Hellboy II: The Golden Army

4.5 Stars

Hellboy II: The Golden Army is one of those niche films based on a niche comic book directed by a niche director. By all accounts, it shouldn’t do well with mainstream audiences. But it’s just too damn good to not do well. I think because director Guillermo del Toro is just too damn bizarre to resist.

Hellboy (Ron Pearlman) has his hands full in the newest installment. Not only is firey girlfriend Liz (Selma Blair) demanding more out of the relationship, but an elvish prince is seeking to take world domination away from the humans. By using an unstoppable army. A golden army. Now Hellboy, Liz and Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) must join forces with Johann Krauss (Seth MacFarlane) and the princes sister to prevent the centuries old truce between the two races from being broken.

Hellboy, the character, let’s talk about him. Ron Pearlman brings a sarcastic, sardonic, anti-hero attitude to the big red beast, playing the character to perfection. He’s a reluctant hero, but he’s not as scornful towards the people he saves as they are to him. He understands that he has a job to do, and does it, despite the rejection from the public. And Pearlman exudes that. It’s not too many people who would be able to play so well through piles of make-up, but Pearlman is the perfect match for the character.

As an actor, he’s able to balance the character’s conflicts. He never emphasizes one over the other, as they are all equally important to the story. His internal conflict with who he is and who he could be, his constant arguments with Liz about where their relationship is heading, and his duty to save humanity from the forces of the golden army.

Guillermo del Toro launches himself to the position of greatest modern fantasy director with this film, as if El Laberinto del Fauno didn’t already cement that title for him. His ability to create a visual spectacle that leaves you amazed, breathless and hungry for more is unmatched, even against heavyweights Peter Jacksons, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. del Toro takes fantasy to the extreme, yet keeps it simple. He doesn’t rely on the CG like the rest tend to.

The only complaint I really do have is that he tried to cram too much into the film. It’s too busy, there’s too much going on. He should have dialed it back, especially in the first act. It’s such an overload of bizarre creatures, that you’re hoping for rest, which you never get.

For a perfect mix of comedy, action and fantasy, it doesn’t get any better than Hellboy.

WALL-E

5 Stars

I need to get a star graphic. Oh well. WALL-E is beyond good. It is beyond great. It is, without a doubt, the greatest Pixar film ever. But more than that, it is one of the finest animated films ever.

WALL-E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter-Earth class) is a simple robot, charged with the simple task of cleaning up earth 600 years after humans abandoned it following the global conglomorate Buy N Large’s almost eco-decimation of the planet. There were other WALL-E units, but WALL-E is the only one who remains active, and he’s developed a quirky personality. He lives alone on the planet, save for a pet cockroach, and the random interesting knick-knacks he finds. To bide his time, he watches an old VHS copy of Hello Dolly!, deciding what he’s missing in his life is love. Enter searcher robot EVE, sent by the humans (who live on massive space stations) to find signs of life on Earth. It’s the classic story of boy meets girl. Except boy and girl are robots. WALL-E falls in love with EVE, though she’s more interested in accomplishing her primary directive, which she does when WALL-E gives her a plant he found (get it, like a flower, awwwww), and then she promptly shuts down, waiting for the transport ship to collect her and her findings. Thus starts and interstellar journey to bring the humans out of their sluggish and completely pampered lives aboard the space stations, but more importantly, one of the greatest love stories ever committed to screen. Involving robots.

I really don’t know where to start with this. I haven’t had pre-release anticipation for an animated film since 2004’s The Incredibles (also Pixar). And I haven’t truley been impressed by one since then.

What got me with this one was a bizarrely intriguing story, coupled with fantastic filmmaking. And that, I believe, is the magic of Pixar. Where other animated films try to do a mix of adult content and kid stuff, so there’s “something the whole family can enjoy!”, Pixar films take the adults, particularly the adults without young kids (like myself), back to when we were kids. It recaptures the magic we all felt when we saw Aladdin go on the magic carpet ride with Jasmine, when Belle and Beast danced in the main ballroom, when Robin outfoxed (pun intended) Prince John, when Pinocchio turned into an ass, when Dumbo flew for the first time and when Prince Charming kissed Snow White to bring her out of her deep slumber. It leaves out the slick pop-culture references and the dubious double entendres the older audiences would understand but the youngens won’t.

But mostly, Pixar rewards its audience. And WALL-E is no different. There’s payoff. You don’t walk away wondering why you just sat through the movie. You walk away glad you were able to get to the theatre to see it.

Director Andrew Stanton (A Bug’s Life, Finding Nemo) took a risk in creating what, for all intents and purposes, could be considered a silent film. A silent animated film. The first half hour is nothing but WALL-E, the cockroach, and ultimately EVE. Sure we get snippets of Fred Willard as the CEO of Buy N Large (live action no less) and a few clips of Hello Dolly!, but for the most part, it’s a robot and his bug. There’s a significant Buster Keaton/Charlie Chaplin feel to the character. To do that sort of thing in a modern “kids” film, takes guts. And Mr. Stanton, you’ve got ’em.

There’s some great political commentary in there, too. About the environment, about mass capitalism, about societal apathy. But all that is obvious to the viewer (except the younger ones, who probably define capitalism as “Washington, D.C.”). The thrust of the film, and what is most engaging about the picture is the love story.

We’re not looking at two human characters, or personified animals. These are two robots. It’s a new kind of love story. And it’s played perfectly between the two characters. Stanton kept it simple. He didn’t try to overcomplicate it, or make it goofy. It was a love story, and he told it. They just happen to be robots.

But really, and this is the technical portion of the review, the film would have been no where without the fantastic artwork of the Pixar animators. There’s a meticulous attention to detail that even in some of the better animated films you don’t get. And nothing is without purpose. There’s a reason everything that appears on screen, appears on screen. Be it foreshadowing, be it plot advancement, or be it just for laughs (like the Pizza Planet truck, or Hamm the Piggy Bank), it all serves a purpose. Nothing is thrown away.

It is my third 5 star review of the year… and it is the first ever animated film to hold the number one slot in my living list of “Best Film of the Year.” And that means in the now 5 years that I’ve been keeping those lists, this is the first time. Seriously… go see it. You have to. I loved this film.

Wanted

4 Stars

Action movies, let’s talk about ’em. They got goofy and campy in the 80’s… then Die Hard came along and redefined the genre. Then every action movie after that tried to be Die Hard. Then in 1999, The Matrix redefined the genre all over again. Lather, rinse, repeat. Which brings us to 2008. I’m not saying Wanted has redefined or revolutionized the action genre. But it’s definitely changed the rules, and has done something pretty damn good.

Scottish star James McAvoy stars as Wesley Gibson, a 20-something nobody working not-so-comfortably as low-rung management at an accounting firm. Barely content that his life means nothing and will go no where, his world almost literally explodes when he is drafted into The Fraternity by Angelina Jolie’s Fox. The Fraternity, a secret society of assassins headed by Morgan Freeman’s Sloan, wants Wesley to pick up where his father left off before his untimely murder by a defected member of The Fraternity. Why are these assassins so special? Why is Wesley so special? They have heightened senses, which allow them to react to a situation better than a normal person. With his training complete, Wesley must now face an ultimate, life changing conundrum: go after the man who killed his father, or listen to him when he reveals the alterior and sinister motives behind Sloan’s bidding.

While it certainly doesn’t break any new ground with the plot (lonely guy working in a dead end cubicle job is informed that he’s special in many ways and must now use a plethora of guns and some kick ass action sequences to stop the bad guys… aforementioned Matrix say what?) What it does do, is shatter the traditional notions of good guy vs. bad guy in the action genre. Primarily through Wesley. Why is becoming this super-assassin? Is it for the thrill he gets off of his new found talents? Is it to avenge his father’s death? Is it because it is what he is told his destiny is, and he’s blindly following it? There’s a philosophical discussion in the making here, and it’s something that hasn’t really been explored since The Matrix.

Similar traits have been explored in the plethora of super-hero movies that have been released over the past nine years, but those were traits that were engrained in popular characters long before they were put to the silver screen. While I admitedly have not read the comics this film was based on, there’s a bit more legitimacy to it than there is when the guy is donning red and blue spandex. The Wesley character is more tangible because we know who he is, we can see him. He’s not wearing a mask, metaphor intended.

McAvoy (Atonement, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) deserves a lot of that credit. That role could have been played a myriad of ways, but he plays it right. The transformation of frustrated meek to frustrated strong. It doesn’t seem like a stretch for him or the character, and it’s certainly not as offensive to the audience as the three hour long GAP ad that was Spider-Man 3. There’s a natural flow to his progression as a character, and I don’t mind the obligatory sequel set-up at the end.

What I liked most about Freeman (oh come on, if you don’t know who Morgan Freeman is, you have no business reading my blog), is that not only is the character a sharp contrast of his usual character-type, but it’s a particular opposition to the character we’ll be seeing in two weeks with the release of The Dark Knight. He’s stepping out of character, which is good. Not to say he’s the villain, far from it. But there’s more depth, I suppose, to his leader role. There’s doubt. There’s mystery. There’s skepticism. You never quite take your eye off of him. The fact that it’s Morgan Freeman doesn’t lull you into a false sense of security. To the credit of Freeman, he doesn’t let his personality take over the role.

And then there’s Jolie. Damn is she hot. I mean, yeah, good actress, miles of talent on that one. But DAMN! Enough of me being a guy… She’s a good actress, done some really great work. While you could tell she had fun with this role, there always seemed to be a slight hint of boredom on her face. Could have been a character trait for Fox. But I couldn’t tell.

I have to give props to director Timur Bekmambetov (if you know who this guy is, then you get a free pass to my blog for life). I was unsure of how he would make the move to doing a mainstream American film. He gained some notice State-side a few years back for his decidedly Russian Night Watch franchise. But I wasn’t overly impressed. They were alright, but nothing to write home about. That’s always kind of a shakey deal, when someone from a vastly different cinematic community (particularly one as diverse, storied and different like the Eastern European/Western Asian community) tries to break it elsewhere. Very few Bollywood and East Asian directors have been able to do it (face it, Ang Lee’s American stuff sucks, as does John Woo’s). But having seen Night Watch, I can tell that he didn’t compromise his voice to the studio, and that’s something you have to respect in a director helming such a high profile, tent-pole of a film. Thumbs up, Timur. I don’t know what that means in Kazakhstan, if it’s a good thing, or if I just insulted your mother or whatever. But here… means good stuff. Keep your eye on this kid.

So Wanted unfortunately doesn’t break new ground in the genre, but it definitely stirs the pot a bit. And that’s what you’ve gotta do every so often… stir the pot. And it was thouroughly enjoyable.

The Incredible Hulk

3.5 Stars

It’s easy to restart a franchise when enough time has passed to wash the bad taste of a terrible cinematic outing out of the collective mouths of the movie going public. Just ask Christopher Nolan, who successfully restarted the Batman franchise following Joel Schumacher’s failed attempts at the caped crusader. But what about just five years later, when the stench of failure still lingers? Louis Leterrier decided to find out by rebooting The Incredible Hulk, and where the pairing of Ang Lee and Eric Bana failed (which was everywhere), Leterrier and Edward Norton pass with flying colours, even if they only manage to produce a slightly better than average superhero flick.

Leterrier throws caution to the wind and decides to completely ignore the previous film, and instead take it on a new path, that parallels the iconic 70’s TV show. Provided only a brief, yet informative exposition, we join Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) in self-imposed exile in Brazil, working at a bottling plant by day, conducting his bio-chemical research at night. Gen. Ross has (William Hurt) has vowed to bring Banner back to the States for studying, and has gone so far as to bring in Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), the Russian born, English raised soldier known for his tenacity. After two failed attempts at capturing Banner, Ross and Blonsky conspire to infect Blonsky with the same gamma radiation that transformed Banner, only at a lower dose. Just to even the playing field a bit. This back fires when Banner visits his old love Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), and a maximum carnage battle ensues on a college campus. Blonsky becomes addicted to the radiation, and soon turns into Abomination, sort of a Hulk meets Stegosaurus. Epic battle in Harlem that ends in… I’m not going to tell you the ending. Go see the movie.

Yes, I do in fact recommend this film. The comics and TV show always managed to find the balance between the sublime inner-torment of the character, and the utter ridiculousness of the fact that he’s a scientist turned Not-so-Jolly Green Giant. That’s where Ang Lee’s film failed. He took the subject matter too seriously. But Leterrier found the balance. He injected his film with enough to make the character seem human, one who the audience could connect with. But he kept in the humour, and just a smidgen of camp.

Normally I don’t do this, but I have to give HUGE props to Craig Armstrong, the composer. He incorporated some of the TV show’s original music into his score. I particularly enjoyed his use of the sad walking away music (this piece of music right here).

The thing about Edward Norton (American History X, Fight Club) is that he is such a talented and versatile actor, yet this doesn’t somehow seem beneath him as an actor. This could be that the landscape of superhero movies has changed, with such noted actors as Ian McKellen, Robert Downey, Jr, Kevin Spacey and anyone in the principle cast of Batman Begins not named Katie Holmes, taking on roles in the superhero genre. Norton takes on the difficult role of Banner, and makes it his own.

It ranks up there as one of the better heroic performances in the genre, certainly miles ahead of Eric Bana’s, but he doesn’t wow me in the role, as Bale and Downey, Jr. did in Batman Begins and Iron Man, respectively.

I think the strongest performances belong to the two villains, of all people, Blonsky and Gen. Ross. Roth (Reservoir Dogs, Four Rooms) never goes over the top with Blonsky/Abomination, almost playing him as a junkie. And Hurt (Into the Wild, A History of Violence), going in the opposite direction, plays an often cartoonish villain with the right amount of serious vigour, and goofy, overdrawn mannerisms. His performance comes off as an odd mesh between Patton and Carter Pueterschmidt (that’s a Family Guy reference, second one of the review).

But while this film is clearly a step up from the previous effort, it lacks the social consciousness, or the stunning introverted look at the character that other superhero films have offered.

This marks the end of the official review. In the next paragraph, I’m going to geek out a bit, and it does contain spoilers as to the end of the movie. If you would not like to read the spoilers, surf over to another page.

*I hope that Marvel studios isn’t just toying with us on the prospects of an all star The Avengers movie. If you remember from the end of Iron Man, Samuel L. Jackson showed up as Nick Fury, recruiting Stark to join a “new team.” Well, at the end of The Incredible Hulk, we get a shot of Banner learning to control the Hulk, cut to Gen. Ross in a bar, in walks Downey, Jr. as Stark, looking to recruit Banner for a “new team.” With Captain America and Thor movies in the works, scheduled to be released ahead of The Avengers, it is safe to speculate they are planning an all star Avengers movie. Not to mention, that the Captain America film is called The First Avenger: Captain America. If Marvel is smart with the marketing, and no one has ever accused them of not being smart in that area… they could open up the summer with Cpt. America, and close it with The Avengers. It’s too bad Marvel’s film licensing is spread out all over the various studios, because then they could at least attempt cameos from other stars/heroes.

END SPOILER

Sex and the City: The Movie

3 Stars

Remember how last week it pained me to rate Indiana Jones 4 so low at 3 stars? This week… it pains me more to rate Sex and the City so high at 3 stars. But it’s not that I liked it. But from the completely objective film critic standpoint… it wasn’t as completely terrible as I thought it was going to be.

Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristen Davis and Cynthia Nixon return as Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda in the spin off movie of the hit HBO series. What have they been doing in the four years since we last saw them? Finding love, starting families, pursuing careers. Lots of sex. Oh and Carrie’s getting married to Mr. Big (Chris Noth).

Let me get the completely objective film critic stuff out of the way first. One problem in adapting a TV show for the big screen is overcoming the episodic nature of the show. The show was half an hour long. Writer/director Michael Patrick King had to stretch the already thin premise (as Brian Griffin once commented on an episode of Family Guy: “So… this show is about three whores and their grandmother?”) from half an hour to a full TWO AND A HALF HOURS! What we were given was a sloppy, convoluted mess of a film that had little direction.

It was trying to take a cue from Love Actually by interweaving multiple story lines into one over all plot. But Love Actually was able to deftly maneuver between the several sub-plots. Sex and the City wasn’t. There should have been one story that was the primary focus, not four (in a sense, five).

And the Cinderella subtext was either the worst analogy ever, or the worst deus ex machina ever, I have yet to decide, or even figure out, which it was.

I have caught a few episodes of the series. I will admit to that. And this film felt like nothing more than a really long episode. When it comes to cinematic versions of current or recent television shows, there needs to be some expansion on the world of the show. I had the same criticism for The Simpsons Movie, where it didn’t “go as far” as it should have. Both flicks just felt like long episodes, there wasn’t a real special cinematic quality to them.

On the plus, all involved put forth strong performances. Even if we’re just talking an extended version of their TV characters. It worked to their advantage to do the movie so soon after the show had ended. They weren’t too far removed from the characters. Particularly Parker and Noth, they slipped back into the characters and put forth some relatively compelling scenes.

But through it all… as a critic I’ll give it props. It wasn’t completely terrible. There is an audience for it. Women. The ladies will love this movie. And that’s why it’s a PERFECT girls night out movie. It is NOT a date movie, however. Ladies, leave your boyfriends/fiancees/husbands at home. Guys, go watch Indiana Jones.

As a guy myself, I’m pretty sure we’re protected from this film by several parts of the Geneva Convention. For guys, there is nothing to like about this film. It’s girls talking about girl stuff for two and a half hours. And it’s not even interesting girl stuff.

I consider myself to be a relatively smart person. And it bugged me that the characters were so vapid and shallow. But beyond that, I don’t know what infuriates me more: that there are people who are actually like that, or that there are people who want to be like that.

Like I said, completely objective critic P.O.V., ladies will love it, and the film is not without it’s merits. But guys, seriously, avoid at all costs.

-Brodie Mann

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

3 stars

That right there, giving it 3 stars, pains me. I really wanted to like this more. But because George Lucas was involved, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull went from a moderately enjoyable to completely ridiculous faster than Dr. Jones can piss off the Nazi party.

It’s been about 20 years since we last saw Dr. Henry “Indiana” Jones, Jr. (Harrison Ford), and that’s how much time has passed in his little movie-verse. The year is 1957, right in the middle of the Cold War, and the KGB, led by Irina Spalko (Cate Blancett) has enlisted the help of Indiana to track down the famed and elusive Crystal Skull of Akator, with ties to a lost city of gold in Peru. Don’t worry, Indy hasn’t gone Red. He’s an unwilling participant, the KGB is using him for his knowledge of ancient artifacts. After he narrowly escapes a nuclear blast test (thank you 1957 home appliance construction), Indy returns to his day job: college professor, only to find out a former colleague, Dr. Oxley (John Hurt) has been captured by the KGB, and Ox’s protege, Mutt Williams (Shia Labeouf) has come to Dr. Jones for assistance in tracking down Ox. Which leads them to Peru and the search for the Crystal Skull.

I can’t really get into more without revealing key plot details, but that’s the long and short of it. And it’s a really great premise.

Indiana Jones 4 succeeded where several reboots and sequels have failed. It didn’t fall into the trap of “Hey, remember this from the original? It was funny then, so we’re gonna do it 20 times in the new one.” *cough*Pirates 2*cough* It alluded to the original trilogy, in so much as it provided good bridging stories for several favourite characters, including Dr. Jones, Sr. and Marcus Brody. And there certain logical references, including a flash of the Ark of the Covenant in a secret hanger. But it never strayed into the territory of *nudge nudge wink wink*.

The problem is that it is 20 years on. Harrison Ford is showing his age. The franchise is showing its age. The 80’s were a different cinematic landscape than the 00’s (I believe the preferred nomenclature is the Odds, or something like that). And I appreciate the throwback to both the original franchise specifically, and to the old serial genre in general.

In the 80’s, the films were centered the mythos surrounding the Judeo-Christian faith, and they took several liberties with it in the name of entertainment. And let me state that that was always the intended purpose of the films: to entertain. And they all, including this new one, succeeded fantastically at entertaining. But in 2008, the social climate concerning religious dogma, particularly concerning the Judeo-Christian faith, has become more of a taboo than it was 20-30 years ago. And I think that hindered the development process of the Indy 4. They had to take on a new artifact from a different era and a different culture. Maybe that strayed a bit too far out of my Indiana Jones comfort zone.

But since they went with the ancient Mayans, let’s focus on that. Really entertaining, and I stuck with it even through Mutt Williams swinging on vines like Tarzan. But where it jumped the shark into complete ridiculousness was the end, when it switched from Spielberg to Lucas real fast. I sat in the theatre thinking “What the hell?” Only I used a slightly stronger word in place of hell. I still can’t grasp my head around the ending. Oh, I understood it. I just can’t believe that they did it, because it’s so phenomenally stupid. And the thing of it is, is that it’s not entirely stupid. Just one aspect. Had they ended the sequence a few minutes sooner, it would have been semi-OK. But no, they went for it, and it’s just a severe letdown.

Ford slips back into Indiana Jones like an old baseball mitt. He’s dusting it off, finding his comfort zone, all the little spots that made the character his own. But there are definite signs of aging. Fortunately he doesn’t come across as an old guy trying to recapture his youth. He plays the character as too old for the action, but he does it anyway, and he does it brilliantly.

I can’t finish this review without talking about Cate Blanchett. There are so few great villainous roles written for women, and she’s the perfect actress to take it on. She’s the finest of our time, and throws in the right amount of villainy, naivety and curiosity.

I spoke earlier of the throwbacks to the original trilogy, and perhaps the biggest and best was saved for the third act. Karen Allen returns as Marion Ravenwood. It brings the story full circle, rather than being a cheap attempt to bridge the films.

If you liked the original trilogy, you’ll be entertained by Crystal Skull. But don’t expect it to be the greatest Indy film, because it isn’t. As much as that pains me to write.

– Brodie Mann