Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Seth
MacFarlane
Plot: During a particular tough childhood,
John Bennet (Wahlberg) befriends a teddy bear, who ends up becoming his best
friend. Now, with 35 and with the negative effects of Ted and John’s mutual
influence clearly showing, John is forced to choose between moving on with his
life or getting stuck on an arrested development condition.
“The truth and nothing
but the truth”: When the news that, after some buzz
for some years, Seth MacFarlane finally decided to direct a movie, the first
concerned that crossed my mind was that we, the audience, would end up watching
something along the lines of “Family Guy: The Movie”. Despite being a fan of
the aforementioned show (as well as “American Dad”) for several years I stopped
watching it in 2010 because the humor had ran dry. Let’s face it: MacFarlane is
a one trick pony relying on a mix of pop-culture and “fart jokes” source of
humor, which is abundant in today’s airwaves.
Still, with “Ted”, he is able to reinvent
himself without needing to make major adjustments to the sources that made him
famous. And while on TV it looks over saturated, on the big screen it looks
fresh and new.
Despite some flaws, “Ted” picks up on a regular
rom-com blueprint adds a certain dose of stoner comedy and tops it of with a
great CGI lead, and the output is a successful combination of all of the above.
Regarding performances, Mark Wahlberg delivers
a believable character and the best relationship with a full CGI character
since Bob Hoskin’s in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” (1988) and is also one of the
movie’s main strengths. Mila Kunis as Lori adds little much to what we have
already seen from her on last year’s “Friends with Benefits” (2011), but still
plays out a decent and likeable character.
There’s room for some drama, but the director
and the characters successfully prevent it from damaging the pace of a story that doesn’t take itself
too seriously set in a light hearted environment.
The backdrop stories and the secondary
characters are interesting and don’t feel unrelated to the main plot, avoiding
to excessively dragging out: from Ted’s girlfriend Tammy Lynn to the psychotic
villain Donny (played by Giovanni Ribisi) and not forgetting Lori’s sleazy
boss. In a way they work as more thoughtful cutaway gags, which are the
cornerstone of both “Family Guy” and “American Dad”.
The comedy is there but lies on a very specific
demographic: I had the misfortune of getting stuck in a row in front of a bunch
of kids who certainly didn’t catch the humor on the “blink and you’ll miss it”
Indiana Jones reference, the Pink Floyd lyrics joke, Tiffany’s cheesy video
clip and of course Tom Skerrit, among others. But still in a sea of cultural
references, any movie that does a frame by frame reenactment of one of the best
comedies ever made ( “Airplane” (1980) ) has to be a great movie.
And for a movie that puts so much emphasis on a
long-running sketch about “Flash Gordon” (1980) and is still able to maintain
an entire audience interested, the only conclusion we can retrieve is that it’s
a success.
That being said “Ted” is the best comedy of
this summer and one of the best of the year.
A word to the wise: for every “Purple Rain”
(1984) there’s an “Under The Cherry Moon” (1986) and for every “Borat” (2006)
there’s a “Bruno” (2009). So before venturing on a sequel or your following
project, plan extremely well what your next step will be, Mr. MacFarlane.
“Money-Shot”: From the “Flash Gordon” slo-mo entrance to the
“Thunder Song” there are plenty of great moments that will surely make you want
to see this movie a second or even third time.
Bottom-Line:8/10. To put it simply, the best R-rated Comedy since “The
Hangover” (2009). Delivers the laughs and belongs to my definition of “a feel
good movie”. If you’re not easily offended and you believe that “The Dictator”
(2012) fell short on the expectations, then this is your movie.
But of course, this is just my opinion, I could
be wrong…
Starring: Kris Kristofferson, Isabelle Huppert,
Christopher Walken, John Hurt, Jeff Bridges
Plot: Set in 1890’s, the movie tells the
story of Johnson’s County Wars in Wyoming, a conflict involving the rich cattle
owners and the immigrant settlers. Between them lies Sheriff James Averill, a
renegade privileged man who sets out to defend the European immigrants and
fight for the values he believes in.
Along the long line of great American cinema
epics arrives “Heaven’s Gate” (1980), Michael Cimino’s very own take on the Old
West. With the ambition set on creating the next “Gone With the Wind” (1939),
Cimino set out to implement every single step mentioned on the “How to Create Your
Own Epic” rulebook (to the point of even including an “Intermission”).
Unfortunately, he appears to have engaged in that myth called “speed reading”
and ended up missing a step or two. The result is an infamous reel of film,
whose process of making is more notorious than the movie itself. From the
delayed schedules, the excessive number of takes, to the “screened for a few” 5
hour long version of the movie which included a battle sequence that lasted the
same as your average movie, and the overall stubborn and megalomanous behavior
that puts Cimino a grey suit and cat away from becoming a quintessential
1960’s James Bond villain.
Until this day, “Heaven’s Gate” is a movie that
polarizes critics: from the trashy remarks voiced by the American critics to
the somewhat pedantic approach taken by European reviewers who state that the
movie is a misunderstood piece of art.
But let’s start from the beginning…
“The truth and nothing
but the truth”: Fresh from his two hits “Thunderbolt and
Lightfoot” (1974) and the Academy Award winning “The Deer Hunter” (1978), Cimino
had the credibility to pursue his most personal and most ambitious project
yet. United Artists executives lay down
the terms: the movie had to premiere at Christmas 1979 (As if…). When an
additional extension on the budget was required those very same executives were
copasetic with the request. After this single action, things started to get out
of hand, with Cimino indulging himself and playing with the studio, leading
them believe that they had a potential “Apocalypse Now” on their hands: a
costly but worthwhile labor of love. This couldn’t be further from the truth…
Without going too much into detail on the
production process, I must state that I’m not a movie intellectual (The fact
that I can get a couple of laughs at “Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol”
(1987), immediately disables me from belonging in such a category). With that
being said, I can safely write that a considerable share of sequences that
comprise Cimino’s third outing as a director are simply boring. (See Exhibit
A).
Exhibit A
The movie is a result of the director’s very
own vision, and that same vision insists up on itself for the whole 3 hours and
40 minutes, or what he calls “The Directors Cut”. The cinematography is
outstanding, but it appears that the notion “nothing exceeds like excess” is
taken too seriously. The clearest example that immediately comes to my mind to
illustrate my point is that of a lengthy trip I took in Norway to the fjords
near Bergen: the first few are truly amazing and are an impressive
landscape…after that it’s more of the same. That’s exactly what happens with
this movie. In addition, the sepia tone adopted in key moments of the movie
somewhat misses its purpose and contributes for a set of poorly executed
scenes, an aspect I find strange given Cimino’s perfectionism. The bottom-line
feeling I got from this movie was that the first hour could easily be trimmed
down to half an hour, without any loss of storytelling effect.
But besides length and an uneven space, I
hereby point the additional two main problems I have with the movie: Kris Kristofferson
and Isabelle Huppert. I have only seen two movies starring Kristofferson, and
coincidence or not both got him nominated for a Razzie (“Heaven’s Gate” (1980)
and “Rollover” (1981)). He delivers a wooden performance and he’s simply
unconvincing. While the negative impact of his acting his is minimized on the
latter, he causes some serious damage on the former. Either De Niro or Beatty
would have been suitable alternatives, both being able to carry a cast of such
extension on their very own shoulders.
Isabelle Huppert is also a major flaw, both on
acting (at least on this movie) and as a key component of the storyline: the
notion that a heavy French accent actress can portray a non-French character is
simply laughable. She chews the scenery with an excess of emotions and
Huppert’s Ella Watson simply fails to interact with either of the main
characters.
David Mansfield soundtrack is uneven at best.
Sometimes, it just feel straight out of place.
But there are some redeeming aspects towards
this film. Deep within this mess there’s a good story to be told. As you
probably picked up from the resumed plot, this is not your traditional Western.
The label of “Anti-Western” is usually associated to this movie. Never have
John Wayne or Clint Eastwood starred on something like this. The political tone
and message conveyed in this movie are a portrayal of something we still see
today: Kristofferson’s James “Jim” Averill, is a rich and privileged Harvard
graduate and somewhat of an authority figure in Johnson’s County, Wyoming.
Unlike his peers, he attempts to use his influence to improve the situation of
the poor European immigrants who have settled on the land. He’s a flawed person
but one with strong and high morals and a defender of the values in which he
believes. In his character I find similar traits to the ones found in several
Democrat figures such as John F. Kennedy, Gary Hart and John Kerry (Ironically,
John Wayne, a hard core Republican, was the first choice for the role of Jim
Averill during the early stages of the project in the 1970’s). Diametrically
opposed to Averill, we have Christopher Walken’s Nate Champion, an aspiring and
ambitious gunmen hired by the Cattle Owners Association elite to eliminate
those who occupy the land. Champion is the sort of self-made man, and
represents an excessive and biased portrayal that liberals make of a
Republican. Their social aspirations and personal agendas conflict, a conflict
which is extended on their common interest, the whorehouse madam, Ella Watson.
The main action is complemented by the backdrop
story: The class struggle between the aforementioned elite and the poor who
fall victim of injustice and termination, which transforms this wanna-be epic
in what I personally call “Karl Marx’s Wild Wild West”. Still, a very
interesting story (with great potential, if told correctly) even for
non-socialist viewers such as myself.
Picking up on this particular point, critics
and viewers alike have blamed, in recent years, the timing of this release,
using it as a scapegoat to justify both its flop 32 years ago and their recent
reappraisal. While this is a compelling argument, one must take into account
the release of another epic “Reds” (1981): a mix between documentary and biopic
about the life of John Reed, the American Communist and author of the book “Ten
Days That Shook The World”. Directed by Warren Beatty and nominated for 10
Academy Awards, this controversial movie was met with excellent reviews and
strong box-office revenues. Come to think of it, this was far more
controversial than “Heaven’s Gate”. The success of “Reds” is a tool that allows
to dismantle the previously written argument.
Speculating that releasing this movie several
years before or after is…well…just pure speculation.
Another strong point that saves this movie’s
grace is the supporting cast: Billy Irvine (Hurt), the physical representation
of wasted potential, a lush and former Harvard valedictorian, who idly sits by
and condemns the actions of his counterparts without doing nothing to prevent
them, Frank Canton (Waterston), Averill main antagonist and the true source of
power behind the Cattle Owners Association, John Bridges (Bridges), the sheriff’s
main communication channel with the people. Three strong performances that make
this movie worth watching.
With the potential to be a powerful story,
“Heaven’s Gate” stands, for better and for worse, as a monument to the
excesses, partly represented by the ballooning budget which went from $7.5 M to
reportedly $50 M (some sources say $44 M), around $ 148 M in 2012 USD, and as a
movie whose failure drove United Artists into bankruptcy and ended once and for
all the “New Hollywood” era: The loonies no longer controlled and managed the
asylum (By the way, for those of you interested I recommend Peter Biskind’s
“Easy Riders and Raging Bulls”, a book that chronicles this particular period
of movie history).
For those of you who cannot relate to classic
epics produced by Hollywood, just think of “Heaven’s Gate” as a less artificial
and a more “should-have-worked” feeling than that awful Baz Lurhmann’s “Australia”
(2008).
Despite being a hit in Europe, it was Cimino’s
last act as a Hollywood A-List director.
Perhaps, it was for the best: Had “Heaven’s Gate” been a hit, Michael
Cimino had already a couple of projects on the pipeline, each of them more
ambitious and riskier than what was his last attempt to make an epic. Among
them a remake of the adaption of Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead”, which
ironically would have been suitable for the director as the book deals with the
principles of Objectivism, one of them being the praise for the individual and
his vision and also an Indian Western titled “Conquering Horse”, a movie that
would have been filmed in Sioux language with subtitles.
Althought his career was over he was still able
to produce a crime classic that has aged well and overcame the criticism it was
subjected to at the time of its release, “The Year of the Dragon” (1985)
starring Mickey Rourke, who has a cameo in “Heaven’s Gate”, a movie superior to
this one and personal favorite of mine (Oh…and a guy named Quentin Tarantino
also thinks it’s awesome).
“Money-Shot”: Without doubt a sequence that was still
perfect clearly in my mind after the movie ended was the first killing carried
out by Nate Champion. Impressive to say the least. The depressing message delivered
in the final scene of the movie, resorting to minimal dialogue and strongly
depending on image remains a sample of what the movie could have been.
Bottom-Line: 7/10. A missed out epic that will
forever remain part of cinema history. There is a great story beneath the
somewhat messy collection of frames that compose this work that embodies Cimino’s
vision of the real West. Worth a shot for all of those who enjoy bold epics and
who are willing to give this movie a shot (pardon the pun).
But of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong...
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys
Ifans, Martin Sheen, Sally Field
A little introduction to my personal feelings towards
comic book adaptations is required before proceeding with this review. My opinions
and thoughts on this particular genre are best compared to the relationship
between Ronald Reagan and air traffic controllers. From a critical standpoint,
I’m biased as during my childhood I always preferred to play outside rather
than reading superhero comics and, as a result, the whole mythology and
affection displayed by the fans passes me by. Still, I have seen my fair share
of superhero movies and contributed to the monstrous box office grosses that,
for the last decade have taken over Hollywood.
To me 90% of the superhero action movies are
seen as mere last resort source of entertainment and enjoyment on a slow Summer
day, and as such aren’t subjected to any meticulous analysis from my part.
However, there are exceptions: Some weeks ago I
heard about a concept I was oblivious to, and a personal trait I possessed and
did not know of: I am an assumed “Nolanite”. A person who praises Christopher Nolan
as the man who single handedly revolutionized a whole genre and created a
superhero saga to the those that aren’t particularly fond of those type of
movies, while at the same time delivering the goods for the comic book aficionados.
And yes, during the process with both “The Prestige” (2006) and “Inception” (2010) he was able to create
what can be called of “Elite Popcorn Blockbusters”: the kind of movies filled
with action but also with content and a storyline that allows one to sound and
look smart while discussing the movie with friends.
Anyways, I always take the enthusiastic reviews
of a non-Nolan superhero movie with a grain of salt, and that’s what happened
with “The Avengers” (2012) earlier this year. Sure it is a great entertainment
movie, with good action sequences, funny performances by most of characters and
it captures, without a doubt, the whole essence of what Summer Blockbuster
should be. But the fans, the industry
and the critics are taking it way too seriously (BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR?
Yeah, sure…). Movies like “The Avengers” should be seen and perceived like
“Independence Day” (1996) was: good fun, improbable plots, a couple of flaws,
millions at the box-office, and NOT TAKING ITSELF TOO SERIOUSLY. (The latter
point being completely missed by the excessively high praises from fans and
critics alike)
Now don’t get me wrong, every two years I need
my “Iron Man/Robert Downey Jr.” shot of sarcasm , good humor and AC/DC riffs,
but somehow “The Avengers” is taken a step further, seriousness-wise, than it
should. (Still a 7/10, in my opinion and a superior movie within its genre).
AND NOW, for the actual review…
Plot: Average teenager Peter Parker is on
the lookout to find out the truth about the mysterious departure of his
parents, and while attempting to find out more on a file left by his father, at
the Oscorp HQ is bitten by genetically modified spider. While discovering the
use and range of his newly acquired abilities he bumps into Dr. Curt Connors
mutated self, the Lizard: a result of a failed genetic enhancement experience.
“The truth and nothing
but the truth”: It
doesn’t take a math genius to understand that when the revenues of a product
decline and the cost of producing said product increases, the profit margin you
get from it grows thinner. While in most industries the average product is made
extinct, in Hollywood a new solution exists: areboot. This is exactly what
happened to Sam Raimi’s Spider Man trilogy (2002,2004,2007), a record breaking,
mixed opinion generating, studio Summer tent pole, revenue generating set of
movies which made Sony executives smile harder than Ash whenever he killed a
“Deadite” (Those who have seen Raimi’s less profitable and more modest “Evil
Dead” (1982) will know what I’m talking about).
10 years after the release of “Spider Man”
(2002), now comes “The Amazing Spider Man” (2012), a new and improved version
correcting all the “bugs” and inaccuracies of the prior version AND presented
to your fully enjoyment in the glorious splendor of 3D! (That Tony Stark
sarcasm shot starts to reveal its effects).
Let me tell you something: back in 2002 I had
no idea of what critics and fans thought about “Spider Man”, because back then
I couldn’t care less, and thus I went to see it anyway. Apparently it was
inaccurate and flawed in a way that it distorted the facts presented in the
comic books. I guess the $130 M budget wasn’t enough to settle the fact that
Peter Parker’s first crush was Gwen Stacy and not Mary Jane and I guess it
takes an additional $100 M ($230 is the reported budget for this movie) to set
the record straight.
With the previously written statement proving
to be implosive the reader finally gets to my problem with the whole reboot
story: Why didn’t the writers, the director and the whole creative team got it
right, 10 years ago?
While, some clear improvements on the original
story are noticeable, even for a comic book heretic like me, it’s still not
enough to overcome the fact that I’ve seen this before and not so long ago.
The casting of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone
is an upgrade and both deliver solid performances, with Garfield being able to
deliver a hipster/modern version of Peter Parker that most audiences will immediately
associate with a familiar face and Stone delivering an impressively believable
performance of Gwen Stacy. Martin Sheen and Sally Field add some panache to the
supporting cast and Denis Leary’s Capt. Stacy interaction with Parker providea
much needed and well-suited comic relief (See the “Godzilla remarks”)
Some overall points, concerning the storyline,
can be raised, indulging my own belief that this new version is in some aspects
superior to Rami’s and to the overall movie genre outputs that reach theaters
on a worldwide scale: For once, Spidey doesn’t catch the man who killed Uncle Ben
(a SPOILER WARNING! shouldn’t be required here, I think), leaving some room for
this issue on the upcoming sequelS. Also, like in Nolan’s Batman, (SPOILER) the
villain isn’t killed at the end of the movie, a standard practice on this
particular genre that gives everyone the “wrapped up story” good feeling when
leaving the movie theater.
Among the major downsides, is the villain: Dr.
Curt Connors / The Lizard is an adequate villain but while there could be some
room for a deep and intense transformation process in the style of Jeff
Goldblum in David Cronenberg’s “The Fly” (1986), the story prefers to award
style over substance, and still manages to fail by delivering a Lizard that is
a serious candidate for “The Most Overused Meme in 2012” Award.
Moreover, the “new” Spider Man acts, talks and
walks like a cross between David Lee Roth circa 1986 and Sam J. Jones in “Flash
Gordon” (1980), and even in some moments the supehero’s action have drawn my
memory to that campy and dreadful sequence in “Spider Man 3” (2007). (THE
HORROR!)
The proverbial “plot device”, which on this
case is an actual device, is a bit too “in your face” and the explanation of
its use and obvious relevance dumbs down the viewer.
Sure, there are several values well represented
in the movie such as the role of science vs. religion, with the Oscorp building
being a clear representation of the “Tower of Babel”. The notions of
redemption, power and responsibility (exhaustively used in the original
trilogy) are vaguely represented, but in a movie so self-obsessed with the
visuals, there’s few room for further development on this field. Still, fans
who over analyze the movie will, I’m sure, find new and deeper meanings in some
moments. (Apparently, now viewers state that there’s an anti-corporation
message hidden in “The Avengers”. Again, TAKING IT WAAAAY TO SERIOUSLY)
Still, and despite the aforementioned aspects,
“The Amazing Spider Man” is a balanced effort and an average superhero movie
that amuses you as long as it lasts. There’s a lot of potential for this entry
to be perceived as a build-up for a greater and bigger thing, that years from
now will be seen as a landmark within the genre. Sadly, I won’t be around any
movie theater to see it happen, unless the rumors of having either Jon Hamm or
John Slaterry from “Mad Men” (2007-) as Norman Osbourne prove to be true.
“Show Me The Money”: With a six-day earning of $ 137,022
M, the movie fell short of the prior’s entry results for the same period. With decreases of 38%, 49% and 62%
(historical values) for each entry of Raimi’s trilogy, respectively, an expect
fall of around 50% over this 6 day period amount can be expected for next
weekend (with projected earnings between $65-70M), implying that it’s almost a
given fact that this movie will be cruising the $200 M revenue line, next
weekend, and breaking even (with the reported budget) sometime along the week
after that. The premiere of “Ice Age 4: Continental Adrift” (2012) won’t pose
as a threat, as this movie will likely open in #2, counting with the majority
of its revenue coming from international markets, since this release will be
met in an condensed market that is currently being served by “Madagascar 3”
(2012) and “Brave” (2012). The main conclusion to be retrieved here is that
“The Amazing Spider Man” has two weeks to make the big bucks before “The Dark
Knight Rises” premieres and takes over the box office. So in a nutshell, if,
and that’s a big IF, it crosses the $300 M line it will still be the lowest
entry of the Spider Man saga.
“Money-Shot”: The overall sequences of Spider Man
cruising New York are always a good sight. And, I’m afraid that’s all there is
to say here….
Bottom-Line:6/10. An average entertaining movie, that doesn't add or
deliver as much as it could simply because of the existing oversaturation (but
apparently that's just my percption) of the market associated with this
specific genre along with the short time span, since the original was released.
Still, it will be a crowd pleaser that packs a strong enough punch that will
ensure a couple of sequels before this decade ends.
But of course, this is just my opinion, I could
be wrong…
