“Missing some very key nuts and bolts”

Moviegoers were treated to a breath of fresh air in 2008 when the original Iron Man was released. On the preface of The Dark Knight, Iron Man became the type of comic book movie everyone wanted to see.  It achieved on a lot of levels; inciting a new fanbase, creating allusions toward future movies and pleasing fan boys. In short; there was just something refreshingly different in the first Iron Man. Whether it was Robert Downey Jr. or the general supporting cast or the tone of the film or both, this felt like a superhero movie that kind of sat better than some previous incarnations.  That being said, what happened here?

The big issue Favreau has in Iron Man 2 is making the next chapter as refreshing.  Iron Man isn’t a particularly interesting hero, but his alter ego is a fascinating character.  Robert Downey Jr. again proves up to the challenge of emobdying Tony Stakr and sprinkles his normal magic over this preformance with nuance, fun and pain. And for the majority of the supporting cast, we get what we came for, which are solid preformances.  My problem isn’t with how they play, it’s about why they play.

In Iron Man 2, things happen on screen but not much occurs.  I’m watching Tony Stark and Co. go through all these events but theres no thread really connecting the events.  Iron Man 2 is all about the spectacle and not enough about the story. It’s as if someone said: “Lets trot out RDJ, Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell, Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle etc. and have them do things. It will be interesting”.  And because these actors are so accomplished and seasoned, they can for the most part, hide a lot of what is wrong in the movie.  It’s an interesting example in smoke and mirrors.  Much like all the hidden macguffins toward future franchises which pull the movie down even more.

The wink-wink relationship Favreau employed in the first Iron Man was a perfect amount to get fanboys and even casual viewers to appreciate what the movie was trying to do outside of being just a film; it was building an event and making the movie even that much more like a comic book.  In Iron Man 2, the viewers are hammered with wink after wink after wink.  Can we just focus on making this movie good and not as a stepping point towards the next film?  Somewhere in that process we lost what made the first movie good.  The scenes with Scarlett Johannson and Samuel L. Jackson and that side plot are useless.  This movie was way too heavy on the allusion to future story and not enough about the story of the film.

If any of the characters had stakes that lasted longer than 5 minutes, I think the film could play as choppy.  But in the world of hyper kinetic, “whats-next” film-making, it’s not good enough to depend on an emotional heartbeat to drive a spectacle movie.  I didn’t feel like anything was totally at stake, except with Tony Stark and Pepper Potts. That really is part of the heart of this film.  I clearly had a lot of problems with this film, as it was not really entertaining nor emotional, but flat and empty.  For what it’s worth, RDJ is the emotional anchor of this film and were it any other actor, this movie would fall completely flat. I don’t reccomend this movie and it get’s a 4 out of 10 Bones for being a lot of show and not much else.

RATING:

Starting up here at The Bones Report is a new segment I like to call “They Actually Made This”. It’s a segment where I talk about movies that have been made with perhaps the most ridiculous premises or ideas. So this edition brings us two sequels made from ridiculous franchises.  The fact that I now have to call these particular movies franchises makes me want to inflict harm on myself.  Herego, here are two movies they actually made…

Dance movies must be all the rave that I’m missing out on because I didn’t see where the original Step-Up had much to offer. That withstanding, I could see why a lot of teenage girls would fall in love with the product; dance, romance, love and Channing Tatum (in perhaps his only non-Iraq soldier role). So what facilitated a sequel is clearly dollars and sense, and you’d think that’d be the pay off. But no. Instead we have to go trilogy on this piece. In 3-dimensions no less.

First off, did we really need a sequel to this movie? Because let me tell you exactly how all 3 movies play out and I’ve never seen them: Girl is well-to-do training to be a dancer, girl meets boy who’s from the school of “hard knocks”, she teaches him to come out of his shell, he teaches her courage and somewhere in there is a pedestrian teen movie villain like a black kid who doesn’t think the white kids have moves or a rich kid who can dance way better because his dad can buy him the best “kicks”. In summation, why waste 4 hours of your life watching this trifecta of garbage when you can just read this shitty blog for the rundown? The answer is, you don’t. Unless it brings something else to the table.

So I guess for this third movie it’s not good enough to just have kids dancing and romancing. It has to be in 3-d.  Clue me in on this: what purpose does having 3-dimensional dancing add to the film? Are more teen girls going to run to the theater hoping to rub the 3-D ab’s the male lead undoubtedly has? Can we feel the beating of the hearts and jams that are pumping so loudly? Look dance movie, stay in your wheel house which is cheap schlock with empty payoff for affluent young females.  Don’t try to rope me in with your fandangled tricks.  I’d rather get kicked in the face by the dancers at Faneuil Hall then be subjected to this.

Cats and Dogs.  A relationship Hollywood would have you believe is very contentious. And judging by the first film, Cats and Dogs, they are quite literally at war with each other.  Like with weapons.  So if that violent concept isn’t enough to draw you and the kids to the theaters, we’ve gone sequel! And this time, it’s all about revenge.

I will admit that my interest is a bit piqued as to what we’re really getting at with this poster.  First off, these animals have some serious skills, developing jet packs and planes.  And according to the tag line, they’re….spies? So let me get this straight: Animals with no opposable thumbs and not exactly of the highest intelligence in the animal kingdom are now running spec op’s straight into the hearts of Americans? Sheer diarrhea gold.

And this of course HAS to be in the grandness of 3-D, which will really connect us with our protagonists.  And what’s with “The Revenge of Kitty Galore” tag line? I mean we are so far removed from the first movie that will audiences really remember this “unforgettable” antagonist.  Maybe it’s the timing or maybe its the lack of respect for the relationship between Cats and Dogs that’s got me down on this. Or maybe it’s the fact that it’s been made. Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore, stay right here. Why? Because I hate you.

“I’d let you kick mine, but I’m just not buying it”

It would be hard to find a kid in the world who read a comic book and didn’t want to become a hero.  Such is the premise of Kick-Ass, the latest comic book adaptation by Matthew Vaughn, he of almost X3 fame.  But the story of Kick-Ass is much more involved than just simple hero-worship turned vigilante behavior; it is a true discussion on the very apathy of humans to accept violence, crimes and sins being committed in front of our eyes.  Or at least that’s what I thought for the first 40 minutes.  Because what follows disrupts your sense of place and understanding to such a degree, it’s hard to divulge the true purpose.

See my big problem with Kick-Ass is that it starts off wanting me to think it’s heading into Taxi Driver territory.  And for the first 30 minutes or so, we get that and it works.  And even when it devolves to include budding story lines and other colorful characters, mainly Hit-Girl and Big Daddy, it still works.  But what’s presented as a very human story about a kid who wants to take matters into his own hands and then realizes how very much in over his head he is, turns into ridiculous popcornery that totally invalidates the way the first 40 minutes sets up the film.

It was really hard trying to connect with any of the characters when you can’t decide in what way to take them.  There are two schools operating here; the very realistic world where our heroes bleed and get hurt and the super-power, action packed world where crazy situations are the norm.   The preformances range from good (Aaron Johnson, Chloe Moretz) to lame (Kick-Ass’ girlfriend) to WTF?(Nicholas Cage). It’s hard to entirely gauge the preformances from anyone being that I was never quite clear what way I was suppose to interpret each scene: Is this a realistic part or comic book fantasy time? I had a hard time suspending belief to buy into character motivations and actions for this simple reason.

The movie actually has a very nice look and some really cool sequences.  It reminded me of a more enjoyable version of last years Wanted; flashy and edgy for the first 30 minutes, slowly then rapidly devolving to incomprehensible, except I like the characters and action of this movie quite a bit more. But even with Wanted, you were made to understand that you weren’t going to get realistic, whereas with Kick-Ass you’re treated to a nice dose of gruesome realism which instantly triggers empathy for the character. And then to cheapen it with over the top situations and general loose craziness really detracts from the films initial strength and core.

RATING:

“Probably a better book”

Taking a look at popular literature these days, I noticed this The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo book being featured in prominent magazines. I read a synopsis, found it intriguing and immediately started wondering when I’d be hearing about the movie version. I didn’t have to wait long, as I quickly found out it had already been adapted into a movie from Sweden. Upon hearing some general positive reviews of the book from friends, I opted to try my hand at what sounded like a layered noir-ish, detective story.

And for the most part, that’s exactly what the movie is; a densely layered mystery upon mystery that unfolds in a rather unceremonious way.  Not wanting to give away too much, suffice it to say, the way our two heroes meet is a rather unique affair. The movie very much feels like two stories mashed together that play toward a third act.  That being said, there are more than plenty of sequences in the film that play past their expiration date and really don’t do anything to move any of the stories further. But when the film goes to the darker areas, the scenes are arresting.

Some scenes in this movie are just brutal and so charged with a darkness that the movie uses them as tentpoles until the next plot point needs to be unveiled.  Put simply: When the movie is going right, it’s right up there with some of the darkest cinema you’ll watch.  When it’s not, it plays like a typical thriller filled with schlock and cheese.  I’m not sure how much the director trusts his audience in this film, having the characters constantly explain what they’re thinking and delving into pointless exposition.

For 2 of the 3 acts in this movie, there is enough of those tentpole moments and general intrigue to keep you interested.  By the third act, the mysteries are devolving and the edge is mostly gone. The people I went to see this with made note that the movie seems to play out a lot like a book should. And it is apparently part of a trilogy, so it should be interesting to see how the preceding films play out as well as the announced Hollywood version. Other than that, this film is nothing more than a decent thriller with spots of effective brutality, but not enough to keep it afloat.

RATING:

A friend of mine the other day kept saying, “I am Cahl Han-rat-e”.

I asked him what it was from.  When he reminded me it was from Catch Me If You Can, I wanted to kick myself. How could I forget that flick? I saw it in theaters and then watched it multiple times on DVD.  But for some reason, it went away for me. That being said, upon revisiting, I found what may be some of the better portions of cinema from 2002.

For one, how did Christopher Walken not get nominated for something? As the senior Frank Abagnale, Walken employs such subtly and nuance into a role that would have screamed cliche as the dad who taught his kid how to be.  The scenes where his back is up against the wall with the IRS and his conflict over his son’s actions are really heartbreaking and special.  For a guy who is usually type casted for an over the top personality, Walken shows masterful skill in restraint here.

Speaking of great preformances, Tom Hanks as the aforementioned Handratty, is spectacular as well.  It’s not often that an A-List Hollywood talent would take a second fiddle in a movie like this, but Hanks does so and at an alarmingly fun rate.  He becomes the perfect Sylvester to Leo’s Tweety Bird; clumsy, thinking he is ahead of the game and constantly stepping on his own toes.  It doesn’t help that he is really outmatched here, however, not unlike the cartoon.

Enter Leo.  I’m going out here and saying it: This is is his best role. He is great in the role of Frank Abagnale.  Upon multiple viewings and a critical eye, his preformance is so particularly nuanced and alarmingly credible, that he may just be giving off the best con; Charming, smart, thorough, slick and sophisticated in the same moment as naive,scared,confused. I actually forgot how old he was supposed to be, much like I think Abagnales own real life marks. It is a rare preformance of what is supposed accuracy but certainly full of character. Oh, Amy Adams and Jennifer Garner make good cameos too. How did I forget this?!

This is a beautiful looking movie. Under the stellar direction of Spielberg, Janusz Kaminski once again gently and starkly brings to the screen beautiful pictures of these characters.  He photographs the 70′s in a very specific way; glowy and soft but really vibrant of color and bright and it matches the mood. Couple that with a very effective score from John Williams, the film really takes off.

Another limb: This may be Steven Spielbergs most personal movie. Yes there is brutal truth and savage imagery in Schindlers List and Saving Private Ryan. Yes, there is grit and anger in Munich. But knowing about Spielbergs past and how he made his start, his story isn’t unlike Abagnales: Brilliant young kid get’s his family pushed apart, strikes out and works for himself out of the eye’s of the bosses and makes it.  Obviously, Abagnale’s journey ends a bit differently. I think Spielberg is having a lot of fun walking with Frank through this story.  He see’s a lot of himself in the main character and he designs a film with the same kind of enthusiasm and excitement Abagnale has in running.

The movie does drag in certain areas.  It get’s a bit long and tedious toward the middle when it feels like “We-get-the-point” material being rehashed.  But these aren’t reasons why I forgot the movie so much. I honestly can’t explain why.  It may be because it’s just good enough to know about the movie, but not accessible and memorable enough to have key scenes memorized. Although, even then, I can’t think of why it wouldn’t have that effect.  Either way I’m glad I took another look at it as it has re-entered my pantheon of good movies and will be for years to come.

“Going nuts hasn’t been this fun since…well it is just a movie.  That was an overstatement. Sorry”

Setting up the mood in a genre movie is perhaps the most important thing a film-maker can do.  We know the dialogue may be crap. We know the story may be fantastical and ask us, the audience, to appreciate the stretch we have to make to buy in.  But if we can identify with some characters and some situations, it’s really enough to get us by.  In this latest installment of zombie-ish horror, The Crazies succeeds and then some.

The Crazies, a remake of a George Romero film, does nothing different with the genre.  It stays pretty close to the chest and stays within itself.  It doesn’t attempt to make empty messages or have the characters make hollow or transparent decisions.  Much like another sci-fi flick in Avatar, it’s really about buying in and director Breck Eisner does this to a pretty good degree.  This is mostly done in a pseudo documentary style of film-making which is intended to make the audience feel like it’s looking over the shoulder and in the thick of it with the heroes.

And the heroes are pretty good…when they’re not delivering dialogue.  All in all, the script of the movie had a solid story in tact and had to dress up some of the heavier dialogue scenes with pure cheese; where characters are dictating their actions as a means of their thoughts.  It’s clear that director Breck Eisner doesn’t really trust his audience enough to let us develop our own reactions and feelings toward the material.  But I didn’t find this a detraction.  I found the ride enjoyable and worth taking.  There are crappy scenes, crappy lines but all in all not enough to drag a final product down.

It’s clear Eisner isn’t comfortable really undressing this material.  He’ll let us see a man burn his family alive, but he won’t let us see a son seperated from his mother NOT get returned to her merely minutes later.  He’s willing to go just far enough to remind you that you’re watching a horror film, but not enough to really imagine the real horror.  But it does go further than other fare.  It is a step in the right direction.  If you’re looking for a movie that will keep the suspense and keep you in the story, The Crazies is in theaters now.  This movie get’s a solid 7 + out of 10 Bones for being just a by the numbers, entertaining, creepy movie.

RATING: PLUS!

“Who knew that the Harbor Islands had cliffs? And not just cliffs but giant bluffs?”

Any time a movie is pushed back from a release date, it brings me cause for concern.  It’s like sending a message to the viewers, that someone thought it was ready and the people in charge ultimately of that decision, disagreed.  Usually, those people are not directors. I only see a room full of people making creative decisions that do nothing but hurt the intended message and overall quality of a film. So imagine my surprise to see Martin Scorsese’s latest movie, Shutter Island, fall victim to my paranoid scenario.  It was written off as a tactic to garner “Oscar buzz”.  But any movie fan saw that by the time Shutter Island came out, the nominees would have already been announced.  So really, now that it’s here and I’ve seen it, what’s the real story about what happened on Shutter Island?

Martin Scorsese is considered to be a master film-maker amongst the film-making community.  It would be hard to disagree with someone making that argument considering the resume of films and pedigree. And to that degree, when I heard that Scorsese was doing a “horror” movie, I was excited. I always enjoy watching directors work outside their regular genres and really stretch their style in other ways. So when I heard that Scorsese was making this movie based off a Dennis Lehane novel of the same name and working with Leo again, I couldn’t see what could go bad.  Because every collaboration of these guys has been a solid if not very good film. Which isn’t to say that Shutter Island is a bad film, but it has it’s limits.

Shutter Island is less horror film and more psychological thriller.  There are intense moments of suspense that are coupled with a really effective sense of place and art direction; everything looks good here but it doesn’t feel whole.  I found myself being bored throughout some of the middle parts, with straying strands of narrative branching here and there.  Nothing looks worn in or gritty, something I think Scorsese champions in many of his older films.  This film is more reminiscent of a Gangs of New York rather than a GoodFellas.  Which doesn’t make it bad, it just doesn’t for an overall atmosphere to go with the good use of tension employed. To speak of this grit, is the lack of style as a larger point that is absent for majority of this film.

There are flashes of Scorsese’s virtuouso musings in this, don’t get me wrong, but not enough to really make this movie feel much different than other mind-benders I’ve taken in.  I can’t knock on the movie for not doing things I wanted to see but I can criticize that what I did see felt standard and pretty safe. The preformances are fine and the one really effective part is the score. Other than that, it’s a fine way to take in a movie, but not much more.  If you want to be creeped out, then this will be fine.  Other than that, I wish I was let off the island a bit sooner.  This movie get’s 6 out of 10 Bones for being just fine.

RATING:

Per JoBlo, apparently Chris Nolan will be taking some amount of control in rebooting Superman.  Kinda psyched. Your thoughts? Comment at me.

“A movie too big not to review”

I used to try and figure out what movies would gross a ton of money and which ones wouldn’t.  I would narrate to myself the specific qualities of these films that COULD make them the next big thing.  I deduced these few:

-A really good story or a mediocre story with a great payoff (i.e. A “didn’t see it coming” twist).

-Great preformances by noticeable actors.

-Great effects.

-Marketing.

In most ways these 4 categories are rudimentary and I’m sure I’m missing a lot, but let’s take The Dark Knight, for example. Good story? Check. Great performances? At least one, check. Great effects? Holy Checkmark Batman. And Marketing is a big fat checkola (pun intended).  So what am I getting at here? What I’m saying is that once in a blue moon, a movie comes along that may only have 2 of those check marks, but they are so definitively huge, that as long as the other two check marks hold water, you have a hit.  Ladies and gentleman, I present you Avatar.

James Cameron is into making big movies with new things that push cinema.  He also may be shorting some of that enthusiasm and skill in the areas that make films artistic.  Avatar has a used plot.  It’s nothing new.  The script is somewhat wooden, though certainly not as much as most people would make you think.  It’s the IT movie of now and has become the movie that your either cool to trash on or just apart of the masses who enjoy it.  There’s a lot to say against this movie in the areas of script and maybe acting.  But I bought the whole stinking lot of it.

Call me childish or blithe, but I enjoyed the experience of Avatar.  Having gone into this movie with shockingly little to no expectation, I found myself thoroughly enjoying trodden ground executed with just enough panache to match the spectacular effects.  Cameron has found a way to synthesize many different themes into his own to make a compelling sci-fi epic that holds water and delights your eyeballs.  Many people harp on the lack of originality in the movie with it’s story.  To that I say, look at some of our greater directors and tell me that they haven’t done the same thing.  One of them even won an Oscar for making a remake.

Sam Worthington here is fine as the hero.  Zoe Saldana is fine as the heroine. The supporting characters are fine.  I don’t see many problems with any of the acting here as they hold water.  The script certainly has it clunkers for scenes and may have been able to be trimmed.  It maintains a certain George Lucas, wooden doll acting approach at times.  But none of this ever for very long or frequently.  Not enough to bring you out of it.

I won’t deny that it’s kind of clunky and overly sentimental.  The bad guys wear black, the good guys white (metaphorically speaking) and we’re told who to root for.  But sometimes thats not all that bad, especially when you BUY into what you’re seeing.  Don’t go see this movie if you have a preconceived notion of whether or not you’ll like, which I’m guessing at this point would be really tough. If it’s possible, however, go and sit and just BUY into what you see.  Not lemming like, because the film doesn’t push back.  But enjoy it for what it is.  Because for all the criticism I hear about this movie and for all those same points I may slightly agree with, I bought the movie and enjoyed it.  Avatar gets a solid 7+ out of 10 Bones for being a fun, enjoyable film that had it’s clunky parts.

RATING:  PLUS!

Below is the link to my good friend Dan’s Photo project, entitled “New York Resolution”.   It captures people in there  New Years Resolutions in a photo montage.  Check it out.

www.newyorkresolution.com