Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Wag The Film - July 2008

The Dark Knight: a ray of light

July 24th 2008 03:50
There has been a lot of adulation and hype surrounding the sequel to Batman Begins, so I am going to try and keep this under control. The Dark Knight is the best comic book movie that has been made so far. See what I did there? I qualified it. I left room for someone, someday to make a better super hero movie… one day. Quite rational really.

Let’s wrap up the key points here. Ledger absolutely owns every frame he is in. That’s not hype talking, that’s fact. This is an actor who was mythologized within days of his tragic death, his personality and real life story should overwhelm the character. It is a testament to his achievement that as the Joker, you completely forget you are looking at Heath Ledger. That’s not due to make-up friends, that’s due to performance.

The Joker kicks off this dark tale of the Dark Knight, and his grip on the film never weakens from the opening bank heist. He’s a new kind of criminal – crime isn’t about money for him, it’s about art. His duel with Batman through the length of the movie is harrowing, and utterly compelling. The casualties are unpredictable and moving.

Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine provide a nice reliable backing track, with a layer of Gary Oldman character work added for good measure. Aaron Eckhart is moving and convincing in the biggest personal arc of the story and Maggie Gyllenhaal is now the go-to word for ‘upgrade’, erasing all memory of the Katie Holmes blip from the first movie (Wow Katie, you passed on this for Mad Money… there aren’t enough words to sum up the ‘wow’… ‘ouch’ comes to mind).

Christian Bale has the thankless job of anchoring the whole thing, and doing most of that behind a mask. People seem to underestimate his performance because of that, but if he wasn’t credible as a man who spends his nights dressing up as a bat the whole thing would come crashing down.

Full props to Christopher Nolan for making this as dark and emotionally draining as he did. This is the Empire Strikes Back of our time. My only two quibbles were the length, but then I don’t know what you’d cut – everything built so relentlessly – and the ending which had some oddly rushed logic. Aside from that, I couldn’t recommend this enough for lovers of action.
115
Vote
   


Mamma Mia!: here we go again

July 18th 2008 03:39
I wish I knew what to make of Mamma Mia. I went in with such overwhelming goodwill towards the whole thing, and in the end it feels like it failed to match me on that. True, the enthusiasm of the cast and crew is evident throughout the film, but it doesn’t make up for the shocking performances peppered through it, the boxy staging and the fact that some of the ABBA songs wedged into the plot are profoundly ill-suited for those moments.

At least they didn’t try and justify attaching Super Trouper to a plot point – that would have signalled the death rattle of the whole thing.

Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is preparing to get married, and wants the father she’s never met to walk her down the aisle. After stealing her mother’s (Meryl Streep) diary she deducts there are three candidates for the job. She invites them all – Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgard turn up – and all hell breaks loose. Oh, and for some reason it’s all set on a Greek island.

As I am still trying to come to terms with the entire thing I am just going to have to break it down into good and bad. Meryl is good. Despite herself, or because of herself, you can’t help but love her when she plays goofy, and her voice is strong. Streep gets all the best songs (Mamma Mia, Money, Money, Money) and sequences – they are fun, clever and they suck you in. The use of an actual Greek chorus is a touch of genius – their off-the-wall contribution adds a lovely surreal element. I would say all the women are well cast – Seyfried does well with a potentially bland and annoying character.

The bad? Anyone who ever asks Brosnan to sing again should be charged. Let us all consider this a valuable lesson, and walk away. I would say ‘no harm, no foul’, but listening to him warble makes me inclined to disagree. He is hazardous with a tune. Where the women fit their roles and find a natural flow, all the men (including Dominic Cooper as the fiancé) are awkward, painful and under-developed. If you told me they accidentally gate-crashed the movie while sailing through the area I would believe you – they just don’t belong.

The whole project could have done with a fresh set of eyes, rather than transferring in the team from the original stage production. A lot of the dance numbers are stagey – they don’t make any really creative use of the stunning setting. Also, taking it away from the over-the-top stage show really serves to highlight how completely ill-suited half the songs are to the plot (Our Last Summer and Lay Your Love on Me were heinous).

It’s pretty, occasionally catchy, and it has a cast I like. Half the people I know who’ve seen it love it, and a good chunk of the rest claim to have died a little while watching it. My problem is I still want to like it, but I just can’t. The first 30 minutes are solid, good fun. The rest – not so much. And because of the restraint I have shown throughout this review I get to say this: I had a dream that this would be good, so I took a chance on it – I said I do. They took my money, money, money but I could not lay my love on it. The winner may take it all, but all I was doing was crying SOS. Waterloo.
82
Vote
   


Hancock: flawed hero movie

July 17th 2008 04:22
Hancock dreams of being so much edgier and original than it is that you can’t help but smile at it politely as it goes about its business. In between the smiling you’ll pause and marvel at the plot inconsistencies. After that you may well never think of the movie again, unless it’s to ponder the scope of talent that came together to create such a mediocrity.

You can see what they’re trying to say in the opening sequence. Take the flawed hero chestnut and put it on steroids. Will Smith is Hancock, a drunk who swears at kids (that’s the attempt at edginess). He also happens to be a flying immortal with Herculean strength, who goes about saving the day with maximum damage. LA, being the city it is, finds the cost of cleaning up after him far outweighs the benefit of his ill-conceived heroics. Enter a PR guru Jason Bateman, who decides he needs an image makeover, which goes perfectly to plan. Enter PR guru’s wife Charlize Theron who splits her screen time between being a dedicated wife and mother, and having maximum eye tension with Hancock. Except you know there’s more to her than that… because otherwise there is absolutely no reason to hire Charlize Theron. The rest is a garbled back-story, a character back-flip that makes no sense, and some reasonable comedy.

The film struggles because of it’s lack of villain, and a sense that the ending is never in doubt. Because of both these things, and despite some big effects, the action is hollow. Which is fine as long as you’re not making an action super hero movie. That leaves the comedy which is occasionally hilarious (thanks largely to Bateman), and the drama, which isn’t very involving.

The whole thing is so uneven you get the sense this thing got the absolute crap edited out of it. I imagine it started off actually being edgy, and then slowly shuffled away from that. The talent probably signed on to a different script, and the director probably found himself piecing it together after the studio took out the scissors. As a result the logic is all over the place and the tone is undecided.

None of the three mains come out humiliated (Will Smith is the Teflon man – he made Wild Wild West), but this is an addition to their resume you’ll find under ‘Profitable and Perfunctory’.
129
Vote
   


Get Smart is a movie best appreciated by itself. Fans of the television series are just setting themselves up for disappointment if they expect more than the occasional nod towards the 1960’s classic. In isolation (a cone of silence, if you will)) it can be enjoyed as a light action adventure with above average comedy thanks to the casting of Steve Carell.

Carell is the master of making mundane statements hilarious with a mere twitch of his face or a vocal inflection. He plays Maxwell Smart (Don Adams’ former domain), a bumbling analyst desperately vying to become a field agent for CONTROL (the kind of bizarre, but far more credible agency the CIA would be if Alan Arkin truly did run it). When circumstance thrusts him toward the promotion he’s only dreamed of, he’s partnered with a deeply unimpressed Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway). The Chief (Arkin) assigns them to track down a couple of nuclear weapons stolen by KAOS, before they get the chance to lob them in the direction of the US. Cue shenanigans, sight gags, dance-offs, betrayal and most memorably (for me) a sword fish


[ Click here to read more ]
92
Vote
   


More Posts
2 Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
56 Posts dating from March 2008
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:

Michael Lown's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by Michael Lown
Copyright © 2012 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]