In perhaps one of the cleverest trailers I have ever seen, The Muppets came to my attention in a thoroughly surprising manner, with Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy intruding on what I thought was a promotion for a generic romantic comedy. Needless to say, as a lifelong fan of the Muppets who best remembers the characters from the short-lived Muppets Tonight show that aired in the late 90s, I was pumped for this newest family film. Only sweetening the deal was the fact that this film was being written by and would star Jason Segel, who is one of my favorite actors and no stranger to comedy, albeit normally that of a more adult variety. Add to the equation Academy Award nominee Amy Adams and rumors of considerable celebrity cameos, and it is clear that Walt Disney Pictures was banking on The Muppets being a cinematic event drawing considerable crowds. Given my status as a Muppet fan, nothing short of a colossal train-wreck would disappoint me, but there was no guarantee that the younger generate would react to the characters that their parents once revered.
Silly, energetic, and fully living up to the legacy established by its title characters over the past fifty years, The Muppets meets and surpasses most expectations. The sheer novelty and nostalgia of seeing the familiar Muppets reunite and interact with each other and the outside environment is the strongest part of the film, but the characters are also aided by a surprisingly strong level of self-aware humor. Jason Segel and Amy Adams fulfill their roles perfectly, clearly having fun in embracing the innocence and simplicity that many too often forget. Catchy songs and an almost dizzying amount of celebrity cameos add to the level of enjoyment provided, but the story in its entirety and the type of humor presented may not appeal to those who do not count themselves among the long and varied list of Muppet fanatics. Despite that one trivial qualification, The Muppets remains an undeniably strong film sure to reawaken the child in many and generate a whole new generation of fans.
Overall Recommendation: High
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
The Muppets: Full Review
The Muppets - (November 23, 2011): PG
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: N/A
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: N/A
Gross Revenue: N/A
Production Budget: $45 million
Director: James Bobin
It has been twelve years since The Muppets have enjoyed a theatrical release, and in that time, the younger generations have largely forgotten the classic characters, so the decision to resurrect them was understandably greeted with some skepticism. Luckily, with Disney owning the rights to the franchise, studio decision-makers still recognized the potential and put their faith in lifelong Muppet fan, Jason Segel. Now, with Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Knocked Up, I Love You, Man, and six seasons of How I Met Your Mother under his belt, Segel is known for a much more adult style of humor, but entrusted with penning and starring the project, the young actor felt more than up to the challenge. In terms of marketing, Walt Disney Pictures understandably wanted the film to be seen as an event, so alongside expected partnerships and television appearances (Kermit presented at the Latin Grammys), the most creative tactic involved spoof trailers, whereby the Muppets would invade trailers ostensibly promoting blockbusters like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or Paranormal Activity 3…what a way to grab attention and establish resonance with your audience! Understandably excited and hoping that Swedish Chef would be granted the most screen time, I could not wait to see and review The Muppets.
Seeking a viable way to reunite the Muppets after more than a decade, the film starts with avid Muppet fan Walter (himself a puppet) travels to Los Angeles alongside his human brother Gary (Jason Segel) and Gary’s longtime girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams). Eager to visit Muppets Studio, Walter is devastated when he discovers that evil businessman Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) is preparing to demolish both the Muppet Theater and the studio in order to drill for oil. The plan is conditional, in that if Walter is able to raise $10 million, the demolition can be stopped; grasping at this newfound hope, Walter, Gary, and Mary, seek out Kermit the Frog. Resolved to raise the money, Kermit and friends work to reunite the rest of the Muppet gang in hopes of staging one of the greatest telethons in history...adding to the complications involves the fact that a kindhearted television executive, Veronica (Rashida Jones), agrees to televise the show in primetime, provided that a celebrity can be found to host. So, with Fozzie Bear, Miss Piggy, Animal, Gonzo, and the rest of the Muppet gang together, the revered characters do their best to regain their popularity and save their legacy.
As any avid Muppet fan no doubt expected, easily the best part of The Muppets is the sheer novelty of seeing all the classic characters together again, engaging in the type of humor that made them all famous. Swedish Chef’s notorious gibberish, Fozzie’s lame jokes, Animal’s obsession with his drums…it’s all here and glorious, but the standout segment involves the ending credits, where each cast member and guest star cameo sings the classic Muppet song, "Mah Nà Mah Nà." The human and Muppet cast also display a distinct style of self-aware humor (good writing, Jason Segel), in effect poking fun at the fact that the story told is clearly part of a movie; the best example involves the suggestion that the renovation of Muppet Theater could be accomplished much faster if it was done with the help of a montage. In terms of the rest of the cast, everyone from Jason Segal and Amy Adams to the numerous celebrity cameos clearly has fun interacting with their felt co-stars, providing for a simple and lighthearted adventure that audiences of all ages can enjoy. However, with a legacy as respected and storied as that of the Muppets, the film was bound to come up short in a few areas.
It is obvious that Disney had high hopes for The Muppets to be a family film, but the truth is that the chief appeal lies solely with avid fans, the kind of which are not likely to fully tolerate any missteps. For instance, it was nice to see all of the Muppets again, and giving them all adequate screen time would have been near impossible, but some of the more popular characters clearly deserved more respect: Rowlf the Dog, Rizzo the Rat, and Pepe the King Prawn, have earned more than a simple one-line scene. Also, when it comes to celebrity cameos, the absence of certain Muppet mainstays is disappointing, while the apparent substitution is a little insulting….Steve Martin has always been well associated with the Muppets, so how can Selena Gomez and Rico Rodriguez possibly serve as adequate substitutes to placate longtime fans? Now, these criticisms may sound like little more than the complaints of a Muppet geek, but that is exactly who this film is made for, as I doubt general audiences will respond as positively to slapstick jokes and silly musical numbers that others have come to expect over the years…though I guarantee that almost everyone will be humming at least one tune as they drive home. If you go into the film expecting a deep story or profound humor, you don’t belong in the theater in the first place, so even though The Muppets may not be perfect, it should serve as more than enough to please audiences.
At the time that this review was written, exact numbers for The Muppets’ opening weekend are unavailable, but given the five-day Thanksgiving holiday, the newest Disney title should perform rather strongly. Unfortunately, with two other family offerings opening the same day (Arthur Christmas, Hugo), analysts have actually predicted that audiences will be so severely split that holdover Breaking Dawn – Part 1 might actually take in the top earnings. Still, with a forecast of $41 million for the long weekend, The Muppets should have little to no problem recovering its modest production budget. But with as strong a marketing campaign as was generated prior to release and the size of the fan-bases for both the characters and actors present, I would not at all be surprised if the film ends up defying more than a few analysts. Plain and simple, hardcore Muppets fanatics may not get the immaculate and glorious return they feel that they deserve, but the fact remains that The Muppets is a must-see for fans and may end up surprising those with more lukewarm feelings towards the beloved characters.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: N/A
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: N/A
Gross Revenue: N/A
Production Budget: $45 million
Director: James Bobin
It has been twelve years since The Muppets have enjoyed a theatrical release, and in that time, the younger generations have largely forgotten the classic characters, so the decision to resurrect them was understandably greeted with some skepticism. Luckily, with Disney owning the rights to the franchise, studio decision-makers still recognized the potential and put their faith in lifelong Muppet fan, Jason Segel. Now, with Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Knocked Up, I Love You, Man, and six seasons of How I Met Your Mother under his belt, Segel is known for a much more adult style of humor, but entrusted with penning and starring the project, the young actor felt more than up to the challenge. In terms of marketing, Walt Disney Pictures understandably wanted the film to be seen as an event, so alongside expected partnerships and television appearances (Kermit presented at the Latin Grammys), the most creative tactic involved spoof trailers, whereby the Muppets would invade trailers ostensibly promoting blockbusters like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or Paranormal Activity 3…what a way to grab attention and establish resonance with your audience! Understandably excited and hoping that Swedish Chef would be granted the most screen time, I could not wait to see and review The Muppets.
Seeking a viable way to reunite the Muppets after more than a decade, the film starts with avid Muppet fan Walter (himself a puppet) travels to Los Angeles alongside his human brother Gary (Jason Segel) and Gary’s longtime girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams). Eager to visit Muppets Studio, Walter is devastated when he discovers that evil businessman Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) is preparing to demolish both the Muppet Theater and the studio in order to drill for oil. The plan is conditional, in that if Walter is able to raise $10 million, the demolition can be stopped; grasping at this newfound hope, Walter, Gary, and Mary, seek out Kermit the Frog. Resolved to raise the money, Kermit and friends work to reunite the rest of the Muppet gang in hopes of staging one of the greatest telethons in history...adding to the complications involves the fact that a kindhearted television executive, Veronica (Rashida Jones), agrees to televise the show in primetime, provided that a celebrity can be found to host. So, with Fozzie Bear, Miss Piggy, Animal, Gonzo, and the rest of the Muppet gang together, the revered characters do their best to regain their popularity and save their legacy.
As any avid Muppet fan no doubt expected, easily the best part of The Muppets is the sheer novelty of seeing all the classic characters together again, engaging in the type of humor that made them all famous. Swedish Chef’s notorious gibberish, Fozzie’s lame jokes, Animal’s obsession with his drums…it’s all here and glorious, but the standout segment involves the ending credits, where each cast member and guest star cameo sings the classic Muppet song, "Mah Nà Mah Nà." The human and Muppet cast also display a distinct style of self-aware humor (good writing, Jason Segel), in effect poking fun at the fact that the story told is clearly part of a movie; the best example involves the suggestion that the renovation of Muppet Theater could be accomplished much faster if it was done with the help of a montage. In terms of the rest of the cast, everyone from Jason Segal and Amy Adams to the numerous celebrity cameos clearly has fun interacting with their felt co-stars, providing for a simple and lighthearted adventure that audiences of all ages can enjoy. However, with a legacy as respected and storied as that of the Muppets, the film was bound to come up short in a few areas.
It is obvious that Disney had high hopes for The Muppets to be a family film, but the truth is that the chief appeal lies solely with avid fans, the kind of which are not likely to fully tolerate any missteps. For instance, it was nice to see all of the Muppets again, and giving them all adequate screen time would have been near impossible, but some of the more popular characters clearly deserved more respect: Rowlf the Dog, Rizzo the Rat, and Pepe the King Prawn, have earned more than a simple one-line scene. Also, when it comes to celebrity cameos, the absence of certain Muppet mainstays is disappointing, while the apparent substitution is a little insulting….Steve Martin has always been well associated with the Muppets, so how can Selena Gomez and Rico Rodriguez possibly serve as adequate substitutes to placate longtime fans? Now, these criticisms may sound like little more than the complaints of a Muppet geek, but that is exactly who this film is made for, as I doubt general audiences will respond as positively to slapstick jokes and silly musical numbers that others have come to expect over the years…though I guarantee that almost everyone will be humming at least one tune as they drive home. If you go into the film expecting a deep story or profound humor, you don’t belong in the theater in the first place, so even though The Muppets may not be perfect, it should serve as more than enough to please audiences.
At the time that this review was written, exact numbers for The Muppets’ opening weekend are unavailable, but given the five-day Thanksgiving holiday, the newest Disney title should perform rather strongly. Unfortunately, with two other family offerings opening the same day (Arthur Christmas, Hugo), analysts have actually predicted that audiences will be so severely split that holdover Breaking Dawn – Part 1 might actually take in the top earnings. Still, with a forecast of $41 million for the long weekend, The Muppets should have little to no problem recovering its modest production budget. But with as strong a marketing campaign as was generated prior to release and the size of the fan-bases for both the characters and actors present, I would not at all be surprised if the film ends up defying more than a few analysts. Plain and simple, hardcore Muppets fanatics may not get the immaculate and glorious return they feel that they deserve, but the fact remains that The Muppets is a must-see for fans and may end up surprising those with more lukewarm feelings towards the beloved characters.
Overall Recommendation: High
Happy Feet Two: Short and Sweet
Of all the animated franchises out there, one that has flown considerably under the radar for some time is Happy Feet, a surprising fact when one notes the inherent appeal of dancing penguins. Still, as a Warner Bros. property, this family film’s lack of time in the spotlight is understandable, given the prevalence and high quality of the numerous offerings from both Disney-Pixar and DreamWorks Animation. Needless to say, with five years between the original and this newest sequel, I was skeptical concerning how audiences would react to Happy Feet Two, as the core audience of the first entry had undoubtedly grown out of the target demographic. Hopefully, the all-star cast that included the voice talents of newcomers like Alicia Moore (P!nk), Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, and Sofia Vergara, would draw a large and respectable crowd during the busy Holiday Movie Season. Barely remembering the original, I was admittedly charmed by the energetic trailer, so maybe Happy Feet Two would end up being a pleasant surprise.
In retrospect, I was shocked by how much I enjoyed Happy Feet Two, as the combination of astounding animation, an energetic soundtrack, and thoroughly hysterical and impressive voice acting make the film an entirely enjoying experience. In her first real film role, P!nk does a surprisingly strong job in bringing personality to a character and showcasing her vocal talents, but the most welcome addition to the franchise is the pair of Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, whose banter will have you rolling in the theater. Of course, I cannot downplay the contribution of Robin Williams, who once again cements his comedic talent and timing voicing two distinct characters. It may not have quite the emotional weight or gravity of a Disney-Pixar title, but Happy Feet Two provides more than enough cute, baby animals and dire situations to tug at the heartstrings so strongly that the tactic is almost unfair. A tad corny at times, Happy Feet Two is still a surprisingly strong animated film that not only appeals to adult audiences, but also could give a number of past award-winners a run for their money, and as such it is well-worth seeing and should not be missed.
Overall Recommendation: High
In retrospect, I was shocked by how much I enjoyed Happy Feet Two, as the combination of astounding animation, an energetic soundtrack, and thoroughly hysterical and impressive voice acting make the film an entirely enjoying experience. In her first real film role, P!nk does a surprisingly strong job in bringing personality to a character and showcasing her vocal talents, but the most welcome addition to the franchise is the pair of Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, whose banter will have you rolling in the theater. Of course, I cannot downplay the contribution of Robin Williams, who once again cements his comedic talent and timing voicing two distinct characters. It may not have quite the emotional weight or gravity of a Disney-Pixar title, but Happy Feet Two provides more than enough cute, baby animals and dire situations to tug at the heartstrings so strongly that the tactic is almost unfair. A tad corny at times, Happy Feet Two is still a surprisingly strong animated film that not only appeals to adult audiences, but also could give a number of past award-winners a run for their money, and as such it is well-worth seeing and should not be missed.
Overall Recommendation: High
Happy Feet Two: Full Review
Happy Feet Two - (November 18, 2011): PG
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #2 with $21,237,068
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $22,995,315
Gross Revenue: $25,595,315
Production Budget: $135 million
Director: George Miller
Back in 2006, a group of dancing penguins hit theaters and wowed audiences, staying at the top of the box office for weeks, but then a significant gap in time elapsed and the charming characters were largely forgotten. Now, five years later, Warner Bros. Pictures was preparing to sell a sequel to audiences, banking on familiarity with the original and the recognition of an all-star cast to draw moviegoers. The addition of Brad Pitt and Matt Damon’s voice talents was noteworthy, but the biggest change involved the inclusion of Alicia Moore (better known as P!nk), who contributed a song to the first film’s soundtrack but would now be stepping in to take over the role originated by the late Brittany Murphy. I myself was most excited about Modern Family’s Sofia Vergara and notorious voice-actor Hank Azaria, who is perhaps most famous for the numerous roles he brings to life for The Simpsons…with all of these familiar names present, there was tremendous pressure for filmmakers to deliver an entertaining and successful sequel. Leading up to the release date, the trailer of baby penguins dancing to pop-rock was everywhere, so regardless of being someone familiar with the original, I was charmed enough by the energetic thematic style promised to give Happy Feet Two a fighting chance.
Resurrecting the pop-culturally savvy and fleet-footed Arctic birds from the original Happy Feet, this sequel starts off with adult Emperor penguins Mumble (Elijah Wood) and Gloria (Alicia Moore) trying to teach their young son Erik to dance. Things don’t go quite as planned, and a humiliated Erik flees his colony, but as Mumble sets out to retrieve his son, a glacier drift ends up trapping Gloria and the rest of the Emperor Penguins, effectively cutting the colony off from their food supply. Mumble quickly seeks the help of his friend, Ramon (Robin Williams), who is preoccupied trying to win the affections of a beautiful fellow Adélie penguin, Carmen (Sofia Vergara). Ramon quickly reunites Mumble with the elder Rockhopper penguin Lovelace (also voiced by Williams), and together the trio consults Sven (Hank Azaria), a Puffin bird that the other penguins mistakenly classify as a prophetic flying penguin and therefore revere. Together, the different penguins work to free the Emperor colony, even going as far as to enlist the help of humans and elephant seals, so that the trapped birds do not succumb to starvation or other environmental threats. A small subplot follows two brave Krill, Will (Brad Pitt) and Bill (Matt Damon), attempting to separate from their swarm in a quest to move up the food chain, but the two narrative chains eventually cross, proving that even the smallest of animals can make a difference.
As can be expected from virtually every one of today’s computed-generated family films, one of the strongest aspects of Happy Feet Two was the film’s gorgeous animation, whether that involves the beautiful Northern Lights, the detailed Arctic landscape, or the downright precious baby animals (the young penguins and seals will melt your heart). Another equally impressive showcase of visual graphics was the blending of live action and animation used whenever the penguins interact with the “aliens” (humans), undoubtedly demonstrating the next stage of motion-capture technology. The second accolade-worthy element that was fully expected included the voice acting, which imbued distinct personalities to each character and paved the way for significant humor. It is no surprise that legendary voice-manipulators like Hank Azaria and Robin Williams could energetically rattle off jokes, but the real treat involved the zany and clever interaction between Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, whether they were questioning the meaning of life or attempting to “bite something with a face” in order to ascend the food chain. The final praiseworthy feature of this sequel, which was a big selling-point for the original, is the energetic soundtrack, which mixed both classic and contemporary music in a thoroughly stylish manner…unfortunately, the music did highlight a few shortcomings.
In case the initial trailers didn’t make it painful obvious during the rendition of Justin Timberlake’s “Sexy Back,” the main focus of Happy Feet Two is energetic and memorable music, and for the most part, the film took that responsibility in stride. Easily the biggest contributor in this department was Alicia Moore, who not only delivered a convincing character portrayal, but also lent her considerable vocal strength to the musical numbers, including “Bridge of Light,” an easy contender for some Best Song awards. Now, most of the transitions into song were seamless and clever, but one in particular instigated by young Erik is so corny and ridiculous that you are almost shocked backed into the realization that you are watching a children’s film. At times, Happy Feet Two also tugs a little too strongly at the heartstrings, overplaying the emotional impact of certain scenarios so much so that the tactic could almost be viewed as a cheap shot. So, despite some missteps, in its entirety, this sequel is a strong entry that has more than enough to appeal to both children and adults, but from a box office perspective, the latter group has not yet come across that realization.
Debuting as number two with just over $20 million in its first weekend, Happy Feet Two has thus-far underperformed and has considerable ground to cover in recovering a hefty $130 million production budget. Now, while I myself did not see the film in 3D, the use of the technology this time around does seem warranted, so maybe that will help with the numbers. However, with new releases Arthur Christmas, The Muppets, and Hugo all vying for the attention of a younger audience, drawing big numbers does not seem all that likely. Such a sobering reality really is disappointing considering the high quality of the film, and all I can hope to do is emphasize how worthwhile it is to actually see this movie in theaters. Whether you are a penguin enthusiast or just looking for a strong animated movie, Happy Feet Two is well-deserving of both your time and money.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #2 with $21,237,068
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $22,995,315
Gross Revenue: $25,595,315
Production Budget: $135 million
Director: George Miller
Back in 2006, a group of dancing penguins hit theaters and wowed audiences, staying at the top of the box office for weeks, but then a significant gap in time elapsed and the charming characters were largely forgotten. Now, five years later, Warner Bros. Pictures was preparing to sell a sequel to audiences, banking on familiarity with the original and the recognition of an all-star cast to draw moviegoers. The addition of Brad Pitt and Matt Damon’s voice talents was noteworthy, but the biggest change involved the inclusion of Alicia Moore (better known as P!nk), who contributed a song to the first film’s soundtrack but would now be stepping in to take over the role originated by the late Brittany Murphy. I myself was most excited about Modern Family’s Sofia Vergara and notorious voice-actor Hank Azaria, who is perhaps most famous for the numerous roles he brings to life for The Simpsons…with all of these familiar names present, there was tremendous pressure for filmmakers to deliver an entertaining and successful sequel. Leading up to the release date, the trailer of baby penguins dancing to pop-rock was everywhere, so regardless of being someone familiar with the original, I was charmed enough by the energetic thematic style promised to give Happy Feet Two a fighting chance.
Resurrecting the pop-culturally savvy and fleet-footed Arctic birds from the original Happy Feet, this sequel starts off with adult Emperor penguins Mumble (Elijah Wood) and Gloria (Alicia Moore) trying to teach their young son Erik to dance. Things don’t go quite as planned, and a humiliated Erik flees his colony, but as Mumble sets out to retrieve his son, a glacier drift ends up trapping Gloria and the rest of the Emperor Penguins, effectively cutting the colony off from their food supply. Mumble quickly seeks the help of his friend, Ramon (Robin Williams), who is preoccupied trying to win the affections of a beautiful fellow Adélie penguin, Carmen (Sofia Vergara). Ramon quickly reunites Mumble with the elder Rockhopper penguin Lovelace (also voiced by Williams), and together the trio consults Sven (Hank Azaria), a Puffin bird that the other penguins mistakenly classify as a prophetic flying penguin and therefore revere. Together, the different penguins work to free the Emperor colony, even going as far as to enlist the help of humans and elephant seals, so that the trapped birds do not succumb to starvation or other environmental threats. A small subplot follows two brave Krill, Will (Brad Pitt) and Bill (Matt Damon), attempting to separate from their swarm in a quest to move up the food chain, but the two narrative chains eventually cross, proving that even the smallest of animals can make a difference.
As can be expected from virtually every one of today’s computed-generated family films, one of the strongest aspects of Happy Feet Two was the film’s gorgeous animation, whether that involves the beautiful Northern Lights, the detailed Arctic landscape, or the downright precious baby animals (the young penguins and seals will melt your heart). Another equally impressive showcase of visual graphics was the blending of live action and animation used whenever the penguins interact with the “aliens” (humans), undoubtedly demonstrating the next stage of motion-capture technology. The second accolade-worthy element that was fully expected included the voice acting, which imbued distinct personalities to each character and paved the way for significant humor. It is no surprise that legendary voice-manipulators like Hank Azaria and Robin Williams could energetically rattle off jokes, but the real treat involved the zany and clever interaction between Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, whether they were questioning the meaning of life or attempting to “bite something with a face” in order to ascend the food chain. The final praiseworthy feature of this sequel, which was a big selling-point for the original, is the energetic soundtrack, which mixed both classic and contemporary music in a thoroughly stylish manner…unfortunately, the music did highlight a few shortcomings.
In case the initial trailers didn’t make it painful obvious during the rendition of Justin Timberlake’s “Sexy Back,” the main focus of Happy Feet Two is energetic and memorable music, and for the most part, the film took that responsibility in stride. Easily the biggest contributor in this department was Alicia Moore, who not only delivered a convincing character portrayal, but also lent her considerable vocal strength to the musical numbers, including “Bridge of Light,” an easy contender for some Best Song awards. Now, most of the transitions into song were seamless and clever, but one in particular instigated by young Erik is so corny and ridiculous that you are almost shocked backed into the realization that you are watching a children’s film. At times, Happy Feet Two also tugs a little too strongly at the heartstrings, overplaying the emotional impact of certain scenarios so much so that the tactic could almost be viewed as a cheap shot. So, despite some missteps, in its entirety, this sequel is a strong entry that has more than enough to appeal to both children and adults, but from a box office perspective, the latter group has not yet come across that realization.
Debuting as number two with just over $20 million in its first weekend, Happy Feet Two has thus-far underperformed and has considerable ground to cover in recovering a hefty $130 million production budget. Now, while I myself did not see the film in 3D, the use of the technology this time around does seem warranted, so maybe that will help with the numbers. However, with new releases Arthur Christmas, The Muppets, and Hugo all vying for the attention of a younger audience, drawing big numbers does not seem all that likely. Such a sobering reality really is disappointing considering the high quality of the film, and all I can hope to do is emphasize how worthwhile it is to actually see this movie in theaters. Whether you are a penguin enthusiast or just looking for a strong animated movie, Happy Feet Two is well-deserving of both your time and money.
Overall Recommendation: High
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1: Short and Sweet
As a hardcore Harry Potter fan, I have been conditioned to instantaneously roll my eyes anytime the Twilight franchise is mentioned, but I cannot help but respect the success that the film series has had over the past few years. Because of that same success, Summit Entertainment had little challenge in marketing the film or selling tickets, as all that was needed was the generation of audience awareness that the newest entry would be hitting theaters soon. Though I nearly had every reason to discriminate, I knew that I would have to see Breaking Dawn – Part 1 in order to maintain the integrity and variety of my reviews, and as such; I have seen every movie in the series and am well aware of the characters and back-story. Given my standing as a fan of the mythos surrounding vampires and werewolves, I have found some entertaining elements in the past Twilight films, but needless to say, I was in no hurry to see notoriously one-dimensional actors return to the screen. Strategically choosing my showing time so as to avoid legions of teenage girls and wildly inappropriate middle-aged women, I was prepared to see Breaking Dawn – Part 1 and maybe identify a few credible film-making elements.
Granted, I was fully aware that the focus of Breaking Dawn – Part 1 would be Edward and Bella’s wedding and honeymoon, but I still wasn’t expecting the overly sappy and corny “romance” that saturates nearly every fiber of the film. Just like every single entry of the Twilight series to-date, easily the weakest part of the film is Kristen Stewart, who plays Bella almost completely void of emotion or personality, which only accentuates the character’s already-maddening irrationality and indecisive nature. The male leads aren’t off the hook either…Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner do show a little more spirit and range this time around, but they are still guilty of some pretty blatant overacting. The conflict surrounding Bella’s pregnancy, which shifts focus to the conflict between vampires and werewolves for a while, does have its interesting and tense moments, but it is not enough to save the project as a whole. If you are a devout Twi-hard, I’m sure that you’re going to love Breaking Dawn – Part 1, but for the rest of us, there is little to justify sitting through this nearly two-hour romance that sets feminism back a few years.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Granted, I was fully aware that the focus of Breaking Dawn – Part 1 would be Edward and Bella’s wedding and honeymoon, but I still wasn’t expecting the overly sappy and corny “romance” that saturates nearly every fiber of the film. Just like every single entry of the Twilight series to-date, easily the weakest part of the film is Kristen Stewart, who plays Bella almost completely void of emotion or personality, which only accentuates the character’s already-maddening irrationality and indecisive nature. The male leads aren’t off the hook either…Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner do show a little more spirit and range this time around, but they are still guilty of some pretty blatant overacting. The conflict surrounding Bella’s pregnancy, which shifts focus to the conflict between vampires and werewolves for a while, does have its interesting and tense moments, but it is not enough to save the project as a whole. If you are a devout Twi-hard, I’m sure that you’re going to love Breaking Dawn – Part 1, but for the rest of us, there is little to justify sitting through this nearly two-hour romance that sets feminism back a few years.
Overall Recommendation: Low
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1: Full Review
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1 - (November 18, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: Summit Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $138,122,261
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $147,975,742
Gross Revenue: $300,875,742
Production Budget: $110 million
Director: Bill Condon
Say what you will about the quality of Stephanie Meyer’s insanely popular novels, no one can deny the near-historic success of the film adaptations at the box office, so when the trailer for Breaking Dawn – Part 1 first hit, it was clear that more than a few records would be challenged or broken outright. Unlike some of the earlier entries in the franchise, aside from Volvo’s “Journey to the Wedding” cross-promotion, the subsequent marketing tactics employed were notably plain and straightforward, but that apparent shortcoming is more than justified. There was really no need to spend money to slap together “Team Edward” or “Team Jacob” Happy Meals, when all Summit Entertainment had to do was tease the trailer at an awards show or attach it to the Facebook fan page, and then simply sit back and let the Twi-hards generate all the buzz and word of mouth that any studio could ever hope to produce. Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, and Taylor Lautner have all become household names since they were first introduced to mass audience, and though I don’t see any Academy Awards in their collective futures, that truth wasn’t going to stop any fans from lining up at theaters. Out of sheer obligation to the integrity of my blog, I prepared to see Breaking Dawn – Part 1, praying that it would not touch any record set by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2; I’ve said it a thousand times before: wizards will always be cooler than angst-filled vampires.
Building off of the proposal that ended Eclipse, Breaking Dawn – Part 1 opens with the fairy-tale wedding of Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and her true love, vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), with everyone from Bella’s naïve father, Charlie (Billy Burke), to the extended Cullen family, in attendance. Werewolf Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) is understandably very upset about the marriage, but he is also concerned for Bella’s safety when it is revealed that she will not be turned into a vampire until after the honeymoon, meaning that she could be injured during the consummation of the union due to Edward’s supernatural strength. Regardless of this complication, Bella and Edward retreat to a private island in Brazil, and though Edward is initially hesitant to be intimate with Bella, the two finally end up making love. Everything is perfect until an astonished Bella discovers that she is pregnant with a rapidly-growing, hybrid child, and Edward’s adopted father, Carlisle Cullen (Peter Facinelli), reveals that, as a human, Bella has little chance of surviving childbirth. Another threat surfaces in the form of Jacob’s tribe of werewolves, who view the half-vampire offspring as a significant threat, and therefore resolve to slaughter Bella and her unborn child. Alongside Jacob and Edward, the rest of the Cullen Family, including Esme (Elizabeth Reaser), Alice (Ashley Greene), Rosalie (Nikki Reed), Jasper (Jackson Rathborne), and Emmett (Kellan Lutz), swear to protect Bella and do everything they can to ensure that she survives the complicated and unprecedented pregnancy.
By and large, I did not enjoy Breaking Dawn – Part 1, but there are a number of positive elements that made the overall experience bearable. As always, I enjoy the characters within and the interactions shared between the members of the Cullen family, as each of their distinct personalities brings a unique and engaging element to the overall story…unfortunately, the film spends little to no time focusing on these individuals. Speaking in terms of vampire and werewolf mythology, Twilight has always played fast and loose with some of the finer established rules, but in focusing on the reaction to the birth of a vampire-human hybrid, Breaking Dawn – Part 1 is able to generate some significant intensity and interesting storyline dynamics that set the stage for an epic conclusion in Part 2. I was also surprised by the level of humor present in the film, thanks largely to Billy Burke, whose reactions to the supernatural union demonstrate far better comedic timing than the film deserves. All praise aside, these limited positive accolades cannot save the decidedly mediocre themes that are presented in an overly dramatic manner using sub-par acting.
Dress it up however you want, Breaking Dawn – Part 1 glorifies a wedding, honeymoon, and pregnancy as something of absolutely earth-shattering proportions, and Kristen Stewart simply fails to give these “events” any kind of justifiable gravity. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the importance that these occurrences can have an individual’s life, but the perpetually-miserable Bella is so indecisive, whiney, and irrational, that it is really hard to care. I was pleased to see Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner show a little more acting range in their roles, as both of their characters are understandable upset by the pregnancy, but both still end up trying a little too hard. Add these shortcomings to the overly sappy focus on romance within a narrative nearly devoid of the action that made Eclipse tolerable, and Breaking Dawn – Part 1 represents a step backwards in the quality of the franchise. As much as I’d like to say otherwise, anyone outside devout Twi-hards dragged to the theater by a significant other is in for a significant struggle with this film.
Given the franchise’s box office track record, it should come as absolutely no surprise that Breaking Dawn – Part 1 took the top spot in its opening weekend and raked in huge opening numbers. Earning $30.25 million on midnight showings alone is impressive, but it is also worth noting that 51.9% of the gross coming from Friday showings, a front-loaded trend typical of the Twilight series. The $138.1 million opening is second-best in the franchise (behind New Moon), and fifth overall in terms of all-time opening weekend, behind Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (thank God), The Dark Knight, Spider-Man 3, and New Moon. However, the newest Twilight chapter’s rank should be taken with a grain of salt, as it did not enjoy the benefit of added 3D revenue. Still, with an impressive overseas haul and a long holiday weekend to bring in strong audiences, Summit Entertainment can only look forward to a substantial profit. Far from spectacular, all I can say of Breaking Dawn – Part 1 is that is set the stage for a hopefully stronger Part 2; we’ll see what happens next November.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Distributor: Summit Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $138,122,261
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $147,975,742
Gross Revenue: $300,875,742
Production Budget: $110 million
Director: Bill Condon
Say what you will about the quality of Stephanie Meyer’s insanely popular novels, no one can deny the near-historic success of the film adaptations at the box office, so when the trailer for Breaking Dawn – Part 1 first hit, it was clear that more than a few records would be challenged or broken outright. Unlike some of the earlier entries in the franchise, aside from Volvo’s “Journey to the Wedding” cross-promotion, the subsequent marketing tactics employed were notably plain and straightforward, but that apparent shortcoming is more than justified. There was really no need to spend money to slap together “Team Edward” or “Team Jacob” Happy Meals, when all Summit Entertainment had to do was tease the trailer at an awards show or attach it to the Facebook fan page, and then simply sit back and let the Twi-hards generate all the buzz and word of mouth that any studio could ever hope to produce. Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, and Taylor Lautner have all become household names since they were first introduced to mass audience, and though I don’t see any Academy Awards in their collective futures, that truth wasn’t going to stop any fans from lining up at theaters. Out of sheer obligation to the integrity of my blog, I prepared to see Breaking Dawn – Part 1, praying that it would not touch any record set by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2; I’ve said it a thousand times before: wizards will always be cooler than angst-filled vampires.
Building off of the proposal that ended Eclipse, Breaking Dawn – Part 1 opens with the fairy-tale wedding of Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and her true love, vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), with everyone from Bella’s naïve father, Charlie (Billy Burke), to the extended Cullen family, in attendance. Werewolf Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) is understandably very upset about the marriage, but he is also concerned for Bella’s safety when it is revealed that she will not be turned into a vampire until after the honeymoon, meaning that she could be injured during the consummation of the union due to Edward’s supernatural strength. Regardless of this complication, Bella and Edward retreat to a private island in Brazil, and though Edward is initially hesitant to be intimate with Bella, the two finally end up making love. Everything is perfect until an astonished Bella discovers that she is pregnant with a rapidly-growing, hybrid child, and Edward’s adopted father, Carlisle Cullen (Peter Facinelli), reveals that, as a human, Bella has little chance of surviving childbirth. Another threat surfaces in the form of Jacob’s tribe of werewolves, who view the half-vampire offspring as a significant threat, and therefore resolve to slaughter Bella and her unborn child. Alongside Jacob and Edward, the rest of the Cullen Family, including Esme (Elizabeth Reaser), Alice (Ashley Greene), Rosalie (Nikki Reed), Jasper (Jackson Rathborne), and Emmett (Kellan Lutz), swear to protect Bella and do everything they can to ensure that she survives the complicated and unprecedented pregnancy.
By and large, I did not enjoy Breaking Dawn – Part 1, but there are a number of positive elements that made the overall experience bearable. As always, I enjoy the characters within and the interactions shared between the members of the Cullen family, as each of their distinct personalities brings a unique and engaging element to the overall story…unfortunately, the film spends little to no time focusing on these individuals. Speaking in terms of vampire and werewolf mythology, Twilight has always played fast and loose with some of the finer established rules, but in focusing on the reaction to the birth of a vampire-human hybrid, Breaking Dawn – Part 1 is able to generate some significant intensity and interesting storyline dynamics that set the stage for an epic conclusion in Part 2. I was also surprised by the level of humor present in the film, thanks largely to Billy Burke, whose reactions to the supernatural union demonstrate far better comedic timing than the film deserves. All praise aside, these limited positive accolades cannot save the decidedly mediocre themes that are presented in an overly dramatic manner using sub-par acting.
Dress it up however you want, Breaking Dawn – Part 1 glorifies a wedding, honeymoon, and pregnancy as something of absolutely earth-shattering proportions, and Kristen Stewart simply fails to give these “events” any kind of justifiable gravity. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the importance that these occurrences can have an individual’s life, but the perpetually-miserable Bella is so indecisive, whiney, and irrational, that it is really hard to care. I was pleased to see Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner show a little more acting range in their roles, as both of their characters are understandable upset by the pregnancy, but both still end up trying a little too hard. Add these shortcomings to the overly sappy focus on romance within a narrative nearly devoid of the action that made Eclipse tolerable, and Breaking Dawn – Part 1 represents a step backwards in the quality of the franchise. As much as I’d like to say otherwise, anyone outside devout Twi-hards dragged to the theater by a significant other is in for a significant struggle with this film.
Given the franchise’s box office track record, it should come as absolutely no surprise that Breaking Dawn – Part 1 took the top spot in its opening weekend and raked in huge opening numbers. Earning $30.25 million on midnight showings alone is impressive, but it is also worth noting that 51.9% of the gross coming from Friday showings, a front-loaded trend typical of the Twilight series. The $138.1 million opening is second-best in the franchise (behind New Moon), and fifth overall in terms of all-time opening weekend, behind Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (thank God), The Dark Knight, Spider-Man 3, and New Moon. However, the newest Twilight chapter’s rank should be taken with a grain of salt, as it did not enjoy the benefit of added 3D revenue. Still, with an impressive overseas haul and a long holiday weekend to bring in strong audiences, Summit Entertainment can only look forward to a substantial profit. Far from spectacular, all I can say of Breaking Dawn – Part 1 is that is set the stage for a hopefully stronger Part 2; we’ll see what happens next November.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Immortals: Short and Sweet
Like the rest of you, I’m sure that the first association running through countless minds once the first trailer for Immortals was released involved Zack Snyder’s box office hit 300, a visually stunning epic filled to the brim with hardcore action. By all appearances, Immortals was going to be in a similar vein, but it soon became clear that the universe introduced would be far vaster and draw more deeply from Greek mythology. No matter how you look at it, the Greek gods can be thought of as the original superheroes, so the chance to bring them to life in a way never before seen would be sure to grab the attention of every member of the highly lucrative teenage male demographic. For me, the biggest selling point for the film involved the fact that leading man Henry Cavill will be suiting up as Superman in 2013’s The Man of Steel, so I had to see if he could make a convincing hero. Relativity Media has never been one to disappoint moviegoers, so with my 3D glasses in hand, I could not wait for Immortals.
It may not be quite as enjoyable or as energetic as 300, but what Immortals lacks in story coherence or energy, it makes up for with stunning visuals and gloriously brutal action. Easily the best characters of the film are the Greek Gods themselves, as their abilities lead to undeniably cool and imaginative scenes that are only further enhanced by the 3D technology. Watching Poseidon dive from Mount Olympus or Ares fight soldiers was impressive, but the final battle between the Gods and Titans may be the single best fight sequence I have ever seen…that segment alone is more than enough justification for forking over the money for a ticket. As the central hero, Henry Cavill is a very convincing tough guy that you cannot help but root for, so I have no doubt that he will do for Superman what Christian Bale did for Batman…that association should put things in perspective. Admittedly, the story and production design get a little too strange at times, while the gaps between the action scenes drag on much longer than necessary, but these weaknesses are easily tolerated and pale in comparison to the overall quality of the film...plain and simple, if you are at all interested in seeing Immortals, it is something that you have to see in 3D theaters.
Overall Recommendation: High
It may not be quite as enjoyable or as energetic as 300, but what Immortals lacks in story coherence or energy, it makes up for with stunning visuals and gloriously brutal action. Easily the best characters of the film are the Greek Gods themselves, as their abilities lead to undeniably cool and imaginative scenes that are only further enhanced by the 3D technology. Watching Poseidon dive from Mount Olympus or Ares fight soldiers was impressive, but the final battle between the Gods and Titans may be the single best fight sequence I have ever seen…that segment alone is more than enough justification for forking over the money for a ticket. As the central hero, Henry Cavill is a very convincing tough guy that you cannot help but root for, so I have no doubt that he will do for Superman what Christian Bale did for Batman…that association should put things in perspective. Admittedly, the story and production design get a little too strange at times, while the gaps between the action scenes drag on much longer than necessary, but these weaknesses are easily tolerated and pale in comparison to the overall quality of the film...plain and simple, if you are at all interested in seeing Immortals, it is something that you have to see in 3D theaters.
Overall Recommendation: High
Immortals: Full Review
Immortals - (November 11, 2011): R
Distributor: Relativity Media
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $32,206,425
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $32,206,425
Gross Revenue: $70,206,425
Production Budget: $80 million
Director: Tarsem
Beyond bearing a remarkable similarity to the runaway hit 300, several of the elements behind Immortals seemed to promise a significant and virtually guaranteed blockbuster sure to draw in large audiences. Based on the subject material alone, as Greek mythology is saturated with unique and thoroughly engaging entities, it was clear that Immortals was going to be imaginative and make full use of the available 3D technology. Of course, in terms of cast, Mickey Rourke was sure to deliver an engaging and entertaining villain, but Henry Cavill’s performance was clearly going to provide a testing ground for audiences to gauge his believability as a hero, a quality that would predict the success of his eventual turn as Superman in 2013’s Man of Steel. From a marketing standpoint, Relativity Media had more than enough material to leverage a strong audience presence, including but not limited to a release date of 11/11/11…think about it, such a unique calendar sequence was building buzz and inciting superstition, so what better date to release a film filled with mysticism and mythology? Based on early critical praise, it was clear that Immortals was going to be a cinematic event and visual treat, so as a fan of Greek mythology, I had high hopes for this newest potential hit.
Set in Ancient Greece, Immortals starts off by introducing the back-story of a war in the Heavens that raged on for centuries…the victors declared themselves Gods and took their place on Mount Olympus, while the defeated were branded Titans and imprisoned inside Mount Tartarus. The main narrative begins when the embittered King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) declares war on Olympus after the Gods failed to intervene in the death of his family; the unforgiving ruler seeks a powerful weapon forged by Heracles known as the Epirus Bow, which he intends to use in order to free the Titans and destroy the Gods. In his search for the Bow, Hyperion attacks several holy places and seeks out the oracle priestess Phaedra (Slumdog Millionaire’s Freida Pinto), in the process destroying the village and murdering the mother of young warrior Theseus (Henry Cavill). Fully aware of the threat posed by Hyperion, the Gods of Olympus are nevertheless hesitant to interfere in the affairs of mortals; Zeus (Luke Evans) assures Ares (Daniel Sharman), Poseidon (Kellan Lutz), Athena (Isabel Lucas), Apollo (Corey Sevier), and Heracles (Steve Byers) that if there is one human capable of defeating Hyperion, it is Theseus, as the elder God has been mentoring the boy from birth while in disguise as an old man (John Hurt). With the support of the Gods, Theseus sets out alongside the thief Stavros (Stephen Dorff) and new acquaintance Phaedra in order to stop Hyperion and avenge his family.
As expected, the strongest part of Immortals involves the no-holds-barred and gloriously badass action scenes, whether that involves Theseus embracing his inner-warrior or the Gods unleashing their mystic powers, such as when Poseidon dives into the ocean and unleashes an apocalyptic tidal wave. As an action hero, Henry Cavill is surprisingly convincing and more than capable of holding his own in a fight…not only could he give any of the Spartans from 300 a run for their money, but I also pity anyone who dares face him as a hardcore Superman. Besides Theseus, in terms of characters, the Greek Gods of Olympus may be the most imaginative and stylish entities to hit the silver screen in years; anytime they appear, you are guaranteed an energetic, brutal, and visually-stunning fight sequence. The final fight sequence of the film in which the Gods confront the Titans is without a doubt the greatest battle I have ever scene, with jaw-dropping choreography, a downright epic score, and stunning 3D effects…the new gold standard for cinematic battle has been set and should not be missed by anyone. Were the entire film based solely on the Gods and Titans, Immortals would probably be the greatest action film ever made, but unfortunately, the story is nowhere near as engaging as the characters who inhabit the world presented.
Thanks to Disney, I’m sure that almost everyone has a basic working knowledge of Greek mythology, but Immortals delves so deeply into the mythos that a majority of the film comes off as just too weird. I remember fans complaining about certain ridiculous elements during 300, but rather than heed that audience warning, Immortals seemed determined to correct that perception, but strange cinematography, costuming, and production design only work to overshadow the contribution of other elements. For instance, Mickey Rourke is more than evil as Hyperion, but his surroundings, armor, and interactions with others makes it a little difficult to take him seriously. And, as is sure to happen anytime you go deeper into a mythos than a casual fan ever would, the story suffers…the overly complicated plot points drag on and only keep you on edge while you await more violence. Still, in spite of this inconsistent pacing, Immortals remains a thoroughly entertaining feature that should not be missed.
Well, it seems like Relativity Media has struck gold again, as audiences responded in droves to Immortals, earning the fantasy epic over $32 million and top spot at the weekend box office. Equally satisfying is the film’s foreign receipts, which actually outweigh the domestic haul…but really, what more could be expected of a film steeped do deeply in Greek mythology? With no other entries at the theater even close to offering anything like Immortals, I don’t foresee any problems in recovering the respectable $75 million production budget. As I said before, based on the final fight sequence alone, Immortals is an absolute must-see for any hardcore action junky. Unique, exciting, and undeniably epic, Immortals may not be perfect, but it certainly lives up to expectations and will not fail to entertain…I can only hope their will be a sequel.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Relativity Media
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $32,206,425
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $32,206,425
Gross Revenue: $70,206,425
Production Budget: $80 million
Director: Tarsem
Beyond bearing a remarkable similarity to the runaway hit 300, several of the elements behind Immortals seemed to promise a significant and virtually guaranteed blockbuster sure to draw in large audiences. Based on the subject material alone, as Greek mythology is saturated with unique and thoroughly engaging entities, it was clear that Immortals was going to be imaginative and make full use of the available 3D technology. Of course, in terms of cast, Mickey Rourke was sure to deliver an engaging and entertaining villain, but Henry Cavill’s performance was clearly going to provide a testing ground for audiences to gauge his believability as a hero, a quality that would predict the success of his eventual turn as Superman in 2013’s Man of Steel. From a marketing standpoint, Relativity Media had more than enough material to leverage a strong audience presence, including but not limited to a release date of 11/11/11…think about it, such a unique calendar sequence was building buzz and inciting superstition, so what better date to release a film filled with mysticism and mythology? Based on early critical praise, it was clear that Immortals was going to be a cinematic event and visual treat, so as a fan of Greek mythology, I had high hopes for this newest potential hit.
Set in Ancient Greece, Immortals starts off by introducing the back-story of a war in the Heavens that raged on for centuries…the victors declared themselves Gods and took their place on Mount Olympus, while the defeated were branded Titans and imprisoned inside Mount Tartarus. The main narrative begins when the embittered King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) declares war on Olympus after the Gods failed to intervene in the death of his family; the unforgiving ruler seeks a powerful weapon forged by Heracles known as the Epirus Bow, which he intends to use in order to free the Titans and destroy the Gods. In his search for the Bow, Hyperion attacks several holy places and seeks out the oracle priestess Phaedra (Slumdog Millionaire’s Freida Pinto), in the process destroying the village and murdering the mother of young warrior Theseus (Henry Cavill). Fully aware of the threat posed by Hyperion, the Gods of Olympus are nevertheless hesitant to interfere in the affairs of mortals; Zeus (Luke Evans) assures Ares (Daniel Sharman), Poseidon (Kellan Lutz), Athena (Isabel Lucas), Apollo (Corey Sevier), and Heracles (Steve Byers) that if there is one human capable of defeating Hyperion, it is Theseus, as the elder God has been mentoring the boy from birth while in disguise as an old man (John Hurt). With the support of the Gods, Theseus sets out alongside the thief Stavros (Stephen Dorff) and new acquaintance Phaedra in order to stop Hyperion and avenge his family.
As expected, the strongest part of Immortals involves the no-holds-barred and gloriously badass action scenes, whether that involves Theseus embracing his inner-warrior or the Gods unleashing their mystic powers, such as when Poseidon dives into the ocean and unleashes an apocalyptic tidal wave. As an action hero, Henry Cavill is surprisingly convincing and more than capable of holding his own in a fight…not only could he give any of the Spartans from 300 a run for their money, but I also pity anyone who dares face him as a hardcore Superman. Besides Theseus, in terms of characters, the Greek Gods of Olympus may be the most imaginative and stylish entities to hit the silver screen in years; anytime they appear, you are guaranteed an energetic, brutal, and visually-stunning fight sequence. The final fight sequence of the film in which the Gods confront the Titans is without a doubt the greatest battle I have ever scene, with jaw-dropping choreography, a downright epic score, and stunning 3D effects…the new gold standard for cinematic battle has been set and should not be missed by anyone. Were the entire film based solely on the Gods and Titans, Immortals would probably be the greatest action film ever made, but unfortunately, the story is nowhere near as engaging as the characters who inhabit the world presented.
Thanks to Disney, I’m sure that almost everyone has a basic working knowledge of Greek mythology, but Immortals delves so deeply into the mythos that a majority of the film comes off as just too weird. I remember fans complaining about certain ridiculous elements during 300, but rather than heed that audience warning, Immortals seemed determined to correct that perception, but strange cinematography, costuming, and production design only work to overshadow the contribution of other elements. For instance, Mickey Rourke is more than evil as Hyperion, but his surroundings, armor, and interactions with others makes it a little difficult to take him seriously. And, as is sure to happen anytime you go deeper into a mythos than a casual fan ever would, the story suffers…the overly complicated plot points drag on and only keep you on edge while you await more violence. Still, in spite of this inconsistent pacing, Immortals remains a thoroughly entertaining feature that should not be missed.
Well, it seems like Relativity Media has struck gold again, as audiences responded in droves to Immortals, earning the fantasy epic over $32 million and top spot at the weekend box office. Equally satisfying is the film’s foreign receipts, which actually outweigh the domestic haul…but really, what more could be expected of a film steeped do deeply in Greek mythology? With no other entries at the theater even close to offering anything like Immortals, I don’t foresee any problems in recovering the respectable $75 million production budget. As I said before, based on the final fight sequence alone, Immortals is an absolute must-see for any hardcore action junky. Unique, exciting, and undeniably epic, Immortals may not be perfect, but it certainly lives up to expectations and will not fail to entertain…I can only hope their will be a sequel.
Overall Recommendation: High
J. Edgar: Short and Sweet
Now that the Holiday Movie Season is in full swing, the Oscar race has officially begun, and an early frontrunner was easily J. Edgar. Historical biographies are always strong contenders, but include a powerhouse director like Clint Eastwood and a leading man of Leonardo DiCaprio’s caliber, and many analysts predicted that this newest drama would finally earn DiCaprio the Best Actor accolade that he has deserved for years. As far as film subjects go, there are not many individuals more fascinating than FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, whose career was fraught with controversy and illicit rumor, whether that involved his sexuality or his proclivity for blackmail…the story told would be undoubtedly emotionally-charged. The strong supporting cast also indicated that filmmakers would be swinging for the fences in terms of critical accolade; Armie Hammer, Judi Dench, and Naomi Watts are all known for their acting skill and deep portrayals. Positively overflowing with potential, I could not wait to see and review J. Edgar, which I was sure would be a prevalent presence at this year’s Academy Awards.
In its entirety, J. Edgar is a deep and very informative film, but the core subject matter and style of storytelling appeal to such a limited audience that overall quality suffers. As expected, Leonardo DiCaprio delivers a tour de force performance, fully embodying the late FBI director and committing to a faithful portrayal filled with a level of despair, rage, and paranoia that is mesmerizing. The story also pursues a thoroughly unique narrative pacing, transitioning from Hoover in the first years in his career to his controversial later life, but while this formula works at first, the film’s direction almost seems to lose track of its progress, making in difficult and downright confusing to keep the order of events coherent. J. Edgar is strong and engrossing, but at nearly two and a half hours, it is not the type of film you can approach without significant energy or dedication, and I really think that historians are the only ones truly willing to put forth that kind of effort. If you are a fan of Leonardo DiCaprio or historical drama, then J. Edgar is well worth seeing, but be warned that this is far from the kind of mass-appeal drama that many were expecting to be a contender for Best Picture…and that fact is disappointing.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
In its entirety, J. Edgar is a deep and very informative film, but the core subject matter and style of storytelling appeal to such a limited audience that overall quality suffers. As expected, Leonardo DiCaprio delivers a tour de force performance, fully embodying the late FBI director and committing to a faithful portrayal filled with a level of despair, rage, and paranoia that is mesmerizing. The story also pursues a thoroughly unique narrative pacing, transitioning from Hoover in the first years in his career to his controversial later life, but while this formula works at first, the film’s direction almost seems to lose track of its progress, making in difficult and downright confusing to keep the order of events coherent. J. Edgar is strong and engrossing, but at nearly two and a half hours, it is not the type of film you can approach without significant energy or dedication, and I really think that historians are the only ones truly willing to put forth that kind of effort. If you are a fan of Leonardo DiCaprio or historical drama, then J. Edgar is well worth seeing, but be warned that this is far from the kind of mass-appeal drama that many were expecting to be a contender for Best Picture…and that fact is disappointing.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
J. Edgar: Full Review
J. Edgar - (November 9, 2011): R
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #5 with $11,217,324
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $11,315,858
Gross Revenue: $11,315,858
Production Budget: $35 million
Director: Clint Eastwood
Now, I know that some of the first associations that come to mind when someone mentions Clint Eastwood include Dirty Harry and classic Westerns, but when you stop to consider titles like Unforgiven, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Letters from Iwo Jima, and Gran Torino, it is clear that the Academy Award winner is an insanely talented director. Then there’s Leonardo DiCaprio, who consistently charms audiences with high quality titles like Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Departed, Blood Diamond, Shutter Island, and Inception…it is really a shame that, to date, the young actor has never received Oscar accolades for his work. Needless to say, putting these two together for a biographical drama that would be released at the beginning of the normally awards-heavy Holiday Movie Season virtually guaranteed critical success and early Oscar buzz. As a fan of both Hollywood powerhouses and someone familiar with the various conspiracy theories surrounding the late FBI director, I was sold and understandably curious about J. Edgar, but I wasn’t convinced that a required level of mass appeal was necessarily present. Perhaps Warner Bros. could have further leveraged the talent present (which included veterans like Judie Dench and Naomi Watts, not to mention rising stars like The Social Network’s Armie Hammer) in this newest drama to sell audiences, but I still had high hopes for the success of J. Edgar.
As the film title suggests, J. Edgar follows the career of the controversial founder/director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio), from his early days championing criminal procedure to his descent into paranoia and controversy. The central framing device for the film is the elderly Hoover dictating his memoir to younger FBI agents, and as such, the narrative regularly transitions from focusing on the title character in his 20’s and in his 60’s. The film begins with the young Hoover being placed in charge of a new bureau of investigation after several Bolshevik and anarchist bombings (leading to the Palmer Raids), and as such he begins championing revolutionary new tactics in evidence collection and fingerprint science. Hiring an ambitious second-in-command, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), and a dedicated young administrative assistant, Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts), Hoover’s power begins to grow as his organization investigates the infamous Lindbergh Kidnapping, and as time passes, the FBI gains more and more Federal privilege. Hoover’s personal life, which includes a complicated relationship with both his mother, Anna Marie (Judi Dench), and Tolson, begins to influence his increasingly ruthless blackmailing tactics in the name of protecting the country, which includes “personal files” of historical figures like Eleanor Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr., none of whom are immune to the FBI director’s legacy.
It should come as no surprise that the best part of J. Edgar is the phenomenal performance of Leonardo DiCaprio, who completely disappears into his character and ably portrays Hoover across different stages of life and emotional ranges. However, there are certain aspects of his strong acting that bring other shortcomings of the film to life, the most prevalent involving Hoover’s closeted homosexuality and the relationships he shared with Tolson and his mother. For instance, Armie Hammer’s inexperience as an actor is thrown into the spotlight when he stands next to DiCaprio and both are in heavy makeup to appear elderly…where DiCaprio makes a natural transition, Hammer is clearly out of place and overacts in a failed attempt to compensate. Then there are Hoover’s mommy-issues played out alongside Judi Dench…DiCaprio brings the complex suppression and emotional torment to life, but the interaction ends up echoing Norman Bates a little too strongly. With such complicated acting and relationship dynamics at play, the narrative should have seamlessly kept everything flowing, but in that task the film falls short.
In true award-winning biographical dramas, the story is just as memorable and enjoyable as the actors who inhabit the movie world, but in the case of J. Edgar, the confusing and tedious plot ends up being something of a chore. Continuously transitioning between two timelines in one film is risky, and while the formula worked for a while, it almost seems like Eastwood lost his perceived balance, as the story becomes thoroughly confusing and the sequence of events is eventually near-impossible to keep straight. Also, at nearly two and a half hours, J. Edgar is not the kind of film you can approach casually or without significant determination…I myself dozed once or twice, and a true high caliber film cannot sacrifice that kind of energy. With such a taxing and serious story, this film understandably only appeals to a very select audience, so I don’t expect younger moviegoers to jump at the chance to learn more about the early years of the FBI. All in all, J. Edgar is a good film, but it should be taken with a grain of salt, as it makes no glaring errors, but takes significant cognitive effort to enjoy properly.
From a box office perspective, J. Edgar has been decidedly underwhelming, only opening in fifth place and failing to draw audiences away from Immortals or Jack and Jill with a paltry $11 million, which is especially sad considering the A-level talent present. I mentioned that the film likely had limited appeal, but I still expected DiCaprio to draw a slightly stronger crowd…lord knows he deserves more attention than Adam Sandler. Now normally, one of these early Oscar-favorites would generate massive word of mouth, but as I said earlier, there is nothing overtly memorable present or worthy of must-see status. Warner Bros. might actually have trouble recovering a $35 million budget, but hopefully DiCaprio can get on the books with some Oscar accolades. Historical buffs will get a kick out of J. Edgar, but for more casual moviegoers, your time at the theater will be better spent somewhere else.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #5 with $11,217,324
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $11,315,858
Gross Revenue: $11,315,858
Production Budget: $35 million
Director: Clint Eastwood
Now, I know that some of the first associations that come to mind when someone mentions Clint Eastwood include Dirty Harry and classic Westerns, but when you stop to consider titles like Unforgiven, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Letters from Iwo Jima, and Gran Torino, it is clear that the Academy Award winner is an insanely talented director. Then there’s Leonardo DiCaprio, who consistently charms audiences with high quality titles like Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Departed, Blood Diamond, Shutter Island, and Inception…it is really a shame that, to date, the young actor has never received Oscar accolades for his work. Needless to say, putting these two together for a biographical drama that would be released at the beginning of the normally awards-heavy Holiday Movie Season virtually guaranteed critical success and early Oscar buzz. As a fan of both Hollywood powerhouses and someone familiar with the various conspiracy theories surrounding the late FBI director, I was sold and understandably curious about J. Edgar, but I wasn’t convinced that a required level of mass appeal was necessarily present. Perhaps Warner Bros. could have further leveraged the talent present (which included veterans like Judie Dench and Naomi Watts, not to mention rising stars like The Social Network’s Armie Hammer) in this newest drama to sell audiences, but I still had high hopes for the success of J. Edgar.
As the film title suggests, J. Edgar follows the career of the controversial founder/director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio), from his early days championing criminal procedure to his descent into paranoia and controversy. The central framing device for the film is the elderly Hoover dictating his memoir to younger FBI agents, and as such, the narrative regularly transitions from focusing on the title character in his 20’s and in his 60’s. The film begins with the young Hoover being placed in charge of a new bureau of investigation after several Bolshevik and anarchist bombings (leading to the Palmer Raids), and as such he begins championing revolutionary new tactics in evidence collection and fingerprint science. Hiring an ambitious second-in-command, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), and a dedicated young administrative assistant, Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts), Hoover’s power begins to grow as his organization investigates the infamous Lindbergh Kidnapping, and as time passes, the FBI gains more and more Federal privilege. Hoover’s personal life, which includes a complicated relationship with both his mother, Anna Marie (Judi Dench), and Tolson, begins to influence his increasingly ruthless blackmailing tactics in the name of protecting the country, which includes “personal files” of historical figures like Eleanor Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr., none of whom are immune to the FBI director’s legacy.
It should come as no surprise that the best part of J. Edgar is the phenomenal performance of Leonardo DiCaprio, who completely disappears into his character and ably portrays Hoover across different stages of life and emotional ranges. However, there are certain aspects of his strong acting that bring other shortcomings of the film to life, the most prevalent involving Hoover’s closeted homosexuality and the relationships he shared with Tolson and his mother. For instance, Armie Hammer’s inexperience as an actor is thrown into the spotlight when he stands next to DiCaprio and both are in heavy makeup to appear elderly…where DiCaprio makes a natural transition, Hammer is clearly out of place and overacts in a failed attempt to compensate. Then there are Hoover’s mommy-issues played out alongside Judi Dench…DiCaprio brings the complex suppression and emotional torment to life, but the interaction ends up echoing Norman Bates a little too strongly. With such complicated acting and relationship dynamics at play, the narrative should have seamlessly kept everything flowing, but in that task the film falls short.
In true award-winning biographical dramas, the story is just as memorable and enjoyable as the actors who inhabit the movie world, but in the case of J. Edgar, the confusing and tedious plot ends up being something of a chore. Continuously transitioning between two timelines in one film is risky, and while the formula worked for a while, it almost seems like Eastwood lost his perceived balance, as the story becomes thoroughly confusing and the sequence of events is eventually near-impossible to keep straight. Also, at nearly two and a half hours, J. Edgar is not the kind of film you can approach casually or without significant determination…I myself dozed once or twice, and a true high caliber film cannot sacrifice that kind of energy. With such a taxing and serious story, this film understandably only appeals to a very select audience, so I don’t expect younger moviegoers to jump at the chance to learn more about the early years of the FBI. All in all, J. Edgar is a good film, but it should be taken with a grain of salt, as it makes no glaring errors, but takes significant cognitive effort to enjoy properly.
From a box office perspective, J. Edgar has been decidedly underwhelming, only opening in fifth place and failing to draw audiences away from Immortals or Jack and Jill with a paltry $11 million, which is especially sad considering the A-level talent present. I mentioned that the film likely had limited appeal, but I still expected DiCaprio to draw a slightly stronger crowd…lord knows he deserves more attention than Adam Sandler. Now normally, one of these early Oscar-favorites would generate massive word of mouth, but as I said earlier, there is nothing overtly memorable present or worthy of must-see status. Warner Bros. might actually have trouble recovering a $35 million budget, but hopefully DiCaprio can get on the books with some Oscar accolades. Historical buffs will get a kick out of J. Edgar, but for more casual moviegoers, your time at the theater will be better spent somewhere else.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Monday, November 14, 2011
A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas: Short and Sweet
It may not be the first film series that jumps to mind whenever somebody mentions a holiday movie, but I was nevertheless ecstatic when A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas was first announced. Ever since John Cho and Kal Penn brought their stoner personas to the big screen searching for White Castle burgers in 2004, they found themselves spawning a comedy franchise with very loyal fans. Besides its title characters, the Harold & Kumar series is perhaps best known for revealing an edgier side of Neil Patrick Harris that many consider legen-…wait for it…-dary! Now, any of my normal readers are well-aware of my opinion concerning 3D films, but trailers for 3D Christmas seemed to indicate that the filmmakers were very aware of this potential shortcoming, and would go out of their way to make sure the extra ticket cost for those glasses would be well worth it. Needless to say, having seen and loved both previous entries in the Harold & Kumar series, I couldn’t wait for 3D Christmas, since it would not only make me laugh but had the potential to get me into the holiday spirit.
Given my high hopes for 3D Christmas, I worried that all of my built up anticipation would only lead to disappointment…luckily, this third film in the Harold & Kumar series is easily the best and funniest of the three. John Cho and Kal Penn make their return to the screen in a glorious fashion, blending crude, clever, and outrageous humor that will have you falling out of your seat laughing, and then quoting the film for weeks afterwards. As expected, Neil Patrick Harris’ inclusion only heightened quality and reinforced the justification for his widespread popularity, and my only real criticism for the film is that he simply is not in every scene. From a 3D perspective, this holiday film may be the single greatest showcase of the technology to date, with so many objects from eggs to Christmas trees flying off-screen in a stylish fashion that it sends the overall levels of energy through the roof. Smart, sweet, funny, and surprisingly festive, whether you believe me or not, the reality is that A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas is not only an excellent comedy, but it also may be one of the best holiday films to get you into the X-mas spirit out there.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Given my high hopes for 3D Christmas, I worried that all of my built up anticipation would only lead to disappointment…luckily, this third film in the Harold & Kumar series is easily the best and funniest of the three. John Cho and Kal Penn make their return to the screen in a glorious fashion, blending crude, clever, and outrageous humor that will have you falling out of your seat laughing, and then quoting the film for weeks afterwards. As expected, Neil Patrick Harris’ inclusion only heightened quality and reinforced the justification for his widespread popularity, and my only real criticism for the film is that he simply is not in every scene. From a 3D perspective, this holiday film may be the single greatest showcase of the technology to date, with so many objects from eggs to Christmas trees flying off-screen in a stylish fashion that it sends the overall levels of energy through the roof. Smart, sweet, funny, and surprisingly festive, whether you believe me or not, the reality is that A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas is not only an excellent comedy, but it also may be one of the best holiday films to get you into the X-mas spirit out there.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas: Full Review
A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas - (November 4, 2011): R
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #3 with $12,954,142
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $23,237,525
Gross Revenue: $23,237,525
Production Budget: $19 million
Director: Todd Strauss-Schulson
Back in 2004, audiences were pitched a film about two stoners desperately trying to seek-out White Castle burgers in order to satisfy a case of the munchies, and against all expectations, that strange and simple premise resonated strongly with audiences, and in 2008, straight-laced Harold and chaotic Kumar found themselves trapped in Guantanamo Bay…it was only a matter of time before they offered a twisted take on Christmas. And it is impossible to speak about the Harold & Kumar series without mentioning Neil Patrick Harris, whose exaggerated portrayal of himself was so well-received that he was offered a role on a new sitcom in development over at CBS, How I Met Your Mother…we all know how that turned out. Now, when Kal Penn decided to quit acting and work in The White House, the future of the series was definitely in doubt, but I’m sure fans breathed a collective sigh of relief when the first trailers for 3D Christmas hit. Besides the familiar characters, trailers indicated that the biggest selling point for Warner Bros. to leverage this entry would be that this film stands as the first of the series to be offered in 3D, and the self-aware nature of the promotions indicated that the technology would not be wasted this time around. I doubt anyone had flaming Christmas trees and a swearing Santa in mind while they were awaiting the first true festive film of the Holiday Movie Season…hopefully Harold and Kumar would not disappoint their fans.
Set a few years after Harold and Kumar escaped from Guantanamo Bay, A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas finds the two friends estranged and leading very different lives: Harold (John Cho) is a successful executive with a beautiful home and is married to the girl of his dreams, Maria (Paula Garcé), while Kumar (Kal Penn) is still between jobs, living in his old apartment, and separated from his longtime girlfriend, Vanessa (Danneel Harris). The two are thrust together when a mysterious package for Harold arrives at Kumar’s apartment, and upon delivery, the Christmas tree that Harold has been preparing for a big family holiday party is accidently destroyed. Desperate to impress his overbearing and judgmental father-in-law, Mr. Perez (Danny Trejo), Harold insists that Kumar help him find a replacement, and together, the two embark on a chaotic adventure that includes Russian mobsters, a toddler with the munchies, a claymation snowman, and of course, the big guy, Santa Claus (Richard Rieble). Along the way, the two also encounter their old friend, Neil Patrick Harris (himself), who is himself preparing his own Holiday Special and who also agrees to help locate the perfect tree. Amid the chaos, the old friends confront their issues and begin to rekindle their friendship just in time for Christmas.
As expected, the best part of A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas is its crude and outrageous humor that is nothing short of hysterical: drugs, women, ethnicities, corporations, musicals, teenagers, organized crime…absolutely nothing is off limits. It is actually the type of film worth seeing more than once just so that you are able to catch all of the quotes so that you can repeat them over and over. Against all expectations, the other accolade for 3D Christmas is the 3D technology itself, with nearly everything jumping off the screen in an energetic way, whether it’s the eggs being thrown by Wall Street protestors, the traffic cones being run over, or the smoke being, well, smoked. In both its humor and its use of 3D, the film is very self-aware, meaning that it knows exactly what type of comedy it offers, that 3D is a novelty at best, and no one is looking for anything overtly deep…in one scene in particular, Kumar comments on how no one would ever believe that he could work at The White House. Based on these two elements alone, 3D Christmas is easily the best film of the series, but the accolades extend even further.
If I had to find any fault in 3D Christmas, it would simply be that it takes over half of the movie for Neil Patrick Harris to appear…don’t get me wrong, he makes the most of every second he is on screen, but if I had my way, he would have been in every scene. I guess another element of the film that is surprising involves the fact that the friendship between Harold and Kumar showcased is filled with much more emotion and heart than you would ever expect to find in a stoner comedy. Also, between the holiday music and search for the perfect tree, 3D Christmas is sure to fill you with the X-mas spirit…I realize how wrong that may sound given the franchise, but just trust me when I say the film is festive. Now, to be realistic, the film more than earns its R-rating, and as such, nothing could be further from a mass-appeal film; it may be clearly targeted at a certain demographic, but the high quality of the overall product may earn the series some new fans. Plain and simple, with no overt shortcomings, A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas should not be missed.
From a box office perspective, 3D Christmas performed right in line with expectations, as there was no way that an R-rated franchise comedy was going to take down family friendly Puss in Boots or star-studded Tower Heist. Still, with a modest budget and a dedicated fan following, it is not at all surprising that the clever film has already recovered its costs. With the accompanying jump in quality, I can only hope we will see more and more of Harold and Kumar in the future. At the very least, an animated series based on the claymation segment has already been green lit, and based on those hysterical minutes of the film, I will be sure to check out the characters’ on the small screen. Definitely an odd start to the Holiday Movie Season, don’t immediately discount A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas…I guarantee that it is much better than you are expecting.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #3 with $12,954,142
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $23,237,525
Gross Revenue: $23,237,525
Production Budget: $19 million
Director: Todd Strauss-Schulson
Back in 2004, audiences were pitched a film about two stoners desperately trying to seek-out White Castle burgers in order to satisfy a case of the munchies, and against all expectations, that strange and simple premise resonated strongly with audiences, and in 2008, straight-laced Harold and chaotic Kumar found themselves trapped in Guantanamo Bay…it was only a matter of time before they offered a twisted take on Christmas. And it is impossible to speak about the Harold & Kumar series without mentioning Neil Patrick Harris, whose exaggerated portrayal of himself was so well-received that he was offered a role on a new sitcom in development over at CBS, How I Met Your Mother…we all know how that turned out. Now, when Kal Penn decided to quit acting and work in The White House, the future of the series was definitely in doubt, but I’m sure fans breathed a collective sigh of relief when the first trailers for 3D Christmas hit. Besides the familiar characters, trailers indicated that the biggest selling point for Warner Bros. to leverage this entry would be that this film stands as the first of the series to be offered in 3D, and the self-aware nature of the promotions indicated that the technology would not be wasted this time around. I doubt anyone had flaming Christmas trees and a swearing Santa in mind while they were awaiting the first true festive film of the Holiday Movie Season…hopefully Harold and Kumar would not disappoint their fans.
Set a few years after Harold and Kumar escaped from Guantanamo Bay, A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas finds the two friends estranged and leading very different lives: Harold (John Cho) is a successful executive with a beautiful home and is married to the girl of his dreams, Maria (Paula Garcé), while Kumar (Kal Penn) is still between jobs, living in his old apartment, and separated from his longtime girlfriend, Vanessa (Danneel Harris). The two are thrust together when a mysterious package for Harold arrives at Kumar’s apartment, and upon delivery, the Christmas tree that Harold has been preparing for a big family holiday party is accidently destroyed. Desperate to impress his overbearing and judgmental father-in-law, Mr. Perez (Danny Trejo), Harold insists that Kumar help him find a replacement, and together, the two embark on a chaotic adventure that includes Russian mobsters, a toddler with the munchies, a claymation snowman, and of course, the big guy, Santa Claus (Richard Rieble). Along the way, the two also encounter their old friend, Neil Patrick Harris (himself), who is himself preparing his own Holiday Special and who also agrees to help locate the perfect tree. Amid the chaos, the old friends confront their issues and begin to rekindle their friendship just in time for Christmas.
As expected, the best part of A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas is its crude and outrageous humor that is nothing short of hysterical: drugs, women, ethnicities, corporations, musicals, teenagers, organized crime…absolutely nothing is off limits. It is actually the type of film worth seeing more than once just so that you are able to catch all of the quotes so that you can repeat them over and over. Against all expectations, the other accolade for 3D Christmas is the 3D technology itself, with nearly everything jumping off the screen in an energetic way, whether it’s the eggs being thrown by Wall Street protestors, the traffic cones being run over, or the smoke being, well, smoked. In both its humor and its use of 3D, the film is very self-aware, meaning that it knows exactly what type of comedy it offers, that 3D is a novelty at best, and no one is looking for anything overtly deep…in one scene in particular, Kumar comments on how no one would ever believe that he could work at The White House. Based on these two elements alone, 3D Christmas is easily the best film of the series, but the accolades extend even further.
If I had to find any fault in 3D Christmas, it would simply be that it takes over half of the movie for Neil Patrick Harris to appear…don’t get me wrong, he makes the most of every second he is on screen, but if I had my way, he would have been in every scene. I guess another element of the film that is surprising involves the fact that the friendship between Harold and Kumar showcased is filled with much more emotion and heart than you would ever expect to find in a stoner comedy. Also, between the holiday music and search for the perfect tree, 3D Christmas is sure to fill you with the X-mas spirit…I realize how wrong that may sound given the franchise, but just trust me when I say the film is festive. Now, to be realistic, the film more than earns its R-rating, and as such, nothing could be further from a mass-appeal film; it may be clearly targeted at a certain demographic, but the high quality of the overall product may earn the series some new fans. Plain and simple, with no overt shortcomings, A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas should not be missed.
From a box office perspective, 3D Christmas performed right in line with expectations, as there was no way that an R-rated franchise comedy was going to take down family friendly Puss in Boots or star-studded Tower Heist. Still, with a modest budget and a dedicated fan following, it is not at all surprising that the clever film has already recovered its costs. With the accompanying jump in quality, I can only hope we will see more and more of Harold and Kumar in the future. At the very least, an animated series based on the claymation segment has already been green lit, and based on those hysterical minutes of the film, I will be sure to check out the characters’ on the small screen. Definitely an odd start to the Holiday Movie Season, don’t immediately discount A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas…I guarantee that it is much better than you are expecting.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Friday, November 11, 2011
Tower Heist: Short and Sweet
At one point, Eddie Murphy was considered one of the most popular and bankable actors in all of Hollywood, but in the past ten years, he has had little-to-no success outside of the Shrek franchise. After numerous critical and commercial failures that included god-awful entries like Showtime, I Spy, The Adventures of Pluto Nash, Norbit, and Meet Dave, many were understandably skeptical when it was announced that Murphy would making his return to the big screen in Tower Heist. Make no mistake; the Ocean’s Eleven franchise proved that audiences respond positively to ensemble crime capers, but trading in Steven Soderbergh, George Clooney, and Brad Pitt for Brett Ratner, Ben Stiller, and Eddie Murphy, did little more than give Tower Heist a decidedly B-level feel. Granted, I do have to give the film credit for its relevance to today’s economic environment, as virtually everyone has some opinion concerning a Bernie Madoff-like villain and can cheer for working-class heroes taking on Wall Street fat cats. As the first big release during the always-busy and successful Holiday Film Season, Tower Heist had quite a bit to prove, and frankly, I wasn’t convinced that anything could restore my faith in the once-great Eddie Murphy.
In retrospect, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Tower Heist, as the film gives off a distinct energy and clever level of comedy, and those accolades are due almost entirely to Ben Stiller. As the everyman hero pushed to the edge, Stiller brings a character to life that showcases some of the best qualities that have made him famous, and so, by extension, audiences will instantaneously find themselves cheering for his success. Stiller may be the clear star, but his supported by a strong cast of distinct characters; Murphy gained some of his credibility back in a enjoyably-subdued performance, but the clear standouts are the malicious Alan Alda and sassy-yet-sweet Téa Leoni. The heist itself is cleverly paced and decidedly unique, despite a few confusing elements and questionable jumps in logic, making the story in its entirety humorous and entertaining. It may not be perfect or have the same charm or charisma showcased by Ocean’s Eleven, but Tower Heist is still an able entry in the crime caper genre that is well-worth seeing.
Overall Recommendation: High
In retrospect, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Tower Heist, as the film gives off a distinct energy and clever level of comedy, and those accolades are due almost entirely to Ben Stiller. As the everyman hero pushed to the edge, Stiller brings a character to life that showcases some of the best qualities that have made him famous, and so, by extension, audiences will instantaneously find themselves cheering for his success. Stiller may be the clear star, but his supported by a strong cast of distinct characters; Murphy gained some of his credibility back in a enjoyably-subdued performance, but the clear standouts are the malicious Alan Alda and sassy-yet-sweet Téa Leoni. The heist itself is cleverly paced and decidedly unique, despite a few confusing elements and questionable jumps in logic, making the story in its entirety humorous and entertaining. It may not be perfect or have the same charm or charisma showcased by Ocean’s Eleven, but Tower Heist is still an able entry in the crime caper genre that is well-worth seeing.
Overall Recommendation: High
Tower Heist: Full Review
Tower Heist - (November 4, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #2 with $24,025,190
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $30,691,850
Gross Revenue: $40,191,850
Production Budget: $75 million
Director: Brett Ratner
Given everyone’s current frustration with the financial market, now may seem like the perfect time for Tower Heist to be released, but the project actually began development back in 2005, with Eddie Murphy originally pitching the concept with an all-star cast of black comedians, which included Chris Tucker, Dave Chapelle, and Martin Lawrence, robbing Trump Tower. Obviously, once Brett Ratner got his hands on the project, some decided changes were made to the concept echoing the Ocean’s Eleven series, but thankfully, filmmakers still attached a well-known and popular cast, which included Matthew Broderick (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off), Ocean’s-alum Casey Affleck, Michael Peña (30 Minutes or Less), and rising star Gabourey Sidibe (Precious). Now, I’m sure there was a time when Eddie Murphy’s inclusion was a positive element, but after the steady stream of mediocre and over-acted entries he has delivered over the past few years, I was just praying that wouldn’t sink another film…hopefully Ben Stiller’s presence would balance things out. From a marketing standpoint, Universal Pictures was certainly banking on Tower Heist being a runaway hit, with promotions saturating television, radio, and print for weeks leading up to the November release. Skeptical to say the least, I wasn’t sure what to make of Tower Heist, but maybe, just maybe, the film could provide an entertaining and energetic start to the Holiday Movie Season.
Tower Heist begins by introducing viewers to the opulent high-rise luxury apartment complex in New York City known as The Tower, which is run by dedicated and amicable building manager Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller). The Tower’s most prestigious resident is the wealthy Wall Street businessman Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda), who maintains a strong rapport with the building staff, even going as far to invest all of their pensions with promise of high returns. Unfortunately, Shaw is soon arrested by the FBI and sentenced to house arrest for fraud, accused of running an elaborate Ponzi scheme, meaning that he has effectively stolen money from every staff member of The Tower. Filled with guilt, as the initial investment was his idea, Josh naively maintains hope in Shaw’s innocence, but once it is revealed that Shaw feels no guilt or responsibility for his actions, Josh swears revenge. After building a friendship with Shaw’s arresting agent, Claire Denham (Téa Leoni), it is accidently revealed that Shaw is likely holding $20 million in cash in his apartment as a safety net, so Josh assembles a team to break into the complex that includes his brother-in-law and concierge, Charlie Gibbs (Casey Affleck), former Wall Street investor Mr. Fitzhugh (Matthew Broderick), bellhop Enrique Dev’reaux (Michael Peña), and maid/safe-cracker Odessa Montero (Gabourey Sidibe). When the “crew” realizes their inability to ably perform a crime, Josh enlists the help and guidance of his vagrant neighbor and childhood friend, Slide (Eddie Murphy), and together, these working-class heroes attempt to break into and steal from one of the most secure buildings in the city.
I don’t know what it is about a crime caper that is so entertaining, but Tower Heist is pure fun, as Stiller leads the entire cast in an energetic and decidedly clever adventure that has all the distinct characters blending together in a thoroughly memorable and humorous manner. As the everyman hero, Stiller delivers what may be one of his best roles, because Josh’s instant likability only increases as the narrative progresses; his freak-out confrontation with Shaw is one of the most noble and vindicating scenes in recent memory. Stiller is also helped by a phenomenal supporting cast, as Alan Alda portrays the villain with such toxicity and arrogance that you wish him nothing but physical harm, while Téa Leoni’s sassy and tomboyish authority figure provides the perfect cinematic love interest. In light of all these positive elements, the biggest surprise is Eddie Murphy himself, in that he finally toned down his loudmouth personality long enough for some of his natural humor, which has been missing for years, to finally break through. With such strong characters present, some of the finer points of the story clearly suffering from underdevelopment come to light, but few, if any, of the lapses are overtly damning.
First off, when Danny Ocean and the rest of his crew of professional thieves were planning to rob a casino, their months of preparation made the success of the heist plausible, but a group of building staff-members stealing from an FBI-secured penthouse apartment in a few days time is a little too hard to swallow. Granted, certain elements within the plan’s execution are surprisingly clever, but in its entirety, there are several unanswered questions generated and extreme jumps in logic. In terms of humor, Tower Heist certainly had its funny moments, but I was still expecting more laughs given the comedic pedigrees of the cast…Matthew Broderick and Casey Affleck are shamefully underused. All in all, the differing elements of the film do come together coherently, but there is a certain polish missing from the project that would have made Tower Heist special…there is just no necessity that dictates that this story absolutely had to be told. Don’t get me wrong, Tower Heist isn’t terrible…there just were not enough bad elements to explain why the film wasn’t fantastic.
In terms of box office, given the sheer volume of promotions designed to sell Brett Ratner’s newest project as the next big blockbuster, Tower Heist’s second place opening with $24 million was decidedly disappointing. To be fair, taking down Puss in Boots after the animated titan’s shocking lack of week-to-week drop-off would have been an insurmountable challenge for any kind of non-franchise film. Still, maybe the sub-par opening is a sign that audiences haven’t fully forgotten or forgiven Eddie Murphy’s recent cinematic missteps. With a veritable flurry of new offerings hitting in the next few weeks during the notoriously busy Holiday Movie Season, Tower Heist has likely seen its best numbers already, making recovery of the $75 million a significant challenge, but maybe word of mouth can convince more people that the film is actually much better than expected. It may not be perfect, but Tower Heist is still a surprise that can undoubtedly entertain a wide and diverse audience.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #2 with $24,025,190
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $30,691,850
Gross Revenue: $40,191,850
Production Budget: $75 million
Director: Brett Ratner
Given everyone’s current frustration with the financial market, now may seem like the perfect time for Tower Heist to be released, but the project actually began development back in 2005, with Eddie Murphy originally pitching the concept with an all-star cast of black comedians, which included Chris Tucker, Dave Chapelle, and Martin Lawrence, robbing Trump Tower. Obviously, once Brett Ratner got his hands on the project, some decided changes were made to the concept echoing the Ocean’s Eleven series, but thankfully, filmmakers still attached a well-known and popular cast, which included Matthew Broderick (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off), Ocean’s-alum Casey Affleck, Michael Peña (30 Minutes or Less), and rising star Gabourey Sidibe (Precious). Now, I’m sure there was a time when Eddie Murphy’s inclusion was a positive element, but after the steady stream of mediocre and over-acted entries he has delivered over the past few years, I was just praying that wouldn’t sink another film…hopefully Ben Stiller’s presence would balance things out. From a marketing standpoint, Universal Pictures was certainly banking on Tower Heist being a runaway hit, with promotions saturating television, radio, and print for weeks leading up to the November release. Skeptical to say the least, I wasn’t sure what to make of Tower Heist, but maybe, just maybe, the film could provide an entertaining and energetic start to the Holiday Movie Season.
Tower Heist begins by introducing viewers to the opulent high-rise luxury apartment complex in New York City known as The Tower, which is run by dedicated and amicable building manager Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller). The Tower’s most prestigious resident is the wealthy Wall Street businessman Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda), who maintains a strong rapport with the building staff, even going as far to invest all of their pensions with promise of high returns. Unfortunately, Shaw is soon arrested by the FBI and sentenced to house arrest for fraud, accused of running an elaborate Ponzi scheme, meaning that he has effectively stolen money from every staff member of The Tower. Filled with guilt, as the initial investment was his idea, Josh naively maintains hope in Shaw’s innocence, but once it is revealed that Shaw feels no guilt or responsibility for his actions, Josh swears revenge. After building a friendship with Shaw’s arresting agent, Claire Denham (Téa Leoni), it is accidently revealed that Shaw is likely holding $20 million in cash in his apartment as a safety net, so Josh assembles a team to break into the complex that includes his brother-in-law and concierge, Charlie Gibbs (Casey Affleck), former Wall Street investor Mr. Fitzhugh (Matthew Broderick), bellhop Enrique Dev’reaux (Michael Peña), and maid/safe-cracker Odessa Montero (Gabourey Sidibe). When the “crew” realizes their inability to ably perform a crime, Josh enlists the help and guidance of his vagrant neighbor and childhood friend, Slide (Eddie Murphy), and together, these working-class heroes attempt to break into and steal from one of the most secure buildings in the city.
I don’t know what it is about a crime caper that is so entertaining, but Tower Heist is pure fun, as Stiller leads the entire cast in an energetic and decidedly clever adventure that has all the distinct characters blending together in a thoroughly memorable and humorous manner. As the everyman hero, Stiller delivers what may be one of his best roles, because Josh’s instant likability only increases as the narrative progresses; his freak-out confrontation with Shaw is one of the most noble and vindicating scenes in recent memory. Stiller is also helped by a phenomenal supporting cast, as Alan Alda portrays the villain with such toxicity and arrogance that you wish him nothing but physical harm, while Téa Leoni’s sassy and tomboyish authority figure provides the perfect cinematic love interest. In light of all these positive elements, the biggest surprise is Eddie Murphy himself, in that he finally toned down his loudmouth personality long enough for some of his natural humor, which has been missing for years, to finally break through. With such strong characters present, some of the finer points of the story clearly suffering from underdevelopment come to light, but few, if any, of the lapses are overtly damning.
First off, when Danny Ocean and the rest of his crew of professional thieves were planning to rob a casino, their months of preparation made the success of the heist plausible, but a group of building staff-members stealing from an FBI-secured penthouse apartment in a few days time is a little too hard to swallow. Granted, certain elements within the plan’s execution are surprisingly clever, but in its entirety, there are several unanswered questions generated and extreme jumps in logic. In terms of humor, Tower Heist certainly had its funny moments, but I was still expecting more laughs given the comedic pedigrees of the cast…Matthew Broderick and Casey Affleck are shamefully underused. All in all, the differing elements of the film do come together coherently, but there is a certain polish missing from the project that would have made Tower Heist special…there is just no necessity that dictates that this story absolutely had to be told. Don’t get me wrong, Tower Heist isn’t terrible…there just were not enough bad elements to explain why the film wasn’t fantastic.
In terms of box office, given the sheer volume of promotions designed to sell Brett Ratner’s newest project as the next big blockbuster, Tower Heist’s second place opening with $24 million was decidedly disappointing. To be fair, taking down Puss in Boots after the animated titan’s shocking lack of week-to-week drop-off would have been an insurmountable challenge for any kind of non-franchise film. Still, maybe the sub-par opening is a sign that audiences haven’t fully forgotten or forgiven Eddie Murphy’s recent cinematic missteps. With a veritable flurry of new offerings hitting in the next few weeks during the notoriously busy Holiday Movie Season, Tower Heist has likely seen its best numbers already, making recovery of the $75 million a significant challenge, but maybe word of mouth can convince more people that the film is actually much better than expected. It may not be perfect, but Tower Heist is still a surprise that can undoubtedly entertain a wide and diverse audience.
Overall Recommendation: High
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Puss in Boots: Short and Sweet
Time and again I have commented on how DreamWorks Animation is poised to overtake Disney-Pixar as the king of high-quality animated blockbusters, and with franchises like Shrek, Kung Fu Panda, and How to Train Your Dragon, few would disagree with me. With Paramount getting ready to distribute DreamWorks Animation’s newest entry, selling Puss in Boots to a large and diverse audience represented anything but a gamble. Ever since Antonio Banderas lent his voice and personality to the confident and confrontational feline that first met audiences during the Shrek films, loyal moviegoers have been anxiously awaiting the character’s first solo adventure. From a marketing perspective, animated films represent a veritable cash cow in terms of licensing and partnerships, so various and prevalent promotions guaranteed a strong a widespread popular interest. With an A-list cast coming together to help breathe new life into a familiar character, there were tremendous expectations surrounding Puss in Boots, and I could only hope that the film was prepared for such a challenge.
With such a bankable lead character, I was decidedly disappointed in the finished product of Puss in Boots, as the films squanders a majority of its humor potential by investing in a nonsensical and utterly ridiculous story filled with half-baked characters. Speaking purely on animation quality alone, Puss in Boots is utterly gorgeous, with lighting and textures showcasing cutting edge computer graphics that don’t require any 3D effects for enhancement. When it comes to the voice cast, Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek absolutely shine bringing distinct personalities and senses of humor to the characters, an enjoyable quality that is only enhanced when the two interact with each other on screen. Unfortunately, that is where the appeal of Puss in Boots ends, as the “Jack and the Beanstalk” story angle relies so heavily on the fairy tale theme made famous by the Shrek films that it all feels tired and overused…once Zach Galifianakis’ one-dimensional Humpty Dumpty character appears, it’s game over. Don’t get me wrong, Puss in Boots is entertaining, but it is nowhere near as funny or memorable as its predecessors; if the film is to grow into a true franchise, things will have to get much stronger next time around.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
With such a bankable lead character, I was decidedly disappointed in the finished product of Puss in Boots, as the films squanders a majority of its humor potential by investing in a nonsensical and utterly ridiculous story filled with half-baked characters. Speaking purely on animation quality alone, Puss in Boots is utterly gorgeous, with lighting and textures showcasing cutting edge computer graphics that don’t require any 3D effects for enhancement. When it comes to the voice cast, Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek absolutely shine bringing distinct personalities and senses of humor to the characters, an enjoyable quality that is only enhanced when the two interact with each other on screen. Unfortunately, that is where the appeal of Puss in Boots ends, as the “Jack and the Beanstalk” story angle relies so heavily on the fairy tale theme made famous by the Shrek films that it all feels tired and overused…once Zach Galifianakis’ one-dimensional Humpty Dumpty character appears, it’s game over. Don’t get me wrong, Puss in Boots is entertaining, but it is nowhere near as funny or memorable as its predecessors; if the film is to grow into a true franchise, things will have to get much stronger next time around.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Puss in Boots: Full Review
Puss in Boots - (October 28, 2011): PG
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $34,077,439
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $79,601,189
Gross Revenue: $118,601,189
Production Budget: $130 million
Director: Chris Miller
When it was first announced that Shrek’s feline ally would be branching out to his own feature-length adventure, I’m sure that many fans saw the choice as a natural extension, as the swashbuckling Puss in Boots was easily the strongest contender from DreamWorks Animation’s powerhouse franchise to get a spin-off. Prior to the film’s release, I was unaware that Puss in Boots is actually loosely based on a French fairy tale, but in spite of that lack of knowledge that I’m sure is shared with a majority of moviegoers, widespread familiarity with the character virtually guaranteed a strong audience. Thanks to the marketing tactics and strong emphasis on licensing and partnership shared by DreamWorks Animation and Paramount, buzz for the film was spreading like wildfire, and the titular character was seen everywhere from bus stops and billboards to Friskies cat food ads and McDonald’s Happy Meals. Another surefire success metric involved the interest generated in the Hispanic community, where moviegoer frequency is as strong as ever and Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek are two of the most bankable actors in Hollywood. With all of these strong factors in place, studio expectations for the success of Puss in Boots were enormous, and already being a fan of the character meant that I was looking forward to significant laughs and an enjoyable film.
Taking place before Puss (Antonio Banderas) ever got to travel the kingdom of Far Far Away with Shrek and Donkey, Puss in Boots starts with the titular hero dodging authorities and learning that two outlaws, Jack (Billy Bob Thorton) and Jill (Amy Sedaris), possess magic beans that could lead to a castle holding fabled golden goose eggs. As Puss attempts to steal the beans, he is interrupted by another cat, and after dueling, he unmasks the assailant and discovers her to be Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek), one of the best thieves in the world. Impressed by the skill of his new rival, Puss’ levity is short-lived as he is reunited with his childhood friend, Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis), with whom he shares a complicated and bitter history. The film then switches to an extended flashback, in which Puss and Humpty’s childhood interactions and beginning obsession with the golden eggs is detailed. Now working together, the trio of Puss, Humpty, and Kitty successfully steal the beans from Jack and Jill and make their way to the enchanted castle, but before they can full claim the treasure, some long-buried elements of their shared history come to light.
Just when I think that animated technology cannot get any more impressive, Puss in Boots comes along and showcases a beautiful world, and the sharp visuals are easily the most impressive part of the film. The crisp look of this animated adventure doesn’t even require 3D enhancement, a suiting accomplishment given one of the film’s strongest taglines: “Looking good never looked so good.” As a character, Puss in Boots is as enjoyable as ever, brought to life by Antonio Banderas and veritably overflowing with a clever confidence and charisma that is expertly complimented by Salma Hayek’s Kitty Softpaws. The interaction and coy romance between these two was far more enjoyable than expected and a significant jumping point for a majority of the film’s humor and overall style…the first meeting between these two thieves is as energetic as it is hysterical. Unfortunately, there is not much to Puss in Boots beyond these two characters and the strong visuals showcased, as the childish and predictable story combines with thoroughly unlikable characters to squander the rest of the film’s potential.
When the Shrek films were first introduced, the main appeal of their unique stories involved the clever homage that was paid to classic fairy tales, but in the case of Puss in Boots, the film borrows too heavily from this idea and relies so heavily on fairy tale lore that the narrative comes across as childish and ridiculous. I understand that animated films are first and foremost for children, but recent entries have successfully found a way to appeal to a much larger demographic, and when it comes to Puss in Boots, there is far too much pandering to younger audiences…the giant goose that tries to protect the golden eggs is so groan-inducing that you’ll find yourself rolling your eyes almost instantaneously. I mentioned earlier how much I enjoyed the characters of Puss and Kitty, but some part of that appeal may have been due to the weak nature of the “villains,” Jack and Jill, who are more annoying than threatening, or Humpty Dumpty himself, who is so neurotic, one-dimensional, and unlikable that I almost wish that Zach Galifianakis would never lend his voice to an animated character again. Don’t get me wrong, the film has its fun moments, but these shortcomings pop up so often that any momentum is stopped dead. Plain and simple, with all the marketing tactics pushing Puss in Boots as the next big animated franchise and the legacy of humor and soul left by its predecessors, this entry should have been far funnier, heartfelt, or memorable.
From a box office perspective, Puss in Boots took top spot in its opening weekend but performed below analyst expectations, pulling in a respectable but decidedly mediocre $34 million. Now, before anyone can try and classify this animated feline as signaling the decline of DreamWorks Animation, you should consider two very important facts. First, this entire October box office has been slower than expected, and second, Puss in Boots only had a 3% week-to-week drop-off in ticket sales…anything under a 50% drop is consider successful, so 3% is utterly phenomenal; so, in comparison to a number of recent theater entries, this film has legs to continue bringing in revenue. While I would like to say that there is no cause for concern in turning a substantial profit, Puss in Boots has not yet recovered its hefty production budget of $130 million and will face significant competition once Happy Feet Two and Arthur Christmas come down the pipe. In the end, the film is fun and rightfully showcases a familiar character, but in its entirety, the project is far from a must-see, and that is disappointing.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $34,077,439
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $79,601,189
Gross Revenue: $118,601,189
Production Budget: $130 million
Director: Chris Miller
When it was first announced that Shrek’s feline ally would be branching out to his own feature-length adventure, I’m sure that many fans saw the choice as a natural extension, as the swashbuckling Puss in Boots was easily the strongest contender from DreamWorks Animation’s powerhouse franchise to get a spin-off. Prior to the film’s release, I was unaware that Puss in Boots is actually loosely based on a French fairy tale, but in spite of that lack of knowledge that I’m sure is shared with a majority of moviegoers, widespread familiarity with the character virtually guaranteed a strong audience. Thanks to the marketing tactics and strong emphasis on licensing and partnership shared by DreamWorks Animation and Paramount, buzz for the film was spreading like wildfire, and the titular character was seen everywhere from bus stops and billboards to Friskies cat food ads and McDonald’s Happy Meals. Another surefire success metric involved the interest generated in the Hispanic community, where moviegoer frequency is as strong as ever and Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek are two of the most bankable actors in Hollywood. With all of these strong factors in place, studio expectations for the success of Puss in Boots were enormous, and already being a fan of the character meant that I was looking forward to significant laughs and an enjoyable film.
Taking place before Puss (Antonio Banderas) ever got to travel the kingdom of Far Far Away with Shrek and Donkey, Puss in Boots starts with the titular hero dodging authorities and learning that two outlaws, Jack (Billy Bob Thorton) and Jill (Amy Sedaris), possess magic beans that could lead to a castle holding fabled golden goose eggs. As Puss attempts to steal the beans, he is interrupted by another cat, and after dueling, he unmasks the assailant and discovers her to be Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek), one of the best thieves in the world. Impressed by the skill of his new rival, Puss’ levity is short-lived as he is reunited with his childhood friend, Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis), with whom he shares a complicated and bitter history. The film then switches to an extended flashback, in which Puss and Humpty’s childhood interactions and beginning obsession with the golden eggs is detailed. Now working together, the trio of Puss, Humpty, and Kitty successfully steal the beans from Jack and Jill and make their way to the enchanted castle, but before they can full claim the treasure, some long-buried elements of their shared history come to light.
Just when I think that animated technology cannot get any more impressive, Puss in Boots comes along and showcases a beautiful world, and the sharp visuals are easily the most impressive part of the film. The crisp look of this animated adventure doesn’t even require 3D enhancement, a suiting accomplishment given one of the film’s strongest taglines: “Looking good never looked so good.” As a character, Puss in Boots is as enjoyable as ever, brought to life by Antonio Banderas and veritably overflowing with a clever confidence and charisma that is expertly complimented by Salma Hayek’s Kitty Softpaws. The interaction and coy romance between these two was far more enjoyable than expected and a significant jumping point for a majority of the film’s humor and overall style…the first meeting between these two thieves is as energetic as it is hysterical. Unfortunately, there is not much to Puss in Boots beyond these two characters and the strong visuals showcased, as the childish and predictable story combines with thoroughly unlikable characters to squander the rest of the film’s potential.
When the Shrek films were first introduced, the main appeal of their unique stories involved the clever homage that was paid to classic fairy tales, but in the case of Puss in Boots, the film borrows too heavily from this idea and relies so heavily on fairy tale lore that the narrative comes across as childish and ridiculous. I understand that animated films are first and foremost for children, but recent entries have successfully found a way to appeal to a much larger demographic, and when it comes to Puss in Boots, there is far too much pandering to younger audiences…the giant goose that tries to protect the golden eggs is so groan-inducing that you’ll find yourself rolling your eyes almost instantaneously. I mentioned earlier how much I enjoyed the characters of Puss and Kitty, but some part of that appeal may have been due to the weak nature of the “villains,” Jack and Jill, who are more annoying than threatening, or Humpty Dumpty himself, who is so neurotic, one-dimensional, and unlikable that I almost wish that Zach Galifianakis would never lend his voice to an animated character again. Don’t get me wrong, the film has its fun moments, but these shortcomings pop up so often that any momentum is stopped dead. Plain and simple, with all the marketing tactics pushing Puss in Boots as the next big animated franchise and the legacy of humor and soul left by its predecessors, this entry should have been far funnier, heartfelt, or memorable.
From a box office perspective, Puss in Boots took top spot in its opening weekend but performed below analyst expectations, pulling in a respectable but decidedly mediocre $34 million. Now, before anyone can try and classify this animated feline as signaling the decline of DreamWorks Animation, you should consider two very important facts. First, this entire October box office has been slower than expected, and second, Puss in Boots only had a 3% week-to-week drop-off in ticket sales…anything under a 50% drop is consider successful, so 3% is utterly phenomenal; so, in comparison to a number of recent theater entries, this film has legs to continue bringing in revenue. While I would like to say that there is no cause for concern in turning a substantial profit, Puss in Boots has not yet recovered its hefty production budget of $130 million and will face significant competition once Happy Feet Two and Arthur Christmas come down the pipe. In the end, the film is fun and rightfully showcases a familiar character, but in its entirety, the project is far from a must-see, and that is disappointing.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Monday, November 7, 2011
In Time: Short and Sweet
After his shockingly convincing performance as Sean Parker in 2010’s The Social Network, Justin Timberlake rightfully earned his stripes as a Hollywood actor, effectively silencing the critics who couldn’t seem to move past his time in N’SYNC. However, one truly memorable role didn’t necessarily justify Timberlake transitioning into a full-blown action hero, so I was understandably skeptical when I first saw the trailer for In Time. Luckily, Timberlake would be joined by a notoriously crowd-pleasing cast, which included the perpetually rising-star Amanda Seyfried (Mean Girls; Red Riding Hood), the intoxicatingly beautiful Olivia Wilde (Cowboys & Aliens; The Change-Up), and the go-to icy antagonist, Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins; Red Eye; Inception), who is often and tragically undervalued. For me, the biggest selling-point for In Time involved the film’s unique premise of a dystopian future in which time is used as currency, which represented a drastic departure from anything that has hit theaters in recent memory. With promotions promising plenty of action alongside themes of civil disobedience, it looked like this newest thriller could be quite entertaining.
I wasn’t at all surprised that I enjoyed the action and characters within In Time, but I was completely shocked by the deep and profound implications put forth by the narrative. The idea of a world in which time is used as currency is brought to life with significant imagination (Texas Hold ‘em becomes far more intense), but the societal parallel of the poor being forced to struggle for survival while the rich live forever puts forth enough implications to fill several college sociology courses. As far as the acting talent present, Justin Timberlake does surprisingly well as the tough-guy (despite a few missteps), while Cillian Murphy is as intimidating as ever, but Olivia Wilde’s screen-time is tragically short and Amanda Seyfried does little more than provide eye-candy. The film may have been far better than expected, but there are still several disappointing elements present, including significant editing mistakes and incomplete plot points. Still, as a bold and energizing thriller that is sure to make audiences ponder the deeper themes behind the story, In Time is a film that should not be missed.
Overall Recommendation: High
I wasn’t at all surprised that I enjoyed the action and characters within In Time, but I was completely shocked by the deep and profound implications put forth by the narrative. The idea of a world in which time is used as currency is brought to life with significant imagination (Texas Hold ‘em becomes far more intense), but the societal parallel of the poor being forced to struggle for survival while the rich live forever puts forth enough implications to fill several college sociology courses. As far as the acting talent present, Justin Timberlake does surprisingly well as the tough-guy (despite a few missteps), while Cillian Murphy is as intimidating as ever, but Olivia Wilde’s screen-time is tragically short and Amanda Seyfried does little more than provide eye-candy. The film may have been far better than expected, but there are still several disappointing elements present, including significant editing mistakes and incomplete plot points. Still, as a bold and energizing thriller that is sure to make audiences ponder the deeper themes behind the story, In Time is a film that should not be missed.
Overall Recommendation: High
In Time: Full Review
In Time - (October 28, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Opening Weekend Box Office: #3 with $12,050,368
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $23,990,237
Gross Revenue: $61,590,237
Production Budget: $40 million
Director: Andrew Niccol
Between his success in music (N’SYNC and an impressive solo career), television (Saturday Night Live collaborations with Andy Samberg), and newfound popularity in film (thanks to The Social Network), to call Justin Timberlake multi-talented is a bit of an understatement, but In Time would represent his first chance to truly lead a Hollywood blockbuster on his own. Based on the leading man’s popularity alone, 20th Century Fox wouldn’t have that much of a challenge in generating audience interest, but the filmmakers were certainly swinging for the fences by including a well-known cast (Olivia Wilde’s presence alone guaranteed my ticket purchase), unique premise, and action-thriller slant. If anything, the idea of a distinctly sci-fi dystopian future with a freedom fighter engaging in a form of anti-establishment civil disobedience echoed the type of surprise that The Matrix offered over a decade ago. Unfortunately, some negative buzz for In Time was generated when a plagiarism suit was filed alleging that the plot of the film was based on Harlan Ellison’s award-winning short-story, “Repent Harlequin!” Said the Ticktockman; having read this story in high school, the comparison of the two only furthered my interest in the film. As a fan of the cast, the imaginative diegesis, and the alleged source material, it was an absolute no-brainer seeing In Time.
Set in 2161, In Time introduces a world in which humanity has been genetically engineered to stop aging at 25, at with point each individual’s allotted one year of “living time” begins to expire and is displayed in bright green numbers on the forearm. When an individual’s clock expires, their heart automatically stops, and with time used and exchanged as currency, lower social classes struggle to survive in the face of increasing costs of living, while the rich have the potential to live forever. Lower class factory worker Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), who is 28 in real time, lives with his 50-year-old mother, Rachel (Olivia Wilde), and manages to squeak by; however, one day Will saves the 105-year-old Henry Hamilton (White Collar’s Matt Bomer) from a group of mobsters known as “Minutemen,” and in gratitude, the disillusioned Hamilton gifts Will with nearly all of his remaining time. Reveling in his newfound wealth, Will is tragically unable to save Rachel when an unexpected price increase causes her clock to expire…the now-infuriated Will vows revenge on the institution that claimed his mother’s life. Moving to an upper-class “Time Zone” and mingling with the insanely rich, Will soon runs afoul of law-enforcement agents known as “Timekeepers” who are investigating Hamilton’s death; before Timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) can make an arrest, Will kidnaps wealthy heiress Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried). Eventually opening Sylvia’s eyes to the injustice present in current society, the two “outlaws” decide to work together and upset the established order by stealing and redistributing as much time as possible, which is, effectively, this reality’s greatest crime.
Building an entire world and infrastructure based on the idea of time as currency and life-blood is incredibly imaginative, and director Andrew Niccol is able to bring the reality to life in a credible and truly believable way; whether that includes banks distributing hours at different interest rates, sports cars costing months, or high-stakes poker games betting centuries. With such a volatile infrastructure put forward, In Time also makes some truly profound sociological implications that are sure to leave audiences pondering the current wealth gap that exists between the rich and poor…if you don’t believe me, consider the look of fear on Olivia Wilde’s face when she realizes her clock is about to run out because she could not afford a bus ride after a rash price hike. Seriously, what would you do if you suddenly had a clock on your arm counting down the seconds until your death? A pleasantly unexpected element of the film also includes Justin Timberlake’s likeable performance as the hero, which parallels brilliantly with Cillian Murphy’s egotistical and driven antagonist. In Time also offers a balanced pacing by including action to complement the deeper themes, which provide a welcome respite from the seriousness that can be overwhelming at certain points. However, in spite of these significantly positive accolades, there are some pretty blatant shortcomings than hinder the film’s overall potential.
For as much as I enjoyed In Time, I still cannot completely ignore the weak acting, one-dimensional characters, poor editing, and incomplete narrative elements that weaken the film. Positioning Justin Timberlake as an action hero could easily have ended in disaster, but even though he was able to hold his own, the young actor still demonstrates significant inexperience: his “crying” scene is so forced and unnatural that it is almost embarrassing. When it comes to Amanda Seyfried, she generates considerable chemistry with Timberlake, but her character is so over-sexualized that she does little more than lustfully glance at the leading man and strip-down…don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining, but she is far too talented of an actress to be relegated to mere eye-candy. In terms of film editing and narrative cohesion, In Time commits some pretty significant missteps: I can forgive the introduction of a certain plot-point without eventual resolution, but catching an obvious stunt-double clearly performing one of Timberlake’s supposed action scenes just seems lazy. Still, even with all of these criticisms, I feel that the unique nature of In Time makes the film more than worth seeing.
From a box office perspective, In Time has performed below analyst expectations, but I don’t believe it is fair to characterize the film as a failure once you consider the competition it has faced at the theater. A non-franchise action-thriller without a bankable lead actor could not have hoped to take down a spin-off animated feature (Puss in Boots) or the sequel to one of the most successful horror franchises of all time (Paranormal Activity 3), especially on Halloween weekend. Thankfully, a strong foreign presence has helped In Time already recover its modest $40 million budget, and I would only expect positive word-of-mouth to help drive further revenue. Plain and simple, if you are looking for something truly unexpected at the theater that is brought to life with the help of a recognizable and entertaining cast, you will enjoy In Time. At the very least, the film is far deeper and more though provoking than you could have ever imagined…I guarantee you will never look at the phrase “Time is Money” the same away again.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Opening Weekend Box Office: #3 with $12,050,368
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $23,990,237
Gross Revenue: $61,590,237
Production Budget: $40 million
Director: Andrew Niccol
Between his success in music (N’SYNC and an impressive solo career), television (Saturday Night Live collaborations with Andy Samberg), and newfound popularity in film (thanks to The Social Network), to call Justin Timberlake multi-talented is a bit of an understatement, but In Time would represent his first chance to truly lead a Hollywood blockbuster on his own. Based on the leading man’s popularity alone, 20th Century Fox wouldn’t have that much of a challenge in generating audience interest, but the filmmakers were certainly swinging for the fences by including a well-known cast (Olivia Wilde’s presence alone guaranteed my ticket purchase), unique premise, and action-thriller slant. If anything, the idea of a distinctly sci-fi dystopian future with a freedom fighter engaging in a form of anti-establishment civil disobedience echoed the type of surprise that The Matrix offered over a decade ago. Unfortunately, some negative buzz for In Time was generated when a plagiarism suit was filed alleging that the plot of the film was based on Harlan Ellison’s award-winning short-story, “Repent Harlequin!” Said the Ticktockman; having read this story in high school, the comparison of the two only furthered my interest in the film. As a fan of the cast, the imaginative diegesis, and the alleged source material, it was an absolute no-brainer seeing In Time.
Set in 2161, In Time introduces a world in which humanity has been genetically engineered to stop aging at 25, at with point each individual’s allotted one year of “living time” begins to expire and is displayed in bright green numbers on the forearm. When an individual’s clock expires, their heart automatically stops, and with time used and exchanged as currency, lower social classes struggle to survive in the face of increasing costs of living, while the rich have the potential to live forever. Lower class factory worker Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), who is 28 in real time, lives with his 50-year-old mother, Rachel (Olivia Wilde), and manages to squeak by; however, one day Will saves the 105-year-old Henry Hamilton (White Collar’s Matt Bomer) from a group of mobsters known as “Minutemen,” and in gratitude, the disillusioned Hamilton gifts Will with nearly all of his remaining time. Reveling in his newfound wealth, Will is tragically unable to save Rachel when an unexpected price increase causes her clock to expire…the now-infuriated Will vows revenge on the institution that claimed his mother’s life. Moving to an upper-class “Time Zone” and mingling with the insanely rich, Will soon runs afoul of law-enforcement agents known as “Timekeepers” who are investigating Hamilton’s death; before Timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) can make an arrest, Will kidnaps wealthy heiress Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried). Eventually opening Sylvia’s eyes to the injustice present in current society, the two “outlaws” decide to work together and upset the established order by stealing and redistributing as much time as possible, which is, effectively, this reality’s greatest crime.
Building an entire world and infrastructure based on the idea of time as currency and life-blood is incredibly imaginative, and director Andrew Niccol is able to bring the reality to life in a credible and truly believable way; whether that includes banks distributing hours at different interest rates, sports cars costing months, or high-stakes poker games betting centuries. With such a volatile infrastructure put forward, In Time also makes some truly profound sociological implications that are sure to leave audiences pondering the current wealth gap that exists between the rich and poor…if you don’t believe me, consider the look of fear on Olivia Wilde’s face when she realizes her clock is about to run out because she could not afford a bus ride after a rash price hike. Seriously, what would you do if you suddenly had a clock on your arm counting down the seconds until your death? A pleasantly unexpected element of the film also includes Justin Timberlake’s likeable performance as the hero, which parallels brilliantly with Cillian Murphy’s egotistical and driven antagonist. In Time also offers a balanced pacing by including action to complement the deeper themes, which provide a welcome respite from the seriousness that can be overwhelming at certain points. However, in spite of these significantly positive accolades, there are some pretty blatant shortcomings than hinder the film’s overall potential.
For as much as I enjoyed In Time, I still cannot completely ignore the weak acting, one-dimensional characters, poor editing, and incomplete narrative elements that weaken the film. Positioning Justin Timberlake as an action hero could easily have ended in disaster, but even though he was able to hold his own, the young actor still demonstrates significant inexperience: his “crying” scene is so forced and unnatural that it is almost embarrassing. When it comes to Amanda Seyfried, she generates considerable chemistry with Timberlake, but her character is so over-sexualized that she does little more than lustfully glance at the leading man and strip-down…don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining, but she is far too talented of an actress to be relegated to mere eye-candy. In terms of film editing and narrative cohesion, In Time commits some pretty significant missteps: I can forgive the introduction of a certain plot-point without eventual resolution, but catching an obvious stunt-double clearly performing one of Timberlake’s supposed action scenes just seems lazy. Still, even with all of these criticisms, I feel that the unique nature of In Time makes the film more than worth seeing.
From a box office perspective, In Time has performed below analyst expectations, but I don’t believe it is fair to characterize the film as a failure once you consider the competition it has faced at the theater. A non-franchise action-thriller without a bankable lead actor could not have hoped to take down a spin-off animated feature (Puss in Boots) or the sequel to one of the most successful horror franchises of all time (Paranormal Activity 3), especially on Halloween weekend. Thankfully, a strong foreign presence has helped In Time already recover its modest $40 million budget, and I would only expect positive word-of-mouth to help drive further revenue. Plain and simple, if you are looking for something truly unexpected at the theater that is brought to life with the help of a recognizable and entertaining cast, you will enjoy In Time. At the very least, the film is far deeper and more though provoking than you could have ever imagined…I guarantee you will never look at the phrase “Time is Money” the same away again.
Overall Recommendation: High
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The Three Musketeers: Short and Sweet
Despite being French literary characters, Alexandre Dumas’ interpretation of the historic Musketeers has become an indelible part of American pop culture, with the swordsmen Athos, Porthos, Aramis, and D’Artagnan repeatedly interpreted in film, animation, and candy bar commercial. With “The Three Musketeers” gracing the silver screen in some form since the early 20th century, there was certainly a great deal of pressure for filmmakers to successfully bring the characters to life for a modern audience. Personally, I grew up with Disney’s 1993 film that saw Kiefer Sutherland, Oliver Platt, and Charlie Sheen as the expert swordsmen, so I wasn’t truly convinced that any retelling would live up to expectations. Still, early trailers made it clear that The Three Musketeers would be anything but a traditional interpretation, with director Paul W.S. Anderson undoubtedly prepared to add his trademark action flair. In the end, as a fan of the characters, Milla Jovovich, and Orlando Bloom, not to mention someone who actually owns a French rapier sword, I couldn’t wait to see the Musketeers brought to life again…this time in 3D.
Walking out of The Three Musketeers, it is clear that Paul W.S. Anderson wasn’t concerned with any precedent set by previous films or any notion of historical accuracy, with the narrative taking significant liberties, but the end result is still pretty entertaining. The story itself is filled with ridiculous plot points and ludicrous dialogue, but thankfully, the action sequences and swordplay choreography are more than enough to placate action junkies. In terms of the characters themselves, the film inexplicably fails to imbue its titular heroes with any form of depth, background, or distinguishable personality, instead favoring the extravagant villains. Milla Jovovich, Orlando Bloom, and Christoph Waltz clearly have fun with their roles, overacting at times and echoing Saturday morning cartoon maniacs, but these characters are undoubtedly the kind that everyone loves to hate. Clearly unlike any historical action film you’ve ever experienced, The Three Musketeers offers simple entertainment that resembles a videogame, so it is worth seeing as long as you don’t go in expecting deep and emotional acting or a fully coherent story.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Walking out of The Three Musketeers, it is clear that Paul W.S. Anderson wasn’t concerned with any precedent set by previous films or any notion of historical accuracy, with the narrative taking significant liberties, but the end result is still pretty entertaining. The story itself is filled with ridiculous plot points and ludicrous dialogue, but thankfully, the action sequences and swordplay choreography are more than enough to placate action junkies. In terms of the characters themselves, the film inexplicably fails to imbue its titular heroes with any form of depth, background, or distinguishable personality, instead favoring the extravagant villains. Milla Jovovich, Orlando Bloom, and Christoph Waltz clearly have fun with their roles, overacting at times and echoing Saturday morning cartoon maniacs, but these characters are undoubtedly the kind that everyone loves to hate. Clearly unlike any historical action film you’ve ever experienced, The Three Musketeers offers simple entertainment that resembles a videogame, so it is worth seeing as long as you don’t go in expecting deep and emotional acting or a fully coherent story.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
The Three Musketeers: Full Review
The Three Musketeers - (October 21, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: Summit Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #4 with $8,674,452
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $15,233,108
Gross Revenue: $79,633,108
Production Budget: $90 million
Director: Paul W.S. Anderson
Normally, when you hear news about Paul W.S. Anderson directing a movie, it is simply referring to the next installment of the Resident Evil series, which regularly showcases his famous spouse and the go-to female action star, Milla Jovovich. This time around, the couple would be tackling historic characters that have been interpreted over and over again, and there was no guarantee that a talent for videogame adaptations would make the newest action-adventure, The Three Musketeers, a success. There were certainly several causes for concern, the first being that one of the main selling points for the film was that it would be offered in the now-wearisome 3D format, while the second involved the fact that none of title heroes would be played by well-known actors. Thankfully, the villains facing off against the Musketeers would be very familiar to moviegoers, because, the other famous faces alongside Milla Jovovich and Orlando Bloom have made a name for themselves playing villains; the inclusion of Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds) and Mads Mikkelsen (Casino Royale) would surely be a selling point, so I was understandably confused that Summit Entertainment didn’t do more to leverage their presence. Regardless of the glaring disparities in this far-from-traditional showcase of historical literary and cinematic characters, I was still excited for The Three Musketeers.
Offering slight echoes of the core Musketeers story and past interpretations, The Three Musketeers begins in Venice, with Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson), and Aramis (Luke Evans) working with Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich) to steal airship blueprints made by Leonardo da Vinci. The Three Musketeers are then betrayed by Milady, who gives the blueprints to Athos’ rival, the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom). Fast forward a year to Paris, and the now-disbanded Musketeers are approached by young swordsman D’Artagnan (Logan Lerman), who is intent on joining them but is soon sidetracked by a feud with Captain Rochefort (Mads Mikkelsen), the leader of Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz)’s person guard. Now facing a common enemy, the four heroes stumble upon a plot by Richelieu and Milady to undermine the French throne by staging an affair between Buckingham and Queen Anne (Juno Temple), thereby humiliating King Louis XIII (Freddie Fox) and opening the way for Richelieu to take control of the country. With the help of one of Queen Anne’s ladies-in-waiting, Constance (Gabriella Wilde), and their loyal assistant, Planchet (James Corden), the Musketeers and D’Artagnan work to stop the treacherous plot and defend France, facing countless enemies in the form of Richelieu’s guards, French bounty hunters, and Buckingham’s fleet of airships.
As is to be fully expected within a Paul W.S. Anderson film, easily the best part of The Three Musketeers is the action sequences, whether that involves one-on-one sword duels or epic airship battles. When you hear the word “Musketeer,” the first thought in your head should be swordplay, and the filmmakers took full advantage of that association, choreographing lightning-fast action sequences that are sure to keep you on the edge of your seat, especially when the four heroes face dawn forty of the Cardinal’s guards. Granted, the presence of floating airships equipped with rail-guns, flamethrowers, and explosives is a bit of a stretch for conventional logic and historical accuracy, but if you just lighten-up and appreciate the imagination of their inclusion, you will be treated to pure, exciting action. The characters that compliment these exciting sequences best surprisingly turn out to be the film’s villains, who, though ridiculous, still are just evil enough to remain threatening, the most obvious being Milla Jovovich as the venomous Milady de Winter. Exciting action, ludicrous characters, and a surprisingly high level of humor makes The Three Musketeers fun, but don’t get me wrong, there is still plenty wrong with this film.
I may have mentioned that I enjoyed the villains of The Three Musketeers, but it is nothing short of a cinematic crime that the focus on the antagonists came at the cost of the title heroes, as neither Athos, Porthos, nor Aramis are given any kind of character depth or historical background. These three characters have very well-established personalities that have held for over a century, so to an extent it is unforgivable that in this interpretation they barely show any glimmer of individuality…I’ve seen background characters more memorable than these three. Speaking strictly to the story, narrative flow, and pacing of the film, The Three Musketeers is fairly weak, stretching logic and believability a little too far…Buckingham’s airship dropping an anchor in front of the French royal palace without anyone freaking out is groan-inducing. I’ve also hinted at overacting, which virtually every character is guilty of, but the strongest culprit is Freddie Fox, who plays King Louis so neurotic that you almost wish a Musketeer would stab him minutes into his first appearance. As expected, the 3D technology offers virtually nothing, but that shortcoming is fairly small compared to the other criticism-worthy elements…in the end, it is a question of whether you believe the positives present can outweigh the glaring negatives.
From a box office perspective, given the length and prevalence of the ad campaign surrounding The Three Musketeers, the film’s performance has been significantly underwhelming, coming in fourth place in its first weekend with just over $8.5 million. Milla Jovovich certainly didn’t make any friends over at Summit Entertainment when she called the studio out for not positioning the film as a family adventure, but if anything that would have simply been false advertising. With no truly bankable actors in the title roles and the other recognizable actors all but hidden during the trailers, lack of audience interest isn’t that surprising when the last true Musketeer film was almost twenty years ago. Thankfully, international receipts for the film have been very strong, which is understandable given the core material’s European roots, but it is still surprising that over 80% of the revenue has been from overseas…All for one, and one for all. In the end, if you are familiar with the classic story and characters, you will enjoy The Three Musketeers, but don’t expect anything special or truly memorable.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Summit Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #4 with $8,674,452
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $15,233,108
Gross Revenue: $79,633,108
Production Budget: $90 million
Director: Paul W.S. Anderson
Normally, when you hear news about Paul W.S. Anderson directing a movie, it is simply referring to the next installment of the Resident Evil series, which regularly showcases his famous spouse and the go-to female action star, Milla Jovovich. This time around, the couple would be tackling historic characters that have been interpreted over and over again, and there was no guarantee that a talent for videogame adaptations would make the newest action-adventure, The Three Musketeers, a success. There were certainly several causes for concern, the first being that one of the main selling points for the film was that it would be offered in the now-wearisome 3D format, while the second involved the fact that none of title heroes would be played by well-known actors. Thankfully, the villains facing off against the Musketeers would be very familiar to moviegoers, because, the other famous faces alongside Milla Jovovich and Orlando Bloom have made a name for themselves playing villains; the inclusion of Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds) and Mads Mikkelsen (Casino Royale) would surely be a selling point, so I was understandably confused that Summit Entertainment didn’t do more to leverage their presence. Regardless of the glaring disparities in this far-from-traditional showcase of historical literary and cinematic characters, I was still excited for The Three Musketeers.
Offering slight echoes of the core Musketeers story and past interpretations, The Three Musketeers begins in Venice, with Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson), and Aramis (Luke Evans) working with Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich) to steal airship blueprints made by Leonardo da Vinci. The Three Musketeers are then betrayed by Milady, who gives the blueprints to Athos’ rival, the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom). Fast forward a year to Paris, and the now-disbanded Musketeers are approached by young swordsman D’Artagnan (Logan Lerman), who is intent on joining them but is soon sidetracked by a feud with Captain Rochefort (Mads Mikkelsen), the leader of Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz)’s person guard. Now facing a common enemy, the four heroes stumble upon a plot by Richelieu and Milady to undermine the French throne by staging an affair between Buckingham and Queen Anne (Juno Temple), thereby humiliating King Louis XIII (Freddie Fox) and opening the way for Richelieu to take control of the country. With the help of one of Queen Anne’s ladies-in-waiting, Constance (Gabriella Wilde), and their loyal assistant, Planchet (James Corden), the Musketeers and D’Artagnan work to stop the treacherous plot and defend France, facing countless enemies in the form of Richelieu’s guards, French bounty hunters, and Buckingham’s fleet of airships.
As is to be fully expected within a Paul W.S. Anderson film, easily the best part of The Three Musketeers is the action sequences, whether that involves one-on-one sword duels or epic airship battles. When you hear the word “Musketeer,” the first thought in your head should be swordplay, and the filmmakers took full advantage of that association, choreographing lightning-fast action sequences that are sure to keep you on the edge of your seat, especially when the four heroes face dawn forty of the Cardinal’s guards. Granted, the presence of floating airships equipped with rail-guns, flamethrowers, and explosives is a bit of a stretch for conventional logic and historical accuracy, but if you just lighten-up and appreciate the imagination of their inclusion, you will be treated to pure, exciting action. The characters that compliment these exciting sequences best surprisingly turn out to be the film’s villains, who, though ridiculous, still are just evil enough to remain threatening, the most obvious being Milla Jovovich as the venomous Milady de Winter. Exciting action, ludicrous characters, and a surprisingly high level of humor makes The Three Musketeers fun, but don’t get me wrong, there is still plenty wrong with this film.
I may have mentioned that I enjoyed the villains of The Three Musketeers, but it is nothing short of a cinematic crime that the focus on the antagonists came at the cost of the title heroes, as neither Athos, Porthos, nor Aramis are given any kind of character depth or historical background. These three characters have very well-established personalities that have held for over a century, so to an extent it is unforgivable that in this interpretation they barely show any glimmer of individuality…I’ve seen background characters more memorable than these three. Speaking strictly to the story, narrative flow, and pacing of the film, The Three Musketeers is fairly weak, stretching logic and believability a little too far…Buckingham’s airship dropping an anchor in front of the French royal palace without anyone freaking out is groan-inducing. I’ve also hinted at overacting, which virtually every character is guilty of, but the strongest culprit is Freddie Fox, who plays King Louis so neurotic that you almost wish a Musketeer would stab him minutes into his first appearance. As expected, the 3D technology offers virtually nothing, but that shortcoming is fairly small compared to the other criticism-worthy elements…in the end, it is a question of whether you believe the positives present can outweigh the glaring negatives.
From a box office perspective, given the length and prevalence of the ad campaign surrounding The Three Musketeers, the film’s performance has been significantly underwhelming, coming in fourth place in its first weekend with just over $8.5 million. Milla Jovovich certainly didn’t make any friends over at Summit Entertainment when she called the studio out for not positioning the film as a family adventure, but if anything that would have simply been false advertising. With no truly bankable actors in the title roles and the other recognizable actors all but hidden during the trailers, lack of audience interest isn’t that surprising when the last true Musketeer film was almost twenty years ago. Thankfully, international receipts for the film have been very strong, which is understandable given the core material’s European roots, but it is still surprising that over 80% of the revenue has been from overseas…All for one, and one for all. In the end, if you are familiar with the classic story and characters, you will enjoy The Three Musketeers, but don’t expect anything special or truly memorable.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)