Y'all know me. Know how I earn a livin'. Quint here... usually I don't double up (or triple up in this case) on reviews, but I've been so behind since my little secret jaunt to LA last week that it's just hit me that tomorrow all of these films come out and I need to get my large ass in gear and type away.
Let's start with the one that's most likely to get me death threats...
SERENITY
I haven't been shy about my disinterest in Joss Whedon's worlds and have taken quite a lot of shit about saying that publicly. I fully respect the fan base the man has. I like some strange shit passionately myself (whether it's Fred Dekker's '80s work as a screenwriter and director or any Christopher Walken performance or my unhealthy passion for JAWS), so I respect someone really geeking on something.
However, the hardcore Whedonites do scare me. Let me say that up front. Also know that you can be a Whedon fan and not be a Whedonite. You know the difference, I'm sure. I once made the mistake of comparing them with Scientologists and for that I apologize. That really is an unfair comparison not to mention it doesn't really fit. What fits more is a comparison between the hardcore of the hardcore, those that scream and cry and make anonymous threats because you don't lick at Whedon's heels to Fundamentalist Christians. Both have a mission to convert the non-believers, both get radically offended if you challenge their belief system and both just looove to push their beliefs on any and everybody.
Believe it or not, I'm actually going to talk about the movie now and despite what you might be thinking it's not an out and out negative review. SERENITY turned out better than I expected it be. Of course, I expected to hate the movie, so anything above Uwe Boll quality would have been a pleasant surprise.
I found I came to kinda like Nathan Fillion's character, the swaggering captain, Mal. He's a walking, talking cliche of a character who goes out of his way to be the anti-hero (always more hero than anti, of course), but I didn't find him unenjoyable. The rest of the crew I didn't really get to know or care about during the film, except for Alan Tudyk, who is immediately likable in anything he does.
The effects work was likewise better than I expected, but still planted firmly in the void between high budget TV and low budget studio movies. There are moments that look ripped out of SG1 (like a lot of the first chase involving the crew of the Serenity and the Reavers, a bunch of crazy people with shit on their faces who wear furs), moments looking ripped out of PHANTOM MENACE (that love interest lady's palace) and then a few really nice effects like the crew sneaking through Reaver space bit near the end of the film.
The lighting and camerawork is very reminiscent of TV work. Good TV work, granted, but it still doesn't feel theatrical whenever there aren't space ships or planets on the screen.
There are many deaths in the film that I'm asked to care about and I'm told if I sat down and watched all the FIREFLY episodes then I might give more of a shit, but since they don't make me feel that in the film that's a failure on the film's part. I'm happy that this is a film made for the fans, but it shouldn't be made exclusively for the fans.
Look at Wrath of Khan, a movie I see lots of people bringing up when talking about SERENITY. WRATH OF KHAN was my first real exposure to Star Trek. I hadn't seen the first movie, maybe I saw a couple episodes of the original series on TV, but the movie worked as a movie, not just as a continuation of the TV series. Sure, you could feel the history the crew had together, but the drama between the characters was constructed to tell the story of the film. And the storyline of WRATH OF KHAN was even a direct continuation from an episode of the television series, let's not forget that, yet it stood firmly on its own.
Spock's sacrifice in WRATH OF KHAN worked not only because of the history the character had with the fans of the show and first film, it worked because you could see Kirk's heart ripped out when he hears "Live long and prosper" through the glass, could hear their history and lost friendship in his voice when speaking at Spock's funeral. The emotion and implied history was on the screen in front of you, not playing in reruns back home on TV.
My big problem with the ways the deaths were handled in SERENITY can be placed mostly on the way the characters react to them. I'm thinking specifically about a major death towards the end of the film that just seems thrown in there for no reason other than to shock the audience.
SPOILERS
The death is that of Alan Tudyk's character, who is married to Zoe, another crew member. He has a good moment after a harsh landing that is interrupted by a Reaver spike shot through the hull of the ship. The characters, including his wife, are shocked and look at him for about 3 seconds before going, "We have to move!" The next scene you couldn't tell that one of their crew had died, let alone one of the characters' husband. She's just going through the motions, like it was shot on a completely different day and she wasn't told that her husband died 10 seconds previously in the story. I know that sounds a bit nit-picky, but it really stuck in my craw for some reason. I guess if the wife of a dead character doesn't seem to give a shit, why should I? There's also another character who dies after we see him for about 2 minutes. I'm told he was a crew member on the show, but he's little more than a cameo here... at least in his death scene we get some real emotion out of Fillion, so it didn't bug me as much.
END SPOILERS
It just felt to me that Whedon was counting on those watching to bring the baggage of the TV series with him, which is fine for the small percentage of the movie going population who know every episode, but will be a big flaw to those who don't know.
This whole movie just reaffirms my thoughts on Whedon. I don't think he's a bad writer. I think he has his moments, but on the whole he just doesn't do it for me. To me, he's just mediocre. I don't start wishing his projects ill will until some douchebag says that he's the savior of modern pop culture and that Buffy and Angel are the best TV has to offer and the best TV will EVER have to offer and fuck you if you dare say anything different. It's people like that that make me want to just write Whedon off entirely and not give him a chance.
There is one part of the film where I glimpsed what it must be like to be a true blue Browncoat. It's the beginning of the big space battle in the third act of the film where the Serenity surprises her enemies who think they have her dead to rights. It's a well paced scene and the only moment where I felt an emotion one way or the other about the main villain of the movie (Chiwetel Ejiofor). In that one, big reveal (you'll know it when you see it), I think I saw what the fans see for the whole of Firefly/Serenity. I wish I could feel that way about the whole thing.
Like I said at the beginning, I'm not trying to make fun of Whedon fans or put myself above them. Not every person who loves Whedon's work falls into the Whedonite category, just like not every Christian are the bible-thumpers asking for your money on late night TV. I fully admit that this isn't my thing. I don't think it's god awful, but it's not my thing. Those who love Firefly will clearly love SERENITY, those who don't might not. Big surprise, eh?
OLIVER TWIST
I'm a big fan of Roman Polanski's film work as well as the 1968 musical adaptation of Charles Dickens' book, OLIVER!. I must admit to having never seen David Lean's OLIVER TWIST, which I hear is a fantastic movie and one I will seek out very shortly.
So, that's how I entered the film this evening. Polanski's eye for lighting and angles as well as his ability to work with actors is in top form in the film. He unflinchingly makes Oliver's life a living hell for most of the movie and creates a world around him that is beautiful in its ugliness. The hypocrisy of the establishment is shown in full view (the fat cats getting angry at Oliver for asking for an extra cup of gruel, all while sitting around a table absolutely overloaded with food) and one gets the feeling that Polanski reveled in taking shots at the aristocrats.
But the real success of the film is the cast. This story's been told so many times that really the only thing left is to see talented people trying on these famous characters. If the acting had been anything less than extraordinary then the movie would have fallen right on its face. Luckily for us, we got some great work here.
Barney Clark as Oliver Twist: This kid's a real find. He says damn near nothing in the whole movie, acting mostly through his face and sad eyes. He's very minimal in his acting and yet says so much with his face. He's a cute kid and has turned in a real great performance. I expect big things from this lad in the future.
Ben Kingsley as Fagin: Ah, old Fagin. Ron Moody played in so damn well in the musical, but Kinsgley does just as good a job here. Unfortunately we don't get to see him sing and dance, but Kingsley all but disappears into this character. See, Ben... we know you're still great... You were fantastic in THE HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG, even if the movie was a big downer... Whatever your debt or bills look like you don't need to run to Uwe Boll or THUNDERBIRDS! Keep doing stuff like this!
Harry Eden as The Artful Dodger: The Artful Dodger is my favorite character in the story of Oliver Twist and Eden does a great job in capturing the playfulness of the Dodger. Eden is immediately likable and someone you wish you could have palled around with when you were a kid. He's smart, funny and talented... Eden has two scenes to shine in in this film. The first is a small scene where Fagin is showing Oliver how to pick a pocket. There's a moment where one of the other kids nicks Fagin's wallet and tosses it over his hunched form right into the Dodger's top hat just as Fagin spins toward the lad. With a stylized spin, the hat goes onto the Dodger's head before Fagin spins around again. There's something perfect about that little maneuver, done with a confidence and a smile, that totally sums up the Artful Dodger in one motion.
The second moment is at the end (spoilers here if you don't know the story). The Dodger realizes how he unwittingly aided in Bill Sykes murdering Nancy, someone the Dodger clearly liked. It was partially the Dodger's fear of Bill Sykes that made him rat on Nancy's plot to save Oliver and you can tell he's crushed when he finds out about her murder. When Bill Sykes shows up at their hiding place, the Dodger stands up to him, making it full well known that his fear of the man is over, even if it does mean his death. (end spoilers)
It's a great scene and Harry Eden is great in it. I still prefer Jack Wild's Artful Dodger from the musical, but I think that has a lot to do with us getting closure on his character in the '68 film, whereas here he has his big moment and then the story shifts permanently over to Oliver, never going back to the good old Dodger.
Jamie Foreman as Bill Sykes: Foreman does a good job with this classic literary (not to mention stage and film) villain, but every time he was on screen I couldn't help but think of Oliver Reed in the role. The way Oliver Reed played the character was so much more disturbing, with that trademarked Oliver Reed rage always boiling behind his eyes. However, Foreman does great work here, just different work. He plays it more lifelike, where you can actually see a little bit of what Nancy sees in him, what keeps her with him. His part in the climax of the film isn't as well done as in the '68 film as well, but I have to reiterate... Foreman gets mean, mean, mean in this movie and steps into the boots of Bill Sykes well.
On the whole, the film is a great adaptation done by a master filmmaker with a fantastic cast. The film felt a little over-long to me, but I couldn't tell you what I'd cut out. It's just a huge story.
A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
I saw this one in LA when I was out there last week. It was open in one theater there and even though I paid $12.50 to see the movie New Line handed out what looked suspiciously like test screening forms before the movie and asked the audience to fill it out. Weird.
So, needless to say I'm a big Cronenberg fan... THE FLY, THE BROOD, DEAD ZONE, VIDEODROME and on and on... Love his stuff, so of course I was looking forward to HISTORY OF VIOLENCE.
Going in I had no idea what the hell the movie was apart from what I saw in the trailer and the clip they showed at Comic-Con (the diner scene that sets the whole bloody story into motion).
I was thrown a little bit at the beginning of the movie. There's a great one take shot that begins the story, introducing us to who we think will be the main villains of the movie, a couple of sleaze-bags who would never think twice about killing any living person for the change in their pocket. This I had no problem with. It was actually the introduction of the Stall family that struck an awkward chord with me.
The little girl (who can't really act, I have to say, but she plays cute little girl very well) wakes up screaming from a nightmare and one by one the family is introduced to the audience as they check on her. First it's the daddy, Viggo Mortensen, who comes in. "Baby, what's the matter?" Then it's the mommy, the beautiful Maria Bello, who enters the room. "Baby, what's the matter?" Then the older brother, Ashton Holmes, comes in, "Hey, what's the matter?"
This scene just felt awkward to me and was shot in a very traditional, uninteresting way. Just seemed like, "Hey, let's meet the family! Here's mom! Here's dad! Here's big brother!" you know? I felt that first pang of, "Oh, God... what if this movie is crappy?" I didn't want that, but I can't deny that it crossed my mind.
That wasn't helped much when we followed older brother to school and he has a run in with the cliche jock asshole. I'm used to characters in a Cronenberg film always being a little off the norm and far away from cliche, but here they were...
But there is a reason for this. Cronenberg clearly wanted to divide the film and the tone of the film into a few different segments. The big slash being the moment that violence is introduced with that awesome and extremely disturbing diner sequence you can see a bit in the trailer. The film after that moment feels radically different than anything that came before it and I love that he highlighted the difference so well. It made me forgive the awkward opening immediately as I saw there was purpose behind it, not a lapse of judgment.
I don't want to talk much about the plot because the less you know going into it the better. Does the title refer to a hidden past for Viggo's character? Or is it more about the innocent realizing how easy it is to use violence to solve problems and the domino effect that ensues? You'll have to go to the theater to find out.
Viggo Mortensen: Does some really great, understated work here. He's a great actor given some great material and aided by a great director.
Maria Bello: Is cute cute cute and has a really complicated role here. She runs the gauntlet of emotion and has to say much without actually saying a lot. I know I'm being vague, but you'll understand when you see the movie.
Ed Harris: I love Ed Harris. He's one of my favorite working actors. He's a lot of the reason I really love ENEMY AT THE GATES. Just deliciously evil in this movie.
William Hurt: Fantastic. Absolutely fantastic. Just know he's great and a real scene stealer and this is coming from someone who runs hot and cold on Hurt's work. He was my favorite character in the whole movie. Any more than that I can not tell you.
There's lots of great character work in the movie and I can't recommend it enough. Cronenberg doesn't fail us and proves he's still the master at making onscreen violence HURT. I've seen people do better gore in films, but he's always the best at making it hurt!
BONUS MINI-REVIEW : Anchor Bay's EVIL DEAD 2 "Book of the Dead Edition"
I wanted to also write a few words on that new EVIL DEAD 2 DVD that came out on Tuesday... The edition has so little new that I didn't think it warranted its own story, but in case you were curious:
The squishy rubber Book of the Dead looks cool, but the only thing that makes this DVD worth picking it up for the extra $10 or $15 it'll cost over just grabbing a previous edition is the HD transfer of the film. It's very clean and I could tell the difference even on my shitty little 27 inch TV. There's also a new documentary feature called BEHIND THE SCREAMS which didn't really tell anything new. So, only for the purists who don't have this must-own film in their DVD library yet or those crazy bastards who buy each EVIL DEAD edition Anchor Bay shoots out.
Well, there you have it. A threefer plus bonus (does that make it threeandahalfer?) for you squirts. I'm now extremely pooped and I have to dig up some stories to post before I can rest. Hope you enjoyed the reviews. I got lotsa goodies (including a few set visits) in the works, so keep your eyes on the site!
-Quint
