This film, an adaptation of an international best-selling novel that was on the NYT best seller list for literally years, features a young girl, Liesel, who is sent to live with a foster family following her brother's death in WW2 Germany. Without having read the book, I went in to this one having literally no idea what this film is about, other than that the main character is a young girl, and it's set during WW2.
Having seen the film, let me say that I can see what would make the book so beloved, but that what makes the story so special and highly regarded is clearly literary and internal to the characters, and this makes for a difficult adaptation for film. The tale of Liesel, who discovers a love for books during the privation, book burnings and horrors of the Second World War, in the process displaying great personal courage against the powers that be in her home country is an interesting one, but unfortunately the execution on screen is clumsy and often feels cheesy.
The Good: The story is an inspiring one, and one well worth telling. Geoffrey Rush gives it his all and is absolutely killing it in this one. He's kind and charming yet sad and serious, and he absolutely chews up the screen. Visually, the film is impressive as well, with pretty great set designs and production value. It's great to look at, and there was impressive attention to detail in recreating 1940's Germany.
The Bad: Unfortunately, the rest of the non-Geoffrey Rush cast isn't quite up to the task. The main character, while cute and likable enough, just isn't capable or mature enough as an actress to do the kind of heavy lifting that this film required of her. It's not necessarily her fault, few actresses of her age and inexperience would be, but it makes the film fall flat. Also curious is the decision to not age her up at all. At the start of the film, it's 1938 and she's ~10. By the end, it's post WW2 and she should be 18ish, but she looks exactly the same. That's just a baffling decision. Additionally, the film didn't delve into the morality of Nazi Germany beyond "Nazi's are bad" in the least. Nazi's ARE bad, but they were also widely popular for quite a long time. Forgetting that fact does a serious disservice to the seriousness of your story. Additionally, the narrative device of having "Death" as a narrator, which I understand is something from the book, just didn't work at all. It was clumsy, cheesy, and heavy-handed, and more than a bit morbid. Maybe be a little less direct in your adaptation next time, guys.
In all, this is a clumsily executed book adaptation that ultimately fell short. If you're a Geoffrey Rush fan or a huge fan of the book, check it out, otherwise, if you're looking for an uplifting tale of the power of words and perseverance in the face of evil and adversity, maybe just read the book instead?
5/10
First, let me say that at the time of its release, I LOVED the first Anchorman. Loved it. I still do, and I'm not sure that I've ever laughed as hard in a movie theater as I did the first time I saw Ron Burgundy and his news team and their absurd hijinks. At the same time, much of the appeal of the first Anchorman was the randomness of it all. This was a world that was utterly bizarre and completely sold out in pursuit of laughs, which I absolutely appreciate. With all of that being said, a lot of what made Anchorman great was the surprise element of it. Movies that achieve "cult" status often do so by virtue of being unexpected and wholly unique. With that being said, I believe that one of the things that most hurt Anchorman 2 was the full court press advertising campaign. Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy was hosting TV and radio shows, appearing in commercials, and doing countless interviews. Other actors appeared in character as well on the promotional circuit. Now Ron Burgundy is hilarious, no doubt, but he's also a bit of a prick, so being completely saturated with Ron Burgundy for months before the movie was even released was an awful decision by whatever marketing or corporate entity decided that that was the way to approach the flick's promotion. But, enough of that, let's talk about the movie, shall we?
Following the events of the first Anchorman film, Ron Burgundy and his wife, Veronica Corningstone, are successful news anchors in New York City and have a young son. After Veronica is offered a promotion, Ron storms off, falling into a deep depression and returning to San Diego, where he is approached by a representative of a new, 24-hour news network, GNN. GNN is seeking to create a 24 hour news network, and is scraping the bottom of the barrel for newsmen, causing the reunification of the "news team" from the first Anchorman flick.
The Good: the actors are all funny, funny people, in pretty hilarious and likable roles. They are trading on massive amounts of goodwill from the first Anchorman go-around, and the obvious chemistry between the main characters shows, as everyone is obviously having a blast. The addition of some new faces, especially Kristen Wiig, is welcome as well. There are some funny digs at the modern day TV news networks, and ultimately, if you enjoy the characters from the first Anchorman, you'll like this one as well.
The Bad: a huge chunk of what made the first Anchorman so likable and fun was how unexpected and random it was. By its very nature, a sequel isn't going to be able to duplicate the "lightning in a bottle" feel of the first film, and it shows. The brain trust behind this one seems to have decided that "more and bigger" was the order of the day, and when it comes to the world of Anchorman, this isn't necessarily a good thing. Everything is bigger in scale and grander, and this comes off as just trying too damn hard. The battle of the news teams, one of the highlights of the first film, is duplicated by having MORE celebrities and MORE absurdity, for instance, and that's not what made the first film great.
So, in the end, if you enjoyed the first Anchorman, you'll like this one as well, as hanging out in this world with these absurd people can't be a bad thing. Is it as good as the first one? No. But how could it ever hope to be, when it comes down to it?
6.5/10
There's a troubling trend happening in film today that we need to band together and put a stop to. That trend, simply, is rebooting things that don't need rebooted for purely financial reasons. If the creators have a specific creative re-imagining in mind? Sure, see: Chris Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy or Battlestar Galactica. If you just want to make money off of a potentially profitable property? STOP. From the Tim Burton/Mark Wahlberg 'Planet of the Apes' to the Colin Farrell 'Total Recall' to any number of a countless number of sanitized, soulless corporate reboots and remakes that have hit Hollywood over the last 15 years or so, these films pretty universally add absolutely nothing to the enjoyment and mythos surrounding the original while simultaneously robbing the entire enterprise of anything fun, creative or unique en route to an utterly forgettable piece of corporate PG-13 rated garbage. The original 'Robocop', something of a classic in a very "80's" way, is a solid entrant to 80's action and sci fi. It's a smart, subversive, bleak, dystopian, and ultra violent film painting a troubling picture of a future torn between societal violence and corporate dominance. (sound familiar?)
For the remake, the basic plot outline remains the same. A police officer suffers brutal injuries, and in order to save his life, he is remade into a cyborg killing machine in near-future Detroit. What's missing, however, is any of the subversion, the ultraviolence, the social commentary or, honestly, the raison d'etre.
The Good: The cast is tremendous. How they got this many strong actors to sign onto what became an obvious piece of corporate schlock the instant the studio insisted on a PG-13 rating is anyone's guess. Blackmail? Check out this cast: Michael Keaton, Gary Oldman, Jackie Earle Haley (who kind of kills it, btw), Michael K. Williams (Omar comin'!) and Sam freaking Jackson. Oldman does really good work here, but the script simply doesn't provide enough for the rest of the cast to do. The effects are strong, and the effort to explain how Robocop could exist is at least worth an "atta boy", considering it's kind of nonsensical in the original.
The Bad: Why, exactly, does this movie exist? It's PG-13, and its version of Detroit seems WAY nicer than the actual city, which seems to beg the question of why, exactly, the city needs a Robocop in the first place? It's bland, PC nonsense, which goes to the trouble of creating a Bill O'Reilly type talking head without ever actually giving him an identifiable political position for fear of pissing off members of the audience. That's not the key to creating a dystopian social commentary, you guys. The lead, who I liked in 'the Killing', is largely wasted here, and he's unable to bring the needed humanity to the character to get us to actually care about whether Robocop lives or dies. For that matter, none of the excellent cast is given enough to do. We're given scenes with a wife and son who literally no one cares about in lieu of actual plot. It's not 1985, guys. Putting in a random kid and random wife and just having them on screen isn't characterization. That's just lazy. Plus, WHY DOES HE HAVE A RANDOM HUMAN HAND?? He's a super strong robotic killing machine with a random flesh hand that would be shattered the first time he made contact w/ something using his super strength. Not smart, you guys.
All-around, this isn't a BAD movie, per se, but rather a pointless, safe one, that does disservice to the original. Hopefully, someday, corporations will allow creative people to be creative and step out of their way. Forgettable, safe, PC schlock like this needs to be left in the trash heap.
5/10. Just watch the original.
No comments:
Post a Comment