Dave On Film

Dave On Film tag:www.DaveOnFilm.com,2009-04-26://11 2010-07-20T18:01:23Z Dave Taylor reviews movies, writes about film theory and criticism, talks about the industry, and interviews people involved in film creation, production and distribution, including actors, directors, producers, and just about anyone else involved in turning an idea into a script and then a great movie. He also writes movie reviews for the "Boulder Weekly" and "Colorado Business Magazine", among other venues. You can contact him at d1taylor at Gmail dot com. Movable Type 4.31-en Review: Salt tag:www.DaveOnFilm.com,2010://11.9523 2010-07-23T06:00:38Z 2010-07-20T18:01:23Z

Dave Taylor http://www.askdavetaylor.com/ After her uninspired acting in the tedious Wanted, I was leery about seeing Angelina Jolie in another action film, though I loved her as Laura Croft in Tomb Raider. She's back in fine form in Salt, however, as tough CIA field agent Evelyn Salt who is forced to flee the agency to clear her name after being accused of being a Russian sleeper spy.

Salt works for Ted Winter (Liev Schreiber) and is married to arachnologist Mike Krause (August Diehl), who knows she's a CIA agent but ignores the ever-present danger, focusing instead on hunting spiders for the Smithsonian.

Salt opens with Jolie prisoner in a North Korean detention camp, being beaten and tortured to force a confession that she is indeed a CIA spy. Sound like Quantum of Solace? It's very similar, and we flash forward to present day, but then bounce back and forth in her timeline as the story unfolds.

In many ways, Salt feels like a Bourne film, with bursts of action and violence followed by expository passages, punctuated by unbelievable escapes from FBI, CIA, the police, and just about everyone else possible. Perhaps The Bourne Identity meets Tomb Raider, by way of MacGyver, as Jolie often accomplishes ingenious and amazing feats with everyday objects. It's an exciting ride and it's a pleasure to see Jolie this tough in the title role.

]]>

Counter-intelligence agent Peabody (Chiwetel Ejiofor) listens to the accusation with great interest -- he already knows there's a mole in the agency -- and tries to capture and question Salt even as she fights her way out of the agency office and then away from the pursuing agents.

Chiwetel Ejiofor and Liev Schreiber in "Salt"

There's a chase scene in Salt that ranks up with the best action sequences I've ever seen on the silver screen, with Jolie sprinting through traffic and leaping from the top of one truck to another. Not in the obviously-CGI manner of The Matrix Reloaded, but in a gritty, thrilling sequence that is incredibly well done. Coupled with her escape from the agency office facility, these two action sequences alone make the film worth seeing.

Still, it's hard to have a movie where the Russians are bad guys in a post-Cold War world, particularly when it's set in contemporary times, not back in the 50s or 60s, and that might be one of the greatest weaknesses of Salt. There's a nod to the Middle East and its threat to world security, but by that point in the film it's a throwaway moment and irrelevant to the plot.

Orlov (Olbrychski) leads the evil Russian usurpers hoping to initiate World War III (though we never learn how they think they'll survive the nuclear holocaust), starting with a Russian sleeper agent program called KA-12, climaxing with "Day X", a plan to start the next world war. The program dates back to the early 1960s and includes the Russians replacing Lee Harvey Oswald with a Russian agent called "Alec". I always suspected something...

Logical plots are not a strong point in most action films, and Salt is no different. It's not a terrible storyline, but it's the action sequences, it's wondering how Salt will escape the latest predicament, that make this a film worth seeing. If you're not a fan of fast cuts, loud music and action film tropes you might feel a bit let down by the film. Otherwise, go see it. It's darn exciting!

]]> Critic vs. Critic: Inception tag:www.DaveOnFilm.com,2010://11.9514 2010-07-16T20:46:04Z 2010-07-17T01:10:10Z

Dave Taylor http://www.askdavetaylor.com/

When I wrote in my review of Inception that I thought it was the best film of the summer and possibly of 2010, I didn't realize it'd strike a nerve with my friend and fellow critic Christian Toto. It did, and we started debating the merits of the film, the end result being this back and forth that I hope you'll find interesting and entertaining. No spoilers, don't worry!

Christian Toto: I wanted to love Inception as much as most critics. The summer movie season has been a big disappointment, so who better than the mind behind The Dark Knight to save the season? But Inception taxes our brain without delivering a story to engage our emotions. The film spends so much time explaining itself there's precious little time to engage in character development or a lucid narrative.

Dave Taylor: I disagree, of course. I think that DiCaprio's Cobb was an interesting, troubled man who had some extraordinary gifts (i.e. the ability to go into people's dreams) and a complex, half-buried back story with his wife Mal, children and such. But I suggest that the lack of lucidity is consistent with the entire storyline and as Cobb says to Saito (Ken Watanabe), part of the self-referential nature of the film was that there were "half-remembered dreams".

I will say that I think Ariadne (Ellen Page) brought up some interesting ethical dilemmas that were quickly glossed over in the film, but then again, I don't expect a deep philosophical treatise or indie film from Chris Nolan, but a visually stunning action film that has more of a story than the usual banal dreck that we have to sit through. And I think he delivered with Inception.

]]>

Toto: Yes, the film's lack of lucidity certainly was a constant. And I appreciate the enthusiasm and ambition of the project. But glorious action sequences ring hollow when we can't get to know the people running from, or causing, the explosions. By the final half hour I felt disconnected from the main players, and all that kept me going was the promise of more razzle dazzle scenery.

I have issues with dreams in films to begin with ... it's too much of a blank canvas and filmmakers aren't disciplined enough to show restraint. Nolan would have been better served by simplifying matters, still keeping the intricate dream material but distilling it down and letting the humanity of the characters shine though. It's a testament to DiCaprio, Cotillard and co. that they register at all given dialog that served more as nonstop exposition than anything else.

Taylor: Hollywood has been suffering from the dumbing down of storylines for all too many years, Christian. How many times are we forced to endure a film where they go back and show us The Important Scenes as flashbacks, in case we're too dim to realize?

Deckard and Rachael kiss in "Blade Runner"

Heck, the last few seconds of The Sorcerer's Apprentice was exactly that (though I think you'd already left the theater by then). I have to come clean, I'm not a huge fan of The Dark Knight and felt it was portentous and overly manipulative of the audience. It might be the subject matter -- our subconscious -- or the all-too-human dilemma of Cobb's guilt over what transpired with his wife Mal, but I identified with Cobb and was quite curious how things would transpire as the film proceeded.

Let's get a reference point here, though. Name a few films you think are superb action films and have a solid character exposition that lets you identify with and understand the motivations of the character, yet are sufficiently complex to sustain multiple viewings. I'll offer one of my own favorites that I think perfectly captures these criteria: Blade Runner. Harrison Ford is superb as troubled ex-cop Deckard and we feel for him as he's torn between saving probable replicant Rachael (Sean Young) and performing his job of identifying and eliminating all the "skin jobs" in this stunning Ridley Scott masterpiece.

Ripley pilots the Nostromo in "Alien"

Toto: Off the top of my head I'd say Aliens, a slam-bang action film with choice science fiction elements and a full-bodied performance by the lead character, Ripley. Not only is she thoroughly in command, she shows maternal feelings toward Newt and conflicting emotions regarding the humans in her company (Paul Reiser, take a bow). She registers as human throughout the melee, building on the character we first came to know in Alien.

I'm not looking for a full character study in a movie like Inception, but when the character elements are so fractured I feel little reason to root for a semblance of a happy ending.

Even The Dark Knight fits this criteria. Bruce Wayne's alter ego is indirectly causing his clones to be killed, and his double life means it's nearly impossible for him to pursue the girl of his dreams. And consider the great speech by Alfred mid-film about the steps needed to eradicate evil - and the methods men of conscience must take to do so.

I do love the fact that Nolan respects the audience and is willing to tax their brains in order to fully appreciate his story. I just wish the mental effort was worthwhile.

Taylor: Whether or not we agree on Inception's merits, I will say that he's going to get people talking about the film and its storyline in a way that few films have tapped the popular zeitgeist since perhaps Avatar.

Now wait, are we having this discussion, or is it all a dream.... ?

]]> Review: Inception tag:www.DaveOnFilm.com,2010://11.9507 2010-07-16T06:00:40Z 2010-07-14T17:26:12Z

Inception is one of the most complicated stories I have ever seen on the big screen, but if you can figure out what's going on, it's an amazing movie filled with mind-boggling visuals and an intriguing exploration of how our minds work and the subconscious. It might also be the best movie of the summer, if not 2010.The story takes place in a near future where companies send agents to steal secrets from within people's dreams and the military are trained in artificially constructed dream worlds where they feel pain, worlds indistinguishable from reality, but from which they wake up if, in the dream, they die or are killed.Leonardo DiCaprio plays Dom Cobb, a rogue dream extractor who believes that in addition to exploring other people's dreams, it should be possible to plant ideas in their subconscious too. Called "inception", it's highly controversial, if even possible.He's hired by Japanese industrialist Saito (Ken Watanabe) and assembles a team to plant an idea in the mind of competitor and troubled conglomerate heir Fischer (Cillian Murphy). Cobb brings together an unlikely group: Ariadne (Ellen Page), a young "architect" who creates the dream worlds, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), his point man and long-time collaborator, Eames (Tom Hardy), a likable, sarcastic forger and Yusuf (Dileep Rao) as a chemist.In a world where dreams can be embedded in other dreams, nothing is ever quite what it seems, people aren't who they seem to be, and the very fabric of reality can bend and distort without warning. It...

Dave Taylor http://www.askdavetaylor.com/ Inception is one of the most complicated stories I have ever seen on the big screen, but if you can figure out what's going on, it's an amazing movie filled with mind-boggling visuals and an intriguing exploration of how our minds work and the subconscious. It might also be the best movie of the summer, if not 2010.

The story takes place in a near future where companies send agents to steal secrets from within people's dreams and the military are trained in artificially constructed dream worlds where they feel pain, worlds indistinguishable from reality, but from which they wake up if, in the dream, they die or are killed.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Dom Cobb, a rogue dream extractor who believes that in addition to exploring other people's dreams, it should be possible to plant ideas in their subconscious too. Called "inception", it's highly controversial, if even possible.

He's hired by Japanese industrialist Saito (Ken Watanabe) and assembles a team to plant an idea in the mind of competitor and troubled conglomerate heir Fischer (Cillian Murphy). Cobb brings together an unlikely group: Ariadne (Ellen Page), a young "architect" who creates the dream worlds, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), his point man and long-time collaborator, Eames (Tom Hardy), a likable, sarcastic forger and Yusuf (Dileep Rao) as a chemist.

In a world where dreams can be embedded in other dreams, nothing is ever quite what it seems, people aren't who they seem to be, and the very fabric of reality can bend and distort without warning. It makes for one heck of a movie, and is one of the first I've seen this year where I'm ready to see it a second time to ensure I understood the layers of what was happening on screen. It's that good.

]]>

By the way, Inception works better if you have no pre-conceived notions about the story, so it's a bit tricky to write this review without spilling the beans. I'd go as far as to suggest you skip previews and trailers too, going in and letting director Chris Nolan tell the story will maximize your enjoyment of this intricately plotted movie.

Like the best heist films (I'm thinking in particular of the amazing Nine Queens, which warrants a frame-by-frame examination of the last three minutes of the movie), as Inception proceeds, seemingly random scenes from the beginning of the film fit neatly into the puzzle and even the somewhat baffling opening scene suddenly makes complete sense in the story.

Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) defies gravity in the mind-bending Inception

As Cobb explains to Ariadne in the film, the fascinating thing about dreams is that "we create and perceive our world simultaneously", though time passes far more quickly: an hour of dream time transpires in five minutes, and when there's a dream within a dream, time passes even faster.

Watching a film is inherently a deceit where we, as the audience, are complicit in the voyeuristic world projected on screen. Most films studiously avoid examining this dilemma, where questions like "whose point of view does the camera represent?" are critical. Alfred Hitchcock reveled in this with his sly masterpiece Rear Window, and Nolan has again brought it to the cinema with Inception. Whose dream are we watching, anyway?

Inception also has one of the most satisfyingly ambiguous endings of any film I can remember, and certainly offers a far more powerful "wow. damn." wrap-up than the cliché diluted ending of DiCaprio's previous film outing, Shutter Island.

With its eye-popping visual effects, Byzantine story line, splendid performances from the entire cast (notably DiCaprio, who has matured into a superb actor) and thought-provoking world, I can't speak highly enough about Inception. Go see it on the big screen - or look for an IMAX screening - and be prepared to be stunned by this amazing movie.

]]> Review: The Sorcerer's Apprentice tag:www.DaveOnFilm.com,2010://11.9505 2010-07-14T06:00:36Z 2010-07-15T14:39:11Z

Dave Taylor http://www.askdavetaylor.com/ I really liked Fantasia (1940) as a kid and recall being amazed at how well the music and ;animation synchronized in one of the most trippy of the Disney animated films. The centerpiece of Fantasia was the Sorcerer's Apprentice scene, where Mickey Mouse used magic to clean his master's lab, just to have the mops and brooms take on a life of their own. The message: magic is tricky work and not for amateurs.

Nicholas Cage was equally captivated by Mickey's cameo in Fantasia, and made that the centerpiece of The Sorcerer's Apprentice, a glossy confection from Jerry Bruckheimer's Pirates of the Caribbean team. Unfortunately, while Cage pulled a full-length story out of a short vignette, he skipped the hard part: making a great story.

The result is a film that, while enjoyable to watch, is shallow and unsatisfying, demonstrating yet again that Nic Cage has forgotten how to act. He walks through his role as Master Sorcerer Balthazar Blake as if it were a "one take" indie experiment, and even in scenes when he should have been elated, terrified, or angry, bland Nic Cage is all we get.

Regular guy Dave (a likeable Jay Baruchel) is the apprentice and a la Harry Potter and Percy Jackson, he's plucked out of a mundane existence as a student at NYU and learns that he has hidden powers as a sorcerer and is, in fact, the only person who can stop the evil sorceress Morgana (Alice Krige) from unleashing unspeakable evil on the Earth. Or something like that.

Starting with the time-tested story device of everyman learning he has amazing special powers, director Jon Turteltaub has given us a piece of eye candy, a film that's pleasant enough to watch and has the splendid production quality of all Bruckheimer's movies, but has no depth, no engaging roles and a storyline as banal as they come. I'd skip The Sorcerer's Apprentice if I were you.

]]> The Sorcerer's Apprentice starts out with way too much back story, setting the scene in 740AD Britain where we witness a war between Merlin and Sorcerers Horvath (Alfred Molina), Balthazar (Cage), and Morgana (Krige). They fight over the deadly The Rising spell that would raise an army of the dead (didn't Brendan Fraser fight that same spell in The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor?) and it ends with Horvath, Morgana and Balthazar's girlfriend Veronica (Monica Bellucci) trapped in a "grimmold" doll until...

Cut to ten years ago when our everyman hero Dave is in 4th grade on a field trip in NYC and finds himself in an odd curio shop that wouldn't be out of place in Diagon Alley, run by an eccentric long-haired Balthazar. He wreaks unintentional havoc, embarrasses himself in front of his teacher and classmates, and spends the next decade as the school outcast.

sorcerers apprentice nic cage publicity still

Master Sorcerer Balthazar Blake (Nicholas Cage) in The Sorcerer's Apprentice

Cut again to modern time and Horvath is freed and begins his dastardly plot to free Morgana so she can unleash that wicked The Rising spell and rule over all the mortals on Earth.

There's some befuddled nonsense about Merlinians vs Morganians (get it? Merlin-ians and Morgana-ians?) but it's so bizarre that even the characters in the film scratch their heads over that unnecessary plot detail.

Still with me? If you are thinking that the script tries really hard to create a story, hard enough to leave us confused about who's who, you'd be right. Fortunately, there are a number of pleasant scenes along the way to ease the incessant narration, including one where Dave meets up with his unrequited love Becky (Teresa Palmer).

As much as I disliked Cage's performance in The Sorcerer's Apprentice, I again found myself delighted by Alfred Molina's presence on screen. He's becoming a formidable supporting actor, most recently being the highlight of The Prince of Persia.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice has a line explaining that "normal people use 10% of their brains, but sorcerers can use all 100%". That being the case, it's too bad that no-one on the production team used that spare 90% of their brain to figure out that the story was just too weak to sustain a full-length film, great special effects or not.

]]> Review: Despicable Me tag:www.DaveOnFilm.com,2010://11.9498 2010-07-09T13:45:23Z 2010-07-11T04:17:56Z

Dave Taylor http://www.askdavetaylor.com/

Despicable Me is a surprisingly violent animated movie that suffers from being released within a few weeks of the film Toy Story 3. Where Toy Story 3 has warm characters who seek to do well by each other, Despicable Me is populated by characters who constantly hurt each other as the filmmakers clearly sought a cheap laugh and tried to string together a series of hit-or-miss sight gags.

The story has Gru (voice of Steve Carell trying to sound Russian) as an evil mastermind, ensconced in suburbia with his black Victorian house and huge metal jet car. Beneath his house is a vast subterranean lair where he's plotting to (insert evil laugh) commit the perfect crime. He's created little yellow creatures known as minions, and while there are amusing scenes where hundreds of them congregate to hear his evil plans, they generally treat each other in a slapstick violent manner that really got on my nerves and was far too aggressive for a children's film.

The Great Pyramid of Giza has been stolen by the up-and-coming evil genius Vector (voice of Jason Segel), as shown in an amusing opening sequence. Gru is determined to regain the title of most evil criminal and comes up with a plan to steal the moon. To fund his efforts, he goes to the Bank of Evil seeking a loan, just to bump into Vector and the Spy-vs-Spy competition is on. Gru's plan to bring down Vector? Adopt three little girls Margo (Miranda Cosgrove), Edith (Dana Gaier) and Agnes (Elsie Fisher) and use them to break into his lair.

There are a lot of fun sight gags in the film and the story, while predictable, isn't that terrible. What really upset me was the non-stop level of violence that the characters exhibited towards each other. I realize that's part of the story, the "comic book slapstick violence", but I was startled how each time a character would punch, kick, push, shoot or otherwise hurt another that the audience would laugh. That's not my idea of a good kids film, but if you disagree, you might well find Despicable Me a good diversion.

]]> The three girls, Margo, Edith and Agnes (from oldest to youngest) are orphans, living at the Dickensian Miss Hattie's Home for Girls. Miss Hattie (voice of Kristen Wiig) is a shrew and forces them to go door-to-door selling cookies and meeting their daily quota. If they don't, they're banished to a cardboard box "The Box of Shame" for hours. That's supposed to be funny?

When they knock on the door to Vector's lair, he's delighted to buy cookies from them, which Gru observes. His plan to infiltrate Vector's lair? Adopt the girls, have them deliver robot cookies that Gru can control, then return the girls to Miss Hatties. A suitably despicable and evil plan, no question, and it works perfectly.

Edith, Margo and Agnes from Despicable Me

What Gru wasn't counting on was the innocence and sweetness of the girls, who conclude post-adoption that he's their new Dad and pour on the love and wide-eyed adoration. Gru's Mom (voice of Julie Andrews) has never shown him any affection so he's not prepared for it, as we learn in a series of scenes that vary from quite funny to fairly stupid.

It's clear that the script writers had a lot of fun slipping in gags. The Bank of Evil has a sign "formerly Lehman Brothers", when Gru says goodnight to the girls, he reminds them "don't let the bedbugs bite: there are thousands of them and probably something in your closet too", and there's a running joke of minions misunderstanding what Gru says. "No, I said dart gun!" was one of my favorites.

Still, I left the film disappointed, and I wouldn't take my children to see it. At one point I felt the urge to walk out, even as everyone else in the audience was laughing and clearly enjoying the movie. Your experience will undoubtedly vary, but I didn't like Despicable Me much at all.

There are some films where the match of film and production team really make it work well. The recently released Predators is an example: Producer Robert Rodriguez was a great match for the reboot of a tired franchise monster and the resultant film is solid action. Despicable Me left me really wanting to see how another animation team, perhaps led by the tireless John Lassiter, would reduce the slapstick, omit the gags that didn't work, and create a better, warmer story, while still keeping all the wry sight gags and underlying well-worn story of a mean man brought to redemption through the power of a child's love.]]> Review: Predators tag:www.DaveOnFilm.com,2010://11.9494 2010-07-09T06:00:36Z 2010-07-08T05:53:49Z

Dave Taylor http://www.askdavetaylor.com/ The 1987 film Predator inspired a number of spinoffs from the inane (Alien vs. Predator) to the ghastly (Predator 2), and it was definitely time for a reboot before the titular hunter became a tedious cliché. I'm not a huge Robert Rodriguez fan, but this is one time where he's assembled the perfect team for the job, and Predators is a non-stop thrill ride of an action film, laced with satisfying violence, exotic weapons, and vulgarity.

Predators immediately jumps into the action with Royce (a terrific, pumped up Adrien Brody) in freefall without having a clue how he got there. He deploys his parachute at the last possible second and slams into the earth. When he rises, he finds he's been dropped into the jungle with a cast of killers including Central American guerilla fighter Isabelle (Alice Braga), Russian Spetsnaz soldier Nokolai (Oleg Taktarov), Mexican enforcer Cuchillo (Danny Trejo), Sierra Leon death squad soldier Mombasa (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali), escaped death-row convict Stans (Walton Goggins) and odd-man-out doctor Edwin (Topher Grace).

After evading some vicious traps and an attack from strange and unknown boar-like creatures, they realize that they're not on Earth at all, but instead have been transported to an alien game preserve with strange, alien creatures seeking to hunt and kill them, purely as sport.

Most man-against-nature films get derailed with back story, narrative devices and a desire to build sympathy for the characters. Predators doesn't waste the time, it's an action genre picture boiled down to its essence, and it's thrilling and suspenseful, even with the occasional plot hiccup.

]]> Predators takes this same core dramatic concept and spins it just enough to be interesting: the majority of the humans never do learn to trust each other, begrudgingly cooperating just enough to mitigate the immediate threat.

It's up to Royce (Brody) to come up with a strategy, a solution to the problem. But as we'd expect with a tough mercenary, his strategy is to get himself off the planet, not to rescue everyone else, a group that has few redeeming qualities anyway.

When rebooting a film franchise, it's important to find a balance that recalls the best of the original film but creates a new visual style and storyline. With Predators the basic hunters have the same hulking, barrel-chested look and tentacle-framed faces, along with the slightly-faulty camouflage. What I enjoyed was that when there were Predator point-of-view shots, their infrared heat-sensitive view with a vertical sound analysis ribbon on the left was right out of the original. Homage, but not slavish devotion to the original source material.

Royce (Adrian Brody) and Isabelle (Alice Braga) in "Predators"

Having said all of this, the film still had lots of logical flaws and was a bit too formulaic to be a great movie. When you're stranded on a hostile planet, food and ammunition are both going to be an issue, but the former is completely ignored and while at one point Royce says "let's do a shell count, we need to conserve ammunition", in the very next scene they've all barrels firing at a creature, ammo be damned.

Predators might be a parable about morality and destiny too: there's a certain symmetry to the humans all being killers taken out of their natural element and hunted by a far more formidable killer. Indeed, early in the film Mombasa suggests "this place is hell". The ending certainly makes sense in this context, and, yes, there's the possibility of a sequel and Rodriguez has already gone on record saying that they're exploring scripts for a "Predators 2" movie.

Director Nimród Antal also did something I really appreciate in monster films: he left us hanging for a very long time before the Predator actually showed up on screen. In fact, the creature doesn't show up in the film for almost 45 minutes, a smart move that lets Antal explore our fear of the unknown, even as the on-screen Predator is fairly terrifying, powerful, seemingly invulnerable and big.

As I said at the beginning, I really enjoyed Predators and think it'll be a hit with its target demographic of 18-25 men. If you like this genre of tough guys forced to work together to overcome a terrifying obstacle or simple miss those great monster films of the late 80s, I will wholeheartedly recommend this film. I also look forward to a sequel, something I don't say very often.

]]> Review: The Last Airbender tag:www.DaveOnFilm.com,2010://11.9491 2010-07-02T17:25:15Z 2010-07-02T21:55:54Z

Dave Taylor http://www.askdavetaylor.com/

M. Night Shyamalan's The Last Airbender is a film that amply demonstrates the adage that everyone outside of Hollywood understands: special effects do not a movie make. The brilliant effects by Industrial Light & Magic are all there is to this incoherent mess of a movie, and it's too bad, because there could have been a visually stunning story. Unfortunately Shyamalan has demonstrated in every post-Sixth Sense film he's made that he just isn't a very good storyteller.

Then there's the issue of race. I'm not concerned about issues of whether actors of the appropriate ethnicity are cast in ethnic roles (most recently this debate flared up over Gyllenhaal in Prince of Persia) but The Last Airbender pushed that suspension of disbelief out the window. In the story, the world is split into four races, the four elementals of earth, wind, water and fire. The ostensible hero, Aang (Noah Ringer), is the last airbender, while the main characters are actually Katara (Nicola Peltz) and Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) of the water tribe.

The dissonance comes from the entire Northern Water Tribe living in the frozen north in an Aleutian village, dressed in Eskimo furs, but the lead actors are caucasian. It was bizarre and was never explained in the film. Were there no Asian actors available to take the brother-sister roles of Katara and Sokka?

That's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg with the problems throughout The Last Airbender. If you can stomach an incomprehensible movie with stilted self-conscious dialog because of some cool special effects, go see it. Otherwise it'll be on Nickelodeon soon enough, just wait and save the ticket price.

]]> The Last Airbender anyway: The world is split into four tribes and in each tribe there are a small number of people who can control their elemental. Katara, for example, can control, or "bend" water so she can create floating balls of water in front of her, streaming columns, encasing ice, and more. The four tribes live in harmony with peace kept by the Avatar, the one person who can control the four elements. When Aang finds that's his anointed role in life, however, he runs away and vanishes for a century, during which time the evil Fire tribe wages war on the other three tribes.

When he resurfaces in the first of many nonsensical scenes, his work is cut out for him because the Fire tribe, under the malevolent leadership of Fire Lord Ozai (Cliff Curtis), has banned "benders" from the other tribes and is waging a secret assault on the spirit world that helps keep things in balance. Mortals challenging the Gods? Haven't we already seen this in a half-dozen films this year?

Noah Ringer as Aang in The Last Airbender

There are different interpretations of these four tribes and the battle they wage. Racially, the Water tribe seem to be North American, the Earth tribe seems to be Asian, the air tribe is also Asian (though it's a bit ambiguous) and the Fire tribe is Middle Eastern. And, yes, the bad guys. There's also the puzzle of the Fire tribe having the savvy to build giant war machines while the other tribes are peaceful agrarian societies: is The Last Airbender a veiled stab at Western Imperialism?

The Fire tribe has its own internal strife too: Lord Ozai's son Prince Zuko (Dev Patel) has been banished for refusing to engage in mortal combat with his father (which, of course, makes no sense) and is traveling under a cloud of shame with his Uncle Iroh (Shaun Toub). Meanwhile, back in the kingdom, Commander Zhao (Aasif Mandvi) is scheming to take over the tribe and is the focus of efforts to kill the spirits.

Aang serves as a sort of reluctant evangelist, traveling from refugee camp to refugee camp with his sidekicks Katara and Sokka, encouraging the imprisoned elemental benders to rise up against their oppressors and free themselves. How they get into these gulags is another of those great mysteries.

Buried in The Last Airbender is a thrilling hero's journey story of a boy who is reluctant to accept his destiny, instead wanting to live out his childhood and play. But he cannot ignore the needs of the many and reluctantly accepts the mantle of responsibility. Shyamalan can't focus on that story and it's not even obvious who the main protagonist is in the film, something that became increasingly frustrating as it unspooled.

There are also ideas and scenes borrowed from a number of other films, notably the under-appreciated The Golden Child (with J. L. Reate in the title role) and the mess that was The Golden Compass. The former, in particular, had a far more interesting hero's journey because it was the journey of private detective Chandler Jarrell (Eddie Murphy) that was the real focus of the movie. The exteriors of the Northern Water Tribe were startlingly reminiscent of Minas Tirith, the fortress city in Lord of the Rings, with some Shangri-La thrown in for good measure.

The Last Airbender ended with an obvious nod to a possible sequel where Aang continues to learn how to bend the different elements while the Fire tribe continues its evil machinations. After this complete mess of a film, however, I can only hope that people will watch the animated series instead and Shyamalan will find a studio that assigns him a team that helps restore his badly tarnished reputation.

]]> Review: Micmacs tag:www.DaveOnFilm.com,2010://11.9487 2010-06-28T03:41:40Z 2010-06-28T04:49:20Z

Jean-Pierre Jeunet hasn't directed many films, but they've all been terrific, distinctive, and stylish. Two you'll hopefully have enjoyed already are The City of Lost Children and the weird Amélie. With Micmacs (original title Micmacs à tire-larigot) Jeunet moves into comedy with his signature quirkiness and the result is delightful and hilarious.The story revolves around misfit Bazil (an appealingly simple Dany Boon), who grows up in a wealthy, but fatherless house: his father has been killed while trying to defuse a landmine. Bazil is somewhat of a slacker who happily wiles away the hours of his life working in a video rental shop in Paris. One night a car chase and shootout transpires in front of the shop and through happenchance he ends up with a bullet lodged in the front of his brain.As the surgeon explains to the nurses in the operating room in a wryly amusing scene, "If we operate, he could die. If we don't, it could go "boom!" at any moment and kill him." They resolve the dilemma in a startling manner and Bazil gradually recovers, just to find he is homeless and without work.Bazil meets up with a troop of fellow misfits, discarded people who scrape a living out of salvaging discarded items and reassembling them to be useful and interesting. The theme of the film, it's simultaneously powerful and a terrific launching pad for lots of comic situations. Bazil eventually wreaks his revenge on the two corporations that were responsible for the land mine...

Dave Taylor http://www.askdavetaylor.com/ Jean-Pierre Jeunet hasn't directed many films, but they've all been terrific, distinctive, and stylish. Two you'll hopefully have enjoyed already are The City of Lost Children and the weird Amélie. With Micmacs (original title Micmacs à tire-larigot) Jeunet moves into comedy with his signature quirkiness and the result is delightful and hilarious.

The story revolves around misfit Bazil (an appealingly simple Dany Boon), who grows up in a wealthy, but fatherless house: his father has been killed while trying to defuse a landmine. Bazil is somewhat of a slacker who happily wiles away the hours of his life working in a video rental shop in Paris. One night a car chase and shootout transpires in front of the shop and through happenchance he ends up with a bullet lodged in the front of his brain.

As the surgeon explains to the nurses in the operating room in a wryly amusing scene, "If we operate, he could die. If we don't, it could go "boom!" at any moment and kill him." They resolve the dilemma in a startling manner and Bazil gradually recovers, just to find he is homeless and without work.

Bazil meets up with a troop of fellow misfits, discarded people who scrape a living out of salvaging discarded items and reassembling them to be useful and interesting. The theme of the film, it's simultaneously powerful and a terrific launching pad for lots of comic situations. Bazil eventually wreaks his revenge on the two corporations that were responsible for the land mine that killed his father and the bullet lodged in his skull in a complex series of cons and tricks reminiscent of The Italian Job and House of Games.

Micmacs is a delightful, witty, engaging film that I'll highly recommend, one of my favorite movies of 2010 to date!

]]> Micmacs that is aided by cinematographer Tetsuo Nagata (Splice, La vie en rose) that contributes to the wonder of the movie. At times it's as if we're seeing a sort of human Rube Goldberg machine, where the sequence of events transpires in a logical but astonishing manner, with its conclusion just what Bazil desires.

Once Bazil becomes homeless, he's adopted by a family of fellow misfits that live in a cave within a massive junkyard, notably including Elastic Girl (Julie Ferrier), human cannonball Buster (Dominique Pinon), master thief Slammer (Jean-Pierre Marielle), Calculator (Marie-Julie Baup), Congo (Omar Sy) and Mama Chow (Yolande Moreau), who acts as the house mother and leader of the group.

Bazil (Dany Boon) with orchestra behind, from Micmacs.

I'll single out two of these as being particularly delightful: I really liked Calculator and found her a sweet, sympathetic character, and Congo, whose constant misuse of common clichés led to much hilarious dialog. In their own ways, each of the Micmacs group were misfits, offering up the perfect new family for Bazil, who had never found himself after the death of his father.

The antagonists are the owners of the two weapons manufactures, the thuggish Nicolas Thibault de Fenouillet (Andre Dussollier) and the suave, sophisticated Marconi (Nicolas Marié), who is a single father but is more interested in his television than his son, who is relegated to eating meals in the kitchen with his nanny while Marconi dines solo at a formal dining table.

They are both one-dimensional characters, and indeed, most everyone in Micmacs is similarly flat. Not even Bazil is a complicated character: he lost his father as a boy and subsequently became a loner. The story is reminiscent of the recent Toy Story 3 too: another film about misfits, toys that have been (inadvertently) discarded and are left to fend for themselves in a day care center full of broken and damaged toys.

As I said earlier, I really enjoyed Micmacs and while it had its flaws in terms of character development and depth, the visual inventiveness and audacity of the cons utilized to bring down the arms makers create a delightful cinematic experience. For reasons I cannot fathom, the MPAA gave the film an "R" rating. Quite the contrary, I'd say a "PG" would be more appropriate and surmise my teen daughter would be delighted by the story.

]]> Review: The A-Team tag:www.DaveOnFilm.com,2010://11.9467 2010-06-11T06:00:08Z 2010-06-11T07:00:34Z

There are some movies that are good date films but are really "guy films", then there are guy films that are really just for men and would most likely go down in the annals of bad dates if you, a guy, were to bring a gal with you. Yeah, that's sexist, but think of The A-Team as the guy version of Sex and the City 2 and you'll understand what I mean.Based on the 1980s TV series of the same name, The A-Team starts with a backstory that explains how the team was formed by a group of former Army Rangers during a crazy adventure in Mexico. 80 successful missions later, they're tricked into a new mission that involves stolen US Mint plates that need to be recovered before a flood of counterfeit $100s destroy the American economy.The team fails at its mission, is framed and each A-Team member is subsequently thrown in separate high security prisons scattered throughout the Western hemisphere. No worries, they break out through an unlikely sequence of events and have the dual task of recovering the stolen plates and clearing their names.Or, at least, the plot seems to be something like that, but this is the kind of film where it's really not much about the story line at all, and somehow, that's okay. The film is still entertaining and the cast (Liam Neeson as Hannibal, the group leader, Bradley Cooper as Face, the handsome woman-crazy group member, Quinton Jackson as tough guy B.A. Baracus,...

Dave Taylor http://www.askdavetaylor.com/

Based on the 1980s TV series of the same name, The A-Team starts with a backstory that explains how the team was formed by a group of former Army Rangers during a crazy adventure in Mexico. 80 successful missions later, they're tricked into a new mission that involves stolen US Mint plates that need to be recovered before a flood of counterfeit $100s destroy the American economy.

The team fails at its mission, is framed and each A-Team member is subsequently thrown in separate high security prisons scattered throughout the Western hemisphere. No worries, they break out through an unlikely sequence of events and have the dual task of recovering the stolen plates and clearing their names.

Or, at least, the plot seems to be something like that, but this is the kind of film where it's really not much about the story line at all, and somehow, that's okay. The film is still entertaining and the cast (Liam Neeson as Hannibal, the group leader, Bradley Cooper as Face, the handsome woman-crazy group member, Quinton Jackson as tough guy B.A. Baracus, a role made famous by Mr. T. in the original series, and District 9 standout Sharlto Copley as the crazy Murdock) works well and has an appealing chemistry even as the scenes often make no sense.

]]>

Having recently watched the wry, sophomoric parody MacGruber, it was hard not to see elements of TV's MacGuyver in Hannibal's approach to planning missions, along with the extraordinary complexity of 60's TV series Mission Impossible too. Rather than being off-putting, however, it ends up being quite entertaining with the improbability of what transpires.

The original "The A-Team" starred George Peppard as Hannibal Smith, Dwight Schultz as Murdock, Mr. T. as B.A. Baracus and Dirk Benedict as Faceman Peck and ran for 97 episodes from 1983-1987. It was hardly great television, but it was popular and I remember watching sporadic episodes when I was a teenager. Remaking old TV shows as movies is fraught with danger, though, because the stories and characters don't hold up under modern expectations. Expect more of the same with remakes like the upcoming Gilligan's Island.

Mr. T. offered an iconic performance as Baracus in the original TV series, giving Quinton Jackson the toughest role of the four team members. I liked the tattoos on his knuckles, PITY on one, FOOL on the other, and the nuances of his character: he's afraid of flying even though he's an Army Ranger, and for much of the film he wrestles with pacifism.

Sharlto Copley offers an entertaining performance as the crazy helicopter pilot Murdock, but his accent was all over the place as the film progressed. In some scenes he sounded like an American, in other scenes his native South African twang snuck through, and in one scene he speaks Swahili and explains to his amazed colleagues "What? You don't speak Swahili?" Sloppy directing and continuity. Liam Neeson does the best job, however, instilling Hannibal with a wry self-conscious humor that was reminiscent of Peppard in the original role.

Jessica Biel plays Charisa Sosa, the cliché role of tough hottie in the military who has a soft spot for one of the protagonists (Face, in this case). In a film where it's all about the action scenes, not the acting, she's still surprisingly boring on screen, even though she's unquestionably a beautiful woman.

The bad guys in the film are the Black Forest squad, led by Colonel Pike (Brian Bloom), Hannibal reports directly to good-old boy General Morrison (Gerald McRaney) and there's also a CIA stooge called Mr. Lynch (Patrick Wilson) rounding out the main cast. There is some ambiguity with their roles but I'm confident you'll have the story figured out before the denouement and closing credits.

The A-Team had good special effects and CG work which allows it to pull off many of the more complex stunts, but there were a few scenes that were just laughably over-the-top, notably one where they plummet towards the earth in a tank while steering it by shooting shells in different directions. Then again, saying that a scene was over-the-top in a film like this is probably a bit daft anyway.

In the end, how seriously can you take an action film where the signature quotes are "I love it when a plan comes together" and "overkill is underrated" and where Sosa's ringtone for calls from Face is Steely Dan's Can't Buy A Thrill? Is The A-Team entertaining? Yes. Is it a flawed movie with an incomprehensible storyline and massive suspension of disbelief required? Definitely. Is it worth seeing? I liked it!

]]> Review: Splice tag:www.DaveOnFilm.com,2010://11.9457 2010-06-04T06:00:51Z 2010-06-03T17:50:53Z

Dave Taylor http://www.askdavetaylor.com/ Horror films are supposed to be scary and fill you with foreboding, fear and then the elation of the protagonist having survived a frightening situation. A good horror film is an adrenaline rush, an emotional roller coaster that can be surprisingly fun.

Unfortunately, Splice is none of these things, and when you finally get to the scary scene, it's about ten minutes from the end of the film, after a build-up that left me bored and had most of the audience laughing at what were supposed to be the tense scenes.

The fundamental problem with Splice is that the three writers, Vincenzo Natali, Antoinette Terry Bryant and Doug Taylor, couldn't decide if they were creating a thoughtful docu-drama about the ethical dilemma posed by genetic manipulation or a straight-out horror film, and instead created a film that's boring and unfocused, with two of the stupidest "scientist" roles ever committed to screen.

Splice takes place in the R&D facility of Newstead Pharma, run by cliché money-grubbing CEO Joan Chorot (Simona Maicanescu in a startlingly bad performance). The genetic engineering lab, known as Nucleic Exchange Research & Development, is run by husband and wife couple Clive and Elsa (Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley) and also employs Clive's brother Gavin (Brandon McGibbon), a character who seemed like he should have been cast in the next Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure instead.

They're doing genetic splicing to create creatures that can produce medicinal proteins that will be worth billions and Elsa wants to add human DNA to the stew to work towards cures for altzheimers, cancer, and a laundry list of other ailments. The result is a weird quasi-human called Dren (played, with some CG assist, by Delphine Chanéac).

The result is that Splice is an unfrightening mess of a film that could have been a thoughtful exploration of the moral and ethical dilemmas associated with genetic manipulation or could have been a "look what we've unleashed on the world!" film in the mold of Frankenstein, but instead it's neither and ends up a slick looking but pointless cinematic experience.

]]> Cube and, in partnership with cinematographer Tetsuo Nagata, who most recently wrapped up the oddball French film Micmacs, they've created a polished look for Splice. The set design, the exterior shots, the lighting, it all comes together very well and I think we're going to see some great things from these two (one upcoming project for Natali, btw, is a screen adaptation of the amazing cyperpunk novel Neuromancer).

Delphine Chanéac does a fascinating job with the role of Dren (the name, in case you haven't figured it out, is "nerd" backwards, and "nerd" is the acronym for the R&D facility). Her performance reminded me of the amazing work of Andy Serkis in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and it was fascinating to watch Dren go from a weird little chicken-like creature reminiscent of the creature in the troubling film Eraserhead to a fully mature - and attractive - human female.

Elsa (Sarah Polley) encounters Dren for the first time in Splice

I'm a big fan of Adrien Brody and enjoy his ability to be the mythical everyman that makes so many film protagonists work, particularly in good horror films, but his performance here was marred by the overall stupidity of his role. Worse, though, was Sarah Polley, who couldn't decide if she was supposed to be the creepy psycho who initially seems like a perfectly rational scientist or whether she was indeed that cerebral intellectual tormented by a horrible childhood.

The two of them were worse than babbling idiots and some of the scenes of their so-called "research" in the lab were painful to watch, they were so idiotic. A helpful tip to Clive: if you're dealing with an unknown entity that is assaulting your wife and you have to attack it with a scalpel, it's probably not a smart idea to then put the scalpel, dripping alien goo, in your mouth.

There are also dozens of unexplored story elements that could have made Splice a more interesting film, enough that I wonder whether a director's cut might make more sense. One I've already alluded to: what happened during Elsa's childhood that she has the phobias and amoral tendencies she clearly demonstrates, and how does that relate to the accelerated childhood and sexual awakening of Dren?

And speaking of sexual awakenings, if you want to see a creepy horror film where there's an alien creature that's sexually aware and dangerous, you'd be better off to rent Species, a film that people will inevitably reference. It's not a great film, but at least it makes sense and you're not left yelling "don't do that, you stupid mock-scientist!" at the screen too often. (of course, having said that, I am well aware that a trope of horror films is to identify with the protagonist and then be upset at the clearly stupid decisions they make)

My recommendation: Skip Splice entirely and hope that next time the addition of a fourth writer will help this team clean up the mess and make the compelling, frightening gene manipulation film that this could have become.

]]> Review: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time tag:www.DaveOnFilm.com,2010://11.9445 2010-05-28T06:00:53Z 2010-05-28T06:39:37Z

Dave Taylor http://www.askdavetaylor.com/ Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is the first big blockbuster to come out for the summer season. It's tremendous fun, non-stop action and an adventure film with an appealing story. I not only enjoyed it but kept wondering when I could get a Blu-Ray copy so I could really step through some of the scenes and see how they were assembled. I bet you're going to like it too.

The film starts with Dastan (William Foster), a beggar boy living by his wits in the bazaar in Persia, getting caught for stealing. Seconds before he's to be punished for his thievery, the King of Persia (Ronald Pickup) appears and, seeing a hero within Dastan, stops the punishment and instead has him move into the palace as an adopted son. Zoom forward fifteen years or so and now-adult Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) is joining his royal brothers Prince Tus (Richard Coyle) and Prince Garsiv (Toby Kebbell) on an assault on the holy city of Alamut. With them is long-trusted family advisor Uncle Nizam (Ben Kingsley).

The assault of the city, a combination of swordfights, archery and Parkour, is truly thrilling, and watching Gyllenhaal swing, swoop and leap from building to building is great fun. Turns out that it's also surprisingly true to the original video game: Prince of Persia actually started out as a late 80s video game for MS-DOS and Apple II computers. The reasons for the attack are suspect and soon Dastan is on the run, a victim of palace intrigue, Princess Tamina of Alamut (Gemma Arterton) in tow.

Produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, Prince of Persia has very much the same feel and pace as Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, except that Prince is a bit more family friendly. There's also a sweet -- and witty -- romance between Prince Dastan and the beautiful and strong Princess Tamina, complicated time-travel elements, and a hilarious gem of a performance by Alfred Molina as the savvy, entrepreneurial rogue Sheik Amar that help make Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time one of the best films of 2010.

]]> Prince of Persia are a bit larger than life, particularly the dastardly rogue that Kingsley plays. He's a great actor, but the entire cast did a splendid job creating a straightforward adventure movie that eschews moral ambiguity and character development for action and stunts. It's the genre, and it's fun.

The film isn't without its flaws, however. One of the most surprising glitches was that many of the long shots were obviously computer generated, and looked more like a video game than a multi-million-dollar special effect. The ending was a bit confusing too, when the magical Daggar of Time that let Prince Dastan travel through time paired with the enormous underground Sands of Time pillar. There's also some debate about having a non-Arab actor in the lead role, but Gyllenhaal does a great job and I think it's just knee-jerk political correctness. In my eyes it's a complete non-issue.

Princess Tamina (Arterton) and Prince Dastan (Gyllenhaal) in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

What I most liked about this film was the mythos of the poor boy with the heart of gold who becomes a prince. At one point, King Sharaman reminds Dastan "The boy I saw in that square was capable of being more than good, of being great." Doesn't every boy secretly dream of being a hero? Harry Potter is a similar story and it's no surprise that Prince director Mike Newell previously directed one of the Potter films (The Goblet of Fire).

Speaking of films that were inspiration for Prince of Persia, there's definitely an Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom scene and the core story has more than a passing nod to Aladdin, another Disney property.

The banter between Prince Dastan and Princess Tamina was delightful and there's a very modern sensibility about their interchange, even as they're in the middle of a fantasy film set a thousand years ago. Princess Tamina is also a strong, capable character, a nice switch from the prototypical helpless females that populate most of these fables and older video games. Their dialog is suggestive and flirtatious, but in a manner that'll pass right over the heads of younger audience members.

The film is rated PG-13, though I predict there'll be a lot of children in the theater. That rating feels a bit too restrictive, speaking as the father of a 13yo and 10yo: It's a fast-paced action film with some intense fight scenes, but I'd suggest that perhaps PG-10 or so would be a better rating, if only the MPAA had such a thing.

Finally, as the King states more than once, it's "the bond between brothers that is the sword that defends the empire" and the combination of honor and brotherhood underlying terrific action sequences and a good, entertaining story make this the next blockbuster of 2010. I'm looking forward to the Prince of Persia sequel.

]]> Review: MacGruber tag:www.DaveOnFilm.com,2010://11.9440 2010-05-21T06:09:31Z 2010-05-21T06:45:14Z

Dave Taylor http://www.askdavetaylor.com/ It's probably not a good sign to start a review by saying that the film wasn't anywhere near as bad or as stupid as I was afraid it'd be, but that's exactly how I felt after the end credits of the new Saturday Night Live spin-off MacGruber. Crude and sophomoric, it still had lots of laughs and a surprisingly polished appearance, coupled with amusingly over-the-top performances from some decent actors.

The story line is something or other about a nuclear missile, the X5, stolen by thuggish bad guys from a military convey in Siberia. Their mastermind? The evil Dr. Dieter Von Cunth (Val Kilmer), who has nefarious plans to, bwahahaha, blow up the world! Of course, in a parody film as crass as this 99 minute movie by first time director Jorma Taccone the story doesn't really matter that much. It's all about the sight gags and the one liners, and MacGruber doesn't disappoint.

Will Forte is MacGruber, a retired special forces operative who previously served as an Army Ranger, Navy SEAL, Army Green Beret and was awarded 16 purple hearts, 3 Congressional Medals of Honor and more. Problem is, he's a complete idiot and everything he gets involved with goes sideways and often results in innocent bystanders dying. A newspaper headline flashes by at the beginning of the film "MacGruber stops terrorist cell, 200 civilians casualties" and that's about the sensibility of the entire film.

If you've seen any action films in the last decade, you'll recognize cliche scenes and dialog that keeps the film moving along, even as some of the scenes are rather, um, indelicate. Still, I laughed quite a bit during the film, and, yes, cringed once or twice too.

]]> The Dirty Dozen and any number of other "let's reassemble the team for one last job" scenes. They don't quite have the chance to be involved, so his second team is a former lover stuck in the 70s Vicki St. Elmo (Kristen Wiig) and a young officer Lt. Dixon Piper (Ryan Phillippe).

Piper (Ryan Phillippe), MacGruber (Will Forte) and Vicki (Kristen Wiig) in "MacGruber"

The dialog throughout the film sounds exactly as you would expect, as if it's written by a team of gag writers from a late night TV show. Example:

Vicki (to MacGruber): "I thought you were dead!"

MacGruber: "So did I, but I'm not."

In another scene, Lt. Piper commiserates with MacGruber, saying he appreciated the chance to work with him on a case:

Piper: "I appreciate working with you for the last few days, I've learned a lot."

MacGruber: "You have?"

Piper: "All about what not to do."

Their military liaison is Colonel James Faith (Powers Boothe), who keeps trying to boot MacGruber off the case of the missing nuclear weapon. At times, you can see Boothe has a hard time keeping a straight face, and we can only wonder what was going on behind the scenes.

Lest you think this is all family fare and a fun, silly comedy, I will warn you that there's a reason this film has an "R" rating. There are more profanities than an Eddie Murphy standup routine, and the sexual references and, um, celery scenes are definitely not for the younger crowd. If there's such a thing as a "beer movie" (as in "drink a few before you go to the theater"), then this is it.

A film like MacGruber is what I consider a guilty pleasure. It's not great cinema, it's not even something you're going to watch more than once, and it has enough crude scenes that you'd be embarrassed to have your parents see it inadvertently, but as I said at the beginning, it was pretty darn funny and sarcastic. If that's your thing, go for it!

]]> Review: Robin Hood tag:www.DaveOnFilm.com,2010://11.9432 2010-05-16T21:25:36Z 2010-05-17T02:34:01Z

Dave Taylor http://www.askdavetaylor.com/ If you can get over the fact that this is most assuredly not the story of Robin Hood of Nottingham Forest, eternally battling the evil Sheriff of Nottingham for Maid Marion's hand, you might find that Robin Hood is an interesting and exciting war movie set in medieval times with Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) as the central character.

Like director Ridley Scott's last outing with Crowe, Gladiator, Robin Hood is a dirty, gritty movie with so much mud that you'll begin rooting for the invention of washing machines to help brighten up the landscape. Crowe plays the same character he plays in all his films, the troubled, misunderstood rebel who just wants to be loved, with grimaces and tough looks aplenty. Perhaps he needs to extend his range a bit in his next project?

Considering this as a medieval war film leads to the question of whether it actually makes sense, and in many ways Robin Hood feels like it's two movies, the first exploring the experience of a military man returning to a decaying England after a decade pillaging Europe on the Crusades, and the second where the writers suddenly realize that they have an end point less than an hour away and need to have created the entire Robin Hood backstory and mythology. What is Maid Marion's (Cate Blanchett) relationship to Robin? Why is Robin the sworn enemy of the Sheriff (Matthew Macfadyen)? Why does Friar Tuck (a delightful Mark Addy) turn his back on the church and join a rebel band?

It's the second part, with Robin leading the English against a half-hearted invasion by the foppish French King Phillip, where the action gets exciting but the story - and storyline - get left in the ever-present dust. Reminiscent of Guy Ritchie's recent Sherlock Holmes (read my review of Sherlock Holmes), Ridley Scott's Robin Hood is a darn good movie but has almost nothing to do with the story we all know. If that bothers you, skip Robin Hood. If you can look beyond it, you might just find this an exciting knights and serfs film.

]]> Robin Hood it wasn't earlier Robin Hood movies (most famously Errol Flynn) I thought about but rather The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Lord of the Flies and Monty Python and the Holy Grail that kept running through my mind, along with the under-appreciated hodge-podge that was Timeline, also set in medieval times but based in France, not England.

The film opens with titles that explain that "in times of tyranny, the outlaw takes his place in history" as, presumably, a justification for Robin and his anti-establishment efforts. The problem with this positioning, and indeed one of the greatest problems with this epic retelling of the Robin Hood legend, was that he wasn't anti-establishment at all, but comfortably stepped into the role of leading the English troops and rallying the northern Lords of England to remember that only a united England could withstand a French invasion. I kept wanting him to cause trouble, to assault the King's tax collectors, to defend a downtrodden serf, but Scott made a crucial blunder in that his foes were all unabashedly evil, especially the cartoonish Godfrey (Mark Strong), who served as his antagonist, but was such an unlikeable character that we cheered his eventual demise.

Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett in "Robin Hood"

Cate Blanchett was a curious choice for this reimagined Marion of Loxley role too: she is dour and angry for almost the entire film, and it's only near the very end of the movie that we see her even crack a smile. Then again, everyone in Robin Hood was gloomy and upset, which, combined with the muddy, grey exteriors, gave the film a strange, heavy mood. Like a turbulent plane flight, parts of Robin Hood felt like they were there for us to endure, not enjoy, even as other scenes reminded us of the directorial capabilities of Scott and Crowe's acting skill.

The sub-plot in Robin Hood that most baffled me, though, were the wild band of orphan children who existed by stealing from the Nottingham villagers without fear of reprisal. The Sheriff ignored them and everyone else seemed to be powerless to do anything about the situation. Even as the village is later attacked by soldiers, we see the shirtless, masked boys on the periphery, watching without reaction. Cut to them on horseback, fighting alongside Robin and his pre-Merry Men against the French. But why? What caused this change in their loyalties, and why did they decide to leave their forest and join forces?

I was also troubled by the portrayal of King Richard (Danny Huston) -- famously in legend Richard the Lionhearted -- as a petty King who asks Robin to speak candidly of his opinion of the Crusades that they've been on for the last ten years, then punishes him when Robin answers honestly. His younger brother who remained in England in Richard's absence, Prince John (Oscar Isaac), is again a character who is so one-dimensional that it's impossible not to dislike him. A bit more depth, a bit less whining, would have made a far more interesting character.

Still, the story of a rag-tag bunch of soldiers who exploit opportunity then find the moral strength to fight for a cause greater than their own material benefit is a strong hook and for all its flaws and mishandling of the Robin Hood legend, I enjoyed the film. Robin Hood isn't a great movie and there are times when it's entirely too similar to Gladiator, but if you enjoy rough and rugged men on horseback and honor writ large, then I think you'll find this a splendid 140 minutes of your time.

]]> Review: The Square tag:www.DaveOnFilm.com,2010://11.9424 2010-05-10T04:58:29Z 2010-05-10T15:55:53Z

Dave Taylor http://www.askdavetaylor.com/ In classic movies, we're presented with a morality play, an examination of good versus evil, with a satisfying comeuppance, an ending that reminds us that good triumphs. Modern cinema, however, seems to have far more moral ambiguity and it's common for the bad guy to triumph.

That's why it was a pleasure to watch the dark, intense Australian film The Square. It's noir at its best, with a logical - and tragic - sequence of events set off by an all-too-common situation: an affair between two people in a small town.

The couple having the affair are construction contractor Raymond Yale (David Roberts) and hairdresser Carla (Claire van der Boom). They've been having the affair for a while, but Carla is becoming dissatisfied and wants the older Raymond to leave his wife (Wendy, played by Lisa Baily). For her own part, she'll also leave her unstable, low-life husband Greg "Smitty" Smith (Anthony Hayes) and the two of them will make a new life for themselves far away from their small semi-rural New South Wales town.

From that point on, everything that transpires seems distressingly inevitable and watching the story unfold and the pressures of the impending departure begin to wear down Raymond, are akin to watching a train wreck: you want to look away, but a morbid curiosity keeps you staring at the screen until the inevitable, shocking but satisfying ending. Films like The Square also remind me why I love cinema so much, actually, and demonstrate that it's a thoughtful script, solid acting and good direction that make a great movie, not special effects or big budgets. Highly recommended.

]]>

There are a number of plot lines unfolding simultaneously in The Square, so you really do need to pay close attention to what's going on. When Carla finds a bag of cash stashed in the attic that's presumed to be ill-gotten gains from her boyfriend's criminal activities she believes it'll bankroll her new life with Raymond. Not surprisingly, Ray resists, alarmed at the idea of stealing money from a criminal enterprise, but after being emotionally blackmailed by Carla, finally assents. He crafts an ingenious plan to steal the money without Smitty realizing it's been stolen but things go tragically wrong, and the wheels are in motion with all the players in this dark play.

Meanwhile, Carla and Ray continue to meet and it's no surprise when Ray receives a blackmail note from someone in town: "I know what you're up to. Pay me $10,000 or I'll tell." But who wrote it? Construction site mechanic and Smitty's fellow gang member Leonard (Brendan Donoghue)? More importantly, what's the threatened revelation of the many crimes that happen in the film?

There's surprisingly little police presence in this movie, quite unlike contemporary cinematic fare from Hollywood, but at one point Sergeant Miles (Paul Caesar) interviews Ray, after which he explains something that we always suspect small town cops believe: "it's nice to finally have stuff to do: bit of a fire, bit of death, now this."

Later, in a moment that foreshadows the climax of the film, Carla tells Ray:"If we don't leave soon, something's going to happen!" His response is typical of men who are pushed beyond their comfort zone, pushed into a world of trouble and complexity beyond their experience: "We should get back [to the party]".

the square david roberts and claire van der boom

David Roberts and Claire van der Boom in "The Square"

Good noir offers different ways to understand the underlying morality play, from the POV of the camera to the travails of minor characters to the weather that occurs scene-by-scene. The Square is no different and offers us the recurring motif of characters peeking through barely open doors or partially obscured windows as a metaphor for us, the viewer, in the theater. Additionally, we see Carla and Ray's dogs become attached to each other, and their relationship acts as a metaphor for the human relationship and its troubles and dangers.

The cinematography was unusual for a noir film too, with many POV shots that felt more like an old-school horror film. In many scenes the camera is a palpable presence in the room as things slowly unfold in a manner guaranteed to maximize our anxiety and concern for the likable main characters..

I can't say enough favorable about this movie. It's gripping and startling in a way that modern Hollywood films seem to have completely eschewed, and when the film finally rolls to the closing credits, you're left breathless at the closing scene and at the journey filmmaker Nash Edgerton has brought us on. Highly recommended.

]]> Review: Iron Man 2 tag:www.DaveOnFilm.com,2010://11.9422 2010-05-07T06:00:17Z 2010-05-07T14:17:35Z

Sequels are rarely as good as the original, but Iron Man 2 is one of the few exceptions. It's not a perfect movie by any means, but it's sure darn fun and engaging, and the new story twists, the health issue that Tony "Iron Man" Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) faces and the half-baked but disturbing archenemy Whiplash (Mickey Rourke), all add up to create a film that's sure to be the first summer blockbuster.The original Iron Man ends with wealthy industrialist Tony Stark, head of Stark Industries, closing a press conference with the startling announcement that he is Iron Man. The second film starts with Russian bad guy Ivan Vanko watching the press conference on a crummy TV in a Soviet tenement, even as he also watches his father Anton (Yevgeni Lazarev) die. Vanko has a vendetta against Stark, but it's not until later in the film that we figure out the basis of that grudge. Meanwhile, he may live in a tenement, but that doesn't stop him from having an advanced physics lab in the basement and inventing the Whiplash weaponry.Meanwhile, Stark is relishing his fame along with the wealth that being a captain of industry offers, acting like a rich frat boy. He's appealing, however, and engages in much flirting and witty banter with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), his secretary and confidante, as the film gets going with the opening of Stark Expo (which has a cool online site associated with it: starkexpo2010.com).There are flaws, no question, and...

Dave Taylor http://www.askdavetaylor.com/ Sequels are rarely as good as the original, but Iron Man 2 is one of the few exceptions. It's not a perfect movie by any means, but it's sure darn fun and engaging, and the new story twists, the health issue that Tony "Iron Man" Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) faces and the half-baked but disturbing archenemy Whiplash (Mickey Rourke), all add up to create a film that's sure to be the first summer blockbuster.

The original Iron Man ends with wealthy industrialist Tony Stark, head of Stark Industries, closing a press conference with the startling announcement that he is Iron Man. The second film starts with Russian bad guy Ivan Vanko watching the press conference on a crummy TV in a Soviet tenement, even as he also watches his father Anton (Yevgeni Lazarev) die. Vanko has a vendetta against Stark, but it's not until later in the film that we figure out the basis of that grudge. Meanwhile, he may live in a tenement, but that doesn't stop him from having an advanced physics lab in the basement and inventing the Whiplash weaponry.

Meanwhile, Stark is relishing his fame along with the wealth that being a captain of industry offers, acting like a rich frat boy. He's appealing, however, and engages in much flirting and witty banter with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), his secretary and confidante, as the film gets going with the opening of Stark Expo (which has a cool online site associated with it: starkexpo2010.com).

There are flaws, no question, and the Tony's health problems are glossed over when it could have been an interesting additional facet to the protagonist's dilemma, but still, I really enjoyed Iron Man 2 and look forward to seeing it again.
]]> Revenge of the Nerds reject, and it works best when he's a humorous antithesis of the cool, devilishly handsome Stark.

There are some very interesting lines in Iron Man 2 that director Jon Favreau clearly aims at us, the audience, too, particularly when Stark swears "I'm sick of the liberal agenda! It's boring!" to Potts. That scene, like many in the film, has quick, lively dialog that I found quite enjoyable. Not the stilted staccato dialog of a Mamet film, but a more believable type of back-and-forth that we hear daily.

iron man 2 publicity still scarlett johansson

iron man 2 publicity still scarlett johansson

Scarlett Johansson is smokin' hot as Natalie in Iron Man 2

The story line that I wanted to see explored further was the palladium poisoning that Stark is suffering from, due to the arc reactor artificial heart. Each time he powers up with the suit, he gets a bit weaker and his blood gets a bit more toxic. He uses a blood test gadget that lets us see the increasingly toxic level of his blood, but while he is concerned about it, he's too busy being a rich playboy and experimenting with new military gizmos to really introspect at all. Maybe that's asking too much in a big-budget action film, but a smart, thoughtful, self-aware hero would be a nice addition to the cinematic canon.

While sparring in a boxing ring, Stark is introduced to legal aide Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson), who has a secret identity as Natasha Romanoff, part of the SHIELD agency, a superhero organization that was introduced at the very end of the first movie. When he invites her into the ring to get a lesson in self-defense from his trainer, she quickly drops him onto the mat in a very entertaining scene.

The film moves to Monaco for the Grand Prix de Monaco Historique, in which Formula-1 cars drive through the streets of the idyllic seaside resort at incredible speeds. Stark opts to drive one of the cars and that's when Whiplash reappears, a tattooed Rourke who frankly looks too tired and scroungy to be a believable arch-enemy.

In a scene that might have been part Downey addressing his own personal demons, Stark, in his Iron Man armor, gets drunk and does a series of increasingly goofy things in front of a crowd of well-wishers. Highly decorated Army Lt. Col James Rhodes (Don Cheadle, replacing Terrence Howard from the first film) shows up and stops Iron Man by getting into one of the other augmentation suits and becoming "War Machine". They grapple in a scene reminiscent of the opening scene of Watchmen, and Rhodie is established as Stark's sidekick.

The film gets more mundane once we have the main characters on the stage, with Stark and Rhodie as good guys in a sort of Transformers buddy movie sensibility, and Whiplash and Hammer as bad guys. Somewhere in the middle is the lithe and sexy Rushman and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), a part of the shadowy SHIELD organization.

Maybe a film like this isn't intended to be looked at closely, character motivations to be questioned and reviewers to wish there was a bit less action and a bit more development, in which case I'll say mea culpa. There's no question, Iron Man 2 is a terrifically entertaining film and with very good opening box office numbers and a strong first week in its European opening, it's going to open big and play big for months before it leaves the theater. Could it have been better, been more than just a loud action film? No question. But even as it, it's a satisfying cinematic experience.

And a tip: sit through the credits: there's a post-credits scene that you won't want to miss.
]]>