Archive for the 'Reviews' Category
Pixar Plays With Our Emotions
Throughout the entire decade of the 2000s, animation powerhouse Pixar was the king of original cinematic experiences. 2001’s Monsters Inc. was followed by Finding Nemo which was followed by The Incredibles, et cetera, et cetera. All the way through the release of Up in 2009, Pixar was creating high-quality and original new movies seemingly every year. In the current decade, however, Pixar has fallen victim to sequelitis, with 2012’s Brave being their only non-sequel release in the past five years. That changes in 2015, however, as the studio that a desk lamp built plans to release not just one, but two original films. The first is this summer’s comedy Inside Out.
I have to assume that those who really want to know about the Extended Edition of The Return of the King are already fans of Peter Jackson’s adapted Lord of the Rings. After all, would anyone who dislikes Krispy Kremes be interested in merely a bigger Krispy Kreme? I doubt it. And what makes a Krispy Kreme special, so I have been told, is all in the eye of the consumer, as it were. But wait, you say. The Return of the King is no light-as-air confection. And of course I agree, though not everyone would. Further, I suggest that the Extended Edition is as much a different movie from the theatrical version as was the extended Fellowship—as different as a slice of New York cheesecake is from a Krispy Kreme.
How to Train Your Raptor
The original Jurassic Park from 1993 is a legitimate classic, but its two sequels were underwhelming to say the least. They each had individual scenes that were exciting, but on a whole they came nowhere close to the awe-inspiring, majestic thrill ride that was the original. Enter Colin Trevorrow, a director whose only feature film to date, 2012’s Safety Not Guaranteed, as great as it was, doesn’t necessarily scream blockbuster potential. Whatever the producers saw in that movie, however, pays off big time as Jurassic World proves to be the Jurassic Park sequel that we always wanted.
While the extended Fellowship is an epic worthy of being called a classic—taking what was already a fine, effective film and improving it by tweaks and bounds—I did not see much hope for a similar treatment of Towers. While the theatrical Towers proved excellent grist for fanboys, I nonetheless found it tedious at times and oppressive as a whole. Without Jackson’s stunning realization of Gollum, the film would have seemed to me a nearly complete loss. Fortunately for the studio—and the audience—Peter Jackson and crew were at the helm of this effort and not me!
Four Episodes for the Price of One
The Entourage television show had a good eight-year run on HBO from 2004 through 2011, and now, four years later, the series has been adapted into a movie. Well, not really adapted. It’s more like show creator Doug Ellin and company got together and created a four-episode story arc, recruited as many of their famous friends as possible for cameos, and released those four episodes as one feature-length package in theaters. The result is a movie that might not do much in the way of attracting new viewers, but should give its fans an enjoyable way to reconnect with the characters.
Conventional wisdom dictates that movie scripts be designed and function in much the same way as a short story; another apt comparison would be the musical form of the overture.
And just as most stories are short in comparison to J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic, so are most movies mere overtures in comparison to Peter Jackson’s unprecedented cinematic achievement. A running time of three-plus hours certainly allows a design reminiscent of a symphony’s multiple, distinct movements—even, as in this case, the many “false” endings for which symphonies are often criticized.
The World of Yesterday’s Future
In 2003, Disney struck it big when they turned one of their amusement park attractions, “Pirates of the Caribbean”, into a multi-million dollar movie franchise. If a movie based on a single attraction could be so successful, imagine what a movie based on an entire section of Disneyland might do! That might not have exactly been the thinking that led to the new movie Tomorrowland, but the movie is nevertheless the Disney Company’s newest attempt to turn part of their theme park into a movie franchise. The hope, of course, is that the movie turns out to be more Pirates of the Caribbean and less Haunted Mansion.
Jackson’s filmed version of The Two Towers is not the same story as Tolkien’s. The titular towers are not even the same as those emphasized by Tolkien: Orthanc and Barad-dûr have been substituted for Minas Morgul and Minas Tirith. The framework of Jackson’s story is provided by the Axis of Evil which hems in and ravages Rohan and Gondor; Tolkien’s framework places more emphasis on the battle for right, waged in the shadowlands which form between darkness and light. With a different framework come different details.
Crazy Stunt Show
The newest reboot/follow-up/sequel to come out of Hollywood’s current everything-old-is-new-again trend is Mad Max: Fury Road. It has been thirty years since the character made famous by Mel Gibson has graced the silver screen and although Gibson is absent from the latest version, director George Miller is back in the driver’s seat. With Miller in place and Tom Hardy stepping in for Gibson, the Mad Max franchise is back in a big way.
Though it’s clear that this is a darker—and scarier—vision of Middle-earth than comes across on the printed page, obviously, the film succeeds as terrific entertainment for adolescents and adults, and will no doubt sate the appetite of Tolkien addicts at least for a few months. Box-office records will fall, and fall mightily. But what about the entire series? Will it become flabby and perfunctory, like the Star Wars series? Or will it actually build momentum, and end with as satisfying a conclusion as the novels?
« Previous Page Next Page »