Previews Before Reviews March 12, 2010

(Reminder: Title hyperlinks go to metacritic entries.)

Green Zone: Only four words matter when it comes to this film: Directed by Paul Greengrass. That is ALL I need to know. Even Matt Damon's name matter less to me. On the strength of Bloody Sunday, United 93 and the Bournes Supremacy and Ultimatum, Greengrass has become one of those directors whose name alone means I'm in.  I don't care if it's about the processing of cottage cheese. If Greengrass directed, the movie goes on my must-see list. And I will see it Saturday night. For the record, the so-called "shaky-cam" doesn't bother me, because Greengrass is one of the few directors who uses it artfully.



Our Family Wedding. RSVP: Not with those reviews



Remember Me: I've heard what the supposedly ludicrous ending was. I won't spoil it here, but suffice it to say I'm Team Don't Bother.



She's Out of My League: I'd say this kind of junior take on Knocked Up (minus the knocking up) is out of my league as well.

REVIEW: Alice in Wonderland

When I saw Alice in Wonderland, I decided to avoid the 3D showing. Unlike Avatar, Alice in Wonderland was not shot with 3D in mind. Instead, the 3D was added in post production. I'd read several reviews that stated the 3D effect was distracting, so I decided to see it "flat."

Well, as it turns out, the movie is flat no matter what dimension it's in. This is Tim Burton's weakest film to date - the first I can't recommend at all.

One of the most familiar refrains of the classic Alice in Wonderland is story is "curiouser and curiouser." This film is curious all right, but in all the wrong ways. It tries to give too many of the characters in the film a reason for being - something Alice in Wonderland not only doesn't need,  but should never have.

This movie isn't a straight re-telling of Alice's adventures. Rather, it's a sequel of sorts. In this chapter, Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is a 19-year-old who has no memory of her journey to Wonderland as a child, although she's haunted by strange recurring dreams with strange creatures. Just as she gets a marriage proposal, Alice sees the white rabbit, and before she knows it, it's "eat me" and "drink me" time again.

There are many things to admire in this film. Wasikowska is excellent as Alice - all at once vulnerable, yet crafty and determined. Helena Bonham Carter devours the scenery with relish as the Red Queen, Unlike other reviewers, I rather liked Anne Hathaway's icy take on the White Queen. And as is true of most of Burton's films, it looks great, with its wildly weird designs and mostly wonderful effects.

Still, Linda Woolverton's rather tortured screenplay obfuscates these good qualities. This may seem like a strange thing to say for a Hollywood film, but this screenplay "thinks" too much, trying to provide the characters with motivations, with  reasons for being. For example, we're treated to the backstory of the Mad Hatter, who apparently went mad because of a past misfortune.

As George Carlin once said "I did not need to be TOLD that!" I don't want to know why the Mad Hatter is mad. His madness is part of his intrinsic appeal, and to explain that away is to lessen that appeal. The movie ends up feeling like a bad trip to the psychiatrist's couch. I'm also sorry to say the Mad Hatter isn't one of Depp's more inspired portrayals. He's a mishmash of past Depp characterizations: a little Jack Sparrow, a little Willy Wonka, a little Sam from Benny and Joon. It's all shtick he's done before and done better.

Almost as if the filmmakers knew the story wasn't there, they tried to build to a big action climax, but it plays like a candy-colored outtake from Lord of the Rings. It's dull and ineffectual.

This film strips the wonder from Wonderland. As my friend Angie so cleverly put it, why spend so much time trying to make sense out of nonsense?

GRADE: C

Disney's newfangled 'Tangled'

Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair!

I mean, um - Walt Disney Walt Disney, let down your guard!

Seriously, Disney, I'm worried about you. For quite awhile you seemed to have things figured out. You settled that whole Eisner mess, you made sure Pixar stayed in the fold and your own animated movies started getting better, culminating in the revival of hand-drawn animation with The Princess and the Frog.

Unfortunately, however, that movie did not do as well at the box office as it should have, taking in about $103 million. Not bad, certainly, but I know you were hoping for better, especially considering in the early 90s, you sometimes made twice that - more if you adjust for inflation. It didn't help that you guys had to compete with the Chipmunks "Squeakuel." God bless young kids, but they're not exactly known for their discriminating taste.

Understandably, you wanted to make sure your next movie, Rapunzel, avoided a similar fate. Not understandably, you gave it a new name. Tangled.

Tangled?

Tangled??

Tangled??? 

Ick, blecch and yuck. Where's the hairspray when you need it?
 
Come on  - that sounds like your classic misbegotten, studio-group-think screw-up. That's almost as bad as Sony changing the title of a Nicolas Cage/Bridget Fonda romance from the very intriguing Cop Gives Waitress $2 Million Tip to the utterly bland It Could Happen to You.
 
What's Tangled supposed to mean, anyway? As Linda Holmes of NPR so wittily stated, "So now, instead of sounding like a princess movie, it sounds like a Lifetime movie about a murdered salon owner. Fantastic."

This decision is starting to remind me of your animation output of about 10 years ago, when movies like Atlantis and Home on the Range  felt script-noted, focus-grouped and test-marketed to death. NOT the era you want to evoke.

You guys are geniuses at selling your movies, but testing them? Not so much. What are we to make of the supposition in this Jim Hill Media story that "According to the Mouse’s market research, it would seem that – outside of the United States & Germany –  the story of Rapunzel itself has very little name recognition. More to the point, even those among surveyed who actually recognized Rapunzel’s name, these people had little or no knowledge of what her fairy tale was actually about."

Uh huh. Like Mulan was a household name?

I mean, really, guys. Tangled sounds like you're trying to hard to be "hip, contemporary, with it." No. When it comes to animated movies, that's not your job. Leave that to your inferior rivals like DreamWorks. The charm of the Disney brand for animation is that it's timeless, ageless. Rapunzel speaks to that. Tangled does not.

Speaking of DreamWorks, their next animated movie, How to Train Your Dragon, comes out later this month. It's directed by two guys who used to work for you - Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois, who helmed Lilo & Stitch, one of the best moves you made this past decade. I get the sense that DreamWorks is going to beat you at your own game, because Dragon seems to have more Disney charm than Tangled does.

But I hope I'm wrong. I'm still very fond of Disney. I like most of your animated movies very much. I will see Tangled, but I'm forced to admit I'm more worried about it than anticipating it.  In that sense, the title change is very appropriate after all.

Pithy DVD takes, 3/9/10

Capitalism: A Love Story:  Not one of Michael Moore's better films, but still has very compelling moments. Political squabbling not allowed in comments. Full review - GRADE: B+

Old Dogs: Horrible-looking movies not allowed in my collection. (Hyperlink to purchase deliberately not included)

Planet 51: Interest 0.

Precious: Powerful and inspiring, but a little too well lived-in, which makes it tough to endure. Full review- GRADE A-

Up in the Air: Chances are not (insert film title here) that I will be buying the best film of 2009. Short review - GRADE: A+

The Oscars: Mostly happy with the awards, not the show

It is very late as I type this, and that's only inevitable after watching the Oscars - so forgive me if any of my thoughts seem less than lucid.

I was mostly pleased with the way the awards went. The biggest surprise and disappointment for me was Up in the Air losing Adapted Screenplay to Precious. I thought Precious was very powerful, but perhaps too punishing for its own good. Up in the Air was better crafted all the way around and moved me even more than Precious did. It saddens me that my pick for best film of the year went away completely empty-handed.

On the other end of the scale, I fully expected it to happen, but I was absolutely delighted to see Michael Giacchino finally win an Oscar. He was robbed when he wasn't even nominated for The Incredibles, and I was thrilled to see him get his due for his superb score for Up.

And, with writer-director Pete Docter winning for Up, I am delighted to be able to say that I have met and interviewed an Oscar winner.

But the Oscar show itself? The opposite of Up is Down.

Last year's  telecast was one of the best in years - and I have to say this was the worst since the 1989 debacle with Snow White, Rob Lowe and Co.

Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin did what they could, but their banter seemed too frenetic, and their material was not up to scratch.  The show's producers claim year after year the show runs too long, yet they keep finding ways to extend it needlessly.

That bit with Ben Stiller in Avatar getup? Maybe funny for the first minute. The other 39? Not so much.

Good idea: Bringing in Neil Patrick Harris. Bad idea: Having him do essentially the same thing he did on the Emmys, I'm told. Worse idea: Surrounding him with all those dancers with the feather boas. For a second I thought Allan Carr came back from the dead to resurrect his 1989 show.

Bad idea: Ditching the best song nominees. Worse idea: Killing time instead with a completely pointless horror montage. Dumb idea: Including Beetlejuice in a horror montage.  Worst idea: Having dancers perform a "What the hell was that?" routine to the Best Score nominees.

The show was even technically slapdash. The director mistimed several shots, and the use of "I Am Woman" when Kathryn Bigelow won was so on the nose, the musical arranger might as well have been Pinocchio. Would they have played James Brown's "Say It Loud" if Lee Daniels had won?

Even the stage decor was tacky. As my friend Mike put it on Facebook: "What's the deal with using the Home Depot lighting department as an Oscar stage backdrop?"

All in all, the Oscar telecast was an unfocused mess - much like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. But more on that later. For now, tell me what you thought of the show, and the awards.

Eric's (mostly) steely Oscar predictions

I have been called the "steely-eyed moviegoing man," so I think it's only appropriate  I turn in mostly steely Oscar predictions. The awards are Sunday; I repeat the same too maxims I always do:

"Nobody knows anything"

and

"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."


BEST PICTURE
“Avatar”
“The Blind Side”
“District 9”
“An Education”
“The Hurt Locker”
“Inglourious Basterds”
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
“A Serious Man”
“Up”
“Up in the Air”

This is a race between the juggernaut known as "Avatar" and the critical fave "The Hurt Locker." Usually the Academy likes to go big and epic (how else do you explain the undeserving "Gladiator" win?), which would favor "Avatar." However, I keep hearing the same complaint about "Avatar" over and over again. "Great visuals, so-so story." I think enough voters will rank it low on their ballots for that reason, giving "Locker" the edge.

WILL WIN: "The Hurt Locker"
SHOULD WIN: No film affected me emotionally more than "Up in the Air."


BEST DIRECTOR
“Avatar” James Cameron
“The Hurt Locker” Kathryn Bigelow
“Inglourious Basterds” Quentin Tarantino
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Lee Daniels
“Up in the Air” Jason Reitman

The Academy loves to make history, and many love Kathryn Bigelow's film. Her biggest competition, her ex-husband Cameron, has already had his glory, so even if "Avatar" wins Picture, Bigelow's got this.

WILL/SHOULD WIN: I had small issues with "Hurt Locker," but they were due more to screenplay issues and not Bigelow's taut direction.

BEST ACTOR
Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart”
George Clooney in “Up in the Air”
Colin Firth in “A Single Man”
Morgan Freeman in “Invictus”
Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker”

WILL/SHOULD WIN: This isn't even close to a contest. It's finally the beloved Bridges' year. And he really is that good in the film.

BEST ACTRESS
Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side”
Helen Mirren in “The Last Station”
Carey Mulligan in “An Education”
Gabourey Sidibe in “Precious”
Meryl Streep in “Julie &  Julia”

This is more of a race between Bullock and Streep than some will have you believe. Yes, Meryl has not won in 26 years, she's overdue for her third Oscar. However, she's been nominated an awful lot in recent years, and I think voters will feel that's reward in itself. Moreover, Streep is likely to be back her soon. Bullock less so. And Bullock is in a Best Picture nominee, so she has the edge.

WILL WIN: Bullock
SHOULD WIN: Mulligan, for striking a beautiful balance of girlishness and "wise beyond her years" in her role as a teenager trying to be more worldly. 


BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Matt Damon in “Invictus”
Woody Harrelson in “The Messenger”
Christopher Plummer in “The Last Station”
Stanley Tucci in “The Lovely Bones”
Christoph Waltz in “Inglourious Basterds”

WILL/SHOULD WIN: There's no way Waltz loses after picking up every precursor under the sun. I have my reservations about the film as a whole, but not about Waltz's fantastic performance.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Penélope Cruz in “Nine”
Vera Farmiga in “Up in the Air”
Maggie Gyllenhaal in “Crazy Heart”
Anna Kendrick in “Up in the Air”
Mo’Nique in “Precious”

WILL WIN: The logic for Mo'Nique is the same as the logic for Waltz. He/she has dominated the early races too much to lose.

SHOULD WIN: Kendrick, for taking what could have been a two-dimensional character and breathing wonderfully nuanced life into her.

Other categories after the jump.

The oeuvre of Tim Burton

With Alice in Wonderland in theaters Friday, it's time to go through a different kind of looking glass and review the films of Tim Burton.

Pee-Wee's Big Adventure (1985): Burton's first feature-length theatrical film may still be his best in terms of sheer entertainment value. I don't think he's made a happier film. GRADE: A

Beetlejuice (1988): My, Michael Keaton certainly was unhinged, wasn't he? And was this the last time Alec Badlwin was that genteel? And remember when Winona Ryder was a great emerging talent? GRADE: A-

Batman (1989): To this day, I have never quite understood why people went apeshit over this movie. Sure, Nicholson is great, but the direction is fussy, and many of the action scenes are cluttered. The biggest problem? Kim Basinger was a boring love interest. It was Burton's most popular film - and the one that seems the least like him to me. GRADE: B

Edward Scissorhands (1990): Burton rebounds with a beautifully touching film that is sill my personal favorite of his. It would be his one film to get an A+ from me, if only Anthony Michael Hall weren't such a shallow nemesis. GRADE: A

Batman Returns (1992): Superior to the 1989 Batman in almost every respect, this film is much more Burtonesque, and his quirky humor comes through much more strongly. The Peguin (Danny DeVito) was a washout as a villain, but Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman cut me to ribbons - in a good way. GRADE: B+

Ed Wood (1994): What if a filmmaker had all the drive of Orson Welles - and none of the talent? That's the question Burton explored in his most personal film, about the legendarily awful director. Martin Landau deservedly won an Oscar for his wonderful portrayal of Bela Lugosi, but I wish the supporting characters were a little more interesting. GRADE: A-

Mars Attacks! (1996): No, not everything in it works, but dammit, I find those little green buggers a complete hoot. ACK! ACK! ACK! GRADE: A-

Sleepy Hollow (1999): My, my,  Tim does love the decapitated head, doesn't he? Underrated. GRADE: A-

Planet of the Apes (2001): Not quite as bad as most people remember, the film does boast some good performances and action scenes, but that ending tried too hard to "gotcha!" GRADE: B-

Big Fish (2003) Has some absolutely wonderful moments, but for me, the sum of the great parts doesn't quite add up to a fully satisfying whole. GRADE: B+

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) : Inevitably, people focused too hard on comparing it to the Gene Wilder/Mel Stuart film, which still wasn't fair, because the two movies, and the two Wonkas, are such different animals. This version is certainly better directed, and I suspect it's closer to what Roald Dahl wrote, but it makes a critical mistake by giving Wonka a sob backstory. GRADE: B+

Corpse Bride (2005): Fun, but pales in comparison to The Nightmare Before Christmas (directed by Henry Selick) beccause the story is less compelling and the songs are much less memorable. GRADE: B-

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007): For all of it's power and bluster, the film simply didn't stay with me. Maybe I'm just not a big fan of the source material. GRADE: B-

I'm not sure yet when I will get to Alice in Wonderland, but I will review it in this space as soon as possible. In the meantime, tell me what you think of Burton's oeuvre.

Our Favorite Movies: Girl on a Warpath's picks

It's been too long since I've done a Favorite Movies installment, so I'd like to return to that project today by offering the choices of a colleague of mine, who identifies herself as "Girlonawarpath." I shall tread as lightly as possible here. Fury and a woman scorned, you know. ;) I'll offer her commentary, followed by mine.

Love, love, love Big Fish. I must have watched that movie 20 times when I first got it.

A lot of people love this movie, and I can understand that, although for me the movie was only great in fits and starts. It had some magical moments (Ewan McGregor meeting Alison Lohman, for example), but I wanted the movie to sustain that energy all the way through, and it never quite did that for me. Speaking only from my own perspective, maybe my muted respect for this movie stems from the fact that I don't have major "daddy issues," so to speak.

It's kind of cliched, but I love Citizen Kane and All the President's Men.

You'll get no argument from me on either of those. Both are outstanding, although as far as 70s paranoid conspiracy thrillers go, I like Alan J. Pakula's The Parallax View even better than his President's Men.

Pirates of the Caribbean is definitely most of the fun movies I've ever watched.


It is indeed a lot of fun, although I've always found this movie, and certainly this series, to be a bit overrated. All the movies, from one degree to another, suffer from overlength, but the first is surely the best.

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) is a definite favorite.

Absolutely OUTSTANDING choice. That film is a template of the Hollywood action movie, and in one way or another, movies are still ripping it off today. Amazing fun, and the Technicolor is explosively glorious.

The Princess Bride is a classic. Love Beauty and the Beast and the animated Alice in Wonderland. I also love the animated Thumbalina, but that might be nostalgia for my childhood.

The Princess Bride is indeed a great deal of fun. Beauty and the Beast is my favorite of the Disney renaissance films, and Alice in Wonderland, though imperfect, is quite the trip (pun intended). Too many people - Walt included - were overly critical of this one. Can't speak to Thumbelina, but for me Don Bluth's best is The Land Before Time.

American Gangster. I watched that multiple times as well. And I just got turned onto Kingdom Of Heaven, that is slowly working its way in my favorites.

Two Ridley Scott films. American Gangster had great moments, but should have been even better than it was, given its pedigree. As for Kingdom of Heaven, I hope she means the extended cut, which is a great film. The theatrical version sawed off giant chunks of the movie, including entire subplots, stripping it of most of its power. It's the most dramatic difference from a theatrical to a director's cut I've ever seen - even more so than Scott's own Blade Runner. 


Anyone who'd still like to submit a list is more than welcome to do so - I'd love to keep this going as long as possible!