When I see previews for certain films I immediately pre-judge those films on whether or not I want to see it. And more times than not I am completely justified in my choice when I eventually see the film on cable or DVD. LIMITLESS (Neil Burger, Universal, 2011) is a great example of this. After watching the preview I immediately was struck with the thought that this film was a vehicle for Bradley Cooper, a way to establish his ability to carry a film. The concept looked plausible enough but nothing said to me that I should see this film immediately. And the fact that Robert DeNiro was in the film, based on his track record over the last twenty years, definitely made me want to pass.
So what did I miss out on by passing on it at the theaters? A story with some major plot holes. One with no character development, particularly for its protagonist. Nor was their motivation for the characters actions besides the obvious. I may be mistaken but wasn't there a plot line involving death from continued use of the drug NZT? What about Lindy (Abbie Cornish) returning to Eddie (Bradley Cooper)? Completely against the use of the drug she returns to his side by the end of the film, no questions asked? And what of the fact that ALL drugs, regardless, require an ever increasing usage to maintain there potency? As I am watching a film if I am asking myself questions about the narrative it is obviously not a very effective story.
The film is rather effective as a vehicle for the rising stature of Bradley Cooper. As audiences we have delighted in his portrayals of the boorish Zack in WEDDING CRASHERS and again as Phil in THE HANGOVER. But those are comedic roles and it remains to be seen if Cooper can truly carry a film, particularly an action thriller. LIMITLESS is a good start for him.
And in the end LIMITLESS is exactly what it sets about being, a prototypical postmodern film. Weak on story, a vehicle used to further a stars career, a film ultimately concerned only with the bottom line. There are some nice visual effects and the picture looks slick and not overly stylized. Ultimately the film is like so many others of this period, forgettable about a half hour out of the theater. Which if you remember, I saved myself the time on! Keep trusting my instincts I guess!
Friday, January 13, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
RED (Robert Schwentke, Warner Bros., 2010)
I try to adhere to a pretty rigid set of rules when it comes to film selection and one of my primary rules is no comic book films. Recently I saw the film RED (Robert Schwentke, Warner Bros., 2010) and had I known it was one comic book series I most definitely would not have viewed it. The story was outlandish at best with a weak narrative structure. The performances by its ensemble of stars was definitely paycheck level and there was nothing visually to make the film stand out.
As I stated previously, the story was outlandish at best. To presume that this group of retiree's would be able to best all that our intelligence services has to offer is disturbing. Disturbing because there is an audience out there that believes this is a totally plausible concept. There is a reason people retire. It is because usually they can no longer maintain the pace of their younger counterparts in the workplace. In the physically and mentally demanding life of secret agents this widening gap would be even more exacerbated than usual. There is not one moment where disbelief is suspended, therefore the story does not work.
Narratively the structure of the story doesn't work either. Too many times coincidental occurrences lead to resolution. Often times plot holes are tidied up or glossed over with no regards to how this impacts the narrative as a whole. Oftentimes the narrative is predictable. Two segments particularly stood out to me as egregious. In the scene where the team forces the Vice President to flee, where is Frank Mason (Bruce Willis)? The films protagonist, the baddest agent to have ever lived disappears for fifteen minutes of key screen time. Next, Victoria (Helen Mirren) is shot as her and Marvin (John Malkovich) attempt to elude capture. Yet the very next scene she enters with not even the slightest hint of injury. Just a huge continuity error that cannot be overlooked.
The film does provide a nice vehicle for some older stars to peddle their wares. Roles for older stars are usually subjugated to supporting roles, hardly for an action film of this nature. And based on how the film performed at the box office there is a demand for these stars in these type of roles. Visually the film was okay although I didn't care for the constant zooming in at high speed. And the reason I forbid myself from seeing this film when it was released was the absurd shot of the bullet perfectly impacting the rocket. That shot alone made me not want to see the film due to its absurdity.
Ultimately the film is a passable two hours, a nice diversion if your brain is in need of shutting down. And that's it.
As I stated previously, the story was outlandish at best. To presume that this group of retiree's would be able to best all that our intelligence services has to offer is disturbing. Disturbing because there is an audience out there that believes this is a totally plausible concept. There is a reason people retire. It is because usually they can no longer maintain the pace of their younger counterparts in the workplace. In the physically and mentally demanding life of secret agents this widening gap would be even more exacerbated than usual. There is not one moment where disbelief is suspended, therefore the story does not work.
Narratively the structure of the story doesn't work either. Too many times coincidental occurrences lead to resolution. Often times plot holes are tidied up or glossed over with no regards to how this impacts the narrative as a whole. Oftentimes the narrative is predictable. Two segments particularly stood out to me as egregious. In the scene where the team forces the Vice President to flee, where is Frank Mason (Bruce Willis)? The films protagonist, the baddest agent to have ever lived disappears for fifteen minutes of key screen time. Next, Victoria (Helen Mirren) is shot as her and Marvin (John Malkovich) attempt to elude capture. Yet the very next scene she enters with not even the slightest hint of injury. Just a huge continuity error that cannot be overlooked.
The film does provide a nice vehicle for some older stars to peddle their wares. Roles for older stars are usually subjugated to supporting roles, hardly for an action film of this nature. And based on how the film performed at the box office there is a demand for these stars in these type of roles. Visually the film was okay although I didn't care for the constant zooming in at high speed. And the reason I forbid myself from seeing this film when it was released was the absurd shot of the bullet perfectly impacting the rocket. That shot alone made me not want to see the film due to its absurdity.
Ultimately the film is a passable two hours, a nice diversion if your brain is in need of shutting down. And that's it.
Monday, January 9, 2012
MY MAN GODFREY (Gregory La Cava, 1936)
I love when I unearth a gem of a film that I had previously been unaware of and MY MAN GODFREY (Gregory La Cava, Universal, 1936) is just such a film. A great screwball comedy, this film has excellent writing, tremendous performances by all of its actors, great chemistry between it's stars and the direction by La Cava is pretty good as well. On top of all that it provides excellent social commentary at the height of the Great Depression and this is the type of thing that always defines a film as a cut above others.
The film shines above all else due to its acting. William Powell is Godfrey Smith/Park and at the films beginning he is a 'forgotten man' which is somewhat akin to his status in film history. His name is not one that is immediately brought to mind when discussing great stars yet he belongs. He is always smooth and charming, sophisticated and dapper. As the bum Godfrey Smith he looks better in rags than most of us due today in our finest. He imparts a refined touch to his roles and just oozes class. His former wife, Carole Lombard is one of the few who can manage to shine past him.
Lombard plays Irene Bullock, a half-crazy, anxiety filled socialite. She turns in a great performance here, at times funny, others touching and always with your eyes firmly fixed on her. She is always gorgeous and like Powell somewhat forgotten. This is a shame because she is simply spectacular to look at and to watch act. The chemistry between the two is amazing as befits two people who were married. I say 'were' because they had divorced three years earlier but the chemistry still shined for them on camera. Two moments that stood out to me; when Lombard struts around lamenting like Hamlet and her sister quips she is performing dramatic pose #8 and when Powell is drunk and half asleep in his room only to be awakened by the family. Both moments just priceless and pure comedic genius.
The rest of the cast picks up the torch just as Powell and Lombard do. I read afterwards that this was the first film to garner all four acting nominations in a single year (in the first year there were four). This pays tribute to the entire cast, from it's stars to each and every cast member. They had great material to work with as the writing is top notch, funny and poignant as well as incisive. The entire production is wrapped up nicely with a tremendous job turned in by the films director La Cava.
To me what really makes this film standout is its ability to provide social commentary on what the country was going through at the time of its release. Released at the height of the Depression, the film skewers the rich and upper class as out of touch, absurd and devoid of feeling. As Angelica Bullock (Alice Brady) asks "what does he mean with all the bucks (in reference to a man asking for five bucks)" it is patently obvious this is a rich family so out of touch with reality (reality meaning America in the 30's) to be laughable, as well as setting up the comedic undertones for the family. The film also touches on the absurdity of materialism and the vacuous nature of those with more money and possessions then they know what to do with.
MY MAN GODFREY is a great film, at times roaringly funny and at others touching and poignant. It's cast is stellar and it's stars even brighter. I definitely recommend this film to anyone!
The film shines above all else due to its acting. William Powell is Godfrey Smith/Park and at the films beginning he is a 'forgotten man' which is somewhat akin to his status in film history. His name is not one that is immediately brought to mind when discussing great stars yet he belongs. He is always smooth and charming, sophisticated and dapper. As the bum Godfrey Smith he looks better in rags than most of us due today in our finest. He imparts a refined touch to his roles and just oozes class. His former wife, Carole Lombard is one of the few who can manage to shine past him.
Lombard plays Irene Bullock, a half-crazy, anxiety filled socialite. She turns in a great performance here, at times funny, others touching and always with your eyes firmly fixed on her. She is always gorgeous and like Powell somewhat forgotten. This is a shame because she is simply spectacular to look at and to watch act. The chemistry between the two is amazing as befits two people who were married. I say 'were' because they had divorced three years earlier but the chemistry still shined for them on camera. Two moments that stood out to me; when Lombard struts around lamenting like Hamlet and her sister quips she is performing dramatic pose #8 and when Powell is drunk and half asleep in his room only to be awakened by the family. Both moments just priceless and pure comedic genius.
The rest of the cast picks up the torch just as Powell and Lombard do. I read afterwards that this was the first film to garner all four acting nominations in a single year (in the first year there were four). This pays tribute to the entire cast, from it's stars to each and every cast member. They had great material to work with as the writing is top notch, funny and poignant as well as incisive. The entire production is wrapped up nicely with a tremendous job turned in by the films director La Cava.
To me what really makes this film standout is its ability to provide social commentary on what the country was going through at the time of its release. Released at the height of the Depression, the film skewers the rich and upper class as out of touch, absurd and devoid of feeling. As Angelica Bullock (Alice Brady) asks "what does he mean with all the bucks (in reference to a man asking for five bucks)" it is patently obvious this is a rich family so out of touch with reality (reality meaning America in the 30's) to be laughable, as well as setting up the comedic undertones for the family. The film also touches on the absurdity of materialism and the vacuous nature of those with more money and possessions then they know what to do with.
MY MAN GODFREY is a great film, at times roaringly funny and at others touching and poignant. It's cast is stellar and it's stars even brighter. I definitely recommend this film to anyone!
Saturday, January 7, 2012
THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN (Steven Spielberg, 2011)
It is not often you will see me write the following words but one of my most anticipated films for 2011 was the 3D motion capture adaptation of THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN (Steven Spielberg, 2011). As a child I was a huge fan of this series of comic books and when I saw the trailer for the film knowing Spielberg and Peter Jackson were attached actually had me remembering how I used to get excited for films. I came away from the viewing experience visually stimulated and extremely pleased with the finished product given us by the two masters.
THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN is a great juxtaposition of several of the Herge comic books. The narrative is fun, adventurous and keeps you on the edge of your seat for the entire ride. There are times of predictability and childlike simplicity, but allowing for this entitles the viewer to more enjoyment from the film. The narrative skillfully introduces all the main characters from the series. It is not overly long and not burdened with self importance.
My main fear heading into the film was the use of technology in making the film. I am not a fan of motion capture and I won't even mention my disdain for 3D. But both were accomplished artfully and with the bonus of serving to compliment the film rather than detract from its merit. For the motion capture, to me, it is the ultimate compliment if I have no idea who the actor is performing the MC. That was Daniel Craig as Red Rackham? I had no idea until I watched the credits. Job well done sir. And my biggest knock against 3D is it is often used to mask definitive lack of narrative quality. Not so with this film as the 3D was placed subtly and with great effect, not blatantly screaming at the viewer to watch the technology.
The ultimate compliment I can give this film is that when I was watching there were times when I was reminded of watching another Spielberg classic, THE RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. To me the TinTin character was the young Indiana Jones and I almost forgot they came out with a fourth Indy film. Almost. And then when I read later that Spielberg originally loved the idea of a TinTin film since the early 80's, I was happy as I realized I have something in common with the master. Great film, can't wait for the sequel to see what Peter Jackson does!
THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN is a great juxtaposition of several of the Herge comic books. The narrative is fun, adventurous and keeps you on the edge of your seat for the entire ride. There are times of predictability and childlike simplicity, but allowing for this entitles the viewer to more enjoyment from the film. The narrative skillfully introduces all the main characters from the series. It is not overly long and not burdened with self importance.
My main fear heading into the film was the use of technology in making the film. I am not a fan of motion capture and I won't even mention my disdain for 3D. But both were accomplished artfully and with the bonus of serving to compliment the film rather than detract from its merit. For the motion capture, to me, it is the ultimate compliment if I have no idea who the actor is performing the MC. That was Daniel Craig as Red Rackham? I had no idea until I watched the credits. Job well done sir. And my biggest knock against 3D is it is often used to mask definitive lack of narrative quality. Not so with this film as the 3D was placed subtly and with great effect, not blatantly screaming at the viewer to watch the technology.
The ultimate compliment I can give this film is that when I was watching there were times when I was reminded of watching another Spielberg classic, THE RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. To me the TinTin character was the young Indiana Jones and I almost forgot they came out with a fourth Indy film. Almost. And then when I read later that Spielberg originally loved the idea of a TinTin film since the early 80's, I was happy as I realized I have something in common with the master. Great film, can't wait for the sequel to see what Peter Jackson does!
Soul Surfer (Sean McNamara, TriStar Pictures, 2011)
Rarely have I ever seen a more inspirational story put to film than the story of Bethany Hamilton in SOUL SURFER (Sean McNamara, TriStar Pictures, 2011). A well documented story, Hamilton survived losing her arm to shark attack as a thirteen year old and went on to fulfill her dream of becoming a professional surfer. Her story is one of remarkable perseverance, an unyielding desire to overcome the obstacles placed in front of her, and her complete faith and reliance on God. Unfortunately the adaptation of this story into the narrative of the film doesn't quite hold up to the same standard.
The narrative adaptation for the film is weak at best. The life and world portrayed for Bethany Hamilton (AnnaSophia Robb) and her family is idyllic and utterly perfect. And while the life her family leads prior to the attack is just that, this type of life lends no conflict and any good writer will tell you drama is conflict. So naturally the narrative will suffer. The narrative is further weakened by every aspect of the film seemingly being dipped in sugar and coated in honey. A good example of this is in the relationship between Bethany and her main competition in the water, Malina Birch (Sonya Balmores). The entire film is spent showing nothing but contempt and antagonism between the two girls yet at the final award presentation all is swept away and the girls are instant friends. Show us that Bethany is hyper competitive, aggressive in the water, a girl who wants to win at all costs. Do not craft an antagonist and then pull that relationship from the audience. It weakens the overall film.
I am not a religious man by any stretch, but reading production notes on the film after viewing it enlightened me to the knowledge that for the film the studio decided to downplay the religious angle for Bethany and her family. This was done for better box office results. This really annoys me as a cinephile. A very large part of her recovery and ongoing success is her religion. It is the essence of her existence. By downplaying it, by subverting it for sales you completely weaken the narrative. As a viewing audience when did it become impossible for us to view things we didn't agree with in total revulsion. It's part of the story, seeing it lends weight to the narrative. Leave it in!
As for the rest of the film, the other aspects were done well. As I watched the film I did have certain things I couldn't get out of my mind. First, for older actors both Helen Hunt and Dennis Quaid are not only in great physical shape but I had to wonder if they surfed themselves? As for the surfing, some really nice waves were caught and that led me to think of just how awesome it must have been to film in Hawaii. On breaks, I wonder was the crew allowed to paddle out?
Ultimately the film is standard popcorn fare albeit one with a tremendous message. I immediately came away rather impressed with Bethany Hamilton, and thinking that the message of being able to accomplish anything is so true. Any surfer should watch but this film is good for just about anyone.
The narrative adaptation for the film is weak at best. The life and world portrayed for Bethany Hamilton (AnnaSophia Robb) and her family is idyllic and utterly perfect. And while the life her family leads prior to the attack is just that, this type of life lends no conflict and any good writer will tell you drama is conflict. So naturally the narrative will suffer. The narrative is further weakened by every aspect of the film seemingly being dipped in sugar and coated in honey. A good example of this is in the relationship between Bethany and her main competition in the water, Malina Birch (Sonya Balmores). The entire film is spent showing nothing but contempt and antagonism between the two girls yet at the final award presentation all is swept away and the girls are instant friends. Show us that Bethany is hyper competitive, aggressive in the water, a girl who wants to win at all costs. Do not craft an antagonist and then pull that relationship from the audience. It weakens the overall film.
I am not a religious man by any stretch, but reading production notes on the film after viewing it enlightened me to the knowledge that for the film the studio decided to downplay the religious angle for Bethany and her family. This was done for better box office results. This really annoys me as a cinephile. A very large part of her recovery and ongoing success is her religion. It is the essence of her existence. By downplaying it, by subverting it for sales you completely weaken the narrative. As a viewing audience when did it become impossible for us to view things we didn't agree with in total revulsion. It's part of the story, seeing it lends weight to the narrative. Leave it in!
As for the rest of the film, the other aspects were done well. As I watched the film I did have certain things I couldn't get out of my mind. First, for older actors both Helen Hunt and Dennis Quaid are not only in great physical shape but I had to wonder if they surfed themselves? As for the surfing, some really nice waves were caught and that led me to think of just how awesome it must have been to film in Hawaii. On breaks, I wonder was the crew allowed to paddle out?
Ultimately the film is standard popcorn fare albeit one with a tremendous message. I immediately came away rather impressed with Bethany Hamilton, and thinking that the message of being able to accomplish anything is so true. Any surfer should watch but this film is good for just about anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)