You've got to love a spin-off where they just added one word to the title: “The LEGO Batman Movie” plucks the breakout character from the first movie and gives him his own flick, with gleeful fun for kiddies resulting.
There is a goodly helping of inside jokes for grownups, but these movies are aimed squarely at the 10-and-under set. They’re colorful, fast-paced, full of action and mildly crude humor.
Will Arnett returns as the voice of Batman/Bruce Wayne, who’s a self-centered jerk trying to mask his yearning for a family to stave off his crushing loneliness. One is soon presented to him in the form of a boy ward of the state who will become Robin (Michael Cera), Police Commissioner Barbara Gordon (Rosario Dawson) and his own loyal butler, Alfred (Ralph Fiennes).
Zach Galifianakis voices the Joker, who launches a scheme to free all the villains trapped in the Phantom Zone. He’s stuck somewhere between trying to kill Batman and wanting a relationship with him. Perhaps one will lead to the other.
We get to see virtually every bad guy Batman has fought over the years in LEGO form, along with a bunch of new ones like Condiment Man. (His power his exactly what you think.) The blocky, deceivingly crude animation is slick and appealing.
“The LEGO Batman” movie is entirely a retread of the first movie, but with the pieces changed all around into different forms.
Bonus features are quite extensive, and -- in a move that’s increasingly rare -- you get the same goodies with the standard DVD version as the Blu-ray upgrade.
There’s a feature-length commentary track by director Chris McKay and his crew, deleted scenes, four new Batman animated shorts (favorite title: “Batman is Just Not That Into You”) and another short for the upcoming “LEGO Ninjago” movie. Plus, social media promos, trailers and six making-of featurettes.
Batman was the breakout character of “The Lego Movie” -- which is not bad for a guy who’s been hanging around since 1939.
He basically operated as comic relief, voiced by a mock-gravely Will Arnett in a spoof of the character’s grim persona. It worked because on some level I think most of us find Bats a bit teadious after a while. Having something like a dozen movie iterations doesn’t help.
For me, the highest point of parody was when Batman played some music he’d written, pounding thrash rock punctuated by the lyrics, “Darkness!! …No parents!!”
So now he’s got his own movie, and the challenge is to see if they can sustain a parody of a tiresome superhero without it becoming tiresome itself. The answer is: mostly.
I feel sort of ridiculous offering a story summary of the movie. Credited to five (!) writers, it’s a deliberately chaotic mashup of Batman lore, including virtually every villain he’s ever fought, plus a bunch more created on the spot.
One of them, Condiment Man, has a superpower of squirting mustard and ketchup at you. Not even powerful arcs of sauce, just limp little spurts that fall ineffectually at his feet. Maybe try not to be such a traditionalist, dude -- work some salsa or tzatziki into the mix.
Anyway, the joke is that Batman/Bruce Wayne is super arrogant and self-centered, but secretly he’s desperately lonely and in denial about it. He spends his off time loitering around the bat cave, pestered by his butler, Alfred (Ralph Fiennes), about letting people in.
Fortunately, a group of people immediately presents itself as his potential new family, including Alfred himself, a nervous scamp of an orphan who will become Robin (Michael Cera) and Barbara Gordon (Rosario Dawson), the new commissioner of Gotham City. She’s taking over from her dad, Jim Gordon, after graduating from “Harvard Police School.” Dear daddy just pushed the button for the bat signal whenever trouble appeared, but the new sheriff in town has some discomforting ideas about Batman sharing the limelight.
The threat comes from the Joker (Zach Galifianakis), the Batman’s old nemesis who’s feeling a bit neglected these days. Batman won’t even admit to calling Joker his arch-enemy, saying that he likes to fight lots of different people and doesn’t have any preferences. “I like to fight around,” he says, in one of many in-jokes aimed at adults.
So Joker and his gang get the idea to release all the super-villains trapped by Superman in the Phantom Zone, and soon Bats has got more on his hands than he can handle.
Directed by Chris McKay, “The Lego Batman Movie” is a stylistic clone of “The Lego Movie” – ridiculously fast-paced, lots of colorful action that the eye can’t all track, chockful of quips and comedic asides.
It’s aimed squarely at kids, but is smart and savvy enough to throw in enough to keep parents engaged, too. Compared to so many moribund animated flicks lately that couldn’t pull off that trick -- “Sing,” “Trolls” -- it almost seems like a super-power.
“Kubo and the Two Strings” is my favorite animated film of 2016 so far, but it didn’t fare very well at the box office. I think people may have seen a story set in medieval Japan and dismissed it as anime. (Which in of itself is a terrible reason to avoid a movie.) So I’m genuinely hoping people will check it out on video, so more flicks like “Kubo” will be made.
Art Parkinson provides the voice of Kubo, a boy filled with loneliness and magic. With only one eye and a banjo, he trudges into town every day to spin his fantastic tales for the villagers, complete with sheets of paper that come to life, then returns to his seaside cave to care for his mother. A sorceress who fought a terrible long-ago battle with her own family, she’s nearly catatonic – but still has some magic up her sleeve
Later, Kubo is banished to the distant Farlands, placed on a quest to gather three mystic pieces of armor in order to take on the evil Moon King (Ralph Fiennes) – who happens to be his own grandfather. His aunts, known as the Sisters (Rooney Mara), are fearsome witches on the hunt.
Kubo’s only companions are Monkey (Charlize Theron), a protective charm brought to life as be his guardian, and Beetle (Matthew McConaughey), a cursed former samurai trapped in the body of a bug.
The stop-motion animation is just astonishing, with a battle with a giant skeleton standing out especially. The depictions of ocean waves and crackling magic are astonishingly life-like.
Director Travis Knight and screenwriters Chris Butler and Marc Haimes continue the fine tradition of stop-motion animation – “Coraline,” “The Boxtrolls,” “The Night Before Christmas” – that’s seen a terrific run the last couple of decades.
Go see/rent/buy “Kubo and the Two Strings,” and let’s keep this ball rolling.
Bonus features are quite good, including a feature-length commentary track with Knight. The Blu-ray and DVD editions also come with three making-of documentaries, focusing the Japanese inspiration for the story, varied landscapes and the mythology behind Kubo.
Upgrade to the 3D combo pack and you add five more featurettes, including ones on monsters and music.
I think I was about halfway through the screening of “Kubo
and the Two Strings” before I even realized it was stop-motion animation. The
movement is so smooth, the backgrounds so dense and the action so unbound, I
figured there was no way this could be the work of puppets slowly moved a frame
at a time.
But Laika, the stop-motion studio behind “The Boxtrolls,” “ParaNorman”
and “Coraline,” has made another gem with this lyrical story set in medieval
Japan.
It’s about a boy, Kubo (voice of Art Parkinson), who has
grown up as a virtual orphan near a tiny beach village. He lives in a cave with
his mother, who exists in a seemingly never-ending daze, needing help even to eat.
But in her more lucid moments she spins tales about the dark history of their
family, including the death of his father, Honsou, a mighty warrior, and how as
a baby Kubo had one of his eyes stolen by his own grandfather.
(Though the material is carefully presented not to be too
frightening, the themes and action scenes may be too intense for smaller
children. I would take my 5-year-old to see this, but probably not the
3-year-old.)
Kubo has inherited the magical gift of his mother, which he employs
to tell variations on his mother’s stories in the village for money. Using a
traditional three-string Japanese banjo, plinked with a triangular pick, and
colored paper that comes alive at his beckon to turn into shape-shifting origami
to illustrate his tales, it’s an astonishing blend of dazzling visuals and jaunty
music. (Dario Marianelli provides the latter.)
Tragedy befalls when Kubo ignores his mother’s warning to
never remain outside after sunset, when his grandfather, the Moon King (Ralph
Fiennes), can see him. The boy finds himself exiled to the barren Farlands. His
only companion is Monkey (Charlize Theron), a wooden charm he always carried
that came alive via his mother’s spells. Monkey is very protective of the boy,
and sternly urges him on his quest to retrieve the three pieces of magical
armor necessary to defeat the enemy.
Along the way they encounter the Sisters, very creepy masked
twins who are a disturbing amalgam of Japanese and European conceptions of
witches, both voiced by Rooney Mara. They also run into this odd creature who
looks like a man trapped inside a bug’s chitinous shell; he has no memory,
other than insisting he was once a samurai who was cursed. Dubbing the forgetful
fellow Beetle (Matthew McConaughey), he joins their little band.
The animation is just wondrous to behold. Several ocean
scenes have a mesmerizing quality, especially once you realize there’s no water
used. One encounter with a giant skeleton is particularly memorable, both for
its fearfulness and intricacy.
“Kubo and the Two Strings” is not your typical animated
flick. Though it’s suitable for (nearly) the whole family, it’s got an edge and
a timelessness that goes far beyond the familiar cute-critters-and-life-lessons
formula. It feels like an ageless Eastern parable, dreamed up by 21st
century American artists.
“If you must blink, do it now!” Kubo invokes at the
beginning of each of his tales. Even a wink is too much magic to be missed.
At some point the Coen brothers are going to remember they're funny. Not this time, though.
"Hail, Caesar!" is the latest from the writer/producer/director siblings, Joel and Ethan, and the latest strikeout. It's not nearly as dour as "Inside Llewyn Davis," nor does it have the dragging sense of self-importance of the overpraised "No Country for Old Men."
But the fact that "Hail" is actually trying to be caustic and funny, and fails pretty miserably at it, perhaps makes the disappointment even more keen.
It's a daffy send-up of the Hollywood studio system circa 1950, when chiefs ran the show and stars were just playthings to be shuffled and traded like cards in a deck. It's the sort of movie in which everybody comes off looking bad -- the behind-the-scenes overlords, the dimwitted actors, the narcissistic directors, the nosy press, the whole kebab.
Even the screenwriters, who usually get portrayed as the put-upon heroes of the trade, are seen as stooges of the Communists, happily spouting Marxist theory but really desiring more of the dough and limelight for themselves.
The Coens doubtless intended this as caricature, a joke-within-a-joke about how artistic types were often viewed during the McCarthy era. Call me old fashioned, but I just don't find the Blacklist every funny.
The central character is Eddie Mannix, the fixit man for Capital Pictures. The sign on his office door says Head of Physical Production, but he really runs the studio on a day-to-day basis while the man ostensibly in charge keeps a careful remove in New York. Mannix's job is a quotidian nightmare of putting out fires, making sure the trains run on time, preventing the embarrassing stuff from getting into the press and keeping the tantrums/temptations of the stars to a manageable minimum.
Things go haywire when his biggest star, Baird Whitlock (George Clooney), is kidnapped from the set of the Roman drama that bears the title of this film. It's Mannix' big prestige picture for the year, and soon the gossip columns have heard about the disappearance -- including rival sisters, Thora and Thessaly Thacker, both played by Tilda Swinton.
The kidnappers are... not terribly organized. They're a bunch of egghead scriptmen who bring Baird to a beatific beachside home, still in his Roman soldier get-up. They don't even bother to lock the doors, and we wonder why he doesn't simply walk up the driveway and thumb a ride back to town. But Baird is fascinated by the lefty "scientific theory" of the crew, who apparently just requisitioned it from a visiting professor. He happily chats them up, trading stories about drinking with Clark Gable, having to shave Danny Kaye's back and such.
Hanging around the periphery is Hobie Doyle, a singing cowboy star in the mold of Audie Murphy who's just been asked to change his image with a switch to erudite romantic dramas. Deliciously played by Alden Ehrenreich, Hobie is hopelessly ill-equipped for anything more than ridin' and ropin', but gamely gives it a go.
If Baird is dim, then Hobie's mind is just about pitch black. But somehow the simpleminded, earnest young star always seems to point himself in the right direction, while Mannix and his henchmen are confounded by the kidnapping.
Also turning up in bit roles -- just a scene or two apiece -- are Ralph Fiennes as Laurence Laurentz, an uppity director trying fruitlessly to whip Hobie into thespian shape; Scarlett Johansson as DeeAnna Moran, a swimsuit beauty a la Esther Williams who's more Bronx moll than angel; Jonah Hill as the ever-ready fall guy; Frances McDormand as the editing whiz toiling in her cave; and Channing Tatum as a Gene Kelly-esque song-and-dance man.
Tatum shines in one of the better scenes, a homoerotic romp with a bunch of Navy sailors already missing the dames as they're about to put to sea. Kelly was light as a feather on his feet, while Tatum's tapping has a more of a lumbering quality to it, but I still appreciated the effort.
"Hail, Caesar!" is a wonderful-looking picture, photographed by Roger Deakins in the saturated colors and crisp tones of the era. The Coens seem to be having a grand old time, amusing themselves with musical numbers and other homages to Golden Age Hollywood -- while simultaneously undercutting the whole industry as trivial and silly.
It's a schizophrenic film without much narrative semblance or sense of purpose. A few bits dazzle, fool's gold for those of us who used to believe the Coens could do no wrong.
Just a few thoughts today on the new James Bond film. Evan Dossey is handling the main review over at The Film Yap, so head there to read his more complete thoughts.
The Daniel Craig Bond flicks have been defined by their dourness, and while that was a welcome change from the breeziness of the Pierce Brosnan and Timothy Dalton movies -- not to mention the nearly pure comedy of the Roger Moore era -- it's starting to wear down the franchise, like a repetitive stress injury.
Director Sam Mendes is back at the helm again, a rarity in the Bond tradition, but "Skyfall" was the highest-grossing 007 film ever, so if he was game there really wasn't anyone to tell him different. Craig is loudly and publicly musing over whether he wants to play the British agent again, and there's a lot of chatter about Idris Elba or Tom Hiddleston or (insert latest rumor here) sliding into the role.
Without giving anything away, I will say that the ending of "Spectre" is such that it could either neatly wrap up Craig's tenure in the black tuxedo, or set up one final go-round.
It's very much a story of beginnings and endings, with most of the familiar Bond solar system -- M, Q, Moneypenny -- now replaced with fresher faces. James Bond is widely viewed as an anachronism by the British intelligence services, who are more keen on data and satellite imagery and drones than guys wandering around with a license to kill.
The movie for me is more of a Greatest Hits version of James Bond than anything else I've seen. Names and faces of villains and allies from the recent past are recalled and, forcibly, linked to one another. We're told that a sinister organization named Spectre has been behind nearly all the troubles Bond has encountered in recent years, with one shadowy figure at the head of the table.
I'm not giving anything away in saying that Christoph Waltz plays the chief villain, or surprising anyone by stating that he's the best thing about the movie. (You could say that about most films with Waltz.) He plays Franz Oberhauser, a supposedly dead guy with an intimate connection to Bond that I wouldn't divulge.
Suffice to say that rather than pursuing some overarching goal of world domination, Oberhauser -- who also has adopted another, familiar, moniker -- seems to delight in creating chaos and pain for its own sake. Particularly when that pain is Bond's own.
Waltz has surprisingly little screen time, but makes the most of it.
I know, I know … you’re thinking to yourself, why should I care about the (seemingly) 3,074th version they’ve made of “Great Expectations” for film or television?
Short answer: because the new version that came out at the end of last year is one of the most emotionally engaging adaptations of a Charles Dickens’ novel I’ve ever seen.
You may not even be aware of this iteration, directed by Pete Newell (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) and starring an impressive cast, including Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Jeremy Irvine, Robbie Coltrane and Holliday Grainger. It didn’t get much traction, barely making it into U.S. theaters.
But this may just be the best film of 2013 that nobody saw. Fiennes and Bonham Carter both deserved Oscar nominations for their fine, vibrant performances.
You know the story: a young penniless orphan (Irvine) is given an inheritance and an introduction into London society by an anonymous benefactor. He makes a mush of it, squandering his fortune and falling for a chilly, distant girl protected by her brittle ward, Miss Havisham (Bonham Carter).
Dickens himself felt that “Great Expectations” was his greatest work, but previous movie versions have tended to be stilted and unapproachable. Give this one a chance, and you won’t find yourself disappointed.
Extra features include deleted scenes, a making-of featurettes, photo gallery and more.
Film adaptations of 19th century British and American literature have a tendency to be stiff and remote. The characters in those books were often more like archetypes than flesh-and-blood creatures. They spoke in lilted sentences adored in upper-class salons of the day, but which were unlikely to actually spill out of anyone’s mouth extemporaneously. Movie versions tend to translate this distance between author and audience.
At first I thought “Great Expectations” was falling into this fold, based on Charles Dickens’ classic tale of a blacksmith’s apprentice transformed into a young gentleman. The early section where we’re introduced to the main players and set the plot in motion drags rather badly. Pip is plucked out of obscurity and given a sizeable fortune by a mysterious benefactor.
But something happens along the way. The actors grow comfortable in their roles, director Mike Newell and screenwriter David Nicholls trim away some of the book’s extraneous subplots and characters, and the movie actually grows deeper and richer the further we travel along with it.
By the end, I was fully caught up in the emotional journey of Pip (Jeremy Irvine) and his long-estranged lady love, Estella (Holliday Grainger). Their on-again, off-again affair is somehow both restrained and ravishing.
The cast is just spectacular, with the characters really popping off the screen despite many of them having limited screen time. Jason Felmyng has sort of shy, proud grace as Joe, Pip’s brother-in-law and passive protector. Robbie Coltrone is a fearsome, fulsome presence as Jaggers, the mercenary lawyer put in charge of introducing Pip into society. Ewen Bremner, Sally Hawkins and Olly Alexander are spot-on as, respectively, Jaggers’ assistant Wemmick, Pip’s abusive older sister and best chum Herbert Pocket.
The real standouts are Helena Bonham Carter and Ralph Fiennes, both of whom deserve consideration when the award season rolls in.
As Miss Havisham, the wealthy spinster who takes young Pip under her wing, Carter is an eerie presence, a victim and victimizer who has shut herself away from life. Abandoned at the altar by a conniving embezzler, she still wears her wedding dress, now reduced to ragged strips, while the mice make a feast on her never-served banquet dinner. She’s both vile and pitiable.
It’s no secret Fiennes can be utterly unnerving onscreen, so his early scenes as escaped convict Abel Magwitch are fraught with terror. Later, while never losing his hard edges -- he’s a willing murderer who sleeps with a blade in his hand -- Magwitch is also exposed as more human than we might have supposed.
Irvine is fine in the lead role, though it’s more of a reactive part where the actor is required to play off of the other, more interesting people around him. Grainger has a nice feel for the coldness inside the heart of Estella, Miss Havisham’s adoptive daughter.
She delivers perhaps the most memorable line of the book and movie: “I have been bent and broken, but -- I hope -- into a better shape.” This surprisingly touching version of “Great Expectations” certainly breaks the mold for this sort of literary adaptation, breathing life into those dusty pages.
Shakespeare has rarely translated well to film, and even when it does -- "Shakespeare in Love," "Romeo + Juliet" -- it's usually in a modernistic, revisionist way that steps outside the rigid confines of the Bard's plays. And the reason is simple: with nigh on half a millennium separating our version of the English language from his, it's very difficult for anyone who's not a PhD in literature to comprehend just what the heck the characters are saying.
"Coriolanus," based on one of Shakespeare's lesser-known works, lies somewhere in between classic and revisionist approaches. The dialogue is tweaked enough to make it so the layman can usually follow along, but the bones of the story is unchanged.
Ralph Fiennes, who also makes his directing debut, plays the title character, an over-proud general just returned triumphant to Rome. A rigid, inflexible man, he thinks his honor has won him the right to become consul, but the common people do not love him, and scheming politicians maneuver to rob him of the title. Enraged, Coriolanus joins forces with his mortal enemy to wage war against the empire.
It's grandiose, heavy stuff, and both Fiennes and Vanessa Redgrave were passed over for Academy Award nominations they probably deserved. Gerard Butler plays Coriolanus' enemy Tullus Aufidius, and the cast is rounded out by Jessica Chastain and Brian Cox.
Bonus features are the same for Blu-ray and DVD editions, and include a making-of featurette and an audio commentary track by Fiennes.
I have not always been Harry Potter's best friend. I liked the first two movies in the series well enough. But by the third -- when most observers believed the 10-year, eight-film epic journey really took things to another level -- I felt like I'd seen this movie too many times already. The saga of the boy wizard and Voldemort, his mortal enemy, had become episodic and repetitive to these eyes.
But the last film, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" was the grand payoff that I had been waiting for. No more exposition, no more new characters cluttering up the storyline, no more sense of the filmmakers dawdling -- just the logical, satisfying and sweeping culmination of a long voyage.
The story picks up with Harry, Ron and Hermione returning from exile to challenge Voldemort, who's tightened his death's grasp on the entire wizarding world. There's a climactic assault on Hogwarts School by Death Eaters and their minions, a terrifying chase through a maze of dragons, and of course the epic final showdown between Harry and Voldemort.
The stakes are high, and many people die. There's a sense of grandiose finality to "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2." This is the end -- and what a glorious one.
Videos extras are decent, though not quite magical. The lack of a commentary track is rather galling.
The DVD has a making-of documentary, deleted scenes, a tour of the Warner Bros. London studio where most of the films were shot, plus three featurettes: "The Goblins of Gringotts with Warwick Davis," "The Women of Harry Potter," and "When Harry Left Hogwarts."
The Blu-ray edition has all those, plus two juicy additions. There's an interactive pop-up collection of behind-the-scenes videos, and a conversation between author J.K. Rowling and Daniel Radcliffe.
"Sunshine," made in 1999 as a multi-national production about three generations of a Jewish family, with Ralph Fiennes portraying a trio of male leads. And "Sunshine," directed in 2007 by Danny Boyle about an international crew of scientists traveling toward the dying sun to reignite it and save mankind.
They have nothing in common other than the same title and the fact that Film Yappers Christopher Lloyd and Austin Lugar each hadn't seen one of them. As happenstance would have it, we had both watched the one the other hadn't.
Our mission: Watch the other film, and see our how opinions square up.
The Intro: Sunshine 2007
Chris: I'd liked virtually all of Danny Boyle's previous films up till then, but heard nearly all bad things about "Sunshine." It seemed rather derivative to me, a combination of "2010: The Year We Make Contact" and "Alien." Coupled with the still-too-recent memory of another slow-paced space dirge, "Solaris," I was convinced to stay away. Plus, my memory is that it came and went from local theaters in a flash.
After watching it, some of my preconceptions were reinforced while others were shattered. In terms of plot and tone, it really does bear a lot of similarity to other deep-space stories: A spaceship of humans is sent on a mission (or diverted from its mission) to explore the mysterious case of a missing ship (possibly a predecessor sent on an identical journey that failed), which suddenly reappears more or less intact.
The claustrophobia of the ship quarters and hallways, the conflicts between crew members, and the eventuality of a malevolent presence invading the ship and offing the astronauts are familiar tropes, especially evoking "Alien."
The only thing really interesting about the "Sunshine" crew is their international makeup, with a strong Asian contingent, including the captain.
Still, I found it fascinating and well-paced, until the crew reaches the sun and the plot goes kerblooie.
Austin: I'm pretty much alone in this opinion, but I really like the third act. That's when the movie becomes really exciting to me. It's one thing to establish a debate like free will vs. fate/God and it's another thing to personify those sides so they can literally combat each other. Declaring a winner makes the debate far more interesting.
The Intro: Sunshine 1999
Austin: While I've been working on my podcast, "And the Nominees Are," I've seen a lot of movies where they try to fit a character's entire life into two hours. Those films are usually based off novels that accomplished the goal in several hundred pages and the transition feels cramped. This version of "Sunshine" tries to be even more ambitious. In three hours, it tries to tell the story of three generations of men. All played by Ralph Fiennes.
The story starts in Hungary at the turn of the century. Fiennes starts by playing Ignatz Sonnenschein, a rising judge in the community. He always seems to be on the outside of political arguments about the growing level of hatred towards Jews. The real heart of his story -- pun intended -- is his controversial relationship with his cousin, who he ends up marrying.
One of their sons is Adam Sons (also played by Fiennes) who is a fencing expert skilled enough to play in the Olympics for Hungary. He too faces a forward relationship and anti-semitism. Then his son is Ivan Sors (also played by Fiennes) who is the most active in politics as he is one of the rebels of the Communist party.
Each story has an hour devoted to it, but they have the contradiction of being too much and too little at the same time. Only a few scenes per segment have the strength the movie needs. A lot of the time feels like padding to get people to the proper place. In a novel, repetition can play to its strength as motifs and themes are formed. With the span of the movie, it all feels too familiar.
Chris: I really like "Sunshine," though I admit your points about the long movie unable to devote enough time to all the characters as valid. I tended not to see it as three separate stories but an evolving, revolving look at one European family and the persecution it faces over the decades. For me, it's almost like a minor-league "Godfather" Part I and II rolled into one movie.
Main Guy: Sunshine 2007
Chris: Cillian Murphy plays Capa, the physicist whose job it is to oversee the massive payload into the sun's core, reigniting it. The payload is essentially a massive bomb comprising most of the fissile material left on Earth.
Capa slides right into the shoes of other spaceborne protagonists of this (Ripley) ilk: He is reserved but speaks up with necessary, brave but not demonstrative, dedicated to the mission but willing to embrace existential crises and man-made context when considering their actions.
In this way he is forcefully contrasted with Mace (Chris Evans), the deliberate and martial crew member ready and willing to make any sacrifice to ensure the success of their mission. The two scuffle frequently, especially when Capa makes the call to divert their ship, Icarus II, toward a rescue of Icarus I.
Capa's reasoning here is sketchy. Since the quasi-sentient ship computer estimates the payload's chance of success at only 45%, Capa figures that two shots is better than one. But this ignores two critical pieces of logic:
Whatever force, internal or external, that derailed Icarus I seven years earlier is likely to affect their ship, too, if their vessel becomes compromised. This is exactly what unfolds, as the insane and horribly burned captain of the first ship, Pinbacker (Mark Strong), sabotages the Icarus II and kills much of the crew.
Why couldn't they deliver their payload, and only if it is unsuccessful seek out the Icarus I for a second try?
Austin: I've never been the biggest fan of Cillian Murphy. He always serves his purpose, but never impresses me. I did like how he didn't try to be too heroic with the character; he almost played it down. The first leap of logic was a gamble on their part. The second makes sense to me in a sci-fi way. It's easier to break a window with a big rock instead of throwing two small rocks at different times. To me, the guy who stole the show was Chris Evans. What an unexpected performance by him, especially at this time.
Main Guy: Sunshine 1999
Austin: This is an actor's dream: play three different characters linked by linage. There is so much room for nuance, but I never got that feel from Fiennes. I saw more of a difference between the men through the costume choices and the degree of their stubbornness. Fiennes can be a great actor when his range is better understood. He just felt flat the whole time during this movie.
When the characters really came through is when they were more focused on their emotional journeys instead of their political ones. I never cared about Ignatz being a judge, but his messed up marriage felt a lot stronger. Adam as a fencer was better than Adam during the war. Ivan struggling to interrogate his friend was better than him as an activist. They each only had an hour, but there still felt like there dramatic shifts of interest.
Chris: There's a certain remoteness to Fiennes in most of his performances; you always feel like there's a veil his characters are drawing up against anyone who might peer too closely at them. I thought that quality well-served him in this film, especially when playing the judge.
Guys Behind the Camera: Sunshine 2007
Chris:Visually, "Sunshine" is quite spectacular in a contemplative sort of way. The scenes in the observation deck where the crew can stare straight at the sun -- shielded to 2% of its power in order to protect their eyes -- are the signature image from the film.
Boyle displays a less than sure hand in shooting many of the "hardware" scenes endemic to the science fiction genre. The spaceships largely remain confusing masses of metal spires, and we never quite comprehend exactly what fits where. The scene where Capa separates the Icarus II from its payload and then blasts himself across the gulf between them in a golden spacesuit is meant to be the action high point of the film, but I had to stop and rewind several times just to grasp exactly what was happening.
The screenplay by Alex Garland similarly loses its way. Much of this is found in the figure of Pinbacker, who apparently went nuts with some sort of religious-inspired fever. He incinerated his crew in their observation room by cranking down the shield, and he himself looks like a well-done side of beef, his flesh largely seared away from his body.
But how did Pinbacker survive for seven years without food? Why does he seemingly have super-human strength? There are even shots were Pinbacker seems to blur, suggesting that he's somehow morphed into a being caught somewhere between the physical world and a plane of energy. What exactly drove him bonkers?
The movie never really attempts an explanation, beyond a lot of mumbo-jumbo about talking to God.
Austin: Whenever a sci-fi movie has any sort of reality struggles, I just think back to Rob Lowe in "Thank You For Smoking." Aaron Eckhart questions whether or not they can have sci-fi characters be able to smoke in an all oxygen environment and Lowe says, "One line of dialog. 'Thank God we invented the whatever device." In this case it's less sci-fi and more religious. Pinbacker stayed alive because God did not want the sun to be saved.
Guys Behind the Camera: Sunshine 1999
Austin: It's weird that I never heard about this film before talking to Chris. This is a three hour World War II epic starring some of the most respected actors of our time including Rosemary Harris, Rachel Weisz and William Hurt. Why else do the Oscars exist but to honor a film like this? Really, I think it's forgotten because of how unemotional it is.
The director is a man named István Szabó who has made a lot of films in his home country but only a few here in America. His most popular film is "Being Julia", which is mostly known for being the movie where Annette Benning lost to Hilary Swank for Best Actress ... again. A story of this scale really ought to be important cinema, but it missed the mark. In an attempt to be educational with the history, it ends up being too dry to make an impact.
The ending really shows what an odd film this is. There is this sense of romanticism and connectivity with the generations that isn't like anything else we've seen. Where was that for the first 170 minutes? I appreciated it near the end, but it still didn't work because I never cared about the characters enough. The plot was never strong enough for the characters. A stronger director could have created a proper balance, but instead there is awkwardness.
Chris: I guess I felt a stronger emotional tie to this film than you, Austin. The early romance seemed quite passionate to me, and the scene where Fiennes is tied up by the Germans and sprayed with a water house and left to freeze to death in the bitter cold still brings a lump to my throat. I often wonder what he was thinking at that moment, or if he felt his loyalty was worth the price being paid, even as those to whom he gave his allegiance proved most unworthy.
Final Word: Sunshine 2007
Chris: "Sunshine" is 75% of a really good movie. Although its pacing is ... shall we say, "deliberate" is the kind term, it's a reflective, thought-provoking film filled with wonderful images and dark moods.
Alas, it contains some plot holes you can drive the Icarus II through, and the last 30 minutes or so runs right off the rails. For almost two hours, "Sunshine" made me think, and the last act made me scratch my head.
Austin: I really dig this movie. It remains my favorite Danny Boyle film. So many films create an uneasy atmosphere in space, but this took it a step further by having a great story with it. This is just making me want to watch it again.
Final Word: Sunshine 1999
Austin: When it comes to World War II epics, this is Ralph Fiennes's fourth best. It relies too much on its backdrop to be relevant that it misses out the family at the center. When there is that much distance created, it questions what did the filmmaker really want to focus on? Either this is an muddled political movie or it's a static family drama with some moments of true possibility.
Chris: I really think "Sunshine" is a minor gem, one of those movies I always mention when people ask me for the names of great movies nobody's ever heard of. "Red Rock West" and "Fresh" are two others.
Harry Potter's epic journey ends with power and majesty. For 10 years and seven previous films, we've waded through oceans of exposition and endured ever-burgeoning layers of new characters and mythology to absorb. All building to: This.
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" does not disappoint. It is easily the best film of the series, mainly because we no longer feel the filmmakers stringing us along to set up yet another movie. People die, many of them central characters, and the audience recognizes the finality of these events.
In the final showdown with the evil Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes, in still-creepy bone-white makeup) there are several sequences that will last with me.
A terrifying chase through a maze with serpents of fire in pursuit. An assault on Hogwarts School by an army of Voldemort's Death Eaters, complete with lumbering trolls and wraith-like Dementors, that approaches the battles of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. A sad but illuminating journey through the mind of Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), the Hogwarts professor of shifting loyalties.
And, of course, Harry's final toe-to-toe magical battle with Voldemort. Daniel Radcliffe has grown so much in this role, and he brings it all together in this last movie, showing us the character's bravery and contradictions, his rage and grief. The Harry Potter of "Deathly Hallows" is no longer a young boy excited by magic, but has turned out much like LoTR's Frodo, aged before his time and regretful of the events in which he's been chosen by fate to play a pivotal role.
There's also an element we haven't seen out of Voldemort before -- fear. Early in the story he realizes that Harry, Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) have stumbled upon the secret to his forbidding dark power. By splitting his soul into hidden objects called Horcruxes, he's given them a chance to destroy him.
For those like me who have not read the series of books by J.K. Rowling, it can be a little difficult at times to keep up with the spinning narrative. At one point Harry pulls out some little golden doohickey that acquired somewhere in his travels, which I could summon no memory of. And then the thing it contains, which we had been told was the secret to Voldemort's downfall, ends up playing no role in their confrontation.
Contrastingly, diehard fans may complain about the film not containing every morsel of detail from the books. Such a thing is impossible -- even when director Peter Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves split the last book into two movies.
In that sense, this final film may be more satisfying to those who are innocent of Rowling's novels than the untold millions who have voraciously consumed them.
("Part 2" is being released in 3-D, and a more worthless and distracting use of that technology I have never seen. It adds little depth to the action, and dims the movie unnecessarily.
A lot of people were upset that the final book in the "Harry Potter" series got split into two movies.
]Personally, I don't mind. At 2½ hours, Part 1 of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" is so jam-packed with narrative, it's hard to imagine what a mess it would've been if the filmmakers had tried to cram in a few hundred more pages of story.
Not even the most powerful spell could've saved the movie.
As it is, this penultimate finale to the saga of a boy wizard battling his evil nemesis moves along at a crisp pace under the steady hands of director David Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves, who collaborated on the last three Harry Potter movies.
Lord Voldemort and his Death Eaters have effectively taken over the government of the wizarding world, and begun a reign of terror aimed at killing Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint). Their mission is to find the Horcruxes in which Voldemort has split up pieces of his soul, rendering him effectively immortal.
The mood is darker than previous Potter films, and it's nice to see the series growing up with the young trio of actors at its center.
Video extras are rather paltry with the DVD version, but an upgrade to the Blu-ray/DVD combo brings a wealth of goodies. The DVD contains only eight deleted/extended scenes totaling 11 minutes.
The centerpiece of the Blu-ray is a "Maximum Movie Mode" -- an interactive feature of pop-up scenes detailing various features of the production, hosted by actor Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy). There are other featurettes on topics like an on-set competition between the three stars, a round of golf in which Rupert Grint and others reflect on the series, and the making of the soundtrack.
The combo pack also includes a digital copy of the film, and a sneak preview of "Part 2."
Please note, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1" will be released on video Friday, April 15.
Right off the bat, the final chapter of the Harry Potter saga -- well, the first half of it, anyway -- broadcasts that its mood will be substantially darker than its predecessors. War is come, and wizards, witches and non-magical muggles alike are battening down the hatches.
For me, the seriousness of the outing was underlined when Hermione cast a spell to "obliviate" herself from her muggle parents' memories, in order to protect them from reprisal at the hands of Lord Voldemort's forces. Watching her portrait fade from the family photographs, and knowing what she's giving up, is unsettling and grave.
I also appreciated that the blooming of teenage romance, so annoyingly pushed on us during "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," is appropriately tamped down. Harry and new love Ginny Weasley share one quick snog, and then she's thankfully given the boot for the rest of the movie. Even the Hermione/Ron Weasley quickening is mercifully kept at a low boil.
It didn't even occur to me until after "Deathly Hallows" was over -- and I should point out its 2½ hours fly by at a brisk pace -- that Hogwarts School, which has been the focal point of the entire series, is never glimpsed, or even mentioned.
The wand-wielding kids are all grown up, and school is most definitely out.
If you're not up to speed on the chronicle of the boy wizard, his friends and his evil nemesis ... well, then head to the video store or fire up your Netflix account, because you've no chance of catching on at this late date without seeing the other movies.
The last film ended with the death of benevolent schoolmaster Dumbledore, and the revelation that Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes, in slithery makeup) has divided his soul into several objects called Horcruxes. It's up to Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) to find the rest of them, and destroy them.
Meanwhile, Voldemort and his army of Death Eaters have taken over the Ministry of Magic -- the central government for the wizarding world -- and begun a reign of terror designed to weed out those wizards and witches not of pure blood, and to trap Harry and friends.
For non-readers of the books by J.K. Rowling (like me), it's difficult to keep track of the dozens of tertiary characters who flit in and out of the background. Pretty much all of them who aren't dead show up at some point, and a few of them are killed off.
One doomed character, whose name I won't reveal, hasn't been seen since about the third Potter movie. So to suddenly bring them back and then off them deprives their death of any emotional impact.
Director David Yates, who's helmed the last three Potter movies, and screenwriter Steve Kloves, who's penned all but one of the series, keep things moving along at a zippy tempo that focuses on the relationship between the Big Trio. The only place the story bogs down a bit is toward the middle, when the three are wandering in exile. The simmering conflict between Harry and Ron over Hermione's affections feels ginned up.
I will confess I'm not a big fan of Rowling's shoddy storytelling. Her imagination is great -- too great, in fact. Whenever the kids are presented with a problem, there's always a new spell, or a new magic object, or a new ally that pops up to aid them. Her story construction doesn't have an airtight feel because she always invents a new backdoor for her characters to wiggle out of.
For example, somewhere in the last couple of movies they've introduced a spell to "apparate," or teleport instantly from one place to another, along with those touching the caster. If so, why do they bother with broomsticks to get around? For that matter, why did Harry and all the kids have to climb aboard a special train to get to Hogwarts that first time? Wouldn't it be much easier to send a few wizards to poof all the kids there instantly?
Despite arriving in April, in many ways "Clash of the Titans" was the first big summer movie of 2010.
The remake of the kitschy 1981 fantasy adventure is fast-paced and slick, with Ray Harryhausen's clunky stop-motion animation critters replaced by sleek computer-generated ones.
Perseus has undergone his own transformation, from Harry Hamlin's feathered-hairdo favorite son of Zeus to a snarling Sam Worthington, buzz-cut and seriously P.O.'d at the gods for using humans as their playthings.
Directed by Louis Leterrier, "Titans" is a mash-up of Greek/Roman mythology so addled, Edith Hamilton must be crying somewhere in Olympus. But the story doesn't have an ounce of fat, and captures the over-the-top fun of the original while dumping most of the schlockier elements.
The story: Zeus (Liam Neeson) and the other gods are furious that humans aren't praying to them like they used to, sapping their strength. He taps the original underworld boss, Hades (Ralph Fiennes), to strike terror into their hearts by threatening to unleash the Kraken, a powerful sea titan.
Perseus, the half-human son of Zeus, must find a way to defeat the Kraken by visiting the Stygian Witches, but not before fighting off some oversized scorpions and running afoul of Calibos, cursed into demon form by the gods.
And Medusa is still out there, in need of a close shave.
Video extras -- at least with the Blu-ray version -- are truly top-notch, providing hours worth of entertaining and insightful peeks behind the camera.
The DVD comes only with deleted scenes, but they're pretty hefty: Totaling about 18 minutes, they include much more intrigue between the gods, which I for one loved about the first film.
The Blu-ray/DVD combo pack comes with a host of other features, including an alternate ending that is much angrier in tone than the theatrical one -- not to mention Perseus ends up with a different lady love.
There's also a featurette on Worthington's growing reputation as the go-to action hero of his generation. "He's better than a stuntman," Leterrier says.
The centerpiece is a "Maximum Movie Mode" that combines 11 featurettes about nearly every aspect of production, plus 40 minutes of picture-in-picture commentary.
One takeaway nugget: Originally, the planned to have Hades as a female character!
Has it really been three decades since the original "Clash of the Titans," featuring a mangled mash-up of Greek mythology, herky-jerky stop-motion animated monsters and a really bitchin' Harry Hamlin feathered haircut?
The new "Clash" exists mostly to remind us how much things have changed.
The monsters are now sleek computer-generated beasties, snapping and slithering in all their 3-D glory. The gumbo of Greek legends has been remixed with the addition of wood-skinned sorcerers and some new humanistic themes.
And as Perseus, the half-man half-god hero, Sam Worthington's no-frills buzzcut signals that this is one classical dude with a lot of post-modern 'tude.
This remake is unnecessary but unobjectionable, and generally pretty fun. Fans of the original -- who, like me, regard it with warm nostalgia while chuckling at its hokier aspects -- will find themselves ticking off a checklist of what's been retained, changed or dropped.
I was disappointed that Calibos, the half-demon villain from the original, has been relegated to a walk-on role. Although there's still a nice touch of pathos to him.
And I didn't like the reduced byplay between the Gods of Olympus. I really enjoyed the first film's depiction of scheming, jealous super-beings conniving against each other, with mortals and their own demigod offspring used as chess pieces.
Liam Neeson gets in a few moments of thunder as Zeus, head god and Perseus' father. And Ralph Fiennes shines as crafty Hades, dissolving into mist and turning a human queen into an ancient hag with a touch.
But the rest of the gods are relegated to mere eye candy. Danny Huston, as Poseidon, has about two lines of dialogue. The female gods don't even get that.
At least the earthbound women got meatier roles. Andromeda (Alexa Davalos), the princess of the god-offending city of Argos, is prepared to sacrifice herself if Hades releases the Kraken, a powerful sea titan, as revenge for their arrogance. And Io (Gemma Arterton), an ageless demigod herself, takes on the role of Perseus' protector and companion.
Travis Beacham, Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi deliver a lean, mean script that focuses on the thrill of individual encounters without an ounce of dilly-dally in between. Perseus and a band of Argos' best warriors are sent to find the Stygian Witches -- frightful triplets sharing a single eye -- to learn if the Kraken can be defeated.
Instead of being the anointed, favored son of the gods, in this version Perseus is a poor fisherman resentful of the big boys' meddling in their workaday lives. He even refuses the gift of a magic sword from Zeus because he wants to win as a man, not a god.
(Although I couldn't help noticing he starts accepting these supernatural advantages ... but only after his cadre of comrades has been significantly reduced in headcount, and his own neck is on the line.)
Director Louis Leterrier keeps things moving along at a brisk pace that prevents the audience from dwelling on any incongruent new elements. Like Perseus' djinn companion, who looks like a cross between the "Lord of the Rings" ents and the Tusken Raiders of "Star Wars." Or that the Greek team also includes, for some reason, a pair of Russian hunters. I think someone took a wrong turn at the Caucasus.
One throwaway joke neatly sums up this entire movie. As Perseus and his crew are arming themselves for their journey, he reaches into a pile of equipment and pulls out a certain golden mechanical owl and asks what it is. The gruff captain (Mads Mikkelsen) tells him to leave it behind.
Younger audience members will be bewildered, but fans of the 1981 film will feel their hearts freeze: "Not that frackin' owl!!" Fortunately, the new "Clash of the Titans" has retained enough of the stuff that made the original memorable, and left the goofier ordnance back in the nostalgia bin.
