Early in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland comes the Lament of the Corset. What, you ask, is the Lament of the Corset? This is the scene in a period piece, from Titanic to Ever After to Pirates of the Caribbean, that reminds us how cruelly constrained women have been by patriarchal expectations, how roped in and squeezed into society’s mold.
It’s the scene where women say things like, “Of course it’s unfair! We’re women. Our choices are never easy.” Or, “If one cannot breathe, one cannot eat.” (Like it was a good thing.) Or, “You like pain? Try wearing a corset.”
After a prologue in which we briefly see six-year-old Alice’s irrelevant father comforting her after a bad dream about falling, we meet Alice at nineteen in a carriage on her way to a gala at the manor home of some chinless wonder named Hamish whose engagement to Alice is a fait accompli in every way except that Alice doesn’t know the proposal is coming.
En route, Alice’s mother is aghast to discover that for this clandestinely momentous occasion her daughter made the shocking choice not to wear a corset — or stockings. “I’m against them,” Alice (Mia Wasikowska) declares firmly. “Who’s to say what’s proper? If everyone decided that wearing a codfish on your head were proper, would you wear one? To me a corset is like a codfish.” Or something like that.
An ominous sign, you say? Reader, you don’t know how right you are. Before long, dancing with Hamish, Alice giggles. “I was just picturing all the women wearing trousers and all the men wearing dresses.” His lordship is not amused: Alice would do well to keep such fancies to herself.
Not once, but twice, the film enumerates all of the reasons Alice must marry Hamish: (1) Everyone expects her to; (2) she doesn’t want to be a burden to her mother; (3) he is a lord; and (4) she doesn’t want to wind up an old maid — like dotty, disheveled old Aunt Imogene, with her pathetic delusions of a forbidden engagement to a prince.
Who, you ask, could possibly think it a good idea to trick out Alice in Wonderland in such aggrieved feminist didacticism? The answer, apparently, is screenwriter Linda Woolverton, who contributed to the similarly schoolmarmish, politically correct Arctic Tale, and was one of a great many writers on Mulan, The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast.
Interviewed for a New York Times piece, Woolverton explained her approach to characterizing Alice: She says she “did a lot of research on Victorian mores, on how young girls were supposed to behave, and then did exactly the opposite.” Reader, I believe her.
Woolverton believes it’s important to “depict strong-willed, empowered women,” she says, “because women and girls need role models … who are empowered have an opportunity to make their own choices, difficult choices, and set out on their own road.” As a father of three daughters, I couldn’t agree more. What I don’t think my daughters need is yet another case of Squelched Girl Syndrome, à la Monsters vs. Aliens.
Alice embodies the gender feminist narrative of vibrant young girls losing their mojo as they come of age in patriarchal society. When she returns to Wonderland — or Underland, as this sequel to Carroll proposes it’s actually called — she has no memory of her first visit, and few of the Underlanders recognize her, not because she has grown but because she has diminished.
“You were much … muchier,” the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) tells her. “You’ve lost your muchness.”
How to regain a young woman’s lost muchness? Woolverton — whose sensibilities regarding Carroll’s world seem to be all looking-glass topsy-turvy, so that the worse an idea is, the better it sounds to her — says she saw Alice’s story “more in terms of an action-adventure film with a female protagonist.” Reader, I kid not. Alice is like Burton’s take on one of Disney’s Narnia films (“a C. S. Lewis Carroll Alice in Narnia,” critic David Edelstein cracks).
The film is actually a joint evisceration not only of Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, but also of “Jabberwocky,” with Alice recast as (so help me) a messianic warrior-hero in shining armor destined to claim the fabled “Vorpal Sword” on the fated “Frabjous Day,” waging war against the forces of the cruel Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) on behalf of the dulcet (if slightly Goth) White Queen (Anne Hathaway), ultimately confronting the dragon-like Jabberwocky (voiced by Christopher Lee).
Yes, the Jabberwocky, reader. You say the beastie is called the Jabberwock, not the Jabberwocky? Ah, you have read the poem. Have the filmmakers? Who can tell?
Burton’s last adaptation of a children’s book, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, had its good points, though Depp’s Willie Wonka was easily the worst thing in the film. That’s not the case here, though Depp is no better, running the gamut from irritating to insufferable with a repertoire of disjointed tics and vocal stylings. Charlie at least had the virtue of sticking close to Dahl for much of its running time. At no point does Alice threaten to do anything similar.
Computer graphics have now advanced to the point where Burton can put basically whatever he fancies on the screen, and he fills the screen with his mad visions, not without some consolation for the viewer. Perhaps the real textual basis for this Alice, since it is obviously not Carroll, is the illustrations of John Tenniel. His caricature-like portraits of the Red Queen and of Tweedledee and Tweedledum have been realized with goofy literalness, though why Helena Bonham Carter’s head has been digitally swollen to twice its size for the Red Queen, while Depp’s head, except for slightly exaggerated eyes, has been left alone, is a mystery. (Tenniel gave them both heads the size of beach balls.)
In any case, Bonham Carter’s imperious, delusional Red Queen is the best thing in the film, followed by the enjoyably animated Cheshire Cat, who’s voiced by Stephen Fry with the same sort of purring, smugly knowing quality that Keith David gave the Cat in last year’s Coraline. Crispin Glover, as the Knave of Hearts’s head on a spindly computer-generated body, is oddly reminiscent of Wormtongue in Peter Jackson’s The Two Towers. “I like largeness,” he whispers leeringly at an oversized Alice, buttonholing her like Éowyn in a corridor in the Red Queen’s castle.
(Note: Climactic spoiler warning.) The Éowyn resonances are even more pronounced in the climactic battle, with Alice triumphantly hacking off the dragon-like Jabberwock(y)’s head, like Éowyn decapitating the Fell Beast. In Tolkien, that was a prelude to the confrontation with the Witch King. Here, it’s a symbolic image of Alice confronting her anxieties about marrying Hamish. Watching Alice grasp the Vorpal Sword to decapitate the serpent, it doesn’t take a Dr. Freud to conclude that the wedding’s off.
P.S. Alice’s shifts in size seem to come with a body-image subtext. For whatever reason, her clothes don’t change size with her, so she repeatedly winds up nearly or even entirely naked, and spends much of the film in ill-fitting, rather revealing makeshift garb. Reader, who is the target audience again?
My experience of seeing the new Star Trek film was different than those at the various events over the last few days. No star-studded red carpets and no theater packed with fanboys being surprised by Leonard Nimoy. For this viewing it was just me in the Sherry Lansing Theater on the Paramount lot. This created a much more serious feeling atmosphere, but perhaps that is best as this was a serious event. This would be the first viewing of something I have been writing about for over two years and a critical component in the franchise to which I have devoted this site.
Before getting into the film itself it is appropriate to discuss some context (and personal perspective). It was only a few years ago that the Star Trek franchise was on life-support and things were not looking good for the future. The last two films were disappointments, with the 2002 outing of Nemesis being the first actual bomb of the ten film series going back to 1979. The last two TV series (Voyager and Enterprise) were mixed bags, with neither show truly living up to its full potential, culminating in the cancellation of the latter show in 2005. On top of that, licensees were dropping out and things were bleak. So I was as shocked as everyone else when in 2006 it was announced that Paramount was going with the full tent pole treatment for Trek and they were assigning it to their new A Team of JJ Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Bryan Burk, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. It was a bold and risky move and I hoped that the change in team would give Trek a much needed kick in the pants, while still keeping true to the spirit of the 40+ year saga that I loved so much.
And after seeing the finished product, in short, that is exactly what they have done. Star Trek is amazing.
Nimoy was right when he said these guys knew their Trek
A new Trek future - which honors Trek past The plot of Star Trek follows the origin story format, with the focus here being on the path Kirk and Spock take to get to the bridge of the USS Enterprise. For Trek fans, this part of the film will probably feel like it went by too quickly, but we do get to see some key moments… [MINOR SPOILERS] with Kirk’s solution to the Kobayashi Maru and a very young Spock dealing with bullies at school being highlights. [END SPOILERS] The rest of the plot focuses on the Romulan villain Nero and the threat he presents to the Federation and to some characters in particular. Nero and his thirst for vengeance combined with his powerful ship create ’save the world’ stakes that is at the heart of all the best Star Trek films.
This new Star Trek movie certainly looks like none you have seen before. It has a very modern sensibility. Director JJ Abrams frenetic style combined with almost non-stop action, make this film into what is certainly the best ’summer popcorn’ movie of the Trek franchise. He has also delivered big time on his promise to make this film ‘feel realer’ than any Trek before it, manifesting in a wide array of real locations, modern dialog and more (some of which may be a bit ‘too real’). Star Trek is also the most ‘epic’ feeling Trek film ever (including Star Trek The Motion Picture). Abrams has certainly evolved as a director since his first feature film, Mission Impossible III. While MI3 felt a bit trapped in a TV sensibility, he has has now opened up his palette to take advantage of what you can do with film (and a huge budget). Star Trek is a bit over two-hours long, but it goes by in a flash. The camera is constantly in motion (complete with frequent lens flares), the editing is rapid-fire, and the script hardly ever leaves you with a moment to catch your breath. Star Trek is a quintessential ‘thrill ride’ event movie, that should certainly appeal to that elusive wider audience that have avoided many Trek films in the past.
The big question for us fans is, even with all that feels different, is this film still a ‘Star Trek’ film? Or it just a good summer action movie called "Star Trek." One thing is for certain, this film does not ‘fit’ right between the TOS pilots "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before". However the filmmakers have been clear since the beginning that this Star Trek is not a traditional prequel and so that standard does not really apply. [MINOR SPOILER] And being that this film involves time-travel, there is a very traditional Star Trek-ian reasoning behind the apparent changes in look and character/universe continuity (which is openly discussed by the characters in the film). [END SPOILER]
In my new interview with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (in the May issue of Geek Monthly Magazine) I asked the pair what they saw as the fundamental elements of a Star Trek movie. They agreed for something to be Star Trek it firstly must have hope and optimism, and secondly, it must have a bridge crew with a sense of family with a ship as their home. Without a doubt, those two goals have been met with this Star Trek. Even though we live in the post-9/11 world, where genre TV and films and ‘dark’ have almost become synonymous, this new Star Trek exudes the kind of optimistic themes that would make Gene Roddenberry proud. From the literally ‘bright and shiny’ bridge of the new USS Enterprise, to Pike lecturing Kirk about the importance of the peacekeeping and humanitarian mission of Starfleet, to the multi-cultural (and multi-world) Federation working together - you get a vision that there is much hope in our future (and this is clearly our future, and not some galaxy, far, far, away). As for the sense of family, the relationships on display here hearken back to some of the best character moments of The Original Series, TNG and the rest of the Trek franchise. As this is an origin story, this sense of family is something that you can see evolve throughout the film, especially with the relationship between Kirk and Spock, including what could be seen as some serious sibling rivalry growing pains.
Spock and Kirk go through a lot to get to this point
Beyond thematics, there is still much here for the Star Trek continuity lover to enjoy. There are nods to past Trek both subtle (like look closely or you might miss the Tribble), to the profound, such as moments between Amanda and Spock on Vulcan discussing Kolinahr. The film also fills in many blanks, in some cases borrowing from non-canon sources (like with Uhura’s first name), and in other cases they come up with new bits of back-story (as in the origin of McCoy’s nickname ‘Bones’). In fact there are so many fun little elements in this film that at one point I realized I was focusing too closely on the details and would start missing what was going on in the movie. It is recommended that you see this film a couple of times, and make your second pass the one to focus on the continuity nuggets, new bits of canon (and of course, note the stuff for future nitpicking).
There are a few things that will be noticeably different to Trek fans. For example stardates are handled differently, with the new convention being more like modern dates to make them easier to understand for a general audience. It is certain that these kinds of details will be the source of many fan debates for years to come. However, if you think of how far a ‘true reboot’ of the franchise could stray, there is much less of this kind of thing then may have been done in less caring hands.
There are also a few contrivances in the film that may be hard for some fans to buy. The biggest thing will be the series of coincidence meetings and extremely rapid promotions to get this crew to go from junior officers and cadets to the bridge crew of Starfleet’s flagship. It is obvious that the Abrams team didn’t want to take three movies to get there (like the Star Wars prequels did to take Anakin from kid to Vader). The upside is that they get their crew into their chairs and ready to go for the sequel, but you may have to let a few eyrolling ‘that was convenient’ moments pass to get there. [MINOR SPOILER] There is also some playing fast and loose with the location of the planet Delta Vega relative to planet Vulcan that is certain to be controversial with fans. Again this was done to both create a nod to continuity as well as serve a dramatic moment in the plot. However, I look forward to debating with Bob Orci whether it meets his standards for scientific accuracy, something Trek fans do value. [END MINOR SPOILER]
Where exactly is this planet?
It’s all about character For me, I have always felt the most important things to make a Trek film are the characters, both how they are written and portrayed by the actors. I really don’t get worked up over the size of the nacelles, but if they turned Kirk into Han Solo I would be calling for the torches and the pitchforks. The good news is that on this front, the new Star Trek movie delivers. Interspersed with the cool space battles, Corvette driving and sword fights, are a series of impactful character moments that prove that Orci and Kurtzman understand and love this crew as much as we all do.
First off, the three most important characters remain Kirk, Spock and McCoy. In JJ Abrams’ Star Trek, James T. Kirk is going through a long arc and certainly does not start out as the Captain Kirk that we know. His confidence starts off as cockiness, to the extreme, but as the film progresses you see that Kirk grow into his destiny. This transformation is not easy to pull of, but Chris Pine performs it perfectly. So too does Karl Urban brilliantly inhabit Doctor McCoy. Although Urban comes closest to doing an impersonation to the original actor, it never seems like mimicry. Both Bones’ friendship with Kirk and head-butting with Spock are classic elements that feel just right. As for Zachary Quinto’s Spock, we also get a layered performance and an arc for the character. The irony here is that he starts off feeling more Vulcan and serene, but due to the events of the film, his emotional control is put to the test. Quinto nails the Vulcan side of Spock, right down to the mannerisms. However, at times when he is struggling with the emotional control, it is less effective, with perhaps too much of his Heroes Sylar character coming through. As for the performance of Leonard Nimoy, I am not worthy to judge it, but just you try and not get welled-up when you see his Spock in what are a few very key character moments, which ring true for where we see him on his arc, so many years after "Unification."
The rest of the cast fit well into their roles, and in this film each one of them gets at least one ‘moment’ that befits their character. Sulu (John Cho) gets to show off his sword-fighting chops, Uhura (Zoe Saldana) her linguistic expertise, Scotty (Simon Pegg) who is here mostly for comic-relief, still gets to take it one step beyond ‘giving it all she’s got’ in engineering and Chekov (Anton Yelchin) actually saves the day a couple times. All the actors put in good performances, with the standout for me being Zoe Saldana who shows off how Uhura is both strong and capable, as well as romantic and compassionate (with a rather surprising love interest). In this viewing Yelchin’s choice to go heavy on the ‘wery Russian’ accent was not as annoying as it was when I saw a preview last Fall, but it still was too much. However, the young actor was quite effective in this new role as a bit of an overly-enthusiastic boy genius.
The new crew works
The supporting cast is also to be commended, and in many cases you wish this film wasn’t trying to pack so much into two hours and you can learn more about them and see more of the performances. I just couldn’t get enough of the all-to-brief scenes of Spock’s upbringing, with Ben Cross as Sarek, Winona Ryder as Amanda and the excellent Jacob Kogan as young Spock. Bruce Greenwood’s Pike brings a whole new depth to the character seen in only one episode of The Original Series, and Pike should go down now as a worthy captain in Trek movie history (not named Kirk or Picard), and Faran Tahir’s all-to-brief time seen as Capt Robau goes on that list as well. Another standout was Chris Hemsworth as ‘Captain of the USS Kelvin for twelve minutes’ George Kirk who isn’t in the film for long, but will not be easily forgotten. There were also a few performances that didn’t work for me, notably the cameo of Tyler Perry had the actor/writer/producer very obviously not in his own element and feeling out of place as the head of Starfleet Academy. And veteran genre actor William Morgan Sheppard was disappointingly not very believable as the head of the Vulcan Science Council, as he played the role exactly as he played the Klingon Commandant in Star Trek VI.
One of the more interesting performances and characters in the film is the Romulan villain Nero. Alex Kurtzman once stated that their goal for Nero was to create a memorable bad guy like Khan. But Nero is nothing like Khan, nor Chang, nor Darth Vader, nor any other well-known bad guys. It is hard to know if he will be as memorable, because Nero is really the opposite all of those over-the-top antagonists. There is no larger-than-life Shakespearean proclamations from this Romulan, who is just a miner that through some back-story turns out to be really really angry and on a path of vengeance. But the way he is portrayed by Eric Bana is surprising and very interesting. For example when Nero calls over to the USS Enterprise shortly after a brutal attack, instead of the usual bombast he just says ‘Helloooo’ as if he popped by for a chat and to borrow some sugar, that is kind of refreshing. As for the rest of the Romulan crew, there really isn’t much to report. Ayel played by Clifton Collins isn’t given enough to do to really get any read, and there are a few others who bark out a few reports or get into fights, but in the end they will just be remembered as various minions of Nero.
What is perhaps lacking in this film is a full understanding of Nero and his motivation beyond revenge. There are a couple of exposition moments, but definitely not long enough for Trek fans who want to be ‘fully briefed.’ Although this will not take away from enjoying the film, especially for a general audience, Trek fans are likely to feel wanting for more details. It is for this reason that I highly recommend Trek fans read the "Star Trek Countdown" comic series (which is based on a story written by the Star Trek movie screenwriters). This is especially important if you want to fully understand how this new Star Trek film ties into all the past Trek continuity.
Countdown should be required reading for Trek fans
The new look and feel Two areas with the clearest differences from past Trek are the production design and effects. There is a lot to take in here as everything about this film is new. I am actually a fan (mostly) of look of the new USS Enterprise, but it certainly is something that works better when seen in motion, both inside and out. And with the help of ILM, this new Enterprise really gets around. It doesn’t maneuver like a Star Wars fighter, but the ’space lake’ 2-D sensibility of past Trek films is gone. When we are in space, ILM have surpassed all their previous work on Trek (and even that of their work on the Star Wars prequels). On the interiors, the bridge is also something that really works when you see (and hear) it in action. This bridge is the hub of activity that a starship should be, with the constantly moving graphics and outstanding array of sounds, both new and familiar to fans (thanks to Academy award-winner Ben Burtt). And the same is true for the bridge of the earlier era USS Kelvin, but with a much more TOS sensibility. The big letdown for the Enterprise (and the USS Kelvin) are the ‘bowels’ of the ships. The theory of making these seem more functional is sound, however the execution of using barely redressed industrial locations just didn’t work. It is one thing for these parts of the ship to seem ‘real’ and another for them to be ‘recognizable.’ It just doesn’t seem believable for a 23rd century warp-capable starship to have an engineering room full of 20th century valves, pipes and light fixtures.
However, when you go inside Nero’s Narada, you will find what is probably the most unique Star Trek alien ship ever. Without obviously resorting to CGI, the Romulan ship is made out to be gigantic and confusing (in a good way) and downright creepy. The ‘alien-ness’ of it is made even better with a whole different kind of sound and the use of unique technologies within the ship, some quite contradictory. The Romulans have very cool 3D displays that can be literally thrown around the room, but yet for some reason parts of the ship appear flooded with water. Beyond the ships, Scott Chambliss and his team do an excellent job redressing other real world locations to make them believable 23rd century locales, notably the Vulcan Science Council and an Assembly in Starfleet Academy.
The Narada sets are creepy and truly alien
Many other aspects of the production are noteworthy for raising the bar for Trek production. The make-up is best in class. There are not a lot of aliens in the film, but the few who are there are done with a very clever combination of real world make-up and CGI. It is just unfortunate that almost all of these aliens are just for show and in the background, with very little dialog coming from aliens who aren’t Vulcan, Orion or Romulan. The variety of costumes is also a delight, with the TOS era bridge designs being a big favorite. But Michael Kaplan did a fantastic job on the Romulans with their varied ’space pirate’ outfits, the TOS & TMP inspired Vulcan costumes and even the slightly future-ized real-world folks in an Iowa bar. The most disappointing uniforms for me were those of the USS Kelvin. It isn’t that they were not well designed, it was that they strangely seemed more of an homage to Next Generation designs, instead of those from "The Cage" or "Where No Man Has Gone Before" which would have been more appropriate. Also the Kelvin crew are equipped with what seem to be perfect examples of TOS era communicators and phasers. The communicator flips open and makes the same sound as TOS, but again you wonder why not match "The Cage" if you are going to go out of the way to make a link to Trek history.
The last bit of the production to discuss is the score. Michael Giacchino’s music may be the most different thing about this new Star Trek film when compared to the scores from Horner or Goldsmith, although fans of his soundtracks from Lost, The Incredibles, Ratatouille will certainly recognize his signature stylings. His main theme is beautiful and uplifting and woven throughout the film. Also his almost tribal percussive themes for the Romulan sections of the film add to their menace and creepiness. And there is also a long portion in the opening sequence for the movie where Abrams essentially hands the storytelling over to Giacchino and the score, which is very emotional and unforgettable. Overall I like the score, but as a fanboy I was really hoping that Giacchino would have incorporated more stings from some of the great moments of The Original Series or the TOS era movies. He had done this with his past scores, like for Speed Racer and Mission: Impossible: III, but it seems here that he (and Abrams) wanted this score to have its own voice.
This music from the official site is an edit of "Hella Bar Talk" from the Giacchino Score for ‘Star Trek’
A new era has begun In the end I believe that JJ Abrams and his team have done what they set out to do, which is the seemingly impossible task of creating a ‘realer’, more accessible and more action-oriented Star Trek for a new generation — while at the same time honoring the Star Trek that has come before it. This film is not ‘your father’s Star Trek‘ and it will certainly be difficult for some Trek fans to accept all of the change this film represents, but in my mind it still is Star Trek.This Star Trek is a fun (and often funny) entertaining film with a lot of emotional impact, especially for a Trek fan. This is certainly a film that every Trek fan should want to see in theaters at least once (I know that I very much look forward to multiple viewings, especially IMAX). Even if you are the most hardened canonista, it would be worth it just to see what a $150 Million Star Trek film looks like (and how else will you know what to nitpick later?)
I for one loved it, Star Trek made me feel like a kid again. Is it the best Star Trek film ever? Possibly. In some aspects, there can be no doubt. The scale, the effects, the sound, and much more are at a level never before seen in Star Trek and on par with the best films of the day. Every Star Trek film gets compared to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, which is my favorite as it is with many other fans. It will take a few more viewings to make the final call, but for me, it is certainly in that top tier of great Star Trek films.
It is truly 1982 again. We have a new team, with a new sensibility, who have come in and shook things up. And like with The Wrath of Khan, they have set up a platform to create additional films for years to come. JJ Abrams’ Star Trek is a very worthy addition to the Star Trek family, just when it needed one, and I eagerly look forward to what comes next.
I shouldn’t like this film as much as I do, in fact I felt quite embarrassed that I did when I walked out of it. Similarly, I felt the same about Mark Waters’ Mean Girls in 2004. Yes I ventured into that only because I had a hard-on for Lacey Chabert, but I was treated to an actual good satire of high school. No one will mistake Waters for Kurosawa mind you, but the guy has some magical touch when it comes to making what should be fluff likable. Yes folks, I’m here to say that despite the trailers, TV spots and promotion, a Matthew McConaughey romantic comedy is an actual, honest good film.
I feel like JoBlo for posting this image
It feels weird giving this such good praise, but unlike a recent action vehicle, everyone here seems to be wanting to make a good film. Michael Douglas is at the top of that list as he puts a fresh spin on an old trick. His Uncle Wayne is every macho playboy you’ve seen done time and again yet Douglas has this charm that makes it feel new. With the way he gallivants around, it’s pretty easy to see why Catherine Zeta-Jones wanted the old hoot. He’s helped by a script that’s surprisingly pretty smart, but I think all credit for how much of this works again should go to Mark Waters. The film clocks in at close to 100 minutes yet it breezes by. There are times the film feels like it’s going to drag on and instead feeds us what we need and moves on. Some of the subplots feel tacked on like Connor Mead’s (McConaughey) brother sleeping with one of Lacey Chabert’s bridesmaids* but it never hurts the film. In fact, until now I barely considered it a flaw.
What’s even more amazing is how invested in the characters the film lets you become. The ending is predictable, no question, yet one feels for Connor and Jenny Perotti (Jennifer Garner) as we see how they came to be and how badly their relationship ended up. This isn’t “guy A likes girl A and connect the dots” like other romcom’s, at least it doesn’t feel like it. The film doesn’t paint one as the hero or villain which is a nice change of pace. Seldom we’re given a love story were the leads are marketed to hate the other with no real reason and that these two people would never get along. This isn’t it, as Waters and company feel we deserve to know why Connor Mead is a womanizer and why he treats Jenny with such disrespect. His actions in some ways feel justified when you see Jenny turn her attentions away from him in favor of another guy at a junior high dance. You have to give them credit for not treating their audience like idiots.
Connor Mead would be useless if McConaughey was horrid and while he doesn’t break new ground he does a fine job. We expect him to be the epitome of assholeism in the beginning but what’s even sweeter is when he handles Connor’s change. Maybe it was the writing, maybe it was the direction, but McConaughey feels like a man who’s had an experience of change and not some schmo who feels he had to for the sake of it. On the flip side Jennifer Garner is serviceable and plays her more as a reserved woman rather than an outlandish, bubbly type. The only real problem isn’t her fault but of the film telling everything mostly through Connor’s point of view. Certainly we don’t really need it and yes it does cut down on the run time but maybe a scene or two more of Jenny would have helped.
Michael Douglas does steal the thunder away from the leads and all of the supporting players, but I want to give special mention to Emma Stone who plays the title character. Allison Vandermeersh is a role that easily could have ended up being annoying and useless yet she comes off like you’d expect a seventeen year-old girl to act. I almost wished she’d been the past, present, and future ghosts so more of her performance could have been enjoyed. With Superbad and this now under her belt I hope the gal can find some leading roles as she’s a really great talent. The only problem the supporting cast has is Noureen DeWulf who really doesn’t do much with being the Ghosts of Girlfriends Present. Maybe in some other film it would have been fine but everyone around her steps up her game so you’d expect the same level of commitment from her.
I’m sure most men will be dragged to this with their wives or girlfriends and I’m here to tell you it’s okay to like it. There are flaws but most are what we expect of romcoms and aren’t worth mentioning. Me? I’m still in amazement I just spent the last few paragraphs praising a film I should have not liked and is really not tuned for my action-guru tastes. Unlike the film it opens against I find myself liking it a bit more with each thought I have of it. Normally when a romcom opens against the action blockbuster, I consider those who see the date movie lacking their male genitalia and pussies. This year, it’s the opposite as both male and female alike should give their money to this.
Angels & Demons is like watching Juno. Like that overrated mess from 2007, Ron Howard’s latest film wants to be more than it really is. No one told it that at the end of the day it’s just Indiana Jones with some Bourne sprinkled in. The script tries to mask it’s many shortcomings in religious mumbo-jumbo to make us forget we’re watching an otherwise boring, meandering, and bland film. It’s not poorly made, nor is it the worst film of the year. It speeds down Mario Raceway only to miss that last power-up that would elevate it to second place.
Maybe it’s Tom Hanks’ very unengaged portrayal of Robert Langdon. That’s really depressing because it isn’t like Hanks isn’t at the top of his game, he just doesn’t give life to Robert Langdon. Where a flimsy story can be forgiven if the lead is charismatic and takes the film on his shoulders (i.e. - Iron Man), Hanks believes Langdon to be as boring as the audience does. He seems afraid to give any sort of wit, charm, or just plain fun to the character. Lines such as "Fellas…you called me," are delivered like they’re being read off a cue card. It’s not totally Hanks’ fault, the filmmakers give us no reason to be emotionally invested Langdon. By contrast, Ewan McGregor is probably the best thing about the movie. He does a great job with what he’s given and handles Patrick McKenna as a passionate individual. He has a certain charm to him that Hanks lacks to the point you almost root for McKenna over Langdon. The other supporters seem to follow Hanks’ lead and are just as bland as he is. Stellan Skarsgaard is playing the cliché angry super agent who’s only purpose is getting in the way of the hero. Ayelet Zurer seems confused as Vittoria as she can’t decide if she wants to be smart, then cute or cute, then smart.
None of the actors should really be blamed as the script gives them almost nothing to do but stand around like helpless idiots. Written by Akiva Goldsman and David Koepp (please, try to hold in all excitement), this screenplay seems to follow the National Treasure structure. An action scene happens, explanation about the Catholic Church, more action, more explaining and you get the picture. If it’s not over-explaining every detail about Catholicism, it’s giving the characters silly things to do that serve no purpose. It also should be noted that while the Vatican has made vast improvements in technology, and the film is based around the Large Hardon Collider yet no one has heard of GPS. Many times Langdon announces "We have to go that way," which one character asks "How do we get there?". No one thinks to whip out their Sony Ericsson phones and try to find the location, but rather pretend to be a married couple to find the next location. Goldsman and Koepp’s main fault is thinking they’ve given us "smart entertainment". This movie wants to be intellegent, thinks it is and isn’t. It also has the same misconceptions about being entertaining. The movie is really just laughable when you give it thought, which is probably why Goldsman and Koepp drown you in religious babble. Lines are spewed out that serve no purpose to the story and some even evoke unintentional laughter. "It’s a pentagram," proclaims Langdon after uncovering the symbol on the floor. This would work, assuming we hadn’t seen the symbol around fifteen times beforehand.
Ron Howard is very hit and miss with me, but he does a formidable job here making Rome come to life. If the film were to be judged on it’s photography alone I’d consider it one of the best of the year. It’s well documented how the Vatican wouldn’t let them shoot on their grounds but what Howard and company did is convincing enough to folks who’ve never been there. The movie certainly has scope, but like the writers, Howard does things unintentionally hilarious. Much has been made of the helicopter scene and it’s still in tact, with maybe a touch of modifications. It was at this point I thought the film wanted to be a Looney Tunes cartoon so I burst into a nice stream of laughter. This scene happened to be one of the times the uneven CGI reared it’s ugly head onto the screen. Other times, when the CGI is giving us a sweeping shot of Vatican City and flooding the streets with people it’s flawless. When it comes ot the helicopter scene and a couple of other sequences, you’re better off watching "Hillbilly Hare".
For all of this though, I did take away something from some of the intriguing ideas. If I get a little preachy here I apologize but the film ironically shares a belief I’ve pondered when it comes to church and science. The movie suggests that church and science are one and the same, but share different ideas when it comes down to where things came from. It’s highly probable that stuff like The Big Bang Theory could be orchestrated by God or whichever Deity one believes in. The problem is neither the science nor church want to admit that one might be right especially when Christians go by the book (personally, the Bible has stories that are about bettering ourselves) or that science needs fact for God to exist. Both sides should probably give a little more, and take a little less.
And that would be a great topic for discussion if the film were more than what it is. It wants to be, but no one tries to make it anything memorable other than a reason for the Catholic Church to be angered. I never saw or cared to see The Da Vinci Code but was willing to give this a shot because the trailer intrigued me. While Angels & Demons well made and not terrible, it’s also bland, laughable and boring. It has some nice ideas, but never capitalizes on the chance to use them. At the end of the day, you have to wonder what would happen if Robert Langdon wasn’t in the story.
James Bond is back, and this time it’s mighty personal. Daniel Craig’s craggy agent picks up exactly where he left off in another bruising thriller that leaves you feeling both drained and exhilarated.
There are hand-to-hand fights that make your eyes water and old-school stunts involving motorbikes, speedboats, jet fighters and expensive cars that give you whiplash just looking at them. Really, nobody does it better than the new 007. Background
What makes Marc Forster’s film such an intriguing watch is that this is the first of the 22 Bond movies where the plot flows organically from the last instalment, and Quantum of Solace looks a far stronger picture for this rare continuity.
Needless to say the plot is as forbidding as the title. After the death of his girlfriend, Vesper Lynd, at the end of Casino Royale, Bond mixes revenge and duty dangerously as he hunts down the shadowy group that blackmailed Lynd to betray him.
A link to a bank account in Haiti puts Bond on the scent of Mathieu Amalric’s chief creep and ruthless businessman, Dominic Greene. All great Bond adversaries are generously blessed with kinks and quirks and Greene is no different. Amalric has a wonderfully wormy arrogance.
His sidekick, Elvis (Anatole Taubman), sports a monkish fringe, and Tarantino bad looks. But it’s the manner in which Amalric manages to poison all trust in Bond, even from his nearest and dearest, that makes him one of the classic arch-adversaries.
Cold rage threatens to derail Bond’s mission to crack Greene’s dastardly organisation known as Quantum, and I doubt that there’s a better actor at bottling rage than Daniel Craig.
All muscles, he has defined himself as a darker and more bare-knuckle Bond than any of his elegant predecessors.
The deadpan humour is still there. And despite the occasional blasts of visceral and grisly violence, Craig is threatening to become the most popular 007 yet, certainly with the younger generation.
Even the famous Bond babes seem to be getting tougher. Olga Kurylenko’s stunning, hard-as-nails beauty, Camille, has her own private vendetta that she wants to bring to a bloody conclusion, with or without Bond’s help. And Gemma Arterton’s effortlessly foxy Agent Field appeals to the better side of the wounded anti-romantic.
“Do you know how angry I am at myself,” says the naked, raven-haired M16 agent as Bond kisses his way up her spine. But Bond rarely lets a life-threatening difference of opinion get in the way of a decent flirt.
The familiar faces returning from Casino Royale pose a far more subtle, acidic test for Bond who has to tread carefully around treacherous old friends: Jeffrey Wright’s lugubrious CIA agent Felix Leiter; Giancarlo Giannini’s silky string-puller, René Mathis; Jesper Christensen’s duplicitous Mr White; and Judi Dench, of course, as his witheringly unimpressed boss, M.
“When you can’t tell your friends from your enemies it’s time to go,” growls Dench.
Of course, Bond is having none of it. There are new necks to break and toys to play with as the action rips across Austria, Italy, and South America.
The global stakes are as precarious as ever. Amalric’s masterplan to destabilise a South American regime, install a dodgy dictator, General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio), and take control of the biggest source of fresh water in the world is fabulously cock-eyed. But that’s one of the main reasons why we can’t get enough of the greatest franchise of them all.
The director, Marc Forster, has absorbed the lucrative lessons discovered in Martin Campbell’s Casino Royale. He has also managed to pace his sequel much better. Royale felt slightly wheel-clamped by one too many longeurs. If anything, the crunching chase sequences in Quantum of Solace are even more magnificently dangerous. And the daredevil leaps and tumbles through glass roofs are just as sensational as the splintering high-speed pyrotechnics.
But it’s the amount of heartache and punishment that Craig’s new Bond absorbs that makes him look so right for our times.
Wall-E(Disney) pushes the purist aesthetic of Pixar animation to the borders of the avant-garde. It's a largely dialogue-free story set on a planet Earth nearly devoid of organic life, and its view of humanity's future is about as dark as dystopias get. Yet Wall-E is an improbable delight, a G-rated crowd-pleaser that seems poised to pack theaters as efficiently as the titular robot crams his chest cavity with rubble.
Wall-E (whose clicks and beeps were created by sound designer Ben Burtt) is a Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class, the last functioning robot left on a planet abandoned by humans 700 years ago. He spends his days scooting around the ruins of a devastated city, compacting cubes of trash in his boxy middle and stacking them into piles as high as skyscrapers. His only companion is a mute and nameless cockroach who lives with him in a bunker filled with treasures that Wall-E culls over the course of long, garbage-gathering days: a rusted spork, a light bulb, and a videocassette of Hello, Dolly! that he watches, rapt, each night.
The opening scenes establish Wall-E and the roach's world with such economy and wit that it's almost a letdown when a third party shows up to complicate things. Eve (Elissa Knight) is an Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator, an elegant white robot—she looks like a cross between an iPod and an egg—who's been dispatched to Earth to find any evidence of returning plant life. Though they can communicate at first only by speaking their own names, Eve and Wall-E begin an unlikely courtship. This idyll is lost when a smitten Wall-E shows her his latest find—a tiny plant that he's transplanted into an old boot—and Eve's prime directive is activated. She snatches the sprig away, stows it in her storage compartment, and blasts off for the Axiom, a kind of floating resort in space that houses the remnants of humanity.
The Story
In the not so distant future, humans have quite literally trashed the planet to the point it's uninhabitable. With no means to sustain themselves – the plants have all died or are buried under miles of garbage – humans have fled in luxurious spaceships where their every whim is satisfied by robots. After hundreds of years living in space not having to move a muscle, we've devolved to the point of being fat couch potato globs that vaguely resemble the Pillsbury Doughboy.
Back on Earth, WALL-E (short for Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class) goes about his lonely job of compacting trash. It's what he was built for and programmed to do, and there's no reason for him to stop. He was inadvertently left turned on when everyone took off, so he goes about his work each and every day with only an indestructible cockroach named Hal for company. And after hundreds of years of this, WALL-E has developed a personality. He's an inquisitive little guy who collects weird items of trash that he then uses to furnish and decorate his home. He's also developed an affection for Hello, Dolly! and watches the old VHS tape over and over again.
Hello, Dolly! has taught WALL-E about holding hands and falling in love, and the lonesome robot has dreams of finding that someone special. After endless years of waiting, WALL-E's shot at love appears in the form of a glistening egg-shaped drone named EVE. EVE was sent to Earth to check for any signs of life, and our little WALL-E falls head over wheels for this state-of-the-art metallic cutie. He wants nothing more than to make a connection with this beauty, but EVE's not on the same wavelength. Fortunately, WALL-E's a persistent suitor and when EVE's sent back to report her findings to the people on board the Axiom spaceship, WALL-E goes along for the ride. Nothing will stop this starry-eyed robot from being with his EVE, not hundreds of thousands of miles of space travel, evil robots, or weird jelly-ish people who've lost all concept of what life on Earth was like before their ancestors all but destroyed our planet.
The Bottom Line
There are a number of important messages contained in WALL-E, but fundamentally it's a touching sci-fi love story. Yes, you can take from it the lesson of protecting our environment. And it's definitely a cautionary tale about our reliance on technology to do everyday tasks for us. But above all, WALL-E is simply one of the most romantic tales ever put on film.
With few spoken words, WALL-E relies on the movements of a trash compactor wearing binoculars to convey emotions and move forward the story. And because of the skills of the master storytellers and animators at Pixar, within 5 minutes WALL-E is no longer a mere robot but a real flesh/nuts and blood/bolts creature who feels things as deeply as humans.
The animation is stunning. The sound design is perfect, the little dialogue there is is witty, and the story flows smoothly without a single unnecessary minute to slow things down. And talk about pleasing an audience… The preview screening I attended sounded like a rock concert when the credits rolled. I've never heard an audience react so strongly to a film as they did at the end of WALL-E. The applause was loud and sustained, and people were all smiles as they exited the theater.
WALL-E's such a joyous film you can't help but be totally caught up in the world of a lonely robot looking for love. Pixar's put together yet another movie to be enjoyed by all ages and one sure to go down in history as one of the best animated movies ever created. I know those are strong words, but I believe they are completely justified.
STARRING: Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, Luke Goss, Thomas Kretschmann, Doug Jones, Luke Goss, Anna Walton, Brian Steele, Roy Dotrice, John Hurt 2008, 110 Minutes, Directed by: Guillermo del Toro
2004's Hellboy was a sprawling, mysterious, comical, slimy, and idiosyncratic monster movie. Hellboy II: The Golden Army has all of those qualities and one more: restraint. Well, at least a newfound sense of limitation; this sequel overdoses in a big way on fantasy tangents, yet, unlike the earlier picture, it clicks together with a greater, more direct geek panache.
On orders to keep his crimson mug out of the public eye, facing the domestic wrath of pyro-ready girlfriend Liz Sherman (Selma Blair), and trying to console amphibious friend Abe Sapien (Doug Jones, in both body and voice this time out) as he explores love for the first time, Hellboy (Ron Perlman) has a full dance card of problems. When ancient royalty Prince Nuada (Luke Goss) rises up to seize control of a magical crown that controls the all-powerful robotic Golden Army, it's up to Hellboy and the BPRD to stop him. However, as the human-friendly demon gets closer to killing Nuada, he's forced to reconsider his place in the world, and where his allegiance truly lies.
It goes without saying these days that writer/director Guillermo del Toro has one of the most powerfully erect imaginations in the entertainment business. His insatiable desire for all things supernatural is a stunning obsession, leading to a career slanted toward the continual evocation of the unreal. The effective Blade II aside, Hellboy was truly del Toro playing in a conventional Hollywood sandbox, and it seemed to wear him down. For a film sporadically delightful and containing unforgettable characterization, Hellboy felt hopelessly immobile, losing itself entirely to the excesses of genre requirements in the final reel, stealing the small handfuls of glee almost accidentally left behind.
It's interesting to note that Golden Army is del Toro's first film since his 2006 triumph Pan's Labyrinth, and a familiar fantastical blood still courses through his veins. The new Hellboy adventure plays as though it was made by a man emboldened by his recent directorial choices, taking a beloved franchise and embracing it with every bit of love and newfound power he could muster. Golden Army is an uninhibited snapshot of del Toro's gummy ambitions, now allowed a proper big-ticket budget to imagine worlds beyond our own, creatures of every possible angle and temperament, and a threat worth summoning building-smashing bravery to fend off.
However, as boundless as del Toro's gusto is, he's still short a certain ability to rein all of his ideas in and sharpen his storytelling skills to a fine, effective point.
Golden Army loves its monsters: there are creatures stomping over nearly every frame of the film, filling this expanded world with a community of hostile outcasts to find a more suitable context for our hornless hero. The make-up and CG work in the film are outstanding, but it comes at a crushing price: it distracts del Toro. With a veritable Muppet Show of goblins and assorted blobs running around, the director becomes enamored with every Forrest Ackerman detour, often applying brakes to the film to monitor the horror, which effectively loosens the already threadbare tension of the film (the Nuada subplot is a dud). There's little doubt del Toro puts on one helluva show, but he's a kid in a candy store in every release, absent a specific discipline that could merge wondrous beastly expressions with a rigid pacing and exhaustive dramatics.
Can you imagine A New Hope set entirely inside the Mos Eisely cantina? Golden Army comes dangerously close to that unpleasant aesthetic too many times.
Once del Toro is pried away from his fiendish vices, Golden Army reveals itself to be a wonderfully touching character odyssey for Hellboy, as he struggles with his place among the humans, not to mention his difficulty expressing love for Liz. Perlman is just so positively perfect in this role that every scene with Hellboy that doesn't involve things going kablooey is a delight, furthering the soul-searching needed to temper the outrageousness of his exterior.
The director even manages to sneak in magnificent, beer-fuelled bonding time between Hellboy and Abe, refreshing the friendship between "Red" and "Blue," while also giving the fish-man a little more to do with a bizarre, yet quite fruitful romantic subplot. There's also a new boss for the BPRD in Johann Kraus, a steampunk-inspired creation who looks like a robot and speaks with a goofy Hogan's Heroes German accent (voiced by Seth MacFarlane), who brings fresh energy into the film. An energy that takes a good half of the movie to compute, but eventually falls into line with del Toro's exaggerated comedic beats.
I enjoyed Golden Army much more than the original Hellboy, but the concept still needs a fixation outside of ghouls and goblins. The moments that light up this sequel are the personal asides, infusing resplendent warmth that del Toro could manipulate even further for maximum investment. Surely Golden Army fulfils every sci-fi fantasy around, but watching Hellboy find his purpose, contemplate his newly complicated future, or recall his past (a lovely prologue shows the character a curious boy in a veritable Jean Shepherd Christmas card) is where the real awe of the premise is found, not by dancing the Monster Mash until your eyes bleed.
STARRING: Brendan Fraser, Jet Li, Maria Bello, John Hannah, Michelle Yeoh, Luke Ford, Isabella Leong and Anthony Wong Chau-Sang
2008, 112 Minutes, Directed by: Rob Cohen
The latest Mummy film, coming a full and unforgiving seven years after the last Mummy film, is actually not much of a film at all: it's a deafening, blinding department store Blu-ray demo reel that's spun wildly out of control. It takes a Herculean effort to be known as the least appetizing entry in the Mummy franchise, but then again, a studio isn't exactly fishing for quality when they hire Rob Cohen to direct.
Now retired from their adventuring days, Rick (Brendan Fraser) and Evelyn O'Connell (Maria Bello, replacing Rachael Weisz) watch as their son Alex (Luke Ford) continues on their reckless, globe-trotting ways. When Alex uncovers the lost tomb of Emperor Han (Jet Li) and his Terracotta Army, it reawakens the fierce ruler from the afterlife, sending him on a quest for immortality. With a new mummy on the prowl, Rick, Evelyn, Alex, nightclub owner Jonathan (John Hannah), and a spiritual warrior (Michelle Yeoh) team up to prevent Han from reaching Shangri-La and ruling the world with his infinite undead army.
Considering that 2001's Mummy Returns grossed more than its 1999 predecessor, it boggles the mind to consider how Universal Pictures just simply sat on their hands and watched the demand for a new chapter in the O'Connell family saga wither away through a miserable spin-off (2002's The Scorpion King) and the merciless passing of time. I mention the long absence because Tomb of the Dragon Emperor spends an inordinate amount of expositional time reminding the viewer what once lit up the imaginations of past summer movie-going crowds, as if completely panicked nobody will remember that once upon a time Brendan Fraser plus undead CG demons equalled box office gold.
While I was no fan of Mummy and downright loathed the wretched Returns, Tomb takes the franchise to a stunning new low. Director Rob Cohen (you know, the visionary who made Stealth, Fast and the Furious, and xXx) replaces Stephen Sommers here, and if there's one guy who could make Sommers appear as cinematically resonate as Spielberg, it's Cohen. As lead-footed a filmmaker as the factory churns out, Cohen picks up on the same beat of noise pollution that was left hanging in 2001, only he manages to craft a sequel more obnoxious and defeating than previously anticipated.
It's a rotten, stubborn directorial endeavour, and since Cohen has little appreciation for legitimate big screen magic, Tomb suffocates under the filmmaker's bile-slicked mandate that every single frame must contain a screaming or explosive element. Tomb is a hallow fireworks display (often literally), using the characters as anonymous action figures instead of trying to hammer out a decent narrative to employ their established appeal. The sense of archaeology and sun-baked puzzling from the previous films is rubbed out, as are the wide open spaces, replaced in Tomb with tight, unconvincing sets plucked right out of a Sci-Fi Channel Original.
Weisz probably made the right decision to bolt when she could, though her warmth and romantic glow is missed from the inert picture. Bello isn't a satisfying replacement; she's woefully miscast trying to match Fraser with limp quips and dreadfully-accented exhilaration, missing the doe-eyed fairy dust Weisz sprinkled before.
And speaking of replacements, how is the audience supposed to believe the pre-teen, thoroughly British Alex of Returns grows up to be a twentysomething American cowboy/tomb raider in the new film? Ford's dreadful attempt to swallow his native Australian accent doesn't help the transition. Neither does the fact that Fraser and Ford look like brothers, not father and son. Ah, but I'm sniffing around for logic, and that's the wrong course for a Mummy movie.
The Tomb journey sends the characters to the Himalayas, where they battle Han's goons with the help of a few towering Yeti (who apparently feed on a steady diet of American football), allowing Cohen to blow his sets up; to the streets of Shanghai, where Cohen can smash cars and blow them up; and finally the Chinese countryside, where Han's CG soldiers fight a different set of CG soldiers. And yes, Cohen blows more things up. The man loves all things that go boom. It's a repetitive cycle that pushes the actors to the background, even reducing Li and Yeoh to mere cameos (watch out, the marketing is deceptive) when those two icons should've been front and center for the entire run of the film.
The world didn't need a third Mummy motion picture, and it certainly didn't need one that descends further into mindless action and insipid screenwriting. Tomb of the Dragon Emperor is a terrible film, but even more insidious, it makes one wish for the good old days: when Stephen Sommers found time to ruin summer entertainment through his own brand of blaring, big screen misery; when the mummy was played by a doughy, hairless, spray-tanned, completely unthreatening South African actor; and when Brendan Fraser was actually considered a humorous presence by a select few.
There's the magic of Rob Cohen for you: he makes one extraordinarily nostalgic for the awful . . .
Babylon A.D. is Vin Diesel’s entire career in microcosm. He starts out as a gritty, amoral, selfish murderer a la Pitch Black, gets in a few car chases, pulls off some X-Games stunts, attempts some dramatic stuff which never really works, gets all sci-fi with confusing futuristic plot exposition, and by the end he’s morphed into The Pacifier, a glorified babysitter who has given up his guns for polo shirts and awkwardness with kids. As with every recent Vin Diesel project, when the credits roll, you’ll kick yourself for having been suckered into watching yet another one of his crummy movies.
The one thing all bad Vin Diesel movies have in common is that the film’s problems are never actually his fault. Vin delivers his usual solid, gruff performance in Babylon A.D., but the movie doesn’t deserve him. The film’s director Mathieu Kassovitz has already come out and blamed this disaster on studio interference, and that may be the case. I’m not here to assign blame though, simply to review what shows up on screen. What we have here is a mess.
It starts well enough, with Vin wandering around in a near-future Eastern Europe which looks a lot like the 80s near-future Detroit from Robocop. Vin is a mercenary named Toorop, hired to smuggle a girl named Aurora and her nun caretaker Rebeka into America. The set off through Russia, planning to sneak across the Bering Straight into Canada, even though the Bering Straight connects Russia to Alaska. Perhaps in the future Alaska has been conquered by the Canucks, there’s no real explanation for that or most of the sillier conceits going on in the movie.
The thing is, the closer they get to America the more the movie’s plot starts to stink. Whether it’s because Fox’s lawyers chopped the film to bits or because the script is piece of junk, I can’t tell you. All I can say is that with every step Vin Diesel takes, the less the movie makes sense and the less you want to hang around and see where it ends up. It’s a baffling film, one minute Toorop is a me first, work for the highest bidder killer, the next a guy with a bag of money drops out of the sky (literally) and he decides he’s no longer interested in his own life and chooses to walk off into certain death for someone he doesn’t know and has no reason to care about. Toorop morphs from cynical badass to stupid pussy for no apparent reason, and we’re supposed to buy it.
Even with its completely inconsistent characters, Babylon A.D. might have been sort of fun. In fact it is, for the first 40 or 50 minutes. There’s some mildly entertaining action sequences, done with average stunts and practical effects. It feels like you’re watching a particularly well executed episode of post apocalyptic thriller on the Sci Fi channel. At some point though, the fun stops and it becomes such a total mess that all you can do is laugh at it. The movie has no idea how to wrap things up and even worse, no idea how to explain any of what’s been going on. There’s some mumbo jumbo about virgin births which never amounts to anything, and some vague allusions to a cultish, corporate religion, but not enough explanation to connect the dots between any of it. I still have no idea why we were following around most of the people in this movie, and I don’t know that the actors in it do either. If they don’t know what they’re doing, then it’s doubtful you will. Don’t bother buying a ticket.
Lionsgate has been a boon for genre fans these last few years as the distributor has provided a steady stream of unusual low budget horror and suspense films. Many of them are awful, yes, but at the same time, other titles have been entertaining, offering interesting storylines and characters one doesn't often see in mainstream films.
Artifacts, a 2007 Belgian science fiction thriller, falls in the latter category. It's one of the best direct-to-video releases I've seen this year (from any company, not just Lionsgate) and a flick I'd definitely recommend to others - despite one major flaw.
Artifacts centers upon Kate, a 28-year-old career woman who is drawn into a paranoid and surreal ordeal as her friends are murdered - by themselves. It seems that each major character in this film has a mysterious doppelganger bent on terminating them. Unlike the alien duplicates in Jack Finney's classic science fiction story The Body Snatchers, however, these doppelgangers seem uninterested in assuming the identities of their twins. Kate goes quickly on the run with her ex-lover, who also appears to be targeted, and the duo tries to puzzle out what's happening to them. They also learn they have mysterious metallic artifacts (hence the title of the film) buried under their ribs.
There are many aspects of Artifacts to compliment. For one thing, despite its low budget roots, the movie looks professionally done. This is especially true of the acting, which often hinders other B-movies. Mary Stockley is very good as the heroine Kate. She can act - which helps. She's attractive yet she carries a maturity and intelligence that lends credibility to her character. It's a surprisingly strong performance. The other cast members don't let her down either - although this movie is definitely Kate's story so no other character really stands out.
The plot is compelling and engaging - and with a runtime of 75 minutes, Artifacts never seems bloated with unnecessary scenes. Its score is compelling and unusual. And while there are a few bloody scenes, Artifacts derives most of its scares from ambience and tense build-up. This is really more of a suspense film with science fiction trappings than a horror movie per se. As usual, Lionsgate provides deceptive cover art for their release of this movie.
The downside to this film is its ending - which is decidedly ambiguous and open-ended. I think many viewers invested in this film will be disappointed that a lot of questions remain unanswered.
The open-ended conclusion of the film was deliberate - writer / producer / director team Giles Daoust and Emmanuel Jespers discuss their reasoning in a surprisingly in-depth documentary (discussed further in the Extras portion of this review). As it is, Artifacts is a compelling and swiftly-paced flick, and I certainly wouldn't mind returning for a sequel, especially if it continues with the Kate character played by Mary Stockley.
In short: The Dark Night continues what I think Batman should have always been: Dark, gritty, sadistic and ugly. Heath Ledger steals the movie with an amazing representation that makes Jack Nicolson's version look like a cotton candy parody.
Soon after Ledger's passing and reading early reviews of "The Dark Night" I was sure that his acting was being exaggerated as some sort of tribute to him. After all, the acting and storyline in Brokeback mountain won tons of awards and accolades; but in truth it sucked and if wasn't for the premise and social mind job would have been straight to video...
At first I was not in favor of Heath's voice, but after several short dialogues I was convinced it was just what was needed... Ledger’s physical acting was immense; his ever so slight facial adjustments, the way he walked and even held a knife was phenomenal. He even pulled off some full theater audiance laugh grabs while never leaving his dark character. The storyline behind the Joker was also perfect. No BS story no cause to fight for... nope he just enjoys to fuck with humanity and test people and their limits!
So while Christian Bale plays to a T the tortured hero and Aaron Eckhart plays a nailed Harvey Dent / Two-Face and Michael Caine plays my favorite butler; the movie is definetly stolen by the lead villain The Joker!
My only bad comments pick out two things that matter not to the story or movie that much…
Christian Bale’s voice when he is in Batman persona is too gruff and altered. Next to the Joker he sounds overplayed in a number of dialogue exchanges.
Maggie Gyllenhaal has stepped in to replace Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes… To be honest I don’t think she pulled it off. She didn’t have the elegance that Katie did and somehow she managed to look horribly aged (she's only 30) and kind of ugly in a number of scenes.
This blog does not host any of the files mentioned on this blog. This blog only points out to various links on the Internet that already exist and are uploaded by other websites or users there. If you have any clarifications to be made or If you find any contents in this site which you think can be offensive contact me at bunda.yayu@gmail.com & the content will be removed or modified accordingly.
2004's 
Once del Toro is pried away from his fiendish vices, Golden Army reveals itself to be a wonderfully touching character odyssey for Hellboy, as he struggles with his place among the humans, not to mention his difficulty expressing love for Liz. Perlman is just so positively perfect in this role that every scene with Hellboy that doesn't involve things going kablooey is a delight, furthering the soul-searching needed to temper the outrageousness of his exterior. 
The latest Mummy film, coming a full and unforgiving seven years after the last Mummy film, is actually not much of a film at all: it's a deafening, blinding department store Blu-ray demo reel that's spun wildly out of control. It takes a Herculean effort to be known as the least appetizing entry in the Mummy franchise, but then again, a studio isn't exactly fishing for quality when they hire Rob Cohen to direct.
The Tomb journey sends the characters to the Himalayas, where they battle Han's goons with the help of a few towering Yeti (who apparently feed on a steady diet of American football), allowing Cohen to blow his sets up; to the streets of Shanghai, where Cohen can smash cars and blow them up; and finally the Chinese countryside, where Han's CG soldiers fight a different set of CG soldiers. And yes, Cohen blows more things up. The man loves all things that go boom. It's a repetitive cycle that pushes the actors to the background, even reducing Li and Yeoh to mere cameos (watch out, the marketing is deceptive) when those two icons should've been front and center for the entire run of the film.
In short: The Dark Night continues what I think Batman should have always been: Dark, gritty, sadistic and ugly. Heath Ledger steals the movie with an amazing representation that makes Jack Nicolson's version look like a cotton candy parody.
At first I was not in favor of Heath's voice, but after several short dialogues I was convinced it was just what was needed... Ledger’s physical acting was immense; his ever so slight facial adjustments, the way he walked and even held a knife was phenomenal. He even pulled off some full theater audiance laugh grabs while never leaving his dark character. The storyline behind the Joker was also perfect. No BS story no cause to fight for... nope he just enjoys to fuck with humanity and test people and their limits!
Postingan
