New Review: Prince of Persia

Sand Storm

This is truly the season for the summer blockbuster; it's right on track with last year. Actually, three years ago seems to be more precise. The first weekend was a comic book movie sequel which held its own throughout the second weekend, the third weekend was another Shrek movie, and the last weekend is a Disney/Bruckheimer production. It's actually kinda strange how well that all falls into place. This year, the new collaboration between the Walt Disney Company and mega-producer Jerry Bruckheimer also has another source material thrown into the mix, and some would argue that it's just as frivolous as a theme park ride.

Based on the well known videogame (which means its reputation is already compromised), the prince in question is Dastan, played by Jake Gyllenhaal in a controversial casting decision. To get around it, Dastan has been set as an English orphan in the Persian streets who gets taken in by the local royalty. He grows up to be a great warrior, who by the influence of his uncle Nazim (Ben Kingsley), invades the local walled-off city because intel says their harboring weapons. When that accusation turns out to be false, Dastan and the princess Tamina (Gemma Artenton) are on a quest to clear the Prince's name as well as return the magical dagger with the power of time travel back to the sacred place it came from.

So far, films based on videogames have the hardest time succeeding. Most of them are absolute failures without a hint of creativity. Thankfully, this one has a pretty good start because of director Mike Newell, who has ventured into this territory before with the fourth Harry Potter movie. Newell is a very accomplished director, and his abilities to move the camera well gives the action a nice beet of entertainment. However, the cluttering of three editors, all very talented, means that the action goes back and forth between entertaining and indiscernible. While I wish the editors realized the phrase "more editing doesn't equal good editing," Newell does his best to compensate. However, the true poison to the film is the god-awful script which clouds up the place with a clunky dialogue, broadly sketched characters, parts of the story that feel missing, and an ending that is so absurd it feels like a big middle finger to the audience.

The reason why Bruckheimer's Pirates worked so well was because it had someone like Johnny Depp to take the lead. This film can't afford to have someone like that in the lead here, but Gyllenhaal is a good enough actor to fulfill the hero role. Arterton is also good, but the two of them work better together, and their playful and credible chemistry works well to make up for such a colorful character. The only one who comes close to that manic energy is Alfred Molina, who plays a street merchant obsessed with avoiding unfair taxes, adding to another blatant political message in the film. He's hammy for sure, but a pure delight in every scene he's in. Kinglsey turns in some restrained work for a change, but he's just another cardboard character in a sea of them in this film.

Is this a terrible film: no, and by the standards of videogame movies, it's actually not bad at all. However, as a rollicking action romp, it could certainly be better. The action sequences vary from the well and poorly executed, the performances range from the phoned in to the credible attempt and the humor is pretty much flat against a horrible script. Still, I have to say that I had a more enjoyable time watching this film than I had during anything else this summer, including Iron Man 2. It's not perfect, but considering the season so far, I'll take it.

B

Oldies Spin: Wild Wild West

Wild Wild West (1999)

When reflecting on this rather notorious film, I can't help but notice that this film combines two elements I discussed in two previous "Oldies Spins." Those elements being the revisionist Western and the heavy influence of nostalgia when looking at a film years divorced from initial viewings. This film is a perfect example of both types, particularly the latter since this was the first film I saw three times before a video release and was also one of the films I remember seeing during the long ago drive-in days. Everybody on the planet seems to hate this movie. I am going to attempt to give a defense to what many might call an indefensible film.

If late '90s pop-culture somehow escaped you, then some might consider you lucky. In any case, this is the feature adaptation of the famous 1960s television show. In the good-ole-days of mid-nineteenth century America, the main hero in this story is Will Smith as the aptly named Jim West, a well dressed cowboy that gets around surprisingly well considering he's a black man right after the Civil War. His partner, the foil, is the intelligent and gadget obsessed Artemus Gordon. The two are on an insane plot to stop Dr. Loveless (Kenneth Branagh), a Confederate mastermind whose loss of the entire lower half of his body has fueled his rage to overthrow the United States government. And hey, a young Salma Hayek joins them to bring the sexy into this picture.

Let me answer the most important question upfront: is Wild Wild West a goofy, stupid movie? Yes it is. That's because it's based on a goofy, stupid show. It's a well known story that Robert Conrad, the original Jim West, showed up to the Razzie ceremony himself to collect the Worst Picture prize this film won, proclaiming that the film was a diversion from the original show's integrity. Well, this was a show whose most famous villain was a Mexican little person with such grand schemes as mind control and (I'm totally serious) using vibrations to send people into paintings with their own interactive worlds.

When we talk "Wild Wild West," we're not talking about Maverick or Gunsmoke. The original television show is not beloved for its attention to historical detail. It's admired because of its fun energy that was able to take advantage of the majestic scenery without being shackled by the technology. It's like watching Mission: Impossible set in the West. That's why I like the show and that's why I like the movie. Barry Sonnenfeld, coming from a cinematographers background, always sets up his frames beautifully, and I do think the film is a marvelous technical achievement. But Sonnenfeld also brings back that playful energy, one that is not trying to work a believable plot into the mix. I agree, the plot is ridiculous, but so is the entire foundation. I believe that, despite Sonnenfeld disowning this film, he actually creates a quirky world that is fascinating to look at and uses a playful energy very well.

The performances, you may find surprising, I think are quite well executed. Smith and Kline may not have the best chemistry, but I do think that they are confident enough to score laughs on their own terms. Richer comedic gold cannot be mined in this situation, though, because each of them are trying to be funny on their own. If the straight-man-funny-man scenario had been employed more (like the Sonnenfeld/Smith Men in Black), perhaps the comedy could have gotten a better chance to rear its head. But I don't think these two actors harm the film at all and work well with the material given to them. Branagh is the best thing in the film; he devours the scenery in a hammy villain role and its fun to see such a seriously trained actor like him take on such a cartoonish character. I adore it; he finds the right tone to strike with the film. I admit that players like Hayek and Ted Levine are given very little, especially Hayek in a nothing role. But I enjoy them still.

Without a doubt, I will concede that the screenplay is the deadliest part of the film. It's so bad that it bleeds into the downfall of many other elements that I like about the film. Forget the ludicrous plot that I don't mind being ludicrous. The juxtapositions of scenes create an odd rhythm, and Sonnenfeld fails to work around that to try to keep a consistent pace. The dialogue features many clunky lines that hinder the actors performances as they force a grin that brings down their energy. The humor, for the most part, isn't very well conceived which leads to an all out downer, not to mention that making Jim West a black man creates a whole other set of problems. I don't want to say that all these other parties are blameless and the script is the only terrible thing. What I am saying is that the script puts forth not even a tiny effort to indulge in its source material while everyone else works their damnedest to mold it into something, and it instead negatively affects everyone else. It's the most deadly part of the film.

I will never say that this is a perfect movie, but I vehemently uphold the notion that this film is not terrible. More than not terrible, I think it's actually a good action comedy. Yes, it has some slow spots and bland humor and odd pacing and questionable performances, but I think the majority of the film keeps the promise to provide a goofy film that is nice to look at while having a crazy energy that is thoroughly entertaining. Yet, I know I'm in the extreme minority, and many people agree with the Razzie's decision. But I would say that if this was the worst that 1999 could offer, then I'd say that was a very good year.

B

Behind the Scenes: Brian Helgeland

BRIAN HELGELAND

Born: January 17, 1961

Occupation: Screenwriter

Best Work: L.A. Confidential

Other Highlights: Mystic River, Man on Fire, Green Zone, Payback

Upcoming Films: The Serpent and the Eagle

There is no doubt that Brian Helgeland is one of the industries most prolific screenwriters. He’s such a force that it seems like every project in Hollywood has passed by his desk and features parts of his penmanship. Helgeland even had two films released this year alone, only two months apart (Green Zone, Robin Hood). Still, like most talented artists, the highs come with the lows. In fact, I’d say that, currently, Helgeland only has his name attached to two kind of projects: those that are well executed and riveting, and those that are, to put it politely, absolute duds.

Nothing sums up Helgeland’s dichotomy more than the year 1997. His success story was L.A Confidential. Based on the James Ellroy novel, the jumbled mixed of storylines and

intrigue that Helgeland and co-writer and director Curtis Hanson managed to juggle proved to be a fascinating expedition. Sure, a lot of that credit goes to Hanson’s capable direction and a plethora of fine performances, but this is a film that proved that Helgeland could work out a smart, sophisticated story that was grown up enough to work out its own problems in the most clever and witty ways. But Helgeland also had The Postman released in the same year. I admit that I haven’t seen the film in its entirety (it’s reputation always made me cautious to approach it), but of the bits I have seen, I have witnessed a screenplay that is inherently clunky and riddled with horrendous dialogue, made even more mesmerizing by the fact that it was co-written by Eric Roth, the Oscar-winning writer Forrest Gump, Munich and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. This year is a perfect summation for this writer, as not only did these films represent both sides of the artistic spectrum, he also won both the highest and lowest honors bestowed on films. He and Hanson won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay, while Roth and Helgeland shared the Razzie Award for Worst Screenplay. Helgeland is one of the few people to win both awards in the same year.

Most would agree that Helgeland’s best work after L.A. Confidential is more than likely Mystic River. Again, the superb direction by Clint Eastwood and numerous powerhouse performances deserve a lot of the credit for the film, but Helgeland’s work also manages to show a great depth in these characters. Taken from the Dennis Lehane novel, Helgeland gives the blueprint for a believable world for these characters to exist in, and the humanity he gives them provides another great layer of depth for Eastwood and his actors to play with. It seems that Helgeland is mostly fascinated by this topic: providing characters that inhabit one type while having the capacity to showcase something completely different. I think Mystic River is one of the best scripts written, and should have given him his second Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar (Sorry Peter Jackson, but you won the writing award for the wrong entry).

Outside of his most famous works, Helgeland almost works as a writer-for-hire on a lot of projects. His name has been credited for films like The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, Man on Fire, Cirque de Freak, and the two films from this year. The big problem is that you never know which Helgeland will show up: the talented writer with a creativity for characters that makes him Oscar worthy or the hollow hack who phones it in for subpar work. Even Green Zone, a movie that I liked a great deal more than other people, I found was profoundly lacking in its screenplay. But I guess that’s what keeps him such a fascinating figure. He’s not untalented, but he isn’t a guaranteed hit either, and I suppose it’s an interesting guessing game to find out which one will be credited on the film. Even with some serious reservations in his career, I still look forward to just about anything he creates, because even his bad films still offer a look into the style he adores, and even adds possibilities for what could be improved and what else to look forward to.

New Reviews: The Human Centipede & Metropia

Bugger Down

Every year, there seems to be at least one film released that manages to divide people immensely. Those that love this particular film seem to sing the highest praises for it and attribute levels of creative thought that might have even escaped its creators. Those that aren't quite as enthusiastic about the film seem to condemn every frame as a worthless, excessive exercise in the current state of graphic horror. In terms of that genre, I'm not the biggest fan, but I have to say that for a film of this reputation, I actually thought it was quite well done.

The film begins like most of these movies tend to begin: a group of girls, in this case two (Ashley C. Williams, Ashlynn Yennie) are on a cross-continental trip through Europe. Their current stop is in Germany, where luck unfortunately places them with a flat tire in the pouring rain outside a mysterious stranger's house. Dr. Joseff Heitter (Dieter Laser) takes the girls hostage, along with a Japanese man, in order to sew them together, mouth to anus, to make an abominable "Human Centipede." So if you get captured by a guy like this, make sure you get on his good side so you can be the head.

The reputation this film has built up is that its in the vein of the Saw pictures, a film that is explicit in the gruesome, nauseating violence. However, I'm here to say that the movie actually doesn't show that much. Surprisingly, writer-director Tom Six manages to conceal many of the more gruesome qualities, allowing the unnerving tension to develop in a successful way. He has a great sense of how to indulge in the genre without overdoing it. Even the straight laced, predictable opening even carries a whiff of sarcasm and self-mockery that is a nice touch all the way to the depressingly beautiful ending. The only complaint I'd give his efforts is that the human centipede creation doesn't look that frightening, and instead looks like three people on their hands and knees.

Common wisdom is that acting isn't particularly strong in a horror film, and since half the picture renders most of its characters mute, there's only so much you can get from the captured girls. They do their emotional part to pull you into the exposition and their struggle, but they are indeed standard horror movie damsels. The true standout is Laser, looking like a creepier Christopher Walken, he perfectly captures that eerie quality a good horror villain possesses, being grounded and hammy in all the right places. He more than anything sells the credibility of the film, and he's a great salesman to have.

I really liked this movie, but I want to make it clear that if you see this film based on my recommendation and end up hating it, you cannot be mad at me and say I owe you ten dollars. There is a high likelihood you may hate this film and come off feeling disgusted. However, if you're willing to give it a chance, you'll find that as far as the genre is concerned, this is one that is actually smart enough to work with some decent acting and a tone that works well to not exploit every image despite some clunkiness here and there. Despite my aversion to the genre, I have to admit that this is a pretty standout achievement.

A-

Dark City

In the review from above, I mentioned how there are certain films that can divide the opinions of people right down the middle. Well there's also a group of films that can manage to invoke an opinion that feels its contradictory. The best example I know of is when Siskel and Ebert reviewed David Cronenberg's Naked Lunch, a movie neither of them disliked immensely but couldn't bring themselves to fully recommend it either. This film, which I saw courtesy of Comcast's On Demand section of the Tribeca Film Festival, evoked a similar response from me, and I hope to figure out how I feel by the end of this review.

A Swedish import that has American names in the cast, this hypnotic, animated feature is set in the distant, bleak future in which, yet again, an oil crisis has crippled most of the world. One solution is that Europe has created a system of underground, connecting tunnels that everyone uses. The shy, reluctant hero here is Roger (Vincent Gallo) whose banal existence suddenly gets interrupted when he starts hearing voices in his head. This jumpstarts him into a conspiracy theory that involves a corporation and mind control.

I can't deny that the film is beautifully bleak, and the quirky animation and sense of humor has its strong point in getting you invested throughout most of the film. At the same time, it can also be a point of severe irritation when the animation feels like its better in short bursts, as opposed to a feature film, and the humor can miss badly. Director and co-writer Tarik Salih has a great visual sense, and makes a great promise in the future. However, he also juggles with a wildly inconsistent pace and elements that switch back and forth between well executed tension and poorly executed, dull ideas. Salih's ideas are ambitious but not in solidarity.

The voice cast is impressive, as it also includes such names as Juliette Lewis, Udo Kier and Stellan and Alexander Skarsgård. However, this cast seems wasted by everyone apparently mumbling their lines, making their deliveries hard to comprehend and eventually annoying. Some strong work from Stellan Skarsgård and Lewis manages to pierce through the dull tone that others strike, but even I don't think they have the ability to save it. At the same time, Gallo and his other company still manage to somewhat convincingly pull off the credibility of their characters, creating a love/hate relationship with their identity.

At the close of his review for Naked Lunch, Ebert stated, "I admire what [they] have done here. It is a very good job. It is a brilliant job. It is one of the most unpleasant movies I've seen, and I hated most of it...I guess I have to vote thumbs down, but at the same time with a footnote, that I admire what what he did, and I hate." I feel that accurately sums up my own feelings for this film. I admire the imagery and artistry that went into the animation, and I think the ideas are well conceived. At the same time, I grew incredibly restless with the whole thing and ended up disliking a majority of the film. I'm glad I saw it, but despite devoting an entire review, still can't decide if I like it. So fair warning, the grade I give is very superficial rating, more like a general feeling.

C+

Oldies Spin: Return to Oz

Return to Oz (1985)

It's amazing what nostalgia can do to the human mind. It is perhaps one of the most powerful influences, in that it is able to warp and change experiences from past into elements that may be completely different from how they originally transpired. That weekend to DisneyWorld you took when you were five which was pretty much rained out suddenly becomes a rosy-colored memory of the past. The way we view movies is no different, especially from the films we tend to love from childhood. This film is an example of that, being a favored film from my childhood that, as I got older, built up a reputation of not being that great. Now at nearly twenty, I've gone back to look at this film once again to see if everybody seems to be right. What I found is that the film has some more problems that I thought there were, but I still enjoyed a great deal of it.

What has often been incorrectly been regarded as a direct sequel to that 1939 classic, the film finds Dorothy (Fairuza Balk) and her family suffering from rebuilding their house from the aftermath of the tornado. But Auntie Em (Piper Laurie) is concerned about these wild delusions of that her niece is having about golden roads, a trio of strange friends and a witch with a severe skin condition and horrible aquatic allergies. The cure: strap her in for electroshock therapy. But before you can do that, there has to be a flood that whisks her back to Oz, now a desolate place, where she has to save her old friends and restore life back to Oz with a new group of friends and villains.

I will be honest that when comparing this film to the original...well, there is no comparison. A bleak opening in Kansas doesn't have the same appeal as the sepia-toned plywood set with an Oscar-winning song. Dorothy's accompanying chicken doesn't touch the heart like Toto. A flood is not as exciting as a tornado. Jack Pumpkinhead, Tic-Toc and the Gump can't match the playful wit and energy of the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion. The pace is slower, the tone is darker and the resolution goes on too long. But this movie still contains something the original film does not have, and something I think is better: a sense of danger.

I find that most of the successful family movies tend to have a sense of darkness and danger that puts its characters through. Kids can handle a little bit of danger because, I believe, it doesn't pander to them and treats them like real people. The tone is a lot darker, but I feel that leads the film to a lot more exciting and suspenseful action sequences. When Dorothy and her friends fall towards a mountain top, there still remains a dramatic danger that manages to acquire a sense of realism that totally escapes the original film. In that respect, I tend to find a great deal of admiration for this film over the first one.

Having said that, there are even problems with the film itself in its own self-contained universe. This is the first and only film directed by Walter Murch, who many movie fans will know as probably the most famous editor and sound designer working today. Despite his extravagant genius in film theory, his touch as director is one that's not very exciting. His direction shoots for many targets, and some hit but a lot miss. The opening is quite unbearable and dull, and the film has a hard time getting up momentum until it is almost a third way in. At the same time, he can create some well staged moments and inbetween some of the dull moments, there is some great emotional reveals.

In terms of the performances, they're nothing to write home about. Balk, in her very first role, has the right childlike sense of wonder and curiosity to inhabit the role, but the unfortunate comparison to be made against Judy Garland doesn't help, and she doesn't get quite the right amount of magic needed. You do get some good hammy work from Nicol Williamson and Jean Marsh, but their roles are limited enough to not have a great effect. But their work is greatly appreciated still.

You can call it hit or miss, but I think a majority of this movie is a great success. Even trying to dismiss the nostalgia-colored glasses, I still find a lot of love for this movie. The performances still manage to be somewhat engaging, and the exciting action scenes with a hint of danger also allow the better parts to overshadow the shortcomings in the plot and direction. I know the problems exist, but if anything else, I can at least say that maybe my childhood was a little warped to begin with, as a dark film like Return to Oz is in company with many other dark films that I loved from my childhood. Hell, I will even say that Wild Wild West is a good film. But that's another review entirely.

B

New Review: Robin Hood

Men in Fights

If I could just have one conversation with Ridley Scott, I would tell him that I still admire and respect his work with total admiration. As proof, I would point out that I have generally been giving favorable reviews to most of his films, even giving a B-plus to Body of Lies even when a majority of the critics tended to trash it. However, I think I'd also have to be blunt in the fact that recently he hasn't been producing the same amount of quality that he had been a generation ago. Even with all that, I still think Scott is capable of producing quality work. That's why it's so disheartening to see that this film is not an example of that theory.

What could be also labeled as "Robin Hood Begins," Russell Crowe has the role of the heroic figure, this time as an examination into the beginnings of the legendary character. In this story, he's Robin Longstride, a soldier in King Richard's Crusade army. When the king winds up dead, his returning crown is intercepted by a double-crossing English knight working with the French, played by Mark Strong. One of the slain nobleman is a Robert Loxley, and Robin takes back his sword to his father (Max von Sydow) and widow Marian (Cate Blanchett). As he takes up residence in the small town, he puts on the facade of being Loxley, married to Marian and helping with the rebellion against the new king, John.

I'll admit that the first hour or so of the film had me. Despite a clunky opening and heavy reminders of Gladiator, I still found a good deal of the action quite engaging, exciting and fun. Here was where Scott managed to show his directing chops in the realm of action quite well, with a lot of good setups and payoffs. There was also a strong showing of many of the supporting players, and while the historical details might have gotten lost in the grand scheme of things, the tradeoff of information with some sly humor gave a promise for a film that might have actually live up to the reputation of its talent.

But then, the movie just stopped caring. No longer does Scott seem like its necessary to have the action scenes be comprehendible and they eventually all bleed into a loud, disorienting mess. Brian Helgeland's script seems to abandon simple elements like plot and characters and decides to just throw a bunch of wild political schemes that go against the thick plot that just developed. Crowe and Blanchett no longer have a sense of playful tension with one another and instead feel like stick figures in the foreground. At these moments, I stopped caring as well, and became incredibly restless and bored with the entire piece, even with the bombastic finale that tries so hard to succeed in vying for your attention.

Russell Crowe was the main reason I was hesitant about embracing this film, but he's actually one of the assets that help it. Yes, he gives one of his trademark hero roles, but it's still nice to see that when committed, he can pull it off. It's just a shame the rest of the film isn't as committed as him. Blanchett also also energy and humor in her role, but the idea of a modernized, feminist Marian feels off with the time period and brass for brass sake. There's a nice round of supporting players from Robin's merry men, the notorious King John (Oscar Issac), that double crossing knight, the original king Richard (Danny Huston), and older players like Sydow and William Hurt as the country's marshall. But when the merry men are underwritten background players, Strong is phoning it in, Issac's John is a wildly contradictive character, Huston's talente is only in a limited role and Sydow and Hurt are also barely given anything at all only serve to remind that this plot is overstuffed with seemingly unlimited disappointment.

Again, I was all in for the first hour of the film: it was fun, enjoyable and intriguing. But I just stopped caring because the movie stopped caring, and despite some good performances and some gorgeous cinematography, Scott lets the weight of the plot and uninteresting action sequences to eventually suffocate the film. I want to continue to pledge my allegiance to Scott, but if he wants to continue to fulfill his Gladiator days, then that's going to be a problem for me to stay with him. That makes me wonder about his Alien prequel, a film I was already resenting, and if it will suffer the same fate as this one.

C+

Behind the Scenes: Rodrigo Prieto

In addition to reviewing older films, I’ve also decided to include this new feature called “Behind the Scenes.” Here, I’m going to pick a certain person working professionally in films today. Their professions will range from directors, producers, writers, actors, cinematographers, editors, and numerous others. I hope you enjoy a peek into the world that keeps movies alive.

RODRIGO PRIETO

Born: November 1965

Occupation: Cinematographer

Best Work: Brokeback Mountain

Other Highlights: 21 Grams, Alexander, Frida, Babel, Lust-Caution

Upcoming Films: Biutiful, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

When it comes to high profiled cinematographers, Rodrigo Prieto is surprisingly in high demand. Even before he got a well deserved Oscar nomination, his resumé was pretty extensive throughout the 1990s working on nearly twenty short Mexican films. Sadly, these films have escaped my viewing, but considering how much he racked up in that short time period tells me that those directors found something to appreciate in his work.

Prieto’s style has generally been appreciated for its blend of chaotic grittiness and elegant beauty. This is most evident in the films he has worked on with Alejandro González Iñarritú: Amores Perros, 21 Grams and Babel. Of these three films, I would say 21 Grams is my favorite, not only due to its storytelling but because of Prieto’s work. He always bleeds a great amount of flare and color, but always keeps the scenes grounded in a gritty reality, a perfect sense to capture within the world of the film. Despite some of the story problems, Prieto always managed to keep the camera visually stimulated in a world that inhabited a bleak sense of ironic beauty.

Prieto’s first big success was probably his work on Frida. Director Julie Taymor has a heavy theatrical background, and such extravagance provided perhaps the greatest level of freedom and creativity in his entire career. The colors flare vibrantly and the dramatic lighting works well to bring out the vivid artistry that Kalho was widely known for. Prieto’s efforts were large enough to earn him his first nomination from the American Society of Cinematographers.

Of all the great work that Prieto showed in the earliest part of his career, his crowning achievement is without a doubt Brokeback Mountain. In the long list of great elements of that film, the cinematography beautifully captures all the details. It helps that Prieto had the majestic natural scenery to immediately transport us into the world of this film. However, Prieto also uses the methods to offer a quiet, soft romanticism to the piece which fully envelopes the mindset of these tormented characters. By the time we get to the final moments, the mountains peeking in the back symbol the wide gap that

has grown between them and adds another layer of heartbreaking beauty. It’s no wonder why he received an Oscar nomination, and if it were up to me, I’d say that he should have taken it.

But the great thing about Prieto is that his work has never stopped succeeding. Sometimes his achievements are the best parts of the film (Alexander and Lust,Caution are some examples). The bottom line is that when you get a film that is shot by Rodrigo Prieto, you’ll be getting an elegantly designed look that helps to amplify the emotions that the story puts forth. Of his upcoming films, I believe his reuniting with Iñarritú on Biutiful will provide the most vibrant work from him, and I simply can’t wait to see it.

New Review: Iron Man 2

Iron Strip

At one point, I actually remember having high hopes for 2010. About three quarters of the way through last year, I was ready to give up hope and set might sights toward the following year, in which there was a plethora of new releases that I was eagerly anticipating. But to be honest, this has steadily become the year of disappointment, with films like The Wolfman, Alice in Wonderland, and Shutter Island disappointing on large scales. So I quickly shifted my gaze to the summer season, the time when the cineplexes get some excitement at least. Like its predecessor, this opens the summer. But unlike it, this one is less effective in delivering solid entertainment.

It's a few months after we last left Tony Stark proclaiming to the world his secret identity. Now Stark has a more increased size of celebrity, but still has some issues to work out. Some of those issues would be the government wanting to take away his suit, Mickey Rourke as a vengeful Russian scientist nicknamed Whiplash, and a rival CEO at a competing weapons manufacturing company (Sam Rockwell).

At one point I did think that Robert Downey Jr. had better talents as an egotistical supervillain rather than an iron-clad hero. But I was genuinely surprised by how well he managed to convey that sparkling energy that was thoroughly joyful. This time around, there are times when Stark's manic personality feels a bit much, particularly during a Senate hearing that goes on for a little too long, even though Garry Shandling as an irritated senator does get some laughs. Even still, Downey is the film's greatest asset and he continues to prove his worth in this series

While I really enjoyed the first film, I thought the one thing that is suffered from was a villain who was pretty lackluster (with all due respect to Jeff Bridges). This time around, it feels like the villains still aren't given a lot of room to shine, as fine actors like Rourke and Rockwell are forced to share the spotlight. Rockwell is good in his role, but it doesn't feel like the film gives him enough range to fully develop his character. Rourke is quite effective, but he's better without the hammy Russian accent.

Gwyneth Paltrow had one of her best performances in the original film, one I thought was even better than her Oscar-winning turn in Shakespeare in Love. However, no longer does she seem to possess the spunky energy that allowed her to create a nice tension between her and Downey. Now she's more whiney and nagging, not a great combination. Characters like Don Cheadle as Terrence Howard's replacement, Scarlett Johansson as the new secretary with some special skills, and Samule L. Jackson as the that mysterious Nick Fury are severely underweritten and lack any substance to feel gravely important. There's a lot more characters this time around, but perhaps that's not good enough.

I still say that Jon Faverau is an odd choice of director for an action franchise, but he proved his chops with the first outing, and actually managed to create some really exciting moments in the beginning of the film, the highlight being the racetrack encounter between Iron Man and Whiplash, one of the few scenes that actually caries some danger and suspense. But then he lets the action get very clunky and the plot meanders, making the movie go on and on. Though, he does rebound in the closing part of the climax (the first is just a big, noisy mess). The script by Justin Theroux is a hodgepodge of conflicting tones, meddling paces and hit or miss humor. The last fifteen minutes of the film almost saves the whole damn thing.

As one throwaway side note, this film gave me small remembrances of The Dark Knight. Rourke breaking out of prison is similar to the Joker walking out of the exploding hospital, Stark's chase through an exploding parking lot feels like the batpod racing to get on the street, and this film even has role played by someone who notably had a premature death (in this case, it was Adam "DJ AM" Goldstein). But all of those cases feel like downgraded homages to another, better film that this one shouldn't have tried to emulate.

It's hard for comic book movies these days as a majority have to contend with heavy hitters like The Dark Knight. Iron Man isn't attempting to be anywhere as serious, but it feels like the fun was bled out a bit. Downey continues to be a blast, and some action scenes are well executed. But this film sags a lot in the middle, and some clunky action and underwritten roles don't help the case. Is it a terrible film? I wouldn't say so. But as a follow-up to the original film, one which had enough courage to rely solely on the hero's personality without introducing the alter ego for half the movie, this one comes up short. If you end up seeing it, I won't look down on you (and if you do, stay for a bonus scene after the end credits). Unfortunately, I still have to add this film as one of the year's disappointments. Now I'm really starting to worry for Inception.

B-

Oldies Spin: The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

I know that movie addicts should find love in every genre, but the Western is one that I often have trouble embracing. The majestic scenery and stirring scores usually cannot take away from the stiff acting, simplistic plots and seemingly endless action. Along with the horror-slasher films, this tends to be one of my least favorite genres. However, there are exceptions to these types of film that provide a spin on some of their old themes. These "revisionist" Westerns offer more complex characters and moral dilemmas that don't necessarily fall on black and white. Films like Unforgiven and The Assassination of Jesse James are some of my all time favorite movies, and I even think they are some of the best films of their respective decades. However, an early revisionist Western is this film, surprisingly since it came from so many people who indulged in many of those films I disliked.

The movie begins with James Stewart as a senator traveling back to the small town he once lived in to attend a funeral. Being a big name, the local newspaper wants to inquire the reasons for his visit. That triggers a flashback to when he was a young, idealistic lawyer whose confrontation with notorious outlaw Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin) leaves him ready to take him on. But when John Wayne is in your town, we all know who the real tough guy is. After Liberty winds up dead (not a spoiler due to the title) seemingly at Stewart's hand, that propels him into politics.

Lee Marvin's villain is a bit one note in the film, but he plays it to such perfection that I hardly notice his lack in depth. A sinister smile and intimidating tone always feels genuine as a man willing to toy with you before he kills you in cold blood, much in comparison to a modern iconic villain, Heath Ledger's Joker. Stewart and Wayne carry their own respective trademarks, but they also remind us why those trademarks were so successful. Stewart's mastery of the "aww-schucks" persona makes his more serious side that much more impressionable, and the tough guy Wayne puts out makes his tenderness exuded later in the film to feel particularly potent. There's also good supporting work from Vera Miles as the sweet love interest in the triangle between Wayne and Stewart, Andy Devine as a bumbling buffoon of a sheriff, and Edmond O'Brien as the hammy bloviator newspaper man.

John Ford's simple yet elegant direction has been celebrated for decades, and it's easy to see why here. Ford never hits you over the head, but he lets the action and characters take you through an incredible story. It's a fascinating story that attempts to deconstruct the traditional tropes of heroes and villains. I'll try not to give too much away, but the one of the most famous quotes of the film comes at the end, "This is the west. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." The whole films seeks to answer why that seems so true, and it feels like a microscope actually put put against the careers of the film's director and star. It's an existential exercise in the film that is played out beautifully.

If I have one major complaint against this film, it's that for a film whose greatest asset is its villain, he doesn't show up very much. Valance is kept to a very minimum, and many of his scenes feel few and far between. This would normally be just a minor complaint, as it can usually be justified that when he does show up it means more. However, a subplot concerning the town petitioning statehood and the big ranchers trying to stop it has a connection to Valance; it is implied the ranchers hire men like Valance to keep the rules unclear and their own way of life intact. It's an interesting notion, pretty significant to the film, that isn't flushed out very well, leading to many of the scenes involving this topic tending to be quite dull and boring. The film can bounce back well, but it's a shortcoming that the film could have reached beyond.

The film has some issues here and there, but considering that this is a Western that I can actually watch is an astounding achievement in my book. The performances are top notch, particularly from Lee Marvin, and Ford spins an insightful tale that holds a mirror up against its own limited genre. Ford and Wayne made numerous Westerns that are just like the ones I can't stand, but they managed to come together to make at least one of theirs I can enjoyably sit through. It's a club that consists of very few films, and I'm glad this is one of them.

B+

New Reviews: A Nightmare on Elm Street & Exit Through the Gift Shop

Dreamlite

Normally, I try to stay away from remakes as often as I can. I know that material can only be minded so many times. However, I can admit that some remakes can indeed equal or even be superior to their original films. To be fair, I was never expecting this film to exceed its predecessor in any way, but I did remain hopeful for a somewhat inventive re-imagining that could be a showcase for some great imagery and an interesting performance from a very talented actor. I was hoping for all of that. What I got was a film that hardly delivered on a single thing it attempted to promise me.

After eight films in his ubiquitous franchise, the steely-fingered Freddy Kruger gets a slick reboot from the same studio that provided the same treatment to Friday the 13th and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. You all should know the story by now: a group of attractive young people are getting hunted down by the disfigured gentleman with the metal claws, played by an inspired bit of casting by Jackie Earle Haley. This time around, Kruger gets more of a backstory and indulges in more "jump scares", but the basic premise of the first film remains the same.

I'll say at least this for the film: it's not the victim of sloppy filmmaking. In fact, there are often times when director Samuel Bayer, making his directorial debut, actually manages to create some nice imagery within the dream sequences and shows a great start at working with vivid visual storytelling. However, he, along with writers Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer, soon let the film drown in a sea of overused jump scares and a plot that loses steam way too early. About halfway through, you realize the scares no longer have meaning, and despite the pretty images, the film actually becomes quite tiresome and boring.

Cluttering the cast, with the exception of Haley, are many unknowns that don't do much other than to fill the spaces. I don't want to paint the picture this young cast is untalented. In fact, there are often times when I was impressed by the glimpses of a better movie they were offering. Rooney Mara has the Nancy role here, and she does manage to provoke a fair amount of emotional weight for the film, while one her male friends Jesse (Thomas Dekker) also gives some credibility for the attempt at horror. Unfortunately, a lot of these characters are poorly sketched out and are just meant for window dressing.

Then there's Haley. I don't think I need to make the argument that Haley would seem to be a great replacement for Robert Englund. But the sad truth of it is that any actor could have played this role. Freddy is constantly treated like an afterthought, and the film never gives him the opportunity to showcase his true menace and even wit. No, this film is not funny at all, and in the end Haley becomes a completely wasted actor here; instead of turning in his own uniquely entertaining spin on an iconic character, Haley is reduced to standing in the shadows delivering ready made, prepackaged one-liners, which is perhaps the greatest insult the film bestows.

I suppose this goes without saying, but this is truly an unnecessary remake. It's too bad audiences that go for today's horror films can't have the patience for what they did in the past. Wes Craven perhaps didn't make a film as sleek or as "scary" as this one, but with a fraction of a budget, he was able to make something vastly more entertaining that managed to blend equally its horror and humor with a frighteningly mysterious antagonist. This one is just slick looking garbage making a promise from its filmmaker that better works might be in store for the future. Let's just hope that won't be another broken promise.

C

The Banksy Job

I'm constantly fascinated by the current booming interest in documentaries. What I find most interesting about them, in particular, is finding out which side of the story they fall on. We tend to take for granted the notion that documentaries are totally subjective works of art, when nothing can be further from the truth. Every film has an agenda, and just because you may go in with not script or trained cast, it still means that you're working on getting a message out there. That puzzle is what is most fascinating about Exit Through the Gift Shop, a film that keeps you guessing in the most entertaining way possible, which also manages to attach some interesting questions concerning the perception of art.

This is a film that takes on many journeys, as evident even by the first few images that show a wide variety of street artist that range from the articulate to the remedial. At first, this seems like a film dealing with the exploits of Thierry Guetta, a crazed Frenchman living in LA whose obsessiveness with filming everything in his life (which is a good excuse for a constantly recording camera) leads him to stumble into the secret underground world of street artists. He meets some big names, but the most famous of them is the mysterious Banksy, who is also billed as the director of the film. Thierry climbs deeper and deeper into Banksy's life that he eventually becomes a street artist himself (Mr. Brainwash) and abandons the documentary he was never really making in the first place.

Because Banksy is such a reclusive and well-hidden figure, there have been some calls to question the film's authenticity. There are several points where the film keeps you guessing what is real and what is fabricated, but the truthful answer is that it doesn't matter, and the guessing game is part of the fun. Whether this is all factual, all fabricated, or somewhere in between, there's plenty of insightful moments. Thierry, as the happy-go-lucky protagonist, always delights as a somewhat inept guide into a world that many people just discovered. His exploits carry humor and excitement, and his exploits with Banksy also shows us a very human side to this masterful artist (yes, I come down on the side that he's an artist), and it gives a lot of credibility to the piece.

But that entertaining side, done very well, is not the only great element this film offers. What is put forth is a great social commentary about how art is perceived in the world. By the time Thierry becomes his alter ego and puts on a grand and ambitious art show, there is certainly a sense that he is more a success in advertising than in product. Yet, even when Banksy gives him an ironic endorsement, most of the masses still flock to his gallery and pour loads of money into his artwork that doesn't show much effort. There's an interesting message here about the "purity" of art and how such art is perceived by the general public that latches onto all things hip and alternative. For a world that I just discovered, that is an interesting avenue to take.

Before this film, I had no idea who most of these people were, and I hardly knew anything about Banksy. After seeing the film, I feel like a have a bit more insight on him, but not much. But that's okay, because this film isn't trying to be about one man. The ambitions feel so much more than that, and we get a very well put together film that is highly entertaining, informative and provocative. This is a perfect example of what power a documentary can have, and is also the reason why I declare this the best film I've seen so far this year.

A