Summer flick round-up Part III

Angels and Demons

Verdict: Langdon is just not interesting on screen any more.

Okay, so I was one of the minority (or majority if you look at DVD sales and worldwide box office) that actually enjoyed the translation of 'The Da Vinci Code' from page to screen (notwithstanding Tom Hanks's bad hair day). The hairdo is better this time but the film never manages to rise above the mildly entertaining level.

And the cause of the problems is most likely the fact that it feels like retread of 'Code' minus all the most intriguing elements of that film. For a narrative that deals with a race against a time bomb, there appear to be ample minutes devoted to exposition and ill-advised humor. Hanks gives it the old college try but the formula feels almost like a wrung sponge for long stretches of the running time.

Ewan McGregor plays an interesting character but the lackluster storytelling drags him down along with everybody else. The tension is lacking and the audience is unable to empathise with any of the characters.

In short, close the book on Langdon - he hasn't got it any more!

The heat is on: Summer flick round-up part II

Star Trek

Verdict: Quite possibly the movie of the summer! An awesome spectacle!

I have been a 'Star Trek' fan of old. I like to think of myself as that in-between fan - not quite costumes and conventions but very mindful and respectful of the pop culture phenomenon that Star Trek has been and always will be. 

There is only one Star Trek: TOS (the original series) though I preferred NXG (the next generation) to a large extent. The big screen NXG films were disappointing to say the least. So how can this franchise be rebooted without disregarding all that came before? A time travel ret-con is the answer. As per the story, this is an alternate timeline that tells the stories of the iconic characters - Kirk, Spock and their crew - and how they came together.

There is only one Shatner, Nimoy and the rest. Can it be made to work then? JJ Abrams figured it out along with writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. Keep the essence of the characters the same and play around with the universe. And it heralds an epic result. All of the casting is spot on - Chris Pine as Kirk and Zachary Quinto as Spock give stand-out performances. The action set pieces are imaginative and beautiful to watch. The humour and pathos work.

All in all, I have come to love 'Star Trek' again just as I was moving towards the jaded end of the spectrum. Well done, the team behind 'Star Trek XI'.

The heat is on: Summer flick round-up part I

Monsters versus Aliens 3D 

Verdict: The 3D works, the movie doesn't!

I haven't thought too much of this 3D revolution studios have been seeking to usher in as the next big thing. Of course, I also havent seen a 3D film at the cinema in a long time. Somehow those 3D glasses dont seem to be designed for people already wearing them. The glasses are better these days but the films from Dreamworks Animation havent improved. I thought they had finally learnt something when I saw 'Kung Fu Panda' but 'Monsters vs Aliens' is another big miss. 
I enjoyed the animation as the material worked well in three dimensions. However, the humour is bland, the story insipid and the characters pretty boring. I can't think of any reasons to spend money on this flick. Maybe you can catch it if it comes on TV some time, maybe.....

Movie match-ups: The game is on

 An interesting idea that came to me recently is doing a match-up of two movies and deciding which is a better bet on a movie weekend. I'll try and pick pairings that have similarities and make it a full-on battle to choose the better film. So for right now, it's gonna be 'Marley and Me' versus 'Hotel for Dogs'.

         versus

'Marley & Me'

Based on the book by John Grogan, 'Marley & Me' is about a family that learns important life lessons from their adorable, but naughty and neurotic dog.

Pros: Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston - this odd coupling works very well and though it may seem like a romantic comedy, the dog Marley is very much the centre of the story. The narrative is touching, funny and anyone who loves dogs is bound to love this film. The plot contrivances fall into place nicely and nothing feels forced. You will get that warm fuzzy feeling at the end of the film.

Cons: Those who are not dog owners will find it tough to empathise with the characters. And the fact that the family is always in the background may turn some people off. The story moves at a very sedate pace and patience is needed to enjoy the movie.

'Hotel for Dogs'

Based on the children's book by Lois Duncan, the tale is about Andi and her brother Bruce, who are not allowed pets at their foster home. For the adorable dog they secretly care for, however, they're ready to risk everything. They find him shelter in an abandoned hotel and soon, he is joined by all kinds of furry friends; so many that it alerts the neighbors...and the local pound.

Pros: Emma Roberts - more people need to start talking about this girl. She reminds me of the talent I noticed when I first saw Lindsay Lohan in 'The Parent Trap'. Okay, so Lohan lost her way but Emma is one that will definitely go far. She shines in a strictly children's movie. Don Cheadle is a nice bonus. Oh and Lisa Kudrow is also there (though I'm not sure that's a pro in this particular case). The film balances kiddie film hijinks and serious issues very well.

Cons: Too much indulgence in the fantasy elements! Fine, Bruce is an engineering wiz but some of the inventions are fairy tale stuff - it is excusable only because it's a kid flick. Cliches abound and every twist is pretty predictable. 

VERDICT: While 'Marley & Me' is easily the superior film, it may be an unfair comparison as 'Hotel for Dogs' is so completely tailored for family viewing. 'Marley & Me' is the must-see of the two. 'Hotel for Dogs' provides a pleasant distraction, however.

'Fast and Furious' - still a guilty pleasure

  What is it about the 'Fast and the Furious' franchise that draws us back time and again? I wish I knew - it could be all the pretty people, fast cars and furious vehicle action. But there's something else - the first film was this generation's 'Point Break'. Less Swayze's Zen master stuff and more Diesel's muscle-bound street racing. And it worked - it worked well.

  Then '2 Fast 2 Furious' came along sans Vin Diesel and it wasn't a pleasure any more - it felt like a cheap attempt at creating a franchise where one wasn't feasible. Redemption seemed highly unlikely until 'The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift' came along. With none of the original cast, it somehow managed to work with Lucas Black as the uncharismatic lead. The story and direction rekindled the franchise and it was ripe for a reunion. Enter this year's 'Fast & Furious' with Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Jordana Brewster and Michelle Rodriguez all returning. Brian O'Conner (Walker), now working for the FBI in LA, teams up with Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) to bring down a heroin importer by infiltrating his operation. And it finally feels like the sequel we deserved all along. Set in the timeline before 'Tokyo Drift', it acknowledges all the other films and it is still the wonderful guilty pleasure we have come to expect from the series.

  The story is pretty tight, the direction is sound and the must-have elements blend pretty well. It is true popcorn entertainment of the 2000s and the cast makes it work. Is it for everyone? No, a certain mindset is needed to enjoy it - if you enjoyed the first film you will enjoy this. Even if you're unfamiliar with the franchise, 'Fast & Furious' satisfies those popcorn impulses - big action, no-brainer plotline and an easy-on-the-eye cast. Yes, I'll have extra butter on mine!

A Movie A Week: 'Rachel Getting Married' (2008)

Here's another for the 'A Movie A Week' record.

Rachel Getting Married: In a year of so many great films, this is definitely one of the underappreciated ones. And it has been overlooked for several reasons that range from unconventional camerawork to a narrative that enjoys meandering in every possible direction while telling its tale. Rachel Getting Married is about a young woman, Kym (Anne Hathaway), who has been in and out of rehab for the past 10 years and she has now returned home for the weekend for her sister's wedding. But that premise doesn't really tell you anything at all about what makes this movie tick.

   This film may seem to be about Kym (Hathaway was nominated for an Oscar for her performance after all) but it is really about her sister Rachel's (Rosemarie DeWitt) wedding and how it affects all the people involved. The film is an ensemble piece that uses Kym's addiction to showcase how events can colour perceptions and how dysfunctional families struggle with making things work. The film is written by Jenny Lumet, daughter of director Sidney Lumet, who brilliantly sketches all the characters without needing to spell out histories, emotions or motivations. Kym has to confront many of her issues and finds that to do that the rest of the family may have to as well. That includes her divorcee mother (Debra Winger), her father (Bill Irwin), her stepmother (Anna Deavere Smith) and the brother-in-law to-be, Sidney (Tunde Adebimpe). 

   The character of Sidney has a musical background, which allows an eclectic mix of characters and musical styles to populate the screen and it all intermingles in the melting pot of cultures that is Rachel's wedding. I don't know where director Jonathan Demme ('The Silence of the Lambs', 'Philadelphia') has been for all these years but this is a wonderful return to form for him. The visual strategy is interesting to say the least - cinematographer Declan Quinn shoots it like a home movie of a wedding, the hand-held camera walking in and out of scenes as randomly as you please. The best part is that the style works wonderfully well for the story that is being told.

   The only problem I had with the film is that it was written and shot so that it purposely slows down at unexpected points and spends an inordinate amount of time on scenes that perhaps add very little to the larger narrative. But I also recognise that Demme was going for Altmanesque feel where the trite scenes might actually pose some messages beyond the obvious. And it's a clever contradiction to use because you never know what is fitting together and feels so much more like you are not watching a film at all. Hathaway is off the charts amazing in this film and the Academy Award nomination was well deserved. DeWitt is equally good and she provides the rope for Hathaway to stretch herself. Winger has a smaller role but still manages to hold her own in one particularly powerful scene. And while moving around so many characters, the story does manage to cover many aspects of dealing with addiction and how it can affect everyone around you. 

   This is definitely one of those keep-an-open-mind type of movies because you need to embrace how different it is from any form of conventional storytelling for you to be able to enjoy it. At times it may feel like a raw wound or a reckless home video but it will also show real people muddling through some destructive situations the best way they know how. Weird, strangely cathartic and empathetic at the same - definitely one for the DVD collection!

A Movie A Week: 'Outrageous Fortune' (1987)

I've decided that it would be a mistake to limit my 'A Movie A Week' column to contemporary films when there are so wonderful ones that don't get talked about enough. There are also some classics it's nice to be reminded about. I recently caught this one again and I remembered why I loved it so much - it just continues to stand the test of time.

Outrageous Fortune: The 80s had some truly great comedies - I still remember seeing 'Nine to Five' an extraordinary number of times and never tiring of it. Outrageous Fortune is a lesser known film but it is definitely right up there with any of the other comedy classics. I am a sucker for comedies with female protaganists and sadly there aren't enough of these movies around. 

Shelley Long and Bette Midler star as Lauren Ames and Sandy Brozinsky, two total opposites who are in an acting class together - and unknown to each other they also have a boyfriend (Peter Coyote) in common. When he goes missing under mysterious circumstances, the two women are thrust into a world of chaos and danger while trying to unearth what happened to him. Leslie Dixon pens an exceedingly smart screenplay that gives Long and Midler enough room to do what they do best. And their exchanges are absolutely brilliant - this flick has some of the best acting you'll see in a comedy. Each actress causes the other to continuously raise her game and the result is perfect comic chemistry. 

Interspersing comedy and action is tough to do without it becoming cheesy but this is one movie that does it effortlessly. The 80s just seemed to have a different brand of comedy that has an eternal appeal. Can you imagine anyone but Shelley Long delivering a line like 'How dare you defraud the legitimate theater community of New York City!' or a non-Midler rendition of 'What, was I supposed to let them unhook me from life support so I could pay my bills?'

If you haven't seen this one yet, I highly recommend it!