Hanna (2011)

This film starts out brilliantly and beautifully yet then dissolves into a quagmire of unexplained plot points, narrative discontinuity, an attempt to pattern itself like other films of the genre, an array of stereotypical characters that serve only to annoy and finally becomes a film that just sinks. Which is entirely disappointing.
The concept for this film is actually quite good and very entertaining. The protagonist Hanna is amazing, a young female Jason Bourne if you will. She hunts deer, drags them home across frozen landscape, fights like a man, escapes impossible situations. Robotic in action and tone she glides across the screen. Even the barely explained details of her situation are plausible enough to keep the audience engaged with the narrative. But that is where it then falls apart. Other than Hanna and her father every character in the film is ludicrous. The English family who takes Hanna along their journey, no questions asked through Morocco and Spain? The German bad guys who are into kink or obvious skinheads? And worst of all the always brilliant Cate Blanchett in one of the most god awful roles that great actress has ever been given. The role has her scattered so badly you cannot tell what the heck she is doing or supposed to be doing.
The film also starts out being shot superbly. The beginning of the film they took time to craft elegant and beautiful landscape shots, giving the camera time to gaze and it's audience time to enjoy the film. The contrasts from forest to desert for Hanna was visually stunning and magnificently done. But then, like the narrative it all falls apart. Seemingly they stop trying to compose shots and provide beautiful work in leiu of fast paced editing and expansive action to the detriment of the film. I understand that the pace has to quicken or you'll bore your audience but such a dichotomy from beginning to end is too harsh. Be one film or the other.
The final really impressive aspect was the score, artfully done by the Chemical Brothers. Only problem here though is they bluntly revved up the score right as manic action was to take place almost giving away the film as it was unfolding. As Erik (Eric Bana) walks into the subterranean area and the music cues louder, you know he's about to get into a fight. Where is the subtlety?
I liked this movie but I have to be harsh in my assessment. I think this film could have been remarkable and a classic but it falls short. I can almost see parallels between the protagonists of Hanna and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo but I hesitate to compare because one is so brilliant and one is left lacking. Still, rather entertaining.

Arthur (1981) and Arthur (2011)

So I recently went to see the remake of Arthur and then after seeing it caught a showing of the original on TCM. A few things struck me instantly.
First, the original (and the remake for that matter) was not very funny or very good. I had seen the original before, in fact multiple times. Yet rewatching it the film was not in any way funny or endearing at all. So I have to ask myself why? My first thought is that times have changed. We live in a different era and the remake showed us just that. Every time the protagonist did something scandalous it was posted to facebook, tweeted, caught by the paparazzi. Also, our economy of the last several years has made a foolish money such as Arthur not only pathetic and inappropriate but just sad. Society today has a false facade of caring and such wastefulness is looked upon disdainfully. Finally, the attitudes of society towards the happy drunk has changed. Due to the rise in AA, MaDD and other such entities against slovenly drinking such a protagonist is pitied not tolerated. With all these things said though, what about just looking at them as films and removing societal influences? And there is where I strike upon what is wrong with these two films, at least to me.
Both films fall directly into the postmodern period of filmmaking. Such films make use of a high concept marketability (an easily summarized film synopsis of 25 words or less), they use other entertainment mediums to help sell the product, narrative and writing are disregarded for cheap laughs and visuals and stars become preeminent in the film. Looking at these traits, it can easily be seen why the films fall flat and do not hold up.
In Arthur (1981), what traits of postmodernism are used? High concept is definitely in play. The films star Dudley Moore was riding high after success in Foul Play (1978) and 10(1979). So the film can easily be summed up with "Dudley Moore plays a rich drunk that gets into adventures, falls in love and beats the odds". The film employs the use of Grammy winning artists Burt Bacharach and Christopher Cross who co-wrote the films main song, Arthur's Theme. Bacharach of course is well known but Cross had won five Grammy awards in 1979 and much like Moore fits the "hot" label perfectly. The writing for the film leaves much to be desired and the of course the film also features John Gielgud and Liza Minnelli, two well established stars.
Arthur (2011) copies not only the same script but almost the same formula as the original. The film tries to capture the rising star of Russell Brand who much like Moore has had a string of successes lately. The film can easily be packaged and sold due to Brand alone. They throw in some other big stars such as Helen Mirren, Jennifer Garner and Luis Guzman. The most egregious offense though is that the filmmakers for this remake use almost the same script as the original. No improvements, no changes. It's not a complete shot for shot remake but the lack of originality is offensive.
This is not to say that neither film has any redeeming qualities to them. Arthur(1981) has a great performance by Moore as the alcoholic, fun-loving Arthur and the performance of Gielgud as the droll butler Hobson is spot on. The song by Cross et al is great, in fact I've had it stuck in my head for weeks. As for Arthur(2011) i happen to have enjoyed it a little more and thought it a bit funnier than the original. Russell Brand is one of those actors with a charisma and intelligence that makes it hard not to watch him while on screen. And he probably is more of a natural comedian than Moore, hence more laughs.
After all this writing what is my intent? Well, unless it is a really great film, don't do a remake. Or, don't do a remake unless you want to make it your own. Or maybe, just maybe, writing works? :)

Waking Sleeping Beauty (2009)

Intriguing documentary detailing the Renaissance of Disney and it's animation department during the late eighties and early nineties. Three things in particular stood out to me. First, the rise and fall of one of the standard Hollywood genres. Animation was thought to be dead and the target audience that the studios aim for in particular did not go see animation. So to see the genre rise again not only is a testament to the work achieved by those who helped revive it but it also shows just how fickle audiences are. Second, the traditional clash between guards old and new. The old line Disney animators were so reluctant to let go and do different things and it seems that this is always the way, the young breed just pushes until the walls come down. The final, rather exceptional point in the documentary is the tremendous clash of egos that helped to rebuild the animation giant and how that same behemoth reared it's ugly head in tearing the team apart. This theme can be played out in just about any power struggle Hollywood has ever seen, but it is still amazing to see that people don't learn and that greed and envy are eternal. Like I said, interesting documentary, nothing spectacular.

First Blood (1982)

Having seen this film numerous times, to me it is very telling that I seemingly always notice new nuances within the film which make it more powerful and a great view each time I see it. This film is Sly Stallone. His acting is actually rather good and his ability to craft a realistic survivor of not only war but the elements makes the film entirely believable. The role of the sullen Rambo is perfect for Sly. Whereas normally he grunts his way through a script, this role allows him to be silent for the most part and his eyes exude a fire which is riveting. A great test for how good an actor is in a role is trying to imagine someone else in that role. No one can take Sly's place here. His believability in the role is enhanced by his obvious familiarity with the skills he displays as Rambo. In fact, what helps set this film apart from the typical action garbage is the plausibility of it's protagonist and the believability of his actions. He doesn't go on a wild killing spree, he rarely uses guns, doesn't know incredible amounts of martial arts or in other words, everything that Rambo became in the sequels.
The other two major roles in the film are expertly and deftly played by two great actors, Dennehy and Crenna. Dennehy plays the small town sheriff with a chip on his shoulder to the letter. The audience hates his sheriff but Dennehy plays him in a way that allows for us to sympathize with him as well. Crenna plays the grizzled Army colonel with panache and adds that aura of invincibility to Rambo.
The true power of this film lies in the reflection of early 80's America towards war vets, patriotism in general and it taps into a source of extreme pain within our country at the time the film was released. The film is a great allegory to the Vietnam War. A small, one man force takes on a bigger, better equipped enemy and ultimately prevails, to an extent. When Trautman (Crenna) the line "you want to fight a war you can't win?" to Teasle (Dennehy) the connection can't help but be made. The trauma that the protagonist endures mirrors that of our country as a whole.  Filming in the depressing and rain soaked northwest just adds to the depression and gloom of the film and it's themes.
The film shows how good an action film can be if it uses a less is more approach. Just wish they could get that through their heads when making films today.

The Defiant Ones (1958)

What an incredible film. For something set in 1958, in pre civil rights America, this is an incredibly incendiary narrative with some intense performances turned in by it's two stars. Let me start with the narrative. Written today the themes discussed within would be controversial and inflammatory. Set in 1958 makes this film positively explosive. I do think there are one or two areas that could make this film even more powerful. The paths that the two protagonists take is rather predictable and if there were more obstacles to their paths the film could be stronger. Any weakness in the narrative is completely overcome by the performances of Poitier and Curtis. The chemistry between the two is remarkable and the paths they take with their respective characters is extraordinary. By then end of the film, as they rush to jump the train, the tension established is palpable. The audience knows they cant make it but the shot of their hands clasping and then breaking is heartrending. In the postmodern age of anti-heroes and escapism a feeling like this is never created. Flammable subject, great performances, awesome film.