Wreck-It Ralph (2012) Review

Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

It's official: Disney Animation Studios has eclipsed Pixar.  While Brave (2012) was good enough, it was surprisingly underwhelming, and that's disappointing considering that might be the the only non-sequal Pixar has in store for us in the next while.  While some might attribute this to Pixar alum John Lasseter's jump to the parent company (that being Disney), there's really no reason why Pixar shouldn't sustain its momentum generated by its triumphs of not so long ago.  Regardless, the rebooted DAS is four for four with its latest release, the very excellent and very exuberant Wreck-It Ralph (2012)!

Without really needing to get into the story, Wreck-It Ralph takes the familiar "who am I and what can I become?" story and appropriately inserts it into the world of games and gaming.  I mean, what better environment to ask the "who am I and what can I become?" question?  And this is obviously the focal point for the title character.  Ralph (voiced by the uncanny John C. Riley) is the "bad guy" in his residence arcade game Fix-It Felix, but he's not a villain, he was just programmed that way, and that depresses him.  It's interesting to see the nature vs. nurture debate played out in the gaming world, but it fits nicely into the maxim of what we are given vs. what we do with what we're given.  Disney has never been a stranger to this kind of arc, but the fact that Ralph was designed to be his world's antagonist is all the more overwhelming; it really puts a new spin on the whole antihero trope!  Riley voices his avatar with such conviction that you can believe Ralph truly wants to be something more than his "genetic" design.  Even more amusing is Ralph's in-game nemesis Felix (voiced by the equally uncanny Jack McBrayer), who in some ways displays the same heart as Ralph, but is and always is the hero of the game.  Unable to deal with always being the bad guy, Ralph eventually leaves his game and ventures into other Arcade games for the chance to be a hero; however, his design can only follow him, so he can only leave a path of destruction, a path that could lead to the end of his world, and other arcade worlds.

What could have just been a simple platonic cave film (like Brave) is instead a joyous voyage into the multiplicity of character within systems of society.  Directer Rich Moore (a veteran of both The Simpsons and Futurama) uses his expertise in animated satire to craft a world where each arcade games acts as a different country governed by its game play.  Walt himself might roll in his grave to see Marxism portrayed in such a colorful way, but he would probably applaud Ralph for fighting the system!  Regardless, the satire is biting at times, but it's difficult to fixate on that when your favorite game characters and game references are around every corner.  Indeed, Wreck-It Ralph takes on as much as it can, and multiplies it by a bucket of chicken to find the gamer in every audience member.  What's truly amazing, however, is that all of the references and Easter eggs only serve to propel the enjoyment of the narrative, they don't submerge the plot in any way, and that's no easy task.  Had the film only been a vehicle for the gaming references, it would still be enjoyable and exciting, but the fact that it keeps its narrative focus despite all of the chaos is a real credit to Disney's ambition.

In the end, Wreck-It Ralph takes a familiar story and filters it through a plethora of pop-cultural gaming references without losing the narrative; in fact, the film transcends every trope and every referential nugget to become the sum of its parts and thoroughly entertain.  Ironically, this is arguably the the best gaming movie ever made, and the central games in the story don't even exist.  However, if they did, I would certainly play them.  In 1982, Disney made gaming waves with the groundbreaking Tron; three decades later, Disney does it again, but this time it's a celebration of what led us to this point, and no one will celebrate more than the audience.

McS           

Skyfall (2012) Review

Skyfall (2012) Review

(WARNING: SPOILERS)

Skyfall (2012) is a great movie; it’s just not as great as it could have been.

There is no question that Skyfall is the best made Bond movie in the last 50 years. It is artfully and creatively filmed, and shows us Bond doing his thing as a dark silhouette in the shadows, among bright and multi-colored neon lights, and even under an iced-over lake in the Scottish moors. A lot of credit must go to both director Sam Mendes and cinematographer Roger Deakins for delivering the most beautiful Bond film in decades.

And while the story is in many ways fresh and exciting, it never reaches the same heights as franchise-best Casino Royale (2006). Never is the narrative quite as intense or engrossing, and never do we quite care about Bond’s journey as much we did in 2006. It’s unfortunate that all future Bond movies (at least Daniel Craig-staring Bond movies) must be compared to Casino Royale, but that is the blessing and curse we are left with. It’s unfortunate because Skyfall is unquestionably one of the better Bond movies. But it is not the best.

First, the good things. Aside from the aforementioned cinematography and direction, Skyfall features some incredible performances from Craig as Bond, Dame Judi Dench reprising her role as M for the last time, Ralph Fiennes as Gareth Mallory, and Ben Whishaw, the first actor to play Q since John Cleese in 2002’s Die Another Day (2002). French actress Bérénice Lim Marlohe does an impressive job playing Sévérine, although she does not have much screen time. Finally, everything that has been said about Javier Bardem’s performance is true. He plays Raoul Silva with a sociopathic flamboyance that makes all of his scenes uncomfortable to watch, but totally engrossing.

Yet, Silva’s motivations do not always mirror his actions, and I was left more than a little confused about what Silva truly hoped to accomplish. At times, Silva’s plan was so precise and meticulous that he knew exactly when a subway train was going to pass over a piece of track right where he had placed a bomb at the precise time Bond stood underneath said section of track. At other times, Silva was unable to shoot M at near point blank range. Why would Silva orchestrate such a precise and elaborate plan only to have the ultimate goal of such plan (i.e. killing M) left to a chance bullet?

Bardem himself said in an interview that his character was the most undeveloped of all the main characters in the film, and that he only agreed to accept the role on the condition that he could work with Mendes and the screenwriters to make his character more interesting. For the most part, it seems his efforts were successful.

However, Skyfall’s biggest problem is that Bond’s character arc is not as satisfying as the setup leads us to believe. The film opens with M ordering MI6 Agent Eve (Naomi Harris) to shoot a target who is at that moment battling Bond on the top of a moving train. Bond is hit, and falls from a bridge to the waters below. We spend a lot of time establishing that Bond has been both physically and psychologically damaged from this incident. He avoids returning to MI6 for as long as possible, resorting to alcohol and self-medication to numb his pain. When he does finally return, he fails both his physical and mental evaluations. He is out-of-breath after only a few laps in the pool. He cannot shoot straight. And it is unclear how much he really trusts M after she almost had him killed. We spend almost the entire first hour of the film establishing Bond’s hurt, and yet none of it really matters in the rest of the film. Aside from a failed shooting contest, Bond’s physical and emotional scars are all but forgotten as the film moves into its second and third acts. Bond is capable and competent when he needs to be. And the film ends without ever dealing with the dark issues raised in its first half, such as Bond’s alcoholism and depression. Thus, while it is interesting to see Bond so vulnerable and fragile, the film never does anything truly compelling with its broken lead character. I was left unsatisfied.

Finally, I found there were a few too many nods to the past. While I enjoy an homage or subtle reference as much as the next Bond fan, too many such references feel out-of-place in this more modern and realistic world. The Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger (1964) has more than a cameo in the film’s final act. And I don’t just mean any Aston Martin DB5, I mean THE Aston Martin DB5, complete with all of the original gadgets. The look of pain and anger on Daniel Craig’s face when Silva blows up the car (a shot that lasts an uncomfortable five seconds), is laughable, and really took me out of what was otherwise a really thrilling and emotional sequence. Craig didn’t even look that angry when Vesper Lynd died in Casino Royale.

I love Craig’s take on Bond. And I would take Skyfall any day over the wretched Quantum of Solace (2008), or most of the other Bond movies. I am merely disappointed that it was not as good as it could have been. The setup was so strong, and the filmmaking was as good as it has ever been. Let us all try again in two years.

Professor P

Album Review: The Wallflowers - Glad All Over (2012)

The Wallflowers - Glad All Over (2012)

It's been a long long LONG seven years since The Wallflowers last album, which was the excellent but ultimately ineffectual Rebel, Sweetheart (2005), so this might be a longer review!  And while it's true that Jakob Dylan put out a couple of great solo albums over this period, it's important to note that Dylan isn't The Wallflowers.  The solo material wasn't that of a band, regardless of the same songwriter.  It's certainly true that Dylan stayed on the scene with these albums, but the music was surprisingly miles away from the rock band that is The Wallflowers, and nowhere is that more apparent than with the band's triumphant 2012 return.  May I present to you: Glad All Over.

But before I dive into the new album, I have a bit more exposition.  Following Sweetheart and its lackluster commercial reception, The Wallflowers took a hiatus.  As previously stated, Dylan spent the break mining a solo career with two excellent releases.  Both the bare-bones Seeing Things (2008) and the austere Women + Country (2010) ended up doing surprisingly well considering the songwriting came from the same source as the under-performing Sweetheart.  While it was certainly nice to see Dylan "remain in light," it was also a bit disconcerting in terms of the future of The Wallflowers and whether it was worth it for Dylan to return to the band.  And although Sweetheart was a great album, it felt like they had reached a point where they had said all they needed to; it actually felt like a break was in order.  So really there's no surprise that they went on hiatus, but the years started to pile up, and despite a brief reformation over the 2009 compilation Collected: 1996-2005, the prospect of a new release from the band seemed forever delayed.  Of course, that all changed at the beginning of 2012!

Fast forward a bit to July, and we have "Reboot the Mission," the most radical thing the band has ever presented.  Whether or not this was an accurate indication of what the entire album would sound like, one thing was clear, and that was that The Wallflowers were game for letting loose.  And now that we're finally at the album's release, what is the definitive statement on if the band took a left turn or not?  Well... yes and to a lesser extent no.  While "Reboot the Mission" is certainly the furthest the band ventures from their signature Petty-esque template on Glad All Over, the album does (thankfully) possess an altogether different direction, and one that is nothing short of invigorating.

The last time the band tried something different was a decade ago with Red Letter Days (2002), but the results were mixed.  While it's true that the album produced some of the band's finest songs, the surprisingly clean production arguably undermined the album as a whole and didn't help the lesser songs (keep in mind that the production for Red Letter Days is still miles away from the pop-gloss of what bands like Train and Matchbox 20 are doing now).  That's why the subsequent Sweetheart was so back-to-basics, but there's no reason why they couldn't try something different again; indeed, the band has certainly used its hiatus to regroup and re-energize, and yet they feel both compelled and confident to experiment and burn brighter than they ever have before.  Glad All Over is without a doubt the hardest charging album in the band's catalog, and it never really lets up.  Even the powerful and energetic Sweetheart stopped every now and then to deliver a moody ballad or a gentle mid-tempo number; but not here.  The album opens with the blistering "Hospital For Sinners" and doesn't let up until the end.  Even the slower tracks like "First One in the Car" or "The Devil's Waltz" retain an edge of urgency that eventually erupt into bursts of fiery passion, only to be followed by faster, heavier tracks.  "Misfits and Lovers" is propelled by a rhythm ala The Clash, while "Have Mercy on Him Now" rollicks with an almost Motown feel.  Interestingly enough, there isn't much Tom Petty to be found on Glad All Over, but it actually serves more as a breath of fresh air as opposed to a disappointment.  The band is clearly having fun, and not concerning itself with embracing the pop tendencies of some of their peers.  But what's great is that they are still able to deliver something excellent, as is perfectly evident on the shimmering "Love Is a Country," a heartbreaking open road offering that is so genius in its elegant simplicity that it is probably the band's finest song to date, and that's a huge accomplishment considering The Wallflowers have always managed to produce songs that transcend.  Even if Glad All Over is not the best Wallflowers album, it's certainly their most engaging.

All in all, Glad All Over is a fun, free, and radiant experience, and proof that the band is still a relevant presence and that Jakob Dylan needs to be in a band.  And while the album might not and probably won't make much of a difference in the pop world at large, Glad All Over is a sterling reminder that The Wallflowers are ultimately the best post-Tom Petty craftsmen in the roots-rock genre today; I just hope that it won't be another seven years for the next reminder.

McS  



    

Album Review: The Wallflowers - Collected: 1996-2005 (2009)

The Wallflowers - Collected: 1996-2005 (2009)

With the impending release of  The Wallflowers new album, it seems only fair to review their last offering that I didn't review and I had every opportunity to review. Maybe the reason I didn't was because it was Collected: 1996-2005 (2009), a greatest hits collection through the band's Interscope years, and there wasn't much else to report on it. That being said, there's no time like another release to review a compilation...

... that makes no sense whatsoever, but here we go, and in a brief way:

Collected: 1996-2005, as the title suggests contains songs from seminal Bringing Down the Horse (1996) to the almost as excellent Rebel, Sweetheart (2005). So there is nothing from the band's eponymous 1992 debut, which is too bad but makes sense. The Wallflowers belonged to Virgin Records and exuded a far more alt-country twang as opposed to the more polished roots-rock of subsequent albums. Collected contains all of the official singles from the albums in range, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it makes for few surprises.

Fortunately, the compilation does contain a few extras to bring in those that own everything else already (like me). These are the surprisingly progressive "Eat Your Sleeping" from the superior (Breach) (2000) era, and the touchingly mellow demo version of Rebel's "God Says Nothing Back." Both tracks are actually excellent and do make this collection worth it for hard core fans, but it would have been nice to have a little more (maybe just one more). That being said, a certain addition of Collected exists with a DVD of all the bands videos, and that's a lot of fun (they have some pretty solid ones) Anyway, there it is, Collected, and soon... what we've all been waiting for...

McS

Brave review

Brave (2012)

A few weeks ago, Prof P and I had a discussion on whether or not Pixar had "jumped-the-shark" creatively.  Between the critical bomb that was last year's Cars 2 and the current focus on cash-grabbing sequels/prequels, the company's days of game-changers like WALL·E (2008) and Up (2009) seem behind them.  For me, the answer to this would rest in this year's Pixar offering Brave, and their first non-sequel since Up.  So what is the answer?  Well... yes and no... and I know that sounds like a lame answer, but hear me out.

In some ways, it does seem like the Pixar bubble has burst, because Brave is merely good, not great, and that's an interesting thing to consider.  In recent memory (but leaving Cars 2 out of the equation), Pixar has dominated both critically and commercially, sweeping the Oscars and topping the box office.  Some of the aforementioned films and other offerings like The Incredibles (2004) are considered modern animated classics.  In addition, Pixar is often credited as sustaining their parent company Disney.  And all of this is certainly true to an extent, but you need to consider that this isn't necessarily the decline of Pixar, but more that it's coming back down to earth.  Pixar reached incredible platitudes over the past decade, and now it's just settling back down.  If anything, Brave is just as good if not better then the solid Pixar films from the turn of the millennium (ie. Monsters, Inc. (2001) or Finding Nemo (2003)), it's just not a masterpiece like its more recent predecessors.

That's all very well in a relative sense of the film, but Brave itself has a lot going for it to counter its flaws.  First of all, the film is (not surprisingly) visually beautiful and technically accomplished.  An entire animation department was responsible for only hair, and it shows with the fiery ginger that is the main character, Merida (a young Scottish princess that wants to live her life her way over an arranged life).  The very fact that this is the first female lead in a Pixar film is also a plus, even if it didn't quite hit the critical notes of Mulan (1998) or The Princess and the Frog (2009).  That being said, something that Brave does do very well is keep romance out of the story completely, which is a huge plus for this movie; otherwise, the film wouldn't have put up much of a punch at all, because the rest of the story is pretty weak.  The eventual mother-daughter relationship theme is certainly important, but there's not much at stake in the end.  And that's the primary problem with Brave: it doesn't go far enough, it isn't brave enough!  The trailers made the film to be an adventure movie following a rogue princess on her quest for independence and self-fulfillment; however, what we get is literally one full day in the woods.  For a film to wear its fantasy genre on its sleeve, it seems rather odd that it keeps itself to such a contained geography.  It's as if the creators were ready to show more and go further, but just decided to only develop the characters.  And this is a problem because the film is neither long enough nor written well enough to do that.  The ultimate conflict is interesting but really too short and safe, and the resolution isn't earth-shattering by any means.  Again, the film is still good and fine and enjoyable to look at, but I've just come to expect so much more from Pixar, and I can't help but feeling a little disappointed.  Simply put, a Pixar masterpiece goes the extra mile; this didn't, but it made it to finish.

In the end, Brave doesn't kill Pixar for me, but it does make me wonder if they'll ever truly return to brilliance.  Of course, time can only answer that.  As for now, Pixar is still in fine shape, but maybe our expectations for Pixar should be a little bit more grounded for the next while.

McS

Snow Whiteapolooza review

2012 may be the year the world ends, but it is also the year of Snow White (some people might not see a difference).  Since the recent lapse in Snow White's copyright (retained forevermore it seemed by Disney),  two, count 'em two, major motion pictures were produced and released this year barely a few months apart of each other!  Overkill?  Well it only takes one poison apple to kill Ms. White, but with two it better get the job done... right?  Well, sort of.  I'm of course talking about March's Mirror Mirror and June's Snow White and the Huntsman.  I figured that before reviewing one, I should watch the other, and then I figured I should review them both together and compare and contrast; so that is exactly what I'm doing.  In addition, I would like to point out that I did watch both in theaters, so Mirror Mirror isn't as fresh, but that really shouldn't matter as both films are, surprisingly and thankfully, extremely different (despite following the same story arc).  But we all know the story:  Evil Queen takes control of the kingdom and imprisons Snow White, SW escapes to the forest, meets dwarfs, meets handsome prince, yadda yadda yadda, happily ever after.  I'll briefly tackle each one on its own first (starting with the earlier of the two), and then I will compare at the end, and then I will pour a stiff drink and stop.

Mirror Mirror

Being the first of the two very different 2012 Snow White films, Mirror Mirror has the advantage  of first dibs on a Snow White audience when snow might actually still be on the ground in most places!  If that is not reason enough to see it then there might not be anything else really worth seeing at the theaters, but I digress.  Mirror, first and foremost, takes a lighter path with the original Grimm story, choosing a mostly comic, slightly offbeat, and even postmodern (at times) tone.  Much of the screen time actually belongs to the Evil Queen (played to the nth degree by Julia Roberts); indeed, the screen story actually plays out mostly from her perspective, which is a refreshing notion.  But Snow White (played by Lily Collins) retains much of the focus, and the film provides an enjoyably innocent treatment of the Grimm allegory for loss of virginity.  While it's true that the script doesn't have much meat too it, it's clear that Mirror doesn't take itself to seriously in the first place, and the damage is not as severe if say the film had a different tone (hint hint).  Anything else the film lacks it makes up in gorgeous cinematography.  Director Tarsem Seign (the visionary mastermind behind the magnificent The Fall (2006)) packs each frame to the brim with color, shape, and tone, resulting in a visual style pitch perfect for the film's comic tendencies.    All in all, Mirror Mirror is certainly an enjoyable experience even if it is a bit hokey.

Snow White and the Huntsman

Being the second of the two very different 2012 Snow White films, Snow White and the Huntsman has the advantage of summer draw, and of course Ms. Twilight herself.  If you couldn't tell by the trailers, Huntsman takes a much darker path, trading a young innocent girl on the edge of being a woman for a warrior princess born to lead an army into battle.  This is a very serious Snow White film: the Evil Queen (played by an icy Charlize Theron) is actually evil, and the kingdom is actually in peril.  Visually the film is quite impressive, utilizing more of an action-based rhythm and CG aesthetic for the more supernatural elements, whiles ultimately works quite well with darker and more frantic treatment.  However, despite Huntsman's visual successes, the script is pretty flat, and the film is far too serious to get away with that, and it doesn't help that Bella Swan errrrrrr Snow White (Kristen Stewart)  doesn't really quite work (but more on that later).  In addition, there are a few gaping plot holes that undermine the pacing, mostly to do with the geography of the film and how the characters inconsistently move through it.  First time director Rupert Sanders does an impressive job at yoking the darkness inherent in the Grimm subtext, but the film's ends don't quite justify the means.  Yes Snow White and the Huntsman is dark and exciting, but the wooden acting and mismanaged storyline makes it all a bit lifeless.


And now for the match up!

It's actually sort of difficult to pit these films against each other because they are so different and have their own pros and cons.  Furthermore, it really depends on what mood you're in or what version of Snow White you identify with.  Both films succeed visually, but one is mise-en-scene based and the other montage.  Both films stumble in the script department, but one is a fluffy comedy and the other is  a cold drama.  So you can see that these two films are apples and oranges; THAT BEING SAID, if we are to judge these two films solely on the character of Snow White (which we probably should), Collins is hands down the better of the two.  I mean, I know that Stewart is meant to bring out the "bad-ass-women-in-charge" deal, but once again she sleepwalks through her role, and I just can't get behind Stewart being the fairest of them all.  And in that sense, Mirror Mirror probably makes for the better movie, as well as adheres more to the actual Grimm story subtext.  In a perfect world, however, a combination of the two films would probably produce a superior product (I would personally say keep most of Mirror Mirror, but make it a little darker and longer), but I guess it's nice to have this kind of diversity.  In the end, it's worth seeing them both, but the comedy is the easier one to return to.  Of course, you could just pop in the 1937 Disney Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and have the same image of Snow White that you've always had!      

McS

Dark Shadows Review

Dark Shadows (2012)

For anyone semi-thinking that the whole Burton-Depp-Carter thing might be coming to a head, look no further than Dark Shadows (2012), the latest release from that troupe.  Based on the title melodrama from the 70s, the film chronicles the 20th Century reawakening of 19th Century vampire Barnabas Collins (obviously played by Johnny Depp).  I could explain more about the plot, but this is a negative review and doesn't require much in my opinion.

Regardless of the differences between the plot of the original series and this movie, most of the audience won't care as director Tim Burton's audience will likely not have much experience with the original; we are a bit too young.  And regardless of whether Burton and Depp are huge fans of the source material, the final product is so problematic that the audience probably won't be converted.  In Burton films past, the gimmicks and recurring cast could be forgiven through tasty stories well executed with top notch performances, but Dark Shadows seems to miss every mark.  The story is too convoluted to be tasty, the direction is surprisingly poor, and the performances are a little strained (save for an excellent and ageless Michelle Pfeiffer).  All in all, the film is unfortunately lifeless.  But worst of all is the film's inability to make up its mind on whether it's a campy fish-out-of-water comedy or a Gothic macabre drama.  The film shifts between these two opposing worlds throughout its course, and it makes for a befuddling experience.  Had the film chosen one path, and either or, it could have been successful, but instead it collapses under its own weight.  

This is all really a shame considering the talent behind it.  And while it's true that these cracks were somewhat apparent in the 2010 Burton-Depp-Carter offering Alice in Wonderland (2010), here the fissures are gaping.  As unlikely as it might sound, it's probably time for this this team to split, unless they can muster another Sweeney Todd (2007).  In the end, Dark Shadow's is as bleak a viewing experience as its name implies.

McS