The Dark Knight Rises
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is The Dark Knight Rises.
Directed by Christopher Nolan.
Written by Jonathan Nolan & Christopher Nolan.
Screen Story by Christopher Nolan & David S. Goyer
Batman created by Bob Kane.
Review #166
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some sensuality and language.
Runtime: 164 min
Cast
Tom Hardy ... Bane
Christian Bale ... Bruce Wayne / Batman
Liam Neeson ... Ra's Al Ghul
Joseph Gordon-Levitt ... John Blake
Anne Hathaway ... Selina Kyle / Catwoman
Gary Oldman ... Jim Gordon
Morgan Freeman ... Lucius Fox
Marion Cotillard ... Miranda Tate
Michael Caine ... Alfred
Aidan Gillen ... CIA Agent
Joey King ... Young Talia Al Ghul
Matthew Modine ... Deputy Commissioner Foley
Nestor Carbonell ... Mayor Anthony Garcia
Josh Pence ... Young Ra's Al Ghul
Trilogy.
In my opinion it's one of the scariest word in the motion picture industry. You know what's more terrifying about trilogies? It's when the second chapter is so memorable that the only thing to follow is massive anticipation for the final installment. Historically, trilogies that have this formula seem to go one of two ways and neither of them are good.
1) The final film is substandard regardless of the expectations the public have.
2) The final film isn't final at all. It instead acts as a springboard for future sequels. Thus creating a franchise. Where the subsequent chapters get worse as more films are made.
Here are some of cinema's most popular trilogies/franchises.
Star Wars: Episodes IV, V & VI
The Godfather I, II & III
Superman, Superman II, Superman III & Superman IV: The Quest For Peace
Alien, Aliens, Alien III & Alien: Resurrection
The Terminator, Terminator II: Judgement Day & Terminator III: Rise of The Machines
Spiderman, Spiderman II & Spiderman III
What do all of these groups of films have in common? They all had dynamic, game changing sequels that were followed up by less than stellar final installments.
Does the The Dark Knight Rises allow Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy to join this list? Of course it does. It's a trilogy. But it also brings something different to the table. Something that hasn't been seen in a while when it comes to a series of films.
Closure.
And it's this factor that makes this film AWESOME!
Plot
Eight years on, a new terrorist leader, Bane, overwhelms Gotham's finest, and the Dark Knight resurfaces to protect a city that has branded him an enemy.
While in production of this final chapter. Nolan made it clear to everyone listening that this was going to be the last Batman film he was going be a part of. In any capacity. Writing, Directing, Producing.
So how does he close out the story of arguably the worlds most popular comic book character?
By taking Batman back to the beginning.
This in my opinion was a brilliant way to go. The Dark Knight Rises comes full circle from the roots Batman Begins laid down. By doing this we are reminded in as many ways possible that this is the final film of Nolan's chapter. He also makes The Dark Knight Rises the most ambitious film of the three. While attempting to finish his story arc he introduces new characters that end up becoming dynamic parts to the mythology. A risky move to say the least but unlike Sam Raimi in Spiderman 3. Nolan finds a way to create a sense of balance without sacrificing the integrity of the main plot. How does he do this? By tweaking the back story and origins of these characters.
Before I sat down to write this review I did two things.
The first was see it a second time. There was no way I could review this one until I had a chance to let my feelings from my first viewing subside.
Secondly I read other reviews. Particularly the negative ones along with Facebook posts and comments. The majority of disdain for this movie stems from unsatisfied expectations coming off The Dark Knight.
I completely understand where they are coming from. The Dark Knight was an amazing film. It broke all the rules when it comes to comic book sequels. It had everything you could ask for. It was bigger, smarter and deified comics most iconic villain. To expect The Dark Knight Rises to supplant the overwhelming impact it's predecessor had is just impossible and unfair. Warner Bros. did not help the films cause by hyping it to death. Everywhere you looked there were posters, banners. movie stands, trailers, TV spots, advance ticket sale announcements.
This film couldn't get out of it's own way and it hadn't even been released yet.
That combined with the firestorm of rumors and theories of what we were expected to see. Will Batman die? Is Robin in it? The excitement was palpable. Then the end credits roll and people didn't get what they wanted or expected and thus to those people it sucked. Well I have a message to those haters.
YOU'RE NUTS!
Those people clearly failed to realize that this film was a FINAL installment of a trilogy. The Nolan Batman universe was not going to continue after this film. So what did you expect? Again, I say all of this fully understanding that the expectations for this movie were set so high that Superman couldn't fly over the bar. If you can find a way to temper those expectations and watch this film for what it really is. Then maybe you'll have a much better appreciation for what Nolan and his team accomplished. That's why I had to see it twice. I had very lukewarm feelings walking out of the theater, wondering what exactly what I just saw. I took a step back and saw it again and realized that it was so much better the second time around.
The story is covered now it's time to get into one of the three biggest elements in The Dark Knight Rises.
Bane.
The announcement of this character being the villain sent chills down my "spine". You comic geeks should know why I put the quote marks around spine. I instantly thought that he was a perfect choice to follow The Joker. It was a different approach to the same kind of villain. The Joker needed to use psychology to beat his opponents because he couldn't compete physically. Bane is the exact opposite. He punches first then asks questions later. Nolan did something different with Bane. He gave him a brain. Don't get me wrong, he's no brain surgeon here. But he does more than intimidate with his physical presence. A lot of this comes from his changed back story. Another point of contention with the fan boys. This Bane is nothing like the one from the comics and that pissed people off.
Get over it!
It's a ridiculous detail that prohibits you from enjoying a wonderful performance by Tom Hardy. Because Bane wears the mask on his face. Hardy has to say more facially and he does this masterfully. There is so much behind Hardy's eyes that the mask doesn't hinder his execution. You know exactly what Bane is feeling by looking deep into his peepers. They convey the right amount of emotion and tone of his feelings at the moment. There was one particular part of his character that I wished was adjusted or not actually.
His voice.
There were several stories posted about the "issue" with the clarity of Bane's voice. This is a minor spoiler so consider yourself warned. Bane wears the mask in order to breathe. It muffles his speech making it hard at times to understand what he's saying. At least that was the case when the studio released the first 6 minutes of the film before Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. I saw that opening sequence and the fall out from Bane's incoherent mumblings went all the way to Nolan. Despite pressure from the studio he vowed not to clean up the mess. Well it appeared the studio won this battle because Bane was much more audible this time out.
This was a change I didn't agree with.
I would have preferred Bane to be more gruff. It might have been a pain to discern his lines but it would have given his character more power. The mask was meant as a tool to sustain his life but if you look at him, it doesn't look comfortable to wear. In that case why should his ability to speak be any more comfortable. It's a minor nitpick that doesn't take anything away from his performance. His first fight with Batman was pretty intense and accurately captures one of their most memorable moments from the comics.
The beast is taken care of. Now let's look at the beauty.
Catwoman.
Just like all of the characters Nolan has used in the films, he changed more than just their look. Selina Kyle's story is quite different from what we are used to seeing. For purists it will raise all kinds of hell. However, for this film and Nolan's interpretation of the caped crusader's universe. This Catwoman fits like a glove. Anne Hathaway was a peculiar choice for the role but Nolan gets every bit out of her. The character is not as campy as Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman from Batman Returns and I have two words to say about that.
THANK GOD!
This was not a revival of the Catwoman from the Adam West TV Batman. Nolan takes these characters seriously and gives them the respect they deserve. This version of Catwoman is not really Catwoman at all if you think about it. She's more like a skilled thief that has her own motive and aspirations for living in and around Gotham. Of course the relationship between Catwoman and Batman is properly maintained here and ties off nicely at the end. That's two down.
We have reached the final character that quite possibly overtakes both Bane and Catwoman in this movie.
John Blake.
Who is John Blake? There was major speculation that he was actually Robin. Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't. In reality, he was a regular cop that ends up becoming one of the driving forces of the film. I can't really get into why because it gives away a TON of plot info throughout the entire film. What I can say is that he plays a major role in the effort to stop Bane and save the city. Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives Blake a humanity that goes beyond the cop he plays. This is in large part to his back story that's extremely familiar to a certain person that is well known in the Batman world. I want to say more but I can't.
It's a shame because I feel like I'm short changing how good Levitt was.
The action sequences were well done here as well. They were no different than any of the other action set pieces in the other two films. The opening scene was incredible to watch. I wonder how long it took to pull that off. That sequence was highlighted by the amazing photography. Nolan shot that scene and a lot of the film in IMAX and it was ridiculous. The photography overall was typical of the other Batman films.
First rate. Wally Pfister needs to get nominated for an Oscar here.
All that being said. The film isn't perfect. There are some plot holes that come up. Nothing too major. We're not talking about Prometheus here but they were noticeable. There were also a couple of subplots that were employed to give the main plot some depth. They make sense in the grand scheme of things. The side effect was pushing the run time to it's absolute limit. This is the final spot to bring up. At 2 hrs and 45 min strap in for a journey. It was important to lengthen the run time to properly support the new characters and the return of Batman. It wasn't necessary to make the film almost three hours though. There is one specific spot where a trim or two could be done that still gets the point across while maintaining the story's integrity.
These are little quibbles. Compared to the other bitches and gripes people had with this movie. They're getting off light with me. Some may say that I'm just being too fan boy towards this film. I might be overpraising it. It may come off like that.
That's because I am.
I'm not praising this film not because it's worth it. I'm praising it because of what it accomplished. Christopher Nolan set out to tell a story about a man who became a symbol for justice in a world that was without it. He did just that.
Completely and absolutely.
Will we see other Batman films? That's a question that requires no answer. The question to ask is will we see Batman films on Nolan's level? Anything's possible but until that day comes, if ever. Let's just sit back and enjoy the wonder that is Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy.
On the 5 star scale. The Dark Knight Rises gets 4.5 stars with a "Worth Every Penny" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Watch.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Magic Mike
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Magic Mike.
Directed by Steven Soderbergh.
Written by Reid Carolin.
Review #165
MPAA Rating: R for pervasive sexual content, brief graphic nudity, language and some drug use.
Runtime: 130 min
Cast
Matthew McConaughey ... Dallas
Channing Tatum ... Magic Mike
Olivia Munn ... Joanna
Alex Pettyfer ... Adam
Cody Horn ... Brooke
Joe Manganiello ... Big Dick Richie
Matt Bomer ... Ken
Adam Rodriguez ... Tito
Kevin Nash ... Tarzan
Gabriel Iglesias ... Tobias
Steven Soderbergh is a really good film maker. One of the qualities that make him unique is his range. He's done everything. Comedies, Action and even Horror. You're probably asking what horror film did Soderbergh direct. The answer is Contagion. You are fooling yourself if you think it's not one of the scariest films of 2011. All that aside, Soderbergh is a wizard in the drama genre. He knows pacing and how to give the shallowest character or story immense depth.
His wizardry is in full swing here with Magic Mike.
Plot
A male stripper teaches a younger performer how to party, pick up women, and make easy money.
This is a very small sample of what Magic Mike has to offer. It may be the plot line that eventually dominates but at it's core the film is all about Mike and his journey to better himself and his life. He's not a stripper for life. He wants to do other things that showcase his talent away from the tips and thongs. The problem is that the roadblocks that Mike faces end up sending him down a path that trips him up. This is exacerbated by his relationship with Adam. Soderbergh does a masterful job bringing this out while putting Brooke smack dab in the middle of the mess.
The cast is superb here. Highlighted by Matthew McConaughey's Dallas. As the host of the club and leader he sets the tone for what happens all the way through. He employs a strut that intimidates and seduces. The rest of the guys all have their moments but it's their work together that shines. They are a band of brothers. Maybe not in the soldier sense but they look out for each other nonetheless. They support each other and truly care about each others well being.
They even pass for pretty good strippers too.
It was clear that all of the guys with the exception of Kevin Nash went to stripper university and learned the moves necessary to make it rain in the club. Nash is a professional wrestler who has had more injuries than any of us can count. It's a miracle that he can walk let alone wiggle his hips. So liberties were taken with his character when his solo performance was shown. The rest of the guys do a pretty convincing job starting with Channing Tatum.
He's a tough guy for me to get a read on. His acting career began with the Step Up movies because he's a tremendous hip hop dancer. Then his later action roles have been less than stellar. In fact his roles are very similar to his Magic Mike character. A pretty boy that's taken seriously only for his looks and not for other abilities and talents he actually has. He does have some acting ability but hasn't been around the right director that can bring it out of him. Soderbergh does that here. His performance here is not going to get him any gold statues. But he finds a way to break away from this hip hop pretty boy mold despite his character being exactly that. Tatum humanizes Mike and makes him more than just the object he's perceived to be.
This is once again thanks to Soderbergh. He reigns in all of the superfluous aspects of the male stripper world and keeps it grounded for Mike. It's a means to an end for him and Tatum takes the ball and runs with that philosophy. Soderbergh also does something that I absolutely love with Magic Mike. He keeps the music/score down to the bare minimum. This is a common trait to his films. He doesn't let a score get in the way of the emotions of a scene. Music can sometime be a huge barricade in that regard. Magic Mike is a dramedy but with the right or wrong song depending on how you look at it could easily be transformed into a run of the mill rom-com. The balance between the two is very very delicate and Soderbergh's lack of a score gives Magic Mike the punch it needs to pull the right feeling across.
It's that respect for his performers and their performance that gives Magic Mike more heart and depth than it normally would be expected. Magic Mike was a really good movie that has a lot more to offer than just half naked men gyrating on stage for sex starved women. If that's all you see when you think of this film then you're missing out.
Grow up and see this flick.
On the 5 star scale. Magic Mike gets 4 stars with a "Go See It" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Dark Knight Rises.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Magic Mike.
Directed by Steven Soderbergh.
Written by Reid Carolin.
Review #165
MPAA Rating: R for pervasive sexual content, brief graphic nudity, language and some drug use.
Runtime: 130 min
Cast
Matthew McConaughey ... Dallas
Channing Tatum ... Magic Mike
Olivia Munn ... Joanna
Alex Pettyfer ... Adam
Cody Horn ... Brooke
Joe Manganiello ... Big Dick Richie
Matt Bomer ... Ken
Adam Rodriguez ... Tito
Kevin Nash ... Tarzan
Gabriel Iglesias ... Tobias
Steven Soderbergh is a really good film maker. One of the qualities that make him unique is his range. He's done everything. Comedies, Action and even Horror. You're probably asking what horror film did Soderbergh direct. The answer is Contagion. You are fooling yourself if you think it's not one of the scariest films of 2011. All that aside, Soderbergh is a wizard in the drama genre. He knows pacing and how to give the shallowest character or story immense depth.
His wizardry is in full swing here with Magic Mike.
Plot
A male stripper teaches a younger performer how to party, pick up women, and make easy money.
This is a very small sample of what Magic Mike has to offer. It may be the plot line that eventually dominates but at it's core the film is all about Mike and his journey to better himself and his life. He's not a stripper for life. He wants to do other things that showcase his talent away from the tips and thongs. The problem is that the roadblocks that Mike faces end up sending him down a path that trips him up. This is exacerbated by his relationship with Adam. Soderbergh does a masterful job bringing this out while putting Brooke smack dab in the middle of the mess.
The cast is superb here. Highlighted by Matthew McConaughey's Dallas. As the host of the club and leader he sets the tone for what happens all the way through. He employs a strut that intimidates and seduces. The rest of the guys all have their moments but it's their work together that shines. They are a band of brothers. Maybe not in the soldier sense but they look out for each other nonetheless. They support each other and truly care about each others well being.
They even pass for pretty good strippers too.
It was clear that all of the guys with the exception of Kevin Nash went to stripper university and learned the moves necessary to make it rain in the club. Nash is a professional wrestler who has had more injuries than any of us can count. It's a miracle that he can walk let alone wiggle his hips. So liberties were taken with his character when his solo performance was shown. The rest of the guys do a pretty convincing job starting with Channing Tatum.
He's a tough guy for me to get a read on. His acting career began with the Step Up movies because he's a tremendous hip hop dancer. Then his later action roles have been less than stellar. In fact his roles are very similar to his Magic Mike character. A pretty boy that's taken seriously only for his looks and not for other abilities and talents he actually has. He does have some acting ability but hasn't been around the right director that can bring it out of him. Soderbergh does that here. His performance here is not going to get him any gold statues. But he finds a way to break away from this hip hop pretty boy mold despite his character being exactly that. Tatum humanizes Mike and makes him more than just the object he's perceived to be.
This is once again thanks to Soderbergh. He reigns in all of the superfluous aspects of the male stripper world and keeps it grounded for Mike. It's a means to an end for him and Tatum takes the ball and runs with that philosophy. Soderbergh also does something that I absolutely love with Magic Mike. He keeps the music/score down to the bare minimum. This is a common trait to his films. He doesn't let a score get in the way of the emotions of a scene. Music can sometime be a huge barricade in that regard. Magic Mike is a dramedy but with the right or wrong song depending on how you look at it could easily be transformed into a run of the mill rom-com. The balance between the two is very very delicate and Soderbergh's lack of a score gives Magic Mike the punch it needs to pull the right feeling across.
It's that respect for his performers and their performance that gives Magic Mike more heart and depth than it normally would be expected. Magic Mike was a really good movie that has a lot more to offer than just half naked men gyrating on stage for sex starved women. If that's all you see when you think of this film then you're missing out.
Grow up and see this flick.
On the 5 star scale. Magic Mike gets 4 stars with a "Go See It" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Dark Knight Rises.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Savages
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Savages.
Directed by Oliver Stone.
Written by Shane Salerno, Don Winslow & Oliver Stone.
Based on the novel Savages. Written by Don Winslow .
Review #164
MPAA Rating: R for strong brutal and grisly violence, some graphic sexuality, nudity, drug use and language throughout..
Runtime: 130 min
Cast
Blake Lively ... O
Taylor Kitsch ... Chon
Aaron Johnson ... Ben
Benicio Del Toro ... Lado
Joaquín Cosio ... El Azul
John Travolta ... Dennis
Demián Bichir ... Alex
Antonio Jaramillo ... Jaime
Salma Hayek ... Elena
Emile Hirsch ... Spin
Sandra Echeverría ... Magda
A movie trailer is a lot like a magic trick. It's main purpose is to entice people to see their film. However, trailers sometimes apply the tactic that makes all magic tricks work. Misdirection. Every once in a while a trailer will feature their film and give you a concrete idea of what it's about. Then you go see it and 1 of 2 things happen.
1) Your pleasantly surprised that the film was better than the trailer depicted.
2) Your super pissed because the film wasn't anything like the trailer you saw.
Most cases the #2 scenario dominates the spectrum. This is partly due to the fact that the film itself isn't strong. So in order to drum up sales they bait and switch you. Other times it's a poorly thought out and even poorly executed marketing strategy. Neither gimmick leads to successful ticket sales or audience acclaim. Can you guess which scenario Savages falls into?
Here's a hint....It's not #2.
Plot
Pot growers Ben and Chon face off against the Mexican drug cartel who kidnapped their shared girlfriend.
The argument can be made that it's been a while since Oliver Stone has had a legitimate good film. With a filmography that includes classics such as Platoon, Wall Street and Natural Born Killers. It's disappointing to think that a director of his caliber could put together some really sloppy films. Unfortunately he has and now it's time for the real Oliver Stone to stand up. Savages gets him off to a really good start.
The best thing this film has going for it is the fact that it's so much more than what the trailer depicts it to be. There's so much more to this story than just the paper thin plot of 2 drug dealers taking on a cartel that kidnapped their girl. Savages at times plays like a much smarter film that doesn't follow the same blueprint the plot suggests. Since I didn't read the book I don't know what was changed and not changed.
I do know that what I saw was pretty damn entertaining.
This has a lot to do with the performances of the cast. Beginning with my all time favorite actress. The exquisite Salma Hayek. I have been in love with this goddess ever since I saw her in Desperado. Taking her astounding beauty away from the equation, she's a fantastic actress that has a lot of range. Now in her early years she was typecast as the damsel in distress or the hot chick that gets naked. Later on in her career she broke away from that stereotype and played more grounded characters.
This is one of those characters.
She plays Elena Sanchez with a quiet and dignified ruthlessness. She's a queen in the drug world and acts like one. Sophisticated yet violent when the time calls for it. And HOLY HELL is she SEXY! Salma plays her drug queen pin very nicely off Blake Lively's captured O. The rapport the 2 beauties have with each other on screen is quite a thing to behold. In fact that's what gives Savages the unique quality of not being run of the mill despite the run of the mill premise.
The same can be said for Ben and Chon. They are the yin to each others yang. Aaron Johnson known for his role in Kick Ass does a much better job of being the chill zen like Ben. Kitsch on the other hand is just robotic enough to be the muscle which is right up his alley with this film. The problem is that he's pretty much the same kind of guy in every movie he's been in. His first major role was screwing up Gambit in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Then again that whole movie was a screw up so he just toed the line there. Then he was dreadful in the equally dreadful Battleship. I didn't see it but from eyewitness accounts the only bright spot in that film was Rhianna's performance. That's not a good thing boys and girls.
How in the world does Peter Berg get keep on making movies?
Anyway, Chon shows off just the right amount of emotion to pass as a human being. His character is supposed to be a bit detached from the outside world so it made sense in this case. The rest of the cast does their part to make Savages enjoyable. Del Toro stands out from the ensemble as a pretty scary dude. His mullet hair style and bushy mustache hide his devilish motives when sent on a "job". All told Savages is a pretty good film that could have been better if it wasn't for one little detail.
The ending....It SUCKED!
As always I can't explain what happens. I will say that it was the cheapest cop out finale I have seen in a while and I can't for the life of me figure out why Stone went this way. I almost felt the same way I did after seeing Skyline. The only difference was that Skyline was a horrible from from the opening credits to the end. Savages was and is a really good film without the B.S. ending that just killed it for me.
On the 5 star scale. Savages gets 3 stars with a split "Go See It/Netflix It" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is the main event. The one we've all been waiting for. The Dark Knight Rises.
Can this one beat The Avengers money haul? I think it can.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Savages.
Directed by Oliver Stone.
Written by Shane Salerno, Don Winslow & Oliver Stone.
Based on the novel Savages. Written by Don Winslow .
Review #164
MPAA Rating: R for strong brutal and grisly violence, some graphic sexuality, nudity, drug use and language throughout..
Runtime: 130 min
Cast
Blake Lively ... O
Taylor Kitsch ... Chon
Aaron Johnson ... Ben
Benicio Del Toro ... Lado
Joaquín Cosio ... El Azul
John Travolta ... Dennis
Demián Bichir ... Alex
Antonio Jaramillo ... Jaime
Salma Hayek ... Elena
Emile Hirsch ... Spin
Sandra Echeverría ... Magda
A movie trailer is a lot like a magic trick. It's main purpose is to entice people to see their film. However, trailers sometimes apply the tactic that makes all magic tricks work. Misdirection. Every once in a while a trailer will feature their film and give you a concrete idea of what it's about. Then you go see it and 1 of 2 things happen.
1) Your pleasantly surprised that the film was better than the trailer depicted.
2) Your super pissed because the film wasn't anything like the trailer you saw.
Most cases the #2 scenario dominates the spectrum. This is partly due to the fact that the film itself isn't strong. So in order to drum up sales they bait and switch you. Other times it's a poorly thought out and even poorly executed marketing strategy. Neither gimmick leads to successful ticket sales or audience acclaim. Can you guess which scenario Savages falls into?
Here's a hint....It's not #2.
Plot
Pot growers Ben and Chon face off against the Mexican drug cartel who kidnapped their shared girlfriend.
The argument can be made that it's been a while since Oliver Stone has had a legitimate good film. With a filmography that includes classics such as Platoon, Wall Street and Natural Born Killers. It's disappointing to think that a director of his caliber could put together some really sloppy films. Unfortunately he has and now it's time for the real Oliver Stone to stand up. Savages gets him off to a really good start.
The best thing this film has going for it is the fact that it's so much more than what the trailer depicts it to be. There's so much more to this story than just the paper thin plot of 2 drug dealers taking on a cartel that kidnapped their girl. Savages at times plays like a much smarter film that doesn't follow the same blueprint the plot suggests. Since I didn't read the book I don't know what was changed and not changed.
I do know that what I saw was pretty damn entertaining.
This has a lot to do with the performances of the cast. Beginning with my all time favorite actress. The exquisite Salma Hayek. I have been in love with this goddess ever since I saw her in Desperado. Taking her astounding beauty away from the equation, she's a fantastic actress that has a lot of range. Now in her early years she was typecast as the damsel in distress or the hot chick that gets naked. Later on in her career she broke away from that stereotype and played more grounded characters.
This is one of those characters.
She plays Elena Sanchez with a quiet and dignified ruthlessness. She's a queen in the drug world and acts like one. Sophisticated yet violent when the time calls for it. And HOLY HELL is she SEXY! Salma plays her drug queen pin very nicely off Blake Lively's captured O. The rapport the 2 beauties have with each other on screen is quite a thing to behold. In fact that's what gives Savages the unique quality of not being run of the mill despite the run of the mill premise.
The same can be said for Ben and Chon. They are the yin to each others yang. Aaron Johnson known for his role in Kick Ass does a much better job of being the chill zen like Ben. Kitsch on the other hand is just robotic enough to be the muscle which is right up his alley with this film. The problem is that he's pretty much the same kind of guy in every movie he's been in. His first major role was screwing up Gambit in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Then again that whole movie was a screw up so he just toed the line there. Then he was dreadful in the equally dreadful Battleship. I didn't see it but from eyewitness accounts the only bright spot in that film was Rhianna's performance. That's not a good thing boys and girls.
How in the world does Peter Berg get keep on making movies?
Anyway, Chon shows off just the right amount of emotion to pass as a human being. His character is supposed to be a bit detached from the outside world so it made sense in this case. The rest of the cast does their part to make Savages enjoyable. Del Toro stands out from the ensemble as a pretty scary dude. His mullet hair style and bushy mustache hide his devilish motives when sent on a "job". All told Savages is a pretty good film that could have been better if it wasn't for one little detail.
The ending....It SUCKED!
As always I can't explain what happens. I will say that it was the cheapest cop out finale I have seen in a while and I can't for the life of me figure out why Stone went this way. I almost felt the same way I did after seeing Skyline. The only difference was that Skyline was a horrible from from the opening credits to the end. Savages was and is a really good film without the B.S. ending that just killed it for me.
On the 5 star scale. Savages gets 3 stars with a split "Go See It/Netflix It" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is the main event. The one we've all been waiting for. The Dark Knight Rises.
Can this one beat The Avengers money haul? I think it can.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
The Amazing Spiderman
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is The Amazing Spiderman.
Directed by Marc Webb.
Written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent & Steve Kloves.
Screen Story by James Vanderbilt.
Spiderman created by Stan Lee & Steve Ditko
Review #163
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sequences of action and violence.
Runtime: 136 min
Cast
Andrew Garfield ... Spider-Man / Peter Parker
Emma Stone ... Gwen Stacy
Rhys Ifans ... The Lizard / Dr. Curt Connors
Denis Leary ... Captain Stacy
Martin Sheen ... Uncle Ben
Sally Field ... Aunt May
Irrfan Khan ... Rajit Ratha
Campbell Scott ... Richard Parker
Embeth Davidtz ... Mary Parker
Chris Zylka ... Flash Thompson
Today's review is The Amazing Spiderman.
Directed by Marc Webb.
Written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent & Steve Kloves.
Screen Story by James Vanderbilt.
Spiderman created by Stan Lee & Steve Ditko
Review #163
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sequences of action and violence.
Runtime: 136 min
Cast
Andrew Garfield ... Spider-Man / Peter Parker
Emma Stone ... Gwen Stacy
Rhys Ifans ... The Lizard / Dr. Curt Connors
Denis Leary ... Captain Stacy
Martin Sheen ... Uncle Ben
Sally Field ... Aunt May
Irrfan Khan ... Rajit Ratha
Campbell Scott ... Richard Parker
Embeth Davidtz ... Mary Parker
Chris Zylka ... Flash Thompson
It's not uncommon for a studio to ask for a do over when one of their franchises latest entry is severely panned by critics and the general public. It is however, uncommon for a studio to begin production on their do over so soon after their film gets bashed around. That's exactly what happened after the release of Spiderman 3. Sam Raimi's final chapter of his wall crawler's saga was vilified.
And with good reason.
After the immense success of it's predecessor. It was only natural to believe that the finale would equal or even exceed Spiderman 2. That was the progression. Spiderman was a very good film. Spiderman 2 was great and in the conversation of greatest sequel ever made. For an encore, we were treated to an unholy mess of a movie.
Spiderman 3 bit off way more than it could chew and the franchise along with the trust it earned from the public suffered as a result. So instead of waiting out the firestorm, Columbia Pictures took the initiative to try and repair the broken bond Spiderman 3 created with the fans.
After only 5 years.
It was a bold move in a series of bold moves this reboot introduces.
Plot
Peter Parker finds a clue that might help him understand why his parents disappeared when he was young. His path puts him on a collision course with Dr. Curt Connors, his father's former partner.
The first move was hiring a different director. It was clear that Sam Raimi's time in the chair was over. Somewhere between Spiderman 2 & 3 he lost his control of the character and his story arc. Bogging our hero down with 4 enemies while juggling a ridiculous relationship with Mary Jane. You could tell that Columbia and Raimi had a difference of opinion on how to take on the next chapter. The obvious tactic was to split Spiderman 3 into two films.
Let Peter finish his feud with Hobgoblin while introducing The Sandman in part 3. Then have him take on the Symbiote and Venom in part 4. It would have been so much more cleaner and logical. The check writers didn't see it that way and it pushed Raimi away from writing the wrong that was Spiderman 3.
So now comes Marc Webb. Tasked to reinvent one of comics most popular characters. With a last name like Webb you would think he would be the perfect choice right? Until you look at his resume as a director and you see his only feature film credit is 2009's (500) Days of Summer. A pretty good indie comedy. But there lies the rub.
An indie comedy.
Instead of going with a veteran director with some experience handling this mega genre of the film industry. The fate of the Spiderman franchise was trusted to someone who was the exact opposite. This sent a wave of emotions through me after reading the news of Webb's hiring. The first was a feeling of pause. Just to let it digest. The next was fear. Deep, gripping, relentless fear. It was clear to me that bringing Webb in to direct this reboot was a shoot from the hip decision. Intended to make clear to anyone that was listening that the franchise was going to make some serious changes. I was right on my theory of his introduction to the franchise. I was wrong on my feelings about his ability to pull it off.
WAY OFF!
The first thing Webb did was start from scratch. He went and retold Spiderman's origin. With a twist. This time around, Peter's parents play a major role in the narrative. This was never addressed in the previous films. They were mentioned in passing. If at all. Here, they're presence and sudden disappearance drive Peter's motivation and attitude when he gets older. The rest of the film's story plays off that and it's carries well.
That doesn't mean the story is perfect though.
The biggest subject is the relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy. For all you non Spiderman geeks and shame on you for not being one. Peter's first love interest in the comics was Gwen Stacy. Not Mary Jane Watson. Peter and Mary Jane became an item after the Green Goblin kills Gwen. Going this route was a very wise choice. The problem here was the development of their romance. It played off very clumsily and rushed. There was no time for them to actually fall for each other. They just do. It felt a little hokey. Mostly because of their first interaction with each other. It appeared that they hardly knew each other despite that not being the case at all. It's a shame because Garfield and Stone had great chemistry with each other. I guess that's why they're a real couple as we speak.
OK. Enough of that. I ain't no gossip reporter.
The second story blip belonged to The Lizard. Again, just like Gwen, choosing The Lizard to be Spidey's antagonist was a brilliant one. He's one of the lesser known and popular villains in the comics history. But he doesn't feel like it here. The character design was superb fan complaints notwithstanding. There were grumblings concerning The Lizard's snout wasn't as large like in the books. C'mon people. This is a petty nitpick that takes away what in actuality was a really bad ass villain.
Back on topic.
Due to the expanded back story and origin of Peter's new found abilities. The dynamic between Peter and Dr. Connors was cut short. This was unfortunate. There was a real opportunity to create a stronger bond between the two characters. They're main connection is that Connors worked with Peter's father. The science background is only a smaller addition to their characters. I think back to Spiderman 2 when Peter and Dr. Octavius were having dinner together. Talking about science and life. It was a great scene. Not because it established Peter's scientific brilliance to another brillant man. It humanized them. It made you care. There was only a tease of that here. I realize this sounds like major plot issues. They're really not. They were just underdeveloped. The core and heart of these stories are there.
A little more time in the oven would have made them just right.
My final point of contention with this movie was the performance of Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker. He like Webb was an off the wall choice to play Spidey's alter ego. It was a good one save for one part of Peter's character that I felt wasn't expressed thoroughly. I remember Peter being a real geek in the truest sense of the word. He was a bookworm who preferred to play with a bunsen burner than with a baseball bat. That wasn't as evident here as it should have been. Garfield plays Peter more like a kid that has a lack of confidence which was a huge part of Peter's make up. However, the balance between his shyness and nerdiness was skewed more to one side than the other and it didn't feel right to me. There were only a few glimpses of Peter's scientific acuity. I'm probably going to be in the minority when it comes to this but in my opinion there was a lacking in Peter's actual science geek persona that plays a HUGE role in his development as Spiderman.
Now on to what's good in The Amazing Spiderman.
There's a whole lot to like here. Since I led off with what I didn't like about the story. Here's what I did like. I loved how although tweaks were made to the mythology. The proper respect was given to the origin and creation of our hero. Everything you remember that led to Peter's genesis as Spiderman is here. The spider bite, Uncle Ben's death and Peter's relentless search for the killer. The story isn't as campy as the original films were at times. This portrayal of the Spiderman world is grounded in a little more reality. As much as there can be when you have a kid with powers like a spider and a guy in lizard form duking it out all over the city.
Speaking of duking it out. The action scenes in The Amazing Spiderman were marvelous. The one on one's between Spidey and The Lizard rank up there with the clashes between Spiderman and Dr. Octopus from Spiderman 2. The choreography maintains a high level of intricacy while being whimsical at the same time. You can follow the action without the use of super slo mo to catch all of the moves. The CGI is top notch. The Lizard is totally computerized and his design and look was first rate.
Finally, the film ends with a clear opening for sequels which falls into the duh category. Climaxing with a tease of Spidery's next potential villain. And if it's who it appears to be then I'm all in for The Amazing Spiderman 2. One of the bright spots of how the film ends is how Peter comes through all of the fighting and destruction. The film goes through Peter's maturation and learning of his new found abilities. He's reckless, impulsive and a maverick after he harnesses his powers. This is a nice set up for the future films to explore. As the years go by how will Peter accept his abilities and more importantly, how will he accept the responsibility his powers have bestowed on him.
The Amazing Spiderman isn't a great film. It's not going to make you forget the original Spiderman. It's not a bad film either. It's somewhere in the middle that borders more on the good side. A little touch ups here and there and the franchise could be in really good shape in the future.
On the 5 star scale. The Amazing Spiderman gets 3.5 stars. With a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Savages.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Ted
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Ted.
Directed by Seth Macfarlane.
Written by Seth Macfarlane, Alec Sulkin & Wellesely Wild.
Screen Story by Seth Macfarlane.
Review #162
MPAA Rating: R for crude and sexual content, pervasive language, and some drug use.
Runtime: 106 min
Cast
Mark Wahlberg ... John Bennett
Mila Kunis ... Lori Collins
Seth MacFarlane ... Ted (voice)
Joel McHale ... Rex
Giovanni Ribisi ... Donny
Patrick Warburton ... Guy
Matt Walsh ... Thomas
Jessica Barth ... Tami-Lynn
Aedin Mincks ... Robert
Bill Smitrovich ... Frank
Patrick Stewart ... Narrator
Norah Jones ... Herself
Sam J. Jones ... Himself
Tom Skerritt ... Himself
Family Guy is a show that's an acquired taste. In fact it's kind of like Terrence Malick's recent film The Tree of Life. You either love it or hate it. There's no middle ground. Malick made sure of that with his latest and Macfarlane does that with his show as well. So with his first venture into a feature film....a live action feature at that. The question all Family Guy fans asked was could he create the same humor on the big screen that he does so well on the small screen. The answer is a resounding yes.
Does that make Ted a good movie? Yes but just barely.
Plot
As the result of a childhood wish, John Bennett's teddy bear, Ted, came to life and has been by John's side ever since - a friendship that's tested when Lori, John's girlfriend of four years, wants more from their relationship.
One of the things that makes Family Guy so funny is the envelopes it pushes every week. Absolutely nothing is off limits. I still can't believe it's still on the air. Being on the FOX network clearly helps. But some of the stuff they have brought up can be cringe inducing. The popularity of the show just re-enforces the fact that we as a society have a sense of humor and don't spend all day taking stuff seriously. This has allowed Macfarlane and his team take the ball and run with it until somebody decides to stop them. Ted follows the same blueprint that makes Family Guy such a success.
This is both the film's triumph and downfall.
On the plus side. The humor in Ted is in keeping with the wit and raunchiness that Family Guy employs. The jokes are pretty fresh and slick. Macfarlane finds a way to make his go to comedy topics feel new. A big part of that has to do with the misguided nature of Hollywood's rating process. You can drop F bombs every 3rd word in the film without consequence. Show a fully nude woman and your facing an MPAA appeal board. Some of the punchlines are pretty hysterical. Especially when they are uttered by a talking stuffed bear.
Here's where the film really works. Ted drives the film through it's ups and downs. He has the best jokes which is great but his timing is better. His banter with the human characters create powerful comedic moments that you can't help laughing when he says something. In fact some of the jokes stay with you long after the scene ends. This happened to me at least twice. I was still laughing at something that happened 10-15 minutes ago. I couldn't get the joke out of my head.
The scene with Ted and the grocery store manager was priceless.
This is thanks to Macfarlane's performance. Ted is no different than any character on Family Guy. In fact you could make the argument that he's modeled after Brain. Only much more vulgar. He gives Ted a believability to live among the "real" world through a very simple yet clever opening montage that explains his existence. This allows Ted to "live" like anyone else. That in turn gives his jokes more credibility and laughs.
The problem with Ted isn't the comedy. It's the story that surrounds it. The main plot is fine. There are a couple of subplots that bog down what should have been a much simpler story. This is what drops Ted down a couple of points. I think this has something to do with the fact that Macfarlane is used to writing for a 30 minute show. With Ted he had to triple the runtime and in doing so he created some secondary stories that seemed forced and out of place. I could be way off on this theory but that's what it looked like to me when I was watching these scenes. I won't say exactly what they were but you'll see it when you check the film out.
It's obvious.
Another thing Macfarlane tried to do was give Family Guy fans a little homage. He did a couple of cutaway scenes that gave more explanation to the story that was being told by the characters. In Family Guy, these cutaways are very off the wall and over the top. That only happens in 1 scene and it didn't work at all. The other 2 times it was OK but unnecessary. This is what was the biggest disappointment about Ted. Macfarlane and company had the chance to break away from the Family Guy mold. Instead they went halfway and at times it felt like a cop out. It's too bad because Ted was a good film that could have and should have been great. The comedy will move it along the popular bandwagon and that's a good thing.
Being a fan of Macfarlane's work I was hoping for a little more and instead I got a little more of the same.
On the 5 star scale. Ted gets 3 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Amazing Spiderman.
Until next episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Ted.
Directed by Seth Macfarlane.
Written by Seth Macfarlane, Alec Sulkin & Wellesely Wild.
Screen Story by Seth Macfarlane.
Review #162
MPAA Rating: R for crude and sexual content, pervasive language, and some drug use.
Runtime: 106 min
Cast
Mark Wahlberg ... John Bennett
Mila Kunis ... Lori Collins
Seth MacFarlane ... Ted (voice)
Joel McHale ... Rex
Giovanni Ribisi ... Donny
Patrick Warburton ... Guy
Matt Walsh ... Thomas
Jessica Barth ... Tami-Lynn
Aedin Mincks ... Robert
Bill Smitrovich ... Frank
Patrick Stewart ... Narrator
Norah Jones ... Herself
Sam J. Jones ... Himself
Tom Skerritt ... Himself
Family Guy is a show that's an acquired taste. In fact it's kind of like Terrence Malick's recent film The Tree of Life. You either love it or hate it. There's no middle ground. Malick made sure of that with his latest and Macfarlane does that with his show as well. So with his first venture into a feature film....a live action feature at that. The question all Family Guy fans asked was could he create the same humor on the big screen that he does so well on the small screen. The answer is a resounding yes.
Does that make Ted a good movie? Yes but just barely.
Plot
As the result of a childhood wish, John Bennett's teddy bear, Ted, came to life and has been by John's side ever since - a friendship that's tested when Lori, John's girlfriend of four years, wants more from their relationship.
One of the things that makes Family Guy so funny is the envelopes it pushes every week. Absolutely nothing is off limits. I still can't believe it's still on the air. Being on the FOX network clearly helps. But some of the stuff they have brought up can be cringe inducing. The popularity of the show just re-enforces the fact that we as a society have a sense of humor and don't spend all day taking stuff seriously. This has allowed Macfarlane and his team take the ball and run with it until somebody decides to stop them. Ted follows the same blueprint that makes Family Guy such a success.
This is both the film's triumph and downfall.
On the plus side. The humor in Ted is in keeping with the wit and raunchiness that Family Guy employs. The jokes are pretty fresh and slick. Macfarlane finds a way to make his go to comedy topics feel new. A big part of that has to do with the misguided nature of Hollywood's rating process. You can drop F bombs every 3rd word in the film without consequence. Show a fully nude woman and your facing an MPAA appeal board. Some of the punchlines are pretty hysterical. Especially when they are uttered by a talking stuffed bear.
Here's where the film really works. Ted drives the film through it's ups and downs. He has the best jokes which is great but his timing is better. His banter with the human characters create powerful comedic moments that you can't help laughing when he says something. In fact some of the jokes stay with you long after the scene ends. This happened to me at least twice. I was still laughing at something that happened 10-15 minutes ago. I couldn't get the joke out of my head.
The scene with Ted and the grocery store manager was priceless.
This is thanks to Macfarlane's performance. Ted is no different than any character on Family Guy. In fact you could make the argument that he's modeled after Brain. Only much more vulgar. He gives Ted a believability to live among the "real" world through a very simple yet clever opening montage that explains his existence. This allows Ted to "live" like anyone else. That in turn gives his jokes more credibility and laughs.
The problem with Ted isn't the comedy. It's the story that surrounds it. The main plot is fine. There are a couple of subplots that bog down what should have been a much simpler story. This is what drops Ted down a couple of points. I think this has something to do with the fact that Macfarlane is used to writing for a 30 minute show. With Ted he had to triple the runtime and in doing so he created some secondary stories that seemed forced and out of place. I could be way off on this theory but that's what it looked like to me when I was watching these scenes. I won't say exactly what they were but you'll see it when you check the film out.
It's obvious.
Another thing Macfarlane tried to do was give Family Guy fans a little homage. He did a couple of cutaway scenes that gave more explanation to the story that was being told by the characters. In Family Guy, these cutaways are very off the wall and over the top. That only happens in 1 scene and it didn't work at all. The other 2 times it was OK but unnecessary. This is what was the biggest disappointment about Ted. Macfarlane and company had the chance to break away from the Family Guy mold. Instead they went halfway and at times it felt like a cop out. It's too bad because Ted was a good film that could have and should have been great. The comedy will move it along the popular bandwagon and that's a good thing.
Being a fan of Macfarlane's work I was hoping for a little more and instead I got a little more of the same.
On the 5 star scale. Ted gets 3 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Amazing Spiderman.
Until next episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)