A few posts ago I wrote about how Disney, Marvel Entertainment's corporate parent, was taking the backseat in producing Marvel movies in 2014 and leaving the spotlight to the two remaining studios that still own the rights to making movies, namely Sony/Columbia Pictures and 20th Century Fox, which will be releasing The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and X-Men: Days of Future Past, respectively. In a way, that's still true as Marvel is vacating their prime summer real-estate, namely the very first weekend of May, which they have occupied without interruption since 2010 and giving the spot to Sony for the release of TASM 2, but whatever they're giving up in terms of timing, they're certainly making up for in quantity of releases.
All told, this year there will be five movies based on Marvel Comic book characters which is the most that have ever been released in a single year: Captain America: The Winter Soldier, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Big Hero 6. Of those five, three will be sequels, and of those three, two will be sequels to franchises over ten years old. Trailers for three of them have already come out, and the marketing push in general has been pretty strong. The Captain America movie, on top of teaser trailers, has also started a multimedia push as covers for upcoming issues renowned British movie magazine Empire will sport characters from the movie in full costume. Spider-Man made an appearance at the New Year countdown a few days ago, on top of all the other marketing gimmicks Sony has been pushing on the internet, including a full trailer. It's not unreasonable to expect similar promotional stunts for the other movies.
The inevitable question for me is: are we finally starting to get too much Marvel? As a Marvel geek I'm still game, especially since the trailers that have come out so far look great, but for non-comic book fans, five comic book movies in one year seems like a heck of a lot. How many Marvel movies can the average moviegoer take in one year? Last year was a banner year for Marvel-based movies, with Iron Man 3 grossing $1.2 billion, Thor: The Dark World grossing over $600 million and The Wolverine grossing over $400 million at the global box office, dispelling notions of comic-book movie fatigue, but this year there will be five of them, and 2014 could easily end up like 2011, when not a single comic-book based movie managed to crack the half billion mark at the global box office. Of course, that's not likely to happen to the Spidey or X sequels, but the potential casualties here could be the two new properties, Guardians of the Galaxy and Big Hero 6, which will come out after the three sequels have given audiences their fill of A-list Marvel heroes. GOTG and BH6, in contrast to the other three movies, apart from being non-sequels, are based on considerably less popular Marvel Comics and still bear the burden of "proving themselves" to audiences.
Personally, the movie I most want to see of the five (and I want to see them all) is Big Hero 6, so the thought that, being the last of the five movies to come out, it could end up on the short end of the box-office stick saddens me a little bit. It excites me because it's the one thing that's never been done before. GOTG could be accused of being "Star Trek/Star Wars lite" but the anime-inspired BH6, which will be the first Marvel animated feature film, has the potential to be so much more than that. As a fan of Pixar's The Incredibles, I have, since Disney purchased Marvel in 2010, been anxious to see Disney's resources and talent to animate a Marvel property (and the Phineas and Ferb episode doesn't count), and while I would have preferred to see a more familiar property, like Doctor Strange or Runaways, adapted, this will do just fine for a start. The film isn't being produced by Disney's Pixar unit, but after the remarkable quality of last year's Wreck-It-Ralph I know Disney can do action comedy every bit as well as they can do musical princess-themed movies.
However mainstream audiences respond to these films, one things for sure; this year Marvel movie geeks will DEFINITELY get their Marvel fix several times over!
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Stealing from a Chatty Dragon: A Review of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
These days, it's hard to find a mainstream movie that isn't presented in "3-D." It's a sensible proposition, after all; motion pictures are expensive affairs, and throwing in a few extra million dollars for a 3-D conversion for which one can charge twice the normal price for tickets sounds like a good way to hedge one's bets. Rare, however, is the movie that actually makes full use of the format for a mind-blowing cinematic experience. Alfonso Cuaron achieved it earlier this year with his 90-minute thrill-ride Gravity, and a little over two months later, Oscar-winning director Peter Jackson has raised the bar for visual splendor yet again with the astonishing presentation of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.
I actually missed The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the first installment of the trilogy of films based on J.R.R. Tolkien's novel The Hobbit, when it came out in theaters last year. Due to limited funds and a bit of disenchantment with the decision to split a relatively slim book into three movies I decided to pass, but when I caught the movie on DVD I was beguiled by the visuals; in the nine years since the last Lord of the Rings movie, Jackson had learned a whole lot of new tricks, and even though I didn't see the film in 3-D, or the vaunted "High Frame Rate" format of 48 frames per second, it was a real treat to watch, and my whole family agreed to catch the second movie in the premium format.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug begins with a flashback, in which Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) approaches exiled dwarf prince Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) at the Prancing Pony in Bree and offers to help him reclaim the dwarf kingdom of Erebor, which was forcibly taken from them by the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch). It then returns to the present, with the company of dwarves led by Thorin and accompanied by Gandalf and the burglar they recruited, the eponymous hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) fleeing from the orcs chasing them at the end of the last movie. First they take refuge with a "skin changer" or a shape-changing man named Beorn (Mikael Persbrandt), and later, they are able to flee into Mirkwood, where they encounter new terrors and perils. The band of adventurers face danger from all sorts of colorful and terrifying characters, like angry elves (including Orlando Bloom's Legolas from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, herein joined by his dad Thranduil, played by Lee Pace, and a fierce she-elf created just for the movies named Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly), murderous orcs, and treacherous humans, but all of these threats will pale next to the terrifying, fire-breathing shroud of death that is Smaug.
Like this first film in the series, this, too was presented in the "HFR" format, and while it was jarring in several instances, it really was an extraordinary experience.
Also, in terms of both story and pure balls-to-the-wall action, this film easily has the first one beat. The staging of the action is nothing less than extraordinary, and Jackson's sleight of hand is now such that it's considerably harder to tell Orlando Bloom apart from his digitally-generated counterpart in the incredibly-staged action sequences. I basically just worked on the assumption that the most dangerous or difficult stunts were done digitally, but really, it's hard to tell where Bloom or Lilly (whose Tauriel also does considerable feats of derring-do) end and their Weta-Digital generated doubles begin. Fans thirsting for orc blood will certainly have their fill here; plenty of orcs are skewered, slashed and decapitated over the film's mammoth running time for our viewing pleasure.
Of course, given the title of the film, the dragon Smaug himself, as the film's primary antagonist (although there is a familiar face lurking in the shadows) has to be a highlight of this film, and thanks to the wizards at Weta Digital, he absolutely is. I regret to report, however, that Cumberbatch's voice seems to have been slightly filtered to make him sound more menacing, though that could have just been as a result of the terrible audio at the theater where I watched this movie, which was in the non-IMAX portion of SM North EDSA. My cousin had the same problem, so at least I know it wasn't just me. The audio was so bad, in fact, that I missed whole chunks of Smaug's rather extensive dialogue, which was really disappointing considering I have been a fan of Cumberbatch's since I watched him on Sherlock back in 2012. If the experience for people in other theaters was similar, then Jackson and his crew have done the audience quite a disservice, but there's no way for me to know.
In any case, this film has much more going for it than just incredible action sequences and CG-characters. As we have come to expect from Jackson's Tolkien films, the production value is really a cut above most other Hollywood fare. The production design of sets like the interior of Erebor and the seemingly abandoned fort of Dol Guldur are absolutely jaw-dropping and in many instances they are as integral to the story as the characters who set foot there, almost as if they are characters unto themselves. Of course, the majestic New Zealand backdrops Jackson and his crew picked add to the splendor.
The story does tend to plod along at some points, and I couldn't help but wonder where Jackson and his screenwriters got all the material for this filler, but overall the pacing was good, and the action was right where it needed to be. All told, I can definitely say I liked this movie better than its predecessor.
Without spoiling anything it's fair for me to say that the film sets the audience up for the epic finale next year, especially considering that it will feature the famous Battle of Five Armies which fans of the book and of Tolkien lore in general are no doubt eagerly anticipating, but standing on its own, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug was a pretty fun film in its own right.
4/5
I actually missed The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the first installment of the trilogy of films based on J.R.R. Tolkien's novel The Hobbit, when it came out in theaters last year. Due to limited funds and a bit of disenchantment with the decision to split a relatively slim book into three movies I decided to pass, but when I caught the movie on DVD I was beguiled by the visuals; in the nine years since the last Lord of the Rings movie, Jackson had learned a whole lot of new tricks, and even though I didn't see the film in 3-D, or the vaunted "High Frame Rate" format of 48 frames per second, it was a real treat to watch, and my whole family agreed to catch the second movie in the premium format.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug begins with a flashback, in which Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) approaches exiled dwarf prince Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) at the Prancing Pony in Bree and offers to help him reclaim the dwarf kingdom of Erebor, which was forcibly taken from them by the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch). It then returns to the present, with the company of dwarves led by Thorin and accompanied by Gandalf and the burglar they recruited, the eponymous hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) fleeing from the orcs chasing them at the end of the last movie. First they take refuge with a "skin changer" or a shape-changing man named Beorn (Mikael Persbrandt), and later, they are able to flee into Mirkwood, where they encounter new terrors and perils. The band of adventurers face danger from all sorts of colorful and terrifying characters, like angry elves (including Orlando Bloom's Legolas from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, herein joined by his dad Thranduil, played by Lee Pace, and a fierce she-elf created just for the movies named Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly), murderous orcs, and treacherous humans, but all of these threats will pale next to the terrifying, fire-breathing shroud of death that is Smaug.
Like this first film in the series, this, too was presented in the "HFR" format, and while it was jarring in several instances, it really was an extraordinary experience.
Also, in terms of both story and pure balls-to-the-wall action, this film easily has the first one beat. The staging of the action is nothing less than extraordinary, and Jackson's sleight of hand is now such that it's considerably harder to tell Orlando Bloom apart from his digitally-generated counterpart in the incredibly-staged action sequences. I basically just worked on the assumption that the most dangerous or difficult stunts were done digitally, but really, it's hard to tell where Bloom or Lilly (whose Tauriel also does considerable feats of derring-do) end and their Weta-Digital generated doubles begin. Fans thirsting for orc blood will certainly have their fill here; plenty of orcs are skewered, slashed and decapitated over the film's mammoth running time for our viewing pleasure.
Of course, given the title of the film, the dragon Smaug himself, as the film's primary antagonist (although there is a familiar face lurking in the shadows) has to be a highlight of this film, and thanks to the wizards at Weta Digital, he absolutely is. I regret to report, however, that Cumberbatch's voice seems to have been slightly filtered to make him sound more menacing, though that could have just been as a result of the terrible audio at the theater where I watched this movie, which was in the non-IMAX portion of SM North EDSA. My cousin had the same problem, so at least I know it wasn't just me. The audio was so bad, in fact, that I missed whole chunks of Smaug's rather extensive dialogue, which was really disappointing considering I have been a fan of Cumberbatch's since I watched him on Sherlock back in 2012. If the experience for people in other theaters was similar, then Jackson and his crew have done the audience quite a disservice, but there's no way for me to know.
In any case, this film has much more going for it than just incredible action sequences and CG-characters. As we have come to expect from Jackson's Tolkien films, the production value is really a cut above most other Hollywood fare. The production design of sets like the interior of Erebor and the seemingly abandoned fort of Dol Guldur are absolutely jaw-dropping and in many instances they are as integral to the story as the characters who set foot there, almost as if they are characters unto themselves. Of course, the majestic New Zealand backdrops Jackson and his crew picked add to the splendor.
The story does tend to plod along at some points, and I couldn't help but wonder where Jackson and his screenwriters got all the material for this filler, but overall the pacing was good, and the action was right where it needed to be. All told, I can definitely say I liked this movie better than its predecessor.
Without spoiling anything it's fair for me to say that the film sets the audience up for the epic finale next year, especially considering that it will feature the famous Battle of Five Armies which fans of the book and of Tolkien lore in general are no doubt eagerly anticipating, but standing on its own, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug was a pretty fun film in its own right.
4/5
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Revisiting an Old Favorite: Sideways
There's a little thing going around Facebook asking people to post "10 movies they saw in the last few years that stayed with them." Funny thing is, of all the movies I've seen, and I like to consider myself a fan of movies in general, there's only one that's really, resonated with me over the last decade and a half or so, and that's Alexander Payne's 2004 film Sideways. Sure, I've enjoyed lots of other films in my lifetime and even in the last ten years alone, and I even have many of them on DVD, but as I understand the phrase "stay with you" there's something a lot more than just enjoyment and/or entertainment at work. And so by that standard Sideways, and only Sideways, has truly left a burr in my consciousness.
At its heart, Sideways is basically a midlife crisis movie. I connected to this film because I watched it the year I turned 30, and while the big Four-Oh is two years away for me (a year and a half, to be precise), that film still connects with me in a way that few other films ever have, before or since, and because I cannot seem to find my actual review of the movie (which I wrote right here on blogger) I'll give a little summary.
Middle school teacher Miles Raymond (Paul Giamatti), is frustrated in many aspects his life. He's divorced, stuck in a dreary job, living in a drab apartment, and anxiously hoping for his novel to be published. The one thing that seems to give him any joy is wine, in particular pinot noir. As the film begins,he looks forward to is taking his friend, washed-up former actor Jack Cole (Thomas Haden Church), who is about to get married, on a tour of Santa Ynez Valley, one of the great wine hubs of California, as one last getaway before Jack gets hitched. Jack and Miles drink wine and meet people on the way, including winery employee Stephanie (Sandra Oh) and waitress/master's degree candidate Maya (Virginia Madsen). As their acquaintance with the ladies progresses Jack seems intent on getting his rocks off with Stephanie, while Miles grapples with being at a crossroads his life. Will he love again? Will his novel ever get published? Will he ever open his prized bottle of 1961 pinot?
It's just as well that I'm re-reviewing this film, because I find myself laughing at a story trope I wasn't really aware of when I first watched it. I find myself amused, for example, by the well-worn cliche that Miles' novel is basically about him. Watching this, and Woody Allen's 2011 film Midnight in Paris, one would imagine that in Hollywood movies, the only people novelists, especially struggling ones, ever know how to write about are themselves.
What I loved about this movie was how brutally honest and how utterly down-to-earth it felt and still feels. Giamatti was really the perfect choice for the role of Miles Raymond; he invested the character with a heartbreaking vulnerability that made him utterly sympathetic, even at his most pathetic moments in the film. Everyone in the cast was at the top of their game, but this was, for me, Giamatti's show through-and-through. Not being the most dashing actor, he never really snagged a lot of lead roles after that, but he has been working steadily ever since, both in awards-bait, art-house fare and in blockbusters. In fact, like his Sideways alumnus Haden Church, who played Sandman in Spider-Man 3, Giamatti will also play one of Spider-Man's bad guys in next year's The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
I'm actually older now than Giamatti was when Sideways came out, and if nothing else I consider myself fortunate that unlike the character he played in that movie, I am not nearly as down and out as he was throughout most of it. Still, so much of his anguish at feeling he had achieved too little in his life considering his age really speaks to me. I like to think I've had a good life so far, but I cannot escape the thought that I could have done things better.
Still, like Sideways, which ends on a cliffhanger of sorts, life doesn't really end when one particular story does. My story will go on, and even though I suffer from insecurity and feelings of inadequacy like Miles did, I still have time to try my best and make things better.
I also really enjoyed Life of Pi, incidentally, but I'll have to wait for several years to see if it really stays with me the way Sideways has.
At its heart, Sideways is basically a midlife crisis movie. I connected to this film because I watched it the year I turned 30, and while the big Four-Oh is two years away for me (a year and a half, to be precise), that film still connects with me in a way that few other films ever have, before or since, and because I cannot seem to find my actual review of the movie (which I wrote right here on blogger) I'll give a little summary.
Middle school teacher Miles Raymond (Paul Giamatti), is frustrated in many aspects his life. He's divorced, stuck in a dreary job, living in a drab apartment, and anxiously hoping for his novel to be published. The one thing that seems to give him any joy is wine, in particular pinot noir. As the film begins,he looks forward to is taking his friend, washed-up former actor Jack Cole (Thomas Haden Church), who is about to get married, on a tour of Santa Ynez Valley, one of the great wine hubs of California, as one last getaway before Jack gets hitched. Jack and Miles drink wine and meet people on the way, including winery employee Stephanie (Sandra Oh) and waitress/master's degree candidate Maya (Virginia Madsen). As their acquaintance with the ladies progresses Jack seems intent on getting his rocks off with Stephanie, while Miles grapples with being at a crossroads his life. Will he love again? Will his novel ever get published? Will he ever open his prized bottle of 1961 pinot?
It's just as well that I'm re-reviewing this film, because I find myself laughing at a story trope I wasn't really aware of when I first watched it. I find myself amused, for example, by the well-worn cliche that Miles' novel is basically about him. Watching this, and Woody Allen's 2011 film Midnight in Paris, one would imagine that in Hollywood movies, the only people novelists, especially struggling ones, ever know how to write about are themselves.
What I loved about this movie was how brutally honest and how utterly down-to-earth it felt and still feels. Giamatti was really the perfect choice for the role of Miles Raymond; he invested the character with a heartbreaking vulnerability that made him utterly sympathetic, even at his most pathetic moments in the film. Everyone in the cast was at the top of their game, but this was, for me, Giamatti's show through-and-through. Not being the most dashing actor, he never really snagged a lot of lead roles after that, but he has been working steadily ever since, both in awards-bait, art-house fare and in blockbusters. In fact, like his Sideways alumnus Haden Church, who played Sandman in Spider-Man 3, Giamatti will also play one of Spider-Man's bad guys in next year's The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
I'm actually older now than Giamatti was when Sideways came out, and if nothing else I consider myself fortunate that unlike the character he played in that movie, I am not nearly as down and out as he was throughout most of it. Still, so much of his anguish at feeling he had achieved too little in his life considering his age really speaks to me. I like to think I've had a good life so far, but I cannot escape the thought that I could have done things better.
Still, like Sideways, which ends on a cliffhanger of sorts, life doesn't really end when one particular story does. My story will go on, and even though I suffer from insecurity and feelings of inadequacy like Miles did, I still have time to try my best and make things better.
I also really enjoyed Life of Pi, incidentally, but I'll have to wait for several years to see if it really stays with me the way Sideways has.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
The Disney Animated Musical is BACK! (A Review of "Frozen")
As someone who grew up with Disney's animated musicals (and who even cried a little at the end of Beauty and the Beast) I was genuinely saddened when it appeared that that the Disney musical, at around the beginning of this millennium, was slowly dying out as a medium, having been increasingly upstaged by the newer, slicker computer-generated product being produced by Disney stablemate Pixar. Soon, even Walt Disney Animation's "homegrown" (i.e. not Pixar) product felt either utterly generic (Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, The Wild) or loosely inspired by plot points from Pixar hits (e.g. Bolt, which borrowed its deluded-hero conceit from Toy Story). Songs were basically taboo, unless they were popular songs that didn't come out of the mouths of the characters. It got to a point where Disney was basically parodying itself in 2007's live-action animation hybrid Enchanted. In 2009, they tried to sell a "princess" musical with The Princess and the Frog, only to be met with cold indifference at the box office. Although 2010's Tangled was still, strictly speaking, a musical, it felt oddly parsimonious with its actual musical numbers. Then, quite conspicuously, the next year brought a distinctly non-musical offering, Wreck-It-Ralph. Now, I'm a huge fan of WIR, and truth be told the fast-talking speed demon Vanellope Von Schweetz from that film is one of my favorite Disney characters EVER, right next to Finding Nemo's Dory and the sous chef voiced by Will Arnett in Ratatouille, but the thought of Disney abandoning the musical altogether left a distinctly bad taste in my mouth.
Fortunately, with Frozen, co-directed by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee, Disney has put that particular fear to rest.
Loosely based on Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale The Snow Queen, Frozen tells the story of two sisters Elsa (Idina Menzel) and Anna (Kristen Bell), whose parents, the King and Queen of Arendelle, a fictional, vaguely Norwegian kingdom, separate them at a very young age because Elsa has fantastical but dangerous ice powers which actually hurt Anna when both of them are very young. In fact, Elsa's powers are so dangerous that the castle's gates are closed to the entire kingdom for years. When the two princesses are a bit older, they are orphaned by a tragic incident at sea, and as a result, when Elsa, the elder, comes of age, the gates of the kingdom are opened for her coronation. Anna, now a blossoming young woman, cannot be happier, as she yearns to meet people, and in particular hopes to catch the fancy of a young man, while Elsa is nearly paralyzed with fear at what could happen if people find out about her secret. Suffice it to say, although Anna meets her dashing prince Hans (Santino Fontana), things go awry, and Anna, together with traveling ice salesman Kristoff (Jonathan Groff), his reindeer Sven, and the magically-animated snowman Olaf (Josh Gad) embarks on a journey to save her sister and her kingdom. In the process, she will learn a thing or two about the bonds of sisterhood, and the power of true love.
The Snow Queen was always going to be a tough story to adapt, as it really doesn't follow a whole lot of the usual Disney cartoon story beats. The protagonists are children not lovelorn adolescents or young adults. The villain is, well, not much of a character, being neither particularly cruel or comical, and in fact, at the time the story is resolved, she isn't even around. It's a small wonder, therefore, that the movie is only an adaptation in the loosest sense of the word. Disney kept the Scandinavian setting, the queen with the fantastical ice/snow powers, and the importance of true love, but it all other respects they've come up with something altogether different, not only from the story they adapted, but from their usual fare. This movie is something quite special.
It's hard to talk about the storytelling virtues of this movie without spoiling it, but I will say that anyone wanting to keep their little girls from getting too preoccupied with finding Prince Charming at such a young age will have next to nothing to fear from this film, and that parents who have at least two young daughters may delight at the message this movie delivers about sisterhood. I have two little girls who fight like cats and dogs so this resonated with me something fierce.
The film does have some flaws; apart from three or four central characters, everyone else in it was given short shrift in terms of characterization. The actual villain of the film, if I may be honest, didn't leave much of an impact at all, and felt more like a story device than an actual character. Still, the patented Disney humor was there in generous doses.
Also, call me old-fashioned, but I miss the Alan Menken tunes from Beauty and the Beast, and which were featured as recently as 2010 in Tangled. Still, that's more a matter of taste than anything, and while not all the songs here, written by the husband-and-wife team of Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez, were necessarily my cup of tea, I appreciated the craft behind them, especially the ones that involved powerful vocals like the centerpiece, "Let It Go" as sung by Menzel's Elsa midway through the film. It was gratifying to see Disney finally make up for casting Menzel, a Broadway veteran and one of the stars of the beloved musical Rent, in their 2007 musical Enchanted and yet failing to give her a single musical number. I was also a fan of Kristen Bell going into this movie, and came out of it an even bigger fan after hearing her sing.
Another quibble I had with this movie was how in some ways it felt like a wasted opportunity; Disney was basically rewriting the form book on a lot of their storytelling conventions here, and yet from a visual perspective, Anna and Elsa look, in many respects, like sooooo many other Disney princesses that have come before them. Considering that they had two uniquely attractive actresses playing these characters, it would have been nice had they at least tried to imbue them with some of their performers' features. As it is, both lead characters seem to have been designed primarily to sell dolls (now available at a Toys 'R' Us near you!), just going to show that while some things may have changed, others remain woefully the same.
Nitpicking notwithstanding, I can't really find that much fault with such an expertly-staged production. As it is with every new film, Disney just keep managing to top themselves on a technical level, and are now pretty much at level with Pixar in terms of pure production value, due in no small part, I imagine, to John Lasseter's creative guidance. And with something like eight new songs, this is easily their most ambitious musical effort since the 1990s.
I seem to be detecting a trend here in Disney Animations release pattern: 2010 had the princess-themed Tangled, while 2012 had the video game action fantasy Wreck-It-Ralph, clearly geared more towards male audiences. Next year, Disney's trading princesses for a team of C-list Marvel superheroes as they adapt the little-known Marvel Comic Big Hero 6. It seems, then, that they're alternating between movies "for girls" and movies "for boys."
If they're all as good as Frozen, though, I'll be back no matter who their principal audience is.
4/5
Fortunately, with Frozen, co-directed by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee, Disney has put that particular fear to rest.
Loosely based on Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale The Snow Queen, Frozen tells the story of two sisters Elsa (Idina Menzel) and Anna (Kristen Bell), whose parents, the King and Queen of Arendelle, a fictional, vaguely Norwegian kingdom, separate them at a very young age because Elsa has fantastical but dangerous ice powers which actually hurt Anna when both of them are very young. In fact, Elsa's powers are so dangerous that the castle's gates are closed to the entire kingdom for years. When the two princesses are a bit older, they are orphaned by a tragic incident at sea, and as a result, when Elsa, the elder, comes of age, the gates of the kingdom are opened for her coronation. Anna, now a blossoming young woman, cannot be happier, as she yearns to meet people, and in particular hopes to catch the fancy of a young man, while Elsa is nearly paralyzed with fear at what could happen if people find out about her secret. Suffice it to say, although Anna meets her dashing prince Hans (Santino Fontana), things go awry, and Anna, together with traveling ice salesman Kristoff (Jonathan Groff), his reindeer Sven, and the magically-animated snowman Olaf (Josh Gad) embarks on a journey to save her sister and her kingdom. In the process, she will learn a thing or two about the bonds of sisterhood, and the power of true love.
The Snow Queen was always going to be a tough story to adapt, as it really doesn't follow a whole lot of the usual Disney cartoon story beats. The protagonists are children not lovelorn adolescents or young adults. The villain is, well, not much of a character, being neither particularly cruel or comical, and in fact, at the time the story is resolved, she isn't even around. It's a small wonder, therefore, that the movie is only an adaptation in the loosest sense of the word. Disney kept the Scandinavian setting, the queen with the fantastical ice/snow powers, and the importance of true love, but it all other respects they've come up with something altogether different, not only from the story they adapted, but from their usual fare. This movie is something quite special.
It's hard to talk about the storytelling virtues of this movie without spoiling it, but I will say that anyone wanting to keep their little girls from getting too preoccupied with finding Prince Charming at such a young age will have next to nothing to fear from this film, and that parents who have at least two young daughters may delight at the message this movie delivers about sisterhood. I have two little girls who fight like cats and dogs so this resonated with me something fierce.
The film does have some flaws; apart from three or four central characters, everyone else in it was given short shrift in terms of characterization. The actual villain of the film, if I may be honest, didn't leave much of an impact at all, and felt more like a story device than an actual character. Still, the patented Disney humor was there in generous doses.
Also, call me old-fashioned, but I miss the Alan Menken tunes from Beauty and the Beast, and which were featured as recently as 2010 in Tangled. Still, that's more a matter of taste than anything, and while not all the songs here, written by the husband-and-wife team of Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez, were necessarily my cup of tea, I appreciated the craft behind them, especially the ones that involved powerful vocals like the centerpiece, "Let It Go" as sung by Menzel's Elsa midway through the film. It was gratifying to see Disney finally make up for casting Menzel, a Broadway veteran and one of the stars of the beloved musical Rent, in their 2007 musical Enchanted and yet failing to give her a single musical number. I was also a fan of Kristen Bell going into this movie, and came out of it an even bigger fan after hearing her sing.
Another quibble I had with this movie was how in some ways it felt like a wasted opportunity; Disney was basically rewriting the form book on a lot of their storytelling conventions here, and yet from a visual perspective, Anna and Elsa look, in many respects, like sooooo many other Disney princesses that have come before them. Considering that they had two uniquely attractive actresses playing these characters, it would have been nice had they at least tried to imbue them with some of their performers' features. As it is, both lead characters seem to have been designed primarily to sell dolls (now available at a Toys 'R' Us near you!), just going to show that while some things may have changed, others remain woefully the same.
Nitpicking notwithstanding, I can't really find that much fault with such an expertly-staged production. As it is with every new film, Disney just keep managing to top themselves on a technical level, and are now pretty much at level with Pixar in terms of pure production value, due in no small part, I imagine, to John Lasseter's creative guidance. And with something like eight new songs, this is easily their most ambitious musical effort since the 1990s.
I seem to be detecting a trend here in Disney Animations release pattern: 2010 had the princess-themed Tangled, while 2012 had the video game action fantasy Wreck-It-Ralph, clearly geared more towards male audiences. Next year, Disney's trading princesses for a team of C-list Marvel superheroes as they adapt the little-known Marvel Comic Big Hero 6. It seems, then, that they're alternating between movies "for girls" and movies "for boys."
If they're all as good as Frozen, though, I'll be back no matter who their principal audience is.
4/5
Friday, November 29, 2013
Night Turns to Day: A Review of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
I didn't catch last year's The Hunger Games in movie theaters. I suppose I was just too busy, though later that year I caught it on DVD and was reasonably entertained. I've always been a fan of dystopian, post apocalyptic fiction and this movie put a bit of new, if slightly disturbing, twist on the concept. It wasn't among my favorites of last year, but I was definitely entertained, so much so that I was more than willing to see the sequel in the movie theater. As much as I enjoyed the first one, the follow-up was head and shoulders the superior film.
The events of the story directly follow those of the first film, so knowledge of what came before is a must. Having won the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) have moved into the "Victor's Village" of District 12, and into relatively opulent houses. They're celebrities for life now, thanks not only to their victory but their sham "love story," something which irks Katniss' close friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth) who is not entirely convinced it was a sham. Katniss has bigger problems, though, as her and Peeta's unique victory, as well as her widely televised act of sympathy for fallen tribute Rue, has sparked uprisings all throughout Panem, to the extent that the despotic President Snow (Donald Sutherland) pays her a visit and basically threatens to kill her family and everyone she loves if she doesn't play ball and use her newly-won influence to tell everyone how wonderful the Capitol is. Key to selling this fiction is also selling her fake love story with Peeta...for the rest of her life. The uprisings, however, prove extremely difficult to suppress, and eventually Snow decides to recruit Katniss and Peeta into a "special edition" Hunger Games known as the "Quarter Quell" which only takes place once every 25 years. This time, every one of their opponents is a past winner of the games, and with a ruthless new game master Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), frightening times lie ahead for Katniss and Peeta.
I have not read any of Suzanne Collins' bestselling Hunger Games books, and at this point that's deliberate; I want whatever surprises the films have to throw at me to remain surprises. What I appreciate most about the movies is how they serve as a graphic metaphor for class inequality, and considering that this was intended for American readers, many if not most of whom probably can't find any country other than their own a world map, the message these films convey remains quite relevant, if a little heavy-handed at times. I have no idea how the books read but for the most part the script by Michael Arndt (Toy Story 3) and Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire) exudes an intelligence which does justice to the book's underlying themes even as it keeps things easy to understand for younger viewers.
Of course, the material would still feel a little schlocky in some places were it not for the utter conviction of the performers, particularly Jennifer Lawrence in her role as Katniss, who does an amazing job at conveying her character's range of emotions from fear to inner conflict. Most of the key supporting players from the first film, including Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks and Lenny Kravitz are back, and this time they are joined by several welcome new additions like Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright, Amanda Plummer and Sam Claflin as former HG winners Beetee, Wiress and Finnick, to name a few. Of course, the problem with a cast this big is that not everyone will get the character development they arguably deserve, even with a two-and-a-half hour running time.
To director Francis Lawrence's credit, though, he manages to balance the most crucial of the characters and story elements while at the same time elevating the production value of this sequel well past its predecessor. Granted, the budget from the last film was basically doubled, but every last penny of that $140 million was well spent, from the computer-generated threats the tributes faced in the arena to the sets, to the hovercraft that actually showed up on screen this time. The first film told a good story, but the penny-pinching was quite evident, especially in the last few scenes in which laughably fake computer-generated wolves showed up. This time the producers went all-out. One thing that really struck me was the imposing architecture of the Capitol, which was embarrassingly minimalist in the first film. This film is bigger and better in every way than its predecessor, and from the look of things, audiences around the world think so too.
It wasn't flawless storytelling, though. I can point to one scene that really made me cringe: Katniss and Peeta are attending a party in the Capitol, when one of the guests invites Peeta to try some French macaroons. Peeta declares that he's too full to eat anymore, and the guest offers him a drink which is meant to make him vomit so that he can eat some more. This scene is considerably powerful given that, at this point in the story, the audience knows that people all over Panem are starving. Peeta blunts the impact of this obscenity by actually saying that people in the Districts are starving while people in the Capitol are throwing up their food. The writers either forgot the "show, don't tell rule" or figured the audience would be too slow to get the message without spelling it out in neon lights as bright as the wigs worn by Elizabeth Banks' Effie.
This little quibble notwithstanding this was easily one of the most engaging movies I've seen all year, and I find myself looking forward to the next installment in the saga of Panem.
4/5
The events of the story directly follow those of the first film, so knowledge of what came before is a must. Having won the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) have moved into the "Victor's Village" of District 12, and into relatively opulent houses. They're celebrities for life now, thanks not only to their victory but their sham "love story," something which irks Katniss' close friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth) who is not entirely convinced it was a sham. Katniss has bigger problems, though, as her and Peeta's unique victory, as well as her widely televised act of sympathy for fallen tribute Rue, has sparked uprisings all throughout Panem, to the extent that the despotic President Snow (Donald Sutherland) pays her a visit and basically threatens to kill her family and everyone she loves if she doesn't play ball and use her newly-won influence to tell everyone how wonderful the Capitol is. Key to selling this fiction is also selling her fake love story with Peeta...for the rest of her life. The uprisings, however, prove extremely difficult to suppress, and eventually Snow decides to recruit Katniss and Peeta into a "special edition" Hunger Games known as the "Quarter Quell" which only takes place once every 25 years. This time, every one of their opponents is a past winner of the games, and with a ruthless new game master Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), frightening times lie ahead for Katniss and Peeta.
I have not read any of Suzanne Collins' bestselling Hunger Games books, and at this point that's deliberate; I want whatever surprises the films have to throw at me to remain surprises. What I appreciate most about the movies is how they serve as a graphic metaphor for class inequality, and considering that this was intended for American readers, many if not most of whom probably can't find any country other than their own a world map, the message these films convey remains quite relevant, if a little heavy-handed at times. I have no idea how the books read but for the most part the script by Michael Arndt (Toy Story 3) and Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire) exudes an intelligence which does justice to the book's underlying themes even as it keeps things easy to understand for younger viewers.
Of course, the material would still feel a little schlocky in some places were it not for the utter conviction of the performers, particularly Jennifer Lawrence in her role as Katniss, who does an amazing job at conveying her character's range of emotions from fear to inner conflict. Most of the key supporting players from the first film, including Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks and Lenny Kravitz are back, and this time they are joined by several welcome new additions like Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright, Amanda Plummer and Sam Claflin as former HG winners Beetee, Wiress and Finnick, to name a few. Of course, the problem with a cast this big is that not everyone will get the character development they arguably deserve, even with a two-and-a-half hour running time.
To director Francis Lawrence's credit, though, he manages to balance the most crucial of the characters and story elements while at the same time elevating the production value of this sequel well past its predecessor. Granted, the budget from the last film was basically doubled, but every last penny of that $140 million was well spent, from the computer-generated threats the tributes faced in the arena to the sets, to the hovercraft that actually showed up on screen this time. The first film told a good story, but the penny-pinching was quite evident, especially in the last few scenes in which laughably fake computer-generated wolves showed up. This time the producers went all-out. One thing that really struck me was the imposing architecture of the Capitol, which was embarrassingly minimalist in the first film. This film is bigger and better in every way than its predecessor, and from the look of things, audiences around the world think so too.
It wasn't flawless storytelling, though. I can point to one scene that really made me cringe: Katniss and Peeta are attending a party in the Capitol, when one of the guests invites Peeta to try some French macaroons. Peeta declares that he's too full to eat anymore, and the guest offers him a drink which is meant to make him vomit so that he can eat some more. This scene is considerably powerful given that, at this point in the story, the audience knows that people all over Panem are starving. Peeta blunts the impact of this obscenity by actually saying that people in the Districts are starving while people in the Capitol are throwing up their food. The writers either forgot the "show, don't tell rule" or figured the audience would be too slow to get the message without spelling it out in neon lights as bright as the wigs worn by Elizabeth Banks' Effie.
This little quibble notwithstanding this was easily one of the most engaging movies I've seen all year, and I find myself looking forward to the next installment in the saga of Panem.
4/5
Saturday, November 2, 2013
"Dark" but No Less Fun: A Review of Thor: The Dark World
While I enjoyed 2011's Thor, there was something that felt somehow off about it to me. The fact that so much of an action fantasy was set in the relatively mundane New Mexico, the fact that the titular superhero spent most of the movie out of costume and without any superpowers, and finally, the fact that this was Marvel Studios' first action/fantasy hybrid after three straight sci-fi flavored movies (two Iron Man films and one Hulk film) gave the first movie a strangely half-baked feel for me.
Not so, however the sequel, titled Thor: The Dark World.
Like the first film, this film begins with a prologue set in ancient times, so ancient that they actually predate Odin Allfather (Anthony Hopkins) himself. In fact, it falls upon Odin's father Bor (Tony Curran) to stop the menace of the Dark Elves of Svartalfheim, led by Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) and his loyal lieutenant Algrim (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje). The Dark Elves lived in the darkness that thrived before the universe was born, and through their indestructible energy weapon, the Aether, they seek to destroy the universe and restore the darkness that once reigned, but Bor defeats them and hides the Aether. Malekith sacrifices the bulk of his armies and in the chaos flees, going into hiding, and apparently suspended animation, for thousands of years.
The film then shifts to the present, which happens to be two years after the first Thor film, and one year after Marvel's The Avengers. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is imprisoned for his crimes on earth, and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and his companions, the Warriors Three (Volstagg - Ray Stevenson, Fandrall - Zachary Levi, Hogun - Tadanobu Asane) and Sif (Jamie Alexander), are dispatched across the nine realms to bring peace to these troubled worlds. Meanwhile, on Earth, astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) the object of Thor's affection, is trying to move on from Thor. She has moved to London and is actually on a date with an amiable local (Chris O' Dowd), when her assistant, Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) interrupts her date and calls her attention to an anomaly in the space-time continuum. Jane follows Darcy to the site of the disturbance, which turns out to be several portals between worlds, one brought about by a celestial event called the convergence, which only occurs once in several thousand years, and in which all nine realms align perfectly. Quite by accident, Jane stumbles on the place where the Asgardians hid the Aether, and the energy actually enters her body, with sometimes explosive consequences for those who try to touch her after that.
Eventually, Thor finds his way to Jane, and whisks her off to Asgard on the now-repaired Bifrost, thinking it would be the best place to keep her safe from the deadly energy inside her. Unfortunately, the Aether awakens Malekith and the remainder of his Dark Elves, and they attack an unsuspecting Asgard with catastrophic consequences.
Thor realizes the magnitude of the threat faced not only by Asgard but by all the Nine Realms, one that will require more than just the power of Mjolnir to vanquish. In fact, he comes to realize that he may require help from one of the most unexpected of places.
Like the first film, this one takes place both on Earth and on other, fantastical realms, but this time around it's the other worlds that get the lion's share of screen time, with Asgard and Svartalfheim proving pivotal to the plot, and another world, Vanaheim, serving as the staging point for the film's first kick-ass action sequence. In this respect, the second film definitely steps things up several notches from its predecessor; not only are there more action set pieces here in comparison to the first film, but they are noticeably better choreographed and more elaborate. They are also abetted by much better computer-generated imagery than the first film had to offer.
Not only that, but there's also a bit more urgency in the battles here; the death of a pivotal supporting character midway through the film tells the audience that this time, the menace is real. In that sense, the film does live up to its title in a way, though the titular "dark world" refers to the home of the Dark Elves and not really to a significant shift in tone from the first film to this one.
That's actually a good thing; Marvel has, for the most part, kept what worked very well for the first film, and for most of Marvel's films in general: the humor. This time, they don't get by on fish-out-of-the-water jokes, but instead pepper the script with more witty exchanges in general between the characters. Hiddleston's Loki, of course, gets the best lines. It was, to me, impressive that Marvel was able to keep this crucial element in despite a nastier set of bad guys than the last film had. Also, director Alan Taylor (who takes over the director's chair from Kenneth Branagh) and his screenwriters make it a point to preserve the other things that worked about the first movie as well, such as the chemistry between lead actor Hemsworth and the various other actors in the film, like Portman, Hopkins, and Hiddleston. Of the performers here, Hopkins feels a little less enthusiastic than he was the first time around, but it doesn't hurt the storytelling that much. A bit of bonus is the fact that for the first time, Portman's Foster gets to interact with the Asgardians, including Odin, Frigga (Rene Russo) and of course Loki.
Of the new elements in the film, Ecclestone's Malekith feels like the least impressive, though really, buried under all that makeup and without particularly memorable dialogue, I'm hard-pressed to think of what more he could have done. Also, personally I felt a little strange seeing swords and battle axes mixing it up with laser cannons on the screen, though considering that George Lucas created a whole genre out of such strange marriages with his Star Wars films I suppose this isn't the first time two seemingly disparate narrative styles have melded on the big screen. In any case, it was only in the first few fight scenes that I thought it looked particularly strange. This little quibble notwithstanding, the major battles were still quite impressive on the whole.
Speaking of climactic battles, this film has one of the most imaginative ones I've seen in a while, one that effectively mixes humor and thrills. It's the sort of thing that has to be seen to be best appreciated.
As with all Marvel films, there were treats to be had after the film, with mid-credits AND post-credits Easter Eggs. I'm pretty sure it's not really spoiling anything to say that at least one of them is clearly setting up a future Marvel Studios blockbuster. Personally, I wasn't particularly enthused about it, even though I'm sure comic-book nerds everywhere were ecstatic about its implications.
But really, my unhappiness with future teasers and some niggles in the script notwithstanding, Thor: The Dark World was definitely worth the trip to the movie theater, though this time, I didn't bother with the 3-D premium considering I wasn't particularly impressed with the 3-D conversions of The Avengers or Iron Man 3.
3.5/5
Not so, however the sequel, titled Thor: The Dark World.
Like the first film, this film begins with a prologue set in ancient times, so ancient that they actually predate Odin Allfather (Anthony Hopkins) himself. In fact, it falls upon Odin's father Bor (Tony Curran) to stop the menace of the Dark Elves of Svartalfheim, led by Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) and his loyal lieutenant Algrim (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje). The Dark Elves lived in the darkness that thrived before the universe was born, and through their indestructible energy weapon, the Aether, they seek to destroy the universe and restore the darkness that once reigned, but Bor defeats them and hides the Aether. Malekith sacrifices the bulk of his armies and in the chaos flees, going into hiding, and apparently suspended animation, for thousands of years.
The film then shifts to the present, which happens to be two years after the first Thor film, and one year after Marvel's The Avengers. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is imprisoned for his crimes on earth, and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and his companions, the Warriors Three (Volstagg - Ray Stevenson, Fandrall - Zachary Levi, Hogun - Tadanobu Asane) and Sif (Jamie Alexander), are dispatched across the nine realms to bring peace to these troubled worlds. Meanwhile, on Earth, astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) the object of Thor's affection, is trying to move on from Thor. She has moved to London and is actually on a date with an amiable local (Chris O' Dowd), when her assistant, Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) interrupts her date and calls her attention to an anomaly in the space-time continuum. Jane follows Darcy to the site of the disturbance, which turns out to be several portals between worlds, one brought about by a celestial event called the convergence, which only occurs once in several thousand years, and in which all nine realms align perfectly. Quite by accident, Jane stumbles on the place where the Asgardians hid the Aether, and the energy actually enters her body, with sometimes explosive consequences for those who try to touch her after that.
Eventually, Thor finds his way to Jane, and whisks her off to Asgard on the now-repaired Bifrost, thinking it would be the best place to keep her safe from the deadly energy inside her. Unfortunately, the Aether awakens Malekith and the remainder of his Dark Elves, and they attack an unsuspecting Asgard with catastrophic consequences.
Thor realizes the magnitude of the threat faced not only by Asgard but by all the Nine Realms, one that will require more than just the power of Mjolnir to vanquish. In fact, he comes to realize that he may require help from one of the most unexpected of places.
Like the first film, this one takes place both on Earth and on other, fantastical realms, but this time around it's the other worlds that get the lion's share of screen time, with Asgard and Svartalfheim proving pivotal to the plot, and another world, Vanaheim, serving as the staging point for the film's first kick-ass action sequence. In this respect, the second film definitely steps things up several notches from its predecessor; not only are there more action set pieces here in comparison to the first film, but they are noticeably better choreographed and more elaborate. They are also abetted by much better computer-generated imagery than the first film had to offer.
Not only that, but there's also a bit more urgency in the battles here; the death of a pivotal supporting character midway through the film tells the audience that this time, the menace is real. In that sense, the film does live up to its title in a way, though the titular "dark world" refers to the home of the Dark Elves and not really to a significant shift in tone from the first film to this one.
That's actually a good thing; Marvel has, for the most part, kept what worked very well for the first film, and for most of Marvel's films in general: the humor. This time, they don't get by on fish-out-of-the-water jokes, but instead pepper the script with more witty exchanges in general between the characters. Hiddleston's Loki, of course, gets the best lines. It was, to me, impressive that Marvel was able to keep this crucial element in despite a nastier set of bad guys than the last film had. Also, director Alan Taylor (who takes over the director's chair from Kenneth Branagh) and his screenwriters make it a point to preserve the other things that worked about the first movie as well, such as the chemistry between lead actor Hemsworth and the various other actors in the film, like Portman, Hopkins, and Hiddleston. Of the performers here, Hopkins feels a little less enthusiastic than he was the first time around, but it doesn't hurt the storytelling that much. A bit of bonus is the fact that for the first time, Portman's Foster gets to interact with the Asgardians, including Odin, Frigga (Rene Russo) and of course Loki.
Of the new elements in the film, Ecclestone's Malekith feels like the least impressive, though really, buried under all that makeup and without particularly memorable dialogue, I'm hard-pressed to think of what more he could have done. Also, personally I felt a little strange seeing swords and battle axes mixing it up with laser cannons on the screen, though considering that George Lucas created a whole genre out of such strange marriages with his Star Wars films I suppose this isn't the first time two seemingly disparate narrative styles have melded on the big screen. In any case, it was only in the first few fight scenes that I thought it looked particularly strange. This little quibble notwithstanding, the major battles were still quite impressive on the whole.
Speaking of climactic battles, this film has one of the most imaginative ones I've seen in a while, one that effectively mixes humor and thrills. It's the sort of thing that has to be seen to be best appreciated.
As with all Marvel films, there were treats to be had after the film, with mid-credits AND post-credits Easter Eggs. I'm pretty sure it's not really spoiling anything to say that at least one of them is clearly setting up a future Marvel Studios blockbuster. Personally, I wasn't particularly enthused about it, even though I'm sure comic-book nerds everywhere were ecstatic about its implications.
But really, my unhappiness with future teasers and some niggles in the script notwithstanding, Thor: The Dark World was definitely worth the trip to the movie theater, though this time, I didn't bother with the 3-D premium considering I wasn't particularly impressed with the 3-D conversions of The Avengers or Iron Man 3.
3.5/5
Friday, November 1, 2013
Piracy on the High Seas, Sans Flamboyance: A Review of Captain Phillips
While the depredations of Somali pirates plying the waters just off the coast of the African continent have, in the last few years, grabbed headlines every now and then for raiding ships hauling valuable cargo to and from the area, they rarely seemed as urgent as car-bombs in urban centers or disenfranchised Arabs trying to tear down their governments, with massive carnage ensuring. Personally, as someone living in a country living with massive poverty, violence in the countrysides, and a whole host of problems, I confess I did not find these incidents particularly relevant to my daily life. Basically, and to be more crass about it, poor people with high-powered firearms hijacking cargo ships thousands of miles away felt more like a rich man's problem than anything else.
Director Paul Greengrass, whose gripping Bourne films basically sent a new standard in action-thriller filmmaking, gave viewers a much more personal perspective of a Somali pirate attack with his new film Captain Phillips, in which Tom Hanks stars as the title character, an actual mariner whose cargo ship was attacked by four Somali pirates in 2009.
There's not much more to tell by way of the plot than to say that Hanks' character, Richard Phillips, is the Captain of a cargo vessel MV Maersk Alabama, that gets hijacked in the high seas, just off the Somalian coast, by a quartet of armed Somali pirates headed by a hardened pirate named Muse (newcomer Barkhad Abdi), but as with many truly compelling films, it is all in the telling, as with the Bourne movies, Greengrass does a terrific job of building up tension, even though the ultimate outcome of the story is but a Google search away.
Hanks, acclaimed and award-winning actor that he is, excels, as expected, in the role of Phillips; he is key to drawing us into this world. More than the editing and the music and the gunfire, it is Hanks' performance that is instrumental to drawing the audience into Phillips' world, to convincing us just how terrifying his experience actually was. Sure, they could have stuck a competent actor in the role and the audience could still have recognized the peril the character was in, but Hanks really puts us in the moment, and even though he's still one of the most recognizable actors in the English speaking world, he difficult Richard Phillips' experience must have been.
Abdi, however, and his Somalian costars, are the revelation here. I suppose it was better to cast actual Somalians than to get African-American actors to go all "method" and lose what would probably have been the equivalent weight of two or three adults to play these characters; none of the pirates in the movie looks like he eats more than once every other day. A detail like this, and the opening scene in which the goons of a Somalian warlord storm into the village where Muse and his cohorts live and remind them rather forcefully that they need to make money, make it hard to hate the pirates the way one would hate a traditional Hollywood villain, which these guys are anything but. If anything, the fact that these men are basically destitute and desperate makes them even more dangerous, which is why staying away from that Google search is a particularly good idea.
This film is not exactly a thrill-ride in the vein of Gravity, but it's a highly engaging peek into recent historical events that is definitely worth a look.
5/5
Director Paul Greengrass, whose gripping Bourne films basically sent a new standard in action-thriller filmmaking, gave viewers a much more personal perspective of a Somali pirate attack with his new film Captain Phillips, in which Tom Hanks stars as the title character, an actual mariner whose cargo ship was attacked by four Somali pirates in 2009.
There's not much more to tell by way of the plot than to say that Hanks' character, Richard Phillips, is the Captain of a cargo vessel MV Maersk Alabama, that gets hijacked in the high seas, just off the Somalian coast, by a quartet of armed Somali pirates headed by a hardened pirate named Muse (newcomer Barkhad Abdi), but as with many truly compelling films, it is all in the telling, as with the Bourne movies, Greengrass does a terrific job of building up tension, even though the ultimate outcome of the story is but a Google search away.
Hanks, acclaimed and award-winning actor that he is, excels, as expected, in the role of Phillips; he is key to drawing us into this world. More than the editing and the music and the gunfire, it is Hanks' performance that is instrumental to drawing the audience into Phillips' world, to convincing us just how terrifying his experience actually was. Sure, they could have stuck a competent actor in the role and the audience could still have recognized the peril the character was in, but Hanks really puts us in the moment, and even though he's still one of the most recognizable actors in the English speaking world, he difficult Richard Phillips' experience must have been.
Abdi, however, and his Somalian costars, are the revelation here. I suppose it was better to cast actual Somalians than to get African-American actors to go all "method" and lose what would probably have been the equivalent weight of two or three adults to play these characters; none of the pirates in the movie looks like he eats more than once every other day. A detail like this, and the opening scene in which the goons of a Somalian warlord storm into the village where Muse and his cohorts live and remind them rather forcefully that they need to make money, make it hard to hate the pirates the way one would hate a traditional Hollywood villain, which these guys are anything but. If anything, the fact that these men are basically destitute and desperate makes them even more dangerous, which is why staying away from that Google search is a particularly good idea.
This film is not exactly a thrill-ride in the vein of Gravity, but it's a highly engaging peek into recent historical events that is definitely worth a look.
5/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)