Iron Man 2 soars - Just not quite as high as the first.

The original Iron Man came out of left field (not to mention successfully reviving Robert Downey Jr.'s career single handedly) to be one of the best films of the 2008 summer season.  A great story, wonderful cast, excellent villain, and tremendous pacing all came together for a roller coaster thrill ride to start the 2008 summer season right.  Has the sequel followed the likes of X2, Spider-Man 2, and The Dark Knight to turn out even better than the original?  Not quite.  But don't think that the movie is the next Spider-Man 3 or Superman 3 because it certainly isn't.  Jon Favreau has returned to the director's chair to put together the next exciting chapter in Tony Stark's life, and has continued to build on Marvel Comic's greater ambitions for the eventual Avenger's movie (which is probably going to have the longest list of Hollywood superstars ever put into the opening credits of a film.)


SMALL SPOILER ALERT


Let's get the pros out of the way before taking a look at the cons shall we?  Jon Favreau has an impeccable cast and gives just about every single one of them plenty of screen time to display the characteristics and traits that they each bring to the table.  There couldn't be a better choice for Tony Stark than Robert Downey Jr., constantly riffing on others around him, a bit of a womanizer, excellent comedic timing, and great when the drama calls for it, he simply is Stark.  A man who walks a fine line that balances playboy lifestyle, responsible businessman, peace bringing superhero, and an individual who is struggling to come to terms with the legacies left behind by his equally brilliant father.  Don Cheadle takes up the role of Lt. Col. James Rhodes after Terrence Howard was unceremoniously removed from the cast after the original.  I've always liked Terrence Howard and don't really know why he was booted from the project but Cheadle is a great replacement and does seem to fit the part a little better.  Mickey Rourke commands just about every scene that he's in as the vengeful Ivan Vanko, a known method actor you'd have to look pretty hard to somehow find evidence that he isn't a russian ex-con who's spent a lot of years doing some hard time.  Sam Rockwell is a welcome new element in the mix of Tony Stark's world and plays the part of a scheming rival really, really well.  He's sleazy, slick, smart, well spoken, and an entrepreneur looking to fill a void.  He's fun to watch on screen from top to bottom, I think he's an underrated actor who has done some really great work.  Samuel Jackson and Clark Gregg return as agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and, thankfully, each of them get a little more screen time than the original.  Jackson is hysterical as a man trying to get a narcissistic superhero under control.  Gwyneth Paltrow returns as the able-bodied assistant Pepper Potts, lovely as ever and her rapport with Downey Jr. is as strong here as the original.  Lastly on scene is Scarlett Johansson in a role that, while fun, isn't quite given the screen time it feels like it should have been.  Not at all like the tacked on Venom in Spider-Man 3 who was an add that Sam Raimi didn't want to put in the movie, she fits just fine, and is worked into the plot but just feels under utilized which is a shame.  Hopefully we see more of her in the IM3.


The plot is strong for the most part, and picks up fairly quickly after the events of the first movie.  Stark is dealing with issues on a lot of angles from confronting the American Military industrial machine, to ghosts of his father's past business practices, the fallout of revealing to the world that he is Iron Man, and dealing with the realities of the fact that, at the end of the day, he's just one man in a suit, his abilities and health are all impacted or supported accordingly.  I think one thing that both the original and now the sequel do well is make one think about the realities of weaponry in our world today.  War as a business continues to be a running theme and, even though Stark is out of the business, it shows that there will always be others looking to take up the mantle and continue to evolve it.  That's a scary prospect, and not necessarily a fictitious one.  One of the best elements of the first movie was the humor, Tony Stark constantly cracking jokes at inappropriate times and things like that, and thankfully Favreau and his screenwriters have expanded on that in nearly every area of the film.  There's a lot of laughs to be had and almost none of them feel forced.  A particular sequence in the middle of the film might get a bit hokey, but it's easily looked over for all the other successful humor.  The action sequences are fast paced and intense.  It's obvious that Favreau is getting more and more comfortable with big sequences that involve a lot of elements and characters.  While being chaotic and busy, I still feel the sequences were easy to follow from an audience standpoint.  While the good guys and bad guys look somewhat similar in the movie, it's easy to tell who's who and what's going on at all times (unlike some other movies of late...ahem....Transformers 2....)


After saying all this you're wondering where I find fault with the movie and why I wouldn't say it's quite as good as the original.  Here's why.  I don't feel that the villains found here are quite as villainous as Jeff Bridges' Obadiah Stane in the original.  They're bad guys, no doubt, but I don't feel that either of them get to really explore how bad they might actually be.  Maybe we'll see them in a future film?  I'm sure at least one of them will be around for a few more sequels.  I also felt the story was a little unfocused, or maybe too big in scope?  There was a lot going on with a lot of individuals working towards different goals and, consequently, it felt that some ideas were a little half-baked.  It's a shame because all of the threads are pretty compelling, so to see some of them get shorted is kind of sad.  Without getting into spoilers I think those are my major qualms.


One final note is that I absolutely loved the casting of Garry Shandling as a smarmy US Senator.  I've never been a fan of his, but this bit of casting was inspired brilliance.  He was fantastic in the few scenes that he was in.


Be sure you sit through the credits for the final scene at the end.  It's a brief one, but important as Marvel continues to build towards The Avenger's movie.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo-An excellent adaptation.

Today was a good day for me in the movie realm. Why? Because after last night's laughably bad experience with Clash of the Titans I had the pleasure of finally getting to watch The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. This is a movie I've been waiting on for a couple of months and I'm thrilled to report that, not only did it wash the taste of last night's debacle out of my head, it was every bit as good as I was expecting it to be. The film has been getting really positive reviews coming out of a number of film festivals (including one right here in Miami a month ago) and they're all well deserved. Between this and The Ghost Writer you've got two great options for thrillers at the theater right now (that is, if you can find them as they're still in somewhat limited release.)

Based on the critically acclaimed novel by Swedish author Stieg Larsson, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a complex, dense, thriller/murder-mystery centering around Mikael Blomkvist, an investigative reporter who is tasked with attempting to solve a 40 year old cold murder case, and Lisbeth Salander (the titular Girl) a resourceful, mysterious, and troubled young computer savant who ultimately becomes Mikael's valued assistant as he struggles to find answers for Henrik Vanger, one of Sweden's most powerful businessmen, uncle of the murdered girl.

I'm not going to touch more on the plot, as it's a pleasure to watch unfold on screen, so no spoilers here. You've got the basics, and you know I'm really pleased with it, you'd do well to seek it out if you can.

One of the best things I can say about this movie (among many) is what a faithful adaptation of the source material it is. We all know that books are always better than movies, and that's still the case here. The book is a terrific read without question, but the movie is a really strong interpretation that manages to maintain all of the major plot points, the atmosphere, and juggles a large cast of characters and suspects admirably. It's probably one of the best book-to-movie adaptations I've seen in quite a while, so if you've read the book and are skeptical, fear not, it's well realized.

Larsson has crafted a fantastically complex character in Lisbeth Salander and she's just as intriguing on screen as she is in the book. All of her most compelling scenes from the novel make the translation, and it's something to watch her operated in the real world and not just in one's imagination. Noomi Rapace plays Salander extremely well, and the visual transformation that she underwent for the character is pretty remarkable. She's a pleasure to watch on screen, she seems really comfortable with the character and really brings her to life.

Be forewarned, there is some rather extreme violence and a couple scenes of nudity/sexuality in the film, so if you're not comfortable with those two ideas you probably want to give this one a pass. Also, it's a foreign film with subtitles so if you can't be bothered to read then it might not be for you either, however the titles are brief and simple to read so it shouldn't prove too problematic for anyone.

I can't recommend this one enough, seriously. It's tense, deliberate, well acted, and superbly scripted given how intricate the novel is. It won't disappoint. I hope that the inevitable sequel is put together with the same care. The final book hits store shelves next month, I can't wait!

Clash of the Titans - AKA "Clash of the Suck"

This is going to be a short review because, honestly? There isn't much to talk about. This is battling it out with The Wolfman for lamest movie of the year so far. It's wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to start. The good thing about this review? I don't have to give a spoiler warning...because there is no plot to spoil. Apparently the director and screenwriters felt that a coherent narrative was a completely optional element of the movie and so, left it out.

Having such a glorious canvas like greek mythology to work with you'd think that putting together a compelling story would be relatively simple. Instead what they opted to do was create the Transformers 2 of myth movies. They went for bigger creatures, faster editing, needless slow-mo action shots (a gold coin skipping on water is interesting why???), and relentlessly paced action scenes where you can't tell who's doing what to who. Half the time I couldn't tell what was happening on screen because they don't really allow you to get your bearings. Complete disregard for the first film is kind of a slap in the face to those of us who look back on the original with fond memories. Yes, it was cheesy, but it was good fun with some really memorable moments and characters, and throwing all of that away while replacing it with nothing positive whatsoever is just insulting. (Those of you who've seen the first and remember the little mechanical owl will be sorely disappointed.)

So now you're saying to yourself, "Well if they didn't have a plot, I bet the special effects were at least awesome, right?" And I'm here to tell you that you'd be wrong. The effects seen on screen are something you'd see in a Sci-Fi Original Movie on a lazy Sunday afternoon and I actually think that the Sci-Fi channel takes more pride in itself and could probably do better. The creature designs aren't terribly compelling, and the CGI work is just plain bad. I don't know if they were trying to pay homage to the stop motion animation of the original flick or what but, in an age when CGI has come so far and become so seamless, to have it look so obviously computer generated is shameful. And the green screen work? What the hell???

Is the acting good? Nope. You can actually see Ralph Fiennes (as Hades) thinking, "God just get me to the Harry Potter set so I can get back to being a real bad guy working with a decent script." And I think that Liam Neeson spends most of the movie phoning it in or looking pissed that he was called off his upcoming "The A-Team" movie for re-shoots. He'd obviously rather be somewhere else.

Lastly is the implied sequel that comes at the end of the movie. The original Clash didn't have a sequel, why does this one need one? Apparently the director has already stated he plans to make at least a trilogy out of this current iteration and you can only ask, "Why??" I mean, if you're not going to bother with plot, coherence, attention to detail, or utilizing your actors, then what's the point???

She's Out of My League

Jay Baruchel cracks me up. I absolutely loved Tropic Thunder and, though he isn't the "star" of that movie, he had some great comedic moments riffing off of that casts other, bigger players. So I was happy to see him get a chance at starring in a movie that more directly features him specifically. Though She's Out of My League isn't completely excellent from start to finish, it's a funny movie that's worth checking out if you just want to get out of the house for a few hours (especially since pickings are pretty slim at the local cineplexes right now.)

Baruchel stars as an airport TSA employee surrounded by a motley group of friends of other airport employees, who is down on his luck in life and luck. If you've seen a preview for the then flick you know the basic premise, Baruchel is a middle-of-the-road "5" in terms of date-able guys who suddenly finds himself dating a "solid 10" played by somewhat newcomer Alice Eve. Much to the amazement of his family, friends, ex-girlfriend, and even Baruchel himself this beautiful, funny, sexy, smart, talented girl not only spends time with him, but actively pursues him.

To be fair the movie starts out a bit slow, and most of the jokes that you've seen in the previews are found in the first 20 minutes. At first I was worried because I thought that the movie had given all it had to give right away and we would be in for another 80 minutes of boredom, rest assured this isn't the case. Though it's a bit uneven, and slow, there's plenty of laughs to be had if you just stick with it a bit. The stand out moments involve moments of uncomfortable intimacy with the odd-couple being surprisingly interrupted by the girl's parents, and a particularly hilarious scene involving Baruchel doing some personal grooming.

I think that Baruchel's other guy friends spend a good bit of the movie trying to mimic some of the camaraderie of the guys in The Hangover, and I can't say that they're totally successful on this front, but they're funny enough, and a sweet bunch of guys who really seem to care about their friend when things eventually start to fall apart a bit. Other funny bits in the movie stem from Baruchel's completely overbearing and awkward family, and watching the girl navigate through an afternoon with them is pretty hysterical. Some of this sequence made it into the previews but there is a good deal more to be seen here, and it's all pretty funny.

One of the things that surprised me most is that the movie ends up having a good bit of heart in the finale, though it's trying to sell itself as a balls to the wall comedy, it has romantic underpinnings that will keep your girlfriend happy if you can convince her to go with you. It's not a home-run by any stretch, not as funny as The Hangover, Knocked Up, or The 40 Year Old Virgin, but it's definitely funny enough to take a peek at. I'm looking forward to seeing more of what Jay Baruchel works on in the future.

Whip It - Drew scores in her first effort

I wasn't able to see Drew Barrymore's first directorial effort Whip It when it was in theatres this past fall, I was too busy with work, but I'm happy to say I was finally able to catch it on DVD this past week. Looking down the length of this current blog, I realize that I've been making all of these posts waaaaaaay too long so, in an effort to keep some of you reading, I'm going to aim to keep things a little shorter this time around.

Whip It stars Ellen Page as a teenage girl in a tiny town on the outskirts of Austin, TX. who is struggling with growing up, finding her own identity, dealing with a smothering mom (Marcia Gay Harden), and the difficulties of being a young person with big dreams in a small town. Page is as good as ever in a fun role that seems to be turning into a signature for her, demanding comedic timing, sarcastic wit, genuine emotion, and some serious depth.

Take a look at the picture over there and you'll notice that Ellen is dressed up in full roller derby regalia, and this is where the title of the film comes from. The majority of the plot revolves around Page's character finding a sense of identity, character, and passion amongst the rowdy crowds and interesting characters of the Texas Roller Derby league. Drew Barrymore should be given a lot of credit for making all of the derby scenes fun to watch, and giving the viewer a great sense of the atmosphere that surrounds roller derby.

Though a bit predictable (the life of Page's character starts going SO well past a certain point that you're left sitting there waiting for the other shoe to drop) and containing a couple of overly sentimental moments surrounding her new-found love interest, the plot is fun to watch unfold. Page anchors the movie from start to finish with style and a quirky Austin believe-ability. Having formerly lived in Austin it's also a treat to see how much of the city Drew Barrymore chooses to include in a lot of different scenes. Staple landmarks like the original Alamo Drafthouse, Waterloo Records, and the capitol building all make appearances.

A great supporting cast filled out with Kristen Wiig, Eve, Juliette Lewis, Jimmy Fallon, and Daniel Stern give the viewer a lot of familiar faces to surround themselves with and they all do really solid jobs in their respective roles. Juliette Lewis is good as Ellen Page's arch rival in the rink, and Daniel Stern has some really funny beats and a great change of character near the end of the film that really tugs at the heartstrings if you let him. It's nice to see him again as I can't think of too much he's done since City Slickers or the Home Alone movies. I'm sure he's done a lot, but it's just slipped past me. Drew Barrymore is also hysterical in the movie as an overly violent stoner derby girl. Prone to beating the other skaters up instead of trying to score points, at one point in the movie the team coach looks at her and asks, "If this play were called 'Bongwater' would you pay attention for a change?" Cracked me up.

I'm bummed I didn't see this in the theatre originally and am thrilled that I was finally able to catch up on it at home. It's an easy recommendation, give it a look and enjoy it.

P.S. - The outtakes during the credits are a lot of fun. Stick around to check them out.

Alice in Wonderland - Tim Burton falls down the rabbit hole

Let me say right upfront that I’m not terribly familiar with Alice in Wonderland as source material. I have vague recollections of the original Disney animated Alice, and that’s about it. I’m actually going to check that one out again in the next few weeks and report back here afterwards, kind of do a contrast and compare of the animated vs. the Burton, but for now I’m just going to jot down my thoughts on this newest iteration. It’s now been the better part of a week since I saw this movie, so my thoughts may not be quite as clear as if I’d written this the next morning, I appreciate your patience with me.

I guess what I most felt upon leaving the theater when this newest version of Alice was over was....confused. I guess that’s hardly surprising given the source material, but it wasn’t the story that had me confused. What I was confused about was what had happened to me while in the theater. What I mean by that is that, on the whole, I found this to be not a terribly successful Tim Burton effort. The story being told never really grabbed hold of me as a viewer, I didn’t particularly feel invested in the events that were unfolding onscreen at any point. But then, right near the end, I found myself getting choked up and teary eyed as the tale neared it’s finale. It was this oddball outburst of emotion that had me confused, and still has me confused. I can’t point at any one thing in the movie and explain to you where it came from, even know so many days later I can’t clearly say what happened, but somehow Tim Burton was able to get to me, and I guess that says something, though I’m not exactly sure what.

Before we get to specifics, and in order to avoid spoilers, let’s talk basics. Do I recommend you go see it? Visually it’s a treat to look at. I can’t imagine Alice’s Wonderland in better hands than those of the decidedly skewed Mr. Burton. I don’t know who in Hollywood today could put a more topsy-turvy world, populated with a more unique bunch of characters together than Tim Burton. It’s a dark movie, and I wouldn’t recommend it for kids under the age of 10 or 12? Some strong performances are turned in by Helena Bonham Carter and Johnny Depp (even if he is channeling a little too much of Capt. Jack Sparrow for my liking....) It’s always interesting to see where Crispin Glover will turn up, and he’s capable as the Red Queen’s Head of the Guard, and I wasn’t at all sold on Anne Hathaway’s take on the White Queen, I just didn’t understand what her whole demeanor was about for most of the movie. It was fun hearing Alan Rickman’s voice make a cameo appearance as the hookah smoking Caterpillar. I imagine the core audience for this movie is going to like it regardless, as I think Alice has a fanbase as rabid as some other fictitious stories out there, but for those who aren’t as dedicated to the story, I don’t know that you’re going to have a great time in the flick. The pacing of the movie is a sprint from start to finish, and it doesn’t totally feel like Burton is up to handling something that tries to move this quickly. Because it moves so fast, it feels like a lot of explanation is simply omitted as Alice dashes from one point to the next. The plot feels patchy at points, and some backstory is simply never explained at all. I’m sure the core fans will cry heresy at these statements, but those are my 2 cents, for what they’re worth. Obviously he did something right to get such an emotional reaction out of me in the final act, but what it was I couldn’t tell you. I don’t know whether that makes him subversive, clever, lucky, or genius.

DISCUSSION OF PLOT AND SOME SPOILERS FOLLOW - READ ON AT YOUR OWN PERIL

Let me repeat that I’m not terribly familiar with the source material, so feel free to correct any or all of what follows, and chalk it up to my ignorance regarding the text.

I guess what I’ve never been too clear on regarding this Alice is if it supposed to be the original story, or if it is supposed to be a kind of....I don’t know....sequel of sorts. Even the way the narrative works out, centering around the fact that Alice seems to have dreamt about Wonderland ever since she was a little girl (she’s of marrying age in the film) seems to lend itself to the idea that this is a follow up to the original story, but I’m not sure about that. This lack of clarity kind of puts the events of the rest of the film in question for me. Let’s look at an example or two to see what I mean.

My recollection of the original Mad Hatter is that he isn’t much more than a bit part in the story. Alice stumbles upon him and his infamous tea party, and then quickly moves on from there to some other adventure. In this story, Depp’s Mad Hatter is not only a pivotal character, but central to the entire plot, and this had me a bit off balance. Don’t get me wrong, Johnny Depp is a good actor, and he’s great at acting like a loon, but just because he’s good at it, and because he’s a big name and sure to get girls into the theater, doesn’t mean that you need to build the entire plot around him, do you?

Similarly, Helena Bonham Carter’s Red Queen is comically presented as having a bulbous head on top of a rather small body. She’s amusing, a tyrant, and yells “Off with their heads!” at all of the appropriate moments, but the choice to present her in such a fashion ties into a plot element that has all of the other individuals in her court wearing prosthetic noses, chins, or other body parts as a way to make themselves fit in with her own malformed nature. It’s an odd choice to make and, I think, an unnecessary one. Was this in the original story? The fact that the Red Queen is malformed and therefore her cronies all go around making themselves malformed too?

At the end of the day, what a lot of the movie felt like to me was that it had all of the hallmarks of the Alice in Wonderland story, but it kind of eschewed a lot of the original story. It’s got the White Rabbit, Red Queen, White Queen, Caterpillar, Cheshire Cat, Mad Hatter, and Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. But I feel like they basically plucked all of the most interesting characters and a few of the plot elements, and then just drafted a whole new story. I don’t remember the Jaberwocky, the Vorpol Sword, Crispin Glover’s character, the Mad Hatter being so essential, or other elements in this new Alice from the original story, but that could just be my failing memory. Anyone care to weigh in on this?

I’ll be back with thoughts on the animated flick in the next week or so, and maybe I need to read the book....?

Shutter Island - Scorsese takes a new direction.

I guess saying that Shutter Island is a new direction for Martin Scorsese isn’t entirely true. He’s ventured into creepy territory before with 1991’s Cape Fear starring Robert De Niro, but that movie didn’t leave much of an impression on me. In fact, I didn’t really like that movie much at all. I’m happy to report that Shutter Island, while not Scorsese at his best, is a really excellent film. If you’re a fan of psychological thrillers starring excellent casts in wonderfully creepy settings, then this is a movie you shouldn’t miss.

Let me be honest about a few things right up front. Coming into last night’s viewing I wasn’t too excited about this film. The previews have been around since something like last August, and I know for a fact that the release date was pushed back numerous times. (I think it was initially supposed to release in September or October?!) The fact that it’s been pushed back so long, coupled with the reality of it being released in February, a month not much better than January when it comes to Hollywood releases, I was pretty certain that the studio was taking a “Better to release it late than never.” standpoint. This mentality had me feeling indifferent about it to say the least. I’m happy to report that my concerns were completely unfounded. Scorsese has crafted a complex, atmospheric, nerve shredding piece of work that grabs the viewer by the throat from the opening shot and doesn’t really let go until long after you leave the theatre. Is it 100% successful? No, it isn’t, but what movie is?

Maybe the thing that comes through the most in the film is a sense of confidence. We all know that Scorsese is a great director. With classics like Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and Taxi Driver, and his more recent work The Departed no one is going to tell me that the man doesn’t know how to put a good film together. He’s a supremely capable man, good at framing shots, working with complex scripts, and weaving a lot of different narratives together while keeping everything compelling and moving forward. It’s his confidence that shines through in every scene. He knows what he’s doing, how to take the viewer through the story, and how to bring them to the dénouement, all the while playing his cards close to the vest.

Unlike the recent The Wolfman and some other “scary” movies of late, Shutter Island is good at the slow burn, constantly keeping the audience on edge in just about every single scene. It’s not a “horror” movie per se (it resides squarely in the “psychological thriller” genre) but it can definitely get you to jump out of your seat when it wants to. Taking place on an isolated island populated by the mentally insane, most with violent criminal pasts, I suppose it’s not surprising that it can make you jump at points. But the sheer sense of discomfort one experiences from start to finish is accomplished in a myriad of ways, not just through cheap scares, but in genuinely unpleasant sights, sounds, situations. Some of the “waking nightmares” are truly frightening but, strangely enough, eerily beautiful. I know that sounds contradictory, but it’s the truth. Without delving into spoilers, let me just say that the visuals that Scorsese puts together manage a delicate balance of horror and beauty that have rarely been seen in films I’m aware of, and might be reason enough for me to buy this when it hits the Blu Ray rack at my local Best Buy.

Performances? Anyone out there who’s going to try and claim that Lenoardo DiCaprio is “just another pretty face” couldn’t be more wrong. He is, without a doubt, one of the most talented actors of his generation, and I look forward to seeing where the rest of his career takes him. With films like What’s Eating Gilber Grape, Catch Me If You Can, and The Departed in his past you can’t argue with the guy’s talent. He’s strong here throughout, and particularly shines in the final chapters of the movie. He’s a man at the very end of a completely frayed rope and one can’t help but feel for him. The rest of the cast is solid with memorable work turned in by Sir Ben Kingsley, Max Von Sydow, and Patricia Clarkson. Mark Ruffalo, cast as DiCaprio’s newly assigned partner, turns in a solid sidekick performance.

The story is a labyrinthine maze, and seemingly becomes more and more complex with each new turn that DiCaprio’s tough guy veteran deputy marshall, and Ruffalo’s recent west-coast transplant uncover. The movie runs about 2:20, so it’s a bit longer than standard popcorn fare at your local cineplex, but it’s exquisitely timed in terms of pacing, with each scene building on the previous effortlessly.

My one gripe with the film, which both of my friends echoed as we walked out, is with the soundtrack. The atonal nature of it, while eerie, doesn’t seem to gibe with with the film on the whole. For a film set in the 1950’s it seems a bit heavy handed, and a bit out of place. However, it’s a minor complaint and easily overlooked given the rest of the film’s success.

A couple other quick thoughts before I end. This movie is one reason that I’m glad I check out sites like Rotten Tomatoes and look at reviews ahead of time. I might have skipped this one altogether had I not been following it on Rotten Tomatoes where it’s getting pretty decent reviews all around. Many complain that my penchant for reading reviews prior to seeing movies means that I don’t see some movies that look like they should be good, and that may well be true, but it’s the good word of mouth, and positive reviews that I read ahead of time that sold me on seeing this film once and for all and I’m thankful for that. I would have regretted not seeing this when I had the chance. Also, and I’d love for anyone to chime in on this, I know that the film is based on a Dennis Lehane novel and I hear that it’s a pretty faithful adaptation, but I couldn’t help but feel like I was almost watching a play in a couple of scenes. I wonder if this is a piece that could somehow make it into a stage adaptation....?

It’s not Scorsese at his best, look to Taxi Driver or Goodfellas for that, but it’s definitely Scorsese in fine form. And that should be reason enough for you to see it. It won’t be for everyone, but if you like creepy, or the previews have even remotely piqued your interest, then get out and see it while you can. You won’t regret it.

Check out my good friend Andrew’s thoughts here for a second opinion.

The Wolfman...now with 50% more boring!

I suppose I could end my review right there. Just tell you not to see this poorly written, aimlessly directed, plot-hole ridden, waste of talent, and you’d ultimately get the message. It’s a bad movie. Not the worst I’ve ever seen, not by a long shot (that honor goes to Naked Lunch, and I’d probably include 2009’s The Box at this point.) But it’s really quite...quite bad.

I’m going to try to write this up without spoilers, but let it be known that I will discuss aspects of the movie in general, some of which will be tied to plot, so stop reading now if you don’t want this crap-fest ruined in advance.

From the moment I saw the first preview for this new reboot of the Lon Chaney classic I was excited to get to a theatre and check it out. The previews indicated a great sense of art-direction with a really atmospheric movie, the effects looked to be awesome (the scene with Del Toro strapped to the chair while morphing into the Wolfman in particular stood out), and I thought the rest of the cast looked really strong. I mean, come on, it’s Sir Anthony Hopkins right?? How can you go wrong?! Damn you previews, and damn the marketing teams that come up with previews this enticing for movies this lame.

I’d read some of the reviews floating around the interwebs so I knew going into it that it wasn’t going to be great, but I hadn’t been adequately prepared for just how lame it was ultimately going to end up being.

First the good, the movie does look really great. It’s really atmospheric and dark, almost mono-chromatic with saturate grays, blues, blacks, browns. The settings are all fun to look at, and there’s some good period costume work going on as well I suppose, though it’s nothing too stellar. As for the next good.....well.....um.....yeah, that’s about all I got actually. How disappointing is that?

Let’s talk plot. You already know that Benicio del Toro is the Wolfman so nothing is spoiled there. But the plot surrounding how he becomes the Wolfman, his apparent history of mental illness, and all of the rest of the events of the film are a complete and utter mess. Nothing is really explained, characters that are somewhat pivotal (Hugo Weaving - Mr. Smith from the Matrix trilogy) are given a cursory shading of background information, and apparently crucial historical events are handled through incoherent flashbacks that barely tie together in any discernible way that makes sense. Imagine taking a decent book, throwing it into a blender, hitting puree for 2 minutes, and then pulling out the pieces and taping about 1/3 of them back together. Yeah, that’s the plot.

Performances? Well I’m a fan of basically everyone in the cast so I figured they’d redeem the film on some level. They come from a good body of work. Sir Anthony Hopkins, Benicio del Toro, and Hugo Weaving all come from a strong body of work with some excellent character work in their past. As my friend Andrew said, “Maybe it was a directorial choice to have every performer think about doing their laundry, or what they were going to have for lunch, while reciting their lines.” I don’t think I can put it any better. Not a single person in this film seems remotely interested in telling the story that’s being told. They all just seem.....bored.

Pacing is the final huge issue (I’ll give the cheesy dialog a pass for this review.) The whole movie has the tempo of a runaway freight train. It’s hard to understand how something that’s moving so ridiculously fast from one plot point to the next, from one setting to the next, can be so bland. Apparently, in England, they don’t have full moons like you and I do, on some sort of regular lunar cycle, instead they have a full moon every 2 or 3 days. You could see how that would be problematic when a Werewolf is on the prowl, right? Also, some people apparently can only walk across the full length of the English countryside as conventional means of travel (horse, train) are unavailable to them, while others can hop a train no problem. The weird thing about this? The person walking and the person on the train arrive at the same location at the exact same time!!! Explanation? Someone? Anyone?

Ok, I’m almost done. One last thing, and yes, this is a definite spoiler, so quit now if you don’t want the final 20 minutes of the film ruined. (The final 20 minutes that my friend Andrew and I simply spent laughing out loud while pointing at the screen.)

SPOILER BELOW!!!

The movie went from just lame to outright bad when, in what would be the final fight, Werewolf Anthony Hopkins jumps back from the wounded Werewolf Benicio del Toro in a fit of rage and...you guessed it...rips off his shirt Hulk Hogan style revealing his old, grey werewolf fur before getting his ass handed to him by his young pup of a son Benicio. Yeah, that did it.

All I could think about was what that day of filming must have been like on set.

“Yes Sir anthony, I know you’re a legendary actor, and that you’ve been in some amazing movies, and are immortalized as Hannibal Lecter forever. Now, would you mind putting on this old man werewolf suit and tearing your shirt off for us, please?”

Ugh. Skip it.