From a box-office perspective, Zack Snyder's 2007 film 300 was a remarkable achievement; it took a story known only to history buffs and specialty comic book geeks and turned it into a nearly $500 million grossing worldwide phenomenon. It was a cultural milestone of sorts, especially considering it opened up quite a bit of discussion on what really happened back then. Iranian-Americans decried the way it depicted the Persian empire, and a lot of other people decried the underlying sexism, homophobia, videogame-inspired violence, borderline endorsement of fascism and, many other things besides. For better or worse, though, there is no denying that this film made waves when it came out.
One wonders, therefore why it took so long for the sequel, which, as I understand it, was greenlit quite sometime ago, to come out. Considering the relatively cheap price tag of the first one and the return on investment, a sequel (or parallel piece, as this one turns out to be) was a sound business decision. The CGI could be done on the cheap because the main goal is to be stylized, not realistic, and there was absolutely no need for popular stars.
In that respect, 300: Rise of An Empire, helmed by first-time feature director Noam Murro (with Snyder writing and producing this time), very much follows the formula of the first film. The first film basically dramatized (read: butchered) the historical battle of Thermopylae, while this film similarly "remixes" historical events, stringing together the battle of Marathon, which sets the stage for the events that take place in the film and, indeed, even the first film, and the battle of Salamis. The first film took then little-known Scottish actor Gerard Butler and made him a household name as the Spartan warrior-king Leonidas, while this one has little-known Australian actor Sullivan Stapleton playing the lead character, the Athenian naval commander Themistokles. All of this takes place against a bronzed, computer-generated backdrop of the ancient kingdoms of Greece.
The difference between the two movies, however, is this film's redeeming quality, and it is in the adversaries that the two fictionalized Greeks face, almost simultaneously, albeit on different battlefields. This place takes place primarily on the Aegean Sea, or at least a computer-generated version of it.
In the first film, King Leonidas squared off against the "god king" Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) who returns in this film. The difference, though, is that he is revealed as weak and incapable and that his whole "god-king" image is basically hype. In fact, this film reveals the force actually driving him: Artemisia (Eva Green), the most trusted general of Xerxes' late father Darius. In fact, it is revealed that it was actually Artemisia who, upon instigating Xerxes' transformation from awkward man-child to oversized golden idol, actually goaded him into declaring war on all of Greece and Athens especially because she has an ax to grind with the Greeks that is revealed early on in the film. It is she whom Themistokles must defeat, which is no easy task.
Now, I'm willing to wager that Eva Green's Artemisia is a far cry from whoever her historical counterpart actually was. I'm certain she didn't dress in bondage gear with spikes protruding from her back, or fight with two swords using what looks like Filipino martial arts or even look like Eva Green. Truth be told, I couldn't really care less about any of that because I found Green to be absolutely amazing. Sullivan Stapleton delivered a largely anonymous performance as Themistokles, and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if his resume consisted mostly direct-to-video fodder after this film, but Green's screen presence as Artemisia was so overpowering that she was to this film what Butler, with his throaty bellowing of "SPARTA!" was to the first one. I'd seen her before in Casino Royale and, before that in Kingdom of Heaven, but to my mind this is the performance for which she will really be remembered. I'm only sorry that the local distributor, to secure a milder rating from the classification board, saw fit to chop out some of her, um, assets in a scene in which Artemisia seduces Themistokles. Still, inner pervert aside, Green made this film work for me.
Without her, the movie is largely a retread of the racist, right-wing orgy of violence that the first one was, only this time with a leading man absolutely devoid of charisma. The battle sequences, though sometimes muddled, are nonetheless impressively staged, but there really isn't that much that makes this movie stand out, especially considering how often the slow-down/ramp-up action of 300 has been copied in the seven years that have passed between these two films.
Green really makes the difference here; this film certainly isn't the celebration of female empowerment that films like Frozen or The Hunger Games were, but to my mind she turns in a performance that deserves to be remembered as one of the best ever from a woman starring in an action movie.
3/5 (Two of which belong to Green)
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Light and Fluffy: A Review of Mr. Peabody and Sherman
Decades ago, the cartoons of Jay Ward, like Rocky and Bullwinkle, Dudley Do Right and George of the Jungle entertained a whole generation of television viewers, and while I have to admit I wasn't part of that generation, I was able to catch one or two of the film adaptations of these cartoons that have been coming out since the late 1990s. In particular, I watched George of the Jungle, which did nothing for me, and more recently, the animated film Mr. Peabody and Sherman, directed by Rob Minkoff (The Lion King).
The timing for my watching this film couldn't have been better; after watching the magnificently crafted but emotionally draining 12 Years A Slave, a considerably lighter movie was quite welcome.
Mr. Peabody (Ty Burrell) is a genius of a dog who has adopted a human boy named Sherman (Max Charles) and actually gives his son lessons by traveling back in time using a device Peabody has invented called the WABAC (which is pronounced "way back"). When Sherman goes to school, however, and his knowledge gained from time-traveling has him run afoul of "popular girl" Penny (Ariel Winter) which results in her bullying him, which in turn results in him fighting back by biting her, things get distinctly uncomfortable for the unconventional father-son duo as child services, represented by the hulking, unpleasant Mrs. Grunion (Allison Janney) scrutinizes the propriety of having a dog adopt a boy. To fix things, Peabody invites Penny and her parents (Stephen Colbert and Leslie Mann) over, and leaves the two children in Sherman's room to resolve their differences while he tries to charm Penny's parents. Sherman, wanting to prove to Penny that he wasn't lying about the things he knows, shows her the WABAC, and suffice it to say, chaos ensues.
I never watched the original cartoon, so if there were any references or in-jokes that only fans of that show would get they sailed right over my head. Still, there were enough puns and broad, visual gags for me and my family to appreciate the movie, flaws and all. While I wouldn't rank this film with Dreamworks Animation's best work like the first Shrek, Kung Fu Panda or How to Train Your Dragon, it does have that some of that sense of fun that made those films memorable. It was fitting that Minkoff, who also directed Stuart Little, which was about humans adopting a mouse as their son, helmed this film, as it represents a bit of a turnabout on the concept of interspecies adoption.
The appearance of comedic versions of notable historical figures like Leonardo da Vinci (Stanley Tucci) and King Agamemnon (Patrick Warburton) added to the enjoyment and duly exploited the film's time-traveling theme. The film's absurd premise also makes it easy to ignore some of the verbose explanation of the fake science, though it grated on me every now and then when it seemed like they were trying to make it all sound even remotely believable.
The thing about movies that don't really invest a lot in story or characterization is that they run out of gas a lot earlier than they otherwise would, as this film does with a third-act "I am Spartacus" scene (which actually features a pretty funny cameo), but I'd already had enough fun by then to endure the last-act cliches.
This film makes for a pleasant enough afternoon with the kids, and truth be told, while to my mind it doesn't really scream for a sequel, perhaps a revival of the original TV show using CGI is in order now. After all, there are thousands of years of human history that Mr. Peabody and Sherman can explore.
3.5/5
The timing for my watching this film couldn't have been better; after watching the magnificently crafted but emotionally draining 12 Years A Slave, a considerably lighter movie was quite welcome.
Mr. Peabody (Ty Burrell) is a genius of a dog who has adopted a human boy named Sherman (Max Charles) and actually gives his son lessons by traveling back in time using a device Peabody has invented called the WABAC (which is pronounced "way back"). When Sherman goes to school, however, and his knowledge gained from time-traveling has him run afoul of "popular girl" Penny (Ariel Winter) which results in her bullying him, which in turn results in him fighting back by biting her, things get distinctly uncomfortable for the unconventional father-son duo as child services, represented by the hulking, unpleasant Mrs. Grunion (Allison Janney) scrutinizes the propriety of having a dog adopt a boy. To fix things, Peabody invites Penny and her parents (Stephen Colbert and Leslie Mann) over, and leaves the two children in Sherman's room to resolve their differences while he tries to charm Penny's parents. Sherman, wanting to prove to Penny that he wasn't lying about the things he knows, shows her the WABAC, and suffice it to say, chaos ensues.
I never watched the original cartoon, so if there were any references or in-jokes that only fans of that show would get they sailed right over my head. Still, there were enough puns and broad, visual gags for me and my family to appreciate the movie, flaws and all. While I wouldn't rank this film with Dreamworks Animation's best work like the first Shrek, Kung Fu Panda or How to Train Your Dragon, it does have that some of that sense of fun that made those films memorable. It was fitting that Minkoff, who also directed Stuart Little, which was about humans adopting a mouse as their son, helmed this film, as it represents a bit of a turnabout on the concept of interspecies adoption.
The appearance of comedic versions of notable historical figures like Leonardo da Vinci (Stanley Tucci) and King Agamemnon (Patrick Warburton) added to the enjoyment and duly exploited the film's time-traveling theme. The film's absurd premise also makes it easy to ignore some of the verbose explanation of the fake science, though it grated on me every now and then when it seemed like they were trying to make it all sound even remotely believable.
The thing about movies that don't really invest a lot in story or characterization is that they run out of gas a lot earlier than they otherwise would, as this film does with a third-act "I am Spartacus" scene (which actually features a pretty funny cameo), but I'd already had enough fun by then to endure the last-act cliches.
This film makes for a pleasant enough afternoon with the kids, and truth be told, while to my mind it doesn't really scream for a sequel, perhaps a revival of the original TV show using CGI is in order now. After all, there are thousands of years of human history that Mr. Peabody and Sherman can explore.
3.5/5
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Why Filipinos Should Watch 12 Years a Slave
Last year, the exciting, expertly-crafted spy thriller Argo walked away with the Academy Award for Best Picture. While personally I liked that movie a lot and said so in my review of the film, it still had distinct and conspicuous "Hollywood" touches such as a contrived climactic chase and a wild-eyed villain.
It is, perhaps a fitting change of pace that this year the Oscar for Best Picture went to a film that was decidedly different in tone, Steve McQueen's heart-wrenching drama. 12 Years a Slave.
The film depicts the harrowing experience of Solomon Northup (played here by Chiwetel Ejiofor) a violin player living in New York City in 1841 with his beautiful wife and two children, who was kidnapped and sold into slavery. Northup, the film takes pains to emphasize, was born an raised a free man, so when he is kidnapped and sold into slavery the shock goes well beyond the physical pain he endures when he is beaten and whipped to admit that he is a slave. While in transit on a boat that will take him from Washington to his new life as a slave, he learns a thing or two about how to survive from Clemens Ray, a fellow slave who tells him to keep his head down. Northup, renamed Platt, is first sold to William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) a relatively benevolent, if ultimately impotent master. However, when Northup runs afoul of a cruel overseer (an irritating Paul Dano) Ford is forced to let him go, and as payment for a debt he cedes Northup to Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender) a cotton plantation owner who is not only malevolent but who may actually be insane as well, given that apart from working his slaves to the bone, he actually wakes them up in the dead of the night to dance like puppets in his dining room. Epps requires that his slaves pick at least two hundred pounds of cotton a day or they suffer beatings. The most productive worker on Epps plantation is the gangly Patsey (Lupita Nyong'o, who won an Oscar for her performance), who picks an average of five hundred pounds of cotton daily, over twice what anyone else picks, and she happens to be the apple of Epps' eye, much to the irritation of his wife (Sarah Paulson), who is exceedingly cruel to the poor Patsey. Throughout his ordeal, Solomon never loses hope that he may again one day be a free man, though that hope seems exceedingly elusive as the years drag on.
Of all the films I saw that were released in 2013, this one made me the most uncomfortable, and in that respect I think it was completely successful at what it set out to do. I wouldn't be surprised if, like any Hollywood story, liberties were taken with Northup's experience, but the utter desolation of a man taken away from a comfortable life and made to live like an animal for over a decade is captured with painful perfection by director McQueen and his star Ejiofor, who constantly wears the expression on his face that says he knows deep in his heart that he doesn't belong where he is. It's hard for me to appreciate details like the craft that went into the filmmaking when all I could feel throughout the movie was my stomach churning at the stark human cruelty, and in that sense I think this was McQueen's ultimate achievement; he put me in that moment.
For me, though, no matter how uncomfortable and difficult the movie as to watch, I could not help but appreciate screenwriter John Ridley's adaptation of the book on which the movie was based. I was mesmerized by the wonderfully civilized English employed and enjoyed it in much the same way I savored the late 19th century English spoken by the characters in the Coen brother's 2010 take on the novel True Grit, or the early 19th century English spoken by the characters in Ang Lee's adaptation of Sense and Sensibility. People don't talk like that anymore, I realized, and it may not always be the most practical way to speak, but to me there was something truly elegant about the way English was spoken back then. Perhaps the success of this movie could go some way towards helping restore such wonderful nuance to the English language.
Given the brutal subject matter and the fact that, even on a good day, movies about black people are never particularly popular here in the Philippines unless that black person happens to be Will Smith, Wesley Snipes or some other comedy or action superstar, this movie will probably be gone from our theaters sooner than most films, but to my mind it is one that is relevant to our experience, not just historically but even now.
The evil of human trafficking, after all, is far from merely a thing of the past, and Filipinos are among the most egregiously victimized, especially given the high rate of poverty in our country. Watching the movie, I recalled the short video that accompanied the Philippine national anthem that played before the movie began which depicted, among other things, Filipinos working overseas, and there and then I saw the unintended parallels. Northup was lured to his fate by the promise of work and a fairly handsome compensation, if only for a brief moment, only for things to go horribly awry. Even today, Filipinos leave their country on a regular basis in search of better opportunities abroad, only to arrive at their destination and find that what they actually end up doing is far from what they expected; skilled workers end up doing manual labor and entertainers end up as prostitutes, for example. Northup was enticed by an opportunity for some extra money, while today's overseas workers act out of desperation, and even with the phalanx of domestic and international laws enacted to protect them, end up working in sub-human conditions. Northup was tricked and ultimately victimized by evil men, while overseas workers are victimized by evil men taking advantage of their poverty, a systemic evil with deep roots.
The film reminds audiences that once upon a time, it was legal to own human beings and to treat them like chattel, and that it was only through the efforts of decent and upright people that such practices were ultimately outlawed. One hopes that the collective efforts of similarly principled people can one day work to free all of humanity from the poverty that enslaves them as well.
5/5
It is, perhaps a fitting change of pace that this year the Oscar for Best Picture went to a film that was decidedly different in tone, Steve McQueen's heart-wrenching drama. 12 Years a Slave.
The film depicts the harrowing experience of Solomon Northup (played here by Chiwetel Ejiofor) a violin player living in New York City in 1841 with his beautiful wife and two children, who was kidnapped and sold into slavery. Northup, the film takes pains to emphasize, was born an raised a free man, so when he is kidnapped and sold into slavery the shock goes well beyond the physical pain he endures when he is beaten and whipped to admit that he is a slave. While in transit on a boat that will take him from Washington to his new life as a slave, he learns a thing or two about how to survive from Clemens Ray, a fellow slave who tells him to keep his head down. Northup, renamed Platt, is first sold to William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) a relatively benevolent, if ultimately impotent master. However, when Northup runs afoul of a cruel overseer (an irritating Paul Dano) Ford is forced to let him go, and as payment for a debt he cedes Northup to Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender) a cotton plantation owner who is not only malevolent but who may actually be insane as well, given that apart from working his slaves to the bone, he actually wakes them up in the dead of the night to dance like puppets in his dining room. Epps requires that his slaves pick at least two hundred pounds of cotton a day or they suffer beatings. The most productive worker on Epps plantation is the gangly Patsey (Lupita Nyong'o, who won an Oscar for her performance), who picks an average of five hundred pounds of cotton daily, over twice what anyone else picks, and she happens to be the apple of Epps' eye, much to the irritation of his wife (Sarah Paulson), who is exceedingly cruel to the poor Patsey. Throughout his ordeal, Solomon never loses hope that he may again one day be a free man, though that hope seems exceedingly elusive as the years drag on.
Of all the films I saw that were released in 2013, this one made me the most uncomfortable, and in that respect I think it was completely successful at what it set out to do. I wouldn't be surprised if, like any Hollywood story, liberties were taken with Northup's experience, but the utter desolation of a man taken away from a comfortable life and made to live like an animal for over a decade is captured with painful perfection by director McQueen and his star Ejiofor, who constantly wears the expression on his face that says he knows deep in his heart that he doesn't belong where he is. It's hard for me to appreciate details like the craft that went into the filmmaking when all I could feel throughout the movie was my stomach churning at the stark human cruelty, and in that sense I think this was McQueen's ultimate achievement; he put me in that moment.
For me, though, no matter how uncomfortable and difficult the movie as to watch, I could not help but appreciate screenwriter John Ridley's adaptation of the book on which the movie was based. I was mesmerized by the wonderfully civilized English employed and enjoyed it in much the same way I savored the late 19th century English spoken by the characters in the Coen brother's 2010 take on the novel True Grit, or the early 19th century English spoken by the characters in Ang Lee's adaptation of Sense and Sensibility. People don't talk like that anymore, I realized, and it may not always be the most practical way to speak, but to me there was something truly elegant about the way English was spoken back then. Perhaps the success of this movie could go some way towards helping restore such wonderful nuance to the English language.
Given the brutal subject matter and the fact that, even on a good day, movies about black people are never particularly popular here in the Philippines unless that black person happens to be Will Smith, Wesley Snipes or some other comedy or action superstar, this movie will probably be gone from our theaters sooner than most films, but to my mind it is one that is relevant to our experience, not just historically but even now.
The evil of human trafficking, after all, is far from merely a thing of the past, and Filipinos are among the most egregiously victimized, especially given the high rate of poverty in our country. Watching the movie, I recalled the short video that accompanied the Philippine national anthem that played before the movie began which depicted, among other things, Filipinos working overseas, and there and then I saw the unintended parallels. Northup was lured to his fate by the promise of work and a fairly handsome compensation, if only for a brief moment, only for things to go horribly awry. Even today, Filipinos leave their country on a regular basis in search of better opportunities abroad, only to arrive at their destination and find that what they actually end up doing is far from what they expected; skilled workers end up doing manual labor and entertainers end up as prostitutes, for example. Northup was enticed by an opportunity for some extra money, while today's overseas workers act out of desperation, and even with the phalanx of domestic and international laws enacted to protect them, end up working in sub-human conditions. Northup was tricked and ultimately victimized by evil men, while overseas workers are victimized by evil men taking advantage of their poverty, a systemic evil with deep roots.
The film reminds audiences that once upon a time, it was legal to own human beings and to treat them like chattel, and that it was only through the efforts of decent and upright people that such practices were ultimately outlawed. One hopes that the collective efforts of similarly principled people can one day work to free all of humanity from the poverty that enslaves them as well.
5/5
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
How "Frozen" May Have Just Given Marvel a Huge Boost
When the Walt Disney Company acquired Marvel Entertainment nearly five years ago, one of the first questions several fans started asking themselves was which of their over 5,000 properties would get adapted into an animated feature film, particularly by Pixar Studios, in view of their original take on superheroes with the modern classic The Incredibles. It was speculated that the characters less likely to sell tickets in a live-action movie would be the better candidates, like the lesser-known Doctor Strange.
When the announcement finally came that a Marvel property would get the animated treatment, I was personally disappointed on two counts, the first being that the property, Big Hero 6 was not only relatively obscure but relatively recent, and the second being that it was the mother studio, Walt Disney Animation, and not (at the time) the more prestigious Pixar that would be bringing the property to the big screen.
The choice of an obscure property, as opposed to something I would have wanted to see, made sense to me, although I still grumbled; after all, I would imagine Marvel's priority is still giving its properties the live-action treatment, such that if a particular character or team of characters has an even remotely decent chance of striking gold at the box office, they would prefer to give it the Marvel studio treatment. After all, they're releasing a movie starring a talking raccoon later this year. Such, therefore, is their resolve to bring their library to the big screen.
The decision to have Disney Studios and not Pixar Studios handle the movie was slightly more irksome, though. To me, it felt at the time, like Disney was handing over what should have been a prized project (considering, especially, that the three Marvel movies that have been released since Disney acquired the company have grossed over THREE BILLION DOLLARS at the global box office), to its B-team. After all, these were the people responsible for forgettable fluff like Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons and Bolt. My stance on the matter softened late in 2012, though, when I was thoroughly impressed by Wreck-It-Ralph, Disney Studios' offering for that year, which I actually liked better than Pixar's Brave. I knew then that this new, John-Lasseter-era Disney Animation was capable of more than just musicals; this was a movie that spoke to nerds like me, and it made some pretty decent bank to boot. Not only that, but Pixar's star lost a little bit of its luster after Cars 2 was savaged by critics and snubbed by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a first for any Pixar film since the Academy started giving out Oscars for Best Animated Feature. They sort of bounced back the next year with Brave, but it was no longer quite the same.
Still, I could not help but feel that the Marvel property was being handled by the less "illustrious" of the Disney-owned animation outfits.
Then, Frozen came out, and it was a whole new ballgame.
For the benefit of anyone living under a rock, Frozen, an animated film which I reviewed here, isn't just a movie; it's a pop-culture phenomenon, the likes of which are rather rare. Not even the fact that the movie has grossed a BILLION dollars worldwide can quite encapsulate its impact on the popular consciousness. The theme song, "Let It Go" has become an anthem for female empowerment and has been translated into a gazillion languages by now, including languages of countries that don't actually have snow. In my review, I noted that Disney Studios seemed to be following a strategy of alternating between movies "for girls" and movies "for boys" but the truth is that a film does not make a billion dollars or reap that many awards simply by pandering to a specific demographic. Frozen is a movie for everyone, children and adults, audiences and critics, nearly all of whom have embraced it to a degree not seen in years. This is arguably Walt Disney Studios' most groundbreaking movie in years...and it didn't come from Pixar. The fact that Frozen won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature is even more notable for the fact that last year's Pixar offering, the prequel Monsters University, wasn't even nominated.
For the first time since 1995, when Toy Story outgrossed Pocahontas, and set the stage for Pixar Studios' utter domination of its counterparts at Walt Disney Animation Studios for years thereafter (a creative edge that, in fact, precipitated quite a bit of haggling in the mid-2000s when Pixar thought of taking their product elsewhere), the mother studio is now the "A" team.
And the very first film that Walt Disney Animation will release, post-Frozen is...Marvel's Big Hero 6.
Now they can put "from the studio that brought you Frozen" and "from the minds that gave you The Avengers," all on the same poster. Imagine that.
When the announcement finally came that a Marvel property would get the animated treatment, I was personally disappointed on two counts, the first being that the property, Big Hero 6 was not only relatively obscure but relatively recent, and the second being that it was the mother studio, Walt Disney Animation, and not (at the time) the more prestigious Pixar that would be bringing the property to the big screen.
The choice of an obscure property, as opposed to something I would have wanted to see, made sense to me, although I still grumbled; after all, I would imagine Marvel's priority is still giving its properties the live-action treatment, such that if a particular character or team of characters has an even remotely decent chance of striking gold at the box office, they would prefer to give it the Marvel studio treatment. After all, they're releasing a movie starring a talking raccoon later this year. Such, therefore, is their resolve to bring their library to the big screen.
The decision to have Disney Studios and not Pixar Studios handle the movie was slightly more irksome, though. To me, it felt at the time, like Disney was handing over what should have been a prized project (considering, especially, that the three Marvel movies that have been released since Disney acquired the company have grossed over THREE BILLION DOLLARS at the global box office), to its B-team. After all, these were the people responsible for forgettable fluff like Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons and Bolt. My stance on the matter softened late in 2012, though, when I was thoroughly impressed by Wreck-It-Ralph, Disney Studios' offering for that year, which I actually liked better than Pixar's Brave. I knew then that this new, John-Lasseter-era Disney Animation was capable of more than just musicals; this was a movie that spoke to nerds like me, and it made some pretty decent bank to boot. Not only that, but Pixar's star lost a little bit of its luster after Cars 2 was savaged by critics and snubbed by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a first for any Pixar film since the Academy started giving out Oscars for Best Animated Feature. They sort of bounced back the next year with Brave, but it was no longer quite the same.
Still, I could not help but feel that the Marvel property was being handled by the less "illustrious" of the Disney-owned animation outfits.
Then, Frozen came out, and it was a whole new ballgame.
For the benefit of anyone living under a rock, Frozen, an animated film which I reviewed here, isn't just a movie; it's a pop-culture phenomenon, the likes of which are rather rare. Not even the fact that the movie has grossed a BILLION dollars worldwide can quite encapsulate its impact on the popular consciousness. The theme song, "Let It Go" has become an anthem for female empowerment and has been translated into a gazillion languages by now, including languages of countries that don't actually have snow. In my review, I noted that Disney Studios seemed to be following a strategy of alternating between movies "for girls" and movies "for boys" but the truth is that a film does not make a billion dollars or reap that many awards simply by pandering to a specific demographic. Frozen is a movie for everyone, children and adults, audiences and critics, nearly all of whom have embraced it to a degree not seen in years. This is arguably Walt Disney Studios' most groundbreaking movie in years...and it didn't come from Pixar. The fact that Frozen won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature is even more notable for the fact that last year's Pixar offering, the prequel Monsters University, wasn't even nominated.
For the first time since 1995, when Toy Story outgrossed Pocahontas, and set the stage for Pixar Studios' utter domination of its counterparts at Walt Disney Animation Studios for years thereafter (a creative edge that, in fact, precipitated quite a bit of haggling in the mid-2000s when Pixar thought of taking their product elsewhere), the mother studio is now the "A" team.
And the very first film that Walt Disney Animation will release, post-Frozen is...Marvel's Big Hero 6.
Now they can put "from the studio that brought you Frozen" and "from the minds that gave you The Avengers," all on the same poster. Imagine that.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
A Celebration of Generations of Creativity: A Review of The Lego Movie
It's actually hard to review The Lego Movie without spoiling it, because even though the film is a really fun romp through a fantastical world, for me the truly meaningful stuff happens during the parts of the film that were not at all covered in the trailers.
On its face, after all, the animated film directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, really doesn't seem like much more than a 90-plus minute commercial for Lego, especially considering appearances by licensed characters like Batman (played here by Will Arnett), Superman (Channing Tatum), Green Lantern (Jonah Hill) and WonderWoman (Cobie Smulders), but as the narrative unfolds, about a seemingly unremarkable Lego construction worker named Emmett (Chris Pratt) finding himself on a quest to save the world from the evil Lord Business (Will Ferrell), it becomes clear that the movie is pushing more than just the Lego Company's bottom line.
In brief, the aforementioned Lord Business (who also happens to be the President of the Lego City in which most of the action takes place) wants to use an evil artifact known as "Kragle" on all Lego worlds, and only a Lego master builder known as "the special" can stop him, using an artifact known as "the piece of resistance." Emmet, a Lego minifig who is unremarkable in just about every way, is on his way home from work when he stumbles on the "piece of resistance," whereupon, in fairly short order, he finds himself hunted down by Lord Business' chief henchman "bad cop" (Liam Neeson). Fortunately, he also has the help of master builders Wildstyle (Elizabeth Banks), Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman), and the aforementioned Batman, among others, though even they may not be enough to stop Lord Business' insidious plans.
The plot seems generic enough, with a "chosen one" on a quest to stop a bad guy from destroying the world, but the journey is more than worth taking thanks to some astonishing visuals using the world's favorite brick toy, some pretty clever humor and a third act twist that may surprise some and may confirm what others were thinking throughout the movie but which, either way, shows that this movie is so much more than a glorified toy advertisement. Directors Lord and Miller, whose previous animated film feature was Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, and who even helped write the script for this film, demonstrate rather convincingly that they are the perfect people for this job.
The nice thing about Lego is that it lends itself to animation quite readily as evidenced by the sheer number of amateur stop-motion shorts (and even features) that have been uploaded to the internet over the years, so the question was always finding a story that stood out, which the filmmakers have arguably done quite well. The next step was to marry computer generated imagery with the stop-motion animation for which Lego has become fairly well-known (e.g., the stop-motion version of Monty Python's "spamalot") and the filmmakers pulled this off with aplomb as well. In fact, the result is quite clever; the CGI basically masquerades as stop-motion, and because stop-motion tends to be jerky, the filmmakers get away with using fewer frames per second than they would on a slicker, more "traditional" CGI film. It's fun to note that the filmmakers try to limit the characters' movements to the range of movements possible with Lego minifigures, although they do "cheat" periodically. Particularly hilarious is the sequence in which the lead character Emmet declares that he will start his day with jumping jacks, which turn out to be severely limited in movement.
As incongruous as this may sound for a movie that features several established characters like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Green Lantern, The Lego Movie is actually about creativity, about breaking boundaries and preconceived or stifling notions of creativity. It's hard to go into this in great detail without spoiling a major plot twist but suffice it to say it is a movie that children and adults can appreciate.
4.5/5
On its face, after all, the animated film directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, really doesn't seem like much more than a 90-plus minute commercial for Lego, especially considering appearances by licensed characters like Batman (played here by Will Arnett), Superman (Channing Tatum), Green Lantern (Jonah Hill) and WonderWoman (Cobie Smulders), but as the narrative unfolds, about a seemingly unremarkable Lego construction worker named Emmett (Chris Pratt) finding himself on a quest to save the world from the evil Lord Business (Will Ferrell), it becomes clear that the movie is pushing more than just the Lego Company's bottom line.
In brief, the aforementioned Lord Business (who also happens to be the President of the Lego City in which most of the action takes place) wants to use an evil artifact known as "Kragle" on all Lego worlds, and only a Lego master builder known as "the special" can stop him, using an artifact known as "the piece of resistance." Emmet, a Lego minifig who is unremarkable in just about every way, is on his way home from work when he stumbles on the "piece of resistance," whereupon, in fairly short order, he finds himself hunted down by Lord Business' chief henchman "bad cop" (Liam Neeson). Fortunately, he also has the help of master builders Wildstyle (Elizabeth Banks), Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman), and the aforementioned Batman, among others, though even they may not be enough to stop Lord Business' insidious plans.
The plot seems generic enough, with a "chosen one" on a quest to stop a bad guy from destroying the world, but the journey is more than worth taking thanks to some astonishing visuals using the world's favorite brick toy, some pretty clever humor and a third act twist that may surprise some and may confirm what others were thinking throughout the movie but which, either way, shows that this movie is so much more than a glorified toy advertisement. Directors Lord and Miller, whose previous animated film feature was Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, and who even helped write the script for this film, demonstrate rather convincingly that they are the perfect people for this job.
The nice thing about Lego is that it lends itself to animation quite readily as evidenced by the sheer number of amateur stop-motion shorts (and even features) that have been uploaded to the internet over the years, so the question was always finding a story that stood out, which the filmmakers have arguably done quite well. The next step was to marry computer generated imagery with the stop-motion animation for which Lego has become fairly well-known (e.g., the stop-motion version of Monty Python's "spamalot") and the filmmakers pulled this off with aplomb as well. In fact, the result is quite clever; the CGI basically masquerades as stop-motion, and because stop-motion tends to be jerky, the filmmakers get away with using fewer frames per second than they would on a slicker, more "traditional" CGI film. It's fun to note that the filmmakers try to limit the characters' movements to the range of movements possible with Lego minifigures, although they do "cheat" periodically. Particularly hilarious is the sequence in which the lead character Emmet declares that he will start his day with jumping jacks, which turn out to be severely limited in movement.
As incongruous as this may sound for a movie that features several established characters like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Green Lantern, The Lego Movie is actually about creativity, about breaking boundaries and preconceived or stifling notions of creativity. It's hard to go into this in great detail without spoiling a major plot twist but suffice it to say it is a movie that children and adults can appreciate.
4.5/5
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Ice without the Showtunes, or the Princesses: A Review of Snowpiercer
Snowpiercer is a film I consider an overlooked gem. It is an English-language drama (with a smattering of Korean), shot by Korean director Bong Joon-Ho, based on a French graphic novel first published in 1982. I'll be honest; I found out about this film while reading an Avengers-related interview with its star Chris Evans, the American actor best known for playing Captain America in the Marvel Studios films. In short, I basically stumbled onto it.
Snowpiercer refers to a luxury train that can travel all around the world, and which has to, after attempts to contain global warning have brought about a new ice age which has nearly wiped out the entire population of the earth. The train, powered by a perpetual-motion engine that is described as "sacred" contains what is left of the human race. Apparently the apocalypse hasn't done anything to change human nature, and the community on the train is divided into different social classes, with the upper class living the high life while ensconced near the front of the train and the lower class residing right smack at the tail of the train, subsisting on gelatinous protein bars of somewhat eyebrow-raising origin. A revolution brews, however, with the mysterious Curtis (Evans) a man with a dark--(is there any other kind?)--secret looking to lead his fellow caboose occupants in a bid to take over the engine, the train, and therefore the world. While past revolutions have failed, Curtis is confident in the success of this effort because this time, he and his cohorts, who include his right hand Edgar (Jamie Bell), the vengeful parents of two abducted childrenTanya (Octavia Spencer) and Andrew (Ewen Bremner), and the aged amputee Gilliam (John Hurt), have an ace-in-the-hole: they plan to recruit security specialist Namgoong Minsu (Song Kang-Ho), who designed and knows how to open all of the heavy, electronically sealed gates separating the various sections of the train. They face a considerable force consisting of several armed guards along the way, commanded by the slimy Minister Mason (Tilda Swinton), but such is the determination of the ragtag group of rebels that they will do anything and everything to get to the front of the train, no matter what the cost.
The first thing that really struck me about this film was its stunning production value, notwithstanding that it is, for all intents and purposes, an independent production, made without any studio backing. The film takes place almost entirely on board the train, which is realized through a meticulously-rendered interior that would do any major Hollywood production proud. The computer generated imagery, used mainly to depict the train from the outside and the haunting, frozen wasteland that the earth has become, is up to snuff with that of most Hollywood productions, even if it is more impressionistic at times than realistic.
Perhaps it was the ability to put together a production this impressive that drew, apart from Evans, a passel of highly respected character actors like Swinton, Hurt, Spencer, Bremner, Bell, and one of my very favorite character actors whom I will decline to name lest I spoil a story twist. These actors, between them, have either won or been nominated for various acting awards including the coveted Oscar, with Spencer apparently just coming off her 2011 Oscar win when she signed on to do this film, which has yet to be released in the United States. Song and Ko A-Sung, the actress who plays his daughter in the film, play pivotal roles, and even though only Ko speaks English, with Song's character communicating with the other characters through a translator and with the audience through subtitles, they help infuse the film with a unique sensibility that I sincerely doubt a director preoccupied with selling the movie to Western audiences would have been able to achieve. Due respect, however, must go to Evans, who basically carries this film, for turning in a performance that could very easily have been overcooked but which he plays to near perfection. It's hard to discuss the strength of his performance without spoiling certain secrets, so I'll hold off on that and leave it to the audience to be surprised. I realize that people tend not to take comic book movies very seriously, but Evans immerses himself so completely in this role that I would not be surprised if even people who had seen him in The Avengers did not recognize him right away; my wife didn't realize he was the same guy who had played Captain America until about fifteen minutes into the film.
More than flashy sets or effects, though it is far more likely, that the main attraction for everyone involved was the fantastic script, which, while appearing at first to be yet another hackneyed story of the have-nots challenging the haves is, in fact, a somewhat more unsettling look at human nature at its most atavistic. While I was able to predict some story beats there was one revelation very late into the film that really threw me for a loop. While the production value grabbed my attention, what kept me utterly fascinated with this movie was how startlingly intelligent it managed to be, even with the non-stop action, and how, when the climactic confrontation took place, I found myself surprised and even a little ashamed at how I felt at watching it unfold. I imagine the actors involved were drawn to this production because quite frankly it's the kind of movie that most Hollywood studios wouldn't ever have the courage to make, and the fact that no less than Harvey Weinstein, who holds distributorship rights, is contemplating chopping footage out of this movie to make it more palatable to Western audiences somewhat bolsters my suspicions.
I really have to credit Bong and the cast and crew he assembled for having the vision, balls and prodigious skill to realize this extraordinary film. Considering that there seems to be a distinct possibility that several audiences around the world, including Americans, may not get to see this movie, I now consider myself privileged.
4.5/5
Snowpiercer refers to a luxury train that can travel all around the world, and which has to, after attempts to contain global warning have brought about a new ice age which has nearly wiped out the entire population of the earth. The train, powered by a perpetual-motion engine that is described as "sacred" contains what is left of the human race. Apparently the apocalypse hasn't done anything to change human nature, and the community on the train is divided into different social classes, with the upper class living the high life while ensconced near the front of the train and the lower class residing right smack at the tail of the train, subsisting on gelatinous protein bars of somewhat eyebrow-raising origin. A revolution brews, however, with the mysterious Curtis (Evans) a man with a dark--(is there any other kind?)--secret looking to lead his fellow caboose occupants in a bid to take over the engine, the train, and therefore the world. While past revolutions have failed, Curtis is confident in the success of this effort because this time, he and his cohorts, who include his right hand Edgar (Jamie Bell), the vengeful parents of two abducted childrenTanya (Octavia Spencer) and Andrew (Ewen Bremner), and the aged amputee Gilliam (John Hurt), have an ace-in-the-hole: they plan to recruit security specialist Namgoong Minsu (Song Kang-Ho), who designed and knows how to open all of the heavy, electronically sealed gates separating the various sections of the train. They face a considerable force consisting of several armed guards along the way, commanded by the slimy Minister Mason (Tilda Swinton), but such is the determination of the ragtag group of rebels that they will do anything and everything to get to the front of the train, no matter what the cost.
The first thing that really struck me about this film was its stunning production value, notwithstanding that it is, for all intents and purposes, an independent production, made without any studio backing. The film takes place almost entirely on board the train, which is realized through a meticulously-rendered interior that would do any major Hollywood production proud. The computer generated imagery, used mainly to depict the train from the outside and the haunting, frozen wasteland that the earth has become, is up to snuff with that of most Hollywood productions, even if it is more impressionistic at times than realistic.
Perhaps it was the ability to put together a production this impressive that drew, apart from Evans, a passel of highly respected character actors like Swinton, Hurt, Spencer, Bremner, Bell, and one of my very favorite character actors whom I will decline to name lest I spoil a story twist. These actors, between them, have either won or been nominated for various acting awards including the coveted Oscar, with Spencer apparently just coming off her 2011 Oscar win when she signed on to do this film, which has yet to be released in the United States. Song and Ko A-Sung, the actress who plays his daughter in the film, play pivotal roles, and even though only Ko speaks English, with Song's character communicating with the other characters through a translator and with the audience through subtitles, they help infuse the film with a unique sensibility that I sincerely doubt a director preoccupied with selling the movie to Western audiences would have been able to achieve. Due respect, however, must go to Evans, who basically carries this film, for turning in a performance that could very easily have been overcooked but which he plays to near perfection. It's hard to discuss the strength of his performance without spoiling certain secrets, so I'll hold off on that and leave it to the audience to be surprised. I realize that people tend not to take comic book movies very seriously, but Evans immerses himself so completely in this role that I would not be surprised if even people who had seen him in The Avengers did not recognize him right away; my wife didn't realize he was the same guy who had played Captain America until about fifteen minutes into the film.
More than flashy sets or effects, though it is far more likely, that the main attraction for everyone involved was the fantastic script, which, while appearing at first to be yet another hackneyed story of the have-nots challenging the haves is, in fact, a somewhat more unsettling look at human nature at its most atavistic. While I was able to predict some story beats there was one revelation very late into the film that really threw me for a loop. While the production value grabbed my attention, what kept me utterly fascinated with this movie was how startlingly intelligent it managed to be, even with the non-stop action, and how, when the climactic confrontation took place, I found myself surprised and even a little ashamed at how I felt at watching it unfold. I imagine the actors involved were drawn to this production because quite frankly it's the kind of movie that most Hollywood studios wouldn't ever have the courage to make, and the fact that no less than Harvey Weinstein, who holds distributorship rights, is contemplating chopping footage out of this movie to make it more palatable to Western audiences somewhat bolsters my suspicions.
I really have to credit Bong and the cast and crew he assembled for having the vision, balls and prodigious skill to realize this extraordinary film. Considering that there seems to be a distinct possibility that several audiences around the world, including Americans, may not get to see this movie, I now consider myself privileged.
4.5/5
Women as Action Heroes (Mild Spoilers)
Last year was a banner year for films starring strong women: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was the top grossing movie in the United States and Canada, besting testosterone-fueled fare such as Iron Man 3 and Man of Steel, and Frozen, a refreshing Disney movie about princesses who don't need Prince Charming to be happy is one of the year's top-grossing films. The acclaimed blockbuster Gravity, not only celebrated of the strength of women but featured a bravura performance by its lead star Sandra Bullock, who carried the movie almost entirely by herself, even as she carried another femme-driven movie, The Heat, earlier in the year with co-star Melissa McCarthy. Even the films that weren't anchored by women featured some pretty bad-ass female characters, like Iron Man 3, featured Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts kicking ass and taking names, The Lord of the Rings: The Desolation of Smaug, which actually introduced a new character to the Tolkienverse: the orc-slaying she-elf Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly, and Fast and Furious 6, in which real-life MMA champ Gina Carano got to strut her stuff.
But really, it's Jennifer Lawrence's Katniss Everdeen and Sandra Bullock's Ryan Stone who have really ripped up the form book on women as action stars, hearkening back to the glory days of Sigourney Weaver's Ellen Ripley and Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor, which basically means it's taken Hollywood roughly a quarter of a century to figure out what James Cameron knew ages ago: that women are completely and utterly credible as action heroes and people will pay to see them in these roles. Anyone who doubts it need only utter the words "get away from her, you bitch" to any one of the millions of self-respecting nerds to whom studios almost always pander when dreaming up their next big-budget, billion-dollar hopeful, and see if he gets the reference.
There's not much else to say that the numbers aren't already saying by themselves, but now that Hollywood seems to have realized that women can actually sell movies while doing a heck of a lot more than fawning over sparkling vampires, maybe we'll see the return of strong female heroes in the mold of Jodie Foster's Clarice Starling from 1991's Silence of the Lambs (although preferably not an actual remake considering we've had waaaayyy too many of those) who basically uses her brain to win the day rather than kung fu.
But really, it's Jennifer Lawrence's Katniss Everdeen and Sandra Bullock's Ryan Stone who have really ripped up the form book on women as action stars, hearkening back to the glory days of Sigourney Weaver's Ellen Ripley and Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor, which basically means it's taken Hollywood roughly a quarter of a century to figure out what James Cameron knew ages ago: that women are completely and utterly credible as action heroes and people will pay to see them in these roles. Anyone who doubts it need only utter the words "get away from her, you bitch" to any one of the millions of self-respecting nerds to whom studios almost always pander when dreaming up their next big-budget, billion-dollar hopeful, and see if he gets the reference.
There's not much else to say that the numbers aren't already saying by themselves, but now that Hollywood seems to have realized that women can actually sell movies while doing a heck of a lot more than fawning over sparkling vampires, maybe we'll see the return of strong female heroes in the mold of Jodie Foster's Clarice Starling from 1991's Silence of the Lambs (although preferably not an actual remake considering we've had waaaayyy too many of those) who basically uses her brain to win the day rather than kung fu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)