Mirror Mirror

MIRROR MIRROR

Funny and fresh, Mirror Mirror reflects humor along with stunning visuals.

2012: Relativity Media

2012, Fantasy/Comedy, Rated PG

Distributed by Relativity Media

           Leave it to Tarsem Singh to direct the most visually pleasing film of the year so far. The director has introduced us to some stunning worlds, including the mind of a serial killer in 2000's The Cell. Mirror Mirror, his latest effort, is much more light-hearted than The Cell, but full of just-as-arresting visuals and set design.

          The movie opens with a quirky animated back-story of how the queen came into power. The queen, played by a deliciously evil Julia Roberts, keeps Snow White, a gorgeously dark-haired Lily Collins, locked up in her palace because she wants to be the most beautiful woman in the world and Snow White is the only one who could surpass her. The queen is only in power because she married the King and then he mysteriously vanished in the woods, leaving his daughter in the hands of her evil stepmother. The film follows the queen's attempt to marry a prince, played by Armie Hammer, in order to get rich. The prince and Snow White fall for each other however, so the queen gets very angry and attempts to thwart the romance. Snow White is helped along by seven dwarfs, of course.

          The only issue I had with this film was occasional weak dialogue. The story was actually quite interesting and moved at a brisk pace, weaving through the kingdom and the dark forest beyond. Although Julia Roberts plays the queen very well, some of her dialogue felt hollow, and occasionally, like it could have been much funnier. She is almost too mean to Snow White. She lacks enough character development for us to really understand how she could be such a heartless jerk. The town she rules over has literally no money and yet her palace is ridiculously elaborate and clean. This makes no sense.

          Tarsem Singh lends his usual gorgeous visuals to the story and they payoff greatly. Every scene takes place in a setting the viewer has never before imagined. From the forest to the dwarfs' home in a tree, from the dance hall to the palace, every set piece is perfect for the story and style of the film. Costumes were excellent, worthy of the Costume Design Academy Award, and creatures were expertly animated. The dwarfs run around and loot travellers on stilts that were incredibly real looking. Many times I couldn't tell if they were practical or digital. I believe they were a prefect mix of both. The mirror that the queen talks to is not a mirror but a doorway. She walks through it an into a creepy and dank wooden hut surrounded by grey water. Inside, a pale and stripped-down version of Roberts patiently waits to answer questions. In one action scene Snow White and the dwarfs are attacked by two giant wooden voodoo dolls/puppets controlled by the mirror version of the queen. This was a highlight in the film. The action was exciting and the giant puppets were incredibly well-animated. Every scene has some visual to marvel at, too many to mention here.

          Julia Roberts does an excellent job but, like I said, her character was a bit underdeveloped and her dialogue was at times weak. She really pulled it off though with what she was given. Lily Collins was superb as Snow White, bringing a modesty and beauty to the character that I have never encountered in any retelling. The dwarfs were great too, all of them good actors and filling their diverse roles well. Nathan Lane turns in a predictably funny and charming performance as the queen's right-hand man. Most impressive in the acting category, however, was Armie Hammer as the prince. He is quickly becoming a favorite of mine. He showed us all, twice over, what he could do in The Social Network, and here he is in a totally different kind of role. It's a light-hearted romantic lead, sweeping Snow White and the audience off their feet. At one point the queen attempts to seduce him with a love potion but she mixes up the vials and gives him a "puppy love" potion instead. Words can't describe his performance after that, but based on my description, you can imagine how he behaves.

          One of my favorite aspects of this film was the love story between Snow White and the prince. They fall in love and want to be together the moment they meet. There's none of that getting to know you routine that appears in many movies like this. Usually the lovers don't like each other for most of the movie and then realize that they actually are in love toward the end. They were like a couple of teenagers, which they really are, falling head-over-heels for each other. It just felt refreshing to see love depicted that way, and then watch them fight to be with each other through the whole movie. I really wanted them to end up together, so watching them fend off the evil queen was that much more satisfying.

          All in all I'd say this is totally worth your time. Mirror Mirror piles on the laughs and displays a gorgeous visual style that only Tarsem Singh could pull off with such bravado. All the actors turn in perfect performances and adventure and romance abound in this quirky update of the Snow White tale.

          Side note: Sean Bean of Game of Thrones plays a predictable but fun cameo.

         

          Another side note: Snow White and the Huntsman hits theaters this Friday. I will do a comparison to see which update does Snow White the best.

Men In Black 3

MEN IN BLACK 3

Will Smith and Co. try to revive the MIB franchise with a semi-entertaining sequel.

The man in black. Photo by my dad, also seeing MIB3.

2012, Action/Sci-Fi, Rated PG-13

Distributed by Columbia Pictures

          What makes Men In Black 3 such a welcomed surprise is its terrible predecessor. Men In Black 2 was a total misfire and left fans of the first instalment scratching their heads. No one thought a second sequel would make it to the big screen, especially over a decade later, but here it is, and unfortunately, it wasn't worth the wait.

          A whole decade later I expected something fresh, something new, to be added to the mix of things but that never really shows up in MIB3. There is of course the time travel aspect, and Josh Brolin's portrayal of the 1969 K, but the film just feels tired, and overplayed. K and J interact the same way the whole movie. J, played by Will Smith, teases K, Tommy Lee Jones/Josh Brolin, for being too stern, too serious, never letting loose. The jokes get old real fast, especially because they were a' plenty in the trailers. Will Smith is funny as usual and charming as he possibly can be but he can't hold the whole movie up himself with a few cute one-liners. Even the special effects are pretty much rubbish.

          The original Men In Black was a great sci-fi actioner for its time. The whole thing felt dirty and gritty, displaying the uglier side of space aliens. The ending was the perfect payoff, finally seeing the villain in his true form, as a hideous but well-animated giant cockroach. There was none of that in MIB3. The villain is creepy and has some cool alien body parts but he never reveals his true form. He does for a second but it wasn't enough. The climax of this film felt boring because of this.

          These movies are all the same thing. They go into a back alley shop to get answers and the person behind the counter ends up being an alien. It's like EVERYONE is an alien in the MIB universe, why do they hide? The first few creature action scenes are all recycled from earlier MIB movies. The whole thing felt hollow from the start.

          Like I said, Will Smith is very funny and provides many laughs but it's not enough. Other actors play great supporting roles, including A Serious Man's Michael Stuhlbarg as a five-dimensional alien called Griffin. Bill Hader plays an excellent Andy Warhol and Jamaine Clement was very impressive as a villain. Tommy Lee Jones was hardly in it and Josh Brolin did a good job but his character was kind of boring.

          Men In Black 3 feels like an old model car, struggling to stick out in a technologically advanced world. The special effects are barely updated and the action scenes have become no more intense, perhaps less so. It's the same old MIB but the rest of us, and more importantly action movies in general, have all moved on.

          Side note: The more I think about it, the more I liked Jamaine Clement as the villain. He brought memories of Tim Curry as "IT" or Dr. Frank-N-Furter. Good performance in a not-so-good movie.

Chernobyl Diaries

CHERNOBYL DIARIES

I wanted to like it. I tried to like it. I didn't like it. 

Nothing to mimic...Photo by Heather, seeing Battleship.

2012, Horror/Suspense, Rated R

Distributed by Warner Bros.

          Horror movies don't do much for me usually. There has to be something there, behind the gore and scares, that makes the film worth watching. It can't be chock-full of cliche Hollywood horror moments. Many horror films these days are just gory and dumb. When I see trailers for films like Chernobyl Diaries with awful names and no stars, I am skeptical. Everything about Chernobyl Diaries seemed like a gimmick to me. Pretty much everyone knows about Chernobyl, so that's their vehicle for a few cheap scares and gore galore. It wasn't until about halfway through the picture that I realized it was no ordinary horror film.

          You've got your American tourists in Europe: two girls and a guy. They meet up with the guy's brother who lives two hours outside Chernobyl. They take a tour with another European couple and a guide named Uri through Pripyat, the town where Chernobyl workers lived and abandoned overnight when the reactor malfunctioned. They call it "extreme tourism". I call it extreme idiocy.

          This is my main problem with the movie. It takes the whole "people are stupid in horror movies" to a new level. Don't go to Chernobyl, simple as that. I have no sympathy for these characters at all. They all deserve their grizzly fates. But once you put that aside, as I eventually did, you'll see there are some excellent characters and supremely well-crafted suspense at work. Besides the idiocy of agreeing to take a sketchy tour through Chernobyl, everything evolves quite naturally from dangerous fun to near death. The way the characters react to the situation once they are thrown in headlong feels very realistic. I enjoyed that aspect. Also, it was nice to the see the worst actor in the film die early.

          The suspense really builds to an excruciating level until about two-thirds in. Once you realize Chernobyl Diaries is succumbing to uninspired Hollywood cliches, the suspense fades. Up until that point is a showcase of extraordinary camera work. This movie is the perfect blend of standard Hollywood and experimental handheld cinematography. Many scenes are filmed in one continuous take that demonstrates how talented the cast truly is. One in particular, when they realize their van has been sabotaged, is very intense. The characters go from happy-go-lucky to "we're trapped in Chernobyl" all in one shot and it's incredibly convincing. All the actors deliver pitch-perfect performances as are on display in this and many scenes like it.

          For me, the movie was excellent until what is chasing and killing them is finally revealed. I won't say what it is, but it's not even remotely surprising for this kind of film. It could have been anything until an hour into the movie and that's what kept me interested. Once I realized it had been done before, I lost quite a bit of stamina and began to wonder when the credits would roll. The ending especially was just daft. Many times it could have been different, but veered right off into familiar territory. The menace that is killing the main characters is incredibly cliche, but the execution of the film itself was hyper-suspenseful and well-crafted.

          This movie was an intense experience, one I can't say was bad or boring or uneventful. I don't like the film Chernobyl Diaries but I enjoyed the experience of watching it for the first time. And I really mean experience. This film is also unique in that it subtly follows one of the characters through the whole movie. Whenever the group splits up, the camera goes with one of the original American girls. Once it leaves the others it does not return to them until she does. At one point she is alone in an abandoned kitchen being stalked by something grotesque and bloodthirsty and the camera never leaves her side. You see the others trying to motion for her to follow, but only from her point of view. It was an interesting aspect to the film. It was consistent and made many scenes that much more terrifying.

          Side note: If you really still want to see this movie, you should go now. It will be so much better in the theater than at home. It's an experience made for the big screen.

Even more trailers...

...that might be better than the movies they advertise.

Here are some more examples of trailers that are WAY better than the movies they advertise

2003's Stander, based on the true story of cop-turned-bank-robber Andre Stander, is not quite as exciting as this nifty little trailer. It's the music that is played over this teaser which makes it so memorable. While Stander is an excellent underrated biopic, the film isn't nearly as fun as this trailer, nor does the song show up anywhere.

Even after having seen this lackluster biopic in its entirety, watching this trailer still gives me the shivers. The music is so uplifting, so bold, almost demanding that you take notice. Showing the whole trailer from Thatcher's point of view and revealing Maryl Streep just murdering the role at the end really makes this preview a success. It advertises the movie we all wish we had seen when we bought tickets to see a biopic of Margaret Thatcher's life and got the puzzling Iron Lady instead.



Not only the recognizable characters and visuals but, again, the music in this teaser makes me wish December 14, 2012 was tomorrow. This film really doesn't need much of an introduction and this trailer feels just right for revisiting Middle Earth. The haunting yet calming song that the characters begin singing really puts you in another place and time. Will The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey be as good as this trailer promises? My guess is absolutely. 

Side note: Chernobyl Diaries review coming in just a few hours...stay tuned.



Retro: The Woman In Black

THE WOMAN IN BLACK

Radcliffe works his magic in a decent old-fashioned ghost story.

2012: CBS Films

2012, Horror, Rated PG-13

Distributed by CBS Films

          The Woman in Black tries to set itself apart from your standard PG-13 horror flick but turns out to be run-of-the-mill. It's chock-full of cheap scares, but also teases with haunting visuals and a dark, almost alluring atmosphere. It wants to be an old-fashioned ghost story but ends up just like all the rest; hollow and somewhat silly.

          The tone and atmosphere of the film are very intriguing. Daniel Radcliffe plays Arthur Kipps, a widow with a son, who is sent to uncover a town's dark secret around the turn of the twentieth century. The film is drenched in somber silence as the film opens, music only piercing the quiet in hushed tones. Radcliffe barely speaks, saddened still by his wife's passing. The dark colors of the film accompany the atmosphere wonderfully. The cinematography is not stunning, but rightfully atuned to the style of the film. This is a horror movie that does not feel like it was made in 2011. It feels very old, used, and worn-out, like many of its characters. Radcliffe is sent to investigate the death of a woman in her creepy mansion surrounded by icey, treeless fields. It's a haunting location, one that suits the film completely.

          One problem I have with this film is one that it shares with many films of a similar structure. The people in the town Kipps is sent to investigate act so obviously like they are keeping a secret. They really lay it on thick to an unrealistic extent. People run from Kipps, hide their children, and try to drive him away as soon as he arrives. It just seems like a bad way to keep a secret and distracted me from really getting into the story.

          Radcliffe does an excellent job in this post-Harry Potter role. He does look rather young for the part but still, he brings a quiet concentration to his character that is perfect. He plays a sad individual who is trying to save his job, family, and sanity by unraveling a mystery involving a child-murdering ghost. I liked how this film was more a meditation on death, rather than ghosts and the supernatural. There are plenty of supernatural elements, but the most interesting scenes merely discuss death and its implications.

          What makes this film not nearly as good as it should be is its cheap PG-13 scares. They're a-dime-a-dozen in films like this. They usually involve a second of loud music and a creepy image that makes the viewer jump. There are plenty of these in The Woman in Black and they eventually feel pointless. The best sequences don't involve the jumpy, scary supernatural stuff. The climax especially has no supernatural elements yet it is suspenseful and exciting regardless.

          All in all, I would not suggest this movie unless you are fond of PG-13 rated horror. Radcliff does a nice job, but the plot feels recycled and merely there to fill the gaps between cheap scares.

          Side note: There are long stretches of silence from Radcliffe in this film. Many scenes are just him physically reacting to creepy discoveries. He really is just a face and a name to attach to a little no-budget horror film.

More trailers...

...that might be better than the movies they advertise.

More examples of cool trailers for so-so films...

1999's The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc is an excellent film directed by Luc Besson (The Professional, The Fifth Element) and a sprawling epic. It is not, however, anything like this teaser trailer. The movie is fun because of its cast and in-your-face battle scenes, but this trailer alludes to something more mysterious, and much more intriguing.

J.J. Abrams' 2009 update of Star Trek deserved a stellar teaser like this. The trailer attempts to ground the film in reality, showing us that something like the Enterprise was built by men before hurtling through space to places no man had ever gone. The film completely lives up to the style portrayed in this teaser, making for an excellent summer blockbuster.



Although not as cool to those unfamiliar with 2004's Resident Evil: Apocalypse's source material, this trailer is effective nonetheless. They really nailed it with that music and eerie sterile tone, making it really feel like a skincare commercial. The film doesn't live up to this sleek teaser because it's too loud, too dark, and not nearly as clever.

Trailers...

...that might be better than the movies they advertise.

You ever see a trailer that makes a movie look so totally cool, you have to question whether it will be as good as the two minute appetizer?

Here's an old example of a trailer that is so well-crafted, the mediocre film it advertises is lame in comparison...

2001's The Time Machine isn't "sleek" or "fast" but somewhat dull and slow. It isn't terrible and I'm a huge fan of the source material, but this stylish trailer stands out in my mind while the film has faded.  This is just proof that a trailer or teaser can be better than the movie itself.

It's Donovan's "Season of the Witch" that makes this one so catchy and memorable. It's perfectly eerie and quirky for the visuals we see.  This trailer makes ParaNorman, out August 17, look like a treat, but will it live up to this two minute teaser? My guess is no.

The killer two minutes that unfold when you press play on this one may not be matched by the film itself, though it has great potential. This film looks excellent, with a sheen like that that accompanied 2011's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trailers, everything just feels right for this picture. I believe this one will live up to this trailer's already established hype. Although without Jack White's cover of U2's "Love is Blindness", it may lack the excitement the song brings to this preview. The Great Gatsby comes out on Christmas day.

Retro: The Vow

THE VOW

"Based on true events" has never felt so unrealistic.

2012: Screen Gems

2012, Drama/Romance, Rated PG-13

Distributed by Screen Gems

          The Vow is a silly little movie with a silly little plot that tries to be sad, funny, and romantic but succeeds on none of those fronts. The story is allegedly based on true events. What is true about this tale is that a married couple was in a car crash and the woman woke up unable to remember her marriage or any of her life with her husband because of severe amnesia. They stuck it out, though, and are now happily married with two kids. Everything that happens in between, as portrayed in The Vow, is totally fictional and cliched beyond belief. 

          The movie opens with the car crash. All we know about Leo, played by Channing Tatum, and Paige, played by Rachel McAdams, is what we learned in the trailer which pretty much gave the entire plot away. In my Chronicle review I pointed out how annoying it is when characters react to events unrealistically. Every single line in this movie is delivered simply to push the plot forward. All the major plot points are so coincidental, so perfect for melodrama. Paige just happens to be a completely different woman from the one she was five years ago. She left law school, ditched her fiance, and even shunned her family all the time she was with Leo. The family especially is so obnoxiously cliche, it's almost unbearable to watch them interact with the down-to-Earth Leo. Whatever happened to Sam Niell, anyway? First Daybreakers and now The Vow? What ever happened to JP4?

          One interesting aspect of the film is the character of Jeremy, Paige's ex-fiance, played by Scott Speedman. You assume he will go for Paige now that she thinks she is still in love with him after dumping him years ago, but no. When she shoves her married tongue down his throat, he backs away, claiming he has a girlfriend. The only scene that was not totally predictable was when that lizard Jeremy tells Leo about the kiss. Good drama unfolds. Leo should have punched him harder.

          Rachel McAdams doesn't impress anyone with her acting in this movie but she isn't given much to work with. Her previous life, the one she thinks is her current life, is so bogged down in cliches, its believability can barely stay afloat no matter how she plays it. She also never accepts responsibility. No one in the film treats this unique situation with the care and attention it would actually deserve. Did her family really think Leo would just walk away? That's how everyone acts, but it's not realistic. Channing Tatum does an okay job, not his best, but with a script like The Vow's, what can we expect?

          The twist/big reveal at the end is pretty random but does beg for a second viewing with the knowledge of the reason Paige abandoned her family. It makes certain odd lines spoken throughout have real meaning. Like when Leo says to Paige's father "You're such a coward." It doesn't make any sense unless you know why he's calling him a coward.

          The ending is not so predictable after a barrage of scenes that are. And they really killed it by choosing The Cure's "Pictures of You" as the final song. Great choice. It left me on a positive note.

          Side note: Even though I said the ending begs a second viewing, the movie itself begs no viewings. Unless you adore every word that comes out of the main actors' mouths, or like looking at them half-clothed, well, I guess you should watch it. I don't recommend it, though. There are plenty of great romantic dramas out there and this isn't one of them.

Marvel's The Avengers

MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS

Everything a Marvel comics movie should be.

Tony, Cap, and me catching a movie. Photo by Heather, also seeing The Avengers.

2012, Action/Adventure, Rated PG-13

Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures

          Many have asked that I review this film. I personally see it as pointless. You've all probably seen it. What is there to say? It's an excellent movie. It's totally awesome. It's everything a  Marvel comic book movie should be. Although, I do have some thoughts...

          When I say Marvel comic book movie, I mean MARVEL comic book movie. The Marvel universe is incredibly rich and deep and interrelated. Every character pretty much knows every other character. It's never this one isolated incident where a boy turns into a web-swinging mutant who saves New York from criminals and creepy-crawlies. I'll pick on Spider-man with Toby Maguire. It's a great movie, mind-blowing at the time, but it really doesn't do justice to the comic books at all. He didn't sprout up out of nowhere: he's just another superhero in the Marvel universe. Anyway, my point is, they finally did it right. It was very smart of Marvel to release the origin stories before The Avengers. That is what allowed it to be so intense, epic, interesting, to watch all these freaks from different places and times whom we'd met individually, come together for a common goal. I hope all Marvel movies from here on out combine character story lines. There's over seventy years-worth of stories in the Marvel universe. I say dig in.

          It was a hoot watching all those super-egos bash while the film played out. Joss Whedon does an excellent job directing a light-hearted, but in-your-face-action-packed experience that he also co-wrote. I don't think anyone else could have made The Avengers so cheeky but so badass at the same time. Everything came together literally and figuratively for this film. All the  actors do their parts to make it exciting but also funny and genuine. With so many characters, so many things going on at once, everyone shares the burden of living up to very high expectations by delivering their best performances. No one faulted, and no one stood out. Even field. It was perfect.

          Okay, if I have to mention one negative aspect, it was the variation between environments in which the romp sessions unfolded. There are essentially two stages for major combat. The flying thing and the city at the end. There are a few shorter action scenes before these that are excellent, but maybe a little more variation would have been nice.  I just hope the sequels get more creative. I feel like a lot of these epic blockbuster movies have climaxes in cities that get destroyed.

          I'm not going to say go see it because you probably already have. I mean, see it if you haven't, but Battleship is just as exciting and the digital effects are honestly better. The Avengers is awesome, but you don't need me to tell you that.

          Side note: If you haven't seen the origin stories (other than The Incredible Hulk), you should see them before you catch The Avengers. Especially Iron Man.The film is definitely tailored to anyone, but it'll be better if you know the characters. There's two plus hours of characterization on each of them before this film begins.

Battleship

BATTLESHIP

Battleship is a hit and sinks its audience into summer blockbuster excitement.

Getting better at posing. Photo by my sister Heather, also seeing Battleship.

2012, Action/Science Fiction, Rated PG-13

Distributed by Universal Pictures

          Taylor Kitsch is really getting the short end of the blockbuster stick these days. His previous starring role, as the title character of the underrated John Carter, opened in the shadow of the overrated mega-hit The Hunger Games. His newest big-budget sci-fi actioner, Battleship, opened in the even larger shadow of The Avengers. This guy's films can't catch a break. Without the star power of Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson and about a dozen others, how can the unknown Taylor Kitsch carry a franchise-wannabe like Battleship? He does his best and fulfills his duty.

          Battleship's premise is just as ridiculous as it sounds. It's over-the-top alien and military action at its finest and loudest. It is, in essence, the perfect summer blockbuster. It is action-packed, funny, has romance, and extraterrestrials and sci-fi around every corner. It's a unique vision of an alien invasion which is hard to come by these days. There are gaping holes in the plot and science of it all, but it's a thrilling roller coaster ride nonetheless.

          Let's start with funny. Taylor Kitsch is climbing the ranks of my favorite young action stars. He saves John Carter from being terrible. Battleship is much better than John Carter so it doesn't need to be saved, but Kitsch does an excellent job, making it even more enjoyable. He's hilarious in many scenes, especially the opening sequence before his character even joins the Navy. It's a classic scene that characterizes him as the anti-authority-but-still-very-charming hero of the film.

          He's an anti-hero, though. He is on the verge of being kicked out of the Navy as the story begins. While at sea, and once the alien vessels emerge from the Pacific Ocean, Kitsch saves the day with his quick thinking and nontraditional ways of fighting the enemy. That enemy is an alien race from "Planet G", an Earth-like planet far away that we contacted. Planet G's response to our calls was to attack us. That's pretty much the plot. Explosions and epic battles at sea fill the rest of the run time. The digital effects in this movie were particularly impressive, some of the best to date. The water effects were so realistic, and there were many, many different sequences that showcased how far we've come in this digital picture age.

          The effects did not just look real, they were used in fresh and creative ways. I really like this new style of slick action films using harsh glare to enhance a shot. J.J. Abrams utilized the technique to gorgeous effect in his excellent Star Trek update. Slow motion was used only fleetingly, but when it was, it was perfect for the action unfolding. There is one sustained shot which must have been at least three or four minutes long that, although not practically done and thus digitally put together, was just awesome and exhilerating. My blood was pumping, my adrenaline was surging, and I must say that I was really into this movie.

          I know it's just a big-budget, explosion-filled, digital-effects-laden money maker, but I totally dug every minute of it. There was an odd sense of patriotism rising within me watching those ships careen across the Pacific. Not just patriotism for my country, but for the planet as well. We may not win the war of the worlds, but we could deal some serious damage. This movie showed that with a military sheen which just rocked.

          Side note: Many people were wondering how this movie had anything to do with the military board game of the same name. There is a great scene that shows why this film does in fact deserve that title. The classic game is integrated into the movie so seamlessly  and it is really rewarding to see it actually show up. Skip your third trip to The Avengers and check out Battleship.

Retro: Chronicle

CHRONICLE

The best found-footage movie ever made.

2012: 20th Century Fox

2012, Science Fiction, Rated PG-13

Distributed by 20th Century Fox

          The curse of the January release date. It plagues some excellent movies into dismal ratings and poor attendance at the cinema. January is a time for many (including this reviewer) to catch up on all the Oscar films that they haven't yet seen. Because people are still thinking about the previous year's best films, studios don't normally release their most lucrative pictures in January or February. Sometimes, however, a little unknown flick comes out in January that really stands out among the mediocre crowd. This year it's Chronicle. 

          This film's January release is why I didn't see it in the theater. I would have, though (especially when I saw Extremely Long and Incredibly Corny at a cinema right next to the theater that this was playing!) but unfortunately I was on the hunt to see all the Oscar films so I skipped this one. I also may have passed on it because found-footage movies (the kick off being Blair Witch Project) are a dime-a-dozen, usually about an exorcism (boooooring), and usually really bad and merely cashing in on a phase. Chronicle isn't that at all. It feels genuine. It's exactly the kind of movie the found-footage routine works for.

          The plot follows a trio of high schoolers as they become superhuman, coming in contact with something under the ground that gives them superpowers. The idea seems silly and not original at all after The Avengers and hundreds of other comic book movies past and present. What makes it not silly, and extremely serious and sad and frustrating at times, is the execution. The camera that the film is mostly viewed from is that of one of the trio, Andrew. Andrew is your typical loser in high school who gets made fun of for being different. Also, his father beats him and his mother is sick and dying. Great fodder for a super villain. The other two boys are Andrew's cousin, Matt, turning in the best performance of the film, and Steve, a popular kid from school who never even looked at Andrew before they make their discovery. But hold up, let's go back to that "discovery" scene.

          It is the most terrifying scene I have witnessed in a long time. I don't get scared of movies anymore usually, but this scene was extremely frightening. The boys find a hole in the ground and, like stupid boys do, they go inside it. Before they even step inside I was uneasy, wondering whether curiosity would propel me into that hole. They claim that a sound is coming from the hole and that it smells bad. The camera can't pick up the noise but I imagine it was not Earthly. Steve jumps right in and the other two follow. What they find, inside the hole, is horrifying, scream-inducing, and for some reason, realistic. The actual thing that gives them superpowers isn't realistic, but the boys' reaction to it is. That's what sells far-fetched plots and outlandish scenes in movies: the reactions from the characters.

          One of the greatest aspects of this film is its plot progression. Many films have characters reacting to things in unrealistic ways, simply to further the plot. It's like you can see the screenwriter come into frame, whisper something in the character's ear, and then that character will say something that merely pushes the plot forward, not something the character would actually do or say based on his "characterization" in previous scenes. Everything evolves so naturally in Chronicle from three boys who find a weird hole in the ground, to three boys who could literally move mountains. All the characters react to their superpowers in extremely down-to-earth ways. It's pretty clear from the get-go that one of the boys, the loser who has no friends,  will become evil and abuse his power. It will be up to the other two to "save the world" essentially, from this evil "villain". We're pretty much talking about a poor man's Unbreakable here. Although Chronicle is nearly flawless in my opinion, no one has done superheroes and villians with more class and attention to detail than M. Night Shyamalan with that picture.

          I also really liked the natural evolution of the characters' demeanors. At first, we sympathize with poor Andrew because he is a loner whose father beats him. As the film  progresses and he becomes increasingly more evil, you really want the other two to squash him like a bug. Andrew becomes the most powerful, however, and the other two can't do a whole lot about it. I'm going to say it: this movie is better than The Avengers. In those ridiculous big-budget Marvel films, plenty of people die by the hand of the villain. No one cares though because they are tiny unimportant characters, usually getting crushed by falling debris or something. You don't really care because you just want to see the hero give the villain his due punishment via high-flying wire stunts and gorgeous special effects. The first life Andrew takes really upsets the viewer. You realize truly and immediately what can go wrong when you give someone too much power. The film is essentially an allegory for kids who get bullied and then gain power by finding their dad's automatic rifle and bringing it to school. Andrew doesn't terrorize his school, though, he destroys half of Seattle.

          One of the biggest surprises in the film is the character of Matt, Andrew's cousin, and the actor who plays him, Alex Russell. It was my favorite performance in the film. Even though the movie chronicles the evolution of the villain in such excellent detail, Matt's emergence into being a superhero is also well-documented and feels very natural and real. The first person's life that he saves has more emotional impact than any scene in The Avengers. It's not a hollow superhero's act, it's a genuine reaction to someone's being in danger. After viewing a film like Chronicle, Tony Starks and Thors start to feel like cardboard cutouts. (Look around your local theater...that's exactly what they are).

          There are so many wonders and thought-provoking elements to this film to last the viewer well beyond its end. It has more emotional impact than The Avengers and just as much action at a fraction of the run time. This is a film that cares about its characters rather than their superpowers. It makes perfect, and extremely creative, use of the found-footage technique that seems to be popular right now. More action-packed than Cloverfield, more terrifying than Blair Witch Project, and better than most summer movie mush you'll encounter in the coming months. See it.

          Side note: Here is a list of my top three films of the year so far. Every time I see a film that makes its way into this list I will update it. As of now, it looks like this:

1. Chronicle

2. The Avengers

3. The Three Stooges

          Another side note: The only problem I may have had with this movie (it is flawless otherwise) can be summed up in one quote from the underrated sci-fi comedy Evolution: "I've seen this movie, the black dude dies first, you snag it." -Orlando Jones

Retro Review in a few hours.....

This will be the best review yet...it's my favorite film of 2012 so far...Can you guess what it is???

The Dictator

THE DICTATOR

Sacha Baron Cohen channels a dictator and demands laughter.

Better pose this time...Photo by Derek, also seeing The Dictator.

2012, Comedy, Rated R

Distributed by Paramount Pictures

          Sacha Baron Cohen is at it again. He's out to offend as many people as possible, but hopefully make just as many laugh. He succeeds almost every time he attempts this volatile combination. Da Ali G Show and his films based on it (Borat and Bruno) have been successes financially and critically. His only problem now is: where does he go from there?

          HBO's Da Ali Gi Show was Cohen's jump off into fame and stardom. He proved his chameleon-like acting abilities by going out into the unscripted world as ridiculous characters like Borat or Bruno, or my personal favorite, Ali G himself. If only he had a big screen film for me to review...

          The Dictator is sort of like that...sort of. Cohen plays the dictator of a fictional country in northern Africa called Wadiya. He is super rich from oil and wants to build nuclear weapons. The U.N. forces him to speak before it or it will take military action. The film pretty much chronicles his trip to America where he is set up by one of his own men, and has to regain power without his beard...It's a strange plot and one the trailer didn't allude to at all as far as I know.

          There are a few great cameos but they aren't plentiful enough or even all that funny. John C. Reily was my favorite, but he's only in the picture for a few short scenes. Ben Kingsley is a random choice for his role as the dictator's right-hand man, but he fills his shoes comfortably. I was shocked that the character Cohen refers to as a little boy turned out to be Anna Faris. I had no idea it was her with that boyish haircut and brown hair. She did a good job, but I involuntarily flinched sometimes when she was on screen. Edward Norton has a random speechless cameo that felt pointless.

          Cohen acts like his regular fish-out-of-water-in-America routine. The only major problem with The Dictator is the absence of real unscripted scenes with people unaware that they are being filmed. That is what makes Bruno and Borat so funny. I guess Cohen can't do that anymore, because he's more well-known these days. Because of this, the film feels tired, like it's been done many times before. There are many scenes that are trademark Sacha Baron Cohen envelope-pushing (like making multiple jokes about 9/11, and women's rights, and civil rights in general) and cause hearty laughter. I feel like it was just missing those priceless candid moments for me.

          All in all this one may be for you. There aren't that many comedies out right now so this is your ticket if you're searching for a laugh. I burst out in guilty chuckles many, many times, but I still felt like I would have been laughing even harder watching Da Ali G Show.

Side note: Ted looks ridiculous. I can't wait to review it.

Chimpanzee

CHIMPANZEE

Tim the Tool Man Taylor narrates a touching story about an orphaned chimp.

2012: DisneyNature

2012, Nature Documentary, Rated G

Distributed by DisneyNature

          I'm a fan of documentaries. They're great because they're for a certain audience usually, one that wants to learn more about the subject of the film. When viewing a documentary made for kids, however, there isn't much to digest other than visuals. The true story told in Chimpanzee is incredible, the cinematography breathtaking at times, but the filmmakers tailored it to kids. 

          Tim Allen provides narration on this documentary about a chimp named Oscar whose mother dies, and against all odds, is taken under the care of the head male named Freddy. Allen does a good enough job for part of it, but when he starts actually talking to Oscar, saying "Shh, Oscar, Shhh", when a predator is nearby, you realize this is a straight-up kid's movie. I almost expected him to ask the audience for help, pleading "Come on kids, tell Oscar to quiet down or he'll be someone's lunch!". This didn't happen, to my great relief. But then, later on, he pronounces a fruit called Sacoglottis and says "Try saying that three times fast." Imagine if Discovery Channel narrators said naive things like that? Oh well, like I said, it's for kids. I felt alienated.

          As I said, the cinematography was breathtaking at times. There were those eerie time-lapse shots of crawling vines and sprouting mushrooms. There is a particularly stunning slow motion scene of a rain storm. These, fleeting and too few, were the most visually intense sequences. The shots of other animals, not just chimps, were on display as well, creating a full picture of the forest where the main characters live.

          When I say "characters", I mean it. The main problem I had with this film was the assigning of human emotions to animals, even those as intelligent as chimps. The word love is thrown around quite a bit, more than it should. I had a problem with this. Members of Oscar's group were humanized, yet the story that unfolds is true, and must be more complicated than rooted in the human invention that is "love". What seemed to be happening in my eyes was a brutal display of their war- and gang-like behaviour. The rival group was referred to as a "mob", or a "gang", whereas Oscar's innocent little tribe was called a "family" or a "group". They're all chimps. What if the other group was a whole mess of orphans with their own tear-inducing stories? I sure have no idea, because I'm in an air conditioned movie theater in America.

          It was quite the experience, wonderfully brief because of the film's under an hour and a half run time. There were children and their mothers here and there in the theater. Who would spend over thirty dollars to bring their kids to a movie that they won't even watch? Instead, the kid will sit right behind me, and halfway through the movie begin a constant drone of "I wanna go home...I wanna go home...I wanna go home...". I would have told her to zip it if I didn't feel just like her at the exact same moment.

Side note: The shots at the end, with the filmmakers speaking about their experience, was the most interesting sequence to me.

Retro: Lady In The Water

LADY IN THE WATER

A 21st century fairytale by M. Night Shayamalan

2006: Warner Bros. Pictures

2006, Fantasy/Fairlytale, Rated PG-13
Distributed by Warner Bros.

            I've always been a fan of M. Night Shyamalan. His films are unlike any out there. Sometimes he takes his style too far, rubs his audience the wrong way, and people start to lose interest. He has sort of faded from the public eye recently because of a few flops and backseat producing jobs. I had seen all of his post-Sixth Sense films except Lady in the Water. No particular reason; I had just never gotten around to it. So finally, after a friend telling me it was worth a watch, I got my hands on a copy.
            It starts out as per usual. You've got your long sustained shots of main actors displaying their talents. Paul Giamatti plays his usual down-and-out dude. Then he discovers a naked red-head in the pool of his apartment complex, and he gets even more depressed because he has to deal with her. There are wolves chasing the girl and she needs to catch a ride with an eagle to get home safely. It's supposed to be a bedtime story, but it feels a bit uneven.
            The story is very odd, and much of it needs to be explained to both the viewer and Giamatti's character. So, you spend a lot of the run time being told what's going to happen in the movie later on, because this one Asian woman knows the story already. Shayamalan, although normally great at capturing the human element in terrifying situations, couldn't pull it off with this picture. All the characters, with a few exceptions, aren't as interesting as those in his other films. Maybe there are just too many of them here.
            Having said that, there are some great scenes, great performances, and an epic ending. Also, Shayamalan plays his most substantial and most personal role in one of his own films to date. He plays a writer. I liked how this film was almost meta in a way. There was so much talk of stories, plot lines, and writers. Shayamalan turned an inward eye and asked: Why do we tell stories? Can mere bedside entertainment become reality? The director/writer can really make you think, even if he has a lackluster frame to work with, like that of Lady in the Water. Other great side character performances include Sarita Choudhury as Shayamalan's sister. She's hysterical and brings a light side to the far-fetched discoveries of the film. Jeffery Wright, always excellent in supporting roles, was a great choice for the crossword-puzzle-addicted father and tenant.
            I dug the ending. Shayamalan does what he did in Signs, revealing a whole lot after previously only showing very little. Creatures that were only mentioned throughout the film finally unveil themselves, and they are the best visual effect in the film. I thought the wolves looked pretty bad, but the tree gorillas were dark and twisted and well-animated.
            So now I'm going to rank Shayamalan's films from The Sixth Sense to The Happening, best to worst, because I've seen them all. I don't include The Last Airbender because it is so very different from his other writing/directing jobs...

1. Signs
2. Unbreakable
3. The Sixth Sense
4. The Happening
5. The Village
6. Lady in the Water

          Never thought I'd say I liked a movie less than The Village, but there you have it. Post your rankings of his movies if you feel like it. I'd be very curious...

          Side note: After Earth will hopefully be a return to form for Shayamalan, although he isn't the scribe, but that may just be a good thing this time around...check it out.

Retro Movie Review coming in a few hours...

...in other news, there's a strange woman swimming in my pool...stay tuned

Request A Review!

Hi everyone!!!

If anybody has a movie for me to review, please let me know. Whether it's in the theater now or will be this summer, comment here, or tell me on FaceBook, and I'll do my best to see it. There's a 99.9% chance I will go see anything you suggest and review it for you here.

Thanks! Happy Monday.

Dark Shadows...

DARK SHADOWS

It's not easy living in the shadow of Iron Man, The Hulk, Captain America, Thor.....

Me looking goofy, not even posing properly. Photo by Tamara and Brian, also seeing Dark Shadows.

            I must say right off the bat that I’m not a huge Tim Burton fan. I thought Sleepy Hollow was a hoot, but the director has yet to balance humor and grotesque violence so well. Fat-budget remakes are his game now apparently. His newest critical wet noodle is just that: a big budget remake.

            There isn’t anything new or original about it, though. Dark Shadows is your typical Tim Burton affair: haunting atmosphere brought to life by elaborate set decoration and outlandish characters. Once you get to the heart of this cheesy horror flick, you’ll realize it’s like a vampire’s: cold and dead.

            Well, hold on, let’s back up. I will admit I was laughing, smitten by the hilariously satiric way they portrayed the 1970s, but that feeling faded. The story doesn’t hold up and characters start to feel like vehicles for their stars. Helena Bonham Carter brings nothing new: just a recognizable face in a ridiculous wig. Not surprisingly, Chloe Grace Moretz is funny and scene-stealing, adding an odd teenage perspective to the happenings of the film. Eva Green does an excellent job playing a villain. I only wish she could have played one with more depth, not just a witch out for revenge. But, what saves the movie from being awful, is Johnny Depp.

            Depp plays Barnabas Collins, a cursed vampire buried in the eighteenth century, only to be resurrected in 1972. He was cursed by his neglected lover who turned out to be a witch. She used her sorcery to turn him into a vampire, and buried him alive. Don't you hate when that happens? Barnabas sure does. Johnny Depp does an excellent job bringing his frustration to life. 

            Anyone surprised? He really does an excellent job playing the vampiric fish out of water as an eighteenth century nightwalker in the 70s. His reactions to all the 1970s cultural oddities are pitch-perfect. His obsession with the lava lamp brings multiple laughs. His use of eighteenth century language in a hippie Maine town is priceless. Depp really pulls the vampire thing off. After some poor portrayals of these creatures of the night in past years, it’s nice to see some fresh blood.

            If you’re a Tim Burton or Johnny Depp fan, get out there and see Dark Shadows. In fact, you probably already have. If you’re not, maybe wait until it comes out on DVD or the ol’ Redbox. Johnny Depp is hysterical, but the lack of fantasy action or an inspired script (other than Depp’s dialogue) should maybe keep this one in crypt.

            Side note: Because Dark Shadows is living in the tremendous and dark shadow of the mega blockbuster The Avengers right now, its proposed sequel may never see the light of day…