Directed By: Christopher Nolan
Rated: 14A Can/PG-13 USA
Runtime: 2 hrs, 32 mins
Talk about title appropriate, this film encompassed everything seedy, dark and deliciously deranged not to mention offered in IMAX, which only gives evil a few extra stories of edge. Judging by the opening weekend intake and the theater lines rivaling a 75% of at Chanel Sale, every comic book fan, critic, and viewer of Nolan’s first venture in the franchise “Batman Begins” was in attendance for The Dark Knight.
Picking up only a marginal amount of time after “Batman Begins” we find Gotham in a continued struggle against its seedy underbelly. A breeding ground for police corruption, Gotham’s new District Attorney Harvey Dent assumes the monumental task of cleaning up Gotham’s streets with the help of Lieutenant Gordon and of course the caped crusader himself. When Dent and girlfriend Rachel Dawes find a way to nail the entire mass of the Gotham Mob with criminal charges, Gotham is turned to the hands of the Joker; a new brand of bad who has been slicing a path of destruction for himself in recent Gotham news. The Joker hires himself out to the mob and demands Batman’s identity on a platter to avoid piling up further bodies, and thus begins a cat-and-mouse game not seen since the likes of De Niro vs. Pacino in “Heat”.
Christian Bale’s portrayal of Batman is consistently solid giving us a unique perspective on the vulnerable side of Batman. While Bale’s performance is excellent, ultimately the show belongs to Heath Ledger. Undeniably Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker is the darkest villain in Batman history. What is more terrifying than a man who wants nothing? Ledger did not overlook a single subtlety in his performance, building the Joker up to be unforgettable in his morose chaotic way. Ledger creates a Joker so deep in his own insanity that his every move is unpredictable, every time he is on screen you can be sure of one thing; you have NO idea what he is going to do next. Batman is made to question every fiber of his moral code, and make the tough choices again and again as the Joker heads him off at every turn.
This film was a side step from Nolan’s previous installment. The Gotham in The Dark Knight bares more resemblance to a modern day New York than to the Gotham in Batman Begins. Some of the ambiance from Begins was lost in the merge between crime drama and superhero action movie. There were several loose ends from the first film that were left disappointingly untied, and a few poor character returns, however, all in all both the film and the acting were very solid. Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine continued with their characteristic stalwart class, and Maggie Gyllenhall takes up the mantle of Rachel Dawes adequately, more sultry less chemistry, but a good performance nonetheless. Aaron Eckhart worked his role as Harvey Dent as far as he could with the story he was given, and was charming and believable as Gotham’s White Knight. The Oscar buzz surrounding Ledger’s performance is credible and few who watch the Joker will soon forget him.
The Dark Knight pulls the viewer in from the very first scene and refuses to let go throughout the course of the film. The pace of the story is incredible and the information comes at lightening speed, yet it is refreshing to see such credit given to the audience, who is deemed smart enough to keep pace with the film. This creates a deeper thematic story, and allows more detail and thought to be expressed than some of the previous, campier attempts at the Batman franchise. The US PG-13 rating is surprising given the amount of dark subject matter throughout the film, and may lure a few less informed parents to the theater with children in tow, do not make this mistake. Even some who did well with Begins will not be able to handle, much less understand the elements of this film.
Do not go into this movie expecting Batman Begins, with the addition of the Joker, you will be disappointed. That being said, the second Batman movie is an engaging new hybrid, definitely worth the ticket to the IMAX, maybe even twice. The Dark Knight did not fail to meet my expectations, despite the insurmountable build up prior to its release.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Hancock
Directed By: Peter Berg
Rated: PG (Can) / PG-13 (USA)
Runtime: 1 hour, 32 min
I was a little reserved in my desire to go see Hancock, based on some less-than-pleasant reviews from critics and public alike, however, I am addicted to the air conditioning in the theatre these days, so trumping up my interest wasn’t such a stretch. Not to mention, Derek had picked up on some controversy regarding a mid-film twist. It seems there has been some debate on whether this was a good move for the film. My curiosity as a writer was peaked, as was my thirst for a $5.00 iced tea, so off we went.
Hancock is marketed as a Super-Hero redemption story. John Hancock, as portrayed by Will Smith, lives in L.A. and fights crime, in between bottles of Whisky and not showering. Hancock, it seems, is immortal. Bullets bounce right off him, he is immensely strong, and possesses the power of flight. He seems to have a vague understanding with the L.A. police that if there is trouble that they can’t handle, he can swoop in and deal with it, generally leaving a pile of destruction and the stench of hangover in his wake.
Ray, played by Jason Bateman, a PR rep who is out to change the world decides to take on the challenge of reforming Hancock, when Hancock saves him from an oncoming train, and the mess amplifies the public distain towards the anti-hero. An unwilling student, Hancock proves a challenge for Ray, who is good natured and tenacious enough to stay the course. The film focuses on Hancock’s redemption and provides a taste of dry humour, mostly via Bateman’s trademark offbeat delivery style.
About halfway through the film, I began to feel as though I had watched the whole story already, and that, unless this was a short film, I was missing something. At that point, the movie takes indeed takes a drastic turn, though not only in terms of the plot. The film shifted into high-comic book gear at this point, ditching the quiet humour and launching into action fantasy mode. I felt as though I had gotten lost on the way back from the bathroom and entered a new theatre, where the same actors were acting out a different story.
Though Will Smith is always solid, and rarely hard on the eyes, it seemed like he was on a short leash where Hancock was concerned, and unable to act to his full potential. Jason Bateman gave a charming performance in the first half of the film, though his character was virtually mute through the second half. It felt like watching a really short movie with a bad sequel from a different director. Generally if half the movie is going to be bad, I’d prefer it to be the first so I can at least walk out with the feeling that it redeemed itself at the end. I would call Hancock a renter, if that, and be prepared for a phase shift with a few shining moments early on.
Rated: PG (Can) / PG-13 (USA)
Runtime: 1 hour, 32 min
I was a little reserved in my desire to go see Hancock, based on some less-than-pleasant reviews from critics and public alike, however, I am addicted to the air conditioning in the theatre these days, so trumping up my interest wasn’t such a stretch. Not to mention, Derek had picked up on some controversy regarding a mid-film twist. It seems there has been some debate on whether this was a good move for the film. My curiosity as a writer was peaked, as was my thirst for a $5.00 iced tea, so off we went.
Hancock is marketed as a Super-Hero redemption story. John Hancock, as portrayed by Will Smith, lives in L.A. and fights crime, in between bottles of Whisky and not showering. Hancock, it seems, is immortal. Bullets bounce right off him, he is immensely strong, and possesses the power of flight. He seems to have a vague understanding with the L.A. police that if there is trouble that they can’t handle, he can swoop in and deal with it, generally leaving a pile of destruction and the stench of hangover in his wake.
Ray, played by Jason Bateman, a PR rep who is out to change the world decides to take on the challenge of reforming Hancock, when Hancock saves him from an oncoming train, and the mess amplifies the public distain towards the anti-hero. An unwilling student, Hancock proves a challenge for Ray, who is good natured and tenacious enough to stay the course. The film focuses on Hancock’s redemption and provides a taste of dry humour, mostly via Bateman’s trademark offbeat delivery style.
About halfway through the film, I began to feel as though I had watched the whole story already, and that, unless this was a short film, I was missing something. At that point, the movie takes indeed takes a drastic turn, though not only in terms of the plot. The film shifted into high-comic book gear at this point, ditching the quiet humour and launching into action fantasy mode. I felt as though I had gotten lost on the way back from the bathroom and entered a new theatre, where the same actors were acting out a different story.
Though Will Smith is always solid, and rarely hard on the eyes, it seemed like he was on a short leash where Hancock was concerned, and unable to act to his full potential. Jason Bateman gave a charming performance in the first half of the film, though his character was virtually mute through the second half. It felt like watching a really short movie with a bad sequel from a different director. Generally if half the movie is going to be bad, I’d prefer it to be the first so I can at least walk out with the feeling that it redeemed itself at the end. I would call Hancock a renter, if that, and be prepared for a phase shift with a few shining moments early on.
Wall-E
Directed By: Andrew Stanton
Rated: G
Runtime: 1 hr, 37 min.
“Actions speak louder than words” so the old saying goes, which, in most cases is quite correct. Certainly with respect to Pixar’s latest hero, Wall-E, this is undeniably the case, though whether action is an appropriate description for how Wall-E communicates is still unclear to me. It seems almost telepathic; those would-be inanimate eyes speak volumes to anybody who enters the lively theatres where this movie has been warming child and adult hearts alike for the past few weeks.
The film begins on a version of earth that has become a desolate wasteland due to human over-consumption and lack of space for garbage disposal. Humans have abandoned the planet and left several thousand wall-E units to clean up the planet. In the spec of wasted city in which we enter, one wall-E unit is still functioning, carrying out his directive with the added development of a personality, involving an overwhelming sense of curiosity (arguably the reason this unit has carried on while others have shut down.) Due to this added development, Wall-E also suffers from a crippling loneliness and yearns for contact with others, though he perhaps wouldn’t be able to explain this in so many words.
Things carry on day in and day out, until the arrival of a shuttle carrying a second robot unit, Eve. Wall-E’s world turns upside down with Eve’s arrival as he tries to teach her what he has come to learn about earth, while she strives to carry out her directive. Once she obtains what she is looking for and is prepared to return to space, Wall-E finds he cannot let her go so easily and stows away on the shuttle to find her. What he encounters is all that’s left of the human race, on a galactic cruise ship, completely unaware of the life they’ve left behind, and under the control of the many robots running the ship. Wall-E and Eve embark on a journey of instruction versus instinct, and ignite a new journey for the complacent humans aboard the ship.
Trumping their previous masterpiece, Oscar Nominated “Ratatouille” Pixar has succeeded again in animating their way into your hearts and memories (not to mention pocketbooks). Wall-E resonates with every person in that theatre, young or old. Who has not experienced loneliness, isolation, or a longing for connection at some point in their life? Everybody understands Wall-E’s desperation for love and companionship, but also his journey to self-understanding and his battle against what he was destined to do and what his heart desires. He is more and more humanized as the film progresses, and you become more and more attached to him.
Pixar seems to have brought the best of the best to this film. The animation is top notch and the sound is even better, with the genius of Ben Burtt as the sound designer and voice of Wall-E. Burtt, who has worked extensively on Indiana Jones and Star Wars, was responsible for the personification of R2D2 through sound. The story line is engaging and hits a little close to home in this day and age when global warming and waste control warning signs are rampant, and the path to self destruction is all too clear. Whether it was intentional or not, the film sends a great message to our kids; Value what you have and be conscious of where you are headed, while reminding any adults in the theatre that margarine on the popcorn may have been a better choice.
Try as I may, I cannot find one single thing that I disliked about this film (other than having to sit through the “Beverly Hills Chihuahua” trailer…twice). I have heard from others that the lack of vocabulary between Wall-E and Eve (consisting primarily of saying each others names) can weigh heavily on ones patience; something that didn’t bother me in the slightest, and made the kids in the theatre giggle with glee. Pixar has hit the nail on the head with this latest film, and continues to build their castle of success, compacted cube by compacted cube.
Rated: G
Runtime: 1 hr, 37 min.
“Actions speak louder than words” so the old saying goes, which, in most cases is quite correct. Certainly with respect to Pixar’s latest hero, Wall-E, this is undeniably the case, though whether action is an appropriate description for how Wall-E communicates is still unclear to me. It seems almost telepathic; those would-be inanimate eyes speak volumes to anybody who enters the lively theatres where this movie has been warming child and adult hearts alike for the past few weeks.
The film begins on a version of earth that has become a desolate wasteland due to human over-consumption and lack of space for garbage disposal. Humans have abandoned the planet and left several thousand wall-E units to clean up the planet. In the spec of wasted city in which we enter, one wall-E unit is still functioning, carrying out his directive with the added development of a personality, involving an overwhelming sense of curiosity (arguably the reason this unit has carried on while others have shut down.) Due to this added development, Wall-E also suffers from a crippling loneliness and yearns for contact with others, though he perhaps wouldn’t be able to explain this in so many words.
Things carry on day in and day out, until the arrival of a shuttle carrying a second robot unit, Eve. Wall-E’s world turns upside down with Eve’s arrival as he tries to teach her what he has come to learn about earth, while she strives to carry out her directive. Once she obtains what she is looking for and is prepared to return to space, Wall-E finds he cannot let her go so easily and stows away on the shuttle to find her. What he encounters is all that’s left of the human race, on a galactic cruise ship, completely unaware of the life they’ve left behind, and under the control of the many robots running the ship. Wall-E and Eve embark on a journey of instruction versus instinct, and ignite a new journey for the complacent humans aboard the ship.
Trumping their previous masterpiece, Oscar Nominated “Ratatouille” Pixar has succeeded again in animating their way into your hearts and memories (not to mention pocketbooks). Wall-E resonates with every person in that theatre, young or old. Who has not experienced loneliness, isolation, or a longing for connection at some point in their life? Everybody understands Wall-E’s desperation for love and companionship, but also his journey to self-understanding and his battle against what he was destined to do and what his heart desires. He is more and more humanized as the film progresses, and you become more and more attached to him.
Pixar seems to have brought the best of the best to this film. The animation is top notch and the sound is even better, with the genius of Ben Burtt as the sound designer and voice of Wall-E. Burtt, who has worked extensively on Indiana Jones and Star Wars, was responsible for the personification of R2D2 through sound. The story line is engaging and hits a little close to home in this day and age when global warming and waste control warning signs are rampant, and the path to self destruction is all too clear. Whether it was intentional or not, the film sends a great message to our kids; Value what you have and be conscious of where you are headed, while reminding any adults in the theatre that margarine on the popcorn may have been a better choice.
Try as I may, I cannot find one single thing that I disliked about this film (other than having to sit through the “Beverly Hills Chihuahua” trailer…twice). I have heard from others that the lack of vocabulary between Wall-E and Eve (consisting primarily of saying each others names) can weigh heavily on ones patience; something that didn’t bother me in the slightest, and made the kids in the theatre giggle with glee. Pixar has hit the nail on the head with this latest film, and continues to build their castle of success, compacted cube by compacted cube.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Wanted
Directed By: Timur Bekmambetov
Rating: R (US) / 18A (Can)
Runtime: 1 hour, 50 min
After having one too many brain cells dismissed by the Love Guru, my husband and I decided to pull a double feature and take in “Wanted” to wash away the foul taste of the Guru Pitka. It seemed that several more of my brain cells were blown away, but this time it was not due to inactivity. Wanted definitely lived up to its trailer, delivering an intense thrill ride with the gritty graphic novel feel that we all came to know and love in Frank Miller’s Sin City.
The film begins with Wesley Gibson, pecking away character by character at his dull life in a cubicle where he is an account manager who suffers from anxiety. His boss won’t let up, his girlfriend is cheating on him with his best friend, and there is never quite enough in the bank account to dig himself out of the rut. And he lets you know it. The narration sets the tone for Gibson’s pathetic life, as he complains about the monotony of it all, and his apathy towards attempting to change.
One fateful night as Gibson is waiting in line for his next round of anti-anxiety pills, he is visited by Fox, (Angelina Jolie) and the thrill ride begins. Fox informs his that his father is one of the greatest assassins who has ever lived, and the man who killed him is staring at them from across the room. A shootout begins right in the pharmacy aisle, that barely ends until the end of the film, spliced with Gibson’s training regime at the guild of assassins called The Fraternity whose mantra is “Kill one, maybe save thousands”, though generally in the killing of the one, there is a tsunami sized wake of injury, destruction of public property, and presumably a good amount of unnecessary civilian death.
The thing that surprised me the most about this film was the lack of emotional response from the lead character. It seems as though anybody who entreats on a physical journey of that magnitude would have somewhat of an emotional response to his new awareness. Though there are glimmers of change as Wesley struggles with the reasons for who he is assigned to assassinate and why The Fraternity exists the way they do, it still seems that no significant change is brought to the surface and Wesley is no better off emotionally at the end of the film than he is at the beginning. Having missed out on the graphic novel, perhaps there is something I am missing about the portrayal of this apathetic frustrated character, or perhaps I am attempting to add emotional depth where it has no business being, in a no-holds barred, intense thrill ride, with a big budget, a big cast and several big guns.
This film will likely do well at the box office, and will appeal to its primarily male audiences with non-stop action and Angelina Jolie’s sexy portrayal of the only female assassin (or so it seems). The violence is plentiful, though not quite as graphic as Sin City, and the language holds up to the Restricted Rating. I would not recommend this film to the faint of heart, or to anyone who is offended by mindless bloodshed. That being said I was entertained in the “popcorn movie” sense, similar to my feeling upon viewing Triple X, or Hitman, worth the watch if this genre is your cup of tea.
Rating: R (US) / 18A (Can)
Runtime: 1 hour, 50 min
After having one too many brain cells dismissed by the Love Guru, my husband and I decided to pull a double feature and take in “Wanted” to wash away the foul taste of the Guru Pitka. It seemed that several more of my brain cells were blown away, but this time it was not due to inactivity. Wanted definitely lived up to its trailer, delivering an intense thrill ride with the gritty graphic novel feel that we all came to know and love in Frank Miller’s Sin City.
The film begins with Wesley Gibson, pecking away character by character at his dull life in a cubicle where he is an account manager who suffers from anxiety. His boss won’t let up, his girlfriend is cheating on him with his best friend, and there is never quite enough in the bank account to dig himself out of the rut. And he lets you know it. The narration sets the tone for Gibson’s pathetic life, as he complains about the monotony of it all, and his apathy towards attempting to change.
One fateful night as Gibson is waiting in line for his next round of anti-anxiety pills, he is visited by Fox, (Angelina Jolie) and the thrill ride begins. Fox informs his that his father is one of the greatest assassins who has ever lived, and the man who killed him is staring at them from across the room. A shootout begins right in the pharmacy aisle, that barely ends until the end of the film, spliced with Gibson’s training regime at the guild of assassins called The Fraternity whose mantra is “Kill one, maybe save thousands”, though generally in the killing of the one, there is a tsunami sized wake of injury, destruction of public property, and presumably a good amount of unnecessary civilian death.
The thing that surprised me the most about this film was the lack of emotional response from the lead character. It seems as though anybody who entreats on a physical journey of that magnitude would have somewhat of an emotional response to his new awareness. Though there are glimmers of change as Wesley struggles with the reasons for who he is assigned to assassinate and why The Fraternity exists the way they do, it still seems that no significant change is brought to the surface and Wesley is no better off emotionally at the end of the film than he is at the beginning. Having missed out on the graphic novel, perhaps there is something I am missing about the portrayal of this apathetic frustrated character, or perhaps I am attempting to add emotional depth where it has no business being, in a no-holds barred, intense thrill ride, with a big budget, a big cast and several big guns.
This film will likely do well at the box office, and will appeal to its primarily male audiences with non-stop action and Angelina Jolie’s sexy portrayal of the only female assassin (or so it seems). The violence is plentiful, though not quite as graphic as Sin City, and the language holds up to the Restricted Rating. I would not recommend this film to the faint of heart, or to anyone who is offended by mindless bloodshed. That being said I was entertained in the “popcorn movie” sense, similar to my feeling upon viewing Triple X, or Hitman, worth the watch if this genre is your cup of tea.
The Love Guru
Directed By: Marco Schnabel
Rating: PG-13 (US) / 14A (Can)
Runtime: 1 hour, 28 min.
We all understand the feeling of the elephant in the room, the one that no one will mention, and yet it’s presence is cripplingly obvious and uncomfortable? While watching Mike Myers latest “The Love Guru” the metaphorical elephant comes to life on screen, while crickets chirp in the theatre.
The story begins with an American-born orphaned son of two missionaries, growing up in India under the tutelage of a cross-eyed guru, alongside the now famous Deepak Chopra. The boy, after undergoing a series of training sequences and donning a chastity belt, turns into His Holiness, The Guru Pitka. Pitka is now the successful owner of his own Ashram, where he gives sutras to B-list celebs, and is second in “the biz” only to Deepak himself. The story begins its climb as Pitka is hired to help the star player of the Toronto Maple Leafs Darren Roanoke, played by Romany Malco, mend his broken relationship with his wife, using his patented DRAMA technique. Jessica Alba plays Jane Bullard, the female owner of the team who is trying to overcome a curse of a long run of Stanley Cup losses. The story follows Pitka through his crazy teachings as he attempts to aide Roanoke back to a healthy marriage, The Leafs to a Stanley Cup, and himself to a fulfillment of his chastity vow, and therefore closer to Jane Bullard.
There is little that I can say positively about this movie. The story is fantastical and completely unrealistic. Albeit those two qualities do not always make an awful movie, however, this film fails to even achieve its purpose of making it’s audience laugh. The only comedy presented in this film was toilet-based for cheap laughs, or anatomy jokes, lacking any ingenuity and giving no credit to the intelligence of the audience. It is clear that Myers was attempting to create an Austin Powers for the next generation, and while the objectionable content remained on par with the Powers movies, the characterization and more importantly, the comedy, fell far short.
Though this movie hints at many spiritual leanings, it does not seem to truly enforce or engage in any. There is no mention of God, or gods, and nothing seems to be worshipped except the concept of learning to love oneself. The Hindu teaching of Dharma is mocked with Pitka’s method of DRAMA, and jabs are aimed at anybody who takes the advice of one man too seriously, as nothing seems to hold any weight.
The majority of the comedy was an attempt to disguise dirty phrases as difficult to pronounce Indian names. Littered with rude and crude dialogue, sexually inappropriate jokes, bathroom humour and tired comedy routines, this movie had very little worth watching, in this reviewers opinion, and the Guru Pitka is welcome to summon $12.00 back into my bank account. I would not recommend this film even to those who are die hard fans of Myers previous classics, as The Love Guru cannot seem to muster the laughs that Power’s effortlessly commanded.
Rating: PG-13 (US) / 14A (Can)
Runtime: 1 hour, 28 min.
We all understand the feeling of the elephant in the room, the one that no one will mention, and yet it’s presence is cripplingly obvious and uncomfortable? While watching Mike Myers latest “The Love Guru” the metaphorical elephant comes to life on screen, while crickets chirp in the theatre.
The story begins with an American-born orphaned son of two missionaries, growing up in India under the tutelage of a cross-eyed guru, alongside the now famous Deepak Chopra. The boy, after undergoing a series of training sequences and donning a chastity belt, turns into His Holiness, The Guru Pitka. Pitka is now the successful owner of his own Ashram, where he gives sutras to B-list celebs, and is second in “the biz” only to Deepak himself. The story begins its climb as Pitka is hired to help the star player of the Toronto Maple Leafs Darren Roanoke, played by Romany Malco, mend his broken relationship with his wife, using his patented DRAMA technique. Jessica Alba plays Jane Bullard, the female owner of the team who is trying to overcome a curse of a long run of Stanley Cup losses. The story follows Pitka through his crazy teachings as he attempts to aide Roanoke back to a healthy marriage, The Leafs to a Stanley Cup, and himself to a fulfillment of his chastity vow, and therefore closer to Jane Bullard.
There is little that I can say positively about this movie. The story is fantastical and completely unrealistic. Albeit those two qualities do not always make an awful movie, however, this film fails to even achieve its purpose of making it’s audience laugh. The only comedy presented in this film was toilet-based for cheap laughs, or anatomy jokes, lacking any ingenuity and giving no credit to the intelligence of the audience. It is clear that Myers was attempting to create an Austin Powers for the next generation, and while the objectionable content remained on par with the Powers movies, the characterization and more importantly, the comedy, fell far short.
Though this movie hints at many spiritual leanings, it does not seem to truly enforce or engage in any. There is no mention of God, or gods, and nothing seems to be worshipped except the concept of learning to love oneself. The Hindu teaching of Dharma is mocked with Pitka’s method of DRAMA, and jabs are aimed at anybody who takes the advice of one man too seriously, as nothing seems to hold any weight.
The majority of the comedy was an attempt to disguise dirty phrases as difficult to pronounce Indian names. Littered with rude and crude dialogue, sexually inappropriate jokes, bathroom humour and tired comedy routines, this movie had very little worth watching, in this reviewers opinion, and the Guru Pitka is welcome to summon $12.00 back into my bank account. I would not recommend this film even to those who are die hard fans of Myers previous classics, as The Love Guru cannot seem to muster the laughs that Power’s effortlessly commanded.
Get Smart
Directed By: Peter Segal
Rating: PG-13 (US) / PG Canada
Runtime: 1 hour 50 min
The "KAOS" theory applies in the 2008 adaptation of the 60’s television show Get Smart. The names of the characters are the same, though the setting is current, and the toys are much more technologically advanced.
CONTROL is a secret organization supplying numbered agents in various assignments around the globe. They are constantly battling KAOS and enemy organization whose diabolical schemes threaten US security. Integrated into the US defense strategy, CONTROL takes on a bit more authority in the film then it seemed to possess in the television show. Steve Carrell brings his famous sense of humour to the modern day Maxwell Smart, who is working for Control as a senior analyst and wants nothing more than to become a field agent. When CONTROL is infiltrated all of the current agents identities are compromised. Max is promoted out of necessity and assigned to partner with Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway), who has conveniently undergone plastic surgery. They are on a mad hunt to uncover a KAOS presence who has infiltrated CONTROL on a senior level.
The chemistry between 99 and Smart is charming and guides the viewer on a journey towards respect and acceptance, allowing Carrell to insert his deadpan style into Smart. As he strives to complete a mission that seems above him he also attempts to impress his partner, an agent much more experienced and capable than himself.
The throwbacks to the 60’s premise are well placed, and I was pleasantly surprised by the abundance of comedy that hadn’t been given away by the trailers. It was a risk for this film to take these beloved characters and turn them into modern day identities, as the film establishes that although Control has existed since the 60’s, Agents 86 and 99 have never previously surfaced. Some of the character changes paid off more than others, and a few interesting choices were made. The addition of two new analysts, who make up for their lack of courage with their tech-savvy inventions, is a good secondary outlet for comedy and compliments Max’s rise to field agent status and the rivalry between analysts and agents. Dwayne Johnson (aka The Rock) is introduced as a hardline CONTROL agent who is out to win at all costs. Agent 99 bears almost no emotional resemblance to the Barbara Feldon’s portrayal, though Hathaway is able to provide a sympathetic character that works for the modern age woman. Carrell was absolutely the best choice to revisit Agent 86, though no one could ever live up to Don Adam’s hysterical ironclad grasp on Maxwell Smart. The film leans more toward the action spectrum, with comedy thrown in wherever it fits, a departure from the original series, which used action only as a tool to enhance its trademark slapstick style. That being said the film is designed to make you embrace the new characters while still enjoying the overall feel of the 60’s good-versus-evil worldview.
I would watch this movie again in a heartbeat, having enjoyed the show as a child. I am pleased with the adaptation, and would expect a sequel to surface in a few years time.
Rating: PG-13 (US) / PG Canada
Runtime: 1 hour 50 min
The "KAOS" theory applies in the 2008 adaptation of the 60’s television show Get Smart. The names of the characters are the same, though the setting is current, and the toys are much more technologically advanced.
CONTROL is a secret organization supplying numbered agents in various assignments around the globe. They are constantly battling KAOS and enemy organization whose diabolical schemes threaten US security. Integrated into the US defense strategy, CONTROL takes on a bit more authority in the film then it seemed to possess in the television show. Steve Carrell brings his famous sense of humour to the modern day Maxwell Smart, who is working for Control as a senior analyst and wants nothing more than to become a field agent. When CONTROL is infiltrated all of the current agents identities are compromised. Max is promoted out of necessity and assigned to partner with Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway), who has conveniently undergone plastic surgery. They are on a mad hunt to uncover a KAOS presence who has infiltrated CONTROL on a senior level.
The chemistry between 99 and Smart is charming and guides the viewer on a journey towards respect and acceptance, allowing Carrell to insert his deadpan style into Smart. As he strives to complete a mission that seems above him he also attempts to impress his partner, an agent much more experienced and capable than himself.
The throwbacks to the 60’s premise are well placed, and I was pleasantly surprised by the abundance of comedy that hadn’t been given away by the trailers. It was a risk for this film to take these beloved characters and turn them into modern day identities, as the film establishes that although Control has existed since the 60’s, Agents 86 and 99 have never previously surfaced. Some of the character changes paid off more than others, and a few interesting choices were made. The addition of two new analysts, who make up for their lack of courage with their tech-savvy inventions, is a good secondary outlet for comedy and compliments Max’s rise to field agent status and the rivalry between analysts and agents. Dwayne Johnson (aka The Rock) is introduced as a hardline CONTROL agent who is out to win at all costs. Agent 99 bears almost no emotional resemblance to the Barbara Feldon’s portrayal, though Hathaway is able to provide a sympathetic character that works for the modern age woman. Carrell was absolutely the best choice to revisit Agent 86, though no one could ever live up to Don Adam’s hysterical ironclad grasp on Maxwell Smart. The film leans more toward the action spectrum, with comedy thrown in wherever it fits, a departure from the original series, which used action only as a tool to enhance its trademark slapstick style. That being said the film is designed to make you embrace the new characters while still enjoying the overall feel of the 60’s good-versus-evil worldview.
I would watch this movie again in a heartbeat, having enjoyed the show as a child. I am pleased with the adaptation, and would expect a sequel to surface in a few years time.
Sex And The City
Sex And The City
Directed by: Michael Patrick King
Rated: R (US) / 18A (Can)
Runtime: 2 hrs 15 min
Remember Carrie Bradshaw, Samantha Jones, Miranda Hobbes and Charlotte York? If you have never watched an episode of Sex And The City, then these names may mean nothing to you, but to thousands of women these four are the soldiers on the front lines for single women everywhere, answering their questions, making the mistakes, and of course, testing out the shoes.
The film adaptation of this critically acclaimed television show picks up several years after we left Carrie and the gals in Manhattan. Carrie Bradshaw is a columnist turned non-fiction author who has made her living writing about the single scene in New York City, focusing on sex and relationships. We left her in an on and off long-term relationship with Mr. Big that despite more than one breakup, has spanned a decade. Carrie and her three best friends Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte are all in various stages of their thirties and forties, as well as in varying degrees of relationships, when Carrie announces that she and Mr. Big have decided to tie the knot.
The film chronicles Carrie as she prepares for her wedding to a man who has been labeled the Mr. Big of commitment-phobics throughout six years of episodic television. When the wedding day arrives, and Mr. Big doesn’t show, Carrie must deal with the aftermath of a very public flop. Samantha, supporting Carrie from distant Los Angeles begins to reevaluate her commitment to her partner, a much younger television star who supported her through chemotherapy. Miranda decides whether or not to try and breathe some life into her failing marriage, while Charlotte faces her fears that something terrible is around the corner, coming to mar her fairy tale happiness.
It is obvious by the title and rating of this film that it deals with some very mature subject matter. Anyone who has caught so much as a glimpse of the episodes will realize that all four characters lead a lifestyle open to many sexual partners with very little relational pretext. These women pride themselves on living in Manhattan in the age of sexual revolution where women treat sex the same way many men do, while still maintaining their femininity..
While it was exciting to see marriage being celebrated in this film, the motive for marriage was not a long-standing monogamous commitment, rather a legal convenience. Even as each party began to realize that they wished to be committed to each other, there was a lack of emphasis on the sanctity of the wedding vows. Relationally, the emphasis on friendship is probably the best thing that this film has to offer (aside from the designer purses). The unconditional love that these four women offer each other is inspiring. It bodes the response that perhaps if they gave the same to their relationships, the outcomes may be a little less bleak. It seems, however, that they are content to rely on each other and treat men as the extras to their four-way love story.
Anyone who is a fan of the television series will enjoy seeing this film, as the characters remain pleasantly consistent, and the dialogue is equally as witty as it was throughout the episodes. The amount of high fashion is phenomenal and the film is a great place to find your next wish-list Manolo Blahnik’s (that’s Vogue for shoes, in case you weren’t sure). The plot fell a little flat at points and the narration (pinnacle in the series) seemed to grasp for substance in some moments. That being said, the writers tackled the monstrous challenge of adapting an episodic thirty-minute TV show for the big screen, and succeeded.
I would not recommend this film to anyone who is easily offended by lude behavior, language, or nudity, as it contains plenty, however, if you are already a fan of the show and are prepared for what you are paying for you will likely enjoy the film for its friendly reprise of familiar and engaging characters.
Directed by: Michael Patrick King
Rated: R (US) / 18A (Can)
Runtime: 2 hrs 15 min
Remember Carrie Bradshaw, Samantha Jones, Miranda Hobbes and Charlotte York? If you have never watched an episode of Sex And The City, then these names may mean nothing to you, but to thousands of women these four are the soldiers on the front lines for single women everywhere, answering their questions, making the mistakes, and of course, testing out the shoes.
The film adaptation of this critically acclaimed television show picks up several years after we left Carrie and the gals in Manhattan. Carrie Bradshaw is a columnist turned non-fiction author who has made her living writing about the single scene in New York City, focusing on sex and relationships. We left her in an on and off long-term relationship with Mr. Big that despite more than one breakup, has spanned a decade. Carrie and her three best friends Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte are all in various stages of their thirties and forties, as well as in varying degrees of relationships, when Carrie announces that she and Mr. Big have decided to tie the knot.
The film chronicles Carrie as she prepares for her wedding to a man who has been labeled the Mr. Big of commitment-phobics throughout six years of episodic television. When the wedding day arrives, and Mr. Big doesn’t show, Carrie must deal with the aftermath of a very public flop. Samantha, supporting Carrie from distant Los Angeles begins to reevaluate her commitment to her partner, a much younger television star who supported her through chemotherapy. Miranda decides whether or not to try and breathe some life into her failing marriage, while Charlotte faces her fears that something terrible is around the corner, coming to mar her fairy tale happiness.
It is obvious by the title and rating of this film that it deals with some very mature subject matter. Anyone who has caught so much as a glimpse of the episodes will realize that all four characters lead a lifestyle open to many sexual partners with very little relational pretext. These women pride themselves on living in Manhattan in the age of sexual revolution where women treat sex the same way many men do, while still maintaining their femininity..
While it was exciting to see marriage being celebrated in this film, the motive for marriage was not a long-standing monogamous commitment, rather a legal convenience. Even as each party began to realize that they wished to be committed to each other, there was a lack of emphasis on the sanctity of the wedding vows. Relationally, the emphasis on friendship is probably the best thing that this film has to offer (aside from the designer purses). The unconditional love that these four women offer each other is inspiring. It bodes the response that perhaps if they gave the same to their relationships, the outcomes may be a little less bleak. It seems, however, that they are content to rely on each other and treat men as the extras to their four-way love story.
Anyone who is a fan of the television series will enjoy seeing this film, as the characters remain pleasantly consistent, and the dialogue is equally as witty as it was throughout the episodes. The amount of high fashion is phenomenal and the film is a great place to find your next wish-list Manolo Blahnik’s (that’s Vogue for shoes, in case you weren’t sure). The plot fell a little flat at points and the narration (pinnacle in the series) seemed to grasp for substance in some moments. That being said, the writers tackled the monstrous challenge of adapting an episodic thirty-minute TV show for the big screen, and succeeded.
I would not recommend this film to anyone who is easily offended by lude behavior, language, or nudity, as it contains plenty, however, if you are already a fan of the show and are prepared for what you are paying for you will likely enjoy the film for its friendly reprise of familiar and engaging characters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
