Few, if any, filmmakers are as distinctive and insular as Wes Anderson. His unique, often childlike, hipster-retro aesthetic that is a uniting feature across all of his films (excepting, arguably, "Bottle Rocket") makes him a favorite among a certain set. I fit into that set. As a confession, I own all of Wes Anderson's films, and I'm pretty sure he's the only director for whom that is the case. Some treat his aesthetic (roughly summed up as the pinterest page of a 29 year old MFA retro Manic Pixie Dream Girl with a healthy dose of indie rock tunes) as a negative, while I would argue that the quirky, quaint world allows for realistic characters and often emotionally powerful and occasional profound story to shine without getting caught up in the constraints of a needlessly complicated world. Indie movies try this all the time.. and yet Anderson's films are infinitely more expansive than just about every indie movie you'll run across, with more characters, a grander setting and a more expansive plot. In my book, I'll count that as a strength. His films, Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, The Darjeeling Limited and Fantastic Mr. Fox often feature the same group of actors, and seem to take place in the same universe.
Into this world comes "Moonrise Kingdom", which takes place on a fictional small island community in 1965, featuring a quirky cast of characters including a troop of "Khaki Scouts" and their scoutmaster (Edward Norton), a family with unhappy lawyers for parents (Bill Murray and Frances McDurmond), a small-time police captain (Bruce Willis). Among this community are an orphaned Khaki Scout, Sam (newcomer Jared Gilman) and "troubled youth" Suzy (newcomer Kara Hayward). After a chance meeting and letter correspondence, Sam and Suzy decide to run off into the wilderness together. The two lonely, strange young lovers bond in the woods while the grown ups and deputized Khaki Scouts pursue them as a tropical storm approaches. Tilda Swinton and Jason Schwartzman have small, but memorable roles.
Arguably, Anderson has been obsessed with adolescence and the fading innocence of childhood for his entire career as a filmmaker and here addressed it head-on, treating his youthful protagonists as earnestly and sincerely as any of the adults in this film or in any film he's done. This honesty and sincerity, combined with Anderson's usual charming character work and infectious humor and dialogue, is whimsical, sweet, irreverent and ultimately very sweet. Our young heroes win the audience and the film's characters over the course of the film, culminating in a tense and charming last half hour.
The film's strengths are the aesthetics and the acting, as a talented cast, charming setting and irreverent plot can't help but win you over. Norton, Willis, and the two main characters are the film's strong suits. By taking the children as seriously as he takes his adults, Anderson tells a sweet and effective story through their eyes. It's a less-tragic Romeo and Juliet meets the Life Aquatic, and that's a winning comination in my book. If you like Wes Anderson, you're guaranteed to like this one. The tone is pitch-perfect and this film, while irreverent, certainly has its charms. The film is ultimately sweet, silly and charming, choosing the right tone to explore the story of young lovers who find companionship in one another.
Ultimately, it's funny, it's charming, it's well-acted and strangely believable if incredibly quirky, and does a great job of depicting childhood. It's a bit too short and irreverent to be counted among Anderson's best, but it's a damn good time at the movies.
Ugh, let me apologize again for taking forever with this review.. I wasn't quite sure how to treat it. Spoiler fest or straight review? I elected to go with the straight review b/c the number of people likely interested in a spoiler-heavy discussion of a nerdtastic work of fiction was likely to be lower than the number who read the regular-old reviews. Let me make a confession here... I sort of love "Alien" and "Aliens", and I think the xenomorph is one of the most badass movie/sci fi monsters of all time. Alien3 and Alien Resurrection? Not so much, and I won't even talk about the crossovers with the "Predator" franchise, they don't deserve mention.. but there are two legitimately great entrants to this franchise, which is more than just about every movie franchise can say. Maybe someday I'll rank movie franchises, but for now it suffices to say that "Alien" and "Aliens" are both classics. Not just sci fi classics, but classics. Straight up. "Prometheus" has been burning up the interwebs for months. As another fun aside, while driving to Northwest Ohio the week that Prometheus opened I heard a DJ on a Dayton radio station do his little movie review bit.. he thought Prometheus was "horrible" and "didn't understand it", while he thought the new "Madagascar" movie was "great" and "perfect for adults and kids". So for what it's worth, if you're a mouth breathing Dayton resident who plays soul-sucking music for $22 grand a year, you won't like Prometheus.
Is "Prometheus" a prequel to "Alien", or isn't it? What we do know is that it's Ridley Scott, one of the top 3 or 4 directors working today, returning to sci fi, where's he's responsible for little flicks called "Alien" and "Blade Runner". The legend is that Scott was upset that he was never given a chance to continue the Alien franchise and has been working on ideas in the same universe for the last 30 years or so.. so the long-gestating "Prometheus" is his vision of what the "Alien" universe has to offer.
This is not an "Alien" prequel in the direct sense of the word. It informs Alien without being directly related by anything other than occurring in the same universe. So don't come in expecting eggs, facehuggers, chestbursters, impaling tails and all the rest and you won't be disappointed by expecting a straight prequel. The year is 2089 and a discovery in a cave in Scotland leads to an expedition to a mysterious, far-off star system that seems to be described in ancient ruins across the planet. Funded by the Weyland Corporation, the group of scientists, soldiers, technicians, corporate stooges and one android sets off to the mysterious, earth-like moon to see who, or what, may be out there. The expedition is seeking answers, or at least riches, and of course encounters much more than they could have possibly anticipated. The mission quickly degenerates from mission of discovery, research and exploration into one of danger, death and destruction, as it becomes clear that the forces on this mysterious moon are not benign.
The cast is top notch. Noomi Rapace (most recognizable as Lisbeth Salander in the Swedish versions of the "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" series) and Logan Marshall-Green play the scientists responsible for discovering the cosmic link to earth, Idris "Stringer Bell/Luther" Elba is Prometheus' captain, Charlize Theron is the ship's corporate liason/boss and Michael Fassbender plays the mysterious android, David. Fassbender especially, shines. There is an extended period where he alone roams the corridors of the empty ship that is as compelling as any other in the film.
This is a Ridley Scott flick, so you know it's going to look incredible. I do not exaggerate when I say that it may be one of the 2 or 3 most visually stunning and occasionally beautiful films that I've ever seen. The landscapes, ship, and alien structure combine into a lovely and unsettling techno-gothic and tomb-like organic motif that serve to escalate the impending sense of dread.
The story is strong if far from perfect, as it ponders and examines some serious questions while also systematically killing off the bulk of its cast. Written by Damon Lindelof, the story has its LOST-esque flaws, but is by and large quite effective and pretty damn audacious in its own right.
First, the film's strengths. Fassbender, Rapace and Elba in particular are great. They are fleshed-out characters who bring the requisite gravitas to what could easily be a silly endeavor. It's no mistake that the best scenes in the film (excepting the opening... which you'll see when you watch it) feature those three heavily. Visually, this film knocks it out of the park. You will not see a better looking film this year, and there are few available. The entire thing looks like a work of art. The sets, shots and overall direction are an absolute strength. The ambition of the film is absolutely a strength. It would have been extremely easy for everyone involved to rest of their laurels, do a straight action-sci/fi origin story, make a crap load of money and call it a summer, but the attempt to create something lasting and truly great is alone worth recognition.
Now for the weaknesses. I'm not as down on the film as some, having seen it twice, I feel that most of the alleged plot holes can be reasoned out and aren't plot holes so much as choices not to hold your hand and spell out every single detail in minutia. With that being said, there are some moments that don't make much sense. Some characters appear to be incomplete and the film suffers as a result. I'm interested to see the director's cut (which allegedly has another 30 minutes of footage) to see how much of those are due to pre-release editing and how many are truly due to plotting choices. The somewhat inexplicable scenes are what separate this film from true greatness. It looks great, it feels great, but it just falls short. There are too many questions. Too many characters sold short and moments that make little sense to excuse away.
With those criticisms in mind, what the film does well it does exceedingly well. This is a sci-fi thriller for thinking adults.. who demand more than shit blowing up. I would applaud it for that alone, even if it didn't feature an outstanding cast at the top of their games, astounding visuals and an overall satisfying plot. What the film does most effectively, as opposed to straight-line explaining how we arrived at the events of "Alien" and "Aliens" is enrich the universe of those films. We now know who the Space Jockeys were, what they were all about, and ultimately where the xenomorphs come from. The attempt to get to life's deeper mysteries and ask ultimately unanswerable questions puts it above your typical blockbuster, and indeed makes it one of the more ambitious studio films in recent years. However, the inexplicable moments and the film's ultimate inability to strike a proper balance between 2001-esque philosophy class entrant and sci-fi thriller in the vein of "Alien" cause it to fall short of ultimate greatness.
In conclusion, a strong, often audacious film that is occasionally beautiful and very watchable, but suffers from some weaknesses that cause it to miss "classic" status. 8/10.
So I'm back. I apologize for being crappy at writing lately but I've been busy seeing Avengers not enough times, getting excited for Prometheus and the Dark Knight Rises, nerding out over Game of Thrones and generally not blogging things. In addition, the new blogger format is utter shit. I loathe it and it's generally made blogging here significantly less enjoyable. I used to write everything in word and then copy and paste it over, inserting any media, but this new system keeps screwing up the formatting. Argh. If you're one of the loyal few.. my apologies, as it's been a healthy month. At any rate, we're here today to discuss "Snow White and the Huntsman", which by virtue of the subject matter and very title, wouldn't seem to be something that myself or anyone other than 10 year old girls would have any interest in. But a funny thing happened on the way to princess-land, a dark, reimagined script got greenlit with an impressive FX budget and a star studded cast.. and I think I speak for many when I say that the first trailer made me exhale a Keanu-esque "whoa..". So I've been cautiously optimistic about this one for a while and kept a close eye on the reviews as they slowly trickled out. They've been mixed, to say the least, but Drew McWeeney and Roger Ebert (2 of the 5 or so movie critics I tend to trust) both gave it high marks, so I figured, what the hell.. worth checking out.
Kristen Stewart stars as Snow White, the princess long imprisoned in her father's castle by the evil Queen, played by Charlize Theron, who has brought darkness to the land with her evil powers. After she escapes to the dark forest, the Queen's forces recruit a huntsman with a drinking problem (Chris Hemsworth) to help them hunt her down. There is much more to Snow White than meets the eye, and the Huntsman and some other friends join her against the Queen. Fundamentally, it's the same story as the classic Grimm fairy tale, with an evil Queen with dark powers obsessed with keeping her physical beauty while a young princess threatens her reign. There are dwarves, a magic apple, a magic mirror, all that fun, classic, cornball stuff. It's just been ramped up and grown up, to include armies and soldiers and monsters and magic galore.
First, what the film does well: visually, it's stunning. This is a fleshed-out world that feels rich and magical. Snow White and her companions encounter a variety of locales on their quest, all of which look amazing. It's like someone watched Pan's Labyrinth/Hellboy and Lord of the Rings and took away all the visual positives.. that's definitely a good thing. The castle is imposing and impressive-looking, the battle scenes are more than adequate and the film really takes pleasure in depicting nature. The magic forest that Snow White and her companions find themselves in is particularly stunning. There are some great performances here too.. Charlize Theron takes what could have been a stock villainess role and fleshes it out into something menacing but also sad. Chris Hemsworth is well on his way to becoming a legitimate actor, doing MUCH more with the Huntsman than would be expected. There are some familiar faces among the dwarves, as well.. with Bob Hoskins, Ian McShane, Nick Frost, Toby Jones and others having their faces rendered via CGI onto actual little people. In addition, the plot was refreshing, unique and strangely effective.
At the other side of the coin lies some uneven plotting, unconvincing performances and wooden dialogue. The film feels like it's 20 minutes too long, and sags during a long middle portion where I wasn't quite sure where we're going with all of this. In addition, Hemsworth and Theron simply act circles around Kristen Stewart.. who feels out of place, like it's not really happening to her. Her transformation happens too quickly, and she seems anachronistic in this medieval setting. Some supporting characters exist so far in the background as to hardly have personalities, and the character of "Will", the handsome Prince, seems like an utter waste of time.
Long story short, this movie is good, if not great, but well worth a watch. Hemsworth and Theron alone are worth the price of admission, and the visuals are great bordering on amazing. An all-around solid time at the movies. 7/10.
