I had high hopes for this film, first because I've liked the X-Men movies so far (6, 7, and 7 ratings for the first three) and Wolverine is clearly the most interesting character. But this movie falls short in many ways.
First, the plot is both confusing and convoluted. Even someone like me who knows the X-Men comics is often left head scratching. Liev Schreiber does a fine job of playing the creepy brother, in a role he almost seems to be reprising from Defiance (6). But if that is supposed to be Sabortooth, then why doesn't he look anything like the Sabretooth from the comics? And I thought he was supposed to be Wolverine's father, not his brother?
That's not the real problem with the plot though. The writers simply plucked bits and pieces from the large store of Wolverine lore from the comics, but didn't bother to include any kind of plot continuity or pacing. All the dialogue scenes with Stryker just seem lame. And Gavin Hood is no director. How did he even get this gig?
Jackman does his best with the lead role, and fits the bill about as well as in the previous films. It's cool to see Agent Zero and the rest of Stryker's task force in action. And speaking of action, there are some good scenes (New Orleans fights) and some bad ones (yet another motorcycle chase scene). The supporting cast is likable enough to push this to a 5 rating, but I was expecting more.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Dragnet - Mankiewicz, 1987
The only reason I even mention this movie is because it is interesting to contrast the director's career with those of his more famous father's and uncle's. Joseph L. Mankiewicz (pere) was one of Hollywood's best writers for decades, and he also proved to be a very capable director. He wrote and directed one masterpiece: All About Eve (10), and produced another: The Philadelphia Story (9). He started writing titles for silent films in the 1920's, and either wrote, directed, or produced up until 1972, when he directed Sleuth (6). He's clearly a Hollywood icon and one of its most talented and versatile.
Joseph's brother Herman, also had a stunning movie career. Although he primarily just worked as a writer, he penned (or helped write) some huge films, including Citizen Kane (10), and The Wizard of Oz (8).
On the other hand, Joseph's son (and Herman's nephew) Tom has a thankfully small number of credits over an unfortunately long career. Like his dad he was a writer/director/producer and even creative consultant, but the list of films he worked on gives us names like Superman II (1), Ladyhawke (2), and Dragnet.
Tom Hanks has some embarrassing performances during his career, but this one has to rank as one of the worst. Dan Aykroyd has plenty of trash on his resume, but even he must cringe a bit when he thinks back on this one.
The premise actually had promise because the old Dragnet TV series had plenty of semi-non-intentional comedic moments. I can vividly remember as a kid watching the (I think first) episode, where Joe Friday listens to a hippie with his face painted two colors freaking out on LSD (which was new as a recreational drug and not yet illegal): "on the train, on the train, on the train... I am the chair, I am the chair, I am the chair". It was great stuff. The contrast between the straight-laced Jack Webb and Harry Morgan and 1960's LA was full of humorous moments, particularly when Friday would fill us in on the latest street slang terminology. Unfortunately, translating that to the 1980's completely failed. A 2 rating.
Joseph's brother Herman, also had a stunning movie career. Although he primarily just worked as a writer, he penned (or helped write) some huge films, including Citizen Kane (10), and The Wizard of Oz (8).
On the other hand, Joseph's son (and Herman's nephew) Tom has a thankfully small number of credits over an unfortunately long career. Like his dad he was a writer/director/producer and even creative consultant, but the list of films he worked on gives us names like Superman II (1), Ladyhawke (2), and Dragnet.
Tom Hanks has some embarrassing performances during his career, but this one has to rank as one of the worst. Dan Aykroyd has plenty of trash on his resume, but even he must cringe a bit when he thinks back on this one.
The premise actually had promise because the old Dragnet TV series had plenty of semi-non-intentional comedic moments. I can vividly remember as a kid watching the (I think first) episode, where Joe Friday listens to a hippie with his face painted two colors freaking out on LSD (which was new as a recreational drug and not yet illegal): "on the train, on the train, on the train... I am the chair, I am the chair, I am the chair". It was great stuff. The contrast between the straight-laced Jack Webb and Harry Morgan and 1960's LA was full of humorous moments, particularly when Friday would fill us in on the latest street slang terminology. Unfortunately, translating that to the 1980's completely failed. A 2 rating.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Angels & Demons, Howard, 2009
Even before viewing Angels & Demons, it was clear that it has all the earmarks of a disaster -- a sequel (to DaVinci Code (4)), bad director (Ron Howard), and based on an awful book. So, to come away with it just being a very bad movie is something of a victory.
I like Tom Hanks in general, but the Robert Langdon character that he's played in the two Howard/Brown films has not been a good choice for him. I blame the character more than Hanks because there's simply nothing for him to do but spout out one ridiculous revelation after the next, all the while looking serious and grim. Ewan McGregor is also pretty bad in this film, particulary at the end. Basically, Dan Brown is an awful writer and the two guys translating his crazy story into a screenplay can't do anything to improve it.
One of the few saving points of the film is the Vatican location shooting -- looks pretty awesome. Ayelet Zurer is pretty, and usually a good actess, but she has almost nothing to do in this movie but follow Tom Hanks around and listen to his awful lines. Nikolaj Lie Kaas does the best job of anybody with his limited role as the assassin.
A 3 rating.
I like Tom Hanks in general, but the Robert Langdon character that he's played in the two Howard/Brown films has not been a good choice for him. I blame the character more than Hanks because there's simply nothing for him to do but spout out one ridiculous revelation after the next, all the while looking serious and grim. Ewan McGregor is also pretty bad in this film, particulary at the end. Basically, Dan Brown is an awful writer and the two guys translating his crazy story into a screenplay can't do anything to improve it.
One of the few saving points of the film is the Vatican location shooting -- looks pretty awesome. Ayelet Zurer is pretty, and usually a good actess, but she has almost nothing to do in this movie but follow Tom Hanks around and listen to his awful lines. Nikolaj Lie Kaas does the best job of anybody with his limited role as the assassin.
A 3 rating.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Austraila - Luhrmann, 2008
Australia is a supremely unoriginal, overly-ambitious bomb that spews out one cliched scene after another. It tries to be an old-fashioned epic but falls flat on its face. This is Baz Luhrmann's first film since his vastly over-rated Moulin Rouge (5) and we can only hope he doesn't make another film for seven years.
It does have some merits though. The art direction is excellent, probably thanks to Ian Gracie. And Luhrmann's one positive signature move is the overhead tracking shot that drops into a reverse pan. These were also the only saving graces of Moulin Rouge.
This isn't enough to overcome a botched story and shoddy direction though. A 3 rating.
It does have some merits though. The art direction is excellent, probably thanks to Ian Gracie. And Luhrmann's one positive signature move is the overhead tracking shot that drops into a reverse pan. These were also the only saving graces of Moulin Rouge.
This isn't enough to overcome a botched story and shoddy direction though. A 3 rating.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Apocalypto - Gibson, 2006
I had low expectations for this film, expecting another Gibson gore-fest. And while there is plenty of blood and guts tossed about here, it is also an entertaining action movie. I give Gibson credit for sticking with native languages and subtitles, as this film wouldn't work without that. He also includes some very good details during the village and city scenes.
Gibson is a simple message kind of director, much in the Clint Eastwood style, but this is his best work. Better than Braveheart (5) and far better than the nauseating Passion of the Christ (3). The action is way over the top in some places (such as the baby being born under water while his mother struggles against drowning) and that helps knock it down a notch, but I still give it a 6 rating.
Gibson is a simple message kind of director, much in the Clint Eastwood style, but this is his best work. Better than Braveheart (5) and far better than the nauseating Passion of the Christ (3). The action is way over the top in some places (such as the baby being born under water while his mother struggles against drowning) and that helps knock it down a notch, but I still give it a 6 rating.
Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust - Kawajiri 2000
Definitely a better than average anime flick, full of action and stylishly drawn backdrops. The characters are pretty stock, but there are plenty of good action sequences.
This is a sequel and I didn't see the first movie, but it was easy to catch on to what the characters were up to. Also, the dvd I saw this on played badly and I expect that detracted a bit from the excellent animation. A 6 rating, and close to a 7.
This is a sequel and I didn't see the first movie, but it was easy to catch on to what the characters were up to. Also, the dvd I saw this on played badly and I expect that detracted a bit from the excellent animation. A 6 rating, and close to a 7.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
The Reader - Daldry, 2008
The Reader is a very slow paced, serious film. Like Daldry's earlier The Hours (7), it is told in non-linear fashion with flash-forward scenes. While not quite as good as Hours, it is still a solid effort. Kate Winslet won an Oscar for her performance here, and I guess she deserves it, although Meryl Strep was quite good in Doubt (7).
I haven't read the book that this was based on, but I suspect that it suffers from trying to be true to the original material, while at the same time staying within a two hour format. It moves along slowly, yet at the same time there are moments when it seems like we've jumped though the story very quickly, as if we've skipped ahead a few chapters in the book. This is a typical problem with novel adaptations.
It's still a good film though. A 6 rating.
I haven't read the book that this was based on, but I suspect that it suffers from trying to be true to the original material, while at the same time staying within a two hour format. It moves along slowly, yet at the same time there are moments when it seems like we've jumped though the story very quickly, as if we've skipped ahead a few chapters in the book. This is a typical problem with novel adaptations.
It's still a good film though. A 6 rating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)