Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Killerzzzz
The trailer to "Killers" looked so funny. But not only did they show all of the best material, it was actually better in the context of the trailer than in the movie. My review to this comic disappointment is here: http://www.theboomermagazine.com/component/content/article/74-movie-reviews/508-killers.html
Spliced
The titles for “Splice” list two people as creating the story -- and then a third name appears below them.
You can almost see what happened: Two people wrote one kind of story and then a third person came along and attached a different kind of story to it. Spliced it, if you will.
The result is a better-than-average science fiction horror film that turns into a worse-than-average family drama. An effort to bring the two genres together at the end is, predictably, unsuccessful.
Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley star, and that is considerably more talent than you would typically find in a science fiction horror film cum family drama. They play scientists, partners outside of their lab coats as well as in, who are splicing together genes from various animals to create new species for pharmaceutical purposes. Inevitably, they decide to splice in some human DNA as well, despite being explicitly warned by their bosses not to do so.
You can imagine what happens next. These unbelievably smart people start to make an unending series of unbelievably stupid decisions. Despite promising that they just wanted to study their creation in an embryonic stage, they allow their little monster to be born. It changes rapidly from a stomach-monster from “Alien” to a female humanoid with chicken legs and a tail with a stinger on the end.
Anyone who has ever seen a science fiction movie (including “Frankenstein,” which this picture explicitly references in its characters’ names) knows that this hybrid should not be allowed to live. But our heroes keep it out of sight, name it Dren (that’s “nerd” spelled backwards) and more or less adopt it as their own mute child.
And that’s where the family drama comes in. Polley’s character, Elsa, treats Dren not only as a human but as a daughter, though her own family history was not ideal. Meanwhile, Dren matures ultra-rapidly and develops a host of skills that are never even remotely explained, such as drawing and spelling.
As the physically mature Dren, Delphine Chaneac holds her own against the strong acting of Brody and especially Polley. Chaneac has the additional disadvantage of not being able to speak for the role, although given some of the places this movie goes, being wordless might be a good thing. The drama sections, which basically comprise the third act, become awfully silly.
But see if the horror portions don’t give you the occasional chill.
You can almost see what happened: Two people wrote one kind of story and then a third person came along and attached a different kind of story to it. Spliced it, if you will.
The result is a better-than-average science fiction horror film that turns into a worse-than-average family drama. An effort to bring the two genres together at the end is, predictably, unsuccessful.
Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley star, and that is considerably more talent than you would typically find in a science fiction horror film cum family drama. They play scientists, partners outside of their lab coats as well as in, who are splicing together genes from various animals to create new species for pharmaceutical purposes. Inevitably, they decide to splice in some human DNA as well, despite being explicitly warned by their bosses not to do so.
You can imagine what happens next. These unbelievably smart people start to make an unending series of unbelievably stupid decisions. Despite promising that they just wanted to study their creation in an embryonic stage, they allow their little monster to be born. It changes rapidly from a stomach-monster from “Alien” to a female humanoid with chicken legs and a tail with a stinger on the end.
Anyone who has ever seen a science fiction movie (including “Frankenstein,” which this picture explicitly references in its characters’ names) knows that this hybrid should not be allowed to live. But our heroes keep it out of sight, name it Dren (that’s “nerd” spelled backwards) and more or less adopt it as their own mute child.
And that’s where the family drama comes in. Polley’s character, Elsa, treats Dren not only as a human but as a daughter, though her own family history was not ideal. Meanwhile, Dren matures ultra-rapidly and develops a host of skills that are never even remotely explained, such as drawing and spelling.
As the physically mature Dren, Delphine Chaneac holds her own against the strong acting of Brody and especially Polley. Chaneac has the additional disadvantage of not being able to speak for the role, although given some of the places this movie goes, being wordless might be a good thing. The drama sections, which basically comprise the third act, become awfully silly.
But see if the horror portions don’t give you the occasional chill.
Friday, May 28, 2010
'Sex' is boring -- and how often can you say that?
Only one of the four has sex, and the city is now Abu Dhabi -- it just ain't the same "Sex and the City." The sequel is long, pointless and nothing more than an excuse to show a lot of fashions. It's not a movie, it's a fashion show. My review is here: http://www.theboomermagazine.com/component/content/article/74-movie-reviews/506-sex-and-the-city-2.html
The Sands of Stupidity
If someone were to base a movie on the most popular board game in America, we’d get a couple of hours of old roadsters and little dogs trying to buy real estate in Atlantic City.
Obviously, no one is going to pay 10 bucks to watch that, which is why no one has ever made a movie version of Monopoly. Yet studios keep making movies out of video games, which are essentially the same thing with better graphics.
As has now been proven time and time and time again, video games do not make compelling movies because they are not inherently cinematic. Video games are a test of skill and the ability to master whatever tricks you need to get you to the next level. But movies are purely emotional. It’s an entirely different kind of experience.
The latest video game movie to fail is “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time,” which tries to re-create the gaming experience by racing from one action scene to the next. But even with all the action, it turns out to be a terrible bore.
Part of the problem is that the action scenes are largely all the same, with swordfights, dagger fights and characters leaping from one rooftop to the next (I’ve never played the original game, but I’m guessing it involves an awful lot of leaping). Director Mike Newell is obviously trying to capture the magic of adventure films of the past, but what he winds up with is “Raiders of the Least Ark.”
Once upon a time, Newell made wonderful, character-driven stories, such as “Enchanted April,” “Donnie Brasco” and the sublime “Four Weddings and a Funeral.” But apparently he has lost his touch. Where his earlier movies were smart, “Prince of Persia” is fatally banal.
Maybe it is all of those computer-generated special effects. Sure, computer effects may seem perfectly fitting in a movie based on a video game -- which is nothing but effects -- but they tend to drown out all acting and any efforts to create a character.
Suffering the most from this overabundance of effects is a buff Jake Gyllenhaal, who stars as an ancient Persian boy from the streets who was adopted by the kindly king to live as a prince. While his brothers lay siege to a holy city, he proves himself in battle (his brilliant strategy is to go in from the back). As a prize, he is given the city’s beautiful princess (Gemma Arterton) to be his future bride.
The two bicker in the time-honored tradition of romantic comedies, but without any of the humor or credibility. Meanwhile, the romance takes a back seat to the increasingly ridiculous story, which involves a dagger that has the power to turn back time, at least for a minute.
Horrifyingly, the writers tried to use this idiotic story to make political points: The Persian army invaded the sacred city because of inaccurate and trumped-up information it was hiding daggers of mass destruction. The man behind the throne (the vice king, as it were) argues that a man he knows is innocent be put to death without a trial, because a trial “will only give him a stage for his sedition.” And the fighting eventually threatens to bring on an Armageddon that will destroy all life on the planet.
The story is convoluted and periodically nonsensical, and it becomes more dull as the movie drags on. If you find yourself in the theater growing bored, you might want to spend some of your time trying to figure out why Gyllenhaal is trying to use an English accent.
Obviously, no one is going to pay 10 bucks to watch that, which is why no one has ever made a movie version of Monopoly. Yet studios keep making movies out of video games, which are essentially the same thing with better graphics.
As has now been proven time and time and time again, video games do not make compelling movies because they are not inherently cinematic. Video games are a test of skill and the ability to master whatever tricks you need to get you to the next level. But movies are purely emotional. It’s an entirely different kind of experience.
The latest video game movie to fail is “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time,” which tries to re-create the gaming experience by racing from one action scene to the next. But even with all the action, it turns out to be a terrible bore.
Part of the problem is that the action scenes are largely all the same, with swordfights, dagger fights and characters leaping from one rooftop to the next (I’ve never played the original game, but I’m guessing it involves an awful lot of leaping). Director Mike Newell is obviously trying to capture the magic of adventure films of the past, but what he winds up with is “Raiders of the Least Ark.”
Once upon a time, Newell made wonderful, character-driven stories, such as “Enchanted April,” “Donnie Brasco” and the sublime “Four Weddings and a Funeral.” But apparently he has lost his touch. Where his earlier movies were smart, “Prince of Persia” is fatally banal.
Maybe it is all of those computer-generated special effects. Sure, computer effects may seem perfectly fitting in a movie based on a video game -- which is nothing but effects -- but they tend to drown out all acting and any efforts to create a character.
Suffering the most from this overabundance of effects is a buff Jake Gyllenhaal, who stars as an ancient Persian boy from the streets who was adopted by the kindly king to live as a prince. While his brothers lay siege to a holy city, he proves himself in battle (his brilliant strategy is to go in from the back). As a prize, he is given the city’s beautiful princess (Gemma Arterton) to be his future bride.
The two bicker in the time-honored tradition of romantic comedies, but without any of the humor or credibility. Meanwhile, the romance takes a back seat to the increasingly ridiculous story, which involves a dagger that has the power to turn back time, at least for a minute.
Horrifyingly, the writers tried to use this idiotic story to make political points: The Persian army invaded the sacred city because of inaccurate and trumped-up information it was hiding daggers of mass destruction. The man behind the throne (the vice king, as it were) argues that a man he knows is innocent be put to death without a trial, because a trial “will only give him a stage for his sedition.” And the fighting eventually threatens to bring on an Armageddon that will destroy all life on the planet.
The story is convoluted and periodically nonsensical, and it becomes more dull as the movie drags on. If you find yourself in the theater growing bored, you might want to spend some of your time trying to figure out why Gyllenhaal is trying to use an English accent.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
'MacGruber'!
I'll admit it: I laughed during "MacGruber." Out loud. Several times. It's not something I'm proud of, but there you have it. My review, attempting to explain myself, is here: http://www.theboomermagazine.com/component/content/article/74-movie-reviews/487-macgruber.html
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Robin Ho-hum
The story of Robin Hood has been told on film many times, and none has surpassed the glories of the 1938 Erroll Flynn version. One wonders why they even keep trying. And the newest version is one of the worst. My review of it is here: http://www.theboomermagazine.com/component/content/article/74-movie-reviews/486-robin-hood.html
Monday, May 10, 2010
'Iron Man 2' -- The same, only less
Loved, loved, loved the original "Iron Man." The sequel is bigger and louder and far less interesting. Gwyneth Paltrow looks great, though. My review is here: http://www.theboomermagazine.com/component/content/article/74-movie-reviews/485-iron-man-2.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)