Clash of the Titans (2010) (Review)

     I knew I shouldn't have gone, but somehow, I couldn't resist.  I knew it was going to suck, but I had to find out, for myself, just how badly.

     "Clash of the Titans" is loosely based on the Ray Harryhausen, stop motion effects film by the same name and even more loosely on Greek mythology.  The Olympian gods are beginning to grow weak as humanity grow beyond their need for gods and stops worshiping them.  Actually, one kingdom, Argos, is waging war on the gods by destroying their temples and statues, thereby weakening them by depriving them of human prayers.  How they know this works is a mystery, but it does.  Hades hatches a plan to scare humanity back into worshiping them by destroying the city of Argos, but he is really trying to destroy the other gods and rule for himself.  Meanwhile, Perseus, son of Zeus, half god, half man, grows up knowing nothing of his true nature, loses his family to Hades, and broods throughout half of the movie.  The other half he spends letting people die because he doesn't like his god half and refuses to use it until everyone else is dead and he absolutely has to.  (Spoiled ingrate.)  There are lots of amped up, CGI battle scenes, some for no reason whatsoever, Perseus has to be practically carried on most of the journey because he'd rather brood over his dead family and his origin than do anything about it, and Zeus gives Perseus all the help he could ever need despite the fact that Zeus doesn't know there is a plot against him and he, himself, ordered Argos to be destroyed, the very event Perseus (or the people dying around him) is trying to prevent.  (Huh?)

     There is absolutely no reason for this movie to exist except to show epic battle scenes between Perseus and various mythological creatures and the gods, and those scenes are all sadly less than epic due to Perseus' whining insistence to not unleash his inner god.  The plot is full of holes and rushes along as it tries to get just enough story in to justify the next CGI, action sequence.  Sam Worthington, as Perseus, is lifeless and bland.  His character displays no emotion and he couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag.  The love story between Perseus and the other demi-god Io (wasn't it supposed to be the princess Andromeda?) is equally emotionless and must be spelled out for anyone to know it exists.  They did eliminate the corny mechanical owl as comic relief, but replaced it with two awkward hunters who stumble over each other and, somehow, manage to not die.  (The owl would have been preferable.)  The music is reminiscent of every factory or conveyor belt scene from any Looney Tunes cartoon.1  There are a few attempts at morals for the story, like ruling with love is better than ruling with fear or it's better to be a man than a god, but these attempts to inject meaning or substance into the story are clumsy executed and quickly become tiresome. 

     I watched the 2-D version, so I can't intelligently comment on the 3-D elements, but no theaters in the intimidate area were showing the 3-D version, despite available screens, and I think I know why.  I have read that the movie was originally not shot or rendered in 3-D, so it had to be converted, which lead to blurry action and odd, floating body parts.2  Whatever the case, I wouldn't recommend this movie in 2-D, much less paying extra for 3-D.

1 http://raymondscott.com/MENsndf.html
2 http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2010/04/02/crash_of_the_titans/   

Green Zone (Review)

     I had low expectations for "Green Zone."  I thought that Paul Greengrass' direction of "The Bourne Supremacy" and  "The Bourne Ultimatum" got progressively worse one film to the next and this was being billed as the next Greengrass/Damon action movie.  Surprisingly, it is more than that.  Not too much more, but Greengrass seems to be getting better.

     "Green Zone" takes place not long after the US invasion of Iraq.  Matt Damon plays Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, assigned to investigate suspected hiding places of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.  (Big surprise, he isn't finding any!)  Miller soon begins to suspect that the intelligence they are using is unreliable (another shocker) but his superiors don't believe (or don't want to believe) that the intelligence is to blame.  Enter Brendan Gleeson as CIA operative Martin Brown.  Brown is at odds with his superiors about the post invasion strategy (because there wasn't one) and recruits Miller to help him find the source of the faulty intelligence.  After that there's more 'plot' than an action movie should have, a lot of fast action, explosions, chase scenes and a heavy handed attempt at a moral.   

     Greengrass' style of shaky camera action actually works for most of the combat scenes, and the editing is not so fast that it makes the action sequences unintelligible; the chase scenes, however, are another matter.  There is an attempt to build suspense or turn "Green Zone" into some kind Bourne style mystery/thriller, but there really is no mystery.  (Unless, of course, you haven't paid any attention to the news for the past seven years.)  There are no weapons of mass destruction, the intelligence is faulty, and it is quite obvious who, in the movie, is to blame for that, and you spend half of the movie, literally, chasing that answer.  Top all that off with a less than satisfactory ending (we are STILL there, after all) and a very heavy handed 'moral,' and you've got something in between a passable action movie or a laughable suspense/thriller/spy/Bourne/whatever flick. 

     "Green Zone" is pure popcorn fodder.  If you can turn off your brain for a while, you might enjoy the explosions.  If not, then don't bother. 


P.S.  A few real people and companies who appear in "Green Zone" have had their names changed so this can be a work of fiction.  The basic premise, however, is not fiction.  We went into a sovereign nation on bad intelligence and had a poor plan for after the war.  If you can't bring yourself to admit that by now, just go back and watch Fox News.  They'll protect you from the scary truth (with their scary distortions.)  On the other hand, simply pointing out the reality of a seven year old situation is not enough reason to like a movie. 

The Crazies (Review)

     Crazed, bio-warfare zombies in a small town quarantined by the government; so much promise and so little delivery. 

     "The Crazies," a remake of George Romero 1973 film by the same name, is about a small Iowa farming community where residents are going insane.  Very slowly and calmly they become homicidal, bloody, and then dead.  Sheriff Dutton, played by Timothy Olyphant, who, surprisingly, is not a former police officer from 'the big city' who's come to a small town to get away from city crime and police drama, (everything else about the film was completely cliche, why shouldn't that be?) begins to piece together why townsfolk are ever so slowly going nuts, and figures it out, all too conveniently, just in time for the government to show up, quarantine the area, and evacuate everyone who isn't a bio-zombie.  Sheriff Dutton must, of course, escape from the government quarantine, to find his pregnant wife who has been falsely identified as being one of the crazies.  They then proceed to hook up with a couple of other survivors and wander around Iowa, trying to find a car and escape government quarantine.  

     This film has so many failings.  Where to begin?  Let's start with the fact that there is no tension.  Every time they try to build tension, it's obvious what's going to happen next, so there is no tension, just a long, boring moment where you wait for the bio-zombie to pop out, the gunshot that will save someone at the last second, or nothing at all.  (Ha ha, fooled you.  Not really.)  It got tedious quickly.  Also tedious was all the walking.  Most of this movie is people walking, or taking very short lived trips in vehicles, that they walked miles and miles to get to.  Some of this walking is supposed to be character development, but the characters are extremely cliche, so you know where all that's going as well.  The plot, if you can call it that, wanders around as much as the four main characters.  They are trying to escape, they are trying to find people, they are trying to escape, they are trying to find the military, they are trying to avoid the military, they are heading for the military, they are hiding from the military, and then they are trying to escape yet again.  Once you get the basics, bio-zombies, government quarantine, and a small group of survivors, all the characters in this movie do is slowly walk from one place to another, hoping to find a vehicle, and then they lose it really quickly.  Most of their wandering is pointless as well.  Why get a car when black hawk helicopters are constantly patrolling and killing anything that moves?  Why walk along the highway when black hawk helicopters are constantly patrolling and killing anything that moves?  Why head for the largest known concentration of military forces in the area if all you are going to do is try to sneak past them?  Worse than the lack of direction is the 'plot convenience theater' happening throughout the movie.  More than once, people outside or in other rooms, who don't have a clear view of what is happening, take miracle gun shots that take out bio-zombies and save their comrades in the nick of time.  Need to set a bio-zombie on fire?  Good thing you just happened to grab a lighter about five minutes ago.  Bio-zombies want to attack you while you're in the car?  Good thing it suddenly develops engine trouble and won't start.  All the convenient coincidences only make the predictability of the film worse because, now, you know exactly what's going to happen and it's highly unlikely. 

     There isn't nearly enough action or bio-zombie attacks to make this film likable to action or horror movie fans and the complete lack of plot, character development, pacing, and just about everything else that goes into making a movie makes it unenjoyable to anyone else.  (Except maybe the kid two seats over texting non stop.)  Skip this hack of a remake and go rent (illegally download) the George Romero version.  I haven't seen it and have no idea how good it is, but it has to be better than watching four people wander aimlessly through empty fields in Iowa. 



P.S. 

     The only moment that actually took me by surprise is when the sheriff gets stabbed through the hand, but that was it and definitely not worth the ticket price.  Good thing Abby bought the tickets.  Hopefully he'll forget I owe him on this one. 

The Wolfman (Review)

     I had a weary feeling going into "The Wolfman."  The same sort of feeling I had going into the recent "Sherlock Holmes."  Both films tread on the hallowed ground of classic material.  You must tread lightly there and show proper respect.  "The Wolfman" fails to do either.

     "The Wolfman" is based on the original 1941 film "The Wolf Man."  In the modern adaptation, Lawrence Talbot, played lifelessly by Benicio Del Toro, is mauled by an enormous, man like wolf creature (...a werewolf) and, at the next full moon, the curse of the werewolf causes him to also become a werewolf, and the only one who can free him from this curse (kill him) is one who loves him.  

     There isn't a lot to the plot that you haven't see before, but if the story is done well and the characters are people we can empathize with, that shouldn't matter.  In "The Wolfman," it matters.  Let's start with the action sequences.  They are far too graphic, fast, and unbelievable.  It seems like the plot and story are just a contrivance to get us to the action sequences where body parts fly, shredded corpses litter the ground, and werewolves move like actors in a kung-fu movie, defying the laws of physics to put on a show which happens far too quickly and that is far beyond any suspension of disbelief.  The basics of a great story are there.  Lawrence Talbot and Gwen Conliffe, played here by Emily Blunt, fall in love and Gwen must kill Lawrence to set him free and end the curse.  We even get an a new twist on the story with Sir Anthony Hopkins, who plays Lawrence Talbot's father, also being a werewolf.  Now the son must kill his beloved father to free him from the curse.  None of this potential is realized, however, because all three actors give us wooden, emotionless, and absolutely dead performances.  Lawrence Talbot has no love for his father, and the love story between Lawrence Gwen is never developed.  Rather, it's quickly and awkwardly established in ten second of exposition.  You are never allowed to develop any empathy or feeling for any of these characters.  They just stare at the camera and deliver lines flatly so we an all get on to the next, unbelievably gruesome scene of werewolf carnage.  While we can blame writers Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self for the lack of story, ultimately, blame rests with director Joe Johnston.  Anyone who can't get a decent performance out of Sir Anthony Hopkins doesn't need to be directing. 

     "The Wolfman" doesn't have enough action for fans of action films, the gore happens to quickly for fans of splatter flicks, and is awful even for a monster movie.  I wouldn't recommend wasting your time on it, or its inevitable sequel.  (Yes, sadly, the ending set up a sequel.)

The Book of Eli (Review)

     Denzel Washington and a gritty, realistic, post apocalyptic Hellscape; how can you go wrong?  Well,sadly, it's quite easy; lousy story.

     "The Book of Eli" features Denzel Washington as Eli, former K-Mart employee who is now 30 years into a post apocalyptic journey to get a book of great importance somewhere in the West.  We pick up his journey near its end as he comes across a small group of people living in the rubble of a former town and being led by a tyrannical dictator named Carnegie, played by Gary Oldman.  Oldman's character wants the book as well.  Mila Kunis plays Solara, who is either fleeing the tyranny of the town or working against our hero to steal his all important book.

     "The Book of Eli" manages to do almost everything right, the casting is very good, Denzel Washington does a good job as a hardened man on a mission, the landscape and special effects are superb, the directing and pace of the film are just right for an action/thriller, and the action scenes are almost over the top, but not too bad and they aren't too numerous or drawn out.  (Except for the opening, arrow shot sequence.)  So, what kills this movie, really?  (I'm completely giving the ending away here.)

Fantastic Mr. Fox (Review)

     If you've seen one Wes Anderson's movie, you've basically seen them all, and "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is no different.  I already knew this about Anderson's movies, and I wasn't going to bother with "Fantastic Mr. Fox," but I finally saw one too many reviews and articles lauding Anderson for his genius and wonderful, quirky style and claiming "Fantastic Mr. Fox" to be Oscar worthy material; I had to see the obvious for myself and write an honest review.

     "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is a stop motion animation film by director and writer Wes Anderson, based loosely on one of Roald Dahl's lesser known children's books by the same title.  Mr. Fox, voiced by George Clooney, is a former chicken thief, who gave it up for his family, but yearns to steal again.  He plots against three of the meanest farmers (who didn't do anything to him before this) and their large farms.  Ultimately, he brings the wrath of these three farmers down upon himself, his family, and the entire forest, and yet, he's somehow still considered a good guy in all of this. (I'm sorry, but that's as far as I could go before I begin dogging this thing.)

     Like all Wes Anderson films, "Fantastic Mr. Fox" features people, or, in this case, anthropomorphic animals, mumbling rather than having good dialogue or wit of any kind, very little attention to realistic character development, an incredible, yet inane, plot, uncomfortable situations rather than humor, no real flow to the story line, a very poorly constructed story, and Wes Anderson trying to work out whatever issues he has with his father on the screen.  The animation is mediocre at best.  Some of it looks like Anderson is going for a very retro kind of feel, about the quality of early Wallace and Gromit, but other parts, like the way that fur on the animal puppets tends to move about in random directions (even during still shots) because the people moving the puppets for each shot are sloppy and not minding their fingers, make everything feel fake and takes you out of the movie.  The puppets are almost expressionless.  Facial expressions are limited to movement of the mouth, eyes, and an occasional tear in the eye, so their faces seem rather dead and doll like most of the time.  The walking, especially, and movement, in general, is very sketchy and doesn't help to create any illusion of reality or help you immersion in the film.  Much of the dialogue seems either improvised or just poorly thought out.  (Or just the typical Wes Anderson aimless rambling.)  Characters engage in meaningless banter that goes nowhere and often trails off into mumbling.  This tends to break up any kind of flow or rhythm the film might (or might not) have and takes you right out of the moment.  There is a brief first and second act, sort of, then the bulk of the movie is third act resolution that tends to wander back into second act territory, as if Wes Anderson can't decide how he wants the movie to turn out, but isn't going to take any writing back.  Ultimately, there is sort of an ending, but not a very good one.

     Am I being too harsh?  After all, this is a kid's movie, right?  Actually, I'm not sure if it is.  Sure, it was based on a book intended for children, but this really isn't a movie for kids.  This is just an animated version of the same movie that Wes Anderson does every time.  Children may find something enjoyable in it, but it wasn't made for them.  The humor, if you can call it that, will, mostly, go right over their heads.  Children are likely to get bored with such a poorly paced story.  There's plenty of smoking and drinking, foxes kill chickens, which seem to be the only animals that are not anthropomorphized, Mr. Fox's tail is dismembered by gunfire, a rat dies in a knife fight and Mr. Fox delivers an incredibly cynical eulogy that is bound to disillusion most children watching.  Wes Anderson can't even try to make a movie without profanity.  He didn't actually use any profane language in "Fantastic Mr. Fox," but he also didn't write a movie without it.  He just replaces the amply amount of profane language with the word 'cuss,' as in, 'What the cuss?'  (We all know what you fraking mean.)  This is distracting at best and makes you feel like you're watching an episode of the "Smurfs" at worst.  It's also not very original.  (Curses, foiled again!)  I'm all for making more realistic and challenging movies for kids.  If you challenge children, they will rise to the occasion, and if you pander to them, they don't grow, but this material is neither realistic nor challenging to children.  "Fantastic Mr. Fox" feels like Wes Anderson is making a movie for adults that spoofs or feels like a kid's movie, but children watching it is definitely an afterthought.

     Eighty-seven minutes has never felt so long and I am really tired of Anderson trying to work out his 'daddy issues' on the big screen.  Wes Anderson is not a great writer or director. He once made a movie that connected with a small number of people and has been rehashing the same old tricks ever sense.  Having visible titles all over your movie and a, so called, quirky style does not make you a great director or writer.  It's poor storytelling and is alienating to audiences in general.  If one is going to make movies that pander to small, specific audiences, and lack the basic story structure to make that movie enjoyable to anyone outside of that small group, you might as well just keep those films in limited release, or better yet, straight to DVD. Also, Wes Anderson might want to think about not phoning in the entire directing job from another country when he makes his next, inevitable, film, like he did with "Fantastic Mr. Fox."  It shows.

     I don't recommend "Fantastic Mr. Fox" to anyone who doesn't already have a deep love of Wes Anderson's other films and I would strongly caution parents from letting their children see this movie.  My best advice to parents is to see it yourself first and see if it is what you want your children watching.

P.S.

     On a more personal note, (more personal than that??!) I would like to address the recent talk about "Fantastic Mr. Fox" being nominated for one or multiple Academy Awards.  If there is any justice in this world and if the Academy members are sane and rational people, any category that "Fantastic Mr. Fox" could possibly be nominated for should already be occupied by Henry Selick's "Coraline," a truly great stop motion animation children's movie, and any category that Anderson himself could be nominated for should, similarly, be already occupied by Henry Selick, a talented and deserving director who personally oversaw every detail that went into the making of "Coraline;" all three years of it.  The Academy should not reward sloppy and lazy work by chalking it up to personal style.

     I would also like to take this opportunity to personally apologize to Henry Selick on Wes Anderson's behalf.  Wes Anderson should be ashamed that he couldn't even bother to be in the same country where his movie was being filmed, for phoning in his directions by taking videos of himself and sending them to the set, for trying to cover up all the obvious flaws in this film by casting George Clooney in the lead role, and for personally putting the genera of stop motion animation back 40 years.   Mr. Selick, I am so sorry that a shiny piece of excrement steals the light from the truly magnificent piece of art you created early this year and I sincerely hope that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences does not fail to recognize yours as the greater talent and achievement when it hands out awards this March.

A Serious Man (Review)

     I may just be done with the Coen brothers after this.  I don't care how brilliant your symbolism is, poor story telling makes for an unenjoyable movie.  I may be being a bit harsh.  I'll give the Coen brothers this.  They do seem to be able to capture the essence of a person or people.  Perhaps if I knew more about Midwestern Jews in the 1960s I would have found parts of "A Serious Man" more interesting or amusing.  I did, after all, love "Raising Arizona," but, then again, I have a lot of experience with, shall we say, people who prefer to live in trailer houses.  That having been said, making a movie inaccessible to everyone but a specific group is also bad storytelling. 

     "A Serious Man" is the Coen brothers attempt to tell the biblical story of Job, in which, Satan contends that, to a man who has everything in life, like Job does, faith comes easily, so, to prove a point, God allows Satan to do all sorts of terrible things to Job, but Job's faith remains unshaken, so God gives him back everything he had, plus more.  In the Coen brothers version, a very sad and pathetic individual, has some bad things happen to him and he gives into temptation.  Along the way, there is a lot of symbolic imagery, including a tornado, and a lot of loose ends don't get tied up. (Also, I was bored for 105 minutes!)

     This wasn't all that bad of an idea for a film, but the story was executed very poorly.  It's impossible to feel anything for our main character, with the exception of maybe contempt.  Without empathy for the characters, you are simply left to sit in the dark watching sad, pathetic people fail miserably at life until the end, where they fail the final, biblically inspired, test.  (I understood the ending, the tornado is God, but that doesn't mean that I liked the ending, or any other part of it!)  People who are not familiar with the biblical story, or who fail to make the connection to it, will simply be bored by this movie and completely confused by the ending.  It's the job of the storyteller to make their story accessible to as many as possible, not just a few.  (Unless your goal is to make your movie inaccessible and pompous.)  Again, that's bad story telling. Just as surly as making a movie with nothing but overblown special effects and no plot makes for a poor movie, so does nailing the symbolism you are trying to get across, but failing to make any other part of the movie engaging.

     If your passions lie in picking a movie apart to find more and more layers of (what you think are) symbolic meaning so that others will marvel at your (apparent) perception, you'll love this one.  As for me, well, I know when, as an audience member, I'm not wanted.

Whiteout (Review)

     Against my better judgment, I saw "Whiteout" this Saturday. It was actually not as bad as I thought it was going to be. Not that it wasn't bad, but just not that bad. "Whiteout" is an action/suspense/murder mystery/cop drama? This film never really settles on any one for long. Kate Beckinsale plays Carrie Stetko, a U.S. Marshal assigned to a U.S. Antarctic base, who gets caught up in a murder investigation just three days before a storm will trap everyone on the base for the six months of Antarctic winter. During the beginning of the investigation, she is stalked by a masked, pick ax wielding murderer reminiscent of a bad slasher film. Then she gleams tiny bits of information from suspects as they are picked off, one by one, by the man with the ax. Then the film switches gears to murder mystery as she catches the killer, puts the pieces together, and his plot, ever so slowly and agonizingly, unwinds. We also get a sub plot of Beckinsale's character's past, which is also ever so slowly revealed throughout the film, setting the stage for her redemption in the end.

     The first two thirds of this movie are tolerable; popcorn fodder during a matinee. The last third, however, seems to bog down in the unraveling mystery, which falls apart all to easily and slowly. There is simply not a lot to this movie and it's about 30 minutes too long. This might be worth watching on DVD as background noise or maybe at a discount theater, where it should be making appearances shortly, but I wouldn't (and wish I hadn’t) spend a full, night, weekend ticket price on it.