X-Men Origins: Wolverine

While not an utter failure, XO: Wolverine does create a considerable amount of disappointment in this fan's memory. From the opening scene, something was...off. Watching the sickly young Wolvie lashing out in grand fashion was played for drama and shock, but instead introduced the audience to the film's most glaring fault - actors playing for dark, deep drama and missing at most every turn. Nothing about about XO: Wolverine rings with any authenticity. After facing this flaw early on, I was ready and willing to just accept the film on another level - a fun summer blockbuster. That doesn't really work either. The film employs a mess of side characters and a blistering pace to head toward its even bigger mess of a climax. At the point Wolverine learns he's been duped, I said to myself, "Well, duh. It was choreographed a long time ago." When Ryan Reynolds (?!) shows up ragged and mad and evil in the end, I was not surprised nor interested at all. Was he really ever a good guy? Was he ever important to the story before this? No for both. How about after the bad ass surgeries? No. Hugh Jackman as Wolverine is really the only bright spot (though the opening credits war montage was stunning in its own irrelevant way). It's clear Jackman cares about the character and brings that interest to the role each time out. But he can't make any new impressions when the director Gavin Hood, writers David Benioff and Skip Woods, and their film editors won't allow their story to find any footing in any given scene before blasting off to the next sequence (even if it's just Jackman and the awful (but awfully attractive) Lynn Collins chatting and/or making lovey dovey eyes at each other. A sense of real weight to ANY (ANY!) of the scenes would have paid huge dividends. Sadly, Liev Shreiber (my great hope for a compelling villain) can't save his dialogue. Likewise, the wonderful, Danny Huston (please see The Proposition) fails to improve or match Brian Cox's performance as General Striker in X2. I'll watch it again with lowered expectations with the hope of new entertainment, buy my first viewing left me hungry for Terminator: Salvation (and McG?!?). Wolverine is a great character. The franchise is far from dead. I just hope new blood behind the scenes can renew my interest again.

**

Mad Max

I finally saw the beginning of my beloved Mad Max franchise. I have to say, I'm a little disappointed. All the superior elements of the franchise are there: a brooding Mel Gibson, spectacular CGI-less car stunts, crazy (CRAZY) villains, and notable cinematography and style. The problem is that all these elements aren't perfected until The Road Warrior. Mel Gibson, despite of all his charisma, shows his lack of experience. The stunts are still there, but they're certainly less necessary. When the cars and/or motorcycles aren't driving across the endless asphalt, there isn't a whole lot to love in Mad Max. There are some very memorable shots in the movie, but these shots only punctuate the droll interlude between them. Thank goodness for Hugh Keays-Byrne's work as Toecutter, the psychotic leader or a motorcycle gang out for revenge after their even crazier former compadre is killed in the film's opening car chase. Toecutter is the snarling, edgy precursor to The Might Wez and Lord Humungous (The Road Warrior) and Master Blaster (MM: Beyond Thunderdome) of subsequent films. While he feels a bit out of place in Mad Max, it's clear writer/director George Miller is honing his world and style here. It's a good film with great moments, but it pales in comparison to its sequels. A great finish to a lackluster beginning.

***

Fierce People

This is a disappointing film not so much because I had high hopes, but because I spent two hours of my life on it.

A shallow coming of age movie pretending to have emotion weight and truths loses track of itself after it jumps into the world of these "fierce creatures". Character motivations are unclear and forced in a way that made me think maybe I had missed entire scenes that could explain actions or people that were never satisfyingly explained. People behave in ways that further plot rather than moving from a character's center or voice. The film hinges on a twist that is meant to surprise and enrage and change us, but in truth we always suspect that it was so even though we never believe the reason given for it being so.

The only highlight comes from the lead - Anton Yelchin. He seems to be a young actor of the moment and delivers a performance certainly deserving of a better film.

**

Tim Burton's Batman "The Joker is more of an annoying pest than a villain."

I didn't see this movie until college. I liked it. I thought it was a lot of fun. I asked for it for my birthday. I got it. I watched the excellent special features yesterday afternoon. I got excited to see the movie again. By the time the credits started rolling, I was disappointed. There's no real excuse. I first saw it when my eye for quality was developed. I had seen it several times on AMC (albeit in parts). I hadn't loved the film as a kid, so nostalgia wasn't an excuse for my mistake.

Batman is an exercise in ambition. Tim Burton and the film's producers had big plans for the movie. From the DVD interviews, it's apparent that they thought they had created something really special. The problem is that ambition is nothing without execution. Batman fails in nearly every aspect of its execution.

It's hard to criticize Jack Nicholson for going over the top with his performance. He's the Joker, for Moses' sake. There aren't any rules for playing a character like that. There should have been, though. Nicholson is clearly having the time of his life playing the role, but I must admit I had very little fun with him. He does anything he pleases and I wish a director would have reigned him more. Nicholson unleashed in any situation is cause for alarm. He's not menacing enough. And somebody tell somebody that Jack Nicholson's little jigs in character are not amusing.

That led to other problems. The screenwriters have to make scenes for Nicholson to do his thing, so they put him in that stupid museum scene. A chance to work in the Prince music ("Partyman" is the title of the song) should have been passed up. A terrible idea. Batman's entrance and exit are good. The rest is hammy junk.

Another scene suffering from failed ambition is the bell tower scene. Great plan. Bad execution. It shows sparks of quality, but crumbles under the weight of Nicholson and Basinger's goofy routines. Seriously, there's nothing less climatic than watching Nicholson ham it up as he dances on that ledge and makes his getaway.

Putting Batman into action is the best thing the filmmakers do. It's when they throw him in the mix with the Joker that things falter. And that's a lot of the time. I actually liked the action scenes for what they were, but again the Joker is more of an annoying pest than a villain. Batman should have kicked the crap out of him twenty times over.

The Bruce Wayne scenes are fairly bad as well. There is no chemistry between Michael Keaton and Kim Basinger, so their scenes together are always a bit awkward. It doesn't help that Basinger isn't a good actress. I'm not saying the role called for her to stretch her acting muscles, but any number of actresses could have added zest to the role. Keaton can play the charming billionaire well, but when he's out of costume, he left me itching for him to jump back into it. His knight in shining armor shtick at Vale's apartment is weak and laughable at best. Put the guy in that suit and let those eyes and that cool, stoic hero's voice do the work.

The sets are great. The first third of the movie is actually quite good. But I'm afraid that the corniness and levity that the filmmakers said they so wanted to avoid eventually crept in and sapped all the entertainment from Batman.

**1/2

Jarhead "When things threaten to happen, I admit I felt what the soldiers in the film felt: a sick anticipation and longing for battle. "

I liked this movie, but it was an overwhelming like when all the elements were in place for a love. I wasn't blown away by this movie. I've seen it twice. The first time I saw it I had high expectations. It didn't meet those expectations. The second time I saw it, I had lowered expectations, but again I was disappointed. But not to the point where I disliked the film. A second viewing only solidified my opinion of the movie.

On the surface, I cannot identify at all with the soldiers in this film. They are young men thirsty for war, for action. When they go to war and it is nothing like the films they saw (an interesting scene takes place during a frenzy at a showing of Apocalypse Now), they feel empty. There is pride in what they are, but a lack of doing what they were trained to do leaves a sour taste in their mouths.

I strongly related once the film took shape. The movie creates an uneasy atmosphere of waiting...waiting to do anything. Things happen, but none of them fit in with the expectations I had from every war film I had ever seen. Jarhead is unlike any war film I have ever seen. The Gulf War is unlike any other war I have seen in film (forget the murder mystery Courage Under Fire). It began and ended in a blur, but the time for the soldiers (at least the soldiers depicted in the film) was slow and tiring. Again, things happen, but they're only stale representations of training, ritualistic lining up and dehydrating, restlessness and bonding for better or for worse. When things threaten to happen, I admit I felt what the soldiers in the film felt: a sick anticipation and longing for battle. Instead, they get showboating officials, men with murdered camels, and the remains of a bombing. It seems they are doomed to narrowly miss the thrill of battle and it makes them stir crazy. And I related watching the film. Like a trained baboon I wished for them to "shoot somebody already".

The performances reflect that restlessness, but the freak outs that occur in opposition to the waiting and disappointments mostly rang false. It was as though the actors didn't know how to get past all that listlessness when they were called to. They tried admirably, but could not raise my attentiveness. Again, I equaled their disappointments.

As a document of that war at that time for those people, it does manage a real sense of authenticity without fully achieving utter truth. A decent film that could have ruled my world if only I wasn't ruined as the soldiers were by the expectations of our popular (and military) culture.

***

Across the Universe

Across the Universe is one of the worst films that I have seen in the theater in a long time. It is a mess of a movie.

The film follows a rag tag group of young people during the turbulent 60's. Our protagonist is a English lad named Jude. He goes to America to find his dad, but stays after meeting Max and his sister Lucy. Lucy and Jude are destined to be entwined in young love.

That's really the story. It is as thin as a paper cup and just as disposable and recyclable. Everyone who has seen a movie about the 60's has seen this plot or elements of the plot before. It tries to touch on everything - hippies, music, the civil rights movement, and the Vietnam War and the struggle of the "radicals'" protesting at home among every other instance of 60's nostalgia you can imagine.
The characters are also 60's stereotypes masquerading as memories.

The problem is the filmmakers love The Beatles (whose music makes up the entire musical's soundtrack) too much. The story exists because of the songs, not the other way around as it should be. The story is thin because it merely bides its time with a loose narrative as an excuse to fill time between musical interludes. Those small pieces of narrative cannot sustain the audience's interest, so the filmmakers chose to make the time in between songs short and forgettable so we can push right on through to the next number.

Some of the musical pieces serve as bold interpretations of The Beatles musical catalogue and contain interesting images, but most stick out like sore thumbs in the context of the narrative. A few of the musical numbers did stand out as quality pieces of filmmaking including "Let it Be" during race riots, "Strawberry Fields Forever" in a Vietnam and artist freak out montage, "Across the Universe" on a subway car, and "Because" lying in a field of tall grass.

Still, the film has no subtlety in its purpose: to use as many Beatles songs as possible. That means having characters named Jude, Lucy, and Prudence. Max might as well been named "Eleanor Rigby" to keep the trend going.

Certain things bothered me above all. There was use of a heightened reality common to film musicals, but that was no excuse for a lifeless and bland film in the midst of all the vain attempts to shower the audience with vibrant life. I have never seen a better example of style over substance.

Another annoyance was the love story. I could not be invested in the two lovers' fates at all. Perhaps I have been spoiled by the recent indie musical Once with its wonderful characters and lovely love story. The big deal is that the love story is really the meat and potatoes of the narrative. If I could not care about the love story, I was doomed to not care about the whole movie.

The film did manage to find some level of balance and relative skill in the third act, but by then it was too late. I was turned off by the movie early on and had no hope for reinvestment.

*1/2

Hollywoodland

I was hoping, deeply hoping, that the hype surrounding Ben Affleck's performance in Hollywoodland was earned rather than the product of the a comeback-hungry press. It turns out it was the latter. All the performances are sub par, including the capable stars (Adrien Brody, Ben Affleck, Diane Lane). The film takes place in the late 50's-era Hollywood. It seems as though the actors watched a couple movies, checked out TV shows, and read a couple books from the era that were supposed to teach them how to sound authentic. Instead, they ended up so concerned with their characters accents and posturing that they neglected to invest themselves in what is not readily seen in the mannerisms and voice inflections. The performances are not above the acting we would see in a TV movie of the week depicting the same story. Certainly, this is not the kind of work I expect from the stars of this film. I can say that Bob Hoskins was good in a small role.

This is a bit cold, but the film didn't make me care about George Reeves death, the mysteries of which the movie revolves around. Even if I didn't care about George Reeves, a basic demand for justice and truth should have been awakened by the film. It wasn't. The performances distanced me from the characters. I didn't want to know about them. I just wanted Ben Affleck and Diane Lane to tone it down, to look at each other like they meant what they were saying to each other. The only character I developed any sort of positive feelings for was the private investigator looking for answers concerning the Reeves death. Brody sort of coasts by on typical down and out P.I. charm, tricks, and dialogue. There wasn't really anything about the character as it was written or the performance that made me root for the guy. I was more on board with the guy because I liked the actor playing him.

The acting must have taken a cue from the writing because it too has all the markings of an impersonation of the time rather than an act of bringing it to life. The dialogue is awkward at times, especially when somebody tries to be tough or angry.

Don't watch this movie.

**

28 Weeks Later...

28 Weeks Later forgot everything that made its predecessor so special and exciting. I say "exciting" in reference to its innovations and creativity. The second copies the style of the first, but moves into more gore, less character (while there are many more actors than the first), and big set pieces. The writing feels very clunky at times. The conversational tone of the first is left behind for military speak and odd interaction between the two children and anyone they come in contact with. A reoccurring infected (zombie) got under my skin in a very bothersome way. On the plus side: there are some chilling scenes. A journey through a dark subway station littered with dead and only a first person view of night vision for the audience built great suspense and genuine scares. A chase in the beginning (seen in the trailer) where Robert Carlyle races away from a horde of very fast, snarling, slobbering infected is thrilling. But that may be the biggest problem I had with the film: other than these two excellent suspenseful and scary scenes, the film fell into the “Bump in the Silence” scares. Quiet followed by jarring music and movement or sound was prevalent. The slowly building and well designed chilling atmosphere of the first film is all but missing from its sequel.

Side note: It is unfair for me to make this complaint, but I must for my own benefit. The characters…oh, the characters…well, what’s the big deal about the two kids, heck, the soldiers, the dad, the mom? Don’t get me wrong; I was rooting for them. Rather than investing myself in characters and genuinely caring about them as I had in the superior 28 Days Later, I was only rooting for the heroes in 28 Weeks Later because they were children, alive, human, and in trouble. I never got to know the characters at all. Any attempt to make the characters accessible was shoddy and primarily failed. I can easily chalk the lack of character development up to the constraints of the plot. Conversations about home and the horror of it all can’t really happen when you’re running for your life the entire (well, most of it) movie. But I missed it, the character development.

Side note 2: The gore was a problem for me as well. I realize this is just a personal reaction to the film element. Others may have watched the first and thought, “WTF, man! Where’s the guts, the blood? More! More!” Indeed, the genre currently demands buckets. However, one of the things that helped the first film work so well for me was the simplicity of the “action/horror” scenes – intense, but not over the top. In 28 Weeks Later, the gore is featured, stressed, put front and center in the “action/horror” scenes. The peak of the gore was a helicopter scene that one of my friends loved, but made me cringe from the ridiculous, indulgent nature of the end result. “Really?” I asked myself. “They really just did that?” In that way, I think the filmmakers achieved one of their goals. But I could have used some more atmosphere – like the subway scene – and less gore.

A repeat viewing made do wonders for my reaction to the film with new lowered expectations (they were very, very high).

**1/2