Tag: film (page 8 of 20)

Movie Review: Anchorman – The Legend of Ron Burgundy

I can finally remove a stigma from my character in the eyes of my friends. I used to confess that I’d never seen Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgandy and there would be a collective gasp. Apparently it was an ironclad classic of comedy and I was doing myself a disservice by not watching it. That was the impression I got from some, anyway. And in any event, it’s now a moot point, as I finally made the time to watch this little Will Ferrell gem.

Courtesy DreamWorks

Will takes the title role of Ron Burgundy, the lead anchor of Channel 4’s Action News team in San Diego. This is in the 70s, “a time before cable,” and network news was a big deal, especially the ‘action’ slant on it. Ron’s backed up by his suave man in the field, the ten-gallon-hat-wearing sports commentator, and a weatherman who’s a few cold fronts short of a weather map. They’re at the top of their game, and everything is going smoothly, until their boss tells them there have been some concerns raised about diversity and – much to their shock – a woman is added to their team.

There’s something timeless about Anchorman. Unfortunately, the timeless element is the misogyny observed within a male-dominated professional environment. To its credit, the movie definitely comes down against the behavior of those that would keep Christina Applegate’s character from advancing. We observe these idiotic shenanigans from the outside, and as much as the setting of the 70s may underscore the silliness of the mens’ behavior, the opportunity to point and laugh at such simple-minded perspectives is a welcome one. It’s subtle, but under the more obvious jokes is the impression that our fearsome foursome are seriously out of touch with the world around them, wrapped up in their own legends and the reputation of their news team.

Courtesy DreamWorks
Ron’s mustache is unimpressed.

I will go on record and say I’m not the world’s biggest Will Ferrell fan. I’m generally more interested in subtle or deadpan humor than overt, pie-in-the-face silliness. Timing is everything in comedy, and too much in-your-face relentless slapstick just turns me off. Anchorman does have some flashy, overt set pieces – the jazz flute sequence, the news team brawl, and so on – but the film is actually rather balanced. For every overt sight gag, there’s a subtle jab either at a character in the film or at society in general. While it’s certainly not the highest of comedies, nor is it steeped in satire like some other works, it does not make the mistake of relying entirely on on particular kind of humor, be it repeated gags or body humor or innuendo. The variety in the comedy keeps it fresh enough to not overstay its welcome.

Another factor in Anchorman‘s favor is the spot-on performances of the cast. From Paul Rudd’s unctuous Brian Fantana to Steve Carell’s somewhat simple Brick Tamland, the cast behind Will Ferrell brings their A game. Christina Applegate, in particular, not only puts Veronica Corningstone side by side with Ron Burgundy in every way, but holds her own in comedic timing and delivery right next to Ferrell. As much as the world of the movie revolves around Ron Burgundy, I was glad that his character did not entirely dominate the proceedings. The construction of the film is overall very solid and balanced, and this leads to a very enjoyable viewing experience.

Courtesy DreamWorks
Yeah!!!!!

I don’t review comedies often, and it feels like my usual breakdown is detrimental to them. I don’t want to spoil any more jokes than I already have, so let’s just skip right to the Bottom Line:

Anchorman – The Legend of Ron Burgundy is a well-paced, well-staged, and very funny comedy. It’s silly fun, similar in tone and timbre to older parody movies like Airplane!, and while it doesn’t quite reach that level of brilliance, it’s still a good time, especially with friends.

Movie Review: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Fair warning: I am going to spoil this movie. Forget Abrams and his mystery box, there really isn’t any mystery at all with Star Trek: Into Darkness. He likes to pretend there is – he always does – but if you still haven’t figured out the BIG TWIST of this movie, I’m about to “ruin” it for you. Seriously, jettison all of that stuff. Let go of your hatred, as another now-Abrams sci-fi franchise would tell you. Take this one on its own merits. Because it does have merits. Some good ones. They’re there, and you can see them, if you can look past the overarching disappointments that still cling to this Star Trek and make you remember the previous iterations of it even more fondly.

Courtesy Paramount Pictures

Since the first new Star Trek film, the crew of the Enterprise has been doing some surveying and scouting work. Captain Kirk is eager to be considered for Starfleet’s first five-year mission, but his inexperience and constant flouting of regulations have put his entire career in jeopardy. Admiral Pike is willing to go to bat for his protege, but first an imminent threat to the Federation must be dealt with. That threat takes the form of John Harrison, or as he was known in his time, Khan Noonian Singh.

At this point, it’s really difficult to consider that a spoiler. A cursory look at even the movie’s IMDB page reveals the true identity of Benedict Cumberbatch’s character. To get the bad news out of the way first, this laziness is perhaps the biggest extant problem with Star Trek: Into Darkness. While the use of the genetic super-people from the TOS episode “Space Seed” is not without its cleverness and interesting moments, the blatant copy-paste of the character of Khan invites several questions. If he is Khan, and is named Khan, why is his actor a British man, instead of someone from India or southeast Asia? If he is like Khan but not the same as Khan, why is he named Khan? The use of the same name for a villain who is only somewhat similar to the other is laziness for the sake of name recognition, and the whitewashing of the character is extremely unfortunate. Taken as a whole, it’s clear that the creative minds behind the new Star Trek are mostly working off of old themes, ideas, and even names just to get butts in the seats, rather than trying to tell a new story, and this story in general and Khan in particular suffer for that.

Courtesy Paramount Pictures
A perfect specimen of the 21st century superman, preserved here in the most comfortable of iBrig units.

The only thing that really saves the character is Benedict Cumberbatch himself. He is electrifying in his role. He plays the canny, manipulative villain very well, holds his own in action scenes, and steals most of the moments he’s in. The cast overall is excellent, even more settled into their roles and deepening the dynamics established three years ago. Joining the cast is Alice Eve as Carol, an indirect parallel to another of Wrath of Khan‘s characters, and she manages to hold her own in the presence of the veterans. The main draw, however, and the best performances come from Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto as Kirk and Spock. As good as everyone from Karl Urban to Simon Pegg are, their dynamic is rock-solid by this point and they are a delight to watch together.

Good acting, however, is only part of the equation. A bad script or director can ruin even the finest performance. Thankfully, Kurtzman and Orci spare us the problems they suffered from in the Transformers movies, and as lazy as they are, they can write decent dialog when they actually try. I maintain that they do decent work when under Abrams as opposed to other directors. And Abrams seems to have throttled back on some of this more bombastic tendencies, allowing the human elements and powerful performances of his actors to come through the lens flares and dubious mysteries. For all of the fears some may have had about this director, his vision, and the future of other sci-fi franchises, I personally think it could have been a lot worse.

Courtesy Paramount Pictures
When the captain says, “Put on a red shirt,” you’re gonna have a bad time.

For all of its failings in rehashing plot and characters, sometimes in an extremely lazy fashion, Star Trek: Into Darkness delivers a story that is both light enough to convey the space opera sense of the original series and serious enough to get real moments out of its players. It surprised me in a few places, most of which were unrelated to the overarching plot. It feels like it’s trying harder than its predecessor, both in being a good story by itself and in being amenable to Trek fans. If nothing else, it is admirable for this effort.

Stuff I Liked: There are multiple nods to continuity here, both to the old universe and the previous film. Alice Eve’s character feels like more than just a plot device, and she’s not bad in the role at all. What is done with the original “Space Seed” concept and the role the war criminal supermen play in this new universe is interesting, and reflects a discussion that’s been going on between Trek fans for decades.
Stuff I Didn’t Like: So many things in the film just feel lazy. Khan’s name and backstory most of all. Also, you couldn’t come up with a better name than USS Vengeance? No legendary heroes or conquerers came to mind? Not even Caesar or Alexander or Ghengis? Really?? Some parts of the story were a touch predictable and none of the plot twists were terribly surprising. I still don’t know what Scotty’s little friend is supposed to be or do. I still have some trouble with a couple pacing moments: Kronos and Earth should feel farther apart than they do.
Stuff I Loved: Pine and Quinto are fantastic. Cumberbatch is downright legendary. The rest of the hero cast gets their moments, and not just action-packed ones. I adore what they do with Uhura. This film feels more geniune, deliberate, and structured than the last, and that feeling of cohesion leads to an overall better watching experience.

Bottom Line: Is Star Trek: Into Darkness a great film? I wouldn’t say so. I would say, however, that it’s very good. It stands with some of the better films of its previous franchise, and while it will never, ever, in a million years, live up to its spiritual ancestor, it has enough good moments and does enough things right that saved from being an aimless and shallow action flick with a familiar name super-glued to it. This Star Trek is definitely a cinematic animal, nowhere near as cerebral as earlier films or the television series could get, but as a straight-ahead sci-fi action-adventure, it works. Abrams sets out to make films for everybody, and this is definitely one of his more well-rounded and enjoyable successes.

Oh, And… Now that Abrams and his crew have this out of their systems, I really hope they can go in a new direction. Like they should have done last time. Seriously, guys. Give us something new.

Movie Review: Iron Man 3

It would be hard for even the detractors of comic book geekdom to look at The Avengers and not consider it a success story. Years of planning and careful construction of disparate narratives culimated in a single cinematic experience that, to this day, nerds like me have yet to tire of watching. The whole shebang kicked off with Iron Man, which remains the only Marvel movie franchise to have sequels attached to it. The first was the ambitious but somewhat ambling Iron Man 2, and the second opens this year’s blockbuster season, and it’s called Iron Man 3.

Courtesy Marvel Studios

Right from the start, it’s clear that the events of The Avengers have had a lasting impact on Tony Stark, our favorite genius billionaire playboy philanthropist. Not only did he survive fighting alongside gods and super-soldiers, he carried a nuclear missile through a wormhole to annihilate an entire army, if not a civilization. Lacking sleep and suffering anxiety attacks, Tony throws himself into his work, building suit after suit, alienating his friends and even distancing himself from Pepper, who just moved in with him. But before he can be confronted with these issues, a bombing takes place that involves no known bombing techniques and puts his friend, Happy Hogan, in a coma. Tony immediately vows revenge and calls out the man responsible, the international terrorist known only as the Mandarin. Stark even tells the man his home address, because smart as he is, sometimes his ego gets in his way.

The first two Iron Man films were directed by Jon Favreau, the second with a great deal of input (or, more accurately, interference) from Marvel Studios. This time around, the reigns were handed to Shane Black, director of what was arguably Robert Downey Jr.’s best movie before Iron Man, a little noir favorite of mine called Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. The difference shows, in that this film strikes a very different tone from the first two. It simultaneously works on darker themes and moods than the others, and has more humorous and human moments. It’s the noir-flavored atmosphere and focus on character that make Iron Man 3 worth a watch from the very start.

Courtesy Marvel Studios
The Mk. 43 Classy Armor includes a champagne dispenser and built-in jazz soundtrack.

Either by coincidence or design, Iron Man 3 feels somewhat like The Dark Knight Rises, in Tony spends less time in his Iron Man armor than in previous tales, much like Bruce Wayne was Batman less often in his third Nolan film. We get a great deal of time with Tony Stark without his toys, taking him back to a state of working with a box of scraps to get out of his jams. Seeing him with little to rely on but his intellect felt like a return to the fundamentals of his character. At the same time, the floodgates opened by The Avengers means that more outrageous aspects born of the comic books can enter the arena. Tony’s opponents are more super-powered than ever, but thankfully, they’re more than just a guy wearing a suit or controlling drones similar to Stark’s designs. All of the suits are on Stark’s side this time; and I do mean all of them.

The film isn’t without its flaws. First and foremost, the ladies could have been given more to do. Rebecca Hall’s character especially could have easily been fleshed out beyond establishing or developing plot points. I like what they did with Pepper Potts overall, but towards the end of the movie I felt like she could have rescued herself more. A few Shane Black quirks may play on the nerves of some audience members, from the Christmas setting to the juxtaposition of its more noir-ish elements with the comic book stuff. And then there’s the stuff that will REALLY piss people off – which I will discuss in tomorrow’s post.

Courtesy Marvel Studios
Well-shot, earnest, and powerful scenes. A well-constructed film all around.

Stuff I Liked: Who doesn’t like all of the armor shenanigans? Happy’s bits are worth a laugh. I like the callbacks to previous films throughout the story – it makes everything feel more connected and coherent. JARVIS continues to be great, and the kid didn’t annoy me.
Stuff I Didn’t Like: I’m glad the film ended the way it did – Tony having all of that armor at his disposal would make future encounters way too easy.
Stuff I Loved: Tony’s character has grown, and it really shows in places. I love that he and Pepper still have their chemistry. The improvised fighting Tony has to do in the second act really pleased me, I’m glad Pepper got in on the action, I enjoyed every scene with Rhodey, and Ben Kingsley just killed it. Guy Pearce felt completely transformative, which was quite appropriate.

Bottom Line: Between its earnest character building and the variable nature of the threat and villainy, I’m going to say I liked Iron Man 3 more than its predecessor. It’s not quite as good as the first film featuring Tony Stark, but it comes close at times. I have the feeling I’m going to like it more on repeated viewings, and I definitely intend to buy this one for that purpose. It has snappy dialog, well-shot action, inventive storytelling turns, and it’s full of actors I like – Iron Man 3 is a winner.

Movie Review: The Bourne Legacy

I’ve said in the past that the 21st century is more a Jason Bourne era than one for James Bond. Bond was struggling, torn between the old school sensibilities of fifty years of tales and the pace and focus of the modern age. While Jason Bourne has always had a problem or two (which I’ll get to), the films did a fine job of filling that cutthroat espionage action thriller niche that Bond wasn’t quite adept at filling any more, or so it seemed. Skyfall proved Bond can and does work in this era, and rather than respond with a new film with Matt Damon, Bourne goes a bit sideways with The Bourne Legacy, a movie meant to both expand Jason Bourne’s world and introduce us to a character that can do what Bourne does since Matt Damon was on the fence about the character for a while.

Courtesy Universal Studios

Treadstone, the super-secret government-funded project team that essentially created Bourne, is under threat of being exposed thanks to Bourne’s actions in The Bourne Supremacy, which takes place at the same time as this story. To cover their tracks, the people in charge begin liquidating their assets, from agents currently in the field to research and development teams trying to perfect the Super-Soldier Serum. (Wait, sorry, got my notes mixed up) One asset that escapes liquidation is Aaron Cross, who is part of a test group for a pill-based version of the genome-rewriting magic that makes ordinary men and women into super-assassins. He tracks down one of the doctors behind the secret formula and rescues her from her liquidators, fleeing to find more of his power-up pills before the bad guys can sic an even nastier surprise on them.

The Bourne Legacy is, from the outset, less concerned about its former leading man and more about expanding the world in which he lives. We’re given more of a vertical slice of many of the moving parts in the cloak-and-dagger world of this shadow government, with lots of men in suits and ties in expensive settings glaring at each other and making dire predictions and veiled accusations. It’s interesting that, with no other superpower to fight, many American tales of modern espionage looks for villainy within the cracks of its own government. While Skyfall functioned well making its threat based on an individual’s agenda rather than a government-backed scheme for conquest or subversion, The Bourne Legacy feels like even more of a vestige of Cold War conspiracy theorizing than any Bond film of recent memory.

Courtesy Universal Studios
Thank God someone decided to use more traditional cameras. A Bourne movie that doesn’t induce nausea!

Fortunately, the strength of The Bourne Legacy comes more from individual performers than any major plot concerns. It seems that one of the driving forces of the film is to ensure that Jeremy Renner can carry something action-heavy on his own. The Hurt Locker was more drama than action, and as much as the man has turned up in other works in roles both villainous and heroic, a Hawkeye movie doesn’t seem to be in the cards until Marvel Studios greenlights the story of what happened between him and the Black Widow in Budapest. For the most part, he does seem to have the chops for this sort of role, from the physicality for stunts and fights to the pathos necessary to make the audience care about him. Rachel Weisz is in the sort of role that seems well-suited for her: she’s smart and observant, doing her best to actually support our hero rather than be a burden to get dragged along. It worked well for her in The Mummy and it works here, too. Ed Norton feels underutilized in his bad guy role, however, as he behaves with the same moderate amount of intensity that you get from any of the villainous masterminds in a Bourne film.

The biggest problem that the movie suffers from is that a great deal of time is taken to set everything up and tie the story into the existing Bourne mythos. It feels like an extended origin story for Aaron Cross, a sort of springboard into his own line of tales, but just when we’re getting a handle on who this guy is and why he’s interesting, the story comes to an abrupt end. There’s also the fact that not long before that end, an aspect of his character that felt really interesting and added some pathos and depth to him gets resolved within just a few minutes of its reveal. After over an hour of build-up, to have everything stop so suddenly left me feeling disappointed. While it’s a good idea to leave your audience wanting more, you also want to provide some sense of resolution. I guess the idea is to watch The Bourne Supremacy again to see how things line up, and wait for Matt Damon to do a team-up with Jeremy Renner to put the entire thing to bed. We can hope, at least.

Courtesy Universal Studios
“Here we see the nascent super-solider in his natural habitat…”

Stuff I Liked: I always like seeing Ed Norton. This film ditches the shakey-cam of previous Bourne films and I never felt confused trying to follow the action.
Stuff I Didn’t Like: For all of its talk of conspiracies and chemical compounds, the film feels insubstantial. While the idea of tying into the existing franchise while being its own animal is neat, the execution feels like it wanted to go completely one way or the other and couldn’t make up its mind. Much of the plot feels muddy and outside of immediate threat to the likable protagonists there’s no major tension to speak of.
Stuff I Loved: I like both Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz, and they have good chemistry (no pun intended), so that made the majority of the film quite watchable. The drone attack was pretty neat, especially the ways in which Cross deals with them.

Bottom Line: The Bourne Legacy isn’t bad, but it isn’t all that great or memorable, either. It’s competently built with good people in both the leading roles and behind the scenes, it’s part of an extant successful franchise, and there’s just enough interesting character stuff to keep it going for its running time. I questioned some of the decisions made in telling the story, and bits felt insubstantial, but I never fell completely into boredom while watching it. If you like either of the leads, or just have to know what happens next in Bourne’s world, you’ll have a decent time with this one.

Movie Review: Justice League: Doom

Even when I was younger, I knew there was something that set Batman: The Animated Series apart from other cartoons. At the time I chalked it up to visual style – the black cels really sold the noir asthetic of Gotham. However, looking back, the writing is incredibly solid and often goes to dark places for what is obstensibly a children’s program. I haven’t watched a great deal of the Justice League or Justice League Unlimited series, but after watching Justice League: Doom instead of shelling out for Injustice: Gods Among Us, I may have to correct that oversight.

Courtesy Warner Bros

Batman is, as a rule, paranoid. He’s a very rich man with a very odd nightlife and some very interesting friends, ranging from nigh-invincible aliens to smart-alec test pilots with magic jewelry. He knows for a fact that they’re good people, these friends of his, but he also knows that good people can be mislead, controlled, manipulated, or even turn bad. So he has plans for dealing with each and every one of these friends. Now what, do you suppose, happens when these plans get stolen, cranked up, and unleashed on Batman and his friends in the Justice League? This is the brainchild of immortal douchebag Vandal Savage and his newly forged Legion of Doom.

What Justice League: Doom does right is taking the focus away from major super-powered threats or earth-shattering kabooms. The scope of this film is a lot smaller, its tone more intimate, than most stories that deal with super-heroes, especially teams. With animated features, where special effects are less limited by things like budget, the temptation can exist for a creative team or vision to override more character-focused story points. Thankfully, Doom does not fall into that trap. For most of its running time, we see how Batman’s contingency plans wreck havoc in the lives of his teammates. And since the plans are meant to deal these super-powered individuals on both a physical and a psychological level, the plans can be rather insidious, and make for good watching.

Courtesy Warner Bros
The art style is crisp but may seem too childish or anime for some.

The nature of the conflict is matched by good pacing and excellent voice work all around. Both Kevin Conroy and Tim Daly reprise their long standing roles as Batman and Superman, respectively. I happen to like Hal Jordan as Green Lantern, and Nathan Fillion supplying the voice was a great bonus. With this core of talent, the characters really come to life. This helps drive home some of the moments that could define, or destroy, these heroes. There’s also the fact that many of those moments go to very dark territory. We have bombs bolted to people’s bodies, live burials, major psychological trauma, and even people getting shot point-blank in the chest. It’s clear from the outset that this story isn’t messing around.

Unfortunately, Justice League: Doom is not perfect. The nature of the Legion of Doom’s formation means that each member other than Savage has a personal beef with an individual hero on the Justice League, and pairings pretty much remain fixed throughout the final battle. For example, Mirror Master might have given Superman a run for his money, and how would Metallo fare against Green Lantern? Another problem is in said final battle; since the plans are resolved as a prelude to said battle, most of the interesting character points have already happened or are largely inconsequential. It feels a great deal like the final minutes of Justice League: Doom simply run out of steam, which is a shame considering it’s good opening and fantastic second act.

Courtesy Warner Bros
I really like Mirror Master’s design. The see-through look nails the character.

Stuff I Liked: The implementation of the plans to take out the Justice League. I liked seeing these versions of Bane, Star Sapphire, Metallo, and particularly Mirror Master. Batman revealing he’s always got kryptonite available made me grin like an idiot.
Stuff I Didn’t Like: Vandal Savage is perhaps my least favorite kind of villain: he’s evil for evil’s sake. His plan is megalomaniacal in the extreme and he has only the most paper-thin of excuses for carrying it out. I’m still not a huge fan of Superman; it seems difficult for a given writer to decide just how much power kryptonite has over him or how long it takes for the glowing rocks to weaken him.
Stuff I Loved: The voice acting is very good. There’s a moment about halfway through involving Cheetah and Vandal Savage that really impressed me with its audacity. I’m not too ashamed to say I enjoyed Superman getting shot. Hal Jordan remains my favorite Green Lantern, and having him voiced by Nathan Fillion was a great moment of fanboy enjoyment for me.

Bottom Line: For all of the imperfections I saw emerging, Justice League: Doom still tells a decent story and inhabits some of the more fantastical characters of the DC universe with some humanity and vulnerability. As good as it could have been with some elements mixed a bit more and a couple more chances taken, what it does is done well.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2024 Blue Ink Alchemy

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑