"Now You See Me" had a masterfully crafted trailer. It promised a dazzling tale of four illusionists who use stagemanship and misdirection to perpetrate elaborate heists; giving the stolen money to cheering audiences. The movie expands upon this basic premise; the main characters are motivated by a desire to join a mysterious illusionists guild. They are given Robin Hood missions by a mysterious fifth character, who has promised them entrance to the guild if the can transfer wealth from greedy insurance companies to helpless victims of tragedy. What motivates the mystery character is meant as a surprise twist, but it seems pretty obvious early in the story. As promised by the trailer there is plenty of spectacle here; grand illusions, creative props, and impressive slight of hand. While the movie was entertaining, it fell short of high marks set by other recent films. The two films which should be used as comparison are "The Prestige" and "Ocean's Eleven". The latter is a great heist film, which joins together an ensemble cast; each member lending different strengths necessary to pull-off the heist. The intricacy of the plot, which is so meticulously orchestrated, is a joy to watch, and the conclusion is satisfying. "The Prestige" is about men who are truly devoted to the craft of illusion. When watching this film we are part of an audience, susceptible to the effects of misdirection. Here the twists and surprises are amazingly effective, because they have been earned. "Now You See Me" fails to impress. The tricks are to easily explained, and the final explanation is too simple, kind of like the ending of a Murder She Wrote episode (not that there's anything wrong with that). This was a fun movie while it lasted, but lacks the substance to make it stand out.
"After Earth" fits right in line with M. Night Shyamalan's other wonderful stories (ignoring "The Last Airbender") where character, story, and style all work in concert beautifully. This is a relatively basic story, which could be explained in two or three sentences, yet is brought to life by great acting and skilled filmmaking. As with other Shyamalan stories, the setting and action is simply a backdrop for a deeper, dynamic message. Lesser directors would have made this same story into an environmental cautionary tale, which is so cliché. Shyamalan saw through that, to the heart of the story, which is about a father and a son, ultimately focusing on a boy becoming a man. You may wonder how I could be so harsh on "Man of Steel" while seemingly overlooking much of the same in "After Earth". This is definitely an effects-heavy, big budget movie, yet the special effects never overshadow the people. How many times did Superman get hit over the head by a bus, tank, helicopter, building, etc.? I lost interest pretty quickly. Here one of the characters is bitten by a leech, and it was truly a moment of concern. I wanted the characters to survive, and more importantly I wanted them to grow closer together. Shyamalan is one of the most unique storytellers working today, and I was happy to experience this story after a line of recent disappointments at the movie theater.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Star Trek: Into Darkness, Fast & Furious 6, and Man of Steel
Perhaps this is a horrible reason to see a movie; but sometimes I see a movie simply because it's there. The 2009 J.J. Abrams Star Trek re-boot was extremely entertaining. The Blu-Ray contains my go-to sequence for showcasing the sound system I have at home. The time travel and Spock thread was an excellent tie-in to the original series. I liked the music, the effects, the casting, and even the humor. I was looking forward to its sequel "Star Trek: Into Darkness" without being overly optimistic that it could deliver the same impact. In short, I was right. Please allow me to indulge in an some alternate universe hypothetical reasoning for a few moments: If I had decided not to see this movie, to avoid disappointment, most likely I would be wondering what I missed. While I know now that the answer is "nothing much", I couldn't truly know that without experiencing it for myself. As the great science fiction author Tennyson wrote; "it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all"... How could he have been so sure?
There's so many movies in the "Fast and Furious" series now that it can be somewhat difficult to differentiate one from an other. I definitely approach these movies as mindless, popcorn entertainment. Each movie has simply been a vehicle for showcasing fast cars and the subculture who love them. There have been character developments throughout the series, and "Fast and Furious 6", the newest installment brings closure to the most tragic of prior incidents and continues the fast cars and outrageous stunts tradition. I was considering asking the question; 'are the stunts too over the top?' But then I realized that once you've gone over the top, either the damage has been done, or it wasn't really the top after all. The final action sequence takes place at an airport; a dozen or so cars and a huge transport jet careen down a runway while people fight in the jet, on top of cars, with cars, from car to car, etc. The sequence happens approximately in real-time and takes well over ten minutes. At about the five minute point I realized that no turns had been made, and the jet had been trying to take-off for a while. Now take-off speed for a jet that size is probably around 150 mph, but let's make it easy and call it 120 mph, which means that everyone in this rabble is going 2 miles every minute. The longest civilian runways are just over 3 miles long, which definitely wouldn't work. At 120 mph, they would have needed a 20 mile long runway to reach the ten minute mark required by the action. Oh, did I mention that as the plane finally crashes and the cars screech to a halt, we see 20 yards away, big bright red and white signs announcing "End of Runway". Maybe there is such a thing as "too over the top". But it was still a lot of fun while it lasted.
I had hoped to devote an individual posting to "Man of Steel", but I am sorry to say it doesn't deserve one. Had the director Zack Snyder and writer David S. Goyer focused their attention on what makes Superman an interesting character, then this movie may have been amazing. Instead they simply tease the audience with the movie that could have been, and subject us to mindless, incoherent, (physics-defying), computer animation; passed-off as action. Superman has two dads, each of which are significantly more compelling characters than Superman. The bravery and self-sacrifice demonstrated by Superman's natural father is the focus of the first sequence in "Man of Steel". Although the setting matches that of Richard Donner's 1978 "Superman", things are noticeably different. Immediately it becomes apparent that fighting, action, and explosions will be taking much of the spotlight. Even so, Russell Crowe as Superman's father is a solid presence, convincing as a man desperate to save his people and his son. Once Superman reaches Earth, he is adopted by a human played by Kevin Costner. Costner gets the most interesting, and difficult role in the film as a father who struggles to protect his son and prepare him for an unbearable burden. Goyer and Snyder get this, and the bits and pieces of a great film are sprinkled throughout. Costner admonishes his son to exercise self-control, and consider the impact that his mere existence will have on mankind. Alas, there are too many other characters, set-pieces, space ships, choreographed action sequences, etc. to keep track of, and Superman's adoptive father gets lost in the crowd. I could continue; discussing the merits/failures of non-chronological storytelling, parallels to "The Matrix", lack of Lex Luthor, why the Smallville inclusion and aversion to using term "Superman" were distracting, but I think I've said enough already.
There's so many movies in the "Fast and Furious" series now that it can be somewhat difficult to differentiate one from an other. I definitely approach these movies as mindless, popcorn entertainment. Each movie has simply been a vehicle for showcasing fast cars and the subculture who love them. There have been character developments throughout the series, and "Fast and Furious 6", the newest installment brings closure to the most tragic of prior incidents and continues the fast cars and outrageous stunts tradition. I was considering asking the question; 'are the stunts too over the top?' But then I realized that once you've gone over the top, either the damage has been done, or it wasn't really the top after all. The final action sequence takes place at an airport; a dozen or so cars and a huge transport jet careen down a runway while people fight in the jet, on top of cars, with cars, from car to car, etc. The sequence happens approximately in real-time and takes well over ten minutes. At about the five minute point I realized that no turns had been made, and the jet had been trying to take-off for a while. Now take-off speed for a jet that size is probably around 150 mph, but let's make it easy and call it 120 mph, which means that everyone in this rabble is going 2 miles every minute. The longest civilian runways are just over 3 miles long, which definitely wouldn't work. At 120 mph, they would have needed a 20 mile long runway to reach the ten minute mark required by the action. Oh, did I mention that as the plane finally crashes and the cars screech to a halt, we see 20 yards away, big bright red and white signs announcing "End of Runway". Maybe there is such a thing as "too over the top". But it was still a lot of fun while it lasted.
I had hoped to devote an individual posting to "Man of Steel", but I am sorry to say it doesn't deserve one. Had the director Zack Snyder and writer David S. Goyer focused their attention on what makes Superman an interesting character, then this movie may have been amazing. Instead they simply tease the audience with the movie that could have been, and subject us to mindless, incoherent, (physics-defying), computer animation; passed-off as action. Superman has two dads, each of which are significantly more compelling characters than Superman. The bravery and self-sacrifice demonstrated by Superman's natural father is the focus of the first sequence in "Man of Steel". Although the setting matches that of Richard Donner's 1978 "Superman", things are noticeably different. Immediately it becomes apparent that fighting, action, and explosions will be taking much of the spotlight. Even so, Russell Crowe as Superman's father is a solid presence, convincing as a man desperate to save his people and his son. Once Superman reaches Earth, he is adopted by a human played by Kevin Costner. Costner gets the most interesting, and difficult role in the film as a father who struggles to protect his son and prepare him for an unbearable burden. Goyer and Snyder get this, and the bits and pieces of a great film are sprinkled throughout. Costner admonishes his son to exercise self-control, and consider the impact that his mere existence will have on mankind. Alas, there are too many other characters, set-pieces, space ships, choreographed action sequences, etc. to keep track of, and Superman's adoptive father gets lost in the crowd. I could continue; discussing the merits/failures of non-chronological storytelling, parallels to "The Matrix", lack of Lex Luthor, why the Smallville inclusion and aversion to using term "Superman" were distracting, but I think I've said enough already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)