Honestly, I've only seen one 007 movie, but I've heard tons of the series' theme songs. I'm not a huge fan of action films (though I'm giving Skyfall a shot this weekend), and--don't hate--I almost feel a great Bond theme can pull off even more attitude than the film itself (says the girl who has only seen one of them). Anyway, let's stop talking about the things I don't know about and let's turn to some 007 theme songs that'll make you feel like a secret agent just listening to them.
(And, although I risk losing the reader altogether at this point, Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die" isn't even on my list. Don't get me wrong, I love McCartney and think he's one of the greatest songwriters of all time, and although it is a really good song, I just don't feel the swagger.)
5) "The World is Not Enough" by Garbage
What?! Garbage makes the list and McCartney doesn't?! This is ludicrous! It's sheer madness! Well, not really. This song is arrogant, dreamy and sensual at the same time, with a classic touch. Are those not also the traits of a perfectly swoon-worthy Bond?
4) "Diamonds are Forever" by Shirley Bassey
There's a good chance that you know this song because of Kanye West's "Diamonds from Sierra Leone" (which is fine because that's also a great song). After Bassey's iconic "Goldfinger," they brought her back for another theme... and another, "Moonraker." A fourth, please?
3) "Another Way to Die" by Jack White and Alicia Keys (Quantum of Solace)
If you don't already know, let me tell you, Jack White is amazing. Along with McCartney, he's one of my favourite songwriters of all time. This song is dark, powerful and hits you hard when you least expect it. (Yet another idealistic embodiment of Bond.) It's also a very unlikely and pleasantly surprising duet.
2) "Skyfall" by Adele
This song is pure brilliance. If you're looking for someone to pick up where Shirley Bassey left off, you've found it. Sign her on right now for two more themes.
1) "Goldfinger" by Shirley Bassey
Well what else would it be? I've already praised her twice. This song is smooth and rich, moving and simply unforgettable.
In the film Winter's Bone, Jennifer Lawrence’s Ree hunts and skins a squirrel alive, hoping to feed her malnourished brothers and sisters. The traditional selfish desires of a teenager are no match for her undying desire to keep her kin safe. In The Hunger Games, Lawrence’s character, the much beloved heroine of Suzanne Collins' novels, Katniss Everdeen, faces an eerily similar struggle, but with even more fearless aplomb.
Like Ree, Katniss is a Destiny's Child-approved leading lady—she's an independent young woman and a survivor. She’ll do anything to keep herself, her sister, Prim (Willow Shields) and her mother alive, including illegally snaring and sautéing forest critters and fighting to the death against 23 other teenagers (a.k.a. tributes) as a part of the Hunger Games—an annual, publicly broadcasted event hosted by her corrupt government and its unusually cruel regulation system.
As many other critics have pointed out to near-obnoxiousness, we've already seen kids hack at each other on screen in Battle Royale. But there's a reason why the hit YA book series that inspired this film has such a rabid, age-defying following. This particular treatment of the concept, with its endearing, strong-willed and anti-Bella Swan lead, ironically colourful and allegorical backdrop and spots of purposefully unresolved, unrequited romanticism (Team Peeta? Team Gale? More like Team Katniss!), aims for and hits an emotional bullseye.
Garry Ross manages to recapture the intently moving and philosophically challenging quality of original text and its characters...for the most part. The script, partially penned by Collins, stays fairly true to form, although a few fiddles could prove harmful later in the series. (Katniss’ mockingjay pin—a huge symbol, especially in the third novel, Mockingjay—is hardly explored). The sets are simply spot-on, especially the forested arena. The costumes are spectacular, albeit occasionally overshadowed by poor CGI. The soundtrack is a fine-tuned folksy fancy (T. Swift, The Civil Wars, Once’s Glen Hansard), but is poorly underused (just the credits—really?) And, of course, the casting is exceptional.
Many of the main actors are worth mentioning—Lenny Kravitz wears Cinna’s gold eyeliner with quiet pride, Woody Harrelson is Katniss’ boozy mentor Haymitch, and Josh Hutcherson bakes extra charm into his Peeta, Katniss’ competitor and doomed suitor. But the winner here is, suitably, Lawrence. She takes to Katniss and her weathered braid as Katniss does to a bow and arrow—with precision and well-earned ease. Katniss’ inner narration is absent and Lawrence embraces the silence, letting her eyes and mannerisms tell us what we need to know.
You could say The Hunger Games is Lawrence's Hunger Games. That her short-yet-sweet film career (Winter’s Bone, X-Men: First Class) has just been training for playing this rebel with a heart and a pin of gold. For her true breakthrough—the performance we’ll remember and salute with three fingers and a kiss to the sky. B+
Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks and Woody Harrelson. Directed by Gary Ross. 142 minutes. PG
You know when someone asks if you’ve seen their favourite movie and say you seen “parts of it” because you don’t want to seem like a total pop culture pariah? Yeah, we do too—and we hate ourselves for it! That’s why every other week, we’ve vowed to watch at least one movie we’ve put off, ignored, rejected or just plain-out forgotten about. Join us as recount the popping of our cinematic cherries, complete with awkward, over-analytical details!
FOXY BROWN
DATE RELEASED: April 5, 1974
DATE WATCHED: March 9, 2012
WHY NOW? Because it was on Netflix and I've been listening to the Jackie Brown soundtrack way too much lately.
WHY NOT THEN? I was a whole lot of nothing. (I wasn't born unil '89).
EXPECTATIONS:
Pam Grier saying she is a "whole lotta woman."
Pam Grier being "a whole lotta woman."
Some superfly soundtrack tunes.
A large, drug dealer-themed revenge plot, very much in the same vein as Jackie Brown.
A lot of bright-coloured bellbottoms and crop tops.
WHAT I ACTUALLY GOT:
Pam Grier being a whole lotta badass.
Pam Grier's brother telling her that she's a "whole lotta woman."
A whole lotta icky, terribly dressed '70s male villains with rapey tendencies.
Multiple revenge plots, all with sweet, sweet over-the-top ends.
A scene revolving around a pickled penis.
A superfly score.
A slightly draggy intro, but one that ultimately sets up the rest of the film.
An overwhelming desire to feather my hair and wear extremely flared jeans.
One of the best multicoloured, shadow dancing opening sequences ever.
ONE NIGHT-IN STAND OR SECOND DATE POTENTIAL? I'm not sure I'll be hanging with Foxy Brown as much as some late shift security women, but I'll definitely check it (and the movie that supposedly inspired it, Coffy) out again at some point. Even if it's just to.pick up on some sweet, colour blocking outfit combos and matching comebacks.
Directed by Baltasar Kormákur. Starring Mark Wahlberg, Giovanni Ribisi, Kate Beckinsale, Ben Foster, Caleb Landry Jones and J.K. Simmons. 110 minutes. 14A
Like I said yesterday, I'm not much into action movies. But after seeing The Italian Job, I realized I need to give them more of a chance, which is why I saw Contraband. So if you're one of those who often shy away from gun-yielding, adrenaline-pumping, high-speed chase action movies, then this post's for you.
Actually, Contraband isn't so much of an action movie as it is suspense. The story follows Chris Farraday (Mark Wahlberg), a former drug smuggler who was clean until his younger brother-in-law (Caleb Landry Jones) got into the business and botched a deal. It's up to Farraday to save the day, but any other way than getting back into smuggling.
While there are some high adrenaline physical moments and hot chases, the movie is more comprised of palpably tense phone calls and confrontations. Combined with talented roster of actors (well, I'm not so much a fan of Wahlberg but this is his genre if there was one), these scenes make for a captivating suspense-thriller with perfect pacing and occasional bouts of action.
The problem with this movie is that it was (almost) exactly what I expected: a marginally above-average action movie. As I described my usual expectations of Wahlberg yesterday, he was a "tough guy with a warped sense of righteousness," ie. a former drug dealer who wouldn't go to the cops to right a wrong, but would break the law in almost-equally as consequential ways to avoid doing another deal himself.
However, I was taken aback by the supporting cast, namely Giovanni Ribisi, Ben Foster and Caleb Landry Jones. Actually, Jones has given strong performances in a lot of movies recently that have gone unnoticed (ie. The Last Exorcism, X-Men: First Class). I think we'll need to keep an eye out for him.
Overall, it's good. But it's just that. If you love action and suspense, see it. If you don't but you're not really feeling anything else, see it. B
You know when someone asks if you’ve seen their favourite movie and say you seen “parts of it” because you don’t want to seem like a total pop culture pariah? Yeah, we do too—and we hate ourselves for it! That’s why every other week, we’ve vowed to watch at least one movie we’ve put off, ignored, rejected or just plain-out forgotten about. Join us as recount the popping of our cinematic cherries, complete with awkward, over-analytical details!
THE ITALIAN JOB(2003)
DATE RELEASED: May 30, 2003
DATE WATCHED: January 3, 2012
WHY NOW? Over my winter break, I watched a bunch of movies I'd always wanted to see. But The Italian Job wasn't on the list until my sister brought it up. So, I watched the trailer. It looked good. And not just good for an action movie. I mean really good.
WHY NOT THEN? For the most part, I wasn't into action movies. Truthfully, I'm still not really (unless it's Tarantino) but I give them a chance. The Italian Job wasn't even on my radar. I'd heard of it. I knew they'd named a ride after it at then-Paramount Canada's Wonderland (now the Backlot Stunt Coaster, as you ride in Mini Coopers through a tunnel. Lame!). But I don't even like roller coasters.
EXPECTATIONS: (pre-trailer viewing)
Too much action, and like I said, I don't like action. It's mostly the pace that throws me off, too much going on at once. Or conversely, too little going on and sharp, jolted shots trying to make up for it.
Little dialogue, a common action stereotype.
A "guy" movie. OK, don't get me wrong, I love Pulp Fiction, Fight Club, Superbad, and whole lot of other stereotypically "guy" movies. But for some reason (I think it's the timing my life, when guys and girls in my view were still so different), the masculinity of this movie just made me feel it wasn't for me.
Mark Wahlberg as his usual tough guy with a warped sense of righteousness.
Statham as his usual tight-lipped, I-think-I'm-so-cool tough guy.
Directed by Guy Ritchie. Starring Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Jared Harris, Stephen Fry, Rachel McAdams, and Noomi Rapace. 129 minutes. PG-13.
I’ve loved Sherlock Holmes stories since I was a girl. My father read many of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Holmes stories, and I took up reading them from time to time when I was young. I was a voracious little reader, and although I couldn’t quite keep up with Holmes’ logical reasoning in solving crimes, I did find the tales thrilling. So when Guy Ritchie got into the Sherlock Holmes movie adaptation business, I was very eager to see what he might do with those beloved characters of British literature. The first movie, in 2009, did not disappoint, so I was eagerly anticipating the second film, released December 16th.
Ritchie and Downey’s interpretation of Sherlock Holmes, as a neurotic, childish, paranoid, bare-knuckle fighting (hollaback: Brad Pitt in Snatch), swashbuckling, semi-reclusive genius was fabulous the first time around. The second time, unfortunately, it’s lost a bit of its initial appeal. Holmes has been left to his own devices since the departure of his best friend and collaborator, Jude Law’s Dr. Watson, from their accommodations at 221B Baker Street in the first film. Holmes seems to have gone a bit further down the rabbit hole in Watson’s absence.
The shine has also worn off the relationship between Downey’s Holmes and Law’s Watson. In the first film, they were practically flirting with one another, which made for quite compelling viewing. In this film, the distance between the two men, due to Holmes’ jealousy over Watson’s impending marriage, is difficult for the two actors to bridge, and the movie suffers for it. They rely a bit too much on a shorthand that the characters haven’t quite earned in this film, a personal history that we as the audience are meant to understand exists because the characters and director say it does, but we don’t see so much of for ourselves. In this way, it helps to have seen the first movie and remember the connection between Law and Downey, because you don’t get much of that in this one.
This film sees the real introduction of the villainous Professor Moriarity (Jared Harris of Mad Men fame), Holmes’ arch-nemesis. Moriarity was only featured in two of Doyle’s stories (although he was mentioned in a handful of others). But his description as a criminal master-mind, as well as Holmes’ inability to catch him on the first try, have given him more prominence over the years as Holmes’ truest adversary. Harris does a great job playing the villain here, cold and calculating, always a step ahead. He seems to relish the role. Not to give away the ending, but if you’re familiar with the stories, you know how things turn out here. Some other liberties were taken here—Ritchie’s timeline is all screwed up with respect to global politics and Moriarity is basically a megalomaniac seeking world economic domination. But you know, whatever.
The cinematography is excellent in A Game of Shadows. The grimy, gritty, and grey London of the first movie continues here with great effect, and there is a fantastic scene in the woods (set along the French-German border). A carry-over from the first movie is Holmes’ ability to visualize, in slow-motion and with great predictive acumen, a fight sequence before it happens makes for good entertainment, and kind of makes you wish he could do the same with all his interactions, especially his interpersonal ones. Or maybe that you could.
A sore point for me is the use and presence of female characters in this film. Rachel McAdams, who I have always generally liked, is so great in the role of Irene Adler, Holmes’ elusive true love. She out-foxes Holmes at every turn, always maintains a bit of smug disinterest, and uses wit instead of wiles (ok, maybe in addition to wiles) to get ahead in a man’s world of crime and intrigue. I wanted to see more of her. Her role is, shall we say, limited in this film, and instead “the” female presence in the movie is taken over by Noomi Rapace, of the Swedish-language Millennium series films. Rapace is great here, what little we actually see of her, but she’s no match for Holmes. Guy Ritchie, why oh why can’t we just have two women in a movie? Must we really always use female characters to either mother or motivate male characters? Sigh.
Overall, A Game of Shadows is an enjoyable romp of a movie, with lots of action and some cleverness. It’s just not as good as the first. C+
By: Jennifer Simpson
Films I love: Breakfast at Tiffany's, Fargo, Being John Malkovich, Melancholia, Volver, Juno
Starring Henry Cavill, Mickey Rourke, Freida Pinto, Stephen Dorff and Kellan Lutz. Directed by Tarsem Singh. 110 minutes. 18A
Before Immortals started, my boyfriend asked me what I thought the film would be out of 10. "Six," I said, "But I'm hoping it's an eight." When I think about it, that's a strange answer. Why would I see a movie I think will be a six? I guess I thought it had the potential to be as brazen as 300, as visually stunning as The Cell and as epic as the battle in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Tower. But it was none of those. How not-so-surprising.
Section of the cinematic cemetery: Motorhome mayhem
Cause of (premature) death: This low-flying B-movie has gone in and out of distribution since its original DVD release in 2005 making it (sometimes) hard to find. In 2011 it was re-released as part of a Peter Fonda DVD doublefeature with another Fonda film: Dirty Larry, Crazy Mary.
What its tombstone would read: Cross-country camper trip went satanically awry.
Why it should be revived: The atmosphere of this slow-building film starts to get sinister when two couples witness a terrifying crime in an unfamiliar town during their vacation. When the sherif in town insists on undermining their concerns by using the old, “Don’t worry, it’s probably just the hippies” routine, these four know something’s amiss, but what? By the time they figure it out, both they and their house-on-wheels are in for a ride. Blending the car chase and horror genres, this movie knows how to create a suffocating sense of anxiety amid the freedom of the road. High octane and heavy on the occult, even the daylight scenes are creepy in this movie. Watch this if you’re into snake fights, dead pets, Aztec satanism (?!), leery townsfolk, and Peter Fonda in aviators on a dirt bike.
Starring James Franco, Andy Serkis, Freida Pinto and John Lithgow. Directed by Rupert Wyatt. 105 minutes. PG
If I had to judge this film prior to seeing it based on its title alone, I probably wouldn't see it. Talking apes waging war on humanity? Monkeys are cute but that's just not appealing. But after seeing this trailer, there was something deeper to it, something sinister and uncanny. And it didn't disappoint.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is like Deep Blue Sea with chimps. Will (James Franco) is a scientist genetically experimenting on chimps, giving them injections to increase their intelligence, in efforts to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease. He's also fuelled by the hope that he could one day reverse the disease in his father (John Lithgow). One day, things go terribly wrong. When an ape escapes and ravages the lab complex, Will's research is shut down and the apes are put to sleep. All except one, baby Caesar (a CGI-ed Andy Serkis), who Will reluctantly takes home. Predictably, Will becomes to attached the chimp and raises him until Caesar has an outbreak and is sent to chimp pound. Caesar, now full grown, is mistreated to the point where he can't handle it anymore. Then things turn dire.
I couldn't say how much of the credit goes to Serkis and how much to CGI artists, but what makes this film so compelling are the apes. More human than the humans, it's hard not to sympathize with Caesar when he's taken away from home, when he feels betrayed and when he's deeply infuriated. But mixed with compassion for the apes is also fear of them. While one half of you wishes you could be there to hold Caesar's hand, the other half wants to keep a very safe distance in fear of their unrestrained power.
Franco also does well as will, but after the likes of 127 Hours, Milk and, yes, even Pineapple Express (let me add, one of the funniest films I've seen in the past 5 years), it's expected. Which is why it's so tough not to be a fan of his. There's an Oscar waiting for him. Maybe not for this film, but we all know they've already inscribed it.
Two others I'm glad to see on-screen: Tyler Labine and Freida Pinto. It's nice to see Tyler Labine (Breaker High's Jimmy) in a bigger role, showing potential I never noticed before. Brampton represent! And as for Pinto, it's great to see an Indian actress getting mainstream Hollywood roles and playing them so well.
Story-wise, the film also delivers. A combination of emotion and tension keep you glued to the narrative. It's pegged as an action flick which usually doesn't lend much to story-telling, but a film that grapples with what exactly it means to be human can't be taken lightly. And it isn't. A-
Starring Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones and Hayley Atwell. Directed by Joe Johnston. 125 minutes. PG
After I saw X-Men: First Class, I raved about it to my comic-fan friends. While they too liked it, they were even more stoked about Captain America: The First Avenger, and gave me the impression that Marvel films were exponentially getting better. But while I have to say that The Amazing Spider-Man does look, well, amazing, I can't say I expected that of Captain America. And expectedly, that's not what I got.
The film follows (obviously) the making of Captain America, and his efforts to defeat his first villain. Set during World War II (like the real-life setting the original comic was born into in 1941), Captain America is a patriotic symbol who sets out to prove that he's more than a poster boy. Like most comic films, it's the story of good versus evil. Well, in this case, very good versus very evil (you'll get what I mean when you see it).
In short, it's pretty cheesy. Although it's clear that film-makers tried to go for an edgier take on the original image, Captain America is too much of a goody two-shoes to be a badass. But I know that's supposed to be the point. Maybe I don't get it because I'm not American. But imagining Captain Canada is an even cheesier thought.
Hugo Weaving plays evil well as Johann Schmidt/Red Skull, which seems expected but when you look at his resume all you've really got to support it is The Matrix. Otherwise he's an elf or a wise penguin. Or a freedom fighter seeking justifiable revenge. Anyway, here's hoping Weaving gets cast in more evil roles in the future.
But the best performance in the film hands-down is Stanley Tucci as the funny, believable Dr. Abraham Erskine, or Captain America's Dr. Frankenstein. Tucci has got to be on of the best supporting actors ever. He always seems to give his all and steal the scene. This case was no different. Too bad he wasn't given more screen time.
The problem with Captain America, as is the case for me with a lot of superhero films, is it's story is forgettable. I've seen the whole X-Men series, Iron Man, Thor, the Spider-Man series and Hulk (plus non-Marvel ones too). The only one I can recall is First Class (which I've seen recently--twice--though I've got a strong feeling it's more than that). It's always the good guy against the bad guy, with the good guy at his last strand just making it through and saving the day. I know, I know, what else do you expect from a superhero film. But First Class was an example of something beyond that, the good versus evil conflict within the good versus evil conflict. For the most part, there's nothing wrong with the characters in these films. There's nothing wrong with the premise. What's wrong is that the plot isn't meaty enough. Admittedly, Captain America gives it a shot with a historical background, but ask me in a few months and I won't be able to tell you anything more than that. I'm not asking filmmakers to re-write the original stories (though that's basically what you do when you adapt a book); I'm just asking them to consider narratives for movie-goers who like interesting, dare-I-say more complex stories. /rant
Anyway, despite that, Captain America didn't suck, thanks to a combination of cast and setting. But just sayin'. B
Starring James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Kevin Bacon, Rose Byrne, January Jones and Jennifer Lawrence. Directed by Matthew Vaughn. 132 minutes. PG
I'm not big on comics, but I'm big on comic-based films. Is that wrong? At first I thought so. I mean, I used to watch the old cartoon on TV, but besides that, most of my knowledge of X-Men is based on the film franchise, which sounds bad, right? But when the film turns out to be as good as First Class, a solely film franchise fan base is more than justifiable. (And before you judge, don't even pretend that you knew Rambo was based on a book.)
Five films into the franchise, you probably get the gist: a race of mutants is trying to make it in the human world. This film is set before the original trilogy, filling in both the blanks you noticed and the blanks you never knew needed to be filled. The story revolves around the two we now recognise as enemies: Professor X (James McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender). But this was way back when they were on the same team.
Although dealing with the same array of characters, being set back a few decades, this film deals with a(n almost) completely new, very refreshing cast. While I respect Hugh Jackman, it gets tiring when nearly a whole franchise revolves around him.
By far the cast stand out was Fassbender as the extremely volatile Magneto. His extreme emotions and radical views keep you nervously on edge throughout. And it should, considering we know how his relationship with Professor X (who by the way was also played impresively by McAvoy). Kevin Bacon did expectingly well as enemy Sebastian Shaw, as did Rose Byrne as CIA agent Dr. Moira MacTaggert (especially considering she's been covering pretty much every genre lately). I only wish Jennifer Lawrence didn't fall fault to cliché lines and had a better chance at bringing out a darker side in Mystique.
While the story was so tense on its own (budding rivalry amid a world war), the score completely amped it. So dramatic, so sharp, it made each scene that much more intense.
Also holding the story intact was great pacing. Sometimes with superhero flicks, the action gets too heavy and detracts from the actual narrative. In First Class, the plot weaves in and out of story and action, keeping both in check without delving too far into one at a time.
If it isn't clear by now, First Class was (IMO) the best addition to the franchise yet. Not to mention, it's also done well with the real comic fans too (at least the ones I know). Though one thing about this film that makes me sad: there's no teaser after the credits. And I want so bad to know what's going to happen next. A
Totally drained after a week of working your ass off for the weekend? Sounds like it's time for a camp-out! And no, we ain't talkin' s'mores, sing-a-longs and psycho killers. (Although, they may very well make questionable individual appearances.) What we're really talking about is getting in touch with your guilty pleasure zone. Every third Saturday, Emily (our resident camp connoisseur) will lead you through one of the best of the worst movies of all-time. It's gonna be awesome—and terrible!—all at the same time!
Photo: impaawards.com
BATMAN & ROBIN (1997)
Call me an inauthentic fangirl, but I have absolutely no desire to see either X-Men: First Class or The Green Lantern.
The former seems much too serious for my tasteless liking and the latter just looks awful. Perhaps it has something to do with their relentless reliance on CGI (cough, Green Lantern, cough) or poor casting choices (a brunette Blake Lively, really?!), but both superhero-focused films seem to be garnering mixed responses from critics. The Green Lantern especially. Ebert called it "childish" (but better than Thor). Travers was more blunt, dubbing it "shamelessly soulless...a new primer for how not to make a comic book movie unless you want to screw shit up." He doesn't mention it in his review, but I'm guessing the previous primer was the last entry in the first half (at least in terms of release dates) of the now-dark-as-all-hell knight's big-screen saga, Batman & Robin.
When I went to buy this Razzie-nominated, universally-despised (13% freshness on Rotten Tomatoes, baby!) disaster movie/pun-house/celebration of the perkiness of George Clooney's nipples at HMV, I attracted the attention of two different employees. Since I was buying a criminally cheap ($9.99 or 2 for $15 with another movie - I got Creepshow!) four pack of all the pre-Christopher Nolan flicks, naturally they asked me which one I liked most. When I told them the honest-to-good-god-that's-awful truth, they put on fake smiles and laughed a bit too long. One even ventured to say I had "good taste." His pants then inexplicably burst into flames.
You know when you're talking to someone you think is like totally happening in a far out way and they ask if you've seen their favourite movie and you lie and say you seen "parts of it" because you don't want to seem like a total pop culture pariah? Yeah, we do too - and we hate ourselves for it! That's why we're vowing to watch at least one movie we've put off, ignored, rejected or just plain-out forgot about every week from now on. Join us every other Sunday as we recount the popping of our cinematic cherries, complete with awkward, over-analytical details!
Photo: empiremovies.com
TROY
DATE RELEASED: May 14, 2004
DATE ACTUALLY WATCHED: May 6, 2011
WHY NOW?: I was talking to my boyfriend about how I really wanted to see a film like 300 again. You know, a really good, ancient-times war-epic. So, he suggested Troy, which I wasn't sure would actually be so great. For some reason I lumped it in the same category as Gladiator, which I haven't seen yet either thanks to stories of people falling asleep when watching it. But despite the little I actually knew about Troy, I trusted his judgement.
WHY NOT THEN?: I had not yet developed my love for epics. Yes, the Lord of the Rings trilogy (one of my favourite series ever) had only recently come to an end, but I wasn't yet sold on epics. Especially considering most are historical or mythical, areas I know only minimally about.
EXPECTATIONS: (Warning: I really knew very little about this film before watching it.)
A lot of gold and brown. People, places, structures. No, not just because of the poster, but also because of the golden, tanned, glossy-haired images of the poster boy, Brad Pitt, I'd seen associated with the film countless times.
Ruthless, righteous slaying of armies in glorious sweeps.
An Orlando Bloom with hints of Legolas, fresh off the LotR role.
Starring Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman and Anthony Hopkins. Directed by Kenneth Branagh. 103 minutes. PG
I don't know much about Thor, neither comic book hero nor mythological god. And I have to admit, although there was a lot of hype about this film, I wasn't looking forward to it much. That being said, this film did pass my expectations. Expectations which weren't too high and not by much.
According to this film, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is a battle-hungry, trouble-seeking god with competitive brother issues. He's also heir to the throne until his aforementioned traits leads his father, King Odin, to banish him from the heavens, sending him powerless and hammerless to earth. Odin also deems that whoever finds and wields the hammer of Thor shall also inherit his power. Meanwhile, bro Loki (Tom Hiddleston) uncovers a dark family secret and when Odin falls into a sleep, Loki assumes the crown. However, with the discovery of this dark secret, Loki sees his brother in a different light and sets out to kill him. Of course, Thor is now a mere mortal and doesn't stand a chance. Unless he has control of his hammer again.
I didn't see this film in 3D. I'm not a fan of 3D in general, and the fact that this film was only 3D-ized after it was shot makes it even worse. Though I haven't seen the other version, I feel like the non-3D version was a better experience. Imagining this film in 3D seems kind of unnecessary as there weren't many scenes that seemed to call for it. Sure, Thor thrashes his hammer around a lot but there's a lot more to the film than just the hammer. Actually, the majority of the film is about Thor coping without his hammer.
The cast was good. Just good, with the exception of Kat Dennings who was really funny and offbeat, as she's known to be, though exceptionally so. She seems destined for something bigger. Something with a massive cult-following. Hemsworth did well too, bringing an interesting child-like quality to Thor. And yeah, Natalie Portman was in it too, but isn't she in everything these days? (I apologize for any hints of my post-Black Swan grudge.)
Though possibly one of the best parts of the film was the very end. No, I don't mean the fact that it was over, but rather the teaser after the credits. Seriously, it should be a rule for all comic-based films to have some sort of cliffhanger, ie. "In our next issue..." Honestly, I will see The Avengers thanks in huge part to these lead-ins. And because Thor wasn't so bad after all too. B
Starring Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Christoph Waltz and Cameron Diaz. Directed by Michel Gondry. 119 minutes. PG
Just as every superhero needs its sidekick, every superhero movie needs its satire. While you can't quite call the latest tongue-in-cheek addition to the genre, The Green Hornet, a total take-off - it's based on it's own long-running lore - plays out like the Frat Pack's personalized commentary on it. It fights for truth and justice in the awkward man-boy way.
From the get-go, we know Britt Reid (Seth Rogen) is no Bruce Wayne. Sure, he may be the heir of a newspaper and somewhat of a ladies man, but he's more concerned with trashing hotel rooms than turning in hard-core criminals. Sort-of a terribly spoiled Tony Stark, with much less class. But of course all that changes when his editor-father passes away and leaves him all the great power (and thus, responsibility) of his empire.
Pissed off at Papa Reid for leaving him and what he believes is a falsely noble legacy in the lurch, Britt decides to fire all of his staff, except Kato the Coffee/Bulletproof Car guy (Taiwanese pop star, Jay Chou). They hit it off immediately, bonding over their mutual hatred of Mr. Reid and decide to deface his newly-minted statue. But before they can run off with his metal head, they spot a couple getting robbed. They step in to help and realize that with the help of some leather eye masks and a bitchin' black, they can be heroes. And not just for one day.
If you were to give this movie it's own alias, it may as well be "Badass." This cinematic mutant contains the basic DNA of Kick-Ass and the brain power of Superbad. The script, written by Rogen and his actual best bro, Evan Goldberg, includes the same pop culture-laced one liners and positively pubescent sense of humour as that now-classic teen flick. And the comic-coloured action sequences, courtesy of director Michel Gondry (you heard it right, the dude who gave us Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind!) are fast, furious and mega-fun, just like the ones in that superhero send-up. What gives The Green Hornet such a fresh, uh buzz, are the over-the-top hammy performances.
Chou and Rogen have the best bromantic chemistry sincePeter Klaven and Sydney Fife. And Christoph Waltz plays L.A. crime king pin/crazy cool dresser, Chudnofsky (or is it Bloodnofsky?) like he's Hans Landa's disco-loving cousin. There's also an uncalled for cameo by one of Rogen's on-screen buds in the opening, which makes for a ridiculous surprise. Cameron Diaz appears as a love interest/secretary/secret mastermind, however it seems fairly phoned in. Her screen time can't total more than seven minutes.
The first of this year's money-coloured superhero flicks (The Green Lantern being the second) isn't going to save too many lives. And neither is the masked crusade it's named after. But considering the current so-far-so-mediocre cinematic climate, it may just save your day. B+
Starring Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber and Chiwetel Ejiofor. Directed by Phillip Noyce. 99 minutes. PG
One heartthrob hubby and six children later, Angelina Jolie's still pulls off a badass attitude. Really, you'd think between feeding time, diaper changes and play dates the mama could never be cool, but after watching Salt, it's obvious she's unaffected by it all.
In Salt, CIA agent Evelyn Salt (Jolie) is accused during an interrogation of being a Russian spy, plotting to kill the president of Russia. Brain scanning software says the man is telling the truth. Suspicious, her colleagues keep her in an isolated room under surveillance, meanwhile, escorting the man she was interrogating out of the building. However, when the man kills his escorts in the elevator, Evelyn gets her chance to escape and makes a run for it. Of course, that's exactly what you want to do when the CIA suspects you of a crime - seemingly confirming their suspicions. She immediately runs to her apartment in search of husband who she feels might be in danger to find that he isn't there. She wastes no time and pulls the CIA on a mad chase. Let the gun slinging and explosions follow.
Jolie's face is made for serious ass-kicking. Her eyebrows slant and her cheekbones are defined. Give her a gun and you have no chance of survival. Even before Salt goes brunette, she ain't no sweet little blondie. Although Jolie's acting throws no surprises, following the genre closely, she fit's the mold so perfectly that it won't matter to action fans. Others, however, might find it a bit excessive. I mean, she does wear all black and wield a gun and is running from the CIA.
Music helps pump the chase scenes, as Jolie leaves a booby-trapped trail behind, wisping through the streets, even inching across the window ledge. You feel as though you're on the case and you can't want to look away because you might just give her that chance she needs to slip past your eyes. Quiet scenes also captivate, as Salt slowly peers around corners and lightly pushes on doors.
It's truly an escapist film. A bit mind-numbing, but it's action done right. And although there's nothing really novel about a story about mistaken identity, at least it's not another one about a man who seeks vengeance over the life of his daughter. B
Starring Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren, Mary Louise Parker, Karl Urban and John Malkovich. Directed by Robert Schwentke. 110 minutes. PG
It's hard not to form an immediate impression of a film once you hear it's a comic-based film: people usually either like them or they don't. I have to admit, I wasn't really in the mood for some sci-fi, evil-crushing superhero flick when I went to see Red. And that's OK, because you don't have to be either. Red isn't that kind of film.
Red follows ex-CIA black ops agent Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) who has been flagged RED (Retired, Extremely Dangerous), as he runs from current CIA agent William Cooper (Karl Urban), who at first seems to be chasing Moses for no apparent reason, though we do eventually find out it's rooted in a past op that went down Guatemala. During the chase, Moses strings Sarah (Mary Louise Parker), the customer service agent who works at his pension office whom he's been pining for over long distance phone calls, along. He also begins to reassemble his badass team of fellow CIA retirees in attempt to figure out and put a stop to the man hunt.
You'd think in an action flick in which Willis and Morgan Freeman headline, they'd be the highlights, but that nod goes the ladies. Parker brings naive quirk to her role as the clueless soon-to-be-girlfriend along for the ride. But it's Helen Mirren who really brings it. You'd never guess that the women who elegantly held poise as the Queen could wield armory with such a fierce thirst to kill. Still playing the role with class and lady-likeness, Mirren shows off her versatility while still staying true to her own style. Ladies aside, John Malkovich also plays neurotic to perfection. Seriously. Malkovich was born to play crazy.
What's also surprising about Red is that it's a film about retirees taking back their lives that could so easily have come across as a snooze fest, but turns out to be anything but. It actually reminds me of another comic-based film about ex-special ops agents (well, soldiers) with a messed-up mission in their past who too try to recover their lives through wild gunfire and fiery explosions. Except this one's just a little better. B+
Starring Ashton Kutcher, Katherine Heigl, Tom Sellek and Catherine O'Hara. Directed by Robert Luketic. 105 minutes. PG
Watching Killers on DVD is just as wasteful as watching it in theatres. Simply put, it's not a good movie. And while it does suck, it doesn't rile you up so badly that you can't stop talking about how much you hate it. It's not funny, the acting is bad and the chemistry is awkward. Why does the world waste money on movies like these when there are starving people in the world? I mean really, how many tens of millions of dollars got tossed around on this film that could have been spent saving dying children? This is not what films are for.
At least if the movie isn't touching or funny or nail-biting, it should be something mind-numbing that the audience can escape to. Instead, Killers wastes time, money and talent. Ok, so it is riling me up, but that's only because I have to write about it. Otherwise, I'd just shrug my shoulders.
In Killers, Jen (Katherine Heigl) goes on vacation with 'rents (Catherine O'Hara and Tom Selleck) to gorgeous Nice, France, where she meets Spencer (Ashton Kutcher) in an elevator. He works for a top secret government agency killing people but obviously, it's a secret. They fall in love in a day. Well, a day and a montage but who really cares, it feels like a day. Then by power of movie magic, it's three years later and they're married. Then people start shooting at them so they steal cars to drive away. That's about it really.
Heigl and Kutcher are odd to watch on-screen. While Heigl seems to be trying to create some form of palpable chemistry, Kutcher seems detached. It almost feels as if he doesn't even want to be in the film. He doesn't seem to be speaking to Heigl but rather speaking at her. Spencer seems like a terrible husband. Aside from the fact that he's hiding the biggest secret of his life from his wife, he doesn't seem to pay attention to when she speaks or even look like he enjoys holding her in his arms.
Neither of them are funny in this film either. While Heigl works best in drama (Grey's Anatomy), her film career is stuffed with rom-coms and she doesn't seem to realize that she's better than that. Doesn't she remember when she called the Grey's writers out for giving her a shoddy script to work with? Kutcher, on the other hand, once reined as king of teen comedy. His golden years are encapsulated by his That '70s Show run from 1998-2006. And even though Dude, Where's My Car? wasn't so well received, Kutcher fans loved it. He was good at playing dumb. Maybe he felt had to grow up. Even though it still works for Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell, Mike Meyers, Tracy Morgan and so many countless others who sell a film on a namedrop.
Well, anyway, save the precious moments of your life. Spend the evening channel surfing at home. Who knows, maybe you'll come across a That '70s Show rerun. F
Maybe you’ve never heard of it. Maybe you’ve always wanted to see it. Or maybe you’re just tired of the new. Whatever your reason, the classics are always worth a nod. Every Friday in Stay Classy, we look some of the films that started it all and how they hold up today. So sit back while we reel through the past.
Photo: source unknown
Does anyone really do it classier than Bond? In black tuxes with slicked back hair and timed precision in everything he does, from planting bombs, framing bad guys and opening fire to save the day. Not to mention, he also gets the gal and a shiny, souped-up Aston Martin. That's just Bond for you.
Sean Connery is the original Bond and to many, Goldfinger will forever be untopped. In this film, our hero is on the tail of Auric Goldfinger, trying to figure out and bust his gold smuggling operation. Along the way, he sets off explosives, high-speed chases and love affairs. I mean, come on, he's Bond, James Bond. Supposedly, Goldfinger outsmarts everyone but of course, that's until he's got the smoother spy on his case.
It's a very slow-paced film, definitely one for fans to savour but it can quickly turn off non-Bond aficionados. Dialogue builds slowly and scenes progress in small steps, all in great build up to action that hits hard.
Connery himself is also a compliment to the tone in his calm coolness. He carries a silent you-can't-touch-me attitude, and who wouldn't when it's true. He carries the ideal characteristics of a spy: quick-thinking, collected and always ready. Of course, that is also because he set the precedent for a lot of spy films that followed. He's also got the perfect spy expression, like he always has a secret, and he almost always does.
Another thing Bond films are often noted for are the theme songs and "Goldfinger" sung by Shirley Bassey is a great fit to the intro in her rich, swelling voice over scenes form the film projected onto a woman's body painted in gold, as the sound of violins and brass slither through the hair. It almost feels like contemporary art. It's such a beautiful lead into the film.
Although it was the third film in the series, the film was also a great set-up to the others that would follow, but because it was so successful, some fans say newer additions can never compare. For younger generations, a more relevant comparison would be Goldmember, the Austin Powers series spoof of the film, sort of. Totally different but iconic just the same.
However, if you like Goldmember, there's a good chance that Goldfinger won't be to your taste. Goldfinger is a film that requires patience and an afternoon dedicated solely to relaxing. You won't feel like doing much after this film unwinds your brain into slow-mo world. But if you're looking for something chill and laid-back, this is where it's at.
