Archive for May, 2004

The Day After Tomorrow

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating:RATED PG-13 for Storms
Starring: Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal, Emmy Rossum
Directed By: Roland Emmerich

Final Grade:

Do you remember that girl (or guy, for those of you who aren’t down with the ladies) in high school? The one that had no redeeming qualities in personality, had no depth, and never said anything worth hearing? The one that did all that, and still looked so good that you couldn’t help giving them a chance, over and over, despite their obvious idiocy? I’m sure you do. And if you’re like me, you’ve noticed a trend in Hollywood, the trend to make big budget spectacles that represent the embodiment of that person transferred onto a piece of film.

The Day After Tomorrow is one of those movies. From Roland Emmerich, creator of the mega-hit Independence Day and the mega-flop Godzilla, the new film about a climate change that threatens the fate of humanity is filled with marvelous storm sequences, beautiful overhead shots, and attractive and interesting actors. Yet it lacks any originality, any non-blatant message, or any intelligence in its script. It’s a film worth looking at, but not worth thinking about.

Maybe I’m being a little harsh. The smartest thing about the plot of the film, once the storms system is divulged, is that it does not look at ways to stop the storm, but ways to survive the storm. Sure, there’s the scientist (Dennis Quaid) who is the only one who seems to “get it”, but he’s more involved with a plan of escape than a plan of attack. The film is wise to not try and formulate a absurd method to try and stop the oncoming chaos, probably remembering last year’s debacle The Core or the late 90’s hit Armageddon as guidelines. The feeling of helplessness against Mother Nature adds more depth to the story than the aforementioned films, which is a good touch. The problem is, it’s handled rather poorly.

We follow Quaid’s scientist some of the time, traversing through political mumblings and scientific blueprints that never appear too technical. We also follow his wife (Sela Ward), a doctor who’s left in her hospital alone with a young cancer patient she won’t leave behind. We also follow another group of scientists, led by Ian Holm, who are in the middle of nowhere, yet seem to get any information on the storm before Quaid does in Washington. We also follow his son (Jake Gyllenhaal, in his first blockbuster role after several small budget dramatic gems) and his prospective girlfriend (Emmy Rossum, who’s quite adorable) through New York City tidal waves and snowstorms (which are easily the film’s best sequences). Most of these characters, especially the side characters they encounter, have no depth or meaning in the story. There’s also a large bit of irony when we’re introduced to the U.S. President, who in three scenes manages to give one of the most emotionless and uncharismatic performances I’ve ever seen, and who might as well have been portrayed by a cardboard cutout of a politician with a voice box connected to it. They all seem to be caricatures instead of characters, which is strike number one against the film.

Strike two comes late in the film, when things have already gotten as bad as they can get, at least in our eyes. Emmerich didn’t see it that way, and continued to up the ante until the point of ludicrousness, with action pieces that remove the storm from a role of antagonism and places other items, whether they be weak glass, wolves, or a taxicab bumper, in its place. These touches take away the awe of the story at crucial moments, and though they could occur in the situation, they don’t seem to be the tools needed to tell this tale.

Of course, the biggest question I kept asking myself while watching this film was “How can they end it?” Therein lies the third and final strike against the film. I won’t divulge into details for the sake of future viewers, especially because I can see how the ending placed on the film works in completing the story. Again, I simply didn’t think it was the method the story deserved.

Despite these numerous shortcomings, The Day After Tomorrow never ceased to keep my eyes glued to the screen with amazing effects, a fair amount of tension, and a surprising amount of humor, which is much appreciated even late in the film when the jokes are revolving around burning books and foreign policy. It’s a premise that could have been handled much better in the story department, but Emmerich’s flair with effects and camerawork make it succeed in being passable entertainment.

I can’t recommend or condemn The Day After Tomorrow, I can only advise you to make up your own mind on whether the spectacular sights and lack of plot are worth your time. If you can accept that, head to your local megaplex now, because this is a big-screen spectacular you won’t want to miss. If not, skip it.

The Notebook

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating:RATED PG-13 for sexual suggestions and partial nudity
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Rachel McAdams, James Garner, Gena Rowlands
Directed By: Nick Cassavetes

Final Grade:

In many cases, films that are based upon the concept of “true love” get a bad reputation from critics and moviegoers. The characters in these tales often act in ways that seem unreasonable, unlikely, and unnecessary, and the overly sentimental message of these films is too much for most. But in the case of The Notebook, it’s what makes me love it. This is a romance that’s true to that word, not this world.

The story of Allie and Noah, adapted from Nicholas Sparks’ acclaimed novel, is romance in its purest fictional level. Their actions may not be probable, and at times are extremely unbelievable. But, in the context of the story, they’re perfectly in-line with what should happen to these characters. They’re rare people, whose personalities and characteristics aren’t restricted by ordinary guidelines.

Leaving those points aside, Nick Cassavetes’ film is a beautifully shot one, which is carried by a charismatic cast. Leading in this aspect are Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams, who give star-making performances as the couple in peril. Gosling (Murder by Numbers, The Believer) shows his potential to be a fierce, yet likable leading man down the road, while McAdams’ (Mean Girls) beauty and charm are impossible to miss. It’s refreshing to see two young actors paired like this, and I have a feeling this film may be looked back on in a few years as a starting point for two stars – Gosling’s already landed upcoming roles working with the likes of Steven Soderbergh, Benicio Del Toro, and Ewan McGregor; while McAdams is now the frontrunner for the female lead in The Fantastic Four. This film is a welcome to Hollywood stardom for them both.

With all this praise I’ve been pouring on with, you’d think this was a perfect film. It’s not. Firstly, if you’ve seen the film’s trailer, the film’s biggest surprise has probably been spoiled for you. It’s really not a hard one to see coming, as the narrative doesn’t rely on much suspense, nor does it hide its intentions. The plot dips into the well of love story clichés often, and the finale is a strangely abrupt change of pace, though it fits together better in retrospect. Particularly out of place is the third act revelation from Allie’s mother (the great Joan Allen, in a thankless and brief role), which seems to be a sudden and improbable change.

I could pick The Notebook apart in these respects, but I don’t really want to. I felt for these characters, and felt a great deal of joy in watching actors so passionate about their roles. This level of care helps the fantastic love tale that is the plot’s soul cancel out the clichés and predictability, and at times manages to overthrow them. The Notebook isn’t a perfect film, nor does it fit well into these summer months, sandwiched between big budget spectacles and ridiculous comedies. But it’s a pleasant diversion that left me with a smile on my face and characters I’ll remember, which is more than I can say most films of this genre.

Shrek 2

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating:RATED PG for lotsa Ogre Kissing….EWWWWWW!!!!
Starring: Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Antonio Banderas
Directed By: Andrew Adamson, Kelly Asbury, Conrad Vernon

Final Grade:

Three years ago, in movie theaters not so far away, a film called Shrek swept in like a knight in shining armor and saved the animated film genre from what looked like certain doom. Many of Hollywood’s finest stars were on board for what turned out to be most marvelous results. To make a tall story short, they all made enough money and won enough awards to live happily ever after, even if they were far inferior to the same year’s Monster’s, Inc.

But, the lords of the land called Hollywood didn’t seem to think it was enough. And so, with the legacy of the first film tucked in their pockets, they set out to change the face of animated films again. The final product was a rare theatrical sequel, with all the big stars back in action, and even a few more. The ante had been upped…Could they possibly make it through this uncharted territory and get back to the land of “Happily Ever After?”

For the sake of my readers’ sanity (and my own), I will answer this question in writing that doesn’t resemble a drugged-out children’s-book author. I didn’t think I’d be saying this, but Shrek 2 overcomes its roots as a sequel and actually improves on its predecessor, easily supplanting itself as one of the funniest films of the year, and definitely as the funniest one that’s safe for the whole family.

The plot of the sequel involves Shrek and his true love Fiona, whom have been married, traveling to the land of Far Far Away, where her family has requested to meet her new husband. Of course, like most Ogres, he’s met by hesitation and apprehension, and soon the King, the Fairy Godmother, and the notorious Puss In Boots are all out to end the marriage.

There’s more to it than that, of course, but like most fairy tales, the setup gives away the ending to anyone who’s not under the age of four. The story isn’t exactly brilliant and or suspenseful, so what is there that makes the film worthwhile?

For starters, the animation is beautiful. It’s a far better looking film than its precursor, and at times I found myself wondering if several little details actually were animated, suspecting real images had snuck into the film under my nose. As a man who doesn’t give most animated films the time of day, I was impressed by the imagery, though not to the level of a film like last year’s Finding Nemo. Regardless, it’s a beautifully “drawn” fairy tale land that deserves recognition.

The key to my interest, as with many adult viewers, was the cast of stars, who are in top form. Mike Myers (Shrek), Eddie Murphy (Donkey), and Cameron Diaz (Fiona) return from the original with much success. Myers’ accents are always fun, and Diaz is serviceable (albeit replaceable) as the love interest. Murphy’s role is toned down a bit from the first film, but he still manages to be hilarious when necessary, and is still the comedic centerpiece of the story. The new arrivals, including Antonio Banderas as Puss, John Cleese as Fiona’s father the King, and Larry King as the Ugly Stepsister, are well picked, although I wish Cleese would’ve had more to work with. Banderas’ voice seems to have been made for this role, and steals several scenes. I couldn’t help thinking that “Donkey and Puss” could make a very funny spin-off. Granted, I’d settle for just Puss, as Banderas’ frisky feline is the far more interesting of the two, and cuter too.

While Shrek 2 lacks the originality and sharpness of Shrek, and features a romantic plot that isn’t very romantic (due mostly to predictability), it’s full of plenty of great zingers and hilarious references to pop-culture (Everything from fast food to boy bands to films like Godzilla and Blazing Saddles gets spoofed). The kids will laugh, the parents will laugh, and pretty much everyone else will too. I can’t recommend the story of Shrek 2, but you’ll laugh more than enough while admiring some great fairy tale images. Its popularity has already has led to the production two more sequels (Can they really expect us to fall for the same love story TWO MORE TIMES????), so go check out Shrek 2 and get the magic while it’s there. Odds are that you’ll leave happily (ever?…Nah, I won’t go that far) after the movie.

Troy

A Film Review By Jason L. King

Rating:Rated R for graphic violence and some sexuality/nudity.
Starring:Eric Bana, Brad Pitt,Orlando Bloom, Brian Cox, Peter O’Toole
Directed By:Wolfgang Petersen

Final Grade:

The big star big budget blockbuster is a great way to kick off the summer season. Every year summer has tuned to high budget, high action films to bring in the box office bank. Normally the only thing that is bigger than the money the films draw is the combined egos of the actors, directors and producers involved. Names like Bruckheimer and Bay, Will Smith, Keanu Reeves, Hugh Jackman, and more pop into people’s heads as they go to the box offices. The films hardly ever pan out in the end. They get regarded as popcorn flicks with hardly any real substance. Troy is one of these flicks.

Based on the classic epic“ The Iliad” by Homer, Troy tells the story of Paris of Sparta (Orlando Bloom) who falls in love with a beautiful girl, Helen of Troy. Helen returns to Sparta with Paris against the King of Troy’s wishes. Paris refuses to let Helen go and so a war breaks out. All of the Great Warriors of the lands are called out, including the mighty Achilles (Brad Pitt) and the Great Warrior Hector of Troy. The story then carries on to tell of the battles of Troy and fall of Troy through the famous story of the Trojan Horse, which as I look back on it I still find the story incredibly stupid (not the Iliad, but the Trojan Horse part). But oh well, what do I know?

I originally saw Troy believe it or not the weekend it opened. Try and try as I may, I just couldn’t crank out a review for Troy that was to my liking. Flaunting a great cast of young and old and a great story (Homer’s the Iliad), this film had a lot of things going for it. But in the end, I was sad to say the film fell short. Where did it fall short you might ask? Well together lets count the ways.

The main problem I had with the film is the whole mythology aspect of the film. Whether one has read works such as the Iliad or not, the fact of the matter is that Mythology was important to the ancient Greeks. This should have been an important aspect of the film, however they choose to ignore the existence of the Gods, which downplays Brad Pitt’s Character a great deal. Few understand why Achilles is such a great warrior, and they only briefly acknowledge that he is the Son of a God who is nearly immortal except for one vulnerable point (his Achilles tendon- which is where the term got its name). They also down play the somewhat Homoerotic relationship that exists between Achilles and his cousin Protocolus, because even though this is the new millennium and Gay pride is the thing right now, we would never suggest that our main manly hero is *gasp * Gay! Who would think of a thing! Instead we give Achilles a slave girl to fall in love with. Pitt’s character in general is regarded as an uncontrollable rebel and never really given any back-story at all.

The role of Paris, played by Orlando Bloom is also wasted in the film, and this is because plain and simple Bloom can’t act. Ladies this may come as a shock to you, but I just don’t see the attraction. The man has slim to none when it comes to acting ability and while he isn’t hard on the eyes, I can’t really say that he is that great either. His role in Troy is pretty much to walk around acting like Will Turner from Pirates of the Caribbean who is playing Dress up like the ancient Greeks. His character is what sticks out in this film not because of his performance, but instead his lack there of. He spouts off dialogue that makes you cringe and is basically there to walk around shirtless or half clothed to keep the ladies there for the film’s 2 hour and 45 minute runtime.

The films biggest drawback was it’s writing, although it’s acting didn’t help. The script was poorly written, things were left out, things were added in and parts were nothing more than complete cheese. As a viewer I cringed at the cheesy dialogue the film touted, and every time the film started to turn around another poorly written sequence popped up. In one of the supposedly “intense scenes” Pitt Refers to Agamemnon (played by Brian Cox) as a “Sack of Wine.” As cheesy as that sounds that is an actual line from the Iliad, the problem is that it is delivered in such a manner that makes you laugh at this scene that should be far more intense.

In the end, you can’t say Troy was all that bad. Truth is it wasn’t. Adapting such a thing is hard to do, and they did a somewhat decent job of bringing to life ancient Greece on the big screen. Eric Bana, star of last year’s “The Hulk” does an excellent job in the Role of Hector, and Peter O’Toole gives a great performance as the aging King, Priam. Problem is there are too many strikes against Troy to claim it a must see film. It’s boiled down to a 2 and a half hour chance for ladies to go watch Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, Eric Bana and The Mike (well maybe not Mike) walk around shirtless while boys get to watch two computer generated armies face off against each other again. We’ve all seen it 3 years in a row with Lord Of The Rings, and Troy brought nothing new to the table. Plain and simple, Troy may be worth a view, but don’t rush out of your way to see this flick.

Van Helsing

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating:RATED PG-13 for stylized violence and monsters
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, Richard Roxburgh
Directed By: Stephen Sommers

Final Grade:

While watching Van Helsing, the first of our summer blockbusters for 2004, I decided there are two snippets of dialogue that can be used to sum up the quality of the film. They are this exchange:

“There’s a brighter side to death?”
“Of course there is, it’s just harder to see.”

and this plot device:

“Nothing’s faster than a Transylvanian horse; not even a Werewolf.”

Knowing that those two bits, one a ludicrously contradicting attempt at depth and one a ludicrously silly plot device, exist in the film should let you know what to expect (although the fact that it’s a movie about a man who hunts Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, The Wolf Man, and the unadvertised Dr. Hyde should be a hint) from Van Helsing. I’ve used it twice already, but ludicrous is easily the best word to describe the film.

The plot, if one is kind enough to call it a plot, revolves around Gabriel (Not Abraham, for some reason, even though that is his real name) Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman), who’s hired out by the Vatican as the greatest slayer of evil alive. After an opening encounter with Mr. Hyde, he’s sent on his next mission: To destroy Count Dracula, the lord of Transylvania, and protect the family that’s trying to destroy him’s remaining members, which basically means the beautiful Kate Beckinsale.

Count Dracula on the other hand, apparently bored with his three beautiful winged brides, is on a mission to find a way to bring his offspring into the world. You see, the children of the undead Dracula and his undead brides are, of course, born dead. He doesn’t approve of this, and so he enlists the help of Dr. Victor Frankenstein, who has found the secret of life. Unfortunately, that plan goes awry as the villagers storm Frankenstein’s lab, and the doctor and his creation are burnt up in a windmill….or are they????

Meanwhile, the Wolf Man’s on the loose too. Yep, that’s it.

As you can tell by what I’ve said already, Van Helsing is a bloated film, cramming so much into so little, especially when trying to make its plot make sense. It works, for the most part, as most every plot device used comes into play at some point in the film, but that’s not always a good thing. There were several times throughout the film that I found myself laughing at the screen, wondering if anyone could ever take this movie seriously with such a contrived story and a lack of depth. I surely could not.

But the thing about Van Helsing is, I didn’t care one bit. None of these plot gripes that I’ve posted for your use meant a thing to me. I (literally) grew up watching these monsters and learning their mythologies (and have a 2nd Grade project to prove it), and this film brings them to life in a modern setting I’ve always hoped for. Van Helsing is loud and brash, and undoubtedly boils down to being a never-ending action scene. But it’s a fun one if you’re ready for it.

You know that reaction teenage girls get at romantic comedies? The faces they make when Hilary Duff or Sandra Bullock finally gets the guy to notice them? That was my reaction to nearly the entire final half-hour of Van Helsing. My babies were fighting it out, and it made me giddy. Call me crazy, but I can’t help reacting that way.

As a critic, I tried awfully hard not to like Van Helsing. From an unbiased perspective, it’s a mediocre to awful film, despite its good humor, great CGI, and solid action scenes. But, if you know what you’re getting into, and can fully accept that you’re going to be watching a ludicrous spectacle instead of a substantial film, Van Helsing will be a pleasurable view you’ll not soon forget.

?>