“Underworld: Awakening” or and….?

At 88 minutes “Underworld: Awakening” is rather underdeveloped.  I am not really sure why the makers of this film decided to go with such a short time.  There seems to be a lot of the story left out, and the character development just isn’t there, why didn’t they use the extra half hour to build the plot and the characters? WHY? WHY? 

Ok, seriously though, the newly added character, Selene’s daughter, is brought in with a sort of Ta Da!! flourish, but then they do next to nothing with her.  At one point Selene says “she has to be protected, she is more powerful than all of us.” Really how does she know? The little girl hasn’t done anything, in fact she doesn’t do much through out the whole movie, they don’t even give her a name.  She turns blue a couple of times but that is it.

Michael doesn’t even get any dialogue, except to say “we’ll leave when she gets here”.  Then he’s done, for the whole movie.

Admittedly I love Selene’s character, she has always been my favorite.  And I did enjoy the movie in a shallow way.  Watching Selene kick ass is always worthwhile.  But the story development just isn’t there.  There are even new character’s added to the story, i.e. the vampires living underground, led by a random elder.  But nothing about them is explained; who is the elder? are they all that are left? how do they survive? The movie doesn’t even try to explain anything about them.

At one point Selene’s daughter calls her cold, though even that is not demonstrated.  Apparently she is cold, because she hasn’t hugged her daughter or something?  However, at that point they have been running from the powers that be non-stop, so when should she have stopped that to have a tender moment, I don’t know. 

All of that said, I did enjoy the show in a very superficial way, but I was left wondering about way too much.

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” or girl fight in the snow

Rooney Mara vs. Noomi Rapace, that is the question.  There is no real way to review this movie for me without comparing the two versions.   I really love the Swedish version, so I was a little hesitant about seeing the American remake.  However, a friend told me that is was good, and I should see it, so I did.   This is what I think; the American remake is a solid movie, and in some cases it may be more true to the book (that’s what I was told, though I have not finished reading it so don’t quote me on that), but it wasn’t quite as absorbing and atmospheric to me, though perhaps it is more linear.

The original Swedish film has a harder edge to it.  Noomi Rapace in particular plays a much harder character than Rooney Mara.  Mara seems to be trying to tap into Salander’s inner hidden sensitivity, while Rapace is showing us what Lisbeth wants the world to see, a tough, hard-shelled badass.   I have to admit, I prefer Rapace, she lets us see the seething lava of anger just below the surface waiting to explode, the result of a life filled with inequity and betrayal.  Mara, on the other hand seems a little more like a victim in her attitude (the lack of exploration about her back story contributes to that).  The rape scene is a good example, strangely the US version is more graphic, but I felt that Mara’s performance was more about the sexual violation, whereas Rapace’s was more about the loss of control. A small caveat, but there you have it, the nuances are where the Swedish version triumphs.  One other small factor is the chase scene toward the end, in the Swedish film that is a much more surreal moment, the chase lasts quite a bit longer and the way it is filmed is much more frightening, artistic and atmospheric, and the end of the chase much more deliberate.

Both movies have a very nice production value, and most of the other actors are fairly interchangeable, though I also prefer Michael Nyqvist over Daniel Craig (which is strange because I really, really like Daniel Craig), but Nyqvist seems more real as a reporter.  Craig looks a little too chic, like a male model in his winter wear.  Also, the Swedish movie concentrates more on the workings at Millennium, which is key to Bloomqvist’s persona.

The other thing that is really noticeable is Lisbeth back-story, or in the case to the US version, the lack thereof.  The Swedish movie moves back and forth through time, flashing back to bits of Lisbeth’s childhood and the pivotal moment that shapes her whole life.  The US version mentions once in passing, as pillow talk no less, that she set her father on fire.  It doesn’t indicate at all how central that moment is in her life.  Though the Rapace film doesn’t really give you much more information, it really gives you a feeling of how much that action impacted her life, and the flashbacks give you a better picture of her splintered psyche. You can see she is on the edge of losing it at anytime, and that all that prevents that is the iron control she keeps on her emotions.  

In the end, I am a little ambivalent about this movie, it is a good, entertaining movie, but if you have already seen the Swedish version it will not cover any new ground. So, in the final analysis, I will say, see it if you hate subtitles, but otherwise, the Swedish version is the one to see.

“Haywire” or advanced ass-kicking for girls

All right!!  I have to say; don’t believe it when Dr Pepper 10 tells you that women don’t like action movies.  I LOVE a good ass-kicking movie.  It can even be a fairly bad movie from the story perspective, as long as the action is tight! It’s even better if the story makes sense.

This film falls into the second category.  Deliberately made to look like a B-Movie, or even an exploitation movie, but with an A-Movie cast, it sports a color palette that moves back and forth from a blue gray color to a washed-out yellow  and looks like you parent’s old photos from 1972.

The movie is something of a dichotomy.  The male portion of the cast reads like a Who’s Who of contemporary Hollywood; Channing Tatum, Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas, Ewan McGregor, Michael Fassbender, and Bill Paxton.  While the female portion on the cast is just the relatively unknown Gina Carano, former American Gladiator and MMA fighter.

Carano is not the best actress in the world, at the beginning of the movie she seems a little bit stiff, but to make up for that she brings an easy athleticism to her role that make her totally believable as Mallory Kane, a former marine now working as a mercenary for a private security company.

The story follows Mallory as she completes a job rescuing, what she believes is a kidnapped Asian scientist, but all is not as it seems.  Soon she learns that she has been used to kidnap a murder a foreign journalist.  Mallory begins a rampage directed at the men who lied to her and used her as their patsy. 

Carano inhabits the character of Mallory with a relaxed confidence that makes you believe she can handle any situation, and her extreme competence with all aspects of the physical action easily convinces that viewer that they are watching an action star.  You cannot help saying “cool!” about the way she runs up the wall and lands on her target pinning him to the ground. This movie should lead her to much bigger and better things.  And the ending is spot on.

It’s called what? or the best movies you’ve never seen. (Part 1)

Ok, I have seen thousands of movies. I have rated almost three thousand movies on Netflix alone, and I have seen many more movies than that.  So I know that there are many under appreciated movies out there.  So in an attempt to remedy this I will be posting ongoing lists of my favorite unknown movies.

To that end I will begin with my general best movies list:

                                                              (in no particular order)

“Oldboy”(2003)

Wow, this is a FΩ©ked up movie.  The second film from Korean director Park Chan-wook’s loosely connected “Vengeance Trilogy”, “Oldboy” tells the story of Dae-su, an every day family man who is inexplicably kidnapped and held prisoner for fifteen years, then just as abruptly he is released:  again, with no explanation.

At his release Dae-su is anonymously provided with clothes and money, which he uses to begin his search for answers.  As his journey progresses he is lead into a world where money paves the way for vengeance and madness.  This is not a film for the squeamish, if you have a hard time with blood be prepared to look away.  But if you can take a bit of gore, the payoff is a pretty mind-blowing film.

“Titus”(1999)

Based on Shakespeare’s “Titus Andronicus” this stunning film is filled with beautiful men, scenery and insanity.  Visually stunning, the film is also filled with fabulous performances by Sir Anthony Hopkins as the title character of Titus and Jessica Lange as Tamora the goth queen.  Allan Cummings is slimy and conniving as the easily led Ceasar, Saturnius.  The cast also includes some  wonderful actors in supporting roles, like Colm Feore, Johnathan Rhys Meyers and  Angus McFadyen.

Titus and Tamora  begin a war of ever escalating acts of revenge, leaving a trail of bodies in their wake.  The production has very interesting and distinct look to it, from the first entrance of Titus and his troops, coated from head to toe in mud, and the subsequent shower scene to the maiming of his daughter, (which is both creepy and cool) to the final brutal dinner party.  This is a film that you won’t easily forget.

“Crash”(1996)

This is David Croneberg’s “Crash”, not the 2004 morality tale/sob fest by the same name.  In this movie a group of people have come together because of their mutual sexual fascination with car wrecks.  

It stars the ubiquitously deviant James Spader (Man do I LOVE him) as a man whose work and home/sex life have become stagnant.  When he is involved in a terrible car accident, he stumbles into a strange world of sex fueled by car crashes.   Elias Koteas, plays Vaughan, a man who claims to be a scientist studying the phenomenon, but in truth he has been drawn in to a ferocious sexual game that includes Rosanna Arquette as a woman held together by braces and prosthetics (there is a really disturbing scene featuring sex involving a horrible scar).

The cast also includes Holly Hunter as a woman who likes anonymous sex in cars, particularly wrecked cars and Debra Kara Unger as Spader’s confused wife.  Be warned this film contains some pretty explicit and strange sex scenes, but like any car wreck you just cannot look away.

“Oscar”(1991)

OK, just don’t judge all Sly comedies by “Stop of my mom will shoot”.  This is another animal entirely.  I cannot tell you enough how much I love, love, love this movie.  This is perhaps one of the best, underrated movies of all time.  The plot is clever, the dialogue witty, witty, the costumes and sets are beautiful and accurate to the time, and the cast, ironically enough is full of Oscar winners and nominees. 

Just to give you the Oscar roll call:  Sylvester Stallone-2 nominations, Don Ameche-1 win, Peter Reigert-1 nomination, Marisa Tomei-2 nominations, 1 win, Chaz Palminteri- 1 nomination, Kirk Douglas-3 nominations, 1 win. Ornella Muti-3 David (Italian Oscar) nominations, 1 win. Plus Emmy winners, Tim Curry, and Ken Howard, and Emmy nominees, Linda Gray and Harry Shearer.  Not to mention a plethora of great supporting characters like Kurtwood Smith, Martin Ferrero,  Joey Travolta and the Iconic Yvonne De Carlo.

This movie is modeled on the classic Shakespearian comedy. It actually has all of the elements listed in wikipedia as standards of Shakespearian comedies:
    ·   A struggle of young lovers to overcome difficulty, often presented by elders
    ·  Separation and re-unification
    ·  Deception among characters (especially mistaken identity)
    ·  A clever servant
    ·  Tension between characters, often within a family
    ·  Multiple, intertwining plots
    ·  Use of all styles of comedy (slapstick, puns, dry humor, earthy humor, witty banter,  
        practical jokes)
    ·  Happy Ending, though this is a given, since by definition, anything without a 
        happy ending can't be a comedy

Set during prohibition, the story revolves around “Snaps” Provolone, a gangster who has made his money selling illegal liquor.  On his deathbed Snaps’ father asks him to go straight.  Unable to deny his dying father, Snaps agrees.  On the first day of his honest life, a multitude of situations arise, designed to keep Snaps from getting out of the business.

You do have to pay attention to the dialogue; it is filled with fast witty banter, and great timely lines like, “its the Music you kids listen to today, don’t think I haven’t heard the words to “Minnie the Moocher”.”  This film is a great little rollercoaster ride from start to finish. 

“Strings”(2004)

This is one of the most unusual movies that I have every seen.  All of the characters are marionettes.  Expertly manipulated by Master Puppeteers, these marionettes are very human in their movements and gestures.  Originally made in Sweden, with Swedish actors doing the voices.  It was re-released in America with English speaking actors doing the voiceover, very much like “Howl’s Moving Castle”.

The main character, Hal, voiced by James McAvoy, is the son of a king.  When his father commits suicide in despair over the warring state of the kingdom, the king’s brother, Nezo steals the suicide note and tells his nephew Hal that the neighboring kingdom had the king assassinated.  Nezo hopes to eliminate Hal by sending him to be killed by their “enemy”. Hal leaves the kingdom and begins a quest for vengeance. 

This movie is really interesting in the way that it constructs a whole world for the marionettes.  In this world your “head string” is what connects you to God.  If your head string is cut, you die. If the string to you legs is cut you become "lame".   New children are born when the father carves a new wooden baby, which the “pregnant” mother brings to life by connecting strings which have grown around her own  to the wooden infant.  Even the gates to the castle only have to consist of a single bar high above head height that blocks the strings from passing.

As Hal travels the land looking for answers he meets Zita who helps shed light on the reality of war for Hal. This path leads Hal to a new understanding of how ignorance and misinformation can lead to war, and how tolerance can bring understanding.  This is one of the most beautiful and magical movies ever.  A must see for all ages.

Well that’s just a start on the best movies you’ve never seen, I will have more for you soon.

“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” or the film that came in from the cold.

This was a very engrossing, tightly woven, and well-paced film, that doesn’t talk down to the viewer.  Gary Oldham is fantastic.   As is my newest favorite British import, Tom Hardy. 

With very much a LeCarre atmosphere, this movie evokes the kind of spare twisted feeling common to the 70’s and the cold war.  As complex as the cold war itself, the twists and turns of “TTSS” keep you guessing all through the movie. 

The pace of the movie is one of its best features, never moving to fast to follow, but not so slow you get bored.  The pace feels very natural, as the film moves back and forth between the past and current events. 

Unlike in many thrillers, the filmmaker, Tomas Alfredson, (director of the superb “Let the Right One In”) does not give away the surprise too fast. Sometimes in a film you can tell who the bad guy will be, just by how long the camera lingers on a particular character, or by how much weight the character seems to bring with him.   Alfredson, on the other hand, leads you down many paths.  Drawing your attention first to one character and then another, making you unsure which one is the traitor, so much so, I even found myself wondering if there was a cabal involved.

Generally I am not a fan of cold war films, but this one is great.  Gary Oldham is fantastic a George Smiley, a man we want to like, but who disconcerts us with his willingness to subvert the truth in pursuit of his objective. The cast is chock full of great character actors and everyone turns in a solid, convincing performance.  Though as usual, Tom Hardy (looking disturbingly like a young Don Johnson, though not acting like him) dominates the screen in every scene he is in, as does the laboriously named, but imminently likable Benedict Cumberbatch as Smiley’s right hand man Guillam.  Well worth the money, I say, go see this one.

“Mission Impossible; Ghost Protocol” or fun, fun for the fourth time.

Well that was fun.  I liked this, even though it is a fourth installment.  Tom Cruise knows how to deliver on the non-stop action, and Brad Bird’s signature is there to see in the looks of all the action sequences.

As with past MI movies the action sequences have to deliver bigger more adrenaline filled thrills.  This time though instead of using faster cars, trains or automobiles the action is more about individual, physical challenges.  Because of this there are no big impossible action sequences where Tom is hanging from the wing of a jet, or some other improbable location.  This is refreshing; instead they rely on added elements like the big storm in the middle that adds excitement to what would normally be just a car chase.  In this way, thinking outside the box MI4 delivers. 

The locations are exotic and the actors, solid. Though both Michael Nyquist and Anil Kapoor, come off a little clichéd as the Swedish dissident and the Indian playboy respectively.  It is a little as though the casting director was told to find the most visible actor from Sweden and India and automatically cast them.  These are small caveats though, for the most part the story moves along well and the action is the star.  If the ending is a little cheesy, well, Tom has earned his cheese, and it is all in the name of wrapping up a secondary story line, so it plays.

All in all I say yes to Ghost Protocol and to all of those MI movies to come.  As long as they can keep the action solid and the stunts fresh they will have an audience.