Change Your Image
directorstouch
Reviews
Tin Man (2007)
Enjoyable
I have always been a fan of the Wizard of Oz. Lately with the success of Gregory Maguire's Wicked series as well as the Broadway musical of the same name, Tin Man makes sense. Everyone wants to add their own spin to the story.
I loved Tin Man, but the one thing that hurts it is that it is a television event and is therefore not constrained by film length. So it feels more like a TV show than a movie, which is fine, but it also suffers from "Season 1 syndrome", in which writers are getting to know the world they've created and actors are developing characters that usually take 3 seasons to really gel. So the writing and acting at times are a bit choppy, but I'm willing to ignore that as the story itself is very interesting and the version of Oz that is created is very believable.
Tin Man is part sequel, part remake, as events from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz are referenced as happening way in the past, but the archetypes from the original are used again, so in a sense, we're watching history repeat itself in a world that has changed drastically. Gone is the Emerald City, the lush forests and endless fields of poppies. Instead we find ourselves in a world in which the wilderness is creeping back in, and the last traces of civilization are confined in a massive, industrial city, focused on sustaining itself more than enjoying itself.
There's a new wicked witch, but she's very different than what we're used to as her backstory is an expansion of the vengeful sister from the original film.
The characters are interesting, but I think a full TV series could have explored them more (though plot elements would stagnate very quickly in a TV series). All in all, it's an enjoyable story. It has flaws, but they don't hurt the story too much. It has a very Sci-fi channel feel about it, echoing shows like Hercules and Xena. Somewhat cheesy, but a lot of fun to watch.
The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)
Not Nearly as Bad as Many Say
When 'Pitch Black' came out, we were introduced to something not seen in a great while; a new and believable sci-fi universe. What added to its charm was a limited budget and a script that focused as much on character as it did on atmosphere and tension.
Then, 4 years later, "The Chronicles of Riddick" took the universe that was suggested by "Pitch Black" and brought it to life. The result, visually, was something of a cross between the Myst Universe and the Dune Novels with a bit of the Gothic griminess of Alien 3.
Now the script probably isn't going to win any awards, but the cheesiness of some of the one-liners leads to an entertaining sci-fi yarn filled with really cool visuals and some fantastic plot elements that really draw you into the story.
Judi Dench's character is wonderful and her character lends such a richness to the overall feel of the story. If a sequel is ever done, the Elementals really need to make a grander appearance.
The texture of the different peoples and worlds is wonderfully unique and free of any obvious on-location shooting. The Necromongers are inky, murky and dark. Helion Prime is urban, yet ancient while the prison is so grimy you can almost taste it.
Sure, the script could use some polishing, but overall, this movie is a fun, entertaining ride that never loses its appeal. The Director's Cut , though only slightly longer than the theatrical version, offers some more Riddick backstory, but without revealing too much, leaving enough of a mystique around the character that he doesn't lose his edge.
While not an Oscar winner, this movie is still entertaining and a lot of fun. Definitely not a movie sci-fi aficionados should miss.
Hamlet (1990)
Visually Appealing but a Little Too Watered Down
I put off watching this film for quite some time. I am a rather faithful follower of Kenneth Branagh's version and didn't quite feel comfortable with the knowledge that, in Zefferelli's Hamlet, dialogue was shifted, huge sections deleted and major characters were given smaller roles. I have nothing against editing down Shakespeare to a 2 hour film, but Hamlet seemed entirely too epic to ever be shortened.
What comes out of all this is a much more mature feeling film. Gone are a lot of the repetitions of crucial facts and certain character relationships that, in the long run, can be downsized without hurting the flow of the story.
The biggest thing that got me was the deletion of the ghost's appearance to Horation right at the beginning. But after seeing this film, it works beautifully. We first meet the ghost at an emotional high point, riding Hamlet's internal roller coaster with him. I also really appreciate that the ghost was not made into a special effect or visual spectacle of some kind. He is a character and treated as such.
Glen Close' Gertrude is utterly gripping. Silly, naive, but loving and kind. She's a victim as much as Hamlet. You despise her, yet pity her and eventually care for her. Ophelia is just terrific. Helena Bonham-Carter creates a fragile, haunted Ophelia. Even before the death of Polonius, you find yourself knowing that this poor girl will never make it in the world, being entirely too emotionally delicate.
I did have some issues with the portrayal of Claudius. First, I am very loyal to Derek Jacobi's excellent portrayal of this character. Second, Zefferelli seems to be trying to make him sympathetic on a level that doesn't work with this character.
Finally Mel Gibson himself. I think what makes his portrayal so excellent is that he seems to be slightly unhinged as soon as the story starts. His feigned madness is an augmentation of this, but it seems to flow from his performance much better that other Hamlets. His facial expressions are subtle enough not to be silly, but powerful enough to elicit a response from the audience. I respect that the director didn't try to make Hamlet a 'sexy' character in this, but rather focused on the story instead. The results are quite excellent.
All in all, an entertaining, visually sumptuous ride, but somewhat lacking in the complex interpersonal and emotional core of the original story.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Don't Even Compare it to the Book
First, I will say that there were only three major things that were actually taken from the book.
1. The fact that the alien's machines were tripods and had tentacles 2. There was a scene in which the main character is in a basement 3. The demise of the aliens.
Other than that, it's pretty much just another alien flick squashed on top of a 'single parent getting to know his kids' subplot.
What made H.G. Wells' book so fantastic was that it moved with the subtlety of an M. Night Shyamalan film. There wasn't a lot of fight scenes, or running through the streets. After the initial attack with the 'heat ray' the rest of the book basically revolves around the main character walking through horrific desolation and having all his preconceptions about the 'modern-ness' of the Victorian World dashed to pieces. It was moving, it made you think. Plus my favorite scene in the book doesn't even translate into a modern retelling. It involves the main character in a horse drawn carriage traveling down a road in the rain. One of the tripods steps out of the shadows and into the road in front of the guy, terrifying the horse so much that it falls and breaks its neck and leaving our hero to stare up at the thing, illuminated by flashes of lightning. It's an incredibly described scene and really illustrates how unprepared and arrogant Wells felt the Victorians were.
Now onto the movie...in modern times...and not in England...for some reason. Oh right, the reason was to have Tom Cruise in it. Gotcha.
The aliens aren't shocking and neither is their technology because the world at that point is the world that has been exposed to Issac Asimov, Star Wars, Alien etc. They have nuclear weapons and modern tanks. Wells' 'heat ray' isn't a shocking thing in this context.
The directing is well done, but the story is such a departure from, well, the story that it really doesn't work if you've ever read the book.
Certain unnecessary plot points such as the tripods already being under the surface for a long while before the events of the movie and the red fungus/lichen stuff that spreads everywhere feel really forced.
The narration, drawn right from the book, seems so out of place as the world it was criticizing isn't even being depicted.
I will say that the acting was good and engaging, but the mushy sub plot really detracts from the flow of the story.
An American Tail: Fievel Goes West (1991)
Loved it when I was 6 and I still do now at 21
Growing up, I must have seen An American Tail and feivel Goes West a million times. Recently, I got the DVD in a fit of nostalgia and found that I still knew every line from both movies. But while the first movie is well done and rather dark, this movie is much more lighthearted and has some incredibly amusing moments.
The pace is that of a children's movie. I will admit, not a lot of time is spent on atmosphere an the tone of the movie is constantly shifting from serious/sinister (ie. Feivel gets picked up by a Hawk) to goofy (said hawk gets blasted from the sky in a shower of feathers by teeny mouse natives).
But despite its pacing, it is quite entertaining. Dom DeLuise is hysterical and really develops a character in this movie. He does the prissy city cat learning to be a frontier dog so well. The animation is much crisper than the first.
The song 'Dreams to Dream' caught me off guard. When I was little, I loved the song because it was cute, but watching it again, this song is really an amazing song. Much more emotional and gripping than 'My Heart Will Go On' (another James Horner single). It has that kind of epic, romance novel feel that 'I Want to Spend My Lifetime Loving You' had (yet another James Horner single from The Mask of Zorro). The Linda Ronstadt version is OK, but the orchestral movie version with Tanya singing is really fantastic.
John Cleese is wonderful as he always is. Cat R. Waul's fate is classic. His attempts to remain aloof and aristocratic, but his catlike tendency to completely overreact and lose his cool when caught off guard shines through perfectly.
James Stewart is great and has some really great moments. His dry, sardonic wit shows through in a lot of scenes that I completely missed as a kid. "I never taught him that..." when Tiger sweeps Miss Kitty off her feet and the pair vanishes off screen.
Kids will love this and parents won't be bored watching it with their kids. Entertaining, brief and a lot of fun.
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Visually Astounding!
OK, I'm going to ramble so hear me out.
First, I'm going to say that this movie is incredible. It had audience members gasping, clapping, shrieking out in surprise and laughing. Gore Verbinski has put himself up there with Peter Jackson and the other great epic directors.
Stylistically, the movie is probably the best of the three. the cinematography is excellent and there are some incredibly stunning visuals.
The humor is hysterical. Much more macabre than previous films, but it fits beautifully.
Geoffery Rush is utterly incredible. Humorous, likable, frightening and slightly insane all at the same time. The most classic of his lines is when he begins a wedding ceremony in the middle of a frantic battle aboard the Black Pearl. Utterly priceless.
OK, now the negatives. There are only a few so be patient.
The beginning tended to drag slightly and the middle was utterly befuddling in terms of the number of plot lines going on at the same time. Everybody betrays everybody else, each with their own motives and for a first viewing, can be very confusing. Everything is explained throughout the film, but in the middle of the film when everyone is making deals with everyone else, one can feel as if they're drowning in tentacles.
The layout of the script is very similar to Dead Man's Chest. A gruesome beginning, reintroduction of characters and then a humorous interlude (in DMC it was the Cannibal Island. In this, it's the hilarious and unusual land of the dead). Following that, we get into the real story.
There was a lot going on and there were a few elements that the writers obviously weren't sure how to dispatch cleanly so there are some rough edges here and there. But the story still flows really well and by the end there is little to dislike.
The characters are so human. They make mistakes, they make hard choices with strong consequences. The relationships between everyone is so real. Elizabeth's relationship with Will is shaky following the suspicions which arose at the end of DMC. Commodore Norrington is still fighting his internal battle. Do what's right, or do what benefits you. Jack is Jack, what can I say? He's the same old Jack we know and love.
Kieth Richard's cameo is delightful. Chow Yun Fat is well written, but I think they were able to do as much with him as they would have liked.
Overall, a fantastic story, amazing visual effects and a really entertaining cast. I walked out of the theatre grinning.
Lady in the Water (2006)
A Beautifully Woven Tale
First, I will say that I can see why many folks didn't enjoy this movie. M. Night Shyamalan has a style all his own. I remember when the trailer for 'The Village' came out and it sold the movie as a horror flick, which it wasn't at all. The trailer for this movie was equally as enigmatic and I really didn't know what to expect.
Night's directing style is very subtle and he tells a story very gradually and softly, like a person reading a bedtime story would. It is not a horror flick, or even an action film. The magic is in the story.
Before I get into the story, I will say that James Newton Howard's score for this movie is truly epic. The climax of the film is colored with a musical score Howard Shore would be proud of.
The story is quite simple. In a lovely prologue that impresses on us just how ancient the act of storytelling is, we are told a story about make-believe creatures called Narfs who are protected by giant eagles. there is so much more, but that's the very bare bones.
Then we meet one of the most charming ensemble casts I have seen in a long time. An apartment complex filled with eccentric folks, each with a slight oddity that sets them apart from the rest of the world. Throughout the movie, each person becomes an important player in this fairy tale that unfolds.
This is where we must suspend disbelief for a time. One of these Narfs, named Story, ends up in the pool, hiding from beasts that are searching for her. She meets the landlord and asks for his help in returning her to her world (the Blue World).
One thing I really respect about Night is that he doesn't rely on CGI. There is one creature, a giant eagle that is computer generated and some various shots of other things that may be CGI, but all the creatures are either animatronic (even a wolf-like-creature that runs through the grass is a moving, remote controlled creature) or elaborate costumes, which is astonishing because they are so real and in the hands of any other director would be unconvincing, but Night handles them beautifully.
The tone of the movie is constantly shifting. After a somber prologue, we are thrown into a humorous scene involving a Hispanic family, a broom and a very large bug. Night keeps you on your toes constantly.
Some have criticized Night for appearing in his own film. I see nothing wrong with that. When Kenneth Branagh directed an uncut, 3 and a half hour version of 'Hamlet' and cast himself in the lead role, it worked perfectly.
If you're looking for a scary film, this isn't it. It could more be considered an art film, a film that looks, not at storybook characters, but people. just like Signs (which was about a family dealing with loss, not aliens), this film is about people and that potential that all people have.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film and recommend it to anyone who still has a passion for fairy tales.
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Somebody Stop Me! no really...
OK, so I'm not an enormous Spiderman fan anyways, but I decided to see it anyway, because clichés aside, the first two were entertaining.
This was painful to watch.
First off, this movie suffered from the same thing that hurt X-Men 3. There's way too much going on. We have three villains. That in of itself isn't a bad thing. But there are also several sub plots involving peter and MJ, Peter and the Bugle and Peter and Gwen.
The fight sequences were fast, but very predictable.
1. Peter gets thrown into a steel beam or something 2. He does the same to (insert villain here) 3. Rinse lather, repeat.
The dancing, emo hair, pelvic thrusting scene in the middle was painful. Actually painful. I kept waiting for Jim Carey as the Mask to show up. It would have made more sense than what we got.
The villains are one dimensional. Sandman is reminiscent of Mr. Freeze in Batman and Robin. The same "deep" angst over a family member with no exposition of what his daughter has. The character itself wasn't very interesting, either. He's there, he 'dies', he's there, he's good, he...apologizes? Just a little bit schmaltzy.
The new Green Goblin was just a two dimensional portrait of rage that really wasn't convincing, plus an entire sub plot in which he loses his memory and gains it back that does nothing to the story.
Venom (once he actually showed up) was really awesome and could have been so great if they had actually made this movie about him. Topher Grace was wonderful and was the only villain who I really wanted to learn more about. They really didn't introduce the symbiote well. Crash lands in a meteor, infects his suit, he takes it to a scientist who says, "Oh yes, this is a symbiote." and the story goes on.
If Venom had actually been the villain, this movie would have been good, but the director is juggling so many plot lines and devoting so much time to Romantic issues and relationship problems that it really isn't convincing as a movie.
The plot was very contrived and relied on a lot of deus ex machinas. It's like, there was no script, but it felt like they were just making it up as they filmed it.
The romantic story is the same as all the rest.
1. Peter doesn't really understand MJ 2. He makes a mistake and she second guesses their relationship 3. he saves her life and says something silly and they get back together.
Bryce Dallas Howard had a lot o potential, but was never used enough. She's playing a physicist/model and we got more of the model than the physicist. It seemed like she was either trying to dumb herself down, or didn't make her character smart enough. We get flashes of this brightness in her eyes here and there, and in other scenes, she's just fluff. It's disappointing because she's an incredible actress and could have been a really interesting character.
Overall, though, it was predictable, contrived, jumbled and unorganized.