Archive for September, 2011

Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles

The title of this movie is a very apt description of what it contains, although the contents of the interview are something not revealed in the title. Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles has an interview, and has a vampire, but the interview tells a story with flashbacks, and, as we find out, there are multiple vampires. A better title would be “A Story that a Vampire is Telling that Involves Multiple Vampires”. But that wouldn’t be a very good title now, would it? Nor is it very catchy, but it would be more accurate.

We open up with a reporter getting his things together while a man named Louis (Brad Pitt) is standing in the same room. Louis claims he is a vampire, and begins to tell his tale the last night he was still human. He had just lost his wife and child, and says that he no longer wished to live. A vampire named Lestat (Tom Cruise) comes along and grants his wish, in a manner of speaking. Louis becomes a vampire, although he has no idea how to behave like such a creature. That’s what Lestat’s primary role is in the film. He must teach Louis both the advantages and disadvantages of his “dark gift”, as well as try to make him act upon his new-found urge to drink blood.

See, Louis still likes human life, and doesn’t enjoy hunting, draining and then killing them. He’s a good guy who just got tired of living, so as a reward, he’s been given immortal life. The first portion of the film is like watching a class on how vampires would really act if we were in the late 1700’s — and one of them was really bad at it. The lengths that Louis goes to in order to avoid killing a human end up being fairly comical, and we end up finding him with a pile of dead rats around him more often than not.

Eventually, he gives into these instincts of his, and munches upon the neck of a little girl named Claudia (Kirsten Dunst). Because Lestat has been set up as the vampire without a conscience, he turns Claudia into a vampire so that Louis won’t leave. They end up becoming her adoptive parents, and go about their business for years to come.

Do you think I’ve told the entire story? Of course I haven’t. I’ve gotten you to just about the half-way point, which may be too far but I believe that the adoption of Claudia is when Interview with the Vamprie really gets going, so I feel no shame in explaining up until this point. I’ll say only that there’s a reason that there’s only one vampire conducting the interview and telling us the story, although I think a roundtable discussion might have been even more interesting.

Not a lot happens in the movie in terms of plot developments. When things do happen, they often feel unnecessary. Later on in the film, a cult comes out of nowhere, and it’s lead by Antonio Banderas. But there are no hints regarding it earlier in the film, and it just shows up to add some unneeded tension to a film that’s more of an atmosphere piece than anything else.

See, for most of the time this film was playing, I was enjoying it. I liked seeing Louis try to survive without eating humans, and I had fun watching Lestat try to force him to do it. Watching little Claudia become the most enthusiastic vampire of the group was an interesting development too, especially because it’s often shown that the life of a vampire isn’t all fun and games.

But then this cult just shows up out of nowhere and ruins it. It has a reason for appearing, which I won’t reveal, but their reason was that only kind of made sense, and also one not hinted about earlier in the film. It would have been easier to include a line or two in order to make us think about this, but no, this doesn’t happen. Part of the blame has to go to Anne Rice, who wrote then novel that this film is based on, but adding those two lines wouldn’t have deviated from the book too much, would it have?

The atmosphere and tone of Interview with the Vampire is what makes it as enjoyable as it ends up being. We get the sadness that is ever-present, and we get to see the lives of these vampires, and how they operate. They don’t get to make friends, they have to kill multiple humans a week, and it doesn’t look like a lot of fun. And this comes across from both the actors and also the Gothic visuals that dominate the picture.

Not a lot happens in the film, but I’ll argue that you don’t actually need much to happen in this kind of film. You can count the number of major events that occur on one hand, and that’s all you really need. In fact, the entire cult segment could have been skipped over, and the film would have been better for it. This is a film about three characters and watching how they live their lives. Nothing more need be added, even if some tension is artificially added later on, just for the sake of feeling the need to keep the audience interested — something I already was.

Interview with the Vampire is a good movie, but fails to be great because it attempts to include elements that have little connection to the plot, and end up being more of a distraction than an improvement. It has good actors and a great atmosphere, both of which allow us to experience the sorrows that come with being transformed into a vampire. Romanticized? Maybe. But it’s still transfixing for the majority of its runtime.

Defiance

Defiance feels like a film that’s trying too hard to be epic and wholly entertaining, but is trying so hard that we notice its efforts and can only bow our head in shame of how badly it wants to please us. At one point in the film, Daniel Craig gets on top of a horse in order to deliver a speech that’s supposed to be inspirational not only to the group he’s presenting it to, but also to us, the audience of the film. But he’s on the horse only for this reason, and it only comes into play one other time, later in the film — not before. We’re distracted by the horse’s involvement that it’s hard to take what Craig is saying seriously, and it’s here that we realize Defiance is trying too hard. And then there’s still an hour more to go for us to fully realize this belief.

This doesn’t necessarily make it a bad film, and we can certainly appreciate the effort given here, but it does take away some of the drama from something with as heavy a subject as the Holocaust. The film stars Daniel Craig as Tuvia Bielski and Liev Schreiber as his brother Zus. Zus begins the film as the only adult on-screen, and when he arrives home, he finds his parents slaughtered in their home. He heads to the forest, where he meets Tuvia, and the two begin to make camp. They’re joined by other fleeing Jews, and then more, before they’ve got a small colony on their hands.

There’s a couple of problems with trying to get a large number of people to survive in the middle of a forest. Firstly, and probably most importantly, food was scarce when it was only the two brothers and their close family. Feeding dozens and then hundreds of people isn’t going to be easy. There’s also the fact that some of these people are old or sick, which means that if Nazis find them, it’s going to be difficult to flee without severe casualties. Zus knows this, and wants to team up with the Russians and fight, while Tuvia just wants to survive, taking a more pacifist (and humane) approach.

Of course, this ideological difference ends in the two fighting about who’s in charge, what they should do next, how they will survive, and even if they should kill a man delivering milk to the Germans (under punishment of death if he didn’t comply, obviously). You won’t be surprised when this is resolved rather suddenly, nor will you be surprised by how it is solved, but suffice to say that it is.

But that’s about as deep as the story gets. These people have to survive for months, and that includes winter. The scenes that are snow-covered were the worst of the picture, so take comfort in the fact that this segment is also the shortest part. They’re not enjoyable because the characters can’t do anything other than huddle around a fire the whole time, as there is supposed to be the threat of freezing to death ever-present (although freezing is only really shown in one scene, and the rest of the time, they don’t seem that cold).

This is a true story, so the opening scene tells us, although simple research tells me that the brothers weren’t presented all that accurately. I didn’t care, as these types of liberties need to be taken when making a film, but I did care about how they were altered. In real life, so I’ve been told, these people were not simply the heroes they’re presented as in the film. They were complex people, who often did not act for the good of the whole group. What we’re given are simple characters who just want to survive in fairly harsh conditions — action heroes stuck in a drama. This isn’t nearly as interesting, especially because Defiance isn’t an action film, despite very much wishing to be.

There are action scenes. Seemingly whenever director Edward Zwick wants to, he’ll drop one or many Nazis into the mix, just so that we can have a shootout scene or two. While this doesn’t get boring, it seems like an excuse just to have gunfights. They’re not poorly made action scenes, but they fly by and end up serving breaking up the tale of survival by a group of people — something that’s actually more interesting. It also ends with a larger shootout, one where our group is overmatched and outnumbered. Right when it started, I knew how it was going to end. I hoped I was wrong, and I hoped that the film had the guts to subvert a cliché with the ending scenes, but I wasn’t wrong.

For the most part, Defiance works. It balances a tricky maneuver in having romance stories, a coming-of-age story and being a war movie about a group of survivors. There’s an entire community of people, with the ones we get to meet being memorable characters with unique personalities. It stays entertaining because there’s an enemy that can drop by at any time, and because most of these people are vulnerable and won’t be able to defend themselves. And Daniel Craig delivering a speech on a horse is fairly epic in its own right, distracting as it might be.

But, it fails in trying to be too good for what it is. There are moments set-up, and then nothing is done with them, or others that are set-up for the one scene, and then they’re done with, never to be mentioned again. At one point in the film, Tuvia is burdened with a cough that starts getting worse. Is he okay? We question this, but then it’s resolved in an instant, and we find out it was just a cold. What was the point in this? It allows him to meet a female, but that could have easily been done in a better way, instead of emasculating him and making us question whether or not he’s fit to lead this group of people.

Like I said though, Defiance does work, it just seems like it’s trying to please the audience by doing more than it needs to. That’s its main problem, and it’s a distracting one. But the action is fine, if clichéd, and the story is one that is interesting and worth telling. It’s a solid war movie that will keep you entertained for more than two hours, even if it’s not as epic as it clearly wants to be.

Transporter 3

For the first half of Transporter 3, the character of Frank Martin (Jason Statham) comes about as close as he ever does to being the person that he’s built up to be in the first scene of the first Transporter. He’s cold, detached, and just wants to get the job done. Unfortunately, this, once again, is disregarded when a love interest shows up, and the film takes a hit because of this decision.

The time around, Frank winds up being captured and forced to transport something for a villain named Johnson (Robert Knepper). He has a bomb attached to his wrist that will detonate if he finds himself 75 feet away from his car. He really doesn’t have a choice here, and decides to just go with the flow, all while looking for a way out. Things don’t go as planned, as they never do, and he ends up involved in a bunch of car chases, fist fights and other action scenes. He has a passenger too, named Valentina (Natalya Rudakova), who ends up being the aforementioned love interest, despite her never doing anything but whine or mope about her situation.

The plot, this time around, focuses on blackmail and a company that may not be in the best interest of global health. We cut to shots of some ships off the coast, which need permission to dock. Or something like that. It really didn’t make all that much sense, and it’s all just a reason to have Jason Statham driving fast and punching some people in the face. Action scenes dominate this picture, but unfortunately they’re not all that interesting, entertaining or creative.

There isn’t a single action scene in Transporter 3 that you haven’t seen before, and done better. While the chase scenes are still somewhat thrilling, the fights aren’t. They’re full of quick cuts which make is somewhat difficult to tell what’s going on, and apart from one that has a slightly creative use of clothing, they’re all fairly mundane as far as these things go. But then again, he uses the clothing this way similarly to how the fire hose was used in Transporter 2, so I suppose it’s not that creative here anyway.

However, the fight scenes don’t make much sense from the bad guys’ perspective either. They attack Frank one at a time, even if there are 15 men surrounding him. they have weapons, he doesn’t, so why don’t they swarm him? Well, because that would inconvenience our hero, I guess. But it makes it feel unauthentic, and yes, I say that in context of a film that has a car drive on its side to pass two trucks on the road.

Like the first Transporter, the soundtrack is terrible and doesn’t fit the action on-screen whatsoever. It’s noisy, noticeable and a nuisance, distracting us instead of immersing. It’s like listening to someone who has just recently discovered that music can be put on top of footage, and they forgot to select appropriate tracks or use the volume feature. As a result, you almost feel the need to turn the volume down, but stop because then you won’t get to hear Jason Statham talk — he’s such a quiet action hero.

At least he’s slightly charismatic, even if he rarely shows emotion. His ride-along partner is worse. She’s annoying, shows even less range than Statham (is that even possible?) and serves simply to make you want to kick her out of the vehicle. Natalya Rudakova is a newcomer to the acting world, but despite getting months of acting lessons, still cannot act. She often looks lost, and her character was written poorly. When the bad guys show up with “all the guns”, I wanted her to take a bullet to the brain. Somehow, Frank Miller fell in love.

In action scenes, we need something apart from the action to hold us. The first Transporter didn’t give us anything supplementary, and it failed as a result. Transporter 2 did, which allowed it to be a lot of fun. Falling into the traps of the first film, Transporter 3 has nothing else to hold or involve us, and since the action scenes are not well-made, you’ll likely get bored instead of having fun. If an action film is not fun, it’s not doing its job well enough.

There are only a couple of ties that this film has to its two predecessors. The first is Frank Martin, and the second is the inclusion of the French police officer, Tarconi (François Berléand). For (hopefully) the final time, this character serves little purpose and just pads the runtime. He is always one step behind Frank and the villains, and even when he does catch up to them, he does nothing.

The reasons one would want to watch this type of film are obvious. You want a quick adrenaline rush, you want to watch Jason Statham have his shirt torn off a few times, or you want to watch poor filmmaking in action. If you are not wanting to see one of these three things, then you might as well just skip this film, because you’ll take absolutely nothing from it.

Transporter 3 is not a good action film. It has absolutely nothing going for it, except for maybe Jason Statham in the lead role. Apart from that, the action scenes are difficult to watch, the plot is there just to set-up action scenes, there aren’t any good characters, and I found myself wanting to press “mute” whenever music started playing. I didn’t care about anything that was happening, and found myself glancing at the clock, hoping that it would end soon. Thankfully, it’s a short film, so you won’t have to endure it for all that long.

X-Men

The reason that X-Men works as both an introduction to the series and as a standalone movie is because of the character of Wolverine (Hugh Jackman). Without his character, or one that is similar, it would be very difficult to set-up some of the things that have already been established before the film begins, without it sounding redundant to the other characters. However, since Wolverine starts the film off as a blank slate, people can tell him, and us, things that everyone else already knows, and it serves a purpose within the plot.

One day, a high-school runaway named Rogue (Anna Paquin) runs into the aforementioned Wolverine, and the two set out on the road together. They’re attacked by a big, hairy man named Sabretooth (Tyler Mane), but are saved by a man who can shoot lasers beams out of his eyes, named Cyclops (James Marsden), and a woman who can control the weather, Storm (Halle Berry). They are both brought to a school for mutants — people with special powers — with Rogue becoming a student, and Wolverine sticking around because the professor, Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), promises that he’ll help Wolverine recover some of his lost memories.

See, for reasons that are not explained at this point in the film, Wolverine has little to no memory of a large portion of his life. Xavier’s can then explain to him anything that we, the audience, need to know, and it sounds natural enough inside the film. One of the things that Xavier tells him is that Sabretooth was ordered to attack him by a mutant named Magneto (Ian McKellen). The reason for this attack is revealed later on in the film, but suffice to say that Wolverine had something that Magneto wanted.

The “X-Men” that are mentioned in the title are the oldest and most experienced people at Xavier’s school. The two people who saved Wolverine and Rogue near the beginning of the film are part of it, but they are also joined by the school’s doctor, Jean Grey (Famke Janssen). She has telekinesis and some telepathy. (Although her telepathy is nowhere near as strong as Xavier’s, we are told). Wolverine’s power is an accelerated healing rate, and the fact that he can make three claws come out of his knuckles whenever he wants. Rogue, well, whoever she touches ends up knocked out. And if she touches a mutant, she gets their ability for a while.

Have I covered every mutant in the movie yet? Definitely not, because there are still the villains to talk about. Sabretooth seems to be able to take a lot of punishment without damage to his body, although his powers aren’t explicitly mentioned. Magneto has the ability to move anything that is made of metal, while the other person he hires, named Toad (Ray Park), has an extra long tongue and is very flexible. There’s also Mystique (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos), who has a blue body when in her “natural” state, but can shape-shift into almost whatever body type she wants to. It seems to me that the names of these characters were all very easy to come up with. But maybe this is a good thing, because when we see them use their powers, we instantly recall their names, because of how directly correlated the two are.

Speaking of powers, most of them are done through CGI. Not all of them, because things like Wolverine’s claws are easier to make molds of, but things like Cyclops’ lasers, Storm’s lightning or Toad’s tongue were all computer animated. The result is actually quite good. There’s only one part that looked fake, and that was Storm’s lightning strikes. They look quite bad, and you can easily tell that lightning wouldn’t work that way. The rest all looks believable enough though, which is quite impressive considering that X-Men came out in 2000.

Even though the special effects do look quite good, the action scenes without them are less impressive. There are two hand-to-hand combat scenes in the film, both occurring near the end. To put it bluntly, they are poorly done. Firstly, it barely looks like the characters are hitting one another. Secondly, the choreography is lacking. Finally, characters fly way too far for how hard they’re supposedly hit. When CGI is flying at one another, this kind of makes sense. You get hit with a Cyclops’ laser, you might fly back ten feet. A punch wouldn’t do that, and when it barely looks like the punch connects anyway, it feels really fake.

I’ll always maintain that X-Men’s cast is very good. The cast plays their roles well, but that’s to be expected when the cast consists of Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry. These actors all put a lot of work into their characters, and it was nice to see that translating the X-Men from the comics to the big screen didn’t make the series lose energy. They may even take their characters too seriously, but that’s hardly a problem in my eyes. No, it’s not a 100% faithful adaptation, but really, what is? To me, everyone did an excellent job, both in terms of actors, and the people who put the film together.

X-Men was clearly opening the franchise for more film adaptations. In that regard, it did an excellent job. We learn some things about the characters, but just enough to make us intrigued enough to want to learn more. The plot only really gets going in the last 30 minutes, but we need the first hour to give us the information we need in order to care about these characters, as well as to give us enough back-story so that the next film won’t need to have as much explaining. All of the actors played their roles well, and it’s just a shame that a small bit of CGI felt out-of-place. Ultimately though, that’s not enough to stop X-Men from being a great film.

Spider-Man 3

I’m not sure whether or not to dislike Spider-Man 3 for being too complex in its narrative or praise it for at least trying to top its predecessor. Maybe both. See, in this film, there seems to be every attempt made in order to best the previous films in the series, with some of these endeavors paying off, but the majority falling flat. This is unfortunate, because with only a few tweaks, Spider-Man 3 could have been better than the first two films. As it is, it’s the worst of the three.

Some of the problems don’t just stem from over ambition, instead coming from the story itself, and how certain characters are portrayed within the film. The primary example of this is the way that the villain Venom is handled, being completely different from his comic book origins. What’s most surprising about Sam Raimi’s rendition of Venom is that he ends up being the only “true villain” within the film trilogy.

In the previous two films, Spider-Man’s enemies were not that way by their own will. The Green Goblin had gas injected into him that turned him evil, while Dr. Octopus’ mechanical arms made him act out of order. This is true one again in the case of two of this film’s villains as well. There are three in this film: The aforementioned Venom, (mentioning the actor playing him would be a spoiler), Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) and the new Green Goblin (James Franco). The latter two villains are misunderstood and reluctant characters, actually warranting some sympathy from the audience, just like the villains from the first two films.

What’s odd about this is that Venom is a perfect character to have this same dynamic. In the comics, as I’m told, Venom actually believed that he was doing the right thing–that he was a hero. He thought that by fighting Spider-Man, he was doing the city of New York a favor. He even saves the lives of some citizens. Here, he’s in it for one reason, and that’s his own self-interest in being evil. This just seems like an odd choice to me, especially given the trilogy’s past.

The way that Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is portrayed is also inconsistent with the rest of the film series. Now, some of this is due to the events that occur within the film, but some of it is just due to poor choices on the part of the writer. Once again, Parker seems to make poor choice after poor choice, making us question his maturity levels. And then, mid-way through the film, he is infected with the parasitic symbiote that landed on Earth earlier in the film.

This turns him into a darker character. Picture a stereotypical “emo” character, and apply that to Peter Parker, and you’ll get a pretty good idea about what happens to him. However, he still seems happy, just more reckless and with a worse hairstyle. During this transformation, one of the more cringe-worthy scenes that I have ever seen occurs. It’s really terrible, but is only one of the really poor scenes in the film.

There’s one more that’s really bad, and this occurs much earlier in the film. Harry Osbourne found his father’s Green Goblin outfit at the end of Spider-Man 2. He dawns this outfit in the first real action scene of this film, attacking Spider-Man. During this fight scene, it is glaringly obvious that it was all special effects, and it really took me out of the moment. All possible emotion it could have had was all removed just because it was so easy to see that it wasn’t real.

These two scenes are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to this film. The good parts mostly come from the battles that take place between Spider-Man and the multiple villains within it. These are special effect spectacles, with the exception of the early Spidey-Goblin fight, and they are really exciting to watch. With a budget as large as the one this film had–$258 million–you should expect a lot of entertainment in the action scenes, and for the most part, that’s what you get.

There are also some interesting developments in terms of the non-superhero plots. Some, not most. In fact, only a few are actually interesting, others are just boring. It’s a superhero film that attempts to make us feel for its lead characters. It attempts to do this, but it rarely succeeds. The series was successful at doing this in the first two films, particularly in the case of its villains, but in this one, it just fails.

By the end, you are unlikely to feel any sympathy for anyone, even the two villains that the film want you to care for. Sandman apparently isn’t a bad person because he only wants the money to help his sick daughter. Osbourne isn’t bad, because he doesn’t know the whole story about what happened on the night his father died. Mary Jane is treated poorly, another character has his life ruined, but by the end, none of it matters, because you won’t care.

Unlike the first two films, Spider-Man 3 needs to be taken in a different light. The first two films had real drama in terms of their characters, and you would actually grow to like and care about some of them. In the third film, this doesn’t happen. If you are to really enjoy Spider-Man 3, you need to largely ignore the plot, and instead, enjoy the set-pieces that $258 million can produce. There are too many characters that don’t get enough development, but the action scenes are fun enough to warrant a watch, especially if you enjoyed the previous two films.

?>