Dark Side of Barsoom

"John Carter"

Last December, Pixar director Brad Bird put aside his sketch pad and the animated pixels and took a walk on the wild side.  He decided to venture into the realm of live action filmmaking by taking on Mission Impossible:  Ghost Protocol.  The result was a passable yet still imperfect attempt at something he had no experience at doing before.  One of Bird's associates from Pixar, Andrew Stanton, apparently also had the notion to dip his toe in the pool of directing flesh and blood actors with the long awaited John Carter.  This was a film that for many decades studios had been trying to put into production with no success.  Well the wait is over and sadly John Carter is a film that probably should have continued its stay in pre-production hell or at best should have been made in the 1950's or 60's.

The film is based on author Edgar Rice Burroughs' A Princess of Mars which was written in 1917.  Disgruntled Civil War veteran John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is summoned by his superior officer (Bryan Cranston) to fight Apache Indians.  All Carter really wants to do is find this mythical cave full of gold.  Carter finds his cave which is occupied by a mysterious being carrying some sort of interplanetary medallion.  He then kills the otherworldly person and is then transported to Mars, or should I say Barsoom, as the planet is known by the natives.

Barsoom is in the middle of a civil war itself.  The key to peace seems to be Princess Deja Thoris (Lynn Collins) of the Red Martian city Helium. She must (reluctantly) marry Sab Than (Dominic West) of Zodanga so as their two battling cities can finally come to rest putting an end to the war.  Barsoom is also home to a race of green, quad armed, bipedal creatures known as Tharks.  Tars Tarkis (Willem Dafoe) is the leader of his Thark tribe and happens to come across Carter who's stranded in the barren land of Barsoon.  Carter's bone structure is different than Tars' and Deja's people which then allows him to wield increased strength and have the ability to jump great distances.  Deja wants him to fight for her people.  Carter just wants to get back to Jarsoom… I mean Earth.

It's evident that Stanton should stick to what he does best, animation.  The film had a massive $250 million dollar budget which makes me question why that much money was entrusted to a rookie live action director.  I suppose in Disney's eyes Finding Nemo and WALL-E did make them a ton of money and this was their reward to Stanton.  He was to pump life into a film that had been trying to get off the ground for decades.  The studio also knew that the film would require a lot of visual effects, so why not give it to a guy who has had extensive experience in dealing with computer animation.  If that was Disney's attitude, then why do the visual effects of John Carter look incredibly inconsistent?  There are some well-designed winged ships that cruise around engaging in air combat sequences that look quite good.  To counter that though, the Tharks are all CG and their appearance is a little too cartoony for my taste.  The same could be said for this dog-like creature that follows Carter around everywhere he goes.

Stanton's ability to tell this story further frustrates me.  The two films he did for Pixar were both original ideas of his and they were brought to the screen with care and affection.  This time he is working off of material that is not his own, written almost a hundred years ago.  The plot and its characters leave something to be desired.  I was more sympathetic to Deja and her cause.  Collins' performance is good.  Yes, she is very attractive, but I'd like to think that the actress was hired for more than just her looks.  Deja is not some damsel in distress and Collins knows that.  The work that she and Stanton have done in developing her character is proficient.  Kitsch's Carter though could have been better.  We are led to believe that he is this tortured soul of a man, especially considering what happened to his family back on Earth and given his stance on war.  So much of what Kitsch is bringing to his character feels forced through poor dialogue and random flashback sequences.  The self-realization he goes through later in  the film isn't genuine and comes off as one dimensional.  As an actor, you've got to look beyond what's merely written on the page and work with the director in crafting a character that rises above the bold face type.  John Carter is a film that needed to get going sooner instead of taking over two hours to do so.  Forget all the stuff with the Civil War.  Why not start the film with him waking up on Barsoom?

Also, had this film been made forty or fifty years ago instead of in 2012 it probably would have been something spectacular to see.  We as moviegoers have already been impressed with War of the Worlds (the 1953 version,) 2001:  A Space Odyssey, and Star Wars.  I understand that the novel written way before those three films were released but if Stanton's and Disney's intention was to show us something new and exciting in regards to the genre of science fiction, then this film misses the mark.  I'm sure Burroughs' source material is fantastic, full of vivid imagery and fiercely imaginative characters and concepts.  However, Burroughs' novel does not translate well to the cinema.  Stanton and the two other screenwriters can't seem to handle the material or know how to approach it in manner fit for a cinematic experience.  Or maybe, the material of John Carter has been worked over for so long by so many studios that the most recent draft before Disney got a hold of it was the best the screenwriters had to work with and nothing could be improved upon.  It's possible Stanton just reworked it a bit.  Regardless, I sense that John Carter was one of those films that if it didn't get made now, the film would never see the light of day.

Lacking in interesting characters and plot detail, John Carter failed to stimulate my eyeballs or brain.  Stanton is clearly capable of creating such original and memorable ideas for Pixar.  Why not use his creative mind to give us something new and unseen for the world of live action films?  Perhaps he was just testing the waters.  If Stanton can come up with something that is as fresh and untouched as he did with Finding Nemo and WALL-E, then that is a flick I can get excited over.  I think John Carter is a lame first outing for him and doesn't play to any of his strengths.  I wish he also would have utilized his actors better.  Dafoe, Samantha Moron, Mark Strong, and Ciarán Hinds are all fine actors, but their talents go to waste.  This trip to Barsoom is disappointing to put it mildly.  I'll be curious to see that if in twenty to thirty years from now Disney remakes this film.  If they do, at least they can't do any worse.

The Caped Crusader's Commendable Conclusion

"The Dark Knight Rises"

Seven years ago Warner Brothers decided that their beloved Batman franchise was in need of a reboot.  Christopher Nolan, having only two other films under his belt at the time, was chosen to direct the picture and Christian Bale was cast as the lead.  Nolan's previous work consisted of Memento and Insomnia, both films were well received by critics but had minute budgets and made little money at the box office.  And Warner Brothers trusted him with $150 million of their money to make a darker, grittier, more intense world for The Caped Crusader.  Even though director Joel Schumacher ruined the prior series with the tolerable Batman Forever and the atrocious Batman and Robin, I was still not on board with the idea of this remake.  Well, to my surprise Batman Begins delivered a fresh take on the origin story of the cape and cowl superhero, leaving me with high expectations for its sequel, The Dark Knight.  Although Heath Ledger was sublime as the Joker in the second installment, I didn't think the successor brought much more to the table than its predecessor. 

Nolan made it clear that he was only going to do one more Batman film set in the world that he created, hence making his films a trilogy.  Bale stayed on, but with the passing of Ledger and the death of Two Face (Aaron Eckhart) who were the next two villains going to be in the final installment?  Bane (Tom Hardy) and Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) were to be the last pair of foes Batman would face in The Dark Knight Rises.  With this film arguably being the most anticipated picture of the year, I’d say Nolan and his crew have given us a decent, well-made finale that proved rebooting a franchise can sometimes be a good thing with highly lucrative results.  

The film takes place eight years after the events from The Dark Knight.  District Attorney Harvey "Two Face" Dent has been long dead, but his legacy lives on.  Gotham City saw Dent as their white knight.  The citizens still don't know the real truth though about what happened that one night so long ago.  Bruce Wayne (AKA Batman) decided to hang up his heroics and eventually turned into a Howard Hughes like recluse.  The city has been much safer since the fearless acts of Dent.  Gotham’s police force has done a fine job keeping the criminals at bay.

That is until Bane, a terrorist who wears one hell of a gas mask (not just looks,) shows up and wreaks havoc.  Bane believes that by sending the city into complete anarchy and chaos he is giving the people what they want, the freedom to take back their city.  He makes sure the rich are stripped of their wealth, the city's police are rendered useless, and that Batman is nearly pummeled to death making him physically unable to do anything but sit and watch as place he once protected falls to the ground.  

Lots of new characters are introduced throughout the first hour of this near three hour film.  This proves to be engaging and also somewhat problematic in that we have to have to get acquainted with these new cast members.  Hardy's Bane is the most fascinating to watch of all the latest individuals.  Don't except another Ledger Joker.  Even though his character possesses brute strength, Bane's brain is just as big as his muscles.  He's certainly no dummy when it comes to executing a well thought out plan the likes of which sends Gotham into an all-out free-for-all.  Not even the Joker could do that.  But like the Joker, this villain too is full of characteristics that make him a cut above the average bad guy you would find in a comic book.  He has Batman figured out to a tee.  Bane knows he not only must physically break Batman, but more importantly break his soul.  Hathaway's take on Catwoman shows us this kitty's got claws as she plays the role quite well.  Pardon the expression, Hathaway is the cat’s pajamas.  I would have liked it though if the screen time for Joseph Gordon Levitt's police officer Blake and Marion Cotillard's business woman Miranda Tate had been reversed.  There's also a good chunk of time where Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and Batman seemingly take a back seat so these other players have their moment in the sun.  At times there’s perhaps too much development on some characters and not enough on others.

The Dark Knight Rises is as a good companion piece to Batman Begins, making the middle film almost a stand-alone affair.  Batman's path to redemption and self-realization is reminiscent of his origin story.  Bruce Wayne has to be broken down so that he can rise up and rebuild himself into to the hero he was once was, the dark knight of Gotham City.  This of course takes time and patience.  Nolan knows that his audience will have to endure a second act full of reflective reasoning and thoughtful determination.  I like that the film references the past, making us fully appreciate the journey that Batman has been on for these three films.  Believe me, a mediocre first act, followed by an unhurried yet still intriguing second act, leads to a spectacular third act that we've come to expect from Nolan.

Deservedly boastful of impressive action set pieces, incredible photography, a few striking characters, and a lengthy yet effective screenplay, The Dark Knight Rises is top notch summer entertainment.  With Nolan's fine filmmaking senses, he continues to establish himself as a director whose uncompromising cinematic vision pays off in dazzling dramatic fashion.  The film is far from perfect and Batman Begins is still my favorite of the trilogy; however The Dark Knight Rises had enough substance to up the ante one more time.  Warner Brothers plans to reboot the Batman franchise again because I think they want to compete with Marvel's The Avengers and showoff to us their eventual Justice League.  I have a feeling though that this subsequent reboot will hopefully be disastrous for the studio.  What’s here is a good, but by no means a great conclusion to this series of Batman pictures and that's just fine with me.  The Dark Knight Rises is summer filmmaking at its best.         

Big Things Have Subpar Beginnings

"Prometheus"

I have been and always will be a fan of director Ridley Scott.  His artistic vision is incredible to watch unfold in the realm of cinema.  He never ceases to amaze me.  After being robbed from getting Best Director at the Academy Awards for his fantastic work on Gladiator back in 2001, over the next ten years Scott's films have really been hit or miss with me.  Never the less, I still remained devoted to him.  You can imagine how much joy washed over me when I found out that for his latest cinematic venture, Prometheus, the director was going back to the genre of science fiction; a genre that Scott did best.  Alien and Blade Runner are extraordinary pieces of filmmaking that will forever have their place in cinema history.  Those two films however came out over thirty years ago.  Nonetheless, I was still greatly anticipating Ridley's triumphant return to sci-fi.  To my dismay, although Prometheus does have the classic look of a Ridley Scott film, it is hardly a celebratory return for the director.

In the year 2093 a crew of scientists led by Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) board the behemoth spaceship Prometheus.  Their mission is to seek out an ancient alien civilization that may contain the answers to the origins of mankind.  Upon landing on a mysterious planet, our heroes go exploring into a series of dark, creepy caves.  And what they end up finding is beyond anything any of them could ever have imagined.  Unfortunately their discoveries awaken dormant vases containing some sort of primordial ooze.  Once that ooze comes in contact anything living, no matter how big or small, it wreaks havoc on the genetic material residing within the being.  Whatever answers Shaw and Holloway were hoping to find will about how we as humans came to be will have to be put on hold.  Now they must fight to stay alive.

Prometheus gives us an interesting premise.  Grand philosophical ideas challenge our minds and beliefs, leading us to initially believe that this summer blockbuster is actually going to have some brains.  Alas, this is not true.  Prometheus acts more as a wolf in sheep's clothing.  While the film's concepts are intriguing, the plot itself is unable to stay on course.  Once these slimy squid-like creatures start showing up, the picture abandons any notions of ever trying to get back on track.  Instead we are left with a creature feature for the rest of the film.  

This would have been fine had that been what the screenwriters’ original intent from the beginning.  Turns out, they don't know what they want.  Prometheus crosses ideology and science fiction in an uneven mesh of set ups and characters that essentially lead us nowhere. We are left to ponder more questions because Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof really know how to ruin a good thing.  They don't have the answers to their own questions.

2001:  A Space Odyssey excelled in such monumental hypotheses by giving us an interpretation of God that will remain forever righteous in its own justification.  Alien was a terrifying creature feature that gave us all a reason to think twice about going to the cinema on a full stomach.  My point is that both of these had an identity right from the get go and knew exactly what they were going to be from the beginning.  Prometheus's agenda comes and goes and leaves us scratching our heads in bewilderment as it unnecessarily tries to do two things at once.  Make it a movie about the origins of mankind or make it a true prequel to Alien.  Regrettably, it tried and failed to do both.

Filled with breathtaking visuals from start to finish, Prometheus' aesthetic qualities cannot save it from being a complete disaster, despite Scott's artistic flair which is pervasive as ever.  Michael Fassbender gives a marvelous performance as David, an android aboard the ship.  Rapace is acceptable in her role as a scientist.  Given the material she has to work with she tries her best.  Even Guy Pierce is decent enough in his role considering how small a part he has to play in the film.  I wanted to like Prometheus, but its screenplay is too hard to ignore, notwithstanding Scott's best efforts.  This is a film that actually could have a good addition to the genre of science fiction, but the script decided to pay fan service to its audience in hopes that we wouldn't notice its gaping flaws.  I hope the supposed director's cut that will be available on DVD in the fall will give me a better idea of what Prometheus really should have been.  I will continue to look forward to any and all future projects from Scott, it's just hard being fan of his sometimes.  Why bother waking the crew of the Prometheus from hypersleep to meet their maker if all their maker's going to do is stay mum.          

Past the Point of No Return

"Falling Down"

Joel Schumacher's Falling Down is a blatant social commentary on the predicament the United States is in.  Why do immigrants come to this country and then not learn to speak English?  Why does food cost so much money?  How come the food from fast food joints doesn't look anything like the pictures on the menu?  Why does everyone seem to be in a perpetually grouchy state of  annoyance and frustration?  Falling Down came out in 1993 but its pervasive themes resonate still to this day.  

Bill "D-FENS" Foster (Michael Douglas) isn't just having a bad day in L.A.  It's apparent that he has reached his breaking point.  The sweltering heat, the ridiculous traffic congestion, and the irritating construction work are what finally makes Bill snap.  He has had enough and decides to get up, leave his car, and proceed to walk from Pasadena to Venice Beach because he wants to see his wife and little girl.  Along the way Bill encounters a number of colorful, stereotypical characters, putting himself into some rather uncomfortable situations.  Each sequence demonstrates Bill's disgust over what America has become.  He speaks his mind and tries to be reasonable but the other characters refuse to listen to him.  Each scene concludes with Bill getting what he wants. Also in the process he acquires better, sometimes bigger, weapon upgrades that he can later use for defense or as an intimidation factor for the next person that dares cross his path.

While is Bill making his way through L.A., robbery detective Martin Prendergast (Robert Duvall) is having quite the time trying to make heads or tails of all these reports coming in of a white guy wearing a white shirt and tie seemingly to be on some sort of rampage.  All Predergast wants to do is go home too.  Who can blame him though, it’s his last day before retirement.  As the story continues to unfold and Predergast starts to connect the dots, Bill, our sort of hero we've been cheering for all this time because of sticking it to society, may not be as great as we think.  Now it's only a matter of time before Bill finally makes his way back to his family.

Douglas gives a superb performance as a man who has seriously lost it.  His character displays a range of emotions indicating that he is fed up with everything and everyone, but at the same time though, Bill shouldn’t be viewed as some kind of monster.  Should he?  I was cheering for Bill and his vigilante cause.  There have been many times during a film that I wished the characters on screen would get what's coming to them.  Douglas' character gave me that feeling.  Being a complete and absolute jerk to someone should have its consequences and then relishing in those consequences I think is something to pump your fist about.  In some ways Bill's story is like a video game come to life in a real world setting.

But, there also has to be order to chaos.  I liked Duvall's role as the keeper of the peace.  His role as the cop isn't particularly anything special; in fact it's downright clichéd.  I didn't have a problem with that though.  Prendergast has to exist.  He is the yin to Bill's yang.  Just because Whammy Burger stops serving breakfast at 11:30 doesn't mean you should actually bring an Uzi up to the counter.  Prendergast keeps this film grounded in reality instead of crossing over into the realm of fantasy.  

The film moves along with one inciting incident after another keeping our attention up until the third act.  Douglas does a fine job of having Bill walk that fine line between crazy and psychotic.  It's only until we learn more and more about his character and his past that all our sympathies that had accumulated for him in the film's first and second acts suddenly seem to dissipate.  The character we were once rooting for has the tables turned on him in a deflating but logical manner.  The first and second acts are so enjoyable though that we just sort of have to accept the outcome for Bill's actions.  I don't know where else screenwriter Ebbe Roe Smith could have taken the character.

Falling Down is an intensely acted and well-crafted thriller that plays out as an entertaining "what if" kind of flick.  Filled with several good scenes which have some great lines of dialogue that will leave you nodding your head in agreement throughout, the film gives us a portrait of a man dealing with a society that has pushed him over the edge.  But this is a society that has problems we can relate to in one way or another.  Never preachy in its ideas is the film because we know them to be all too true.  Still thematically relevant as ever, Falling Down is unyielding in its approach to point out our societal flaws.  It's an interesting look at a character's descent into madness in the concrete jungle of Los Angeles.  Even though no one is holding a jump net to catch Falling Down, this films doesn't make a mess when it finally hits the pavement.  

            

         

Powerful Sword, Puny Plot

"Excalibur"

Director John Boorman's Excalibur is a far cry from Disney's Sword in the Stone, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and the Las Vegas hotel.  This is a film that takes us back to a time and place of might, magic, and his majesty King Arthur (Nigel Terry.)  The tale of King Arthur, Excalibur, and The Holy Grail seems like a story begging to be brought to the big screen.  Knights in shining armor galloping and gallivanting around on horseback, the wizard Merlin (Nicol Williamson) casting spells on less fortunate souls, and ruckus parties held in larger than life castles are part of this epic medieval story.  However exciting these events may be, an inconsistent plot plagues Excalibur and unfortunately not even Arthur can vanquish this villainous foe.

You won't be seeing merry old England here.  No, this is the Dark Ages.  The land is littered with carnage from battles once and still fought so that Britain may claim herself a king.  Uther Pendragon (Gabriel Byrne) is on the verge of staking his claim on the vacant position, but he must make a pact with Merlin in order to do so.  The Sword of Power (Excalibur) comes into Pendragon's possession.  He also gets an heir out of his queen through deception and trickery.  In return though for Merlin doing these deeds for Pendragon, the wizard demands that the king's new born son, Arthur, be raised as his own.  In a fit of rage, Uther goes after Merlin with Excalibur only to be slain by the hands of his enemies.  The Sword of Power is forged into a stone as Pendragon's dying act and only the next true king of England shall be able to unsheathe it.

For those who are unfamiliar with the tale of The Sword and the Stone, when Arthur reaches his teenage years it is by chance that he pulls Excalibur from its resting place.  He then, through much guidance from Merlin, is able to declare himself king and take his place rightful place at the throne.  The castle Camelot is erected so that Arthur, Guenevere (Cherie Lunghi) his queen, and his many loyal knights may reside in the mightiest of courts.  Although, a king's court is only as mighty as the king himself.  Jealousy consumes Arthur as he realizes that Guenevere actually has the hots for one of his knights, Lancelot (Nicholas Clay.)  Feeling heartbroken and betrayed, in an act of resentment toward his queen and knight, Arthur casts Excalibur aside, leaving him and his kingdom in a weak and darkened state.  A search for The Holy Grail begins so that light and order can then be restored to the land that was once so prosperous.

  

Excalibur is very much a plot driven film, as well it should be.  Big events lead to bigger actions by our characters.  But here in lies the picture's problematic three act structure.  The first act comes off as feeling disjointed.  Scenes of violence accompanied only by slight character development is how this film opens.  Furthermore, sizable amounts of time are just skipped over as we are left to connect the dots.  The screenwriters assume that we should already be familiar with these legendary characters as well as the film’s time and the place.  I'm not looking for a history lesson here, but some context and explanation would have been nice.

I found the second act be quite more enjoyable.  I liked Arthur's motives that propelled his character to be something of a moral and virtuous king.  His character grows and matures into an adult who makes adult decisions that propel him into being a likeable hero.  Arthur acted how a king should act.  Watching how Arthur assembled his Knights of the Round Table, the friendship he had with the wise and foresighted Merlin, and admiring the size and scope of the court I thought was wonderful to see unfold on screen. 

The third act suffers from much of the same woes that hindered the first act.  The story shifts focus as our hero takes a backseat in lieu of two other characters, his evil enchantress sister Morgana (Helen Mirren) and the daringly courageous Perceval (Paul Geoffrey.)  The passage of time is unclear, the conflict feels forced and thrown together, and the choices made by Boorman during final battle sequence are disappointing.

Uneven in its plot and character development Excalibur could have been a film of immense proportions.  At least director of photography Alex Thompson’s ever changing color palette captures the regal beauty of the King Arthur world.  The telling of this legendary tale should have been masterful.  Instead, the film holds up this unstable, wobbly shield of directionless uncertainty and varying degrees of storytelling.  I enjoy films of the medieval time period and hold them to a certain level of entertainment.  Excalibur does have a solid second act, but that is not sufficient enough to carry us through this 140 minute film.  To have a crummy opening act is one thing, but to have a shaky third as well, you will definitely lose your audience.  I wanted to like Excalibur given its source material.  By the end though, the film's middlemost strengths were all I could carry back to the castle.  Raise the drawbridge, this film can be left to swim in the moat.