Change Your Image
Skon
Reviews
The Spirit (2008)
Lionsgate and Frank Miller are officially on Santa's naughty list with this Xmas disaster film
The Spirit is a film with few virtues. There's a fingerful but that's it.
Gabriel Macht delivers a certain charisma in the titular role as Will Eisner's classic middle-class superhero. This is his first time carrying a movie and had the focus been shifted more on him, his antics and his conflicts it would have been a better film. We witness some lovely moments when The Spirit talks about the love he has for his city, echoing something at the very heart of the superhero mythos. One scene has him even using the city as a shield, a weapon and a guide in his role as its guardian. These are poignant moments that evoke that somewhere underneath all the terribleness there might have been a spark of a good film here.
That's where all the virtues end.
People will probably gravitate to the cinematography of Bill Pope which does its best to marry Frank Miller's Sin City with the pulp comics of The Spirit's origins. But as pretty as the cinematography does look here and there, most of it is too busy, too dark and too careless. As a film that tries to show the protagonist's relationship with his city the cinematography should have created a sense of being in a vast metropolis. Instead the visuals feel completely green-screened and the effect is that the film ends up looking like it was shot on a stage instead of in a wide open city. There is also something that feels unfinished about the green-screening process as though some more work needed to be done and as such the film has the look of the cut scenes out of late 90's full motion video games with the characters standing out from rendered CGI effects like sore thumbs.
This is Frank Miller's first time out as a solo director. He is credited with co-directing Sin City and after seeing this film one realizes that Miller had very little to do with the physical directing on that film. It's sad to see one of the greatest comic book creators of all time helpless in trying to do justice to Will Eisner's creations. Miller even casts himself as a police officer whose head gets ripped off and used as a blunt weapon in the film's opening. One wonders if that was CGI or if the lack of any thinking going into this film can be blamed on Miller's headlessness. Either way it's an apt metaphor for a project that steams forward without any direction.
The film is a mess of tones and genres. Scenes tend to go on forever without anywhere to go in the first place. There's an overuse of flashbacks. And most of the dialogue is delivered in soliloquy (including a scene where The Spirit talks to a cat for 5 minutes). There are no subtleties in delivery, pacing or acting. Everything is blunt, harsh and cold. The audience knows everything in the first 15 minutes and it takes the rest of the characters an hour to catch up. It's frustrating, busy and excruciating to watch. Even attempts at humor fall flat. A running joke with 24's Louis Lombardi is amateur in its rendition.
The acting is where Miller's lack of film-making chops shows most prominently. Sam Jackson plays the Octopus, a villain whose face was never shown in Eisner's comics and rightfully so. Jackson is fresh off of a plane full of snakes and still acting like it. He plays the same tough character he always plays - shooting off big guns while shooting off his even bigger mouth. It's beginning to get boring and he needs to seek out more parts that explore his range. In order to make up for having no character depth or any credibility as a villain, Jackson and his henchwoman, played by the vastly overrated Scarlett Johansson, go through more costume changes than a Vegas strip show. Jackson goes from dressing like a pimp to a mutton-chopped samurai and even (I can't make this up) a monocled goose-stepping heil-hitlering Nazi in an offensive scene that seems like a bad pun on the classic Patton.
Further to the acting, there is a bevy of female characters that clutter this film in an attempt to create some element of pulp sex drama. Johansson's Silken Floss is just money thrown down the drain as she brings nothing to the movie. I've never understood her appeal and this film is perhaps best proof of her need to hire an acting coach. The Morgenstern character is a time-waster and eats up screen time lecturing the audience on the Electra principle (Miller you created a character named Elektra, you have a fascination with it, we get it, but it has no place in this film). To believe her character we'd have to believe that a rookie cop would be the only one to notice a gigantic clue two days after a crime scene has been cleared. Sarah Paulson and Eva Mendes, both in terribly written roles, try the hardest and as an audience member I appreciated that.
The free screening I attended last night had a number of rows oddly empty from the get go. And within 10 minutes about twenty people had already gotten up and left. The rest of us stayed because it was cold outside and perhaps hoping that things would only get better. They didn't. After the film we had a unique experience where audience members cultivated together, like strangers at a traffic accident, to criticize the film. People were upset over a film that failed in every possible way a film can fail and yet the advertising campaign paints it as a brilliant, exciting holiday adventure. I assure you it's not.
Lionsgate this is a train wreck. If this is your idea of giving your audience a holiday present honestly shame on you.
Little Mosque on the Prairie (2007)
Poorly directed, badly written, horribly cast and wow does this stink
Once again Canadian TV outdoes itself and creates another show that will go unwatched after its premiere episode.
Last time I remember sitcoms were supposed to induce a reaction we in the business call laughter. How funny is it to beat the stereotype of all white people thinking that all Muslims are terrorists? OK maybe one joke just to stick it to the masses. But not 30 minutes. It's called beating a dead horse. Even SNL would know to give up after a commercial break.
Also, let's have a little conflict in these scripts. Will she or won't she be able to serve cucumber sandwiches to break the fast on Ramadan? When will Ramadan start? Ohhhhh this is Emmy winning stuff here.
And the characters! What characters?! They are all cardboard cut-outs without anything interesting to make us want to follow them from one situation to the next. That's the point of the situation comedy. We need to have strong, interesting, dynamic characters so that we are constantly drawn to the TV set each week. We have to care about these characters to worry about what trouble they're going to get into next week. If I never see these characters it'll be too soon. Thankfully I can't remember any of their names (note to CBC - that's not a good sign).
And the acting is so bland. It's more so a problem in casting than in the actors. None of these people actually embody the characters they play. They just seem to act their part as though they were working on a movie of the week. Sitcoms require actors who live and breathe that character - make us fall in love with them - where they become inseparable from the character the portray. Watch any American sitcom and you'll see how easily identifiable characters are. Part of the problem is that the actors seem to treat this project as though it might be a platform to bigger and better things instead of being their one big character of a lifetime for whom they will spend the next 8 years portraying. That level of disinterest in the characters and the project shows. But to be honest, considering the lame concept and the horrible writing, there's not much for the actors to do but say their lines and try not to bump into any furniture. As another commenter mentions, this seems like a TV movie and not a sitcom.
And the directing or lack there of! What can I say, Canada has so much talent, look at what the Comedy Channel is doing with Puppets Who Kill and Punched Up. Look at the Trailer Park Boys (not the movie cause it bit the big helium dog). Look at any American show to see the potentials our talent as that's where many of our stars go to find decent work.
Give credit to the CBC, they really know how to build publicity for a non-event. Remember "The One"? No - well don't even try to learn any characters names in this show, as it's sure to go the way of the dodo.
Let's all hope for a full blown ACTRA strike so that nothing like this emerges from the Ceeb for a good long while.
Trust the Man (2005)
A barely adequate film with some charms, some laughs and lots of groaners
It's not that Trust the Man is a bad movie. It's not without some merit. But it's a film that could have been better had some time been taken with the script and with the direction. Spain's great filmmaker, Almodovar, complained this week that American movies have year by year become worse and worse because of their scripts. This film serves as a great example of what Almodovar is referring to.
The problem is that we're no longer writing characters in scripts, we're writing what I call "Oddities" - characters with a one-dimensional problem that makes them kooky but leaves them being just a type. It's more of a freak-show approach to storytelling (step right up and see the sex addict, step right up and see the woman who desperately wants to get married and have babies, etc). Here we have four great actors who are all playing oddities. Duchovny is the sex addict whose addiction is tempered by the fact he's a Mr. Mom and a great one too. His wife, played by Julianne Moore, isn't all that interested in sex for some reason which is not really made clear in the film. She's definitely attracted to him and the two seem to have a rather physically intense romantic relationship. But hey Screen writing 101 says conflict is necessary, so if the husband is a sex addict let's make his wife frigid for no apparent reason.
Likewise with the Gyllenhaal and Crudup characters. He's obsessed with being single, so guess what, let's make her obsessed with being married. As you can see this is a rather unclever film.
But there are funny moments. There are some great lines spread throughout the film. But it's long boring and you'll cringe as everyone seems to have a scene in which they break down and cry their eyes out in an almost childish spat.
This is the other main dysfunction of the film. Instead of making things believably come from the characters the film just pushes us this way and that way making things happen because it might be funny or it helps tie up loose ends, but it doesn't work with the stark realism of the New York setting. For instance, Duchovny's character starts to have an affair even though it's so clear that he's in love with his wife. We never for once think he is that sexually starved that he'd risk infidelity. Likewise we never for once believe that Julianne Moore's character is that disinterested in sex. She even takes out her friend after a breakup for some hot sex with an "attentive man." She goes as far as to admit having a threesome back in college. Does this sound like a woman who has no sexual interest whatsoever? And there's some question of whether she was having an affair too, though it seems like something was left on the editing room floor that would have explained that a little further.
Oh and for some reason Billy Crudup starts following around his therapist. Once again for no reason.
And the ending is just bad. It doesn't seem believable to begin with and comes off like sweetened sacchrine. Which is a shame because these two couples actually have chemistry.
It just takes too much time and sags around the midpoint of the 2nd act.
Plus for some reason there's a scene with Duchovny and Crudup talking where Duchovny ends the scene by suddenly announcing "I have to go" and then leaving. It's a rather poorly directed moment that seriously bothered me. Why does a character have to announce that they're leaving the scene? Just have them walk away. I think the audience can figure that out. Look for the moment, it's really odd.
I went to a preview screening of the film and I wish I could have talked to the director afterwards because with about 25 minutes of trimming they could have had a much tighter, old-style Woody Allen sort of film.
Sadly Almodovar is right. American scripts are at their lowest. Look at Superman Returns, Miami Vice, and now even this independent work. At least Fox Searchlight is also releasing Little Miss Sunshine at the moment. That movie is phenomenal and might be one of the few gems that refutes Almodovar's theory. But there's far too much to prove it.
I ask film-lovers out there. Why are we still accepting adequate films today? Why don't we hope for something more. Why don't we raise the level and say give us good films.
Adequate just ain't good enough.
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
Brilliant funny entertaining a real giggle and a half, man i loved this picture
Often first feature films are flawed in a unique way. Dayton and Faris, the two directors on this picture, took years before they made their first feature film and their patience pays off. This is a brilliant funny film that perhaps suffers a little from being a lot like other American independent ensemble films, but it's just so whimsical and funny that I just didn't care. Great cast, great writing, patient directing (especially coming from two music video directors, although their videos are some of my favorites like Janet's "Go Deep" and all the Red Hot Chili Peppers videos they've done).
Not to mention the directors were there for a Q & A at the promotional screening the other night. They are lovely people, and capable filmmakers and I hope this film does really well so they can have carte-blanche with their next film. I don't want to talk about this film too much because I'd start giving away all the laughs. And there are plenty with this film.
Just do yourself a favor, GO SEE IT when it comes to a theatre near you.
Superman Returns (2006)
Superman Returns!!! - I wish he had stayed home
Considering it took a decade of development I was hoping for a film that would do with Superman what the Spiderman movies have done with Marvel's leading superhero. After tossing away script after script and a number of directors being at the helm, Bryan Singer decided that instead of making a Superman movie he would just take the plot, characters and dialogue from the 1978 Superman movie and basically re-filmed it with added horribleness. Granted, Superman is likely the hardest hero to tell a story about, as he has really horrible super-villains, one weakness and way too many powers, but they could have at least tried.
Instead what we get is a David Zucker-like reinterpretation of the first two of the Christopher Reeves series. Luthor, played by Kevin Spacey, is just chewing up the scenery. He tries his hardest to copy Hackman's Luthor, who straddled the line between buffoon, genius and madman all at the same time. Spacey is a little out of practice with straddling anything and just leaps over the moon itself playing up the comic aspects of his character. He reminds me of the Ned Beatty character Otis in the 1978 film. His relationship with the Parker Posey character should be familiar to anyone who remembers the Eve Teschmacher character in the 1978 movie. In fact nothing comes as a surprise in this film when it comes to Luthor. All we have are throwbacks to the 1978 movie. He goes after the same Ethiopian sample of Kryptonite, he's still interested in grabbing land and destroying large chunks of the USA, and he still wears wigs for some reason in an era when it's cool for guys to be bald. Only this time his idea is so ridiculous. Destroy most of the USA with an army of 3 henchmen, a dumb brunette and her dog and no one will bother to attack him in retaliation or to ensure that his crime against humanity does not reoccur. Plus he wants to basically sell land that is made of crystals. Hello, there is a reason the fortress of solitude is in the Arctic. It's because it's uninhabitable land that no one would ever want to live on. Those crystal surfaces do not make it easy to grow food or to build structures. Plus there is no electricity, plumbing, etc. Who is going to buy land from a guy who destroyed the USA, when it's also going to land that no one has any use for. Come one Lex, you're supposed to be intelligent, use your noggin.
Thankfully this whole train of stupidity is a subplot. You see Luthor interacts with Superman for about 60 seconds in the whole film and is completely ignored for the last 40 minutes. I wish I could say the rest of the film was better but Spacey's chewing of the scenery is much more interesting than the plodding and ridiculous main plot line.
You see, as it comes as no surprise, but a head shake going why the hell did they think up this dumb idea. Superman has a son with Lois Lane. There's not a moment where we doubt it could be anyone's kid but Supes and hence this main plot line, well, it's not much of one. Basically within 30 minutes we find out that the kid is Superman's, Superman figures this out, even Lex figures it out. And it goes nowhere. We see the kid use his powers for a moment. He even saves his father's life.
But wait. I have to dwell on this. There is so little action in this movie. If it was some dumb action movie then fine. If it was a smart drama, fine. But this is neither. There are two main action sequences. The first is a rather good scene where Superman saves a plane from crashing (though the fact that no one, including Lois who is throttled around as the plane falls from space to Metropolis, is injured or even bruised is ridiculous). The second being the saving of Superman from the water by Lois, her boyfriend and Superman Jr. The latter is the climactic scene of the film. But here is the problem. You have the protagonist (Superman fills this bill, as per the title of the damn movie) facing an obstacle. He's drowning with a piece of Kryptonite pierced into his side thanks to Lex. So here we have something, an obstacle for the protagonist to overcome. But wait. He doesn't overcome it. Instead, Lois and the gang fly in for the rescue like some Deus Ex Machina while he drowns. Lois even jumps in to the water to fish him out, wearing the dress she's going to the Pulitzer Prize award ceremony in. Look, there's no way you're going to make me believe she can haul him out of the water. It's impossible. He's weighted down by a cape and she's about half his weight, a quarter of his size and he's about 50 feet under the water. Good luck.
Lois isn't the protagonist. Hence, Superman should overcome his own obstacle. Not have someone do it for him. The climax sucks.
Then he lifts the landmass into the air. So what? It's like watching Arnold Schwarznegger bench 200 lbs. Who cares?
Then Superman dies for some stupid reason, probably cause that Death of Superman comic sold really well years ago. Oh wait he's only in a coma. Oh then 5 minutes later he's alive. Who cares? Really? It's stupid.
I saw it in 3-D at the Imax, which was cool. But the movie tanks. I recommend saving the money and renting Superman IV Quest for Peace at least it's so bad it's good. This is just bad. Bad bad and slow as hell with nothing ever happening.
I saw it for free and I tell you, I want that time back.