film – Page 11 – Blue Ink Alchemy

Tag: film (page 11 of 20)

Movie Review: The Cabin in the Woods

This may be one of the most difficult reviews I’ve ever written. Not because the material is difficult or intentionally inscrutable (Antichrist) or highly subjective (Repo! The Genetic Opera) but because there are key aspects to The Cabin in the Woods that make me want to recommend it that I simply cannot tell you. I mean, I CAN… I’m physically and mentally capable of doing so. But I won’t. This review will be spoiler free, even if it will be hard to write as a result.

The Cabin in the Woods begins with about as stereotypical a premise for a slasher movie as you can get. Five college kids who superficially fit the broad archetypes of a thousand slasher movies before it head out for a weekend at the eponymous homestead and find sinister things in the cellar. The first of the movie’s many twists (which was already spoiled in the trailers so I can talk about it without breaking my self-imposed moratorium) is that those items, and in fact the entire situation, is being controlled and manipulated from another location. From surveillance equipment to environmental controls, every aspect of the scenario is aimed towards the doom of these kids. And that’s just the first ten minutes or so of the film.

It’s made apparent from the very beginning that this is not your average slasher flick. Outside of the outside influences manipulating the situation, our core cast is a bit more diverse and intelligent than you might expect. All five of our characters show measures of some depth or ingenuity, at least before they arrive at the cabin. Soon, though, all of them are falling into their roles, as prescribed by their archetypes, which is again a result of the controls being imposed upon them for inscrutable reasons. At least, inscrutable to them – we do discover the whys and wherefores of those in control, as the stakes continue to go up and the body count starts to rise.

Thor is unimpressed with your shenanigans.

The Cabin in the Woods was written by Joss Whedon. While there are some who will attack him for an apparent lack of character voice or other issues related to his projects, what sets this particular screenplay of his apart is the balancing act he pulls. There’s something fascinating about the harrowing experiences of the five young people in the cabin juxtaposed with the procedural, business-as-usual, even bland situations in the control rooms. And just when you think a pattern has been established, the pace changes and the situation escalates. This is definitely a credit to the writing, and to Drew Goddard’s direction.

In addition to the mix of the aforementioned elements is the surprising amount of humor in The Cabin in the Woods. Rather than relying on jump-out scares to keep the audience engaged, the trappings of the story abate any nail-biting and is either eliciting a laugh or provoking a question in our minds. Add to this mix a pretty decent and likable cast, a no-frills approach to design, and a third act that just explodes with potential and escalation, and you have a surprisingly good movie.

“I’ve got a 3 o’clock tee time, let’s start butchering teenagers.”

Stuff I Liked: The way the students interact at first, and how their behavior changes. The entire setup. The pacing of the reveals.
Stuff I Didn’t Like: The nature of the film makes it very difficult to write about. I can see where some people may object to Whedon’s writing. I wanted to know a little bit more about the controllers – how exactly does one apply for that job?
Stuff I Loved: Fran Kranz’s stoner. The atmosphere of the cabin and the minute details of the aspects controlled in it. All of the things I can’t talk about.

Bottom Line: I was surprised at how much I enjoyed The Cabin in the Woods. In my opinion it’s a better deconstruction of the horror movie than Scream. It’s fascinating, scary, funny, and a lot of fun. I highly recommend it.

Remembering Tony Scott

August 21, 2012 / BlueInkAlchemist / 0 Comments

We’re not entirely sure why director Tony Scott took his own life. There was a rumor involving inoperable brain cancer, but his family has said he did not have that condition, nor any other major medical problems they knew of. Still, a great light has gone out in the world of cinematic storytelling. While some filmmakers play it safe, Tony Scott wasn’t afraid to go odd places and do interesting things.

Take True Romance, for example. An ambling and pulpy tale of drugs, sleaze, the road, and (yes) romance, he presents the quirks of the characters and the odd circumstances of the story as baldly as possible. While it’s clearly a Tarantino script, Scott’s direction actually reigns in that manic energy and channels it in such a way that it mounts towards the climax, rather than spewing all over the place (e.g. Kill Bill). With a great cast, interesting score, and a whip-fast pace, it’s a fun little movie sure to be enjoyed.

Crimson Tide, along with Hunt for Red October, actually made me consider a career as a submariner. What could have been a military hardware wankfest in the hands of Michael Bay becomes a tense, character-driven thriller on the specter of nuclear war in the modern age. Despite being made in 1995, the story is set up so that the villain in a foreign land with weapons of mass destruction is ultimately superfluous. The film focuses on the isolated nature of these sailors, and the tension between Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington virtually crackles through the air. It’s a fantastic film, one of my favorites, and it really cemented in my mind a deep-seated loathing for James Gandolfini. I’m sure he’s a decent guy in person, I’ve just hated every single character he’s ever played.

Speaking of Denzel, Scott directed him in two other films I’ve seen and enjoyed: Man on Fire and Deja Vu. You don’t often see movies set in Mexico City, but that setting is perfect for Man on Fire. Instead of tension, this time we see a rapport building between Denzel’s character and Dakota Fanning, who is shockingly good in this film. Once the second act begins after the slow-burn build of the first, it’s an edge-of-your-seat ride. The things Denzel’s character does to get what he wants are fairly brutal and thorough. Before Taken, Man on Fire was the go-to template for films of honorable if flawed men doing whatever it takes for the sake of an innocent child.

Finally, there’s Deja Vu. It may not be Scott’s strongest film, but it’s still compelling in its storytelling and fascinating in its premise. A detective drama that becomes a treatise on time travel is certainly not something you see every day. While it has its flaws and hiccups, the concept is sold incredibly well, between Denzel’s straightforward approach to the problem to Adam Goldberg’s flippant and funny remarks on the super-science to Paula Patton’s performance, which is mostly just a presence for the first half of the film. I think it’s a bit underrated, and while it’s not perfect, it’s still a good film.

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen Top Gun so I can’t really comment on that. I also need to watch Domino, Enemy of the State, Unstoppable, and The Hunger. I know, I know, my vampire cred is going to suffer because I haven’t yet seen The Hunger front to back, but trust me, I’m definitely going to correct that. I can’t think of a better way of remembering Tony Scott than enjoying his films as much as I can, now and for the rest of my life.

Shadow of the Bat

August 14, 2012 / BlueInkAlchemist / 0 Comments

The Dark Knight trilogy is over. Nolan’s Batverse is closed, and its story concluded. In the end, what was it all about? What, in the end, was the ultimate point of stripping out the more superfluous and ridiculous elements of Batman, from blatantly supernatural enemies like Clayface to the presence of easy-to-access Bat Anti-Whatever’s-Trying-To-Eat-Bruce-Wayne’s-Face Spray?

Going by The Dark Knight Rises alone, you might be tempted to conclude “Not very much.”

But unlike some movie series who tack a couple movies on after their first one was a success (*cough*THE MATRIX*cough*), I think Nolan had a plan from the beginning with these films. I believe there is a theme that permeates all three stories, in addition to their individual themes of fear, chaos, and pain (in chronological order). By removing the more comic book oriented portions of this comic book story, Christopher Nolan focused more on the characters of this world, and the city they inhabit, showing us what it takes to be these extraordinary people and what sacrifices they must make to preserve their ideals, their homes, and their loved ones.

Ultimately, the Dark Knight trilogy is about perseverance. It’s about never giving up.

Hell, there’s an exchange that happens multiple times in Batman Begins that underscores this very sentiment:

Bruce: Still haven’t given up on me?
Alfred: Never.

The events of Batman Begins shifts Bruce’s focus from personal vengeance to protecting the city his beloved parents built and tried to defend in their own way. But this is only a course correction; he doesn’t really give up or change his mind. He still has the determination to do what he must to become what his city needs, instead of using that determination to fulfill the desires of his own rage. We’re shown this aspect of Bruce rather than being told about it, and it’s why so much time is spent on his training and travels in comparison to his gadgets and gizmos. It’s why Batman Begins works as well as it does.

The Dark Knight raises the stakes by adding another figure who is just as determined, every measure as fanatical, and more than willing to cross lines that keep Batman from becoming a dark reflection of the crimes he fights. What Heath Ledger did with the Joker was put Batman up against a funhouse mirror, a distortion of his will and never-say-die attitude. Throughout the running time of The Dark Knight, Batman and the Joker play a psychological game of Chicken, each daring the other to divert from their course to cause them to fail. The Joker wants to see Batman destroy himself; Batman wants to see the Joker sabotage his own plans. This makes it not only a tense, involving story from start to finish, but the best movie in the trilogy by far.

What, then, do we do with The Dark Knight Rises, if the stakes were already raised so high?

Here’s where Christopher Nolan posits a keen question, one that might have been missed, if we take this overarching theme to its logical conclusion.

“What happens when Batman does give up?”

When The Dark Knight Rises begins, Batman’s been retired for years. Gotham City is being controlled by the draconian measures of the Dent Act, and it seems like Bruce’s type of justice is no longer necessary. He’s let himself decay, felt his resolve erode, and he’s even begun to lose faith in the people he so vehemently defended against the menaces of Scarecrow, Ra’s al Ghul, Joker, and Two-Face. He lets his guard down. He thinks peace can last.

And that’s when Bane slips into the City to tear it down from within.

Bane is the indicator that Bruce giving up was a mistake. He throws Bruce’s lack of vigilance in his face. If he had stayed out there, if he had been prepared, Bane might never have gotten into Gotham in the first place. Instead, Bane sets his plans in motion with only minimal resistance, obliterating every obstacle in his path and nearly killing Commissioner Gordon. And when Batman does confront him, Bane breaks him. Bruce’s body matches his spirit, and he is left a wreck festering in the bottom of a pit wondering why he’s still alive.

This is why the second half of Dark Knight Rises is not, as some might posit, a re-tread of the first. When Bruce dons his cowl for the first time in the film, it’s reluctantly. He steps out of retirement because nobody else can do it, and he doesn’t even want to himself. Even Alfred knows Bruce’s heart has gone out of the fight. When he’s broken and left to rot, he must reach inside of himself and find that ember of rage that sparked the fire inside of him, that part of himself that he tried to bury when he gave up being Batman. He has to find his determination again, and when he does, he rises. It’s the whole point of the film, and of the entire trilogy.

Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up.

Nolan’s always been a cerebral filmmaker, espousing the notion of mind over matter. I believe that his Batman films are no different. Behind the trappings of comic book heroism and colorful villainy, Nolan is telling a story of the power of the determination, of never giving up, never saying die. He shows us where that power comes from, how it behaves when taken to its extremes, and what happens when we lose sight of it. It makes the story complete, coherent, and meaningful. The Dark Knight Rises has its share of problems, but in the end, it stands well on its own, and as part of Nolan’s trilogy on the Batman, rounds out the tale of one man’s determination to make a difference.

While Joss Whedon may have the chops to pull off this kind of storytelling without taking three movies to do it, I think it’s safe to say that most if not all other superhero films coming up in the next few years will be standing in the shadow of the bat.

Movie Review: The Dark Knight Rises

August 2, 2012 / BlueInkAlchemist / 0 Comments

My feelings on Christopher Nolan are well documented. I’ve gone in depth as to why the writer & director has earned my trust. Even his arguably weakest film to date, The Prestige, is interesting to me and overall a good film, even if it’s not quite up to the level of Inception or The Dark Knight. And as he closes his trilogy on Batman, Bruce Wayne, Gotham City, and the nature of heroism in the face of cynicism and despair, the question must be asked: is Nolan still worthy of my trust, and that of film-goers around the world?

Pretty much, yeah. The Dark Knight Rises is good. But before I talk about all the things it is, let me begin by telling you what it is not.

The Dark Knight Rises is not an immediate sequel to The Dark Knight. Eight years have passed, in fact, since the Joker’s reign of terror and the death of Harvey Dent. Batman’s act of taking the blame for Two-Face’s rampage has given the police unprecedented power, brutally cracking down on organized crime, throwing even the lowest mob peons into Blackgate Prison without bail or parole, and taking a massive psychological toll on Commissioner Gordon. Bruce Wayne, either the victim of an accident or beginning to succumb to the beatings he has dished out and taken as Batman, has become both reclusive and eccentric. He hasn’t completely lost his chops, though, as he catches a lithe and coy cat burglar making off with his mother’s pearls. And bearing down on the city is Bane, a mercenary with a peculiar speech pattern, utterly brutal methods, and a connection to the League of Shadows, the very organization bent on absolute justice that gave birth to Batman, who then destroyed it, or so he thought. We are told very little about the missing years, and shown even less, but the pieces are indeed in place for a massive endgame for Gotham City, and for Bruce himself.

The Dark Knight Rises is not without plot holes in general. In fact, the structure of the story seems a bit sloppy overall. I don’t mean that facts are missing and the audience is unable to put the pieces together. The story does work and has compelling, touching, and powerful moments. It’s simply assembled in an extremely odd way. The pace feels off at times, characters are explained to us rather than demonstrative in their actions, and as much as I can appreciate dichotomy in storytelling for emphasis and dramatic effect, there were times when the juxtaposition felt mishandled. No character exemplifies these problems more than Bane.

“You are in a lot of trouble, young man. To the principal’s office, let’s go.”

I don’t have a problem with Tom Hardy. I think he (and every other actor involved) did an excellent job. Nor do I have a problem with this iteration of the cerebral powerhouse that breaks the Batman (spoiler alert). I think that removing magical chemicals that make him a big slab of meat is a good move. The problem is that too much emphasis is placed on his ideology and personality and not enough is invested in making him truly intimidating. His malevolence, while keenly felt, is not motivated realistically. He is a monolithic sort of evil, Darth Vader without any of the pathos, and the film suffers for this. It’s not enough to cripple the film, not by a long shot, but it does cause things to limp here and there. The film is most certainly not perfect and, at times, not even all that smooth.

But it also is not a failure. The Dark Knight Rises does succeed in every single way it needs to succeed. It wraps up dangling plot threads from the other two movies. It allows long-standing characters like Commissioner Gordon and Alfred to have truly powerful moments, and also highlights the talents of newcomers John Blake and Selena Kyle. While we’re on the subject, Anne Hathaway was a perfect choice to play Selena. She completely inhabits the cat-like nature of the character, from a fickle streak to a truly independent spirit to loyalty and affection that are given on her own terms. It’s a shame we’ll only see her in this one film! Batman gets new toys, and while he isn’t seen as much as Batman in this film as in The Dark Knight, his presence is felt, just as much as Bane’s is.

The fact that she looks as good as she does is definitely the icing, rather than the cake.

I don’t think The Dark Knight Rises is the best film of Christopher Nolan’s career so far. It certainly isn’t the best one of his Batman trilogy. What it is, however, is very good, quite enjoyable, and an excellent way to bring the trilogy to an end. As much as the disjointed nature of the first act and some unnecessary repetition of themes and motivations don’t help the pacing problems of the story, the connections to the stronger films and the gaining momentum towards the climax of not just this film, but the Dark Knight story overall, carries us through to a satisfying end. I think the three films, as a whole, will stand up for years to come, even if this final entry into the trilogy limps or muffles a line here and there.

Stuff I Liked: John Blake is a great addition to the cast. The systematic way in which Wayne is both broken down and driven into his initial confrontation with Bane. Alfred staying true to his convictions, Lucius Fox cracking wise, and Gordon never giving up. The Pittsburgh location & elements. And do you suppose Nolan called up Aaron Eckhart and got permission to keep using his face?
Stuff I Didn’t Like: Don’t tell me what motivates our heroes, our villains, and the people caught in between, show me. The Batvoice. A couple of Bane’s lines were very difficult to follow completely; even if you can discern the gist, you miss out on a detail or two. The pace of the first hour or so feels very much off. There are undeniable plot holes.
Stuff I Loved: Cillian Murphy’s cameo. Wayne Manor and the new Batcave. Hans Zimmer’s score. Great shot construction and action sequences. The Bat. The dichotomy of Bane’s erudite voice and polite mannerisms with his brutal hand-to-hand skills and intimidating form. The last fifteen minutes. Everything – absolutely everything – about Anne Hathaway’s Selena Kyle.

Bottom Line: This is not Nolan’s best work. But Nolan’s work is always of such quality, such vision, and such passion that it’s hard not to appreciate it as simply good film-making even when it’s not blowing your mind. Because of the technical genius at work, the overall power of the performers, the spectacle of this tale’s climax, and the ways in which this trilogy is drawn to a close, I unreservedly recommend you go and see The Dark Knight Rises.

Punishing Dirty Laundry

July 18, 2012 / BlueInkAlchemist / 1 Comment

I’m going to go out a limb and post my initial reaction to a short film from San Diego’s Comic Con, which I will link you to right here.

Holy. Shit.

I haven’t said a lot about Marvel’s character of Frank Castle, a.k.a. the Punisher, since way back in 2010 when I wrote about our heroes and their booze. I happen to think he’s somewhat underrated and incredibly interesting, not to mention a blast to watch in action. Without the cash, high-profile secret identity, or superpowers of other members of Marvel’s mighty pantheon, Frank takes his crusade against crime to the streets in a very straight-forward, brutal way. He opts for firearms, but isn’t above using edged weapons, bows, explosives, traps, industrial equipment, or even his bare fists to get the job done. There’s a rawness to the Punisher, and as much as he might seem to be emotionless at times, to me he always seems to be operating on anger bordering on unstoppable homicidal rage, tempered only by the memories of his family and the innocent people that he does, in fact, protect.

They’ve tried to adapt the Punisher the big screen several times. The first attempt was back in the 80s, and was little more than some shallow attempt to use the name & likeness to cash in on the Death Wish series and similar franchises of the time. Dolph Lundgren got the title role, and while he may be a physically intimidating presence, he acts about as well as a lumpy side of beef with a crew cut. Once Marvel became the cool comic kid on the block again, in 2004 Lionsgate took another stab at it with Thomas Jane in the lead role. It mixed elements of current books with a dichotomy of aesthetic that some found jarring, while others had trouble taking a villainous John Travolta seriously. 2008 saw the release of Punisher War Zone, which again was lead by a different Punisher, this time Ray Stevenson of Rome fame who would go on to become Volstagg the Voluminous in Thor.

I am of the opinion that while both 2000s Punishers are equally valid interpretations of the character, War Zone feels closer to the comics while Jane’s Punisher has more emotional weight and innovative ideas. Pretty much War Zone’s answer to everything is “shoot it”. I’m all for shooty action, but the non-shooty bits with Detective Soap and Frank’s relationship with non-criminal humans feel too short. Meanwhile, Thomas Jane is seen quite often outside of shooting situations. The violence comes in quick bursts outside of the inevitable tragic massacre that is part of his origin and the extended sequence at the end. Finally, Frank does things with phone surveillance, laundered money, and a portable fire hyrdrant that shows him as more than a mook with some guns and a grudge.

This is why I think the short film Dirty Laundry works well enough to get the Holy Shit reaction.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Ray Stevenson. But Thomas Jane just nails the slow burning buildup of Frank witnessing crime after crime. He conveys a great deal while saying very little. He’s taciturn without being stoic, if that makes any sense. Again, violence happens quickly and with unflinching brutality, and as we approach the climax of the film, the building tension is palpable. And hell, it’s got Ron Perlman in it.

Hey, guys at Marvel, writers and directors and producers: Can we get more of this, please? Imagine what this could do for Daredevil. Some tension-building set pieces, maybe a mention of the Kingpin, Hell’s Kitchen by night, and BAM, Man Without Fear. I’d also love to see a short of Doctor Strange visiting an older woman or a child who’s been possessed, and he needs to some astral projection to kick the demon or whatever out of the victim. And you can’t tell me Hugh Jackman wouldn’t be behind donning the sideburns and hairdo for ten minutes of badassery in a backwoods bar or a Pachinko hall or something.

But over and above all the pie-in-the-sky speculation, I’m really happy with how this short turned out, and hope to see more work of this nature, especially if Thomas Jane’s Punisher is involved.

Welcome back, Frank.

Tag: film (page 11 of 20)

Movie Review: The Cabin in the Woods

Remembering Tony Scott

Shadow of the Bat

Movie Review: The Dark Knight Rises

Punishing Dirty Laundry

Buy This Book!

Search the Blog

Recent Posts

Getcher Updates!

Works

Legal Stuff

Categories

Archives