While the choices at the theater during the Holiday Movie Season are usually family friendly or mass-appeal action flicks, there is always one that is undeniably dark; last year it was Black Swan, and this year, it was going to be The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Steig Larsson’s Swedish-language novel has already enjoyed insanely high levels of popularity and a critically-acclaimed foreign film adaptation, so it was only a matter of time before Hollywood brought the story to an even larger audience. The names attached to the project were certainly buzz-worthy: Daniel Craig has had an upsurge in popularity since portraying James Bond, while critics were raving about young Rooney Mara’s performance, but the biggest selling point had to be director David Fincher, who last wowed audiences with The Social Network. The unconventional trailer and controversial poster had definitely split audiences, but in speaking to fans of the book series and the Swedish-version of the film, I admit that I was starting to get curious. Now, I had definitely heard of the book, but never read it myself, but once I decided to see and review the film, I thought it would be best to give the novel a shot…four days later I had devoured the brilliant 500+ page book, and I was positively ecstatic to head to the theater.
As someone who loved the book, there is little surprise that I enjoyed the movie, which is dark, stylish, and edgy, with genuine suspense and mystery, but I cannot help but feel like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo caters a little too strongly to those who have read and thoroughly understood the core material. Director David Fincher hits the mark once again, translating script-to-screen in such a brilliant way that you can still feel chills even if you are fully aware of every twist and turn from the book. Daniel Craig is an able investigator, but the star of the film is Rooney Mara, who plays the troubled Lisbeth Salander in such an unhinged way that you cannot help but shudder every time her piercing, unforgiving stare hits you. These accolades aside though, I feel like I only enjoyed the film so much because I had read the book; the narrative takes-off running, delving into the complicated twists (that I had to re-read several times) without proper explanation. Make no mistake, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo offers an unbelievably poor view of human nature, fully earning an R-rating, but if you can stick with it, you will be rewarded with a gripping mystery and stellar acting…the choice is yours.
Overall Recommendation: High
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: Full Review
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - (December 21, 2011): R
Distributor: Columbia Pictures (Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box Office: #3 with $12,750,000
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $27,776,000
Gross Revenue: $29,376,000
Production Budget: $90 million
Director: David Fincher
If anyone were to ask me to identify my favorite director, the answer would invariably be Martin Scorsese, but upon closer consideration, I would have to say that David Fincher may be a close second…between Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac, and The Social Network; few would deny that the guy is brilliant. Regardless of his recent accolades though, there was little doubt that his newest project would be heavily scrutinized, as The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo had already received a highly successful Swedish adaptation, not to mention the legions of fans of the novel, which would comprise the strongest audience and understandably be pissed if too many creative liberties were taken. Easily the biggest buzz-builder involved the cinematic transformation of Rooney Mara, who was previously best known to audiences as Mark Zuckerberg’s girlfriend from The Social Network; however, in portraying the titular character of this film, the young actress seemed to be pulling out all the stops, and critics were thrilled. From a marketing standpoint, Sony Pictures certainly knew how to grab attention, with an unconventional and enigmatic trailer, complemented by one of the raciest posters I’ve ever seen…say what you want about its appropriateness within the eye-line of children, it was enough to get people talking. As the darkest entry of the Holiday Movie Season, I made sure to read the book before I went to the theater, so that I could understand and truly appreciate how The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo would translate to the big screen.
Set in Sweden, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo opens by introducing audiences to investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), who was recently convicted of libel against prominent businessman Hans-Erik Wennerström. Blomkvist is soon contacted by aging industrialist, Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), who offers the disgraced writer a unique job: he must help investigate the disappearance of Vanger’s great-niece, Harriet, who disappeared over forty years ago and many believe to have been murdered. Henrik believes that a member of his troubled family is the killer, and he offers Blomkvist a substantial salary and the necessary evidence to bury Wennerström (thus clearing his name), should he solve the cold case. Blomkvist moves into a small cabin on an isolated island owned by the Vanger family, where he meets Harriet’s brother and current CEO of Vanger Industries, Martin (Stellan Skarsgård), and the family lawyer, Dirch Frode (Steven Berkoff), who promise access to whatever resources necessary. When new clues and evidence fall into place, Blomkvist realizes he will need a research assistant; Frode suggests Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), the unconventional and troubled investigator for a security agency who conducted the background-check on Blomkvist that Henrik had ordered before employment. Now working together, Blomkvist and Salander start to uncover a series of brutal and sadistic murders against women that may be connected to Harriet, delving into a dark secret that may not be as buried in the past as everyone previously believed.
Given that he was tackling an emotionally-charged book with a devoted fan following, David Fincher wasn’t exactly in for a cake-walk, but he more than rose to the challenge with tense, gripping direction, intelligent writing, and award-worthy acting. In this last regard, I am of course speaking to the talents of Rooney Mara, who plays Lisbeth Salander with such a raw, unhinged intensity, that her screen-presence is as mesmerizing as it is downright frightening…when she gives you that stare; you know that it would be the mistake of your life to get on her bad side. Put it to you this way, Bella Swan may have set feminism back a few decades back by weeping over vampires, but Lisbeth Salander forcibly rockets feminism to the complete opposite end of the spectrum, and for that Mara both deserves and demands the attention of Academy voters. When it comes to the other aspects of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, the stylish direction adds to a smooth narrative flow, keeping the tensions and suspense of a horrific murder mystery so high that I still got chills, even if I was fully aware of every twist and turn. However, despite being an undeniably strong film, some elements were definitely lost in the script-to-screen translation, unintentionally alienating uninitiated fans.
When I read the book, I distinctly remember having to re-read several plot points and constantly refer back to the Vanger family tree in order to keep things straight, so I walked into The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo with a strong working knowledge of the mystery…unfortunately, the narrative does not do enough to help those who walked into the theater without this foreknowledge. I realize that the film was already running close to three hours, but more time should have been spent clarifying some of the clue-discovery scenes rather than inexplicably elaborating on some parts of the book that were originally relegated to the book’s epilogue. Another BIG error is that the film completely ignores one of the main hooks of the book and the early trailers that were released; the result is a gaping plot hole that could have been resolved with thirty seconds of dialogue. The final comment I feel compelled to make is less of a criticism and more of a warning: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo more than earns an R-rating, with shocking depictions of violence and an insanely graphic rape scene…children absolutely do not belong in the theater, I wouldn’t recommend taking the grandparents either, even if they are fans of Law & Order: SVU. Don’t get me wrong, this newest drama/thriller is by no means a bad film, but I wish that it didn’t mildly necessitate having read the book beforehand, or at least accompanying someone who has a key understanding of the story.
Now, normally book-to-film adaptations of highly popular novels make an absolute killing at the box office, but anyone who was expecting anything close to Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings was clearly in a state of severe denial. That being said though, a third place run with $12.75 million against family entries like The Adventure of TinTin, War Horse, and We Bought a Zoo, or teenage-demographic grabbers like Ghost Protocol or Game of Shadows is impressive. There is absolutely nothing else in theaters even close to the type of mature mystery that The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo provides, and I know that there are still fans waiting to see if the adaptation is worth their money, so ticket sales will undoubtedly continue to chip-away at the $90 million production budget. Given the film’s Swedish roots, I am surprised by the film’s current lack of an international presence, but perhaps it just hasn’t hit the appropriate market yet. Plain and simple, David Fincher’s newest entry isn’t perfect, but it is still an incredibly well-made drama that is worth seeing, especially if you have taken the time to read and understand the book.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Columbia Pictures (Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box Office: #3 with $12,750,000
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $27,776,000
Gross Revenue: $29,376,000
Production Budget: $90 million
Director: David Fincher
If anyone were to ask me to identify my favorite director, the answer would invariably be Martin Scorsese, but upon closer consideration, I would have to say that David Fincher may be a close second…between Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac, and The Social Network; few would deny that the guy is brilliant. Regardless of his recent accolades though, there was little doubt that his newest project would be heavily scrutinized, as The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo had already received a highly successful Swedish adaptation, not to mention the legions of fans of the novel, which would comprise the strongest audience and understandably be pissed if too many creative liberties were taken. Easily the biggest buzz-builder involved the cinematic transformation of Rooney Mara, who was previously best known to audiences as Mark Zuckerberg’s girlfriend from The Social Network; however, in portraying the titular character of this film, the young actress seemed to be pulling out all the stops, and critics were thrilled. From a marketing standpoint, Sony Pictures certainly knew how to grab attention, with an unconventional and enigmatic trailer, complemented by one of the raciest posters I’ve ever seen…say what you want about its appropriateness within the eye-line of children, it was enough to get people talking. As the darkest entry of the Holiday Movie Season, I made sure to read the book before I went to the theater, so that I could understand and truly appreciate how The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo would translate to the big screen.
Set in Sweden, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo opens by introducing audiences to investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), who was recently convicted of libel against prominent businessman Hans-Erik Wennerström. Blomkvist is soon contacted by aging industrialist, Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), who offers the disgraced writer a unique job: he must help investigate the disappearance of Vanger’s great-niece, Harriet, who disappeared over forty years ago and many believe to have been murdered. Henrik believes that a member of his troubled family is the killer, and he offers Blomkvist a substantial salary and the necessary evidence to bury Wennerström (thus clearing his name), should he solve the cold case. Blomkvist moves into a small cabin on an isolated island owned by the Vanger family, where he meets Harriet’s brother and current CEO of Vanger Industries, Martin (Stellan Skarsgård), and the family lawyer, Dirch Frode (Steven Berkoff), who promise access to whatever resources necessary. When new clues and evidence fall into place, Blomkvist realizes he will need a research assistant; Frode suggests Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), the unconventional and troubled investigator for a security agency who conducted the background-check on Blomkvist that Henrik had ordered before employment. Now working together, Blomkvist and Salander start to uncover a series of brutal and sadistic murders against women that may be connected to Harriet, delving into a dark secret that may not be as buried in the past as everyone previously believed.
Given that he was tackling an emotionally-charged book with a devoted fan following, David Fincher wasn’t exactly in for a cake-walk, but he more than rose to the challenge with tense, gripping direction, intelligent writing, and award-worthy acting. In this last regard, I am of course speaking to the talents of Rooney Mara, who plays Lisbeth Salander with such a raw, unhinged intensity, that her screen-presence is as mesmerizing as it is downright frightening…when she gives you that stare; you know that it would be the mistake of your life to get on her bad side. Put it to you this way, Bella Swan may have set feminism back a few decades back by weeping over vampires, but Lisbeth Salander forcibly rockets feminism to the complete opposite end of the spectrum, and for that Mara both deserves and demands the attention of Academy voters. When it comes to the other aspects of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, the stylish direction adds to a smooth narrative flow, keeping the tensions and suspense of a horrific murder mystery so high that I still got chills, even if I was fully aware of every twist and turn. However, despite being an undeniably strong film, some elements were definitely lost in the script-to-screen translation, unintentionally alienating uninitiated fans.
When I read the book, I distinctly remember having to re-read several plot points and constantly refer back to the Vanger family tree in order to keep things straight, so I walked into The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo with a strong working knowledge of the mystery…unfortunately, the narrative does not do enough to help those who walked into the theater without this foreknowledge. I realize that the film was already running close to three hours, but more time should have been spent clarifying some of the clue-discovery scenes rather than inexplicably elaborating on some parts of the book that were originally relegated to the book’s epilogue. Another BIG error is that the film completely ignores one of the main hooks of the book and the early trailers that were released; the result is a gaping plot hole that could have been resolved with thirty seconds of dialogue. The final comment I feel compelled to make is less of a criticism and more of a warning: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo more than earns an R-rating, with shocking depictions of violence and an insanely graphic rape scene…children absolutely do not belong in the theater, I wouldn’t recommend taking the grandparents either, even if they are fans of Law & Order: SVU. Don’t get me wrong, this newest drama/thriller is by no means a bad film, but I wish that it didn’t mildly necessitate having read the book beforehand, or at least accompanying someone who has a key understanding of the story.
Now, normally book-to-film adaptations of highly popular novels make an absolute killing at the box office, but anyone who was expecting anything close to Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings was clearly in a state of severe denial. That being said though, a third place run with $12.75 million against family entries like The Adventure of TinTin, War Horse, and We Bought a Zoo, or teenage-demographic grabbers like Ghost Protocol or Game of Shadows is impressive. There is absolutely nothing else in theaters even close to the type of mature mystery that The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo provides, and I know that there are still fans waiting to see if the adaptation is worth their money, so ticket sales will undoubtedly continue to chip-away at the $90 million production budget. Given the film’s Swedish roots, I am surprised by the film’s current lack of an international presence, but perhaps it just hasn’t hit the appropriate market yet. Plain and simple, David Fincher’s newest entry isn’t perfect, but it is still an incredibly well-made drama that is worth seeing, especially if you have taken the time to read and understand the book.
Overall Recommendation: High
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows - Short and Sweet
If there is one actor in Hollywood who can demonstrate a successful and unprecedented comeback from near-extinction, it is Robert Downey Jr. (my apologies to Mel Gibson and Charlie Sheen). His success from portraying billionaire playboy Tony Stark in the Iron Man series is enough to make any A-lister jealous, but in 2009 the formerly troubled actor brought another established character to life in a unique way when he decided to tackle Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s infamous detective. I wasn’t overtly thrilled the first time I saw Sherlock Holmes two winters ago, but after re-watching the mystery and fully unraveling the plot, the true genius of the acting came through and it quickly became one of my favorite films. Needless to say, I was thrilled when A Game of Shadows was first announced, with Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, and Guy Ritchie all returning to see the quirky and surprisingly combatant detective confront his legendary literary nemesis, Professor Moriarty. The trailer was energetic, exciting, and seemed to promise a great deal more action than was seen in the original, so as a fan of the series I could not wait to see and review this much-anticipated sequel.
Given my reverence for the original, there was the very real possibility that A Game of Shadows would disappoint, but thankfully, the film is just as brilliant and entertaining, even surpassing its predecessor in a number of ways. He may be good as Tony Stark, but Robert Downey Jr. is mesmerizing as Sherlock Holmes, blending a smooth arrogance and an erratic sense of humor that amplifies his intelligence and adds even more enjoyment to his unique fighting style. When it comes to supporting cast, Jude Law complements Robert Downey Jr. perfectly, as the two co-stars share an undeniably close fraternal chemistry, but the best interactions come whenever Holmes faces-off against his nemesis. Jared Harris is menacing and toxic as Professor James Moriarty and the tense mental battles he engages in with Downey Jr.’s Holmes provide for some of the best interactions between hero and villain in recent memory. It may not have the same style and finesse as the original, but A Game of Shadows is more action-packed, easier to follow, and an all-around strong and entertaining follow-up that continues a wildly-popular franchise.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Given my reverence for the original, there was the very real possibility that A Game of Shadows would disappoint, but thankfully, the film is just as brilliant and entertaining, even surpassing its predecessor in a number of ways. He may be good as Tony Stark, but Robert Downey Jr. is mesmerizing as Sherlock Holmes, blending a smooth arrogance and an erratic sense of humor that amplifies his intelligence and adds even more enjoyment to his unique fighting style. When it comes to supporting cast, Jude Law complements Robert Downey Jr. perfectly, as the two co-stars share an undeniably close fraternal chemistry, but the best interactions come whenever Holmes faces-off against his nemesis. Jared Harris is menacing and toxic as Professor James Moriarty and the tense mental battles he engages in with Downey Jr.’s Holmes provide for some of the best interactions between hero and villain in recent memory. It may not have the same style and finesse as the original, but A Game of Shadows is more action-packed, easier to follow, and an all-around strong and entertaining follow-up that continues a wildly-popular franchise.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows - Full Review
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows - (December 16, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $39,637,079
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $49,725,274
Gross Revenue: $64,325,274
Production Budget: $125 million
Director: Guy Ritchie
Between a billionaire industrialist superhero and an eccentric turn-of-the-century detective, Robert Downey Jr. has been living every actors dream, juggling two insanely successful film franchises and embodying two iconic characters…the only other Hollywood legend that come close to relating is Harrison Ford, who will always be known as both Indiana Jones and Han Solo. When Sherlock Holmes was released in 2009, it experienced surprisingly high levels of critical and commercial success, all the while hinting at potential for numerous follow-up sequels, so it was only a matter of time until audiences were presented with A Game of Shadows. The return of Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, and director Guy Ritchie was more than enough to build high levels of buzz, but two new cast-members were also generating considerable interest; Mad Men’s Jared Harris would have his hands full tackling the character of Professor Moriarty, but newcomer Noomi Rapace was a definite question mark. Best known as Lisbeth Salander from the Swedish film version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Rapace’s inclusion in her first English-language film was sure to catch the attention of fans of the wildly-popular book, especially since the Hollywood adaptation would be in theaters concurrently. During the notoriously busy and competitive Holiday Movie Season, Warner Bros. was undeniably banking on audience familiarity with and adoration of the original to sell tickets, and as a huge fan myself, I had no doubt that many would be thrilled to see Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.
Set shortly after the original, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows opens with Europe coming to grips with rising tensions between France and Germany, which are being aggravated by a series of terrorist bombings. Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) is convinced that these attacks are linked and being controlled by an outside source, and the clues point to one Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris), who is revealed to be Irene Adler’s (Rachel McAdams) mysterious employer from the first film. After Holmes sabotages another attempting bombing, Moriarty kills Adler for her failure in his plot and sets about eliminating the threat that the eccentric detective provides. When Holmes confronts Moriarty, the devious academic threatens the welfare of Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) and his new wife, Mary (Kelly Reilly), and so, with help from his brother, Mycroft (Stephen Fry), Sherlock sets out to save his friends. Resolving that no one is safe until Moriarty is stopped, Holmes and Watson set out to uncover the ruthless villain’s plans, which involve targeting a mysterious gypsy, Simza (Noomi Rapace), and laying the groundwork for a war, the likes of which the world has never seen.
Well, it should come as absolutely no surprise that the best part of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is Robert Downey Jr. himself, who amplifies every single aspect of the title character’s distinctive personality that charmed audiences in the original, proving that this is the role he was born to play. Never has blatant narcissism blended with eccentric and manic behavior in such an enjoyable way, whether that involves Holmes sizing up an opponent before he dispatches him with remarkable prowess, slyly observing an environment to pick apart as many clues as possible, or bantering with Dr. Watson during a stag party and humorously espousing the pitfalls of marriage. Speaking of Dr. Watson, Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. make the perfect on-screen tag-team, building on the dependent brotherhood established in the original and evolving the relationship…not to downplay Stephen Fry’s enjoyable performance as Mycroft Holmes, but it is pretty clear who is closest to Sherlock. When it comes to villains, few in recent memory have been as stoically menacing and coolly threatening as Stephen Fry’s brilliant Professor Moriarty, who is such an intellectual equal to Holmes that the tense standoffs between the two are unbelievably charged…the mental battle and ensuing physical breakdown that the two engage in during the narrative’s climax is easily the strongest scene in the film. Now, for as strong as A Game of Shadows is, I know that fans will invariably try and weigh it against the original, but in spite of surpassing certain aspects, some differences may not be as easily accepted.
The first and most apparent difference between A Game of Shadows and the first Sherlock Holmes is that this sequel places a much stronger focus on no-holds-barred action as opposed to paced intellect. Make no mistake, the fighting scenes and chase sequences are thrilling and accentuated by stylish slow-motion camera work, but some of the distinct style and finesse of the original is clearly missing. Such an absence is not necessarily a bad thing, as the story and mystery of the sequel is considerably easier to follow and does not require having seen the first entry. With Sherlock Holmes, the film had to be seen twice out of the necessity and task of understanding the narrative, but with A Game of Shadows, audiences will want to see the film again out of the sheer desire to revisit the enjoyment of the adventure and further clarify a few plot points, thereby catching a few more lines of the clever dialogue. So, even though A Game of Shadows is stronger than its predecessor in a few ways, such comparison cannot stand, as the two are different but still strongly enjoyable and well-made films…I cannot wait for more.
From a box office perspective, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows may have taken the top spot its opening weekend with $39.6 million, but the film still fell victim to the sobering trend of declining theater attendance. Now, some may scoff at this sequel’s numbers, as it represents a 36% drop from the original’s opening weekend, but it must be noted that overall theater attendance for that particular weekend has dipped to its lowest in 16 years. Hopefully, with strong buzz, positive critical acclaim, and a solid international presence, A Game of Shadows will be able to make up some lost ground over the holidays and cover the substantial production budget. Still, the sub-par opening has to be a little disconcerting considering the sheer volume of titles hitting theaters in the next few days, the most notable entries being the wide-release of Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, and the much-hyped The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. In the end, if you are a fan of Robert Downey Jr.’s, an adamant fan of the original, or just someone who is curious about all the praise surrounding this character, then Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows represents a fantastic sequel that will not disappoint.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $39,637,079
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $49,725,274
Gross Revenue: $64,325,274
Production Budget: $125 million
Director: Guy Ritchie
Between a billionaire industrialist superhero and an eccentric turn-of-the-century detective, Robert Downey Jr. has been living every actors dream, juggling two insanely successful film franchises and embodying two iconic characters…the only other Hollywood legend that come close to relating is Harrison Ford, who will always be known as both Indiana Jones and Han Solo. When Sherlock Holmes was released in 2009, it experienced surprisingly high levels of critical and commercial success, all the while hinting at potential for numerous follow-up sequels, so it was only a matter of time until audiences were presented with A Game of Shadows. The return of Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, and director Guy Ritchie was more than enough to build high levels of buzz, but two new cast-members were also generating considerable interest; Mad Men’s Jared Harris would have his hands full tackling the character of Professor Moriarty, but newcomer Noomi Rapace was a definite question mark. Best known as Lisbeth Salander from the Swedish film version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Rapace’s inclusion in her first English-language film was sure to catch the attention of fans of the wildly-popular book, especially since the Hollywood adaptation would be in theaters concurrently. During the notoriously busy and competitive Holiday Movie Season, Warner Bros. was undeniably banking on audience familiarity with and adoration of the original to sell tickets, and as a huge fan myself, I had no doubt that many would be thrilled to see Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.
Set shortly after the original, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows opens with Europe coming to grips with rising tensions between France and Germany, which are being aggravated by a series of terrorist bombings. Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) is convinced that these attacks are linked and being controlled by an outside source, and the clues point to one Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris), who is revealed to be Irene Adler’s (Rachel McAdams) mysterious employer from the first film. After Holmes sabotages another attempting bombing, Moriarty kills Adler for her failure in his plot and sets about eliminating the threat that the eccentric detective provides. When Holmes confronts Moriarty, the devious academic threatens the welfare of Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) and his new wife, Mary (Kelly Reilly), and so, with help from his brother, Mycroft (Stephen Fry), Sherlock sets out to save his friends. Resolving that no one is safe until Moriarty is stopped, Holmes and Watson set out to uncover the ruthless villain’s plans, which involve targeting a mysterious gypsy, Simza (Noomi Rapace), and laying the groundwork for a war, the likes of which the world has never seen.
Well, it should come as absolutely no surprise that the best part of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is Robert Downey Jr. himself, who amplifies every single aspect of the title character’s distinctive personality that charmed audiences in the original, proving that this is the role he was born to play. Never has blatant narcissism blended with eccentric and manic behavior in such an enjoyable way, whether that involves Holmes sizing up an opponent before he dispatches him with remarkable prowess, slyly observing an environment to pick apart as many clues as possible, or bantering with Dr. Watson during a stag party and humorously espousing the pitfalls of marriage. Speaking of Dr. Watson, Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. make the perfect on-screen tag-team, building on the dependent brotherhood established in the original and evolving the relationship…not to downplay Stephen Fry’s enjoyable performance as Mycroft Holmes, but it is pretty clear who is closest to Sherlock. When it comes to villains, few in recent memory have been as stoically menacing and coolly threatening as Stephen Fry’s brilliant Professor Moriarty, who is such an intellectual equal to Holmes that the tense standoffs between the two are unbelievably charged…the mental battle and ensuing physical breakdown that the two engage in during the narrative’s climax is easily the strongest scene in the film. Now, for as strong as A Game of Shadows is, I know that fans will invariably try and weigh it against the original, but in spite of surpassing certain aspects, some differences may not be as easily accepted.
The first and most apparent difference between A Game of Shadows and the first Sherlock Holmes is that this sequel places a much stronger focus on no-holds-barred action as opposed to paced intellect. Make no mistake, the fighting scenes and chase sequences are thrilling and accentuated by stylish slow-motion camera work, but some of the distinct style and finesse of the original is clearly missing. Such an absence is not necessarily a bad thing, as the story and mystery of the sequel is considerably easier to follow and does not require having seen the first entry. With Sherlock Holmes, the film had to be seen twice out of the necessity and task of understanding the narrative, but with A Game of Shadows, audiences will want to see the film again out of the sheer desire to revisit the enjoyment of the adventure and further clarify a few plot points, thereby catching a few more lines of the clever dialogue. So, even though A Game of Shadows is stronger than its predecessor in a few ways, such comparison cannot stand, as the two are different but still strongly enjoyable and well-made films…I cannot wait for more.
From a box office perspective, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows may have taken the top spot its opening weekend with $39.6 million, but the film still fell victim to the sobering trend of declining theater attendance. Now, some may scoff at this sequel’s numbers, as it represents a 36% drop from the original’s opening weekend, but it must be noted that overall theater attendance for that particular weekend has dipped to its lowest in 16 years. Hopefully, with strong buzz, positive critical acclaim, and a solid international presence, A Game of Shadows will be able to make up some lost ground over the holidays and cover the substantial production budget. Still, the sub-par opening has to be a little disconcerting considering the sheer volume of titles hitting theaters in the next few days, the most notable entries being the wide-release of Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, and the much-hyped The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. In the end, if you are a fan of Robert Downey Jr.’s, an adamant fan of the original, or just someone who is curious about all the praise surrounding this character, then Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows represents a fantastic sequel that will not disappoint.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Monday, December 19, 2011
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol: Short and Sweet
It is absolutely no secret that Tom Cruise has had a very public fall from grace in recent years, with his erratic behavior alienating moviegoers and overshadowing his past work…last summer’s sub-par performance of Knight & Day is all the evidence you need for that fact. Still, if there is one franchise that many revere and still associate with a positive impression of Tom Cruise, it is the Mission: Impossible series, which has wowed action junkies since agent Ethan Hunt was first introduced to the big screen in 1996. With five years between Mission: Impossible 3 and this newest sequel, I was a little skeptical when I first saw the announcement for Ghost Protocol, but a number of factors worked in favor of the film’s potential quality. Rising star Jeremy Renner could use Ghost Protocol to convince audience he will be able to hold his own against superheroes in next summer’s The Avengers, while funnyman Simon Pegg guaranteed some laughs, but I was most excited to see director Brad Bird tackle his first live-action film. As this was perhaps the last hope for Tom Cruise to convince the public that he still belongs at the top of the A-list, I had some pretty high hopes for Ghost Protocol.
Wow…not only is Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol the best entry in the Mission: Impossible series by a mile, it is easily one of the purest, gutsy, and most exciting action films in years. I don’t care how crazy you think Tom Cruise is in reality, he proves beyond any criticism that he is still an engaging and thoroughly likable action star, and watching him return to a familiar character is pure entertainment. The stunts of Ghost Protocol are also awe-inspiring, showcasing downright amazing and imaginative technology that is sure to keep you on the edge of your seat and question how in the hell they were able to film those scenes. This action film is also surprisingly funny, blending in considerable humor that keeps the storyline from taking itself too seriously without venturing into the comedy or spoof genres. Cool, sexy, energetic, and far superior to its predecessors, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol is a perfect action film that cannot be missed, especially in IMAX.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Wow…not only is Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol the best entry in the Mission: Impossible series by a mile, it is easily one of the purest, gutsy, and most exciting action films in years. I don’t care how crazy you think Tom Cruise is in reality, he proves beyond any criticism that he is still an engaging and thoroughly likable action star, and watching him return to a familiar character is pure entertainment. The stunts of Ghost Protocol are also awe-inspiring, showcasing downright amazing and imaginative technology that is sure to keep you on the edge of your seat and question how in the hell they were able to film those scenes. This action film is also surprisingly funny, blending in considerable humor that keeps the storyline from taking itself too seriously without venturing into the comedy or spoof genres. Cool, sexy, energetic, and far superior to its predecessors, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol is a perfect action film that cannot be missed, especially in IMAX.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Mission: Impossibe - Ghost Protocol: Full Review
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - (December 16, 2011 – IMAX release; December 21, 2011 – Wide release): PG-13
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #3 with $13,600,000 (limited release)
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $13,600,000
Gross Revenue: $81,800,000
Production Budget: $140 million
Director: Brad Bird
For the past fifteen years, the Mission: Impossible series has set the gold-standard for spy films, offering genuine espionage narratives filled with intense action and awesome gadgets; Tom Cruise has led each entry as the likeably badass super-agent Ethan Hunt, my previous favorite being John Woo’s Mission: Impossible II from 2000. Needless to say, regardless of Cruise’s questionable personal life, Paramount wouldn’t have too big a challenge in selling audiences on another sequel to the familiar and popular franchise, but that didn’t stop aggressive marketing tactics such as the BMW cross promotion that highlighted the cars that would be appearing on-screen. One big question mark involved director Brad Bird’s involvement…granted, he has had considerable financial and critical success in the animated realm (I trust titles like The Incredibles and Ratatouille ring a bell), but there was something uncertain about handing over control of a high-profile sequel for his first live-action film. Now, seeing an action film like Ghost Protocol in IMAX seems like a no-brainer, but Paramount took an extra step to draw in an audience for early IMAX showings…the first 6 minutes of Christopher Nolan’s upcoming The Dark Knight Rises would screen ahead of the film, and that fact alone guaranteed my advanced purchase. As a fan of the franchise, I was looking forward to Ghost Protocol, but in retrospect, I was vastly unprepared for the film’s insanely high quality.
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol starts as an IMF agent is killed by an assassin during a high-risk assignment in Budapest; field agents Jane Carter (Paula Patton) and Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) then extract Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) from a maximum security Russian prison in order to complete the mission. Hunt and his team infiltrate the Moscow Kremlin archives in order to identify a person of interest known only as “Cobalt,” but the mission is compromised and a bomb ends up destroying the Kremlin. As Hunt is extracted from Moscow, the IMF Secretary (Tom Wilkinson) explains that the Russians have blamed the attack on the IMF as an undeclared act of war, prompting the president to activate “Ghost Protocol,” a contingency that disavows the entire IMF, leaving Ethan and the rest of his team as unsupported fugitives and accused terrorists. Just as Ethan is introduced to chief analyst William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), the convoy is ambushed by a Russian security team in an attack that claims the life of the secretary. Narrowly escaping, Hunt and Brandt identify Cobalt as Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), a strategist who has stolen a nuclear codes and a launch-control device and intends to start a worldwide nuclear war. Embarking on an adventure that takes the team from Dubai to Mumbai, Hunt and his fellow agents race to clear their names and prevent a veritable nuclear holocaust.
Now, the previous Mission: Impossible films have always offered high levels of action, but Ghost Protocol is like a shot of adrenaline, because start to finish, the jaw-dropping action just does NOT stop. Each action sequence showcases gutsy stunts and incredible gadgetry that draws on imagination and bends physics in such a strong way that you at first think you might be watching a cartoon, but it is just believable enough to be unbearably awesome. The standout scene involves the Burj Khalifa skyscraper in Dubai, where Tom Cruise scales the building from the 110th floor using special adhesive gloves; in IMAX especially, the scene is so engaging and edgy that you will be on the edge of your seat the entire time…the audience broke out in applause, a relatively rare occurrence in theaters. It is also surprising that Tom Cruise still embodies a believable action hero, bringing back the stylish twist to the superspy that would have you believe Ethan Hunt is not only able to steal a woman from James Bond, but would also kick his ass afterwards. Based on his ability to film those action sequences alone, Brad Bird more than proves his competence as a live-action director, but the other surprising aspect of Ghost Protocol involves its pacing and humor, which maintains such a high level of energy that you are disappointed when the over two-hour running time concludes.
Though it is not billed as a comedy in any way, shape, or form, make no mistake when I say that Ghost Protocol is funny, blending the considerable action with sarcastic and self-aware humor that will have you laughing and then gasping when a huge explosion levels a building. Anytime you think the dialogue or story gets a little corny, the film makes fun of itself before you get a chance to criticize. Tom Cruise may be the star of the film, but his supporting cast is easily the best of any previous Mission: Impossible entry…Jeremy Renner is brutal and noble, sharing an almost fraternal bond with Cruise; Simon Pegg is innocent, funny, and sarcastic; and Paula Patton is an unbelievably sexy femme fatale that will seduce you and then beat the hell out of you. As far as the plot goes, Ghost Protocol is complicated but surprisingly easy to follow, more so than some of the series prequels; in fact the only real aspect in which this film doesn’t surpass its predecessors is the one-dimensional and nonthreatening villain, but I doubt most moviegoers will notice, much less care. All-in-all, this fact combines with the other accolades to make this newest entry an unbelievably well-made action film that is not only the best action film in years, but also a reverent must-see for any fan of the Mission: Impossible series.
Now, I realize that Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol has yet to be released in all theaters, but the exclusive IMAX and large-format domestic showcase and international release has already drawn a considerable audience. Drawing $13 million and a third place opening on IMAX screenings alone is impressive, but over $68 million in 38 overseas markets shows that Ghost Protocol has already covered more than half of its production budget before wide release. Critical praise has been through the roof, so positive word of mouth should build enough buzz for a strong Holiday Movie Season haul. Given how much I enjoyed the film, I was understandably thrilled when it was announced that Tom Cruise, Simon Pegg, and Brad Bird have all expressed interest in returning for a fifth Mission: Impossible adventure…I’d buy my ticket tomorrow. Everyone knows the theme song, everyone knows the star, and I hope that this review is now enough to convince you that everyone needs to know that Ghost Protocol is the new gold-standard for the action genre that both deserves and demands your attention.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #3 with $13,600,000 (limited release)
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $13,600,000
Gross Revenue: $81,800,000
Production Budget: $140 million
Director: Brad Bird
For the past fifteen years, the Mission: Impossible series has set the gold-standard for spy films, offering genuine espionage narratives filled with intense action and awesome gadgets; Tom Cruise has led each entry as the likeably badass super-agent Ethan Hunt, my previous favorite being John Woo’s Mission: Impossible II from 2000. Needless to say, regardless of Cruise’s questionable personal life, Paramount wouldn’t have too big a challenge in selling audiences on another sequel to the familiar and popular franchise, but that didn’t stop aggressive marketing tactics such as the BMW cross promotion that highlighted the cars that would be appearing on-screen. One big question mark involved director Brad Bird’s involvement…granted, he has had considerable financial and critical success in the animated realm (I trust titles like The Incredibles and Ratatouille ring a bell), but there was something uncertain about handing over control of a high-profile sequel for his first live-action film. Now, seeing an action film like Ghost Protocol in IMAX seems like a no-brainer, but Paramount took an extra step to draw in an audience for early IMAX showings…the first 6 minutes of Christopher Nolan’s upcoming The Dark Knight Rises would screen ahead of the film, and that fact alone guaranteed my advanced purchase. As a fan of the franchise, I was looking forward to Ghost Protocol, but in retrospect, I was vastly unprepared for the film’s insanely high quality.
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol starts as an IMF agent is killed by an assassin during a high-risk assignment in Budapest; field agents Jane Carter (Paula Patton) and Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) then extract Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) from a maximum security Russian prison in order to complete the mission. Hunt and his team infiltrate the Moscow Kremlin archives in order to identify a person of interest known only as “Cobalt,” but the mission is compromised and a bomb ends up destroying the Kremlin. As Hunt is extracted from Moscow, the IMF Secretary (Tom Wilkinson) explains that the Russians have blamed the attack on the IMF as an undeclared act of war, prompting the president to activate “Ghost Protocol,” a contingency that disavows the entire IMF, leaving Ethan and the rest of his team as unsupported fugitives and accused terrorists. Just as Ethan is introduced to chief analyst William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), the convoy is ambushed by a Russian security team in an attack that claims the life of the secretary. Narrowly escaping, Hunt and Brandt identify Cobalt as Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), a strategist who has stolen a nuclear codes and a launch-control device and intends to start a worldwide nuclear war. Embarking on an adventure that takes the team from Dubai to Mumbai, Hunt and his fellow agents race to clear their names and prevent a veritable nuclear holocaust.
Now, the previous Mission: Impossible films have always offered high levels of action, but Ghost Protocol is like a shot of adrenaline, because start to finish, the jaw-dropping action just does NOT stop. Each action sequence showcases gutsy stunts and incredible gadgetry that draws on imagination and bends physics in such a strong way that you at first think you might be watching a cartoon, but it is just believable enough to be unbearably awesome. The standout scene involves the Burj Khalifa skyscraper in Dubai, where Tom Cruise scales the building from the 110th floor using special adhesive gloves; in IMAX especially, the scene is so engaging and edgy that you will be on the edge of your seat the entire time…the audience broke out in applause, a relatively rare occurrence in theaters. It is also surprising that Tom Cruise still embodies a believable action hero, bringing back the stylish twist to the superspy that would have you believe Ethan Hunt is not only able to steal a woman from James Bond, but would also kick his ass afterwards. Based on his ability to film those action sequences alone, Brad Bird more than proves his competence as a live-action director, but the other surprising aspect of Ghost Protocol involves its pacing and humor, which maintains such a high level of energy that you are disappointed when the over two-hour running time concludes.
Though it is not billed as a comedy in any way, shape, or form, make no mistake when I say that Ghost Protocol is funny, blending the considerable action with sarcastic and self-aware humor that will have you laughing and then gasping when a huge explosion levels a building. Anytime you think the dialogue or story gets a little corny, the film makes fun of itself before you get a chance to criticize. Tom Cruise may be the star of the film, but his supporting cast is easily the best of any previous Mission: Impossible entry…Jeremy Renner is brutal and noble, sharing an almost fraternal bond with Cruise; Simon Pegg is innocent, funny, and sarcastic; and Paula Patton is an unbelievably sexy femme fatale that will seduce you and then beat the hell out of you. As far as the plot goes, Ghost Protocol is complicated but surprisingly easy to follow, more so than some of the series prequels; in fact the only real aspect in which this film doesn’t surpass its predecessors is the one-dimensional and nonthreatening villain, but I doubt most moviegoers will notice, much less care. All-in-all, this fact combines with the other accolades to make this newest entry an unbelievably well-made action film that is not only the best action film in years, but also a reverent must-see for any fan of the Mission: Impossible series.
Now, I realize that Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol has yet to be released in all theaters, but the exclusive IMAX and large-format domestic showcase and international release has already drawn a considerable audience. Drawing $13 million and a third place opening on IMAX screenings alone is impressive, but over $68 million in 38 overseas markets shows that Ghost Protocol has already covered more than half of its production budget before wide release. Critical praise has been through the roof, so positive word of mouth should build enough buzz for a strong Holiday Movie Season haul. Given how much I enjoyed the film, I was understandably thrilled when it was announced that Tom Cruise, Simon Pegg, and Brad Bird have all expressed interest in returning for a fifth Mission: Impossible adventure…I’d buy my ticket tomorrow. Everyone knows the theme song, everyone knows the star, and I hope that this review is now enough to convince you that everyone needs to know that Ghost Protocol is the new gold-standard for the action genre that both deserves and demands your attention.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
The Sitter: Short and Sweet
After his surprisingly mature performance alongside Brad Pitt in Moneyball, I had begun to renew my faith in Jonah Hill, as I had grown weary of his trademark style of sarcastic and pessimistic humor. Needless to say, when I first saw the trailer for The Sitter, I feared that he was simply reverting to the type of character that I have long felt had run its course. I do have to admit there was a certain amount of novelty in seeing Hill try and portray a babysitter, and director David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express and Your Highness) has had success in adapting nontraditional comedies. It has been a while since a true black comedy has hit theaters, and slapping three unconventional children with a perpetual slacker of Jonah Hill’s caliber in a quest involving drug dealers seemed like the perfect remedy. Early critical praise was blatantly absent, but perhaps enough raunchy shock value would be present in order to provide some cheap and simple laughs, thereby making The Sitter bearable.
The film does have a few laugh-inducing moments, but for the most part, I would characterize The Sitter as more amusing than outright funny. Hill’s formulaic scumbag persona returns with a vengeance, but thankfully he does eventually achieve some redemption in the form of a few endearing moments with his younger co-stars. In fact, the children end up being the strongest part of The Sitter, with each youngster conveying a distinctly wild and humorous personality that disappointingly doesn’t get enough attention in the narrative. And, in all honesty, the narrative doesn’t have any room to make those kinds of mistakes, with the many wildly implausible situations already being significantly weakened by one-dimensional and irredeemable characters. In the end, there is enough humor to please the intended demographic, but the poor execution of a risky premise simply relegates The Sitter to the kind of comedy that is best watched via Netflix or premium cable.
Overall Recommendation: Low
The film does have a few laugh-inducing moments, but for the most part, I would characterize The Sitter as more amusing than outright funny. Hill’s formulaic scumbag persona returns with a vengeance, but thankfully he does eventually achieve some redemption in the form of a few endearing moments with his younger co-stars. In fact, the children end up being the strongest part of The Sitter, with each youngster conveying a distinctly wild and humorous personality that disappointingly doesn’t get enough attention in the narrative. And, in all honesty, the narrative doesn’t have any room to make those kinds of mistakes, with the many wildly implausible situations already being significantly weakened by one-dimensional and irredeemable characters. In the end, there is enough humor to please the intended demographic, but the poor execution of a risky premise simply relegates The Sitter to the kind of comedy that is best watched via Netflix or premium cable.
Overall Recommendation: Low
The Sitter: Full Review
The Sitter - (December 9, 2011): R
Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Opening Weekend Box Office: #2 with $9,851,435
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $10,760,103
Gross Revenue: $10,760,103
Production Budget: $25 million
Director: David Gordon Green
Between Superbad, Knocked Up, and Get Him to the Greek, Jonah Hill has more than earned his status as a comedic actor, but I believe that there are only so many times that one actor can revisit the same type of role…Adam Sandler appears to be the only person in Hollywood oblivious to this fact. Now, the premise of The Sitter seemed to make Hill the natural casting choice, but there was no guarantee that even his expansive fan-base would react to this newest comedic offering. By all indications, 20th Century Fox recognized this potential obstacle, responding with one of the most creative marketing tactics I have ever seen: posters for the film had phone number tags that actually connected the caller to Hill, who would both answer and set recordings in character; needless to say that a high level of buzz and curiosity soon followed. Another complication involved the dissonance between celebrity and character, since the film was originally slated for this past August, meaning that the Jonah Hill who appeared on screen is far different for the slimmed-down version currently appearing of talk shows to promote the project…talk about symbolism for a step backwards in the natural evolution of the star’s career. More curious than genuinely excited, I had to acknowledge that The Sitter looked like it could generate a few noteworthy laughs, so maybe it would end up being truly worth seeing in theaters.
As the name heavily implies, The Sitter follows an untraditional babysitter, the thoroughly unrefined and perpetually unemployed Noah (Jonah Hill). One day, in an effort to earn some extra cash and give his overworked mother a chance to go out with a friend, Noah agrees to look after the three children of the aforementioned friend, Mrs. Pedulla (Erin Daniels). Noah quickly realizes that his hands are full, as each of the Pedulla children has a peculiar eccentricity: Blithe (Landry Bender) is a party-girl wannabe who idolizes socialites like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian; Slater (Max Records) is sheltered, neurotic, and continually medicated; and Rodrigo (Kevin Hernandez) is an exchange student with a penchant for destruction and an affinity for fireworks. Noah believes he can keep the kids calm, but after an invitation to a party with the promise of sex from his toxic girlfriend, Marisa (Ari Graynor), he decides to pack everyone into the family minivan and head into Manhattan. Marisa asks that Noah bring her some cocaine, and the beleaguered babysitter obliges by seeking out two psychotic drug-dealers, Karl (Sam Rockwell) and Julio (J.B. Smoove). The deal immediately goes south, and Noah soon finds that he owes the two criminals $10,000; so, having dug himself into this hole, Noah must find a way to come up with the money, make it to the party, and care for the three children for which he now shares responsibility.
As much as you might expect me to say that Jonah Hill represents the strongest part of The Sitter, the reality is that the best part of the film ends up being the children in his care. Together, Blithe, Slater, and Rodrigo, represents a veritable nightmare for even the most capable of caregivers, so watching someone like Noah react with crass hostility to their antics is thoroughly enjoyable and the strongest source of the film’s humor. Against all expectations, Noah ends up bonding with each of the children in a distinct way, and that interaction actually helps redeem and deepen Hill’s character, in the end making him far more likable than those found in the young actor’s earlier work. So it turns out that, because of Hill’s interaction with his young co-stars, there remains enough surprise and novelty to keep The Sitter entertaining, but the level of laughs doesn’t extend much beyond this one element. For as much humor as was promised by the different promotional tactics, The Sitter falls far short of expectations, and the futility of the filmmaker’s redemptive tactics is blatantly apparent.
Like I mentioned in the “Short and Sweet” review, The Sitter is more amusing than it is downright funny, a fact that is a significant departure from most of David Gordon Green’s other work. As hard as it is to believe, I would say that two out of every three jokes offered in the film fall completely flat, clearly aiming for shock value or sarcasm as opposed to creativity; the best jokes were, shamefully, already given away in the trailer. When it comes to the other characters outside of Noah and the children, few are memorable and none are praiseworthy, especially the villains; Sam Rockwell and J.B. Smoove are neither threatening nor funny…bummer. And, if it wasn’t made clear in the plot synopsis, the story of the film is laughably implausible (and not in a good way) and is only held together by thin strings of coherent narrative progression. To put it simply, The Sitter may not be horrible, but it has far too many weaknesses and far too little genuine humor to be called a good film.
Along the lines of the other big release of the weekend (New Year’s Eve), the dark comedy The Sitter ended up falling victim to a shockingly subdued box office tally, debuting in second place with just over $10 million. With the sheer glut of offerings dropping in the next few weeks, The Sitter may benefit from being the only true adult comedy in theaters, but initial lackluster draw and lukewarm critical response do not bode well. Granted, the $25 million production budget represents a far smaller hurdle than some more recent theatrical duds, but 20th Century Fox cannot be pleased with performance thus far. Even if you are a fan of Jonah Hill’s this entry still feels like it was made and released out of sheer obligation rather than genuine inspiration, so there is little necessitating anyone to actually see the “comedy.” So, given the undoubtedly superior titles hitting theaters shortly, I would have to insist that The Sitter be towards the bottom of the list you use when deciding what to spend your time and money on during your vacation.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Opening Weekend Box Office: #2 with $9,851,435
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $10,760,103
Gross Revenue: $10,760,103
Production Budget: $25 million
Director: David Gordon Green
Between Superbad, Knocked Up, and Get Him to the Greek, Jonah Hill has more than earned his status as a comedic actor, but I believe that there are only so many times that one actor can revisit the same type of role…Adam Sandler appears to be the only person in Hollywood oblivious to this fact. Now, the premise of The Sitter seemed to make Hill the natural casting choice, but there was no guarantee that even his expansive fan-base would react to this newest comedic offering. By all indications, 20th Century Fox recognized this potential obstacle, responding with one of the most creative marketing tactics I have ever seen: posters for the film had phone number tags that actually connected the caller to Hill, who would both answer and set recordings in character; needless to say that a high level of buzz and curiosity soon followed. Another complication involved the dissonance between celebrity and character, since the film was originally slated for this past August, meaning that the Jonah Hill who appeared on screen is far different for the slimmed-down version currently appearing of talk shows to promote the project…talk about symbolism for a step backwards in the natural evolution of the star’s career. More curious than genuinely excited, I had to acknowledge that The Sitter looked like it could generate a few noteworthy laughs, so maybe it would end up being truly worth seeing in theaters.
As the name heavily implies, The Sitter follows an untraditional babysitter, the thoroughly unrefined and perpetually unemployed Noah (Jonah Hill). One day, in an effort to earn some extra cash and give his overworked mother a chance to go out with a friend, Noah agrees to look after the three children of the aforementioned friend, Mrs. Pedulla (Erin Daniels). Noah quickly realizes that his hands are full, as each of the Pedulla children has a peculiar eccentricity: Blithe (Landry Bender) is a party-girl wannabe who idolizes socialites like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian; Slater (Max Records) is sheltered, neurotic, and continually medicated; and Rodrigo (Kevin Hernandez) is an exchange student with a penchant for destruction and an affinity for fireworks. Noah believes he can keep the kids calm, but after an invitation to a party with the promise of sex from his toxic girlfriend, Marisa (Ari Graynor), he decides to pack everyone into the family minivan and head into Manhattan. Marisa asks that Noah bring her some cocaine, and the beleaguered babysitter obliges by seeking out two psychotic drug-dealers, Karl (Sam Rockwell) and Julio (J.B. Smoove). The deal immediately goes south, and Noah soon finds that he owes the two criminals $10,000; so, having dug himself into this hole, Noah must find a way to come up with the money, make it to the party, and care for the three children for which he now shares responsibility.
As much as you might expect me to say that Jonah Hill represents the strongest part of The Sitter, the reality is that the best part of the film ends up being the children in his care. Together, Blithe, Slater, and Rodrigo, represents a veritable nightmare for even the most capable of caregivers, so watching someone like Noah react with crass hostility to their antics is thoroughly enjoyable and the strongest source of the film’s humor. Against all expectations, Noah ends up bonding with each of the children in a distinct way, and that interaction actually helps redeem and deepen Hill’s character, in the end making him far more likable than those found in the young actor’s earlier work. So it turns out that, because of Hill’s interaction with his young co-stars, there remains enough surprise and novelty to keep The Sitter entertaining, but the level of laughs doesn’t extend much beyond this one element. For as much humor as was promised by the different promotional tactics, The Sitter falls far short of expectations, and the futility of the filmmaker’s redemptive tactics is blatantly apparent.
Like I mentioned in the “Short and Sweet” review, The Sitter is more amusing than it is downright funny, a fact that is a significant departure from most of David Gordon Green’s other work. As hard as it is to believe, I would say that two out of every three jokes offered in the film fall completely flat, clearly aiming for shock value or sarcasm as opposed to creativity; the best jokes were, shamefully, already given away in the trailer. When it comes to the other characters outside of Noah and the children, few are memorable and none are praiseworthy, especially the villains; Sam Rockwell and J.B. Smoove are neither threatening nor funny…bummer. And, if it wasn’t made clear in the plot synopsis, the story of the film is laughably implausible (and not in a good way) and is only held together by thin strings of coherent narrative progression. To put it simply, The Sitter may not be horrible, but it has far too many weaknesses and far too little genuine humor to be called a good film.
Along the lines of the other big release of the weekend (New Year’s Eve), the dark comedy The Sitter ended up falling victim to a shockingly subdued box office tally, debuting in second place with just over $10 million. With the sheer glut of offerings dropping in the next few weeks, The Sitter may benefit from being the only true adult comedy in theaters, but initial lackluster draw and lukewarm critical response do not bode well. Granted, the $25 million production budget represents a far smaller hurdle than some more recent theatrical duds, but 20th Century Fox cannot be pleased with performance thus far. Even if you are a fan of Jonah Hill’s this entry still feels like it was made and released out of sheer obligation rather than genuine inspiration, so there is little necessitating anyone to actually see the “comedy.” So, given the undoubtedly superior titles hitting theaters shortly, I would have to insist that The Sitter be towards the bottom of the list you use when deciding what to spend your time and money on during your vacation.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
New Year's Eve: Short and Sweet
We all know that when it comes to holiday-themed movies, Christmas reigns supreme, but with 2010’s star-studded Valentine’s Day, director Garry Marshall officially opened the door for new and untraditional offerings. Now, despite lukewarm critical reception, audiences flocked to Valentine’s Day in droves, so it wasn’t much of a surprise that another holiday-themed romantic comedy would be in the works. When the first teaser posters and trailers for New Year’s Eve hit, it was painfully obvious that an even larger ensemble cast would be coming together, filled with celebrities from across a number of different genres. I have to admit that there was a certain amount of appeal to seeing diverse cast members like Halle Berry, Jon Bon Jovi, Robert De Niro, and Hilary Swank interact with each other, but early critical reception was downright cruel, so my hopes regarding quality weren’t exactly high. Promising a number of different vignettes set around New York City, there was still a chance that New Year’s Eve could prove entertaining; and let’s face it, I know I’ve sat through far worse for the sake of writing a complete blog.
It is not that much of a surprise that this billed “romantic comedy” is far more corny and pandering than it is emotional or clever, but regardless, New Year’s Eve is not as bad as many critics would have you believe. A majority of the cast is given little time to make any kind of a memorable impression, and by-and-large, most of those with more screen time simply overact, but a select few seem to make the most out of a bad situation. The biggest standout in this regard is undoubtedly Michelle Pfeiffer, who plays against her normally confident persona in such a sweet way that you cannot help but focus most of your interest on her character’s storyline. As far as the narrative goes, the story is razor-thin with little depth, and though a few last-minute twists try and keep things afloat, one is so idiotically unbelievable that momentum falls flat…thank god the end credits started rolling. In the end, with so many celebrities, an upbeat soundtrack, and an uplifting message, New Year’s Eve is still entertaining and is surely capable to get viewers into the end-of-the-year holiday spirit.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
It is not that much of a surprise that this billed “romantic comedy” is far more corny and pandering than it is emotional or clever, but regardless, New Year’s Eve is not as bad as many critics would have you believe. A majority of the cast is given little time to make any kind of a memorable impression, and by-and-large, most of those with more screen time simply overact, but a select few seem to make the most out of a bad situation. The biggest standout in this regard is undoubtedly Michelle Pfeiffer, who plays against her normally confident persona in such a sweet way that you cannot help but focus most of your interest on her character’s storyline. As far as the narrative goes, the story is razor-thin with little depth, and though a few last-minute twists try and keep things afloat, one is so idiotically unbelievable that momentum falls flat…thank god the end credits started rolling. In the end, with so many celebrities, an upbeat soundtrack, and an uplifting message, New Year’s Eve is still entertaining and is surely capable to get viewers into the end-of-the-year holiday spirit.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
New Year's Eve: Full Review
New Year’s Eve - (December 9, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures/ New Line Cinema
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $13,019,180
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $14,007,457
Gross Revenue: $26,857,457
Production Budget: $56 million
Director: Garry Marshall
It may shock you, but I have no problem in admitting that I never saw Valentine’s Day, so there was little to no overt necessitation that I see Garry Marshall’s follow-up, New Year’s Eve. Now, a few alumni from Valentine’s Day like Jessica Biel, Ashton Kutcher, and Héctor Elizondo were remerging for another holiday celebration, but a near-dizzying array of new celebrities would be joining the fray this time around. With stars from television (Glee’s Lea Michele, SNL’s Seth Meyers, and Modern Family’s Sofia Vergara), music (Jon Bon Jovi and Ludacris), and a variety of film genres (from Zac Efron to Robert DeNiro), it wasn’t exactly an insurmountable challenge for Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema to sell New Year’s Eve to a diverse and expansive audience. If anything, it would at least be refreshing to see a holiday-themed film this time around that wasn’t dripping with Christmas cheer, so the less-than-stellar early reviews might end up falling on deaf-ears. As a fan of a number of the cast members, it was out of sheer curiosity that I found myself actually looking forward to seeing New Year’s Eve.
Focusing on a number of independent stories that eventually intertwine, New Year’s Eve is set in New York City on the titular holiday. Denied a vacation, disillusioned secretary, Ingrid (Michelle Pfeiffer), quits her job at a record company, instead hiring a young courier, Paul (Zac Efron), to help her complete her New Year’s Resolutions list, promising him tickets to an exclusive midnight party upon completion. Meanwhile, Paul’s sister, Kim (Sarah Jessica Parker), is having trouble bonding with her daughter, Hailey (Abigail Breslin), who wants to go out with her friends instead of staying home. Paul contacts his roommate, Randy (Ashton Kutcher), about the party, but the bitter pessimist is actually stuck in an elevator with backup singer, Elise (Lea Michele), who is on her way to perform at Times Square with popular recording artist, Jensen (Jon Bon Jovi). Everyone is excited by Jensen’s presence except Laura (Katherine Heigl), Jensen’s ex-fiancé who happens to be catering the huge Times Square Party alongside her new sous chef, Ava (Sofia Vergara); the party is to be hosted by a record company executive, Sam (Josh Duhamel), who himself is struggling to return to the city after a wedding. Prepping for the midnight ball drop, Times Square Alliance Vice President Claire Morgan (Hilary Swank) is making final arrangements alongside NYPD officer, Brandon (Chris “Ludacris” Bridges). Both of them are eager to make sure that the midnight countdown goes smoothly, especially since the iconic event will be watched by everyone, even the ailing Stan Harris (Robert DeNiro), whose dying wish is to watch the ball drop from the hospital rooftop, a request that evokes the sympathy of his nurse, Aimee (Halle Berry); at the same hospital, young couple Griffin (Seth Myers) and Tess (Jessica Biel) compete to deliver their first child, hoping to win the bonus offered to the family of the first child born in 2012. Hectic to say the least, each of these unique stories seeks to illustrate the spirit of the holiday and the hope that everyone should feel during the coming of a new year.
Plain and simple, you are lying to yourself if you would deny the inherent entertainment value in seeing so many celebrities interact with each other within one project, and that novelty is the strongest aspect of New Year’s Eve. A pleasant surprise involves the fact that even the minor roles within the film are filled by familiar faces, whether that includes comedian Larry Miller as a tow truck driver, Jim Belushi as a building handyman, or Matthew Broderick as Hilary Swank’s elusive supervisor. With such a large cast, it would be impossible for each star to make some kind of memorable impression, but there are a select few who make the most of their screen time, namely Michelle Pfeiffer, Jessica Biel, and, surprisingly, Ashton Kutcher. As I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, Michelle Pfeiffer easily delivers the strongest performance, while Jessica Biel adds considerable humor, but I was shocked by how much I enjoyed Ashton Kutcher, who finally tones down his entitled simpleton persona enough to actually be likable. Add in a pleasant plot twist, energetic soundtrack, lighthearted humor, and inspirational theme, and New Year’s Eve offers more than enough to entertain audiences.
Unfortunately, once you get past the novelty of seeing the high-profile cast and start to pay attention to some finer filmmaking elements, New Year’s Eve’s major flaws really come to light. Certain elements of the “hopeful” thematic angle presented do come off as uplifting, but as a whole, the story and upbeat characters just come off as ridiculous and cornball. For instance, I’ve referenced two major plot twists that hit close to the film’s conclusion: one is heartfelt and enjoyable, the other is so mind-numbingly unbelievable and pandering that those two minutes almost single-handedly tank the quality of the already shaky narrative. And I did mention a few enjoyable performances, but a majority of the cast horrendously overacts, the biggest culprits easily being Katherine Heigl and Sarah Jessica Parker…I’d prefer not to go into detail, but trust me, it is horrible. With so much squandered opportunity in light of the famous cast, New Year’s Eve remains a disappointment, and a few enjoyable elements are not enough to remedy the gaping shortcomings.
Sub-par film quality aside, this past weekend was very, very tough on the Hollywood box office, with overall figures being at their weakest since September 2008. Now, alongside the adult comedy, The Sitter, New Year’s Eve easily had the strongest mass-appeal at the theater, so a first place opening wasn’t shocking, but a $13 million gross was disappointing. It would be different if critics were raving about New Year’s Eve, building enough buzz to keep a steady audience presence throughout the holidays, but new releases like Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, War Horse, We Bought a Zoo, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo will provide insurmountable competition. A weak opening in the face of so many impending offerings almost guarantees that New Year’s Eve will lose money against its $56 million budget. Bottom line, the film is far from perfect, but chances are that audiences can still find something to enjoy as long as they don’t expect Oscar-worthy material from New Year’s Eve.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures/ New Line Cinema
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $13,019,180
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $14,007,457
Gross Revenue: $26,857,457
Production Budget: $56 million
Director: Garry Marshall
It may shock you, but I have no problem in admitting that I never saw Valentine’s Day, so there was little to no overt necessitation that I see Garry Marshall’s follow-up, New Year’s Eve. Now, a few alumni from Valentine’s Day like Jessica Biel, Ashton Kutcher, and Héctor Elizondo were remerging for another holiday celebration, but a near-dizzying array of new celebrities would be joining the fray this time around. With stars from television (Glee’s Lea Michele, SNL’s Seth Meyers, and Modern Family’s Sofia Vergara), music (Jon Bon Jovi and Ludacris), and a variety of film genres (from Zac Efron to Robert DeNiro), it wasn’t exactly an insurmountable challenge for Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema to sell New Year’s Eve to a diverse and expansive audience. If anything, it would at least be refreshing to see a holiday-themed film this time around that wasn’t dripping with Christmas cheer, so the less-than-stellar early reviews might end up falling on deaf-ears. As a fan of a number of the cast members, it was out of sheer curiosity that I found myself actually looking forward to seeing New Year’s Eve.
Focusing on a number of independent stories that eventually intertwine, New Year’s Eve is set in New York City on the titular holiday. Denied a vacation, disillusioned secretary, Ingrid (Michelle Pfeiffer), quits her job at a record company, instead hiring a young courier, Paul (Zac Efron), to help her complete her New Year’s Resolutions list, promising him tickets to an exclusive midnight party upon completion. Meanwhile, Paul’s sister, Kim (Sarah Jessica Parker), is having trouble bonding with her daughter, Hailey (Abigail Breslin), who wants to go out with her friends instead of staying home. Paul contacts his roommate, Randy (Ashton Kutcher), about the party, but the bitter pessimist is actually stuck in an elevator with backup singer, Elise (Lea Michele), who is on her way to perform at Times Square with popular recording artist, Jensen (Jon Bon Jovi). Everyone is excited by Jensen’s presence except Laura (Katherine Heigl), Jensen’s ex-fiancé who happens to be catering the huge Times Square Party alongside her new sous chef, Ava (Sofia Vergara); the party is to be hosted by a record company executive, Sam (Josh Duhamel), who himself is struggling to return to the city after a wedding. Prepping for the midnight ball drop, Times Square Alliance Vice President Claire Morgan (Hilary Swank) is making final arrangements alongside NYPD officer, Brandon (Chris “Ludacris” Bridges). Both of them are eager to make sure that the midnight countdown goes smoothly, especially since the iconic event will be watched by everyone, even the ailing Stan Harris (Robert DeNiro), whose dying wish is to watch the ball drop from the hospital rooftop, a request that evokes the sympathy of his nurse, Aimee (Halle Berry); at the same hospital, young couple Griffin (Seth Myers) and Tess (Jessica Biel) compete to deliver their first child, hoping to win the bonus offered to the family of the first child born in 2012. Hectic to say the least, each of these unique stories seeks to illustrate the spirit of the holiday and the hope that everyone should feel during the coming of a new year.
Plain and simple, you are lying to yourself if you would deny the inherent entertainment value in seeing so many celebrities interact with each other within one project, and that novelty is the strongest aspect of New Year’s Eve. A pleasant surprise involves the fact that even the minor roles within the film are filled by familiar faces, whether that includes comedian Larry Miller as a tow truck driver, Jim Belushi as a building handyman, or Matthew Broderick as Hilary Swank’s elusive supervisor. With such a large cast, it would be impossible for each star to make some kind of memorable impression, but there are a select few who make the most of their screen time, namely Michelle Pfeiffer, Jessica Biel, and, surprisingly, Ashton Kutcher. As I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, Michelle Pfeiffer easily delivers the strongest performance, while Jessica Biel adds considerable humor, but I was shocked by how much I enjoyed Ashton Kutcher, who finally tones down his entitled simpleton persona enough to actually be likable. Add in a pleasant plot twist, energetic soundtrack, lighthearted humor, and inspirational theme, and New Year’s Eve offers more than enough to entertain audiences.
Unfortunately, once you get past the novelty of seeing the high-profile cast and start to pay attention to some finer filmmaking elements, New Year’s Eve’s major flaws really come to light. Certain elements of the “hopeful” thematic angle presented do come off as uplifting, but as a whole, the story and upbeat characters just come off as ridiculous and cornball. For instance, I’ve referenced two major plot twists that hit close to the film’s conclusion: one is heartfelt and enjoyable, the other is so mind-numbingly unbelievable and pandering that those two minutes almost single-handedly tank the quality of the already shaky narrative. And I did mention a few enjoyable performances, but a majority of the cast horrendously overacts, the biggest culprits easily being Katherine Heigl and Sarah Jessica Parker…I’d prefer not to go into detail, but trust me, it is horrible. With so much squandered opportunity in light of the famous cast, New Year’s Eve remains a disappointment, and a few enjoyable elements are not enough to remedy the gaping shortcomings.
Sub-par film quality aside, this past weekend was very, very tough on the Hollywood box office, with overall figures being at their weakest since September 2008. Now, alongside the adult comedy, The Sitter, New Year’s Eve easily had the strongest mass-appeal at the theater, so a first place opening wasn’t shocking, but a $13 million gross was disappointing. It would be different if critics were raving about New Year’s Eve, building enough buzz to keep a steady audience presence throughout the holidays, but new releases like Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, War Horse, We Bought a Zoo, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo will provide insurmountable competition. A weak opening in the face of so many impending offerings almost guarantees that New Year’s Eve will lose money against its $56 million budget. Bottom line, the film is far from perfect, but chances are that audiences can still find something to enjoy as long as they don’t expect Oscar-worthy material from New Year’s Eve.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Hugo: Short and Sweet
Between Goodfellas, Casino, The Aviator, and The Departed, director Martin Scorsese is responsible for a number of my favorite films and has more than earned the distinction of being my favorite filmmaker. Needless to say, anytime his name is attached to a project, my interest is piqued and my purchase of a movie ticket is virtually guaranteed. However, when it comes to Hugo, I was understandably confused, as Scorsese has long adhered to a distinct storytelling style and notably dark thematic elements, neither of which seemed appropriate for a children’s film. If there was one director who I would have banked on never succumbing to Hollywood’s tired and now-overused 3D-format, it would have been Scorsese, so even with the critical acclaim surrounding Hugo, I couldn’t help but feel that he was stepping a little too far out of his comfort zone. So, with a mixture of sheer loyalty and utter curiosity, I knew that I would have to see how Martin Scorsese could cater to a younger audience.
Visually stunning, elegantly directed, and surprisingly deep, Hugo is an undeniably strong film, but it almost seems like a children’s film made explicitly for adults. The story and themes presented cleverly appeal to the innocence and curiosity that define childhood, but rather than use this positioning to hold the attention of younger audience members, Hugo instead spends more time appealing to the inner-child of the moviegoers who are accompanying children to the theater. Strong acting is a welcome compliment to the film, with Ben Kingsley delivering a wonderfully complex character and Asa Butterfiled echoing a young Elijah Wood, but the real standout is Chloë Grace Moretz, who is so endearingly sweet that you cannot help but wish that everyone would have a childhood friend like her. Against all odds, the use of 3D technology actually works with Hugo, contributing to the sweeping shots and exterior setting so strongly that a pure sense of wonder is developed and maintained throughout the entire two hour running time. Simple, intelligent, and very well-made, Hugo more than solidifies Scorsese talents in tackling innocent subject matter, but the reality is that the film may not appeal to all audiences, especially the audience for which it was originally intended.
Overall Recommendation: High
Visually stunning, elegantly directed, and surprisingly deep, Hugo is an undeniably strong film, but it almost seems like a children’s film made explicitly for adults. The story and themes presented cleverly appeal to the innocence and curiosity that define childhood, but rather than use this positioning to hold the attention of younger audience members, Hugo instead spends more time appealing to the inner-child of the moviegoers who are accompanying children to the theater. Strong acting is a welcome compliment to the film, with Ben Kingsley delivering a wonderfully complex character and Asa Butterfiled echoing a young Elijah Wood, but the real standout is Chloë Grace Moretz, who is so endearingly sweet that you cannot help but wish that everyone would have a childhood friend like her. Against all odds, the use of 3D technology actually works with Hugo, contributing to the sweeping shots and exterior setting so strongly that a pure sense of wonder is developed and maintained throughout the entire two hour running time. Simple, intelligent, and very well-made, Hugo more than solidifies Scorsese talents in tackling innocent subject matter, but the reality is that the film may not appeal to all audiences, especially the audience for which it was originally intended.
Overall Recommendation: High
Hugo: Full Review
Hugo - (November 23, 2011): PG
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #5 with $11,364,505
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $26,823,770
Gross Revenue: $26,823,770
Production Budget: Approx. <$150 million
Director: Martin Scorsese
When GK films acquired the screen rights to the children’s novel “The Invention of Hugo Cabret,” back in 2007, hopes for a cinematic blockbuster were very high, but rather than the book’s fan-base, the key draw for the adaptation was clearly the inclusion of Martin Scorsese. Now I know what you are thinking: “How does an Oscar-winning director whose name is synonymous with violence, corruption, and mafia-related thematic elements, decide to abandon his trademark subject matter and tackle a children’s film?” Despite this apparent mismatch, early trailers for Hugo seemed to promise a strong story filled with mystery (especially concerning that creepy little robot) and supported by a very strong cast, which included Oscar-winner Ben Kingsley and rising child star Chloë Grace Moretz, who has been growing in popularity ever since she gained notoriety as the foul-mouthed and notoriously violent Hit Girl from 2010’s Kick-Ass. Another noteworthy element involves the fact that this would be Scorsese’s first film shot in 3D, so with no benchmark to judge from, there was no guarantee that a director of Scorsese’s caliber would be able to aptly utilize a technology that audiences have largely grown tired of after sheer overuse. With no knowledge of the source material and as someone clearly outside of the target audience, it was out of sheer loyalty to my favorite director that I would see and review Hugo.
Set in a Paris train station in the 1930s, Hugo introduces audiences to young Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), an orphan who maintains the clocks in the station while stealing food to survive and dodging security, specifically the unforgiving Inspector Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen). One day, Hugo gets caught stealing a toy from the shop of the bitter Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley), and in reparation, the boy is forced to work off his debt, in the process demonstrating considerable aptitude for mechanical engineering. It is revealed that Hugo is stealing parts to repair a broken automaton that he used to work on with his deceased father (Jude Law); the mechanical man is capable of writing, and Hugo believes that, upon completion, the automaton will reveal a hidden message passed down from his father. It so happens that a heart-shaped key is required to power the machine, and it turns out that a similar key belongs to Papa Georges’ goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), an adventurous young girl who quickly befriends the shy Hugo. Once the machine is activated, the automaton sketches a scene from a classic French film and signs the drawing with Papa Georges’ signature; understandably intrigued, the two young friends work to uncover the mystery and end up discovering a magical and tragic secret that has been hidden for years.
The pure mystery and ensuing curiosity of the story is easily the best part of Hugo, as it plays to a sense of innocence and adventure that many forget as they grow older…being returned to that mindset is immensely rewarding. The theme and feel of the film is only further enhanced by beautiful and downright elegant directing, with sweeping shots and character interactions breathing life into the train station itself, giving the setting a remarkable personality of its own. This achievement alone is enough to question why Scorsese has not ventured into family films before, as he is more than capable of producing an entertaining story without venturing into organized crime or historical biography. From an acting perspective, each of the cast members delivers a thoroughly enjoyable and distinct performance, the clear standouts being Ben Kingsley and Chloë Grace Moretz; Kingsley demonstrates his legendary acting range as his personality evolves over the course of the story, while Moretz is an endearing scene-stealer that you cannot help but love…she is on her way to a long and successful career. And there is no way I would have believed it beforehand, but the usage of 3D within Hugo is surprisingly strong, only enhancing the immersive quality of the story. Yet, in spite of all of these positive elements, there is just something about Hugo that does not quite click.
Billed as a family film, Hugo understandably targets young moviegoers, but the reality is that I do not believe that the themes and story can appeal to or connect with the children. It is difficult to explain, but I almost feel like you have to be older to truly appreciate the story of Hugo and how it is told…kids aren’t capable of fully understanding the film’s appeals and references to childhood curiosity, but it is something that the inner-child of older moviegoers will love. This opinion is further supported by the twist of focus in the narrative, which I found brilliant but might actually scare off or downright bore the younger generation; and, speaking of scaring, the aforementioned automaton is downright creepy, and the numerous close-up shots to establish the “mystery” are just uncomfortable. Something else that is disappointing as opposed to being an overt shortcoming is the usage of the talented supporting cast…Ray Winstone, Emily Mortimer, Jude Law, Christopher Lee, and Helen McCrory, are welcome additions, but they are almost too talented for bit parts. All things considered though, if limited appeal and slightly off-center targeting represent the only weaknesses of Hugo, then that is a good day for Martin Scorsese.
Unfortunately, for as good as Hugo is, the film has come up far too short at the box office…beautiful setting and direction make it understandable that the film cost over $100 million to produce, but that’s not very forgivable when you are only able to generate around $27 million in ticket sales. As far as opening weekends go, Hugo was up against significant competition in the form of The Muppets and Arthur Christmas, so a fifth-place opening isn’t shocking, but as time goes on, it is going to get harder and harder to generate the necessary numbers. It almost seems like my perception regarding children relating to the more mature elements of Hugo is being demonstrated through the lack of box office boom, and that has to hurt for Hollywood power-players. Again, I want to emphasize how strong a film Hugo is, so please don’t regard its lack of performance as a testament to its quality. Plain and simple, Scorsese is still a brilliant director, and whether you are a fan of his or someone just looking for a beautiful testament to traditional storytelling, I guarantee that you will enjoy Hugo.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #5 with $11,364,505
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $26,823,770
Gross Revenue: $26,823,770
Production Budget: Approx. <$150 million
Director: Martin Scorsese
When GK films acquired the screen rights to the children’s novel “The Invention of Hugo Cabret,” back in 2007, hopes for a cinematic blockbuster were very high, but rather than the book’s fan-base, the key draw for the adaptation was clearly the inclusion of Martin Scorsese. Now I know what you are thinking: “How does an Oscar-winning director whose name is synonymous with violence, corruption, and mafia-related thematic elements, decide to abandon his trademark subject matter and tackle a children’s film?” Despite this apparent mismatch, early trailers for Hugo seemed to promise a strong story filled with mystery (especially concerning that creepy little robot) and supported by a very strong cast, which included Oscar-winner Ben Kingsley and rising child star Chloë Grace Moretz, who has been growing in popularity ever since she gained notoriety as the foul-mouthed and notoriously violent Hit Girl from 2010’s Kick-Ass. Another noteworthy element involves the fact that this would be Scorsese’s first film shot in 3D, so with no benchmark to judge from, there was no guarantee that a director of Scorsese’s caliber would be able to aptly utilize a technology that audiences have largely grown tired of after sheer overuse. With no knowledge of the source material and as someone clearly outside of the target audience, it was out of sheer loyalty to my favorite director that I would see and review Hugo.
Set in a Paris train station in the 1930s, Hugo introduces audiences to young Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), an orphan who maintains the clocks in the station while stealing food to survive and dodging security, specifically the unforgiving Inspector Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen). One day, Hugo gets caught stealing a toy from the shop of the bitter Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley), and in reparation, the boy is forced to work off his debt, in the process demonstrating considerable aptitude for mechanical engineering. It is revealed that Hugo is stealing parts to repair a broken automaton that he used to work on with his deceased father (Jude Law); the mechanical man is capable of writing, and Hugo believes that, upon completion, the automaton will reveal a hidden message passed down from his father. It so happens that a heart-shaped key is required to power the machine, and it turns out that a similar key belongs to Papa Georges’ goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), an adventurous young girl who quickly befriends the shy Hugo. Once the machine is activated, the automaton sketches a scene from a classic French film and signs the drawing with Papa Georges’ signature; understandably intrigued, the two young friends work to uncover the mystery and end up discovering a magical and tragic secret that has been hidden for years.
The pure mystery and ensuing curiosity of the story is easily the best part of Hugo, as it plays to a sense of innocence and adventure that many forget as they grow older…being returned to that mindset is immensely rewarding. The theme and feel of the film is only further enhanced by beautiful and downright elegant directing, with sweeping shots and character interactions breathing life into the train station itself, giving the setting a remarkable personality of its own. This achievement alone is enough to question why Scorsese has not ventured into family films before, as he is more than capable of producing an entertaining story without venturing into organized crime or historical biography. From an acting perspective, each of the cast members delivers a thoroughly enjoyable and distinct performance, the clear standouts being Ben Kingsley and Chloë Grace Moretz; Kingsley demonstrates his legendary acting range as his personality evolves over the course of the story, while Moretz is an endearing scene-stealer that you cannot help but love…she is on her way to a long and successful career. And there is no way I would have believed it beforehand, but the usage of 3D within Hugo is surprisingly strong, only enhancing the immersive quality of the story. Yet, in spite of all of these positive elements, there is just something about Hugo that does not quite click.
Billed as a family film, Hugo understandably targets young moviegoers, but the reality is that I do not believe that the themes and story can appeal to or connect with the children. It is difficult to explain, but I almost feel like you have to be older to truly appreciate the story of Hugo and how it is told…kids aren’t capable of fully understanding the film’s appeals and references to childhood curiosity, but it is something that the inner-child of older moviegoers will love. This opinion is further supported by the twist of focus in the narrative, which I found brilliant but might actually scare off or downright bore the younger generation; and, speaking of scaring, the aforementioned automaton is downright creepy, and the numerous close-up shots to establish the “mystery” are just uncomfortable. Something else that is disappointing as opposed to being an overt shortcoming is the usage of the talented supporting cast…Ray Winstone, Emily Mortimer, Jude Law, Christopher Lee, and Helen McCrory, are welcome additions, but they are almost too talented for bit parts. All things considered though, if limited appeal and slightly off-center targeting represent the only weaknesses of Hugo, then that is a good day for Martin Scorsese.
Unfortunately, for as good as Hugo is, the film has come up far too short at the box office…beautiful setting and direction make it understandable that the film cost over $100 million to produce, but that’s not very forgivable when you are only able to generate around $27 million in ticket sales. As far as opening weekends go, Hugo was up against significant competition in the form of The Muppets and Arthur Christmas, so a fifth-place opening isn’t shocking, but as time goes on, it is going to get harder and harder to generate the necessary numbers. It almost seems like my perception regarding children relating to the more mature elements of Hugo is being demonstrated through the lack of box office boom, and that has to hurt for Hollywood power-players. Again, I want to emphasize how strong a film Hugo is, so please don’t regard its lack of performance as a testament to its quality. Plain and simple, Scorsese is still a brilliant director, and whether you are a fan of his or someone just looking for a beautiful testament to traditional storytelling, I guarantee that you will enjoy Hugo.
Overall Recommendation: High
Saturday, December 3, 2011
The Descendants: Short and Sweet
As I mentioned in some of my November reviews, the Holiday Movie Season represents prime proving ground for Oscar contenders, and though J. Edgar failed to live up to full expectations, The Descendants was drawing considerable praise. In the race for Best Actor, many analysts consider Moneyball the entry guaranteed to secure Brad Pitt’s nomination, and now those analysts were saying that The Descendants would do the same for George Clooney. Granted, Clooney is no stranger to critical praise, but my faith in his ability to carry a movie was understandably shaken after last year’s god-awful “deep drama,” The American. The subtle humor and simple story promised by the trailer seemed to showcase more of Clooney’s trademark personality than has been seen in recent memory, but even though my skepticism was softening, I still wasn’t fully convinced. Yet, as the independent arm of 20th Century Fox studio, Fox Searchlight Pictures has a truly impressive track record related to high-quality entries, so even though the limited release would make the film difficult to find, I knew that I had to see and review The Descendants.
Telling an emotionally-gripping story rooted in reality and supported by phenomenally strong acting and clever directing and cinematography, The Descendants is an utterly brilliant film. George Clooney delivers one of the strongest performances of his career, flawlessly transitioning between moments of indescribable grief and anger, emotions which only complicate and add weight to his character’s struggle towards accepting responsibility for his estranged family. The biggest surprise is young Shailene Woodley, who more than holds her own onscreen alongside Clooney as she adds a clever cynicism to her role as the Oscar-winners troubled teenage daughter. The story itself is thoroughly engaging, mixing a level of humor and pathos that plays to audience empathy so strongly that you will undoubtedly laugh, cry, and question your own reaction were a similar situation present itself. Plain and simple, The Descendants is sure to earn nominations for both Best Picture and Best Actor, and if you can find it in theaters, do not hesitate to see one of the most surprising and enjoyable films of the Holiday Movie Season.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Telling an emotionally-gripping story rooted in reality and supported by phenomenally strong acting and clever directing and cinematography, The Descendants is an utterly brilliant film. George Clooney delivers one of the strongest performances of his career, flawlessly transitioning between moments of indescribable grief and anger, emotions which only complicate and add weight to his character’s struggle towards accepting responsibility for his estranged family. The biggest surprise is young Shailene Woodley, who more than holds her own onscreen alongside Clooney as she adds a clever cynicism to her role as the Oscar-winners troubled teenage daughter. The story itself is thoroughly engaging, mixing a level of humor and pathos that plays to audience empathy so strongly that you will undoubtedly laugh, cry, and question your own reaction were a similar situation present itself. Plain and simple, The Descendants is sure to earn nominations for both Best Picture and Best Actor, and if you can find it in theaters, do not hesitate to see one of the most surprising and enjoyable films of the Holiday Movie Season.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
The Descendants: Full Review
The Descendants - (November 16, 2011): R
Distributor: Fox Searchlight Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #10 with $1,190,096 (limited release)
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: 12,434,018
Gross Revenue: $12,434,018
Production Budget: N/A
Director: Alexander Payne
After October’s surprisingly strong The Ides of March, in which he played a dualistic Presidential candidate, George Clooney certainly caught the attention of the Academy members who would vote for Best Supporting Actor, but with The Descendants, many analysts and critics had claimed that he had also undeniably thrown his hat into the ring for Best Actor. Now, aside from the humorous trailer that showed Clooney running frantically in a pair of flip-flops, there was very little information released concerning The Descendants. In terms of supporting cast, young Shailene Woodley (who would be playing Clooney’s troubled daughter) was best known for her work in ABC Family’s The Secret Life of the American Teenager, so there was no guarantee that she would be able to hold her own against a Hollywood A-lister of George Clooney’s caliber. Now, my faith in Clooney plummeted after last year’s The American, but director Alexander Payne was no stranger to critically-strong films, such as 2002’s About Schmidt and 2004’s Sideways, so I was curious to see what exactly was generating so much positive buzz. Because of the film’s limited release, I knew that Fox Searchlight’s newest independent sweetheart wasn’t going to break any box office records, but it certainly seemed poised to continue the reputation of strong entries during the always-busy Holiday Movie Season, so I was sold.
Based on the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings, The Descendants opens with wealthy lawyer Matt King (George Clooney) caring for his comatose wife, Elizabeth, who was injured in a boating accident. Though the relationship was strained, Matt still cares deeply for his wife, and his grief is only further complicated by the family and business dynamics vying for his attention. As the descendant of Hawaiian royalty and white missionaries, Matt is the sole trustee of 25,000 acres of untouched Hawaiian land, and he is accepting bids for the sale of the land that would make him and his numerous cousins insanely wealthy; as such, he is being pressured from many different sides to make a decision soon. As the “understudy parent” Matt is also struggling to care for and relate to his daughters, 10-year-old Scottie (Amara Miller) and 17-year-old Alexandra (Shailene Woodley)…when it is revealed that Elizabeth will not awake from her coma and that she is to be taken off life support, Matt must find a way to break to the news to his daughters and the rest of his family and friends. When Alex displays uncharacteristic resentment towards her mother, she reveals to Matt that Elizabeth was cheating on him, having an affair with local real-estate agent, Brian Speer (Matthew Lillard). Stung by betrayal and filled with anger, Matt and his daughters decide to seek-out and confront Speer, in the process becoming closer and learning to deal with the unprecedented tragedy that they are all facing.
Though there are numerous praiseworthy elements to this simple and heartfelt film, easily the strongest aspect of The Descendants is the acting showcased on all sides. It is safe to say, that after The Descendants, my faith in George Clooney’s acting ability has been fully restored, and he is sure to be an early favorite for Best Actor once Oscar season rolls around. There is an undeniable reality to Clooney’s betrayal of the conflicted husband and inexperienced father, which expertly blends dry humor, righteous anger, and colossal grief…whether it is watching Clooney confront his wife’s friends for information on the affair, collapse under the weight of supporting his daughters and breaking the news to extended family, or bid a final farewell to his wife, all these moments are genuine, grounded, and inspiring. The other huge surprise is young Shailene Woodley, who demonstrates a snarky cynicism and numb-yet-indignant grief that is sure to grab the attention of many filmmakers, surely paving the way for a long and successful career in Hollywood. Now, normally I take the opportunity to balance my reviews by pointing out a few shortcomings, but they seem to be completely absent from The Descendants, which only offers more and more elements worthy of accolade.
Alongside phenomenally strong acting, The Descendants also benefits from a strong and clever script, which is brought to life with expert pacing, unconventional cinematography, and brilliant directing. Given that the film is about taking a comatose wife and mother off of life support while her family struggles with revelations concerning her infidelity, it is surprising that there would be any room for humor, but The Descendants benefits from a surprising pacing that switches seamlessly from genuine laughs to heartbreaking pathos. The gravity of the drama itself is also enhanced through clever and innovative camera-work, and two scenes in particular stand-out: in the first, Alex learns of her mother’s prognosis and descends underwater, where she begins crying; in the second, as the King family prepares to spread Elizabeth’s ashes, they place leis in the water, and the camera shifts underwater to capture the sunlight shining through. With scenes like these, the emotion and reality of the film hits a fever pitch, tugging at the heart strings so strongly that sheer empathy is sure to have audiences tearing up. With all of these elements combined, The Descendants stands as a smart, entertaining, and thoroughly enjoyable film that should not be missed by anyone.
From a box office perspective, the modest opening and ticket sales connected to The Descendents is anything but surprising considering the film’s limited opening, but given the overall high quality, such performance is still disappointing. Even though exact production budget numbers are currently unavailable, I doubt that the costs of this independent film are anything to lose sleep over, especially after over $12 million has already been generated. I can only hope that Fox Searchlight makes the decision to bring the film to more theaters…following the precedent of other Best Picture contenders that no one ever seems to see, the film may have screened at the 2011 Toronto International Film Festival, but mass audiences deserve to see the film everywhere. Suffice it so say, audience interest in The Descendants will undoubtedly increase once Oscar Season hits and moviegoers won’t be able to watch television without seeing some kind of praise geared towards to George Clooney. In the end, whether you are a casual fan of Clooney or someone looking for something different at the theater, The Descendants has firmly cemented its status as an absolute must-see.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Fox Searchlight Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #10 with $1,190,096 (limited release)
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: 12,434,018
Gross Revenue: $12,434,018
Production Budget: N/A
Director: Alexander Payne
After October’s surprisingly strong The Ides of March, in which he played a dualistic Presidential candidate, George Clooney certainly caught the attention of the Academy members who would vote for Best Supporting Actor, but with The Descendants, many analysts and critics had claimed that he had also undeniably thrown his hat into the ring for Best Actor. Now, aside from the humorous trailer that showed Clooney running frantically in a pair of flip-flops, there was very little information released concerning The Descendants. In terms of supporting cast, young Shailene Woodley (who would be playing Clooney’s troubled daughter) was best known for her work in ABC Family’s The Secret Life of the American Teenager, so there was no guarantee that she would be able to hold her own against a Hollywood A-lister of George Clooney’s caliber. Now, my faith in Clooney plummeted after last year’s The American, but director Alexander Payne was no stranger to critically-strong films, such as 2002’s About Schmidt and 2004’s Sideways, so I was curious to see what exactly was generating so much positive buzz. Because of the film’s limited release, I knew that Fox Searchlight’s newest independent sweetheart wasn’t going to break any box office records, but it certainly seemed poised to continue the reputation of strong entries during the always-busy Holiday Movie Season, so I was sold.
Based on the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings, The Descendants opens with wealthy lawyer Matt King (George Clooney) caring for his comatose wife, Elizabeth, who was injured in a boating accident. Though the relationship was strained, Matt still cares deeply for his wife, and his grief is only further complicated by the family and business dynamics vying for his attention. As the descendant of Hawaiian royalty and white missionaries, Matt is the sole trustee of 25,000 acres of untouched Hawaiian land, and he is accepting bids for the sale of the land that would make him and his numerous cousins insanely wealthy; as such, he is being pressured from many different sides to make a decision soon. As the “understudy parent” Matt is also struggling to care for and relate to his daughters, 10-year-old Scottie (Amara Miller) and 17-year-old Alexandra (Shailene Woodley)…when it is revealed that Elizabeth will not awake from her coma and that she is to be taken off life support, Matt must find a way to break to the news to his daughters and the rest of his family and friends. When Alex displays uncharacteristic resentment towards her mother, she reveals to Matt that Elizabeth was cheating on him, having an affair with local real-estate agent, Brian Speer (Matthew Lillard). Stung by betrayal and filled with anger, Matt and his daughters decide to seek-out and confront Speer, in the process becoming closer and learning to deal with the unprecedented tragedy that they are all facing.
Though there are numerous praiseworthy elements to this simple and heartfelt film, easily the strongest aspect of The Descendants is the acting showcased on all sides. It is safe to say, that after The Descendants, my faith in George Clooney’s acting ability has been fully restored, and he is sure to be an early favorite for Best Actor once Oscar season rolls around. There is an undeniable reality to Clooney’s betrayal of the conflicted husband and inexperienced father, which expertly blends dry humor, righteous anger, and colossal grief…whether it is watching Clooney confront his wife’s friends for information on the affair, collapse under the weight of supporting his daughters and breaking the news to extended family, or bid a final farewell to his wife, all these moments are genuine, grounded, and inspiring. The other huge surprise is young Shailene Woodley, who demonstrates a snarky cynicism and numb-yet-indignant grief that is sure to grab the attention of many filmmakers, surely paving the way for a long and successful career in Hollywood. Now, normally I take the opportunity to balance my reviews by pointing out a few shortcomings, but they seem to be completely absent from The Descendants, which only offers more and more elements worthy of accolade.
Alongside phenomenally strong acting, The Descendants also benefits from a strong and clever script, which is brought to life with expert pacing, unconventional cinematography, and brilliant directing. Given that the film is about taking a comatose wife and mother off of life support while her family struggles with revelations concerning her infidelity, it is surprising that there would be any room for humor, but The Descendants benefits from a surprising pacing that switches seamlessly from genuine laughs to heartbreaking pathos. The gravity of the drama itself is also enhanced through clever and innovative camera-work, and two scenes in particular stand-out: in the first, Alex learns of her mother’s prognosis and descends underwater, where she begins crying; in the second, as the King family prepares to spread Elizabeth’s ashes, they place leis in the water, and the camera shifts underwater to capture the sunlight shining through. With scenes like these, the emotion and reality of the film hits a fever pitch, tugging at the heart strings so strongly that sheer empathy is sure to have audiences tearing up. With all of these elements combined, The Descendants stands as a smart, entertaining, and thoroughly enjoyable film that should not be missed by anyone.
From a box office perspective, the modest opening and ticket sales connected to The Descendents is anything but surprising considering the film’s limited opening, but given the overall high quality, such performance is still disappointing. Even though exact production budget numbers are currently unavailable, I doubt that the costs of this independent film are anything to lose sleep over, especially after over $12 million has already been generated. I can only hope that Fox Searchlight makes the decision to bring the film to more theaters…following the precedent of other Best Picture contenders that no one ever seems to see, the film may have screened at the 2011 Toronto International Film Festival, but mass audiences deserve to see the film everywhere. Suffice it so say, audience interest in The Descendants will undoubtedly increase once Oscar Season hits and moviegoers won’t be able to watch television without seeing some kind of praise geared towards to George Clooney. In the end, whether you are a casual fan of Clooney or someone looking for something different at the theater, The Descendants has firmly cemented its status as an absolute must-see.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
The Muppets: Short and Sweet
In perhaps one of the cleverest trailers I have ever seen, The Muppets came to my attention in a thoroughly surprising manner, with Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy intruding on what I thought was a promotion for a generic romantic comedy. Needless to say, as a lifelong fan of the Muppets who best remembers the characters from the short-lived Muppets Tonight show that aired in the late 90s, I was pumped for this newest family film. Only sweetening the deal was the fact that this film was being written by and would star Jason Segel, who is one of my favorite actors and no stranger to comedy, albeit normally that of a more adult variety. Add to the equation Academy Award nominee Amy Adams and rumors of considerable celebrity cameos, and it is clear that Walt Disney Pictures was banking on The Muppets being a cinematic event drawing considerable crowds. Given my status as a Muppet fan, nothing short of a colossal train-wreck would disappoint me, but there was no guarantee that the younger generate would react to the characters that their parents once revered.
Silly, energetic, and fully living up to the legacy established by its title characters over the past fifty years, The Muppets meets and surpasses most expectations. The sheer novelty and nostalgia of seeing the familiar Muppets reunite and interact with each other and the outside environment is the strongest part of the film, but the characters are also aided by a surprisingly strong level of self-aware humor. Jason Segel and Amy Adams fulfill their roles perfectly, clearly having fun in embracing the innocence and simplicity that many too often forget. Catchy songs and an almost dizzying amount of celebrity cameos add to the level of enjoyment provided, but the story in its entirety and the type of humor presented may not appeal to those who do not count themselves among the long and varied list of Muppet fanatics. Despite that one trivial qualification, The Muppets remains an undeniably strong film sure to reawaken the child in many and generate a whole new generation of fans.
Overall Recommendation: High
Silly, energetic, and fully living up to the legacy established by its title characters over the past fifty years, The Muppets meets and surpasses most expectations. The sheer novelty and nostalgia of seeing the familiar Muppets reunite and interact with each other and the outside environment is the strongest part of the film, but the characters are also aided by a surprisingly strong level of self-aware humor. Jason Segel and Amy Adams fulfill their roles perfectly, clearly having fun in embracing the innocence and simplicity that many too often forget. Catchy songs and an almost dizzying amount of celebrity cameos add to the level of enjoyment provided, but the story in its entirety and the type of humor presented may not appeal to those who do not count themselves among the long and varied list of Muppet fanatics. Despite that one trivial qualification, The Muppets remains an undeniably strong film sure to reawaken the child in many and generate a whole new generation of fans.
Overall Recommendation: High
The Muppets: Full Review
The Muppets - (November 23, 2011): PG
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: N/A
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: N/A
Gross Revenue: N/A
Production Budget: $45 million
Director: James Bobin
It has been twelve years since The Muppets have enjoyed a theatrical release, and in that time, the younger generations have largely forgotten the classic characters, so the decision to resurrect them was understandably greeted with some skepticism. Luckily, with Disney owning the rights to the franchise, studio decision-makers still recognized the potential and put their faith in lifelong Muppet fan, Jason Segel. Now, with Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Knocked Up, I Love You, Man, and six seasons of How I Met Your Mother under his belt, Segel is known for a much more adult style of humor, but entrusted with penning and starring the project, the young actor felt more than up to the challenge. In terms of marketing, Walt Disney Pictures understandably wanted the film to be seen as an event, so alongside expected partnerships and television appearances (Kermit presented at the Latin Grammys), the most creative tactic involved spoof trailers, whereby the Muppets would invade trailers ostensibly promoting blockbusters like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or Paranormal Activity 3…what a way to grab attention and establish resonance with your audience! Understandably excited and hoping that Swedish Chef would be granted the most screen time, I could not wait to see and review The Muppets.
Seeking a viable way to reunite the Muppets after more than a decade, the film starts with avid Muppet fan Walter (himself a puppet) travels to Los Angeles alongside his human brother Gary (Jason Segel) and Gary’s longtime girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams). Eager to visit Muppets Studio, Walter is devastated when he discovers that evil businessman Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) is preparing to demolish both the Muppet Theater and the studio in order to drill for oil. The plan is conditional, in that if Walter is able to raise $10 million, the demolition can be stopped; grasping at this newfound hope, Walter, Gary, and Mary, seek out Kermit the Frog. Resolved to raise the money, Kermit and friends work to reunite the rest of the Muppet gang in hopes of staging one of the greatest telethons in history...adding to the complications involves the fact that a kindhearted television executive, Veronica (Rashida Jones), agrees to televise the show in primetime, provided that a celebrity can be found to host. So, with Fozzie Bear, Miss Piggy, Animal, Gonzo, and the rest of the Muppet gang together, the revered characters do their best to regain their popularity and save their legacy.
As any avid Muppet fan no doubt expected, easily the best part of The Muppets is the sheer novelty of seeing all the classic characters together again, engaging in the type of humor that made them all famous. Swedish Chef’s notorious gibberish, Fozzie’s lame jokes, Animal’s obsession with his drums…it’s all here and glorious, but the standout segment involves the ending credits, where each cast member and guest star cameo sings the classic Muppet song, "Mah Nà Mah Nà." The human and Muppet cast also display a distinct style of self-aware humor (good writing, Jason Segel), in effect poking fun at the fact that the story told is clearly part of a movie; the best example involves the suggestion that the renovation of Muppet Theater could be accomplished much faster if it was done with the help of a montage. In terms of the rest of the cast, everyone from Jason Segal and Amy Adams to the numerous celebrity cameos clearly has fun interacting with their felt co-stars, providing for a simple and lighthearted adventure that audiences of all ages can enjoy. However, with a legacy as respected and storied as that of the Muppets, the film was bound to come up short in a few areas.
It is obvious that Disney had high hopes for The Muppets to be a family film, but the truth is that the chief appeal lies solely with avid fans, the kind of which are not likely to fully tolerate any missteps. For instance, it was nice to see all of the Muppets again, and giving them all adequate screen time would have been near impossible, but some of the more popular characters clearly deserved more respect: Rowlf the Dog, Rizzo the Rat, and Pepe the King Prawn, have earned more than a simple one-line scene. Also, when it comes to celebrity cameos, the absence of certain Muppet mainstays is disappointing, while the apparent substitution is a little insulting….Steve Martin has always been well associated with the Muppets, so how can Selena Gomez and Rico Rodriguez possibly serve as adequate substitutes to placate longtime fans? Now, these criticisms may sound like little more than the complaints of a Muppet geek, but that is exactly who this film is made for, as I doubt general audiences will respond as positively to slapstick jokes and silly musical numbers that others have come to expect over the years…though I guarantee that almost everyone will be humming at least one tune as they drive home. If you go into the film expecting a deep story or profound humor, you don’t belong in the theater in the first place, so even though The Muppets may not be perfect, it should serve as more than enough to please audiences.
At the time that this review was written, exact numbers for The Muppets’ opening weekend are unavailable, but given the five-day Thanksgiving holiday, the newest Disney title should perform rather strongly. Unfortunately, with two other family offerings opening the same day (Arthur Christmas, Hugo), analysts have actually predicted that audiences will be so severely split that holdover Breaking Dawn – Part 1 might actually take in the top earnings. Still, with a forecast of $41 million for the long weekend, The Muppets should have little to no problem recovering its modest production budget. But with as strong a marketing campaign as was generated prior to release and the size of the fan-bases for both the characters and actors present, I would not at all be surprised if the film ends up defying more than a few analysts. Plain and simple, hardcore Muppets fanatics may not get the immaculate and glorious return they feel that they deserve, but the fact remains that The Muppets is a must-see for fans and may end up surprising those with more lukewarm feelings towards the beloved characters.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: N/A
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: N/A
Gross Revenue: N/A
Production Budget: $45 million
Director: James Bobin
It has been twelve years since The Muppets have enjoyed a theatrical release, and in that time, the younger generations have largely forgotten the classic characters, so the decision to resurrect them was understandably greeted with some skepticism. Luckily, with Disney owning the rights to the franchise, studio decision-makers still recognized the potential and put their faith in lifelong Muppet fan, Jason Segel. Now, with Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Knocked Up, I Love You, Man, and six seasons of How I Met Your Mother under his belt, Segel is known for a much more adult style of humor, but entrusted with penning and starring the project, the young actor felt more than up to the challenge. In terms of marketing, Walt Disney Pictures understandably wanted the film to be seen as an event, so alongside expected partnerships and television appearances (Kermit presented at the Latin Grammys), the most creative tactic involved spoof trailers, whereby the Muppets would invade trailers ostensibly promoting blockbusters like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or Paranormal Activity 3…what a way to grab attention and establish resonance with your audience! Understandably excited and hoping that Swedish Chef would be granted the most screen time, I could not wait to see and review The Muppets.
Seeking a viable way to reunite the Muppets after more than a decade, the film starts with avid Muppet fan Walter (himself a puppet) travels to Los Angeles alongside his human brother Gary (Jason Segel) and Gary’s longtime girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams). Eager to visit Muppets Studio, Walter is devastated when he discovers that evil businessman Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) is preparing to demolish both the Muppet Theater and the studio in order to drill for oil. The plan is conditional, in that if Walter is able to raise $10 million, the demolition can be stopped; grasping at this newfound hope, Walter, Gary, and Mary, seek out Kermit the Frog. Resolved to raise the money, Kermit and friends work to reunite the rest of the Muppet gang in hopes of staging one of the greatest telethons in history...adding to the complications involves the fact that a kindhearted television executive, Veronica (Rashida Jones), agrees to televise the show in primetime, provided that a celebrity can be found to host. So, with Fozzie Bear, Miss Piggy, Animal, Gonzo, and the rest of the Muppet gang together, the revered characters do their best to regain their popularity and save their legacy.
As any avid Muppet fan no doubt expected, easily the best part of The Muppets is the sheer novelty of seeing all the classic characters together again, engaging in the type of humor that made them all famous. Swedish Chef’s notorious gibberish, Fozzie’s lame jokes, Animal’s obsession with his drums…it’s all here and glorious, but the standout segment involves the ending credits, where each cast member and guest star cameo sings the classic Muppet song, "Mah Nà Mah Nà." The human and Muppet cast also display a distinct style of self-aware humor (good writing, Jason Segel), in effect poking fun at the fact that the story told is clearly part of a movie; the best example involves the suggestion that the renovation of Muppet Theater could be accomplished much faster if it was done with the help of a montage. In terms of the rest of the cast, everyone from Jason Segal and Amy Adams to the numerous celebrity cameos clearly has fun interacting with their felt co-stars, providing for a simple and lighthearted adventure that audiences of all ages can enjoy. However, with a legacy as respected and storied as that of the Muppets, the film was bound to come up short in a few areas.
It is obvious that Disney had high hopes for The Muppets to be a family film, but the truth is that the chief appeal lies solely with avid fans, the kind of which are not likely to fully tolerate any missteps. For instance, it was nice to see all of the Muppets again, and giving them all adequate screen time would have been near impossible, but some of the more popular characters clearly deserved more respect: Rowlf the Dog, Rizzo the Rat, and Pepe the King Prawn, have earned more than a simple one-line scene. Also, when it comes to celebrity cameos, the absence of certain Muppet mainstays is disappointing, while the apparent substitution is a little insulting….Steve Martin has always been well associated with the Muppets, so how can Selena Gomez and Rico Rodriguez possibly serve as adequate substitutes to placate longtime fans? Now, these criticisms may sound like little more than the complaints of a Muppet geek, but that is exactly who this film is made for, as I doubt general audiences will respond as positively to slapstick jokes and silly musical numbers that others have come to expect over the years…though I guarantee that almost everyone will be humming at least one tune as they drive home. If you go into the film expecting a deep story or profound humor, you don’t belong in the theater in the first place, so even though The Muppets may not be perfect, it should serve as more than enough to please audiences.
At the time that this review was written, exact numbers for The Muppets’ opening weekend are unavailable, but given the five-day Thanksgiving holiday, the newest Disney title should perform rather strongly. Unfortunately, with two other family offerings opening the same day (Arthur Christmas, Hugo), analysts have actually predicted that audiences will be so severely split that holdover Breaking Dawn – Part 1 might actually take in the top earnings. Still, with a forecast of $41 million for the long weekend, The Muppets should have little to no problem recovering its modest production budget. But with as strong a marketing campaign as was generated prior to release and the size of the fan-bases for both the characters and actors present, I would not at all be surprised if the film ends up defying more than a few analysts. Plain and simple, hardcore Muppets fanatics may not get the immaculate and glorious return they feel that they deserve, but the fact remains that The Muppets is a must-see for fans and may end up surprising those with more lukewarm feelings towards the beloved characters.
Overall Recommendation: High
Happy Feet Two: Short and Sweet
Of all the animated franchises out there, one that has flown considerably under the radar for some time is Happy Feet, a surprising fact when one notes the inherent appeal of dancing penguins. Still, as a Warner Bros. property, this family film’s lack of time in the spotlight is understandable, given the prevalence and high quality of the numerous offerings from both Disney-Pixar and DreamWorks Animation. Needless to say, with five years between the original and this newest sequel, I was skeptical concerning how audiences would react to Happy Feet Two, as the core audience of the first entry had undoubtedly grown out of the target demographic. Hopefully, the all-star cast that included the voice talents of newcomers like Alicia Moore (P!nk), Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, and Sofia Vergara, would draw a large and respectable crowd during the busy Holiday Movie Season. Barely remembering the original, I was admittedly charmed by the energetic trailer, so maybe Happy Feet Two would end up being a pleasant surprise.
In retrospect, I was shocked by how much I enjoyed Happy Feet Two, as the combination of astounding animation, an energetic soundtrack, and thoroughly hysterical and impressive voice acting make the film an entirely enjoying experience. In her first real film role, P!nk does a surprisingly strong job in bringing personality to a character and showcasing her vocal talents, but the most welcome addition to the franchise is the pair of Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, whose banter will have you rolling in the theater. Of course, I cannot downplay the contribution of Robin Williams, who once again cements his comedic talent and timing voicing two distinct characters. It may not have quite the emotional weight or gravity of a Disney-Pixar title, but Happy Feet Two provides more than enough cute, baby animals and dire situations to tug at the heartstrings so strongly that the tactic is almost unfair. A tad corny at times, Happy Feet Two is still a surprisingly strong animated film that not only appeals to adult audiences, but also could give a number of past award-winners a run for their money, and as such it is well-worth seeing and should not be missed.
Overall Recommendation: High
In retrospect, I was shocked by how much I enjoyed Happy Feet Two, as the combination of astounding animation, an energetic soundtrack, and thoroughly hysterical and impressive voice acting make the film an entirely enjoying experience. In her first real film role, P!nk does a surprisingly strong job in bringing personality to a character and showcasing her vocal talents, but the most welcome addition to the franchise is the pair of Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, whose banter will have you rolling in the theater. Of course, I cannot downplay the contribution of Robin Williams, who once again cements his comedic talent and timing voicing two distinct characters. It may not have quite the emotional weight or gravity of a Disney-Pixar title, but Happy Feet Two provides more than enough cute, baby animals and dire situations to tug at the heartstrings so strongly that the tactic is almost unfair. A tad corny at times, Happy Feet Two is still a surprisingly strong animated film that not only appeals to adult audiences, but also could give a number of past award-winners a run for their money, and as such it is well-worth seeing and should not be missed.
Overall Recommendation: High
Happy Feet Two: Full Review
Happy Feet Two - (November 18, 2011): PG
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #2 with $21,237,068
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $22,995,315
Gross Revenue: $25,595,315
Production Budget: $135 million
Director: George Miller
Back in 2006, a group of dancing penguins hit theaters and wowed audiences, staying at the top of the box office for weeks, but then a significant gap in time elapsed and the charming characters were largely forgotten. Now, five years later, Warner Bros. Pictures was preparing to sell a sequel to audiences, banking on familiarity with the original and the recognition of an all-star cast to draw moviegoers. The addition of Brad Pitt and Matt Damon’s voice talents was noteworthy, but the biggest change involved the inclusion of Alicia Moore (better known as P!nk), who contributed a song to the first film’s soundtrack but would now be stepping in to take over the role originated by the late Brittany Murphy. I myself was most excited about Modern Family’s Sofia Vergara and notorious voice-actor Hank Azaria, who is perhaps most famous for the numerous roles he brings to life for The Simpsons…with all of these familiar names present, there was tremendous pressure for filmmakers to deliver an entertaining and successful sequel. Leading up to the release date, the trailer of baby penguins dancing to pop-rock was everywhere, so regardless of being someone familiar with the original, I was charmed enough by the energetic thematic style promised to give Happy Feet Two a fighting chance.
Resurrecting the pop-culturally savvy and fleet-footed Arctic birds from the original Happy Feet, this sequel starts off with adult Emperor penguins Mumble (Elijah Wood) and Gloria (Alicia Moore) trying to teach their young son Erik to dance. Things don’t go quite as planned, and a humiliated Erik flees his colony, but as Mumble sets out to retrieve his son, a glacier drift ends up trapping Gloria and the rest of the Emperor Penguins, effectively cutting the colony off from their food supply. Mumble quickly seeks the help of his friend, Ramon (Robin Williams), who is preoccupied trying to win the affections of a beautiful fellow Adélie penguin, Carmen (Sofia Vergara). Ramon quickly reunites Mumble with the elder Rockhopper penguin Lovelace (also voiced by Williams), and together the trio consults Sven (Hank Azaria), a Puffin bird that the other penguins mistakenly classify as a prophetic flying penguin and therefore revere. Together, the different penguins work to free the Emperor colony, even going as far as to enlist the help of humans and elephant seals, so that the trapped birds do not succumb to starvation or other environmental threats. A small subplot follows two brave Krill, Will (Brad Pitt) and Bill (Matt Damon), attempting to separate from their swarm in a quest to move up the food chain, but the two narrative chains eventually cross, proving that even the smallest of animals can make a difference.
As can be expected from virtually every one of today’s computed-generated family films, one of the strongest aspects of Happy Feet Two was the film’s gorgeous animation, whether that involves the beautiful Northern Lights, the detailed Arctic landscape, or the downright precious baby animals (the young penguins and seals will melt your heart). Another equally impressive showcase of visual graphics was the blending of live action and animation used whenever the penguins interact with the “aliens” (humans), undoubtedly demonstrating the next stage of motion-capture technology. The second accolade-worthy element that was fully expected included the voice acting, which imbued distinct personalities to each character and paved the way for significant humor. It is no surprise that legendary voice-manipulators like Hank Azaria and Robin Williams could energetically rattle off jokes, but the real treat involved the zany and clever interaction between Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, whether they were questioning the meaning of life or attempting to “bite something with a face” in order to ascend the food chain. The final praiseworthy feature of this sequel, which was a big selling-point for the original, is the energetic soundtrack, which mixed both classic and contemporary music in a thoroughly stylish manner…unfortunately, the music did highlight a few shortcomings.
In case the initial trailers didn’t make it painful obvious during the rendition of Justin Timberlake’s “Sexy Back,” the main focus of Happy Feet Two is energetic and memorable music, and for the most part, the film took that responsibility in stride. Easily the biggest contributor in this department was Alicia Moore, who not only delivered a convincing character portrayal, but also lent her considerable vocal strength to the musical numbers, including “Bridge of Light,” an easy contender for some Best Song awards. Now, most of the transitions into song were seamless and clever, but one in particular instigated by young Erik is so corny and ridiculous that you are almost shocked backed into the realization that you are watching a children’s film. At times, Happy Feet Two also tugs a little too strongly at the heartstrings, overplaying the emotional impact of certain scenarios so much so that the tactic could almost be viewed as a cheap shot. So, despite some missteps, in its entirety, this sequel is a strong entry that has more than enough to appeal to both children and adults, but from a box office perspective, the latter group has not yet come across that realization.
Debuting as number two with just over $20 million in its first weekend, Happy Feet Two has thus-far underperformed and has considerable ground to cover in recovering a hefty $130 million production budget. Now, while I myself did not see the film in 3D, the use of the technology this time around does seem warranted, so maybe that will help with the numbers. However, with new releases Arthur Christmas, The Muppets, and Hugo all vying for the attention of a younger audience, drawing big numbers does not seem all that likely. Such a sobering reality really is disappointing considering the high quality of the film, and all I can hope to do is emphasize how worthwhile it is to actually see this movie in theaters. Whether you are a penguin enthusiast or just looking for a strong animated movie, Happy Feet Two is well-deserving of both your time and money.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #2 with $21,237,068
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $22,995,315
Gross Revenue: $25,595,315
Production Budget: $135 million
Director: George Miller
Back in 2006, a group of dancing penguins hit theaters and wowed audiences, staying at the top of the box office for weeks, but then a significant gap in time elapsed and the charming characters were largely forgotten. Now, five years later, Warner Bros. Pictures was preparing to sell a sequel to audiences, banking on familiarity with the original and the recognition of an all-star cast to draw moviegoers. The addition of Brad Pitt and Matt Damon’s voice talents was noteworthy, but the biggest change involved the inclusion of Alicia Moore (better known as P!nk), who contributed a song to the first film’s soundtrack but would now be stepping in to take over the role originated by the late Brittany Murphy. I myself was most excited about Modern Family’s Sofia Vergara and notorious voice-actor Hank Azaria, who is perhaps most famous for the numerous roles he brings to life for The Simpsons…with all of these familiar names present, there was tremendous pressure for filmmakers to deliver an entertaining and successful sequel. Leading up to the release date, the trailer of baby penguins dancing to pop-rock was everywhere, so regardless of being someone familiar with the original, I was charmed enough by the energetic thematic style promised to give Happy Feet Two a fighting chance.
Resurrecting the pop-culturally savvy and fleet-footed Arctic birds from the original Happy Feet, this sequel starts off with adult Emperor penguins Mumble (Elijah Wood) and Gloria (Alicia Moore) trying to teach their young son Erik to dance. Things don’t go quite as planned, and a humiliated Erik flees his colony, but as Mumble sets out to retrieve his son, a glacier drift ends up trapping Gloria and the rest of the Emperor Penguins, effectively cutting the colony off from their food supply. Mumble quickly seeks the help of his friend, Ramon (Robin Williams), who is preoccupied trying to win the affections of a beautiful fellow Adélie penguin, Carmen (Sofia Vergara). Ramon quickly reunites Mumble with the elder Rockhopper penguin Lovelace (also voiced by Williams), and together the trio consults Sven (Hank Azaria), a Puffin bird that the other penguins mistakenly classify as a prophetic flying penguin and therefore revere. Together, the different penguins work to free the Emperor colony, even going as far as to enlist the help of humans and elephant seals, so that the trapped birds do not succumb to starvation or other environmental threats. A small subplot follows two brave Krill, Will (Brad Pitt) and Bill (Matt Damon), attempting to separate from their swarm in a quest to move up the food chain, but the two narrative chains eventually cross, proving that even the smallest of animals can make a difference.
As can be expected from virtually every one of today’s computed-generated family films, one of the strongest aspects of Happy Feet Two was the film’s gorgeous animation, whether that involves the beautiful Northern Lights, the detailed Arctic landscape, or the downright precious baby animals (the young penguins and seals will melt your heart). Another equally impressive showcase of visual graphics was the blending of live action and animation used whenever the penguins interact with the “aliens” (humans), undoubtedly demonstrating the next stage of motion-capture technology. The second accolade-worthy element that was fully expected included the voice acting, which imbued distinct personalities to each character and paved the way for significant humor. It is no surprise that legendary voice-manipulators like Hank Azaria and Robin Williams could energetically rattle off jokes, but the real treat involved the zany and clever interaction between Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, whether they were questioning the meaning of life or attempting to “bite something with a face” in order to ascend the food chain. The final praiseworthy feature of this sequel, which was a big selling-point for the original, is the energetic soundtrack, which mixed both classic and contemporary music in a thoroughly stylish manner…unfortunately, the music did highlight a few shortcomings.
In case the initial trailers didn’t make it painful obvious during the rendition of Justin Timberlake’s “Sexy Back,” the main focus of Happy Feet Two is energetic and memorable music, and for the most part, the film took that responsibility in stride. Easily the biggest contributor in this department was Alicia Moore, who not only delivered a convincing character portrayal, but also lent her considerable vocal strength to the musical numbers, including “Bridge of Light,” an easy contender for some Best Song awards. Now, most of the transitions into song were seamless and clever, but one in particular instigated by young Erik is so corny and ridiculous that you are almost shocked backed into the realization that you are watching a children’s film. At times, Happy Feet Two also tugs a little too strongly at the heartstrings, overplaying the emotional impact of certain scenarios so much so that the tactic could almost be viewed as a cheap shot. So, despite some missteps, in its entirety, this sequel is a strong entry that has more than enough to appeal to both children and adults, but from a box office perspective, the latter group has not yet come across that realization.
Debuting as number two with just over $20 million in its first weekend, Happy Feet Two has thus-far underperformed and has considerable ground to cover in recovering a hefty $130 million production budget. Now, while I myself did not see the film in 3D, the use of the technology this time around does seem warranted, so maybe that will help with the numbers. However, with new releases Arthur Christmas, The Muppets, and Hugo all vying for the attention of a younger audience, drawing big numbers does not seem all that likely. Such a sobering reality really is disappointing considering the high quality of the film, and all I can hope to do is emphasize how worthwhile it is to actually see this movie in theaters. Whether you are a penguin enthusiast or just looking for a strong animated movie, Happy Feet Two is well-deserving of both your time and money.
Overall Recommendation: High
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1: Short and Sweet
As a hardcore Harry Potter fan, I have been conditioned to instantaneously roll my eyes anytime the Twilight franchise is mentioned, but I cannot help but respect the success that the film series has had over the past few years. Because of that same success, Summit Entertainment had little challenge in marketing the film or selling tickets, as all that was needed was the generation of audience awareness that the newest entry would be hitting theaters soon. Though I nearly had every reason to discriminate, I knew that I would have to see Breaking Dawn – Part 1 in order to maintain the integrity and variety of my reviews, and as such; I have seen every movie in the series and am well aware of the characters and back-story. Given my standing as a fan of the mythos surrounding vampires and werewolves, I have found some entertaining elements in the past Twilight films, but needless to say, I was in no hurry to see notoriously one-dimensional actors return to the screen. Strategically choosing my showing time so as to avoid legions of teenage girls and wildly inappropriate middle-aged women, I was prepared to see Breaking Dawn – Part 1 and maybe identify a few credible film-making elements.
Granted, I was fully aware that the focus of Breaking Dawn – Part 1 would be Edward and Bella’s wedding and honeymoon, but I still wasn’t expecting the overly sappy and corny “romance” that saturates nearly every fiber of the film. Just like every single entry of the Twilight series to-date, easily the weakest part of the film is Kristen Stewart, who plays Bella almost completely void of emotion or personality, which only accentuates the character’s already-maddening irrationality and indecisive nature. The male leads aren’t off the hook either…Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner do show a little more spirit and range this time around, but they are still guilty of some pretty blatant overacting. The conflict surrounding Bella’s pregnancy, which shifts focus to the conflict between vampires and werewolves for a while, does have its interesting and tense moments, but it is not enough to save the project as a whole. If you are a devout Twi-hard, I’m sure that you’re going to love Breaking Dawn – Part 1, but for the rest of us, there is little to justify sitting through this nearly two-hour romance that sets feminism back a few years.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Granted, I was fully aware that the focus of Breaking Dawn – Part 1 would be Edward and Bella’s wedding and honeymoon, but I still wasn’t expecting the overly sappy and corny “romance” that saturates nearly every fiber of the film. Just like every single entry of the Twilight series to-date, easily the weakest part of the film is Kristen Stewart, who plays Bella almost completely void of emotion or personality, which only accentuates the character’s already-maddening irrationality and indecisive nature. The male leads aren’t off the hook either…Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner do show a little more spirit and range this time around, but they are still guilty of some pretty blatant overacting. The conflict surrounding Bella’s pregnancy, which shifts focus to the conflict between vampires and werewolves for a while, does have its interesting and tense moments, but it is not enough to save the project as a whole. If you are a devout Twi-hard, I’m sure that you’re going to love Breaking Dawn – Part 1, but for the rest of us, there is little to justify sitting through this nearly two-hour romance that sets feminism back a few years.
Overall Recommendation: Low
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1: Full Review
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1 - (November 18, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: Summit Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $138,122,261
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $147,975,742
Gross Revenue: $300,875,742
Production Budget: $110 million
Director: Bill Condon
Say what you will about the quality of Stephanie Meyer’s insanely popular novels, no one can deny the near-historic success of the film adaptations at the box office, so when the trailer for Breaking Dawn – Part 1 first hit, it was clear that more than a few records would be challenged or broken outright. Unlike some of the earlier entries in the franchise, aside from Volvo’s “Journey to the Wedding” cross-promotion, the subsequent marketing tactics employed were notably plain and straightforward, but that apparent shortcoming is more than justified. There was really no need to spend money to slap together “Team Edward” or “Team Jacob” Happy Meals, when all Summit Entertainment had to do was tease the trailer at an awards show or attach it to the Facebook fan page, and then simply sit back and let the Twi-hards generate all the buzz and word of mouth that any studio could ever hope to produce. Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, and Taylor Lautner have all become household names since they were first introduced to mass audience, and though I don’t see any Academy Awards in their collective futures, that truth wasn’t going to stop any fans from lining up at theaters. Out of sheer obligation to the integrity of my blog, I prepared to see Breaking Dawn – Part 1, praying that it would not touch any record set by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2; I’ve said it a thousand times before: wizards will always be cooler than angst-filled vampires.
Building off of the proposal that ended Eclipse, Breaking Dawn – Part 1 opens with the fairy-tale wedding of Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and her true love, vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), with everyone from Bella’s naïve father, Charlie (Billy Burke), to the extended Cullen family, in attendance. Werewolf Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) is understandably very upset about the marriage, but he is also concerned for Bella’s safety when it is revealed that she will not be turned into a vampire until after the honeymoon, meaning that she could be injured during the consummation of the union due to Edward’s supernatural strength. Regardless of this complication, Bella and Edward retreat to a private island in Brazil, and though Edward is initially hesitant to be intimate with Bella, the two finally end up making love. Everything is perfect until an astonished Bella discovers that she is pregnant with a rapidly-growing, hybrid child, and Edward’s adopted father, Carlisle Cullen (Peter Facinelli), reveals that, as a human, Bella has little chance of surviving childbirth. Another threat surfaces in the form of Jacob’s tribe of werewolves, who view the half-vampire offspring as a significant threat, and therefore resolve to slaughter Bella and her unborn child. Alongside Jacob and Edward, the rest of the Cullen Family, including Esme (Elizabeth Reaser), Alice (Ashley Greene), Rosalie (Nikki Reed), Jasper (Jackson Rathborne), and Emmett (Kellan Lutz), swear to protect Bella and do everything they can to ensure that she survives the complicated and unprecedented pregnancy.
By and large, I did not enjoy Breaking Dawn – Part 1, but there are a number of positive elements that made the overall experience bearable. As always, I enjoy the characters within and the interactions shared between the members of the Cullen family, as each of their distinct personalities brings a unique and engaging element to the overall story…unfortunately, the film spends little to no time focusing on these individuals. Speaking in terms of vampire and werewolf mythology, Twilight has always played fast and loose with some of the finer established rules, but in focusing on the reaction to the birth of a vampire-human hybrid, Breaking Dawn – Part 1 is able to generate some significant intensity and interesting storyline dynamics that set the stage for an epic conclusion in Part 2. I was also surprised by the level of humor present in the film, thanks largely to Billy Burke, whose reactions to the supernatural union demonstrate far better comedic timing than the film deserves. All praise aside, these limited positive accolades cannot save the decidedly mediocre themes that are presented in an overly dramatic manner using sub-par acting.
Dress it up however you want, Breaking Dawn – Part 1 glorifies a wedding, honeymoon, and pregnancy as something of absolutely earth-shattering proportions, and Kristen Stewart simply fails to give these “events” any kind of justifiable gravity. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the importance that these occurrences can have an individual’s life, but the perpetually-miserable Bella is so indecisive, whiney, and irrational, that it is really hard to care. I was pleased to see Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner show a little more acting range in their roles, as both of their characters are understandable upset by the pregnancy, but both still end up trying a little too hard. Add these shortcomings to the overly sappy focus on romance within a narrative nearly devoid of the action that made Eclipse tolerable, and Breaking Dawn – Part 1 represents a step backwards in the quality of the franchise. As much as I’d like to say otherwise, anyone outside devout Twi-hards dragged to the theater by a significant other is in for a significant struggle with this film.
Given the franchise’s box office track record, it should come as absolutely no surprise that Breaking Dawn – Part 1 took the top spot in its opening weekend and raked in huge opening numbers. Earning $30.25 million on midnight showings alone is impressive, but it is also worth noting that 51.9% of the gross coming from Friday showings, a front-loaded trend typical of the Twilight series. The $138.1 million opening is second-best in the franchise (behind New Moon), and fifth overall in terms of all-time opening weekend, behind Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (thank God), The Dark Knight, Spider-Man 3, and New Moon. However, the newest Twilight chapter’s rank should be taken with a grain of salt, as it did not enjoy the benefit of added 3D revenue. Still, with an impressive overseas haul and a long holiday weekend to bring in strong audiences, Summit Entertainment can only look forward to a substantial profit. Far from spectacular, all I can say of Breaking Dawn – Part 1 is that is set the stage for a hopefully stronger Part 2; we’ll see what happens next November.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Distributor: Summit Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $138,122,261
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $147,975,742
Gross Revenue: $300,875,742
Production Budget: $110 million
Director: Bill Condon
Say what you will about the quality of Stephanie Meyer’s insanely popular novels, no one can deny the near-historic success of the film adaptations at the box office, so when the trailer for Breaking Dawn – Part 1 first hit, it was clear that more than a few records would be challenged or broken outright. Unlike some of the earlier entries in the franchise, aside from Volvo’s “Journey to the Wedding” cross-promotion, the subsequent marketing tactics employed were notably plain and straightforward, but that apparent shortcoming is more than justified. There was really no need to spend money to slap together “Team Edward” or “Team Jacob” Happy Meals, when all Summit Entertainment had to do was tease the trailer at an awards show or attach it to the Facebook fan page, and then simply sit back and let the Twi-hards generate all the buzz and word of mouth that any studio could ever hope to produce. Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, and Taylor Lautner have all become household names since they were first introduced to mass audience, and though I don’t see any Academy Awards in their collective futures, that truth wasn’t going to stop any fans from lining up at theaters. Out of sheer obligation to the integrity of my blog, I prepared to see Breaking Dawn – Part 1, praying that it would not touch any record set by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2; I’ve said it a thousand times before: wizards will always be cooler than angst-filled vampires.
Building off of the proposal that ended Eclipse, Breaking Dawn – Part 1 opens with the fairy-tale wedding of Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and her true love, vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), with everyone from Bella’s naïve father, Charlie (Billy Burke), to the extended Cullen family, in attendance. Werewolf Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) is understandably very upset about the marriage, but he is also concerned for Bella’s safety when it is revealed that she will not be turned into a vampire until after the honeymoon, meaning that she could be injured during the consummation of the union due to Edward’s supernatural strength. Regardless of this complication, Bella and Edward retreat to a private island in Brazil, and though Edward is initially hesitant to be intimate with Bella, the two finally end up making love. Everything is perfect until an astonished Bella discovers that she is pregnant with a rapidly-growing, hybrid child, and Edward’s adopted father, Carlisle Cullen (Peter Facinelli), reveals that, as a human, Bella has little chance of surviving childbirth. Another threat surfaces in the form of Jacob’s tribe of werewolves, who view the half-vampire offspring as a significant threat, and therefore resolve to slaughter Bella and her unborn child. Alongside Jacob and Edward, the rest of the Cullen Family, including Esme (Elizabeth Reaser), Alice (Ashley Greene), Rosalie (Nikki Reed), Jasper (Jackson Rathborne), and Emmett (Kellan Lutz), swear to protect Bella and do everything they can to ensure that she survives the complicated and unprecedented pregnancy.
By and large, I did not enjoy Breaking Dawn – Part 1, but there are a number of positive elements that made the overall experience bearable. As always, I enjoy the characters within and the interactions shared between the members of the Cullen family, as each of their distinct personalities brings a unique and engaging element to the overall story…unfortunately, the film spends little to no time focusing on these individuals. Speaking in terms of vampire and werewolf mythology, Twilight has always played fast and loose with some of the finer established rules, but in focusing on the reaction to the birth of a vampire-human hybrid, Breaking Dawn – Part 1 is able to generate some significant intensity and interesting storyline dynamics that set the stage for an epic conclusion in Part 2. I was also surprised by the level of humor present in the film, thanks largely to Billy Burke, whose reactions to the supernatural union demonstrate far better comedic timing than the film deserves. All praise aside, these limited positive accolades cannot save the decidedly mediocre themes that are presented in an overly dramatic manner using sub-par acting.
Dress it up however you want, Breaking Dawn – Part 1 glorifies a wedding, honeymoon, and pregnancy as something of absolutely earth-shattering proportions, and Kristen Stewart simply fails to give these “events” any kind of justifiable gravity. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the importance that these occurrences can have an individual’s life, but the perpetually-miserable Bella is so indecisive, whiney, and irrational, that it is really hard to care. I was pleased to see Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner show a little more acting range in their roles, as both of their characters are understandable upset by the pregnancy, but both still end up trying a little too hard. Add these shortcomings to the overly sappy focus on romance within a narrative nearly devoid of the action that made Eclipse tolerable, and Breaking Dawn – Part 1 represents a step backwards in the quality of the franchise. As much as I’d like to say otherwise, anyone outside devout Twi-hards dragged to the theater by a significant other is in for a significant struggle with this film.
Given the franchise’s box office track record, it should come as absolutely no surprise that Breaking Dawn – Part 1 took the top spot in its opening weekend and raked in huge opening numbers. Earning $30.25 million on midnight showings alone is impressive, but it is also worth noting that 51.9% of the gross coming from Friday showings, a front-loaded trend typical of the Twilight series. The $138.1 million opening is second-best in the franchise (behind New Moon), and fifth overall in terms of all-time opening weekend, behind Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (thank God), The Dark Knight, Spider-Man 3, and New Moon. However, the newest Twilight chapter’s rank should be taken with a grain of salt, as it did not enjoy the benefit of added 3D revenue. Still, with an impressive overseas haul and a long holiday weekend to bring in strong audiences, Summit Entertainment can only look forward to a substantial profit. Far from spectacular, all I can say of Breaking Dawn – Part 1 is that is set the stage for a hopefully stronger Part 2; we’ll see what happens next November.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)