Well everyone, it’s that time of year again, my favorite time of year, Summer Movie Season! 2011 is looking surprisingly strong, and here’s a small preview of what we have to look forward to and my prediction for top movie of the summer:
Superhero Movies
Thor (May 6th)
X-Men: First Class (June 3rd)
Green Lantern (June 17th)
Captain America: The First Avenger (July 22nd)
: That’s right, there are four superhero movies coming out this summer! I am having an absolute geek fit. Chris Hemsworth is kicking things off as the Norse god of thunder, Thor, while Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy lead a new breed of X-men and both Ryan Reynolds slips on a power ring and Chris Evans picks up a shield to step into the iconic roles of Green Lantern and Captain America respectively. None of these characters have an incredibly strong fan-following, but I think that Green Lantern will have the most trouble appealing to mass audiences because of the deep extra-terrestrial mythology surrounding the core material. Personally, I am most excited for Captain America as the World War II period piece with Hugo Weaving as the iconic villain The Red Skull! Remember, stay for the end-credits, the films of this genre always has bonus scenes!
The Sequels Everyone is Waiting For
Fast Five (April 29th)
The Hangover: Part II (May 26th)
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (May 20th)
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (July 1st)
: There are some pretty strong sequels cropping up this summer, with Vin Diesel unleashing his inner street racer and going toe-to-toe with Dwayne Johnson it what is sure to be the world’s most epic fist-fight and the Wolf-Pack once again partying a little too hard, this time in Thailand. The big question marks lie with Captain Jack Sparrow and Optimus Prime. Will Johnny Depp be enough to keep the franchise afloat now that Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightley are gone? Will Michael Bay redeem himself after the awful Revenge of the Fallen, especially after removing one of the main draws, Megan Fox herself? Time will tell…I’m probably looking forward to The Hangover: Part II the most.
Animated and Family Friendly
Kung Fu Panda 2 (May 26th)
Cars 2 (June 24th)
Mr. Popper’s Penguins (June 17th)
Zookeeper (July 8th)
Winnie the Pooh (July 15th)
The Smurfs (July 29th)
Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World (August 19th)
: I don’t care if Katy Perry is a voice and Neil Patrick Harris plays the lead, The Smurfs looks just…awful. Jim Carrey and Kevin James will try and hold their own against friendly animals, and the Spy Kids franchise will continue to beat a dead horse trying to cheat parents out of more money. The real competition will be between Kung Fu Panda 2 and Cars 2; this may be the first summer that Disney-Pixar doesn’t take top prize, as Cars is probably the weakest of their franchises for which to produce a sequel…I still want to see The Incredibles 2! DreamWorks has the edge with Kung Fu Panda 2; the original was amazing and developed a huge following…I’ll probable be knocking over small children to get a good seat to watch Po and the Furious Five kick some animated ass!
The Standalones
Priest (May 13th)
Bridesmaids (May 13th)
Super 8 (June 10th)
Bad Teacher (June 24th)
Cowboys and Aliens (July 29th)
Conan the Barbarian (August 19th)
: I’m stoked to see Paul Bettany and Maggie Q deliver surefire action as anti-vampire warriors in Priest, and while I couldn’t tell you what Super 8 is about, it is associated with both Steven Spielberg and J.J. Abrams…enough said. As for Cowboys and Aliens, it sounds pretty straightforward, but it better be awesome if Jon Favreau decided to leave the Iron Man franchise to pursue the project. Bridesmaids looks like a female version of The Hangover, but Bad Teacher looks amazing…letting Cameron Diaz revert to the raunchy humor that made There’s Something About Mary great, all with the help of Jason Segel, is sure to produce comedic gold. Conan the Barbarian, on the other hand, I expect to fail horribly…who the hell thought that having an unknown actor play a now-forgotten role that was made famous by Arnold Schwarzenegger almost 30 years ago was a good idea?
The Winner
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II (July 15th)
: This one is an absolute no-brainer, not only will Harry Potter take top spot of the summer, and it will also break all kinds of records. The 3D offering that was absent from Part I will boost revenue, but the fact that this is the last entry in the series and that it features the epic Battle of Hogwarts will compel many to head for the theater rather than wait for a rental. Die-hard fans will also see it multiple times. Seriously, have you seen the preview for this thing? It’s a giant wizard’s brawl set around Harry, Ron and Hermione’s search for the Horcruxes to defeat Voldemort!…be warned though, the newest trailer reveals a major plot spoiler if you haven’t read the book. Who will live? Who will Die? Good vs. Evil…only one will emerge victorious!
This list is far from exhaustive, there are plenty of other films being released this summer and I will do my best to see and review as many as I can. I will be traveling abroad from May 15th to June 2nd, so there will be a gap in the frequency of my reviews, but keep checking back and please keep reading! Your continued support means a lot!
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Scream 4: Short and Sweet
With Pantages’ Theater I do my best to review a wide array of films, but my regular readers have no doubt noticed that one genre has been conspicuously absent…plain and simple; I am just not a fan of horror films. But out of all the horror series scaring audiences, there is one that I have grown particularly fond of over the years; none other than the Scream slasher franchise. Ever since Ghostface first appeared in 1996 and began terrorizing his victims with horror film trivia, I became hooked on the self-referential style that has now made the Scream films a part of pop culture. Helmed by the master of horror himself and the original director, Wes Craven (creator of the Nightmare on Elm Street icon Freddy Kreuger and therefore responsible for many sleepless nights), Scream 4 represents the series’ return to the silver screen after 11 years. Being familiar with the characters and a fan of all the previous films, there was little doubt I would see Scream 4, but I was most excited over the fact that I would actually be able to see the film in theaters...when Scream 3 hit in 2000, I wasn’t old enough to get into an R-rated feature.
Looking back, I enjoyed Scream 4, but I feel that my positive opinion is largely attributable to notions of nostalgia and familiarity with the franchise. It was nice to see all the old characters back, but the film simply didn’t offer anything entirely new and relied far too heavily on audience knowledge of the past series entries; if you’ve never seen a Scream film before, I guarantee that this newest plot will lose you quickly. The film does introduce a number of new characters, but ends up cheating the audience by offering zero character development; almost as soon as you meet a majority of the fresh faces, they run into Ghostface…game over. As far as the returning characters go, Neve Campbell seems slightly bored with her character (can’t really blame her, all those chase scenes have to get old over the years), while David Arquette clearly phones-in his performance; only Courtney Cox seems to relish her return and put some semblance of effort forth. Thrills and chills do abound, and I have to give credit to the unexpected twist, but as a sequel/reboot to the revered franchise, Scream 4 is a little anticlimactic.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Looking back, I enjoyed Scream 4, but I feel that my positive opinion is largely attributable to notions of nostalgia and familiarity with the franchise. It was nice to see all the old characters back, but the film simply didn’t offer anything entirely new and relied far too heavily on audience knowledge of the past series entries; if you’ve never seen a Scream film before, I guarantee that this newest plot will lose you quickly. The film does introduce a number of new characters, but ends up cheating the audience by offering zero character development; almost as soon as you meet a majority of the fresh faces, they run into Ghostface…game over. As far as the returning characters go, Neve Campbell seems slightly bored with her character (can’t really blame her, all those chase scenes have to get old over the years), while David Arquette clearly phones-in his performance; only Courtney Cox seems to relish her return and put some semblance of effort forth. Thrills and chills do abound, and I have to give credit to the unexpected twist, but as a sequel/reboot to the revered franchise, Scream 4 is a little anticlimactic.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Scream 4: Full Review
Scream 4 - (April 15, 2011): R
Distributor: Dimension Films
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $18,692,090
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $33,316,679
Gross Revenue: $68,857,604
Budget: $40 million
Director: Wes Craven
It’s hard to speak of any horror movie today without making some mention of the Scream films, which are credited for effectively reviving the slasher film genre that had been on life-support during the late 90’s. The character of Ghostface now ranks among other horror icons such as Freddy Krueger (Nightmare on Elm Street), Jason Vorhees (Friday the 13th), and Michael Myers (Halloween); he has even gained a following among comedy circles thanks to the spoof film Scary Movie…unfortunately he has been MIA in theaters for 11 years. Luckily for fans, executive producers Bob and Harvey Weinstein and director Wes Craven decided that it was time to reintroduce audiences to the franchise, offering new “rules” for surviving a horror film in this new decade. The development for this sequel was notoriously difficult; the script went through multiple rewrites even as filming commenced, and post-production was marred by the very public break-up of stars Courtney Cox and David Arquette (the two met during the filming of the original in 1996). Still, potential audiences should have been enticed by a revisit to the now legendary and hugely successful franchise, and I myself was eager to hear Ghostface once again ask his victims the now iconic question: “What’s your favorite scary movie?”
Trying to compress four-films-worth of background and plot details into one paragraph is going to be difficult, but here it goes: the Scream series starts in the fictional town of Woodsboro, where masked-killer Ghostface uses his knowledge of horror films to abide by certain rules used to terrorize and stalk victims, the most notable being Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell). Together with local law enforcement officer Dewey Riley (David Arquette) and tabloid reporter Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox), Sidney has survived three massacres that have followed her everywhere, from college to Hollywood, and claimed friends, family, and enemies. Scream 4 picks up on the fifteenth anniversary of the original Woodsboro murders, with Sidney returning home to promote her new book and Sheriff Dewey and his wife Gale fighting boredom. Peace is shattered when Ghostface reappears, now terrorizing Sidney’s younger cousin Jill (Emma Roberts) and Jill’s friends Kirby (Heroes’ Hayden Panettiere), Robbie (Eric Knudsen), and Charlie (Signs’ Rory Culkin). As notorious film buffs, Robbie and Charlie work to inform everyone about the new rules to surviving a horror film, while Sidney, Gale, and Dewey work to solve and survive this newest batch of murders.
Easily the best part of Scream 4 is the sheer nostalgia factor of watching familiar characters tackle an old enemy again, making inside references to the past films that are sure to thrill fans of the series. For gore and violence junkies, Ghostface is at his murderous worst, tormenting and dispatching his victims with unwavering brutality, significantly upping the suspense factor in comparison to the earlier films. Of the original cast, Courtney Cox seems to enjoy her return the most, bringing an intensity and determination to Gale that reminds you why you love the character so much in the first place. As for the newcomers, it was also nice to see some of the younger actors step out of their comfort zones and take up the mantle of the new generation of slasher victims, Hayden Panettiere standing out as the humorous and supportive best friend. Finally, without spoiling anything, I have to compliment the climactic twist …I spent most of the film trying to reason out the killer’s identity, but nevertheless I was still impressed with the surprising (if not entirely plausible) reveal. As a fan, there was plenty for me to enjoy about Scream 4, but the end result was still far from perfect.
For as much as I enjoyed the trip down horror franchise memory lane that Scream 4 offered, the film ended up relying far too much on its own past without making any effort to lay the groundwork for a future. First off, this sequel offers even less of a back-story on the franchise than I did in the two sentences put forth above…if you are not familiar with Ghostface’s modus operandi or the histories connecting Sidney, Gale, and Dewey, all I can say is good luck figuring out what exactly is going on over the course of the film. As for the new victims, Scream 4 offers very little in terms of character development, because almost as soon as you are introduced to these fresh faces, they step off-screen only to reappear as victims for Ghostface. The presence of other well-known actors feels a little thrown together, as Anthony Anderson, Adam Brody, and Marley Shelton all appear in some capacity as police deputies and I couldn’t help but feel that they deserved more screen time. Scream 4 was positioned as both a sequel and reboot of the franchise, but the finished product just didn’t feel terribly unique, overtly thrilling, or altogether that necessary, and by and large the fans who have waited for 11 years for a return to Woodsboro deserved more…maybe it would have been better to leave the series alone. At one point Sidney yells at the killer: “Don’t f%#! with the original (referring to herself)”...perhaps the film should have followed similar advice.
While an opening weekend of nearly $18 million is nothing to scoff at, it is a relatively disappointing number for the sequel to an established franchise that was meant to renew overall audience interest in the slasher horror genre. Between domestic and international box office receipts, Dimension has already recovered its modest production budget of $40 million, but I still feel that small modifications in marketing tactics could have helped overall performance. The biggest problem involved the fact that the time gap between films was not adequately addressed: the key audiences who would have flocked to a Scream film over 11 years ago have probably outgrown the horror genre, while the teenage and young adult audiences who make up key movie-going demographics today were too young to appreciate the franchise back when it was in its prime. Simply put, the studio’s marketing efforts weren’t aggressive enough; more trailers, sponsored events, product tie-ins, or even a re-release of the original films would have gone a long way. There have been talks of Scream 4 being the start of a new trilogy, but for that to be justified, profits and quality are going to have to soar…fans should definitely see this sequel in theaters, but the uninitiated will be far better off renting from Netflix or Redbox after having learned from the trilogy that defined 90’s horror.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Dimension Films
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $18,692,090
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $33,316,679
Gross Revenue: $68,857,604
Budget: $40 million
Director: Wes Craven
It’s hard to speak of any horror movie today without making some mention of the Scream films, which are credited for effectively reviving the slasher film genre that had been on life-support during the late 90’s. The character of Ghostface now ranks among other horror icons such as Freddy Krueger (Nightmare on Elm Street), Jason Vorhees (Friday the 13th), and Michael Myers (Halloween); he has even gained a following among comedy circles thanks to the spoof film Scary Movie…unfortunately he has been MIA in theaters for 11 years. Luckily for fans, executive producers Bob and Harvey Weinstein and director Wes Craven decided that it was time to reintroduce audiences to the franchise, offering new “rules” for surviving a horror film in this new decade. The development for this sequel was notoriously difficult; the script went through multiple rewrites even as filming commenced, and post-production was marred by the very public break-up of stars Courtney Cox and David Arquette (the two met during the filming of the original in 1996). Still, potential audiences should have been enticed by a revisit to the now legendary and hugely successful franchise, and I myself was eager to hear Ghostface once again ask his victims the now iconic question: “What’s your favorite scary movie?”
Trying to compress four-films-worth of background and plot details into one paragraph is going to be difficult, but here it goes: the Scream series starts in the fictional town of Woodsboro, where masked-killer Ghostface uses his knowledge of horror films to abide by certain rules used to terrorize and stalk victims, the most notable being Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell). Together with local law enforcement officer Dewey Riley (David Arquette) and tabloid reporter Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox), Sidney has survived three massacres that have followed her everywhere, from college to Hollywood, and claimed friends, family, and enemies. Scream 4 picks up on the fifteenth anniversary of the original Woodsboro murders, with Sidney returning home to promote her new book and Sheriff Dewey and his wife Gale fighting boredom. Peace is shattered when Ghostface reappears, now terrorizing Sidney’s younger cousin Jill (Emma Roberts) and Jill’s friends Kirby (Heroes’ Hayden Panettiere), Robbie (Eric Knudsen), and Charlie (Signs’ Rory Culkin). As notorious film buffs, Robbie and Charlie work to inform everyone about the new rules to surviving a horror film, while Sidney, Gale, and Dewey work to solve and survive this newest batch of murders.
Easily the best part of Scream 4 is the sheer nostalgia factor of watching familiar characters tackle an old enemy again, making inside references to the past films that are sure to thrill fans of the series. For gore and violence junkies, Ghostface is at his murderous worst, tormenting and dispatching his victims with unwavering brutality, significantly upping the suspense factor in comparison to the earlier films. Of the original cast, Courtney Cox seems to enjoy her return the most, bringing an intensity and determination to Gale that reminds you why you love the character so much in the first place. As for the newcomers, it was also nice to see some of the younger actors step out of their comfort zones and take up the mantle of the new generation of slasher victims, Hayden Panettiere standing out as the humorous and supportive best friend. Finally, without spoiling anything, I have to compliment the climactic twist …I spent most of the film trying to reason out the killer’s identity, but nevertheless I was still impressed with the surprising (if not entirely plausible) reveal. As a fan, there was plenty for me to enjoy about Scream 4, but the end result was still far from perfect.
For as much as I enjoyed the trip down horror franchise memory lane that Scream 4 offered, the film ended up relying far too much on its own past without making any effort to lay the groundwork for a future. First off, this sequel offers even less of a back-story on the franchise than I did in the two sentences put forth above…if you are not familiar with Ghostface’s modus operandi or the histories connecting Sidney, Gale, and Dewey, all I can say is good luck figuring out what exactly is going on over the course of the film. As for the new victims, Scream 4 offers very little in terms of character development, because almost as soon as you are introduced to these fresh faces, they step off-screen only to reappear as victims for Ghostface. The presence of other well-known actors feels a little thrown together, as Anthony Anderson, Adam Brody, and Marley Shelton all appear in some capacity as police deputies and I couldn’t help but feel that they deserved more screen time. Scream 4 was positioned as both a sequel and reboot of the franchise, but the finished product just didn’t feel terribly unique, overtly thrilling, or altogether that necessary, and by and large the fans who have waited for 11 years for a return to Woodsboro deserved more…maybe it would have been better to leave the series alone. At one point Sidney yells at the killer: “Don’t f%#! with the original (referring to herself)”...perhaps the film should have followed similar advice.
While an opening weekend of nearly $18 million is nothing to scoff at, it is a relatively disappointing number for the sequel to an established franchise that was meant to renew overall audience interest in the slasher horror genre. Between domestic and international box office receipts, Dimension has already recovered its modest production budget of $40 million, but I still feel that small modifications in marketing tactics could have helped overall performance. The biggest problem involved the fact that the time gap between films was not adequately addressed: the key audiences who would have flocked to a Scream film over 11 years ago have probably outgrown the horror genre, while the teenage and young adult audiences who make up key movie-going demographics today were too young to appreciate the franchise back when it was in its prime. Simply put, the studio’s marketing efforts weren’t aggressive enough; more trailers, sponsored events, product tie-ins, or even a re-release of the original films would have gone a long way. There have been talks of Scream 4 being the start of a new trilogy, but for that to be justified, profits and quality are going to have to soar…fans should definitely see this sequel in theaters, but the uninitiated will be far better off renting from Netflix or Redbox after having learned from the trilogy that defined 90’s horror.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Friday, April 29, 2011
Rio: Short and Sweet
Ever since I started this blog last May, I have reviewed numerous animated films, and though those from the 2010 Summer Movie Season were of an undeniably high quality (Toy Story 3 is an Oscar-winner and Despicable Me surprised everyone), some of the more recent entries have drastically failed to live up to their potential (Megamind, Rango, and Hop). Because of this faltering performance level, I admit that I was a little skeptical concerning Rio, but given the reputation of Blue Key Studios and their work on the Ice Age series, there was a chance that this latest animated entry would be a pleasant surprise. At the very least, it would be worth seeing Rio for the star-studded voice-cast, which included Jesse Eisenberg, Anne Hathaway, George Lopez, and surprise additions Jamie Foxx and Will.i.am. As the last true family film before the new Summer Movie Season, marketing for Rio was understandably aggressive, positioning the animated adventure as a mixture of humor, heart, and style. 3D glasses in-hand, I was ready for Rio.
Critics have been branding Rio as the “greatest animated triumph since Toy Story 3,” and I am happy to report that I couldn’t agree more…the film is nothing short of fantastic. The A-list cast brings humorous and completely entertaining characters to life that you won’t soon forget; whether it is Jesse Eisenberg’s socially-awkward Blu or Tracy Morgan’s endearingly idiotic Luiz. The energetic and diegetic soundtrack also had the characters breaking into song in ways that brought back pleasant memories from the Disney Renaissance. Set against impressive animation that is actually worth seeing in 3D (a rarity these days), Rio also had a surprising amount of heart and romance which was generated by the two main characters, Blu and Jewel; I do realize I’m commenting on the chemistry between animated characters, but give me a break…people still swoon over the ides of Aladdin and Princess Jasmine together. Rio may not be the best animated film I have ever seen, but it has definitely earned its place among the contenders for the title.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Critics have been branding Rio as the “greatest animated triumph since Toy Story 3,” and I am happy to report that I couldn’t agree more…the film is nothing short of fantastic. The A-list cast brings humorous and completely entertaining characters to life that you won’t soon forget; whether it is Jesse Eisenberg’s socially-awkward Blu or Tracy Morgan’s endearingly idiotic Luiz. The energetic and diegetic soundtrack also had the characters breaking into song in ways that brought back pleasant memories from the Disney Renaissance. Set against impressive animation that is actually worth seeing in 3D (a rarity these days), Rio also had a surprising amount of heart and romance which was generated by the two main characters, Blu and Jewel; I do realize I’m commenting on the chemistry between animated characters, but give me a break…people still swoon over the ides of Aladdin and Princess Jasmine together. Rio may not be the best animated film I have ever seen, but it has definitely earned its place among the contenders for the title.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Rio: Full Review
Rio - (April 15, 2011): G
Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $39,225,962
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $89,227,015
Gross Revenue: $316,417,691
Budget: $90 million
Director: Carlos Saldanha
If you really think about it, the willingness of A-list actors to include themselves in the voice-cast of an animated feature isn’t that surprising…what better way to be immortalized than to be associated with an animated character that will be adored by children for generations? That being said though, the immortal status of these characters doesn’t automatically guarantee a high-quality film, a fact that I have been particularly vocal about in my past reviews. Still, despite the fact that it has yet to reach the track-record and reputation of Disney-Pixar, Blue Sky Studios has had a number of past successes, such as the Ice Age series, Robots (2005) and Dr. Seuss’ Horton Hears a Who!(2008). With an aggressive marketing campaign, 20th Century Fox was clearly shooting for another powerhouse franchise, attaching the trailer to a number of films and partnering with Rovio Mobile to promote a licensed version of the wildly popular Angry Birds game. As a fan of both Jesse Eisenberg and Hathaway, I was curious to see what they could accomplish together as animated characters, and with the trailers highlighting some clever jokes, I actually found myself very excited for Rio.
The central character of Rio is a neurotic Spix Macaw named Blu (Eisenberg), who was taken from the wild in his youth, and has since been raised and domesticated by the kind-hearted human Linda (Leslie Mann). Once it is discovered that Blu is the last male of his kind, Linda brings him to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where it is hoped that he will mate with the last female of his kind…the free-spirited and sarcastic Jewel (Hathaway). Unfortunately, the rare status of these two animals leads to them quickly being stolen by smugglers, and even though they eventually escape from confinement, their efforts towards freedom are hampered by the fact that they are chained together and Blu is unable to fly. Being chased by one of the smuggler’s sadistic Cockatoo, Nigel (Flight of the Concord's Jermaine Clement), Blu and Jewel seek help from the friendly toucan, Rafael (George Lopez), the musical Cardinal and Canary team of Pedro (Will.i.am) and Nico (Jamie Foxx), and the lovably dimwitted Bulldog, Luiz (Tracy Morgan). With the upcoming celebration of Carnivale contributing to the hectic surrounding environment, Blu and Jewel’s attraction to each other only grows as they work together to evade their pursuers and find their way to safety.
The above plot description may sound a little overly convoluted, but this shortcoming is easily forgiven in light of the fantastic characters that populate the film and are brought to life by the voice-cast. Blu channels far more of the neurotic charm that made Eisenberg famous with Zombieland than the smug overconfidence he exuded in The Social Network, while Hathaway’s Jewel allows the actress to demonstrate a surprising capacity for humor and sarcasm; together, despite the apparent mismatch, the two make a surprisingly sweet and endearing couple. Like I expected, George Lopez and Tracy Morgan were funny, but the real surprises came from other members of the cast; not only did Jamie Foxx and Will.i.am end up delivering a surprising amount of clever jokes, but they also contributed a significant style to the soundtrack. As I write this review, I have the upbeat songs from Rio playing in the background; catchy music weaved into the storyline and sung by the actual characters is an element that has been conspicuously absent from recent animated films, and Rio brings it back in such way that rivals many of Disney’s musical classics. With this effective blend of romantic chemistry, humor, and music, Rio is a surprisingly strong entry in the animated genre that is sure to please audiences young and old alike.
Given how much I enjoyed Rio, there really aren’t that many criticisms that I have concerning the film. If anything, I would say that a few of the characters are largely unnecessary to the overall story; in addition to those mentioned in the above plot synopsis, there is also a young boy and a fellow researcher who aid Linda in her search for Blu, but they are almost instantaneously forgettable and easily overshadowed by the other dominant personalities present. And for as funny as Rio is, there were some jokes that definitely fell flat trying to pander a little too strongly to younger audience members; I’m sure some kids might actually resent the patronizing manner in which some of the humor comes off…luckily the most common culprit of this misstep is one of the forgettable characters. Now, I have gotten used to criticizing the wasted use of 3D technology in most films, but it actually works quite well with the expansive environments and chase scenes that populate Rio…it is well worth forking over a few extra bucks to watch Blu and Jewel fly towards you. So, other than a few forgivable shortcomings, this latest family comedy remains a largely enjoyable animated film that you can just sit back and enjoy.
By all accounts, given the box office performance of Rio, 20th Century Fox has a long and lucrative animated franchise to look forward to cultivating as a supplement for the Ice Age series (on a side note, a small and enjoyable teaser for the new Ice Age featuring that awesome prehistoric squirrel Scrat does accompany the opening previews). Rio took in almost $40 million it’s opening weekend, more than enough to claim the title of strongest opening for 2011, and in two weeks, international receipts have contributed to a total box office haul of over $300 million; that’s more than enough to cover the $90 million production budget. Critics have been raving about Rio, and I really don’t see momentum for the film slowing down; despite the numerous offerings of the upcoming Summer Movie Season, Rio won’t face any direct competition in the family segment until Kung Fu Panda 2 hits theaters on May 26th. If you have been disappointed with recent animated offerings, Rio is sure to pick up your spirits, and at the very least I guarantee that you will be humming the soundtrack for weeks; unfortunately the best song is only available as “Album Only”…damn you iTunes!!! While it may not tug at the heart strings as much as Toy Story 3 (indeed, few films do), Rio remains a smart and surprising animated adventure that is a definite must-see.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $39,225,962
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $89,227,015
Gross Revenue: $316,417,691
Budget: $90 million
Director: Carlos Saldanha
If you really think about it, the willingness of A-list actors to include themselves in the voice-cast of an animated feature isn’t that surprising…what better way to be immortalized than to be associated with an animated character that will be adored by children for generations? That being said though, the immortal status of these characters doesn’t automatically guarantee a high-quality film, a fact that I have been particularly vocal about in my past reviews. Still, despite the fact that it has yet to reach the track-record and reputation of Disney-Pixar, Blue Sky Studios has had a number of past successes, such as the Ice Age series, Robots (2005) and Dr. Seuss’ Horton Hears a Who!(2008). With an aggressive marketing campaign, 20th Century Fox was clearly shooting for another powerhouse franchise, attaching the trailer to a number of films and partnering with Rovio Mobile to promote a licensed version of the wildly popular Angry Birds game. As a fan of both Jesse Eisenberg and Hathaway, I was curious to see what they could accomplish together as animated characters, and with the trailers highlighting some clever jokes, I actually found myself very excited for Rio.
The central character of Rio is a neurotic Spix Macaw named Blu (Eisenberg), who was taken from the wild in his youth, and has since been raised and domesticated by the kind-hearted human Linda (Leslie Mann). Once it is discovered that Blu is the last male of his kind, Linda brings him to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where it is hoped that he will mate with the last female of his kind…the free-spirited and sarcastic Jewel (Hathaway). Unfortunately, the rare status of these two animals leads to them quickly being stolen by smugglers, and even though they eventually escape from confinement, their efforts towards freedom are hampered by the fact that they are chained together and Blu is unable to fly. Being chased by one of the smuggler’s sadistic Cockatoo, Nigel (Flight of the Concord's Jermaine Clement), Blu and Jewel seek help from the friendly toucan, Rafael (George Lopez), the musical Cardinal and Canary team of Pedro (Will.i.am) and Nico (Jamie Foxx), and the lovably dimwitted Bulldog, Luiz (Tracy Morgan). With the upcoming celebration of Carnivale contributing to the hectic surrounding environment, Blu and Jewel’s attraction to each other only grows as they work together to evade their pursuers and find their way to safety.
The above plot description may sound a little overly convoluted, but this shortcoming is easily forgiven in light of the fantastic characters that populate the film and are brought to life by the voice-cast. Blu channels far more of the neurotic charm that made Eisenberg famous with Zombieland than the smug overconfidence he exuded in The Social Network, while Hathaway’s Jewel allows the actress to demonstrate a surprising capacity for humor and sarcasm; together, despite the apparent mismatch, the two make a surprisingly sweet and endearing couple. Like I expected, George Lopez and Tracy Morgan were funny, but the real surprises came from other members of the cast; not only did Jamie Foxx and Will.i.am end up delivering a surprising amount of clever jokes, but they also contributed a significant style to the soundtrack. As I write this review, I have the upbeat songs from Rio playing in the background; catchy music weaved into the storyline and sung by the actual characters is an element that has been conspicuously absent from recent animated films, and Rio brings it back in such way that rivals many of Disney’s musical classics. With this effective blend of romantic chemistry, humor, and music, Rio is a surprisingly strong entry in the animated genre that is sure to please audiences young and old alike.
Given how much I enjoyed Rio, there really aren’t that many criticisms that I have concerning the film. If anything, I would say that a few of the characters are largely unnecessary to the overall story; in addition to those mentioned in the above plot synopsis, there is also a young boy and a fellow researcher who aid Linda in her search for Blu, but they are almost instantaneously forgettable and easily overshadowed by the other dominant personalities present. And for as funny as Rio is, there were some jokes that definitely fell flat trying to pander a little too strongly to younger audience members; I’m sure some kids might actually resent the patronizing manner in which some of the humor comes off…luckily the most common culprit of this misstep is one of the forgettable characters. Now, I have gotten used to criticizing the wasted use of 3D technology in most films, but it actually works quite well with the expansive environments and chase scenes that populate Rio…it is well worth forking over a few extra bucks to watch Blu and Jewel fly towards you. So, other than a few forgivable shortcomings, this latest family comedy remains a largely enjoyable animated film that you can just sit back and enjoy.
By all accounts, given the box office performance of Rio, 20th Century Fox has a long and lucrative animated franchise to look forward to cultivating as a supplement for the Ice Age series (on a side note, a small and enjoyable teaser for the new Ice Age featuring that awesome prehistoric squirrel Scrat does accompany the opening previews). Rio took in almost $40 million it’s opening weekend, more than enough to claim the title of strongest opening for 2011, and in two weeks, international receipts have contributed to a total box office haul of over $300 million; that’s more than enough to cover the $90 million production budget. Critics have been raving about Rio, and I really don’t see momentum for the film slowing down; despite the numerous offerings of the upcoming Summer Movie Season, Rio won’t face any direct competition in the family segment until Kung Fu Panda 2 hits theaters on May 26th. If you have been disappointed with recent animated offerings, Rio is sure to pick up your spirits, and at the very least I guarantee that you will be humming the soundtrack for weeks; unfortunately the best song is only available as “Album Only”…damn you iTunes!!! While it may not tug at the heart strings as much as Toy Story 3 (indeed, few films do), Rio remains a smart and surprising animated adventure that is a definite must-see.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Your Highness: Short and Sweet
It really is a shame that more mainstream audiences don’t appreciate the talent of Danny McBride, who is responsible for some of my favorite comedic characters, such as the stunt engineer/looter Rico from Hot Rod; the pyromaniac Cody from Tropic Thunder; and the seemingly immortal drug dealer Red from Pineapple Express. After hearing that he was going to be taking the lead as the bumbling warrior Thadeous, I was completely sold on Your Highness, and the fact that he would be joined by both Natalie Portman and James Franco only sweetened the deal. Given the recent critical accolades received by Portman and Franco for Black Swan and 127 Hours respectively, their inclusion in this fantasy comedy was a little strange, but trailers played to this disconnect and still promised some serious laughs. Director David Gordon Green had previously paired McBride and Franco together with surprisingly successful results in 2008’s Pineapple Express, blending legitimate action with gratuitous stoner humor…who’s to say he couldn’t do the same using medieval mythology? It was obvious early on that Your Highness wasn’t going to deliver breathtaking storytelling or award-winning acting, but I was fairly certain that I would still walk away quoting the film for months.
Well, as expected, the story behind Your Highness was absolutely terrible, abandoning any form of narrative flow or basic logic in favor of simplistic references to medieval culture, many of which were embarrassingly bad. But for as weak as this usually necessary component of filmmaking really was, it was hard to care when faced with the unbelievably hysterical quotes and scenarios that were presented to the audience. Danny McBride and James Franco demonstrate considerable comedic talent and timing playing off each other with a strong amount of obvious ad-libbing, but the real surprises came from the female cast members. Zooey Deschanel was pleasantly funny, if slightly underused, but Natalie Portman stole the screen with a combination of sex appeal, kick-ass attitude, and an unexpectedly edgy sense of humor. The raunchy jokes and weak story of Your Highness limits the film’s appeal to male audiences between the ages of 18 and 35, but in being part of that demographic, I have no problem in saying that I enjoyed this newest comedy.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Well, as expected, the story behind Your Highness was absolutely terrible, abandoning any form of narrative flow or basic logic in favor of simplistic references to medieval culture, many of which were embarrassingly bad. But for as weak as this usually necessary component of filmmaking really was, it was hard to care when faced with the unbelievably hysterical quotes and scenarios that were presented to the audience. Danny McBride and James Franco demonstrate considerable comedic talent and timing playing off each other with a strong amount of obvious ad-libbing, but the real surprises came from the female cast members. Zooey Deschanel was pleasantly funny, if slightly underused, but Natalie Portman stole the screen with a combination of sex appeal, kick-ass attitude, and an unexpectedly edgy sense of humor. The raunchy jokes and weak story of Your Highness limits the film’s appeal to male audiences between the ages of 18 and 35, but in being part of that demographic, I have no problem in saying that I enjoyed this newest comedy.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Your Highness: Full Review
Your Highness - (April 8, 2011): R
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #6 with $9,360,020
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $16,520,995
Gross Revenue: $16,560,491
Budget: $50 million
Director: David Gordon Green
As I mentioned in the Short and Sweet review, I have been a fan of Danny McBride’s films for quite some time, but he has also built a considerable fanbase on the smaller screen as the lead of HBO’s immensely popular series Eastbound & Down. Based on these past successes, it wasn’t that imaginable to think that McBride could handle leading his own feature comedy, especially one in which he also had writer and executive producer credits. James Franco seemed like a natural choice to work with McBride, as he has demonstrated comedic talent in the past, even if that perception was weakened by his god-awful performance while hosting the Oscars. I myself was most curious about Natalie Portman’s inclusion …sure, she looked hot enough in the previews to make me forget as she had thoroughly unnerved me by pulling out fingernails and sprouting feathers in Black Swan, but that was no guarantee that she could hold her own in a comedy. Either way, I was looking for a good laugh and loved that trailers played off of Franco and Portman’s critical accolades (Best Actor nominee/Best Actress winner) being matched against McBride’s less-recognized brand of humor (one trailer did point out that he was 5th grade class president…way to go); in the end, Your Highness definitely seemed worth seeing.
Borrowing medieval fantasy elements from everything along the lines of The Lord of the Rings or Dungeons and Dragons, Your Highness introduces audiences to royal siblings Thadeous (McBride) and Fabious (Franco). The typical mythology hero, Fabious is brave and honorable, while Thadeous is crude, lazy, and almost consistently stoned; though the two get along well enough, Thadeous still seeks some way to prove himself, and he gets his chance when Fabious’ virgin bride Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel) is kidnapped by the evil sorcerer Leezar (Justin Theroux). Accompanied by Thadeous’ faithful manservant Courtney (Rasmus Hardiker), the two brothers set off to save Belladonna and face everything from nymphs and bandits to dragons and wizards, quickly learning that they must retrieve the fabled Sword of Unicorn to defeat Leezar. Things take an interesting turn when the adventurers encounter the mysterious and beautiful warrior Isabel (Portman), who is also determined to defeat Leezar and instantaneously gains Thadeous’ attention. Despite his lack of enthusiasm (often exclaiming: “This quest sucks!”), Thadeous soon finds that he must move beyond his old tendencies and discover the hero within.
If the above plot description sounds slightly ridiculous, then your instincts are dead-on, but that just means that there was plenty of material to be used for considerable humor. Granted, few of the jokes were overtly clever, but that didn’t stop me from consistently laughing for roughly ninety percent of the film…McBride would often go off on rants that were nothing short of hysterical. I have heard rumors that a majority of the film was ad-libbed, with the actors only having a rough idea of a plot outline, and though some story-telling elements clearly suffered, the end result was still funny and immensely quotable. Another noteworthy element involved the special effects and set designs present…just as Pineapple Express had legitimate elements of a true action film, Your Highness oftentimes channeled some impressive references and tributes to medieval mythology. The inclusion of Zooey Deschanel and Natalie Portman was also enjoyable, as both were sexy and surprising funny, so that element alone is sure to fill some seats. Still, plenty of weak elements have prevented many from fully appreciating the stupid and crude humor of Your Highness.
For as much as I laughed during Your Highness, I couldn’t completely ignore the extremely weak and lazy story present, a problem that is only compounded when you consider that the film’s humor did take some time to get off the ground…within the first ten minutes, I considered that I may have made a mistake in buying a ticket for this “comedy.” Sure, Danny McBride was able to make the end product funny enough, but I feel that the overall project would have greatly benefited from some refined narrative work. In even admitting this criticism though, I feel compelled to qualify it by stating that no one should have gone into this film with high expectations or the belief that any plot element would be taken seriously. The title alone should have been enough to prepare audiences for the tone that would be presented, and along those same lines I am surprised that some critics have been complaining about the overtly crude humor. Your Highness is an R-rated comedy that did everything in its power to earn such a classification, and as long as you accept that, then there shouldn’t be too many surprises.
Unfortunately, McBride’s fanbase may not be as large as Universal Pictures initially believed, debuting at a disappointing sixth place with just over $9 million. With a production budget of $50 million, limited audience interest that is sure to plummet in the face of the upcoming Summer Movie Season, and a virtually non-existent overseas presence, the studio may regret putting so much money into those impressive effects and set pieces I mentioned earlier. Admittedly, an R-rated comedy was going to have trouble when pit against the carryover from Hop’s opening weekend and the new releases of the more family-friendly Arthur, inspiring Soul Surfer, or thrilling Hanna, but I still expected the star power of Franco and Portman to draw a larger crowd. Maybe the subject matter just appealed to too limited of a crowd…as I said earlier, college males have plenty to enjoy with this film, but I wouldn’t recommend that any of them bring along a girlfriend. Don’t expect too much, and I’m sure you’ll delight in quoting Your Highness to others, but beyond that, there isn’t much present that you need to rush to the theater to see.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #6 with $9,360,020
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $16,520,995
Gross Revenue: $16,560,491
Budget: $50 million
Director: David Gordon Green
As I mentioned in the Short and Sweet review, I have been a fan of Danny McBride’s films for quite some time, but he has also built a considerable fanbase on the smaller screen as the lead of HBO’s immensely popular series Eastbound & Down. Based on these past successes, it wasn’t that imaginable to think that McBride could handle leading his own feature comedy, especially one in which he also had writer and executive producer credits. James Franco seemed like a natural choice to work with McBride, as he has demonstrated comedic talent in the past, even if that perception was weakened by his god-awful performance while hosting the Oscars. I myself was most curious about Natalie Portman’s inclusion …sure, she looked hot enough in the previews to make me forget as she had thoroughly unnerved me by pulling out fingernails and sprouting feathers in Black Swan, but that was no guarantee that she could hold her own in a comedy. Either way, I was looking for a good laugh and loved that trailers played off of Franco and Portman’s critical accolades (Best Actor nominee/Best Actress winner) being matched against McBride’s less-recognized brand of humor (one trailer did point out that he was 5th grade class president…way to go); in the end, Your Highness definitely seemed worth seeing.
Borrowing medieval fantasy elements from everything along the lines of The Lord of the Rings or Dungeons and Dragons, Your Highness introduces audiences to royal siblings Thadeous (McBride) and Fabious (Franco). The typical mythology hero, Fabious is brave and honorable, while Thadeous is crude, lazy, and almost consistently stoned; though the two get along well enough, Thadeous still seeks some way to prove himself, and he gets his chance when Fabious’ virgin bride Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel) is kidnapped by the evil sorcerer Leezar (Justin Theroux). Accompanied by Thadeous’ faithful manservant Courtney (Rasmus Hardiker), the two brothers set off to save Belladonna and face everything from nymphs and bandits to dragons and wizards, quickly learning that they must retrieve the fabled Sword of Unicorn to defeat Leezar. Things take an interesting turn when the adventurers encounter the mysterious and beautiful warrior Isabel (Portman), who is also determined to defeat Leezar and instantaneously gains Thadeous’ attention. Despite his lack of enthusiasm (often exclaiming: “This quest sucks!”), Thadeous soon finds that he must move beyond his old tendencies and discover the hero within.
If the above plot description sounds slightly ridiculous, then your instincts are dead-on, but that just means that there was plenty of material to be used for considerable humor. Granted, few of the jokes were overtly clever, but that didn’t stop me from consistently laughing for roughly ninety percent of the film…McBride would often go off on rants that were nothing short of hysterical. I have heard rumors that a majority of the film was ad-libbed, with the actors only having a rough idea of a plot outline, and though some story-telling elements clearly suffered, the end result was still funny and immensely quotable. Another noteworthy element involved the special effects and set designs present…just as Pineapple Express had legitimate elements of a true action film, Your Highness oftentimes channeled some impressive references and tributes to medieval mythology. The inclusion of Zooey Deschanel and Natalie Portman was also enjoyable, as both were sexy and surprising funny, so that element alone is sure to fill some seats. Still, plenty of weak elements have prevented many from fully appreciating the stupid and crude humor of Your Highness.
For as much as I laughed during Your Highness, I couldn’t completely ignore the extremely weak and lazy story present, a problem that is only compounded when you consider that the film’s humor did take some time to get off the ground…within the first ten minutes, I considered that I may have made a mistake in buying a ticket for this “comedy.” Sure, Danny McBride was able to make the end product funny enough, but I feel that the overall project would have greatly benefited from some refined narrative work. In even admitting this criticism though, I feel compelled to qualify it by stating that no one should have gone into this film with high expectations or the belief that any plot element would be taken seriously. The title alone should have been enough to prepare audiences for the tone that would be presented, and along those same lines I am surprised that some critics have been complaining about the overtly crude humor. Your Highness is an R-rated comedy that did everything in its power to earn such a classification, and as long as you accept that, then there shouldn’t be too many surprises.
Unfortunately, McBride’s fanbase may not be as large as Universal Pictures initially believed, debuting at a disappointing sixth place with just over $9 million. With a production budget of $50 million, limited audience interest that is sure to plummet in the face of the upcoming Summer Movie Season, and a virtually non-existent overseas presence, the studio may regret putting so much money into those impressive effects and set pieces I mentioned earlier. Admittedly, an R-rated comedy was going to have trouble when pit against the carryover from Hop’s opening weekend and the new releases of the more family-friendly Arthur, inspiring Soul Surfer, or thrilling Hanna, but I still expected the star power of Franco and Portman to draw a larger crowd. Maybe the subject matter just appealed to too limited of a crowd…as I said earlier, college males have plenty to enjoy with this film, but I wouldn’t recommend that any of them bring along a girlfriend. Don’t expect too much, and I’m sure you’ll delight in quoting Your Highness to others, but beyond that, there isn’t much present that you need to rush to the theater to see.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Monday, April 18, 2011
Limitless: Short and Sweet
Though I will always remember him for his role as the sleazy villain in 2005’s Wedding Crashers, Bradley Cooper will always be most strongly associated with 2009’s surprise hit The Hangover. Ever since he stood out as the sarcastic leader of “the wolfpack,” Cooper’s popularity and success in Hollywood has been skyrocketing, despite a few significant missteps; still, Limitless would represent his first chance to headline a release as the singular lead character. In addition to Cooper’s star-power, two elements helped generate considerable buzz for this stylized techno-thriller, the first being the distinct premise and the second involving the inclusion of Hollywood heavyweight Robert De Niro. The idea of a pill that could turn anyone into a super-genius was sure to play to the fantasies of countless audiences, while De Niro’s fan-base would no doubt delight in seeing him play a villainous Wall Street Shark. Trailers promised a smart and unique thriller, and as a fan of both actors, I had high hopes for Limitless.
I knew that Limitless was going to be entertaining, but in the end I was still pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the final product. Bradley Cooper goes above and beyond proving that he can do far more than just try and recover from a wild night in Vegas, as his energy and charisma on-screen grabs the audience early on and refuses to let go until the end credits roll. Robert De Niro also shines as the white-collar antagonist, using his experience to grant the character the perfect threatening demeanor; he and Cooper end up playing off each other quite well. The imaginative story blends suspense, mystery, and a surprising amount of humor, all of which are only enhanced by clever cinematography and a distinct production design. Unfortunately, the energetic pacing of the film lets a few too many plot elements slip through the cracks and generate questions that ultimately go unanswered, but in all likelihood audiences will be so charmed by the film that they should be more than willing to forgive this mild discrepancy.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
I knew that Limitless was going to be entertaining, but in the end I was still pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the final product. Bradley Cooper goes above and beyond proving that he can do far more than just try and recover from a wild night in Vegas, as his energy and charisma on-screen grabs the audience early on and refuses to let go until the end credits roll. Robert De Niro also shines as the white-collar antagonist, using his experience to grant the character the perfect threatening demeanor; he and Cooper end up playing off each other quite well. The imaginative story blends suspense, mystery, and a surprising amount of humor, all of which are only enhanced by clever cinematography and a distinct production design. Unfortunately, the energetic pacing of the film lets a few too many plot elements slip through the cracks and generate questions that ultimately go unanswered, but in all likelihood audiences will be so charmed by the film that they should be more than willing to forgive this mild discrepancy.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Limitless: Full Review
Limitless - (March 18, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: Relativity Media
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $18,907,302
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $69,723,000
Gross Revenue: $100,323,000
Budget: $27 million
Director: Neil Burger
For all of his success, closer inspection does reveal that Bradley Cooper’s quality of work in Hollywood has been slightly uneven; sure we all loved him in The Hangover and his performance in The A-team was one of the better elements in the otherwise disappointing film, but I’m sure we would all like to forget the critically-panned All About Steve and the decisively under-performing Case 39. Though his best work usually comes when he is part of an ensemble, Cooper’s individual popularity among audiences is undeniable, and so many were undoubtedly curious to see what he could do in his first true leading role. Based on the 2001 novel The Dark Fields by Alan Glynn, Limitless was initially developed by Universal with Shia LaBeouf attached to the lead role, but the project eventually found its way to Relativity Media and Cooper was cast as the protagonist. While the combined star-power of Cooper and Robert De Niro would have probably been enough to generate some impressive ticket sales, marketing efforts were clearly geared towards the premise of Limitless, the idea of transforming into a rich and successful savant virtually overnight playing to audience’s deepest success fantasies; as Cooper put it in the trailer: How many of us know what it is to become the perfect versions of ourselves?” Based on that imaginative appeal alone, I knew I had to see this thriller.
Limitless introduces audiences to struggling New York City author Eddie Morra (Cooper), who is struggling with everything from book deadlines and rent payments to the heartbreak resulting from his recently being dumped by his longtime girlfriend, Lindy (Sucker Punch’s Abbie Cornish). After running into his ex-brother-in-law, a low-level drug dealer, Eddie is offered a sample of NZT-48, a new wonder drug that will allegedly allow him to access 100% of his brain’s power. Almost instantaneously after taking the drug, Eddie is transformed into a super genius, remembering innocuous details with encyclopedic accuracy and uncovering patterns and details with superhuman efficiency (he is able to finish writing his book in a matter of days and learns foreign languages just by casually listening to conversations). Once he gets his hands on a steady supply of NZT, Eddie not only takes Wall Street by storm, amassing an impressive fortune and attracting the attention of powerful businessman Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro), but he also smoothly wins back the affections of Lindy. Unfortunately, Eddie soon begins to experience some adverse side-effects to the wonder drug, a complication only further aggravated by the fact that his success is attracting some very unwanted attention from the authorities, mobsters, and a mysterious assassin. With all of these complications, Eddie must decide if his newfound success is worth either his safety or sanity.
Maybe this has something to do with my status as an overworked grad student, but I’m sure that everyone at one time or another has fantasized about being a super-genius capable of achieving success with incredible ease, and that fact is what makes Limitless so entertaining. Bradley Cooper brings such charisma, humor, and energy to his role that you simply can’t wait to see what impressive mental feat he will accomplish next; you are not jealous of Eddie’s success, you idolize it. Combine that fact with his ability to hold his own against veteran Robert De Niro (who shines as a subtly threatening antagonist that audiences know not to cross), and Cooper proves that he has more than enough talent to skyrocket forward as Hollywood’s next go-to A-lister. This strong acting and intriguing premise are only further enhanced by the unique cinematography and production design; placing Eddie in exotic locales and luxury penthouses demonstrates the scale and desirability of his success, while erratic camera angles combine with the punctuated narrative flow and disorienting visual effects to help give the audience a true sense of the jumps in time that Eddie experiences as a side effect of the drug. Taken in its entirety, Limitless is a fast-paced, thrilling, and thoroughly entertaining film, but it is not without certain imperfections.
For as much as I enjoyed Limitless, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out a few of the discrepancies that hurt the overall quality of the film, the most obvious having to do with the overall pacing and bloated plot elements. Again, I loved the premise of taking a pill and going super-genius, and I understand how the fast pacing complements the energetic narrative, but it seems like the filmmakers simply tried to cram too much into one film. At times the plot moves so fast and introduces so many intellectual obstacles for the protagonist to solve that it becomes difficult to keep track of every problem or character presented. I found myself asking questions throughout in order to try and keep every element of the story straight, and even now I must admit that I still have unanswered questions. While this shortcoming is disappointing, the overall quality of Limitless makes such a criticism trivial at best; don’t over-think what you see on screen, simply sit back and enjoy.
Despite the strong buzz surrounding Limitless, analysts were still surprised by the film’s performance its opening weekend, beating out strong competition in the form of The Lincoln Lawyer and Paul to take the top spot with just under $19 million. Strong word-of-mouth has helped Limitless maintain an impressive domestic performance, and international box office receipts only further solidify the financial success of a thriller with a relatively modest budget of $27 million; Relativity Media has to be pleased with this turn of events. If anything, Bradley Cooper has more than proven that he has considerable talent outside the comedy genre, but that doesn’t mean that I’m any less excited for The Hangover: Part II. Though the film isn’t perfect, Limitless is nevertheless very entertaining and a smart thriller that is well-worth seeing in theaters.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Relativity Media
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $18,907,302
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $69,723,000
Gross Revenue: $100,323,000
Budget: $27 million
Director: Neil Burger
For all of his success, closer inspection does reveal that Bradley Cooper’s quality of work in Hollywood has been slightly uneven; sure we all loved him in The Hangover and his performance in The A-team was one of the better elements in the otherwise disappointing film, but I’m sure we would all like to forget the critically-panned All About Steve and the decisively under-performing Case 39. Though his best work usually comes when he is part of an ensemble, Cooper’s individual popularity among audiences is undeniable, and so many were undoubtedly curious to see what he could do in his first true leading role. Based on the 2001 novel The Dark Fields by Alan Glynn, Limitless was initially developed by Universal with Shia LaBeouf attached to the lead role, but the project eventually found its way to Relativity Media and Cooper was cast as the protagonist. While the combined star-power of Cooper and Robert De Niro would have probably been enough to generate some impressive ticket sales, marketing efforts were clearly geared towards the premise of Limitless, the idea of transforming into a rich and successful savant virtually overnight playing to audience’s deepest success fantasies; as Cooper put it in the trailer: How many of us know what it is to become the perfect versions of ourselves?” Based on that imaginative appeal alone, I knew I had to see this thriller.
Limitless introduces audiences to struggling New York City author Eddie Morra (Cooper), who is struggling with everything from book deadlines and rent payments to the heartbreak resulting from his recently being dumped by his longtime girlfriend, Lindy (Sucker Punch’s Abbie Cornish). After running into his ex-brother-in-law, a low-level drug dealer, Eddie is offered a sample of NZT-48, a new wonder drug that will allegedly allow him to access 100% of his brain’s power. Almost instantaneously after taking the drug, Eddie is transformed into a super genius, remembering innocuous details with encyclopedic accuracy and uncovering patterns and details with superhuman efficiency (he is able to finish writing his book in a matter of days and learns foreign languages just by casually listening to conversations). Once he gets his hands on a steady supply of NZT, Eddie not only takes Wall Street by storm, amassing an impressive fortune and attracting the attention of powerful businessman Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro), but he also smoothly wins back the affections of Lindy. Unfortunately, Eddie soon begins to experience some adverse side-effects to the wonder drug, a complication only further aggravated by the fact that his success is attracting some very unwanted attention from the authorities, mobsters, and a mysterious assassin. With all of these complications, Eddie must decide if his newfound success is worth either his safety or sanity.
Maybe this has something to do with my status as an overworked grad student, but I’m sure that everyone at one time or another has fantasized about being a super-genius capable of achieving success with incredible ease, and that fact is what makes Limitless so entertaining. Bradley Cooper brings such charisma, humor, and energy to his role that you simply can’t wait to see what impressive mental feat he will accomplish next; you are not jealous of Eddie’s success, you idolize it. Combine that fact with his ability to hold his own against veteran Robert De Niro (who shines as a subtly threatening antagonist that audiences know not to cross), and Cooper proves that he has more than enough talent to skyrocket forward as Hollywood’s next go-to A-lister. This strong acting and intriguing premise are only further enhanced by the unique cinematography and production design; placing Eddie in exotic locales and luxury penthouses demonstrates the scale and desirability of his success, while erratic camera angles combine with the punctuated narrative flow and disorienting visual effects to help give the audience a true sense of the jumps in time that Eddie experiences as a side effect of the drug. Taken in its entirety, Limitless is a fast-paced, thrilling, and thoroughly entertaining film, but it is not without certain imperfections.
For as much as I enjoyed Limitless, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out a few of the discrepancies that hurt the overall quality of the film, the most obvious having to do with the overall pacing and bloated plot elements. Again, I loved the premise of taking a pill and going super-genius, and I understand how the fast pacing complements the energetic narrative, but it seems like the filmmakers simply tried to cram too much into one film. At times the plot moves so fast and introduces so many intellectual obstacles for the protagonist to solve that it becomes difficult to keep track of every problem or character presented. I found myself asking questions throughout in order to try and keep every element of the story straight, and even now I must admit that I still have unanswered questions. While this shortcoming is disappointing, the overall quality of Limitless makes such a criticism trivial at best; don’t over-think what you see on screen, simply sit back and enjoy.
Despite the strong buzz surrounding Limitless, analysts were still surprised by the film’s performance its opening weekend, beating out strong competition in the form of The Lincoln Lawyer and Paul to take the top spot with just under $19 million. Strong word-of-mouth has helped Limitless maintain an impressive domestic performance, and international box office receipts only further solidify the financial success of a thriller with a relatively modest budget of $27 million; Relativity Media has to be pleased with this turn of events. If anything, Bradley Cooper has more than proven that he has considerable talent outside the comedy genre, but that doesn’t mean that I’m any less excited for The Hangover: Part II. Though the film isn’t perfect, Limitless is nevertheless very entertaining and a smart thriller that is well-worth seeing in theaters.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Friday, April 8, 2011
Hop: Short and Sweet
Hollywood regularly exploits Christmas with numerous holiday season-themed films, but there haven’t been too many entries related to Easter mythology. My regular readers know that I am skeptical of any animated feature missing the Disney-Pixar seal of approval, but Hop gained some legitimacy with the fact that it was a product of Illumination Entertainment, the studio behind last summer’s Despicable Me. Given the immense range of licensed merchandised attached to Hop, it was clear that Universal was aiming to establish a huge franchise that would guarantee almost every child dragging their parents to the theater opening weekend. While I may not be a core member of the targeted audience for Hop who would be thrilled to discover the Easter Bunny’s deepest secrets, the fact that Russell Brand was voicing the main character was still a huge selling point. Trailers showcased an appealing lead character, an energetic soundtrack, and some clever jokes, so at the very least it looked like Hop would be good for a laugh or two.
Forgetting the fact that Russell Brand is known for a more adult brand of comedy, given the overall premise of the film and the sarcastic nature of the character he portrayed, the end result should have been far funnier. Hop has some impressive animation and downright adorable character models, but beyond that achievement, the film falls short because it simply panders too strongly to a child audience. Granted, this was a children’s film, but studios have been able to impressively blend clever humor into animation for years in order to make the experience not only bearable but also enjoyable for an older demographic (Toy Story 3 was nominated for Best Picture just two months ago); the tragedy is that, on this dimension, Hop doesn’t even try to appeal to those who actually brought the kids to the theater. Kids will delight in watching bunnies and chicks manufacture chocolate eggs, but parents should just be prepared to roll their eyes…frequently. Offering some brief levity and minimal cheap laughs, Hop is bearable, but if you are expecting the next Despicable Me, I hate to say that you are out of luck.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Forgetting the fact that Russell Brand is known for a more adult brand of comedy, given the overall premise of the film and the sarcastic nature of the character he portrayed, the end result should have been far funnier. Hop has some impressive animation and downright adorable character models, but beyond that achievement, the film falls short because it simply panders too strongly to a child audience. Granted, this was a children’s film, but studios have been able to impressively blend clever humor into animation for years in order to make the experience not only bearable but also enjoyable for an older demographic (Toy Story 3 was nominated for Best Picture just two months ago); the tragedy is that, on this dimension, Hop doesn’t even try to appeal to those who actually brought the kids to the theater. Kids will delight in watching bunnies and chicks manufacture chocolate eggs, but parents should just be prepared to roll their eyes…frequently. Offering some brief levity and minimal cheap laughs, Hop is bearable, but if you are expecting the next Despicable Me, I hate to say that you are out of luck.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Hop: Full Review
Hop - (April 1, 2011): PG
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $37,543,710
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $44,452,065
Gross Revenue: $51,188,076
Budget: $63 million
Director: Tim Hill
Unlike other animated films that begin their promotional activities several months ahead of release, Hop flew largely under the radar during the early stages of post-production, but once it did decide to announce its presence, it exploded onto the market with the most aggressive campaign I have ever seen outside of the Summer Movie Season. Universal teamed with ninety-two major companies to promote Hop, whether that involved Burger King toys, Kraft cookie-decorating kits, character clothing and costumes at Wal-Mart, or iPhone applications and video game adaptations. Though the studio itself is not known for animated features, Universal made sure that Hop had all the necessary credentials, partnering with Illumination Entertainment (Despicable Me) and attaching Director Tim Hill (Alvin and the Chipmunks). Hop’s live-action stars James Marsden and Kaley Cuoco may not be household names quite yet, but with a voice cast that included Russell Brand, Hugh Laurie, and veteran voice-talent Hank Azaria (The Simpsons), the film itself had plenty of star-power. Admittedly, after all of this promotion I still wasn’t sold, but a few clever jokes in the trailer and a familiar soundtrack was enough to compel me to try Hop for some lighthearted entertainment.
Hop introduces audiences to E.B. (Russell Brand), a teenaged rabbit who is set to succeed his father (Hugh Laurie) as the Easter Bunny. Unfortunately, E.B. does not want to accept the responsibility of the position and instead decides to run away to Hollywood in order to pursue his dream of becoming a professional drummer. Soon enough, E.B. comes into contact with irresponsible human Fred O’Hare (James Marsden); though he is initially alarmed by the talking rabbit, Fred does decide to help E.B. pursue audition opportunities (one of which involves David Hasselhoff). Though E.B. revels in his new found freedom, all is not well back home, as his father’s number two, the Easter Chick Carlos (Hank Azaria) decides to lead a coup d’état against the rabbits and take control of Easter. Together, E.B. and Fred must work together to effectively save Easter and ensure that all the time-honored traditions (chocolate egg, marshmallow peep, and jelly bean-filled baskets) remain intact.
It should be obvious from the aforementioned plot that Hop delves deeply into the children’s mythology of the Easter Holiday, and it brings all these traditions to life with considerable imagination and impressive animation. The opening sequence introducing the viewer to the Easter factory where all the candy is produced is sure to evoke some nostalgia concerning everyone’s favorite holiday treats, but the true quality element of the film is E.B. himself. As the lead character, E.B. not only has a heartwarming personality, but he is also just downright adorable (yeah I said it); and his qualities are only enhanced by Russell Brand’s voice-work. It is one of those rare instances where character and voice artist match perfectly, as no one else could have brought E.B. to life in as genuine a manner; one of the best scenes in the film involves a cameo by Russell Brand himself as a stage-hand who runs into E.B., and the awkward glances exchanged between the two are hysterical. On a small side note, Hop also contains an energetic and familiar soundtrack, adding welcome levity to a number of scenes. However, other than a likable character and impressive animation, Hop does little to distinguish itself as a memorable animated film.
Whether it is his stand-up routines or his live-action roles, I find Russell Brand hysterical, so it is a tragedy when his overall performance as E.B. barely generates a chuckle…in short, given the premise and voice-talent, Hop should have been much funnier. Dull animated characters with lackluster dialogue are disappointing enough, but add to that equation the fact that the live-action characters add nothing to the script. James Marsden tries his best to add some life to the film, but more often than not, his actions are simply silly and embarrassing (hard to believe that this is the same guy who left the X-men franchise in order to make “serious” films). The children in the audience will be thrilled by every animated character and sight-gag that crosses the screen, but there is almost nothing present in Hop to justify anyone over the age of nine sitting through the entire running time. I can understand how a young child might be alarmed at the prospect of the Easter Bunny being overthrown by Easter chicks, but that is hardly enough around which to build an entire plot. Nearly every review of an animated film that I have written in the past few months has commented on the clever blending of adult and child humor within a heartfelt story, and the increasingly conventional nature of these elements makes their absence from Hop all the more conspicuous.
Studio projections for Hop were shattered its opening weekend as it brought in $37.5 million, more than enough to take the title for second highest opening of 2011 behind Rango. To be fair, critics have shared many of my complaints concerning Hop, but that doesn’t seem to be affecting the strong family draw of the film. Still, given how much was actually spent to promote Hop, I would have liked to have seen slightly higher box office receipts for what was positioned as Hollywood’s next big family franchise. In all likelihood, 20th Century Fox’s Rio will take a large portion of Hop’s audience when it hits theaters on the 15th, so there is not a large amount of time for Universal to turn an impressive profit. Though novel, there simply aren’t enough elements to justify classifying Hop as a memorable entry in the animated genre that anyone should rush to the theater to see.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $37,543,710
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $44,452,065
Gross Revenue: $51,188,076
Budget: $63 million
Director: Tim Hill
Unlike other animated films that begin their promotional activities several months ahead of release, Hop flew largely under the radar during the early stages of post-production, but once it did decide to announce its presence, it exploded onto the market with the most aggressive campaign I have ever seen outside of the Summer Movie Season. Universal teamed with ninety-two major companies to promote Hop, whether that involved Burger King toys, Kraft cookie-decorating kits, character clothing and costumes at Wal-Mart, or iPhone applications and video game adaptations. Though the studio itself is not known for animated features, Universal made sure that Hop had all the necessary credentials, partnering with Illumination Entertainment (Despicable Me) and attaching Director Tim Hill (Alvin and the Chipmunks). Hop’s live-action stars James Marsden and Kaley Cuoco may not be household names quite yet, but with a voice cast that included Russell Brand, Hugh Laurie, and veteran voice-talent Hank Azaria (The Simpsons), the film itself had plenty of star-power. Admittedly, after all of this promotion I still wasn’t sold, but a few clever jokes in the trailer and a familiar soundtrack was enough to compel me to try Hop for some lighthearted entertainment.
Hop introduces audiences to E.B. (Russell Brand), a teenaged rabbit who is set to succeed his father (Hugh Laurie) as the Easter Bunny. Unfortunately, E.B. does not want to accept the responsibility of the position and instead decides to run away to Hollywood in order to pursue his dream of becoming a professional drummer. Soon enough, E.B. comes into contact with irresponsible human Fred O’Hare (James Marsden); though he is initially alarmed by the talking rabbit, Fred does decide to help E.B. pursue audition opportunities (one of which involves David Hasselhoff). Though E.B. revels in his new found freedom, all is not well back home, as his father’s number two, the Easter Chick Carlos (Hank Azaria) decides to lead a coup d’état against the rabbits and take control of Easter. Together, E.B. and Fred must work together to effectively save Easter and ensure that all the time-honored traditions (chocolate egg, marshmallow peep, and jelly bean-filled baskets) remain intact.
It should be obvious from the aforementioned plot that Hop delves deeply into the children’s mythology of the Easter Holiday, and it brings all these traditions to life with considerable imagination and impressive animation. The opening sequence introducing the viewer to the Easter factory where all the candy is produced is sure to evoke some nostalgia concerning everyone’s favorite holiday treats, but the true quality element of the film is E.B. himself. As the lead character, E.B. not only has a heartwarming personality, but he is also just downright adorable (yeah I said it); and his qualities are only enhanced by Russell Brand’s voice-work. It is one of those rare instances where character and voice artist match perfectly, as no one else could have brought E.B. to life in as genuine a manner; one of the best scenes in the film involves a cameo by Russell Brand himself as a stage-hand who runs into E.B., and the awkward glances exchanged between the two are hysterical. On a small side note, Hop also contains an energetic and familiar soundtrack, adding welcome levity to a number of scenes. However, other than a likable character and impressive animation, Hop does little to distinguish itself as a memorable animated film.
Whether it is his stand-up routines or his live-action roles, I find Russell Brand hysterical, so it is a tragedy when his overall performance as E.B. barely generates a chuckle…in short, given the premise and voice-talent, Hop should have been much funnier. Dull animated characters with lackluster dialogue are disappointing enough, but add to that equation the fact that the live-action characters add nothing to the script. James Marsden tries his best to add some life to the film, but more often than not, his actions are simply silly and embarrassing (hard to believe that this is the same guy who left the X-men franchise in order to make “serious” films). The children in the audience will be thrilled by every animated character and sight-gag that crosses the screen, but there is almost nothing present in Hop to justify anyone over the age of nine sitting through the entire running time. I can understand how a young child might be alarmed at the prospect of the Easter Bunny being overthrown by Easter chicks, but that is hardly enough around which to build an entire plot. Nearly every review of an animated film that I have written in the past few months has commented on the clever blending of adult and child humor within a heartfelt story, and the increasingly conventional nature of these elements makes their absence from Hop all the more conspicuous.
Studio projections for Hop were shattered its opening weekend as it brought in $37.5 million, more than enough to take the title for second highest opening of 2011 behind Rango. To be fair, critics have shared many of my complaints concerning Hop, but that doesn’t seem to be affecting the strong family draw of the film. Still, given how much was actually spent to promote Hop, I would have liked to have seen slightly higher box office receipts for what was positioned as Hollywood’s next big family franchise. In all likelihood, 20th Century Fox’s Rio will take a large portion of Hop’s audience when it hits theaters on the 15th, so there is not a large amount of time for Universal to turn an impressive profit. Though novel, there simply aren’t enough elements to justify classifying Hop as a memorable entry in the animated genre that anyone should rush to the theater to see.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Friday, April 1, 2011
Sucker Punch: Short and Sweet
When I first saw the trailer for Sucker Punch, I was understandably skeptical after having just watched a team of scantily-clad young women fight robots and giant dragons with superhuman efficiency. Now, as a comic book and video game-loving red-blooded male, I was obviously a key part of Sucker Punch’s limited target demographic, but regardless, the biggest selling-point for me was the involvement of Zack Snyder. After the distinct and utterly thrilling visual style that characterized personal favorites like 300 and Watchmen, I couldn’t wait to see what Snyder had in store for audiences this time around…though I was pretty confident that the premise wouldn’t leave much room for strong acting or dialogue. With a tag-line like “You Will Be Unprepared,” it was definitely going to take a few stretches of the imagination for me to fully wrap my head around Sucker Punch; but again, given my inherent proclivities for the action-fantasy genre, I was sure that I would be up to the challenge.
As expected, there certainly wasn’t any award-winning dialogue or acting present in Sucker Punch, but I was still thoroughly entertained. Easily the biggest highlight of the film is the grandiose visual style of the imaginative action sequences, but an added bonus involves the blending of these visuals with the distinct and thoroughly energetic soundtrack. The best example of this partnership is the opening sequence, a dark and stylistic introduction that engages audiences; unfortunately, the rest of the film isn’t able to sustain this level of intrigue, and as a result, the overall experience does feel like a little bit of a let-down. Now, while I do acknowledge the presence of some shockingly stupid plot elements, I still appreciated the story presented and the style in which it was told, but I doubt that my forgiving nature will manifest among a broader audience. Still, if you can shut your brain down long enough to just sit back and enjoy something that amounts to a live-action video game, then Sucker Punch is definitely worth seeing.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: High
As expected, there certainly wasn’t any award-winning dialogue or acting present in Sucker Punch, but I was still thoroughly entertained. Easily the biggest highlight of the film is the grandiose visual style of the imaginative action sequences, but an added bonus involves the blending of these visuals with the distinct and thoroughly energetic soundtrack. The best example of this partnership is the opening sequence, a dark and stylistic introduction that engages audiences; unfortunately, the rest of the film isn’t able to sustain this level of intrigue, and as a result, the overall experience does feel like a little bit of a let-down. Now, while I do acknowledge the presence of some shockingly stupid plot elements, I still appreciated the story presented and the style in which it was told, but I doubt that my forgiving nature will manifest among a broader audience. Still, if you can shut your brain down long enough to just sit back and enjoy something that amounts to a live-action video game, then Sucker Punch is definitely worth seeing.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: High
Sucker Punch: Full Review
Sucker Punch - (March 25, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $19,058,199
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $22,817,475
Gross Revenue: $28,310,371
Budget: $82 million
Director: Zack Snyder
As I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, I am a big fan of Zack Snyder’s work, so I was surprised to discover that Snyder actually began planning Sucker Punch before 2009’s Watchmen, thus illustrating that this newest adventure was nothing short of a passion project for the talented director. Now, a few questions were raised over the ensemble female cast (which included High School Musical’s Vanessa Hudgens) that would be thrown in the violent fantasy world of the film, but Snyder was adamant that Sucker Punch would critique the traditional objectification of women that pervades comic book and video game culture. Based on the inherent spirit of the film, positioning Sucker Punch for potential audiences was relatively simple; my personal favorite description was “Alice in Wonderland with machine guns.” Leading up to its release, Warner Bros. made sure posters and billboards for Sucker Punch were everywhere, and when you combine this aggressive push for audience awareness with Snyder’s already considerable fan-base, it was clear that the studio was hoping for an early spring blockbuster. Admittedly, between the female cast and fantasy-action sequences, Sucker Punch’s chief appeal would resonate most strongly with teenage and young-adult males, but that didn’t mean that Snyder still couldn’t produce a genuinely entertaining film.
Set in the 1950s with a narrative that makes use of what can best be described as layered reality; Sucker Punch introduces audiences to “Baby Doll” (Emily Browning), a young woman who has been recently institutionalized following the death of her sister and is scheduled to be lobotomized in five days since her sinister stepfather has bribed the chief orderly Blue Jones (Oscar Isaac) to fake the signature of the main therapist Dr. Vera Gorski (Carla Gugino). To cope with her situation, Baby Doll imagines the institution as a brothel run by Blue and Gorski where she and other dancers — Amber (Jamie Chung), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens), Rocket (Jena Malone), and Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish) — cater to a mob clientele. Baby Doll soon discovers a talent for a form of dancing that fully entrances those watching, and while dancing she retreats into yet another fantasy world where she and the other patients/dancers are instructed by a spiritual advisor, The Wise Man (Scott Glenn) to find five items — a map, fire, a knife, a key, and an unrevealed final element — that will allow them to escape. Now, the girls plan to steal the required items, and each time Baby Doll provides a distraction by dancing, she imagines the retrieval of each item in the form of different fantasy missions that pit the team against everything from demon samurai to Nazi zombies, which they dispatch using a combination of advanced weaponry and martial arts. With a distinct visual style, Sucker Punch encourages audiences to delve into their imaginations and follow an adventure that speaks to the personal empowerment and fight for freedom that these young women share in order to escape from a hellish reality.
If the plot I described above sounds like something best confined to the comic book or video game world, then you seem to have a pretty good grasp on the chief appeal of Sucker Punch, as the film can be seen as a testament to these two art forms. In fact, if you have ever let your imagination run wild, then you are sure to love the over-the-top fantasy sequences that use enough action and violence to send even the most casual of comic readers or gamers into geek overdrive. Zack Snyder’s distinct visual style permeates throughout the film, and when you combine that with a soundtrack that remixes classic rock-and-roll, the end-result is an undoubtedly energetic adventure. To be fair, I saw the film in IMAX, but I have no doubt that the visuals are still jaw-dropping in regular theaters. Even though the story is far from perfect and takes some time to comprehend, I still appreciate the unique way in which it is told…if you can stick with the plot throughout, the ending’s integration of the different realities within the film is not only interesting but genuinely thought-provoking. Yet, for as much as Sucker Punch delivers in terms visual style and action, the film is still hampered by some blatant shortcomings.
Even with the strong action sequences full of automatic weapons and mythical creatures, to say that Sucker Punch caters exclusively to the male demographic is still a pretty significant understatement, as everything from the brothel setting to the “tactical” armor worn by the girls plays a little too strongly to sexual fantasy, making it difficult to take any other elements of the film seriously. Granted, I wasn’t expecting significant character development or profound dialogue, but most of the exchanges outside the “team missions” are just laughably bad, whether the girls are planning their next adventure or The Wise Man tries to dole out advice. With so many shortcomings outside of the core visual style, the audience if often just left waiting for the next battle sequence. To be fair, beyond the opening sequence, there is one confrontation scene in the climax of the film that has some impressive levels of tension and emotion, but one scene simply isn't enough for a two-hour film. In the end, it just feels like Sucker Punch could have done more with its premise, but so much time is spent just trying to get the audience to understand its unique form of storytelling and complicated plot that much of the potential is ultimately wasted.
From a box office perspective, Sucker Punch was absolutely blind-sided its opening weekend, knocked to second place by the family-friendly Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules, and taking in just under $20 million. To be honest, I had expected the film to do much better its first weekend, but perhaps the extremely limited demographic appeal of the film hampered ticket sales…I doubt many girlfriends or wives would let their significant others rush to see Baby Doll and Sweet Pea in “action.” Still, Warner Bros. is going to need to see a significant jump in revenue in order to cover the production budget, and with so little help from the international markets, hopefully Sucker Punch can work some magic with domestic post-release promotion. At the very least, Zack Snyder’s distinct visual style shines again, and I cannot wait to see what he does with everyone’s favorite comic book icon in 2012’s Superman: The Man of Steel. In the end, I loved Sucker Punch, and as long as you aren’t looking for a popcorn action-flick that is deep or profound, then this film remains a visually-stunning must-see.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $19,058,199
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $22,817,475
Gross Revenue: $28,310,371
Budget: $82 million
Director: Zack Snyder
As I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, I am a big fan of Zack Snyder’s work, so I was surprised to discover that Snyder actually began planning Sucker Punch before 2009’s Watchmen, thus illustrating that this newest adventure was nothing short of a passion project for the talented director. Now, a few questions were raised over the ensemble female cast (which included High School Musical’s Vanessa Hudgens) that would be thrown in the violent fantasy world of the film, but Snyder was adamant that Sucker Punch would critique the traditional objectification of women that pervades comic book and video game culture. Based on the inherent spirit of the film, positioning Sucker Punch for potential audiences was relatively simple; my personal favorite description was “Alice in Wonderland with machine guns.” Leading up to its release, Warner Bros. made sure posters and billboards for Sucker Punch were everywhere, and when you combine this aggressive push for audience awareness with Snyder’s already considerable fan-base, it was clear that the studio was hoping for an early spring blockbuster. Admittedly, between the female cast and fantasy-action sequences, Sucker Punch’s chief appeal would resonate most strongly with teenage and young-adult males, but that didn’t mean that Snyder still couldn’t produce a genuinely entertaining film.
Set in the 1950s with a narrative that makes use of what can best be described as layered reality; Sucker Punch introduces audiences to “Baby Doll” (Emily Browning), a young woman who has been recently institutionalized following the death of her sister and is scheduled to be lobotomized in five days since her sinister stepfather has bribed the chief orderly Blue Jones (Oscar Isaac) to fake the signature of the main therapist Dr. Vera Gorski (Carla Gugino). To cope with her situation, Baby Doll imagines the institution as a brothel run by Blue and Gorski where she and other dancers — Amber (Jamie Chung), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens), Rocket (Jena Malone), and Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish) — cater to a mob clientele. Baby Doll soon discovers a talent for a form of dancing that fully entrances those watching, and while dancing she retreats into yet another fantasy world where she and the other patients/dancers are instructed by a spiritual advisor, The Wise Man (Scott Glenn) to find five items — a map, fire, a knife, a key, and an unrevealed final element — that will allow them to escape. Now, the girls plan to steal the required items, and each time Baby Doll provides a distraction by dancing, she imagines the retrieval of each item in the form of different fantasy missions that pit the team against everything from demon samurai to Nazi zombies, which they dispatch using a combination of advanced weaponry and martial arts. With a distinct visual style, Sucker Punch encourages audiences to delve into their imaginations and follow an adventure that speaks to the personal empowerment and fight for freedom that these young women share in order to escape from a hellish reality.
If the plot I described above sounds like something best confined to the comic book or video game world, then you seem to have a pretty good grasp on the chief appeal of Sucker Punch, as the film can be seen as a testament to these two art forms. In fact, if you have ever let your imagination run wild, then you are sure to love the over-the-top fantasy sequences that use enough action and violence to send even the most casual of comic readers or gamers into geek overdrive. Zack Snyder’s distinct visual style permeates throughout the film, and when you combine that with a soundtrack that remixes classic rock-and-roll, the end-result is an undoubtedly energetic adventure. To be fair, I saw the film in IMAX, but I have no doubt that the visuals are still jaw-dropping in regular theaters. Even though the story is far from perfect and takes some time to comprehend, I still appreciate the unique way in which it is told…if you can stick with the plot throughout, the ending’s integration of the different realities within the film is not only interesting but genuinely thought-provoking. Yet, for as much as Sucker Punch delivers in terms visual style and action, the film is still hampered by some blatant shortcomings.
Even with the strong action sequences full of automatic weapons and mythical creatures, to say that Sucker Punch caters exclusively to the male demographic is still a pretty significant understatement, as everything from the brothel setting to the “tactical” armor worn by the girls plays a little too strongly to sexual fantasy, making it difficult to take any other elements of the film seriously. Granted, I wasn’t expecting significant character development or profound dialogue, but most of the exchanges outside the “team missions” are just laughably bad, whether the girls are planning their next adventure or The Wise Man tries to dole out advice. With so many shortcomings outside of the core visual style, the audience if often just left waiting for the next battle sequence. To be fair, beyond the opening sequence, there is one confrontation scene in the climax of the film that has some impressive levels of tension and emotion, but one scene simply isn't enough for a two-hour film. In the end, it just feels like Sucker Punch could have done more with its premise, but so much time is spent just trying to get the audience to understand its unique form of storytelling and complicated plot that much of the potential is ultimately wasted.
From a box office perspective, Sucker Punch was absolutely blind-sided its opening weekend, knocked to second place by the family-friendly Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules, and taking in just under $20 million. To be honest, I had expected the film to do much better its first weekend, but perhaps the extremely limited demographic appeal of the film hampered ticket sales…I doubt many girlfriends or wives would let their significant others rush to see Baby Doll and Sweet Pea in “action.” Still, Warner Bros. is going to need to see a significant jump in revenue in order to cover the production budget, and with so little help from the international markets, hopefully Sucker Punch can work some magic with domestic post-release promotion. At the very least, Zack Snyder’s distinct visual style shines again, and I cannot wait to see what he does with everyone’s favorite comic book icon in 2012’s Superman: The Man of Steel. In the end, I loved Sucker Punch, and as long as you aren’t looking for a popcorn action-flick that is deep or profound, then this film remains a visually-stunning must-see.
Overall Recommendation: High
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)