? While much has been written about the influence of Scientology on this project, I can only speak to my personal reaction to the movie and story, not the possible ties to that organization.

Will Smith has proved many times that he is quite a charismatic screen presence when the material allows. However, his role here compares to telling Elvis Presley not to sing or swivel his hips. Smith plays General Cypher Raige, the most courageous Ranger from an advanced civilization living 1000 years in the future. His young son Kitai is played by Smith’s after earth3real son Jaden Smith (The Karate Kid remake). The elder Raige is a super soldier, but a lousy father. Kitai wants nothing more than to become a Ranger and prove himself to his legendary father, while redeeming himself from an earlier mishap that had him watching his big sister (Zoe Kravitz) get killed.

The movie kicks into gear after a crash that finds only two survivors … father and son Raige’s … stranded on an inhospitable Earth. Except for a few pretty lousy looking special effects (CGI), a very pissed off Earth is the best part of the movie. The worst part is a near lifeless (double meaning) father Raige tracking the younger Raige on a near impossible mission, all while confined to the wreckage with two broken legs. Somehow this advanced civilization has only invented a weapon that would be effective and cool in today’s world. It seems pretty antiquated when fighting off Ursa, the blind beast that smells fear in humans. Only those who show no fear have a shot at survival.

after earth2 And that’s pretty much what this movie is about. Man against “Nature”, and Man (boy) overcoming his own fears. The story is interesting enough and Earth is fascinating, though could have been ever better. What doesn’t work is that Jaden Smith just isn’t yet at the level to carry a movie of this level. His emotions are limited to furrowed brow and looking longingly at his dad. Even worse is watching Will Smith incapacitated and stoic in his every move.

The movie gives every indication of a pet project that Will Smith developed as a star-making outing for his son. Heck, we all wish we could do such for our kids. Unfortunately, better timing and a better fit would have upped the odds that it would pay off for the Smith family, as well as us movie-goers. So … my Shyamalan wait continues.

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you believe Will Smith can do no wrong OR you need to see it to believe it – Will Smith goes two full hours without a smile or that famous laugh

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: lousy CGI accompanied by lifeless acting aren’t worth $9 to you OR you really don’t wish to be reminded that while you never got the pony you wanted as a child, Will Smith’s kid gets to star in a $130 million movie

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZIt20emgLY


STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS (2013)

May 31, 2013

star trek1 Greetings again from the darkness. There is always a bit of uncertainty when discussing or reviewing anything Star Trek related. So many rabid fans are more knowledgeable and keyed in to all the details. I am not. While I enjoyed the Gene Rodenberry TV series, and the subsequent movie versions, obsession never hit me. Because of this, my views will vary from those Trekkies and sci-fi experts.

Director JJ Abrams re-invented the franchise in 2009 with stunning results. That “new” Enterprise crew returns here: Chris Pine as Kirk, Zachary Quinto as Spock, Karl Urban as Bones, Zoe Saldana as Uhura, John Cho as Sulu, Anton Yelchin as Chekov and Simon Pegg as Scotty. The new addition is Alice Eve as Carol, daughter of Admiral Marcus (played by RoboCop Peter Weller). Abrams is wise enough to know that this story needed a great star trek2villain so he revisits Khan and casts a spectacular Benedict Cumberbatch (the sleazy dude from Atonement).

This movie works because of the crew’s chemistry. We believe they like and respect each other … even while breaking orders. The film works even better thanks to a villain that establishes a believable threat. Cumberbatch plays a super-human force with a mixture of Shakespeare and Hannibal Lecter. He delivers lines in a way that you have no cause to doubt his intent. This is a nice contrast to the warm fuzzies coming from the crew members.

star trek3 It can’t go without mention that there is a shocking display of crystal blue eyes on display. Chris Pine, Peter Weller, Benedict Cumberbatch and Alice Eve all flash baby blues that jump off the screen in 3D. The only reason the sea blue peepers weren’t more distracting is because of what I refer to as FXOD … a special effects overdose. It seems as though each summer blockbuster feels the obligation to go bigger on the visual effects to get noticed. As often happens, the effects are just too much. Luckily, the characters and story are strong enough that it stayed on track.

If you are a casual Star Trek fan, this is one that will entertain you. If you are a Trekkie, you have no doubt already seen it twice and have blogged about all the errors. Next up: 2016 for the third entry in the Abrams franchise.

**NOTE: It’s a pleasure to see the great Leonard Nimoy make another appearance as Spock, but it’s a shame that Abrams and William Shatner haven’t been able to come to terms.

**NOTE: While gratuitous sex in movies often draws much attention, it should be noted that a gratuitous shot of Alice Eve in her skivvies seems to be the main reason her character exists.

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAEkuVgt6Aw

 


KON-TIKI (Norway, 2012)

May 8, 2013

kon-tiki1 Greetings again from the darkness. Sometimes the dramatization doesn’t quite live up to the real thing. Thor Heyerdahl was a very interesting and interested man … part scientist, part adventurer. We first see him as a fearless 7 year old. As an adult in 1947, his spirit, stubborness and lust for life led him to undertake a 101 day trip aboard a self-built balsa wood raft. Why? Well to prove his theory that Peruvians settled in Polynesia in pre-Columbian times.

The film provides us shots in time as Thor does his research, presents his findings, tries to sell the story, and finally undertakes the “suicide mission” to prove to the world (and National Geographic). On the surface, the trip makes little sense. Thor can’t swim and only one of his crew has any sailing kon-tiki2experience. It makes for a thrilling trip and one which Thor actually filmed much of … with the purpose of producing a documentary. The 1951 documentary won the Academy Award and also led to a best selling book.

This latest version, co-directed by Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg, was Norway’s nomination for Best Foreign Language film last year (Amour won the category). While the story is fascinating and Thor Heyerdahl is certainly an interesting man, the film just feels a bit lackluster.  Pal Sverre kon-tiki3Hagen plays Thor and, at times, reminds a bit of Peter O’Toole in Lawrence of Arabia.  The film does offer fantastic effects (especially at sea), but we just get teased with the true personalities of his crew. A bit more depth of character would have added an element that elevated this to elite status. Instead, it’s very watchable and will probably inspire you to track down the book or the original documentary.

 

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUnmjQJHRP4


IRON MAN 3 (2013)

May 5, 2013

iron man1 Greetings again from the darkness. My initial reaction upon seeing this opening day was that some fanboys are not going to be happy. Of course, this happens every time Hollywood makes changes to the original comic book material in hopes of attracting massive box office numbers. While I recognize many of the “flaws”, I found this to be an interesting and entertaining turn on the Tony Stark/Iron Man series.

Shane Black was brought in to direct and help write the script. Mr. Black is best known for his crackling buddy dialogue in movies like Lethal Weapon and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (also with Robert Downey Jr), but doesn’t have significant directorial experience (his most recent effort was KKBB 5 years ago). My belief has always been that what sets this franchise apart is Robert Downey Jr’s take on Tony Stark. A wiseiron man4-cracking billionaire playboy technology and mechanical genius searching for his true identity. Mr. Black re-focuses the story on Stark. In fact, he basically takes everything away and has him start over.

Regardless of the story, many line up for these movies to see the special effects and the bad guys. The special effects are everywhere … and loud … and massive. The trailer shows a clip of Stark’s Malibu mansion being destroyed, but the entire segment is quite impressive. The number of Iron Man suits seems unlimited at times and the big finale gave me the same feeling of a 4th of July fireworks display when it ends with so many clumps of fireworks being fired at once, that the impact is dulled. As for the bad guys, The Mandarin is one of the most fierce opponents faced by Iron Man in the comics. His portrayal here by Ben Kingsley is a blast to iron man2watch, but will undoubtedly upset the true fanboys. Guy Pearce plays Aldrich Killian, a demented mastermind, once snubbed by Stark – in a scene we witness in flashback.

My preference here is to focus on the fun elements since that’s clearly what Marvel and Black are shooting for. Jon Favreau directed the first two entries in the franchise and here takes on a slightly bigger acting role as head of security for the Stark corporation … and he provides some comic relief. Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) finally gets to do more than roll her eyes, but she still has her damsel in distress moments. Don Cheadle returns as Col. Rhodes … or War Machine … now re-branded as Iron Patriot, but mostly he is just waiting for his own movie. Rebecca Hall has some screen time as a smart woman who is not so wise in her choosing of partners. No comment. Ty Simpkins plays Harley, a country boy who helps Stark in his time of need. James Badge Dale, Miguel Ferrer, William Sadler, and Dale Dickey all have strong moments, but therein lies what may be the film’s biggest weakness.

iron man3 It’s an incredibly impressive film to watch … giant visuals, really good actors and quick, witty dialogue. But there seems to be an overload of each of these things. Guy Pearce’s character is woefully underdeveloped. I so wanted more of his backstory and motivation. Same with Harley, the boy. Much could have been done with that. Miguel Ferrer, always a worthy opponent, must have had his best scenes left in editing. The scene with Ben Kingsley, Don Cheadle and Robert Downey Jr, may have been the best in the movie simply because we got a real peak at each of these character’s personality. That’s way more fun that another explosion!

The film pummels us with action, probably has too much Tony Stark and too little Iron Man for the fanboys, throws in a hard-to-swallow sub-plot regarding Anxiety issues for Stark (thanks to his Avengers escapades), and underutilizes Guy Pearce in what could have been a world class evil doer. Still, despite all of that, it’s fun to watch and Robert Downey Jr will always be Iron Man!

*NOTE: the expected Stan Lee cameo occurs during the Beauty Contest scene (he plays a judge)

SEE THIS MOVIE IF: you are fan of the Iron Man franchise … it delivers what we want and what we expect

SKIP THIS MOVIE IF: you are expecting something wildly different from the first two Iron Man movies – the tweaks are minor and mostly effective

watch the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV8H7kszXqo