directed by Jon Watts
written by Jonathan Goldstein, John Francis Daley, Watts, Christopher Ford, Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers
For the third time in fifteen years, Sony Pictures unleashes a new big screen iteration of Marvel Comics' single most beloved superhero, the amazing Spider-Man. This time, however, they've got the might of Marvel in their creative (and marketing) corner, and the results are exactly what millions of fans the world over have been hoping for since it was announced that Sony was finally allowing Spidey into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, including this longtime fanboy.
Peter Parker (Tom Holland) is a fifteen-year-old high school sophomore with typical high school problems; he has a hard time talking to girls, particularly his dream girl Liz (Laura Harrier). He has to deal with school bully Flash (Tony Revolori), and apart from his best bud Ned (Jacob Batalon), he doesn't really have that many friends. He also has the proportionate strength, speed and agility of a spider, and a super-hero secret identity, that of Spider-Man. As the film begins he has just taken part in an attempt to capture Captain America. Having quietly flown him to Germany for the aforementioned mission, Peter's mentor Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.), quietly drops Peter off at home back in Queens where he lives with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) and leaves his driver/bodyguard Happy (Jon Favreau) in charge of making sure he stays out of trouble.
Unbeknownst to Stark, however, since one of his companies, Damage Control, booted out contractor Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton) from a clean-up job he and his crew had gotten from the City Government of New York to clean up after the Avengers' battle with the Chitauri many years ago, Toomes and his cohorts have been stealing technology left over from the Avengers' battles to build extremely dangerous weapons and sell them to criminals. One such gang of criminals tries to use the tech to rob several ATMs...right in Peter's neighborhood. Spider-Man stops the robbery, but when he tries to track down the people selling the weapons, he finds that his desire to play superhero comes into direct conflict with his life as a high school student, the latter of which, to a kid who is both as smart and as marginalized as Peter, is not particularly fulfilling. To get off the very short leash on which Stark keeps him, Peter has Ned, who accidentally discovers his identity, hack into the Stark-built Spider-man costume and he sets off on his self-appointed mission to unlock its many high-tech goodies, which he feels he will need to stop Toomes. Peter will soon discover, however, that it's not the suit and powers that matter but the hero that wields them.
Much has been written about how Peter Parker's youth is the single biggest asset of the film, and I definitely agree with that assessment. None of the previous films focused much on Peter's life as a high school student. The first film had him graduating halfway through the film, and the first reboot, while it featured a Peter who was still in high school, noticeably treated it more like an incidental fact of his life rather than a defining aspect of it. Previous filmmakers seemed eager to get it out of the way, but in conceiving this movie, director Jon Watts and his army of writers, no doubt under the watchful eye of Kevin Feige, wisely used the high school setting to establish the key lesson that defines Peter Parker's journey as Spider-Man: with great power comes great responsibility. Peter's got both brain and, thanks to his spider bite, the brawn to do all of the super stuff, but he learns the hard way that there's quite a bit more to being a hero than just having super powers and knowing how to use them. He's the avatar for every kid who's ever felt trapped by the constraints of school, especially the gifted kids, and it's gratifying to see the filmmakers reaching out to what is undoubtedly this film's core audience with something heartfelt to say about being young and all of the awkwardness and frustration that entails. It's funny, exciting and compassionate, and a film that's easily one of the best that Marvel Studios has ever produced.
I'd go as far as to say it stands on par with Spider-Man 2, still regarded by many as one of the very best films the superhero genre has to offer, and in many ways it even exceeds it. After all, this is a movie that features a wisecracking Spider-Man, a genius who can make his own web fluid, and a kid who is every bit as shy out of the costume as he is cocky in it. It also helps that this film, unlike any that came before it, pays homage to one of the most iconic moments in the character's published history, one which dyed-in-the-wool comic book Spidey fans will recognize instantly.
The visual pyrotechnics are all topnotch, of course, with Sony Pictures Imageworks and Digital Domain churning out state-of-the-art effects, but that's to be expected from this kind of movie. I was personally glad that the film didn't degenerate into a generic CGI orgy in the last act. While there are clearly visual effects involved; it plays out a lot better than, say, the ultra-generic battle at the end of Wonder Woman. Still, whatever artistry the VFX wizards would have brought to the table would have been all for naught had the writers left their brains at home. Just ask the guys who worked on the Transformers movies.
The good news is that, despite having six writers, often a recipe for creative disaster, the film's script feels solid and mostly coherent. Watts, who was apparently chosen to direct this film because of a little independent film called Cop Car which featured pre-teen boys as protagonists, coaxes exemplary performances from his cast. Carrying the movie on his slight shoulders, however, is white-hot British actor Tom Holland, who snagged this role two years ago in what was apparently a very competitive auditioning process, and who turns in a note-perfect performance as one of the most beloved superhero characters of all time. Holland's youthfulness helps him portray Peter as eager and callow, but it's Holland's earnestness and commitment to his portrayal that really enables him to nail a rather tricky performance. Tobey Maguire, in the first iteration of the character, went a bit too broad, and Andrew Garfield, while his love for the character was fairly clear, just couldn't quite nail the awkwardness of Peter. Holland gets the balance just right, and helping him along are a talented, if sometimes low-key supporting cast in Batalon, Zendaya and Laura Harrier. Batalon is a real scene-stealer here, and I'm not just saying that because he's of Filipino descent.
Also, it's worth noting that for once, the hero faces off against a villain who is not only formidable but very well-developed, courtesy of a smashing performance by Michael Keaton. In breaking away from recent tradition, Keaton's Vulture is the very best MCU since Tom Hiddleston charmed moviegoers' pants off as Loki, the god of mischief five years ago. Keaton brings his considerable acting chops (and comic book street cred) to bear as he renders a performance that is all at once terrifying and surprisingly sympathetic, even right up to the end. Keaton's is actually the first face the audience sees as the film opens, and he leaves a heck of an impression. I'm not actually shocked; I've been a fan of this guy since 1988's Beetlejuice, and I know that, even without Batman on his resume, he's got some serious acting mojo, but I was pleasantly surprised that he turned in a wonderfully nuanced performance rather than just sail on through for an easy paycheck. People like Paul Giamatti and Jamie Foxx may have gone all Jim Carrey on their Spidey villains but Keaton not only dials the menace up to 11 with his character, but manages to keep him human at the same time, which makes him even scarier.
There's not much to say about Robert Downey, Jr. and Jon Favreau as Tony Stark and Happy Hogan, respectively, other than that they were the necessary glue between this iteration of Spidey and the bigger Marvel Cinematic Universe, but unlike the awkwardly shoehorned Falcon scene in Ant-Man, Stark and Happy are reasonably well-integrated into the narrative, with Stark standing as a welcome substitute for Peter's late Uncle Ben, whose death, I am glad to report, is no longer depicted and who, in fact, is only mentioned very obliquely. In case I missed that point, I'm happy to point out this isn't an origin story, and the film is all the better for it.
It's got its flaws; Spider-Man's "spider sense" or the preternatural ability to sense danger is conspicuously absent from this film, though to be fair it also winked out at somewhat inconvenient moments in past films as well. My son pointed out his weak chemistry with his romantic lead, Liz, which was a little disappointing after Wonder Woman got the superhero love story down pat. A direct reference to Ferris Bueller's Day Off was a little on the nose, considering the film does an effective homage all on its own, with Peter spending most of it playing hooky. These, are however, but minor quibbles; I really enjoyed this film. Also, while he doesn't quite match his wonderfully quirky work on Doctor Strange, composer Michael Giacchino comes up with a pretty strong theme for Spidey, even though I'm sure this film will be better-remembered for the orchestral version of the old 1960s TV show that ushers in the "Marvel Studios" logo in the beginning.
And so, Sony has restored some luster to the crown jewel of Marvel's cinematic characters, and I take great encouragement from Kevin Feige's pronouncement that this version of Spidey will soon usher in a new era for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, following the cataclysmic events of the upcoming Avengers: Infinity War. The MCU could not ask for a better standard-bearer.
8.5/10
Sunday, July 9, 2017
Thursday, July 6, 2017
An Almost Obligatory Cash Grab: A Review of Despicable Me 3
directed by Kyle Balda, Pierre Coffin, and Eric Guillon
written by Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul
When I first saw the posters for the animated sequel Despicable Me 3, the premise of which is that the protagonist, ex-supervillain Gru (Steve Carell) has a twin brother, also played by Carell, I snickered at the tag-line printed in big, black letters: "Oh, Brother" and thought to myself, how very apt.
As much as I enjoyed the very first Despicable Me film seven years ago, and, to a lesser extent, its sequel four years ago, I knew, after that second film, and especially after the trashy, unabashedly commercial Minions spin-off/prequel, that creatively, this team pretty much had nowhere else to go with their conceit of a supervillain gone straight. I also knew that, considering the gargantuan grosses of both the latter two movies (with Minions racking up over a billion dollars at the global box office), making a DM3 movie was pretty much a no-brainer. I just didn't figure on it being a no-brainer storywise, as well.
The premise is so lazy one wonders how much thought even went into it. When Gru, working for the Anti-Villain League that was introduced in the second film, is unable, yet again, to capture 80's themed supervillain Balthazar Bratt (Trey Parker, playing an over-the-hill child star in a bit of "meta" casting given his own, long-gone fame), he loses his job, as does his wife, Lucy (Kristen Wiig) when she tries to stick up for him. At the same time, Gru's minions (Pierre Coffin) who have been egging him on to resume his life of villainy, are fed up when he refuses, and quit working for him, with the exception of two of them. Also at the same time, Gru is invited to meet his long lost twin brother Dru, whose very existence his mother (Julie Andrews) had concealed from him because of an acrimonious divorce. Dru apparently lives in opulence as the number one pig farmer in the (fictional) country of Freedonia, but he has a secret that Gru, still smarting from losing his job, will soon learn to his chagrin.
The gang's all back from the last movie, with the exception of Agnes and Edith, who have both been recast presumably due to the voice actors having grown up, and to be truthful the film feels as stale as a sequel to a franchise that's run out of ideas would feel. Parker, best known for the bawdy humor of his South Park series, seems pretty lost when placed in a family-friendly film, and in any case his "Balthazar Bratt" is nowhere near as entertaining as Jason Segel's Vector and Benjamin Bratt's El Macho from the previous films were. I'll admit to being entertained by the 80s-themed dance battle, though really, I wonder if anyone not of my generation is even going to appreciate the reference.
The worst part was seeing (or more appropriately hearing) Carell and the other voice-actor mainstays phoning in their roles, which, for all I know, is literally what they were doing. Carell brought so much life to Gru when the character debuted the better part of a decade ago, with his zany, vaguely Russian accent and just the right mix of malevolence and vulnerability. Now he genuinely feels like he just doesn't give two s**ts about his character or his belatedly-introduced brother. And the less said about Julie Andrews' revisiting the character of Gru's mom, the better. Suffice it so say her sole purpose here is basically as an exposition device, and she can't even be bothered to put on a specific accent this time around.
The Minions, the official avatars of Illumination Studios, have an insufferable subplot that's not even worth describing other than that it gives the filmmakers an excuse to crack tired, old prison jokes.
About the only notable thing about this movie is how the writers sort of manage to address the issue of how to have more adventures with Gru and the Minions without having Gru revert to being a bad guy (mild spoiler alert there). This issue is addressed, after a fashion, and the results are mildly entertaining. The film even looks good, which is an area in which Illumination continues to impress, considering they spend considerably less on their films than their rivals at Disney and Dreamworks. They'll probably be able to rake in several hundred million dollars (at least) from a few more films of this series.
But really, as a creative endeavor, this film franchise has really run its course.
5.5/10
written by Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul
When I first saw the posters for the animated sequel Despicable Me 3, the premise of which is that the protagonist, ex-supervillain Gru (Steve Carell) has a twin brother, also played by Carell, I snickered at the tag-line printed in big, black letters: "Oh, Brother" and thought to myself, how very apt.
As much as I enjoyed the very first Despicable Me film seven years ago, and, to a lesser extent, its sequel four years ago, I knew, after that second film, and especially after the trashy, unabashedly commercial Minions spin-off/prequel, that creatively, this team pretty much had nowhere else to go with their conceit of a supervillain gone straight. I also knew that, considering the gargantuan grosses of both the latter two movies (with Minions racking up over a billion dollars at the global box office), making a DM3 movie was pretty much a no-brainer. I just didn't figure on it being a no-brainer storywise, as well.
The premise is so lazy one wonders how much thought even went into it. When Gru, working for the Anti-Villain League that was introduced in the second film, is unable, yet again, to capture 80's themed supervillain Balthazar Bratt (Trey Parker, playing an over-the-hill child star in a bit of "meta" casting given his own, long-gone fame), he loses his job, as does his wife, Lucy (Kristen Wiig) when she tries to stick up for him. At the same time, Gru's minions (Pierre Coffin) who have been egging him on to resume his life of villainy, are fed up when he refuses, and quit working for him, with the exception of two of them. Also at the same time, Gru is invited to meet his long lost twin brother Dru, whose very existence his mother (Julie Andrews) had concealed from him because of an acrimonious divorce. Dru apparently lives in opulence as the number one pig farmer in the (fictional) country of Freedonia, but he has a secret that Gru, still smarting from losing his job, will soon learn to his chagrin.
The gang's all back from the last movie, with the exception of Agnes and Edith, who have both been recast presumably due to the voice actors having grown up, and to be truthful the film feels as stale as a sequel to a franchise that's run out of ideas would feel. Parker, best known for the bawdy humor of his South Park series, seems pretty lost when placed in a family-friendly film, and in any case his "Balthazar Bratt" is nowhere near as entertaining as Jason Segel's Vector and Benjamin Bratt's El Macho from the previous films were. I'll admit to being entertained by the 80s-themed dance battle, though really, I wonder if anyone not of my generation is even going to appreciate the reference.
The worst part was seeing (or more appropriately hearing) Carell and the other voice-actor mainstays phoning in their roles, which, for all I know, is literally what they were doing. Carell brought so much life to Gru when the character debuted the better part of a decade ago, with his zany, vaguely Russian accent and just the right mix of malevolence and vulnerability. Now he genuinely feels like he just doesn't give two s**ts about his character or his belatedly-introduced brother. And the less said about Julie Andrews' revisiting the character of Gru's mom, the better. Suffice it so say her sole purpose here is basically as an exposition device, and she can't even be bothered to put on a specific accent this time around.
The Minions, the official avatars of Illumination Studios, have an insufferable subplot that's not even worth describing other than that it gives the filmmakers an excuse to crack tired, old prison jokes.
About the only notable thing about this movie is how the writers sort of manage to address the issue of how to have more adventures with Gru and the Minions without having Gru revert to being a bad guy (mild spoiler alert there). This issue is addressed, after a fashion, and the results are mildly entertaining. The film even looks good, which is an area in which Illumination continues to impress, considering they spend considerably less on their films than their rivals at Disney and Dreamworks. They'll probably be able to rake in several hundred million dollars (at least) from a few more films of this series.
But really, as a creative endeavor, this film franchise has really run its course.
5.5/10
Saturday, June 3, 2017
Wondrous! A Review of Wonder Woman
directed by Patty Jenkins
written by Allan Heinberg
The most recognizable female superhero in the world, DC Comics' Princess Diana of Themyscira, aka Wonder Woman, finally gets her own feature film, and it is a doozy.
On the island of Themyscira lives a community of warrior women known as the Amazons, led by their Queen, Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen). It's a peaceful place, one hidden from world, and it is here that young Diana (Lily Aspell), the Queen's daughter, lives, away from humanity and, in fact, away from all men. Diana finds herself drawn to the constant military training the Amazons, led by their fierce General Antiope (Robin Wright, who at 51 can still kick some serious ass), much to the distress of her mother. Hippolyta tells Diana the story of the Amazons, about how they were created by the god Zeus to protect men, and how Zeus's son Ares, full of resentment, pitted men against one another, starting wars, wars which included even the gods as their casualties. Zeus struck Ares down with his dying breath, but the threat of his return remains. Zeus has left a weapon the island capable of killing him in the event of his return. Diana then begins training in secret with her aunt. As Diana (Emily Carey) gets older, Hippolyta catches her secret training, and disapproves, but eventually realizes the need for it, telling Antiope to train her harder than any Amazon on the island. As a result, by the time she is an adult (Gal Gadot), she is a truly formidable warrior.
The peace on the island is then disrupted when an American military pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), crashes into its waters, almost immediately being followed by several German pursuers. Fighting on the island breaks out, and while the Amazons vanquish the Germans, lives are lost. The Amazons interrogate Trevor, who tells that he is trying to bring an end to "the war to end all wars" which has claimed millions of lives. He was working as a British spy behind German lines when he learned of a deadly gas being made by Doctor Maru (Elena Anaya) for her principal General Ludendorff (Danny Huston), one which could kill millions more than have already died. Diana is convinced that this war (World War I) is the handiwork of Ares, and she leaves the island with Steve, intent on stopping him.
It's been four years since Zack Snyder kicked off what is now known as the DC Extended Universe with Man of Steel, a surprisingly bleak take on the Superman mythos, and a year since its follow-up, Batman vs. Superman, a movie that borrowed from Frank Miller's deconstructionist comic-books of the 80s but which, without the context that had preceded them, and some pretty bad writing, felt more like an extra grim Michael Bay movie than anything else. For many (including myself) Wonder Woman's tiny sliver of screen time was one of the few highlights of that film because it basically felt like one of the few moments of joy throughout over two and a half hours of running time.
Director Patty Jenkins and writer Allan Heinberg must have picked up on that because what they give us is a marked contrast from that dour throw-down between Bats and Supes. In fact, what they've given us is a distinct throwback to brighter superhero origin stories like Richard Donner's Superman and even the more recent Captain America: The First Avenger by Joe Johnston. Comparisons to the latter film will be inevitable considering that both share a wartime setting, and in fact the Wonder Woman character was created during World War II, but this film is still very much its own thing. Jenkins and her crew also exploit the whole period setting to the hilt, with lavish sets and costumes and generous helpings of early 20th century atmosphere. By setting the film at that particular point in history, they also cannily put Diana in a position to appreciate misogyny, though it's noticeably sanitized. It could be that I'm a sucker for period films (which, I confess, I am), but with some thoroughly impressive production value, this movie was really $120 million well-spent, for the most part.
Of course, pretty sets and lighting would mean nothing without effective storytelling, and fortunately, right out of the gate, this film charms with some really strong performances, especially from Gal Gadot and Chris Pine, whose chemistry is also one of the highlights of the movie. Gadot's performance as the intelligent but guileless Diana is a fine balancing act that could have easily gone over the top but which she pulls off perfectly. She anchors the film, though I'll admit I was surprised by how strong Pine's performance was, considering how a lot of love interests in superhero movies these days, ranging from Rachel McAdams' Christine in Doctor Strange to Amy Adams' Lois Lane in Snyder's Superman films feel distinctly underdeveloped. Pine genuinely made me regret that WB hadn't cast him as Green Lantern or a superhero lead; with a performance of this caliber he could definitely carry a movie, and possibly even a franchise, on his own. I also enjoyed the relatively brief turns of the Amazons of Themyscira, specifically Nielsen as Hippolyta and Wright as Antiope. Both of them come across as strong and compassionate at the same time, and both actors effectively convey, in their relatively short screen time, just how important they are to Diana as role models. I was particularly impressed seeing Wright doing action scenes in her 50s, even though I'm sure her stunt double did the lion's share of them.
I also appreciated the writing here, with Heinberg showing a lot of attention to detail, like explaining how Diana could speak English to Trevor, and why she knew much of the world and yet remained naive to its harsher realities. I also appreciated Heinberg's judicious doses of humor throughout the script, especially as delivered by capable actors like Lucy Davis as Trevor's secretary Etta, Said Taghmaoui as the part-time spy and part-time con-artist Sameer, and Ewen Bremner as PTSD-suffering sharpshooter Charlie.
I wasn't quite so fond of the bad guys, particularly Huston's assembly-line German general, but I've almost come to accept underwhelming villains as a trade-off for well-fleshed out heroes.
The film also has generous helpings of action, but while I enjoyed them for the most part, I felt that a lot of the fight scenes suffered a little bit from director Jenkins' excessive use of the Snyderesque "slow-mo/speed-up" technique of depicting action that was basically done to death in 300 and Watchmen, and which he actually avoided conspicuously in both Man of Steel and BvS. It seemed Jenkins' inexperience in directing action showed a little bit in those sequences.
Speaking of action, the film's climactic, CGI-engorged final battle was a bit of a generic letdown and will almost certainly invite comparisons to a lot of other generic final battles, and even to the first Captain America movie, but even as the film sags Gadot carries it all the way through. This movie would have risen or fallen on her performance, and the good news is she delivers handily.
This film is a solid first outing for an iconic superhero, and it is quite important, after the failure of cinematic adaptations of DC stablemates Supergirl and Catwoman and Marvel's Elektra that this movie turned out to be this good, because in a world besieged by reinvigorated misogyny, whether in small communities or among world leaders themselves, the symbolic value of this character is arguably higher than it's ever been. I'm glad it was a movie like this, rather than one centered around a much more cynical character like Marvel's Black Widow, that is now leading the way for superheroine movies, because at times like this we need hope and optimism. We need to believe in the good in humanity, and to believe that this good can prevail over the unrelenting darkness that threatens to engulf us every single day. We wouldn't have gotten this from a movie about an ex-KGB assassin.
Bravo Warner Bros. and DC. Thank you for giving us this film, and may there be many more like it.
8/10
written by Allan Heinberg
The most recognizable female superhero in the world, DC Comics' Princess Diana of Themyscira, aka Wonder Woman, finally gets her own feature film, and it is a doozy.
On the island of Themyscira lives a community of warrior women known as the Amazons, led by their Queen, Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen). It's a peaceful place, one hidden from world, and it is here that young Diana (Lily Aspell), the Queen's daughter, lives, away from humanity and, in fact, away from all men. Diana finds herself drawn to the constant military training the Amazons, led by their fierce General Antiope (Robin Wright, who at 51 can still kick some serious ass), much to the distress of her mother. Hippolyta tells Diana the story of the Amazons, about how they were created by the god Zeus to protect men, and how Zeus's son Ares, full of resentment, pitted men against one another, starting wars, wars which included even the gods as their casualties. Zeus struck Ares down with his dying breath, but the threat of his return remains. Zeus has left a weapon the island capable of killing him in the event of his return. Diana then begins training in secret with her aunt. As Diana (Emily Carey) gets older, Hippolyta catches her secret training, and disapproves, but eventually realizes the need for it, telling Antiope to train her harder than any Amazon on the island. As a result, by the time she is an adult (Gal Gadot), she is a truly formidable warrior.
The peace on the island is then disrupted when an American military pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), crashes into its waters, almost immediately being followed by several German pursuers. Fighting on the island breaks out, and while the Amazons vanquish the Germans, lives are lost. The Amazons interrogate Trevor, who tells that he is trying to bring an end to "the war to end all wars" which has claimed millions of lives. He was working as a British spy behind German lines when he learned of a deadly gas being made by Doctor Maru (Elena Anaya) for her principal General Ludendorff (Danny Huston), one which could kill millions more than have already died. Diana is convinced that this war (World War I) is the handiwork of Ares, and she leaves the island with Steve, intent on stopping him.
It's been four years since Zack Snyder kicked off what is now known as the DC Extended Universe with Man of Steel, a surprisingly bleak take on the Superman mythos, and a year since its follow-up, Batman vs. Superman, a movie that borrowed from Frank Miller's deconstructionist comic-books of the 80s but which, without the context that had preceded them, and some pretty bad writing, felt more like an extra grim Michael Bay movie than anything else. For many (including myself) Wonder Woman's tiny sliver of screen time was one of the few highlights of that film because it basically felt like one of the few moments of joy throughout over two and a half hours of running time.
Director Patty Jenkins and writer Allan Heinberg must have picked up on that because what they give us is a marked contrast from that dour throw-down between Bats and Supes. In fact, what they've given us is a distinct throwback to brighter superhero origin stories like Richard Donner's Superman and even the more recent Captain America: The First Avenger by Joe Johnston. Comparisons to the latter film will be inevitable considering that both share a wartime setting, and in fact the Wonder Woman character was created during World War II, but this film is still very much its own thing. Jenkins and her crew also exploit the whole period setting to the hilt, with lavish sets and costumes and generous helpings of early 20th century atmosphere. By setting the film at that particular point in history, they also cannily put Diana in a position to appreciate misogyny, though it's noticeably sanitized. It could be that I'm a sucker for period films (which, I confess, I am), but with some thoroughly impressive production value, this movie was really $120 million well-spent, for the most part.
Of course, pretty sets and lighting would mean nothing without effective storytelling, and fortunately, right out of the gate, this film charms with some really strong performances, especially from Gal Gadot and Chris Pine, whose chemistry is also one of the highlights of the movie. Gadot's performance as the intelligent but guileless Diana is a fine balancing act that could have easily gone over the top but which she pulls off perfectly. She anchors the film, though I'll admit I was surprised by how strong Pine's performance was, considering how a lot of love interests in superhero movies these days, ranging from Rachel McAdams' Christine in Doctor Strange to Amy Adams' Lois Lane in Snyder's Superman films feel distinctly underdeveloped. Pine genuinely made me regret that WB hadn't cast him as Green Lantern or a superhero lead; with a performance of this caliber he could definitely carry a movie, and possibly even a franchise, on his own. I also enjoyed the relatively brief turns of the Amazons of Themyscira, specifically Nielsen as Hippolyta and Wright as Antiope. Both of them come across as strong and compassionate at the same time, and both actors effectively convey, in their relatively short screen time, just how important they are to Diana as role models. I was particularly impressed seeing Wright doing action scenes in her 50s, even though I'm sure her stunt double did the lion's share of them.
I also appreciated the writing here, with Heinberg showing a lot of attention to detail, like explaining how Diana could speak English to Trevor, and why she knew much of the world and yet remained naive to its harsher realities. I also appreciated Heinberg's judicious doses of humor throughout the script, especially as delivered by capable actors like Lucy Davis as Trevor's secretary Etta, Said Taghmaoui as the part-time spy and part-time con-artist Sameer, and Ewen Bremner as PTSD-suffering sharpshooter Charlie.
I wasn't quite so fond of the bad guys, particularly Huston's assembly-line German general, but I've almost come to accept underwhelming villains as a trade-off for well-fleshed out heroes.
The film also has generous helpings of action, but while I enjoyed them for the most part, I felt that a lot of the fight scenes suffered a little bit from director Jenkins' excessive use of the Snyderesque "slow-mo/speed-up" technique of depicting action that was basically done to death in 300 and Watchmen, and which he actually avoided conspicuously in both Man of Steel and BvS. It seemed Jenkins' inexperience in directing action showed a little bit in those sequences.
Speaking of action, the film's climactic, CGI-engorged final battle was a bit of a generic letdown and will almost certainly invite comparisons to a lot of other generic final battles, and even to the first Captain America movie, but even as the film sags Gadot carries it all the way through. This movie would have risen or fallen on her performance, and the good news is she delivers handily.
This film is a solid first outing for an iconic superhero, and it is quite important, after the failure of cinematic adaptations of DC stablemates Supergirl and Catwoman and Marvel's Elektra that this movie turned out to be this good, because in a world besieged by reinvigorated misogyny, whether in small communities or among world leaders themselves, the symbolic value of this character is arguably higher than it's ever been. I'm glad it was a movie like this, rather than one centered around a much more cynical character like Marvel's Black Widow, that is now leading the way for superheroine movies, because at times like this we need hope and optimism. We need to believe in the good in humanity, and to believe that this good can prevail over the unrelenting darkness that threatens to engulf us every single day. We wouldn't have gotten this from a movie about an ex-KGB assassin.
Bravo Warner Bros. and DC. Thank you for giving us this film, and may there be many more like it.
8/10
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Captain America Plays Daddy: A Review of "Gifted"
directed by Marc Webb
written by Tom Flynn
I had originally planned to make this review my inaugural vlog, but time constraints and a need to get familiar with the format kind of scuttled that, especially since I wanted to get this review out while it was still relevant (which I'm not even sure it is at this point).
Anyway, this film is about a rather unconventional family; boat repairman Frank Adler (Chris Evans) takes care of his niece Mary (McKenna Grace) in a quiet blue-collar neighborhood. After having home-schooled her for several years, Frank decides it's time to send Mary to school, over the objections of motherly neighbor and landlady Roberta Taylor (Octavia Spencer) who doesn't think she'll fit in well. At school, after run-ins with her teacher Bonnie Stevenson (Jenny Slate) and School Principal Davis (Elizabeth Marvel) which prompt a meeting with Frank, the truth comes out: Mary is a math genius, just like her deceased mother, Frank's sister. The school authorities want her moved to a school for gifted children where she can maximize her potential, but Frank wants her to stay put so that she can enjoy a normal childhood. Soon, however, Frank's mother Evelyn (Lindsay Duncan), from whom Frank had been hiding Mary all these years following her mother's suicide, shows up, and a battle for custody, and Mary's future, ensues.
While the movie works off a simple premise and is fairly predictable, family dramas like this aren't about twist endings. A movie like this will rise or fall on the strength of the performance of its actors and from Evans, Grace, Slate, Duncan and Spencer, director Marc Webb, nicely slipping back into indie-auteur mode after the disastrous Amazing Spider-Man 2, coaxes some fairly powerful performances. I don't know if people realize how talented Evans is as an actor; even digitally making him skinny in the first Captain America would not have worked if he hadn't acted the part, and the earnestness he showed there really shines through here. Most important to the story is his chemistry with the precocious McKenna Grace, and the two of them really knock it out of the park. While his romantic chemistry with Slate kind of fall flat, the manner in which he and Duncan play off each other is something really special to watch. In depicting the struggle between Frank and Evelyn, Webb and screenwriter Tom Flynn really try to toe the fine line between family squabbling and a more black-and-white hero-vs-villain struggle, and often find themselves veering a little too much into the latter territory at times, but it still works. Evans and Duncan do a good job of depicting a strained mother and son relationship, but one still sees the vestiges of familial love here and there. Grace is a revelation as the child prodigy Mary, though I don't quite expect her to be the childhood name that Dakota Fanning was in the noughties. I suspect we'll be seeing her again at some point.
It was nice to see Captain America swap his tights and shield for jeans and a workman's tools for a change.
7.5/10
written by Tom Flynn
I had originally planned to make this review my inaugural vlog, but time constraints and a need to get familiar with the format kind of scuttled that, especially since I wanted to get this review out while it was still relevant (which I'm not even sure it is at this point).
Anyway, this film is about a rather unconventional family; boat repairman Frank Adler (Chris Evans) takes care of his niece Mary (McKenna Grace) in a quiet blue-collar neighborhood. After having home-schooled her for several years, Frank decides it's time to send Mary to school, over the objections of motherly neighbor and landlady Roberta Taylor (Octavia Spencer) who doesn't think she'll fit in well. At school, after run-ins with her teacher Bonnie Stevenson (Jenny Slate) and School Principal Davis (Elizabeth Marvel) which prompt a meeting with Frank, the truth comes out: Mary is a math genius, just like her deceased mother, Frank's sister. The school authorities want her moved to a school for gifted children where she can maximize her potential, but Frank wants her to stay put so that she can enjoy a normal childhood. Soon, however, Frank's mother Evelyn (Lindsay Duncan), from whom Frank had been hiding Mary all these years following her mother's suicide, shows up, and a battle for custody, and Mary's future, ensues.
While the movie works off a simple premise and is fairly predictable, family dramas like this aren't about twist endings. A movie like this will rise or fall on the strength of the performance of its actors and from Evans, Grace, Slate, Duncan and Spencer, director Marc Webb, nicely slipping back into indie-auteur mode after the disastrous Amazing Spider-Man 2, coaxes some fairly powerful performances. I don't know if people realize how talented Evans is as an actor; even digitally making him skinny in the first Captain America would not have worked if he hadn't acted the part, and the earnestness he showed there really shines through here. Most important to the story is his chemistry with the precocious McKenna Grace, and the two of them really knock it out of the park. While his romantic chemistry with Slate kind of fall flat, the manner in which he and Duncan play off each other is something really special to watch. In depicting the struggle between Frank and Evelyn, Webb and screenwriter Tom Flynn really try to toe the fine line between family squabbling and a more black-and-white hero-vs-villain struggle, and often find themselves veering a little too much into the latter territory at times, but it still works. Evans and Duncan do a good job of depicting a strained mother and son relationship, but one still sees the vestiges of familial love here and there. Grace is a revelation as the child prodigy Mary, though I don't quite expect her to be the childhood name that Dakota Fanning was in the noughties. I suspect we'll be seeing her again at some point.
It was nice to see Captain America swap his tights and shield for jeans and a workman's tools for a change.
7.5/10
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Family Matters: A Review of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
written and directed by James Gunn
Three years after James Gunn and his cast and crew showed the world that D-list Marvel characters can sell movie tickets like hotcakes, they've come back with a sequel just as irreverent and zany as the first film, but which actually has something surprisingly meaningful to say about the importance of family.
The film begins in 1980, with a young couple in love driving through Missouri and the man (a de-aged Kurt Russell) showing off to his blushing bride (Laura Haddock) something mysterious he has planted in the soil.
Thirty-four years later and several billion kilometers away, Peter Quill aka Starlord (Chris Pratt) and the rest of the Guardians of the Galaxy, Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Drax (Dave Bautista), Rocket (Bradley Cooper) and Baby Groot (Vin Diesel) perform a job for the Sovereign, a race of golden-skinned perfectionists headed by the imperious Ayesha (Elizabeth Debicki), which involves protecting several large batteries from the Abilisk, a monster with an appetite for the batteries. In exchange, they get Gamora's estranged sister Nebula (Karen Gillan) who has several bounties on her head. All is going well when the larcenous Rocket decides he can't help himself and decides to steal smaller versions of the very batteries the Guardians were supposed to be protecting, thus bringing the wrath of the Sovereign down upon them. All looks lost for Starlord and his crew when a mysterious craft saves them from certain annihilation. In that craft just happens to be the man from the beginning of the film (a properly aged Kurt Russell this time), who introduces himself as Ego, Peter's father. Ego takes Peter, Gamora and Drax to his home planet, where they meet Mantis (Pom Klementieff) an empath who knows more about Ego than she lets on at first, while Rocket and Baby Groot stay behind on the planet where their ship has crashed to keep watch on the captured Nebula and to repair the ship.
Ayesha, however, is keen on revenge, and thus hires Yondu (Michael Rooker) to bring the Guardians in. Yondu has his own problems; he has just been excommunicated from his group, the Ravagers by their supreme leader Stakar (Sylvester Stallone) for some transgression involving the trafficking of children, and has to deal with the mutinous Taserface (Chris Sullivan).
For Peter, meeting his dad is a wish come true, but he's got quite a few questions, and he may not like the answers to some of them.
The first movie was an unabashedly buoyant affair, and this one continues that tradition, though not quite with the same effect. I found myself pleasantly surprised by the way the family dynamics played out in the film. There's the obvious father-and-son dynamic between Peter and his dad Ego, the sister dynamic between Gamora and Nebula, and the whole dysfunctional family vibe of the Guardians in general, but there were some surprises along the way as the film talked about how growing up without a family can affect someone, specifically the likes of Rocket and Yondu. It was the latter's arc which was surprisingly poignant as the nature of his relationship with Peter, as well as the reasons behind his decision not to deliver an eight-year-old Peter to his father like he was hired to do, become much clearer in this film.
As a father of four I was particularly affected by this movie and found myself relating most of all to Kurt Russell's Ego and actually taking the time to examine my parenting, especially given that I have two children navigating adolescence.
Ego is an aptly named character, and the fanboys who may have been annoyed that he wasn't introduced as a giant planet (considering that he is called "The Living Planet" in the comics) will be relieved to see that this aspect of the character is covered, although the visual representation of the character's most basic "core" is a little goofy. The thing is, he's the avatar for parents everywhere who think they want the best for their kids but are really just projecting their own desires for greatness onto them. I don't dare go any further lest I spoil plot points.
For me, though, some of Marvel's usual issues here, that of a lack of decent bad guys or multi-dimensional, strong female characters, are quite adequately addressed here.
The visuals are noticeably more elaborate this time around. The action sequences are definitely on a grander scale with the opening battle with the Abilisk setting the tone for how things will play out, and they just get better from that point onward. I confess to being a little disappointed that I didn't get to see more of Gamora or Nebula kicking butt in hand-to-hand sequences, or more dogfights featuring the Milano, but there was more than enough action in other aspects to make up for whatever the film was lacking. For me, though the visual money shots were on Ego's drop-dead gorgeous planet, which in many of the shots looks like the kind of place I'd like to go when I die.
I can't completely lavish this film with praise, though; some of the writing disagreed with me. It's explained to an extent that Rocket does boneheaded things like steal batteries from his employers because he is who he is, but it didn't sit too well with me. There were also other gaffes in the writing that just came across as illogical to me, like how it took the Ravagers several decades to get angry with Yondu for his trafficking activities considering that the last child he trafficked was Quill, something like twenty-odd years earlier. I also had a beef with one of the central aspects of the marketing, which had to do with Rocket's makeshift bomb. Why on earth did he put a button that could destroy everyone, considering he was the one who made the bomb? It seemed like a lot of writing solely in service of a joke that wasn't all that funny.
Still, notwithstanding some issues I had with Gunn's writing and storytelling rhythm I think this movie hit all of its key storytelling beats. It's not the corporate product some of the more cynical reviewers make it out to be, and while it's a far cry from the best the Marvel Cinematic Universe has had to offer and doesn't quite live up to its off-the-wall predecessor, it's still a worthy addition to the canon. Also, it has the added bonus of not beating viewers over the head with the impending "Infinity War" mega-crossover film just on the horizon.
8/10
Three years after James Gunn and his cast and crew showed the world that D-list Marvel characters can sell movie tickets like hotcakes, they've come back with a sequel just as irreverent and zany as the first film, but which actually has something surprisingly meaningful to say about the importance of family.
The film begins in 1980, with a young couple in love driving through Missouri and the man (a de-aged Kurt Russell) showing off to his blushing bride (Laura Haddock) something mysterious he has planted in the soil.
Thirty-four years later and several billion kilometers away, Peter Quill aka Starlord (Chris Pratt) and the rest of the Guardians of the Galaxy, Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Drax (Dave Bautista), Rocket (Bradley Cooper) and Baby Groot (Vin Diesel) perform a job for the Sovereign, a race of golden-skinned perfectionists headed by the imperious Ayesha (Elizabeth Debicki), which involves protecting several large batteries from the Abilisk, a monster with an appetite for the batteries. In exchange, they get Gamora's estranged sister Nebula (Karen Gillan) who has several bounties on her head. All is going well when the larcenous Rocket decides he can't help himself and decides to steal smaller versions of the very batteries the Guardians were supposed to be protecting, thus bringing the wrath of the Sovereign down upon them. All looks lost for Starlord and his crew when a mysterious craft saves them from certain annihilation. In that craft just happens to be the man from the beginning of the film (a properly aged Kurt Russell this time), who introduces himself as Ego, Peter's father. Ego takes Peter, Gamora and Drax to his home planet, where they meet Mantis (Pom Klementieff) an empath who knows more about Ego than she lets on at first, while Rocket and Baby Groot stay behind on the planet where their ship has crashed to keep watch on the captured Nebula and to repair the ship.
Ayesha, however, is keen on revenge, and thus hires Yondu (Michael Rooker) to bring the Guardians in. Yondu has his own problems; he has just been excommunicated from his group, the Ravagers by their supreme leader Stakar (Sylvester Stallone) for some transgression involving the trafficking of children, and has to deal with the mutinous Taserface (Chris Sullivan).
For Peter, meeting his dad is a wish come true, but he's got quite a few questions, and he may not like the answers to some of them.
The first movie was an unabashedly buoyant affair, and this one continues that tradition, though not quite with the same effect. I found myself pleasantly surprised by the way the family dynamics played out in the film. There's the obvious father-and-son dynamic between Peter and his dad Ego, the sister dynamic between Gamora and Nebula, and the whole dysfunctional family vibe of the Guardians in general, but there were some surprises along the way as the film talked about how growing up without a family can affect someone, specifically the likes of Rocket and Yondu. It was the latter's arc which was surprisingly poignant as the nature of his relationship with Peter, as well as the reasons behind his decision not to deliver an eight-year-old Peter to his father like he was hired to do, become much clearer in this film.
As a father of four I was particularly affected by this movie and found myself relating most of all to Kurt Russell's Ego and actually taking the time to examine my parenting, especially given that I have two children navigating adolescence.
Ego is an aptly named character, and the fanboys who may have been annoyed that he wasn't introduced as a giant planet (considering that he is called "The Living Planet" in the comics) will be relieved to see that this aspect of the character is covered, although the visual representation of the character's most basic "core" is a little goofy. The thing is, he's the avatar for parents everywhere who think they want the best for their kids but are really just projecting their own desires for greatness onto them. I don't dare go any further lest I spoil plot points.
For me, though, some of Marvel's usual issues here, that of a lack of decent bad guys or multi-dimensional, strong female characters, are quite adequately addressed here.
The visuals are noticeably more elaborate this time around. The action sequences are definitely on a grander scale with the opening battle with the Abilisk setting the tone for how things will play out, and they just get better from that point onward. I confess to being a little disappointed that I didn't get to see more of Gamora or Nebula kicking butt in hand-to-hand sequences, or more dogfights featuring the Milano, but there was more than enough action in other aspects to make up for whatever the film was lacking. For me, though the visual money shots were on Ego's drop-dead gorgeous planet, which in many of the shots looks like the kind of place I'd like to go when I die.
I can't completely lavish this film with praise, though; some of the writing disagreed with me. It's explained to an extent that Rocket does boneheaded things like steal batteries from his employers because he is who he is, but it didn't sit too well with me. There were also other gaffes in the writing that just came across as illogical to me, like how it took the Ravagers several decades to get angry with Yondu for his trafficking activities considering that the last child he trafficked was Quill, something like twenty-odd years earlier. I also had a beef with one of the central aspects of the marketing, which had to do with Rocket's makeshift bomb. Why on earth did he put a button that could destroy everyone, considering he was the one who made the bomb? It seemed like a lot of writing solely in service of a joke that wasn't all that funny.
Still, notwithstanding some issues I had with Gunn's writing and storytelling rhythm I think this movie hit all of its key storytelling beats. It's not the corporate product some of the more cynical reviewers make it out to be, and while it's a far cry from the best the Marvel Cinematic Universe has had to offer and doesn't quite live up to its off-the-wall predecessor, it's still a worthy addition to the canon. Also, it has the added bonus of not beating viewers over the head with the impending "Infinity War" mega-crossover film just on the horizon.
8/10
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Enchanté: A Review of Beauty and the Beast
directed by Bill Condon
written by Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos
The tale as old as time gets a new treatment as Walt Disney Pictures releases yet another live-action update of one of its animated classics, arguably one of its most beloved in Beauty and the Beast.
This story is virtually identical to that of the 1991 animated film, which in turn was based loosely on the fairy tale by Jeanne Marie Leprince de Beaumont. A selfish prince (Dan Stevens) is cursed by an enchantress (Hattie Morahan), who transforms him into a monstrous beast, and all his servants (who are apparently guilty by association) into magical housewares. He is given a magical rose, and the opportunity to break the curse, if he can love and earn the love of another before the last petal falls. Otherwise, he shall remain a beast forever.
Years later, the old inventor Maurice (Kevin Kline) and his daughter Belle (Emma Watson), move into a quaint village in the French countryside where Belle, a literate and bright young girl, is an anomaly among the simple country folk, who don't think a woman should be reading. Among them is the arrogant Gaston (Luke Evans) perpetually accompanied by his sidekick and number one fan LeFou (Josh Gad) who wants to mary Belle. Maurice goes on a trip, and Belle asks him to bring her back a rose. He gets lost in the woods and finds himself at the door of the cursed prince's enchanted castle. He plucks a rose from the castle's hedges and the prince accosts him and throws him in prison, though his horse escapes. The horse makes his way to Belle, who goes to the castle and takes her father's place as the beast's prisoner. As Belle spends time with the Beast and his staff, she learns of their plight, and of the curse. What she doesn't know is that she could be key to breaking it.
At the very outset, I was struck by how much thought went into writing the script for this remake; while they clearly strove to be as faithful to the animated original as possible, it's clear that the writers took note of all the gaffes in storytelling logic that were littered all throughout the original film, first and foremost being: if he's a prince, then how is it no one even knows he exists? (Answer: the enchantress made everyone forget about him, his servants and their entire history) There were a number of other questions answered along the way, too, like why would the enchantress curse an 11-year-old (answer: he's of the age of majority when cursed here, and it is left open ended as to how long the enchantment has lasted), why the heck does Belle borrow a book from a book STORE (answer: she borrows them from a church), how the heck does Belle lift the stricken Beast off the ground to get him back to his castle after he's been savaged by wolves (answer: she gets him to stand up) and even one involving the film's climax, which I won't spoil even though most people who'll read this review will no doubt have seen the original. I also appreciated how the writers reincorporated the father's act of picking a flower into the story; this was part of the original fairy tale but was left out of the 1991 film. It added an element of whimsy to the film which is, after all, still a fairy tale.
Not all of the rewriting works, though; efforts to make Evans' Gaston (more on him later) less cartoonish just make the dialogue a bit awkward, and backstory about both the prince's and Belle's mothers feels somewhat shoehorned in. It's clear enough, though, that a lot of these little touches were added to make Belle's and the prince's inevitable mutual affection seem less like the product of Stockholm Syndrome. Overall, I appreciated the effort to try and make the movie impervious to an "Honest Trailer."
Of course, writing is but one component of the movie, and a property as beloved as this one will truly rise and fall on the performances of the actors. The good news is that Emma Watson turns in a spirited performance as Belle, one for which she will no doubt be remembered fondly by millions of fans of the original film. She really captures the main qualities of the character: her Belle is capable, courageous and compassionate. The only problem for me was that, well, I don't think Watson sings very well. Stevens does a commendable job as the Beast, even working through all of the computer-generated, motion-captured imagery, and more importantly his chemistry with Watson works wonderfully. For me, he still doesn't quite evoke the spirit of the unnamed prince's tortured soul quite as well as Glen Keane's magnificent animated creation did twenty-six years ago, but he certainly gives it the old college try.
I wasn't a big fan, unfortunately of Luke Evans' take on Gaston. He isn't quite alpha-male macho enough, or funny enough in comparison to his animated predecessor. Gaston was one of the broader characters in Disney's villains catalog, and a well-aimed shot at the rampant sexism that prevailed both in Hollywood and society back in 1991. At a time when the President of the United States is basically every cartoon villain ever put together, Disney missed out on a golden opportunity to make their bad guy a consummate, no-holds-barred boor like Donald Trump. They already had a pretty strong template in the original Gaston, voiced to hilarious perfection by Richard White, and then they went and watered him down. To be honest, I had no problem whatsoever with Josh Gad's LeFou being openly gay; I thought Disney's act of making one of their most entertaining villains shockingly bland was the real sin here.
Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Audra McDonald, Nathan Mack and Stanley Tucci, as the cursed staff, who have been transformed into various household implements do solid work in comparison to the likes of Jerry Orbach, David Odgen Stiers and Angela Lansbury, even if McGregor's take on Be Our Guest doesn't quite measure up to the late Orbach's original rendition, due in equal parts to his vocals and to some rather dodgy computer-generated imagery.
And that brings me to the next problem of the film: after the visual triumph that Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book proved to be, I had hoped that Disney had gotten the art of translating its traditional hand-drawn work into computer-generated imagery down pat, but that was definitely not the case with this film. Considering the money poured into this film, the distinctly cartoony CGI was extremely disappointing, especially considering that they resorted to the tired old trick of shrouding much of the CGI in darkness. To be fair, though, the effort invested in bringing the Beast to life paid off quite well.
As for the music, with Watson being kind of "meh" in the singing department and Evans being king of "meh" overall, the musical numbers, which are a crucial component of this film, were somewhat compromised, especially Belle's opening number as well as Gaston's number in the tavern. Alan Menken and Tim Rice give us a number of new songs, but none of them really made an impression on me, with the exception of the relatively low-key song that they gave to Kevin Kline's Maurice, who didn't have any musical numbers in the animated film. It was the only song on the soundtrack that felt like it lent the film a human element and wasn't just tacked on to sell more soundtrack albums/downloads. Menken expanded quite a bit on the original film's score, especially given the extended running time, and it was nice that he wasn't just content to recycle old themes.
Overall, it's a respectable re-imagining of the animated film, but if I'm honest, given how high Disney set the bar with The Jungle Book, and considering the pedigree of the 1991 classic, the first ever animated film to be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture, back when they only nominated five movies at a time, they owed us viewers quite a bit more than "respectable."
6.5/10
written by Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos
The tale as old as time gets a new treatment as Walt Disney Pictures releases yet another live-action update of one of its animated classics, arguably one of its most beloved in Beauty and the Beast.
This story is virtually identical to that of the 1991 animated film, which in turn was based loosely on the fairy tale by Jeanne Marie Leprince de Beaumont. A selfish prince (Dan Stevens) is cursed by an enchantress (Hattie Morahan), who transforms him into a monstrous beast, and all his servants (who are apparently guilty by association) into magical housewares. He is given a magical rose, and the opportunity to break the curse, if he can love and earn the love of another before the last petal falls. Otherwise, he shall remain a beast forever.
Years later, the old inventor Maurice (Kevin Kline) and his daughter Belle (Emma Watson), move into a quaint village in the French countryside where Belle, a literate and bright young girl, is an anomaly among the simple country folk, who don't think a woman should be reading. Among them is the arrogant Gaston (Luke Evans) perpetually accompanied by his sidekick and number one fan LeFou (Josh Gad) who wants to mary Belle. Maurice goes on a trip, and Belle asks him to bring her back a rose. He gets lost in the woods and finds himself at the door of the cursed prince's enchanted castle. He plucks a rose from the castle's hedges and the prince accosts him and throws him in prison, though his horse escapes. The horse makes his way to Belle, who goes to the castle and takes her father's place as the beast's prisoner. As Belle spends time with the Beast and his staff, she learns of their plight, and of the curse. What she doesn't know is that she could be key to breaking it.
At the very outset, I was struck by how much thought went into writing the script for this remake; while they clearly strove to be as faithful to the animated original as possible, it's clear that the writers took note of all the gaffes in storytelling logic that were littered all throughout the original film, first and foremost being: if he's a prince, then how is it no one even knows he exists? (Answer: the enchantress made everyone forget about him, his servants and their entire history) There were a number of other questions answered along the way, too, like why would the enchantress curse an 11-year-old (answer: he's of the age of majority when cursed here, and it is left open ended as to how long the enchantment has lasted), why the heck does Belle borrow a book from a book STORE (answer: she borrows them from a church), how the heck does Belle lift the stricken Beast off the ground to get him back to his castle after he's been savaged by wolves (answer: she gets him to stand up) and even one involving the film's climax, which I won't spoil even though most people who'll read this review will no doubt have seen the original. I also appreciated how the writers reincorporated the father's act of picking a flower into the story; this was part of the original fairy tale but was left out of the 1991 film. It added an element of whimsy to the film which is, after all, still a fairy tale.
Not all of the rewriting works, though; efforts to make Evans' Gaston (more on him later) less cartoonish just make the dialogue a bit awkward, and backstory about both the prince's and Belle's mothers feels somewhat shoehorned in. It's clear enough, though, that a lot of these little touches were added to make Belle's and the prince's inevitable mutual affection seem less like the product of Stockholm Syndrome. Overall, I appreciated the effort to try and make the movie impervious to an "Honest Trailer."
Of course, writing is but one component of the movie, and a property as beloved as this one will truly rise and fall on the performances of the actors. The good news is that Emma Watson turns in a spirited performance as Belle, one for which she will no doubt be remembered fondly by millions of fans of the original film. She really captures the main qualities of the character: her Belle is capable, courageous and compassionate. The only problem for me was that, well, I don't think Watson sings very well. Stevens does a commendable job as the Beast, even working through all of the computer-generated, motion-captured imagery, and more importantly his chemistry with Watson works wonderfully. For me, he still doesn't quite evoke the spirit of the unnamed prince's tortured soul quite as well as Glen Keane's magnificent animated creation did twenty-six years ago, but he certainly gives it the old college try.
I wasn't a big fan, unfortunately of Luke Evans' take on Gaston. He isn't quite alpha-male macho enough, or funny enough in comparison to his animated predecessor. Gaston was one of the broader characters in Disney's villains catalog, and a well-aimed shot at the rampant sexism that prevailed both in Hollywood and society back in 1991. At a time when the President of the United States is basically every cartoon villain ever put together, Disney missed out on a golden opportunity to make their bad guy a consummate, no-holds-barred boor like Donald Trump. They already had a pretty strong template in the original Gaston, voiced to hilarious perfection by Richard White, and then they went and watered him down. To be honest, I had no problem whatsoever with Josh Gad's LeFou being openly gay; I thought Disney's act of making one of their most entertaining villains shockingly bland was the real sin here.
Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Audra McDonald, Nathan Mack and Stanley Tucci, as the cursed staff, who have been transformed into various household implements do solid work in comparison to the likes of Jerry Orbach, David Odgen Stiers and Angela Lansbury, even if McGregor's take on Be Our Guest doesn't quite measure up to the late Orbach's original rendition, due in equal parts to his vocals and to some rather dodgy computer-generated imagery.
And that brings me to the next problem of the film: after the visual triumph that Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book proved to be, I had hoped that Disney had gotten the art of translating its traditional hand-drawn work into computer-generated imagery down pat, but that was definitely not the case with this film. Considering the money poured into this film, the distinctly cartoony CGI was extremely disappointing, especially considering that they resorted to the tired old trick of shrouding much of the CGI in darkness. To be fair, though, the effort invested in bringing the Beast to life paid off quite well.
As for the music, with Watson being kind of "meh" in the singing department and Evans being king of "meh" overall, the musical numbers, which are a crucial component of this film, were somewhat compromised, especially Belle's opening number as well as Gaston's number in the tavern. Alan Menken and Tim Rice give us a number of new songs, but none of them really made an impression on me, with the exception of the relatively low-key song that they gave to Kevin Kline's Maurice, who didn't have any musical numbers in the animated film. It was the only song on the soundtrack that felt like it lent the film a human element and wasn't just tacked on to sell more soundtrack albums/downloads. Menken expanded quite a bit on the original film's score, especially given the extended running time, and it was nice that he wasn't just content to recycle old themes.
Overall, it's a respectable re-imagining of the animated film, but if I'm honest, given how high Disney set the bar with The Jungle Book, and considering the pedigree of the 1991 classic, the first ever animated film to be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture, back when they only nominated five movies at a time, they owed us viewers quite a bit more than "respectable."
6.5/10
End of the Line: A Review of Logan
directed by James Mangold
written by Scott Frank, Michael Green and Mangold
Seventeen years after Hugh Jackman brought the fan-favorite X-Men character Wolverine to life, he finally brings his tenure as the much-beloved character to an end in the unrelentingly bleak, but surprisingly powerful depiction of mutant dystopia that is Logan.
It is the year 2029, just six years after the events of X-Men: Days of Future Past in which Logan, going back in time to 1973, prevented a cataclysmic event from destroying mutantkind, we find Logan (Hugh Jackman) living in Mexico in an abandoned facility with Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), a year after a cataclysmic event that has apparently destroyed mutantkind. Apparently mutants just can't catch a break; rather than killer robots, this time mutants, including most, if not all of the X-Men, have been wiped out by no less than Charles Xavier's uncontrollable mutant brain, which apparently has gotten more dangerous as he has aged.
Logan and Xavier would be more than content to live our their lives in seclusion with their fellow mutant/manservant Caliban (Stephen Mercant), with Logan working as a limousine driver and Xavier spending his days either lying down or tending to plants in a collapsed watertower while heavily medicated. Logan's great ambition at this point is to buy a boat where he and Xavier can live the rest of their lives, without posing a danger to anyone.
Things are turned upside-down, though, when the feral Laura (Daphne Keen) is dropped into their lives. A product of illegal experiments, she has more in common with Logan than he realizes, and he, Charles and their new ward soon find themselves on the run from the malevolent Pierce (Boyd Holbrook), his gang of Reavers, and Dr. Zander Rice (Richard E. Grant), the brains behind the project that created Laura.
This marks the second movie in a row I've watched with gut-wrenching violence and I have to say that I wasn't altogether too fond of all the gore. While there was something gratifying about seeing Wolverine go into his berserker rage in the first half of the movie or so, for me the over-the-top violence got pretty old pretty quickly. Also, the little-kid-as-a-murder-machine story device was played out as early as 2010's Kick-Ass. It lost its novelty quite some time ago. Logan's reluctant dad shtick was also better done when Jackman did Real Steel six years ago. Also, the third act final chase scene felt rather clumsily choreographed and edited, and while it was nowhere near as goofy as the climax of Mangold's The Wolverine turned out to be, it deflated quite a bit of the narrative tension.
On the whole, the movie is basically an extended chase scene, and to Mangold's credit his sense of pacing is quite good right up until the last act. His strength is that he evokes a genuine sense of peril. Mutantkind is on the verge of extinction, after all, and no one is safe here. This is the first superhero movie which actually puts lead characters in genuine mortal danger, with actual consequences. That's about as "spoilery" as I'll get.
Another thing I appreciated was the dialogue between Logan and Charles, and how a lot of their conversations about how they had longed to live out their lives. The most moving scene in the movie for me was the one where Xavier is lying in bed, in a farmer's house, and he says out loud that he's had the best day he's had in a long time, even if he feels he doesn't deserve it. It was a moving moment, and what immediately followed it made it all the more tragic. Jackman and Stewart are in top form here, and while awards bodies are notoriously biased against this genre of film I wouldn't be completely surprised if one or both of them snagged some form of recognition for their work on this movie.
For me, the movie's virtue lies in its reflections on growing older and wondering exactly what one has achieved with one's life. That resonated with me quite a bit more than the outlandish action sequences. I genuinely enjoyed the more contemplative moments of the movie where the characters appreciate the value of family, as Logan does at a crucial moment in the film when he says: "So this is what it feels like."
So long, Hugh. Thanks for some great times at the movies with Wolverine!
7.5/10
written by Scott Frank, Michael Green and Mangold
Seventeen years after Hugh Jackman brought the fan-favorite X-Men character Wolverine to life, he finally brings his tenure as the much-beloved character to an end in the unrelentingly bleak, but surprisingly powerful depiction of mutant dystopia that is Logan.
It is the year 2029, just six years after the events of X-Men: Days of Future Past in which Logan, going back in time to 1973, prevented a cataclysmic event from destroying mutantkind, we find Logan (Hugh Jackman) living in Mexico in an abandoned facility with Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), a year after a cataclysmic event that has apparently destroyed mutantkind. Apparently mutants just can't catch a break; rather than killer robots, this time mutants, including most, if not all of the X-Men, have been wiped out by no less than Charles Xavier's uncontrollable mutant brain, which apparently has gotten more dangerous as he has aged.
Logan and Xavier would be more than content to live our their lives in seclusion with their fellow mutant/manservant Caliban (Stephen Mercant), with Logan working as a limousine driver and Xavier spending his days either lying down or tending to plants in a collapsed watertower while heavily medicated. Logan's great ambition at this point is to buy a boat where he and Xavier can live the rest of their lives, without posing a danger to anyone.
Things are turned upside-down, though, when the feral Laura (Daphne Keen) is dropped into their lives. A product of illegal experiments, she has more in common with Logan than he realizes, and he, Charles and their new ward soon find themselves on the run from the malevolent Pierce (Boyd Holbrook), his gang of Reavers, and Dr. Zander Rice (Richard E. Grant), the brains behind the project that created Laura.
This marks the second movie in a row I've watched with gut-wrenching violence and I have to say that I wasn't altogether too fond of all the gore. While there was something gratifying about seeing Wolverine go into his berserker rage in the first half of the movie or so, for me the over-the-top violence got pretty old pretty quickly. Also, the little-kid-as-a-murder-machine story device was played out as early as 2010's Kick-Ass. It lost its novelty quite some time ago. Logan's reluctant dad shtick was also better done when Jackman did Real Steel six years ago. Also, the third act final chase scene felt rather clumsily choreographed and edited, and while it was nowhere near as goofy as the climax of Mangold's The Wolverine turned out to be, it deflated quite a bit of the narrative tension.
On the whole, the movie is basically an extended chase scene, and to Mangold's credit his sense of pacing is quite good right up until the last act. His strength is that he evokes a genuine sense of peril. Mutantkind is on the verge of extinction, after all, and no one is safe here. This is the first superhero movie which actually puts lead characters in genuine mortal danger, with actual consequences. That's about as "spoilery" as I'll get.
Another thing I appreciated was the dialogue between Logan and Charles, and how a lot of their conversations about how they had longed to live out their lives. The most moving scene in the movie for me was the one where Xavier is lying in bed, in a farmer's house, and he says out loud that he's had the best day he's had in a long time, even if he feels he doesn't deserve it. It was a moving moment, and what immediately followed it made it all the more tragic. Jackman and Stewart are in top form here, and while awards bodies are notoriously biased against this genre of film I wouldn't be completely surprised if one or both of them snagged some form of recognition for their work on this movie.
For me, the movie's virtue lies in its reflections on growing older and wondering exactly what one has achieved with one's life. That resonated with me quite a bit more than the outlandish action sequences. I genuinely enjoyed the more contemplative moments of the movie where the characters appreciate the value of family, as Logan does at a crucial moment in the film when he says: "So this is what it feels like."
So long, Hugh. Thanks for some great times at the movies with Wolverine!
7.5/10
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)