Edge of Darkness

This film is a triple-threat combination that was so close to working for me. Martin Campbell has directed the two best (which obviously also includes the all time best) James Bond movies, and has shown himself to be a great action director who knows how to rise above the genre. Mel Gibson is a fine actor who is right at home in the rising-above-the-genre action movie. And Ray Winstone stood out in "The Departed" as someone you don't want to mess with, and here in "Edge of Darkness" he gives a similar performance, and gets more screen time to show his ability. Now the film worked better than most, it did rise above the genre for the most part. Yet there were still just enough scenes and moments to jolt me out of the experience. Unfortunately the way the film ended was one of it's weaknesses. Perhaps because of Winstone's presence I found myself comparing this film to "The Departed" quite a bit. This may be unfair, yet it a film sets itself apart as a benchmark, then shouldn't we compare other films to it? In the better film there are surprise twists, there are violent outbursts, there is a tragic hero. Those elements all exist here in "Edge of Darkness", yet Campbell isn't able to bring them together with the same mastery of his craft. The violence itself doesn't have impact, it should be the threat of violence that is effective. Plot twist aren't interesting in and of themselves, it's how they affect the characters. And a tragic hero is only as good as the actor's ability to make you feel compassion for him. When revenge is the only motivation, we feel a shallow connection to what occurs onscreen. "Edge of Darkness" is one of those good movies that really make you appreciate the great ones.

The Book of Eli

Someone in Hollywood slipped up royally. How'd they let this one through? Is this film really what I think it was about, and was the film's final statement really that direct? Denzel Washington is wandering across post-apocalyptic United States with one important book in his possession. He has the only remaining copy of a book that some seek for the knowledge it contains, others desire to wield it's power over the masses. Now no one mentions the name of this book, most of those living are illiterate anyways and wouldn't know what to do with any book they come across. Yet throughout the film Denzel quotes scripture, and will not give up his book at any cost. As everyone knows by now Denzel is not someone to be messed with, unfortunately post-apocalyptic Americans haven't seen any of his movies and therefore meet their demise in an assortment of decapitations, shotgun blasts and just a good old fashioned general loss of blood. Of course Denzel remains unscathed, but how? Is there an invisible force protecting him? To top it all off the film delves into the importance of the book he carries. The words contained within may have been a reason for the catastrophic war that led to the apocalypse. The book was sought after and destroyed for fear that it's message might interfere with the plans of those in authority. And finally in the end of the film the point seems to be clear that although some might try to place this book in a category with others, like The Talmud and The Quran, this book alone is the one that has true power. Did the movie really say that?

So "The Book of Eli" surprised me, and pleasantly so. I think Denzel is a great actor, and a commanding presence, and this film only built upon that. The action sequences were violent and yet not overly bloody, especially considering what was going on. The style of the violence made it's point without overdoing it (in my humble opinion). Some of the other "action movie" stuff, the elderly couple at tea time, the cliche action movie heroine, etc. I could have done without, but all in all it was well done. Also it was hard so close after seeing "The Road" not to be conscious of the post-apocalyptic similarities/differences. Then all those other movies start coming back... "Zombieland", "Terminator: Salvation", "Wall-e" and "I Am Legend". Those are just ones I've seen in the past couple years, and it makes me ask the question; why? Is this a common human nightmare, concern, fantasy? "Eli" probably had the most positive message out of them all. "I Am Legend" captured the loneliness. "The Road" asked some tough questions. But do these films have any real value to us? Is post-apocalyptic America something we should be prepared to face? If I've learned anything from all those movies it's that I want to have plenty of canned goods (and of course a can opener), plenty of automatic weapons (and crates and crates of ammo) an extra pair of boots, a Bible and most of all I'm going to need an ipod.

Up In The Air

I was recently reading an article about an Academy Award winning best picture from a few years back. The author of this particular piece stated that the film was in fact one of the worst films of the year because of it's cheap exploitation of emotions through standard Hollywood devices. Instead of making a strong argument for a specific subject, the film used every cliche and underhanded trick to make the audience feel as though they'd been convinced of something deep and important... Now I must admit that at the time I really liked the movie, perhaps I fell for it. Even though I felt that my emotions were being manipulated, I agreed with the message of the film, and I thought there were some pretty strong performances by the actors and actresses. I mention this, because for me "Up In The Air" reminded me a little of that other movie. There is a very convincing piece of acting by George Clooney, almost so good that you don't notice the weakness of everything else.Unfortunately the primary weakness is also the film's strength; Clooney's character. He basically plays the same guy from "The Wrestler" only instead of an over-the-hill has-been professional wrestler played by Mickey Rourke, we get a middle-aged, on-the-verge-of-being-obsolete professional firer. What I liked about "The Wrestler" was that Rourke's character at least knew who he was, and in the end made his decision and was prepared to live with the consequences. Here Clooney convinces us that his character is real, fleshes out some of the nuances of what makes this frequent flier so unique, but in the end what does it really matter, and what does it all mean? Now the movie was funny, it was interesting, it was a glimpse into a life that is unfamiliar to me, but that's not enough for me. Then to top it off, what could have been the best parts of the film came across as being cliche and forced. For example, when Clooney and his partner sit down to fire a long-time company man who becomes visibly distraught, Clooney gives a beautiful motivational speech on the benefits of being fired, the new opportunities that exist. It was so well written and so well acted that it felt well written and well acted. Whenever I realize I'm being manipulated, when I'm not supposed to realize it, the movie fails.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

It finally got here, so Rob and I went to see "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" last night. I really enjoyed the film, even though it took some getting used to. I had seen the trailer, but didn't really know what the movie was going to be about. I was pleasantly surprised to learn how imagination was so strongly incorporated into the story, thereby explaining the strangeness of the visuals. The unique, fantastical atmosphere also helped soften (actually almost make invisible) the unfortunate fact that Heath Ledger was unable to complete his role in the film. I thought the performances by the actors who filled in for his character, were right on and a respectful tribute. Johnny Depp especially seemed to be honoring Ledger in the way he approached his part. The story as it is here in the finished film was also very well done. I think that if you didn't know the story behind the film, you may never notice the changes that had to be made. Christopher Plummer is just right as Dr. Parnassus, and I actually liked all of the casting. The special effects at first seemed too weird, but as the film went on everything melded together and I found myself enjoying the atmosphere created by the filmmakers. As I said before, this is a fitting tribute to Ledger, and I think worth a view specifically for that reason. Yet, "The Dark Knight" and other of Ledger's films will have a much longer lasting impact.

The Road

I just got home from seeing "The Road". This is a difficult film to review, and I'll tell you why. O yeah, if you've read the book and plan on seeing the film, maybe you should read this later. At the same time, if you've read the book, I kind of wonder why you'd want to relive this story in the theater. This film is difficult to review because it asks some tough questions, and it is effective in creating an atmosphere of dread and despair. Yet it also fails to be convincing in certain areas. There are many holes in the realism of the events that unfold throughout.

The story is about a father and his young son, as the wander through a post-apocalyptic America. As with most movies in this genre they must carefully dodge other survivors, scavenge for food and make decisions that go to the very core of their humanity. The strength of the film was in it's presentation and understanding of those questions. How far am I willing to go to survive? Is survival the most important goal? Unfortunately the events, and the way the main characters react, are the weakness of this film. Do you set up camp in the noisiest part of the woods if you're concerned about cannibals sneaking up on you? Do you walk right into a house filled with items that look like they were taken away from people who really still kinda need them?

All in all I think the film (and I'm guessing the book) had a very strong message. I did feel a connection with Viggo Mortensen's role as the father, and thereby the film was effective in making me ask myself the same questions he faced. At the same time, I can't say I enjoyed the film because it made me feel sick, sad and worried. So this was a difficult film to review.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox (and another venting session)

As I look back over 2009 as it relates to movies, they pretty much sucked. So it's kind of too bad that I saw "Mr Fox" on New Years Day, thereby making what is likely the best film from 2009 be my first film of 2010. I looked back just now over my reviews from the last year. "Star Trek" and "Julie and Julia" probably are the standouts, along with "Basterds", but overall it was a year of blah and disappointments. I know I risk sounding like every other blogger when I point out the travesty of McG's Terminator waste, but that sort of sums up 2009. (And by the way, this wasn't the venting rant, that comes after the "Mr Fox" review...)

"The Fantastic Mr. Fox" is a wonderful, entertaining, imaginative, funny film that retains everything that makes Wes Anderson great, and takes advantage of the strengths of its actors instead of using them merely as recognizable voices. From the opening sequence with Mr. Fox stretching to the Davy Crockett theme song, to the peppered dialogue between Mr. Fox and his badger lawyer and the trademark Wes Anderson cut-away sets, this was a fun movie. The way the characters interact was spot-on Anderson, yet because the some of the characters are children and because the story is about a family, it seemed very fitting as a family film. In contrast, Anderson's "The Royal Tenenbaums" since it is about grown up children and their family is obviously for grown ups only. The music (as in other Anderson work) was awesome, as I mentioned before, 'Davy Crockett', and also 'Disney's Robin Hood' and The Rolling Stones. I don't know if there's anyone else making films today who could pull that combination off so successfully. George Clooney as Mr. Fox is also perfect. The only other actor who could have done it would be Cary Grant, and I can see how that might have been difficult. Clooney is just the right kind of smooth to play a dishonest, good hearted, slightly absent-minded, stop-motion fox. And as far as the style of the film goes, once again I have no complaints. Other recent films have used effects unnecessarily as gimmicks (much to my dismay). Here I felt like the storybook was alive, and it even had a hint of that old Disney animation, reminding me even more of my fond memories of "Robin Hood" thereby enhancing my appreciation for this film. The one thing I will warn parents sensitive to their children's ears of, is that colorful dialogue runs throughout the film with the word "cuss" filling in for any actual cuss word. Personally I found this to be extremely entertaining, especially when Mr. Fox notes that this is turning into a real (cover your ears) cluster-cuss. Aside from that and some violence towards rats and chickens, you should see this movie immediately.

And now for the venting... Our city has increased the number of screens on which movies are shown daily. We are currently at 80 screens within 20 minutes of my front door. "The Road" is showing on one of those screens. "Avatar" on the other hand gets 13 of those screens. On top of that, "The Road" had it's "wide release" on November 25th, it didn't get here until a week ago. "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" has been out for quite some time now, but nowhere near me. I could watch "The Chipmunks Squeakquel" on a different screen each night for the next two weeks, but I can't see Heath Ledger's final film? I know the reason that movies get made is a business just like any other. If most people will pay for one thing and very few will pay for something else, it's the first product that is going to be widely available. The best I can do is hope, hope that more people will stop putting up with this mass-produced garbage and support quality films instead. I know I'm kinda hypocritical, I went to see "Avatar", "Sherlock Holmes", "Fast and Furious", "Harry Potter" etc., etc., etc... Maybe I should swear off any movie that shows on more than one screen at a time. O yeah, by the way, this new A-Team movie that's coming out this summer is going to be awesome!

Invictus and Sherlock Holmes

Jon and I got to see "Invictus" while he was here for Christmas. It was a solid film, with a great performance by Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela. I have been very impressed by most of Clint Eastwood's films. "Letters from Iwo Jima" was amazing. "Gran Torino" was a lot of fun, and "Changeling" was an excellent drama. I think "Invictus" was a very good film, but doesn't stand out like the others I mentioned. It's weakness I believe was in the story. Freeman plays such a intricate Mandela, that the film should have been his. The Matt Damon/rugby storyline wasn't as interesting, and the rugby stuff felt like filler instead of being truly important to the film. "Hoosiers" is about basketball players. It's about the players (and coaches) first and foremost. Because basketball is what they all have in common, it totally makes sense for the film to be about basketball too. "Invictus" is about unity. It's about forgiveness. It is also about the use of political maneuvers to bring about positive change. Sure, Mandela used rugby as a tool early in his presidential term, but the argument to make a rugby movie just isn't strong enough for me. The other complaint I have with th film is Eastwood's music. He forces his own style (and music he wrote) into a film that needs something different. Eastwood's music has worked well in other Eastwood films, but he should recognize that his true talent is film making and his music isn't always right.
That being said, it was a very strong film in it's individual elements. The message was positive and timeless. Damon did good for what his role required. The rugby stuff, although unnecessary was interesting in that it's a sport I'm unfamiliar with. And once again, Freeman's performance was worth the price of admission, and I would recommend a viewing based solely on him. Perhaps he will make a more detailed bio-pic later.

Is "Sherlock Holmes" really Sherlock Holmes? Is "Sherlock Holmes" really Guy Ritchie? "Sherlock Holmes" was an entertaining movie, but the answer to both previous question unfortunately is 'no'. There are hints of he real Holmes in this movie, but too few and far between. Just think of the characteristics you know to be true of Holmes. Not that those may be mentioned or used somewhat in this movie, but more as a device than as character. For example, Holme's skill of deduction is his primary resource for solving crimes. Here we are shown that he has that tool in his arsenal, yet it's kinda used randomly and it seems sorta weak at times and it doesn't always work. Is Holmes really fallible? Secondly, I thought Guy Ritchie was required to give us that 30 second sequence in which the main characters are introduced with quick-cutting flashbacks along with titles like; "Sherlock... Master Crime Rock-n-Rolla". I was lost for the first half-hour... who are these people onscreen? You mean I have to pay attention to what the characters are saying? Not all the information I need will be visually fed to me? Sure there were some pretty sweet, slo-mo, quick-edit effects that reminded me of Ritchie. Personally though, I would have preferred a true Ritchie film. It's like this new "Avatar the Last Airbender" movie that Shyamalan is working on, I want a Shyamalan movie, not him taking on some adaptation of anime. On the other hand, have you seen the new trailer for Iron Man 2 (I think Matt has a link to it)? This trailer is even sweeter than the first. Pop some popcorn and watch the new trailer, it's awesome!