I recently took part in an email chain wherein we discussed the relative importance of world-building versus character development. Needless to say, this discussion didn't reach a resolution as it would be impossible to come to a definitive conclusion on that point. Now, having just looked over that chain of messages again, I realize that it wasn't much of a debate, just a few offhand musings. Still, as I sat down to write a review of the latest indie-film sensation, Beasts of the Southern Wild, the idea of that conversation crept back into my mind.
What element is most important in storytelling, the characters being portrayed or the world they inhabit? I won't be presumptuous enough to try to answer that question. All I'll say is that, in this particular movie, they're of equal importance.
Writer-director Behn Zeitlin (you haven't heard of him, but you will) managed to create a world that is, at once, familiar and entirely unique. And, in that world, he places two of strongest and most distinct characters depicted in recent film. The result is, in my opinion, the best movie of 2012 so far.
There's not a lot to say about Your Sister's Sister. It's a simple, little indie movie without a lot of story going on. With one exception -- near the end -- the movie isn't artificially plot-driven. In fact, there's really nothing about this movie that feels artificial. And, that's its appeal.
The movie opens on a memorial service one year after the death of Jack's (Mark Duplass) brother. Jack, obviously having difficulty dealing with conflicting emotions about his brother, goes to great lengths to remind the gathered friends that his brother wasn't always such a nice guy. Jack's best friend Iris (Emily Blunt) -- who, incidentally, dated Jack's brother at some point before he died -- offers her assistance by giving Jack access to her father's cabin for the weekend.
So, Jack takes a ferry and makes his way to the cabin, only to find it occupied by Iris's sister Hannah (Rosemarie DeWitt). After a humorous meeting involving underwear and a weaponized oar, Jack and Hannah figure out the confusion and settle in for a quiet weekend spent on opposite sides of the cabin.
Unable to sleep, Jack and Hannah eventually sit down together to commiserate about each other's problems. Hannah, it seems, has just recently left her girlfriend of many years and...well...you know Jack's problems. After several drinks, the two of them decide, as is often the case in movies such as this, that it wouldn't be a bad idea to have sex. After all, Hannah's a lesbian, so there's no chance of emotional attachment, and Jack's not attached to anyone. They awake the morning after their drunken encounter to the sound of Iris coming into the house.
Jack, at first, is nervous, though it's not clear why. Iris isn't his girlfriend and, once again, there's no chance of romantic entanglement. The situation is odd, but not fatal. Later, after learning some important information, Hannah shares Jack's fears. What follows is a character study of three people in an awkward situation sharing a cabin. It's not flashy, it's just very well done.
The Dark Knight about four years ago, virtually everyone on the planet has been eagerly anticipating the next entry in Christopher Nolan's Batman saga. The only thing exceeding our anticipation was our expectations. After all, given Nolan's track record and the brilliance of the first two films, we've all been certain from the outset that the third -- and what is purportedly the final -- act in the trilogy was going to blow us away.
But, what if it didn't? What if it fell victim to the Third-Movie-in-a-Super-Hero-Series Curse and just stunk up the place? Between the tradition of franchise-ruining third entries and the law of averages suggesting that Nolan is due for a misfire, there was a lot going against The Dark Knight Rises. And, honestly, when the first few trailers started rolling out, I, personally, started to feel like maybe the just wasn't going to be as good as we all hoped/needed it to be.
If you haven't seen the movie in the first two days, you'll be happy to know that my fears were misplaced. This is a very good movie. It left me riveted, fascinated, and anxious to go out and see it again. But, that doesn't mean it's flawless.
Rather than catalog all the little problems with this movie, I'll just lump them into one big problem: the first hour. The first sixty minutes or so of the movie are, for lack of a better word, dumb. Another good descriptor for the initial hour would be sloppy.
I know that this review is a little late in the game, so I'll dispense with the general thoughts that everyone has expressed about this movie. Yes, it's weird that they're making a Spider-Man reboot so soon after the last entry in the franchise. And, yes, I know it was for contract reasons that they did so. Yes, this movie is better than Spider-Man 3, but, no, it's not as good as Spider-Man 2.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I'll sum up my feelings about The Amazing Spider-Man: Meh.
As the story goes, this was a movie that had to get made in order for Sony to maintain the film rights to the Spider-Man franchise. According to the rumors that I've heard but am too lazy to verify at the moment, they decided to go with a reboot because principals in the previous trilogy -- Sam Raimi, the director, and Tobey Maguire, the star -- wanted too much money.
And, that's what this movie feels like: a movie made just for the money. They needed to make a Spider-Man movie, so they cranked one out. There's none of the affection for the characters and passion for the story that permeated the other Spider-Man movies. Indeed, even when they were terrible -- and Spider-Man 3 was pretty terrible -- you got the sense that everyone from the writers to the director to the stars put some effort into what they were doing. Aside from the special effects, this movie just felt lazy.
We all know the Spider-Man origin story. Peter Parker (played in this incarnation by Andrew Garfield), a high school nerd being raised by his aunt and uncle, gets bitten by a radioactive spider and wakes up with all kinds of spidery super powers. The twist this time around is that, in the back-story, Peter remembers his parents and their mysterious disappearance. And, as it turns out, his father was a scientist whose work led directly to the creation of the aforementioned super spider. In fact, Father Parker was a an employee of Oscorp (ooh...Green Goblin...ooh sequel foreshadowing) and it's in his quest to find out what happened to his parents that Peter wanders into the labs at Oscorp and crosses paths with the Arachnid of Destiny (TM).
It's also where he meets Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), his father's one-armed former partner. Connors is working to find a way to splice lizard DNA with other species in order to give them the power to regrow limbs...did I mention that he only has one arm? As it turns out, Peter's father had been working on the missing equation to this hazardous undertaking, and it appears to be the reason for his sudden disappearance. Unbeknownst to Peter (but knownst to us) Connors was involved in that whole rigamorole
Through a series of events, Peter ends up giving Connors the equation and the good doctor ends up injecting himself with lizard DNA and it eventually overtakes him and turns him into the giant reptilian thingy Spider-Man fans call The Lizard. Those that are familiar with the comic books will tell you that The Lizard is awesome...in the comic books. Here, not so much. More on that in a minute.
As you might expect, the central conflict of the movie is between Spider-Man and The Lizard. Oh yeah, in addition to turning him into a giant dinosaur, the lizard DNA makes Connors crazy. That's why they're fighting.
So, why didn't I like this movie more? I think it has to start with Garfield. I've enjoyed his work in previous movies, but he just seems miscast here. He's awkward and really seems out of place the whole time. Now, I get that Peter Parker is a nerd, he's also insecure and dealing with a lot of anger issues, so awkwardness is to be expected. But, there's teen-angsty awkwardness and drunk nine-year-old awkwardness and, far too often, Garfield seems like he's going for the latter. I'm probably being a little too hard on him...it's not terrible, it just didn't do it for me.
Then, there's Ifans playing the villain. Ifans is a great character actor, but there's a reason why he's never been the lead in a major movie before: he's just not charismatic enough to keep people interested. Like Garfield, he doesn't entirely botch the role, he's just utterly forgettable, which is a problem for a villain in a comic book movie.
The visual rendering of The Lizard is fantastic. It's a truly terrifying creation. But, then, the creature starts talking, rambling in Ifans boring voice. In every one of those moments, any momentum built by the well-choreographed action scenes and the superb special effects is washed away.
And, of course, we can't not mention Emma Stone's portrayal of Gwen Stacy, Peter's eventual girlfriend. Stone is a fine actress, with impeccable grace and timing. Indeed, she's almost always fun to watch, and she's put to mostly good use here. Any Gwen-related failings are the fault of the script. Don't get me started on her dual role as high-school crush and high-ranking staffer at Oscorps labs. I can suspend disbelief when it comes to super heroes with mutant powers, but I can't for a second accept that a teenager would have access to every area of a lab controlled by super villains.
Anyway, moving on...
For the most part, The Amazing Spider-Man has been looked at as the forgotten super hero movie sandwiched between The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises. That's a pretty fair assessment, I'd say. It's not bad, it's just not good enough to care about.
For me, Pixar movies are like Pearl Jam albums* -- I'm excited for every single one of them to come out I'm constantly ranking them all in my head. Apparently, I'm not alone because it seems as though every discussion of Pixar's latest film, Brave, inevitably turns into a debate over where the movie fits into the studio's hierarchy of greatness.
So, let's get that out of the way. Brave falls pretty much right in the middle of the Pixar pack. It's not as good as Wall-E or Finding Nemo, but it's better than A Bug's Life and Monsters, Inc. Basically, it's in the same territory as Up or the first Toy Story movie.
For those of you that are now compiling your own Pixar rankings, please stop trying to convince yourself that The Incredibles belongs near the top...it's good, but it's not that good.
Anyway, moving on.
Much has been made of the fact that Brave is Pixar's first movie with a female protagonist. I think that's great. But, it's also their first real journey into familiar territory. I had anything you could call a complaint about this movie it would be that the studio seems to have made this movie with one creative arm tied around its back.
The folks at Pixar, having made a pact with Satan that ensures that every one of their movies will be amazing, have been most successful when they've ignored convention and taken risks with creative storytelling. But, Brave is essentially a new entry into the Disney pantheon of animated princesses. It has much of the same emotional impact of Pixar's best work -- the trademark whimsy and loving attention to character arcs and development -- and it's as visually stunning as anything they've made. But, it just doesn't break much new ground in terms of the story.
The movie tells the story of Merida, a Scottish princess longing to escape the trappings of her royal life. She's an ace with a bow and arrow and an accomplished horseback rider. Yet, she's trapped by her mother's insistence that she abide by tradition, particularly the tradition of arranged marriage.
You basically can get all that from the trailer. There are major elements to the story that are only hinted to in the previews and I won't spoil them here. However, with the exception of one major plot-twist, the story unfolds in a more or less predictable manner. But, in the end, the journey is more important than the destination. And, though you can see almost everything coming from a mile away, every step the movie takes to get there is immensely enjoyable.
I feel like I'm cutting this off short, but, honestly, the studio has done such a good job of keeping from spoiling the major plot developments that I'd feel like it'd ruin it for others if I were to say much more.
Ultimately,the only negative thing I can say about Brave is that it's not as good as other movies. That's weak criticism, I suppose, and the worst kind of nit-pickery.But, let's face it, Pixar brought this kind of criticism upon itself.
*Yes, I'm well aware that Pearl Jam is no longer in vogue among today's hipster intelligentsia. Get over it...they're awesome.
When we went to see Rock of Ages, my wife and I sat next to two women who appeared to be in their early forties. They were both wearing tank tops and short skirts and appeared as though they'd each polished off a bottle of aerosol hair spray in preparation for the night.
These ladies had apparently been led to believe that this movie would be dripping with butt rock nostalgia and they were prepared to relive the lame memories they've long associated with the songs off Journey's Greatest Hits album.
As the first song -- Night Ranger's "Sister Christian" -- began to play, they were simply giddy. They were actually singing along.
"You're motorin'! What's your price for flight?"
Can we take a minute and acknowledge that the lyrics to that song are pretty lame. I'll admit that it's sort of a guilty pleasure of mine in that, when it shows up on an iPod shuffle, I don't skip it...and sometimes I sing along to the first verse...and the second verse.
Still, it's lame.
Anyway, this rendition of the song was not all that great and it only went through the first chorus. We could sense the disappointment growing though the hearts and demeanor of the ladies in our row. But, they weren't going to give up so quickly.
Next came a weird mash-up of Poison's "Nothin' But a Good Time" and David Lee Roth's "Just Like Living in Paradise." At this point, we were two -- technically three -- songs into the movie and our audience-mates had already decided that this was not the good time they were looking for (see what I did there?). They stopped singing along, stopped waving their arms, and just sat through the rest of the movie acting like normal people. Though it improved our viewing experience immensely, it was also kind of sad.
Rock of Ages is based on a Broadway musical of the same name. All the songs are revamped versions of 1980s rock anthems. Friends who have actually seen the stage show have told me that it's like attending a rock concert -- people stand up, sing along, and they don't stop believin' (okay, that was a reach...sorry).
I guess the two ladies we sat next to were expecting the movie to deliver that kind of excitement. But, they soon realized that this wasn't a trip down memory lane, but a Glee-inspired bastardization of their memories, and, from what we gathered, they weren't too happy about it.
All of the numbers in the movie version of Rock of Ages are dripping with glossy cheese. All the actors are clearly lip syncing and most of them couldn't hit all the high notes with a hammer in real life. For much of the time, it's all just a little too slick. Like I said, the movie is basically just an episode of Glee.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Despite all these shortcomings, I found myself enjoying much of the movie. Rock of Ages is really two movies -- one that's good and one that sucks.
The first movie focuses on the two leads, a young waitress who wants to be a singer (Julianne Hough, the hot chick Dancing with the Stars...yes, I know she's from Utah) and a young bartender who also wants to be a singer (Diego Boneta, whoever the hell that is).
This is the movie that sucks. Their scenes are extremely awkward and forced -- even for a musical -- and neither of them can act to save their lives. Worst of all, the pacing hits a dead-end every time one of them enters the shot.
But, then there's the other part of the movie, the one featuring the actors that you'd actually pay to see: Tom Cruise, Catherine Zeta Jones, Alec Baldwin, and Russell Brand. This movie, though it's constantly chopped up by scenes from the crappy movie, actually works. Each of these actors are a joy to watch and virtually all of their songs are well rendered. They all refuse to take themselves too seriously and it's pretty obvious they had a good time making the movie.
Tom Cruise's performance really stands out. He's fantastic as Stacee Jaxx, an aging, burned out rock star with a career on the downswing. I may be misreading it, but the character seemed to be an obvious parody of Axl Rose, though it's never an imitation. Cruise jumps into the role with both feet and fully inhabits this ridiculous character. And, though it's pretty clear that he can't sing in real life, all of his songs -- especially Jaxx's rendition of "Wanted Dead or Alive" -- are fantastic. Honestly, if this were a better overall movie, I think we'd be talking about an Oscar nomination for Mr. Cruise.
Aside from the horrible leads, the most distracting part of the movie is the often odd choice of songs. Obviously, you can't do an 80s nostalgia musical without including some Poison and Def Leppard. But, can anyone on the planet name three songs by Foreigner off the top of their heads? Nope. Yet, that's how many Foreigner tracks made it into Rock of Ages. There are also two songs by Journey in the movie, which is tantamount to torture in some countries. I find it hard to believe that anyone with a brain would rather trot out obscure Foreigner tracks instead of finding some way, any way to get another Bon Jovi song in there.
Anyway, all in all, this is an OK movie. Truth be told, I probably enjoyed it more than it deserved. I certainly wasn't as disappointed as the two ladies we sat next to...but that's probably because I'm more comfortable in a miniskirt.
I've decided to write two blog posts about Prometheus. This first one will be a straight-up review of the movie in which, like always, I try not to give the whole thing away. The second one, which I hope will not take too long to get to, will be a spoilerific dissection of the movie wherein I attempt to explain what I think it all means.
It's difficult to write a review of a movie that you've labeled your most anticipated film of the year. It's hard to talk about anything other than expectations, which makes discussing this particularly movie even more difficult because, after seeing it twice the one thing I know I can say about Prometheus is that it didn't match my expectations, and that's both good and bad.
Vague enough for you?
Prometheus is an ambitious movie, far more ambitious than your typical summer blockbuster. But, that's precisely the problem -- the movie bites off a lot more than it can chew. It raises questions and establishes themes while providing very few answers and not a lot of payoff. This is not just a minor flaw, it seriously detracts from the viewing experience.
Yet, despite these complaints, I've given it three and a half stars. That's because what it does well, it does very well and, even though the movie's far from perfect, I enjoyed it immensely.
