I still can't get over that new "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie. It continues to piss me off, and I saw it over 11 days ago. Funnily enough, when I was sitting in the theater watching the movie, I wasn't pissed off at all, just bored. I found my thoughts constantly drifting away from the action onscreen and onto other topics, such as: Did I remember to close the windows at home before I left? Do I need to buy some more Pop Tarts? What the hell was the deal with that island on "Lost"?
As soon as I left the theater, the movie completely dropped from my mind. Forgotten in a flash. It was only after I sat down to write about it in my blog, after I had to apply real thought and analyze the film - that's when the grumbling began. Like I said before, the filmmakers didn't even try. I think this movie has a condition that I've heard referred to as "Pretty Girl's Syndrome" - it just lies there, looking pretty, and that should be enough for us stupid, slack jawed moviegoers, right? Grrr. Aargh.
Where was I? Oh yes, that Panda thing and the funny drunks. Two more movies on the Summer Movie Checklist. Neither of them pissed me off. In fact, I felt they were both enjoyable. So now I will force them to FIGHT TO THE DEATH!!!
"Kung Fu Panda" (2008) was a highly enjoyable animated movie. Lots of fun. It's probably my favorite movie to come from the DreamWorks Animated division (which also includes "Shrek", "Madagascar", "Monsters vs. Aliens", etc), right up there with the equally good "Bee Movie" and "How to Train Your Dragon".
"The Hangover" (2009) was on my Top 25 Movies of 2009 list. So, yeah, I thought it was really good.
Now comes these two sequels, both taking very different approaches to following up their predecessors.
"Kung Fu Panda 2" follows our hero Po (Jack Black), the Dragon Master, as he and his team (the Furious Five) face off against the evil usurper Shen (an evil peacock voiced by Gary Oldman), who intends to conquer the world using a deadly new weapon called 'gunpowder'! In the process, Po uncovers his tragic past and must find inner peace in order to defeat this new foe.
It comes thisclose to being as good as the first movie. The only thing it lacks is that certain freshness you get from seeing Part Ones, but it builds on the elements that made the original great while still being faithful to the stuff everyone liked about the first one. And it's not as breezy as the first one. In fact, it gets downright emotional, which surprised me. There's a "Bambi" moment in this movie that got me real good. In addition to the stuff that yanks at your heart strings, there are still plenty of laugh-out-loud moments and gobs of great kung fu/action setpieces that put many live action movies to shame. The design and animation is also quite strikingly beautiful throughout the film, very fluid and dynamic, with plenty of in-jokes and homages to classic kung fu flicks and Japanese anime. And the 3-D is excellent, by far the best use of the gimmick, I mean (ahem) format so far this year. In all, it makes up nicely for the disappointment of last weekend.
This is still the role most well suited for Jack Black, a perfect fit. Angelina Jolie (as Tigress) gets more stuff to do this time, but Dustin Hoffman (as Shifu, my personal favorite character) gets downgraded a little. The rest of the Furious Five (David Cross, Lucy Liu, Seth Rogen, Jackie Chan) still get shafted a bit, but at least they get to have their "hero" moments. Legendary actor James Hong (as Po's goose dad, Mr. Ping) gets to really shine this time out, helping to tug at those heart strings I mentioned earlier. Gary Oldman makes a fine villain (as usual), and new additions like Danny McBride and Michelle Yeoh voice too-underwritten characters, but they do alright with what they've got. And Jean-Claude Van Damme lends his voice as Master Croc - good thing they didn't name his character Master Gator! Just think of it - Jackie Chan and Van Damme together at last! Well, alright, they don't actually have any scenes together, but, hey. . .
And, like "Pirates" and "Thor" and "Priest" and "Fast Five", there is a surprise twist ending that sets everything up for another sequel. I'm all for it, if they can make it as good as Part 2.
Now for "The Hangover Part 2". This will be a short review. Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Alan (Zach Galifianakis), and Doug (Justin Bartha) travel to Thailand to attend Stu's wedding (his new bride is Thai). What seems like a simple night of drinking beer on the beach turns into a nightmare when three of the four guys wake up in a seedy hotel in Bangkok. Now they need to find Stu's missing brother-in-law Teddy (Mason Lee) and get to the wedding on time. Shenanigans ensue.
It copies the original movie plot point for plot point, echoing every major event that happened in the original film. Stu wakes up with a physical deformity. Stu sings a funny song. They have to contend with a stolen animal, this time a monkey. They have to lug around a helpless old guy (replacing the baby). They must ultimately get involved in criminal dealings, this time with a guy named Kingsley (Paul Giamatti). Mr. Chow, the original "criminal element", returns for a little while to annoy the boys. And so on. And so on.
One of the main reasons the first movie was so good was because of the "unpredictability" factor. Crazy, off-the-wall stuff happened constantly, adding to the fun and mayhem. You'd think that a franchise built on unpredictability would have a sequel that wasn't so slavish to the plot of the original. As a result, it just feels like a slightly faded photocopy. More jokes fall flat this time. And the big mystery (where's Teddy?), well, I figured it out quite early on, and I'm not the smartest Bastard in the room. It's just plain not as good.
Having said all that, however, I must admit that I laughed. Quite a lot. It's ruder and cruder than the original, relying a bit more on the "gross-out factor", but there were still plenty of character-based chuckles (most of them from Galifianakis, of course - Fanta, in a bag!). And there's a surprisingly good car chase sequence, as well. Final analysis: the movie's okay. Not great, not good, okay.
Hmmm. Not such a short review after all.
So, in the battle of the "Part 2's", who comes out the victor? "Kung Fu Panda" takes down "Hangover 2" with the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique! It's better in every single way. Heck, it's even funnier!
FATALITY!!
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides vs. Priest (2011)
It was inevitable. The summer movie season of 2011 has been a good one so far - "Fast Five", "Thor", "Bridesmaids". But, just as good cannot exist without evil, awesome cannot exist without crap. Today I bring you a double header of lazily-written halfhearted cinemayhem. May the best movie win. . .
Aw, hell, they both suck. To quote the ad campaign of "Alien vs Predator" - whoever wins, we lose. . .
Priest
Based on a popular Korean manga (graphic novel, a.k.a. comic book), "Priest" takes place in an alternate Earth where humanity has forever been at war with vampires, a race of blood drinking, sun-vulnerable beasts who have a queen and live in massive hives ("Alien", anyone). The Catholic church has become the ruling body, and to combat the vampires they have created the Priests, warrior clerics who can kick vampire ass like there's no tomorrow. They effectively put an end to the war, supposedly defeating the vampires, but with their services no longer needed, the Priests have unsuccessfully been reintegrated into everyday society. Most of humanity, by the way, still live in giant walled cities controlled by the Catholic church, even though the vampire menace has long been destroyed. Fishy, no?
After a teenage girl is abducted by a horde of vampires, Priest (Paul Bettany), the baddest of all the vampire killin' clergymen, bucks the orders of his superiors and sets off to find her. Monsignor Orelas (Christopher Plummer) sends out other Priests to find and stop him. And Black Hat (Karl Urban) is a mysterious bad guy who's dead-set on getting his revenge on the church. I think. Many things are unclear in this movie, and that's the problem. Either it was a very underwritten script to begin with, or the filmmakers cut out lots of stuff. Take the vampires, for example. We know that sunlight kills them, and that they drink blood. Do crosses hurt them? Holy water? That would explain why the Catholic church, out of all religious denominations, rules the world, wouldn't it? But no mention is made of any other rules besides the sun thing and the blood thing. Oh, there are vampire familiars as well. And when they "turn" you, you become one of their species. Black Hat (Spoiler Alert) is apparently the first human vampire, turned personally by the Queen herself, who we barely see in one shot and who is mentioned several times throughout the movie - and that's it, no more for the Queen.
Here's the problem I have with this movie - at the end of the movie, Monsignor Orelas, in regards to vampire/human relations, tells Priest, "You'll start a war!" Priest responds with (in gruff Clint Eastwood voice), "The war has already begun." Off into the cliched sunset, and into further adventures, he rides. God that pisses me off. The entire movie ends up being an ad for sequels, which I personally wouldn't mind - if the rest of the movie hadn't been so fucking muddled and dull. Scott Charles Stewart is the director. He also made last year's dull, muddled crapfest "Legion" which, like Priest, could have been a good movie in other hands. It's all just so dang unsatisfactory.
Side characters show up, something interesting happens, then they disappear with no resolution. There are three, count 'em, three main villains here: Black Hat, who is completely underwritten (I have no idea why he's doing what he's doing - Revenge? Why, exactly?), Monsignor Orelas, who shows up and sternly lectures our hero in two scenes, and the Queen, who gets paid a lot of lip service but does absolutely nothing onscreen. And our heroes? Priest, surprise, is dull. I know, he's supposed to be a lone gunslinger, Man With No Name type, but Paul Bettany, while I think that he's a good actor, can't pull this one off. His sidekick Hicks (Cam Gigandet), a badass gunslinger who has a romantic attachment to the missing girl, is a boring character played by a bad actor. But he sure wears a cool-looking coat! Maggie Q, as Priestess (one of the warrior Priests sent to find, um, Priest) is the only actor to come out of the movie looking good. She gets to participate in the only good fight sequence (most of the action is, yes, dull) and gets to have a couple of good character moments as well.
This movie was supposed to be released last year, but was delayed so that it could be converted into 3-D. How is the 3-D? Decent quality, but a turd in 3-D is still a turd in 3-D. At least the vampires look good. The animation company that created them deserves praise - they're better actors than the flesh-and-blood cast! The special effects, overall, are pretty well done. And I can't believe that this movie got away with a PG-13. There's a surprising amount of bloodletting, including a bad guy who gets ripped into bloody chunks in broad daylight, and a couple of F-bombs. What makes this movie so privileged? Is the MPAA a Catholic organization?
In the end, it could have been good. However, when you create the first introduction to a fictional world, you need to firmly (and clearly) establish the "rules" and motivations, as well as provide a self-contained, satisfying storyline in itself. In other words, while leaving a couple of storylines open for future tales is okay, don't skip over explanations of rules that you need for right now, expecting to explain them in the future. But I don't think there will be any sequels, which makes this movie moot. Moot, I tells ya!
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
The first movie, "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl", was a surprisingly entertaining fantasy adventure based on a Disney theme park attraction, with Johnny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow emerging as the most iconic cinematic rogue since Han Solo. The sequel, "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest", suffered from Middle Child Syndrome. Since it was part 2 of a trilogy, it had trouble establishing it's own identity, but still had it's good moments. I particularly thought the Kraken attack sequence was a cool scene. "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" tried way too hard to be like an ocean-bound "Lord of the Rings", but ended up being too long and bloated. However, it's also my favorite movie in the series so far. I realize that I'm in the minority here, but here are my reasons: A) It was the first time in the series that I gave a crap about the characters of Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), and I rather like the bittersweet way in which their storyline wraps up. B) It has the best musical score of the series. I love it! C) It has some of my favorite sequences in all the "Pirate" movies - the Terry Gilliam-esque sequence in Davy Jones' Locker, the opening musical number (a Disney movie that opens with a kid getting hanged!), the death of the main villain, lots of great character moments, etc.
Now we come to the fourth movie. "On Stranger Tides" is the beginning of a proposed new trilogy, centering on Capt. Jack Sparrow himself (Elizabeth Swann was the central character of the first trilogy). This is a mistake. Sparrow is the Han Solo character, not Luke Skywalker. He has only one driving motivation - he wants the freedom of the open sea, and he doesn't have much room to grow as a character. While he appears to be a doddering clown, in the end it turns out that he had it all figured out the whole time. He's fun to watch, but not fulfilling.
Taking its inspiration from the novel by Tim Powers (coincidentally enough called "On Stranger Tides"), this movie follows several parties in the search for the Fountain of Youth. The Spanish want it. The English want it. Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) now works as a merchant marine for them. He also lost the Black Pearl, as well as one of his legs. The evil Blackbeard (Ian McShane) wants it. It turns out he just heard a prophecy that says a one legged man will kill him in 40 days, so, hey, why not go for the Fountain of Youth.
His daughter Angelica (Penelope Cruz) wants to save the soul of her evil dad. She's also the ex-gf of Jack Sparrow. And what does Jack want? Guess. It's what he's been looking for this entire series (and sometimes gets).
Blackbeard knows voodoo and has zombie crew members. And his ship, the Queen Anne's Revenge, can come to life and snatch people up with it's riggings. Did I mention that it has a giant flamethrower mounted in front as well? Dumb. Is there an explanation for all this? Not really.
Honestly, this is a tough review. I literally forget most of what happened in this movie the instant I left the theater. Not because I have short-term memory problems, but because it's just so forgettable. Only two scenes still stick in my mind. There's a whole mermaid attack sequence that ain't half bad, and the scene where Capt. Barbossa explains how he lost his leg was pretty good. Actually, that should have been the opening sequence of the movie! How cool would that have been?
So here's the story. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer hasn't produced a hit for Disney in years (his last one was the 3rd "Pirates" movie in 2007). Last year he made two box office duds back-to-back: "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" (lame) and "The Sorceror's Apprentice" (okay), so he's desperate for a hit. Hence the return to the "Pirates" well. He's even managed to get most of the previous "Pirates" crew back together, except for director Gore Verbinski. "On Stranger Tides" was directed by Rob Marshall, better known for the Oscar winning musical "Chicago". Terrible choice. Marshall is not very handy at action adventure. The action scenes are limp and unoriginal, the pacing poops out constantly, the acting seems "stagey", the camerawork and editing a little clunky, the music forgettable, and the movie just feels cheap even though it had twice the budget of the first movie. It's all so lifeless! I get the feeling that they were trying to recapture the more down-to-earth pirate action of the first movie, but they failed badly.
Depp manages to bring a couple of great Sparrow moments to the table, but even he seems a little off his game. Penelope Cruz is okay, but kind of generic. Rush gets to sink his teeth into some good scenes (and his character comes out great at the end), but Ian McShane (Blackbeard), even though he tries very hard, is just too underdeveloped and underused to be a memorable villain. Dame Judy Dench has a funny cameo, at least. They also shoehorned in a side story of young love, for those who miss Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley. This one occurs between a young missionary and a captured mermaid. What happens to them in the end, well, I'm not sure exactly what happened. I suspect they will be back in "Pirates 5". Yeah, even though I'm disappointed with this one, I wouldn't mind if they tried again. I believe that if you like a movie series enough that just because there's one bad entry, that doesn't mean it should end (or, God forbid, get friggin' rebooted, like "Spider-Man"). Just try to improve. Please. A less crappy script would be a great start. Nonstop coincidences, plot holes, and uninspired set pieces are not good things.
And the 3-D doesn't help. There are a couple of fun, in-your-face gags, but there are also some moments of low quality 3-D conversion, so, in the end, 3-D doesn't really matter here.
So there. Two lame movies. And now, to declare the winner.
Drum roll, please. . .
And the winner is. . .
Ah, Rutger Hauer.
Alright, I haven't seen this one yet. But I want to!
Aw, hell, they both suck. To quote the ad campaign of "Alien vs Predator" - whoever wins, we lose. . .
Priest
Based on a popular Korean manga (graphic novel, a.k.a. comic book), "Priest" takes place in an alternate Earth where humanity has forever been at war with vampires, a race of blood drinking, sun-vulnerable beasts who have a queen and live in massive hives ("Alien", anyone). The Catholic church has become the ruling body, and to combat the vampires they have created the Priests, warrior clerics who can kick vampire ass like there's no tomorrow. They effectively put an end to the war, supposedly defeating the vampires, but with their services no longer needed, the Priests have unsuccessfully been reintegrated into everyday society. Most of humanity, by the way, still live in giant walled cities controlled by the Catholic church, even though the vampire menace has long been destroyed. Fishy, no?
After a teenage girl is abducted by a horde of vampires, Priest (Paul Bettany), the baddest of all the vampire killin' clergymen, bucks the orders of his superiors and sets off to find her. Monsignor Orelas (Christopher Plummer) sends out other Priests to find and stop him. And Black Hat (Karl Urban) is a mysterious bad guy who's dead-set on getting his revenge on the church. I think. Many things are unclear in this movie, and that's the problem. Either it was a very underwritten script to begin with, or the filmmakers cut out lots of stuff. Take the vampires, for example. We know that sunlight kills them, and that they drink blood. Do crosses hurt them? Holy water? That would explain why the Catholic church, out of all religious denominations, rules the world, wouldn't it? But no mention is made of any other rules besides the sun thing and the blood thing. Oh, there are vampire familiars as well. And when they "turn" you, you become one of their species. Black Hat (Spoiler Alert) is apparently the first human vampire, turned personally by the Queen herself, who we barely see in one shot and who is mentioned several times throughout the movie - and that's it, no more for the Queen.
Here's the problem I have with this movie - at the end of the movie, Monsignor Orelas, in regards to vampire/human relations, tells Priest, "You'll start a war!" Priest responds with (in gruff Clint Eastwood voice), "The war has already begun." Off into the cliched sunset, and into further adventures, he rides. God that pisses me off. The entire movie ends up being an ad for sequels, which I personally wouldn't mind - if the rest of the movie hadn't been so fucking muddled and dull. Scott Charles Stewart is the director. He also made last year's dull, muddled crapfest "Legion" which, like Priest, could have been a good movie in other hands. It's all just so dang unsatisfactory.
Side characters show up, something interesting happens, then they disappear with no resolution. There are three, count 'em, three main villains here: Black Hat, who is completely underwritten (I have no idea why he's doing what he's doing - Revenge? Why, exactly?), Monsignor Orelas, who shows up and sternly lectures our hero in two scenes, and the Queen, who gets paid a lot of lip service but does absolutely nothing onscreen. And our heroes? Priest, surprise, is dull. I know, he's supposed to be a lone gunslinger, Man With No Name type, but Paul Bettany, while I think that he's a good actor, can't pull this one off. His sidekick Hicks (Cam Gigandet), a badass gunslinger who has a romantic attachment to the missing girl, is a boring character played by a bad actor. But he sure wears a cool-looking coat! Maggie Q, as Priestess (one of the warrior Priests sent to find, um, Priest) is the only actor to come out of the movie looking good. She gets to participate in the only good fight sequence (most of the action is, yes, dull) and gets to have a couple of good character moments as well.
This movie was supposed to be released last year, but was delayed so that it could be converted into 3-D. How is the 3-D? Decent quality, but a turd in 3-D is still a turd in 3-D. At least the vampires look good. The animation company that created them deserves praise - they're better actors than the flesh-and-blood cast! The special effects, overall, are pretty well done. And I can't believe that this movie got away with a PG-13. There's a surprising amount of bloodletting, including a bad guy who gets ripped into bloody chunks in broad daylight, and a couple of F-bombs. What makes this movie so privileged? Is the MPAA a Catholic organization?
In the end, it could have been good. However, when you create the first introduction to a fictional world, you need to firmly (and clearly) establish the "rules" and motivations, as well as provide a self-contained, satisfying storyline in itself. In other words, while leaving a couple of storylines open for future tales is okay, don't skip over explanations of rules that you need for right now, expecting to explain them in the future. But I don't think there will be any sequels, which makes this movie moot. Moot, I tells ya!
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
The first movie, "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl", was a surprisingly entertaining fantasy adventure based on a Disney theme park attraction, with Johnny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow emerging as the most iconic cinematic rogue since Han Solo. The sequel, "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest", suffered from Middle Child Syndrome. Since it was part 2 of a trilogy, it had trouble establishing it's own identity, but still had it's good moments. I particularly thought the Kraken attack sequence was a cool scene. "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" tried way too hard to be like an ocean-bound "Lord of the Rings", but ended up being too long and bloated. However, it's also my favorite movie in the series so far. I realize that I'm in the minority here, but here are my reasons: A) It was the first time in the series that I gave a crap about the characters of Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), and I rather like the bittersweet way in which their storyline wraps up. B) It has the best musical score of the series. I love it! C) It has some of my favorite sequences in all the "Pirate" movies - the Terry Gilliam-esque sequence in Davy Jones' Locker, the opening musical number (a Disney movie that opens with a kid getting hanged!), the death of the main villain, lots of great character moments, etc.
Now we come to the fourth movie. "On Stranger Tides" is the beginning of a proposed new trilogy, centering on Capt. Jack Sparrow himself (Elizabeth Swann was the central character of the first trilogy). This is a mistake. Sparrow is the Han Solo character, not Luke Skywalker. He has only one driving motivation - he wants the freedom of the open sea, and he doesn't have much room to grow as a character. While he appears to be a doddering clown, in the end it turns out that he had it all figured out the whole time. He's fun to watch, but not fulfilling.
Taking its inspiration from the novel by Tim Powers (coincidentally enough called "On Stranger Tides"), this movie follows several parties in the search for the Fountain of Youth. The Spanish want it. The English want it. Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) now works as a merchant marine for them. He also lost the Black Pearl, as well as one of his legs. The evil Blackbeard (Ian McShane) wants it. It turns out he just heard a prophecy that says a one legged man will kill him in 40 days, so, hey, why not go for the Fountain of Youth.
His daughter Angelica (Penelope Cruz) wants to save the soul of her evil dad. She's also the ex-gf of Jack Sparrow. And what does Jack want? Guess. It's what he's been looking for this entire series (and sometimes gets).
Blackbeard knows voodoo and has zombie crew members. And his ship, the Queen Anne's Revenge, can come to life and snatch people up with it's riggings. Did I mention that it has a giant flamethrower mounted in front as well? Dumb. Is there an explanation for all this? Not really.
Honestly, this is a tough review. I literally forget most of what happened in this movie the instant I left the theater. Not because I have short-term memory problems, but because it's just so forgettable. Only two scenes still stick in my mind. There's a whole mermaid attack sequence that ain't half bad, and the scene where Capt. Barbossa explains how he lost his leg was pretty good. Actually, that should have been the opening sequence of the movie! How cool would that have been?
So here's the story. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer hasn't produced a hit for Disney in years (his last one was the 3rd "Pirates" movie in 2007). Last year he made two box office duds back-to-back: "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" (lame) and "The Sorceror's Apprentice" (okay), so he's desperate for a hit. Hence the return to the "Pirates" well. He's even managed to get most of the previous "Pirates" crew back together, except for director Gore Verbinski. "On Stranger Tides" was directed by Rob Marshall, better known for the Oscar winning musical "Chicago". Terrible choice. Marshall is not very handy at action adventure. The action scenes are limp and unoriginal, the pacing poops out constantly, the acting seems "stagey", the camerawork and editing a little clunky, the music forgettable, and the movie just feels cheap even though it had twice the budget of the first movie. It's all so lifeless! I get the feeling that they were trying to recapture the more down-to-earth pirate action of the first movie, but they failed badly.
Depp manages to bring a couple of great Sparrow moments to the table, but even he seems a little off his game. Penelope Cruz is okay, but kind of generic. Rush gets to sink his teeth into some good scenes (and his character comes out great at the end), but Ian McShane (Blackbeard), even though he tries very hard, is just too underdeveloped and underused to be a memorable villain. Dame Judy Dench has a funny cameo, at least. They also shoehorned in a side story of young love, for those who miss Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley. This one occurs between a young missionary and a captured mermaid. What happens to them in the end, well, I'm not sure exactly what happened. I suspect they will be back in "Pirates 5". Yeah, even though I'm disappointed with this one, I wouldn't mind if they tried again. I believe that if you like a movie series enough that just because there's one bad entry, that doesn't mean it should end (or, God forbid, get friggin' rebooted, like "Spider-Man"). Just try to improve. Please. A less crappy script would be a great start. Nonstop coincidences, plot holes, and uninspired set pieces are not good things.
And the 3-D doesn't help. There are a couple of fun, in-your-face gags, but there are also some moments of low quality 3-D conversion, so, in the end, 3-D doesn't really matter here.
So there. Two lame movies. And now, to declare the winner.
Drum roll, please. . .
And the winner is. . .
Ah, Rutger Hauer.
Alright, I haven't seen this one yet. But I want to!
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Thor (2011)
Kenneth Branagh had to have known that the the film adaptation of the Marvel Comics character "Thor" would be right up his alley as a director. With a heavy background of Shakespeare (and Shakespeareanesque-like) acting and filmmaking credits on his resume, he was already used to telling highly dramatic stories featuring people in ridiculous costumes and, most importantly, making them work. "Thor" works.
In case you didn't know, Marvel Studios has been attempting to blend all of their characters into one movie universe. The big screen version of "The Avengers" (coming summer 2012, written and directed by Joss Whedon, and featuring Thor, Iron Man, the Hulk and Captain America all together) is their first major attempt at this. "Thor" is step #4 to "The Avengers". Here are the previous (and future) steps . . .
Iron Man (2008)
One of the best Marvel films to date, it revived the career of Robert Downey Jr and is just a hell of a lot of fun. Ably directed by Jon Favreau, and perfectly cast all around, this story of a man seeking his redemption via a highly weaponized metal suit starts the new Marvel wave off with a bang.
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Jon Favreau and Robert Downey Jr return in this fine sequel. Not quite as good as the first one, primarily because it spends so much time setting the stage for the "expanded universe" that the core of the story gets a little short-shrifted, but nearly as much fun. Plus, Sam Rockwell, um, rocks.
The Incredible Hulk (2008)
I like to watch this one third. Why? Because the events of this movie take place simultaneously with the storyline of "Iron Man 2", with a final scene that acts as a coda to the "Iron Man" duelogy. A reboot of the 2003 Ang Lee film (a highly flawed but weirdly interesting take on the character, simply titled "Hulk"), this is a decent movie. Directed by Louis Leterrier, it has more action, is more like the TV show from the 70's/80's, has Edward Norton as the main character (to be replaced in "The Avengers" by Mark Ruffalo - good move!), and includes plenty of "expanded universe" details.
Thor (2011)
Finally, I get around to reviewing this movie! As good as "Iron Man", but with a different flavor. Kenneth Branagh was a great choice for director, and it's safe to say Chris Hemsworth is now a major star. And it's step #4 of 5. Psyche!
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)
Coming in July, this is the final step before the Big Show. Looks pretty good!
Enough with the trailers already!
So it turns out that the gods of Norse mythology were actually aliens that stopped by to say 'hi' to humanity, then ran back to their realm, the world of Asgard (pronounced Azzguard, not Assguard). Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) are the sons of Odin (Anthony Hopkins), the king of Asgard. When their enemies, the Frost Giants of Jotenheim, break into the super secret vault of Asgard to steal a powerful relic, Thor disobeys his dad's orders and leads a daring counterattack against the Frost Giants on their home turf. Odin is so pissed off at his son's arrogance that he banishes both Thor and the mighty hammer of asskickery, Mjolnir, to the puny realm of Earth, where he falls into the hands of super smart Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and her scientist buddies. It turns out that brother Loki has a deep dark secret, and is trying to please his father and earn his place as heir apparent by any means necessary, including the banishing of bro and endangering the people of Earth. Now Thor must learn to coexist with us puny mortals, while setting off on the path to redemption, hopefully earning the right to wield Mjolnir once again. . .
This could have been such a colossal train wreck in the wrong hands. Merging the magical world of "Thor" with the more realistic sci-fi flavored worlds of the other Marvel characters was a stiff challenge, but by making the magical shenanigans "a more advanced kind of science that only appears as magic to mortal eyes" wisely brings it all together. The costumes are still silly looking, but, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, a Shakesperienced director like Kenneth Branagh manages to make it all work by focusing on the acting and the character dynamics, charging them up with dramatic fury and stellar performances. Distracting us, in a good way.
But it would all be for naught if the actor who played "Thor" was a dud. Chris Hemsworth is not a dud. He brings his "A" game to the movie, going from brazen braggart, to ass-kicking God of Thunder, to charming romantic, to defeated wreck, to silly bumbler, to noble leader. I think Mr. Hemsworth has the aptitude to work within any movie genre. He's come a long way from playing Captain Kirk's dad in the opening scene of "Star Trek" (2009). He's a star. Then there's this Tom Hiddleston guy, as Loki. Where did this dude come from? Loki is the classic trickster, a villain who's only acting villainous because he thinks he's right. And he's fun to watch. It was imperative that they cast someone talented in this role, because Loki is also the main villain in "The Avengers". Thankfully, the pooch remains unscrewed.
And Natalie Portman. After finally proving herself to be major star material, she takes the part of Jane, which appears to be nothing more than a variation of the typical "Girlfriend" role, and you know what? It's still pretty much the "Girlfriend" role. That doesn't stop her, though. She still manages to steal the show quite a few times, despite being a puny (but cute) mortal. And the supporting cast is littered with great character actors, some of whom have appeared before (like Agent Coulson), some of whom are exclusive to "Thor" (like Lady Sif and the Warriors Three - all great!), and some who we'll be seeing more of in the near future (Hawkeye, Stellan Skarsgard as Dr. Selvig). Some fans seem to be pissed that the character of Heimdall (gatekeeper of the Bifrost, a.k.a. the, um, "Rainbow Bridge") is played by a black actor named Idris Elba.
"What? There were no black people in Norse mythology! Rabble, rabble, rabble!!"
They're freakin' aliens, people. Get over it.
Thankfully, "Thor" follows the pattern of "Iron Man" more than it does "Iron Man 2". That is, it concentrates more on telling a self-contained story rather than setting up sequels and follow-ups. Make no mistake, however, there are still plenty of tie-ins with the other Marvel characters. And, like the "Iron Man" movies, there is a special bonus scene which appears after the end credits, setting up "The Avengers" in a direct fashion. Neat.
Speaking of the ending, the actual ending of "Thor" kind of surprised me. It didn't finish off where I expected it to. That's all I will say about that.
Now for the Cons. The special effects are mostly great, but get a little dodgy here and there. And Kenneth Branagh is not a great director of action sequences. I suspect that, just like Jon Favreau did for the "Iron Man" movies, he let the more experienced people in the CGI department work out the action scenes for him. But effects people aren't necessarily good storytellers, and the action always needs to further the story in a very concise and propellant way, not merely be a "show reel" for the special effects company (ahem, Transformers, ahem). Nevertheless, there are still a couple of "hell yeah" action moments in the film.
The musical score is also quite unmemorable. Not bad, just there. You will not be humming a "Thor Theme" when walking out of the theater. There is a great song by the Foo Fighters over the end credits, though. That sort of makes up for the lack of score.
Can't forget the the 3-D! "Thor" was not shot in 3-D, it was converted after the fact. Usually this results in crappy 3-D, but they did a decent quality job here. I just felt that the 3-D was unneeded. It did nothing to enhance the overall experience. Eh.
"Thor" Fun Facts: J. Michael Straczynski worked primarily on the script for "Thor". He was the guy who created and wrote the T.V. series "Babylon 5", a show I'm rather fond of. Look for his cameo appearance in the same scene as legendary Marvel maven Stan Lee. And the aforementioned Joss Whedon, writer and director of "The Avengers", also did uncredited script polishes on this, "Iron Man 2", and "Captain America: The First Avenger" in an effort to make all these movies feel sort of alike. Whedon fans can have fun trying to pick out the lines of dialogue he wrote (hint: the funniest moments in theses movies are most likely his). In case you don't know, he created and wrote T.V. shows like "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer", "Angel", "Firefly", and "Dollhouse". He also made the movie "Serenity", won an Oscar for "Toy Story", wrote countless Marvel comics over the years, and did script polishes on everything from "Speed" to "Twister" to "X-Men".
In the end, "Thor" is great. So far, the summer movie season of 2011 is off to a great start, with both this movie and "Fast Five" entertaining the masses (and me) with mucho aplomb. I would pay hard earned cash to see both of these movies again in theaters.
In case you didn't know, Marvel Studios has been attempting to blend all of their characters into one movie universe. The big screen version of "The Avengers" (coming summer 2012, written and directed by Joss Whedon, and featuring Thor, Iron Man, the Hulk and Captain America all together) is their first major attempt at this. "Thor" is step #4 to "The Avengers". Here are the previous (and future) steps . . .
Iron Man (2008)
One of the best Marvel films to date, it revived the career of Robert Downey Jr and is just a hell of a lot of fun. Ably directed by Jon Favreau, and perfectly cast all around, this story of a man seeking his redemption via a highly weaponized metal suit starts the new Marvel wave off with a bang.
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Jon Favreau and Robert Downey Jr return in this fine sequel. Not quite as good as the first one, primarily because it spends so much time setting the stage for the "expanded universe" that the core of the story gets a little short-shrifted, but nearly as much fun. Plus, Sam Rockwell, um, rocks.
The Incredible Hulk (2008)
I like to watch this one third. Why? Because the events of this movie take place simultaneously with the storyline of "Iron Man 2", with a final scene that acts as a coda to the "Iron Man" duelogy. A reboot of the 2003 Ang Lee film (a highly flawed but weirdly interesting take on the character, simply titled "Hulk"), this is a decent movie. Directed by Louis Leterrier, it has more action, is more like the TV show from the 70's/80's, has Edward Norton as the main character (to be replaced in "The Avengers" by Mark Ruffalo - good move!), and includes plenty of "expanded universe" details.
Thor (2011)
Finally, I get around to reviewing this movie! As good as "Iron Man", but with a different flavor. Kenneth Branagh was a great choice for director, and it's safe to say Chris Hemsworth is now a major star. And it's step #4 of 5. Psyche!
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)
Coming in July, this is the final step before the Big Show. Looks pretty good!
Enough with the trailers already!
So it turns out that the gods of Norse mythology were actually aliens that stopped by to say 'hi' to humanity, then ran back to their realm, the world of Asgard (pronounced Azzguard, not Assguard). Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) are the sons of Odin (Anthony Hopkins), the king of Asgard. When their enemies, the Frost Giants of Jotenheim, break into the super secret vault of Asgard to steal a powerful relic, Thor disobeys his dad's orders and leads a daring counterattack against the Frost Giants on their home turf. Odin is so pissed off at his son's arrogance that he banishes both Thor and the mighty hammer of asskickery, Mjolnir, to the puny realm of Earth, where he falls into the hands of super smart Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and her scientist buddies. It turns out that brother Loki has a deep dark secret, and is trying to please his father and earn his place as heir apparent by any means necessary, including the banishing of bro and endangering the people of Earth. Now Thor must learn to coexist with us puny mortals, while setting off on the path to redemption, hopefully earning the right to wield Mjolnir once again. . .
This could have been such a colossal train wreck in the wrong hands. Merging the magical world of "Thor" with the more realistic sci-fi flavored worlds of the other Marvel characters was a stiff challenge, but by making the magical shenanigans "a more advanced kind of science that only appears as magic to mortal eyes" wisely brings it all together. The costumes are still silly looking, but, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, a Shakesperienced director like Kenneth Branagh manages to make it all work by focusing on the acting and the character dynamics, charging them up with dramatic fury and stellar performances. Distracting us, in a good way.
But it would all be for naught if the actor who played "Thor" was a dud. Chris Hemsworth is not a dud. He brings his "A" game to the movie, going from brazen braggart, to ass-kicking God of Thunder, to charming romantic, to defeated wreck, to silly bumbler, to noble leader. I think Mr. Hemsworth has the aptitude to work within any movie genre. He's come a long way from playing Captain Kirk's dad in the opening scene of "Star Trek" (2009). He's a star. Then there's this Tom Hiddleston guy, as Loki. Where did this dude come from? Loki is the classic trickster, a villain who's only acting villainous because he thinks he's right. And he's fun to watch. It was imperative that they cast someone talented in this role, because Loki is also the main villain in "The Avengers". Thankfully, the pooch remains unscrewed.
And Natalie Portman. After finally proving herself to be major star material, she takes the part of Jane, which appears to be nothing more than a variation of the typical "Girlfriend" role, and you know what? It's still pretty much the "Girlfriend" role. That doesn't stop her, though. She still manages to steal the show quite a few times, despite being a puny (but cute) mortal. And the supporting cast is littered with great character actors, some of whom have appeared before (like Agent Coulson), some of whom are exclusive to "Thor" (like Lady Sif and the Warriors Three - all great!), and some who we'll be seeing more of in the near future (Hawkeye, Stellan Skarsgard as Dr. Selvig). Some fans seem to be pissed that the character of Heimdall (gatekeeper of the Bifrost, a.k.a. the, um, "Rainbow Bridge") is played by a black actor named Idris Elba.
"What? There were no black people in Norse mythology! Rabble, rabble, rabble!!"
They're freakin' aliens, people. Get over it.
Thankfully, "Thor" follows the pattern of "Iron Man" more than it does "Iron Man 2". That is, it concentrates more on telling a self-contained story rather than setting up sequels and follow-ups. Make no mistake, however, there are still plenty of tie-ins with the other Marvel characters. And, like the "Iron Man" movies, there is a special bonus scene which appears after the end credits, setting up "The Avengers" in a direct fashion. Neat.
Speaking of the ending, the actual ending of "Thor" kind of surprised me. It didn't finish off where I expected it to. That's all I will say about that.
Now for the Cons. The special effects are mostly great, but get a little dodgy here and there. And Kenneth Branagh is not a great director of action sequences. I suspect that, just like Jon Favreau did for the "Iron Man" movies, he let the more experienced people in the CGI department work out the action scenes for him. But effects people aren't necessarily good storytellers, and the action always needs to further the story in a very concise and propellant way, not merely be a "show reel" for the special effects company (ahem, Transformers, ahem). Nevertheless, there are still a couple of "hell yeah" action moments in the film.
The musical score is also quite unmemorable. Not bad, just there. You will not be humming a "Thor Theme" when walking out of the theater. There is a great song by the Foo Fighters over the end credits, though. That sort of makes up for the lack of score.
Can't forget the the 3-D! "Thor" was not shot in 3-D, it was converted after the fact. Usually this results in crappy 3-D, but they did a decent quality job here. I just felt that the 3-D was unneeded. It did nothing to enhance the overall experience. Eh.
"Thor" Fun Facts: J. Michael Straczynski worked primarily on the script for "Thor". He was the guy who created and wrote the T.V. series "Babylon 5", a show I'm rather fond of. Look for his cameo appearance in the same scene as legendary Marvel maven Stan Lee. And the aforementioned Joss Whedon, writer and director of "The Avengers", also did uncredited script polishes on this, "Iron Man 2", and "Captain America: The First Avenger" in an effort to make all these movies feel sort of alike. Whedon fans can have fun trying to pick out the lines of dialogue he wrote (hint: the funniest moments in theses movies are most likely his). In case you don't know, he created and wrote T.V. shows like "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer", "Angel", "Firefly", and "Dollhouse". He also made the movie "Serenity", won an Oscar for "Toy Story", wrote countless Marvel comics over the years, and did script polishes on everything from "Speed" to "Twister" to "X-Men".
In the end, "Thor" is great. So far, the summer movie season of 2011 is off to a great start, with both this movie and "Fast Five" entertaining the masses (and me) with mucho aplomb. I would pay hard earned cash to see both of these movies again in theaters.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Fast Five (2011)
Cars drive fast and explode.
Sweet.
End of review.
Okay, okay. Once upon a time, I felt very embarrassed to admit that I loved these movies. They were a true guilty pleasure. Now, I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks. I enjoy the "Fast and the Furious" flicks, and that's all there is to it. Having grown up with the likes of the "Mad Max" trilogy, "The French Connection", "Vanishing Point", "Lethal Weapon", the James Bond series, "Smokey and the Bandit", "Dukes of Hazzard", "Cannonball Run", etc, ad nauseum, I have great fondness for speedy cinematic automobile mayhem. Yes, I had a collection of Matchbox cars when I was a tyke and I imagined all sorts of crazy stunts and chases, often breaking the laws of physics - in my imagination, that is. "The Fast and the Furious" series is the alpha male of modern car chase movies. And as an "adult", I've come to realize that there's more to these flicks than just action scenes and cool looking hipness - there's an actual ongoing theme at work. These movies are about family. More specifically, the family bonds that form between the disaffected outcasts of society, and how the loyalty and love within these families are tested by the forces of greed, pride, and dishonor. Sounds fruity, but it's true. And "Fast Five" is the best one of the bunch. Now, a recap . . .
The Fast and the Furious (2001)
A hollywood producer buys the rights to remake a 1955 Roger Corman-produced car flick called "The Fast and the Furious". Another producer reads an article in Vibe magazine about illegal street racing. These producers get together, combine ideas, and make a movie about an undercover FBI agent (Paul Walker) infiltrating a group of street racers/high speed thieves led by Vin Diesel. Add action director Rob Cohen ("XXX", "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story", "Daylight") and here it is. Plot-wise, it's basically "Point Break" with cars instead of surfboards, but it's a good movie, the one that started it all.
2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)
Vin Diesel decided to sit this one out, so Paul Walker takes the lead and teams up with another bald slab of beef played by Tyrese Gibson. In order to make up for the choices he made in the first movie, Mr. Walker must infiltrate and take down a slimy drug lord in Miami. John Singleton (!) of "Boyz n the Hood", "Higher Learning", and "Four Brothers" took over the director's chair. The action is crazier, the mood is more over colorful and over the top, and there's an unintended homosexual undercurrent between Walker and Gibson that makes this movie 100 times funnier than it was meant to be. Not as overt as the undercurrent in "A Nightmare on Elm St Part 2: Freddy's Revenge", but it's definitely present. What's the meaning of this, Singleton?
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)
Considered by many to be the black sheep of the series, I rather liked it. The original two stars decided not to return, so Lucas Black (combining the beefslabbiness of Diesel and the whitebread blandness of Walker into one body) was cast as the main guy, a teenager who moves to Tokyo and gets involved with street racing, Yakuza gangsters, and Lil Bow Wow (or just Bow Wow now). There's even more crazy action, a classic fish-out-of-water story, and elements of a high school drama (new to the series), which all add up to something a little different. And Han rocks (my favorite character in the entire series, played by Sung Kang). Director Justin Lin and writer Chris Morgan took over the franchise from here on out. Chronologically, the events in "Tokyo Drift" take place after the other four movies in the series. I won't reveal the reason why, because it's a spoiler. Point is, you can save this movie for last if you're planning a marathon.
Fast & Furious (2009)
I always thought it should be titled "Fast & 4ious". Okay, that's stupid. But here's where the series finally clicks. Lots of already established characters return for more action, including Vin Diesel and Paul Walker, who team up south of the border to avenge the death of a loved one. And there's another drug dealer bad guy. Lin and Morgan are back, directing and writing. The action scenes may be the most unbelievable in the entire series, but they're still fun (there's a big "Mad Max"-style desert chase at the end!), and it's great to see everybody together again. Takes place before "Tokyo Drift", and is the best installment up to this point.
At last we come to "Fast Five". After a high speed jailbreak, Diesel and Walker (no longer FBI) attempt a train heist which goes wrong, killing two Federal Marshals. Soon after, badass Hobbs (Dwayne "Formerly The Rock" Johnson) and his task force are sent to Rio de Janerio to apprehend the duo, who are planning one final heist - to rob the local drug lord Reyes (played by veteran drug lord actor Joaqim de Almeida) and ride off into the sunset as retirees. This is a real treat for "Fast" fans, as many characters from previous installments show up to participate in the action (along with a couple of secret cameo appearances). Justin Lin directs, Chris Morgan writes (along with Gary Scott Thompson, writer of the very first one). And, yes, it takes place before "Tokyo Drift".
The greatest thing the filmmakers did here was cast "The Rock". He's basically playing the Tommy Lee Jones character from "The Fugitive", but that's okay, because there's really nothing original about the plots or characters in these movies anyway. He barrels into the movie, takes charge of chewing the scenery, engages Diesel in a spirited bout of fisticuffs (which makes me long for the Stallone vs Schwarzenegger fight that should have happened 30 years ago), and even says the F-word for the first time on screen (in a PG-13 movie, ha ha). Finally, he's in a GOOD movie, not his usual stuff, which ranges in quality from terrible ("The Tooth Fairy") to merely "okay" ("The Rundown"). He's got the charisma to be a major star, and this is the first movie I've seen in which he truly uses those powers for good.
As for the rest of the cast, it's great to see them all together, forming some new character relationships that frankly surprised and delighted me. The filmmakers clearly love these characters, and it shows. This entry has the most heart of all the "Fast" flicks. It's a crazy hip hop soap opera. That family theme I was talking about earlier really leaps to the forefront here, with some moments that actually manage to tug at the heartstrings a little bit. How about that?
But enough with that mushy stuff, how about the action? Yes, the laws of physics are bent and some are broken. It didn't matter when I was playing with my little Matchbox cars back in the day, and it doesn't matter now. It's fantasy, baby. The chase sequence which ends this movie is wild as hell. It's a non-stop orgy of fun and destruction, with two cars pulling a giant vault through the streets of Rio, pursued by hundreds of cop cars. It's the biggest and best action scene in the entire series.
Plus, there are the usual elements of hot half naked bodies, loud pop music, cheesy one-liners, animated end credits, Diesel growling his dialogue, Walker doing his best impression of cardboard, all the usual tropes. Love it!
This movie is one overall satisfying ride. Hell, it's even winning over people who don't normally like the "Fast" movies! It's a great 10th anniversary (!) love letter to us fans who've stuck around all this time, and I look forward to "Fast Six" or "Furious Six" or "The F6st and the "F6ri6us", or whatever they decide to call it. Oh yeah, it's really on the way!
P.S. - Be sure to stick around, because after the animated credits at the end of the movie there's a super secret scene which caused the (packed) audience I saw the movie with to simultaneously crap their pants in surprise. Alright, I can't confirm the crapping, but it was the loudest gasp I've ever heard from a crowd so large. We're off to Berlin, baby!
Here's an interview with the screenwriter. I'm totally on the same wavelength as this guy. . .
Sweet.
End of review.
Okay, okay. Once upon a time, I felt very embarrassed to admit that I loved these movies. They were a true guilty pleasure. Now, I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks. I enjoy the "Fast and the Furious" flicks, and that's all there is to it. Having grown up with the likes of the "Mad Max" trilogy, "The French Connection", "Vanishing Point", "Lethal Weapon", the James Bond series, "Smokey and the Bandit", "Dukes of Hazzard", "Cannonball Run", etc, ad nauseum, I have great fondness for speedy cinematic automobile mayhem. Yes, I had a collection of Matchbox cars when I was a tyke and I imagined all sorts of crazy stunts and chases, often breaking the laws of physics - in my imagination, that is. "The Fast and the Furious" series is the alpha male of modern car chase movies. And as an "adult", I've come to realize that there's more to these flicks than just action scenes and cool looking hipness - there's an actual ongoing theme at work. These movies are about family. More specifically, the family bonds that form between the disaffected outcasts of society, and how the loyalty and love within these families are tested by the forces of greed, pride, and dishonor. Sounds fruity, but it's true. And "Fast Five" is the best one of the bunch. Now, a recap . . .
The Fast and the Furious (2001)
A hollywood producer buys the rights to remake a 1955 Roger Corman-produced car flick called "The Fast and the Furious". Another producer reads an article in Vibe magazine about illegal street racing. These producers get together, combine ideas, and make a movie about an undercover FBI agent (Paul Walker) infiltrating a group of street racers/high speed thieves led by Vin Diesel. Add action director Rob Cohen ("XXX", "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story", "Daylight") and here it is. Plot-wise, it's basically "Point Break" with cars instead of surfboards, but it's a good movie, the one that started it all.
2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)
Vin Diesel decided to sit this one out, so Paul Walker takes the lead and teams up with another bald slab of beef played by Tyrese Gibson. In order to make up for the choices he made in the first movie, Mr. Walker must infiltrate and take down a slimy drug lord in Miami. John Singleton (!) of "Boyz n the Hood", "Higher Learning", and "Four Brothers" took over the director's chair. The action is crazier, the mood is more over colorful and over the top, and there's an unintended homosexual undercurrent between Walker and Gibson that makes this movie 100 times funnier than it was meant to be. Not as overt as the undercurrent in "A Nightmare on Elm St Part 2: Freddy's Revenge", but it's definitely present. What's the meaning of this, Singleton?
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)
Considered by many to be the black sheep of the series, I rather liked it. The original two stars decided not to return, so Lucas Black (combining the beefslabbiness of Diesel and the whitebread blandness of Walker into one body) was cast as the main guy, a teenager who moves to Tokyo and gets involved with street racing, Yakuza gangsters, and Lil Bow Wow (or just Bow Wow now). There's even more crazy action, a classic fish-out-of-water story, and elements of a high school drama (new to the series), which all add up to something a little different. And Han rocks (my favorite character in the entire series, played by Sung Kang). Director Justin Lin and writer Chris Morgan took over the franchise from here on out. Chronologically, the events in "Tokyo Drift" take place after the other four movies in the series. I won't reveal the reason why, because it's a spoiler. Point is, you can save this movie for last if you're planning a marathon.
Fast & Furious (2009)
I always thought it should be titled "Fast & 4ious". Okay, that's stupid. But here's where the series finally clicks. Lots of already established characters return for more action, including Vin Diesel and Paul Walker, who team up south of the border to avenge the death of a loved one. And there's another drug dealer bad guy. Lin and Morgan are back, directing and writing. The action scenes may be the most unbelievable in the entire series, but they're still fun (there's a big "Mad Max"-style desert chase at the end!), and it's great to see everybody together again. Takes place before "Tokyo Drift", and is the best installment up to this point.
At last we come to "Fast Five". After a high speed jailbreak, Diesel and Walker (no longer FBI) attempt a train heist which goes wrong, killing two Federal Marshals. Soon after, badass Hobbs (Dwayne "Formerly The Rock" Johnson) and his task force are sent to Rio de Janerio to apprehend the duo, who are planning one final heist - to rob the local drug lord Reyes (played by veteran drug lord actor Joaqim de Almeida) and ride off into the sunset as retirees. This is a real treat for "Fast" fans, as many characters from previous installments show up to participate in the action (along with a couple of secret cameo appearances). Justin Lin directs, Chris Morgan writes (along with Gary Scott Thompson, writer of the very first one). And, yes, it takes place before "Tokyo Drift".
The greatest thing the filmmakers did here was cast "The Rock". He's basically playing the Tommy Lee Jones character from "The Fugitive", but that's okay, because there's really nothing original about the plots or characters in these movies anyway. He barrels into the movie, takes charge of chewing the scenery, engages Diesel in a spirited bout of fisticuffs (which makes me long for the Stallone vs Schwarzenegger fight that should have happened 30 years ago), and even says the F-word for the first time on screen (in a PG-13 movie, ha ha). Finally, he's in a GOOD movie, not his usual stuff, which ranges in quality from terrible ("The Tooth Fairy") to merely "okay" ("The Rundown"). He's got the charisma to be a major star, and this is the first movie I've seen in which he truly uses those powers for good.
As for the rest of the cast, it's great to see them all together, forming some new character relationships that frankly surprised and delighted me. The filmmakers clearly love these characters, and it shows. This entry has the most heart of all the "Fast" flicks. It's a crazy hip hop soap opera. That family theme I was talking about earlier really leaps to the forefront here, with some moments that actually manage to tug at the heartstrings a little bit. How about that?
But enough with that mushy stuff, how about the action? Yes, the laws of physics are bent and some are broken. It didn't matter when I was playing with my little Matchbox cars back in the day, and it doesn't matter now. It's fantasy, baby. The chase sequence which ends this movie is wild as hell. It's a non-stop orgy of fun and destruction, with two cars pulling a giant vault through the streets of Rio, pursued by hundreds of cop cars. It's the biggest and best action scene in the entire series.
Plus, there are the usual elements of hot half naked bodies, loud pop music, cheesy one-liners, animated end credits, Diesel growling his dialogue, Walker doing his best impression of cardboard, all the usual tropes. Love it!
This movie is one overall satisfying ride. Hell, it's even winning over people who don't normally like the "Fast" movies! It's a great 10th anniversary (!) love letter to us fans who've stuck around all this time, and I look forward to "Fast Six" or "Furious Six" or "The F6st and the "F6ri6us", or whatever they decide to call it. Oh yeah, it's really on the way!
P.S. - Be sure to stick around, because after the animated credits at the end of the movie there's a super secret scene which caused the (packed) audience I saw the movie with to simultaneously crap their pants in surprise. Alright, I can't confirm the crapping, but it was the loudest gasp I've ever heard from a crowd so large. We're off to Berlin, baby!
Here's an interview with the screenwriter. I'm totally on the same wavelength as this guy. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)