Abra Cadabr....oh, who gives a crap?

So, finally saw "Now You See Me" (or is it Us?  Eh, who cares?) on video, and while I found the movie to be at times entertaining, mostly it was just utter crap.  But, being the supposed academic I would like to be, I did find myself asking many questions when the film was completed.  Among them are:

1.  Is Jesse Eisenberg just a really good actor who gets constantly typecast as the arrogant assmunch, or is he just a gigantic d-bag in real life and can't act worth a crap?  I found myself hating Facebook after watching him in "Social Network" (Yes, I know, I put the link to this on FB.  Shut up.)  And now I kind of hate magicians because he played one.  Gallagher must be very disappointed.

(By the way, did you know he played the main love interest in one of Woody Allen's movies in the last few years?  Who made THAT wise casting decision?  That's like making, well, Woody Allen a love interest.  Sorry Woody, that pedophilic train left the station a loooooong time ago.  But I digress.)

2.  Did Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine need to pay off bookies, so they had to take this film?  Their roles are negligible, especially Caine's, and I can't imagine either one of them read the script and thought, "I gotta have me some of that!"  Mr. Caine, I've seen pictures of your beautiful wife.  GO HOME, and leave this nonsense to lesser actors.

3.  Mark Ruffalo is a great actor, and I mostly wanted to see this film because of him.  This man played The Hulk onscreen, and yet this is the movie where he decides to overact his face off.  I would have thought that playing a giant green monster would have brought out the jazz hands onscreen, and yet he's surprisingly subtle in The Avengers.  With this movie, he's doing everything but swinging from the rafters.  I guess my question is: Mark, what gives, man?

4.  You know how you saw adds for this movie and how it looked like Woody Harrelson et al were the stars of it?  Au contraire, mon frere.  Their roles are almost non-existent, and their characters are written so paper-thin, you could shine a light through them.  So what does it say about a movie when the marketing for it is better than the actual film?

5.  And last, while I realize movies are just...movies, not real life, WHO COMES UP WITH A PLOT LIKE THIS????  No one in their right mind could formulate a plan this elaborate.  Look, I know that I'm trying to assign reason to a medium where Supermen fly, vampires sparkle, and Kristen Stewart could be paid a fortune to be onscreen, but come ON, people!  I like my stories twisty, not spine-crackingly stupid.

In short, it's fine.  Just don't go into it thinking you're going to get any more out of it other than the occasional good moment and two hours worth of MST3K jokes out of it, and you'll be, well, not satisfied, but at least...  Eh, I don't know what you'll be. 

"We are the true love gods."

I have a serious, serious jones for Joss Whedon.  I also find Shakespeare pretty darn awesome, too.  So when I found out Whedon was adapting "Much Ado About Nothing" as a movie, I pretty much did a major happy dance.  And while it's taken a while for it to show up in my town (twelve thousand showings of Fast and Furious instead, BTW), I'm happy to say it was well worth it.

Let's face it, Shakespeare can be kind of difficult to interpret at times.  He was a chatty fellow, and could have done with a hobby, in my humble opinion.  So the language of his plays can be hard to follow, but credit Whedon for staging the movie in a way that helps to keep up with the action while not sacrificing the words.  The movie's intimate, as it takes place over what would seem to be no more than a week in one house (Whedon's house, actually, and I want it).  While the language is kept intact, everything else, from the costumes to the setting to the gadgets, is modern-day, which helps keep it fresh, which with this play is pretty important as it has a lot of absurdity to it.  They fake a girl's death to shame her would-be husband, for goodness' sakes.

(Speaking of which, what is it with the friars and their obsession with fake death in Shakespeare's plays?  Romeo and Juliet's friar comes up with the oh-so-bright idea to fake Juliet's death to get her out of marrying Paris.  Good call, padre.  And the friar in this one also comes up with the idea of Hero's death.  Yeah, Claudio was an idiot and treated her wrong, but jeez, talk about tough love.  Anyhoo...)

Whedon's always been good and finding the fine line between dramatic and absurd, and that continues in this.  There's lots of physical humor and visual gags that really help the story move along.  He also does a great job in incorporating the setting for maximum effect, whether it's humor, romance, or darama.

The cast includes many members of the Whedonverse, and they don't disappoint.  Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof bring the same chemistry they brought to "Angel" for Beatrice and Benedick, and the language just trips off their tongues.  Everyone else is also great, especially Clark Gregg and Reed Diamond.  But it's Nathan Fillion and Tom Lenk, in pretty small roles, that steal their scenes.  They have the idiotic thing down, and it's pretty wonderful to watch.

All in all, this was a great little film done with love, and a great palate cleanser for the bloat of the usual summer-film fare.

 

You are getting sleeeeeeeeppppyyyyyyy...

So, this is what you need to know going into this movie, Trance.  James McAvoy is in it.  Oh wait, that's not it.  Well, he IS in it, but that doesn't help the few of you who do not lust after him.  Anyway, James (X-Men First Class, Wanted, Becoming Jane, my dreams) plays an auctioneer in an art house who gets caught up in the theft of a Goya painting that a nasty man, played by Vincent Cassel, tries to pull off, and has to employ the services of a hypnotist, played by Rosario Dawson.  That's all I'm telling you, because to tell you any more would give away the film. 

Actually, now that I think about it, it probably wouldn't give anything away.  This is one of those films where you need a score card to keep up.  Think Usual Suspects on acid.  Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, Trainspotting, 127 Hours) directs it, and he brings his usual style and feeling to the film.  The colors are spectacular, and everything has a dreamy quality to it, which is appropriate, given that you are dealing with memories, both real and imagined, to make up the bulk of the film.  Probably the strength of the film is the complexity of the characters, which I would imagine that would have been the draw for these actors.  No one is really as they seem, and that helps keep you off-center and paying attention.

It's also violent, which I put out there for anyone who's a little put-off by that.  It's not Drive-violent, but it's got its moments.  It also helps to pay attention to the little details, because they all come back in some fashion later on in the movie.

Ultimately, I think the movie's criss-crosses and double-crosses kind of weigh in on themselves, ultimately hurting the film.  I love a good twisty mystery, but this one got a little extreme.  Still, the acting's good, the story keeps you invested for most of it, and I got to see James McAvoy's naked heiney.  All in all, a movie worth seeing.

To Boldly Go, blahblahblah....

You know what makes any movie better?  Benedict Cumberbatch (Benny C to his buds).  Also Chris Pine's eyes.  But mostly Benedict Cumberbatch.  In fact, I shall compose an ode to him:

Oh Benny C, I love you so.
You are the cat's meow.
Your accent, your stare, your almost 'fro.
You just make me say wow.

Uhm, okay, I'll stop now.

He's good in Star Trek, really.  And everyone else is.  And there's a great Kirk/Spock bromance.  And it's just cool.  That is all.  Go see it!

I can't do anymore.  The muse has left me.  Count yourselves lucky.

Love and Dead People

While watching "The Great Gatsby," I was struck by two revelations I have made about Baz Luhrmann.  One, he apparently only gets interested in a project if someone stupid's going to kick it at the end after experiencing their great love (see: Romeo, Jay Gatsby, both played by Leo, although this is not a slight against him), and two, he finally got a clue and got rid of the editor he's been using.  You know, the one who edits like a drunk ADHD victim who threw away their meds.  I actually got a chance to watch whole scenes for more than five seconds at a time!  It was a revelation!

Yes, it's still full of Bazisms - the long tracking shots over scenery, in-your-face party scenes, strong emphasis on music, etc.  But there's more care here.  He's trying to actually give you a sense of character and motivation, rather than just flying it up there onscreen and hoping that it sticks.  His attention to detail and beauty are still as prevalent as ever, but it's not all artifice.  I mean, 90% of it is, but the other 10% tries to get to the heart of the story.

Of course, one of Luhrmann's greatest strengths is his casting ability.  At least, he can find actors who aren't afraid to make complete asses of themselves in pursuit of his vision (I still have bad flashbacks to Nicole Kidman trying to seduce Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge.  Brrr...).  I think he made a great choice in Leo for Gatsby.  He kind of fills in the character holes that Luhrmann basically leaves wide open, and you can't help but to feel for Gatsby, stupid as he is.  Joel Edgerton does a great job playing Buchanan.  He plays bully well.  The rest of the cast is good, but their characters aren't nearly as fleshed out.

All in all, it's a serviceable vision of Fitzgerald that's beautiful to look at .  I can't call it one the great literary adaptations ever, but I think he got the vapidity of the Twenties while keeping the longing of the love story front and center.  And I can see!  Great movie Gods above, I didn't have to barf after watching it!  Huzzah!

Looney Over Downey

I'm just going to say it right out: the world is a better place for Robert Downey, Jr. being in it.  He is the I Ching, the shiznit, the coolest mofo going.  Doubt me?  See Chaplin, Less Than Zero, the Sherlock Holmes films, and Soapdish.  Most importantly, see the Iron Man films, and tell me I'm wrong.  He makes me want to start writing bad poetry (and I almost did.  Lucky you.).  And Iron Man 3 just keeps it going strong.

Did I mention Downey's good in this?  Yeah, he's okay.  He's got a presence and an attitude that just fills the screen.  He's of course dominant in his smart-ass persona, but makes Tony Stark into a fully-fleshed character with very little effort.  I often wonder how much he improvises in these films, and how much is scripted.  If it's scripted, then the man should win an Oscar just for his word interpretation alone.  Either way, he's got a wicked sharp mind and one amazing wit.

Of course, even he can't make things work without a little help from the movie (see: Iron Man 2, I'm sorry to say.  It just could have been better.).  Thankfully, director/writer Shane Black gets it (see his Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, also starring Mr. Downey, now) and knows how to structure a film well.  The movie moves fast and transitions almost seamlessly.  More importantly, it actually has a story.  Cool, huh?  And the man knows humor.  REALLY knows humor.  It's almost a perfect storm of actor and writer, considering the enormous amounts of wit flying around in this movie.

But Downey and Black aren't working alone here.  The rest of the cast is pretty damned good.  I go hot and cold with Gwyneth Paltrow (You only let your kids watch cartoons in French, Gwyn?  Hopefully, they will get back at you when they're teens.), but she's never better in these films, and she gets a much bigger role in this one.  She's fun.  Don Cheadle, Rebecca Hall, and Guy Pearce all have what looks like a great time in their roles.  The real fun comes with Ben Kingsley.  Really.  Without giving anything away, I can promise you you'll love his performance.

So, to conclude: great acting, great writing, great directing, great action.  This movie's great, to get all redundantty on you (shut up, it's a word).  It's not Shakespeare by any means, but it's going to be hard to beat this for my favorite summer movie this year.  Viva La Downey! 

 

It Ain't Easy Being Green

     I'm not a great fan of 3D.  It mostly stands to distract from the fact that there's no story whatsoever (Hello, Avatar!), or it's so invasive that your eyes cross and you forget you're supposed to be enjoying this.  That being said, I actually broke down and paid (okay, I had a gift card) for the 3D version of Oz the Great and Powerful, and I have to say it was well worth the price.

     The movie's just, well, beautiful.  It's bright and colorful and you can really tell how much time and effort was put into the little details.  The movie copies Wizard of Oz where it starts out as black and white and the dimensions of the screen are small, and goes to color and stretches out when the action reverts to Oz.  Items are flying off the screen and stretch out of the boundaries of the screen.  There's one scene with a field of sunflowers that I can honestly say was one the most beautiful things I've seen onscreen.    The credits at the beginning of the film were almost worth the price of admission.  It's luscious, and whatever money was spent on the film actually shows up onscreen.

     Unfortunately, that didn't leave a whole lot of money for the script.  There was more of a story than I honestly expected, but it's still pretty thin.  I did appreciate the fact that they used a good deal of L Frank Baum's story in the onscreen tale, but a lot was underused.  But I have to say that I wasn't that upset, mostly because my expectations were low for story anyway, so win!

     As for the performances, James Franco can alternately irritate or delight me in some of his past roles (Hey James, General Hospital sucked already.  No need to add your special brand of cray-cray to make it worse.), but he usually will give something worth seeing.  The character is set up as a charlatan, liar, and womanizer who gets redeemed, and Franco's got the charm to pull it off, but I never stopped thinking of Oz as kind of an ass.  I read that Robert Downey Jr had this role and dropped out, and I can't help but to think he would have kicked it sideways.  But hey, Franco will do in a pinch.  The three ladies do a good job.  Their characters aren't very fleshed out, but at least they had the wherewithall to get good actresses to do the best job they could with what they had.

     Overall, it's well worth seeing just for the techinical artistry.  You won't be disappointed for that.  Just don't expect much else.