Alice in Wonderland Review

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Better late than never, right? I’m talking both about this review and a modern big-budget live-ish action adaptation of Lewis Carroll’s Wonderland saga. And with the DVD fresh on store shelves, I figured it was as relevant a time as ever; in addition, this is pretty much my realm, so I should really really do this! Ladies and gentlemen: Tim Burton and Disney present: Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Disclaimer: this is not a re-make, this is a sequel. Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is now 19 and has returned to Wonderland because everything has gone to hell for everyone. For Alice, it’s the threat of being strongly encouraged to wed a young wealthy noble gentleman with a sensitive stomach and a rod up his own rabbit hole; for Wonderland, it’s the ascension of the Red Queen/Queen of Hearts (Helena Bonham Carter), who has turned the once magical realm into the aftermath of the Pemberton Festival. Upon reentering the rabbit hole, Alice rediscovers all the usual characters, especially the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp). As it turns out, there is a resistance of sorts, led by the White Queen (Anne Hathaway), which Alice must champion in order to fulfill her destiny. Is that good enough an explanation? Good, because what ensues is a cinematic cluster-cuss of breathtaking visuals, note taking plot devices, time taking explanations, shifting accents, a who’s who of real British character actors, a who’s who of fake British character actors, airborne food, not enough salt, too much pepper, confusing looks, inevitable disappointment, and Professor Snape as the Caterpillar.

First of all: it looks great, but it looks very CG. Now this is fine, especially for a Wonderland, but the campy/twisted vibe that some people might associate with it is completely sucked out. It also gives a scale to Wonderland that is almost too big for its britches. The whole point of the books was for Alice to go from one isolated incident to the next, which was Carroll’s style; Alice is not a hobbit and Wonderland is not Middle Earth. Even if this is a sequel (and why did they choose to do that, so they could cushion the blow without offending the author´s ghost?), it’s messing with the base format for reasons that are clearly neither artistic nor amazing.

Second of all: Wasikowska’s Alice is a bit stale, which is a bit of a problem when basically everyone else is CG. Even Burton’s usual ace-up-the-sleeve Depp turns in a surprisingly inconsistent performance; he certainly should be allowed to shoot for the moon, but he needed to use the same cannon for each scene. Fortunately, Burton’s other usual ace-up-the-sleeve (and main squeeze) Bonham Carter is fantastic and fantastical as the Red Queen, and Hathaway gives a surprisingly enjoyably breezy performance as the White Queen. I could go through the previously motioned who’s who lists for the voices of the various CG Wonderland characters that we all know and love, but that would take far too long and none of them were really that memorable (except maybe for the effectively calculated performance of Matt Lucas as both Tweedledee and Tweedledum). Interestingly enough, the most memorable character happens to be the March Hare (Paul Whitehouse, who apparently is not on any who’s who list!), who’s manic behavior is of the kind of prime Burton substance that is mostly absent from the film (yes it’s a CG character and no I’m not contradicting myself; it’s really that funny, so shut up).

When Burton debuted in the mid 80s, he brought a twisted charm to a “bicycle thief” situation with Pee-wee’s Big Adventure (1985), which was followed by the gothic comic bonanza of Beetle Juice (1988). And then there was Batman (1989). This hat trick was impressive, but then to follow it with Edward Scissorhands (1990), Batman Returns (1992), and Ed Wood (1994)? That’s just too much too soon! And it seems to have turned out that way because the 2000s have seen his craft slip. From the faceless Planet of the Apes (2001) to the heartless Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), most of the life has vanished from the director’s work, and that’s because Burton’s art has been truly tainted by the advent of CG. His specialty has always been analog claustrophobia, yet the vast majority of his output over the last decade has been on a more epic scale. The main exception to this was 2007’s gothic musical Sweeney Todd: The Daemon Barber of Fleet Street (2007), but that’s why it was his best film since Sleepy Hollow (1999); both good films with a more intimate focus. If Alice in Wonderland could have been treated more like these films (and I don’t mean include the hyperbolic violence), then we would have had a much richer and zanier experience. And this is all very unfortunate, because when you think about it, is there actually anyone more qualified to channel Carroll’s vision than he (and please don’t suggest David Lynch, because he goes down the rabbit hole in all of his work, and a self-serving rabbit hole at that)? That answer was and still is no. Burton is certainly the man for the job, but I think we needed a Burton from another decade.

In the end, there is so much to say and ask oneself about this film: Is it what I/we/anyone was hoping for? No. Is it a masterpiece? Not at all. Is this Disney’s fault? Actually… no. And the reason for this is simply that Disney already has the best Alice incarnation of any film format/medium. For the finest take on Carroll’s classic, look no further than the 1951 animated feature of the same name. But the very fact that Disney already possesses the best actually serves to improve the experience of Burton’s film, and there is still a lot of fun to be had, because the characters endure and nothing in Wonderland can truly die. Warts and all, this is still Alice in Wonderland and there is still some Burton/Disney magic that shines through, and that still should count for something.

3.5/5 (For the story, Burton gets a B-)

McS

MacGruber Review

MacGruber (2010)

I was a huge MacGyver fan as a kid and I thoroughly enjoy the MacGruber skits on Saturday Night Live that satirize this great show. Still, a feature length MacGruber movie? I was skeptical. That being said, Will Forte, who plays the character on SNL, is a co-writer. And the film received an R-rating, indicative of a certain level of creative freedom. Both of these were good signs, and as the movie neared release, the reviews were very positive. So I went.

The plot is simple. MacGruber is pulled out of retirement Rambo III-style to assemble a team of super soldiers to stop an evil villain from obtaining and detonating a nuclear warhead in D.C. Of course, things do not go so smoothly, and much has changed since MacGruber was last called on to defend democracy. For one thing, bombs are now built with more than 3 wires.

MacGruber is a movie made by people who clearly cared about what they were doing, and who obviously had a lot of fun making the movie. The movie is consistently funny, although not hilarious, and the characters are surprisingly endearing. Most of the humor is dumb and genital-related, but Will Forte is so likeable that it’s funny anyway. Ryan Philippe is well-cast as the straight-shooting army officer assigned to assist MacGruber. Kirsten Wiig steals the show. She is so funny as MacGruber’s partner, I kind of wish the whole movie had focused on her. Both Powers Booth, as an army general, and Val Kilmer, as the criminal mastermind Dieter von Cunth, are also very good.

There are two gut-busting, hilarious scenes that make the movie highly recommendable. I only wish that there were more of these scenes, because the movie never quite reaches its full potential. The characters save the movie. Every actor has so much fun in his or her own role, that it is hard not to have fun watching them. The movie certainly didn’t deserve the brutal box-office beating it received on opening weekend. MacGruber is fresh and original, and I would much rather see comedies like it than most of the garbage that comes out every month. Why is it that the public always supports the wrong kind of movie?

The final verdict: if you turn on the childish side of your brain, you will have a lot of fun with MacGruber. There are some brilliant bits that make the experience worthwhile. And it has a lot of heart. You get that rare, warm, fuzzy feeling inside that someone actually cared about what you are watching on that big silver screen.

Album Review: Jakob Dylan - Women + Country (2010)

Jakob Dylan - Women + Country (2010)

With 2008’s Seeing Things, Jakob Dylan proved that he could have a successful and distinctive solo jaunt without the Wallflowers behind him. Of course, the notion was initially strange due to the fact that Dylan was the only songwriter for the Wallflowers anyway, yet the extremely sparse humble folk of Seeing Things was truly miles away from the sturdy roots rock of the band. Strangely enough, the music received a decent amount of attention, giving Dylan more airplay than his parent band had enjoyed in years (even if it was on coffeehouse radio). The question then became what would he do next? Two years later, with an excellent Wallflowers compilation (Collected: 1996–2005 (2009)) and associated tour under his belt, Dylan returns with his second solo album, Women + Country (2010), which is unarguably his most ambitious work to date.

The most remarkable thing about Women + Country is how distinctive it is from everything before it. It would have been easy enough for Dylan to continue mining the vein of Seeing Things, what with its amazingly warm reception and all; but instead, Dylan goes for something completely different. Whereas Seeing Things’ minimalist approach gave its songs a gentle musical backdrop to Dylan’s prose, Women + Country sets to expand the musical pallet, offering an atmosphere for the lyrics to drift through. So while the music never rises to Wallflowers level, it does manage to ebb and flow in dynamics and swell in emotion. Seeing Things was certainly pleasant enough, even if nothing much happened (that was the point), but Women + Country is so much more interesting, which makes it that much better. Lyrically, the album continues the cautionary imagery found on its predecessor, but the words seem to have more gravitas this time around, thanks to the darker sounds. A key ingredient of all this is the genius inclusion of Kelly Hogan and the always hot Neko Case, who provide gorgeous harmonies on most of the album’s tracks. It’s a feature that adds both credibility to the songs’ ambitious arrangements, and nuance to the album’s gothic-country baroque demeanor. Additional kudos goes to producer T-Bone Burnett, who widens the gaze from what Seeing Things producer Rick Rubin narrowed. And despite the fact that Burnett helmed the Wallflowers’ definitive Bringing Down The Horse (1996), the two albums sound nothing alike, and that’s the ultimate credit for both producer and artist.

Yet again the question is what happens next? Back to the Wallflowers? Another solo album from another planet? Whatever the future may hold, Dylan has proven that he is far more versatile an artist that one would have ever assumed, especially during the Wallflower days. Dylan has even one upped his hero Tom Petty, because as excellent as Petty’s work may be, the solo work and Heartbreakers product is musically synonymous. In the end, Dylan’s finest hour might still rest with his band on (Breach) (2000), but Women + Country serves as a reminder a decade later that the younger Dylan can hold his own yet still manage to surprise.

Key tracks: ¨Nothing But the Whole Wide World¨ / ¨Everybody's Hurting¨ / ¨Truth for a Truth¨ / ¨Standing Eight Count¨

4/5

“Only one thing is certain / That’s everybody / Everybody’s hurting”

McS

Splice Review

Splice (2010)

In what has otherwise been a dull, mediocre summer movie season, Splice is a disgusting little surprise. Vincenzo Natali, clearly inspired by the works of fellow-Canadian David Cronenberg, has made a refreshingly original creature feature that is disgusting not because of the violence it depicts, but because of the fleshy creepiness of its human-animal clone, Dren. The look of Dren results in a similar effect as realistically computer-rendered human characters: human, with something wrong, as opposed to not-quite human. Studies have shown that the former creeps people out on a subconscious level. Maybe that is why the well-reviewed film attracted only a meager audience on its opening weekend. It is a shame, however, because I would much rather watch horror films like Splice than remakes of ‘80s movies that were not that great to begin with.

Sarah Polley and Adrian Brody play scientists (and romantic partners) at a gene splicing research lab. They have created a new animal by splicing together various parts of various genomes from other animals. A parent drug company is funding this operation because they seek a protein which may be synthesized from these new animals to help treat and maybe cure a number of high-profile illnesses. This, in effect, solves the ethical dilemma of whether to use live animals, or even humans, for this type of intrusive medical testing. Rest assured, this is the simplest ethical dilemma that the characters will face is a series of progressively more disturbing ethical dilemmas. The film never shies away from forcing its audience to consider difficult moral questions, and cleverly plays with what we consider human qualities.

The special effects are spectacular, especially considering how small this movie’s budget was. Splice is an example of filmmakers using computer effects to serve the story, not to wow us with technical brilliance. There is a real actress playing Dren. The effects department widened her eyes, removed a finger from each hand, and added a tail and alien feet. But Dren still looks very human. So human in fact that it is easy to sympathize with the characters’ inability to kill the creature even though they know that they have created something very dangerous.

The actors sell the film. Each character has a surprisingly complicated past which is revealed subtly and intelligently. I never felt like character exposition was being forced on me. There was no scene devoted to a character finally revealing the secrets of his troubled past, written primarily to fill time between action sequences. Sarah Polley and Adrian Brody have chemistry together in their own quirky, nerdy way. Cube’s David Hewlett has a scene-chewing role as the boss of the genetic splicing company.

The film has some spectacular sequences, including a press conference from hell. But it remains restrained and never quite takes its premise or creature as far as it could. The movie remains firmly grounded in the human characters played by Polley and Brody. For the most part, this is a good thing; however, it would have been interesting to learn more about how Dren thinks and feels. Most of its reactions, behavior, and extra-sensory talents are left unexplained. But this also makes Dren more unpredictable and more frightening. We never know what it is fully capable of.

The third act features some character decisions that are hard to swallow and ends with the obligatory chase through the woods. It is easy to feel disappointed with this resolution, but, thematically, the final twist and turns make good natural sense and are satisfying enough to prevent the third act from destroying an otherwise intriguing and thrilling film.

The final verdict: Splice is a smart, gutsy thriller that is as refreshing as it is unconventional. Splice is the type of horror film that horror fans should be supporting.

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time Review

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (2010)

Like the rest of the world, I had become sick of the relentless year-long advertising campaign for Prince of Persia. The film looked computer-effect heavy and appeared to have been written by a child. I have played the most recent series of Prince of Persia games and I am familiar with the lore. I went into the film expecting to see Jake Gyllenhall leap around, run up walls, swing from posts, and slice up bad guys. And you know what, the film delivered that much. Trust me, there is a lot of terrific stunt work that is curiously absent from the trailers. The action was there and it was thrilling. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for the rest of the movie.

The story, on paper, is not bad. The writing, particularly the dialogue, is bad. The story involves Prince Dastan, played by Gyllenhall, who is accused of murdering his father and must flee in order to save the world. He has two brothers and an uncle, played by Ben Kingsley, hunting him down. Cue a series of acrobatic action scenes as Dastan finds the dagger of time and must protect it from falling into the wrong hands as he attempts to clear his name and reunite his family. The dagger has the power to reverse time, if only by a minute, and only when it has enough special sand. Of course the special sand is located in a secret underground temple that begins collapsing just has our heroes arrive to save the world. Most of the computer effect wizardry is thankfully saved for this weak and unsatisfying final act. Up to this point, the film is very watchable.

If it all sounds a bit cliché, it is. Once again, screenwriters sought to write an original take on a videogame story. I understand that videogame stories cannot be directly adapted because the mediums are different and serve different goals. A movie of Dastan searching temple after temple and solving various acrobatic puzzles would not be very entertaining. However, the game still has a core story that was much better than the one written for the movie. Why adapt a videogame if you are going to rewrite the story? What is left to adapt? Character names, locations, choreography, and costumes. But many videogames have strong narratives too. Some have incredibly complex themes that are even better served by the interactive medium than by the film medium. Producers need to start giving more credit to the source material. Yes, there has never been a truly great videogame movie. But there has also never been a truly faithful videogame adaption.

The final verdict: Prince of Persia is an entertaining summer movie with some thrilling stunts, but is otherwise another mediocre entry in the summer slate.

Robin Hood Review

Robin Hood (2010)

Ridley Scott has never made a bad film. Not all have been masterpieces, but Scott is one of the most consistent directors in the biz. I know what you’re saying. Kingdom of Heaven was awful. Yes, but have you watched the director’s cut? It’s 40 minutes longer but feels 40 minutes shorter. The whole movie makes a lot more sense.
I got the same feeling watching Robin Hood. It is a long movie already, but I sense that there is an even longer movie underneath. A better movie. A movie that makes more sense. Certain parts of the movie felt rushed and certain sequences required more explanation. Hopefully a future director’s cut will provide a better movie.

But pacing and flow were not the only problems. Russell Crowe, who I like, was completely charmless. He acted grumpy and tired throughout the whole movie. And this was supposed to be a prequel. Robin Hood, especially early Robin Hood, is meant to be young, agile, and playful. This Robin Hood is old, tired, and slow.

On the positive side, all the other performances were strong. The movie looked amazing, as all Ridley Scott films do. The action scenes were thrilling and impressive, but I did get the feeling that I had seen this all before. I’m not sure what went wrong with Robin Hood. The pieces are all of the highest quality, but they did not form an interesting puzzle.

The final verdict: wait for the director’s cut.

Professor P

Lost Finale Review

Lost Finale Review

Over a year ago I wrote glowing review for the final episode of Battlestar Galactica. And yes, some of the answers we were given were not totally satisfying. But I didn’t care, because the characters, stories and themes were satisfyingly wrapped up and resolved. It was beautiful.

Two weeks ago Lost ended. I needed an ending that made the whole experience worthwhile. An ending that answered the endless list of burning questions, and which made up for the wealth of filler episodes that did nothing to move the plot forward. Instead, we got a steaming pile of crap. We got a magical phalic plug that is cleverly hidden at the bottom of a cave that emits a blinding stream of light. A cave which only two characters seem to be able to find, despite the blinding light. A cave that Jacob pushed his brother into, only for his brother to emerge as the black smoke. Oh, and by the way, this is never explained. In the final episode, two more characters venture into this cave and do not turn into smoke. If you can explain this, you deserve a medal.

Locke and Jack have a fist fight. In the rain. Jack wins. The island is saved. Some castaways escape. Some don’t. And I didn’t care.

What is the cave? The light? The smoke? The plug? Are these things supposed to be the answers I waited 6 years for? And spoiler alert: Jack’s dead. Just Jack. That’s the big twist. Only he wasn’t dead the whole time. Just for the last season of the show. I guess the writers were so lost in their own convoluted mess of a story that they couldn’t write a twist that affected the series as a whole.

Okay, so the twist was predictable and lame and failed to relate to the story as a whole. I still would have been happier if they had answered at least one question. You don’t create a show where the primary audience draw is a series of intriguing mysteries only to not answer a single damn question. Even Twin Peaks told us who killed Laura Palmer. There wasn’t even a thematic resolution. Staging the final scene a multi-denominational church does not give the show some metaphorical religious subtext, or give the show redeeming philosophical depth. It’s bullshit. Yeah, and Jack’s father’s name is Christian Sheppard. Brilliant.

I could go on to list all the questions I have to make a point. But I don’t want to waste either my time or yours. In fact, I wish to save you time. If you haven’t watched the show but are thinking about it. Or if you stopped and are thinking about starting again. Don’t. The end not only fails to justify the journey, but undermines it in every way.

Professor P

Iron Man 2 Review

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Jon Favreau’s Iron Man is one of the greatest superhero movies ever made. It was released the same summer as the greatest superhero movie, The Dark Knight, and thus we often forget how brilliant Iron Man really was. Expectations were accordingly very high for this inevitable sequel, and with the same cast and crew involved, what could go wrong?

Well, thankfully not a lot. Iron Man 2 is a well-written, well-acted, high-quality action film that delivers in every way you might expect. It is very funny. The action is spectacular. The performances are all so good. I love this cast. Newcomer Scarlett Johansen is a great Black Widow, and Mickey Rourke is effective and restrained as the mad Russian physicist wronged by the Stark family. Sam Rockwell is hysterically funny as the head of Hammer Industries, a corporation out to replicate the Iron Man technology and sell it as a weapon. I like Don Cheadle as Stark’s friend Colonel James Rhodes/War Machine more than Terrance Howard. Cheadle is simply more believable as a high-ranking military officer. That being said, Samuel L. Jackson does not work as Nick Fury. I really wanted him to work, and I think he can work, but he didn’t here. He simply performed as casual Samuel L. Jackson. He couldn’t even whip out angry Snakes on a Plane Samuel L. Jackson. Unfortunately, he has signed on for 9 films.

There is an element-synthesis that occurs toward the end of the film that will make anyone who has taken a science course groan. The rest of the film remains grounded in the pseudo-science of the first film. I like that everything has a practical purpose. The filmmakers don’t try to impress us with the super-technology as much as they try to convince us. And it works for the most part.

Is it as good as Iron Man? No. But that is a very high bar to reach. The fact that Iron Man 2 is not quite as good as the first one, but still remains a great movie, is a testament to how good the first film really was. The final verdict: Iron Man 2 is a worthy and entertaining sequel to Iron Man. It ups the humor and performances of the first film, while not quite capturing all of the same magic that made Iron Man extra special.

Professor P