Lovers of Japanese culture are most likely familiar with the tale of the 47 Ronin, a group of samurai whose master was betrayed and killed by a fellow lord and who took revenge on their master's betrayer, after which they committed ritual suicide (I did say spoiler in the title). The term "ronin" translates as masterless samurai, which is what these men became when their master was forced to kill himself. While based on true events, it is a distinctly Japanese story in terms of the values it promotes; in particular the notion of redeeming one's honor by killing oneself is not exactly a widely-accepted one outside of Japan, especially not in countries practicing Abrahamic religions.
One wonders therefore, how it came to pass that Universal Pictures handed $175 million to first-time feature film director Carl Rinsch in order to come up with a movie about a story that is most likely to appeal almost exclusively to Japanese people, or people familiar with and/or fond of their culture.
To sell the movie, compromises were made. The dialogue was purely in English, with not a single Japanese word that wasn't a proper noun or the words "samurai," "ronin," "seppuku" or "bushido" ever being uttered by any of the cast, which consisted almost entirely of Japanese actors. Hollywood star Keanu Reeves was basically shoehorned into the story as Kai, a half-British, half-Japanese orphan crammed into the script, along with some magical mumbo-jumbo written in order to justify the extensive (and admittedly impressive) use of computer-generated imagery and to give the film's marketing crew the opportunity to liken their product to the Lord of the Rings movies.
Unfortunately the film still turned out to be a disaster of epic proportions, both creatively and commercially. At last count, the film has earned less than $90 million against its gargantuan production budget, which doesn't even include marketing costs (though in truth it felt like Universal didn't really go all out on that).
The first ten minutes or so of the film are devoted to introducing Reeves' Kai and the romance he develops with Mika (Ko Shibasaki), the daughter of Asano, the noble who adopted him (Min Tanaka). Thereafter, the betrayal and revenge plot begins in earnest. Asano is tricked by rival noble Kira (Tadanobu Asano) into attacking him with the help of the conjuring of a witch (Rinko Kikuchi), who made Asano see things that weren't really there. Asano is disgraced by the attack and must therefore take his own life through seppuku, as decreed by the shogun himself (Cary Hiroyuki Tagawa), who, upon this gruesome act, declares all of Asano's samurai to be ronin and forbids them from taking vengeance upon Kira, whom he also instantly betrothes to Mika. Kira exiles the samurai and Kai (who is not one of them). It is at this point that the dubious distinction of being the film's lead character shifts
from Kai to the fallen noble's right hand, Oishi (played by Hiroyuki
Sanada, Japanese superstar and veteran of several Hollywood productions), as he plans his revenge upon Kira. He recruits Kai, whose earlier report that a witch was among them he had ignored, and together they recruit the ronin for a bloody quest that can only end in death.
The film is not a complete loss; the sets and costumes are a visual feast, the Hungarian countryside which doubles for 18th century Japan is gorgeous, and the CGI absolutely looks like the kind one would find in a movie with a budget flirting with $200 million. Unfortunately, none of these can save the film from its excruciatingly awkward script and its one-dimensional characters. There was one aspect of the script that I partly appreciated: Oishi explains near the end that the ronin have to kill themselves even if they succeed in their gruesome venture in order for the cycle of violence to end with them. I credit the screenwriter with trying to explain something as difficult to fathom as seppuku to uninitiated gaijin like myself, but even I know there's more to the whole process than that, and that it's largely a cultural thing which I certainly would not learn to appreciate just by watching a throwaway two-hour movie.
Also, I really have to credit the filmmakers with casting Japanese actors in ALL the Japanese roles. There is nary a Korean, Chinese or Taiwanese actor to be seen anywhere, and I couldn't help but think that the only reason Reeves (along with his goofy love story) was even in the movie was so that the suits at the studio would sign off on the budget. This is not to say the film would have been that much better without Reeves, though; it's still a grand old mess.
A fascinating thing, this film. It really is a creative train wreck, but one that comes in stunningly beautiful packaging. I had no plans of seeing it, but part of me is glad that I did.
Bottom line: Anyone who wants to see Keanu Reeves in a good martial arts movie should probably just pop The Matrix into their DVD player, while anyone who wants to see a good movie with the word Ronin in the title is better off renting the 1998 John Frankenheimer spy movie (which, to go off-tangent, made cars by Audi look cool way before Iron Man ever did). Anyone wanting to see better movie about Japanese culture, meanwhile, is better off renting anything by Akira Kurosawa or even Hayao Miyazaki.
2/5
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Former Bloodsucking Buddies...Soon to Be Racetrack Rivals?
A few years ago I posted an entry about how excited I was at the news that Michael Mann was adapting Go Like Hell, a non-fiction book by A.J. Baime chronicling the story of how the Ford Motor Company conquered the 24 Hours of Le Mans endurance race back in the 1960s at the expense of its fiercest rival at the time, Ferrari. At the time, no names were attached save for that of Mann, but as a fan of both motorsports and movies I was extremely excited.
Mann has since moved on from that project, but interest in it remains. Hollywood megastar and former part-time race car driver Tom Cruise has set his sights on it, and he's brought his own director with him, namely Joseph Kosinski of Tron: Legacy fame. Cruise is currently attached to play legendary race car driver and car tuner Carroll Shelby. Eyebrows were raised in the film and motorsport fan community when word leaked that another Hollywood heavyweight, Brad Pitt (whose most recent film World War Z showed he still has some box-office clout) had been approached for a yet-undisclosed role. This would mark their first film together since Neil Jordan's 1994 hit Interview with a Vampire, and has come a surprise to some, especially considering Pitt's rather public comments, not only on how difficult Cruise was to work with on the set of Vampire, but his subsequent and more recent description of Cruise as "Dr. Strange." Still, stranger things have happened, people can forgive and forget and the lure of blockbuster dollars can work wonders, I suppose.
The film, assuming it gets made, will arguably put these two actors' drawing power to the test. Sure, Cruise had a big hit a couple of years back with the latest Mission: Impossible sequel and Pitt only just had the aforementioned WWZ , but movies about non-NASCAR car racing have always been a difficult sell. Just ask the producers of Ron Howard's Rush, which has only earned $90 million from all around the world despite glowing reviews, a starring role for Thor star Chris Hemsworth, and the fact that Formula 1 is supposedly the most-watched sporting event on the planet. Nothing much was expected of the film in the U.S., but the global receipts were truly disappointing, even if the film managed to make back its relatively small budget.
The good news for Go Like Hell (or whatever the adaptation is eventually called), at least as far as its box-office prospects in the U.S. are concerned, is that the true story of Ford's Le Mans glory is concerned, there is a conspicuously American element to it, unlike Rush, which, with its English and Austrian protagonists, was Euro-centric. After all, Ford is America's first automaker and Henry Ford II was basically the prime-mover behind the successful Le Mans campaign, even though he had collaborators from "across the pond" and other parts of the world. Also, the late Carroll Shelby, who helped design and build the legendary, world-beating Ford GT40, is an American icon, and a film featuring him as a central character will almost certainly get substantial red-state bucks come opening day. The premiere will probably be full of Shelby Mustangs of varying eras. Of course, this could be a two-edged sword, depending on how many people are open to Cruise as Shelby.
While I would have preferred a less "Hollywood" version of such an important moment in motorsport, I am still eagerly anticipating this film, assuming it gets made. Cruise and Pitt, beneath the sheen of all that celebrity, are accomplished and committed filmmakers in their own right, and are both risk-takers. My respect for Cruise recently went up several notches when he donned a fat suit to play a movie producer in Tropic Thunder, but even before then he was no stranger to unglamorous roles like that of paraplegic Vietnam War veteran Ron Kovic in Oliver Stone's Born on the Fourth of July. For his part, apart from high-profile roles in a number of well-received movies like Se7en and Fight Club, Pitt has served as a producer for a seminal films like The Departed and, more recently, 12 Years a Slave. The fact that Cruise happens to be an honest-to-goodness gearhead augurs well for the film's authenticity, at least in terms of its feel if not the actual narrative; although it's a given that dramatic license will be taken with the story, someone enamored with racing is more likely than not to go the extra mile (pun intended) to really put audiences in that era.
Still, it's an uphill climb, even for the likes of Cruise and Pitt, but I, for one, hope they're up to it, because there are simply too few really good movies about motorsport.
Mann has since moved on from that project, but interest in it remains. Hollywood megastar and former part-time race car driver Tom Cruise has set his sights on it, and he's brought his own director with him, namely Joseph Kosinski of Tron: Legacy fame. Cruise is currently attached to play legendary race car driver and car tuner Carroll Shelby. Eyebrows were raised in the film and motorsport fan community when word leaked that another Hollywood heavyweight, Brad Pitt (whose most recent film World War Z showed he still has some box-office clout) had been approached for a yet-undisclosed role. This would mark their first film together since Neil Jordan's 1994 hit Interview with a Vampire, and has come a surprise to some, especially considering Pitt's rather public comments, not only on how difficult Cruise was to work with on the set of Vampire, but his subsequent and more recent description of Cruise as "Dr. Strange." Still, stranger things have happened, people can forgive and forget and the lure of blockbuster dollars can work wonders, I suppose.
The film, assuming it gets made, will arguably put these two actors' drawing power to the test. Sure, Cruise had a big hit a couple of years back with the latest Mission: Impossible sequel and Pitt only just had the aforementioned WWZ , but movies about non-NASCAR car racing have always been a difficult sell. Just ask the producers of Ron Howard's Rush, which has only earned $90 million from all around the world despite glowing reviews, a starring role for Thor star Chris Hemsworth, and the fact that Formula 1 is supposedly the most-watched sporting event on the planet. Nothing much was expected of the film in the U.S., but the global receipts were truly disappointing, even if the film managed to make back its relatively small budget.
The good news for Go Like Hell (or whatever the adaptation is eventually called), at least as far as its box-office prospects in the U.S. are concerned, is that the true story of Ford's Le Mans glory is concerned, there is a conspicuously American element to it, unlike Rush, which, with its English and Austrian protagonists, was Euro-centric. After all, Ford is America's first automaker and Henry Ford II was basically the prime-mover behind the successful Le Mans campaign, even though he had collaborators from "across the pond" and other parts of the world. Also, the late Carroll Shelby, who helped design and build the legendary, world-beating Ford GT40, is an American icon, and a film featuring him as a central character will almost certainly get substantial red-state bucks come opening day. The premiere will probably be full of Shelby Mustangs of varying eras. Of course, this could be a two-edged sword, depending on how many people are open to Cruise as Shelby.
While I would have preferred a less "Hollywood" version of such an important moment in motorsport, I am still eagerly anticipating this film, assuming it gets made. Cruise and Pitt, beneath the sheen of all that celebrity, are accomplished and committed filmmakers in their own right, and are both risk-takers. My respect for Cruise recently went up several notches when he donned a fat suit to play a movie producer in Tropic Thunder, but even before then he was no stranger to unglamorous roles like that of paraplegic Vietnam War veteran Ron Kovic in Oliver Stone's Born on the Fourth of July. For his part, apart from high-profile roles in a number of well-received movies like Se7en and Fight Club, Pitt has served as a producer for a seminal films like The Departed and, more recently, 12 Years a Slave. The fact that Cruise happens to be an honest-to-goodness gearhead augurs well for the film's authenticity, at least in terms of its feel if not the actual narrative; although it's a given that dramatic license will be taken with the story, someone enamored with racing is more likely than not to go the extra mile (pun intended) to really put audiences in that era.
Still, it's an uphill climb, even for the likes of Cruise and Pitt, but I, for one, hope they're up to it, because there are simply too few really good movies about motorsport.
Monday, January 6, 2014
In Case You Missed It: Serenity
Writer-director Joss Whedon may have become a household name after helming 2012's megahit The Avengers, but he was already something of a god among fanboys well before that. What may surprise people is that, at the time The Avengers came out, it was actually only the second feature-length film Whedon had directed (he has subsequently directed an adaptation of Shakespeare's play, Much Ado About Nothing), the first being a little-seen science fiction confection titled Serenity, based on Whedon's short-lived television series Firefly.
The film takes place far into the future, when much of humanity has left the overpopulated Earth and taken up residence on other worlds, and after an interplanetary civil war was waged between an alliance of those new worlds and the worlds of people who did not want to belong to the alliance. Captain Malcom Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) fought in the civil war, on the losing side, and now quietly plies his trade as an interplanetary bank robber, traveling across worlds in his ship, the titular, "Firefly-class" starship Serenity which was named for the Battle of Serenity, in which Mal took part during the civil war. Accompanying Reynolds are his loyal crew, Wash (Alan Tudyk), Zoe (Gina Torres), Jayne (Adam Baldwin), and Kaylee ( Jewel Staite) as well as their "paying passengers," the Tam siblings Simon (Sean Maher) and River (Summer Glau) who are on the run from the Alliance. It is the prodigious and deadly River, in particular, in whom the Alliance is particularly interested because she one's one of its darkest secrets. Such in fact, is the extent of their interest in bringing her in that they dispatch a nameless, amoral and ultimately lethal Operative (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to do the job. After initially deciding that keeping the Tams aboard his ship is more trouble than it's worth, after a violent incident in a bar Reynolds realizes that it's the right thing to do, even if it means bringing the wrath of the Alliance down on him and his crew.
The film, while hardly groundbreaking, is an interesting mix of genres, like the TV show that preceded it: it's basically a "space western." What makes it an utter treat to watch, though, are Whedon's quirky characters, the somewhat interesting future he's created in which people converse in English but swear in Mandarin, and finally the rather unique English his characters speak, which is a mix between the slang employed in cowboy movies, the dialogue in the original True Grit novel (which was reportedly faithfully quoted in the 2010 Coen brothers' film), and sci-fi tech-laden dialogue, with Whedon's own flourishes no doubt thrown in for good measure. As a frustrated fiction writer myself who constantly grapples with giving his characters unique but believable voices, I really appreciated the effort Whedon put into creating so much nuance in his characters' version of English; it shows remarkable attention to detail. Fans of The Avengers will also recognize the humor with which Whedon laces his script here.
I also enjoyed, for the most part, the performances Whedon extracted from his actors, especially Fillion as Reynolds and Ejiofor as the Operative. A full eight years ago, Whedon showed us fanboys what awards-giving bodies are only starting to discover: that Chiwetel Ejiofor is certifiably awesome. Re-watching this film made me yearn all the more to see him cast as Marvel mainstay the Black Panther. Homeland's Morena Baccarin makes a welcome appearance as the sultry courtesan Inara, and the four actors playing Reynolds' crew did a pretty job convincing me that these people had lived and worked together on the Serenity for an appreciable length of time.
The film was not without its flaws, probably the most conspicuous of which is accessibility. Whedon tries his darnedest to remedy this with a big chunk of exposition right at the beginning of the film and some back-story peppered throughout its two-hour running time, but to my mind he nonetheless failed to effectively convey to audiences unfamiliar with Firefly the motivations driving the central characters. It is certainly spelled out in the dialogue why some people chose to resist unification with the alliance ("we meddle"), but for much of the film there's actually little that demonstrates just how oppressive the Alliance's good intentions can be. There is actually a crucial plot development that emphatically makes Whedon's point, but notably, most of the characters are completely unaware of this plot twist until two-thirds into the film, which inevitably prompted me to ask: so why was there a Unification War in the first place? I felt that a better knowledge of what happened in the television show would have made the history of that world, and the attitudes it shaped, a bit clearer. From that, as well as the interplay of Reynolds with his various crew members, I gathered that only a follower of Firefly could really understand the ins and outs of this universe.
Another weakness of the film is Summer Glau, whose waif-fu (a phrase I would have loved to have coined) is very entertaining to watch but whose attempt at dramatic acting...well, isn't. Funny thing is, when I caught this movie on TV many years ago, I found myself riveted by River Tam's ass-kicking scenes, but apparently completely glossed over Glau's limp acting, only to remember it when I finally got this movie on DVD (for PhP100.00). It's appropriate that she went on to play a robot in the television series Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles because looking oddly detached and dishing out onscreen beat-downs are the two things Glau does really well.
Flaws notwithstanding, one can still see in the script and action sequences the sensibility that Whedon brought to his vision for Marvel's Avengers. Moreover, considering that Whedon had only the fraction of his Avengers budget to work with here, the images that appear onscreen, particularly of Serenity itself, are particularly impressive. Whedon may have only had bargain-basement computer-generated imagery at his disposal, but I would argue that he certainly made the most out of it. It may feel odd that this was the only feature film on Joss Whedon's resume when Marvel hired him to direct their most ambitious property ever, but watching this movie again, the decision actually made sense.
3.5/5
The film takes place far into the future, when much of humanity has left the overpopulated Earth and taken up residence on other worlds, and after an interplanetary civil war was waged between an alliance of those new worlds and the worlds of people who did not want to belong to the alliance. Captain Malcom Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) fought in the civil war, on the losing side, and now quietly plies his trade as an interplanetary bank robber, traveling across worlds in his ship, the titular, "Firefly-class" starship Serenity which was named for the Battle of Serenity, in which Mal took part during the civil war. Accompanying Reynolds are his loyal crew, Wash (Alan Tudyk), Zoe (Gina Torres), Jayne (Adam Baldwin), and Kaylee ( Jewel Staite) as well as their "paying passengers," the Tam siblings Simon (Sean Maher) and River (Summer Glau) who are on the run from the Alliance. It is the prodigious and deadly River, in particular, in whom the Alliance is particularly interested because she one's one of its darkest secrets. Such in fact, is the extent of their interest in bringing her in that they dispatch a nameless, amoral and ultimately lethal Operative (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to do the job. After initially deciding that keeping the Tams aboard his ship is more trouble than it's worth, after a violent incident in a bar Reynolds realizes that it's the right thing to do, even if it means bringing the wrath of the Alliance down on him and his crew.
The film, while hardly groundbreaking, is an interesting mix of genres, like the TV show that preceded it: it's basically a "space western." What makes it an utter treat to watch, though, are Whedon's quirky characters, the somewhat interesting future he's created in which people converse in English but swear in Mandarin, and finally the rather unique English his characters speak, which is a mix between the slang employed in cowboy movies, the dialogue in the original True Grit novel (which was reportedly faithfully quoted in the 2010 Coen brothers' film), and sci-fi tech-laden dialogue, with Whedon's own flourishes no doubt thrown in for good measure. As a frustrated fiction writer myself who constantly grapples with giving his characters unique but believable voices, I really appreciated the effort Whedon put into creating so much nuance in his characters' version of English; it shows remarkable attention to detail. Fans of The Avengers will also recognize the humor with which Whedon laces his script here.
I also enjoyed, for the most part, the performances Whedon extracted from his actors, especially Fillion as Reynolds and Ejiofor as the Operative. A full eight years ago, Whedon showed us fanboys what awards-giving bodies are only starting to discover: that Chiwetel Ejiofor is certifiably awesome. Re-watching this film made me yearn all the more to see him cast as Marvel mainstay the Black Panther. Homeland's Morena Baccarin makes a welcome appearance as the sultry courtesan Inara, and the four actors playing Reynolds' crew did a pretty job convincing me that these people had lived and worked together on the Serenity for an appreciable length of time.
The film was not without its flaws, probably the most conspicuous of which is accessibility. Whedon tries his darnedest to remedy this with a big chunk of exposition right at the beginning of the film and some back-story peppered throughout its two-hour running time, but to my mind he nonetheless failed to effectively convey to audiences unfamiliar with Firefly the motivations driving the central characters. It is certainly spelled out in the dialogue why some people chose to resist unification with the alliance ("we meddle"), but for much of the film there's actually little that demonstrates just how oppressive the Alliance's good intentions can be. There is actually a crucial plot development that emphatically makes Whedon's point, but notably, most of the characters are completely unaware of this plot twist until two-thirds into the film, which inevitably prompted me to ask: so why was there a Unification War in the first place? I felt that a better knowledge of what happened in the television show would have made the history of that world, and the attitudes it shaped, a bit clearer. From that, as well as the interplay of Reynolds with his various crew members, I gathered that only a follower of Firefly could really understand the ins and outs of this universe.
Another weakness of the film is Summer Glau, whose waif-fu (a phrase I would have loved to have coined) is very entertaining to watch but whose attempt at dramatic acting...well, isn't. Funny thing is, when I caught this movie on TV many years ago, I found myself riveted by River Tam's ass-kicking scenes, but apparently completely glossed over Glau's limp acting, only to remember it when I finally got this movie on DVD (for PhP100.00). It's appropriate that she went on to play a robot in the television series Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles because looking oddly detached and dishing out onscreen beat-downs are the two things Glau does really well.
Flaws notwithstanding, one can still see in the script and action sequences the sensibility that Whedon brought to his vision for Marvel's Avengers. Moreover, considering that Whedon had only the fraction of his Avengers budget to work with here, the images that appear onscreen, particularly of Serenity itself, are particularly impressive. Whedon may have only had bargain-basement computer-generated imagery at his disposal, but I would argue that he certainly made the most out of it. It may feel odd that this was the only feature film on Joss Whedon's resume when Marvel hired him to direct their most ambitious property ever, but watching this movie again, the decision actually made sense.
3.5/5
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Marvel Movie Overload?
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!
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!
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)