Tharks, Zarks and Barfs – the John Carter review

It might very well be that somewhere in the classic stories of Edgar Rice Burroughs (also the creator of Tarzan, by the way) about John Carter and his exploits there lurks a diamond of a sci-fi adventure movie. But John Carter (previously titled John Carter of Mars) is not it. I feel slightly uncomfortable trashing this film. Arguing that it is not very original is just unfair. Rice Burroughs’ science fiction stories are over a century old, and if this film seems like a cheap Star Wars rip-off, then it is only so because George Lucas was inspired by those stories when making his big break-through film.

But it does feel awfully familiar, and that is probably the reason it took so long before anyone dared to bring John Carter to the screen. Studios must have felt intuitively that a story about a displaced hero, a princess, warring factions, green aliens called Tharks and shape shifting blue baddies would, to modern audiences unacquainted with Rice Burroughs’ work, be a bit daft and at the same time terribly cliched. At best.

Basically, the one thing that Disney’s take on the material has to offer is its director. Andrew Stanton is a legend. He is the guy who wrote the Toy Story trilogy. Who made Wall-E, and Finding Nemo. Not just excellent kids’ or family films. Excellent films. The failure (artistically, financially John Carter will no doubt do as its meant to) of this film is all the more painful considering the CV on which it is a stain.

The story, for whoever cares, is as following: It is 1868 and disgruntled Civil War veteran John Carter (Taylor ‘what’s-in-a-name’ Kitsch) seeks for gold as he is mysteriously transported to the planet of ‘Barsoom’. There he is captured by tall green aliens, but he manages to save a human-like princess of a city that is at war with another city and he gets mixed up in the local affairs. Everyone wants him on their side, because John Carter is incredibly strong and agile on this strange planet with a lower gravity.

If that does not sound daft enough for you, the locals are called names such as Tars Tarkas, Dejah Soris, Tardors Mors and Sab Than. And there aren’t just Tharks, there are also Warhoons, Zodangans and (you won’t believe this) Heliumites. The latter, by the way, do not speak with an inexplicably high pitched voice, unfortunately. All these strange and uninteresting people are at war with themselves and each other, on a planet that for an unapparent reason is apparently dying. And the bad guys have a weapon that is based on the mysterious blue ‘ninth ray’ of something.

If that does not sound problematic enough for you than please do also consider that the film is a mess. The plotting is all over the place, the dialogue is heavy in tone yet meaningless in, well, meaning, and the action scenes are outright boring. Compared to this, Avatar was a text-book example of disciplined and swift storytelling.

But the most terrible thing is that the film is so ugly. The art director must have been on some nasty drugs when designing the world of Barsoom, and the color scheme is all over the place. I had to physically look away (!) from the screen regularly to protect my eyes. I am not even interested in criticizing the worst 3D I’ve seen as of yet, because however bad the 3D is, there is nothing there for it to ruin.

I feel sorry for the actors who, some way or another, found themselves in this train-wreck of a film. Ciaran Hinds at least shows that he knows he is in a drunken panto farce. But It is painful to see Dominic West, Mark Strong, Lynn Collins and the actually quite charismatic Taylor Kitsch trying so hard.

Better than Trois Couleurs: Rouge – the Man on a Ledge review

There is a man on a ledge. He is going to jump of the ledge, to his certain death. Or is he? For at least half of the film, Man on a Ledge has a very apt title. Just as Titanic. Or Psycho. Or Run Lola Run. This is the only way in which the film is better than Trois Couleurs: Rouge, Wings of Desire and The Secret in their Eyes. You can understand from the title what the film is about.

Except of course for the fact that for half of the film, we’re not with the man on the ledge. We’re with a guy and a gal in a building, with a mean businessman in a meeting, with cops on the ground…Now, if only Man on a Ledge (dir. Asger Leth) had been just about a man on a ledge, who may or may not jump (or fall), and perhaps about the damaged negotiator trying to talk him out of it, it might have made an excellent thriller. Or drama. Oh, and if it hadn’t starred Sam Worthington, the Australian bloke who, with all the good will in the world, is not a versatile actor, and who really needs futuristic robots (Terminator Salvation), Olympian Gods (Clash of the Titans) or blue 3Dified supersmurfs (Avatar) around him. Just him, on a ledge, having to actually act; doesn’t work.

But before I start reviewing a fictitious film I would like, let’s get back to Man on a Ledge. The plot is simple. Sam Worthington is an ex-cop sent to jail for a crime he did not commit. Who then escapes and instead of making it across the Mexican border decides to climb on top of a New York hotel and threatens to jump down while his brother (Jamie Bell) and the latter’s girlfriend (newcomer Genesis Rodriguez, very handsome, huge rack, can’t act for pants) prove his innocence (by committing another crime, although no-one seems to bother about that). It is that kind of a film.

It is the kind of film in which the police negotiator with the damaged past is a young gorgeous blonde woman (Elizabeth Banks). Who whines at her SWAT-team sending superiors to stay out of ‘her’ negotiation.

It is the kind of film that throws in completely random acts to stall the plot (throwing down money from the building to create a chaos) and then fails to have them effectively stall the plot. This is a movie that is beyond-the-pale dumb. The heist carried out by Bell and Rodriguez is incredibly boring, despite its resemblances to Ocean’s Eleven. The difference between the two films is that in Ocean’s Eleven you kinda knew what the crew were up to, what they had to do or get done in order to break into the casino vault. In Man on a Ledge stuff just happens and passes by unexplained. Why does Genesis Rodriguez have to crawl down a ventilation shaft if she and Bell already have the password to the vault? I can’t think of any other reason than to give the audience a good look down her neckline.

Tower Heist was also very dumb. But at least is had Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy. It was fun. Nowhere is Man on a  Ledge any fun.

The dumbest thing, though, is, that if a distributor of this film would want to quote this review for promotional purposes, then in the first paragraph he or she could find the stunning sentence “better then Trois Coulers: Rouge”. Oh boy.

Oscar’s logic: things to consider…

Tonight are the Oscars awarded, in a big ceremony in the Kodak theatre in Los Angeles. So over the last week(s) many people have tried to predict who is going to win. But what do we need to consider? Three types of Oscar logic work kinda against each other this year:

Oscar logic number 1: there is almost always one big favourite. This year that favourite is Michel Hazanavicius’  almost-silent black-and-white film The Artist. Last year it was The King’s Speech. Crucially, this big favourite will win awards, in the wake of winning best picture, almost automatically. Best Director and Best Original (or adapted, depending on the film) Screenplay for instance. Or some technical awards that other films might be more deserving of. So there is a chance that The Artist, apart from winning Best Film, will also win Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Music, Best Art Direction, Best Costumes, Best Editing and best Cinematography. And of course Best Actor for Jean Dujardin and Best Supporting Actress for Berenice Bejo.

Oscar logic number 2: The industry has certain demands. You wouldn’t believe it, but Hollywood thinks it is in crisis. Because of the economical crisis everwhere else of course, and because of piracy. So box office success and industrial demands do influence the votes. If a film has hardly been seen by anyone, then kiss your chances goodbye. Sorry Glenn Close (nominated for Albert Nobbs), but that is the deal. As to industrial demands: In 2009-10, Avatar broke all kinds of box office records. So it won awards. Technical ones, mostly, but still. In a strange, counter-sentimental move against Avatar and 3D the important prizes of 2010 were won by the little-seen The Hurt Locker. But this year 3D must be proven a viable option for the future, now that legendary directors Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese have adopted the format. Since Spielberg’s The Adventures of Tintin was criminally neglected by the Academy, Scorsese’s Hugo may have a shot at some prizes, especially Editing and Cinematography.

Oscar logic number 3: On the wave of The Artist Dujardin and Bejo may win awards for their performances, but there are other factors to consider: Best Actor is a career prize. It usually goes to actors who have a long-standing reputation in Hollywood. To win, it has to be your time. Cue Jeff Bridges in 2010, Colin Firth in 2011 and now George Clooney in 2012. Or, very perhaps, Gary Oldman. In the supporting categories the Academy tends to reward eccentric, extravagant performances in socially ‘relevant’  films. So Mo’nique in 2010, for Precious, and Melissa Leo last year for The Fighter. And this year Octavia Spencer for The Help.

I do not know what will happen in Los Angeles tonight. But whatever the outcome, the three types of Oscar logic described above will play their parts.

Oscar logic number 4. Pixar wins Best Animated Film. Oh, wait, they are not nominated this year. ..

Growls, Blood, More Growls – the Conan the Barbarian review

For a start: I think Conan the Barbarian (dir. Marcus Nispel) sets a record. I think it’s the first human-based fiction film that has more grunting, shouting, growling and groaning than actual lines of dialogue in it. It is of paramount importance to know this, before judging the film. William Shakespeare or Woody Allen this is not.

What is it then? Well, it is a remake of the pulp film that brought international fame to Arnold Schwarzenegger in 1982. It is not based on a novel by pulp writer Robert E. Howard, although it does take its titular character from these novels. A titular character that is played by the gigantic Hawaiian actor Jason Momoa, who has appeared in similar setting in the recent HBO series Game of Thrones (which, in terms of quality, actually does not deserve to be mentioned in a Conan review).

The film is as stupid as Green Lantern or Transformers: Dark of the Moon, but at least in the first hour it manages to deliver some light, unpretentious fun, mostly because it is obvious that the filmmakers know they are making trash, and delight in it. After that first hour the film slows down and turns into a series of endless, clichéd fight scenes with evil wizards and weird monsters. Fight scenes that, crucially, do not have the intensity and gore of the bigger action scenes of the first hour.

The “story” (read: thin as silk excuse for excessive decapitation and mutilation) is something like this: Young Conan is born during battle and raised to be a magnificent warrior by his father (Ron Perlman, always a pleasure), the chief of his tribe of Barbarians. But the tribe is ambushed and slaughtered by the evil Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang, just as in Avatar playing a one-dimensional bad guy in a 3D film), and the kid Conan is left for dead. Yet he survives to grow up to be Jason Momoa, and spends the rest of the film plotting revenge and slaughtering Zym’s henchmen. Zym, meanwhile, is seeking, together with his diabolical daughter Marique (Rose McGowan), the magical power to resurrect his witch wife and become invincible. A power he finds in the blood of the beautiful Tamara (Rachel Nichols), who just happens to fall in love with Conan.

Yes, it’s that kind of a film.

It is actually quite miraculous that so much plot is discernible amidst all the shouting and growling, and despite the lack of actual dialogue. It is probably because this film has been made a thousand times before, and most times of these made quite better, that the story is recognizable.

Although the 3D is superfluous and shoddy, and although the film limps from cliché to cliché, it is quite enjoyable during its first hour. After that first hour, the lack of originality and character start to weigh in and they throw this version of Conan off balance, and off the course to cult appreciation.

Spielberg Trailers

Steven Spielberg has two films coming out this year. Two quite different ones.

War Horse is the film adaptation of the Michael Morpurgo children’s novel. It is set in World War I and stars Jeremy Irvine, David Thewliss, Emma Thompson and Benedict Cumberbatch. It will be released in the United States on December 28 2011. It has no Dutch release date yet.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn is also an adaptation, of the famous cmoic strip series Tintin. Its story borrows elements from a number of different Tintin albums. Spielberg uses James Cameron’s Avatar technology for performance capture and 3D filming for this film. The ‘performers’ include Jamiel Bell, Nick Frost, Simon Pegg, Daniel Craig and Andy Serkis. Yes, Tintin is a man’s world.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn will be released on October 26th in The Netherlands, and just before Christmas in the United States.

 

End of the year round-up: The Best Films of 2010* **

*Dutch release dates. Includes therefore The Hurt Locker and A Serious Man, but no Black Swan or 127 Hours.

** As I am no professional critic I have not seen everything. Films such as The Social Network, Scott Pilgrim and Sex and the City 2 have so far managed to elude me.

10        Centurion

Beautifully shot chase film by horror specialist Neill Marshall, who learned exactly the right lessons from Gladiator and who “masters the art of the graceful decapitation” like no-one else.

9          Four Lions

Proves that you can turn even the most touchiest of subjects, Muslim-terrorism, into comedy-gold. At the expense of the characters perhaps, but that is at no point a killjoy in this film.

 

8          Kick Ass!

Violent, geeky and morally questionable, but sooo funny. Extra credits for a stand-out Nicholas Cage performance.

 

7          Catfish

The controversy over the truthfulness of this documentary is not really that interesting, from a creative point of view. Catfish is an amazing story about very interesting people, and the ‘facebook’ film that The Social Network is not.

 

6          Toy Story 3

Would probably have ended up higher if I had an emotional investment in the series, which I did not have. Excellent characters, great voice work, beautiful music and an appropriate theme for a satisfying final chapter.

 

5          A Winter’s Bone

Who could’ve thought that a film could be deeply depressing and fiercely uplifting at the same time? Debra Granik proves it can be done, owing a big debt to Jennifer Lawrence superior performance.

 

4          A Serious Man

Best. Coen Brothers Film. Ever.

 

3          Inception

A visual and narratological masterpiece. 2^nd and 3^rd viewings allow for the emotional heart to find its place. Perhaps the most important film of the year, because Nolan shows that very expensive action films need not be stupid. Even Michal Bay now wants his next Transformers film to be smarter.

 

2          The Hurt Locker

Testosterone and adrenaline fuelled “small” film about big issues. Its focus on character rather than politics makes it intensely emotional and, surprisingly, very political. “Exactly 17.3 times better than Avatar”, its big awards-competitor.

 

1          El Secreto de Sus Ojos

Excellent character study, harrowing thriller and portrait of a society. El Secreto de Sus Ojos has no flaws. Its devastating climax lingers and haunts your dreams. The film was the big surprise of 2010’s Foreign Language Oscar category, and of the entire year for that matter.

Fair Game But Dull Cinema – The Fair Game Review

Now, there’s two ways too insult a movie. The first one is walking out of it. I’ve done that a couple of times. First with Spike Lee’s terribly misogynistic She Hate Me, later with a disgusting horror flick called The Ruins and most recently when I gave Inglourious Basterds a second chance.

The second way too insult a movie is different may seem less harsh, but is actually more so. To walk out of a film at least means the film touched you, that it moved you. Not pleasantly probably, but still. It matters to walk out of it. You make a statement. You draw a line. But this second way of insulting a movie comes out of utter disinterest. Boredom. I’ve done it once before, with Avatar, and I did it again with Fair Game (dir. by Doug Liman)

I took a bathroom break.

I walked out of the film, but only to relieve myself. After that I just took up my place, looked at the screen, noticed after a minute I hadn’t missed much and sat out the ride. Fair Game is so dull and predictable that it couldn’t force me to squeeze my bladder. Now that’s quite something for a cinephile like me. At least Avatar had the excuse of being three hours long and shown without an intermission. Fair Game doesn’t even get close to the two-hour mark. And yet it is so boring.

Just to recap: Fair Game is the story, based on a real scandal a couple of years ago, of a CIA operative (Valerie Plame, played by Naomi Watts) whose cover is blown by White House officials after her diplomat husband (Joe Wilson, played by Sean Penn) publicly denies the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Eventually the scandal was exposed and White House advisor Gordon Libby was fired and prosecuted.

Penn and Watts give great performances (they played a couple under duress previously in The Assasination of Richard Nixon), it must be admitted. And it is honestly a delight to see Naomi Watts back on form after a string of weaker performances that was kick-started by her role as scream queen in King Kong in 2005 and reached its utter low when shoe voiced Suzie Rabbitt in David Lynch’s incomprehensible Inland Empire mess.

But great performances don’t make up for the many wrongs of Fair Game. First of all. The WMD plot is really, really outdated. Let’s call it the ‘Green Zone’ fallacy; when the MacGuffin that drives the plot is not really mysterious or exciting (anymore). Now that is one thing. But the biggest problem is that Fair Game should really be about Wilson and Plame and the stress put on their marriage by Wilson’s disclosure and the subsequent mud-slinging campaign and death-threats. Instead, the turning point of Plame’s cover being blown comes only after an hour or so: the first hour is spent explaining how the White House faked the evidence from the intelligence agencies. Which is really, really a passé point to make. Now the interesting part of the film hardly lasts for half an hour. This is the part that I’m interested in, this is where the actors can go from good to great, but it is cut short.

Liman has chosen to make a film about politics rather than a film about people, and the result is Michael Moore without humor but with two great actors short-changed on their talents.

Harry Potter 7 not in 3D – Mere excuses or business strategy?

This week the news was released that the first of the spectacular Harry Potter finales Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part I, will not be released in 3D, as was announced earlier, amongst others in trailers.

Warner Brothers claim that they could not finish the conversion process in time to release the film in 3D this November. The second part of the finale, set for the summer of 2011, is still supposed to have a 3D version as well.

Although I do not have the tiniest bit of proof for this claim, I think that Warner Brothers are backing out of 3D, or at least out of films conversed into 3D after the shoot. Films like Avatar and Alice in Wonderland may have stood out during the last year, but in general, 3D films have shown to be in a downward spiral during 2010.

Daniel Frankel produced a graph for The Wrap.com that showed that less and less people choose to see a film in its 3D version during opening weekends, even though cinemas are still expanding the number of 3D proofed screens. This graph is slightly distorted though, since it has not time scale and Alice in Wonderland, a major financial winner in 2010, is not on the chart.

Subsequently, Daniel Engber made a similar graph for Slate.com that showed declining percentages opening weekend revenues for 3D versions of films, with Despicable Me as a sad conclusion.

I would not be surprised if studios were getting cold feet about 3D. It is expensive to make, the tickets are more expensive for audiences, and these audiences are not stupid: they spot cheap and simple conversion processes. With their feet and wallets they vote for old-fashioned 2D versions of films, which have a clearer picture and do not give them headaches. Either 3D is finished, or it will remain a spectacular attraction for single film-events. In either case, it will neither change nor save the industry.

But that is not really a problem is it? I mean, We enjoyed (most of) the Harry Potter films in 2D, didn’t we?

This trailer still announces the film in a 3D release.

Blockbuster Season 2010: The Round-up

Okay. So that’s it. It is the first of September, and although some big loud action movies are still to premiere on Dutch screens, I call it a day for the blockbuster season of 2010. September is the month in which we’ll get to see Machete and Piranha 3D, but it is also the month of the Venice Film Festival and, interesting for the locals here, The dutch Film Festival in Utrecht.

And what a weird blockbuster season it has been. Whereas other years were actually good (2008 saw The Dark Knight, Iron Man and only had The Incredible Hulk to cry about) or very bad (2009, if only for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and GI: Joe) 2010’s summer saw its major titles sink, but saw other, unexpected, films deliver.

Tent pole pictures such as Green Zone, Iron Man 2, Clash of the Titans, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and The Expendables all disappointed, some to the degree of outright awfulness. Robin Hood was okay, as were Predators, Knight and Day and From Paris With Love. And these four films actually belonged to the B-list to be honest.

Of course, Inception was great. If my review seemed critical, it was only because I set the bar higher for that film. Three other films that I really enjoyed were Centurion, Kick-Ass and Salt. Big pictures of course, but not the movie events that dominated the summer. The A-Team was a delightful guilty pleasure, but it disappointed at the (U.S.) box office, so unfortunately there will probably not be  a sequel.

So, apart from Inception, what was the blockbuster season of 2010 about? Well, to be honest, it was not really about big loud action movies. Of course Inception was big and loud, and an action film, but it does not belong to the same league as Armageddon or Transformers. The other films that drew large crowds this summer were, well, kids movies.

Toy Story 3 was amazing; the only film in 3D that was worth the extra bucks so far. It deserved to be as successful as it was. Shrek Forever After (also in 3D) was a disgrace, but it was a popular success. Let’s just hope that Dreamworks will leave Shrek alone now, and in time I may forgive them. Finally, there was the remake of The Karate Kid, which was far from faultless, but was carried by great performances and had a sincere heart.

The big debates now will focus on two questions: is 2010 an exception, or are family films the future of the blockbuster season? Harry Potter will of course finish with two big bangs, but what’s next? The other question: what to think of 3D? Is it the future of the business? The savior of cinema? Some studies suggest otherwise. I think it will only work as an added attraction for films that were from the first moment thought of as 3D pictures. Avatar for instance, or Toy Story 3. Turning ‘normal’ 2D films into 3D, sometimes with the help of inadequate conversion processes, only helps to kill of the hype and the audience willingness to pay extra.

So this was it: the blockbuster season. One film I’ve yet to mention is Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, which has had its American and UK release, but will only hit Dutch screens this autumn. I don’t expect too much of it. It seems immature fatiguing nonsense, with an unlikable hero who thinks the L-word refers to lesbians. Geek stuff I guess. Must be, with Michael Cera doing that Michael Cera thing that some people seem to like.

 

(This trailer is so annoying that I want to see and then hate this film)

So, let’s ease into the autumn, towards the Holiday season films and the first contenders for awards season 2011. Just a few titles you may already want to look up: The American, 127 hours, Four Lions, Tamara Drew and Terence Malick’s The Tree of Life. Terence Malick? Yes. Terence Malick. Also, there is the ‘new Slumdog Millionaire’ with Africa United. I’m looking forward already.

Spicy and Ambitious – The Salt review

Tom Cruise did not want to play Ed Salt, a CIA agent accused of being a Russian sleeper spy. He thought the character resembled Mission: Impossible’s Ethan Hunt too much. Cruise was more interested in spoofing the Hunt character in Knight and Day. The other Hot Big Hollywood Action Star, Matt Damon, was too busy making an outdated political argument about Iraq, so the producers turned to… Angelina Jolie.

And why not? Jolie is not only a talented dramatic actress (see Girl, Interrupted, A Mighty Heart and Changeling), she also knows her way around action scenes, as she showed in the Tomb Raider films, in Mr. & Mrs. Smith and in Wanted. The producers only had to change Ed Salt into Evelyn Salt and, ironically, introduce a third-act plot-gimmick that brings the character even closer to Ethan Hunt.

Salt is directed by Philip Noyce. Not a very big name, but an action specialist who previously directed the Tom Clancy adaptations Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger, and who worked with Jolie previously on The Bone Collector (1999). In this film Noyce delivers again. Many directors have great difficulty filming action scenes in such a way that you know what happens to whom at what moment. Remarkably, this is especially true for such action ‘specialists’ as Michael Bay, McG (who? Oh, the one that destroyed the Terminator franchise), Tony Scott and John Woo. It is les true for recently celebrated directors such as Christopher Nolan and Paul Greengrass, but they too throw in some really confusing action scenes now and then. Spielberg is great at action scenes (think T-Rex versus Jeeps in Jurassic Park), and James Cameron too, despite Avatar. Noyce is part of that little group. The action scenes in Salt are crisp and clear, even when Evelyn Salt tries to escape her former colleagues by jumping from one truck onto another, creating a chaos that beats the current nine day traffic jam near Beijing. Whatever inconsistency or confusion there is to Salt has not so much to do with the direction as with the screenplay.

Kurt Wimmer’s script has a quick start, introducing the main characters, and then blowing up their little cozy Central Intelligence world with the screenwriting equivalent of a cluster bomb: The protagonist of the film, played by one of the biggest stars on the planet, is the bad guy. Excuses, bad girl. Even better, she is a Russian bad girl set out to kill the Russian president in New York and thereby kick-start World War 3 (gotta love Russian crooks, no Muslim terrorist or Colombian drug lord can beat them). Or is she not? Irony to all of this is of course that Jolie, who has belched out the weirdest exotic accents in film history (Alexander, Beowulf), speaks perfectly plain American English in this film. Any normal person would of course turn herself in to prove that the deranged old defector making the accusations against her is lying. But not Salt. Before she turns herself in she has to secure the safety of her arachnologist (spider scientist!) husband. Hence the escaping and the truck-bouncing.

If this sounds over the top to you, then please note: this is only the set-up. And you know what? It works. And it works throughout the second act, in which it becomes ever more uncertain whether Salt is indeed who she is accused of being, and which ends on an emotional bang quite unlike any in a major blockbuster since the Joker blew up Maggie Gyllenhaal. It is only in the third act that the script makes a double backwards flip-flop and gets annoyingly unrealistic. Until then it works.

Salt is in its scope and in its depth an ambitious undertaking with strong franchise potential (although Salt’s husband will not turn into Spider Man). It challenges the audience to doubt its protagonist and star, and succeeds to uphold this doubt longer than one is used to. If only for this, and for the clear action scenes, the film comes recommended.