When: 2004, Bale's 27th film
Genre: Animation, Fantasy
Mike says as a Geek through and through, anime definitely has a place in my heart. That place may not be as big as in other people with a similar range of interests, but it's there. So it was with a lot of excitement that I sat down to watch Howl for the first time. I've always intended to see it; however, I just never had the opportunity. After watching the film, I can offer only one real solid piece of advice: Don't ever, Ever, EVER watch an anime through the first time with a four-year-old kid. Seriously.
I didn't know it was possible for the human mouth and brain, no matter the age, to produce that many questions within a 5-second time frame. Stretch that through a admittedly very weird 2-hour movie (with a kid raised on Pixar and Dreamworks), and it has to be a really good film for both Father and Son to make it through.
Luckily, Howl's Moving Castle is a pretty good movie.
IS it weird? Hell, yes. Is the plot easy to follow? Uh, not really, no. Add in some particularly odd imagery, character interactions that feel a little out of continuity, and subdued voice acting, and you have something that feels like it was made by an entirely different culture . . . which, luckily, is the entire point of watching anime.
The film's visuals are absolutely stunning. My only real complaint at first was the inconstancy of how Sophie is presented . . . her height varies, as does the severity of her hunch, as well as her nose size. This bugged me-- that is, until I realized what was happening. One of the nice things about Japanese films is how much credit they give the audience: No, we're not going to explain this. YOU figure it out. My son noticed Sophie's state of flux almost at once . . . and admittedly, answering three or four dozen questions about it through the course of the film definitely helped me pay attention and work out what was happening to her.
The entire movie works this way: each odd detail is a clue in understanding the extra bits of the story. While some details are simplified, others are worked out exhaustively. Howl's castle, for example, is amazing in the way it shifts and bounces and grooves as it travels. How often in animation have we been presented with miraculous moving buildings that seem to float completely solid and intact from place to place? Not Howl's Castle. Every brick seems to balance miraculously and precariously on top of each other, each one rocks to and fro by the castle's legs. It's instantly understandable: this thing should not, could not exist without magic. Something my son worked out after about ten minutes of rapid fire questions.
Despite it's apparent strangeness to us Americans, the story is quite entertaining, especially in its refusal to follow stereotypes: The wicked witch becomes a friend, the heroine spends most of the film as an old lady, the handsome hero is a bi-polar demon, and the girl doesn't even consider pairing up with her destined "true love" (who has a whopping 5 lines in the film).
Perhaps the only thing I'm still not sold on, and this is an anime thing, NOT a particular complaint about this film, is the often subdued voice acting. The English dubbing in anime often tries (though not always) to emulate the tone of the original versions . . . the problem is that to my American-English trained ears, the characters all sound calm and monotone in their native language.
To his credit, Bale do a great job capturing this . . . however it can sometimes be a bit disorienting, especially when Howl is grinning and speaking calmly about how scared and upset he is during a suspenseful scene.
Bale's entire performance of Howl is very subdued, though he is able to capture the character's humor (as out of place as it might seam in such serious surroundings). The biggest surprise in his performance, however, was when Batman's voice began coming from Howl's feathered monster form. "Ah ha!" I thought. "So that's where he learned to talk like that!"
Overall, Howl's Moving Castle is a beautiful and odd film. My son seemed to enjoy it too, despite having no real understanding of what transpired. While I definitely recommend the movie, you might want to watch it without the "preschooler commentary track" activated.
Kate says simply put, this is a gorgeous film. It is one of those films that is so visually stunning, it almost doesn't need a story.
But it has one--a charming romance. I'm using the term here in the medieval sense: a story that involves love, fantasy, and war. Plus well-wrought, captivating characters. The capricious, tortured yet charming and insouciant Howl alongside the shy, witty, industrious and intrinsically tough Sophie are not only unusual and well-rounded personalities, they pull the viewer into the story. They are also such perfect manga characters, I doubt anyone BUT Miyazaki could have brought Diane Wynne Jones's book to the screen.
The English dub is exceptional (thanks to Pixar's involvement). I confess, I didn't recognize Bale as the voice of Howl when I first saw the movie. I saw it about the same time as Batman Begins, though it was made before, and I assumed (mistakenly!) that Bale was too big to be involved in what, at that time, amounted to an art film.
If this list has taught me anything it is to beware those kinds of assumptions.
Bale does a good job, naturally, but I have to admit my favorite voice casting is the endearing Jean Simmons. In fact, this is one of the few films where the switch from young to old doesn't cause a disconcerting disconnect. The shifts between voice (Mortimer to Simmons) and appearance are natural and flawless: thematically correct.
Billy Crystal fits right in, by the way.
Back to Bale--this role suits the tone of Bale's work overall. And there's a lot to be said for a voice that can make you see deadpan ("That can't be good for the table."). By the way, Howl is, as Mike describes him, a bi-polar demon--a disturbed, intellectually stressed, high-maintenance action hero; there seems to be definite trend in Bale's choice of roles in the last decade!
Last but not least, the film's animation is nothing to yawn at--it isn't just the heartrendingly beautiful scenery or the character's expressions. Although not as manically particular as Disney's animation, Miyazaki does show a loving (and humorous) interest in details: the toilet seat being up in Howl's bathroom, Calcifer eating the log, the dropped towel. The dog.
A not-sticky sweet tone runs through the film, pulling it all together. The scene at the lake stands out as encapsulating so much of Miyazaki's vision, specifically what Sophie wants for Howl. It is a surprisingly simple story with surprisingly complicated ramifications, but the story never seems overwhelmed by the "politics". By keeping his eye on Sophie, Miyazaki delivers a powerful piece of animation that illustrates that good animation can be dramatic, funny, clever, sweeping, localized, and romantic all at the same time.
Change of tone coming next: Prestige!
Showing posts with label Adventure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adventure. Show all posts
Friday, June 29, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief
Release Date: February 12, 2010
Time Mike wanted to see it: I was vaguely interested since I saw the preview, about 3-4 months before the release date. And, coincidentally, I finally watched it on Sunday, February 12th (2012), exactly 2 years from release!
Reason Mike procrastinated: I meant to see it in the theater; I might have even made plans that fell through. But I somehow missed it, and I think I was meaning to read the book first... anyway, somehow it fell off my radar until recently.
Category: Children's Fantasy Novel Series Adaptation
Mike says I still haven't read the novel. I've been meaning too, but somehow I haven't. But I thought, "Meh, there's no rule that says I have to read it before I watch the movie . . ." And so I did.
If it wasn't for this list, I'm not so sure I would have ever gotten around to watching this, and finding it for sale for 5 bucks didn't help matters. Even when I saw the preview, I knew that the movie was a bid for the Harry Potter crown, and after already seeing The Golden Compass come and go away in failure, I didn't really expect much from this movie.
Like I said, I knew this was a Harry Potter bid, but I had somehow missed the fact that it shared a director with the Potter franchise: Chris Columbus, the man who started it all.
And so, having already mentioned it twice, I should go ahead and say it upfront: yes, Percy Jackson is a Harry Potter clone. There's no real point in denying it. The movie follows many of the same story beats as the first Potter film, and even shares some of the same mythological creatures.
Despite Columbus obviously trying to duplicate his Potter success, Percy does largely maintain its own identity, having a unique atmosphere and tone. The film also quickly breaks the "candy coating" of the first 2 Potter films, delivering several decapitations, sword wounds, and even one near disembowelment.
Percy also strays from the clean and and tidy feel of the Potter films, name dropping terms like ADHD and Dyslexia, almost in a blatant attempt to communicate that the fantasy learning environment of Hogwarts won't be appearing in this film. As if to underscore this, when Camp Half-Blood, the learning place of the demi-gods, is finally shown, there are no images of scholarly learning, only exciting action scenes and a surprising amount of violence.
Despite the familiar elements (or those obvious attempts to avoid the familiar), Percy is actually pretty entertaining. The cast assembled for some of the supporting roles is impressive, with Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan lending their credibility to this American fantasy (much as those British actors did in that OTHER series I keep mentioning).
The main cast does a fine job, though they are far from amazing. The story is fun, though, with some pretty clever amalgamations of Greek mythology with American culture. I found the idea of Olympus being at the top of the Empire State Building very cool, yet kinda familiar . . . then I remembered an unpublished novel I read years ago by a very talented writer . . . But maybe I'll let her talk about it (nudge nudge, Kate!).
Columbus did seem to avoid the page per page approach he took with the Potter films. In the last couple days I've started reading the novel, and the movie definitely takes some liberties, changing the identity of the thief, the fate of a few characters, and even the purpose of the quest (to a point). Several adventures and random happenings from the book are actually tied into the main story really well for the movie, giving the story a more organized, driven feel.
The film also gives some characters the freedom to act as they really would, instead of tying them to the outcome of the book (which seemed a little out of character in some instances). Essentially though, if one were to combine Harry Potter (yeah, I said it again, sorry) with Clash of the Titans, Percy Jackson is pretty much the film you would get.
That said, I did enjoy it, and overall found it a pretty entertaining film and found myself really impressed with the visuals. I'm also pretty entranced by the mythology the movie presents. I want to know more about this modern magical world and its history. Though, in the end, I couldn't help but think the film was missing one obvious line:
"Release the Kraken!" oh well..... maybe next time.
Kate says I started the book (by Rick Riordan) awhile back. It's not bad, but it didn't engage me.
The movie engaged me more. If I remember correctly, I think the main character is slightly older than in the book for which I personally was grateful. Harry Potter used up a lifetime of interest in little kiddies having magical powers. (More about this later--as Mike mentions, it is hard to avoid comparing the two franchises.)
I was extremely pleased to see Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan's names pop up. What a treat, especially Sean Bean! Unfortunately, he isn't in the movie all that much. I realize the movie is about and for kids, but there are a number of truly awesome actors playing minor parts in this film, and it's hard not to be a tad disappointed when they make no more than token appearances (Joe Pantoliano always makes me laugh). I did get a kick out of all the crisp British accents. Such authority!
Several things about the movie are very cool. It's hard to get excited about settings these days, knowing how easy it is for filmmakers to create fantastical environments for cheap, but I liked the use of modern sites to reach Olympian sites. And the movie opens with a STUNNING image.
In terms of plot, I always appreciate action movies that give me the problem right away. Plus, I've always been a fan of Greek mythology (yeah, Mike, I thought of my Greek mythology novel, too; problem is, if I published it now, everyone would say I was borrowing from Riordan!), so I was highly amused by the "updated" version of many of the gods. Luke as Hermes' son, for example, is quite believable (especially in his love for high technology). The rock 'n roll dysfunctional Hades and Persephone are downright amusing.
In fact, I have few complaints about the movie. The mother's "death" is rather casually dealt with, and, like so many action movies these days, the movie is too long. The quest is interesting--the Lotus Casino with "Poker Face" playing is especially clever--but each scene could have been considerably shorter. Whatever happened to the good old 90-minute movie?
And there is the whole over-done kid-with-instant-powers stuff. I'm not opposed to the motif: it has a long and noble pedigree. But it's been done to death. Percy is slightly more believable than Harry Potter here in that his "flaws" (dyslexia, ADHD) turn out to be strengths, i.e. he has been learning how to handle his "powers" all his life. But I found myself far more invested in the emotional problem (his separation from his father) than in his heroic abilities. Consequently, the absence of those aforementioned awesome British actors became more and more bothersome as the movie progresses. (I did find Grover quite amusing.)
Like Mike, I remarked the director linkage between Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. In all honesty, this was initially a bit of a turn-off. I consider the first Harry Potter movie a boring slide-show that tries so hard to be the book, it fails to BE a movie.
I think Percy Jackson avoids this. The movie really moves (as Mike mentions, there is a surprising degree of adult content and some lines I'm amazed got in). Which makes me wonder how far Rowlings and the fans hampered the initial Harry Potter movie's "success" ("success" here being entirely relative since Rowlings certainly shouldn't complain).
But it also makes me wonder how die-hard fans of Percy Jackson feel about this movie. With only two chapters of the first book under my belt, I never felt lost or confused. I also never felt bitter (ah, they left out the best part!). But die-hard fans may feel differently.
All said, the movie is worth renting, and I'm a tad surprised that it didn't get more press. Percy has more going for him than Harry, including age, a mild sense of irony, and toughness. Perhaps things will take off with the second movie.
Time Mike wanted to see it: I was vaguely interested since I saw the preview, about 3-4 months before the release date. And, coincidentally, I finally watched it on Sunday, February 12th (2012), exactly 2 years from release!
Reason Mike procrastinated: I meant to see it in the theater; I might have even made plans that fell through. But I somehow missed it, and I think I was meaning to read the book first... anyway, somehow it fell off my radar until recently.
Category: Children's Fantasy Novel Series Adaptation
Mike says I still haven't read the novel. I've been meaning too, but somehow I haven't. But I thought, "Meh, there's no rule that says I have to read it before I watch the movie . . ." And so I did.
If it wasn't for this list, I'm not so sure I would have ever gotten around to watching this, and finding it for sale for 5 bucks didn't help matters. Even when I saw the preview, I knew that the movie was a bid for the Harry Potter crown, and after already seeing The Golden Compass come and go away in failure, I didn't really expect much from this movie.
Like I said, I knew this was a Harry Potter bid, but I had somehow missed the fact that it shared a director with the Potter franchise: Chris Columbus, the man who started it all.
And so, having already mentioned it twice, I should go ahead and say it upfront: yes, Percy Jackson is a Harry Potter clone. There's no real point in denying it. The movie follows many of the same story beats as the first Potter film, and even shares some of the same mythological creatures.
Despite Columbus obviously trying to duplicate his Potter success, Percy does largely maintain its own identity, having a unique atmosphere and tone. The film also quickly breaks the "candy coating" of the first 2 Potter films, delivering several decapitations, sword wounds, and even one near disembowelment.
Percy also strays from the clean and and tidy feel of the Potter films, name dropping terms like ADHD and Dyslexia, almost in a blatant attempt to communicate that the fantasy learning environment of Hogwarts won't be appearing in this film. As if to underscore this, when Camp Half-Blood, the learning place of the demi-gods, is finally shown, there are no images of scholarly learning, only exciting action scenes and a surprising amount of violence.
Despite the familiar elements (or those obvious attempts to avoid the familiar), Percy is actually pretty entertaining. The cast assembled for some of the supporting roles is impressive, with Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan lending their credibility to this American fantasy (much as those British actors did in that OTHER series I keep mentioning).
The main cast does a fine job, though they are far from amazing. The story is fun, though, with some pretty clever amalgamations of Greek mythology with American culture. I found the idea of Olympus being at the top of the Empire State Building very cool, yet kinda familiar . . . then I remembered an unpublished novel I read years ago by a very talented writer . . . But maybe I'll let her talk about it (nudge nudge, Kate!).
Columbus did seem to avoid the page per page approach he took with the Potter films. In the last couple days I've started reading the novel, and the movie definitely takes some liberties, changing the identity of the thief, the fate of a few characters, and even the purpose of the quest (to a point). Several adventures and random happenings from the book are actually tied into the main story really well for the movie, giving the story a more organized, driven feel.
The film also gives some characters the freedom to act as they really would, instead of tying them to the outcome of the book (which seemed a little out of character in some instances). Essentially though, if one were to combine Harry Potter (yeah, I said it again, sorry) with Clash of the Titans, Percy Jackson is pretty much the film you would get.
That said, I did enjoy it, and overall found it a pretty entertaining film and found myself really impressed with the visuals. I'm also pretty entranced by the mythology the movie presents. I want to know more about this modern magical world and its history. Though, in the end, I couldn't help but think the film was missing one obvious line:
"Release the Kraken!" oh well..... maybe next time.
Kate says I started the book (by Rick Riordan) awhile back. It's not bad, but it didn't engage me.
The movie engaged me more. If I remember correctly, I think the main character is slightly older than in the book for which I personally was grateful. Harry Potter used up a lifetime of interest in little kiddies having magical powers. (More about this later--as Mike mentions, it is hard to avoid comparing the two franchises.)
I was extremely pleased to see Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan's names pop up. What a treat, especially Sean Bean! Unfortunately, he isn't in the movie all that much. I realize the movie is about and for kids, but there are a number of truly awesome actors playing minor parts in this film, and it's hard not to be a tad disappointed when they make no more than token appearances (Joe Pantoliano always makes me laugh). I did get a kick out of all the crisp British accents. Such authority!
Several things about the movie are very cool. It's hard to get excited about settings these days, knowing how easy it is for filmmakers to create fantastical environments for cheap, but I liked the use of modern sites to reach Olympian sites. And the movie opens with a STUNNING image.
In terms of plot, I always appreciate action movies that give me the problem right away. Plus, I've always been a fan of Greek mythology (yeah, Mike, I thought of my Greek mythology novel, too; problem is, if I published it now, everyone would say I was borrowing from Riordan!), so I was highly amused by the "updated" version of many of the gods. Luke as Hermes' son, for example, is quite believable (especially in his love for high technology). The rock 'n roll dysfunctional Hades and Persephone are downright amusing.
In fact, I have few complaints about the movie. The mother's "death" is rather casually dealt with, and, like so many action movies these days, the movie is too long. The quest is interesting--the Lotus Casino with "Poker Face" playing is especially clever--but each scene could have been considerably shorter. Whatever happened to the good old 90-minute movie?
And there is the whole over-done kid-with-instant-powers stuff. I'm not opposed to the motif: it has a long and noble pedigree. But it's been done to death. Percy is slightly more believable than Harry Potter here in that his "flaws" (dyslexia, ADHD) turn out to be strengths, i.e. he has been learning how to handle his "powers" all his life. But I found myself far more invested in the emotional problem (his separation from his father) than in his heroic abilities. Consequently, the absence of those aforementioned awesome British actors became more and more bothersome as the movie progresses. (I did find Grover quite amusing.)
Like Mike, I remarked the director linkage between Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. In all honesty, this was initially a bit of a turn-off. I consider the first Harry Potter movie a boring slide-show that tries so hard to be the book, it fails to BE a movie.
I think Percy Jackson avoids this. The movie really moves (as Mike mentions, there is a surprising degree of adult content and some lines I'm amazed got in). Which makes me wonder how far Rowlings and the fans hampered the initial Harry Potter movie's "success" ("success" here being entirely relative since Rowlings certainly shouldn't complain).
But it also makes me wonder how die-hard fans of Percy Jackson feel about this movie. With only two chapters of the first book under my belt, I never felt lost or confused. I also never felt bitter (ah, they left out the best part!). But die-hard fans may feel differently.
All said, the movie is worth renting, and I'm a tad surprised that it didn't get more press. Percy has more going for him than Harry, including age, a mild sense of irony, and toughness. Perhaps things will take off with the second movie.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Release Date: May 20, 2011
Time Mike wanted to see it: That's the problem... I never really wanted to see it. But, for approximately 8 months.
Reason Mike procrastinated: Well, I expected to see it in the theater, but... I didn't. Then I expected to rent it.... and I didn't. I think I realized that Disney was going for the extra buck, and with no "normal" characters to relate to, I expected to endure the movie rather than enjoy it.
Category: Sequel
Mike says that after Disney's Haunted Mansion with Eddie Murphy, I really didn't expect much from the first Pirates movie, Curse of the Black Pearl. Which may be one of the reasons I was so blown away by it. The first movie is absolutely enjoyable, on several levels. The following movies, well... let's say At World's End makes a compelling argument for Pirate-themed fantasy epics, if not fully succeeding, and leave it at that.
Regardless, I was at the midnight premieres of both 2 and 3, so when On Stranger Tides (which, I just have to say, sounds totally like a dirty movie) was announced, with only the pirate characters returning, I was skeptical but still expected to see it. But I didn't.
As stated above, I just knew what was coming, and didn't have the heart to prove myself right. Thanks to this list, I've now done that. Sadly, the movie was pretty much what I suspected. There are good points, however, so I'll cover those first, and then, well, we'll cover the rest soon.
Depp as Jack Sparrow is always entertaining, and after a trilogy of seeing him be a roguish hero, it's nice that he hasn't descended into Jim Carey territory and basically become a parody of himself (Ace Ventura 2: When Nature Calls, I mean you). The other returning cast is equally fun and entertaining, although there seems to only be the three altogether.
Some of the action sequences are very nice, and my Blu-ray copy looked beautiful. There are some funny jokes, fun music (as Kate points out) and some cool fantasy ideas (ships in a bottle, Blackbeard controlling his ship). And, well, that's about it.
The story is blessedly direct, if surprisingly long, with far too many convenient plot twists with no prior set up (Kate mentions a couple of these below). We know where we're going, and we know what's probably gonna happen when we get there, and who exactly is going to make it.
Another thing that really bothers me is when certain payoffs/outcomes are unclear or undeserved. Jack saves his girlfriend, and she hates him for it, and he doesn't really care... even though he spends the entire movie obsessing about her.
The missionary saves the mermaid, and in turn she "saves" him... by sucking him down to the bottom of the ocean exactly like what the more evil mermaids did... presumably to mate with him, drown him, and eat him.
The Spaniards show up, create a little bit of suspense, and then disappear again into the night.
In the end, it's just sloppy writing that really should have been resolved before the movie began filming. Thankfully, we have action scene after action scene to break up one kind of tedium for another. The actions scenes are fun, but, well, predictable.
Perhaps the biggest flaw the movie suffers from is in trying to make the film work with the pirates alone. Unfortunately, pirates out-pirating other pirates isn't really all that interesting, especially when there's no character with a likable goal. There is no "Audience Surrogate," like Will and Elizabeth, for the pirates to argue with, shock and disgust, or threaten.
Really, aside for the very small sub-plot of the missionary and the mermaid (which ends pretty horrifically, as far as I can tell), there is not one character really worth caring about or worrying about in the entire movie. Even Jack was more of the "odd thing we're dealing with" in the previous flicks. The promotion to lead protagonist just doesn't suit him, committing him to pushing the story forward despite having a very weak reason to do so. We need a Jack free to dance between the subplots, bend the rules, and be free to make a surprising choice. By making him the key hero, he's too important to be truly entertaining.
Now, I should clarify: I didn't hate this movie. But I was right about one thing: it was more a practice in endurance rather than entertainment. I'm sure that there are several people who loved this movie to pieces. Me? I'd rather watch Black Pearl again.
Kate says I saw the first movie of this franchise and really enjoyed it. In fact, I've seen it multiple times.
I then tried to watch the second movie and got so bored, I gave up. I actually removed the movie from the DVD player before I finished! This NEVER happens since I can always go do something else and then come back to catch a few minutes here or there.
But the second movie just seemed a collection of silly events: oh, look, Jack Sparrow gets caught by cannibals; oh, look . . .
Nope, that's all I remember.
On Stranger Tides is far more watchable; I quite enjoyed it although it could have been 1/2 hour shorter (more on this later). It has, for one thing, a clear quest: find the Fountain of Youth. For another, it has some clever subplots; I especially liked the Cary Elwes look-a-like cleric and his mermaid girlfriend. I missed the dry-as-bones Norrington (Jack Davenport), but Sam Claflin (Philip the Cleric) is a good replacement, and the movie could actually have used more of him and Sparrow together (the dialog between them is very funny although, hey, don't you remember the days when Disney was so afraid of innuendo, they created Touchstone Pictures?)
The flaw is what I will here call the "Disney Syndrome" although it applies to all studios everywhere: Disney makes a film; the film is a hit; the writers/producers/etc. say, "That was great! Let's do it again, only MORE!"
So instead of one duel, there are six. Instead of one quest having three parts and one subplot, there is one quest having twelves parts and four subplots.
Ugh.
The downside of all the MORE is that way too many things have to be paid off at the end. In On Stranger Tides, the Spaniards are used in an interesting way, but do they really need to be there? And why have them kill off Groves who, just standing around, is far more interesting than the Spaniards?
And what does Jack Sparrow actually do for the mermaid for her to bring him the chalices? He isn't around her long enough for them to establish a relationship because he's off, you know, doing one of the twelve parts/four subplots.
The mermaid and her boyfriend subplot is nicely paid-off but far too quickly. I think this subplot may have pushed its way more to forefront than the writers anticipated or wanted; they had Depp and Rush and McShane to worry about, not a relatively unknown Englishman. I regret this decision but understand it; if you pay people tons of money, I suppose you should write lines for them.
I did absolutely adore the Judi Dench cameo.
Still it's a pity the writers didn't try harder. Often with movies like this, I just shrug and say, "Eh, sequel," but On Stranger Tides isn't Die Hard 2 which fails because it isn't, well, Die Hard. This is a movie that could have been a respectable, tight story but instead is a . . . shaggy dog story with some good bits.
I do love the music!
Time Mike wanted to see it: That's the problem... I never really wanted to see it. But, for approximately 8 months.
Reason Mike procrastinated: Well, I expected to see it in the theater, but... I didn't. Then I expected to rent it.... and I didn't. I think I realized that Disney was going for the extra buck, and with no "normal" characters to relate to, I expected to endure the movie rather than enjoy it.
Category: Sequel
Mike says that after Disney's Haunted Mansion with Eddie Murphy, I really didn't expect much from the first Pirates movie, Curse of the Black Pearl. Which may be one of the reasons I was so blown away by it. The first movie is absolutely enjoyable, on several levels. The following movies, well... let's say At World's End makes a compelling argument for Pirate-themed fantasy epics, if not fully succeeding, and leave it at that.
Regardless, I was at the midnight premieres of both 2 and 3, so when On Stranger Tides (which, I just have to say, sounds totally like a dirty movie) was announced, with only the pirate characters returning, I was skeptical but still expected to see it. But I didn't.
As stated above, I just knew what was coming, and didn't have the heart to prove myself right. Thanks to this list, I've now done that. Sadly, the movie was pretty much what I suspected. There are good points, however, so I'll cover those first, and then, well, we'll cover the rest soon.
Depp as Jack Sparrow is always entertaining, and after a trilogy of seeing him be a roguish hero, it's nice that he hasn't descended into Jim Carey territory and basically become a parody of himself (Ace Ventura 2: When Nature Calls, I mean you). The other returning cast is equally fun and entertaining, although there seems to only be the three altogether.
Some of the action sequences are very nice, and my Blu-ray copy looked beautiful. There are some funny jokes, fun music (as Kate points out) and some cool fantasy ideas (ships in a bottle, Blackbeard controlling his ship). And, well, that's about it.
The story is blessedly direct, if surprisingly long, with far too many convenient plot twists with no prior set up (Kate mentions a couple of these below). We know where we're going, and we know what's probably gonna happen when we get there, and who exactly is going to make it.
Another thing that really bothers me is when certain payoffs/outcomes are unclear or undeserved. Jack saves his girlfriend, and she hates him for it, and he doesn't really care... even though he spends the entire movie obsessing about her.
The missionary saves the mermaid, and in turn she "saves" him... by sucking him down to the bottom of the ocean exactly like what the more evil mermaids did... presumably to mate with him, drown him, and eat him.
The Spaniards show up, create a little bit of suspense, and then disappear again into the night.
In the end, it's just sloppy writing that really should have been resolved before the movie began filming. Thankfully, we have action scene after action scene to break up one kind of tedium for another. The actions scenes are fun, but, well, predictable.
Perhaps the biggest flaw the movie suffers from is in trying to make the film work with the pirates alone. Unfortunately, pirates out-pirating other pirates isn't really all that interesting, especially when there's no character with a likable goal. There is no "Audience Surrogate," like Will and Elizabeth, for the pirates to argue with, shock and disgust, or threaten.
Really, aside for the very small sub-plot of the missionary and the mermaid (which ends pretty horrifically, as far as I can tell), there is not one character really worth caring about or worrying about in the entire movie. Even Jack was more of the "odd thing we're dealing with" in the previous flicks. The promotion to lead protagonist just doesn't suit him, committing him to pushing the story forward despite having a very weak reason to do so. We need a Jack free to dance between the subplots, bend the rules, and be free to make a surprising choice. By making him the key hero, he's too important to be truly entertaining.
Now, I should clarify: I didn't hate this movie. But I was right about one thing: it was more a practice in endurance rather than entertainment. I'm sure that there are several people who loved this movie to pieces. Me? I'd rather watch Black Pearl again.
Kate says I saw the first movie of this franchise and really enjoyed it. In fact, I've seen it multiple times.
I then tried to watch the second movie and got so bored, I gave up. I actually removed the movie from the DVD player before I finished! This NEVER happens since I can always go do something else and then come back to catch a few minutes here or there.
But the second movie just seemed a collection of silly events: oh, look, Jack Sparrow gets caught by cannibals; oh, look . . .
Nope, that's all I remember.
On Stranger Tides is far more watchable; I quite enjoyed it although it could have been 1/2 hour shorter (more on this later). It has, for one thing, a clear quest: find the Fountain of Youth. For another, it has some clever subplots; I especially liked the Cary Elwes look-a-like cleric and his mermaid girlfriend. I missed the dry-as-bones Norrington (Jack Davenport), but Sam Claflin (Philip the Cleric) is a good replacement, and the movie could actually have used more of him and Sparrow together (the dialog between them is very funny although, hey, don't you remember the days when Disney was so afraid of innuendo, they created Touchstone Pictures?)
The flaw is what I will here call the "Disney Syndrome" although it applies to all studios everywhere: Disney makes a film; the film is a hit; the writers/producers/etc. say, "That was great! Let's do it again, only MORE!"
So instead of one duel, there are six. Instead of one quest having three parts and one subplot, there is one quest having twelves parts and four subplots.
Ugh.
The downside of all the MORE is that way too many things have to be paid off at the end. In On Stranger Tides, the Spaniards are used in an interesting way, but do they really need to be there? And why have them kill off Groves who, just standing around, is far more interesting than the Spaniards?
And what does Jack Sparrow actually do for the mermaid for her to bring him the chalices? He isn't around her long enough for them to establish a relationship because he's off, you know, doing one of the twelve parts/four subplots.
The mermaid and her boyfriend subplot is nicely paid-off but far too quickly. I think this subplot may have pushed its way more to forefront than the writers anticipated or wanted; they had Depp and Rush and McShane to worry about, not a relatively unknown Englishman. I regret this decision but understand it; if you pay people tons of money, I suppose you should write lines for them.
I did absolutely adore the Judi Dench cameo.
Still it's a pity the writers didn't try harder. Often with movies like this, I just shrug and say, "Eh, sequel," but On Stranger Tides isn't Die Hard 2 which fails because it isn't, well, Die Hard. This is a movie that could have been a respectable, tight story but instead is a . . . shaggy dog story with some good bits.
I do love the music!
Friday, October 14, 2011
Goonies 1985
Mike says that a few years ago, I started a phase where I began watching and collecting all the films of my youth (and no, the phase hasn't ended yet). I was excited to rewatch Goonies during this time, because I had so loved it as a kid. The truffle shuffle was a standard method of punishment in my house, and Data was one of my idols.
I think the reason I wanted to rewatch it so much is that I had scattered memories of all the best scenes: peeing in the cave, pulling the pipes, the bone organ, freeing the ship, "Hey You Guys!," big brother on the kiddie bike going off the cliff . . . you know, all the cool scenes that stood out amidst the filler stuff.
And when I finally rewatched it, well, I realized why those were the only scenes I remembered--because those scenes, those hilarious, stand out scenes, make up the entire movie! While this is very cool in that the movie is a non-stop adventure ride, well . . . that's about it. There's not much "filler," and sometimes, the stuff that happens in between the big scenes is what pulls a movie together.
Goonies is a great movie, and works very well, but the adventure is all you're getting out of this. The worried parents, the investigators looking for the kids, the clean-up of the disasters they caused are all possible side plots that are completely ignored. Even the small stuff, like how the kids got from one cave chamber to another (that seem to stretch throughout their entire town) is all passed over in favor of moving from one big scene to another.
Like I said, it makes for a fun movie. But, it's also a movie that sometimes feels more like a ride in an amusement park rather than an actual film.
Despite this mature conclusion that I've reached as a now educated adult, I still absolutely love this film, and laugh and enjoy almost every minute of it whenever I watch it. Sure, maybe a part of it is nostalgia (as Kate says, Nothing was ever really as good back in the "good old days" as we want to believe), but I think the major part is that this film reaches the kid still roaming around in my head and heart somewhere and makes him want to round up the neighborhood kids for one last adventure.
Kate says this movie is SO Chris Columbus.
It's fun with a total Disney-ride feel to it. And it doesn't pretend to be anything other than it is, but every now and again the difference between what it could be (nostalgic adventure a la Sandlot) and what it is (cutsy/smaltzy slapstick) is a little disconcerting. There's only so many crotch jokes a movie can provide before I start rolling my eyes.
Actually, the first false note for me was the appearance of the Asian kid. Not that I dislike Data, but it was so "token gesturish," I just shook my head. The monster brother, Sloth, also seemed totally over the top.
On the other hand, the movie's beginning does have that Sandlot feel. The kids form a believable group with natural family/friend interactions. The brothers' combination of teasing and affection is very real.
And every group has a Mouth.
The hunt for the treasure also starts naturally. The kids treat it as half-real, half-made-up, the way kids do play. Their blithe decision to investigate the wet Oregon countryside reminds me of my own childhood when my friends, siblings, and I would investigate the nearby woods.
But then . . . .well . . . there's lots of screaming. And more screaming. And silly bad guys. And the chubby kid saves the day.
I did find Chunk (Jeff Cohen) extremely amusing, especially all the stories he tells that nobody believes. Martha Pimpton, however, is easily the best actor out of the bunch with the strongest comedic timing ("This is ridiculous. It's crazy. I feel like I'm babysitting, except I'm not getting paid.")
The pirate ship floating past Cauldron Point is very cool. The most touching moment is still (I remembered it clearly) when Mikey "meets" One-Eyed Willie: "You know something, Willie? You're the first Goonie."
Complete side-note: I was CONVINCED that Elijah Wood was in this film with Sean Astin (before they worked together on LOTR). Actually, there is a 10 year difference in age which means Elijah Wood was 4 when Goonies was made. Who knew?!
I think the reason I wanted to rewatch it so much is that I had scattered memories of all the best scenes: peeing in the cave, pulling the pipes, the bone organ, freeing the ship, "Hey You Guys!," big brother on the kiddie bike going off the cliff . . . you know, all the cool scenes that stood out amidst the filler stuff.
And when I finally rewatched it, well, I realized why those were the only scenes I remembered--because those scenes, those hilarious, stand out scenes, make up the entire movie! While this is very cool in that the movie is a non-stop adventure ride, well . . . that's about it. There's not much "filler," and sometimes, the stuff that happens in between the big scenes is what pulls a movie together.
Goonies is a great movie, and works very well, but the adventure is all you're getting out of this. The worried parents, the investigators looking for the kids, the clean-up of the disasters they caused are all possible side plots that are completely ignored. Even the small stuff, like how the kids got from one cave chamber to another (that seem to stretch throughout their entire town) is all passed over in favor of moving from one big scene to another.
Like I said, it makes for a fun movie. But, it's also a movie that sometimes feels more like a ride in an amusement park rather than an actual film.
Despite this mature conclusion that I've reached as a now educated adult, I still absolutely love this film, and laugh and enjoy almost every minute of it whenever I watch it. Sure, maybe a part of it is nostalgia (as Kate says, Nothing was ever really as good back in the "good old days" as we want to believe), but I think the major part is that this film reaches the kid still roaming around in my head and heart somewhere and makes him want to round up the neighborhood kids for one last adventure.
Kate says this movie is SO Chris Columbus.
It's fun with a total Disney-ride feel to it. And it doesn't pretend to be anything other than it is, but every now and again the difference between what it could be (nostalgic adventure a la Sandlot) and what it is (cutsy/smaltzy slapstick) is a little disconcerting. There's only so many crotch jokes a movie can provide before I start rolling my eyes.
Actually, the first false note for me was the appearance of the Asian kid. Not that I dislike Data, but it was so "token gesturish," I just shook my head. The monster brother, Sloth, also seemed totally over the top.
On the other hand, the movie's beginning does have that Sandlot feel. The kids form a believable group with natural family/friend interactions. The brothers' combination of teasing and affection is very real.
And every group has a Mouth.
The hunt for the treasure also starts naturally. The kids treat it as half-real, half-made-up, the way kids do play. Their blithe decision to investigate the wet Oregon countryside reminds me of my own childhood when my friends, siblings, and I would investigate the nearby woods.
But then . . . .well . . . there's lots of screaming. And more screaming. And silly bad guys. And the chubby kid saves the day.
I did find Chunk (Jeff Cohen) extremely amusing, especially all the stories he tells that nobody believes. Martha Pimpton, however, is easily the best actor out of the bunch with the strongest comedic timing ("This is ridiculous. It's crazy. I feel like I'm babysitting, except I'm not getting paid.")
The pirate ship floating past Cauldron Point is very cool. The most touching moment is still (I remembered it clearly) when Mikey "meets" One-Eyed Willie: "You know something, Willie? You're the first Goonie."
Complete side-note: I was CONVINCED that Elijah Wood was in this film with Sean Astin (before they worked together on LOTR). Actually, there is a 10 year difference in age which means Elijah Wood was 4 when Goonies was made. Who knew?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)