August is definitely the most depressing month of the summer movie season, and this is for a good few reasons, not least of which is that it's the last month of the summer movie season. It's also the most eclectic month, because it is generally used as a "dumping ground" of sorts, for would-be summer movies that lack the brand-name clout to trade blows with the heavy-hitters, and even more often, these same movies tested poorly with audiences and are not expected to do well. It's basically a period of the year that the studio system has largely agreed to use as a minimized competition ground. And yet, while August movies are generally the sort which the studios acknowledge as their weakest offerings outside of the truly abysmal January/February season, August also regularly includes a few of the year's most pleasant surprises, but picking these out is a bit of a treasure hunt.
August 2
2 GUNS (ACTION/COMEDY) Rated R for violence throughout, language and brief nudity.
Starring: Denzel Washington, Mark Wahlberg, Paula Patton, James Marsden, Bill Paxton
Synopsis: A DEA agent (Washington) and a Naval Intelligence officer (Wahlberg) realize that they've both been investigating one another as part of a setup by a crime organization, which each had believed they were individually conning, but is actually all an elaborate sting by the CIA.
Speculation: In spite of what seems to be a dangerously convoluted plot (based on a graphic novel of the same name), the advertising does look kind of fun, if not remarkable. The director is Icelandic filmmaker Baltasar Kormakur, who directed the reportedly better-than-average January thriller CONTRABAND (I didn't see it myself), which may be a point of mild recommendation, but it's probably just as well worth waiting for a home-format rental.
August 7
PERCY JACKSON: SEA OF MONSTERS (FANTASY/ADVENTURE) PG for fantasy action violence, some scary images and mild language.
Starring: Logan Lerman, Alexandra Daddario, Jake Abel, Brandon T. Jackson, Nathan Fillion, Sean Bean, Leven Rambin, Grey Damon, Stanley Tucci
Synopsis: In this follow-up to the 2010 family adventure, Percy Jackson, half-mortal son of Poseidon, and his fellow demigod youths set forth on a quest for the mythical Golden Fleece.
Speculation: This is one of those movies that prompts the question, "Wait, why did they make another?" not because its unnecessary (an argument that makes no sense anyway), but because you didn't really think that anyone cared. On the other hand, while still not that impressive, the original did well enough in the worldwide market to permit a sequel. I actually haven't seen the first one, but it doesn't have an especially positive reputation, or especially negative for that matter, probably because audiences just didn't care enough. Obviously, it's another copycat of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series (as established with the first film), but the previews do have a cheesy sort of fun, so while I might not go out of my way to see, it might not be so bad if it were for a group thing anyway.
WE'RE THE MILLERS (COMEDY) R for crude sexual content, pervasive language, drug material and brief graphic nudity.
Starring: Jason Sudeikis, Jennifer Aniston, Emma Roberts, Will Poulter, Thomas Lennon
Synopsis: When a small-time marijuana dealer (Sudeikis) aims to bring two tons of marijuana in from Mexico, he hires fake family in an effort to camouflage his activities, with a cynical stripper (Aniston) as his wife, and a runaway teen (Roberts) and a geeky neighbor kid (Poulter) as their offspring.
Speculation: It's from the director of DODGEBALL: A TRUE UNDERDOG STORY, one of those hopelessly idiotic but nonetheless funny late night comedies, but that was in 2004 and he's only done one television episode and an independent drama since then, so it isn't very promising. Also, Sudeikis has yet to make a likable, let alone non-hateable, lead, so this one isn't looking too good.
August 9
ELYSIUM (SCI-FI/ACTION)
Starring: Matt Damon, Jodie Foster, Sharlto Copley, William Fichtner
Synopsis: In the year 2154, humanity has become more class divided than ever before, with the wealthy living on Elysium, a space station in orbit above Earth, while the impoverished industrial class live a wretched existence on Earth. When a factory worker (Damon) becomes terminally ill as the result of a work accident, he takes on a mission to reach Elysium, where the technology exists to cure him.
Speculation: Okay, first off, it's not "Asylum", which I've heard too many times. It's El-eez-ee-um. Elysium, the afterlife paradise of Greek mythology. Anyway, it's written and directed by Neill Blomkamp, the South African director who made DISTRICT 9, a sci-fi commentary on Apartheid and immigration. I thought that was interesting, but not quite as great as its Academy Award-nominated reputation. ELYSIUM definitely looks interesting, and it will definitely piss off conservatives, especially if it does well. It's a very blatant, and timely, piece of sci-fi politicking for immigration reform, health care and social welfare. So definitely interesting, and the advertising is engaging enough, but if you lean conservative, or even for some moderates, it might simply infuriate you. But hey, that has its values, too.
PLANES (KIDS/ANIMATED) PG for some mild action and rude humor.
Featuring the Voices of: Dane Cook, Stacy Keach, Teri Hatcher, Val Kilmer, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, John Cleese, Brad Garrett
Synopsis: "Dusty is a cropdusting plane who dreams of competing in a famous aerial
race. The problem? He is hopelessly afraid of heights. With the support
of his mentor Skipper and a host of new friends, Dusty sets off to make
his dreams come true."-Official Synopsis
Speculation: This spin-off of Pixar's CARS films began production as a direct-to-DVD feature at DisneyToon Studios, the division of Disney that makes inexpensive, second-rate animated features for such direct-to-DVD releases. Considering the added cost of theatrical distribution and marketing, it's a strange move that Disney made to put it in theaters, but even moreso than CARS 2, PLANES is a shamelessly-glorified toy commercial. Although featuring a large assortment of B-list stars (including much-maligned comedian Dane Cook as Dusty), supposedly to interest older audiences, this is one to just drop the kids off at, but only in the most desperate of circumstances. It would be preferable to not throw any money this one's way at all.
August 16
THE BUTLER (DRAMA/BIOPIC)
Starring: Forest Whitaker, John Cusack, Liev Schreiber, James Marsden, Robin Williams, Alan Rickman, Mariah Carey, Alex Pettyfer, Terrence Howard
Synopsis: Based on the life of Eugene Allen, THE BUTLER tells the story of Cecil Gaines (Whitaker), an African-American butler in the White House under eight presidential terms between five presidents from 1952 through 1986.
Speculation: Independent film mogul Harvey Weinstein has found a fair bit of publicity for this film (which his company produced) thanks to a title copyright conflict with Warner Bros., but this is looking like an early potential Oscar-contender and a very interesting piece otherwise. Directed by Lee Daniels (PRECIOUS, THE PAPERBOY), the film boasts an impressive cast for its historical figures, including Williams as Pres. Eisenhower (go figure) and Alan Rickman as Ronald Reagan. This kind of intimate story wrapped in long-term history is particularly susceptible to unwanted sentimentality, but Daniels' work has a hard edge, and this definitely looks worth a look.
JOBS (DRAMA/BIOPIC) PG-13 for some drug content and brief strong language.
Starring: Ashton Kutcher, Josh Gad, Lesley Ann Warren, Lukas Haas, J.K. Simmons
Synopsis: The story of the legendary entrepreneur Steve Jobs, founder of Apple Computer, from his early years as a college dropout to the founding of Apple, where he was infamously ousted, but made a triumphant return.
Speculation: The first of a couple films to begin development after the 2011 death of Steve Jobs, this independent drama that premiered at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival with Kutcher in the title role and Joshua Michael Stern (SWING VOTE) directing has wannabe written all over it. It received a mixed response at Sundance and may be perfectly fine for some tastes, but I'll be waiting for Aaron Sorkin's take.
KICK-ASS 2 (ACTION/COMEDY) R for strong violence, pervasive language, crude and sexual content and brief nudity.
Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Chloe Grace Moretz, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Jim Carrey, Lyndsy Fonseca
Synopsis: The sequel to the 2010 cult-favorite finds Kick-Ass (Taylor-Johnson) teaming up with a squad of other would-be costumed crime fighters who he's inspired, led by Colonel Stars and Stripes (Carrey), after Hit-Girl (Moretz) has "retired" to try being an ordinary schoolgirl. Meanwhile, Red Mist has reinvented himself as The Mother F***er (Mintz-Plasse) with plans to avenge his crime boss father's death at the hands of Kick-Ass and Hit-Girl.
Speculation: While admittedly, I found the original KICK-ASS to be overly long and overly brutal, KICK-ASS 2, with a change of director (from the talented Matthew Vaughn to Jeff Wadlow, director of CRY_WOLF and NEVER BACK DOWN) and a seemingly-unhinged Carrey (who disowned the film for its violence), looks like a definite step down. On the other hand, there's great value in having a main villain called, "The Mother F***er". Still, I wouldn't expect great, or even good for that matter, things from this one.
PARANOIA (THRILLER/DRAMA) PG-13 for some sexuality, violence and language.
Starring: Liam Hemsworth, Harrison Ford, Gary Oldman, Amber Heard, Josh Holloway
Synopsis: Based on a 2004 novel of the same name, Adam Cassidy, a low-level employee (Hemsworth) at a technology corporation finds his job in jeopardy, but his superiors, including the CEO (Oldman) give him the opportunity to save his employment by engaging in corporate espionage at a rival company headed by the former mentor (Ford) of Adam's boss.
Speculation: Although probably little more than an average August thriller, the opportunity to see Oldman and Ford at each others' throats as rival business tycoons has definite potential. The director though, Robert Luketic, is most identified with rom-coms, and his last film was Ashton Kutcher-Katherine Heigl stinker, KILLERS in 2010. Watch for the reviews, but it probably won't be very positive.
August 21
THE MORTAL INSTRUMENTS: CITY OF BONES (FANTASY/ADVENTURE) PG-13 for intense sequences of fantasy violence and action, and some suggestive content.
Starring: Lily Collins, Jamie Campbell Bower, Robert Sheehan, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Lena Headey
Synopsis: A seemingly-ordinary teen (Lily Collins) learns that she's the descendant of a long line of demon slayers, aka Shadowhunters, when a whirlwind of supernatural intrigue results in the kidnapping of her mother.
Specualation: This looks like the latest in the very lengthy fart-trail left by J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series and subsequent film adaptations, and like all of those before, and perhaps even more so, it just doesn't look good. A youth, and in the worst cases (as appears to be here), a teenager, learns that their seemingly mundane life is actually a facade, and they're descended from a supernatural heritage, and in the most blatant knock-offs (like this), the teen is actually some sort of "chosen one" prophecy. The worst of these Harry Potter coat tail parasites include I AM NUMBER FOUR and THE TWILIGHT SAGA; the PERCY JACKSON franchise is also notable, but can be forgiven by being less angsty. In short, no, this doesn't look very good.
August 23
THE WORLD'S END (COMEDY/SCI-FI) R for pervasive language including sexual references.
Starring: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Martin Freeman, Rosamund Pike, Eddie Marsan
Synopsis: In the third and final installment of the "Three Flavors Cornetto Trilogy" aka "The Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy", five friends attempt to best an epic bar hop they made twenty years before, but wind up as humanity's best chance for survival against an otherworldly threat.
Speculation: The "Three Flavors" films up until now (SHAUN OF THE DEAD and HOT FUZZ) have been truly excellent, but also more clearly defined in the marketing, while THE WORLD'S END is clearly paying homage to a genre in the way its predecessors did, so that's a bit confusing, but with Edgar Wright directing, and Pegg and Frost back together,
YOU'RE NEXT (HORROR) R for strong bloody violence, language and some sexuality/nudity.
Starring: Sharni Vinson, Nicholas Tucci, Wendy Glenn, AJ Bowen
Synopsis: A band of ax-wielding maniacs invade the Davison family reunion, but it turns out that one of the family is, to the surprise of everyone, the most skilled killer of all.
Speculation: Normally, I would write this off as another icky down-season bit of trash out of the relentless Lionsgate gates, and it is strange that the film premiered way back in 2011 at the Toronto Film Festival and is only now making its way into a wide release, but in strong contrast to the presented image, the early buzz is overwhelmingly positive. It's being touted as a reinvention of the home-invasion horror trope, with a fun sensibility and dark humor. I'm not a horror buff, but assuming this perception holds steady, it might be worth a look.
August 28
CLOSED CIRCUIT (THRILLER/MYSTERY) R for language and brief violence.
Starring: Eric Bana, Rebecca Hall, Julia Stiles, Ciaran Hinds, Jim Broadbent
Synopsis: When ex-lovers in the legal profession (Bana and Hall) are reunited as the defense team for a high profile terrorism case, their lives are put in danger through the ever-deepening mystery.
Speculation: This British thriller looks fairly unremarkable, but its distributor, Focus Features, is clearly having a good deal of trouble marketing it, because the concept is so extremely convoluted. So on the one hand, it might be an intelligent thriller, but it could very well be bogged down in its own overly complicated mechanisms.
August 30
GETAWAY (ACTION/THRILLER) PG-13 for intense action, violence and mayhem throughout, some rude gestures, and language.
Starring: Ethan Hawke, Selena Gomez, Jon Voight, Paul Freeman
Synopsis: A former race car driver (Hawke) is forced into a do-or-die situation behind the wheel to save his kidnapped wife. The voice of a man observing via car-mounted cameras move, while the driver gets assistance from a young computer whiz known as "The Kid" (Gomez).
Speculation: It's a mildly interesting premise, but the director, Courtney Solomon, is the man behind movies like DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (2000) and AN AMERICAN HAUNTING (2005), and it has a look of overt frenzy to it. On a less certain note, it just seems a bit tough to believe Gomez as any sort of whiz kid.
ONE DIRECTION: THIS IS US (CONCERT/DOCUMENTARY)
Featuring: Harry Styles, Niall Horan, Louis Tomlinson, Zayn Malik, Liam Payne
Synopsis: An "insider's view" of the much-maligned but nevertheless popular boy band sensation that sprung from a UK reality show, this documentary/concert performance film examines the public and personal personae of One Direction.
Speculation: For all the internet hate they get, I don't have a problem with One Direction. I don't care much for their music, but neither do I particularly dislike it either. I think their manufactured image is silly, but that's all part of the business, and I love it when they forget that their fanbase is comprised of preteen girls and make ribald, out of character statements. On the other hand, the fact that their fanbase is comprised of preteen girls means that this film will probably be manufactured for the same, which isn't necessarily bad, but won't interest audiences outside of preteen girls. What's really weird about this particular concert film for that audience is directed by the king of the documentary scene, SUPER SIZE ME-director Morgan Spurlock.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Review: THE WOLVERINE
Three and a Half out of Four Stars
Directed by James Mangold
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Tao Okamoto, Rila Fukushima, Svetlana Khodchenkova, Famke Janssen, Hiroyuki Sanada, Haruhiko Yamanouchi
PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence, some sexuality and language.
Verdict: To point out that it's a lot better than its bland predecessor, X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE, isn't an especially strong recommendation, but it's also a refreshing standout amongst the usual superhero flicks laden with bombast and threats of global implications. Director James Mangold (3:10 TO YUMA) and writers Mark Bomback (LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD) and Scott Frank (MINORITY REPORT) have crafted a swell Japanese sci-fi noir of sorts with the Wolverine's best lead appearance to date. It's a bit rough around the edges, but with the exception of a somewhat dopey climax (which smacks of misguided studio interference), all complaints are suitably minor and unobtrusive, while there's plenty to praise in the way of sophisticated and pleasurable entertainment.
The role that made Hugh Jackman a household name and headlined one of the first modern comic book-adapted film franchises has not always gotten the respect he's deserved. Not counting his brilliantly-conceived, one-line cameo in 2011's X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, Wolverine hasn't been in a good, let alone not-bad, movie since X2: X-MEN UNITED a full ten years ago in 2003. Between then and now, he was featured in Brett Ratner's abysmal X-MEN: THE LAST STAND, and his first solo round, X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE (2009) was another victim of the 2007-2008 Writers' Guild Strike that was evidenced in the following summer. Unlike X-MEN ORIGINS, THE WOLVERINE takes place after the events of the THE LAST STAND, and it's far better than either of those.
Of course, that's still not a very strong recommendation, so it would be better served to say that THE WOLVERINE is better than the original X-MEN; in fact, it's about on the same level as X2, although with its big weaknesses more concentrated into one twenty-or-so minute section of the film. To date, I believe FIRST CLASS is at the top of the peak, a golden standard for later installments to aspire to.
THE WOLVERINE finds its titular character, more personally known as Logan, in rural Canada, following the events of THE LAST STAND, which left his old flame, Jean Grey (Janssen), dead. Jean still haunts Logan's dreams, as Logan is consumed by the realization that his all-but-immortal state of being (thanks to his ultra-rapid healing ability and indestructible skeleton) forces him to watch as all he loves eventually dies away. The solution to that dilemma presents itself to Logan in the form of a summons to Tokyo, where a dying Imperial Army veteran-turned business tycoon offers to repay him for saving his life in the Nagasaki bombings by making Logan mortal. Despite Logan's doubts, his supernatural healing is suddenly absent, just as the dying tycoon passes away, creating a whirlwind of intrigue over the future of his corporation. At the center of the mystery is the man's granddaughter, Maroki (Okamoto), with her abusive father (Sanada), a philandering fiancee (Brian Tee) and a serpentine femme fatale (Khodchenkova).While unraveling the mystery like a super-powered, knife-knuckled Jack Gettes, Wolverine also finds time to slice and skewer his way through Yakuza thugs, ninjas and a samurai or two. Something that's been troublesome for attempts to adapt the Wolverine character to film has been 20th Century Fox's refusal to allow for an R-rated take on what is already essentially an R-rated character (he's a rough-and-tumble anti-hero whose defining superpower is six six-inch knives that emerge from his knuckles for goodness' sake), but THE WOLVERINE pushes the extent of the PG-13 rating so far that it seems to be on about the same level as Mangold's 3:10 TO YUMA remake, which itself was rated R. Granted, it's still not really R-rated carnage, but it's one of the bloodiest PG-13-rated films that I've seen and certainly the better for it, as the obvious absence of result to that kind of violence can be annoyingly distracting (see: THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA).
The film's original director, Academy Award-nominee Darren Aronofsky, officially cited the extended overseas shoot as his reason for leaving the project, but some reports have indicated that his script was hard-R level. Either way, it's too bad we didn't get to see what the BLACK SWAN-director had up his sleeve; I'd sure like to see a summer superhero movie from an auteur, but some other time, I guess. Thankfully, Mangold was up to the task. The film is much leaner than today's typical superhero film, where the central peril is consistently on a global scale, which THE WOLVERINE trades in for a relatively intimate mystery. But the action is certainly not shortchanged, and some of the summer's best action set-pieces are included, among them an awesome fight atop a 300 mph bullet train and a memorial service that turns into a bloodbath.
 |
| Khodchenkova as Viper, a bad villain, so to speak. |
All other complaints to be made are inconsequential, amounting to little more than minor plot inconsistencies and the like. Even as it can be picked apart more easily for its weaknesses, THE WOLVERINE is, by a very narrow margin, possibly the most entertaining superhero film this summer; not necessarily meaning the the best, as IRON MAN 3 is probably the best-crafted, but its gleeful deviation from expectations means that IRON MAN 3 will take time to reach its entertainment potential. On the other hand, in stark contrast to MAN OF STEEL's intergalactic, biblical scope, THE WOLVERINE is ultimately the better film with far sharper action and a refreshing restraint (most of the time). Hopefully, THE WOLVERINE may encourage a slimming down of the superhero genre, now that the stakes have been so endlessly escalated to a fatiguing degree of global implication, a scale to which only THE AVENGERS has been successful at to date.
Rougher, rawer and sexier, THE WOLVERINE gives new hope to the character's cinematic future.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
THE DARK KNIGHT ROSE
The infamously campy toy commercial with unintentional homoerotic tones that was 1997's BATMAN & ROBIN effectively shut down what was once one of the most lucrative franchises in Hollywood, and in 2003, Warner Bros. chose an unlikely and perfect director to resurrect the character on film. Christopher Nolan, a British filmmaker known only for a few low-budget psycho-thrillers, and who didn't like comic books or superheroes, reinvented the world of Batman and Gotham City as a (mostly) real-world compatible environment, and applied the long-awaited focus on psychological aspects to the characters and story. The year after the excellent and very comic book-inspired SPIDER-MAN 2 was released, and a month before the lame but still comic book-faithful FANTASTIC FOUR came out, BATMAN BEGINS was a crime drama. But in 2008, THE DARK KNIGHT revealed a Nolan unleashed, and as extremely, in fact, ludicrously, unlikely as it might have sounded before, a comic book film was compared to THE GODFATHER PART II and went on to seriously shake up the Academy Awards. A summer superhero blockbuster (okay, no Batman doesn't have "super powers" in the typical sense, but for all intensive purposes, he's a superhero) became a generation-defining film, received eight Academy Award nominations (impressive for any film, but the third most that year), swept the Best Supporting Actor categories for Heath Ledger's performance as 'The Joker," also widely considered one of the best onscreen villains of all time. At the time of its release, it was the #2 film of all time, behind TITANIC (AVATAR came out at the end of the next year), and the third film ever to cross the $1 billion mark worldwide.
That's a hell of a reputation to live up to, and it's common knowledge anyway that these kinds of trilogies almost always peak by number two (if they improve on the original at all) and then the climactic chapter is usually the weakest, but on the other hand, THE DARK KNIGHT brought respectability and awards show clout to an otherwise much-derided but lucrative genre, so why not hope for another miracle?
Well, first off, nobody thinks of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES as a debacle, and nor should they; it's an incredible spectacle and another unusually meaty, ambitious take on the superhero concept, and epic in a sense rarely ever seen in today's movies, even with the increasing frequency of $200+ million budget. Even as the second highest-grossing film of the year, it crossed the $1 billion mark (without the added boost of 3D) and was one of the best-reviewed "threequels" ever. But it wasn't quite the miracle we would have hoped for.
It may seem unfair to point out how great and successful a film was, and then pick it apart with disparaging intent, but THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is one of those anomalous cinematic events that is so good, and so frustrating for not being better. So-called "fanboys," the scourge of intelligent internet discourse on pop culture and media, who attack or defend media properties and franchises with an undue cult-like fervor, infamously made threats against certain film critics (presumably tongue-in-cheek, but in bad taste regardless), some of whose early reviews of the film were less glowing than what would be associated with THE DARK KNIGHT, prompting some sites to temporarily disable their comment forums. In some peoples' minds, the film was going to be a DARK KNIGHT-esque landmark, and whether it deserved that status or not, they would accept no less. It's not like those who lashed out against the early reviews had seen the film anyway.
With 88% of critics appraising the film positively though, according to RottenTomatoes.com, while it didn't match the 94% of its predecessor, it still qualifies as an excellently-reviewed film.
The best trait of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is definitely its ambition, which is tremendous. In interviews, Nolan described his intent as coming as close as possible to making a Fritz Lang film, referring to the great German Expressionist director of the silent epic of class warfare, METROPOLIS (1927). On a brief side note, it's worth mentioning that Tim Burton's 1989 BATMAN was also very strongly influenced by Lang's work, although his influence on Burton was far more visual than Nolan's, which was more ideological. What makes the DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY, as the collection of Nolan's Batman films has come to be called, particularly different from other trilogies of its sort, is that Nolan's three film's are all inspired by separate genre ideas. While all three films share characteristics of crime films, BATMAN BEGINS is particularly crafted as a "Hero's Journey" tale; THE DARK KNIGHT is directly inspired by gritty crime dramas, in particular, Michael Mann's HEAT (1995), with moral ambiguity and elaborate crime scenarios; while THE DARK KNGIHT RISES is designed like a classically-styled, Wagerian epic, particularly inspired by METROPOLIS and A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens.
But an epic is very tricky, and like others that have gone before, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES sometimes creaks under the weight of its own ambitions. At a length of 165 minutes, the film is gambling in a dangerous game; as the legendary late film critic Roger Ebert once said, "No good movie is too long, and no bad movie is short enough." For the most part, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES justifies its epic running time, which is a feat in itself, and it's difficult to accuse the film of being bloated, considering how densely packed the film already is. In fact, it's tempting to suggest that it should have been longer, because the passage of time seems to be the most apparent weakness to the film in which about halfway through, the protagonist has his spine snapped, with the bone protruding through the skin of his back (as mentioned briefly in dialogue), and then has to heal from this wound in a Third World prison, before finally managing to escape after a couple of fails; all of this within a matter of a few months, after which the hero is back to his full strength and able to beat his powerful adversary into submission. In a trilogy where the real world-plausibility of it all has been so important, Bruce Wayne/Batman's miraculously rapid reconstitution is difficult to swallow. All of this happens against a continuously running clock, a literal time bomb, until the end of the film too, as the film's primary villain, Bane, holds the entire city of Gotham hostage with a fusion reactor-turned-nuclear bomb.
A VILLAIN AND A THREE-ACT STORY
The old adage goes, "A hero is only as good as his villain," and just about everyone knew too well from the beginning that there would be no equal, let alone, improvement on THE DARK KNIGHT's antagonist. Heath Ledger's variation on the classic Batman villain, The Joker, became the golden standard of superhero film villainy, joining the likes of Alex DeLarge, Hannibal Lecter and John Doe from SE7EN. Taking a directly opposite turn from the chaos-driven, urban terrorist of THE DARK KNIGHT, the Nolans and co-writer David S. Goyer selected a relatively new villain, Bane, who first appeared in the comics in 1993; a militant revolutionary whose campaign of terror was organized, and physical brawn worthy of the Batman. Tom Hardy, who worked with Nolan previously on INCEPTION, was cast and plays the role like a university professor with a Turn-of-the-Century strongman physicality. Although lesser-known in the Batman pantheon than the likes of The Scarecrow, The Joker or Two-Face, Bane was an apt selection for the role, known in the comics as "The Man Who Broke the Bat," and he's an effective threat, but the revelation at the end in regards to his actual role in things is a bit disappointing.
Nolan constructed the trilogy like a three-act saga, with each film as one act each, and as such it follows the structure of the first act where everything is set up and the hero is victorious, then the second act escalates things and the hero loses, which he learns from, then the third and final act is heavily retrospective toward the first act before the hero finally achieves his goals. But as acclaimed as BATMAN BEGINS, the first act, was, it was THE DARK KNIGHT that came to define Nolan's Batman, and still, for a third act, it had to return to its origins. In BATMAN BEGINS, the League of Shadows, led by Ra's al Ghul, attempts to destroy Gotham for its sins, and in the end, that is the intention of the antagonists, remnants of the League of Shadows, in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. However, the earlier part of the film, and the film's marketing, placed an emphasis on the social revolution and class warfare of the story, which turns out to be merely a ploy in the manipulations of Bane. But I would really have liked to see that film! THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY is known for having interwoven difficult contemporary politics into the fabric of the story, such as the debate on Patriot Act-esque surveillance and response to terrorist acts in THE DARK KNIGHT, which was released just as the Bush Administration was coming to an end, and the Occupy Wall Street movement had just begun the year before the final film came out.
THE POLITICS OF BATMAN AND REAL WORLD CREDIBILITY
Batman is naturally a conservative superhero, given his immense wealth and overall cynical and violent outlook in a crime-ridden metropolis, so it only stands to reason that an honest Batman film be conservative, and that's fine, but Christopher Nolan has insisted that his films are apolitical, and remarkably, it is undeniable that the script was completed prior to the Occupy movement. In the film, Bane arrives on-scene to, supposedly, bring down the established order, encouraging the dregs of Gotham to rise up and remove the wealthy and corrupt from their positions of power, which was probably most inspired by A Tale of Two Cities, including show trials of enemies to the movement that are particularly reminiscent of French Revolution imagery. Furthermore, the police force are a tremendous symbol for good in the film, with a stunning moment at the film's climax in which an army of cops and an army of revolutionaries charge at each other on the city streets. Ironically though, it is the initially-revolutionary/anti-wealthy Selina Kyle (aka Catwoman, a title which she is never addressed by in this film) who is a proponent of gun use, while Batman orders her, "No guns! No killing!" Either way, its films like these that Hollywood-hating conservative culture embraces so dearly, while condemning the makers of such films as "Hollywood liberals." Sigh.
In the end though, the class warfare device is all a facade to cause Gotham to implode in a repeat effort by the League of Shadows to finish what they started in BATMAN BEGINS, and Bane is merely Talia al Ghul's (Ra's' daughter, previously disguised as a Gotham philanthropist) unrequited lover and willing bitch.
A point of interest in analyzing the trilogy is that it's really a pretty brutal crime saga with an extensive body count and grisly acts of violence and terror, but in order to receive the requisite PG-13 rating for a mainstream comic book film, there's hardly more than a few occasional drops of blood ever onscreen, but THE DARK KNIGHT RISES takes that a bit far by giving its characters, namely its titular character, a bodily durability that threatens the intended real world-plausibility. At the beginning of the film, Bruce Wayne is a Howard Hughes-styled hermit who walks with a cane and a hunch from years of physical punishment as a vigilante (an extremely interesting notion given far too little attention), and his knees, his doctor informs him, have no cartilage (I'm no doctor, but that sounds very bad), but he applies a bio-mechanical device to his knees and that's that. Then he's back in peak form and fighting crime again, until Bane snaps his spine with a dropkick. After a couple months, he heals from that wound that could just have well killed the average person, or at least paralyzed him for life, and then he's climbing perilous rock walls to escape a prison pit. He makes that climb with a rope tied around his waist, and I'm willing to believe if he fell and the rope caught him, that he'd live, but I'd think there'd at least be some sort of resulting injury that he's have to then heal from before climbing again, but he fails the climb twice with the rope, with only his pride injured. Later he's also stabbed, with the knife twisted in the wound, but once the knife is out, no further mention of the wound is made. Lastly, there's the big twist ending where Batman fakes his own death by carrying the active nuke out over the ocean away from the city (in a scene that calls to mind a goofy bomb moment in the campy Adam West television-based movie), and at the last moment that Batman is shown actually inside his aircraft, The Bat, the countdown says five seconds. The last moments of the film reveal Batman's survival after he allegedly ejected from his craft, but it sure doesn't look like the Bat was moving fast enough to carry the bomb's explosion away from Batman's reach within five seconds, assuming he ejected immediately following the last shot of him in the cockpit. But in the end, I guess, what the hell? He's freaking Batman. Still, even outside of the explosion radius, Gotham's going to suffer from sever nuclear radiation fallout for years to come, so luckily the trilogy ends here.
The new character of Detective John Blake, used as throwback to Bruce's and Lt. Jim Gordon's now-dissipated idealism and Batman's ultimate successor, has a glaring bit of coincidence to his story as well. An orphan, like Bruce Wayne, Blake approaches Wayne and identifies him as Batman, simply because he knows what it's like. Well then, why don't all the orphans know who Batman really is? And then poor Jim Gordon, Batman's longtime accomplice, is the last person in the whole damn city to figure it out. When he finally asks near the film's conclusion, Batman answers him cryptically (it probably would have been better to just spit it out; it would make more sense and everyone already knew anyway) by referring to an incident in which Gordon comforted young Bruce after his parents' murders, which Gordon inexplicably remembers, but whatever; good on him.
THE JOKER AND WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
I think the greatest disadvantage THE DARK KNIGHT RISES faced was the death of Heath Ledger. His performance in THE DARK KNIGHT redefined the expectations of a villain. His psychopathic indifference to everything but an undefinable criminal ideal, his gruesome visage and his menacing, reptilian demeanor constituted a masterpiece of character, and when the Nolans wrote the script, they prudently maintained his existence in the Batman saga. But the real world defied their intentions, leaving Gotham shaken by a presence that could not return. After Ledger's death, and in no small part due to the definitive nature his performance, another actor could never fill in those shoes, not within the trilogy anyway (God help the next actor who tries to reinterpret The Joker), and any attempts to recreate Ledger's presence by some form of the limitless effects possibilities of our day would have smacked of bad taste. THE DARK KNIGHT was propelled strongly by the haunting presence of the last explosion of creativity from an artist who was gone too soon, but this setup was accidental, and understandably, Nolan opted to not drag those ghosts into a further film. But even ten years after the fact, as is held in the story, the complete and utter absence of mention of a terrorist, and terrorist acts, that forced the calling in of the National Guard and the evacuation of a metropolitan area, strains credulity.
What's truly devastating is to consider what might have been; while Christopher Nolan never made either BATMAN BEGINS or THE DARK KNIGHT with follow-ups in mind, co-story writer David S. Goyer did have some loose outlines drafted for a trilogy, and while it's largely based in rumor, there had been speculation that the final film would feature The Joker in a Hannibal Lecter-type role of meeting the Batman in a battle of the minds to provide Batman with the inside information to apprehend the main villain. Whether or not that was ever seriously considered, that would have been so freaking awesome.
THE MOST EPIC OF SUPERHERO FILMS
Summer blockbusters have a habit of threatening some sort of worldwide domination and/or Apocalyptic destruction, and yet, even with such far-flung implications, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is probably the best candidate to lay claim to the title of of 'most epic' of the modern summer blockbusters. And yet, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES does not threaten the world on that scale; the only area of its focus in true mortal jeopardy is Gotham City, which may plunge the world into economic depression if destroyed, but even that much is hardly even implicit. So what makes a film like this an epic among epics? Mostly, its ambition. Its ambition in ideas, in scale and in most other ways you could think up. The central theme of the film is to choose life, to crawl out of the damned pit and reach for the better, even at the risk of falling. I have great disdain for the common cinematic/literary concept of a noble death, stoic and unfearing of what lies in the great beyond. It's boring, rarely relatable and inaccessible, so I love how THE DARK KNIGHT RISES turns that on its head to tell a story about a man who is expecting and prepared for such a death; Bruce Wayne sees death as the only way out of Batman, and in a loose sense, that expectation is fulfilled, but his turning point is choosing to fear death. The safety rope (which looks pretty debilitating anyway), like Batman, keeps the fear of death, of failure, at bay, but it is that fear that proves to be the most important motivation that finally gives him the power to make the climb out of the prison pit. If you didn't notice, there a fair bit of pretty blatant symbolism in the movie.
Parallel to that line of story is the military state of an entire American city, a compelling notion and a relevant fear in a post-9/11 world, although it does prove to be a bit large in its ambitions for the film to sustain and it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. A common complaint about the film is the overly convenient way that all but a few policemen are ordered into the underground tunnels of the city to find Bane, after which the exits are collapsed, trapping them for much of the film. Also a bit convenient is how Bane order that the police force be kept alive, which becomes useful at the film's climax when Batman has an army to help him out. It is an odd battle scene though, because neither side seems to have much in the way of weapons, other than a bit of artillery, so it's basically two armies fist-fighting, including Batman and Bane, who share a brief exchange of typically corny superhero film dialogue. The snow in that scene is a very nice touch though, and the setting on the steps of Pittsburgh's Mellon Institute is excellent.
MY TWO FAVORITE SCENES
I have two particular scenes in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES that stand out above the rest, those being the first physical showdown between Batman and Bane, and the ballroom dance with Bruce and Selina. I feel these scenes define the rest of the film, along with the climbing out of the pit scene, but that's a given.
The fight between Batman and Bane in the Gotham sewers is the film at its most raw and brutal form. The blows land the hardest, Batman is more desperate and the mood is dire. The moist environment enhances the sense of velocity to the combat, as droplets of water fall behind the sweeping movements and explode in splashes as each blunt impact is delivered. It is in this scene that Batman is both physically and metaphorically broken, splintering the famous cowl and concluding with a cringe-worthy dropkick that cracks Batman's spine. It is an excellent and brutal action scene.
The ballroom scene is often overlooked but best emulates the classically-styled epic tone of the film. Bruce makes his first public appearance in a decade, at an amber-lit charity ball, where the wealthy and dispassionate upper crust of Gotham play to a humanitarian philanthropy facade, while in a world of decadence. Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne dance while engaging in a bit of traditional romantic screwball repartee, and Selina condemns the decadent lifestyle while she's trapped by a checkered past which forced her hand in order to survive, and the masses starve in the streets. It has an excellent eve-of-the-revolution feeling to it.
 |
| The Century 16 Multiplex in Aurora, Colorado |
Midnight screenings for THE DARK KNIGHT RISES sold out rapidly, and on that night, cinemas nationwide were packed, but at the Century 16 multiplex in Aurora, Colorado, one James Eagan Holmes, sporting garishly-dyed hair, a gas mask and assorted armor, set off tear gas and begin firing guns into the crowd, killing 12 and injuring 70 other persons. This abhorrent act startled the nation, but there was certain repulsion for cinephiles, as if something evil had violated a place of sanctity; a cinema, the portal to worlds of human understanding, imagination, emotional realizations and spirituality.
The news media, as human as the rest of us, joined the panic and some sources misleadingly announced that Homes had had brightly-dyed hair and identified himself to police as "The Joker," encouraging some people to draw a connection to the violence and sadistic behavior in THE DARK KNIGHT, which had been controversial for its violent content in relation to its PG-13 rating, which some parents believed should have been an R rating. Such statements were misleading though, because they deliberately implied that Holmes was enacting a character from the films, despite the fact that his hair was orange, not green (which was the implication), and his appearance had no apparent correlation to the character.
In the conservative state of Colorado, the shooting resulted in a spike for firearm sales, as is often the case with some people looking for a quick solution for personal protection and also the result of the imminent surge in gun regulation attempts. But Hollywood did not shift into a defensive gear the way gun advocates did, and do whenever these tragedies happen, and instead, Warner Brothers Studios chose to cancel premieres in Mexico, Japan and Paris; they retracted a trailer for GANGSTER SQUAD, which depicted a scene of gangsters firing guns into a movie theater crowd, and had the film restructured and re-shot, and the studio made a donation of an undisclosed amount to benefit the victims. In the end, the incident likely also resulted in a blow to the film's potential box office, particularly in the U.S., where it performed very strongly regardless, after the tragedy left a bad taste in the mouths of moviegoers and stained the film with a horrifying association.
Ironically, the film, widely considered conservative in its politics, had a line of dialogue from the titular character, saying, "No guns! No killing!" although the morally ambiguous Selina Kyle/Catwoman refutes that notion, despite her character being considered a "misguided" liberal personality by some. Whether or not the films' violence can be directly associated with such evil events is unanswerable and a source of constant debate that usually coincides with the firearms debate as a counter-debate, but if media depictions of violence are the factual source of such evil behavior, the rarity of such cases would still indicate mental health as the true issue.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Review: TURBO
TURBO (ANIMATED/KIDS)Two and a Half out of Four Stars
Featuring the Voices of: Ryan Reynolds, Michael Pena, Paul Giamatti, Bill Hader, Samuel L. Jackson, Michelle Rodriguez, Ken Jeong Maya Rudolph
PG for some mild action and thematic elements.
Verdict: DreamWorks Animation's latest will enthrall its target audience of children under age 10, and it has moments of inspired humor, but it also returns to that old source of derision toward DreamWorks by trying very hard to be Pixar (or what Pixar was a few years ago), but lacking the heart, inspiration and/or ambition to pull it off, instead coming across as a pale, and obvious, imitation. After about the first 45 min. of the 96 min. feature, the charm wears off and the humor becomes dull, making the second a slightly grating experience.
YOU MIGHT LIKE TURBO IF YOU ENJOYED:
CARS
SHARK TALE
PUSS IN BOOTS
ROBOTS
TURBO is technically an original concept, in that it is not specifically based on any pre-existing media property, but the obvious evidence of borrowing from greater animated works is rampant. For myself, it was actually a little fun to pick plot elements and scenes that were mildly revised versions of the same from Pixar Studios' films, but certainly a more skilled filmmaker might have developed his story past its inspirations. Interestingly though, instead of developing past those starting points, TURBO seems to regress to instead eliminate any significant character development, as its characters remain static throughout the course of the story, never learning of changing, but achieving their goals (unless the character isn't very nice) with stalwart optimism, like a snail that takes an hour and a half to reach a piece of lettuce.
To be fair though, TURBO plainly doesn't stress about aiming very high (ironic, given its generic "dreamer" plot), and its clear target audience isn't expected to be older than ten, if that. These kinds of "children's films" present a dilemma to criticism and analysis, because if they are intended for kids, what kind of expectations should there be beyond bright color, funny sounds and an ounce of slapstick? Kids eat dirt and bugs, but that hardly makes it a quality meal, so it's unreasonable to argue that an uninspired cartoon is good simply because children enjoy it. Then again, TURBO isn't as bad as all that either.
TURBO is the story of a snail named Theo (v. Reynolds) who dreams of racing, which is obviously ironic. His neurotic brother, Chet (v. Giamatti) tries to encourage Theo to be "normal," to be content with the life of a snail, but one night, one of the more odd events in any animated children's movie occurs, wherein Theo winds up on a street-racing hot rod and gets sucked into the engine workings just as the driver flips on the nitrous oxide, which, in the traditional manner of a superhero movie, fuses with Theo's DNA, resulting in a complete molecular restructuring that gives him the characteristics of a car, including headlights, various alarms, radio wave reception, but most of all, 200 MPH+ speed. From there, Theo and Chet are discovered by Tito (v. Pena) who works in a taco shop with his brother and does snail races with the other business owners at their overlooked strip mall. After Tito discovers Theo's lightning-fast speed, he devises a plan to get the strip mall some recognition by entering Theo in the Indy 500.
It's a highly-formulaic film, and borrows very heavily from Pixar's films, in what becomes a sort of game to particular moments out, for instance:
- Theo's Indy 500 aspirations and admiration of champion racer Guy Gange (v. Hader) is very reminiscent of Remy's idolization of Chef Gusteau in RATATOUILLE.
- Again like RATATOUILLE, the concerned, ultra-cautious familial relation who eventually comes around (I don't think that counts as an actual spoiler, but if so, I am sorry).
- The introductions by the strip mall's snail racers is similar to the introduction of the Tank Gang in FINDING NEMO, with the Samuel L. Jackson-voiced Whiplash clearly filling in the Gill role.
- The racing scenes could very well be modeled after CARS
If you're looking to occupy the time of a child, especially male, around the ages of four to ten or so, this film will do the trick just fine, but most of anyone older will be looking for some excuse to ease their way out by the second half.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Reviewing the Preview- SAVING MR. BANKS
In addition to being an obsessive movie nut (obviously), I'm also a bit of a Disney aficionado on the side; not because I think they the make the best movies though, because they certainly don't. I think the Walt Disney Company is the most interesting of the film studios. Their history is set apart from the other major film studios, led by the very steady hands of the Walt and Roy Disney for over forty years as a family company, then coming dangerously close to falling prey to corporate raiders in 1984 before Roy's son staged a coup to put Michael Eisner, Frank Wells and himself as the heads of the company. Later, in the early 2000s, Roy again fought to change company leadership after Eisner had consolidated power for himself. The stuff reads like Shakespearean drama. But however much more or less he did than others, it is Walt's story that stands at the center of the media empire, and his story has often been tumultuously debated between the extremes of those who sing the angelic praises of Walt, a paragon of virtue and conservative, Midwestern American values, and the torch-bearing cynics who see an anti-Semitic, unscrupulous, union-smashing, right-wing fanatic under a saccharine facade of grandfatherly wholesomeness. Often the company has been attacked for allegedly insisting on a fictionalized Walt, while hiding the nitty-gritty details behind closed doors to protect their brand. Seemingly the most common complaint about the Disney brand is evident in the term "Disneyfy," used disparagingly to imply homogenization, or revisionary sanitation; the Disney company is accused of presenting a milquetoast, sanitized portrayal of the real world. This complaint can easily be disregarded as cynical, but sanitary revisionism does lend itself to socially destructive, ignorant inaction; the "Lost Cause Myth" of the Antebellum South for instance and how it perpetuates racism.
In more recent years however, under CEO Robert Iger and the occasional cooperation of Walt's daughter Diane Miller, the Walt Disney Company has been making a more open effort to be forthcoming in acknowledging their history, warts and all. These have included an in-depth, no-holds-barred biography, Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination, by Neal Gabler (which Miller did not endorse, claiming it portrayed Walt's marriage in a false light), and the Walt Disney Family Museum in San Francisco, opened in 2009 and commissioned by Miller; both of which honor him greatly, but are more frank about his cooperation with the House of Un-American Activities Committee and allegations of racism, especially anti-Semitism.
Even still, there was a lot of speculation that Terra Nova-writer Kelly Marcel's hot script making the rounds in Hollywood, SAVING MR. BANKS, might never be filmed, and it landed on film executive Frank Leonard's popular annual "Black List," those being the most popular scripts making the rounds in the industry but not yet in production, in 2011. The story it tells is a favorite amongst Disney historians; MARY POPPINS was released in 1964 to immense critical acclaim including five Academy Awards (including Best Actress for Julie Andrews) out of thirteen nominations (the most that year), a record unsurpassed thus far for any film released under the Walt Disney banner. However, Walt sought to make a film adaptation of the British children's novel about a magical nanny as early as 1938, but the book's author, P.L. Travers, was disdainful of Disney's film repertoire, and only over a 20+ years correspondence did Walt convince her to allow him to make the film. As much as the world loved, and still loves, Walt's most acclaimed production, cited in the company's marketing as his "crowning achievement," crusty Travers herself was not won over, and was in fact, openly disdainful of the finished film, denying any further film, or at all American, adaptations of her works. She believed that she, and her work, had been given shabby treatment by Walt and his cohorts, and was particularly unhappy with the animated sequence, which she requested be removed from the final cut, but was denied by Walt, who had the final say.
It would be natural to expect reluctance on Disney's part to take on such a film that might tarnish the reputation of their founder, their legacy and one of their greatest films, but it would be practically impossible for any other studio to get the film made. Regardless, in 2012, Disney negotiated a deal to acquire the script, and by the end of the year, filming had completed under direction by John Lee Hancock. The Academy Award-winning pair of Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson star in the film as Walt Disney and Emma Thompson, respectively. Now, we have a preview:
This is one of those previews that drives me crazy, not necessarily in a bad way, but in multiple different ways all at once. Part of me is excited just to see this thing, but another part anticipates disappointment, and another part is just annoyed that it isn't exactly how I imagined it. I just want it to be so good and perfect, but I feel like Disney doesn't seem to be quite so invested in that idea as they should be and that it probably just be harmless and good enough, but another squandered opportunity. Nonetheless here's hoping...
But for commentary on what we know and what we've now seen in this preview:
This is the first footage we've seen so far of a film that was finished several months ago, and I'd think Disney would be a bit more hyped about the first onscreen portrayal of Walt Disney by an actor, and not just as a minor or supporting character, but as the male lead in a feature film. Maybe they're planning to pull something bigger out from their sleeves later in the year. Anyway, from the moment they announced that two-time Academy Award-winning actor Tom Hanks would be playing Mr. Disney, I had, and still have, no complaints. As far as I'm concerned, he's the only actor for the job. You want a well-known name, someone with lots of experience, plus a reasonably similar build, but Hanks in particular has that old-fashioned Midwestern charm (despite being a native Californian) that is so crucial to the essence of Walt Disney. Even while possessing a proper sense of gravitas, Hanks has a down-homey, harmless, friendliness that matches the Uncle Walt image. It's unclear if, and then how far, the film may deviate from that image, but supposing they do, I doubt it would present much of a problem for Hanks. The preview doesn't give an especially varied view of Hanks' performance, but it doesn't look like they're going for actual imitation, as Hanks has little outside of his usual appearance beyond Walt's signature mustache, but he's sporting the Midwestern accent and is showing a suitable easiness, bordering on cocky. Travers' persona is certainly not so well-known, but what is common knowledge for those who've bothered to find out, she was well-learned, old school proper, and to call her terse would be putting it mildly. Emma Thompson's repertoire suggest her as fitting for the part, considering that it's not all that different from many other characters she's played; intelligent, eccentric and terse types. Thompson's part is much more difficult to read in the preview, although they show much more of her, because her character is naturally on the more unlikable side, though undoubtedly, some painful and personal revelations about her character will be used to make her more sympathetic. I'm inclined to expect the production itself to be more milquetoast than not at this point, but in any case, the acting will be a bragging point and a point of acclaim.
My big case for apprehension to this film is the director, John Lee Hancock, a man who isn't a bad director, but isn't all that good either. When he isn't dangerously sentimental, he has a tendency to be bland. That said, he does have the potential to turn out something really great, but some of that would be up to chance. He specializes in the sports genre of films, the films of which I rarely have strong feelings one way or the other about, including Hancock's own, which include a previous Disney film, THE ROOKIE (2002), and the decent but overrated audience favorite, THE BLIND SIDE (2009).
Something in particular that caught me off guard in this preview was the light, comedic tone. At least for where I'm at right now, it doesn't feel quite right to me; I don't want a comedy, I want a drama! On the other hand, the "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" gag in the songwriting session was really very funny. Incidentally, Richard and Robert Sherman, played by Jason Schwartzman (SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD) and B.J. Novak (NBC's The Office), who wrote the songs for MARY POPPINS (as well as dozens more of the catalogue of classic Disney songs from films, television and theme parks), have been openly disdainful about working with Travers, who, when in the politest company, they've referred to as "difficult."
An undeniable weakness to the preview though is one that's more common amongst movie previews these days, in that it tells too much. It is a true story, so it isn't like there's much in the way of actual "secrets," but to the general public, and even just as a preview (especially the first preview), it feels overly indulging. Understandably, some of that helps explain the title, but they might have at least waited for a later preview to go that far, if they really had to at all.
I was a bit curious to see whether this would be released as a "Disney" film, or under one of their alias brands, i.e. Touchstone, because it is obviously a very Disney-centric film, but it doesn't seem to be made particularly with families in mind, including those who turn out in droves for Jack Sparrow's adventures. Indeed, as indicated on the MPAA trailer "greenband" at the front, the film is rated PG-13 for, "thematic elements including some unsettling images." Disney crossed the PG-13 Rubicon ten years ago with PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL and has since released six more PG-13 Disney features (three of them sequels to POTC), but those were all adventure films and mitigated by pulpy elements, and only a couple of years ago did a Disney film, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES, first get a PG-13 for something other than violence or scary content (in this case "sensuality/innuendo"). I suspect SAVING MR. BANKS involves some themes involving domestic abuse and substance abuse that are the main reason for its rating, which, perhaps undeservingly, are sometimes considered a greater concern to parents than adventure-genre violence, but their younger kids probably won't be interested in SAVING MR. BANKS anyway. For myself, I do have a little bit of nitpicking in this department, primarily that Walt was infamous for using profanity (no doubt helped through the grapevine thanks to his family friendly public persona), and clearly they've written him at a PG-level, plus he should be smoking in almost every scene (he died of lung cancer).
That's about all I've got for now, but sometimes a movie trailer just gets the wheels in your brain turning.
SAVING MR. BANKS opens nationwide on December 20, 2013.
In more recent years however, under CEO Robert Iger and the occasional cooperation of Walt's daughter Diane Miller, the Walt Disney Company has been making a more open effort to be forthcoming in acknowledging their history, warts and all. These have included an in-depth, no-holds-barred biography, Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination, by Neal Gabler (which Miller did not endorse, claiming it portrayed Walt's marriage in a false light), and the Walt Disney Family Museum in San Francisco, opened in 2009 and commissioned by Miller; both of which honor him greatly, but are more frank about his cooperation with the House of Un-American Activities Committee and allegations of racism, especially anti-Semitism.
Even still, there was a lot of speculation that Terra Nova-writer Kelly Marcel's hot script making the rounds in Hollywood, SAVING MR. BANKS, might never be filmed, and it landed on film executive Frank Leonard's popular annual "Black List," those being the most popular scripts making the rounds in the industry but not yet in production, in 2011. The story it tells is a favorite amongst Disney historians; MARY POPPINS was released in 1964 to immense critical acclaim including five Academy Awards (including Best Actress for Julie Andrews) out of thirteen nominations (the most that year), a record unsurpassed thus far for any film released under the Walt Disney banner. However, Walt sought to make a film adaptation of the British children's novel about a magical nanny as early as 1938, but the book's author, P.L. Travers, was disdainful of Disney's film repertoire, and only over a 20+ years correspondence did Walt convince her to allow him to make the film. As much as the world loved, and still loves, Walt's most acclaimed production, cited in the company's marketing as his "crowning achievement," crusty Travers herself was not won over, and was in fact, openly disdainful of the finished film, denying any further film, or at all American, adaptations of her works. She believed that she, and her work, had been given shabby treatment by Walt and his cohorts, and was particularly unhappy with the animated sequence, which she requested be removed from the final cut, but was denied by Walt, who had the final say.
It would be natural to expect reluctance on Disney's part to take on such a film that might tarnish the reputation of their founder, their legacy and one of their greatest films, but it would be practically impossible for any other studio to get the film made. Regardless, in 2012, Disney negotiated a deal to acquire the script, and by the end of the year, filming had completed under direction by John Lee Hancock. The Academy Award-winning pair of Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson star in the film as Walt Disney and Emma Thompson, respectively. Now, we have a preview:
This is one of those previews that drives me crazy, not necessarily in a bad way, but in multiple different ways all at once. Part of me is excited just to see this thing, but another part anticipates disappointment, and another part is just annoyed that it isn't exactly how I imagined it. I just want it to be so good and perfect, but I feel like Disney doesn't seem to be quite so invested in that idea as they should be and that it probably just be harmless and good enough, but another squandered opportunity. Nonetheless here's hoping...
But for commentary on what we know and what we've now seen in this preview:
This is the first footage we've seen so far of a film that was finished several months ago, and I'd think Disney would be a bit more hyped about the first onscreen portrayal of Walt Disney by an actor, and not just as a minor or supporting character, but as the male lead in a feature film. Maybe they're planning to pull something bigger out from their sleeves later in the year. Anyway, from the moment they announced that two-time Academy Award-winning actor Tom Hanks would be playing Mr. Disney, I had, and still have, no complaints. As far as I'm concerned, he's the only actor for the job. You want a well-known name, someone with lots of experience, plus a reasonably similar build, but Hanks in particular has that old-fashioned Midwestern charm (despite being a native Californian) that is so crucial to the essence of Walt Disney. Even while possessing a proper sense of gravitas, Hanks has a down-homey, harmless, friendliness that matches the Uncle Walt image. It's unclear if, and then how far, the film may deviate from that image, but supposing they do, I doubt it would present much of a problem for Hanks. The preview doesn't give an especially varied view of Hanks' performance, but it doesn't look like they're going for actual imitation, as Hanks has little outside of his usual appearance beyond Walt's signature mustache, but he's sporting the Midwestern accent and is showing a suitable easiness, bordering on cocky. Travers' persona is certainly not so well-known, but what is common knowledge for those who've bothered to find out, she was well-learned, old school proper, and to call her terse would be putting it mildly. Emma Thompson's repertoire suggest her as fitting for the part, considering that it's not all that different from many other characters she's played; intelligent, eccentric and terse types. Thompson's part is much more difficult to read in the preview, although they show much more of her, because her character is naturally on the more unlikable side, though undoubtedly, some painful and personal revelations about her character will be used to make her more sympathetic. I'm inclined to expect the production itself to be more milquetoast than not at this point, but in any case, the acting will be a bragging point and a point of acclaim.
My big case for apprehension to this film is the director, John Lee Hancock, a man who isn't a bad director, but isn't all that good either. When he isn't dangerously sentimental, he has a tendency to be bland. That said, he does have the potential to turn out something really great, but some of that would be up to chance. He specializes in the sports genre of films, the films of which I rarely have strong feelings one way or the other about, including Hancock's own, which include a previous Disney film, THE ROOKIE (2002), and the decent but overrated audience favorite, THE BLIND SIDE (2009).
Something in particular that caught me off guard in this preview was the light, comedic tone. At least for where I'm at right now, it doesn't feel quite right to me; I don't want a comedy, I want a drama! On the other hand, the "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" gag in the songwriting session was really very funny. Incidentally, Richard and Robert Sherman, played by Jason Schwartzman (SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD) and B.J. Novak (NBC's The Office), who wrote the songs for MARY POPPINS (as well as dozens more of the catalogue of classic Disney songs from films, television and theme parks), have been openly disdainful about working with Travers, who, when in the politest company, they've referred to as "difficult."
An undeniable weakness to the preview though is one that's more common amongst movie previews these days, in that it tells too much. It is a true story, so it isn't like there's much in the way of actual "secrets," but to the general public, and even just as a preview (especially the first preview), it feels overly indulging. Understandably, some of that helps explain the title, but they might have at least waited for a later preview to go that far, if they really had to at all.
I was a bit curious to see whether this would be released as a "Disney" film, or under one of their alias brands, i.e. Touchstone, because it is obviously a very Disney-centric film, but it doesn't seem to be made particularly with families in mind, including those who turn out in droves for Jack Sparrow's adventures. Indeed, as indicated on the MPAA trailer "greenband" at the front, the film is rated PG-13 for, "thematic elements including some unsettling images." Disney crossed the PG-13 Rubicon ten years ago with PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL and has since released six more PG-13 Disney features (three of them sequels to POTC), but those were all adventure films and mitigated by pulpy elements, and only a couple of years ago did a Disney film, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES, first get a PG-13 for something other than violence or scary content (in this case "sensuality/innuendo"). I suspect SAVING MR. BANKS involves some themes involving domestic abuse and substance abuse that are the main reason for its rating, which, perhaps undeservingly, are sometimes considered a greater concern to parents than adventure-genre violence, but their younger kids probably won't be interested in SAVING MR. BANKS anyway. For myself, I do have a little bit of nitpicking in this department, primarily that Walt was infamous for using profanity (no doubt helped through the grapevine thanks to his family friendly public persona), and clearly they've written him at a PG-level, plus he should be smoking in almost every scene (he died of lung cancer).
That's about all I've got for now, but sometimes a movie trailer just gets the wheels in your brain turning.
SAVING MR. BANKS opens nationwide on December 20, 2013.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Review: PACIFIC RIM
Three Stars out of Four
Directed by Guillermo Del Toro
Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Rinko Kukuchi, Charlie Day, Burn Gorman, Ron Perlman
PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence throughout, and brief language.
Verdict: Although vastly more intelligent, creative and entertaining than any TRANSFORMERS movie, PACIFIC RIM is still a disappointingly weaker addition to Del Toro's directed features, overwhelmed by blunt traumatic bombast and more mechanical than a lot of his previous work. On the other hand, it is a film that can be summed up as giant robots fighting with giant monsters...
You May Like PACIFIC RIM if you enjoyed:
HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY
GODZILLA (1954)
PROMETHEUS
To both its credit and its detriment, PACIFIC RIM can easily enough be described as giant robots vs. giant monsters. The action is truly spectacular at times, but there are particular moments where the movie edges closely to actually being great, but then becoming distracted by its own frenetic nature. It's a pretty good movie, but it does have a particular audience, and those outside may feel a bit shortchanged. It lacks the fully formed heart of most of Mexican director Guillermo Del Toro's movies.
The film opens with a great deal of exposition, necessary to introduce a world of new and complicated technologies and natural events, given with great efficiency in a constrained amount of time, via a voiceover by the film's main character, Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnam). A short few years into the future, a rift occurs at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, opening another dimension through which enormous reptilian beasts referred to as "Kaiju" (Japanese for "giant/strange beast") enter our world, wreaking devastating mayhem on human cities and costing millions of human lives in the counterattacks. To defend against the Kaiju, which appear periodically, one at a time, the nations of the world pooled their resources to manufacture colossal robotic vehicles called "Jaegers" (German for "hunter"), operated by two pilots at a time in close combat. Becket is one such Jaeger pilot, teamed up with his brother, but when a Kaiju battle kills Becket's brother, he retires to a transient life. Over time though, the Kaiju have become increasingly powerful, and only a few Jaegers remain, the rest destroyed in battle. In a last-ditch effort, the Pan Pacific Defense Corps bring Becket back into the Jaeger cockpit, on a high-stakes mission to seal the portal through which the Kaiju have been emerging.
Del Toro is a great creator of worlds, and reportedly wrote a 400-page "bible" of the world in Pacific Rim, how it works, what changes there are to society on economic, political and social levels; there's so much detail that the film cannot possibly take time to dwell on it, which is at once unfortunate, but also prudent. Although the primary substance to this whole affair is "giant robots fighting giant monsters," he also finds plenty of time for the human characters (frankly, the robots and monsters aren't even characters, so whatever), but the film struggles in those areas, because they feel a bit half-baked. The story is a lot like a formulaic sports movie, with the washed-up (quite literally) has-been legend, the antagonistic hotshot, the unproven supertalent, the seasoned sage (a couple of those actually) and a few fillers, who have to learn to work together for the good of all. This would be fine and everything, except that these characters rarely made a strong connection for myself, especially Hunnam as the male lead, who isn't actually "wooden," but lacks the charisma and emotional depth that would be desirable. Academy Award-nominee Rinko Kakuchi (BABEL), on the other hand, as Mako Mori, a rookie pilot who teams up with Becket, gives the best performance in the film, though she does have an advantage from the script. Her's is the most emotionally-realized character of the film, and she just has a naturally charming presence. Idris Elba, as Marshal Stacker Pentacost, is the hard-boiled commander of the whole operation, and while he conveys an effective presence of power, his character is a bit too thick-skinned to identify with, even with the emotional revelations that his character provides.
The action set-pieces are probably the best of the summer, in a summer that's been surprisingly disappointing on that front and others, with the sensibility of not so much a pre-teen boy (as has been so heavily suggested), but of what part of that mentality remains after so long, and that being to its benefit because there's a sort of longing and clarity to it. They aren't so kinetic; it's more like an all-out brawl, with the occasional "surprise move" that different Jaegers and Kaiju are equipped for, although these might have been even better with set-ups and payoffs. Basically, it's pure badass; a multi-million dollar realization of a "playing with toys" mentality, like the prologue sequence of TOY STORY 3. There's not a ton of sense to it, but it asks, "What's the most awesome crap we can throw in here?" with out necessarily dwelling on context, and then it goes and does it with gleeful abandon. There is a bit much in debris and the blunt trauma is a bit numbing at times, but it's mostly sensible and without the ridiculously reckless messiness of MAN OF STEEL.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
4th of July
Oddly enough, for all the war movies that the American film industry had churned out over the years, only a small few involve the original U.S. war; the American Revolutionary War, also known as the American War for Independence. So excepting those few, none of which particularly stand out as great films or as having a significant cultural impact, suitable viewing in recognition of Independence Day usually leans more towards tributes to our nation's heritage; films about the immigrant experience, the "American Dream", political activism and our democratic system. Listed here is an variety of all those sorts, including films for the patriotic tastes of political conservatives and liberals, and some that cross the political borders in their appeal; some well-made movies and classics, and infamous howlers, but all have a distinct American flavor and salute the United States and its history.
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THE WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE
There's an inexplicable lack of films portraying the American Revolution/Revolutionary War (while there's a surplus of WWII and Vietnam War movies), and the few that there are are starkly unimpressive, but when pickings are slim, you take what you can get.
THE PATRIOT (2000, R, War/Drama)
Patriotism: Extreme, Jingoist / Quality: 5/10
One of German-born director Roland Emmerich's few non-"disaster films" (in regard to subgenre, not to be confused with "disastrous"), THE PATRIOT is one of the surprisingly few major American Revolutionary War-based films, and like Emmerich's other films, is a grotesquely idiotic action movie, although with a great deal more blood. However, it's also disturbingly watchable, even as the issues are simplified to a kindergarten-level at best and the British military is reduced to either honor-obsessed buffoons or cunning sadists, waging war more similar to Nazi Germany than anything colonial Britain ever engaged in.
1776 (1972, PG, Musical/Drama)
Patriotism: Extreme / Quality: 5/10
This screen version of the Tony-winning Broadway musical is more stage musical than history, but it's also one of the few major films about the actual day in history that American Independence Day commemorates. The performances are unmemorable (a few border on just plain bad) and the production is cheesy at times, but not taken so seriously, 1776 is a fun, uneven but thoughtful commentary on history, and family friendly for the most part (our Founding Fathers' sex starvation is lightly touched upon).
JOHNNY TREMAIN (1957, Not Rated, Family/Drama)
Patriotism: Extreme, Jingoist / Quality: 2/10
This film is the sort from which the term "Disneyfied" is derived, depicting a grossly simple-minded version of American history and the America Revolution, and it is even at times disturbing to see such a sanitized, black and white understanding of complicated events and persons. Whatever the merit of their politics aside, this is the unfortunate understanding of American history associated with the Tea Party movement. For Disney aficionados, Walt Disney's own daughter, Sharon Mae Disney, can be seen in the brief role of Dorcas, a friend of the main characters, Johnny and Priscilla.
REVOLUTION (1985, PG-13, War Drama)
Patriotism: Strong / Quality: 3/10
This would-be historical epic directed by Hugh Hudson (best known for CHARIOTS OF FIRE) was one of the biggest financial flops of the 1980s, failing to gross even a full $1 million in the United States after costing $28 million to make, being rushed through production by studio executives and being lambasted by critics. It actually has a fairly strong opening with frightening intensity in 1776 New York, but it soon becomes dreary and monotonous with a lack of focus. It's not very entertaining, but for movie aficionados, it may be interesting.
THE AMERICAN DREAM
There are many films that portray the "American Dream", the proud American belief in the underdog and the ability to rise to greatness through strong work ethic, regardless of one's origins. This philosophy has been explored from a variety of perspectives, from the idealistic inspirational drama, to the cynicism of operatic tragedies.
ROCKY (1976, PG, Sports Drama)
Patriotism: Very Strong / Quality: 8/10
The film that rocketed writer-director Sylvester Stallone to stardom is the ultimate crowd-pleaser and exuberant tribute to the American Dream. Rocky Balboa, the Italian Stallion, is the great American underdog, a formerly-promising boxer down on his luck, getting by as a loan shark's thug (a job in direct conflict with his "nice guy" personality), but who gets his shot at the dream when he's picked to fight the heavyweight champion in a stunt fight. It's energetic, none-too-taxing, feel good entertainment.
THE GODFATHER (1972, R, Crime Drama)
Patriotism: Strong / Quality: 10/10
Considered one of the "Great American Films," THE GODFATHER is the dark and stirring epic of an immigrant family, and along with its prequel, is considered the great American immigrant saga. From the film's opening line, heard before the images even appear onscreen, "I believe in America," an epic tragedy of the dark side of the American Dream unfolds, as fortunes are made and souls are lost; what must be done is done, and who's to say otherwise?
THE GODFATHER PART II (1974, R, Crime Drama)
Patriotism: Very Strong / Quality: 10/10
Even more strongly than its predecessor, but while both building upon and within the original, THE GODFATHER PT II exudes a beautiful American flavor. Through the two tales, of the father and of the son, it tells the story of one family and the American Dream; the ideals and hopes of the father, who makes a new and honorable (if legally questionable) life in the United States after escaping the violence of the Dons in Italy, and the cynical losses of that legacy through the son. PART II confirms the greatness and cultural importance of THE GODFATHER and the Corleone saga as the great American epic.
AN AMERICAN TAIL (1986, G, Family/Animated)
Patriotism: Very Strong / Quality: 5/10
This dark but G-rated animated immigrant's journey follows Feivel Mousekewitz's adventures as his family escapes persecution in Russia by sailing for America (where the "streets are paved with cheese" (in case you didn't catch it, the Mousekewitz's are anthropomorphic mice)), but Feivel is separated and arrives at Ellis Island by himself, where he befriends Henri, a pigeon immigrant from France, and Tony, a streetwise Italian mouse. There are drunk politicians, Jewish persecution and crime bosses all in the anthropomorphic animal kingdom, and it's all very weird and yet oddly appealing despite a messy third act.
GANGS OF NEW YORK (2002, R, Drama/Crime)
Patriotism: Strong / Quality:8/10
Set
in the seething political climate of 1862 New York, in the gang
warfare-riddled Five Points district of Lower Manhattan, Martin
Scorcese's Civil War era epic had a famously difficult production and
post-production, and a subsequently slightly mixed response (though
mostly positive), but it's still a solid and heart-pounding piece of
American history. Beginning with a brutal battle between Irish
immigrants and the xenophobic "Natives" (Protestant descendants of
colonial era immigrants), accented by a modern rock soundtrack, the
story follows the ill-fated Irish leader's son (Leonardo DiCaprio) on a
mission of vengeance against the Native leader, Bill the Butcher (an
actual butcher, wielding a cleaver), as the imminent 1863 New York draft
riots approach. Daniel Day-Lewis is mesmerizing in one of his
greatest, of many great performances. As the tagline holds, "America
was Born in the Streets."
OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM
As Lewis Rothschild (Michael J. Fox) in THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT says, "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight." Democracy ain't easy, and the bitterness and heated tension that fills our political briefs every day may make you feel like throwing in the towel sometimes, but movies like these remind us why its worth it.
THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT (1995, PG-13, Drama/Romance)
Patriotism: Extreme / Quality: 9/10
Most patriotically exploitative films, or patriot-porn, have a conservative slant, thanks to the right-wing's significant advantage in the area of "tribal values", screenwriter Aaron Sorkin has proven that conservatives do not have a monopoly on patriot-porn. THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT is the predecessor to Sorkin's later, enormously popular television series, The West Wing, but with Martin Sheen as Chief of Staff this time around, and Michael Douglas as the President, a widower who falls for an environmental lobbyist (Annette Bening) and struggles to balance business and romance while under fire from a Republican rival (Richard Dreyfuss) in the upcoming election.
CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR (2007, R, Drama)
Patriotism: Fairly Strong / Quality: 8/10
Another
ode to politically-liberal patriotism from Aaron Sorkin, CHARLIE
WILSON'S WAR is actually based on a true story this time around, about
the little-known liberal side of the Reagan Era and their part in
bringing an end to the Soviet Union and the Cold War. Charlie Wilson
(Tom Hanks, in his most recent great performance) is a philandering
Democrat U.S. Representative from Texas, who, with the assistance of a
Houston socialite (Julia Roberts) and a maverick CIA agent (Philip
Seymour Hoffman), spearheaded an operation to assist Afghanistan in
fighting Soviet occupation in the 1980s. This film's more bitingly
cynical (reportedly watered down from the original script) than THE
AMERICAN PRESIDENT though, as it indicts the U.S. for a history of quick
fixes ignorant of long-term results.
MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939, Not Rated, Drama/Family)
Patriotism: Very Strong / Quality: 6/10
Frank Capra was one of the , if not the, defining filmmakers of good old-fashioned America, and no film better displays this than MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, the seminal film on American politics. In past years, it was accused of being anti-American and pro-Communism by some conservatives and a "grotesque distortion" by some liberals, but is now praised from all ends of the spectrum. Touting strong democratic ideals, it is plainly enduring, albeit being a prime example of so-called "Capra-corn", with some very nauseating Boy Scout moments.
BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY (1989, R, Drama/War)
Patriotism: Strong (but Complicated) / Quality: 8/10
In spite of his reputation and apparently caustic personality, I believe Oliver Stone is a very patriotic individual with a complicated love of the United States. Sometimes we need that kind of intense and conflicted look at ourselves and our legacy, and BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY has a great understanding of this. It's an epic biopic of Stone's fellow Vietnam war veteran Ron Kovic (Tom Cruise), who joined the Marines to fight in Vietnam as an idealistic youth, but was disillusioned by the horrors of actual war and then paralyzed. His story follows his spiritual journey into a dark feeling of abandonment by his nation and subsequent bitterness, before finding his American patriotism in a new form of being.
"POPCORN POLITICS"
I don't enjoy these movies much myself, with their cardboard-cutout patriot philosophies, but if you're looking for "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" kicks, you can't go wrong with these. It's the down-home, cowboy politics that those snooty Europeans think of when they think "American," but screw them, because we booted their asses out of here.
RED DAWN (1983/2012, PG-13, Action/War)
1984 original- Patriotism: Extreme, Jingoist / Quality: 3/10
2012 remake- Patriotism: Extreme, Jingoist / Quality: 1/10
Goodness knows how this movie got made once, let alone twice, but the concept does have a basic pulp appeal if only they didn't take themselves so seriously; both films involve the United States being invaded by Communist forces, by the Soviet Union in the 1984 version, and inexplicably by North Korea in the 2012 one (lamely "justified" by a throwaway line about Russian assistance). Rather than showing an awesome U.S. vs. the Damn Commies War on U.S. soil, both films completely ignore what might be going on outside the podunk small town setting, so the can focus on a group of angsty high school kids waging guerilla warfare on foreigners.
INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996, PG-13, Science Fiction/Action)
Patriotism: Strong / Quality: 4/10
Well, this one just comes right out and says it in the title; INDEPENDENCE DAY puts it on a worldwide scale though, as humanity fights for their independence from an alien race in 5-mile wide ships destroying entire cities. This was the film that kicked director Roland Emmerich's career into high gear, it's a textbook example of "popcorn entertainment"; far short of intelligence and sometimes so cheesy that it becomes uncomfortable, but the explosion-laced visuals and Will Smith's charisma (in spite of bad dialogue) are entertaining.
AMERICANA
These movies cover a broader spectrum than those in the other categories, by representing an American frame of mind and self-awareness. In Americana, you find more pop entertainment and Red, White & Blue classics, the kind for sitting back with the family for a patriotic experience, but one far less stuffy than any history or civics lesson.
YANKEE DOODLE DANDY (1942, Not Rated, Musical/Drama)
Patriotism: Extreme / Quality: 6/10
Released in 1942, in the midst of WWII, this musical biopic about legendary Broadway actor George M. Cohan is one of the most unabashedly patriotic movies ever made, and also grossly sentimental and considered a grand American classic by many. The apparent hypocrisies of film scholars who lambast sentimentality but adore YANKEE DOODLE DANDY aside, for those well-versed in the Golden Age of Hollywood, there's a great entertainment value to see gangster film great James Cagney tap dance his way through flamboyant musical numbers.
FORREST GUMP (1994, PG-13, Drama/Comedy)
Patriotism: Strong / Quality: 7/10
This saga of a simpleton examines the American nation's coming of age through the tumultuous years from the post-war 1950s through the early 1980s, and despite some accusation of being undeserving of a Best Picture Oscar-win against PULP FICTION and THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, it is one of the most universally-appealing films ever made. It's saturated with strong elements of Americana throughout, yet its makers have repeated time and again that the film is non-partisan, which is a highly-defensible description, but it has been claimed fiercely by conservatives and liberals alike as a cinematic standard for their values; to conservatives, it's a story of the endurance of conservative values and an indictment of 1960s counter-culture, while liberals have seen in it a story of irony and cynicism toward anti-Communist crusading and conservative culture. In other words, no one wins, but everyone thinks they do.
CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (2011, PG-13, Action/Science Fiction)
Patriotism: Very Strong / Quality: 7/10
There's actually several strong candidates for comic book superhero adaptations appropriate for Independence Day viewing, such as SPIDER-MAN and sequels, IRON MAN, SUPERMAN: THE MOVIES and the list goes on, but even still, I think this one is obvious. It's not quite on the level of Marvel Studios' greatest hits, but it's ultra-patriotic, pulpy fun, with an old-fashioned sense of shameless American pride.
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (1981, PG, Action-Adventure)
Patriotism: Fairly Strong / Quality: 10/10
You simply can't go wrong with the Great American Hero, Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones, Jr., and while any film in the series works (even the fourth one; come on, it's not that bad), RAIDERS is the best one (although I'll listen to arguments for THE LAST CRUSADE). This is great American pulp, with the roguish archeologist trotting the globe, and fighting fascism as he goes along on the hunt for Judeo-Christan artifacts and beating the hell out of Nazis.
NATIONAL TREASURE (2004, PG, Action-Adventure)
Patriotism: Very Strong / Quality: 6/10)
Nicholas Cage (just a little bit before everyone realized that he's actually insane) stars as Benjamin Franklin Gates, a historian/treasure hunter in pursuit of an ancient Templar treasure supposedly safeguarded by America's Founding Fathers. Riddled with historical, and very non-historical, trivia throughout, it's unabashedly ridiculous, but also pretty fun as a poor man's Indiana Jones.
THE SANDLOT (1993, PG, Family/Comedy)
Patriotism: Fairly Strong / Quality: 9/10
Only one scene directly addresses the holiday itself, but for whom does the memory of playing (baseball or whatever else) under the fireworks-illuminated sky does not resonate? Outside of this scene still, THE SANDLOT emanates warmhearted Americana in its ode to baseball and long summer days and nights.
JAWS (1975, PG, Adventure/Thriller)
Patriotism: Fairly Strong / Quality: 10/10
JAWS doesn't always come to mind when considering patriotic movies, but consider; the original summer blockbuster is all about the red, white and blue; lots of red blood, spurting into the blue ocean, while swimmers are ripped to pieces by a Great White Shark. More obviously, the Fourth of July holiday plays a major part, as well as the great American "everyman against the behemoth" themes.
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THE WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE
There's an inexplicable lack of films portraying the American Revolution/Revolutionary War (while there's a surplus of WWII and Vietnam War movies), and the few that there are are starkly unimpressive, but when pickings are slim, you take what you can get.
THE PATRIOT (2000, R, War/Drama)
Patriotism: Extreme, Jingoist / Quality: 5/10
One of German-born director Roland Emmerich's few non-"disaster films" (in regard to subgenre, not to be confused with "disastrous"), THE PATRIOT is one of the surprisingly few major American Revolutionary War-based films, and like Emmerich's other films, is a grotesquely idiotic action movie, although with a great deal more blood. However, it's also disturbingly watchable, even as the issues are simplified to a kindergarten-level at best and the British military is reduced to either honor-obsessed buffoons or cunning sadists, waging war more similar to Nazi Germany than anything colonial Britain ever engaged in.
 |
| Directed by a German and a star raised in Australia; you'd think they'd be less "Ugly American." |
Patriotism: Extreme / Quality: 5/10
This screen version of the Tony-winning Broadway musical is more stage musical than history, but it's also one of the few major films about the actual day in history that American Independence Day commemorates. The performances are unmemorable (a few border on just plain bad) and the production is cheesy at times, but not taken so seriously, 1776 is a fun, uneven but thoughtful commentary on history, and family friendly for the most part (our Founding Fathers' sex starvation is lightly touched upon).
JOHNNY TREMAIN (1957, Not Rated, Family/Drama)
Patriotism: Extreme, Jingoist / Quality: 2/10
This film is the sort from which the term "Disneyfied" is derived, depicting a grossly simple-minded version of American history and the America Revolution, and it is even at times disturbing to see such a sanitized, black and white understanding of complicated events and persons. Whatever the merit of their politics aside, this is the unfortunate understanding of American history associated with the Tea Party movement. For Disney aficionados, Walt Disney's own daughter, Sharon Mae Disney, can be seen in the brief role of Dorcas, a friend of the main characters, Johnny and Priscilla.
REVOLUTION (1985, PG-13, War Drama)
Patriotism: Strong / Quality: 3/10
This would-be historical epic directed by Hugh Hudson (best known for CHARIOTS OF FIRE) was one of the biggest financial flops of the 1980s, failing to gross even a full $1 million in the United States after costing $28 million to make, being rushed through production by studio executives and being lambasted by critics. It actually has a fairly strong opening with frightening intensity in 1776 New York, but it soon becomes dreary and monotonous with a lack of focus. It's not very entertaining, but for movie aficionados, it may be interesting.
THE AMERICAN DREAM
There are many films that portray the "American Dream", the proud American belief in the underdog and the ability to rise to greatness through strong work ethic, regardless of one's origins. This philosophy has been explored from a variety of perspectives, from the idealistic inspirational drama, to the cynicism of operatic tragedies.
ROCKY (1976, PG, Sports Drama)
Patriotism: Very Strong / Quality: 8/10
The film that rocketed writer-director Sylvester Stallone to stardom is the ultimate crowd-pleaser and exuberant tribute to the American Dream. Rocky Balboa, the Italian Stallion, is the great American underdog, a formerly-promising boxer down on his luck, getting by as a loan shark's thug (a job in direct conflict with his "nice guy" personality), but who gets his shot at the dream when he's picked to fight the heavyweight champion in a stunt fight. It's energetic, none-too-taxing, feel good entertainment.
THE GODFATHER (1972, R, Crime Drama)
Patriotism: Strong / Quality: 10/10
Considered one of the "Great American Films," THE GODFATHER is the dark and stirring epic of an immigrant family, and along with its prequel, is considered the great American immigrant saga. From the film's opening line, heard before the images even appear onscreen, "I believe in America," an epic tragedy of the dark side of the American Dream unfolds, as fortunes are made and souls are lost; what must be done is done, and who's to say otherwise?
THE GODFATHER PART II (1974, R, Crime Drama)
Patriotism: Very Strong / Quality: 10/10
Even more strongly than its predecessor, but while both building upon and within the original, THE GODFATHER PT II exudes a beautiful American flavor. Through the two tales, of the father and of the son, it tells the story of one family and the American Dream; the ideals and hopes of the father, who makes a new and honorable (if legally questionable) life in the United States after escaping the violence of the Dons in Italy, and the cynical losses of that legacy through the son. PART II confirms the greatness and cultural importance of THE GODFATHER and the Corleone saga as the great American epic.
AN AMERICAN TAIL (1986, G, Family/Animated)
Patriotism: Very Strong / Quality: 5/10
This dark but G-rated animated immigrant's journey follows Feivel Mousekewitz's adventures as his family escapes persecution in Russia by sailing for America (where the "streets are paved with cheese" (in case you didn't catch it, the Mousekewitz's are anthropomorphic mice)), but Feivel is separated and arrives at Ellis Island by himself, where he befriends Henri, a pigeon immigrant from France, and Tony, a streetwise Italian mouse. There are drunk politicians, Jewish persecution and crime bosses all in the anthropomorphic animal kingdom, and it's all very weird and yet oddly appealing despite a messy third act.
GANGS OF NEW YORK (2002, R, Drama/Crime)
Patriotism: Strong / Quality:8/10
 |
| Bill the Butcher- A True American Badass, and a Great Moustache |
OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM
As Lewis Rothschild (Michael J. Fox) in THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT says, "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight." Democracy ain't easy, and the bitterness and heated tension that fills our political briefs every day may make you feel like throwing in the towel sometimes, but movies like these remind us why its worth it.
THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT (1995, PG-13, Drama/Romance)
Patriotism: Extreme / Quality: 9/10
Most patriotically exploitative films, or patriot-porn, have a conservative slant, thanks to the right-wing's significant advantage in the area of "tribal values", screenwriter Aaron Sorkin has proven that conservatives do not have a monopoly on patriot-porn. THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT is the predecessor to Sorkin's later, enormously popular television series, The West Wing, but with Martin Sheen as Chief of Staff this time around, and Michael Douglas as the President, a widower who falls for an environmental lobbyist (Annette Bening) and struggles to balance business and romance while under fire from a Republican rival (Richard Dreyfuss) in the upcoming election.
 |
| Yeah, it may look patriotic, but then they go and promote gun regulations. |
CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR (2007, R, Drama)
Patriotism: Fairly Strong / Quality: 8/10
 |
| I wish he were holding a cigar in this picture. |
MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939, Not Rated, Drama/Family)
Patriotism: Very Strong / Quality: 6/10
Frank Capra was one of the , if not the, defining filmmakers of good old-fashioned America, and no film better displays this than MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, the seminal film on American politics. In past years, it was accused of being anti-American and pro-Communism by some conservatives and a "grotesque distortion" by some liberals, but is now praised from all ends of the spectrum. Touting strong democratic ideals, it is plainly enduring, albeit being a prime example of so-called "Capra-corn", with some very nauseating Boy Scout moments.
BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY (1989, R, Drama/War)
Patriotism: Strong (but Complicated) / Quality: 8/10
In spite of his reputation and apparently caustic personality, I believe Oliver Stone is a very patriotic individual with a complicated love of the United States. Sometimes we need that kind of intense and conflicted look at ourselves and our legacy, and BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY has a great understanding of this. It's an epic biopic of Stone's fellow Vietnam war veteran Ron Kovic (Tom Cruise), who joined the Marines to fight in Vietnam as an idealistic youth, but was disillusioned by the horrors of actual war and then paralyzed. His story follows his spiritual journey into a dark feeling of abandonment by his nation and subsequent bitterness, before finding his American patriotism in a new form of being.
"POPCORN POLITICS"
I don't enjoy these movies much myself, with their cardboard-cutout patriot philosophies, but if you're looking for "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" kicks, you can't go wrong with these. It's the down-home, cowboy politics that those snooty Europeans think of when they think "American," but screw them, because we booted their asses out of here.
RED DAWN (1983/2012, PG-13, Action/War)
1984 original- Patriotism: Extreme, Jingoist / Quality: 3/10
2012 remake- Patriotism: Extreme, Jingoist / Quality: 1/10
Goodness knows how this movie got made once, let alone twice, but the concept does have a basic pulp appeal if only they didn't take themselves so seriously; both films involve the United States being invaded by Communist forces, by the Soviet Union in the 1984 version, and inexplicably by North Korea in the 2012 one (lamely "justified" by a throwaway line about Russian assistance). Rather than showing an awesome U.S. vs. the Damn Commies War on U.S. soil, both films completely ignore what might be going on outside the podunk small town setting, so the can focus on a group of angsty high school kids waging guerilla warfare on foreigners.
 |
| Patriotic? Yes. Idiotic? Very. Racist? Yeah, a bit. |
Patriotism: Strong / Quality: 4/10
Well, this one just comes right out and says it in the title; INDEPENDENCE DAY puts it on a worldwide scale though, as humanity fights for their independence from an alien race in 5-mile wide ships destroying entire cities. This was the film that kicked director Roland Emmerich's career into high gear, it's a textbook example of "popcorn entertainment"; far short of intelligence and sometimes so cheesy that it becomes uncomfortable, but the explosion-laced visuals and Will Smith's charisma (in spite of bad dialogue) are entertaining.
AMERICANA
These movies cover a broader spectrum than those in the other categories, by representing an American frame of mind and self-awareness. In Americana, you find more pop entertainment and Red, White & Blue classics, the kind for sitting back with the family for a patriotic experience, but one far less stuffy than any history or civics lesson.
YANKEE DOODLE DANDY (1942, Not Rated, Musical/Drama)
Patriotism: Extreme / Quality: 6/10
Released in 1942, in the midst of WWII, this musical biopic about legendary Broadway actor George M. Cohan is one of the most unabashedly patriotic movies ever made, and also grossly sentimental and considered a grand American classic by many. The apparent hypocrisies of film scholars who lambast sentimentality but adore YANKEE DOODLE DANDY aside, for those well-versed in the Golden Age of Hollywood, there's a great entertainment value to see gangster film great James Cagney tap dance his way through flamboyant musical numbers.
 |
| Whether you're conservative or liberal, pee jokes are just funny. |
Patriotism: Strong / Quality: 7/10
This saga of a simpleton examines the American nation's coming of age through the tumultuous years from the post-war 1950s through the early 1980s, and despite some accusation of being undeserving of a Best Picture Oscar-win against PULP FICTION and THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, it is one of the most universally-appealing films ever made. It's saturated with strong elements of Americana throughout, yet its makers have repeated time and again that the film is non-partisan, which is a highly-defensible description, but it has been claimed fiercely by conservatives and liberals alike as a cinematic standard for their values; to conservatives, it's a story of the endurance of conservative values and an indictment of 1960s counter-culture, while liberals have seen in it a story of irony and cynicism toward anti-Communist crusading and conservative culture. In other words, no one wins, but everyone thinks they do.
 |
| If you don't see the appeal, it's probably because you see the appeal in Communism. |
Patriotism: Very Strong / Quality: 7/10
There's actually several strong candidates for comic book superhero adaptations appropriate for Independence Day viewing, such as SPIDER-MAN and sequels, IRON MAN, SUPERMAN: THE MOVIES and the list goes on, but even still, I think this one is obvious. It's not quite on the level of Marvel Studios' greatest hits, but it's ultra-patriotic, pulpy fun, with an old-fashioned sense of shameless American pride.
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (1981, PG, Action-Adventure)
Patriotism: Fairly Strong / Quality: 10/10
You simply can't go wrong with the Great American Hero, Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones, Jr., and while any film in the series works (even the fourth one; come on, it's not that bad), RAIDERS is the best one (although I'll listen to arguments for THE LAST CRUSADE). This is great American pulp, with the roguish archeologist trotting the globe, and fighting fascism as he goes along on the hunt for Judeo-Christan artifacts and beating the hell out of Nazis.
NATIONAL TREASURE (2004, PG, Action-Adventure)
Patriotism: Very Strong / Quality: 6/10)
Nicholas Cage (just a little bit before everyone realized that he's actually insane) stars as Benjamin Franklin Gates, a historian/treasure hunter in pursuit of an ancient Templar treasure supposedly safeguarded by America's Founding Fathers. Riddled with historical, and very non-historical, trivia throughout, it's unabashedly ridiculous, but also pretty fun as a poor man's Indiana Jones.
THE SANDLOT (1993, PG, Family/Comedy)
Patriotism: Fairly Strong / Quality: 9/10
Only one scene directly addresses the holiday itself, but for whom does the memory of playing (baseball or whatever else) under the fireworks-illuminated sky does not resonate? Outside of this scene still, THE SANDLOT emanates warmhearted Americana in its ode to baseball and long summer days and nights.
JAWS (1975, PG, Adventure/Thriller)
Patriotism: Fairly Strong / Quality: 10/10
JAWS doesn't always come to mind when considering patriotic movies, but consider; the original summer blockbuster is all about the red, white and blue; lots of red blood, spurting into the blue ocean, while swimmers are ripped to pieces by a Great White Shark. More obviously, the Fourth of July holiday plays a major part, as well as the great American "everyman against the behemoth" themes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)