When the film ended my wife looked over at me and said "you can rip this one all you want!" Now, it is her film but in her defense I believe she bought it for $2 on a day after Thanksgiving sale so no real harm done. As far as ripping this film goes, what's the point? Do you need me to talk about how Hugh Grant has become the king of phoning in performances? Maybe you want me to ask the unanswerable question of why does Drew Barrymore always play the talented but lacks confidence girl hiding behind a sheepish smile. Perhaps commentary on the films use of cliched '80's music or it's overly transparent 'satire' regarding modern pop music.
All of that would be nice, but instead, what I think this film needs is advise. The first piece of advise is the obvious request to stop being lazy. If something seems like it is easy to parody it's because it is. I'm 29, I remember Wham! Dressing Hugh Grant like a member of Wham! and having him sing songs that are Gouda Cheese does not equal funny. It's lazy and boring.
That also leads to my next, more serious recommendation. As a teen I remember watching Siskel and Ebert review "That Thing You Do!" and one of them commented on how one key to this film was the fact that the films main song was good enough that an audience could sit through hearing it 12 times in 2 hours and not hate it. Now, if you want to make a movie centered in the world of pop music, please write one good song for your movie. Not everything has to be parody. Perhaps the filmmakers here believe that the song Hugh and Drew wrote was that song. If that is true, find a way to feature that is better than having the Shakira type pop star turn it into some ridiculous modern pop number. With "That Thing You Do!" we get little bits of that era piped in for comic relief through out the film but never does the film take shots at it's own song.
Already I know I have wrote too much about this film. If you like Drew Barrymore and Hugh Grant or if you just like movies that aim at making you feel good than there is nothing wrong with liking this movie. Still, I can't ignore that watching this film I felt like I could predict exactly what would happen next every step of the way. I also found it strange, as my wife pointed out, that this RomCom centered in the world of pop music was strangely devoid of an actually soundtrack. I'm not sure what was going on there but I can assure you I will not lose sleep worrying about it. In fact, part of me hopes this will be the final thoughts I have on this forgettable and regrettable by the numbers bore.
Friday, August 20, 2010
The Darjeeling Limited
Recently I watched about Elizabethtown and talked about how a great film maker like Cameron Crowe, even at their worst, can still give you more than enough to enjoy their films. With The Darjeeling Limited we see a great filmmaker in Wes Anderson have his work become overly maligned due to expectations that were created by past work. In other words, the difference between Elizabethtown and Darjeeling Limited is that one former survives because it's filmmaker is too talented to make a terrible movie and the later is a great film that gets unfairly criticized for not being as good as Wes Anderson's best work.
Like all Wes Anderson films, Darjeeling presents the audience with a set of characters who all have their own particular quirks and the audience is always asked to accept these quirks without much in the form of direct explanation. Through their actions and dialogue though we learn much about these brothers who have drifted apart following their fathers sudden death one year earlier. We know Jack is a writer who "fictionalizes" family events, Peter is married with a kid on the way and Francis, the oldest, has had his head nearly crushed in an a recent accident. The three are in India on a spiritual journey set up by Francis to try and rebuild their relationship as brothers.
A lesser film at this point would pack itself full with various hijinks, stunts and cultural misunderstanding. But thankfully this is not a Robin Williams movie. Instead Wes Anderson's focus is on these brothers. Anderson takes his time letting the audience get to know these brothers as they are now before covering the events from their fathers funeral. And when those events are covered we begin to understand and relate to the full arch that represents their relationship.
The one argument against or perhaps less than appealing element to this film is the lack of a strong female character to put up against and provide some contrast to these brothers. I know this is a film my wife likes but no where near as much as I do. That's okay. By the end we are treated to a film that focuses not only on the relationship between brothers but also sons and mothers. By it's nature it is not a universal story. It's a man dramedy in every possible way and for me it works in ways that few other films can. I know some Wes Anderson fans who would hang me out to dry for saying this but this is my second favorite Anderson film. Of course, the fact that a debate regarding what Anderson's second best film is can exist should stand as a testament to the quality of films that he makes. For better or worse, it also looks like these will be the standards all future Wes Anderson films are compared to.
Like all Wes Anderson films, Darjeeling presents the audience with a set of characters who all have their own particular quirks and the audience is always asked to accept these quirks without much in the form of direct explanation. Through their actions and dialogue though we learn much about these brothers who have drifted apart following their fathers sudden death one year earlier. We know Jack is a writer who "fictionalizes" family events, Peter is married with a kid on the way and Francis, the oldest, has had his head nearly crushed in an a recent accident. The three are in India on a spiritual journey set up by Francis to try and rebuild their relationship as brothers.
A lesser film at this point would pack itself full with various hijinks, stunts and cultural misunderstanding. But thankfully this is not a Robin Williams movie. Instead Wes Anderson's focus is on these brothers. Anderson takes his time letting the audience get to know these brothers as they are now before covering the events from their fathers funeral. And when those events are covered we begin to understand and relate to the full arch that represents their relationship.
The one argument against or perhaps less than appealing element to this film is the lack of a strong female character to put up against and provide some contrast to these brothers. I know this is a film my wife likes but no where near as much as I do. That's okay. By the end we are treated to a film that focuses not only on the relationship between brothers but also sons and mothers. By it's nature it is not a universal story. It's a man dramedy in every possible way and for me it works in ways that few other films can. I know some Wes Anderson fans who would hang me out to dry for saying this but this is my second favorite Anderson film. Of course, the fact that a debate regarding what Anderson's second best film is can exist should stand as a testament to the quality of films that he makes. For better or worse, it also looks like these will be the standards all future Wes Anderson films are compared to.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Marley & Me
I admit it. Frankly, I don't see how anyone would expect any less from a cold hearted movie dork such as myself. It's a badge I wear proudly and in wearing it the expectation is simple. Before I even start the film I already know that I will hate a movie like Marley & Me.
And early on the film does not disappoint. The film opens with Jennifer Aniston and Owen Wilson running through snow covered streets as newly weds. It's early spring in southern Michigan so a freak snow storm is actually the norm. What is not the norm is to see two people so ridiculous tanned that you wonder if either actor could even find southern Michigan on a map.
To aid in their overly tanned existence the newly weds move to Miami and begin working for separate newspapers. The central figure here is Owen Wilson who wants to be a serious news reporter and is doing stories on speed bumps when his boss offers him an opportunity to slum it and start writing columns. Around this time Wilson also allows his best buddy to talk him into getting a dog in order to put off having a kid. Yup, because that makes so much sense.
The hyperbole that exists once Marley arrives is a bit nauseating. The film is selling us on the idea that Marley is the world's worst dog and the film makers are almost gitty in their approach to beating the audience senseless with this idea. To survive and even thrive amidst this adversity, Wilson begins to focus many of his columns on Marley. We are treated to a montage in which Wilson dryly covers many events in his life and the ways Marley has provided a notable catastrophe.
This brings us nearly 45 minutes or an hour into the movie when something strange happens. Wilson and Aniston have one kid, and another and another and we see this family develop and the films tone changes from a movie about the world's worst dog to a movie about family that is actually pretty nice. Wilson struggles with what he wants out of his career, Aniston adjusts to life as a full time mom and I actually find the film improving by leaps and bounds at this point. The hijinks are dialed down and we get to see this family grow together and take on more meaningful life experiences than preventing a dog from peeing on a dog beach.
The family eventually moves to a suburb of Philadelphia and some of the films most poignant moments come from seeing the children react to the family dog getting sick and eventually passing away. It's something that everyone who has ever owned a dog can easily relate to and is done very effectively here.
The film is based on a book/memoir of the same name that my wife is a fan of. In both mediums the audience is trying to be sold that this is the worst dog ever, but in an endearing way. I can't speak for the book but I will tell you that this aspect of the film is boorish and cumbersome. This film adds nothing new to the bad but lovable dog category of films that has absolutely no need for any new entries. But, if you find yourself watching this film stick it out. Eventually the film dials down the bad dog routines and the family aspects of the film are actually somewhat enjoyable to watch. This film is far from a must see but it has at least earned to right not to be hated. Which for a guy who lately has only wanted to watch films were stuff goes BOOM is nothing short of a miracle.
And early on the film does not disappoint. The film opens with Jennifer Aniston and Owen Wilson running through snow covered streets as newly weds. It's early spring in southern Michigan so a freak snow storm is actually the norm. What is not the norm is to see two people so ridiculous tanned that you wonder if either actor could even find southern Michigan on a map.
To aid in their overly tanned existence the newly weds move to Miami and begin working for separate newspapers. The central figure here is Owen Wilson who wants to be a serious news reporter and is doing stories on speed bumps when his boss offers him an opportunity to slum it and start writing columns. Around this time Wilson also allows his best buddy to talk him into getting a dog in order to put off having a kid. Yup, because that makes so much sense.
The hyperbole that exists once Marley arrives is a bit nauseating. The film is selling us on the idea that Marley is the world's worst dog and the film makers are almost gitty in their approach to beating the audience senseless with this idea. To survive and even thrive amidst this adversity, Wilson begins to focus many of his columns on Marley. We are treated to a montage in which Wilson dryly covers many events in his life and the ways Marley has provided a notable catastrophe.
This brings us nearly 45 minutes or an hour into the movie when something strange happens. Wilson and Aniston have one kid, and another and another and we see this family develop and the films tone changes from a movie about the world's worst dog to a movie about family that is actually pretty nice. Wilson struggles with what he wants out of his career, Aniston adjusts to life as a full time mom and I actually find the film improving by leaps and bounds at this point. The hijinks are dialed down and we get to see this family grow together and take on more meaningful life experiences than preventing a dog from peeing on a dog beach.
The family eventually moves to a suburb of Philadelphia and some of the films most poignant moments come from seeing the children react to the family dog getting sick and eventually passing away. It's something that everyone who has ever owned a dog can easily relate to and is done very effectively here.
The film is based on a book/memoir of the same name that my wife is a fan of. In both mediums the audience is trying to be sold that this is the worst dog ever, but in an endearing way. I can't speak for the book but I will tell you that this aspect of the film is boorish and cumbersome. This film adds nothing new to the bad but lovable dog category of films that has absolutely no need for any new entries. But, if you find yourself watching this film stick it out. Eventually the film dials down the bad dog routines and the family aspects of the film are actually somewhat enjoyable to watch. This film is far from a must see but it has at least earned to right not to be hated. Which for a guy who lately has only wanted to watch films were stuff goes BOOM is nothing short of a miracle.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
District 9
Maybe it's the fact that this is my sixth entry in 24 hours but I am struggling to get a grasp on how to start this post. When it comes to Sci-Fi films I am primarily a fan of the bigger franchise entries such as Star Wars, Aliens, or Terminator. Rarely though do I go out of my way for the run of the mill entry in the Sci-Fi genre.
Thankfully, District 9 is anything but an average entry into the genre. The Neil Bloomkamp helmed film which was famously made on a relatively low budget thanks to support from Peter Jackson and his special effects team, District 9 boasts some of the most impressive Alien characters and weapons ever seen on screen.
More impressively though is the fact that District 9 is held together by an incredible story which opens with a history of the District 9 slums which have been located outside of Johannesburg where the Aliens originally landed over 20 years ago. The story essentially splices the Alien population into the already diverse population of South Africa and quickly assimilates them as another group that society must deal with.
At the center of the human side of this story is Wikus Van De Merwe, a character who the audience immediately recognizes as a character who is in over his head. He works for his father-in-law at MNU, an international organization that whose focus is on alien relations and studying the Aliens. Wikus is placed in charge of a program to move the Aliens to a new, smaller slum that is further outside of the city and he must get the Aliens to sign a paper acknowledging their agreement to be evicted. Wikus dives head first into his in role and is seemingly competent his role until he comes in contact with an alien device that sprays him leading to his slow mutation into an alien.
From here on District 9 could have simply been a story about how humans are evil and understanding is what we need for harmony. Given the effects that exist here the film likely would have still been very entertaining. But District 9 goes deeper into human nature than just a film about understanding and looks at the variety of human relationships that exist in a city like Johannesburg. The most remarkable effect the film pulls off is the way it intertwines the Aliens into the fabric of society in Johannesburg. In my life time Alien films fit into one of two categories. You either have a film about understanding like E.T. or a film in which aliens try to destroy us like the ridiculous Independence Day. District 9's success is living in gray areas that past alien sci-fi films have never gone to. Watching it repeatedly has only made me like enjoy it even more.
Thankfully, District 9 is anything but an average entry into the genre. The Neil Bloomkamp helmed film which was famously made on a relatively low budget thanks to support from Peter Jackson and his special effects team, District 9 boasts some of the most impressive Alien characters and weapons ever seen on screen.
More impressively though is the fact that District 9 is held together by an incredible story which opens with a history of the District 9 slums which have been located outside of Johannesburg where the Aliens originally landed over 20 years ago. The story essentially splices the Alien population into the already diverse population of South Africa and quickly assimilates them as another group that society must deal with.
At the center of the human side of this story is Wikus Van De Merwe, a character who the audience immediately recognizes as a character who is in over his head. He works for his father-in-law at MNU, an international organization that whose focus is on alien relations and studying the Aliens. Wikus is placed in charge of a program to move the Aliens to a new, smaller slum that is further outside of the city and he must get the Aliens to sign a paper acknowledging their agreement to be evicted. Wikus dives head first into his in role and is seemingly competent his role until he comes in contact with an alien device that sprays him leading to his slow mutation into an alien.
From here on District 9 could have simply been a story about how humans are evil and understanding is what we need for harmony. Given the effects that exist here the film likely would have still been very entertaining. But District 9 goes deeper into human nature than just a film about understanding and looks at the variety of human relationships that exist in a city like Johannesburg. The most remarkable effect the film pulls off is the way it intertwines the Aliens into the fabric of society in Johannesburg. In my life time Alien films fit into one of two categories. You either have a film about understanding like E.T. or a film in which aliens try to destroy us like the ridiculous Independence Day. District 9's success is living in gray areas that past alien sci-fi films have never gone to. Watching it repeatedly has only made me like enjoy it even more.
Friday, August 13, 2010
The Great White Hype
A history lesson first. For those who are unfamiliar the story of Mike Tyson let us recall first that be the end of the '80's he was considered the most feared man on the planet. Than he showed up out of shape and got beat by Buster Douglass. Then he went to jail for a few years on rape charges. Upon his release his promoters asked the world to buy into the idea of a white kid named Peter McNeely having a chance to beat the once feared champion at the most vulnerable point in his career. Millions dropped $50 a piece to watch on pay-per-view as Tyson KO'd his challenger in less than one minute. Needless to say those who dropped $50 to watch this charade certainly felt cheated.
I mention all of this because part of appreciating the humor in the film "The Great White Hype" is being able to laugh at ourselves for buying into such hype. The film stars Sam Jackson as the Sultan, a boxing promoter who is disturbed by the decline in money he is making off the champ played by Damon Wayans. Jackson believes the remedy to his growing finicial troubles is to find a white man to sell as a legitimate contender to the champ. And those the wheels begin to turn as the Sultan prepares to sell the world a fight between James "The Grim Reaper" Rooper and "Irish" Terry Conklin (for added effect the fight was scheduled for St. Patrick's Day and of course, Terry is not Irish).
The film is fueled by acknowledging and exploiting the racial overtones that not only exist in boxing but in society as a hole. Which is why we don't feel bad for anyone who feels cheated when Conklin gets beat in 27 seconds. The Sultan is right, Americans don't want to pay good money to watch brothers beat up brothers.
The film was originally released in 1996 and did not achieve much box office or home video success. Personally, I believe the film failed to be successful because it essentially made fun of it's target audience. Still, the film features a great cast including Jeff Goldblum, Jaime Foxx, Jon Lovitz, Cheech Marin, Corbin Bernson and Peter Berg and all of them seem to have a keen grasp on who the character is and how to bring the humor in their character out. The film is more vulgar than I would like but it is still entertaining and it remains one of the most underrated comedies I have ever seen.
I mention all of this because part of appreciating the humor in the film "The Great White Hype" is being able to laugh at ourselves for buying into such hype. The film stars Sam Jackson as the Sultan, a boxing promoter who is disturbed by the decline in money he is making off the champ played by Damon Wayans. Jackson believes the remedy to his growing finicial troubles is to find a white man to sell as a legitimate contender to the champ. And those the wheels begin to turn as the Sultan prepares to sell the world a fight between James "The Grim Reaper" Rooper and "Irish" Terry Conklin (for added effect the fight was scheduled for St. Patrick's Day and of course, Terry is not Irish).
The film is fueled by acknowledging and exploiting the racial overtones that not only exist in boxing but in society as a hole. Which is why we don't feel bad for anyone who feels cheated when Conklin gets beat in 27 seconds. The Sultan is right, Americans don't want to pay good money to watch brothers beat up brothers.
The film was originally released in 1996 and did not achieve much box office or home video success. Personally, I believe the film failed to be successful because it essentially made fun of it's target audience. Still, the film features a great cast including Jeff Goldblum, Jaime Foxx, Jon Lovitz, Cheech Marin, Corbin Bernson and Peter Berg and all of them seem to have a keen grasp on who the character is and how to bring the humor in their character out. The film is more vulgar than I would like but it is still entertaining and it remains one of the most underrated comedies I have ever seen.
Elizabethtown
When your a talented filmmaker inevitably you are bound to make that one film that stands out as your worst film. For Cameron Crowe, that film is Elizabethtown.
So, the question becomes, why do I own it? Well, even at his worst Cameron Crowe still has a knack at creating characters the audience will care about. So, when you have a movie like Elizabethtown which opens with preposterous opening in which Olando Bloom ponders the difference between failure and fiasco until moments away from committing suicide in as ridiculous a fashion as anyone could imagine he finds out that his dad has died and that he needs to go and pick up the body.
That body is in a small town called Elizabethtown which is somewhere near Louisville, Kentucky. The town loves Mitch though and upon arrival Bloom's character Drew quickly realizes the town wants Mitch buried there instead of being brought back to Oregon (which the town refers to as California because if your in Kentucky than everything west of the Mississippi River is California).
On his trip Drew also meets flight attendant Claire who could not appear more obnoxious after first meeting her but who Drew eventually finds himself calling and essentially sharing his entire life story with her. They both approach the idea of a relationship as if they would do anything to avoid it and yet they still manage to come together.
The flaws in this film can be summed up as Crowe including some fluff material that could just as easily be removed without damaging the film. Drew could have been just a workaholic and not a suicidal fiasco. Claire's aversion to being in a relationship seems counter to everything we like about her. It's these elements that combine to make this Crowe's worst film.
But, it should be said that the film is still filled with wonderful things. The town folks in Elizabethtown are not as cartoonish as they might have been in lesser hands and quickly we find them endearing. Drew's mom, played by Susan Sarandon, is also great as the woman who is scared to return to Elizabethtown because she knows she is always the woman who took Mitch away from them. The film also features seemingly half the songs from Crowe's IPOD which is okay because Crowe does have a great taste for music and only occasionally does it feel like Crowe is going to the well with his music to cover up for a low point in the movie. And ultimately we care about seeing Drew and Claire end up together. Which, when you start a film like this, regardless of the potholes you hit along the way, if you reach the end and you are happy to see these characters end up together the film has served it's purpose. Even at his worst Crowe is still talented enough to get us to this point.
So, the question becomes, why do I own it? Well, even at his worst Cameron Crowe still has a knack at creating characters the audience will care about. So, when you have a movie like Elizabethtown which opens with preposterous opening in which Olando Bloom ponders the difference between failure and fiasco until moments away from committing suicide in as ridiculous a fashion as anyone could imagine he finds out that his dad has died and that he needs to go and pick up the body.
That body is in a small town called Elizabethtown which is somewhere near Louisville, Kentucky. The town loves Mitch though and upon arrival Bloom's character Drew quickly realizes the town wants Mitch buried there instead of being brought back to Oregon (which the town refers to as California because if your in Kentucky than everything west of the Mississippi River is California).
On his trip Drew also meets flight attendant Claire who could not appear more obnoxious after first meeting her but who Drew eventually finds himself calling and essentially sharing his entire life story with her. They both approach the idea of a relationship as if they would do anything to avoid it and yet they still manage to come together.
The flaws in this film can be summed up as Crowe including some fluff material that could just as easily be removed without damaging the film. Drew could have been just a workaholic and not a suicidal fiasco. Claire's aversion to being in a relationship seems counter to everything we like about her. It's these elements that combine to make this Crowe's worst film.
But, it should be said that the film is still filled with wonderful things. The town folks in Elizabethtown are not as cartoonish as they might have been in lesser hands and quickly we find them endearing. Drew's mom, played by Susan Sarandon, is also great as the woman who is scared to return to Elizabethtown because she knows she is always the woman who took Mitch away from them. The film also features seemingly half the songs from Crowe's IPOD which is okay because Crowe does have a great taste for music and only occasionally does it feel like Crowe is going to the well with his music to cover up for a low point in the movie. And ultimately we care about seeing Drew and Claire end up together. Which, when you start a film like this, regardless of the potholes you hit along the way, if you reach the end and you are happy to see these characters end up together the film has served it's purpose. Even at his worst Crowe is still talented enough to get us to this point.
Dr. Strangelove: Or How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb!
I have surprisingly little to say about this film. As it stands, this is my favorite Stanley Kubrick film and remains a surprisingly timely film over forty years after it's release. If you have not seen this film than I have no pity for you. The plot surrounds a rogue army general giving a green light for to drop nuclear bombs on targets in Russia and also follows the actions that occur in the War Room, as the President tries to get answers on how this is possible and how to stop it. The film stars Peter Sellers, Goerge C. Scott and Sterling Hayden all in hilarious roles. It definitely requires a cynical attitude to fully appreciate but is worth watching even if you only like happy go lucky films. I suppose the main reason I have so little to say about this film is that it speaks better for itself than anything I can say. The film is great on it's first viewing and only improves on repeat viewing. If you have never seen it than just trust me that there is nothing I can say that will improve your experience, just give it a chances and you shouldn't be disappointed.
Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events
This film is a holdover from years having an unhealthy man-crush on Jim Carrey. I loved him on In Living Color, Ace Ventura was great and I still believe he is a great dramatic actor when he wants to be. With Lemony Snickets, Jim Carrey reminds us that he is also great at playing the villain.
Lemony Snicket's is a kids film that does everything it can to convince you that it is not a kids film. Narrated by Jude Law, the audience is frequently reminded that this is not a film about happy little bunnies but a tale a 3 siblings who lose there parents and then find themselves continually pitted against Jim Carrey's Count Olaf character who seems to be after the kids inheritance.
In facing off with Count Olaf, each sibling brings a unique skill to their survival as these kids soon learn that Count Olaf will not easily quit. After escaping Olaf's initial attempt to adopt them the kids are sent to live with distant relatives who provide clues to the life and eventually to the cause of death of their parents. With each stop we see Olaf arrive with a new costume which the kids easily see through while the adults in the story seem oblivious to it.
Since the movie was first released I have often wondered and I have been disappointed that no sequel has come since. It did well enough at the box office and for Carrey's part I know he said at the time that he liked the idea of playing Count Olaf because it would give him the opportunity to play a variety of characters. In this installment Carrey is great to this end because he is able to really dive into each character and have fun with it. I thought the child actors involved in this film all did fine, but if they were recast in order to do another live-action version of these stories I would be fine with that. I know some felt the material here was too dark for a kids film and I certainly wouldn't show it to my 4 year old yet, but for pre-teens this is a quality and age appropriate in my opinion. While this isn't great, it's very entertaining and is Jim Carrey's best work since it was released.
Lemony Snicket's is a kids film that does everything it can to convince you that it is not a kids film. Narrated by Jude Law, the audience is frequently reminded that this is not a film about happy little bunnies but a tale a 3 siblings who lose there parents and then find themselves continually pitted against Jim Carrey's Count Olaf character who seems to be after the kids inheritance.
In facing off with Count Olaf, each sibling brings a unique skill to their survival as these kids soon learn that Count Olaf will not easily quit. After escaping Olaf's initial attempt to adopt them the kids are sent to live with distant relatives who provide clues to the life and eventually to the cause of death of their parents. With each stop we see Olaf arrive with a new costume which the kids easily see through while the adults in the story seem oblivious to it.
Since the movie was first released I have often wondered and I have been disappointed that no sequel has come since. It did well enough at the box office and for Carrey's part I know he said at the time that he liked the idea of playing Count Olaf because it would give him the opportunity to play a variety of characters. In this installment Carrey is great to this end because he is able to really dive into each character and have fun with it. I thought the child actors involved in this film all did fine, but if they were recast in order to do another live-action version of these stories I would be fine with that. I know some felt the material here was too dark for a kids film and I certainly wouldn't show it to my 4 year old yet, but for pre-teens this is a quality and age appropriate in my opinion. While this isn't great, it's very entertaining and is Jim Carrey's best work since it was released.
The Lord of the Rings
While trilogies such as The Godfather or Indiana Jones contain parts that can easily stand alone, The Lord of the Rings trilogy really is the sum of all of it's parts. Each individual film is highly entertaining however, watching just one or two of them will not leave you any where near as satisfied as watching the whole trilogy. (A small note here, DO NOT try watching all 3 in one day! Heidi and I tried that after Return of the King was released and by the end of the day we felt like death!)
Now, regardless of what Kevin Smith may think, there is much more going on here than people just walking around. The Lord of the Rings is set in the fantasy world of Middle Earth and opens with an amazing intro to the world that focuses on the ring of power. The ring was forged by the Dark Lord and has the power to control all of middle earth for evil. Sauron however was defeated and lost the ring, however, the weakness of man would not allow the ring to be destroyed. It was lost only to be found thousands of years later by Gollum who loses it to a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins. The ring gives Bilbo unnatural long life so when he decides to leave his home for one last adventure he leaves the ring with Frodo.
And so begins the tale of Frodo and the men, dwarfs, elves and wizards who would come together to prevent the return of Sauron and destroy the ring once and for all. Considering how much detail I have entered setting up the saga I have no intention of doing that with what amounts to the remaining 8 plus hours of the films. Instead I just want to hit some highlights.
With The Fellowship of the Ring, director Peter Jackson introduces the audience to the world of middle earth and allows the audience to get to know each character and their role in the story. There are some incredible sequences, in particular my favorite sequence is in the mines of Moria, and we get the foundation for the next two stories to come. I had never read the books before hearing about them being made into movies and I always feel a little empty with the way this one ends. I remember hearing people complain about that when it was first released but the quality of film making going on here made it easy to get excited for the stories continuation with the Two Towers.
The second movie is arguably a fan of the book series least favorite. Huge portions of the book (including some of the best sequences for Sam and Frodo) were left out and moved to the third movie so it's easy to see how a fan of the book could walk out furious. But, like the unfulfilling ending to the first film, it's a flaw that is easily overlooked when you consider that by the trilogies end you still get the bulk of what you wanted to see. Also, the Helm's deep sequence remains my favorite of the entire series and the tension created just before the battle as rain begins to fall is incredible. One small complaint I do have with the film is that Gimli is turned into a comic relief character, a decision which is frustrating on repeat viewing. And of course, the scene stealer's of this second installment include the return of Gandalf and Gollum's role in helping Sam and Frodo. Andy Serkis, who provided the motion for the CGI character Gollum actually garnered some Oscar consideration for his truly unique role in the film. It's doubtful someone will ever get a nomination for playing a CGI character, but I think everyone can agree that as CGI characters go, Gollum was infinitely better than Dobby or Jar-Jar.
The Return of the King is essentially everything you would expect form a trilogy of this magnitude. It is bigger, grander and louder than the other two. It is also nearly 30 minutes longer in run time and still manages to leave fans of the book longing for a few of the scenes that did not make the film. I leave this one wishing actors like Viggo Mortenson got more attention from the Oscars but considering this film one 12 Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director it certainly wasn't ignored. There is very little here that disappoints as story lines are tied up and the film gives it's audience the type of closure you would expect after over 9 hours of adventure.
If you are wondering, the answer is yes, the books are better (shocking, I know). But that shouldn't take away from what Peter Jackson has done on film here. Books are a medium that allows an author to do more while Jackson's film trilogy shows the limitation that exist in adapting a novel even when given 9 hours to do so. It some ways it's an apples to oranges comparison, but ultimately the books are more fulfilling which should only be read as high praise for the books and is not intended to be a knock on the film. After all, Jackson puts a lot more on screen for you than just characters walking around.
Now, regardless of what Kevin Smith may think, there is much more going on here than people just walking around. The Lord of the Rings is set in the fantasy world of Middle Earth and opens with an amazing intro to the world that focuses on the ring of power. The ring was forged by the Dark Lord and has the power to control all of middle earth for evil. Sauron however was defeated and lost the ring, however, the weakness of man would not allow the ring to be destroyed. It was lost only to be found thousands of years later by Gollum who loses it to a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins. The ring gives Bilbo unnatural long life so when he decides to leave his home for one last adventure he leaves the ring with Frodo.
And so begins the tale of Frodo and the men, dwarfs, elves and wizards who would come together to prevent the return of Sauron and destroy the ring once and for all. Considering how much detail I have entered setting up the saga I have no intention of doing that with what amounts to the remaining 8 plus hours of the films. Instead I just want to hit some highlights.
With The Fellowship of the Ring, director Peter Jackson introduces the audience to the world of middle earth and allows the audience to get to know each character and their role in the story. There are some incredible sequences, in particular my favorite sequence is in the mines of Moria, and we get the foundation for the next two stories to come. I had never read the books before hearing about them being made into movies and I always feel a little empty with the way this one ends. I remember hearing people complain about that when it was first released but the quality of film making going on here made it easy to get excited for the stories continuation with the Two Towers.
The second movie is arguably a fan of the book series least favorite. Huge portions of the book (including some of the best sequences for Sam and Frodo) were left out and moved to the third movie so it's easy to see how a fan of the book could walk out furious. But, like the unfulfilling ending to the first film, it's a flaw that is easily overlooked when you consider that by the trilogies end you still get the bulk of what you wanted to see. Also, the Helm's deep sequence remains my favorite of the entire series and the tension created just before the battle as rain begins to fall is incredible. One small complaint I do have with the film is that Gimli is turned into a comic relief character, a decision which is frustrating on repeat viewing. And of course, the scene stealer's of this second installment include the return of Gandalf and Gollum's role in helping Sam and Frodo. Andy Serkis, who provided the motion for the CGI character Gollum actually garnered some Oscar consideration for his truly unique role in the film. It's doubtful someone will ever get a nomination for playing a CGI character, but I think everyone can agree that as CGI characters go, Gollum was infinitely better than Dobby or Jar-Jar.
The Return of the King is essentially everything you would expect form a trilogy of this magnitude. It is bigger, grander and louder than the other two. It is also nearly 30 minutes longer in run time and still manages to leave fans of the book longing for a few of the scenes that did not make the film. I leave this one wishing actors like Viggo Mortenson got more attention from the Oscars but considering this film one 12 Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director it certainly wasn't ignored. There is very little here that disappoints as story lines are tied up and the film gives it's audience the type of closure you would expect after over 9 hours of adventure.
If you are wondering, the answer is yes, the books are better (shocking, I know). But that shouldn't take away from what Peter Jackson has done on film here. Books are a medium that allows an author to do more while Jackson's film trilogy shows the limitation that exist in adapting a novel even when given 9 hours to do so. It some ways it's an apples to oranges comparison, but ultimately the books are more fulfilling which should only be read as high praise for the books and is not intended to be a knock on the film. After all, Jackson puts a lot more on screen for you than just characters walking around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
