There are no shortage of eulogies to Roger Ebert available today. You can read Grantland's long form essay on Ebert's career, or MovieBob's tribute with embedded videos. For my money, the best one out there is James Berarnadelli's eulogy for Roger on his site, ReelViews. Berarnadelli, you see, knew Roger personally, and thus has lost a friend rather than just a colleague or respected journalist.
My own perspective is somewhat different. You see, while I have done a few movie reviews here and there, I can't really call myself a real movie critic by any means. No, my point of view is a local one. As a Chicagoan, by which I mean someone who's lived in Chicagoland most of his life if not in the city proper, Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel were ours long before they were the nation's. I watched Sneak Previews as a kid long before Roger and Gene went national with At the Movies. Reflected glory though it may have been, Chicagoans have always been proud that the two most well known and respected movie critics emerged on the shores of Lake Michigan rather than in LA or New York as one might otherwise expect.
What's more, for all that the TV shows were national, and Roger's numerous books were available everywhere, their actual reviews were to be found in the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. And even if anyone could go to the Sun-Times site to read Roger's reviews in recent years, only someone from Chicago could hold them in his hands.
Gene and Roger. Siskel & Ebert. They were ours before they were the world's, and I will miss them both terribly.
The balcony is closed.
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Friday, April 5, 2013
Monday, March 12, 2012
WEP '12, Day 69 - John Carter Review
Having caught the new film about a very old book, I've gone ahead and written a review about it. Naturally, there will be spoilers. You have been warned.
So the first big summer movie is out, albeit in winter. Taking the 300 model of an early release, John Carter has hit in early March with the hope that by being released so far ahead of its big competitors like Avengers and Dark Knight Rises, John Carter will become at least a modest hit in a season where movies like it are rare. Did it work? And, more importantly, is the movie any good?
As far as the money goes, I read on Box Office Mojo that it's projected to come in behind The Lorax which isn't the kind of opening that a film hoping to start a franchise really needed. I had thought it was going to do better than that, as the theater I saw Carter in was pretty full. On the other hand it was also one of the smaller theaters at AMC Randhurst, and AMC are being real dicks about John Carter.
You see, the 3-D on John Carter is purported to be pretty bad. It's a post-production conversion, and as a general rule you want to avoid those. AMC appears to be aware of that, because they're only showing the 2-D version of the movie as a matinee in one tiny theater in the back. So what's a theater owner who wants to to charge $13 a pop for John Carter to do? Why make it as difficult as possible to see the 2-D version.
This cynical and annoying idea played out by them making it so the last time you could see a 2-D version of John Carter at my usual theater was 1pm. On a Saturday. The last time you could see it at any AMC theater was 4:40pm. So if you wanted to see John Carter on a Saturday night? Well, I hope you don't mind a crappier experience for $3 more! Or you do as I should have, and go to see it at, say, Arlington Theater which doesn't have 3-D capability and thus only shows their films in 2-D. Hell, if I'd been smart enough to go there, I'd have seen Carter on a bigger screen, to boot!
So the film's been a disappointment at the box office, and AMC are being jerks about how you have to see it. How's the film itself?
It was okay. I liked it. I'd see a sequel if there is one, though that now seems unlikely. The story is competently told, the action is acceptable, the vistas appropriately sweeping. Dejah Thoris, the love interest, is actually a more interesting character than John Carter himself is. As played by Lynn Collins, she's a princess, scientist, and action heroine, and even manages to show some emotional depth at various points in the story.
Sadly, the same isn't entirely true of the lead himself. Taylor Kitsch does a decent enough job playing the early movie's "John Carter, bitter war veteran out for himself." He can growl and look sad with reasonable skill. Unfortunately, once he's supposed to transition into "John Carter, redeemed hero" it all falls apart. Kitsch just isn't charismatic enough to play the inspiring hero. He never feels like the kind of man you'd ride a war rhino into a war against a walking city for. Give him a ride to the airport or let hm crash on your couch? Sure. Die in horrible battle for? Not so much.
Furthermore, while the hero's motivation is pretty clear, as is Dejah's, the villains of the piece aren't so lucky. All the bad guys want is power. Except the "power behind the throne" guy who has power and is unclear as to why he's sharing it with the principal villain.
So if the villains are unsatisfying and the hero kind of fades out in the second half of the film, what do you have? Well the giant, four-armed green Tharks who have been the main reason it's taken around a century to get this film made look pretty good. The other Martian creatures are impressive as well. Granted it's all obviously CGI, but that's just where we are these days.
So what have we got? The film's been out three days and change and I'm already seeing articles calling it a flop. So you're probably not getting any sequels to this one. The acting? Well the first half, maybe even first two thirds, is okay. Not great, but not bad. The last third, when Dejah is off screen being a damsel in distress while Carter is trying to become a Big Damn Hero is pretty dire, though. That leaves the story, which is kind of a mess, and the action. The action is pretty good, at least.
In the end, John Carter is gong to go down as a missed opportunity. With a more charismatic lead, a better script, and a better idea of how to make something feel really epic, this really could have been the start of a new movie franchise. Instead, I suspect it'll go down as another Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins.
Too bad.
You see, the 3-D on John Carter is purported to be pretty bad. It's a post-production conversion, and as a general rule you want to avoid those. AMC appears to be aware of that, because they're only showing the 2-D version of the movie as a matinee in one tiny theater in the back. So what's a theater owner who wants to to charge $13 a pop for John Carter to do? Why make it as difficult as possible to see the 2-D version.
This cynical and annoying idea played out by them making it so the last time you could see a 2-D version of John Carter at my usual theater was 1pm. On a Saturday. The last time you could see it at any AMC theater was 4:40pm. So if you wanted to see John Carter on a Saturday night? Well, I hope you don't mind a crappier experience for $3 more! Or you do as I should have, and go to see it at, say, Arlington Theater which doesn't have 3-D capability and thus only shows their films in 2-D. Hell, if I'd been smart enough to go there, I'd have seen Carter on a bigger screen, to boot!
So the film's been a disappointment at the box office, and AMC are being jerks about how you have to see it. How's the film itself?
It was okay. I liked it. I'd see a sequel if there is one, though that now seems unlikely. The story is competently told, the action is acceptable, the vistas appropriately sweeping. Dejah Thoris, the love interest, is actually a more interesting character than John Carter himself is. As played by Lynn Collins, she's a princess, scientist, and action heroine, and even manages to show some emotional depth at various points in the story.
Sadly, the same isn't entirely true of the lead himself. Taylor Kitsch does a decent enough job playing the early movie's "John Carter, bitter war veteran out for himself." He can growl and look sad with reasonable skill. Unfortunately, once he's supposed to transition into "John Carter, redeemed hero" it all falls apart. Kitsch just isn't charismatic enough to play the inspiring hero. He never feels like the kind of man you'd ride a war rhino into a war against a walking city for. Give him a ride to the airport or let hm crash on your couch? Sure. Die in horrible battle for? Not so much.
Furthermore, while the hero's motivation is pretty clear, as is Dejah's, the villains of the piece aren't so lucky. All the bad guys want is power. Except the "power behind the throne" guy who has power and is unclear as to why he's sharing it with the principal villain.
So if the villains are unsatisfying and the hero kind of fades out in the second half of the film, what do you have? Well the giant, four-armed green Tharks who have been the main reason it's taken around a century to get this film made look pretty good. The other Martian creatures are impressive as well. Granted it's all obviously CGI, but that's just where we are these days.
So what have we got? The film's been out three days and change and I'm already seeing articles calling it a flop. So you're probably not getting any sequels to this one. The acting? Well the first half, maybe even first two thirds, is okay. Not great, but not bad. The last third, when Dejah is off screen being a damsel in distress while Carter is trying to become a Big Damn Hero is pretty dire, though. That leaves the story, which is kind of a mess, and the action. The action is pretty good, at least.
In the end, John Carter is gong to go down as a missed opportunity. With a more charismatic lead, a better script, and a better idea of how to make something feel really epic, this really could have been the start of a new movie franchise. Instead, I suspect it'll go down as another Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins.
Too bad.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
WEP '12, Day 67 - Ocean's Thirteen Retrospective
For this examination of the third, and likely final, modern Ocean's films, there will of course be spoilers.
Let's get something straight. Ocean's Eleven refers to the fact that there are eleven people on the team to do the "Benedict Job." Ocean's Twelve refers to the fact that, in desperation, they add Danny's wife Tess to the team, making a twelve person team. And since Tess isn't in Ocean's Thirteen, her place as number twelve is taken by tech guy Roman. In Ocean's Thirteen the thirteenth member of the team is not, as I've seen mentioned in various places online, Ellen Barkin's character. She's as much a victim as Pacino's Willy Bank is. No, the thirteenth member is Terry Benedict, the villain of the first two films who goes with the old "enemy of my enemy" routine.
Of course, there were always more people involved in the various scams than got credit as part of the Eleven, Twelve, or Thirteen. There's Bruiser, the big guy who fakes beating up Danny in Eleven, gets Frank out of jail in Twelve, and places bets to help bring down the Bank in Thirteen. Or Roman, who provides crucial tech support in Twelve before being promoted into a full member of the gang in Thirteen. Or the girl who swipes the security card, or the girls who distract the real motorcycle jumper, or the one who works the front desk, or...well, you get the idea.
With all that out of the way, how does Ocean's Thirteen stack up to its predecessors? Not great. Oh it's an amusing enough film, but you get the feeling that everyone involved is pretty tired of it. There's less energy, less chemistry, less pop to it all. Part of it is the fact that rather than having any sympathetic female characters, the only woman with any significant screen time is a one note "cougar" who get victimized by the team. Tess and Isabel are both missing from Ocean's Thirteen, and they're missed.
One reason the film may lack the energy of the previous films in the series is that it was the first one filmed less like an extended vacation than a regular Hollywood production. The way I've read it, the original Ocean's Eleven starring Sinatra and the Rat Pack was more of an excuse to party in Vegas while occasionally filming a movie than it was a serious film shoot. I've further read that the idea of getting together a bunch of friends and colleagues for a similar, if less extravagant, fun time was a big motivating factor behind all the big names who showed up in Ocean's Eleven and Twelve. Eleven was the Vegas vacation, while Twelve was the European one.
Ocean's Thirteen, however, was where the party stopped. By some accounts, Thirteen was a much more rushed production, allowing for less fun and games for the cast and crew. Furthermore, series regular Julia Roberts wasn't in it at all, purportedly due to script concerns from the studio. All that made it less fun for everyone, and that maybe comes out in the final film.
To me, though, the bigger problem is that there really isn't any mystery to it. Danny and Rusty explain the plan to Roman early on, and that's what happens, with a couple of minor problems along the way. It kind of kills the dramatic tension that way, clever and unusual as it might be. I appreciate clever as much as the next man, and more than most, but sometimes you're better off being less clever and more dramatic, and this is one of those times.
What's more, the film feels much more like a sequel to Ocean's Eleven than Twelve did. It lacks that spark of originality and difference that made Twelve my favorite. We're back in Vegas. Check. We're hitting a casino. Check. The guy in charge is a ruthless bastard. Check. And so on and so forth. Hell, they even recreate the scene from near the end of Ocean's Eleven where they pan across all the faces of the team as they stare at some Vegas attraction. I get that it's sort of a homage and all, but it doesn't feel like we're going anywhere new. The old ground may be familiar and comfortable, but that doesn't make it better.
Still, I enjoyed Ocean's Thirteen. If there were to be another one, I'd probably see it. Of course, since director Steven Soderbergh says that the death of Bernie Mac precludes his ever doing another Ocean's movie, and in fact says he's retiring after he shoots the upcoming Liberace film, even if there were to be another one, it wouldn't have the same feel. And since the films have been doing progressively less well financially from installment to installment, I doubt there's much if any studio pressure to bring the series back.
Of course, I'd have thought that about the Men in Black films, and Men in Black III is coming out this summer, so what do I know?
All in all, the series probably would have been better served either doing something new, like some kind of heist in Asia maybe, but if you're going to do a bone standard sequel, then I guess this is a decent one. I'd have preferred if they'd gone out with Twelve's ending, but I don't regret seeing Thirteen. I do regret what I see as a wasted opportunity, but it's hardly the first nor last film to disappoint me in that regard.
Netflix should be getting me the Sinatra Ocean's Eleven sometime early next week, so I'll wrap up this series of retrospectives as well as give my final thoughts on all things Ocean's Eleven then.
I'll see you when I see you.
Let's get something straight. Ocean's Eleven refers to the fact that there are eleven people on the team to do the "Benedict Job." Ocean's Twelve refers to the fact that, in desperation, they add Danny's wife Tess to the team, making a twelve person team. And since Tess isn't in Ocean's Thirteen, her place as number twelve is taken by tech guy Roman. In Ocean's Thirteen the thirteenth member of the team is not, as I've seen mentioned in various places online, Ellen Barkin's character. She's as much a victim as Pacino's Willy Bank is. No, the thirteenth member is Terry Benedict, the villain of the first two films who goes with the old "enemy of my enemy" routine.
Of course, there were always more people involved in the various scams than got credit as part of the Eleven, Twelve, or Thirteen. There's Bruiser, the big guy who fakes beating up Danny in Eleven, gets Frank out of jail in Twelve, and places bets to help bring down the Bank in Thirteen. Or Roman, who provides crucial tech support in Twelve before being promoted into a full member of the gang in Thirteen. Or the girl who swipes the security card, or the girls who distract the real motorcycle jumper, or the one who works the front desk, or...well, you get the idea.
With all that out of the way, how does Ocean's Thirteen stack up to its predecessors? Not great. Oh it's an amusing enough film, but you get the feeling that everyone involved is pretty tired of it. There's less energy, less chemistry, less pop to it all. Part of it is the fact that rather than having any sympathetic female characters, the only woman with any significant screen time is a one note "cougar" who get victimized by the team. Tess and Isabel are both missing from Ocean's Thirteen, and they're missed.
One reason the film may lack the energy of the previous films in the series is that it was the first one filmed less like an extended vacation than a regular Hollywood production. The way I've read it, the original Ocean's Eleven starring Sinatra and the Rat Pack was more of an excuse to party in Vegas while occasionally filming a movie than it was a serious film shoot. I've further read that the idea of getting together a bunch of friends and colleagues for a similar, if less extravagant, fun time was a big motivating factor behind all the big names who showed up in Ocean's Eleven and Twelve. Eleven was the Vegas vacation, while Twelve was the European one.
Ocean's Thirteen, however, was where the party stopped. By some accounts, Thirteen was a much more rushed production, allowing for less fun and games for the cast and crew. Furthermore, series regular Julia Roberts wasn't in it at all, purportedly due to script concerns from the studio. All that made it less fun for everyone, and that maybe comes out in the final film.
To me, though, the bigger problem is that there really isn't any mystery to it. Danny and Rusty explain the plan to Roman early on, and that's what happens, with a couple of minor problems along the way. It kind of kills the dramatic tension that way, clever and unusual as it might be. I appreciate clever as much as the next man, and more than most, but sometimes you're better off being less clever and more dramatic, and this is one of those times.
What's more, the film feels much more like a sequel to Ocean's Eleven than Twelve did. It lacks that spark of originality and difference that made Twelve my favorite. We're back in Vegas. Check. We're hitting a casino. Check. The guy in charge is a ruthless bastard. Check. And so on and so forth. Hell, they even recreate the scene from near the end of Ocean's Eleven where they pan across all the faces of the team as they stare at some Vegas attraction. I get that it's sort of a homage and all, but it doesn't feel like we're going anywhere new. The old ground may be familiar and comfortable, but that doesn't make it better.
Still, I enjoyed Ocean's Thirteen. If there were to be another one, I'd probably see it. Of course, since director Steven Soderbergh says that the death of Bernie Mac precludes his ever doing another Ocean's movie, and in fact says he's retiring after he shoots the upcoming Liberace film, even if there were to be another one, it wouldn't have the same feel. And since the films have been doing progressively less well financially from installment to installment, I doubt there's much if any studio pressure to bring the series back.
Of course, I'd have thought that about the Men in Black films, and Men in Black III is coming out this summer, so what do I know?
All in all, the series probably would have been better served either doing something new, like some kind of heist in Asia maybe, but if you're going to do a bone standard sequel, then I guess this is a decent one. I'd have preferred if they'd gone out with Twelve's ending, but I don't regret seeing Thirteen. I do regret what I see as a wasted opportunity, but it's hardly the first nor last film to disappoint me in that regard.
Netflix should be getting me the Sinatra Ocean's Eleven sometime early next week, so I'll wrap up this series of retrospectives as well as give my final thoughts on all things Ocean's Eleven then.
I'll see you when I see you.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
WEP '12, Day 65 - Ocean's Twelve Retrospective
As with my Ocean's Eleven retrospective, there will be spoilers for the Ocean's Twelve after the poster.
In many ways, Ocean's Twelve is my favorite of the Ocean's movies. That's a minority opinion, I know. Indeed, with the ways in which Ocean's Thirteen resembles Ocean's Eleven much more than it does Ocean's Twelve, you get the feeling that even the director Steven Soderbergh agrees that Eleven was better than Twelve. Or if he didn't, then certainly the studios did.
But there's a certain European style to Twelve that I enjoy. The BMI award winning soundtrack certainly helps, but it goes beyond that. The story takes more time to develop than Eleven's did, which feels right when it's set in Amsterdam, Rome, and Paris rather than Las Vegas. It also takes the time to develop Rusty and Isabel's relationship in a way that was merely implied for Danny and Tess in the previous film.
What's more, Ocean's Twelve has a tension that's not present in either of the other movies. That's because Danny Ocean and his crew spend Ocean's Twelve on the defensive. You see, in a standard heist film, the protagonists are on the attack. They're seeing a target, planning their assault on it, then executing said attack. In this one, while there are multiple heists, the fact of the matter is, they're all (with one exception) failures. The team is being pressured by Benedict's desire for his money, and under attack by the Night Fox's counter-operations. That adds a level of difficulty that makes everything more dangerous. Especially since, right up until the very end, things seem to be going catastrophically wrong.
Those elements change Ocean's Twelve enough to make it a very different film than Ocean's Eleven. And that's a good thing. How many times over the years have you been disappointed by a sequel that was just a carbon copy of the original? Men in Black 2, anyone? The very best sequels move the story forward = and change things up. Ocean's Twelve does that.
That isn't to say the film is perfect. People who complain that the ending is a cheat are correct. It is. But it's a clever cheat whose reveal I really enjoyed. Particularly the bit with Linus and his mom. I loved that when I saw it in the theater five years ago and I loved it in on DVD last weekend. It was just so well done that I forgave them the cheat.
Some of the other things are a little more problematic, though. The way that characters are jailed a few at a time means that some of them, particularly Bernie Mac who had TV scheduling problems that kept him out of most of the film, end up doing almost nothing. Also the whole "Tess looks like Julia Roberts" thing was just silly. Obviously, Tess Ocean who is played by Julia Roberts, looks like Julia Roberts. Just like Danny Ocean looks like George Clooney. It breaks the verisimilitude of the film to play on that point, though. Having Roberts play Tess playing Julia Roberts was just odd, and I don't think it worked as well as it looked on paper.
For all that, the movie remains a stylish and amusing tableau to me. I wish more sequels would have the balls to really change things up while still remaining true to their characters the way Ocean's Twelve did.
But was Ocean's Thirteen as good? I'll tell you next week.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
WEP '12, Day 61 - Ocean's Eleven Retrospective
Having caught part of Ocean's Eleven and most of Ocean's Twelve on TV recently, I decided that I might as well have a look at the entire sequence of films, Ocean's Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen. Netflix having kindly delivered Eleven and Twelve to me, I'm going to go ahead and give my thoughts on the films as I watch them. I caught Ocean's Eleven Friday night, and here's what I thought. As usual, and especially since the film is eleven years old now, there will be spoilers after the poster.
First of all, the movie's subtler than I recall it being. A lot is conveyed with pauses and looks rather than overt dialogue. That requires a good script and actors with decent comedic timing, and they managed both, for the most part.
Secondly, there's really a lot less overt humor compared to today's comedies. There's very few pratfalls, no bodily fluids, none of the excessive raunchiness one might get from The Hangover or Bridesmaids. True, they have the brothers from Utah and their constant bickering, but they don't overplay that card, and the scene where they drive Linus to distraction is artfully directed. The humor here is understated, and I like it that way.
Something else that I noticed was that despite only a few of the characters getting all that much screen time (which is inevitable when you've got eleven people on Danny's team, plus Benedict, plus Tess), the characters are sharply defined. Benedict is cold and dangerous, Danny is smooth and charming, Rusty is mysterious and witty, Linus is self-conscious and inexperienced. And so on, and so forth. Granted, no one character is allowed time to show much in the way of depth beyond Danny pining for Tess, but heist films like the Ocean's movies really aren't about character depth, they're about the setup and execution of the heist.
So how was the heist? Not bad, actually. Oh, there are a few holes. The "pinch" device they use to generate the EMP doesn't actually exist. I don't think there was enough time for them to get all the loot out the way they showed it. Also, Terry should have realized that there was no way for Tess to have seen his final confrontation with Danny unless someone had hacked his security systems, and since the logical people to have done that were the thieves he should have known that Danny was in on the robbery then and there. And since, as a corrupt murderous sort, he shouldn't have been concerned with something like "proof" before beating the truth out of Ocean. Also, if the point of having Yen in the vault was so that he could jump around and not touch the floor, which makes it seem a bit odd when they just blow the door up and walk in afterwards. Why didn't the alarm go off then?
Nevertheless, it still works. The timing, the convolutions in the plan, the twists and turns, they're all pretty cool. What concerns I have with the execution only become obvious in retrospect after repeated viewings. During the film itself, one is caught up in the action and don't think about the details, you're more interested in what happens next. Which is as it should be. Ocean's Eleven isn't the kind of tense drama where a hole in your suspension of disbelief kills the film for you the way it might, say, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. The scenario in Ocean's is inherently manufactured, and we all know that nothing about it really reflects reality. The movie is about style and flash, and on those levels it succeeds.
This would be a good time, I suppose, to compare the Clooney Ocean's Eleven to the Frank Sinatra Ocean's Eleven. The problem is that I've never seen the Sinatra version, so I haven't got any basis for comparison. Maybe I'll watch that one after I finish doing Ocean's Twelve and Ocean's Thirteen.
Overall, then, Ocean's Eleven was a fine version of a light heist film. It was a one and film that accomplished what it set out to do. It also was pretty clearly never intended to have a sequel. So what would happen when they did one anyway? Find out next time when I review in retrospect Ocean's Twelve.
First of all, the movie's subtler than I recall it being. A lot is conveyed with pauses and looks rather than overt dialogue. That requires a good script and actors with decent comedic timing, and they managed both, for the most part.
Secondly, there's really a lot less overt humor compared to today's comedies. There's very few pratfalls, no bodily fluids, none of the excessive raunchiness one might get from The Hangover or Bridesmaids. True, they have the brothers from Utah and their constant bickering, but they don't overplay that card, and the scene where they drive Linus to distraction is artfully directed. The humor here is understated, and I like it that way.
Something else that I noticed was that despite only a few of the characters getting all that much screen time (which is inevitable when you've got eleven people on Danny's team, plus Benedict, plus Tess), the characters are sharply defined. Benedict is cold and dangerous, Danny is smooth and charming, Rusty is mysterious and witty, Linus is self-conscious and inexperienced. And so on, and so forth. Granted, no one character is allowed time to show much in the way of depth beyond Danny pining for Tess, but heist films like the Ocean's movies really aren't about character depth, they're about the setup and execution of the heist.
So how was the heist? Not bad, actually. Oh, there are a few holes. The "pinch" device they use to generate the EMP doesn't actually exist. I don't think there was enough time for them to get all the loot out the way they showed it. Also, Terry should have realized that there was no way for Tess to have seen his final confrontation with Danny unless someone had hacked his security systems, and since the logical people to have done that were the thieves he should have known that Danny was in on the robbery then and there. And since, as a corrupt murderous sort, he shouldn't have been concerned with something like "proof" before beating the truth out of Ocean. Also, if the point of having Yen in the vault was so that he could jump around and not touch the floor, which makes it seem a bit odd when they just blow the door up and walk in afterwards. Why didn't the alarm go off then?
Nevertheless, it still works. The timing, the convolutions in the plan, the twists and turns, they're all pretty cool. What concerns I have with the execution only become obvious in retrospect after repeated viewings. During the film itself, one is caught up in the action and don't think about the details, you're more interested in what happens next. Which is as it should be. Ocean's Eleven isn't the kind of tense drama where a hole in your suspension of disbelief kills the film for you the way it might, say, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. The scenario in Ocean's is inherently manufactured, and we all know that nothing about it really reflects reality. The movie is about style and flash, and on those levels it succeeds.
This would be a good time, I suppose, to compare the Clooney Ocean's Eleven to the Frank Sinatra Ocean's Eleven. The problem is that I've never seen the Sinatra version, so I haven't got any basis for comparison. Maybe I'll watch that one after I finish doing Ocean's Twelve and Ocean's Thirteen.
Overall, then, Ocean's Eleven was a fine version of a light heist film. It was a one and film that accomplished what it set out to do. It also was pretty clearly never intended to have a sequel. So what would happen when they did one anyway? Find out next time when I review in retrospect Ocean's Twelve.
Monday, February 27, 2012
WEP '12, Day 57 - Oscar Madness
I haven't got the patience to watch all of the Oscars, but I did pop in and out to catch the opening montage, the Cirque de Soleil performance, and most of the big awards. Most years, I don't even do that much, but I have some fake money on the results through Hollywood Stock Exchange. The idea was that you could "buy" various possible Oscar winners, and if you held them until today, any of the ones that you get correct are de-listed at HSX 25, while all the ones you got wrong de-list at zero.
That means by guessing three correctly, Best Picture (The Artist), Director (The Artist again), and Best Original Screenplay (Midnight in Paris), and since I had the maximum of 20,000 shares in each, I'll get HSX 500,000. Since I bought all my shares for all nine categories for less than HSX 100,000, it represents a very nice return on investment, but I can't help but regret that I could have done much better with better guessing.
Granted, I only saw one of the Best Picture nominees this year, the aforementioned Midnight in Paris, and even that one I only saw last night and my picks for the HSX had been made weeks before, but even so I could have done better.
Much like with sports betting, I end up following my heart to much. I know that the Bears aren't all that good, but I want to bet on them anyway. Of the films with Best Actor nods, I've only seen Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, so I bank on Gary Oldman winning, when I should pick the guy from The Artist, based on the hype.
I guess I'm just nostalgic like that.
Anyway, having not seen many of the movies being rewarded tonight, I can't really comment on whether anyone actually got robbed tonight, but I can say that having The Artist, a silent film win the 84th Oscars would be pretty ironic in a "going full circle" kind of way that if the world really does end in 2012*, for the last Oscars to honor the kind of films that won in the first one.
* = World will not end. Do not quit job or unload long term stocks unless that was what you were going to do anyway.
That means by guessing three correctly, Best Picture (The Artist), Director (The Artist again), and Best Original Screenplay (Midnight in Paris), and since I had the maximum of 20,000 shares in each, I'll get HSX 500,000. Since I bought all my shares for all nine categories for less than HSX 100,000, it represents a very nice return on investment, but I can't help but regret that I could have done much better with better guessing.
Granted, I only saw one of the Best Picture nominees this year, the aforementioned Midnight in Paris, and even that one I only saw last night and my picks for the HSX had been made weeks before, but even so I could have done better.
Much like with sports betting, I end up following my heart to much. I know that the Bears aren't all that good, but I want to bet on them anyway. Of the films with Best Actor nods, I've only seen Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, so I bank on Gary Oldman winning, when I should pick the guy from The Artist, based on the hype.
I guess I'm just nostalgic like that.
Anyway, having not seen many of the movies being rewarded tonight, I can't really comment on whether anyone actually got robbed tonight, but I can say that having The Artist, a silent film win the 84th Oscars would be pretty ironic in a "going full circle" kind of way that if the world really does end in 2012*, for the last Oscars to honor the kind of films that won in the first one.
* = World will not end. Do not quit job or unload long term stocks unless that was what you were going to do anyway.
Monday, February 6, 2012
WEP '12, Day 37 - Summer Movie Preview
This is not a comprehensive look by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, this is me glancing at a list of movies scheduled from May through August of this year with an eye towards what I myself am most looking forward to.
May
The "summer season" starts off with The Avengers on May 4th. I've enjoyed the Avengers set up movies, which include Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America. Marvel's trying something interesting here, by bringing comic book continuity to the big screen. You won't need to have seen all the original movies to understand Avengers' plot, but you might get more out of it. I'm also reasonably certain that only the characters who haven't got their own films will get much in the way of introduction, since there just isn't time to do more than gloss over what we learned about the Big Four over five films.
May
The "summer season" starts off with The Avengers on May 4th. I've enjoyed the Avengers set up movies, which include Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America. Marvel's trying something interesting here, by bringing comic book continuity to the big screen. You won't need to have seen all the original movies to understand Avengers' plot, but you might get more out of it. I'm also reasonably certain that only the characters who haven't got their own films will get much in the way of introduction, since there just isn't time to do more than gloss over what we learned about the Big Four over five films.
The Avengers (5/4)
The rest of May doesn't look too promising. It includes a couple of movies that shouldn't exist: Battleship and Men in Black III, a Sascha Baron-Cohen comedy, The Dictator, that might be funny but might suck, and Dark Shadows, an update of the classic horror soap opera that I've never actually seen. I could be convinced by reviews or word of mouth to see some of those, but so far, I'm not optimistic.
June has more movies that I'm unsure about. Prometheus is Ridley Scott returning to the universe of Alien, with what was originally called a prequel and now is not? I don't know. There's also Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter which means that the second big "classic horror fusion" book made it to theaters before the trope starter, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies did. Finally, there's GI Joe: Retaliation, which does a lot to earn my approval by apparently executing most of the original cast to do an in-continuity reboot. Granted, trailers can deceive, but somehow this doesn't actually look as bad as the first one.
GI Joe: Retaliation (6/29)
July has two movies of note. The first is the reboot of the Spider-Man films, The Amazing Spider-Man. This one gives me the same vibe that the Ang Lee Hulk did. It feels like they're trying to add depth and a character study to a superhero that might be better served without one. Look at the trailer to see what I mean.
The Amazing Spider-Man (7/3)
Its the scenes on the edges, things like making Peter's parents maybe victims of some kind of conspiracy, or the idea that Peter himself may have been engineered to become what he is. That sort of thing calls to mind the whole "Hulk as engineered by his crazy father" thing that was in Hulk. Granted, the fact that Hulk failed to do what it set out to doesn't mean you shouldn't try to be something greater than just a superhero action film, as exemplified by the other big film in July...
The Dark Knight Rises (7/20)
The conclusion to the Nolan-verse Batman trilogy brings in Bane and Catwoman to try and fill the shoes of Heath Ledger's Joker. I'm not sure it'll work, since Ledger's performance is what elevated The Dark Knight so far above Batman Begins, but with Ledger's death, the only choices were to re-cast the Joker or omit him from the film entirely, and I guess I can't argue with this decision. The Dark Knight was so well done that I'll see The Dark Knight Rises pretty much regardless of the reviews, since I want to see how it ends and to say goodbye to the Nolan/Bale version of the character. I imagine the next time we see the Bat, he'll be either be setting up or just flat out be in some kind of Justice League movie, especially if The Avengers does as well as most people expect it to.
August has three films that might, or might not, be worth watching. The first is The Bourne Legacy. Like GI Joe: Retaliation, this is an in-continuity reboot where they feature the same universe but without Matt Damon's Jason Bourne. Legacy follows another agent from the same conditioning program. A lot will depend on Jeremy Renner's performance as the new spy. The only thing I've seen Renner in so far was the two minutes he was in Thor as an uncredited Hawkeye. Of course, by the time Bourne Legacy hits the theaters, I'll have seen him in The Avengers and should have a better idea what I'm getting.
The second maybe in August comes out the same day as Legacy, and that's Total Recall. From what I gather, the new Total Recall will be closer to the original Philip K. Dick short story "We'll Remember it for you Wholesale." Given that the 1990 Total Recall was a straight up action flick, anything that brings us closer to the original short story and its examination of the nature of memory is fine by me.
Finally, a couple of weeks later we'll be getting The Expendables 2. Considering that I haven't gotten aroun to watching The Expendables in the first place, I'm really throwing the sequel onto the pile pro forma. Maybe I'll get around to watching the first one on Netflix or something which will encourage me to watch the second. We'll see.
Of course, the one movie I really want to see in 2012 isn't a summer blockbuster at all. The one I'm most looking forward to is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which hits theaters in December of 2012. Back to Middle Earth and Peter Jackson!
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (12/14)
I can't wait!
Thursday, January 5, 2012
WEP '12, Day 5 - "X-Men: First Class" Blu-ray Review
I caught X-Men: First Class on Blu-Ray at my brother's place last night. This was the second time I'd seen the film, having caught it in the theaters after all the good reviews came in. One line review: This is a good movie that's made by Michael Fassbender's performance as Magneto.
The thing to remember about X-Men: First Class is that Fox has the rights to the X-Men franchise in perpetuity...unless they stop making X-Men movies. With Disney having bought out Marvel, losing the rights to the X-Men no longer means having another rival bid a ton of cash to get the rights themselves, it means letting Disney start making their own X-Men movies, or perhaps worse, integrating the X-Men into the Avengers movies. So Fox slammed together First Class on the cheap and in a hurry, just to keep their hands on the license. That also meant that they didn't particularly expect First Class to do all that well, and so didn't interfere with the production process all that much, allowing director Micheal Vaughn to do pretty much whatever he wanted. Which is good, because the script passed through something like seven people's hands before it was done, including blending in the abandoned X-Men Origins: Magneto script that had been dumped after X-Men Origins: Wolverine flopped. Given that some of the early X-Men: First Class scenes about Magneto were my favorite parts of the movie, it's a shame that the Magneto movie never got off the ground.
It is also a shame that the film is so rushed. Not only in its actual production, which saw Vaughn only barely getting the film out at all, but in the way the story develops. For all that this is a good movie that I did enjoy, I can't help but feel that a redistribution of priorities, which I'll discuss in detail in the spoiler section below, could have made X-Men: First Class a great film.
As it is, however, it remains one of the better superhero movies overall, and probably the best of the ones that came out in 2011. Presuming you're a fan of the superhero action movie, you should probably seek this one out on disc or through your preferred method of digital distribution and give it a try.
The thing to remember about X-Men: First Class is that Fox has the rights to the X-Men franchise in perpetuity...unless they stop making X-Men movies. With Disney having bought out Marvel, losing the rights to the X-Men no longer means having another rival bid a ton of cash to get the rights themselves, it means letting Disney start making their own X-Men movies, or perhaps worse, integrating the X-Men into the Avengers movies. So Fox slammed together First Class on the cheap and in a hurry, just to keep their hands on the license. That also meant that they didn't particularly expect First Class to do all that well, and so didn't interfere with the production process all that much, allowing director Micheal Vaughn to do pretty much whatever he wanted. Which is good, because the script passed through something like seven people's hands before it was done, including blending in the abandoned X-Men Origins: Magneto script that had been dumped after X-Men Origins: Wolverine flopped. Given that some of the early X-Men: First Class scenes about Magneto were my favorite parts of the movie, it's a shame that the Magneto movie never got off the ground.
It is also a shame that the film is so rushed. Not only in its actual production, which saw Vaughn only barely getting the film out at all, but in the way the story develops. For all that this is a good movie that I did enjoy, I can't help but feel that a redistribution of priorities, which I'll discuss in detail in the spoiler section below, could have made X-Men: First Class a great film.
As it is, however, it remains one of the better superhero movies overall, and probably the best of the ones that came out in 2011. Presuming you're a fan of the superhero action movie, you should probably seek this one out on disc or through your preferred method of digital distribution and give it a try.
SPOILERS follow!
I can't read your mind. If you want to avoid SPOILERS, you have to act for yourself.
There's a reason that I picked the poster I did for my spoiler break. There are, after all, a number of different posters available that highlight all the X-Men, as well as ones that show all the good guys and bad guys together, all looking cool. But those images all miss the point, which, alas, X-Men: First Class does as well. X-Men: First Class is at its best when dealing with the relationship between Charles Xavier and Eric Lensherr. If the movie had been mostly, perhaps even exclusively, about how those two met, worked together, became friends, then grew apart, that would have been the great movie I mentioned above. Unfortunately, we don't get as much of that as we would like, because the movie's too busy rushing around introducing the other mutants and setting up the "Thirteen Days...but with Mutants" plot.
(Speaking of which, you should probably go see Thirteen Days if you haven't already. They never say so explicitly in the film, as far as I remember, but every time the screen goes from color to black & white, you're seeing the actors play out actual taped dialogue from the Kennedy Tapes. It's an excellent blend of history and fiction that works very well. Granted, Costner's character gets more focus on him than I would like, but overall the film does a fine job recreating the tension of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I recommend it.)
The shame of it is, as my brother pointed out in our post-film debrief, that they didn't need to rush Magneto from ally to villain so quickly. They could have kept the team intact at the end of First Class, then shown his descent into darkness in the sequel, and had it blow up into a full on Mutant on Mutant war in the third film. Unfortunately it feels like Vaughn didn't think he was going to get two more movies, despite having the major cast locked up for three films, so he rushed to the obvious conclusion in First Class, and the film suffers for it.
But we have to take the film as it exists, not as how we wish it existed. And under those terms, it remains a decent film that has some okay superheroic action, and an interesting story that mixes with the Cuban Missile Crisis. It has some great scenes with Michael Fassbender's Magneto, both alone and with David McAvoy's Charles Xavier, and it's fun.
While I could wish for more, I have to admit I enjoyed what we did get, and as such, I recommend X-Men: First Class.
Monday, January 2, 2012
WEP '12, Day 2 - Bad Movie Night
The interesting thing about a year long writing plan is that you become more aware about the amount of material you have available. Three hundred and sixty five more entries is a lot of material, and it wouldn't do to spend what I've got saved up too early.
I could, for instance, do another Old Republic log since I spent much of yesterday getting ready for tonight's guild run. But since I'll have even more to talk about after the run, I figure I'll just wait until tomorrow. I could also discuss my thoughts and feelings about the end of the 2011 Chicago Bears season. But that'll keep. After all, the Bears aren't going anywhere, and neither are my thoughts on them.
So instead, I'll discuss the annual New Year's Eve Bad Movie Night Party. Every year we gather to watch and heckle bad movies. Normally we decide on a "winner" by which we mean the worst film of the night.
This year, there were five contenders, which we viewed in chronological order. They were: Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966), Hercules (1983), The Bride (1985), The Avengers (1998), and The Order (2002). Time and energy expired before we could make it to a sixth movie, Conan the Barbarian (2011).
Manos: The Hands of Fate was featured in an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. We didn't watch that version, though. There were no funny robots or a lonely Minnesotan providing quips for this turkey. No, we had to do that ourselves. And there's a lot to quip about. The movie tells he story of a family that gets lost in Texas and encounters and runs into a weird cult that worships Manos. Even by the standards of 1966, the acting in Manos is wretched and the script is worse. Every character is a one-note moron and there's virtually no plot. Characters appear who have no purpose, including a couple whose only point in the plot was to make out in a car. Of course, what else can you expect from a film that only exists because a guy bet how easy it was to make a movie?
Hercules is more professionally done, but still pretty bad. It turns out there's a very good reason that Lou Ferrigno only grunted and roared on The Incredible Hulk. He's simply not a very good actor. Still, it was a definite step up from Manos. That doesn't mean it was good, however. The special effects were laughable, the acting mediocre at best, the action wasn't very interesting, the film quality was poor, and the main villain's definition of "science" was, at best, insulting. Not a good film by any standpoint, but it wasn't epically bad the way Manos was.
If I didn't know the truth, I'd be hard pressed to believe that The Bride was made only two years after Hercules. Honestly, if there was a single movie here that didn't qualify as bad, The Bride would be it. The film quality's better, the actors are better, the script is better. Alas, that still isn't the same as good. The Bride is The Bride of Frankenstein crossed with My Fair Lady. Doctor Frankenstein creates a reanimated bride for his monster, then pulls an Eliza Doolittle on her to make her a perfect lady. Meanwhile, the original monster runs away from home and joins the circus. The standout performance, and the reason it's a cut above the other films of the night, is the work of David Rappaport who plays the dwarf Rinaldo who befriends the monster and humanizes him on the road to join the circus. Other than that, though, the film's a mess. It's basically the Bride does something, the Monster does something, wash, rinse, repeat. There's no cohesion in the film until the very end, and even then it doesn't feel like an evolution, just another thing that happens. Though much better than the other films we watched, it still wasn't very good.
My own contribution to the pot was The Avengers, the 1998 adaptation of the '60s British TV show of the same name. The movie's pretty unsatisfying. The defeat of some of the villains is unsatisfying, the jokes often fall flat, and it has a degree of silliness to it that fails for most audiences, but was perfect for our purposes. Worst of all, it makes a mockery of a classic TV show and fails to recreate its charm. And for that, it deserves its place in Bad Movie night.
Finally, we watched Jean-Claude van Damm's The Order. It...was everything you'd expect a crappy direct-to-video JCVD film to be. Acting was bad, story was ridiculous, the fights not as cool as they ought to be. Sadly, it was kind of a flop for me as far as Bad Movine Night went. It was too bad to enjoy as a film straight up, but not bad enough to be really mockable. It was just there. Of course, since the last film is usually watched after midnight around the time that exhaustion is setting in, that could have something to do with it.
And that was Bad Movie Night '11-'12. May the rest be as bad...and as fun.
I could, for instance, do another Old Republic log since I spent much of yesterday getting ready for tonight's guild run. But since I'll have even more to talk about after the run, I figure I'll just wait until tomorrow. I could also discuss my thoughts and feelings about the end of the 2011 Chicago Bears season. But that'll keep. After all, the Bears aren't going anywhere, and neither are my thoughts on them.
So instead, I'll discuss the annual New Year's Eve Bad Movie Night Party. Every year we gather to watch and heckle bad movies. Normally we decide on a "winner" by which we mean the worst film of the night.
This year, there were five contenders, which we viewed in chronological order. They were: Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966), Hercules (1983), The Bride (1985), The Avengers (1998), and The Order (2002). Time and energy expired before we could make it to a sixth movie, Conan the Barbarian (2011).
Manos: The Hands of Fate was featured in an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. We didn't watch that version, though. There were no funny robots or a lonely Minnesotan providing quips for this turkey. No, we had to do that ourselves. And there's a lot to quip about. The movie tells he story of a family that gets lost in Texas and encounters and runs into a weird cult that worships Manos. Even by the standards of 1966, the acting in Manos is wretched and the script is worse. Every character is a one-note moron and there's virtually no plot. Characters appear who have no purpose, including a couple whose only point in the plot was to make out in a car. Of course, what else can you expect from a film that only exists because a guy bet how easy it was to make a movie?
Hercules is more professionally done, but still pretty bad. It turns out there's a very good reason that Lou Ferrigno only grunted and roared on The Incredible Hulk. He's simply not a very good actor. Still, it was a definite step up from Manos. That doesn't mean it was good, however. The special effects were laughable, the acting mediocre at best, the action wasn't very interesting, the film quality was poor, and the main villain's definition of "science" was, at best, insulting. Not a good film by any standpoint, but it wasn't epically bad the way Manos was.
If I didn't know the truth, I'd be hard pressed to believe that The Bride was made only two years after Hercules. Honestly, if there was a single movie here that didn't qualify as bad, The Bride would be it. The film quality's better, the actors are better, the script is better. Alas, that still isn't the same as good. The Bride is The Bride of Frankenstein crossed with My Fair Lady. Doctor Frankenstein creates a reanimated bride for his monster, then pulls an Eliza Doolittle on her to make her a perfect lady. Meanwhile, the original monster runs away from home and joins the circus. The standout performance, and the reason it's a cut above the other films of the night, is the work of David Rappaport who plays the dwarf Rinaldo who befriends the monster and humanizes him on the road to join the circus. Other than that, though, the film's a mess. It's basically the Bride does something, the Monster does something, wash, rinse, repeat. There's no cohesion in the film until the very end, and even then it doesn't feel like an evolution, just another thing that happens. Though much better than the other films we watched, it still wasn't very good.
My own contribution to the pot was The Avengers, the 1998 adaptation of the '60s British TV show of the same name. The movie's pretty unsatisfying. The defeat of some of the villains is unsatisfying, the jokes often fall flat, and it has a degree of silliness to it that fails for most audiences, but was perfect for our purposes. Worst of all, it makes a mockery of a classic TV show and fails to recreate its charm. And for that, it deserves its place in Bad Movie night.
Finally, we watched Jean-Claude van Damm's The Order. It...was everything you'd expect a crappy direct-to-video JCVD film to be. Acting was bad, story was ridiculous, the fights not as cool as they ought to be. Sadly, it was kind of a flop for me as far as Bad Movine Night went. It was too bad to enjoy as a film straight up, but not bad enough to be really mockable. It was just there. Of course, since the last film is usually watched after midnight around the time that exhaustion is setting in, that could have something to do with it.
And that was Bad Movie Night '11-'12. May the rest be as bad...and as fun.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
"Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" Review
I had a busy weekend, as it happens. Despite the last movie I'd seen being back in August (The Debt,) I found myself faced with two movies that I've been waiting for appearing in theaters the same weekend. So I went and saw them both. You can read what I had to say about Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows one entry before this on my blog. This review is about the British Cold War spy film, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.
As usual (by which I mean I did this in the Game of Shadows review also) I'll reserve my spoiler-free comments for the first part of the review, include a picture, then expose you to spoilers in the second half.
One line opinion: Moody and atmospheric, and well worth your time if you're willing and able to pay close attention to what's going on.
There are two audiences for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. The first is those who are familiar with the material, either from reading the original John LeCarre novel or from watching the 1979 BBC mini-series starring Alec Guinness. Or, as in my case, with both. The second audience is people coming into the movie blind. Since I'm firmly in the former camp, I'm not really sure how well the movie explains itself to people in the latter camp.
Knowing what I did about the plot and characters made it more about seeing how this version of the story is played out rather than wondering who was who or what was going on. So from that perspective, the 2011 version of Tinker, Tailor was a great success. It's always difficult to compare a book to a movie, since they approach their storytelling from different angles so I'm not sure which version I prefer. However, I can say with some certainty that I did prefer the 2011 movie to the 1979 mini-series. That's the case despite the fact that fans consider Alec Guinness' portrayal of protagonist George Smiley to to be the definitive one, so much so that John LeCarre modeled his writing of Smiley after Guinness' version for all the character's remaining appearances in text after 1980.
The thing about the 1979 version, however, was that it was slow. With six episodes to fill, the story creeps along with a lot of setup shots, driving around shots, and flashbacks. By comparison, with only a couple of hours to tell the whole story, the 2011 film really moves. That's to the story's benefit, since it ratchets up the tension and keeps you involved nearly from the very beginning. If, as I said, you paid attention.
The downside to 2011's Tinker, Tailor is that it doesn't really slow down much to let you catch up. It rarely pauses to explain what just happened. It is not a summer popcorn flick where you turn off your brain and enjoy the explosions or swordfights. It is, instead, a film that demands that you keep your brain on and follow what's happening, or else risk getting lost and never catching back up.
All that said, the film is very well done, and given how they pushed the American release date back from August to December, clearly the producers know it and are hoping for some Oscar love. If you're willing to engage your intellect in a film, then Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a movie for you.
(I should note, however, that the film is in limited release, so if you want to see it you'll have to look for it. In Chicagoland there are two choices. I saw it at the Century 12 in Evanston. The other local choice is the Landmark Century in Chicago.)
As usual (by which I mean I did this in the Game of Shadows review also) I'll reserve my spoiler-free comments for the first part of the review, include a picture, then expose you to spoilers in the second half.
One line opinion: Moody and atmospheric, and well worth your time if you're willing and able to pay close attention to what's going on.
There are two audiences for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. The first is those who are familiar with the material, either from reading the original John LeCarre novel or from watching the 1979 BBC mini-series starring Alec Guinness. Or, as in my case, with both. The second audience is people coming into the movie blind. Since I'm firmly in the former camp, I'm not really sure how well the movie explains itself to people in the latter camp.
Knowing what I did about the plot and characters made it more about seeing how this version of the story is played out rather than wondering who was who or what was going on. So from that perspective, the 2011 version of Tinker, Tailor was a great success. It's always difficult to compare a book to a movie, since they approach their storytelling from different angles so I'm not sure which version I prefer. However, I can say with some certainty that I did prefer the 2011 movie to the 1979 mini-series. That's the case despite the fact that fans consider Alec Guinness' portrayal of protagonist George Smiley to to be the definitive one, so much so that John LeCarre modeled his writing of Smiley after Guinness' version for all the character's remaining appearances in text after 1980.
The thing about the 1979 version, however, was that it was slow. With six episodes to fill, the story creeps along with a lot of setup shots, driving around shots, and flashbacks. By comparison, with only a couple of hours to tell the whole story, the 2011 film really moves. That's to the story's benefit, since it ratchets up the tension and keeps you involved nearly from the very beginning. If, as I said, you paid attention.
The downside to 2011's Tinker, Tailor is that it doesn't really slow down much to let you catch up. It rarely pauses to explain what just happened. It is not a summer popcorn flick where you turn off your brain and enjoy the explosions or swordfights. It is, instead, a film that demands that you keep your brain on and follow what's happening, or else risk getting lost and never catching back up.
All that said, the film is very well done, and given how they pushed the American release date back from August to December, clearly the producers know it and are hoping for some Oscar love. If you're willing to engage your intellect in a film, then Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a movie for you.
(I should note, however, that the film is in limited release, so if you want to see it you'll have to look for it. In Chicagoland there are two choices. I saw it at the Century 12 in Evanston. The other local choice is the Landmark Century in Chicago.)
(Spoilers after the poster.)
(Abandon all hope of being un-SPOILED all ye who enter here.)
It was interesting what they added to the film that wasn't in the mini-series. For instance, they cut back and forth throughout the film to a Christmas party at the Circus which is mentioned in the book but doesn't show up in the '79 version. There's no significant dialogue in the party scenes, but you learn a lot by watching who is with who, and by interpreting various glances from one person to another.
Something else they added was making Peter gay, and him having to end a relationship to protect himself from surveillance. That's definitely not in the mini-series or even the book, since Peter's an inveterate skirt-chaser in both older versions, and happily married two books later in Smiley's People. And yet, the scene works because it forces Peter to make even more of a sacrifice to maintain his position as Smiley's right hand man.
Another thing about the film is the degree to which they use modern techniques to make the film so much more stylistic than the earlier version. The scene where Smiley confronts Toby is made so much more threatening by placing it on a tarmac with a plane landing as they talk than the simple conversation in a room in either the book or the mini. It's touches like those throughout the movie that make it succeed much better than I was expecting.
And why I strongly recommend the film, with the conditions I outlined above.
"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" Review
I caught the new Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows on Friday. If you want the one line version, here it is: I liked it a bit more than the first Sherlock Holmes.
For a spoiler-free longer version, let me say that it's a bit smarter than the first Sherlock Holmes, it sticks closer to its source material, and that while I still don't consider it truly "Holmes" in the sense that I feel that a proper Sherlock Holmes story should have a certain feel that the Downey Jr. versions have never even attempted to replicate, they are both still entertaining films. Well done Robert Downey Jr. action/comedies are worth seeing, regardless of premise, and both Sherlock Holmes films are that.
Still, they fail to me as Holmes movies, so if you're a big Sherlock Holmes fan, you'll need to turn that part of your brain off to enjoy them. It's ironic that while both Sherlock Holmes and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows are period pieces set in the Victorian era, and the BBC series Sherlock is set in modern day, the latter feels much more like a proper Holmes story than either of the former. Sherlock proves, I think, that it isn't horsecarts and steam engines that make Holmes, it's the attitude and atmosphere of the piece, and that's something that Sherlock gets that the Sherlock Holmes movies do not.
Or perhaps it is more fair to say that while the creators of A Game of Shadows may understand what makes a good Holmes film, they also know what makes a good Downey Jr. action/comedy, and they've chosen to focus on the latter instead of the former. And hey, they made $39.6 million dollars in their opening weekend, so they may even be correct in their choice.
This movie reminds me of Casino Royale, in that they're both adaptations of written work that, due to the length of the original material, requires new material to grow into a feature length film. In the case of Casino Royale it was to expand a short novel into a movie. As the novel starts with Bond arriving at the Royale to gamble against Le Chifre, the filmmakers created the entire first half of the film out of whole cloth to make it so that Bond is the cause of Le Chifre's money problems in the first place. That worked for me.
In A Game of Shadows, the problem was to transform Arthur Conan Doyle's 7,158 word short story The Final Problem into a full movie. The thing of it is, by the time the story begins and Watson gets involved in The Final Problem, all the interesting stuff has already happened. Holmes has tracked down Professor Moriarity, uncovered the evidence of his crimes, had his threatening conversation with the man, gone to the police with the evidence, and survived three assassination attempts. All he needs Watson for is to give him a little back-up as he flees the country to escape Moriarty's wrath. There's a chase scene as they get out of London, then the final confrontation between Holmes and Moriarity at Reichenbach Falls.
A Game of Shadows compromises by having Holmes already done some of the legwork, but requiring Watson's help to actually unravel Moriarty's schemes. So, like in Casino Royale, we have a lot of invented material before the movie catches up with the short story. In this case, however, the short story material only comes in for the last few minutes, and even that is heavily modified.
Still, as a feature length version of the unusually talky and yet short text that is Final Problem, I think that the filmmakers did a decent job with A Game of Shadows, noting of course my earlier objections to it being considered a true Holmes film in the first place. It is hard not to fall back on the old pornography definition of "I know it when I see it" in cases like this, so let me try to explain why I don't consider these films "true" Holmes films. In short, I don't think they take Sherlock Holmes seriously.
Granted, there are moments of seriousness, usually when Holmes is making a big reveal about how clever he is, and especially at the end of the film. But for the most part, Holmes eccentricities, especially his inventiveness and way with people, are used for comedic rather than dramatic effect. Which is why I talk about the different needs of a real Sherlock Holmes story and an action/comedy. In the former, you are expected to be drawn in by the amazing things that Holmes can do. In the latter, you laugh at them. If you're not taking Holmes seriously, it's not Sherlock Holmes at all.
My only other primary complaint was the way they killed off Rachel McAdam's Irene Adler. McAdams and Downey Jr. have excellent chemistry, much more than either he or Jude Law had with Noomi Rapace, and Adler's death early in the film was a disappointment. I know why they did it, to set Moriarity up as dangerous and to make his later threats against the Watsons credible, but it still felt like a waste of an excellent character to me.
I do appreciate, however, the way that A Game of Shadows manages to avoid the sequel trap. Unlike, say, Men in Black II, A Game of Shadows manages to feel less like a repetition of the first movie so much as it is a natural progression from it. Watson is getting married, Holmes has made progress on tracking down Moriarity, and so on. Arguably, the two Holmes movies feel like parts one and two of the same story rather than the original and the sequel. That's to their credit.
Overall they did a good job with this film, and I enjoyed it. If there's a Sherlock Holmes III, I'll probably go see it. If you liked the first Sherlock Holmes there's no reason not to go see Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.
For a spoiler-free longer version, let me say that it's a bit smarter than the first Sherlock Holmes, it sticks closer to its source material, and that while I still don't consider it truly "Holmes" in the sense that I feel that a proper Sherlock Holmes story should have a certain feel that the Downey Jr. versions have never even attempted to replicate, they are both still entertaining films. Well done Robert Downey Jr. action/comedies are worth seeing, regardless of premise, and both Sherlock Holmes films are that.
Still, they fail to me as Holmes movies, so if you're a big Sherlock Holmes fan, you'll need to turn that part of your brain off to enjoy them. It's ironic that while both Sherlock Holmes and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows are period pieces set in the Victorian era, and the BBC series Sherlock is set in modern day, the latter feels much more like a proper Holmes story than either of the former. Sherlock proves, I think, that it isn't horsecarts and steam engines that make Holmes, it's the attitude and atmosphere of the piece, and that's something that Sherlock gets that the Sherlock Holmes movies do not.
Or perhaps it is more fair to say that while the creators of A Game of Shadows may understand what makes a good Holmes film, they also know what makes a good Downey Jr. action/comedy, and they've chosen to focus on the latter instead of the former. And hey, they made $39.6 million dollars in their opening weekend, so they may even be correct in their choice.
The rest of this review, and the comments section, will contain SPOILERS after the poster.
SPOILERS ahoy!
This movie reminds me of Casino Royale, in that they're both adaptations of written work that, due to the length of the original material, requires new material to grow into a feature length film. In the case of Casino Royale it was to expand a short novel into a movie. As the novel starts with Bond arriving at the Royale to gamble against Le Chifre, the filmmakers created the entire first half of the film out of whole cloth to make it so that Bond is the cause of Le Chifre's money problems in the first place. That worked for me.
In A Game of Shadows, the problem was to transform Arthur Conan Doyle's 7,158 word short story The Final Problem into a full movie. The thing of it is, by the time the story begins and Watson gets involved in The Final Problem, all the interesting stuff has already happened. Holmes has tracked down Professor Moriarity, uncovered the evidence of his crimes, had his threatening conversation with the man, gone to the police with the evidence, and survived three assassination attempts. All he needs Watson for is to give him a little back-up as he flees the country to escape Moriarty's wrath. There's a chase scene as they get out of London, then the final confrontation between Holmes and Moriarity at Reichenbach Falls.
A Game of Shadows compromises by having Holmes already done some of the legwork, but requiring Watson's help to actually unravel Moriarty's schemes. So, like in Casino Royale, we have a lot of invented material before the movie catches up with the short story. In this case, however, the short story material only comes in for the last few minutes, and even that is heavily modified.
Still, as a feature length version of the unusually talky and yet short text that is Final Problem, I think that the filmmakers did a decent job with A Game of Shadows, noting of course my earlier objections to it being considered a true Holmes film in the first place. It is hard not to fall back on the old pornography definition of "I know it when I see it" in cases like this, so let me try to explain why I don't consider these films "true" Holmes films. In short, I don't think they take Sherlock Holmes seriously.
Granted, there are moments of seriousness, usually when Holmes is making a big reveal about how clever he is, and especially at the end of the film. But for the most part, Holmes eccentricities, especially his inventiveness and way with people, are used for comedic rather than dramatic effect. Which is why I talk about the different needs of a real Sherlock Holmes story and an action/comedy. In the former, you are expected to be drawn in by the amazing things that Holmes can do. In the latter, you laugh at them. If you're not taking Holmes seriously, it's not Sherlock Holmes at all.
My only other primary complaint was the way they killed off Rachel McAdam's Irene Adler. McAdams and Downey Jr. have excellent chemistry, much more than either he or Jude Law had with Noomi Rapace, and Adler's death early in the film was a disappointment. I know why they did it, to set Moriarity up as dangerous and to make his later threats against the Watsons credible, but it still felt like a waste of an excellent character to me.
I do appreciate, however, the way that A Game of Shadows manages to avoid the sequel trap. Unlike, say, Men in Black II, A Game of Shadows manages to feel less like a repetition of the first movie so much as it is a natural progression from it. Watson is getting married, Holmes has made progress on tracking down Moriarity, and so on. Arguably, the two Holmes movies feel like parts one and two of the same story rather than the original and the sequel. That's to their credit.
Overall they did a good job with this film, and I enjoyed it. If there's a Sherlock Holmes III, I'll probably go see it. If you liked the first Sherlock Holmes there's no reason not to go see Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Write Everyday Project #23, "Traitor" Mini-Review
I watched Traitor on DVD last night and it was okay. Too predictable, though. I pretty much called every major plot twist, and the one place I hoped they'd surprise me, the ending, they went with a standard Hollywood ending instead.
Still, if you can shut your brain's predictive centers down (which I cannot) you might be able to get a decent night's entertainment out of it. It tries to make some points about radical Islam, and there's a "He who fights with monsters" subtext that isn't really as well explored as I'd have liked, but at least it tries to make you think which is mroe than I can say for most Hollywood films these days.
In the end, though, while it kept my attention while I was watching it, I can't really endorse buying Traitor on DVD. See it on Netflix, as I did, or on a movie channel that you're already paying for. It's worth that much, at least.
Still, if you can shut your brain's predictive centers down (which I cannot) you might be able to get a decent night's entertainment out of it. It tries to make some points about radical Islam, and there's a "He who fights with monsters" subtext that isn't really as well explored as I'd have liked, but at least it tries to make you think which is mroe than I can say for most Hollywood films these days.
In the end, though, while it kept my attention while I was watching it, I can't really endorse buying Traitor on DVD. See it on Netflix, as I did, or on a movie channel that you're already paying for. It's worth that much, at least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)