Thor

Posted by benjamin on May 15, 2011

The summer superhero season kicks off with Marvel’s latest comic to film presentation of Thor, the Norse god of thunder. We must wait until the end of the summer months to determine how it stacks up against Green Lantern and Captain America, but we can at least joy what we have to date.

The movie follows Thor’s time in Asgard, his fall to Earth due to his arrogance, and his eventual rise after understanding that his actions were wrong prior and that he must be a better god and leader in order to represent his people. The real strength of the story lies within Thor’s time on Earth, a.k.a. Midgard. During this time, the interactions seem genuine, easy to relate, and very entertaining. Thor’s simple misunderstanding that a diner does not bring more to drink when one smashes a cup on the floor demanding sustenance is humorous and allows the audience to understand that Thor has lost everything but is still a Norse god at heart. However, when we venture beyond Earth things are more sporadic and confusing. There are a multitude of characters that are introduced, which are important within the comics, but seem to be more in a filler role here. Why not just save those for another film or build the characters so that they have some actual personality to build upon. If Thor had been left to Earth without returning to Asgard, I would have enjoyed the movie much more than I did.

Even if I downplay the lack of growth with many of the minor characters within the film, I must applaud the casting of Thor. Hemsworth as Thor and Hiddleston as Loki was remarkable. They really shined in their roles. Hemsworth had the manners and look perfected. Hiddleston provided great growth in a character that is by far one of the more interesting villians within the Marvel universe (in my opinion). I’m interested to seeing both possibly reprising their roles within next year’s Avengers movie (Thor has been confirmed, Loki has not), but Marvel should tone back the build up for the Avengers to some degree. This movie and Captain America should not feel like a filler until next summer. They should stand their own without the need to reflect on what is to come.

I must applaud Kenneth Branagh’s work within this film but also provide my criticism for certain choices. For the praise, I must say that he took a subject and story that could have been delivered in an over the top manner, but he contained it well enough that it never seemed cheesy. Any other director would have last the majority of the audience within the first 15 minutes. Maybe it was his past experience with Shakespeare or maybe it was simply Hemsworth’s charisma, but whatever it was it worked and I’d be happy with him continuing to build this universe and set of characters. Now for the criticism. The costumes were just too rubbery for my taste. I would let this slide as there were times when the look on film worked well, but after seeing Thor’s mighty hammer, I just couldn’t accept it any longer. The hammer decided to strike fear into all that face Thor seemed more like some new toy that would be on the shelves of stores in a matter of months. I wanted….no….needed a hammer forged in something of the Earth, not something forged from a McDonald’s happy meal toy.

With all of this being said, I’m still torn between feeling if I loved the movie or want to toss it to the side. I laughed. I was entertained. But I wanted and expected something more. Is that the hype that is talking or someone who just though the film overall fell short of its potential and thus must suffer a rating of such? Until I can figure out my real thoughts, I must give a rating that is undecisive.

Two final notes. The first is that though Thor is advertised for 3D do not spend the money to watch it in 3D. It did not use the technology well enough to warrant the need to see the film in this way. The second is to stay through the credits. As is normal fashion prior to the Avengers, Marvel provides us small scenes which help build towards the mega superhero team up.

The Verdict:

1 Comment on this post | Published in Action, Adventure & Epic + Science Fiction & Fantasy

Invictus

Posted by robert on May 9, 2011

The profound poignancy of the real story of Nelson Mandela and the quest for racial reconciliation in South Africa is sufficient to excuse the over-the-top cheesiness that occasionally surfaces in Invictus.  Let’s hope that the movie that truly captures that epic story has not yet been made, but if it takes a Matt Damon sports themed vehicle to expose new generations to the all too recent history of apartheid South Africa, so be it.

Playing team captain Francois Pienaar, Damon is more believable as a rugby player than a South African, but his accent is close enough not to be distracting.  Morgan Freeman lives up to the expectations that had long cast him as “born to play” Mandela.  The rugby story, the window into the greater drama of injustice and redemption, often seems like an overreaching fairy tale, but in fact stays true to the outcomes of the 1995 Rugby World Cup.  The film has a couple of moments of melodrama that seem a bit like cheap shots, and absent much reference to the broader context, Mandela appears obsessed with rugby to the exclusion of other presidential concerns.

Reconciliation among black and white members of Mandela’s security detail, Mandela’s insistence on retaining the apartheid-era name of the national rugby team, and Pienaar’s visit to Mandela’s jail cell are among the elements that prompt the viewer’s wonderment and ultimately awe, at the transformative influence of a man with the humility to use his power for forgiveness and reconciliation rather than vengeance of one of the great injustices of the twentieth century.

All this adds up to a compelling story and a heart-warming film, even if it only leaves you wanting to know more about Nelson Mandela and the story of post-apartheid South Africa.

The Verdict:

Comments on this post | Published in Biopic + Drama

The Social Network

Posted by will on May 6, 2011

I have long been fascinated with the application and practical usage of social interaction online. Not to mention, I have long struggled to balance where I want to be and where I should be when it comes to an online presence. Sure, I have tried them all (at least, it seems like it) and over the years my memberships have been in flux as I have joined and left digital social circles at various junctures and personal whims. These circles have had their niches (blogs, photos, music) and have spanned professional and personal life.

Yet, as we all know, the behemoth of social networking is Facebook. I’ve been a member of the site since 2005. I had to practically beg my friends to join at the time and now, every few months, I’ll go through and “trim the fat” in my friends list. Six years later I still haven’t quite come to grips with my love/hate relationship with the site. Speaking of six years later, who would have thought there would be a movie based on the creation of the site. Not to mention, a 3 time Oscar winning movie?

The plot is crafted around a series of depositions (Zuckerberg is being sued concurrently for ownership of Facebook) which are cut between flashbacks that give us the story of the creation of the company It is best to keep in mind that both the director and writer have claimed that this film should not be intended to be taken as an accurate depiction of the creation of one the most recent and influential business successes of the past 10 years. Many liberties are taken from a basic premise.

Director David Fincher’s technical aspects, from the camera’s movement and framing, really create a visually striking film. There is always a callous, shallow feeling to the movie, regardless of what’s going on. Like Fight Club and S37en before it, The Social Network has an oppressive yet flashy vibe. So, kudos to Fincher for creating an interesting world around, on paper, a pretty boring pretense.  Visuals can be a phenomenal aspect to a film but the discussion, the tête-à-tête, is what really separates the banal from the magnificent. Enter Aaron Sorkin.

I love Aaron Sorkin (for the most part). His quick-hit, sharp, biting dialogue turns a so-so tale into a tale with a little bit of grit and intrigue. You know him from the television series The West Wing and Sports Night as well as movies The American President and A Few Good Men. The conversations he crafts for the character interactions are whip-smart and funny to boot. The writing really made this film zing. Credit to you if you caught Sorkin’s cameo as a prospective investor.

So, now that I’ve heaped praise on the direction and writing, let’s take a moment to applaud the acting prowess from the young leads of the film. Jesse Eisenberg’s turn as Mark Zuckerberg crafts the primary character into a multi-dimensional anti-hero. While publicly,  the real Zuckerberg appears as an aloof oddball (check out his SNL cameo), Eisenberg instilled a necessary edge to his onscreen (and fictitious?) persona. In a crude sense, he gave the cold, calculating genius a nice pair of brass balls which were necessary to eschew anything to make his idea, his company, a success.

Andrew Garfield, to counter Eisenberg’s Zuck, portrays Eduardo Saverin, Zuckerberg’s best friend. While Eisenberg gave us an mostly emotionless, hyper-active performance, Garfield’s Saverin is the perfect foil; passionate, emotional, and, dare I say, human. Saverin’s sympathetic figure makes Zuckerberg’s portrayal all the more tragic. Eisenberg’s the humanoid, Garfield the human.

I should also mention the performances of Justin Timberlake as former Napster employee, Sean Parker (in the movie, Parker is identified as the founder of Napster, which, in real life, is not correct) as the bandwagon-jumping jackass and Armie Hammer is the upper-crust Winklevoss Twins; both turned in outstanding portrayals and grabbed the appropriate emotional reactions that I imagine Fincher wanted.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the soundtrack. Scored by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, the music underneath all of the layers of complexity keeps a steady hand on the tiller amid the chaos. The tracks are haunting and tense but as they come to a breaking crescendo, they only bend – thus keeping the uncomfortable annoyance buzzing along. Most memorable films contain memorable music and in The Social Network is just another example. Admittedly though, I’ll best remember the first trailer’s backing track than anything from the movie.

Overall, this movie is clever and moves at a modern-day pace. Does it speak for our generation? I would like to think not. Perhaps it’s a Generation X take on a Millennial scenario. Either way, it’s more than worth your time.

The Verdict:

Comments on this post | Published in Drama

True Grit

Posted by benjamin on April 29, 2011

Welcome to a new segment style review where I take a look at those that came before and those that are here now. Remake versus Original. There are thousands out there and I’m here to determine which wins on the rectangular screen.

Remake

Director: Ethan Coen and Joel Coen
Rating: PG-13
Release: 2010
Language: English
Runtime: 110 minutes

Original

Director: Henry Hathaway
Rating: G
Release: 1969
Language: English
Runtime: 128 minutes

Original

Growing up with a father that loved Westerns, I was always encouraged to sit down and enjoy the great John Wayne. Well looks like I finally took the advice because John Wayne shined as the drunken, grizzly marshal. It was a performance worthy of nominations and his eventual wins.

But John Wayne is not the only shining individual within this movie. As much as the film relies on Rooster Cogburn (Wayne), it also relies on the headstrong young girl who hired him. Kim Darby held her own on screen and the relationship between child and man grew from it. My only complaint with Darby’s Mattie Ross was that for someone with a father that was just killed she often seemed more excited to be on the journey to find her father’s killer than to actually bring that man to justice.

Often as it is with the classics, I love to be surprised by other famous actors that I did not realize were in the movie when I initially start it. True Grit offers two more greats in the form of Robert Duvall and Dennis Hopper. Duvall is hard to miss but I definitely missed Hopper so I’ll have to line myself up for another viewing.

As good as this Western was, it was made during a time period where Westerns can often be campy and that’s not my preference. The G rating alone should have been my first sign but the opening music and credits solidified it only seconds into the movie.
Campy, but that’s the time period.

Remake

If this is the Coen’s Western, then sign me up. This was a Western that didn’t feel like a Western. It had all of the proper elements but something was missing that me believe it was a non-Western Western by being a Western. Not sure what that means but I do know that it means something good was on that screen in front of me. I’ll even step forward and request that they continue making films in this genre.

Just like the original, the film is defined by the marvelous 3 of Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), La Boeuf (Matt Damon) and Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) and this trio shine like no other. It is the collection of moments on screen when all three are together and interacting with one another when I was the most enthralled by the story. These characters were brought to life before my eyes. Having seen the remake prior to the original, I didn’t realize that I was seeing actors make characters their own but still provide some of the needed characterizations that were brought by those actors that came before.

Now with this trio, one would expect greatness from Damon and Bridges, but it is Steinfeld who truly stole the show. Many newcomers would fall flat on their face when faced with her opposition, but at many times she stole the screen from many other seasoned actors. I honestly believe that the Coen dialog was what elevated her further. Her nomination was well deserved and hopefully there will be more great films and awards in her future.

As much as this film gave me, one of the defining scenes was a huge let down because of the way it was shot. As Mattie and Rooster rode off together, the scene looked campy and over the top instead of the raw and real look that accompanied the entire rest of the movie. The original True Grit shot this with the actors on real horses riding through the countryside. It added so much while the updated version lost so much more.

The Winner

I had to pick a winner so I went with the Remake. I, of course, loved pieces of each more than the other, but in the end, the Remake seemed to provide me more of the elements that I wanted to enjoy. It was the complete package of dialog, performances, and visuals.

1 Comment on this post | Published in Western

Hanna

Posted by abby on April 22, 2011

I’m a woman of simple needs when it comes to movies. To my mind, a really good film hits at least three out of four criteria. I want to be entertained. I want good writing (including a good story). The acting needs to be convincing. And, finally, the movie needs to look good and be made intelligently. If you get these parts right, everything else will fall into place. If you don’t, it’s much harder to recover.

“Hanna” is a movie that hits nearly all the right spots. It’s wonderfully stylized, and as entertaining as you’d expect, while keeping its head. But the spot it misses is a big one: story. The dialogue and plot development in this movie depend more on showing than telling. While this is a positive characteristic in most other films, with “Hanna,” the script relies too much on showing, and too little on telling, leaving a lot to be desired.

The story, despite initial appearances, is so simple it’s almost nonexistent. Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) lives with her father (Eric Bana) in a wintry forest. He’s trained her to be an efficient little killer, with one purpose in life: to hunt down C.I.A. agent Marissa Weigler (Cate Blanchett) and kill her. The day Hanna completes her training, she flips the switch on a signal that will lead Weigler’s people to her, and the hunt is on.

Seth Lochhead and David Farr’s spare script structures the story like a fairytale and the film is filled with elements that won’t let you forget that. Hanna and her father plan to rendezvous at Wilhelm Grimm’s house, for example. Another scene has Blanchett’s icy Weigler standing in front of a wolf’s mouth. It’s an intriguingly dark concept, and, like a lot of fairy tales, doesn’t include much plot or character development apart from Hanna herself, only characters who serve as obstacles or points of assistance along the way. The most entertaining is a hippie family Hanna tags along with—the always enjoyable Olivia Williams is particularly fun as the mother. Tom Hollander is also good as a creepy assassin who wears impeccably clean track suits and tennis whites, and surrounds himself with a gang of skinheads.

Major props also to director Joe Wright, who seemed to know exactly what he wanted the film to look and feel like. His uses of lighting, editing and music are excellent, all razor sharp and timed precisely. Wright is apparently responsible for reuniting the Chemical Brothers to do “Hanna’s” music, a choice that fits this movie as perfectly as Daft Punk’s “Tron Legacy” score. It appears, in comparing Wright’s previous work like “Pride and Prejudice” and “Atonement” with “Hanna” that the director’s no costume-drama pansy filmmaker. Wright’s a versatile, visual director with an eye for detail, and “Hanna” is the project that lets him show audiences what he’s really made of, outside the realm of corsets and courtesy.

But that script…it’s a problem. While “Hanna” is full of visual symbolism, the story has next to none; no greater concept, no moral (which, given its fairytale styling, is a bit disappointing). This would be fine if it told an exciting story with a cast of compelling characters, but it doesn’t really have that, either. It’s an odd conundrum, since a beefier script would have messed up the film’s coldly brilliant aesthetic, but in order for “Hanna” to fully work as a movie, the extra development is exactly what it needs. It feels skeletal.

“Hanna” is a very well-made movie. It’s flashy and well-constructed. The actors give effective performances, and there’s a good amount of tongue-in-cheek humor to match the onscreen action and tension. But it’s not a warm or full movie, by any means. The lack of character development or explanation of motivations beyond the bare necessities leaves audiences with a movie that looks fantastic, but feels hollow. As a result, “Hanna” is a movie that settles for being very good instead of aspiring toward greatness.

The Verdict:

Comments on this post | Published in Action, Adventure & Epic + Mystery & Thriller