Imagine a world where superheroes exist.  Where a man can have ultimate power over the life and death of another, and there is very little that can be done to police or stop him if his desires turn out to be more, ahem, human than superhuman.  Such a person could kill with impunity, rape without consequence, steal without repercussion.  In short, the only thing keeping such a being from doing these things is the fine line of a well-developed system of ethics and mores, which most of us simply do not have.

It is precisely because of the part of a superhero that is human that a true superhero would likely turn out to be more of a curse than a blessing.  We cannot expect more of anyone than we could offer of ourselves, and there are not many of us able to deal with omnipotence.  For impotence we have Viagra.  For omnipotence, well. . . .

As with the book, the movie is a very complex work.  And while a comic book lends itself to the ability to flip back to a previous point to review something missed or overlooked the first time around, a movie has to convey all of the information in a linear fashion, with obligatory flash-backs as a way to provide backstory for the main characters.  Because of these interruptions in flow, the movie at times seems to progress in fits and starts.

At times, I found myself wishing that Snyder had kept the movie at its original running time (rumor has it the original edited film ran north of 200 minutes), or that the film had been split into two separate films to allow for better exposition to occur.  In a way, I hope that Snyder will release a “director’s cut” of the film on DVD (as with the Lord of the Rings saga) to provide his vision with more depth.

This movie is not without problems.  While some of the casting is literally awe-inspiring (I particularly liked Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan and Jackie Earl Haley as Rorschach), I was not as impressed with Ozymandias and Silk Spectre II (Mathew Goode and Malin Ackerman).

I would grade the book at **** Jessicas out of four and the movie at ***.  I am not certain how any director could have made the book adaptation any better and still been faithful to the original book.

Take, for example, his film 28 Days Later.  At the time that this film went into production, films featuring zombies in pursuit of human prey had fallen out of favor.  Romero’s Dawn of the Dead series, while frightening and chilling in a way, depicted slow, stumbling and rather stupid zombies dragging their way after much quicker and smarter humans.  28 Days Later, which is arguably one of the most frightening zombie films ever created, re-imagined the zombie threat into something much more visceral.  One critic I read described the zombies in the film as “meat-seeking missiles” which is both descriptive and grotesque but echoes my point.

Sunshine was another case in point.  Science fiction films have become a mainstay of modern cinema, but such films are bloated with action and computer-generated special effects.  Enter Boyle.  Instead of CG, Boyle uses a projected image of the Sun to stunning effect, as in one scene a moon-sized Mercury slides across the violent surface of the star with all the crew in attendance.  The film is visually stunning, and recalls visuals from 2001 and Alien.  This excellent movie was made for a pittance in modern day cinema, $20 million, and it looks like a movie costing five times as much.

Slumdog Millionaire is a brilliant film.  It is both tragic and uplifting, beautiful and grotesque, filled with love and hate.  It is the inter-meshing of opposites in this film that give it its raw narrative power.  In the end, the audience is driven almost to the point of hysteria hoping that the young lead will win his heart’s desire.  And this is an independent film, made without notable CG effects, for a pittance. . . .

My sincere hope is that the movie industry will use Slumdog as a rallying cry to make necessary changes in the manner by which new films are made.  If such a fantastic film can be made for such a small amount of money and still be ridiculously profitable, perhaps more of the movie industry’s money should be directed toward simpler efforts.  We don’t need Die Hard 5; He’s Really Pissed Off Now, we need more independent films featuring actors we’ve never heard of, stories we’ve never seen, in places we are unfamiliar with.

Long live the indies!

Peter Segal (50 First Dates, Anger Management) throws his hat into the ring as director and succeeds at putting together a slick evenly-toned effort, allowing the audience to laugh at and still feel for each of the characters. There’s even a moment for the BMI-challenged people in the audience to get an “in-your-face” trice to all the anorexic models out there.

Every actor puts forward a good effort as well. Anne Hathaway, as the pulse-pounder Agent 99, does her gender proud with a performance equaled only by her surreal (and inexplicable) beauty. Never have I seen her look so beautiful and yet think of her as a smarty-pants. At the same time, Dwayne Johnson stuns yet again as the suave and successful Agent 23. He seems to have more than what most action heroes do in the classic sense: Not only does he have the body of a Greek God but he’s smooth, smart and speaks English properly.

But the stalwart heart of this summer romp is the dead-pan, sardonic Carell. He’s believable as the smart Maxwell Smart should be and as bobbled in his bone-headed mistakes to boot. Oh, and the man can pull off action hero. Carell’s performance left me desperate for the sequel as soon as I got up to walk out of the theater.

This movie does have it’s downsides. First and foremost, the majority of the funniest sequences happen in the first 45 minutes. After that, it drags sluggishly towards the finish creating a movie that seems a bit longer than the 110 minute run-time. The other thing that seemed a little out of place is the blatant critiques of government. When you have a movie parodying intelligence agencies and doing a damn fine job of it, there’s no need for little lines that come right out and say what you’re already showing. There are quite a few of these lines throughout the movie and seem to take away from the interesting parody.

Nevertheless, for the few downsides this movie has it is still a very enjoyable film. There are plenty of laughs — whether slapstick, gross out or sarcasm — to go around, some fine acting on display, and some above-the-line brilliance in this flawed but enjoyable fair.

And there really can never be enough Steve Carell.

(***) Jessicas out of four. This movie was quite the hilarious summer movie that makes you leave with a smile on your face, whether you wanted to or not.

No doubt, Jon Favreau has done some quality work behind the camera. Who knew he was saving his best until now? I didn’t. But I do know this: Iron Man freakin’ rocked my face off.

As my brother recently articulated, Iron Man is the story of the enigmatically suave tech geek Tony Stark and his change from carefree weapons manufacturer to rocket propelled super-hero. The movie is rife with quick, witty humor and intensely paced action. Without a doubt, Robert Downey, Jr. deserves much of the credit for bringing a charm to Stark that might have otherwise been missing.

The really great thing about this movie, though, is the direction by the aforementioned Favreau. He brilliantly balances character development, action, humor and special effects to create something that is more than just a super-hero movie. Not surprisingly, this balance leads to a level of believability that lets the audience relate to the hero on screen, even if he is in a giant titanium suit.

Overall, I was really impressed with this movie. I found myself thoroughly engrossed throughout the entire event and finally saw a movie I wasn’t ashamed to have paid for on opening weekend.

(***) Jessicas out of four. See it, love it.

AK

Iron Man is another comic-book-to-movie franchise following in the footsteps of Raimi’s Spiderman, Nolan’s Batman Begins, and the more recent X-Men and Superman movies. It provides a bit of interesting political commentary as well, which seems all the more salient when viewed in light of the current situation in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Iron Man is the story of an arrogant and self-centered arms developer, Tony Stark, (Robert Downey Jr.) who spends much of his time womanizing, repairing hot rods and developing new and more destructive weapons.

After a flawless and dramatic demonstration of Stark’s new and highly destructive “Jericho” missile system to troops in Afghanistan, his convoy is attacked and he is taken prisoner by a group of Afghani rebels. During the attack, his chest is perforated with pieces of metallic shrapnel from one of the weapons that Stark Industries had created. The pieces of shrapnel, the audience is told, are working their way toward his heart. As a result, a large electromagnet is placed into the center of his chest to prevent migration of this shrapnel. This magnet is connected to a large car battery for power.

Stark decides to develop a new form of portable nuclear reactor as a power source for his electromagnet. This results in an invention that is the technological key to the entire movie; a small glowing disc that produces vast amounts of power.

The invention allows Stark to continue to live, but also allows him to build a small, lithe suit out of “gold and titanium.” This eliminates the car battery, but also allows him to have enough power to fly faster than a fighter jet and lift a car without having to carry a school bus full of deep cycle batteries to do so (a good thing, too, since school buses are not very aerodynamic).

But I am getting ahead of myself. While in the Afghani dungeon building his “Jericho” missile, he secretly builds an iron suit armed with two flamethrowers which he utilizes to make his escape.

Stark returns to the United States a changed man, regretting the trauma and loss of life that his military inventions have wrought. He attempts to turn around his company to manufacture non-military goods, but is rebuffed by Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges), his father’s second-in-command and head of the board of directors for Stark Industries.

Stark returns to his opulent modern home to recuperate, but decides instead to build another suit to enable him to help destroy the terrible weapons that his company had created.

And Iron Man is born. . . .

Downey’s Stark is almost believable as a techno-nerd, albeit one with pretty decent luck with women (a relatively rare trait amongst normal nerd mortals). He absent-mindedly talks techie jargon to himself while making adjustments to his titanium exoskeleton and flight control system, lending a veneer of believability to his mechanical genius.

Downey is also funny in both a slapstick and witty fashion. His character has a sardonic sense of humor which is used very effectively throughout the film. There is also a large amount of physical humor as well, particularly during a scene where Stark is testing the suit’s propulsion system and inadvertently flips himself up against a concrete ceiling. Although he lacks much of the boy-next-door charm of Peter Parker, he makes up for it with a quick wit and easy smile.

Stark is assisted by the ever-enduring and ever-faithful Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). Pepper is modest and supportive, providing a counterpoint to Stark’s womanizing flirtatiousness. As a fixture in all movies of this genre, she plays his romantic interest, a fact which Stark even jokes about at one point. Although the relationship is never consummated with an upside-down kiss in the rain, it is hinted that the two of them secretly love one another.

The film is peppered with a huge quantity of very good visual effects. Jon Favreau, who both directs the film and stars as one of Stark’s bodyguards, shows remarkable restraint by using special effects that are necessary and add to the plot, rather than simply thrown in because they are “cool.” The effects that are utilized appear very well done, as befits the continued maturation of Lucas’ powerhouse, Industrial Light and Magic (ILM).

There is little to criticize in this film. It is fun, interesting and an enjoyable evening at the movies. I give it three (***) Jessicas out of a possible four.

EK

It is the story of a stodgy and dislikeable english professor at Carnegie-Mellon University named Lawrence Wetherhold (Dennis Quaid). Lawrence is a widower, having lost his wife at some unknown point in the past. He has been raising a son and daughter on his own, but has remained so emotionally distant that his son is estranged from him and his daughter is so hungry for affection that she tries to seduce her uncle.

Everything changes for Lawrence when he goes to visit his son at college. After the inadvertent and unexpected discovery that his son is a poet, his car is towed. He realizes that his latest manuscript is in the back seat of the car, and tries to “liberate” the manuscript from the impounded vehicle.

While climbing the fence he falls, striking his head and suffering a “traumatic seizure.” This accomplishes two narrative tasks, introduces him to Dr. Janet Hartigan (Sarah Jessica Parker), and keeps him from being able to drive for six months.

As a result, Larry hires his adopted brother, Chuck (Thomas Haden Church), to drive for him. Chuck provides a pot-smoking, frat-boy counterpoint to Larry’s stodgy, alcoholic professor. He is also, unsurprisingly, the answer to the family’s needs. . . .

I have to admit that I was somewhat put off by the movie’s medical inaccuracies. For example, in one scene a neurologist examines a head injury patient with a slit lamp instead of the direct ophthalmoscope that would have been much more likely. For most viewers this oversight would not present a problem, however for me it was a glaring medical error that diluted some of my enjoyment of the film.

In another scene, the main character, Larry Wetherhold, is evaluated in an emergency department following a fall. He is told by Dr. Janet Hartigan that he has suffered a “trauma-induced seizure” after the fall and thus cannot drive for six months.

Contrary to what the movie would have viewers believe, traumatic seizures are relatively rare without an aneurysmal bleed, subarachnoid/epidural hematoma or severe pre-existing trauma with resulting encephalomalacia.

Although these errors frustrated me, I suspect they passed unnoticed by most viewers. However, a movie with a significant medical plotline should have a competent medical advisor on staff to prevent such problems.

I enjoyed the movie, despite the above reservations.  I give it (***) three Jessicas out of a possible four.

EK

Roger Donaldson’s new film, The Bank Job, is inconsistent but enjoyable. Donaldson has made his name with prior films such as Cadillac Man, The Getaway, and Thirteen Days.

Reportedly a true story, The Bank Job tells the story of a petty criminal named Terry Leather (played adequately by an uncharacteristically non-choppy-socky Jason Statham) who is offered the opportunity to lead a bank heist. He is joined in his efforts by a motley collection of pseudo-criminals, including the comely Martine Love (Saffron Burrows), soft-featured Dave Shilling (Daniel Mays), and several others.

However, all is not as it seems. The heist is actually an attempt by British Intelligence to obtain a collection of compromising photos taken of Princess Margaret and being used for blackmail. The photos are being held in a safe deposit box, which is the ostensible target for the heist.

To complicate matters, also in the vault is a vast collection of other blackmail material, including compromising pictures of members of parliament, a local pornographer’s ledger for payments made to corrupt cops. This creates a complex web of interaction between seedy police officers, compromised British Intelligence operatives, pornographers and criminals, and our hapless and unsophisticated bank robbers.

The movie begins inconsistently, with a combination of musical montages and stilted interactions between characters on the show. Toward the middle, however, it seems to catch its stride and remains enjoyable through the end of the film.

I enjoyed it overall despite initial mixed feelings about the film. I give it two-and-a-half Jessicas out of four. Certainly worth a rental or matinee.

EK

With so many excellent animated movies being produced these days, a computer animated film produced by Dreamworks and containing the voice talents of Jerry Seinfeld, Renée Zellweger, and Matthew Broderick would seem to be a slam dunk. However, despite these talents, the film never seems to get into a groove.

Bee Movie is the story of a young bee, Barry B. Benson (voiced by Seinfeld), who is confronted at his graduation from Bee school with a sense of Bee existentialism, questioning whether his current existence as a bee is “all that there is.”

While searching for a career, he follows a squadron of bees on a pollen-gathering mission. During his flight, he is knocked from the sky by a droplet of rain and falls into a flowerbed outside of the apartment of florist Vanessa Bloome (voiced by Zellweger). Upon regaining consciousness, he begins a conversation with Vanessa, much to her chagrin.

Vanessa and Barry then develop a relationship, which despite bestiality overtones is (thankfully) never consummated. Barry begins to question the business of beekeeping as an affront to the independence of beekind worldwide. His plight eventually causes bees to stop working, leading to the involution of flowering plants worldwide and (almost) a global catastrophe.

What the film is lacking is a character or relationship that the audience can become invested in. Despite the voice of Seinfeld, Barry seems somehow less relevant without Elaine, Kramer and Jerry.

Even a smattering of feel-good, heavy-handed environmentalism which dilutes the last 30 minutes doesn’t lend the movie any more substance.

Bee Movie is ok, but not great. It has potential, but doesn’t seem to deliver.

I give it ** Jessicas out of four. An ok rental, a disappointing full price investment.

EK

Get ready for a short one.

Uwe Boll directed.

Not sure what that means? He directed Bloodrayne and House of the Dead.

Not good enough for you guys? Burt Reynolds plays a king in medieval times.

That’s all I got because, unfortunately, he didn’t let Kristanna Loken get naked this time. That might have saved this movie.

I’ve almost never done this but 0 Jessicas out of 4. My god this movie might be worse than Battlefield: Earth and that’s saying something. See it if you want to laugh at how crappy it is. Honestly, Peter Jackson should be embarrassed by how good his trilogy is. LOTR looks like Citizen f*cking Cain compared to this drivel.

(EK adds. . . .)

I can see the production planning now. That kick *ss guy from the Transporter–CHECK. Relatively attractive blond chick–CHECK. Burt Reynolds–CHECK. Let’s greenlight the F*cker!This movie was bordering on absolutely terrible. However the WORST of it was not a Burt Reynolds one facelift short of having a chin on his forehead. It also wasn’t casting virtually talentless Matthew Lillard as Duke Fallow (although I liked him in Hackers).

The most gut-wrenching, bile-inducing decision made by the casting director was to place bad boy Ray Liotta as an evil wizard. Ray looked like a reject from an 80’s tv sitcom, with black feathered hair and his mafioso delivery.

Uwe Boll should have to pay a fine for directing this stinker. . . .

(AK piles on…)
My question about this is: How does this guy keep getting financing for this crap? I mean is there really that much money to be tossed around? If so, tell me where it is. Someone could pay me the same amount of money to film myself taking a deuce and I bet it draws a bigger audience. Or at least better reviews.AK

]]> http://cinemaddicts.org/blog/2008/01/24/in-the-name-of-the-king-another-uwe-boll-fiasco/feed/ 2 http://cinemaddicts.org/blog/2008/01/24/avpr/ http://cinemaddicts.org/blog/2008/01/24/avpr/#comments Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:58:44 +0000 FlamingDP http://cinemaddicts.org/blog/2008/01/24/avpr/

Too dark to see any of the overwhelming action? Full of choppy cuts? An Alien with dreadlocks? And this is supposed to be a return to the roots of the Alien so deftly planted by Ridley Scott and James Cameron? Last time I checked, Sigourney Weaver never fought a Rastafarian Alien queen. I shot the sher-iff. . . .But I didn’t shoot the A-li-en. . . .

Now, I have to admit I have a penchant for watching rowdy alien species bashing each others’ faces in. I can even handle the gratuitous use of humans as sharpening tools. What’s more, I can deal with corny stories placing these two storied franchises together on Earth in locations that seem to have nothing in common with their histories’ well-established climatic/geographic preferences (i.e. warm climates or on another planet).

What are hard to deal with are shadows that interfere with the possibly interesting action sequences (aka the Eyes Wide Shut Effect or EWSE), poorly scripted and aimless dialogue, and the fact that these movies look nothing like the originals.

Oh, and did I mention that they put dreadlocks on an Alien? Yeah I can’t believe it either.

So check it. The movie picks up exactly where the first one left off. An Alien/Predator pimp pops out of a dead Predator’s belly. It deads the ship somewhere in Colorado (specifics not important, because it’s about to be populated by hundreds of Aliens, yo) but before the last Predator on the ship gets f*cked up, he throws a text message to his buddy hangin’ out on in the United States of Predation.

His homie gets all “You gotta be sh*ttin’ me, dogg,” and hops on his crotch-rocket headed to Earth to throw down with these bitches killin’ his crew. Oh it’s head bussin’ time, bro. This new Predator pimp lays his sh*t down on these Alien bitches for the next hour and a half. Then he peaces out because of a human nuke. Take that suckas!

I’m not a gangsta, you say? I can’t talk like that? Really? Sorry. I guess I was under the delusion that if you can put dreads on an Alien and call it a return to the classic roots of each series, that I could talk like a G and say that I’m an original gangsta. My bad…

That said, AVP:R isn’t an awful movie, especially not by today’s standard of awful. The biggest problems with it are the writing, directing, acting, and, to various degrees, the cinematography. Jeez. Now that I think about it, it was awful.

The direction, orchestrated by the duo presumptively calling themselves The Brothers Strause, is soggy and and riddled with holes (like a bad cheese in more ways than one). Where there should be some light so we can see what’s going on, there isn’t. When there should be an absence of light, there’s too much. All this leads to incredibly small amounts of tension. Without tension, there’s not payoff when things go bang, snarl and screech. You get the idea.

But more importantly, it seems as though the SFX gurus pretending to direct forgot that if you’re going to focus on human characters, some time should be spent developing them. These characters, even for being basic and cliche, seem to have no direction in which to head. They’re meat; and that might be fine if more attention had been paid to the aforementioned directorial problems.

There’s not a whole lot to say about the writing or acting that can’t be weened from the idea that the movie-goer is about to see a movie called Aliens Versus Predator: Requiem. They’re both stale and generic, yet with less flair than most of today’s standardized sh*t. The only character that seemed to have any promise was the Ellen Ripley wannabe but that idea is dropped within the first 20 minutes of the movie.

I have to give props to the “Brothers” about one thing. They went against a couple different conventions and also showed some creative ingenuity in a handful of scattered sequences. Let’s just say you’re not safe in this movie, even if you’re a child or a pregnant woman. And yes, Predators can build more than just weapons that you stab, shoot or throw with.

Too bad that line of thought didn’t extend throughout the entire movie.

* 1/2 Jessicas out of 4. Thank God for the one gratuitous c*ck-tease scene of a beautiful Kristen Hager stripping down to her skivvies for a late-night dip.

]]> http://cinemaddicts.org/blog/2008/01/24/avpr/feed/ 0