Beauty and the Beast 2017

Beauty and the Beast ~ This is yet another of Disney's unnecessary live action remakes.  I don't see the point of these honestly, unless of course they are told from a different point of view entirely like Maleficent, or completely different as in the Tim Burton Alice films.  While Cinderella did answer some questions from the animated feature (as does this one), I found it ultimately dismal, and what could have been the best part of The Jungle Book was left on the cutting room floor (Scarlet Johansson's "Trust in Me").

I was very wary of the new Beauty and the Beast.  Not only was the original an Oscar nominated and winning classic of Disney's new animation age, it could have been decidedly difficult to animate.  In fact, the scenes I had seen in previews of the castle objects come to life, like Lumiere and Cogsworth, did not impress me. 

The casting worried me as well.  Hermione Granger? I'm not saying that Emma Watson is typecast but she would have to go a long way to make me believe she is anyone but Hermione, and as hard as she tries here, Emma never comes off as anything but playacting as Belle.  Honestly all of the roles are very solidly in most of our minds from the animated feature, it's hard to envision anyone else in those spots. 

The animated objects in the original are charming cartoons but here the CGI versions come off as a bit creepy, just to the left of Tim Burton.  We love those cartoon characters but the new ones are impressive yet cold and inhuman.  Similarly the music is also impersonal and feels very much like artificial or karaoke covers. 

Don't get me wrong, the live action Beauty and the Beast is a good movie, heck, it might even be a great movie for those who have never seen the classic original, but for me, the best it will ever be is a pale and ill wrought imitation.  Worth seeing only for the curious and the hardcore Disney fan only.

Lucy

Other than being an action flick with a strong female protagonist, I have to admit that Lucy was never really on my radar as a movie I wanted to see. I do like Scarlett Johansson, both from Ghost World and as the Black Widow - yeah, I know, nerd alert - but the film's premise of someone gaining superpowers by accessing 100% of their brain just turned me off. It's just an absurd concept, even for science fiction, the ten percent brain myth is just nonsense.

Two things got me to watch however when Lucy came around to cable. Writer/director Luc Besson, who dazzled me with a similar female protag in The Fifth Element, was one reason. The other was the opinion of a female friend whose opinions on film I usually respect. She is notably an art film fan with a disdain for blockbusters, action, science fiction, and pop culture. But she loved the movie Lucy. Yep, I had to see it. And curiosity killed the cat.

While Morgan Freeman lectures on the ten percent brain theory in alternating scenes, we watch Johansson in the title role accidentally infected with an experimental designer super drug. As Lucy quickly ups her percentage and becomes smarter and more powerful, she goes to war with the drug cartel that put her in this predicament.

While she's doing that, Lucy goes after more of the drug, and seeks out Morgan Freeman to help her with her own dwindling mortality. It's at this point the story starts counting down, or up considering what percentage of brain power she's using. Among her powers are invulnerability to pain, remote viewing, telekinesis, and time travel. Yeah, this movie is a trip.

Lucy is very show rather than tell, colorful, vibrant, and visually stunning - just what one would expect from Besson. This is not a film you can casually watch as it requires your full attention. That type of storytelling requires a top-notch performance from Johansson, and she does not disappoint.

There's a whole lot of cool special effects, some wink-wink nudge-nudge philosophy, a little bit of religion, and a whole lot of back alley pseudo-science. Yeah, I kinda liked it. Lucy wasn't perfect by any means, but it was mindless fun. And no, I have no idea what my friend saw in this flick, but it's still worth checking out.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Yesterday I talked about re-watching the first Avengers film before seeing the new one. Today I'm tackling Avengers: Age of Ultron. Be warned right here right now, there will be spoilers.

Wow. When I walked out of the theater I saw a text from friend, fellow South Jersey Writer, and fellow Biff Bam Popper, Jim Knipp. He'd also seen the movie last night and wanted to know what I thought of it. I had to ponder the answer for a moment, then I typed back, "I didn't hate it."

I didn't hate it. I also didn't love it. I'm not even sure I liked it. In choosing Ultron as the antagonist, writer/director Joss Whedon must have known he was starting off on a bad foot. As I talked about in my article about Ultron over at BBP yesterday, without Hank Pym, there really is no Ultron. Without that creepy Oedipal complex and family connection to the Avengers, Ultron is completely interchangeable for any killer robot, and thus loses his charm and uniqueness.

So right out the gate, Whedon is already off-book by having Tony Stark and Bruce Banner create Ultron. Joss seems determined to stay off book, from the Hulk/Black Widow romance to Hawkeye's family to the almost complete ignorance of the "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." television series and events, it's like he wants to build his own continuity outside of the established Marvel Cinematic Universe. He's not just off-book, he's off the rails.

What it results in is an uneven film, a badly structured story, a disappointing film for comic book fans, and believe it or not, a boring film for action fans. There are multiple holes in the plot, illogical motivations, and probably many deleted scenes we'll have to wait for home release to see, but as is, this was unsatisfactory.

Let's start with S.H.I.E.L.D. Much has been made of Joss Whedon's comments regarding "Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.," but the facts are that not only is his brother a showrunner, but Joss is also a co-creator and executive producer on the show. His comments about the show invalidating his first Avengers movie can only be taken so far, and yet, the events of that TV series are both ignored and avoided in the new film. S.H.I.E.L.D., for all intents and purposes, no longer exists. This is a serious break in the continuity of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. One could probably get their fill of No-Prizes explaining away how it does fit, but it doesn't fit well.

Spinning off of the S.H.I.E.L.D. issue is the presence of Hawkeye's family. In the comics the Black Widow is not just a close friend and partner, she's a former lover of Hawkeye. More than that, Bobbi Morse AKA Mockingbird, a prominent character on the "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." TV series, and soon to be star of her own spin-off, is Hawkeye's ex-wife, lover, and partner in the comics. On the show, a source of drama revolves around her working with her ex-husband Hunter, a character that doesn't exist in the comics.

Now don't get me wrong, I like the idea of movie Hawkeye having a wife and kids, and I'm a big Linda Cardellini fan. Whedon is obviously one of those fans who doesn't like Hawkeye, and dismisses him as just a guy with a bow and arrow. I'm sorry, just my opinion, but if you don't like Hawkeye, you just don't know Hawkeye. He is one of the most effective, most resourceful, and one of my favorite Avengers. And that's one of the biggest problems with movie Hawkeye not being comics Hawkeye.

The wife and kids goes against the comics history of the character, but it lends not only some background, but also some grounding and humanity to character. We understand him and care about him more. And of course it's always nice to see more of Jeremy Renner on the screen. And as far as comics vs. film continuity goes, perhaps Hawkeye and Mockingbird just haven't met yet.

Similarly the Hulk/Widow connection is a fiction of the films rather than the comics, however it's one I don't mind. While clunky at times, the party especially, it works, and succeeds in developing both characters. And except for the one bit where our only female Avenger is the captured damsel in distress (I hated this so much), this relationship, and the performances of Scarlett Johansson and Mark Ruffalo, is one of the best features of the film.

Speaking of the Hulk, the CGI effects were far superior this time than last. The Hulk resembles Ruffalo, has more emotion in his facial expressions, and moves nearly flawlessly with the live actors. Ultron on the other hand is terrible on that point. I was creeped out every time his lips moved, his eyes blinked, or had any facial motion. He looked like a badly formed Muppet. I wish his face had been unmoving metal, and they had kept the terrifying George Perez visage from the comics. That's the real Ultron. James Spader was a good choice for the voice, but every time the CGI Ultron physically spoke I was taken out of the film.

Paul Bettany's Vision was well worth the price of admission though I wonder why it was so hard not to make him look like he does in the comics. I found his design (I hated his head) unappealing to say the least. His actions - from his interaction with the Scarlet Witch (there is one look between the two when he rescues her at the end that is perfection) to his fighting style to his final confrontation with Ultron - were all wonderful. There should have been more Vision. Speaking of more, I loved seeing War Machine and the Falcon, but where was the Falcon in the final battle? He should have been there.

Some folks might poo-poo this one as set up for future movies, but I loved the bit with Andy Serkis as Ulysses Klaw (they spell it Klaue, but we all know it's Klaw). Over and above Ultron, Klaw was an engaging adversary here, and I would have loved if not an appearance by Prince T'Challa, at least a mention. I guess I'll have to wait until Captain America: Civil War or Black Panther for that…

I have to make a confession. I have never liked Quicksilver. And it's not just that he's a third-rate Flash, he's also just a complete jerk, always has been, always will be. Pietro has always been too overprotective of his sister Wanda, an annoying wet blanket for everyone else, and when he freaked out about his sister's relationship with the Vision - he was borderline, if not dead-on, racist. Quicksilver, as far as I'm concerned, sucks.

What is fascinating however, is that much like Hawkeye, film Quicksilver -whether it's here in this movie, or over in X-Men: Days of Future Past - is sooo not comics Quicksilver. The films have made Pietro cool. I find it amusing that Joss Whedon, infamously noted for killing his characters, has found a way to solve the problem of Quicksilver being so annoying… he just got rid of him.

I'm glad Whedon simplified the Scarlet Witch's powers, even if one of them was merely a plot device to reveal secrets from the Avengers' pasts. I wish there had been more of that, and it was nice to see Hayley Atwell's Agent Carter if for only a few seconds. I would have liked to have seen more of the Red Room from Widow's flashbacks as it might have clarified the connections to the "Agent Carter" TV series.

Speaking of women, I was very disappointed to find no Pepper Potts or Jane Foster in the film. They were sorely missed, and the women we had were sorely used. I struck up a conversation with a gentleman while waiting in line who was wearing a Black Widow t-shirt. We talked about the lack of merchandise with female heroes, and women around us, many wearing Avengers t-shirts chimed in as well. To paraphrase Field of Dreams, if you make it, they will buy it. Are you paying attention, Marvel/Disney?

As far as Avengers: Age of Ultron goes, I was not thrilled with it. I did not leave the theater charged up and anxious to see it again as I did with the original movie. I left feeling empty and disappointed. With the knowledge that I would be seeing it again Sunday night with The Bride, I seriously wondered if I really wanted to see it again, and I think that says volumes.

Quickies 2-18-2015

Gone Girl ~ The book by Gillian Flynn, besides being one of the biggest books of the year, was one that so many friends of mine urged me to read. I ripped through it in just a few sittings, and looked forward to the film. Ben Affleck is on point here, and when he is, he is sooo good, as is Carrie Coon, and Neil Patrick Harris in a rather sinister role. The score by NIN's Trent Reznor is another pleasant surprise. While slightly different from the book, the film is engaging and well worth seeing.

The Way, Way Back ~ Terrific performances and writing highlight this little award-winning coming of age film that many folks didn't see until it got to cable. Written and directed by the Academy Award winning team of Nat Faxon and Jim Nash, who won praise for The Descendants, this movie is one of the best I've seen this year, a throwback to a simpler time when films about kids didn't have to be silly or stupid. Well worth seeing.

London By Night ~ Not to be confused with the lost Lon Chaney horror classic London After Midnight, this is a backlot mystery supposedly set in London. It wants to be a screwball comedy but never arrives. A
reporter, a wacky socialite, and his dog get wrapped up in the pursuit of a murderer called the Umbrella Man. The best actors in this are the dog and Virginia Field as the cockney barmaid. Even Leo G. Carroll disappoints. Still, it's not a bad seventy-odd minute distraction.

Chef ~ Fun comedy written and directed by Jon Favreau, with cameos by Avengers alumni Robert Downey Jr. and Scarlett Johansson. Oliver Platt and especially John Leguizamo are excellent as well in this tale of an overburdened chef who finds happiness in his heart and with his family in a food truck. This is a really great film, uplifting and fun.

Iron Man 2

Iron Man 2 ~ I’ve been waiting for this for a while now, and it finally opened, a bit late for the previews to have become annoying, and of course even more annoyingly, a week after it opened in the UK and Australia. I really have to wonder why the movie companies insist on staggered releases across the world when the internet exists. Don’t they know the flick has already been spoiled for American audiences?

Iron Man 2 picks up almost immediately as the first film ends, but not in the way one might think. From there it becomes a rollercoaster ride of subplots as if it doesn’t know what its real storyline is.

Of seeming highest priority of possible plots is Mickey Roarke’s Ivan Vanko who wants revenge on Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark for supposedly stealing his father’s design. There’s Tony’s new heart poisoning him just as he’s drinking himself to death and risking his life. There’s Gwyneth Paltrow’s Pepper Potts (still the dumbest comic book name ever) trying to run Stark’s company and of course her non-romance with him that doesn’t exist in the comics. And the government, in the face of the strangely cast Garry Shandling, wants the Iron Man ‘weapon.’ Those are just the big ones.

Any one of these could have been the main story, and served it well on its own, but for some reason the script couldn’t make up its mind. Underneath the surface of this Iron Man is bubbling an Avengers prequel, and for those aware of what Avengers is, it is a major undercurrent of this film, perhaps moreso than anything to actually do with Iron Man.

Rumors from overseas seem to be right on this front, that this is more an Avengers movie than an Iron Man movie. Easter eggs abound everywhere, from Captain America’s shield to Thor’s hammer, to the outright appearances out of nowhere of Samuel L. Jackson’s ultra-cool Nick Fury to Scarlet Johansson’s ultra-hot Black Widow (although it’s notable her superheroine name is never mentioned). It makes you wonder why Marvel would risk the Iron Man sequel for a movie that’s not even written yet.

And there are still yet more subplots. They tried to squeeze Tony Stark’s problem with alcoholism in there. Don Cheadle, a great actor, but a poor substitute for Terrence Howard, puts on the War Machine armor. Sam Rockwell does an impressive Robert Downey Jr. impersonation, that I’m not sure is in homage or mocking his Stark, as a decisively younger Justin Hammer.

The big guns of this script are largely disappointments. Downey is simply over the top, as if he doesn’t care anymore. Paltrow struggles as if she doesn’t know what to do with herself on screen. Mickey Roarke is damn good and owns the film when he is onscreen, he’s just not there nearly enough. His character, a merging of two Iron Man foes from the comics, Whiplash and the Crimson Dynamo, had enough depth to carry the whole film – but the script would not let it happen.

I did enjoy the film, but that was as a hardcore comics fan. I think it might be too jumpy and frenetic for mainstream audiences, who will also be giving all those Avengers references blank stares. And speaking of Avengers – stay through the end of the credits, or you will regret it. Iron Man 2 is fun and action-packed, but it’s nowhere as good as the original.

Stung

To the right, one of the first images of Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Romanoff - The Black Widow.

Iron Man 2 opens May 7th, 2010. I know I'm there.


.