geekent's Buy Nothing Year

Raiders of the Lost Ark

(last reviewed in the very first Short Rounds) I'm repeating myself, but I've never been a huge fan of the Indiana Jones movies. My wife on the other hand loves perhaps only a handful of films more than Raiders of the Lost Ark. The appeal isn't lost on me, but at the same time I don't get the butterflies from it. In re-watching this prior to viewing latest Indiana Jones movie (see later this Round) it would seem a simple type of story to craft, and it is, but deceptively so, since it's so very difficult to tell high-adventure like this well enough that the audience doesn't balk at it. Misters Spielberg and Lucas have tried, three other times, in fact, and haven't even come close. But their first time out, they did indeed nail it. The character of Indiana Jones, I think, grew beyond his less-than-humble beginnings as an archaelogist/adventurer and into some indestructible superman, and while the personality may still be there, the humanity has almost all but escaped him. In Raiders Indie is flawed, incredibly so, full of arrogance and indifference, passionate but sometimes about all the wrong things. Indie strives to get what he wants and sometimes the consequences aren't thought about. Charmingly reckless, sure, but after a few films it has become apparent that Indie's recklessness has no consequences for him or the people around him, which with Raiders is rarely apparent... there's a sense of tangible danger in almost every scenario (perhaps it's the practical effects compared to the uncanny valley of today's CGI dangers). Raiders is a film filled to the brim with moments, from the first soaring notes of the main theme, to Indie's handling of the sword-wielder to his staunch affection for his hat to the face-melting at the end. From the first mad dash from arrow wielding natives, Indie seemed bred for iconic status, an amalgam of adventure serial and pulp magazine heroes from the 1930s and before, like Allan Quartermain and Doc Savage with a dash of the HG Wells and Edgar Rice Burroughs fantastic. Raiders, for now, is as good as it's going to get, until some new character manages to tread the same path yet forge his (or her) own trail.
-4/5-

X2: X-Men United

I reviewed X2 over 5 years ago, and even though I own a copy of the DVD (wound up, actually, with 2 copies when consolidating our collections after the wife and I got married) I believe haven't viewed the film since. Has time changed my opinion of the film any? Not so much. I still think it looks great, has an overall cohesiveness as a story and is well acted, but the characters are all marginalized and few are actually essential to the story or the viewing experience. It's a film jam-packed with some of mutantdom's brightest and best (and worst) but it's also got far too many of them, or perhaps it struggles to actually do something meaningful with most of them (not altogether an ignoble idea). A big storyline works in an ongoing comic book because one or two characters can take focus while others can act as support, knowing that later there will be a rotation, that at some point everyone will get a chance to shine. In film, a movie series - especially a big-budget one - only has so much longevity, due to time and money and ego, and there's no way to possibly give each character their own movie that centers on them. Here Nightcrawler gets a big introduction and is scuttled off to the background, Storm and Cyclops are relegated to background color, Rogue and Iceman have a brief scene of relationship development, while, even Professor X is taken out of commission for much of the plot. Only Hugh Jackman's impossibly cool Wolverine gets anything approximating a standout storyline, but that's even tempered by the sheer bulk of what's going on elsewhere. I must admit I'm impressed that the film actually has a cohesive story, however it's entirely too compressed to be a fully rewarding experience. My opinion of X2 has barely changed since first viewing, which surprises me, if only a little.
-2.5/5-

Manhattan

I've never been a huge Woody Allen fan, not that I haven't enjoyed a small sampling of his repertoire (most enjoyed What's Up, Tiger Lily and Bananas) but also I've only sampled a small portion of his repertoire and most of it has not resonated with me at all. Manhattan , Woody's tribute to his beloved borough of New York, is at times clever, at times funny, but for the most part is quintessential Woody Allen: hyper-verbose, pseudo-cerebral, equal parts condemning and reveling in the pretentiousness of upper class society. I get that Allen is as much exploiting and exaggerating the high-societal culture of doctors and entertainers, but even in his someone damning presentation of them as shallow, vapid and, at times, clueless he's still appealing to them, the same way Blue Collar Comedy and Trailer Park Boys appeal to the very same classes they poke fun at and satirize. It's a representation of the effete and the effete love nothing more than to be represented (and Allen is as effete as they come). It's good to laugh at one's self, but Allen I think aspires to portray himself as a commoner amongst gods, and instead comes out as the god amongst commoners, always in control of the situation and his image. He's a stud, he's a wimp, he's a champ, he's a loser, he's a genius, he's an idiot... he makes the audience question how this nasally dweeb has managed to fool so many these people into thinking he has something important to say. Well, it's because he does, just his message is confused (or at least confusing), so steeped in "Woody Allen" that it's impossible to separate the man from his movies (which is in part the point, Allen explores himself through the avatars he creates than portrays, which are not in any way veiled representations of his own psyche). I should correct myself, Manhattan is Allen's tribute to his beloved borough of New York as personified by Woody Allen, as if there's 8 million stories in the naked city and his is the only one that mattered. Of course, investing in Allen's psyche is more than just a one-film experience, and it's whether you've bought into it or not that will truly gage your enjoyment of the movie. Easy to tell where I stand, and Allen's Isaac here, romancing a 17-year-old Mariel Hemingway presents presciently a creepy undercurrent from Allen's personality that would reveal itself a decade later when his romance with his adoptive daughter was revealed. Entertaining, bizarre, creepy, and off-putting... Manhattan manages to go nowhere and accomplish much while getting there. I'll admit, it does take talent to pull that off.
2/5

Melvin and Howard

While traveling along a desert road in Nevada, Melvin Dummar (Paul Le Mat) comes across an old man, obviously hurt, perhaps with a concussion. He helps the man into his truck and gives him a lift into Las Vegas. Along the way the man introduces himself as Howard Hughes, which Melvin obviously chuckles at. He humors the old man and they have a pleasant exchange over the duration of the ride. After "Howard" is dropped off, Melvan goes on with his faltering life. Recently unemployed, he takes on a job with a milk delivery company where he's instantly indentured to the company after his milk truck breaks down and he's held liabel for the repairs. His wife Lynda (Mary Steenburgen), leaves him more than once, taking the kids more than once, convinced he's a go-nowhere loser, which is pretty much true, although she as much to blame for their situation as he is, especially after their overindulgent spending spree after she wins $10,000 on a game show (a tidy sum in the 1970's but it hardly makes one rich). After their second divorce, Melvin falls into a more accepting relationship with Bonnie (Pamela Reed), and they set off to a quiet, comfortable life as gas station operators. A note, however, left on Melvin's desk one day throws his life into turmoil. It's Howard Hughes' will, naming Melvin as beneficiary to over $150 million of Hughes' fortune. The mob scene of reporters around his private life and his very public trial constantly challenge Melvin, but whether he gets the fortune or not, he knows one thing, that he met Howard Hughes and gave him a lift. I found Melvin and Howard a dull story: for a movie called "Melvin and Howard" there was a whole lot of Melvin, not so much Howard. I can see how, with the advanced knowledge of the true story (and the celebrated court case invalidating the Hughes will in the early 1980s), might have given the audience a much more to invest in. I hadn't heard the story before, but upon finding out about it afterwards, it in hindsight turned a dull film intriguing. Jonathan Demme took pains to humanize Melvin Dummar, to show him not as a scoundrel or opportunist but as a man who spent his life struggling and didn't really mind so much. He presents Melvin's encounter with Hughes as having no bearing on his life following the encounter, that his life went on quite normal for years and years, and moreover, that Melvin's personality (and intelligence) were not likely up to a fraud of the scope the media and legal system accuse him of. The pacing is definitely odd, but it's an intriguing slice of life with the foreknowledge of actual events.
-3.5/5-

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

I really did not like Disney's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and I had zero expectation that Prince Caspian would be any better. The redundancy "surprises are nice when you least expect them" applies perfectly here. More mature than the first film in tone and theme, it (I was informed by my C.S. Lewis-adoring wife) may not accurately interpret the book, but at the same time it presents a thoroughly enjoyable film. Although in part reliant on the opening story for the sake of the characters (Peter, Lucy, Edmund, Suzy), it only refers back to The Lion... briefly and intuitively, not getting bogged down in any sense of continuity. Caspian, compared to the first story, has a less earnest and purer sense of discovery, and as films this one doesn't live in the shadow of Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter instead, casting its own shadow right beside theirs. A pair of cleverly choreographed, pulse-pounding battle sequences are bracing points for the movie, but they story strictly revolve around them, presenting also an intriguing political angle where the Prince's Uncle Miraz, seeking rule over the dominion seeks the elimination of his nephew and the annihilation of the Narnians, while Miraz's accomplices in turn seek his downfall. Escaping his fate, Caspian summons the kings and queens of old from the other realm (the real world). The kids return to Narnia centuries after they left as adults and rulers, and their rediscovery of the new world is fabulously executed. Lucy's convinced that Aslan is returning, and it's the deus ex machina of the giant lion that presents the only sticking point for me. The movie's key triumph, though, is in its casting of Peter Dinklage as Trumpkin. Though it's unfortunate that Little People actors are too often cast only as Dwarfs or Hobbits or other diminutive fantasy creatures (in typically tokenized roles) Dinklage is a damn fine actor and Trumpkin is a meaty party for him to sink himself into and he definitely raises the acting bar (just unfortunate that short jokes still found their way into the film). The film series extracts and dispenses with most of the religious allusions that Lewis revolved his books around, and moreso any real morality or message. With the previous film it left it cold and unwelcoming. With this film, using the novel as framework to build an adventure story has left, at least, easily digestible entertainment.
-3.5/5-

Treed Murray

An advertising executive (the titular Murray) gets lost in a park in Toronto (it's never clear if Toronto is supposed to be Toronto here or an undisclosed city, especially since some American references are made) and he approaches a young black man for directions. He's told he has to pay $5 for an answer and the exec soon realizes he's about to get jumped by a gang of teenagers. Chased through the park, he winds up a tree just out of reach from his assailants but also civilization. The teens know the area, they know how to play the situation, and Murray, well he claims to know people, and what results is a by-the-numbers discovery play as we learn about the characters and their motivations, while examining the cultural and economic divide and the tried but true workings of human nature. Throughout it's relatively quick running time, Murray and the kids exchange observations about one another, flipping expectations and perceptions more than once. Murray, though upper-middle class, is the sympathetic one by default, the predicament the kids find themselves in, and their reason for being in the predicament makes them less villainous. Of course, there's one bad seed, Shark, whose intelligence and physique naturally make him the alpha of the gang, although we never get any sense of history from him (which is disappointing, but the necessity of an enigma is apparent). The film tugs on some obvious strings to get a reaction, but obvious or not, it still gets a reaction. It's an intense drama full of ambiguity that makes it so equally enticing and so difficult to watch. Far from flawless but it has its moments.
-3/5-

Superman/Doomsday

The first offering from DC Comics/Warner Bros.' new direct-to-video feature animation venture (the second was the already-reviewed Justice League: The New Frontier), Superman/Doomsday reinterprets the classic/abominable "Death of Superman" storyline from 1992. There were a few obstacles the film had to overcome: first, the source for the story wasn't all that good; second, the film abandons almost ten years of Superman and Justice League animated continuity that preceded it, which wouldn't be so much a hurdle were the animation style wildly different. Alas, Warner and DC have cultivated a style, and so far their two feature cartoon vids have tweaked rather than abandoned the aesthetic. The visual interpretation of the characters within the style is different, however, Superman pug-ed up with a huge dimpled jaw, looking less than handsome while Lex is long and lean with a bulbous cranium which works with his new super-scientist first/business mogul second demeanor. Hearing a new voice actors for Superman, Lois and Lex (Adam Baldwin, Anne Heche and James Marsters respectively) is a little disconcerting and the characters open stiff, but Heche once loosened by the halfway point, she delivers some pretty amazing performances. The film is more mature in tone than the Animated series I mentioned, and seems like an alternate take on what Superman Returns should have been. It's fairly compressed though, with Doomstay coming and Superman defeating him (only to die in the process) early in the film and then returning no too long after. The passage of time I later surmised was supposed to feel much longer than it actually came off. There's some pretty spectacular fight sequences in the film (especially for a cartoon), but there's not a lot of resonance to them as the characters and their relationships aren't given much breathing room in the short running time. Also, I'm quite disappointed that Superman never "takes it outside" instead always keeping the fights right in the thick of Metropolis. I know it's a cartoon, but collateral damage still weighs heavy on my mind. Seriously, you'd think the city's protector would want to, you know, protect the city when he's battling the hell out of a doomsday monster or his clone. But I digress. The film could use more time with the characters, to establish their relationship dynamics (had it been a continuation of the Justice League or Superman Animated series it could have been phenomenal).
-2.5/5-

Hellboy Animated: Sword of Storms

I was on board the Hellboy wagon train from day 1, loving every bit of the supernatural/ horror/ high-adventure/ comedy blend that creator Mike Mignola imbues into his instant classic character and stories. I bought the various mini-series, spin-off series, statuettes, fridge magnets, t-shirts, novels, action figures etc. because, well, I loved Hellboy. Still do. But somewhere that wagon train derailed (wagon trains don't ride rails, what?) and aside from the 2004 movie I haven't had any sort of regular Hellboy dose in years. There's really no explanation why, except that I've fallen behind and I haven't caught up. There's been a plethora of merchandise (including a bevy of very cool action figures), a continuous stream of BPRD and Hellboy comics, a handful of novels, video games, and now animated features. Oh, I really still do love Hellboy, just he moves way too fast for me. Anyway, like the Guillermo del Toro film, the Animated Hellboy keeps true to the spirit of the character and his supporting BPRD cast, but has some very nuanced differences (essentially adapting the character to the medium). This adventure brings Hellboy and company to Japan to after a folklore professor unravels a sacred scroll, unleashing the demons of thunder and lightning. In the process of investigating, Hellboy is transported into an ethereal, dream-like dimension full of ghost and clues to defeating the demons. It's a puzzling and dazzling feature-length cartoon, steeped in Japanese mythology (even if it's made up, the animation and sensibility stay true), like a Samurai Jack episode starring Hellboy. The cast from the film (Ron Perlman, Doug Jones and Selma Blair) reprise their roles, making the animated Hellboy adventures an apt bridge between the comic book and movie worlds. When BNY is over, it's seriously time to update my Hellboy collection.
-4.5/5-

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Someone call the script doctor, because this film is sick. And I don't mean "sick" in the colloquial sense of "unbelievably good", I means "sick" as in "aliling" or "doesn't feel very good". Misters Spielberg and Lucas return to the quarry and continue trying to mine for gold, and while there's still gold left, it's pretty spare and the cost of refining it is more than the gold is worth. What I mean is there are some fun moments in this film, but wading through the tedious, over-the-top action sequences, the breakneck pacing, and the atrocious ending doesn't make the journey worthwhile. There's a good movie within Kingdom of the Crystal Skull but it's buried under a pile of extreme. The film opens with a washed out, surreal looking desert scene in Nevada in the 1950s (and the film is the 50's all the way), a convoy of military vehicles machine gun their way through a military gate and stop in front of a hangar. They pop a trunk and out comes our hero, a slow pan up supposed to be a jubilant revelation, but it's more the shock of "dear god he's old!" The hangar is filled with crates (recognizable from the finale of Raiders and Indie's russian kidnappers are after a specific item. Move to revelation of something alien-like, and then action sequence culminating in Indie surviving an atomic bomb test. It's definitely the 1950s. Indie is grilled by McCarthy-era CIA, and they let him know he's under suspicion of being Red (a sub-plot which dies about 15 minutes later after his professorship is suspended). A plucky James Dean-esque character named Mutt finds Indie and tells him a story which piques the hero's adventurous streak (when Mutt mentions his mother is "Mary", anyone who has seen the trailer will figure out who his mother is, and likely deduce the boy's father as well). Off to South America where there's dangers galore and further encounter with the Commies (led by a fetching Cate Blanchett with a faltering Russian accent). Here, Indie and Mutt plan a rescue that goes wrong (twice) as well as uncover the mystery of the Crystal Skulls, but the final third of the film just doesn't let up, and it pushes the believability of Indiana Jones films far beyond it's own internal logic. I was willing to give the film Indie's atomic blast survival, but once the chase sequence moved past the five minute mark (with Mutt sword fighting with each foot on a different vehicle, then swinging on vine with monkeys in tow, followed by the giant, man-eating ants and then three trips down waterfalls) I was out of the film, and I couldn't get back into it. The lack of restraint in the finale (too much spoon-fed exposition and unnecessary CGI effects) was the final nail. One of the things about the film is nearly every scene is told with Indie in the scene (even at the beginning, technically he's in scene since he's in the trunk), and whenever the film switches to a setting where he's not present (Mutt in the trees, Spalko inside the temple) it's most assuredly a scene we did not need or want to see. Misters Spielberg and Lucas need to remember what it was like to leave things to the imagination.
-2/5-