Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • dell71
    Enter Sandman
    • Mar 2009
    • 23919


    The Iron Lady
    Directed by Phyllida Lloyd.
    2011. Rated R, 105 minutes.
    Cast:
    Meryl Streep
    Jim Broadbent
    Alexandra Roach
    Harry Lloyd
    Olivia Colman
    Iain Glen
    Anthony Head
    Nicholas Farrell
    Richard E. Grant
    Martin Wimbush
    Roger Allam
    John Sessions

    Meryl Streep plays Great Britain’s first female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. She’s aided in her portrayal by Alexandra Roach who plays the younger Margaret. Through the use of flashbacks, we follow the once most powerful woman in the world from the time shortly before she gets accepted to Oxford through the present. Those flashbacks reveal a vibrant woman with a passion for making things right, as she saw fit. We see her struggle and elbow her way into politics, essentially an all-boys club when she began. Naturally, she evolves into a hard-nosed leader who won’t take any guff from anyone. Throughout our time with her, she efforts to adjust to life out of office and without Denis (Broadbent), her beloved but deceased husband.

    Some recent biopics about famous women have chosen to focus on the more tawdry details of their lives, love affairs and soap opera like melodrama, relegating what made them great to secondary status. Such is the case in both Coco Before Chanel and Amelia, both making their subjects the focal point in a love triangle more than anything else. Thankfully, The Iron Lady spares us the romance novel histrionics. Instead, we get to see the drive that made her into the Margaret Thatcher we’ve come to know. Her ascent to power and exertion of it are allowed ample breathing time. Whether we agree or disagree with her philosophies and decisions is irrelevant. What’s important is that she achieved much during her lifetime.


    That’s not to say there isn’t a love story because there most certainly is. Without their courtship dominating the run-time we still get a clear understanding of how much they mean to each other. We also realize how tough her public life is on their family. Still, they are what could be described as soul mates. This gives us the current of sadness that runs through TIL. Much of the older Thatcher’s time, by extension much of Streep’s time, is spent within the lonely confines of her bedroom. She often speaks aloud to Denis, present only through her constant hallucinations. Here is where the movie almost loses us. It’s depressing watching a once-great figure stumble about her home talking to herself. She appears to struggle with the fact she’s no longer Prime Minister and wholly unable to cope with the reality that her husband has been dead some years.

    As usual, Meryl Streep keeps us engaged. She again demonstrates her ability to get lost within the character and draw out both their despair and their dignity. If there is one trait most of her characters share, it’s regality. That’s certainly fitting for Thatcher. However, this is one instance where Streep didn’t do it alone. I’d be remiss if I didn’t commend Alexandra Roach. She does a very good job as the younger, more ambitious, less secure Margaret. The two performances mesh nicely. It helps that Roach bears a healthy resemblance to Streep.

    Eventually, a triumphant finale is fashioned out of our hero’s post-political life. Still, it’s not as uplifting as it wants to be. It feels like a temporary victory or possibly a segue to other problems. The movie ends because it must. Some of you may cry because it is a touching moment. It just doesn’t leave us feeling particularly good about where Thatcher stands.

    MY SCORE: 7.5/10

    Comment

    • dell71
      Enter Sandman
      • Mar 2009
      • 23919


      Tyrannosaur
      Directed by Paddy Considine.
      2011. Not Rated, 92 minutes.
      Cast:
      Peter Mullan
      Olivia Colman
      Eddie Marsan
      Ned Dennehy
      Sian Breckin
      Paul Popplewell
      Jag Sanghera
      Mike Fearnley

      Whether by chance or God’s design, we all meet people unexpectedly, from time to time. One such meeting occurs between Joseph (Mullan) and Hannah (Colman). Joseph is an angry drunk. It takes very little to set him off. In fact, we meet him just as his hair-trigger temper causes him to kill his own dog. After another alcohol fueled tirade, Joseph wanders into the shop run by Hannah. She’s married and openly Christian. She speaks calmly to Joseph and lets him know she prays for him. Even though he yells at her and brazenly ridicules her beliefs, it’s obvious he enjoys her company. Visits to the shop become part of his daily routine. The two develop a friendship seemingly based on their differences. A love story ensues that’s probably unlike any you’ve ever seen.

      Along with Joseph we discover, despite our initial impressions, Hannah’s life is at least as tumultuous as his. While he spends nights drinking and getting into fights, hers are spent with an abusive husband. His name is James (Marsan) and we realize how vile a man he is the very first time we see him. His temper is every bit as nasty as Joseph’s and likely even more dangerous since all of his rage is focused on just one person. Tyrannosaur is a beautifully brutal movie featuring three people who have an intimate relationship with violence yet yearn to know love in the same manner.

      The brutality doesn’t always come from that violence. The psychological warfare being waged and tension created from not being sure when the hurtful words will turn to damaging action is as much a contributing factor. This includes the constant back and forth between Joseph and a much younger jerk of a neighbor who is mean to the little boy befriended by Joseph. The neighbor always has his constantly barking dog by his side, threatening to release the hound to deal with whatever is bothering him at the moment. The dog is every bit as aggressive as its owner.


      The neighbor and dog are not simply unruly characters. For us, they also function as Joseph’s id. Raw and unchecked, they bully anyone in their path. On the other hand, Hannah is his moralizing superego, at least when she’s with him. Apart from him, she’s a victim who seems resigned to her fate. She’s grasping for a solution to her problem that doesn’t require leaving her husband. She’s only reaching within herself with no desire for outside help.

      Director Paddy Considine has crafted a marvelous film. He deserves extra credit for showing “just enough” restraint. In less capable hands, this would likely be just another sadistic exercise in voyeurism where the camera carefully records even the most gruesome details. The worst of the toughest scenes actually happens just out of our view. However, they’re shot in such a way that, while it’s clear what’s happening, we still have to use our imagination to fill in the visual blanks. He doesn’t rush his movie, either. Despite clocking in at barely over 90 minutes, Joseph, Hannah and their stories have ample room to breathe. We get to know these people, understand their fears and regrets. It all culminates in an ending that’s not at all what we’re expecting. It’s a bittersweet redemption tale that threatens to stretch our idea of happily ever after completely out of shape. Arriving at the conclusion that it really is a happy ending warrants much debate, even within ourselves. That’s the final stroke of genius in a movie filled with them.

      MY SCORE: 10/10

      Comment

      • dell71
        Enter Sandman
        • Mar 2009
        • 23919


        Journey 2 the Mysterious Island
        Directed by Brad Peyton.
        2012. Rated PG, 94 minutes.
        Cast:
        Dwayne Johnson
        Josh Hutcherson
        Vanessa Hudgens
        Michael Caine
        Luis Guzman
        Kristin Davis

        The Rock…er…Dwayne Johnson in another benign family flick. Yaaayyy! This time he leads a cast of misfits in the sequel to 2008’s Journey to the Center of the Earth which stars Brendan Fraser, hence the “2” in the title. Clever, ain’t they? Or not. Could Fraser have possibly been too busy to do this one? Never mind. Like in the original, a group of people decide to try and actually locate a mythical location from a Jules Verne novel. Obviously our heroes, only one of whom is in the first flick, are trying to find “The Mysterious Island.” With only a single relevant character appearing in both movies, the strongest link between the films is the supposition that Verne was actually a historian and not a novelist. Okay, fine.

        Despite the focus on The Rock’s bouncing boobs, more on that later, the story revolves around the kid from the first movie (Hutcherson). No, I don’t care what the character’s name is, just know that he’s played by the kid from The Hunger Games. In that movie he is trying to find his father whom he thinks is at the center of the Earth. Here, he’s searching for his grandfather whom he believes…do I really have to say it? The kid is also a grade A brat who can’t get along with his stepdad played by The Rock AKA Man Candy. In an unusual bonding effort, Man Candy decides to help the kid find the place in the title. Not surprisingly, getting there takes some serious effort and surviving some particularly foreboding weather. Think Bermuda Triangle. It also includes Vanessa Hudgens and her dad Luis Guzman, AKA the pretty girl and comic relief, respectively. Of course they make it. Of course, and this is not a spoiler, they find Alfred Pennyworth…er…Harry Brown…er…Michael Caine, the kid’s grandpa. The conflict of the movie isn’t getting to the Mysterious Island, it’s getting off.


        You probably know how all this plays out, except for that whole thing about Man Candy’s bouncing boobs. I’ve long suspected the reason he is in so many of kiddie flicks is to give moms something to fawn over while the fam friendly fun drones on. Journey 2 confirms my suspicions. He dispenses sage advice to the kid on how to make women fall madly in love. Part of that advice is repeatedly, and alternately, flexing your pecs which he happily demonstrates. Yes, the shirt he wears throughout surely cuts off his circulation. The pic above doesn’t do it justice, you gotta see this thing in action. During this excruciatingly long scene I had to endure my wife’s taunts of “You can’t do that,” and my daughter noticing “I can see his nipples.” Yup, they were that obvious. Think J-Lo in Anaconda, only I didn’t enjoy looking at these. Rated PG my shiny black hiny.

        I’m not insecure. Really.

        Regardless, Journey 2 isn’t terrible. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it good, but you know what you’re getting, especially if you saw the first one (not essential viewing to enjoy this one) and/or the Will Ferrell flick Land of the Lost. It’s an adventure with a few funny moments, some interesting visuals and a cute puppy love story all wrapped in an inoffensive package. Inoffensive except for Man Candy’s chest twitching, that is. For him, I invoke the words of the late great (and fictional) Nino Brown (google him, young’uns): I never liked you anyway, pretty mother…I’ll shut my mouth because I’m tired of talkin’ ‘bout The Rock.

        MY SCORE: Wait a sec…

        Dear Mr. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson,

        These are just the jokes of an angry little human. After all, everybody’s a comedian. If we were to ever meet in person I’d gladly proclaim that you are ‘The Man’ and invite you to dip your ever-poking-through-the-soft-material-of-your-shirt nipples in ink and use them to etch an autograph for my all-too-smitten-with-you wife. You just can’t do this upon her actual person or we will have to fight to my death. Okay, now...

        MY SCORE: 5/10

        Comment

        • dell71
          Enter Sandman
          • Mar 2009
          • 23919


          Magic Mike
          Directed by Steven Soderbergh.
          2012. Rated R, 110 minutes.
          Cast:
          Channing Tatum
          Matthew McConaughey
          Alex Pettyfer
          Cody Horn
          Olivia Munn
          Matt Bomer
          Joe Manganiello
          Adam Rodriguez
          Kevin Nash
          Gabriel Iglesias

          Meet Magic Mike (Tatum). He’s a different kind of magician. He makes most of his clothing disappear. That’s just my convoluted way of saying Mike is a male stripper. Let’s get the most important piece of information out of the way first for any curious ladies, or guys, out there: we do not get to see Magic Mike’s magic mike. Sorry. Or, thank goodness, depending on your particular point of view. Someone else’s is momentarily on display, but presented in a decidedly non-erotic manner. As a consolation for any misguided hopes, or confirmation of any suspicions, there are plenty of beefy, oily, hairless guys in thongs. Yay for you. Well, a little more than half of you.

          Even though flesh is the main selling point, it’s only a part of what Magic Mike has to offer. It’s not a sprawling sexually charged epic like Boogie Nights. However, like that movie, MM realizes that while people come for the carnal pleasures, pun not intended, they stay for the stories built around the decadence.

          The story here starts with Mike. He’s not only a stripper, he’s an entrepreneur as he’s quick to tell people. He also dabbles in roofing and auto-detailing. What he really wants to do is get his hand-crafted, custom design furniture business off the ground. After a couple chance meetings with directionless 19 year old Adam (Pettyfer), Mike finds himself with a protégé. Of course, boys will be boys. This gives us most of our theatrics and dramatics. Adam lives with his ever-so-slightly older sister Brooke (Horn). Pretty much from the moment they meet, she and Mike have this opposites attract thing going on, providing the romance for our tale.


          Supplying our comic relief, of both the homoerotic and hetero-sleazy persuasions, is strip club owner Dallas, played by a magnetic Matthew McConaughey. He dominates every scene in which he appears with a deliciously over the top performance. Since MM is a popcorn flick about strippers that was released during the summer, he probably won’t get the kudos he deserves for giving one of 2012’s most enjoyable performances. True, it has none of the subtle nuances we movie buff types batter our keyboards to produce loving prose for. He reveals almost nothing of the inner-workings of the man he’s playing. On the other hand, his bombastic façade overwhelms us. We simply cannot take our eyes off him whether we’re attracted to or repulsed by his greasy pecs.

          The rest of the cast is solid, for the most part. Tatum is in his element as a street savvy, urban/suburban white guy who can really, really dance. In fact, the movie is inspired by his real life experience as a young stripper. Olivia Munn is surprisingly good as the party girl who answers his booty calls. Pettyfer is okay as what amounts to an overgrown, ungrateful child. Horn is not so good as the over-protective big sis. Her chemistry with Tatum feels awkward and forced. The same goes for many of her line deliveries. We can tell she’s acting. That’s never a good thing. She’s not helped by the way the relationship between her character and Tatum’s is written. It never truly feels like a budding love affair. Instead, it’s like we’re watching two people whom we know, through our experiences with other movies, will inevitably wind up together because the script requires them to. It is so obvious I do not feel the need to say “Spoiler Alert.”

          Fortunately, the lackluster love story is saved by the rest of the movie. The dynamics between the three male leads is lively and, eventually, contentious. MM has a nice flow to it when they are interacting with each other and the other strippers. The locker room talk snaps and the man-child antics mix with their stage routines to create hyperkinetic energy. Admittedly, these routines are a challenge to those of us who wouldn’t be caught dead in a club like the one these guys work in, but they’re still fun within the context of the movie. It’s too bad all that energy dissipates whenever we slog through the perfunctory romance. It also fizzles out a bit when it can’t decide if it wants to be a cautionary tale or not. I won’t spoil that part. Otherwise, it’s an entertaining flick that a lot of guys will refuse to watch.

          MY SCORE: 7/10

          Comment

          • dell71
            Enter Sandman
            • Mar 2009
            • 23919


            Goon
            Directed by Michael Dowse.
            2011. Rated R, 92 minutes.
            Cast:
            Seann William Scott
            Liev Schreiber
            Alison Pill
            Jay Baruchel
            Marc-Andre Grondin
            Eugene Levy
            David Paetkau
            Kim Coates
            Jonathan Cherry
            Ellen David

            Fighting is woven into the fabric of hockey. It is also the only thing Doug Glatt (Scott) does well. He does it so well, it seems inevitable that he’ll wind up busting chops on the rink. While a spectator at a minor league game, he beats up a player in order to protect his obnoxious buddy Pat (Baruchel). This catches the eye of the home team’s coach who immediately recognizes that Doug’s talent for fisticuffs would be an asset and wants him on the roster. After a few quick lessons to sorta learn how to skate, Glatt is on his way to becoming known as Doug “The Thug”. Like an attack dog, he goes after whatever player his coach instructs him to. In hockey circles, he is what’s known as a goon, hence the title. The irony is that, away from the game, Doug is an incredibly nice and genuine guy. He’s not the sharpest blade on the ice, either, if you know what I mean. Still, as dumb luck would have it, he meets a girl. Her name is Eva (Pill) and she’s quite a bit less naïve than he. They have this Forrest and Jenny thing going, albeit a tamer version. Hockey fights and Doug’s awkward attempts to woo Eva ensue.

            We also get to see the other side of Doug’s coin. His ascent coincides with the fall of Ross “The Boss” Rhea (Schrieber). He’s at the end of a long and illustrious career of doing just what Doug is doing. In fact, when Doug starts to get a little media attention he’s compared directly to, and even called, the next Ross. Rhea is definitely a more mean spirited sort, though. He’s just been served a lengthy suspension by the NHL for an illegal and damaging hit. He winds up playing in the same league as our hero.

            Despite the obvious sports drama and the realistic gore of the fights, Goon is not some serious meditation on the triumph of the human spirit. Instead, it approaches the subject through humor. Indeed, this is a foul-mouthed and bloody comedy that somehow manages sweetness without detracting from the movie’s edgier portions. Many of the funniest moment spring from Doug’s naivete, which some might call his stupidity. Thankfully, he’s cognizant enough to have examined himself and learned his limitations. He’s no genius, but he’s far from the annoying fool played by Paul Rudd in Our Idiot Brother. Doug is an endearing character. We root for him. I’m hardly a Seann William Scott fan. I liked him as Stifler in the very first American Pie, but he’s been playing the same role ever since. Here, he’s broken free of that type-casting and given us a fine piece of acting.


            The world around Doug is constructed almost perfectly to allow us to love him. The girl he’s after is cute, but not the unattainable, high maintenance supermodel type comedies usually insist on thrusting into leading lady roles. Ross Rhea’s villainy comes from a place of pride and pain. He’s no maniacal caricature, but a guy protective of his own legacy. We dislike him, but understand him. Doug’s parents don’t understand any of this. Mom (David) and Dad (Levy) are academic types lost in a world that celebrates Neanderthal like behavior.

            The one guy who might understand the most is also the single biggest drawback to our viewing experience: Doug’s pal Pat. Everything about him feels forced to generate laughter, except he’s not funny. He’s obnoxious in a way that we hate him, which is problematic because he’s positioned as one of the good guys, someone who is always in our hero’s corner.

            Thankfully, Goon overcomes that and a few other flaws, mainly predictability and not enough screen time for Schrieber, to give us a very fun, testosterone laced experience. How else to describe a comedy that begins and ends with copious amounts of bloodshed? Along the way, we laugh often enough, wince more often and still get a “feel good” picture when it’s all said and done. It’s just that the characters don’t look like it feels good.

            MY SCORE: 7.5/10

            Comment

            • JimLeavy59
              War Hero
              • May 2012
              • 7199

              You gonna review Last Ounce of Courage?

              Comment

              • dell71
                Enter Sandman
                • Mar 2009
                • 23919

                Originally posted by JimLeavy59
                You gonna review Last Ounce of Courage?
                Wow. You stumped me on that one. Hadn't even heard of it and had to look it up. Can't say that it's in the plans, but you never know.

                Comment

                • dell71
                  Enter Sandman
                  • Mar 2009
                  • 23919


                  War Horse
                  Directed by Steven Spielberg.
                  2011. Rated PG-13, 146 minutes.
                  Cast:
                  Jeremy Irvine
                  Emily Watson
                  David Thewlis
                  Peter Mullan
                  Niels Arestrup
                  Benedict Cumberbatch
                  Tom Hiddleston
                  Eddie Marsan
                  Toby Kebbell
                  David Kross


                  Of course, a horse is a horse, of course. Well, except for Joey. Joey is a bit different. After all, they made this movie about him. To be fair, it’s about him and his human Albert (Irvine). They get together when Albert’s dad Ted (Mullan) spends just about all of the family’s money on Joey at an auction. The problem is, being farmers with a particularly rough patch of land, they need a big, strong plow horse. Joey is small and sleek. Ted, a heavy drinker, only bought Joey because he sees something special in the animal. He’s just not sure what. This upsets his wife (Watson) who realizes the landlord is breathing down their necks and farming is their only source of income. They need Joey to work a miracle and plow this land. Ted has a bum leg and can’t train the horse for the job, if that’s even possible. Therefore, Albert steps up to take on the task. Quite literally through an act of God, Albert and Joey get the field plowed. The end.

                  Okay, that’s really just the beginning. All of that is to show us the special bond between the boy and the horse. It also scratches the surface on Joey’s incredible intelligence. The real conflict happens when World War I has come to Britain and the British army is looking for horses. Since that whole farming thing didn’t quite pan out, due to another act of God, Ted sells Joey to the army so he can pay the rent. This is in spite of Albert’s relentless pleading. The horse is off to battle while the boy, still too young to legally join the war effort, finagles his way into the service in hopes of a reunion with his one true love. Okay, I may be reading a bit much into it, but that’s the way it feels. Luckily for you, and I think for Albert, I’m not sure Joey trots that way. Thankfully, we’ll never find out for sure.



                  The battle scenes are harrowing. We alternate between watching Joey and Albert in their own separate dangerous situations. Many bombs go boom, kicking up much dirt as various unnecessary characters die. Even in the midst of war, Joey and Albert manage to form bonds with some of their fellow soldiers. Yes, Joey becomes good pals with another horse and even saves his equine buddy’s life. At this point, the great and powerful Spielberg commands you to cry. Disobedience will only bring about even more menacing sappiness. Never mind, you’ll get that no matter what.

                  If you can’t tell, War Horse is nearly two and a half hours of manipulating you to make liberal use of the tissue of your choice. The story is well-told, as is most of Spielberg’s work. However, the cheese is piled so thick it makes his last Indiana Jones movie look edgy by comparison. The difference is this movie seems to think it is not a shameless piece of fluff when that’s precisely what it is. It takes itself seriously despite the silliness of it all. Admittedly, it’s a beautiful looking movie with top notch cinematography and some wonderful individual scenes. Unfortunately, when it all comes together, War Horse crumbles under the weight of its own corniness.

                  MY SCORE: 5/10

                  Comment

                  • dell71
                    Enter Sandman
                    • Mar 2009
                    • 23919


                    The Rum Diary
                    Directed by Bruce Robinson.
                    2011. Rated R, 120 minutes.
                    Cast:
                    Johnny Depp
                    Aaron Eckhart
                    Michael Rispoli
                    Amber Heard
                    Richard Jenkins
                    Giovanni Ribisi
                    Amaury Nolasco
                    Marshall Bell
                    Bill Smitrovich


                    Puerto Rico in 1960 might not be the best place for a guy trying to quit drinking, or at least cut back enough to focus on his new job. After all, rum appears to be the most plentiful beverage on the island. The guy is Paul Kemp (Depp) and his job is reporting for a barely surviving American newspaper on the island. After cleaning out the mini-bar a few times in the hotel room the paper is paying for, his new boss Lotterman (Jenkins) moves him into a ratty apartment with two other more seasoned but cynical reporters. Shortly, Paul makes friends with some low people in high places and gets involved in a real estate scam. And yes, there’s a girl. Lots of drinking and run-ins with the locals ensue.

                    The real estate scam gives our hero an ethical dilemma which dominates much of the movie. Though interesting, it’s rather tame as diabolical movie plans go. It’s only a diversion, anyway. Our real focus is on whether or not Paul will be able to steal the gangster’s moll, a young pretty blonde, as cinematic rules dictate she must be. Her name is Chenault (Heard), a free spirit who takes a liking to Paul but, as indicated, belongs to Sanderson (Eckhart) who is running this get-rich-quick scheme.


                    As proof that the whole real estate issue is just a front for the love story, it abruptly disappears before there’s a resolution. Instead, we suddenly shift the narrative back to the failing newspaper. It’s almost as if someone realized mid-stream, there is an untapped, potentially interesting story that needs more attention and abandoned the one they were telling in its favor. This makes The Rum Diary a bit of a mess, narratively. On top of that, the ending is weak and rushed. It just kind of stops playing and gives us some subtitles that complete the tale.

                    Fortunately, there are several saving graces. First, as disjointed as our saga is, it bounces along in an enjoyable manner. It’s most fun when Paul and fellow reporter/roommate Bob Sala (Rispoli) are palling around, getting into one precarious situation after another. The funniest of these being how they decide to drive Bob’s car after its front seat has been ripped out by some angry locals. There’s also third roomy Moberg (Ribisi) who is only occasionally in the apartment, only shows up to work to pick up his paycheck (we find out he can’t be fired) and is always drunk. Second, the three men in these roles are marvelous. Ribisi is particularly good and leaves us wishing he had more screen time. That said, Johnny Depp is the draw. Sans his now trademark goofy wigs and cartoonish makeup he is still a joy to watch.

                    The work turned in by Depp and his cast mates, including the always underappreciated Richard Jenkins, means the narrative issues can be pushed to the margins as we follow their misadventures. They can’t be ignored completely since the switch in focus is jarring and unfulfilling. However, it still makes for a good time. What it lacks in storytelling acumen is made up for by giving us characters that are ultimately smart, but in a very dumb way.

                    MY SCORE: 6.5/10

                    Comment

                    • dell71
                      Enter Sandman
                      • Mar 2009
                      • 23919


                      Snow White and the Huntsman
                      Directed by Rupert Sanders.
                      2012. Rated PG-13, 127 minutes.
                      Cast:
                      Kristen Stewart
                      Charlize Theron
                      Chris Hemsworth
                      Sam Claflin
                      Ian McShane
                      Bob Hoskins
                      Toby Jones
                      Eddie Marsan
                      Ray Winstone
                      Nick Frost
                      Lily Cole
                      Christopher Obi
                      Sam Spruell

                      The gang’s all here. Of course, there’s Snow White (Stewart) and, eventually, seven dwarves. It should go without saying that we have a wicked stepmother/Queen (Theron) and her knowledgeable, talkative mirror (Obi). Like any fairytale worth its pixie dust, there is also a prince (Claflin). Finally, there’s the guy who takes the dwarves’ place in the title, the huntsman (Hemsworth). The general parameters of the story are familiar. Mama White dies and a short while later her widowed hubby, the king, re-marries and finds himself all killed by his new bride. She takes over the kingdom, locks Snow White in a foreboding tower and brings in her mirror as her top consultant. Years later, Snow White manages a daring escape into the Dark Forest, a bit different from the most famous versions of the story. Since the queen’s powers are useless in that particular part of the kingdom, she hires the huntsman to track her down and bring her back.

                      Why the queen needs our heroine alive is part of the twist that provides this reimagining a darkness missing from the tale we’re used to, but a few steps closer to how it was originally told with regard to tone. The queen’s main purpose in life is maintaining her beauty, some semblance of youth and remaining fairest of them all. No matter what. To do this, she has young maidens hauled into the castle whom she robs of the qualities she desires, leaving them old, wrinkled and near death. She soon finds out that if she does the same to Snow White, she’ll no longer have that craving to satisfy.

                      There are some other twists, none hindering our recognition of the story we all know. The magic lies in the tricks played on our eyes. The purposefully drab interiors and pristine white snow filled exteriors make wonderful canvasses for splashes of color and quick striking, well executed special fx. All along the way we’re treated to images that seem sparse, but are deceptively lush. Our pupils dart around the screen grasping at fleeting flourishes of cgi goodness. Though not as big or overwhelming as in something like The Avengers, they’re perhaps more believable in their presentation. This includes our dwarves, all played by, for lack of a better term, normal sized actors. Apologies due to any little people who feel slighted by the phrase or being excluded from the cast. Still, it’s very nicely done.


                      Of course, fx alone don’t make a movie. The meat we readily chew on is the performance of Charlize Theron. She dominates the film much the way Julia Roberts does in the same role in 2012’s other Snow White flick, Mirror Mirror, but in a different fashion. Where Roberts’ queen cackles maniacally in the self-aware manner that lets us know she’s playing as much for laughs as she is menace, Theron’s queen has no clue she’s a character in a fairytale. She seethes, hisses and vampirically gains strength by literally draining it from others. Like the bloodsucker, she earns both our dread and the pity we reserve for one whose seemingly boundless power is really fueled by a fatal flaw. Perhaps, this flaw is really a thinly veiled commentary on our mass obsession with defeating Father Time. A less talented actress might have unconsciously imbued the character with more of the Roberts qualities, but being in the wrong movie, would undermine the seriousness with which this fantasy is approached. It would be like Cesar Romero’s Joker in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight as opposed to Heath Ledger’s. Perfectly suited for the 1960s TV show, he’d be sorely out of place in the more realistic Gotham City. Obviously, the kingdom is not meant to be realistic but it is meant to evoke the Middle Earth of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy (and upcoming movie The Hobbit), not Gilligan’s Island.

                      Since we brought up vampires and less talented actresses, let’s talk about the person whose character gets top billing, Kristen Stewart. Unsurprisingly, she’s a weak link but not as much as one would think. Thank goodness for low expectations, I guess. She “Bellas” her way through another role, albeit less depressingly, as her character actually wants to live as opposed to just yearning to be undead. Our rooting for her is due to our Pavlovian conditioning to do so for “the good guy,” not because she’s the least bit compelling. Trust me, she isn’t. If there is a movie where she is, I’d have to say it’s The Runaways, an underrated biopic about the 70s all-girl rock band of the same name. Even there, Dakota Fanning acts circles around her.

                      Our heroine’s shortcomings aside, I find Snow White and the Huntsman an enjoyable spin on the old tale. Admittedly, Theron is hamming it up, but she is so good at it we can’t help but be spellbound. Then there are those enticing visuals. They help drive the story rather than smother it beneath an avalanche of pixels. Liberties taken with the narrative are fun, if a tad predictable. In any event, they enhance the telling of this version, not desecrate our memory of others. It is by no means perfect, but it is fun without the corniness and boring stretches of the kiddie-fied Mirror Mirror.

                      MY SCORE: 7/10

                      Comment

                      • dell71
                        Enter Sandman
                        • Mar 2009
                        • 23919


                        Another Earth
                        Directed by Mike Cahill.
                        2011. Rated PG-13, 92 minutes.
                        Cast:
                        Brit Marling
                        William Mapother
                        Jordan Baker
                        Flint Beverage
                        Robin Taylor
                        Matthew-Lee Erlbach
                        Rupert Reid
                        DJ Flava

                        It’s just been discovered that our beloved planet Earth has a twin. What’s more is it’s suddenly close enough to be visible in our sky. Young MIT student Rhoda (Marling) is so fascinated by the news she gazes up into the heavens while driving. On this particular night, she’s been doing some drinking also. Neither move is very smart, especially for someone who was accepted to the prestigious school at the tender age of 17. Unsurprisingly, she has an accident. She doesn’t have just any accident. Her faux pas results in the death of a mother and child. The family’s patriarch is left in a coma. Rhoda goes to jail.

                        Still guilt-stricken and withdrawn when she gets out four years later, Rhoda agonizes over a way to apologize to John (Mapother), the man who recovered from his injuries only to find his family had been taken from him. Rhoda also enters a contest to win a trip to “Earth 2” as its gotten even closer during the time she was incarcerated.


                        Like Melancholia, Another Earth is much concerned with the science in its fiction. It is more interested in using its premise to explore the human condition. It does so without the pending doom of the former, but still treads in some pretty murky waters. Along with her guilt, Rhonda is confused and embarks on a misguided attempt at redemption. With each of her steps down that dark path, we cringe. We know what she doesn’t: no good can come of this. We yearn for her to figure a way out of the hole she not only digs but deepens for herself. Our instinctual reaction to everything she does is to ask “How’s that gonna work out?”

                        As simple as our line of questioning is, it doesn’t lead to any easy answers. The ones Rhonda seems to come up with hardly seem right, this includes the one she’s most happy with. It doesn’t work out quite the way she wants. In fact, it provides us with the type of abrupt ending that may take a moment or two to “get”. Be warned that if you don’t get it, you may dismiss the movie, entirely. The same goes if you came in expecting a laser and light show. Another Earth is sci-fi for people who aren’t into sci-fi. The entire film takes place here on this Earth. There are no invading intergalactic armies nor displays of futuristic technology. This is the character study of a troubled person and a darned good one.

                        MY SCORE: 8/10

                        Comment

                        • dell71
                          Enter Sandman
                          • Mar 2009
                          • 23919


                          The Amazing Spider-Man
                          Directed by Marc Webb.
                          2012. Rated PG-13, 136 minutes.
                          Cast:
                          Andrew Garfield
                          Emma Stone
                          Rhys Ifans
                          Sally Field
                          Denis Leary
                          Martin Sheen
                          Irrfan Khan
                          Chris Zylka
                          Campbell Scott
                          C. Thomas Howell
                          Stan Lee

                          I suppose there are plenty of kids too young to remember the first Spider-Man movie even though it’s barely 10 years old and turned into a trilogy of humongous money-makers. Despite the fact that the last of them is a mess, even that one raked in plenty of dough. That one is only 5 years old. Add the fact they all play on cable fairly often. Even those kids too young to remember when any of those movies hit theaters, but interested in superheroes, have likely seen at least one, if not all of them. However, with franchise director Sam Raimi and his star Tobey Maguire no longer onboard, and new money out there to grab, the decision was made to remake, I mean, reboot the whole thing.

                          If nothing else, rebooting means we get another telling of our hero’s origin tale. The major aspects of the story remain the same. Peter Parker (Garfield) is a genius high-school student who ranks pretty low on the social totem pole. He manages to get himself bitten by a very special spider and develops the ability to climb walls and plenty of other things spiders can do. After his Uncle Ben (Sheen) is killed by a common street thug Peter goes through some trials and tribulations before deciding to use his powers to fight crime.

                          The twists in the tale are how Peter comes into contact with the fateful spider and the villain he has to battle. Both are due to Dr. Curt Connors (Ifans), a scientist working to duplicate, in humans, the ability of certain animals to regenerate lost limbs. After all, he himself only has one arm. One thing leads to another and like scientists in superhero movies are prone to do, he tests his latest serum on himself. Yes, he regenerates his arm. There’s one heck of a side-effect, though. He transforms into a giant lizard.


                          From there, the movie proceeds as it must. There are no surprises, particularly if you’re familiar with Spider-Man lore. Therefore, what the story is isn’t important. What’s important is how well it tells that story and, unfortunately because it’s so fresh in our minds, how it compares to an original that most of the target audience is not only aware of, but has probably seen.

                          The Amazing Spider-Man works hard to establish Peter as an emotional kid who has not only just lost his beloved Uncle Ben, but is still dealing with the death of his parents. Of course, he’s also coming to grips with the insane physical changes he’s undergone (did someone say ‘metaphor for puberty’?). On top of all this, as there always is, he’s got some intense puppy-love going on. Garfield pulls all of it off with an excellent performance. His may be better than Maguire’s in the same role. On the other hand, this new Peter is a tad too sure of himself. His social standing seems to be of little or no importance to him even though that’s an accepted part of the character’s origin and motivation.

                          This movie subs out one of Spidey’s squeezes, Mary Jane, for another, Gwen Stacy (Stone). I don’t have a problem with this, in principal. I get the filmmakers want to differentiate their movie from Raimi’s as much as possible. My issue is with the execution. Stone is a talented actress and does what she can, but the role is lazily written and ill-fitting the franchise. A good deal of this goes back to how Peter is presented. He doesn’t have the same angst we’re used to because a girl like Gwen is obviously fawning over him whenever he walks by. This robs their love story of any tension. There is no chasing his dream girl and she never disappoints him. The only potential roadblock is her dad, played by Denis Leary. However, his protests are of such little consequence, it neuters the climactic scene, zaps it of any emotional heft. It feels empty. This is one of the film’s major failings in comparison to the original. That movie anchors itself to a romance that feels agonizingly one-sided for much of its runtime. It is truly something for us to latch onto between action scenes.


                          Another big problem with TAS is the ease with which Peter gets used to his new powers. True, this fits in with a more confident protagonist, but there is almost no transition period for him to get comfortable with the idea of being more than human. He is instantly graceful in his new movements. There’s a brief scene full of gags about his newfound strength and things sticking to his hands. How he deals with this is never addressed, he just suddenly doesn’t have those problems. He invents both his web-shooter and the incredibly strong webbing in the space of about sixty seconds. He never has any miscues, even on his first foray into the criminal underworld. I hate to beat a dead spider, but things come too easy for this guy.

                          By the way, I’m torn by this movie’s use of the web shooter. On one hand, I applaud it because that’s the way it is in the comics. Unfortunately, they completely ignored it as an actual part of the storyline. In the comics, Spidey would often run out and have to reload his shooters, occasionally at inopportune times. He, and the reader, was constantly aware of how many cartridges he had on him. Here, like a cowboy in a western firing 15 shots from his revolver, we’re told a cartridge holds several hundred feet of webbing then watch him shoot thousands with no problem. Still, I like that they used the device at all. On the other hand, I always thought it was silly that Spider-Man was endowed with all of the abilities of a spider except the one we most associate with the creature. It’s like Stan Lee said ‘Sure, he can climb walls, leap several stories and lift cars, but shooting webs? That’s too much.’ This is why I thought the previous movie’s addition of organic webbing was perfect.

                          My final issue with the new web-slinger is actually almost identical to what plagued the original. When our hero is doing heroic things he’s way too obviously the product of a team of animators and computer whizzes. When he’s swinging from structure to structure and flipping around he seems weightless. We’re not always convinced there’s a man in the suit. Like I said, the first movie had the same problem. Raimi and his team handled it better in the following two installments, but let’s call this a wash.


                          For all my railing against TAS, believe it or not, there are things I think it does very well. One of those things is Peter’s anguish over his uncle. This is the emotional high point of the film. It’s aided by the scenes immediately before it, demonstrating his suddenly rebellious attitude and how directly he’s responsible for what happens. At the same time, due to other events in the movie, memories of his father have risen to the surface as raw as if the wound was still fresh.

                          Our hero’s behavior while in action is also a plus. In the comics, Spidey was always a smart alec during the action. He constantly cracked jokes annoying his adversary and amusing himself (and us). That quality is ably captured in TAS. It adds a sense of fun to the proceedings. The scene where a guy pulls a knife on him best showcases this. It’s something sorely missing from the first two Raimi films.

                          The biggest plus in TAS’s favor is its villain. While I like Willem Dafoe, overall, as an actor, I always thought his handling of The Green Goblin (and the writing of the character) to be ridiculously over the top, even for a comic book movie. Aside from that, he is purely motivated by greed. In the movie, Ifans, as The Lizard, is not only much more subdued, but a sympathetic character, too. Sure, he has plenty of selfishness but there are also some altruistic reasons for his actions. However twisted they may be, we understand that he truly believes he’s working for the greater good. In addition, the cgi lizard is better looking than the infinitely goofy mask Dafoe had to wear.


                          One last thing, this movie has the absolute best Stan Lee cameo of all the Marvel flicks. ‘Nuff said.

                          Okay, this went way too long. I couldn’t quite contain my passion for the character. Though I currently claim Batman as my fave superhero (do NOT tell me he’s not a superhero, not having that argument today), as a kid I actually read more Spider-Man comics than anything else. I’m dying for someone to make issues #229 and #230 from 1982 into a movie. In #230, Spidey is desperately trying to slow down Juggernaut’s march across the city. It still ranks as one of my all-time fave books. Um…scratch that. I didn’t actually mean to say that out loud. I’m not that geeky (laughing nervously). Anyhoo, TAS is a decent time-passer but doesn’t connect on the same level as its predecessor. It also feels way too soon. While it’s not a bad comic book flick, it feels totally unnecessary.

                          MY SCORE: 6/10

                          Comment

                          • calgaryballer
                            Tiote!
                            • Mar 2009
                            • 4620

                            My feeling's mirror yours Dell. I enjoyed the movie, like I enjoy all comic book movies. They have a lower bar for me. I liked Garfield as Spider-Man, I like Stone, I liked the Lizard, etc. However, I think Spider-Man is one movie where we don't NEED all the exposition on how he gets the powers. EVERYONE knows this by know. And I felt the movie got bogged down in that solely to show 'hey, we aren't Sam Raimi!'.

                            On Stacy I have to think that -

                             
                            The main reason they picked her is to deal with her eventual death, something which cannot happen with MJ. Still needed to give Stone more to work with

                            Comment

                            • dell71
                              Enter Sandman
                              • Mar 2009
                              • 23919

                              Originally posted by calgaryballer
                              My feeling's mirror yours Dell. I enjoyed the movie, like I enjoy all comic book movies. They have a lower bar for me. I liked Garfield as Spider-Man, I like Stone, I liked the Lizard, etc. However, I think Spider-Man is one movie where we don't NEED all the exposition on how he gets the powers. EVERYONE knows this by know. And I felt the movie got bogged down in that solely to show 'hey, we aren't Sam Raimi!'.

                              On Stacy I have to think that -

                               
                              The main reason they picked her is to deal with her eventual death, something which cannot happen with MJ. Still needed to give Stone more to work with
                              Hmmm...never thought of that angle on the Stacy character. Thanks!

                              Comment

                              • Senser81
                                VSN Poster of the Year
                                • Feb 2009
                                • 12804

                                No Skyfall or Hobbit reviews? Did I miss them somewhere in the thread?

                                Comment

                                Working...