Premise: A psychiatrist takes a new job at a mental hospital and learns about his past.
Stars: Aaron Eckhart * Ian McKellen * Brittany Murphy * Nick Nolte * William Hurt
Story: Zach Riley (Eckhart) is a psychiatrist who takes a job at a new mental hospital. While employed there, he discovers that his father (Nolte), a noted children's author, had stayed there after his descent into dementia. He begins reading his father's files and learns how his father knew of another patient, the schizophrenic Finch (McKellen), and through Finch's madness, he learned of this fantasy world where Riley was conceived of as a hero. While investigating his past and treating his patients, he meets Maggie (Murphy), a childhood friend and they grow attracted to each other.
Review: The film is reminiscent of Don Juan DeMarco, where it seems allowing individuals to live within their fantasy worlds may not be such a bad thing. It's lush and soft light seems to dominate the movie, especially when Ms. Murphy is on-screen.
McKellen and Eckhart give solid performances and the film is pretty straight-forward with its appeal. Nolte (as the tortured writer and loving father who descends into madness) and Hurt (as Eckhart's boss and fellow psychiatrist) also give respectable performances.
The film is pretty standard fare, however. It is a positive film, showing that both self-discovery and coming to terms with the past can be a curative for a person feeling alone and adrift in the world.
It's enjoyable, and bittersweet for being one of the final performances of Ms. Murphy's career.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites:
Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Aliens in the Attic (2009)
Premise: Pint-sized aliens invade Earth and set their sights on a family's new vacation home. They didn't account for the kids.
Stars: A bunch of kids * Kevin Nealon * Andy Richter * Doris Roberts
Story: Four aliens invade the planet as a scout force while the Pearson family is arriving at the same location - their temporary vacation home. This sets up a conflict where the kids act to defeat the aliens while the adults are kept completely unaware of the situation. Hijinks and hilarity ensue as the battles occur throughout the film.
Review: Completely derivative of other films - from Small Soldiers to Critters to E.T.. The aliens are typical - an evil leader, a male and female warrior that bicker, and a cute & cowed engineer - as are the kids: the rebellious teen, the skater boy, a pair of tech-involved twins, and the cute daughter. Add in the typical teenage sister and her scuzzy boyfriend, and the setting is ripe for conflict and humour.
If you're ten years old perhaps.
I found the jokes flat, the performances so-so, the aliens unconvincing and sterotypical. Perhaps the only honestly funny moment is when Nana (Doris Roberts) is zombified and engages in wire-fu fighting with the scuzzy boyfriend. Even so, the film was mostly boring.
Overall: Bad.
Other Sites:
Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: A bunch of kids * Kevin Nealon * Andy Richter * Doris Roberts
Story: Four aliens invade the planet as a scout force while the Pearson family is arriving at the same location - their temporary vacation home. This sets up a conflict where the kids act to defeat the aliens while the adults are kept completely unaware of the situation. Hijinks and hilarity ensue as the battles occur throughout the film.
Review: Completely derivative of other films - from Small Soldiers to Critters to E.T.. The aliens are typical - an evil leader, a male and female warrior that bicker, and a cute & cowed engineer - as are the kids: the rebellious teen, the skater boy, a pair of tech-involved twins, and the cute daughter. Add in the typical teenage sister and her scuzzy boyfriend, and the setting is ripe for conflict and humour.
If you're ten years old perhaps.
I found the jokes flat, the performances so-so, the aliens unconvincing and sterotypical. Perhaps the only honestly funny moment is when Nana (Doris Roberts) is zombified and engages in wire-fu fighting with the scuzzy boyfriend. Even so, the film was mostly boring.
Overall: Bad.
Other Sites:
Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
The Remains of the Day (1993)
Premise: A tightly self-controlled butler's dedication to his service hinders his personal life.
Stars: Anthony Hopkins * Emma Thompson * Christopher Reeve * James Fox
Story: Mr. Stevens (Hopkins) is a right and proper gentleman's butler. He runs the household of Lord Darlington (Fox) during the interwar period as England slides towards World War II. Darlington hires Ms. Kenton (Thompson) to be his housekeeper. The two are equal in the running of the household, leading to frequent interaction regarding their supervision of the rest of the employees. Beginning with their earliest conversations, Ms. Kenton displays respect and admiration for Mr. Stevens but seeks to engage him on a personal level, which is only grudgingly and haltingly granted. Even as their discussions involve the decline of his father and the employment of two refugee German Jews in Darlington's household, Mr. Stevens refuses to let his tightly held personal views be expressed. Eventually, Ms. Kenton falls in love with Mr. Stevens, but due to his lack of reciprocity, she accepts the betrothal of another man and leaves the household. Years later, Mr. Stevens is contacted by Ms. Kenton and goes to visit her, ostensibly to bring her back to his new employer as a housekeeper, but in his own words "to correct a mistake" he'd made.
Review: Hopkins is excellent as the repressed and tightly wound Mr. Stevens. It's easily one of his best movies. Emma Thompson is additionally great as Ms. Kenton. His total lack of emotions, except in one engaging moment where Ms. Kenton nearly breaks through his shell, epitomize the perfect butler according to his instruction and belief. The abject fear and longing on display when Ms. Kenton approaches him in that moment is easily affecting. His continued lack of understanding and Ms. Kenton's frustration with her advances are understated until the night she announces her departure. Additionally, his steadfast behaviour prevents him from really interacting and reacting to events surrounding him, from his father's decline to his employer's political actions. The lack of self-awareness traps him until long after it may be too late.
The film is easily recommended as it's one of the few where Hopkins clearly demonstrates how good of an actor he can be when he's not playing over-intelligent psychos/non-psychos.
Overall: Good
Other Sites:
Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Anthony Hopkins * Emma Thompson * Christopher Reeve * James Fox
Story: Mr. Stevens (Hopkins) is a right and proper gentleman's butler. He runs the household of Lord Darlington (Fox) during the interwar period as England slides towards World War II. Darlington hires Ms. Kenton (Thompson) to be his housekeeper. The two are equal in the running of the household, leading to frequent interaction regarding their supervision of the rest of the employees. Beginning with their earliest conversations, Ms. Kenton displays respect and admiration for Mr. Stevens but seeks to engage him on a personal level, which is only grudgingly and haltingly granted. Even as their discussions involve the decline of his father and the employment of two refugee German Jews in Darlington's household, Mr. Stevens refuses to let his tightly held personal views be expressed. Eventually, Ms. Kenton falls in love with Mr. Stevens, but due to his lack of reciprocity, she accepts the betrothal of another man and leaves the household. Years later, Mr. Stevens is contacted by Ms. Kenton and goes to visit her, ostensibly to bring her back to his new employer as a housekeeper, but in his own words "to correct a mistake" he'd made.
Review: Hopkins is excellent as the repressed and tightly wound Mr. Stevens. It's easily one of his best movies. Emma Thompson is additionally great as Ms. Kenton. His total lack of emotions, except in one engaging moment where Ms. Kenton nearly breaks through his shell, epitomize the perfect butler according to his instruction and belief. The abject fear and longing on display when Ms. Kenton approaches him in that moment is easily affecting. His continued lack of understanding and Ms. Kenton's frustration with her advances are understated until the night she announces her departure. Additionally, his steadfast behaviour prevents him from really interacting and reacting to events surrounding him, from his father's decline to his employer's political actions. The lack of self-awareness traps him until long after it may be too late.
The film is easily recommended as it's one of the few where Hopkins clearly demonstrates how good of an actor he can be when he's not playing over-intelligent psychos/non-psychos.
Overall: Good
Other Sites:
Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
Premise: A prince must save his kingdom, his family, and restore his honor.
Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal * Gemma Arterton * Ben Kingsley * Alfred Molina * Steve Toussaint
Story: An orphan is taken off the streets to live with the King after he impresses the ruler with his skill and willingness to help another poor orphan. Years later, that same adopted prince (Gyllenhaal) accompanies his brothers on a mission against their enemy, but they are diverted to attack a neighboring city previously thought to be neutral. The prince is blamed for an assassination of the King and escapes with the ruler of the attacked city (Arterton). The prince discovers he has been deceived and sets out to right the wrongs done to him, his family, and both kingdoms.
Review: It's a forgettable action film in the vein of the Mummy movies by Stephen Sommers. A nice escapist film that won't engage too many brain cells.
Plot: The plot is simple and predictable. The adopted prince (who wowed the King with his parkour abilities) acts against his conscience and supports his brothers in an ill-advised attack on a neutral city. During the celebration, the king is murdered, the brothers assume it's Dastan (Gyllenhaal, although I kept thinking Dustan, as in "Dustan in the Wind") and order his arrest and execution. Dastan escapes, taking Princess Tamina (Arterton) with him for the predictable love-hate witticisms that accompany any such pairing, as well as escape attempts. Along the way they come across a Sheikh (Molina) and his bodyguard (Toussaint) who imprison them, they escape again, discover the true source of the conspiracy (Kingsley wants the magical dagger the Princess guarded), they escape again, team up with the Sheikh, try to find a way to stop the conspiracy, escape again, confront the presumptive king with the truth, are foiled, then fight the big fight against the end boss to save the world.
Sounds like a videogame, doesn't it?
Effects: There is some excellent stuntwork in the movie: the parkour sequences (there are at least five if not more - I stopped counting) are excellent and thrilling to watch. While the snake-fighting scenes are obviously CGI (who's willing to fight horned pit vipers for real?) they're quick, understandable and reasonably painless to watch. But the wonky CGI definitely pulls the viewer out of the film. Rubber faces, non-practical effects and the over-the-top battle scene near the end seem to be pulled straight out of a Sommers film. There are also a couple of bad edits - not the "which flap of the collar of the coat is on top?" version but the "hey, she was on his left a second ago" kind. Not a killer, but distracting.
(I just had a notion. Jackie Chan has been doing parkour-type work for YEARS. Why does this method of stunt-traveling have a FRENCH name?)
Acting: Gyllenhaal does satisfactory work as a Persian prince (although who knew lots of people in the ostensible Middle East had blue eyes?) and seems confident enough in the role. Arterton also does well enough (channeling Rachel Weisz's performance in the Mummy movies at time, but I was wondering how British accents ended up in the Middle East during the sixth century?) Add in Molina and Toussaint as basically a twist on a pirate and his henchman (think Han Solo and Chewbacca, or at least I did) as some comedy relief / muscle and your basic foursome moves the predictable plot along. Kingsley plays Kingsley. Has he done anything else since Gandhi? The only thing positive about his acting is that he didn't eat the scenery like Jeremy Irons is wont to do when he knows the film is popcorn fluff. The rest of the crew also perform decently enough to keep the audience in the film (okay, at this point basically no one has a Persian accent. They're either American or British. Is this a sign of things to come in the nineteenth/early twentieth centuries?)
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites:
Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal * Gemma Arterton * Ben Kingsley * Alfred Molina * Steve Toussaint
Story: An orphan is taken off the streets to live with the King after he impresses the ruler with his skill and willingness to help another poor orphan. Years later, that same adopted prince (Gyllenhaal) accompanies his brothers on a mission against their enemy, but they are diverted to attack a neighboring city previously thought to be neutral. The prince is blamed for an assassination of the King and escapes with the ruler of the attacked city (Arterton). The prince discovers he has been deceived and sets out to right the wrongs done to him, his family, and both kingdoms.
Review: It's a forgettable action film in the vein of the Mummy movies by Stephen Sommers. A nice escapist film that won't engage too many brain cells.
Plot: The plot is simple and predictable. The adopted prince (who wowed the King with his parkour abilities) acts against his conscience and supports his brothers in an ill-advised attack on a neutral city. During the celebration, the king is murdered, the brothers assume it's Dastan (Gyllenhaal, although I kept thinking Dustan, as in "Dustan in the Wind") and order his arrest and execution. Dastan escapes, taking Princess Tamina (Arterton) with him for the predictable love-hate witticisms that accompany any such pairing, as well as escape attempts. Along the way they come across a Sheikh (Molina) and his bodyguard (Toussaint) who imprison them, they escape again, discover the true source of the conspiracy (Kingsley wants the magical dagger the Princess guarded), they escape again, team up with the Sheikh, try to find a way to stop the conspiracy, escape again, confront the presumptive king with the truth, are foiled, then fight the big fight against the end boss to save the world.
Sounds like a videogame, doesn't it?
Effects: There is some excellent stuntwork in the movie: the parkour sequences (there are at least five if not more - I stopped counting) are excellent and thrilling to watch. While the snake-fighting scenes are obviously CGI (who's willing to fight horned pit vipers for real?) they're quick, understandable and reasonably painless to watch. But the wonky CGI definitely pulls the viewer out of the film. Rubber faces, non-practical effects and the over-the-top battle scene near the end seem to be pulled straight out of a Sommers film. There are also a couple of bad edits - not the "which flap of the collar of the coat is on top?" version but the "hey, she was on his left a second ago" kind. Not a killer, but distracting.
(I just had a notion. Jackie Chan has been doing parkour-type work for YEARS. Why does this method of stunt-traveling have a FRENCH name?)
Acting: Gyllenhaal does satisfactory work as a Persian prince (although who knew lots of people in the ostensible Middle East had blue eyes?) and seems confident enough in the role. Arterton also does well enough (channeling Rachel Weisz's performance in the Mummy movies at time, but I was wondering how British accents ended up in the Middle East during the sixth century?) Add in Molina and Toussaint as basically a twist on a pirate and his henchman (think Han Solo and Chewbacca, or at least I did) as some comedy relief / muscle and your basic foursome moves the predictable plot along. Kingsley plays Kingsley. Has he done anything else since Gandhi? The only thing positive about his acting is that he didn't eat the scenery like Jeremy Irons is wont to do when he knows the film is popcorn fluff. The rest of the crew also perform decently enough to keep the audience in the film (okay, at this point basically no one has a Persian accent. They're either American or British. Is this a sign of things to come in the nineteenth/early twentieth centuries?)
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites:
Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Friday, June 4, 2010
Splice (2010)
Premise: Two genetic scientists do what they shouldn't and add human DNA to their experiment.
Stars: Adrien Brody * Sarah Polley * Delphine Chanéac * David Hewlett
Story: Two genetic scientists, Elsa and Clive, are working on projects that may provide medical benefits to people suffering numerous maladies with a genetic basis. They experiment on creating new lifeforms combining genetic traits of several species and, intoxicated by their success, they decide to move to the next level and use human DNA. Unfortunately their program sponsor and their boss want to concentrate on retrieving products from the current creations and do not want to move forward without gaining the support of the shareholders.
The scientists move forward on their own, creating a human hybrid named Dren.
Review: While the technology and attitude is cutting edge, the film is a definite throwback to the moral tale of the first Frankenstein film. While the scientists are human and the hybrid is definitely not - chicken legs, four fingers, eventually wings, and a tail with a venomous stinger - it is the hybrid that earns the sympathy of the viewer. This film is definitely a notch above the typical "mad scientist" flick of the past decade or so (eg. Mimic, Species).
Adrien Brody (Clive) and Sarah Polley (Elsa) - references to the original scientist and his bride from Frankenstein - put in strong performances as the two scientists. Dressed in the trappings of geek culture - T-shirts and jackets, an AMC Pacer for a car, anime posters, etc. - the two scientists are also lovers and are simultaneously dreaming of a better place for themselves, as well as pushing the boundaries of science for the betterment of mankind. There is an ongoing dialogue regarding self-discovery of themselves and a growing realization of the harm they've done to themselves, to their research, and to the new lifeform, named Dren.
Dren really steals the show, as the monster did in Frankenstein. From its first appearance as a defensive lifepod (carrying Dren) to the rabbit-chicken infant, the creature moves from something to be feared and destroyed to an "almost cute" and needing to be examined and protected. As Dren grows, the girl-like appearance draws the viewer in as she is incapable of speech but clearly demonstrates emotions and intelligence. When the secrecy surrounding her is threatened by the scientists' boss (played by David Hewlett, Rodney of Stargate: Atlantis fame), the pair move the child to Elsa's old family farm.
Once there, the film focuses on the emotional development of the now young-adult Dren (Chanéac) and her relationships with her "parents". We can see the frustration on her face as she yearns to be outside the farm, to experience life without being chained or hidden. Yet the film doesn't play on the typical "Why am I not like other people" trope that many other films have used. Dren knows she's different but simply wants to feel sunlight and freedom.
One of the strengths of the film is that as we watch Dren develop through the film, the relationship between Elsa and Clive also changes; additional character traits are shown and their relationship moves from ecstatic scientists reveling in creation (like new parents) to fears over what they have done (for the future, for themselves) to loving Dren as an actual child. The strength of the casting is clearly on display - from Brody's anguished spontaneous attempt to kill Dren, to Polley's just-below-the-surface madness as she tries to control Dren.
There are a few horrific moments in the film that will place the viewer on the edge of their seats, but the slow-burn of the film and the great character development is a great counterweight. While I expected simply another "genetic experiment gone awry" like the earlier films, it was a pleasant surprise to see a true throwback to the classics.
Definitely a great modern take on the classic Frankenstein. Easily recommended.
Overall: Good
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Adrien Brody * Sarah Polley * Delphine Chanéac * David Hewlett
Story: Two genetic scientists, Elsa and Clive, are working on projects that may provide medical benefits to people suffering numerous maladies with a genetic basis. They experiment on creating new lifeforms combining genetic traits of several species and, intoxicated by their success, they decide to move to the next level and use human DNA. Unfortunately their program sponsor and their boss want to concentrate on retrieving products from the current creations and do not want to move forward without gaining the support of the shareholders.
The scientists move forward on their own, creating a human hybrid named Dren.
Review: While the technology and attitude is cutting edge, the film is a definite throwback to the moral tale of the first Frankenstein film. While the scientists are human and the hybrid is definitely not - chicken legs, four fingers, eventually wings, and a tail with a venomous stinger - it is the hybrid that earns the sympathy of the viewer. This film is definitely a notch above the typical "mad scientist" flick of the past decade or so (eg. Mimic, Species).
Adrien Brody (Clive) and Sarah Polley (Elsa) - references to the original scientist and his bride from Frankenstein - put in strong performances as the two scientists. Dressed in the trappings of geek culture - T-shirts and jackets, an AMC Pacer for a car, anime posters, etc. - the two scientists are also lovers and are simultaneously dreaming of a better place for themselves, as well as pushing the boundaries of science for the betterment of mankind. There is an ongoing dialogue regarding self-discovery of themselves and a growing realization of the harm they've done to themselves, to their research, and to the new lifeform, named Dren.
Dren really steals the show, as the monster did in Frankenstein. From its first appearance as a defensive lifepod (carrying Dren) to the rabbit-chicken infant, the creature moves from something to be feared and destroyed to an "almost cute" and needing to be examined and protected. As Dren grows, the girl-like appearance draws the viewer in as she is incapable of speech but clearly demonstrates emotions and intelligence. When the secrecy surrounding her is threatened by the scientists' boss (played by David Hewlett, Rodney of Stargate: Atlantis fame), the pair move the child to Elsa's old family farm.
Once there, the film focuses on the emotional development of the now young-adult Dren (Chanéac) and her relationships with her "parents". We can see the frustration on her face as she yearns to be outside the farm, to experience life without being chained or hidden. Yet the film doesn't play on the typical "Why am I not like other people" trope that many other films have used. Dren knows she's different but simply wants to feel sunlight and freedom.
One of the strengths of the film is that as we watch Dren develop through the film, the relationship between Elsa and Clive also changes; additional character traits are shown and their relationship moves from ecstatic scientists reveling in creation (like new parents) to fears over what they have done (for the future, for themselves) to loving Dren as an actual child. The strength of the casting is clearly on display - from Brody's anguished spontaneous attempt to kill Dren, to Polley's just-below-the-surface madness as she tries to control Dren.
There are a few horrific moments in the film that will place the viewer on the edge of their seats, but the slow-burn of the film and the great character development is a great counterweight. While I expected simply another "genetic experiment gone awry" like the earlier films, it was a pleasant surprise to see a true throwback to the classics.
Definitely a great modern take on the classic Frankenstein. Easily recommended.
Overall: Good
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Monday, May 31, 2010
Moon (2009)
Premise: Sam Bell is a contractor on a three-year lunar mission when an accident occurs that changes his life.
Stars: Sam Rockwell
Story: Sam Bell is an astronaut on a three-year contract to extract helium-3 from the dark side of the moon. Helium-3 is a resource used by the company Lunar Industries that provides energy to the Earth. Due to the heavy automation on the base where he is assigned, Sam is the only human employee; he works with a sophisticated computer system named GERTY, that provides companionship. With Sam's contract nearing the end, he looks forward to leaving the base, but begins to hallucinate that he sees or hears other people in the base.
On an excursion to check on one of the automated crawlers that retrieve helium-3, an accident occurs and Sam is injured. He awakens on the base and makes a discovery that changes the nature of his mission.
Review: This is a great piece of science fiction. From the lunar base with its realistic interiors and exteriors to the equipment Bell uses to attempt to contact others, it enforces the sense of claustrophobia present in the film. Add in the lack of human interaction due to faulty communication equipment, and the isolation of Bell is clear to the audience.
Rockwell puts in another great performance - I honestly believe he's one of the best actors going today. From his performance as Guy in GalaxyQuest to roles in Matchstick Men and The Green Mile, Rockwell really knows his art. Here, Sam Bell's anticipation of going home, his frustration with the faulty equipment, the longing in missing his family are etched in his face and actions.
Likewise, after the discovery of how the base has truly been a one-man effort for years, the confrontation and conversations between Bell and his clone show the effect of isolation upon both of them. Without the typical hysterical blow-up that usually accompanies such self-realization and utter despair, Rockwell remains true to his character's strengths - rationality and dedication. He sets out to right the wrongs done in the name of science and industry, as well as save himself from the company agents coming to "clean up" the situation.
The film is a character study piece, but with the strengths of Rockwell's acting and the low-key nature of its message (until the end), it's a great piece to watch.
Overall: Good
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Sam Rockwell
Story: Sam Bell is an astronaut on a three-year contract to extract helium-3 from the dark side of the moon. Helium-3 is a resource used by the company Lunar Industries that provides energy to the Earth. Due to the heavy automation on the base where he is assigned, Sam is the only human employee; he works with a sophisticated computer system named GERTY, that provides companionship. With Sam's contract nearing the end, he looks forward to leaving the base, but begins to hallucinate that he sees or hears other people in the base.
On an excursion to check on one of the automated crawlers that retrieve helium-3, an accident occurs and Sam is injured. He awakens on the base and makes a discovery that changes the nature of his mission.
Review: This is a great piece of science fiction. From the lunar base with its realistic interiors and exteriors to the equipment Bell uses to attempt to contact others, it enforces the sense of claustrophobia present in the film. Add in the lack of human interaction due to faulty communication equipment, and the isolation of Bell is clear to the audience.
Rockwell puts in another great performance - I honestly believe he's one of the best actors going today. From his performance as Guy in GalaxyQuest to roles in Matchstick Men and The Green Mile, Rockwell really knows his art. Here, Sam Bell's anticipation of going home, his frustration with the faulty equipment, the longing in missing his family are etched in his face and actions.
Likewise, after the discovery of how the base has truly been a one-man effort for years, the confrontation and conversations between Bell and his clone show the effect of isolation upon both of them. Without the typical hysterical blow-up that usually accompanies such self-realization and utter despair, Rockwell remains true to his character's strengths - rationality and dedication. He sets out to right the wrongs done in the name of science and industry, as well as save himself from the company agents coming to "clean up" the situation.
The film is a character study piece, but with the strengths of Rockwell's acting and the low-key nature of its message (until the end), it's a great piece to watch.
Overall: Good
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Sex and the City 2 (2010)
Premise: Carrie Bradshaw & Co. return. Again.
Stars: Sarah Jessica-Parker * Kim Cattrall * Cynthia Nixon * Kristin Davis * Chris Noth
Story: Carrie Bradshaw (SJP) is having a crisis in adjusting to marriage. Charlotte (Davis) is having a crisis in dealing with an attractive nanny. Miranda (Nixon) is having a crisis in balancing family and work. Samantha (Cattrall) is having a crisis dealing with menopause. After witnessing the marriage of their two gay friends Stanford and Anthony, Samantha gets an offer from a sheikh to visit Abu Dhabi and set up a PR campaign for his new hotel. She accepts only on the condition that all four women can go.
Thus the scene is set for hijinks as cultures clash.
Review: Trash.
Okay, that's coming from a guy who never watched the series (maybe all of 10 minutes of a single episode) or the first movie. But seriously. We've got four fashion mavens who extol the "virtues" of Western society, which in this case means wearing fancy and expensive (and quite commonly ugly) clothes, paying lip service to equality and fraternity with benighted minorities (gay men in the West, women in the Middle East) and avoiding the larger issues at hand.
I can't quite tell if the film is supposed to be a satire of Western values or not. Suffice it to say that the film may have had the intent of offending as many people as possible. And it succeeds.
Carrie Bradshaw serves as "Best Man" to her gay BFF Stanford and argues the point with her newly minted husband "Mr. Big" (Noth) that it's a "marriage", not a "gay marriage", yet the film portrays the wedding with lavish style and pomp, including a chorus of gay men in white suits and Liza Minelli ("Okay", she concedes later, "it's a gay wedding.") Both grooms (called "brooms" in their description, to combine "bride" and "groom") are outlandish in the extreme, and confess that Stanford gets the wedding while Anthony gets to cheat on him in the 45 states where gay marriage isn't legal.
Due to an offhanded comment by Samantha, Charlotte spends most of the film worried that her husband (played by Evan Handler, otherwise known as the dead guy in the bathrobe that visits Hurley in Lost) may cheat on her simply due to the nanny's large breasts and habit of going braless. Miranda is a successful attorney that has little time for family life, owing to a new boss. Samantha spends the running time of the movie complaining about her lack of libido due to anti-drug laws in Abu Dhabi. All three are succinctly resolved by a few lines of narration by Carrie at the end of the film. (Charlotte's nanny is a lesbian, Miranda quit and found a better job, Samantha is overwhelmed by lust for a Danish architect they met in Abu Dhabi).
The film's main concern is not any development on the part of the characters - all four start with an issue, gloss over it until the end, and have a short reconciliation of the matter due to either alcohol or narration. Apparently, the main concern is "Women need a break every once in a while from being married."
And I left out the innumerable shots of erections, men in speedos, bare-chested beefcake, fashion and glitz. I discovered I'm really not the audience for this, but apparently teenage girls (Miley Cyrus appears), women with unsatisfied lives (I can't count the number of sighs, oohs, and ahs I heard from the group of women sitting near me), and gay men (likewise).
Is this film really the appropriate venue for a discussion of how Abu Dhabi wastes its income on glitz in an attempt to become the financial hub of the Middle East? Probably not - but one sees ample food laid out untouched by the four women when they dine. The audience is treated to the method of employment used by businesses in Abu Dhabi - hire out cheap labor from other poor countries in order to serve themselves and Western visitors. Yet, it's only superficially touched upon by the film in order to serve the interests of the question of taking a break from marriage; the response by the Indian butler is that every time he and his wife get together, it is like meeting again for the first time.
Miranda spends the time in Abu Dhabi attempting to learn Arabic and some of the customs. She even tries to convince Samantha to dress modestly. Yet, in most of the shots of Carrie and Charlotte, deep cleavage is revealed, their familiarity with the men around them is suspect (apparently being intelligent doesn't lead them to hear of stories of Westerners getting arrested and/or deported for activities offensive to the natives), etc. Eventually it redounds to Samantha "kissing" the Danish architect (named Rikard Spirit, but dubbed "Dick Spurt" by Samantha) on the beach and getting arrested, which leads the women to getting basically kicked out of the country.
This sets up a slightly comic scene as the four are rushing to leave the country and Carrie discovers that during a shopping trip, she left her passport at a vendor's stand. For the last twenty minutes of the film, the four are crying about being possibly forced to fly coach (oh, the humanity) back to the States while they are subject to a) trying to locate the passport b) getting derailed into a sleazy counterfeit shop c) confronted by angry men when Samantha's purse spills condoms onto the ground (while wearing a revealing top and shorts in a "conservative" area d) discover that women in Abu Dhabi society secretly wear the latest New York fashions under their burqas and e) have to deal with ancient cabs. Not to mention that they brought a trainload of luggage to the Middle East that somehow ends up on the airplane with them, even though no effort was made to ensure its arrival at the airport.
The only thing that actually made me chuckle was the cameo by Ron White as Miranda's new boss. But even this has made me think, is this an intended slight at blue-collar America? Take a very funny comedian that rustic America likes and label him as a misogynist asshole?
The film has its audience. Perhaps they liked it. I know that I didn't.
Overall: Bad
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Sarah Jessica-Parker * Kim Cattrall * Cynthia Nixon * Kristin Davis * Chris Noth
Story: Carrie Bradshaw (SJP) is having a crisis in adjusting to marriage. Charlotte (Davis) is having a crisis in dealing with an attractive nanny. Miranda (Nixon) is having a crisis in balancing family and work. Samantha (Cattrall) is having a crisis dealing with menopause. After witnessing the marriage of their two gay friends Stanford and Anthony, Samantha gets an offer from a sheikh to visit Abu Dhabi and set up a PR campaign for his new hotel. She accepts only on the condition that all four women can go.
Thus the scene is set for hijinks as cultures clash.
Review: Trash.
Okay, that's coming from a guy who never watched the series (maybe all of 10 minutes of a single episode) or the first movie. But seriously. We've got four fashion mavens who extol the "virtues" of Western society, which in this case means wearing fancy and expensive (and quite commonly ugly) clothes, paying lip service to equality and fraternity with benighted minorities (gay men in the West, women in the Middle East) and avoiding the larger issues at hand.
I can't quite tell if the film is supposed to be a satire of Western values or not. Suffice it to say that the film may have had the intent of offending as many people as possible. And it succeeds.
Carrie Bradshaw serves as "Best Man" to her gay BFF Stanford and argues the point with her newly minted husband "Mr. Big" (Noth) that it's a "marriage", not a "gay marriage", yet the film portrays the wedding with lavish style and pomp, including a chorus of gay men in white suits and Liza Minelli ("Okay", she concedes later, "it's a gay wedding.") Both grooms (called "brooms" in their description, to combine "bride" and "groom") are outlandish in the extreme, and confess that Stanford gets the wedding while Anthony gets to cheat on him in the 45 states where gay marriage isn't legal.
Due to an offhanded comment by Samantha, Charlotte spends most of the film worried that her husband (played by Evan Handler, otherwise known as the dead guy in the bathrobe that visits Hurley in Lost) may cheat on her simply due to the nanny's large breasts and habit of going braless. Miranda is a successful attorney that has little time for family life, owing to a new boss. Samantha spends the running time of the movie complaining about her lack of libido due to anti-drug laws in Abu Dhabi. All three are succinctly resolved by a few lines of narration by Carrie at the end of the film. (Charlotte's nanny is a lesbian, Miranda quit and found a better job, Samantha is overwhelmed by lust for a Danish architect they met in Abu Dhabi).
The film's main concern is not any development on the part of the characters - all four start with an issue, gloss over it until the end, and have a short reconciliation of the matter due to either alcohol or narration. Apparently, the main concern is "Women need a break every once in a while from being married."
And I left out the innumerable shots of erections, men in speedos, bare-chested beefcake, fashion and glitz. I discovered I'm really not the audience for this, but apparently teenage girls (Miley Cyrus appears), women with unsatisfied lives (I can't count the number of sighs, oohs, and ahs I heard from the group of women sitting near me), and gay men (likewise).
Is this film really the appropriate venue for a discussion of how Abu Dhabi wastes its income on glitz in an attempt to become the financial hub of the Middle East? Probably not - but one sees ample food laid out untouched by the four women when they dine. The audience is treated to the method of employment used by businesses in Abu Dhabi - hire out cheap labor from other poor countries in order to serve themselves and Western visitors. Yet, it's only superficially touched upon by the film in order to serve the interests of the question of taking a break from marriage; the response by the Indian butler is that every time he and his wife get together, it is like meeting again for the first time.
Miranda spends the time in Abu Dhabi attempting to learn Arabic and some of the customs. She even tries to convince Samantha to dress modestly. Yet, in most of the shots of Carrie and Charlotte, deep cleavage is revealed, their familiarity with the men around them is suspect (apparently being intelligent doesn't lead them to hear of stories of Westerners getting arrested and/or deported for activities offensive to the natives), etc. Eventually it redounds to Samantha "kissing" the Danish architect (named Rikard Spirit, but dubbed "Dick Spurt" by Samantha) on the beach and getting arrested, which leads the women to getting basically kicked out of the country.
This sets up a slightly comic scene as the four are rushing to leave the country and Carrie discovers that during a shopping trip, she left her passport at a vendor's stand. For the last twenty minutes of the film, the four are crying about being possibly forced to fly coach (oh, the humanity) back to the States while they are subject to a) trying to locate the passport b) getting derailed into a sleazy counterfeit shop c) confronted by angry men when Samantha's purse spills condoms onto the ground (while wearing a revealing top and shorts in a "conservative" area d) discover that women in Abu Dhabi society secretly wear the latest New York fashions under their burqas and e) have to deal with ancient cabs. Not to mention that they brought a trainload of luggage to the Middle East that somehow ends up on the airplane with them, even though no effort was made to ensure its arrival at the airport.
The only thing that actually made me chuckle was the cameo by Ron White as Miranda's new boss. But even this has made me think, is this an intended slight at blue-collar America? Take a very funny comedian that rustic America likes and label him as a misogynist asshole?
The film has its audience. Perhaps they liked it. I know that I didn't.
Overall: Bad
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Orphan (2009)
Premise: Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard get an unexpected surprise when they adopt Esther.
Stars: Vera Farmiga * Peter Sarsgaard * Isabelle Fuhrman
Story: Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard portray the Colemans, an American couple dealing with the aftermath of a stillbirth. Kate (Farmiga) has continuing nightmares and John is a little distant. They try to fill this perceived hole in their lives with the adoption of a third child, Esther (Fuhrman), from a local orphanage. Their two living children - Daniel and Max - react differently: Daniel is jealous and unwelcoming, while Max readily takes to having a new sister.
However, Esther has a secret that could threaten them all.
Review: The movie has a solid premise. An adopted child with a secret is a fundamental fear of most adoptive parents. Adoptive parents want to know the child is alright. They want to know the child will adapt well and come to be a loving, contributing member of the family. They also want to know that they are acceptable and loved themselves. However, when secrets are kept in the background, particularly secrets of abuse, murder, violence, etc., then it can turn a dream of having a child into a nightmare.
Orphan begins this way. There is an idyllic beginning with a slightly ominous overtone. But whether that's a natural fear coming to the surface, or something more sinister is debatable. But the premise of uncertainty is quickly removed when a class bully decides to pick on Esther for her way of dress and behaviour - and instead of keeping things hidden, in order to keep the uncertainty and intriguing nature of the child, a quick reveal lets the viewer in on Esther's secret - she's violent and manipulative.
The film brings up several subplots that could have turned this film into a top-notch thriller: John's (Sarsgaard) past infidelity, Kate's bouts with alcoholism, the orphanage's representative Sister Abigail has a violent encounter with Esther - these could all play into the uncertainty and intrigue of Esther's character. Likewise, Esther's background is only briefly referenced - any implication or causation of what made a child into a murderess other than simply stunted growth is thrown out the window. (Should the viewer take the idea that any dwarf is subject to violent tendencies?)
As an example. Kate has cultivated a rose bush that represents the stillborn daughter Jessica. Jessica's ashes fed the bush, so the emotional and psychological tie is there. John tells Esther to express how she feels about Kate. Esther cuts the roses from the bush, enraging Kate. This simplifies Esther; earlier she showed duplicity and manipulation, so why not order roses that look exactly like those of Jessica's rose bush? This would put the psychological onus on Kate, who could - if the story remained true to its premise - be turned into barely clinging onto her sanity.
Instead of building on the fundamental fear that parents have, the film turns into a typical slasher film with psychological overtones. It's a letdown.
Regarding the acting, Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard appear bored with the material. Aside from a few moments of intimacy and argument, one could easily replace both actors with any of the OC crowd as the roles do not require a lot of work once the adoption occurs. Fuhrman as Esther, however, really does captivate. While her "Lolita" appearance as she tries to seduce John are disconcerting, her transformation into her "authentic" self as the film wraps really does let Fuhrman appear older than her 12 years. While the film does try to maintain the psychological edge early on, it is again, her turn as Esther that keeps the film from falling apart. The rest of the cast - CCH Pounder as Abigail, the child actors playing Max and Daniel - perform ably.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Vera Farmiga * Peter Sarsgaard * Isabelle Fuhrman
Story: Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard portray the Colemans, an American couple dealing with the aftermath of a stillbirth. Kate (Farmiga) has continuing nightmares and John is a little distant. They try to fill this perceived hole in their lives with the adoption of a third child, Esther (Fuhrman), from a local orphanage. Their two living children - Daniel and Max - react differently: Daniel is jealous and unwelcoming, while Max readily takes to having a new sister.
However, Esther has a secret that could threaten them all.
Review: The movie has a solid premise. An adopted child with a secret is a fundamental fear of most adoptive parents. Adoptive parents want to know the child is alright. They want to know the child will adapt well and come to be a loving, contributing member of the family. They also want to know that they are acceptable and loved themselves. However, when secrets are kept in the background, particularly secrets of abuse, murder, violence, etc., then it can turn a dream of having a child into a nightmare.
Orphan begins this way. There is an idyllic beginning with a slightly ominous overtone. But whether that's a natural fear coming to the surface, or something more sinister is debatable. But the premise of uncertainty is quickly removed when a class bully decides to pick on Esther for her way of dress and behaviour - and instead of keeping things hidden, in order to keep the uncertainty and intriguing nature of the child, a quick reveal lets the viewer in on Esther's secret - she's violent and manipulative.
The film brings up several subplots that could have turned this film into a top-notch thriller: John's (Sarsgaard) past infidelity, Kate's bouts with alcoholism, the orphanage's representative Sister Abigail has a violent encounter with Esther - these could all play into the uncertainty and intrigue of Esther's character. Likewise, Esther's background is only briefly referenced - any implication or causation of what made a child into a murderess other than simply stunted growth is thrown out the window. (Should the viewer take the idea that any dwarf is subject to violent tendencies?)
As an example. Kate has cultivated a rose bush that represents the stillborn daughter Jessica. Jessica's ashes fed the bush, so the emotional and psychological tie is there. John tells Esther to express how she feels about Kate. Esther cuts the roses from the bush, enraging Kate. This simplifies Esther; earlier she showed duplicity and manipulation, so why not order roses that look exactly like those of Jessica's rose bush? This would put the psychological onus on Kate, who could - if the story remained true to its premise - be turned into barely clinging onto her sanity.
Instead of building on the fundamental fear that parents have, the film turns into a typical slasher film with psychological overtones. It's a letdown.
Regarding the acting, Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard appear bored with the material. Aside from a few moments of intimacy and argument, one could easily replace both actors with any of the OC crowd as the roles do not require a lot of work once the adoption occurs. Fuhrman as Esther, however, really does captivate. While her "Lolita" appearance as she tries to seduce John are disconcerting, her transformation into her "authentic" self as the film wraps really does let Fuhrman appear older than her 12 years. While the film does try to maintain the psychological edge early on, it is again, her turn as Esther that keeps the film from falling apart. The rest of the cast - CCH Pounder as Abigail, the child actors playing Max and Daniel - perform ably.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Saw VI (2009)
Premise: The sixth installment of the horror series adds new victims and backstories to the franchise.
Stars: Costas Mandylor * Tobin Bell
Story: Jigsaw and his apprentices are back! This film follows one main victim (Easton) and shows how his story affected that of Jigsaw himself. It also tracks the progress of one of Jigsaw's apprentices (Hoffman) in his efforts to continue Jigsaw's work as well as prevent the discovery of his identity.
Review: John Kramer AKA Jigsaw has been around for six films, even though he died in the third movie. Each installment in the series continues to flesh out John's life prior to becoming Jigsaw as well as introduce new ancillary characters (Easton), bring former characters new life (a presumed dead detective), and expand the motivations and roles of others (Jill Tuck, Amanda).
I honestly don't think I've seen a series where characters that are already dead have as much influence and appearances in the show with the actual living characters unless they are ghosts. And there's nothing supernatural about this film or the series.
Once again, the movie starts out with a twisted test of the desire to live. Again, a central character (this time William Easton, similar to Jeff Denlon in Saw III) must proceed through a series of tests that will determine who lives and who dies. Only this time, instead of tying characters to his desire for revenge, the characters are completely innocent (a couple of people this HMO VP would normally write off as DOA) or are complicit in his schemes to bilk the living of their money while denying care to the dying.
While a lot of sympathy is garnered for a few, the aim of the film is to clearly make the watcher believe that people are complicated, there are no clearly good or evil people. So do you root for the victims? Those willing to force such moral dilemmas upon the protagonist? And then the film throws enough twists and "Gotcha" moments in that there are very few people to identify with, so sympathy is a hard commodity to bargain with.
While points are worth mentioning, and the backstory of John Kramer himself is interesting, the film simply takes a path already followed by earlier films, adds no hero (or villain) to really root for, and loses its audience by the third act.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Costas Mandylor * Tobin Bell
Story: Jigsaw and his apprentices are back! This film follows one main victim (Easton) and shows how his story affected that of Jigsaw himself. It also tracks the progress of one of Jigsaw's apprentices (Hoffman) in his efforts to continue Jigsaw's work as well as prevent the discovery of his identity.
Review: John Kramer AKA Jigsaw has been around for six films, even though he died in the third movie. Each installment in the series continues to flesh out John's life prior to becoming Jigsaw as well as introduce new ancillary characters (Easton), bring former characters new life (a presumed dead detective), and expand the motivations and roles of others (Jill Tuck, Amanda).
I honestly don't think I've seen a series where characters that are already dead have as much influence and appearances in the show with the actual living characters unless they are ghosts. And there's nothing supernatural about this film or the series.
Once again, the movie starts out with a twisted test of the desire to live. Again, a central character (this time William Easton, similar to Jeff Denlon in Saw III) must proceed through a series of tests that will determine who lives and who dies. Only this time, instead of tying characters to his desire for revenge, the characters are completely innocent (a couple of people this HMO VP would normally write off as DOA) or are complicit in his schemes to bilk the living of their money while denying care to the dying.
While a lot of sympathy is garnered for a few, the aim of the film is to clearly make the watcher believe that people are complicated, there are no clearly good or evil people. So do you root for the victims? Those willing to force such moral dilemmas upon the protagonist? And then the film throws enough twists and "Gotcha" moments in that there are very few people to identify with, so sympathy is a hard commodity to bargain with.
While points are worth mentioning, and the backstory of John Kramer himself is interesting, the film simply takes a path already followed by earlier films, adds no hero (or villain) to really root for, and loses its audience by the third act.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Smokin Aces 2: Assassin's Ball (2010)
Premise: A prequel to Smokin' Aces; multiple groups of killers are out to collect on a contract.
Stars: Tom Berenger * Vinnie Jones * Tommy Flanagan
Story: Multiple bands of assassins, including the Tremor family, a beautiful solo assassin who poisons her victims, the master of disguise Lazlo Soot (from the previous film), and an assassin that specializes in knives known as The Surgeon all convene on a target protected by multiple FBI agents.
Review: The film is almost a direct rebuild of the first film. However, where the first film had a little originality, this film has none. A couple of interesting ideas (using actual human cannonballs, for example) are simply weighed down by the stereotypical character molds inherited from the first film as well as character roles previously played. Vinnie Jones plays a sophisticated killer specializing in tools of death. Sound familiar?
Avoid. Watch the first film and pretend this one doesn't exist.
Overall: Bad
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie
Stars: Tom Berenger * Vinnie Jones * Tommy Flanagan
Story: Multiple bands of assassins, including the Tremor family, a beautiful solo assassin who poisons her victims, the master of disguise Lazlo Soot (from the previous film), and an assassin that specializes in knives known as The Surgeon all convene on a target protected by multiple FBI agents.
Review: The film is almost a direct rebuild of the first film. However, where the first film had a little originality, this film has none. A couple of interesting ideas (using actual human cannonballs, for example) are simply weighed down by the stereotypical character molds inherited from the first film as well as character roles previously played. Vinnie Jones plays a sophisticated killer specializing in tools of death. Sound familiar?
Avoid. Watch the first film and pretend this one doesn't exist.
Overall: Bad
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Premise: Shellhead is back.
Stars: Robert Downey Jr * Don Cheadle * Mickey Rourke * Gwyneth Paltrow * Scarlett Johansson * Sam Rockwell
Story: Tony Stark has announced he's Iron Man. The son of his father's Russian rival (Mickey Rourke), embittered at Stark's success, makes an attempt on Tony's life. Failing, he teams up with Stark's business rival (Sam Rockwell) to go after him again. Don Cheadle makes an appearance as Stark's best friend and Gwyneth Paltrow reprises her role as Stark's potential love interest/business partner/secretary. Scarlet Johannson and Samuel L Jackson appear as the Black Widow and Nick Fury, both working for SHIELD.
Review: Honestly, on first viewing I really liked the film. It's hard not to love Robert Downey, Jr. and his performance of Tony Stark. The action pieces were timed well and the eye candy - Johansson, the suits, the cars, Paltrow, occasional violence - was liberally sprinkled throughout. Rockwell, another immensely likable character actor, nearly steals the show from RDJ when they're together, and easily plays off the patient menace of Mickey Rourke. And Samuel L Jackson doesn't chew the scenery as normal, so the more cerebral approach keeps him from playing his normally hammy self.
The only performance that I felt was weak was Don Cheadle's as Lt. Col (simply Colonel early in the film) James "Rhodey" Rhodes. Cheadle's a great actor (Hotel Rwanda, for example), but he brings a stiffness to Rhodey in the film, one that wasn't there in the first film. Granted, there is a new tension between the two due to the machinations of the government to acquire the technology, so maybe this can explain the stiffness.
So the performances are pretty spot-on. The special effects crew also do a great job.
The problem this time, tho, is the writing. There are elements of the plot that make little sense. The "buddy fight" between Stark and Rhodey is completely not believable. The exposition in the film implies that Stark somehow knew Rhodey would go get the armor and attempt to "knock some sense" into him. The "accidental" blast where the two suits' repulsor beams hit each other, creating a shockwave of course is used later.
How did Vanko know that Stark would just walk out onto the race track and take his driver's spot? Vanko appeared in pit crew gear at the same time while Stark is getting in the car - yet doesn't appear hurried or scrambling to get into the clothes to infiltrate what was an unexpected set of events.
Vanko builds another set of constrictor whips on a suit of armor. If Vanko knew the suit specifications and language of the War Machine armor to lock it up, why not create a backdoor in case his original plan is hacked? To say, lock up the suit when he personally gets involved? Or turn it into a time bomb to explode? Any number of possible plot points arise from the notion that Vanko could at any time deal with Cheadle's suit. Or, for that matter, given that the suits worked the same, why not retro-engineer a code to take over Stark's suit?
When Vanko removes his helmet during the fight with Iron Man and War Machine, why didn't one of them simply shoot Vanko in the head? Why bother with the repulsor shockwave?
The blood poisoning. So it starts slowly and then takes a big giant leap when Stark does nothing noteworthy or any strenuous activity. It took a larger leap in a shorter amount of time (going to Monaco) than it did during all the flying and fighting of the previous movie put together. Shouldn't that be reversed?
The blueprints for a new element. Seriously? A map of an EPCOT Center ripoff (the Stark Expo) is somehow a new element design that just happens to resolve the blood poisoning? Howard Stark is supposedly dead a decade or so, the film is from the seventies (given Stark's age and the film technology) and somehow Stark Sr. foresaw the need for a new element that would save Tony's life? If it's just a new element that can't be synthesized yet, why not leave some notes in a safe for Tony? It's just a little far-fetched.
I liked it. It's fun, it's not very complicated and it doesn't really engage the brain beyond a few questions here and there. I call it an empty calorie movie, or a run of the mill popcorn flick. But it's not the equal of its predecessor.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Robert Downey Jr * Don Cheadle * Mickey Rourke * Gwyneth Paltrow * Scarlett Johansson * Sam Rockwell
Story: Tony Stark has announced he's Iron Man. The son of his father's Russian rival (Mickey Rourke), embittered at Stark's success, makes an attempt on Tony's life. Failing, he teams up with Stark's business rival (Sam Rockwell) to go after him again. Don Cheadle makes an appearance as Stark's best friend and Gwyneth Paltrow reprises her role as Stark's potential love interest/business partner/secretary. Scarlet Johannson and Samuel L Jackson appear as the Black Widow and Nick Fury, both working for SHIELD.
Review: Honestly, on first viewing I really liked the film. It's hard not to love Robert Downey, Jr. and his performance of Tony Stark. The action pieces were timed well and the eye candy - Johansson, the suits, the cars, Paltrow, occasional violence - was liberally sprinkled throughout. Rockwell, another immensely likable character actor, nearly steals the show from RDJ when they're together, and easily plays off the patient menace of Mickey Rourke. And Samuel L Jackson doesn't chew the scenery as normal, so the more cerebral approach keeps him from playing his normally hammy self.
The only performance that I felt was weak was Don Cheadle's as Lt. Col (simply Colonel early in the film) James "Rhodey" Rhodes. Cheadle's a great actor (Hotel Rwanda, for example), but he brings a stiffness to Rhodey in the film, one that wasn't there in the first film. Granted, there is a new tension between the two due to the machinations of the government to acquire the technology, so maybe this can explain the stiffness.
So the performances are pretty spot-on. The special effects crew also do a great job.
The problem this time, tho, is the writing. There are elements of the plot that make little sense. The "buddy fight" between Stark and Rhodey is completely not believable. The exposition in the film implies that Stark somehow knew Rhodey would go get the armor and attempt to "knock some sense" into him. The "accidental" blast where the two suits' repulsor beams hit each other, creating a shockwave of course is used later.
How did Vanko know that Stark would just walk out onto the race track and take his driver's spot? Vanko appeared in pit crew gear at the same time while Stark is getting in the car - yet doesn't appear hurried or scrambling to get into the clothes to infiltrate what was an unexpected set of events.
Vanko builds another set of constrictor whips on a suit of armor. If Vanko knew the suit specifications and language of the War Machine armor to lock it up, why not create a backdoor in case his original plan is hacked? To say, lock up the suit when he personally gets involved? Or turn it into a time bomb to explode? Any number of possible plot points arise from the notion that Vanko could at any time deal with Cheadle's suit. Or, for that matter, given that the suits worked the same, why not retro-engineer a code to take over Stark's suit?
When Vanko removes his helmet during the fight with Iron Man and War Machine, why didn't one of them simply shoot Vanko in the head? Why bother with the repulsor shockwave?
The blood poisoning. So it starts slowly and then takes a big giant leap when Stark does nothing noteworthy or any strenuous activity. It took a larger leap in a shorter amount of time (going to Monaco) than it did during all the flying and fighting of the previous movie put together. Shouldn't that be reversed?
The blueprints for a new element. Seriously? A map of an EPCOT Center ripoff (the Stark Expo) is somehow a new element design that just happens to resolve the blood poisoning? Howard Stark is supposedly dead a decade or so, the film is from the seventies (given Stark's age and the film technology) and somehow Stark Sr. foresaw the need for a new element that would save Tony's life? If it's just a new element that can't be synthesized yet, why not leave some notes in a safe for Tony? It's just a little far-fetched.
I liked it. It's fun, it's not very complicated and it doesn't really engage the brain beyond a few questions here and there. I call it an empty calorie movie, or a run of the mill popcorn flick. But it's not the equal of its predecessor.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)