Les Miserables

Les Miserables 

Look, I'm not gonna lie.  I usually don't like musicals.   I respect them, and I appreciate the power of music to evoke emotion, but all too often I find the singing actually takes me out of the movie as opposed to emotionally connecting me.  There are exceptions, of course.  Singing in the Rain is a classic.  I really enjoyed both Chicago and Dreamgirls.  So what about Les Miserables?  Would this all-star film based on one of Broadway's most beloved shows be one of the few musicals that crosses over?

Les Miserables is based on the classic novel by Victor Hugo. I'll keep the synopsis vague as to not ruin anything for those who don't know the story.  Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) has just been released from 19-years imprisonment and decides to break parole in order to rebuild his life as a better man.  Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe) is a tough-as-nails soldier who devotes his life to catching the convict, ignoring all the visible signs of how Valjean's newfound compassion affects everyone around them.  It's an epic story, spanning decades, and even includes a climactic battle set during the Paris Uprising in 1832.

The story sounded interesting so I was definitely curious, especially with this superb cast: Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russell Crowe, Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bodham Carter...this is quite a cast.  And I was a big fan of director Tom Hooper's last movie, The King's Speech.  But unfortunately, Les Miserables did not totally win me over. 

First of all, there is a lot to like in this movie, starting with the cast.  Everyone is absolutely superb, both in the acting and singing department.  Hooper made a brave choice with the film by recording the songs live instead of recording them in the studio, which is the common practice with musicals.  This experiment pays off in spades, giving the music an immediacy and raw emotional power that is missing when the songs are "produced" in a studio booth.  Nowhere is this more evident than in Anne Hathaway's show-stopping "I Dreamed a Dream," which is about as raw as you can get.

I was also very impressed with the art direction and the overall look of the film.  It's a superb looking film, and I wouldn't be surprised if it scooped up most of the Costume and Art Direction Awards.

What I liked most about Les Miserables was the epicness of it all.  I truly felt like this movie was a massive journey and I had gotten to know these characters over two decades.  When the movie ends, you do not feel like you've watched a movie; instead, you've experienced something.  And that is kinda special.  Ironically, this epic length is also the movie's greatest weakness.  When the movie is not working, it just grinds to a halt...and it is those moments where I literally feel like I am spending twenty years with these people.  There were a few times where I thought, "oh, please, Jean Valjean, if you have any real compassion, you would just stop singing and get on with it!"

There are a few other things I don't like.  I had never seen the stage musical so a lot of this was fresh for me.  And the songs are all quite good and memorable.  But most musicals have dialogue between the songs.  Not Les Miserables.  This movie is all song. There might be all of six lines of non-singing dialogue in the whole film. I wouldn't mind this so much if the music were good, but I actually found much of the this 'inbetween' singing to be tuneless and meandering.  I know many of you are screaming and smashing at your keyboards: BLASPHEMY!!!  Look, I'm not badmouthing the music as a whole.  The major songs are all pretty good, some of them superb, but the music inbetween the big numbers is just kind of painful.

So there you go: Les Miserables in the end is a mixed bag.  When it is firing on all cylinders, it really is terrific.  Usually this is when the show's major numbers are featured: "I Dreamed a Dream," "On My Own," and "One Day More" are stirring and wonderfully performed, and showcase the raw power that musicals can have when done well.  But it just drags in a lot of other places, sometimes painfully so.  But like I said in the beginning of the review, take my opinion with a grain of salt because musicals just aren't my thing!

But all that said, I do want to address a few points in SPOILER territory.  For those who have seen the movie or know the play really well, here are the moments I liked and disliked.

Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bodham Carter stage the film's funniest scene when they perform "Master of the House," but with every subsequent scene they appear in, they become less and less amusing and more and more annoying.  Until by the end, they were just tedious.

Damn.  Hugh Jackman can sing.  And I was a bit terrified by his chest hair.  To be honest, I was surprised by most of the cast.  They all have pretty terrific voices.

Anne Hathaway just won her Oscar.  I am sure of it.  She isn't in the film for very long, but she is so heart achingly good in "I Dreamed a Dream."  It's downright haunting.

Almost as good is the relatively unknown (but not for long) member of the cast, Samantha Barks, as Eponine.  She knocks "On My Own" out of the park!

I do want to defend Russell Crowe for a second. He seems to be catching some heat as Javert.  I actually thought he was fine.  It's a different role for him, and while his voice doesn't necessarily sound Broadway to me, I thought his singing got the job done.  I think people are not responding well to him for a few reasons.  His introduction is handled clumsily, with his singing literally coming out of nowhere, causing some snickering in the audience.  And the director does not do Crowe any favors by staging his solo numbers in really goofy ways (i.e. always balancing on railings and silly blocking like that).  In fact, while most of the camera work is fine, I was distracted by the horribly quick pullbacks that seemed to happen whenever the actors hit a big note.  This was just awkward and clumsy and he does it to poor Russell Crowe constantly.  It just seems like they are setting him up to fail.

Speaking of Crowe, I really like the confrontation in the hospital when Javert explains why he refuses to believe in Valjean's reformation.  That Javert came from the same lowly background as Valjean, picked himself out of the muck, and transformed himself into a symbol of law and order...that explains a lot about his character and I think Crowe nails this moment.

Not meaning to go back to this, but those zoom outs really annoyed me!

And why the horribly gruesome bone-breaking sound effect when Javert dies.  It was so loud, it was almost comical.  And why do that to a poor character who just seemed to see the error of his ways??

I also have a problem with the very end when the whole cast appears on a super huge barricade, singing the People's song.  I feel the movie gets its themes mixed up.  Onstage, I'm sure this makes sense because it is a chance for the whole cast to come out and sing one more time. But in the film, it just muddies the waters.  It makes it seem like this whole movie was about The People, the need for Revolution, and the Paris Uprising.  Really, the uprising is just a plot device - and it only really matters to Marius.  And actually, even then, it doesn't seem like it really means that much to him since he is about to abandon the revolution in order to chase after Cosette.  Cutting back to the barricade at the finale, and including Fantine, Cosette and Valjean with the group just doesn't make much sense to me.

Okay, SPOILER OVER.

MVP:
Well, I think I've already made it clear that my MVP is Anne Hathaway.  "I Dreamed a Dream" is usually belted out by powerhouse singers.  Every time I've heard it, it's produced as a big, huge number for a singer with a powerhouse voice.  That doesn't make much sense in the movie, since Fantine is weak, desperate, and dying of tuberculous.  Kinda hard to hit the big notes when you have tuberculous. So she takes the opposite approach.  She doesn't push the song out, she pulls it in, makes it personal, ignores the power and just focused on the anguish and emotion.  It's a remarkable performance.  And yes, she is good in her other scenes, as well.  But it is this performance that wins her my MVP (and probably the Oscar, too).


TRIVIA: 
A lot of actresses auditioned to be in this movie.  For Eponine, you had the likes of Scarlett Johansson, Hayden Panettierre, and Rachel Evan Wood.  Supposedly, Taylor Swift was really close to getting the part.  No offense to any of these ladies, but I think they cast this role perfectly.  Samantha Barks, who had already played the part on stage, was perfect.

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed!

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed

So after the disaster that was Frankenstein Created Woman, I went into Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed with very small expectations.  But I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised.  The movie has some serious problems, but it is ten times better than the previous entry.

Well, it seems Baron Frankenstein is up to his old tricks again.  He finds out that a former colleague, Dr. Richter, is in a nearby insane asylum.  Frankenstein blackmails one of the asylum doctors, Karl (Simon Ward, Three Musketeers) and his fiance, Anna (Veronica Carlson, Dracula Has Risen From the Grave) into helping him release and cure the doctor so they can collaborate on their life creating experiments.  Of course, things never work out as they should...

First, let's talk about what the film does right!  I have to say it looks gorgeous, casting off the cheap and dull look that Frankenstein Created Woman suffered from.  Terence Fisher, the franchise's go-to director (who must have been sleepwalking through the previous entry) is back in fine form, moving the film along at a good clip and playing around with some terrific camera angles.  Fisher's introduction of Baron Frankenstein is easily the character's best entrance in the entire franchise.  I also like how the series finally clarifies its approach to the Frankenstein character.  There is some debate about whether the mad doctor is truly evil or not.  After all, he is just obsessed with furthering medical science!  He's not trying to hurt anyone.  But to me, it all goes back to the question of whether the ends justify the means...and this is why the good Baron will always be a villain to me...and Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed gets that.  Starting from the very first scene, this Baron is a ruthless, vicious man, and Cushing plays him to hilt, bringing all his malicious arrogance to the forefront.  And this is a lot of fun to watch at first, until they push the cruelty too far in the second half of the movie.

What doesn't work is everything related to Karl and Anna.  This is in no way the fault of Ward and Carlson, both of whom are fine performers.  I just felt their characters were extraneous.  I think they just added the young lovers' storyline to attract a wider (and female) audience.  But the gambit fails.  Anything they contributed to the plot could have been done in a different, more economical way.  And once they have outlived their usefulness to the story, they just stick around, weighing the movie down.  With nothing real for the characters to do, the producers just stick them in situations to be abused by Frankenstein and this gets annoying really fast.  This includes a random and uncomfortable rape scene, filmed against the objections of Cushing, Fisher, and Carlson.  The scene makes no sense, is out of character for Frankenstein, and is never mentioned again for the rest of the movie.

Really, this scene is just a good example of what happens in the second half of the film.  The whole enterprise just starts to fall apart.  All the characters start acting in ways contrary to what we have been watching in the first hour, and you just find yourself asking, "well, now why are they doing that?!" every five minutes.  If not for the moving performance of Freddie Jones (Dune) as Dr. Richter during the film's climax, the whole second half of the film would have been a complete disaster.

I was also profoundly disturbed by the unnecessary, undeserved and sadistic treatment of Anna.  It really bothered me.  And it is a shame because there is so much to like in Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed - the general look and feel of the film, the performances, the general concept.  I have very mixed feelings about this movie.  I suppose it is worth watching at some point, but don't rush out to see it!

MVP:
Freddie Jones gets my MVP.  Cushing almost wins, especially for his awesome entrance, but they put him through too many uncharacteristic antics in the second half.  But with very small screen time, Freddie Jones makes quite an impact as Dr. Richter.  The scene to watch is when he goes to visit his wife and tries to explain what has happened to him.  It's a moving, heartfelt moment, and probably the best scene in the film.


BEST LINE: 
Upon overhearing an ignorant conversation from gentlemen at the inn's common room:

Frankenstein: I didn't know you were doctors.

Guest: We're not doctors.

Frankenstein: I beg your pardon.  I thought you knew what you were talking about.

Guest: That's damn rude, sir.

Frankenstein: I'm afraid stupidity always brings out the worst in me.

TRIVIA:
So the rape scene was filmed after most of the film was complete because producer Michael Carreras thought audiences would want more violence and sadism.  Terence Fisher, Peter Cushing and Veronica Carlson were all adamantly against the scene, and you can see their discomfort up on the screen.  Because it was filmed and included after the fact, that is why they act like it never happened in the rest of the movie.

Frankenstein Created Woman

Frankenstein Created Woman

Frankenstein Created Woman is a bit of an odd duck, and a divisive one at that.  There are those who champion the film, calling it one of the more inventive and creative films of the Hammer Horror canon.  Martin Scorsese is one of these - while admitting it is not one of the best Hammer movies, he says the film's "implied metaphysic is close to something sublime."  Then there are others who think it is absolute rubbish, and a clear indication that Hammer was on the downward spiral.

I am firmly in the second camp.  Frankenstein Created Woman is just absolutely horrible.  And it is a shame considering the presence of Hammer's "A" Team of director Terence Fisher and actor Peter Cushing.  The plot is also somewhat interesting on paper.  Baron Frankenstein has now mastered the art of creating life.  But something is missing.  His creations keep going crazy and killing people.  He realizes what has been missing is the soul.  He can transfer a creature's brain, but without the soul, what good is it?  That is the metaphysical concept that I think fascinates Scorsese, and it is a good idea.  But the execution is horrible.  And this genuinely intriguing notion becomes such a small part of a film that pretty much plays like a Tales from the Crypt or Twilight Zone episode.

Here is what the film is really about.  This is heavy SPOILER here, so skip the paragraph if you don't want to know.  Hans (Robert Morris, Five Million Years to Earth) is the assistant of Baron Frankenstein and Dr. Hertz (Robert Morley, Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed).  Hans is in love with the deformed and disabled innkeeper's daughter, Christina (Playboy playmate Susan Denberg).  But some village meanies are always making fun of her.  And then they kill the innkeeper and Hans is implicated and executed.  Distraught, Christina drowns herself.  Although Dr. Hertz is upset about the whole situation, the always practical Frankenstein senses an opportunity to prove his theory.  He revives Christina (and magically transforms her from ugly duckling to the Playboy playmate teenagers were paying tickets to ogle) and implants Hans' soul into her body.  So will his experiment work?  Or will this monster also go on a murderous, vengeful rampage?   SPOILER over.

But did you notice how I barely mention Frankenstein in this synopsis?  The mad doctor is wasted, vanishing from the film for vast stretches of time while we watch the young lovers frolic.  Even worse, the night of the murder, we are subjected to watching the village meanies act like jerks in the inn's bar for what seems like an eternity before they even get around to killing him.  Literally, this murderous, ponderous evening takes up a good half hour of the short film's runtime.  If they intended to do this in an attempt to ramp up the tension, then they failed miserably, because the villains lack any...I don't know, villainy?  They are just annoying, plain and simple.  And very boring, too.  

There is some good stuff in here. Cushing is reliable, as always, even in limited screen time.  The score by James Bernard is among his best.  And the "soul transfer" theme is genuinely interesting, and they really should have played that up more.  So whose soul is really in Christina's body?  What does that imply for the existence of an afterlife?  If it works, what would Frankenstein even do with this knowledge?  These are interesting questions that the film never thinks about.

All in all, I would steer clear of this movie.  There are those who love it, but I think it is easily one of Hammer's worst.

MVP:

James Bernard was one of the go-to composers for Hammer Films, composing thrilling music for the Dracula franchise, as well as several of their stand-alones.  He outdoes himself here, composing one of his best themes for the doomed lovers.  I can guarantee that if anyone in the audience felt an ounce of sympathy for Hans and Christina, it is because of what James Bernard brought to those scenes.  It's a superb score, and this movie doesn't deserve it!


BEST LINE: During Han's trial:

Inspector: What is your occupation?

Frankenstein: I am a doctor.

Inspector: Of Medicine?

Frankenstein: Medicine, Law and Physics.

Heckler in the crowd: And Witchcraft!

Frankenstein: To the best of my knowledge, doctorates are not given for Witchcraft, but in the event they are, I shall no doubt qualify for one.

TRIVIA:

This film was originally intended as a follow-up to Revenge of Frankenstein back in the late 50s, in order to take advantage of the huge Roger Vadim hit And God Created Woman.  Numerous delays kept pushing it back until 1967.  I'm assuming audiences still got the pun...

The Revenge of Frankenstein

The Revenge of Frankenstein

Now that is more like it!  I was sorely disappointed with The Curse of Frankenstein, the classic British film that ushered in the Golden Age of Hammer Films and revitalized the Gothic Horror film genre.  While I appreciated what the movie was trying to do, I just wasn't wowed by it.

Due to the success of The Curse of Frankenstein, Hammer rushed into production on this sequel, with much of the same cast and crew, including star Peter Cushing, director Terence Fisher, and writer Jimmy Sangster.  Usually rushing into a sequel can create problems, but in this case, it must have spurred a flush of creativity, featuring a storyline that I found much more engaging and innovative.

Once again, the focus of the film is on the evil Baron Frankenstein, played with relish by Cushing.  While The Curse of Frankenstein attempted a loose and only sort of successful adaptation of the original novel and also left Frankenstein's character and motivations somewhat confusing, Revenge just embraces the doctor's obsessions.  Posing as Dr. Stein, the Baron now has a thriving medical practice.  He also donates much of his time to a charity hospital, where he cares for the sick and poor.  And by caring for them, I mean he is harvesting their body parts so he can continue his experiments!  He is still obsessed with creating life, and having his abominations recognized by the scientific community, but doesn't understand why a little murder should be such a bad thing.  He is helped in his cause by another doctor, Hans Kleve (Francis Matthews, Dracula: Prince of Darkness) and a hunchback Karl (Michael Gwynn,  Cleopatra).  Also on hand, and perhaps in the way, is the wealthy and kind-hearted Margaret Conrad (Eunice Grayson, Dr. No), who volunteers at the clinic, but is not yet aware of Dr. Stein's hobby.

I really must stop calling Frankenstein "evil."  That isn't necessarily the right word.  Technically, he isn't necessarily evil.  He's just heartless, obsessive, and egotistical. To him, the ends always justify the means - and if that means amputating innocent people's limbs for the sake of what he thinks is science, then so be it!  Actually, I guess that is pretty damn evil!  And Cushing vanishes in the role, creating a memorable and focused take on the Baron.  The other actors are also solid, if not up to Cushing's level.  The script and music are both spot on, and the direction from Fisher is right on target, a clear example of why he was Hammer's most dependable director.

I'll be honest, part of me isn't sure why I enjoyed The Revenge of Frankenstein more than The Curse of Frankenstein.  I suppose part of it is that the writers are now removing iconic characters from their source material and seeing what kind of new adventures they can have.  This leaves a lot of room for stupidity, but if done well, it can be very exciting and full of surprises.  I really enjoyed The Revenge of Frankenstein.  I definitely think everyone should check it out!

BEST LINE:

Janitor: Now take the animals in the jungle.  They don't wash none and yet you never hear of none of them getting sick.  Cause why?  They be good and dirty!

MVP:
Peter Cushing wins, without even the slightest competition.  He just owns the movie.  Aristocratic, cold, and brilliant, Baron Frankenstein is a dominating force of the film.  And Cushing knocks it out of the park.  Here is a minor spoiler moment from early in the film, but a good example of why I like Cushing here.  While attempting to unearth a coffin they need, Frankenstein and Karl come across some grave robbers.  One of them has a heart attack and dies, falling into the dug up grave.  Frankenstein checks to see he is breathing, and shrugs a nonchalant, "oh, well" and then just leaves him the grave without another thought.  This scene was hilarious, not just because the shrug was funny and a cute bit of funny timing, but also because we the audience are now being invited to laugh at, or with, Frankenstein's brand of villainy.  And Cushing just kills it.  He's great.  And he is the movie's clear MVP.

TRIVIA:
In 1958, the Daily Telegraph was so horrified by the film that they suggested the BBFC create a new category for the film, labeled "For Sadists Only."

Now, I have to say, the film's sadistic qualities are really not that bad, at least not by today's standards.  Lots of the gruesomeness is actually sort of cheesy, like the eyeballs that are floating in a fish tank in Frankenstein's lab.  Here's a picture.  Take a look at these suckers.  They are so cheesy, that I completely laughed that whole scene off!



 

The Curse of Frankenstein

The Curse of Frankenstein

A few years ago, I took it upon myself to watch and review a whole slew of Hammer Films, the iconic British studio that revived the classic monsters like Dracula and the Mummy in the late 1950s.  You can see my little writeup on the series here.  To be honest, it was one of the more fun experiments I have done since I started writing reviews.  But I was missing one of the most important pieces of the horror series: the Frankenstein franchise.

The Curse of Frankenstein is one of the most important films in Hammer history.  It was their first real foray into true classic horror and the film was a massive hit worldwide.  The film established the template for what made Hammer movies so appealing - lots of bright colors (especially red), gruesomeness, and sensuality (though very tame by today's standards). With the success of Frankenstein, Hammer launched Mummy and Dracula franchises, also to dizzying heights of box office gold.  The Curse of Frankenstein is now considered a classic.

And so it is very odd to me how underwhelmed I was with this film, especially considering the film featured Hammer's "A" Team (director Terence Fisher, writer Jimmy Sangster and actors Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee), who also collaborated on The Mummy, The Horror of Dracula, and The Gorgon.  The acting is fine, the atmosphere is gothic and chilling, and the dialogue is enjoyable (especially the winner of my best line award, below).  They also made an interesting decision to refocus the film, and the franchise, not on the monster like in earlier adaptations, but on Frankenstein himself, who instead of the misguided and obsessed hero he is in the original novel and in other movies, is actually downright evil.  The majority of the film involves his quest to create new life, no matter who stands in his way.  The monster only shows up briefly in a handful of scenes.  I actually think this is an interesting and bold choice to create a whole franchise based around an evil character, though I think it pays off more in the sequels.

Ultimately, I think getting the film to delve into this new direction is also what causes its biggest problem.  The Curse of Frankenstein wants to show us the descent of Frankenstein from an overly obsessed lover of medicine to a murderous and evil mad scientist.  But that descent makes no sense and comes out of nowhere.  If your film is going to focus on a bad guy as its main subject, you either make him sympathetic or you make him deliciously evil so we can enjoy the ride.  The Curse of Frankenstein sort of tries to do both, and that ends up hurting the movie because Frankenstein comes out as just a humorless and mean douchebag.  They should have just embraced his villainy like they do in The Revenge of Frankenstein. That would have been much more fun.

I also don't like the way women are handled in the film.  While I understand how they want to use Frankenstein's love affair with his maid (Valerie Gaunt) as a central skipping stone to his eventual embrace of evil, the whole subplot just seems out of character and random.  And his wife Elizabeth (Hazel Court) is kind wasted and here for no reason.

I don't want to say the film is all bad.  There is a lot to like.  The acting is good, especially from Robert Urquhart as Frankenstein's partner, Christopher Lee as a monster who seems more confused than murderous, and especially Cushing.  Even though I have problems with the character's presentation, Cushing is as always a pleasure to watch.  I also love the creature design.  The first appearance of the monster is truly staggering.  And I have to give a special shoutout to the super cool shot of Frankenstein working while the creature hangs on a meat hook behind him.  It is one of my favorite shots of any Hammer film ever.


Ah, well.  Maybe my expectations were too high.  The film was such a huge hit and is considered such a classic, that I just felt it should have been more on the ball.  Overall I think it is only okay.  Certainly worth watching, but definitely not the classic I expected.


BEST LINE:
Paul: I thought I'd find you here.

Frankenstein: That was very intelligent of you.  Well, now that you have found me, what do you want?

Paul: You killed the old man, didn't you.  And now you are mutilating his body.

Frankenstein: Mutilating?  I removed his brain.  Mutilating has nothing to do with it.

MVP:
Philip Leakey, the makeup artist who designed the creature makeup.  As soon as the production was announced, Universal immediately threatened to sue if Hammer used anything even closely resembling their now iconic creature design, so Leakey had to start from scratch.  After several failed attempts, Philip Leakey finally completed his terrific design literally the day before filming began.  I personally love what he came up with: patchwork person, with irregular features and a blind eye.  I wish the monster had been featured more, actually!











TRIVIA: 
Though Cushing and Lee had been in two films together already (Moulin Rouge and Hamlet), they never really talked or knew each other.  Inbetween takes on Frankenstein, the two passed the time and relieved the tension from all the gruesomeness around them by exchanging favorite Looney Tunes quotes back and forth.  And that was the beginning of a lifelong friendship. 

X-Men: First Class

X-Men: First Class

I have mixed feelings about the X-Men movie franchise.  Maybe I was just picky because the X-Men were my favorite comic team when I was growing up.  And while I felt Bryan Singer did a fairly good job with the first two X-Men movies, they never truly soared like say Spiderman 2 or The Dark Knight.  They were just two really solid comic films.  And then the third movie came out, a horrid, ill-conceived mess, and I became very worried about the direction of the franchise.  When they announced First Class, I was wary.  I did not think going back to do a prequel was a very good idea.  I wanted the studio to fix the mess they had made with Wolverine, Rogue, and Storm.  I didn't want to go back and see why Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr became Professor X and Magneto.

But the studio was smart, bringing a crew together that wouldn't hack a movie together.  Matthew Vaughn (Kick Ass) was a fine choice as director, with a fun style and strong visual flair that generally enhances his storytelling instead of distracts from it.  Vaughn went on to assemble a remarkable cast, including James McAvoy (Atonement), Kevin Bacon (Footloose), Rose Byrne (Troy), January Jones (Mad Men), rising star Jennifer Lawrence (The Hunger Games), and my favorite up-and-coming actor Michael Fassbender (Prometheus).  Together, they really put together a stylish and fun flick.

During the height of the Cold War, Erik Lehnsherr (Fassbender) is a Holocaust survivor, traveling the world and using his mutant abilities to control metal to hunt and kill escaped Nazi war criminals.  His primary target is Sebastian Shaw (Bacon), the German scientist who killed Erik's mother and performed horrible experiments on the boy in his concentration camp laboratory.  But Erik is not the only one seeking out Shaw.  Special agent Moira MacTaggart (Byrne) suspects Shaw is playing the USSR and the US against each other in an attempt to jumpstart World War 3.  Once she discovers she is dealing with mutants, she asks for help from the world's foremost mutant expert, telepath Charles Xavier (McAvoy).  The stage is set.  Let super heroics ensue! 

There is a lot to like here, but what I like the most is that the film really gets to the heart of what the X-Men are all about – how can the world deal with the existence of mutants?  Vaughn and Company touch on with some of the smarter issues from the comic, such as the debate of assimilation vs. segregation.  Some mutants can “pass” as normal; some look too bizarre to ever really join the rest of humankind.  I also like how they play off Xavier and Erik's opposing philosophies.  Xavier is a man of peace and acceptance.  He fights for a world where mutant and man can live in peace and harmony.  To Erik, that is a load of crap.  He lived through the Holocaust and he knows the horrors that mankind is capable of, and he will not forgive them for that capability.  The X-Men were always an allegory for prejudice and discrimination, and First Class does a terrific job of making that struggle central to its story.  

Not that the film is all serious.  It still has fun.  Vaughn has created a cool retro vibe, successfully recreating the 1960s with a fun James Bond feel.  The sets have iconic Ken Adams' influence all over them.  And that is super cool.  The actors all put in terrific work, especially McAvoy, Bacon, and Fassbender.  I will say the movie is not perfect.  There are some things that keep it from achieving the greatness of the BEST comic movies...at times, I found the scenes with Xavier's young mutant recruits a bit superfluous.  The actors are all fine, but their scenes occasionally drag.  Besides, the heart and the meat of this movie are both firmly with Magneto and Xavier...the actual "First Class" is almost a distraction.

I also HATED the makeup for The Beast.  He looked like a giant blue Ewok.  I just couldn't take most scenes with him seriously because of this.  Kelsey Grammar's Beast makeup in the previous X-Men film was much better, and I was surprised to see these kind of effects taking a step backwards.

But these are small complaints, right?  Overall, the movie was really quite good and I definitely recommend it.  Not only did they make a smart and fun super hero movie.  They saved a franchise.

MVP: 
McAvoy is superb, so the choice is not as easy as I would have thought, but this is still Fassbender's movie.  He gets my MVP for playing Erik.  He puts in superb, conflicted work as a good man at heart who is understandably twisted into eventually becoming the villainous Magneto.  I like how seriously Fassbender embraced the conflicted nature of the character.  And while the rest of the movie is good, the first half hour features the best sequences of the film, by far – and I am referring to Erik's ruthless hunting down of Nazi criminals.  I seriously could have watched an entire film called Magneto: Nazi Hunter.  So that makes for a decisive MVP win for Fassbender. 

P.S. Between his performances in Inglourious Basterds and X-Men: First Class, it is clear that Fassbender should be the next James Bond.  Daniel Craig is terrific and I am in no rush for him to retire, but I hope Eon has their eye on Fassbender for taking the mantle when the time comes.

BEST LINE:

Xavier: We have it in us to be the better men.
Erik: We already are.

TRIVIA:
Once cast as Charles Xavier, James McAvoy immediately shaved his head...only to learn that the film intended to feature Xavier with a full head of hair.  For the first month of filming, he had to wear hair extensions.  Oops.   

War Horse

War Horse

War Horse is a tough film to review.  It certainly isn't the best film in the world and yet I find myself often defending it to my friends.  Maybe I just don't agree with the reasons they don't like it...or maybe I'm just being fussy in my old age.  Either way, War Horse is definitely a mixed bag.

Joey is a special horse (as we are reminded constantly) and develops an immediate bond with young English farm boy, Albert Narracott (Jeremy Levine's debut performance).  But the farm is destitute and Mr. Narracott is forced to sell Joey to the English army on the eve of World War I.  Little Albert is shattered and swears he'll see his horse again.  What follows is the episodic adventures of Joey as he navigates his way through war torn Europe and hopefully back to Albert.

A problem with most episodic movies is that they are full of a lot of short little stories, and if some of these episodes aren't strong, it can drag down the whole movie.  I definitely think this is the case of War Horse.  Some of the stories are terrific, especially the World War I excerpts, such as when Joey serves as the cavalry mount of dashing British Captain Nichols (Thor's Tom Hiddleston channeling a killer T.E. Lawrence vibe) and when he is forced to pull literally tons of heavy artillery up a steep slope to their firing positions.  These sequences are truly superb and depict some of the best representations of World War I that I have seen.  But then we also have a story where Joey becomes the pet of a precocious little French girl (Celine Buckins), that I suppose is sort of cute, but completely drags the momentum of the movie down.

The other major complaint about the movie, and one that I agree with, is that it tends to be overly sentimental.  Spielberg has always worn his heart on his sleeve as a filmmaker and I admire the fact that he doesn't restrain his emotional side, but he goes overboard here, especially in the last act.  Everything following the superb barbed wire scene right up to the sunset finale is just thick, thick syrup - and too much for me to handle without rolling my eyes.  It's just started to be a bit too much.

But I've also heard a lot of people complaining that the movie is just unrealistic.  It bothered them that with hundreds of thousands men being slaughtered, why does everyone care so much about a horse?  It's just a horse!  I don't think that is the right way to look at the movie.  War Horse isn't realistic.  It's a fable and the horse is a metaphor, a symbol of an earlier, simpler time - when people were tied to their land, and when there was a certain nobility and chivalry in combat, before the world was violently dragged into the modern world by the horrors of mechanized warfare.  World War I was the transition to modern war and that transition is handled brilliantly by Spielberg and Company.  The characters in the film yearn for the world of yesteryear, for a happier time before barbed wire, mustard gas, and trenchfoot.  It makes sense that everyone in the film is touched by Joey.  He is a symbol of everything they have lost.

Overall, I think the movie's greatest strength is how old fashioned it is (which is ironic because I think its greatest weakness is how old fashioned its sentimentality is!).  I think this is Spielberg's John Ford film.  Truly, I think if John Ford had made War Horse in 1948, it would have been remarkably similar to what we ended up with 2011.  It's the classic style of the filmmaking, and it's the way the camera sets the characters against the landscape, tying them intrinsically to the earth.  I admired that.  There is actually a lot to admire about War Horse.  If the story had been just a bit tighter, and if the attempts to yank on our tear ducts had just been a bit more subtle...well, we would have had something terrific.

MVP:
Janusz Kaminski, Spielberg's Director of Photography, is the clear MVP here.  He's brilliant with the camera, both with his framing, and his great use of filters and lighting.  He gets the MVP for two moments in particular - the first is an insane sunset at the end of the film, a return to the English farm set against a blood red sky.  At first, I grumbled, because I thought, "why did they use CGI for that sunset??"  Except then I read that it was actually a real sunset and that the colors in that part of England are that insanely vibrant.  It's a heck of a great shot.  But my favorite shot is actually earlier in the film, when Joey makes a dash through the trenches.  We are treated to a superb tracking shot, the camera keeping just ahead of Joey as he twists and turns, men toppling to each side, explosions filling the air above him.  It's a brilliant shot and I'm not quite sure how they did it.  Kaminski is the Man!

BEST LINE:

Geordie: How are things in yonder trench?
German: Delightful.  We read.  We knit sweaters.  We train our rats to perform circus tricks.

TRIVIA:
Fourteen horses played Joey in the film.  The primary acting horse, Finder, also played Sea Biscuit.

 

Le Grand Chef: Kimchi Battle 2

Le Grand Chef 2: Kimchi Battle

You know what is most disappointing about Le Grand Chef 2: Kimchi Battle?  The title!  While it is not inaccurate, the title definitely makes this movie sound like a comedy, which it most assuredly is not.  This movie is hard core Korean soap opera, a weepy weepy drama at its most weepy weepy.  Not that this is necessarily a bad thing; I just want to make sure you know what you are getting into before you watch it.

Jang-eun (Jeong-eun Kim) is a world renowned chef who has now achieved success after years of climbing her way through a mostly male-dominated profession.  Now one of the best chefs in the world, she wants to return home to Korea.  Her ailing mother owns a little traditional restaurant that is in danger of going out of business.  But Jang-eun doesn't want to help.  Oh, no.  She harbors deep and bitter resentment towards her mother because she wasn't married when she had Jang-eun.  All her childhood, Jang-eun suffered the social stigma of growing up in a one parent home in a society that frowns upon bastards as improper and wrong.  So now Jang-eun wants to force her mother to retire, tear down the traditional restaurant that means so much to her, and open a fancy new high-end Asian fusion restaurant.  The only thing that stands in her way? Foster brother Seong Chan, the good son who is also an incredibly amazing cook.

Conveniently, Korea is staging a nation-wide contest to see who can make the best kimchi.  Both Seong Chan and Jang-eun enter, agreeing that whoever wins gets to do what they want with mother's restaurant.  And the stage is set.  Both are masters of their craft, their foods perfectly representing their characters: Seong Chan's food is as traditional and calm as he is, while Jang-eun's cooking is bold, experimental, and ruthlessly ambitious.  This sounds like a lot of fun, right?

Well, it's not.  I just described the setup.  But the movie is really all about people with mommy issues.  And there is so much crying.  There is even a random side plot with an escaped convict who misses his mother's cooking that exists in the movie just so a few other actors can get a chance to cry.  Wow, does this movie get depressing.

I don't want to say this movie is bad, because it isn't.  The characters are interesting, the acting is terrific, and the cinematography is rock solid.  And wow, when there is cooking going on, the film explodes with life, color and excitement.  The food in this movie looks fantastic and should inspire the hopeful chef in all of us.  And I also admire the fact that Koreans are making films about families with real three-dimensional people with real emotional problems.  Hollywood doesn't really do that often anymore.  My wife, an avid lover of Korean soap operas, loved it.

But, it just isn't my type of thing.  When a movie calls itself Kimchi Battle, I expect to have some fun.  Oh, there are some half-hearted attempts at comedy, but I know the director's not interested in that.  He wants his characters and his audience to cry.  Me?  I just wanted a Kimchi Battle, damn it!

MVP:
I am going to have to go with Jeong-eun Kim as Jang-eun, an over confidant and bitter woman.  She is the villain of the film, make no mistake, but Jeong-eun Kim never plays her that way.  The best villains are the ones whose motivations we understand.  And her performance shows the pain that led her to become this way, how she had to develop a cold exterior to deal with childhood hazing, how she had to fight tooth and nail to work up the ladder and become one of the greatest chefs in the world.  No matter how bitchy she gets, no matter what she says or does, you just can't hate her as a human being.  You might even find yourself admiring her grit and creativity.  I think this is all due to the fine performance from Jeong-eun Kim.  She gets my MVP.

BEST LINE:
Kimchi Judge: This tastes like cabbage.

Castaway on the Moon

Castaway on the Moon

Sometimes you go strolling through Netflix with some friends and nothing jumps out at you.  There seems to be so much and yet nothing worth watching at the same time.  You tap from page to page, someone offering a suggestion, someone else turning it down, and the minutes just tick tock away.  And then you see a strange picture of a Korean dude running across a river, and you all think, "meh, I don't  necessarily want to watch that, but I guess I will because it's better than that other thing."  And when everyone has that same reaction, well, it's unanimous.

Sometimes you pick a random movie and you end up with aimless junk, something that passes the time and is instantly forgotten.  And sometimes you pick a random movie, and you find gold.

And make no mistake, Castaway on the Moon is absolutely gold.  It was a complete shock to my senses - a true original.  It was like nothing I have seen before.

Kim Seong Geun (played by Jae-Yeong Jeong) is super depressed, woefully in debt, and recently dumped by his girlfriend.  Despondent, he leaps from a bridge into the Han River.  His suicide attempt fails and he finds himself stranded on a small island in the middle of the river, too far for anyone to hear his cries for help, but close enough to Seoul to be cruelly tortured by its skyline.

At the same time, a nameless young woman (Ryeowon Jung) in Seoul is stranded in her own way, unwilling (or unable) to leave her room for the past three years.

The tragic circumstances of these two characters would make you think Castaway on the Moon is a study of loneliness and isolation.  And it is.  But it is also a study of hope.  And I don't mean the movie is just about how the characters need to find hope.  It is it also about what the film does to us, as the audience.   By the end of the film, we have gone through so much with them, laughing, crying, riding their triumphs and disasters, that we feel intimately involved in their fate.  We hope for them.  It's pretty inspiring when a movie can do that.

And plus, it is funny.  Wow, is it funny.  A look at my pick for the best line of the movie below should tell you that!

I hope I haven't built this movie up to much.   There is nothing worse than disappointment.  But for me, this movie was a real treasure.  I don't want to say any more.  The less you know, the better.  I've already said too much.  Just go find some friends, pop over to Netflix Streaming and scroll around until you see a strange picture of a Korean dude running across a river.  Trust me.


MVP: 

It's a tough call.  Do I say writer/director Hae-jun Lee for concocting such a brilliant little adventure?  Or do I go with the two leads, whose stellar performances are equal parts pathetic and compelling.  I think I have to go with Hae-jun Lee because of his inspired madness.  I hope you guys find this film and like it as much as I did.


BEST LINE:

Kim: I need to make healthy poop!  And a lot of it!!!!

Prometheus

Prometheus

When I was coordinating schedules in order to see  Prometheus with an old friend, I unknowingly reviewed the film fairly accurately via text message.  I wrote, "let's grab a beer after the movie so we can discuss how brilliant Ridley Scott is, or how disappointing.  Or more likely both."  And that, my friends, pretty much sums up Prometheus.

Whether I like Prometheus or not depends entirely on how I am thinking of the film at any given moment.  When I think of the mistakes, the inconsistent behavior of certain characters, the missed opportunities, and the major, major plotting problems, I get a bit sour on the film...and yet...and yet, there is too much brilliance here to completely discount Prometheus.  It is a brave film, it is about something, and it doesn't insult our intelligence.  It is a movie that makes us think, and that is always something worth celebrating.

Let's get into it then.  Prometheus is about the quest for where we came from and who we are.  Scientists Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall Green) and Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Repace) have found carvings and paintings across the globe that prove that we were created by another race.  Thanks to a trillion dollar investment from the Weyland Corp, they now journey through space to find their makers, who Dr. Shaw likes to call The Engineers.  Among the various scientists and crew, we also have a super cool captain (played by the always super cool Idris Elba), the frosty corporate executive (Charlize Theron) and the android David (Michael Fassbender), who serves as the ship's steward and who also happens to be obsessed with Lawrence of Arabia.  The ship lands on a barren and remote planet where they find an abandoned alien facility.  But something isn't right.  Something horrible happened there 2000 years ago, and if our heroes aren't careful, they could unleash forces beyond their control.

So first, the good.  We have a dazzling film, with top notch special effects, superb cinematography and editing, and wonderful acting.  They also do a remarkable job with the 'science' part of science fiction, with a whole slew of fun little gadgets that are entirely believable (I love those little mapping globes).  Most of all, as I mentioned earlier, I like that this movie is about something.  Ridley Scott is asking interesting questions here - not just where do we come from or where do we go, but also do we even belong?  What is our place in the universe?  And what does it mean to be a creator?  This last question is an intriguing theme that runs through the film.  Mankind has advanced so much that they are now creating life, or at least a very close simulation of life in David.  The difference is the Engineers seem to have left mankind alone, whereas man is constantly reminding David that he is just a creation and has no soul.  That must get really annoying.  But it also raises the uncomfortable question of whether humans even have a soul - something Prometheus doesn't answer (probably so we can spend our time debating about it).

But then we have those flaws...and there are many, mostly plot-driven.  I think the film barrels along, despite its problems, leading easily to the best scene of the movie...and then it just kind of falls apart during the last twenty minutes.  There are gaps in logic, story holes, a stupid death straight out Looney Tunes, and despite everyone's best efforts, the movie just begins to collapse under its own weight.  I have read that the blu ray will have some extra footage - maybe those extra scenes will solve some if not most of my problems (just like the superb director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven solved all my problems in the theatrical version of that film).  But until I see that director's cut, we are left with this theatrical version - in all its brilliance and maddening frustration.

P.S.  For those who want to know what specifically bothered me in the movie, I have them bullet pointed at the bottom of the review.  Don't want to ruin anything for anyone!!!

BEST LINE:
David:  "I didn't think you had it in you.  Sorry, poor choice of words..."

MVP:
Michael Fassbender is probably my favorite up and coming actor right now, and in Prometheus, he shows why.  His performance is superb, playing David just slightly off, just enough to make you make you realize he is not normal and to make you uncomfortable.  It's not a flashy role or performance.  It's subtle and brilliant.  I think he deserved a Supporting Actor nomination, but alas he did not get one.

Which leads me into some spoiler territory - just what is the significance of David's obsession with Lawrence of Arabia?  His obsessions is extreme enough that he even dyes his hair blonde and practices lines from the film, most significantly, "the trick is not minding that it hurts."  Lawrence and David have much in common.  They are both outsiders, they are both different than what society accepts as normal, and they are looked down upon and ridiculed for their uniqueness.  The irony is that Lawrence actually thinks he is better than everyone else.  He's smarter and craftier, and he knows it, and yet everyone still mocks him.  And how does his arrogant ego allow him to put up with this continuous disrespect?  By "not minding that it hurts."  For David, watching Lawrence of Arabia must have been a revelation and inspiration.  He fancies himself a modern day Lawrence, surrounded by lesser beings who think they are better than he is.  It's a fascinating parallel and explains many of David's actions throughout the film.

Anyway, that's all a tangent.  What is all goes back to is that Fassbender is amazing and he gets the MVP.

TRIVIA: 
Spoiler/foreshadowing alert!!! The name of the moon where the crew finds the facility is LV 223, which could be a reference to Leviticus 2:23: "If any man among your all your descendants throughout your generations, approaches the holy gifts which the sons of Israel dedicate to the Lord, while he has an uncleanness, that person shall be cut off from before me."  Coincidence?  I think not!  Thank you, IMDB for this one!


SPOILERS:

Okay, so you want to know what really bothered me about Prometheus?  Here you go.  Some are admittedly nitpicks, but since I am keeping a list anyway.

1. I don't like how the two scientists who are smart enough to try and leave the alien facility because they don't want to be horror movie cliches suddenly turn into horror movie cliches when they a) get lost, b) decide to stay put in the sketchiest place in the facility, and c) decide it would be a good idea to play with the scary looking cobra snake worm thing because it "looks cute."  I'll buy this sort of behavior in a crappy slasher film, but not here.  This film is supposed to above such shenanigans.

2. Aren't there good actors out there who are in their 70s?  Why did they cast middle-aged Guy Pierce as an old man?  This makes sense if they had flashbacks or if they had de-aged him at some point, but this never happens.  It's just Guy Pierce in bad old person makeup.  Don't we have talented older actors?  Why not Max von Sydow?  Why not Joss Ackland?  How cool would it have been to cast Lawrence of Arabia himself, Peter O'Toole?  Now, that would have been really trippy for David!  Oh, well.  Maybe there is a flashback in the director's cut...

3. Meredith Vickers' death is straight out of Looney Tunes, I'm sorry.  It's ridiculous.

4. Did we really need that gratuitous shot of the xenomorph alien in the end?  We all already understood that the monster was a giant face hugger on top of the Engineer at the end...Ridley Scott had successfully made the link to the Alien franchise.  Did he really have to ruin this cool moment by showing the alien itself?  It made people in the theater laugh.

5.  I don't like how Dr. Holloway, Shaw's partner and boyfriend, keeps changing character, going from an adventurous and supportive scientist to the ship's drunken asshole to Mr. Lover Boy.  I liked Logan Marshall Green; I just wish they had done a better job with his character.

6.  And the BIG problem.  This is the one I can't live with.  After the best scene in the movie, when Dr. Shaw has surgery to remove an evil alien that is growing in her womb, we get perhaps the worst scene in the movie.  Dr. Shaw stumbles around the ship, covered in blood, and walks into a room and sees Weyland and David, and they ignore the fact that she's covered in blood!?  Granted, David puts a blanket over her, but that's the extent of their noticing her condition.  They're just, "hey, what's up?  We're gonna go talk to the Engineer.  Wanna come?"  And despite the fact that she just went through major surgery (with kind of a crappy, rushed patchup job, I might add), she still says she will go!  And I don't care if you occasionally grunt and lean over like you are in pain.  That isn't enough to explain how you are running around, jumping, getting punched in the stomach, etc. etc. after what might be the craziest surgery I've ever seen in a movie.

Then you have the fact that they completely drop the point that David tried to forcibly cyrofreeze Shaw with the evil alien inside her...neither of them talk about that, or that she beat up two guards to escape, or that David even knows or cares that the alien is no longer inside of her.  WHAT?!  I can't help but think that there are scenes missing in this area, because this whole sequence just makes no sense.  And it bothers me to no end.

7. The deus ex machina at the end is a bit silly.  You know, when David says, oh, by the way, there are other ships.  And if you take my decapitated head to the ship, I can totally fly us wherever you want to go.  Well, that's awfully convenient.  It's made a bit more annoying when David starts his dialogue by saying, "I know we've had our disagreements..."  But as I mentioned above, they actually don't have their disagreements.  Because they never actually talk about their conflict or bring up the fact that David just tried to screw her over.

Sigh.  Maybe the director's cut will fix all this.  Frustrating.

Ironclad

Ironclad

People who know me well understand that I have a weakness for 'sword' movies.  It doesn't matter if it is a fantasy or a swashbuckler or an epic; if it has a sword, I am there.  And Ironclad is right up my alley. A sort of adaptation of one of my favorite films, Seven Samurai, Ironclad is a medieval adventure that takes place during the Baron's War in England.  After being forced to sign the Magna Carta, King John decides to bring in an army of barbarian mercenaries and exact revenge on the rebellious barons who dared to defy his authority.  Seven rebels take the strategically vital Rochester Castle, which John needs.  And so you know what that means - time for some awesome siege warfare!

There is a lot of quality in the movie.  First off, I have to give director Jonathan English some credit.  He takes a tiny budget and gives the film more scope and excitement than I would have expected.  The film never looks cheap and that is an accomplishment.  I also generally like the cast, with some seasoned pros like Brian Cox (Troy) , Derek Jacobi (Gladiator), Jason Flemyng (Snatch), and Charles Dance (Game of Thrones) - all taking their turns munching on the scenery.  But the movie really rests on the shoulders of our two main opponents. James Purefoy (Rome) plays Marshal, a Templar Knight recently returned, shell shocked and bitter, from the Crusades.  Meanwhile, the villainous King John is played by Paul Giamatti (Sideways), spewing righteous fury as he tries to retake his kingdom.  Both are truly excellent in their roles and elevate the movie.

All in all, this is all a recipe for a movie I should love. Unfortunately, I didn't.  Despite the movie's strong points, there is just too much I didn't like.  The biggest problem lies with the character of Isabel (Kate Mara from 127 Hours), the young wife of Rochester's master.  When our heroes first arrive, she takes an immediate interest in Marshal, his violent past, and especially his vow of chastity.  And she is just all over him.  This whole story thread is infuriating.  I understand what the filmmakers are trying to do.  They want Isabel to act as Marshal's conscience and show him that life is actually still worth living, if you live it the right way.  Well, this doesn't work.  Instead, she is a complete distraction and just comes across as a bored housewife who wants to bone the new knight in the neighborhood.  Marshal goes about his business, trying to save everyone's lives, and she just follows him around, yammering on about why vows of chastity are lame and killing people is wrong and blah blah blah.  Stop distracting him, you idiot!  The man is trying to fight an army of barbarians who want to kill all of you!  Maybe you should leave him alone and let him do his thing until, I don't know, maybe when the battle is over?!

Unfortunately, this isn't a subplot I can ignore.  It's too large a piece of the movie.  Now, just to be clear, I am not blaming Kate Mara.  She's a fine actress and she does the best she can, but the character is so frustrating that I doubt even Meryl Streep could have saved it.

The battles themselves are also a bit disappointing.  The fighting falls victim to the same over-editing that maligned Quantum of Solace and other recent action films.  This is a trend that filmmakers love to use today in an attempt to make the audience feel like they are part of the chaos.  Well, stop it!  It doesn't work.  No one I know likes it.  It just gives us a headache.  And if we can't see the awesome fighting, then we are aren't going to like it - no matter how awesome it might be.

So there you go.  Overall, Ironclad is diverting enough, I suppose.  It's definitely not as bad as the recent Conan the Barbarian reboot!  There is fun to be had here if you have an afternoon free and feel like some medieval battle fun.  But it should have been a lot better, so overall I can't help but be a bit disappointed overall.


MVP:
It was almost James Purefoy, an actor I have been a fan of ever since I saw him in A Knight's Tale.  I think his work in Rome remains the best Marc Antony ever put on screen.  He carries Ironclad extraordinarily well, despite being dragged down in the Isabel scenes.  Giamatti was also excellent as King John, but overall I thought Purefoy was making more of an impression throughout the first 2/3 of the movie.

But then we got King John's big speech.

Holy cow.  At the 2/3 mark, King John begins to rant and rave about the foolishness of rebellion and the divine right of kings.  It's a good monologue and Giamatti just knocks it out of the park, but then he goes even further, ramping up the delivery to 11.  His voice breaks and explodes, his performance loses complete control, and Giamatti just vanishes.  He's not there.  He is channeling King John himself, furiously venting out 800 years of pent up wrath and vengeance.  It is a monstrous moment, shocking and Oscar worthy.  I don't know what movie Giamatti thought he was acting in, but it certainly wasn't Ironclad.  And whatever movie Giamatti thought he was in...I want to watch that one!   For sending chills up my spine and for genuinely scaring me, I have to give Giamatti the MVP.  That is an easy decision!

BEST LINE:
Marshal: Have you ever killed a man?  It is not a noble thing.  Not even when it is from God.

TRIVIA:
Here's a funny bit of trivia for you.  I have no problem with movies changing history, but I do get concerned when you change history this much.  So this great ol' battle that the good guys win in the movie?  Yeah, well, they didn't win.  They put up a good fight, but they pretty much got their butts kicked.  In fact, King John's generalship at Rochester is actually considered a textbook example of how to effectively conduct a siege operation.  That's taking historical license a bit too far for me!!!

Club Paradise

Club Paradise

After a life-threatening illness derailed his career in the 1970s, Peter O'Toole (Lawrence of Arabia) seemed poised for a comeback.  He secured well-deserved Oscar nominations for The Stunt Man (1980) and My Favorite Year (1982), and made a lasting impression as the Roman general Silva in the sprawling Masada miniseries (1981).  And then something happened, something horrifying, tragic and terrible.  And that thing is called Club Paradise.

Wow, is this movie bad.  Club Paradise is the unfortunate type of comedy where you don't laugh at all.  You can't laugh.  All you can do is stare and wonder how it even got made.

Robin Williams plays Jack, a retired firefighter living in the tropical paradise of St. Nicholas.  Eventually he decides to refurbish and manage a resort with his buddy Ernest (played by reggae artist Jimmy Cliff).  The problem is that despite their best efforts, their resort is a piece of trash and is literally falling to pieces.  Jack and Ernest spend much of the movie trying to keep the place together so their guests can have a good time.  Another problem is that a ruthless American businessman and the island's prime minister are plotting to force the locals into a tourism sucking cycle of servitude, leaving them destitute forever and unable to climb the economic ladder.  Grr!   Evil foreign capitalism!

...

Yeah, you read that right.  Look, I'm not saying that fancy foreign businessmen and their big fancy resorts haven't played their parts in preventing economic equality on some of these islands, but this theme seems kind of heavy for a movie as crappy as this.

The biggest shame is that the cast and crew is full of talented artists.  We all know what insane joyfulness Robin Williams is capable of bringing to the table, but he is terrible here and constantly changing character.  He is actually acting like he is doing a standup routine, which makes for a pretty bad character performance.  Was he trying to make the crew laugh maybe?  The bad guys are played by Brian Doyle Murray (Bill Murray's brother and a fine comic actor in his own right) and the Oscar-nominated Adolph Caesar (A Soldier's Story).  The hotel guests include fine actors like Rick Moranis (Ghostbusters), Eugene Levy (American Pie), Andrea Martin (SCTV) and Joanna Cassidy (Bladerunner).  The director is the gifted Harold Ramis (Groundhog Day) and the script was co-written by Ramis and Murray, both of whom are really fine writers.

And then there is Peter O'Toole.  I love that man.  His brilliance in film, on stage, and in bars is legendary.  He has risen above terrible material and delivered gold.  And in this movie, he just...isn't any good.  I don't know what is going on, but he is really off.  To me, it's a big disappointment.  Sure, he has the best line in the movie (see below), but it is the line that it clever, not O'Toole's delivery.  And from my perspective, all the good will built from The Stunt Man, My Favorite Year, and Masada vanished.   This was the beginning of the "unfortunate" period, that included such classics as Supergirl, Creator, King Ralph, High Spirits, Phantoms, The Seventh Coin, and Phantoms.  Sure, there was that quality blip on the radar (The Last Emperor), but overall this was not a good time in O'Toole's career.  Of course, who am I to judge?  He probably had a lot of fun and made a lot of money doing these films.  But wow...painful.

Actually, that is a good word for this whole movie: painful.  Please avoid it.  Please.


BEST LINE:
Governor Hayes (referring to his island): "Either the Americans will move in and turn it into Miami Beach, or the Cubans and Russians will come and turn the entire island into bloody Albania.  There really is no hope."

MVP:
I have to go with the non-actor of the bunch, Jimmy Cliff.  I don't think he made that many movies, but he actually has a nice screen presence.  Everyone else seems to be trying too hard, while Cliff just goes with the flow.  He gets my MVP, for sure.

TRIVIA:
The movie was originally supposed to star Bill Murray and John Cleese, both of whom would have been more appropriate in their roles than Williams and O'Toole.  I don't know why they dropped out, but the decision probably ranks among their best career moves.  Easily.

The Avengers

The Avengers

And this is it.  After years of planning and hundreds of millions of dollars invested, Marvel's master plan has finally come to fruition and The Avengers has been released in theaters.  The film is the culmination of a strategy that began with 2008's Iron Man, a plan to introduce all the major Avenger super heroes in their own films and then bring them together in a big old fashioned crossover.

And the strategy worked brilliantly.  The Avengers lives up to expectations and even manages to exceed them.  After his defeat in Thor, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) comes into contact with an evil alien race called the Chitauri.  He makes a deal with them.  He will retrieve the all-powerful Tesseract (the super weapon from Captain America) and turn it over to them in return for an army with which he will conquer the Earth.  What stands in Loki's way?  The Avengers!  Assembled by S.H.I.E.L.D.'s Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), The Avengers team includes Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and Captain America (Chris Evans).  Together they have to band together, defeat Loki, and save the planet.

That's a lot of characters and that is where Marvel's gambit paid off.  Because we have already been introduced to these characters, we don't really need to waste time delving into their back stories.  We can just jump right into the movie.  Because I'll be honest, the movie is two and a half hours long, as it is.  If we had to introduce audiences to these heroes, we would be in big trouble.

As it is, the film's weakness is in its first half hour.  We have all these characters and we need to get them all together somehow.  Sometimes these moments seem a bit forced, others - such as Thor's introduction - are downright contradictory to the earlier films.  Not that these scenes are particularly bad.  They just have some...speed bumps, I guess you could say, and are not as strong as the rest of the movie.

Because once we have everyone in the same room, the film really begins to hum, and then it churns, and then it explodes.  Every member of the cast is pitch perfect - especially newcomer Mark Ruffalo, who replaced Ed Norton as Bruce Banner/Hulk.  I initially thought Ruffalo was miscast, but he won me over pretty quickly.  And now I think he is the best cinematic Banner we've had yet.  He's almost the MVP of the movie.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that even though this movie is super crowded, everybody - and I mean, everybody - has their moment to shine, including smaller characters like Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg).  Every hero has a crowd pleasing kick butt moment, especially in the final battle.  This is a tricky juggling act and we have to credit Joss Whedon (creator of Buffy and Firefly) for shepherding such a complicated cast through the film.  Give him credit, too, for the great sense of humor that permeates the film.  Simply put, The Avengers is funnier than most of the comedies we get these days, plus we get great effects, great heroics, and great acting, too.  There are other summer films coming out that might end up being better than The Avengers, but I doubt any of them are going to be anywhere near as entertaining.

But in the end, The Avengers is not just a fun summer film, it is also accomplishes a remarkably feat -  it captures the spirit and the magic of the comics.  The Avengers really feels like a comic book come to life.  It is easily Marvel Studios' best film and rightfully takes its place as one of the best comic films of all time.


MVP:
Full disclosure - I am not a Whedon fanatic.  I think he is a talented writer and director, but I do not fawn over everything he does.  I loved Firefly and Serenity, but Buffy was just okay (here comes the hate mail) and Angel was just slightly better.  I want to qualify that just so you know I can be unbiased about this whole MVP thing, because I gotta say that Whedon just upped his game 500%.  I felt comfortable as soon as he was hired because I knew he was adept at handling team dynamics.  But I didn't think he would knock it out of the park like he does here.  I am still incredibly impressed how no character was under-utilized.  Everyone had something important and relevant to do - and we had eight major characters.  That is pretty remarkable.  And as a writer, he was able to give each hero their own distinct voice, which is also pretty difficult to do.  It's just impressive all around.  Whedon captained this ship and gave us one of the best of the genre.  I can't wait to see what he does with the sequel.  This was an easy MVP decision.

BEST LINE:

Ouch, so many.  Lots of good lines.  But I can say this line got a lot of cheers in the theater:

Captain America: "Ma'am, there's only one God, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that."

TRIVIA:
Some fans were disappointed that the villainous aliens in the movie weren't the Skrulls, Marvel Comics' go-to evil alien race.  The aliens in the film, the Chitauri, actually come from the Ultimates comic version of The Avengers.  In the comic, they do claim that they go by other names, including The Skrulls.  So why not just use the Skrulls name?  Well, turns out there were some legal issues.  The Skrulls were also villains in the Fantastic Four series, and since Fox Studios currently has the rights to Fantastic Four, that means they couldn't be used in The Avengers film.  Bummer.

The Hunger Games

Hunger Games

Sometimes, I think I must live in a cave.  Harry Potter was a phenomenon that I understood, but I was still trying to wrap my head around why the Twilight series was so popular, and then suddenly they announced that a movie was being made based on some book called The Hunger Games.  The world went crazy.  And I thought, "huh, where the heck did this come from?!"  Apparently, this trilogy of books came out and became an instant blockbuster, and I completely missed it.  And now that the movie was coming out, everyone I knew was really excited.

When I finally read the plot synopsis for the film, my initial reaction was that it was a ripoff of Battle Royale, the Japanese cult classic that pits teenagers and pre-teens against each other in a brutal fight to the death.  Now, that I've seen the movie, I am happy to report The Hunger Games is no ripoff of Battle Royale.  If anything, it evokes the old Greek myth of Theseus, with a small dash of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Running Man thrown in.  But the blend works.

I'm sure everyone knows the plot of the film by now.  But for the five of you who have not heard of The Hunger Games, here you go.  Every year in the futuristic nation of Panem, two teenagers are selected from each District as both tribute and punishment for past rebellions.  These kids are brought to the capital, trained to fight and then thrown into battle against each other until there is only one survivor.  The battle is, of course, watched by everyone in the country.  From District 12 comes Katniss (Winter's Bone's Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson, Zathura).  She's tough, resilient, independent, and a killer shot with a bow.  But is she going to be good enough to survive this brutal game and bring hope and glory to her downtrodden District?

There is a lot to like in this movie.  The cast is superb and surprising.  When I think a dystopian future, I do not think of Lenny Kravitz, Donald Sutherland, Wes Bentley, Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, or Stanley Tucci.  Not at all.  But every single one of them pulls off their role with panache and skill.  This cast is probably the most pleasant surprise of the film.  The art direction is also top notch.  The film does a nice job of combining Greco-Roman influences with a truly futuristic look and feel.  I also like what writer-director Gary Ross (Sea Biscuit) brought to the film.  Granted, I have not read the books, but I thought the script and the direction had heft and weight to it, giving the film an importance that most studios wouldn't usually give to a young adult franchise (ahem, Twilight, cough cough).

But while the film was good, there were some issues that kept it from being great.  For one thing, Gary Ross depends WAY too much on shaky cam in a mistaken belief that it will add grittiness and realism to the economically depressed District 12.  Really, Gary, do we need shaky cam when we are looking at an old guy on a rocking chair?? What does that add to the movie????  It gave me motion sickness and I know I am not alone.  A lot of people seem to be complaining about this, and GOOD.  Shaky cam is overused and generally used poorly.  It certainly is completely unnecessary here and burdens the movie.  And it is a surprise to me because I've never seen Ross use this technique in his other films.  Oh, well.

There are also some minor complaints.  SPOILERS HERE.  I thought Cato was kind of a lame bad guy and nowhere near as menacing as the vicious little brunette who gets killed off in an unsatisfactory way.  I didn't like that Peeta seemed to somehow have a really complex paint and makeup kit with him in the forest...and I'm not sure where he was hiding it for most of the game.  I didn't think the relationship between Katniss and Rue was set up very well.  So when their story arc reached its conclusion, I certainly didn't feel the emotional wallop that the movie wanted me to feel.  I also thought the final fight involving Cato and the CGI wolf things was underwhelming.  And I have to wonder - if in this future, they can make flesh and blood wolf things appear out of nothing, then why do they need all those resources, like simple coal and oil, from the other districts?  Can't they just materialize coal out of thin air, too?  Seems like it would be easy to me...

Anyway, The Hunger Games overall was a pleasant surprise.  It was not a great film, but it was a pretty good one.  I'll be curious to see how this trilogy develops.

MVP:
Can there be any doubt?  Jennifer Lawrence takes this film and kicks its butt.   She is fantastic here.  She is the real winner, showing that she not only can hold her own in dramas, but can also carry a franchise on her shoulders.  She is a clear MVP.  I can't wait to see what she does next.

Side note: In a weird sort of way, I could imagine this as a sequel to Winter's Bone.  District 12 is an awful lot like the bleak Ozark setting of that film.  And there are definite similarities between Katniss and Ree.  Both are resilient young women who have to care for their siblings because mom has checked out after the death of their father.  Katniss and Ree are both good hunters, have a clever head on their shoulders, and are absolutely determined to do what they have to do for their family.  It's almost like Winter's Bone is about Katniss finding out what happened to her father and his meth lab, and then she gets picked as tribute for the Hunger Games.  And please, realize, I am completely joking about this.  But I couldn't help thinking and chuckling about it when I was watching the movie.  The similarities are there!!!

BEST LINE:

Peeta: I keep wishing I could think of a way to show them they don't own me.  If I'm gonna die, I wanna still be me.  Does that make any sense?

Katniss:  Yeah, I just can't afford to think that way.

TRIVIA:
The setting for The Hunger Games is the fictional country of Panem.  The name is derived from the Latin expression, "panem et circenses," which means 'bread and circuses.'  Basically, this was the old Roman expression for how the emperors controlled the people of the Empire - by giving them bread and violent games like gladiator matches.  It's a clever and accurate name given the subject matter of the film.  Also, to me, it also sounds similar to Panam, implying 'PanAmerican' and some sort of future where North and South America merge into one huge super country.