Quick disclosure on this review. Pixar's head guy is Steve Jobs who is also the CEO of Apple, my employer yet it never influences my decision to like the movie. 
 
Pixar took a huge gamble with this different storytelling approach and integrating some live-action sequences. I'm not talking about the "environmental" angle Conservatives have been primarily attacking [yet they praised the imaginary Randroid litany of The Incredibles]. It's the risk they took on the lack of verbal communication between the main robots; they converse through gestures and sound bites. Most people would be bored, especially children, after 10 minutes of this. Personally, I loved it and everyone else who saw it agreed. 
 
In the distant future [700-800 years from now], a lonely Waste Allocation Lift Loader, Earth-Class-robot [WALL-E] roams around the polluted ruins of an unknown city, collecting and compacting garbage. Its refuse cubes are organized into stacks alongside the numerous, abandoned skyscrapers; from a distance, it's hard to tell that some of these aren't buildings while viewing the skyline. WALL-E appears to be the last operational one as you don't see any other functional ones carrying out the same Sisyphean task. The centuries of solitude have led to him [really an it] developing a personality: he collects and classifies certain found trinkets; he has decorated his storage station; and he has a fondness for the movie Hello Dolly. The latter watching habit exhibits his loneliness. As for humanity, they all bailed centuries ago to "wait-it-out" in deep space until Earth became habitable again. 
 
So WALL-E goes through his daily routine until a starship lands near the ruins and leaves a probe. This probe turns out to be a more sophisticated Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator [EVE] robot. For the plot's sake, this robot is a she since WALL-E is instantly smitten by her and EVE demonstrates some traditional female traits in animation: higher voice, smaller fingers and more expressive eyes. From here on, it's a robot love story not a cautionary tale about abusing the planet such as Dr. Seuss’s The Lorax. If there’s any kind of warning or message about humanity’s decline, it bears a stronger resemblance to Idiocracy than An Inconvenient Truth. 
 
Other than the robots communicating non-verbally most of the time, Pixar also did some additional things differently. The glaringly noticeable one was the use of live-action for the recordings of past messages left by the president of Wal-Mart surrogate Buy'n'Large [played by Fred Willard]. One would think that would be some of the easiest material to animate, why go with live action? This film is probably the smallest cast for Pixar too. Normally their movies have been ensembles from the beginning. Here, WALL-E has only four recurring human characters [namely good-luck charm Ratzenberger] and Sigourney Weaver as the starship’s computer. 
 
They did a great job getting WALL-E to be genuinely expressive despite his resemblance to Johnny Five; I’d say he’s more related to R2-D2. Pixar made him endearing without being sickeningly sweet or annoying to the point he gives you tooth decay just from watching. 
 
The short this time is Presto. It’s similar to last year’s Lifted but with the slapstick humor cranked to 11. Too bad the greats from Looney Tunes’ heyday, namely Chuck Jones, didn’t live to see this. 
 
Worth Seeing?: Well, it’s been out for over a month so it might be a tad difficult since the number of theaters carrying has declined. Then again, if you haven’t seen it by now, it’s a solid Plan B while The Dark Knight is sold out at the local multiplex. I am looking forward to this one joining our DVD collection in the Fall. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ August 5, 2008 11:12:55 PM CDT ( 0 comments )

This is more like it! Years ago we saw the boring, underwhelming previous Hulk movie directed by Ang Lee. Marvel agreed and went with the Batman Begins approach: just ignore the last film, cast new actors, etc. and hope the audience accepts it. I was convinced enough by the trailer to at least go on a matinee. 
 
All of the origin story is disposed of right in the opening credits which was impressive. It’s similar to the beginnings of the last two Spider-Man sequels; those are synopses of what happened earlier. Anyway, the Hulk borrowing this technique was effective since it resembled the story line used in the old TV show. Then the movie opens with Dr. Banner [Norton] hiding in the slums of Rio still trying to find a cure for his problem through an exotic plant and learning capoeira. Back at the Pentagon, General Ross [Hurt] and his staff are sifting through intelligence reports of possible Hulk sightings. The general is obsessed with capturing Banner for several reasons: he blames Banner for injuring his daughter Dr. Betsy Ross [Tyler]; the Hulk creature is a modification of the Super Soldier Serum [what gives Captain America his abilities] so Banner’s body is government property; and Banner might report his ethical lapses to the media or foreign governments. Eventually, Ross figures out Banner’s whereabouts through Stan Lee’s funny cameo and sends a team of commandos to Rio. The mission fails yet one of the survivors is Captain Emil Blonsky who volunteers to be experimented on with the serum after witnessing the Hulk in action; Blonsky wants to even the playing field. Realizing how close General Ross got, Banner gambles on returning to America to enlist the aid of his former love Dr. Ross and a scientist named Dr. Sterns [fanboys will recognize the name] he was secretly corresponding with. Thus providing Blonsky and the general another shot to see if they can take the Hulk down. 
 
This Hulk is so much better! Using the cooler aspects of the old Bixby show was brilliant. I loved it as a kid despite it being a knock-off of The Fugitive. The director captured the earlier program’s spirit and mood without coming off campy. The filmmakers also found a clever way to sneak in the deceased Bixby’s cameo. Lou Ferrigno’s appearance was a definite crowd pleaser based upon the reaction I heard from the audience. Hulk isn’t quite as “perfect” as the recent Iron Man but it’s pretty close. There’s a solid mix of action, humor and drama without it feeling corny or forced; what many superhero movies fail to avoid. Giving the Hulk a foe to finally go mano y mano with was a relief after years of him destroying tanks, cars and scaring thugs too. Imagine how dull Spider-Man and Superman would be if they only fought bank robbers. Lastly, unlike Iron Man, the surprise cameo implying something bigger coming is shown before the credits roll so you can rush home and post on my site to say I was right or wrong. 
 
Worth Seeing?: Yes. Hard to believe the Summer Hollywood is having. The Hulk is a character I’ve always felt works better on TV or movies than in comics due to the Horror-Monster element in his story line. This current take nailed it. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ July 6, 2008 5:26:56 PM CDT ( 0 comments )

Lucas, Spielberg and Ford dust off their Eighties franchise for one last hurrah. Despite the skepticism I had for each of the three major participants, they pulled it off and made me sad because this looks like the final adventure of everyone’s favorite archaeologist. 
 
Nineteen years have passed since Indy, his father, Sallah and Dr. Brody defeated the Nazis from their acquisition of the Holy Grail in 1938. Obviously, WWII took care of Indy’s primary antagonists from the first and third movie but in 1957, the Soviet Union has filled the void. Seems Stalin shared Hitler’s obsession over mystical artifacts. Uncle Joe may have died four years earlier yet his main paranormal scientist Spalko [Blanchett] continues the quest to find a crystal skull tied to Roswell, NM and a legendary city in the Amazon. Much like the Ark, whoever has control of the object[s] in question will rule the world, be invincible, so on and so forth. Jones is sucked into this for his involvement over the infamous Roswell incident and association with Dr. Oxley [Hurt]. 
 
Indy’s reintroduction to the audience is a roller coaster of frenetic action but tempered with his advanced age [almost 60] when he can’t pull off the same stunt with his trademark whip. I do like quick explanation and tribute to Brody, his old boss from the first and third movies; the actor died in 1992. Same goes for Dr. Jones Sr yet Sean Connery is alive; Scotland will shut down for a week when he passes. Joining him on this adventure is a Brandoesque biker named Mutt [LaBeof, a fave of Spielberg’s lately] to provide comic relief, hipness [for the Fifties], blade skills and contrast; to emphasize how many years have gone by. Marion [Allen] from Raiders returns too. She’s Mutt’s mother and seems to be the only woman Indy couldn’t forget. I think this film worked for me because Spielberg’s directing countered Lucas’s over-dependence on special effects and lame suggestions. Spielberg’s past flicks tend to be cliche or heavy-handed yet he can coax better performances from the actors than Lucas. You need to pay attention to the cameos of other items and creatures too, the last one might be obscure. 
 
Worth Seeing?: Yes. The Summer releases need large screens, dark rooms and huge sound systems to project their immensity, especially when they’re great. Crummy ones use it to cover up their shortcomings. My only complaint is that there were no more adventures between Crusade and Skull because the ending gives a feeling of closure; Indiana Jones has finally hung up his famous fedora, settled down and will stick to teaching until his passing. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ July 2, 2008 4:05:07 PM CDT ( 0 comments )

Building a movie around an old Japanese cartoon sounds like a stupid idea. The Wachowski siblings writing/directing the film didn't matter, their credibility went down the tubes with the last two Matrix installments. Then came the litany of cliches from everyone else at work, the Internet and my comic book store: Hollywood is creatively bankrupt, someone's childhood got raped, etc. My doubts were converted to curiosity when I finally saw the trailer several months ago. This is only a guess, but I think the Wachowskis knew the source material was rather thin so they decided to go the Lucas route, make it visually impressive and hope for the best. 
 
Speed [Hirsch] is a promising young race car driver. After his recent victory from the opening scenes, Mr. Royalton [Allam] tries to recruit Speed to join the Royalton racing team. Intimidated by the enormity of Royalton's corporation and operations, Speed declines because his parents' smaller company is a better fit. Royalton doesn't accept the rejection well. He gives Speed one last chance to reconsider by revealing how the WRL [World Racing League] rigs the outcomes to distract the world from underhanded corporate mergers, takeovers and outrageous profits. Royalton then closes with a guarantee that Speed will not finish the next scheduled race in Fiji. 
 
Meanwhile, Racer X [Fox] and Inspector Detector [Furmann] of the CIB are closing in Royalton's ties to organized crime boss Cruncher Block [Benfield]. Another driver named Togokhan [Rain] is willing to provide evidence on the Royalton-Block connection if Racer X assists him in winning the extremely dangerous Casa Cristo race. [This is what NASCAR probably aspires to: drivers being allowed to blatantly cheat by using gadgets to eliminate each other.] Many participants have been killed in this competition, including Speed's older brother Rex [Porter]. Since the race requires a three-car team, Racer X and Inspector Detector ask Speed to be the third member of Togokhan's team. They gamble on Speed's recent encounter with Royalton as motivation. 
 
What follows could be spoiling the rest of the movie but the Wachowskis nailed the key elements of the cartoon: ninjas, secret agents, car gadgets such as jump jacks and machine guns, gangsters and tracks that only work if Newton's three Laws of Motion were suspended. I loved their use of color. Everything is bright, loud and distinctive yet it didn't give me a headache. The Wachowskis also experiment with unconventional transitions during the races but these keep the action fluid. Traditional techniques would've been clunky, stiff and jarring in my opinion. They're conveying the accelerated pace of these competitions to the audience and between the drivers. 
 
Worth Seeing?: Yes. Seeing it in a theater with the wide, scope screen would be better because TV will lose the enormity of the action. I feel this is DVD worthy title since children, namely boys, will want to watch it numerous times for the two major race sequences. It's a "shallow" movie like Transformers but the Wachowskis did a better job preserving my ideal, flawed memories/expectations of the cartoon. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ May 22, 2008 11:15:46 AM CDT ( 0 comments )

The initial reports of the Iron Man movie made me roll my eyes. After Spider-Man, the Hulk, and the X-Men, Marvel Comic's B List of superheroes is even more obscure than DC's. Why bother? Most people are unaware of these characters and there aren't enough comic-book fans beyond a DVD version so a feature-length movie is a waste. The casting of Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow didn't help. Downey is a perfect match for Tony Stark but it still doesn't guarantee a solid plot or execution: Fiennes and Thurman in The Avengers will always be the textbook example on how much plot matters. Paltrow's presence makes about as much sense as Dunst in the Spider-Man franchise too. Then I learned about Jon Favreau being the director. He made Zathura more than a Jumanji clone and he could get decent performances from the actors in an effects-heavy film. Thankfully, I was right. 
 
I won't waste the electrons on a synopsis, the trailer explains it all. To quote Stan Lee, 'nuff said! 
 
Iron Man succeeds where many of this genre fail, squeezing in a superhero's back story [origin, enemies, etc.] into a two-hour movie which entertains general audiences and satisfies diehards. Remember how long it was before Superman even donned the cape in the 1978 version? The novelty of special effects saved it from the ravaging it would receive today. The opposite approach is the 1989 Batman; the hero already exists and some of the past appears in flashbacks. Favreau borrows a page from the Batman Begins playbook, Iron Man is a hero of necessity so his origin integrates easily into the whole story without requiring a sequel. The director also spared everyone a long, dull montage of Stark [Downey] working out the kinks in the suit. Critics probably liked this because the dialog isn't forced, verbose or corny [see Dungeons & Dragons, 300 or The Phantom Menace in that order respectively]. Seriously, remove the Action-Fantasy elements, it could be a Drama-Comedy about a Howard Hughes type who has an epiphany about the harm his weapons inflict; realizes how his loyal personal assistant is his true love; and struggles to prevent a hostile takeover from his mentor. 
 
Worth Seeing?: Yes and a must on the big screen. The action is loud and large. It's lost on DVD, even Blu-Ray. Either way it's viewed, stay to the very end, after the credits. An even more obscure event-person-thing appears. It will make fanboys to explode, casual fans to groan and leave the rest of the world puzzled. Does it have anything to do with Downey as Stark appearing in the upcoming Hulk movie? Maybe. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ May 20, 2008 5:11:33 PM CDT ( 0 comments )

“What took so long?” was my first reaction to this movie, especially when I stumbled upon the trailer last month; I don’t have cable/satellite which is why I didn’t know earlier. One would also think that two of the biggest stars in martial arts deserve a true Summer release date. Better late than never though since Jackie is in his fifties and probably retiring soon. 
 
Jason [Angarano] is a White kid from South Boston obsessed with martial arts movies, namely the kitschy ones that used to be on Saturday afternoon TV in larger cities. Through Old Hop [Chan], the elderly man who runs a pawn shop in Chinatown, Jason has a place to feed his hobby: DVDs, cultural paraphernalia, etc. Too bad he's only a fan, not a practitioner of kung fu as an encounter with a local bully demonstrates. Then comes a really stretched, cliche circumstance to transport the protagonist to a mythical period of Chinese history. There he must fulfill a quest to free the Monkey King [Li] with the assistance of three heroic archetypes: the drunken master [Chan again], the "failed" monk [Li again] and an avenging orphan [Liu]. Opposing them are the evil archetypes: the Jade Warlord, his Jade army and his right hand, a ruthless, flying white-haired witch. 
 
As the heroic quartet travels across the Middle Kingdom [Earth] to confront the Jade Warlord, Jason has time to learn kung fu from the two masters in a really predictable montage; I couldn't help but imagine the South Park song "Montage" in my mind. And just like all traveling buddy pictures, there's bickering, taunting and eventual bonding to explain why all four would risk their lives for each other. 
 
It's not Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon which is probably why most professional movie critics panned or disliked this. Kingdom is trying to be a tribute to those Saturday-afternoon chop socky movies. It just has a larger budget [can't see the wires!], an American set of bookends to the story and toned-down violence to get the PG-13 rating [really PG-level stuff]. I only agree with the naysayers that Li and Chan probably deserve a better starring vehicle than some tweener-friendly matinee directed by the guy [Minkoff] who did The Haunted Mansion and Stuart Little. In the director's defense, Li and Chan's charisma, chemistry and choreography overcome the petty criticism…no, my display isn't covered in spit from that alliteration. I would change the excessive exposition Chan gives to the hero by shortening it or breaking it into smaller pieces throughout the film. The way it was presented didn't work and it practically brought the story to a screeching halt: narrating isn't one of Jackie's strengths and became a long, drawn-out Toklienesque synopsis written by an inexperienced, boring DungeonMaster. 
 
Worth Seeing? Yes. Even the most casual fan of action movies will be amused since it caters more toward those who enjoyed Rush Hour or Shanghai Knights. The diehards who prefer Drunken Master, Iron Monkey and Enter the Dragon may nitpick but they will probably be distracted at all the references sprinkled throughout it. With ticket prices going up again this Summer, I would put this in the Matinee or Budget Theater classification if you can't wait for it to be on DVD this Fall. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ May 2, 2008 10:47:41 AM CDT ( 0 comments )

Tim Burton is a frustrating director. He made movies I've really liked: Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands and Pee Wee's Big Adventure. Then he countered with his horrid Batman flicks, Mars Attacks!, Sleepy Hollow, Beetle Juice plus the Willy Wonka and The Planet of the Apes remakes. After seeing his adaption of Sondheim's infamous musical, I've concluded that if Burton if forced or compelled to follow a strong narrative with a well-thought-out ending, he can make a decent film. This version of Sweeney Todd is a very abbreviated presentation of the original 1979 musical, significant chunks of songs are removed, probably for time, yet it works for most audiences [aka, the masses] aren’t patient. 
 
Fifteen years ago, Judge Turpin [Rickman] wanted a young Mrs. Barker for himself so he had Mr. Barker [Depp] sent to prison on trumped-up charges. Out of grief, Mrs. Barker poisoned herself instead of giving into the judge’s advances and the Barkers’ only child, Johanna, became Turpin’s ward. With his sentence completed, Barker returns to London and plots his revenge. He changes his name to Todd, opens a new barber shop on Fleet Street above Mrs. Lovett's [Carter] bakery and challenges the best barber in London to attract customers. Eventually Turpin will come in for a shave and Todd will exact his revenge. It’s a harebrained scheme that only could work in a musical. Meanwhile, Lovett and Todd form their ghoulish pact regarding the meat pies which is what this story is most famous for. Personally, I think Sondheim’s story is about destructive obsessions [Turpin and Todd], hate [Todd] and unrequited love [Lovett] because everyone suffers a horrible fate when it’s over. 
 
As a movie, the big surprise is Sacha Baron Cohen as Pirelli, the “Italian” barber Todd defeats in a contest. Cohen’s part is small but he’s very funny. Depp, Carter and Rickman are pretty competent singers yet I don’t recall any of them doing much in the past other than Depp having a band in Nineties. Burton’s obvious touch is the look for Todd and Lovett. They’re so pale and pasty looking! Depp and Carter look like living versions of The Corpse Bride characters or the managers of a Hot Topic. I would have shortened the gore element though. I know it’s part of the story but after a couple of victims, the murders and their disposals make Sweeney Todd feel more like an Eli Roth film. 
 
Worth Seeing? Not really. I’ve enjoyed musicals and this has piqued greater interest in Sondheim’s other material for me, because all I know adequately is A Funny Thing Happened… and a Bernadette Peters album. For other people, musicals are a dying genre so this will only appeal to Goth kids and fans of gorenography. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ February 7, 2008 9:58:08 PM CST ( 0 comments )

Based upon a book I've never heard of, this is Keira Knightley's turn at doing something dramatic for America after being in Disney's Pirates franchise, Domino and King Arthur. Men and WNBA stars hoping to see her naked will be disappointed, the R rating is over the subject matter. 
 
In the Summer of 1935, life is pretty good for the wealthy, aristocratic Tallis family. Despite the heat, the looming Hitler menace and an aunt's ugly, public divorce [she ran off with a radio personality], it's good to be in the English countryside, away from it all. The youngest daughter Briony spends her time writing plays, logging in her journal and being a rather high-strung, staid child. Even when she walks around the manor, Briony makes 90-degree turns around corners with something under her arm like she were delivering top-secret plans to MI5. This creative writing talent coupled with being only 13 gives her an air of being melodramatic and prone to misunderstanding the context of what she sees. 
 
So when Briony witnesses a rather awkward exchange between her older sister Cecilia [Knightley] and the groundskeeper Robbie [McAvoy] by the fountain, her immature mind fills in the gaps. Robbie's "first draft" of a written apology to Cecilia only heightens Briony's paranoia because Robbie makes the error of asking Briony to deliver it. Instead, she reads it before turning it over to Cecilia. This leads to Robbie being in an uncomfortable situation: he's counting on Mr. Tallis loaning him the money to attend medical school, his mother is also a servant for the Tallis family [she could be dismissed] and he was invited to the dinner party the Tallises are having over the return of the oldest son Leon and his friend Paul. Fortunately, Cecilia confronts Robbie first, words fly, the incident is forgiven and they confess their love for each other, only to have Briony inopportunely walk in on their reciprocation. 
 
I won't go on about the story there anymore since it would be a spoiler but the movie jumps forward a few years to WWII. Robbie is trapped in France with thousands of other soldiers at disastrous evacuation at Dunkirk. Cecilia is a nurse working in London. Briony is a nurse in-training near London. The themes of Atonement shift to regret, forgiveness, determination and the truth being subjective. 
 
Atonement is a difficult story to tell in any medium. The audience witnesses events first as Briony followed by a sudden "rewind" in time to watch the same events repeat with Cecilia and Robbie. The first instance was puzzling but subsequent usage could be anticipated. Director Joe Wright then switches to showing the WWII part of the movie in a non-linear manner which I guess is supposed to emphasize how much the lovers want to be reunited. I found it jarring. However, the ending was insulting. It wasn't awful or cheesy but I felt disappointed over being on the receiving end of a rope-a-dope maneuver M Night Shyamalan hasn't pulled off since The Sixth Sense. 
 
Worth Seeing? Despite the ending, yes. It's a drama yet there's one sequence TV will reduce that the theater captured, this immense scene of what a disaster Dunkirk was. It reminded me of the famous scene from Gone with the Wind when the camera pans back to show the rows upon rows of wounded soldiers. Atonement has it done as a long, continuous shot, following Robbie around while he's seeking someone in command. Maybe it'll look as good with one of those new big-screen TVs. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ January 6, 2008 2:11:50 PM CST ( 0 comments )

Ian Curtis and Joy Division are such obscure topics, I figured Hollywood couldn’t ruin nor fabricate their brief, tumultuous tale much. Thankfully, I was right! Even though an early death has always been a smart career move [see the Doors, SRV, Jeff Buckley, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Marilyn Monroe or Elvis], the biopic films that follow are usually dreadful [see previous list]. Well, Hollywood had nothing to do with the making of Control outside of distribution since it’s a UK production so there’s my explanation of why it was good. 
 
The film is based upon Touching from a Distance, written by his widow Deborah Curtis so it’s really focused on Ian and little on the band. Eventually, the documentary Joy Division will be making the rounds for those looking to see more about the music. 
 
Control starts in 1973 around Manchester. The UK’s overall decline is pretty evident and nowhere is it more pronounced than in the North. As many of the area’s teenagers, Ian is a detached, sullen kid who feels he has no future so he resorts to drinking, smoking and taking drugs for recreational purposes. However, he has a love and knowledge of poetry and through Deborah’s observations, he also enjoys writing because his work is organized into categories: lyrics, poems and novels. Glam Rock is the dominant trend in popular music and youth culture too. Thus explaining why there are David Bowie, Lou Reed and Roxy Music posters and records in his room—these are the true influences of his work and his contemporaries unlike the Sex Pistols. On the surface, Ian appears to be another moody, wannabe poet yet there’s a charisma to him. Deborah is eventually swept up in Ian’s better attributes because when they met she was originally dating another boy. Then they’re married at 18 in 1975. 
 
At first, married life seems to be okay. They have a place of their own. Ian works at the unemployment office placing people into jobs, a rather dark, funny fact of his life. Restlessness inevitably sets in and he tries his hand at being the singer for a band called Warsaw because he’s friends with the guitarist and bassist—Bernard Sumner and Peter Hook respectively. The chemistry between them leads to bigger and better things: the name change to Joy Division, TV appearances, a record contract and performing outside Manchester. And as it goes with the age-old story of Fame, there’s a price to it. For Ian it’s his marriage: he feels his marriage to Deborah was a mistake and starts a relationship with Belgian groupie/”reporter” Annik yet he doesn’t want to divorce Deborah; It’s his health: the late nights, booze and the randomness of medication lead to more frequent, devastating epileptic seizures—ignorance doesn’t help neither, many thought his manic jerking motions were part of the show; Finally, it’s his psyche because he feels the band’s success is too great for him to handle and people want to see a character, not necessarily him. Everyone knows how the story concludes because every mediocre DJ on an Alternative radio station has to remind us constantly after a playing a New Order song, he takes his own life at age 23. 
 
Although I was only 11 when Ian’s story “ends” and never even heard of New Order until 1985 in a Spin magazine review, he and John Belushi were my generation’s Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrisson. That weird, ghoulish obsession popular culture fixates on in a mythical way, a secular martyr of sorts. Course, he was only known in a small circle of college students—Goths and Music Geeks mainly—but it was a position he held until the more popular Kurt Cobain took his place. Control helps de-mystify his suicide in my opinion. It was probably an impulsive decision on his part because Depression, chemical imbalances and being emotionally overwhelmed are powerful enough to turn off self-preservation. There’s no obsession over what he listened to, watched, said, etc. Those were just details, not clues or symbols, when his wife last saw him. Deborah probably figured he was his usual drunk, moody self while he yelled at her. There may have been warnings from Ian yet most of the time, people don’t pick it up nor do the truly suicidal telegraph it. Ian Curtis was a creative person who just didn’t get any help as he was swept away by something he lost control over. 
 
Despite it being morbid, I honestly liked Control yet I think most audiences will be bored by the movie which will keep it to “cult” or critical circles. One huge factor is its length, two hours. On the other end of the spectrum will be those who are disappointed by its shortcuts to keep it more succinct: they skip over Joy Division going through three drummers, Bernard’s last name is Sumner the whole time never Albrecht, time is compressed from 1973 to 1977 within the first hour, etc. Much like Miracle, I can live with these details being truncated since it doesn’t destroy the “larger” story’s point. Having it be a black and white movie was a nice touch too. It amplifies the dreariness of what England must have been like then, the general malaise affecting the country then. I was only a little American kid in 1973-1980 so my perceptions and understanding are based upon what was written about those years. The casting director did a marvelous job on getting actors who resembled the band members. Right away you know the first time you see these two guys in a pub with Ian and Deborah, they’re Peter and Bernard. Same goes for the closing minutes of Peter, Bernard and Stephen all being sad, sitting next to Stephen, comforting him is Gillian; a little foreshadowing of the quartet New Order which would remain in Ian’s shadow for years. Lastly, other than the band members being shown as two-dimensional characters [Peter is gruff and likes to say “cocks,” Bernard is a neat freak and rather prissy and Stephen is just fills space], it’s still fair to the other major players. Annik the mistress isn’t portrayed as a home wrecker or a celebrity leech, driving a wedge between Ian and his wife—Ian made this choice. Deborah the wife isn’t a strident, needy vampire who drove Ian to Annik; she isn’t phased by popularity as she says at a party, “he isn’t famous to me, I still wash his underpants.” Ian isn’t a lecherous person, just a victim of his fame, indecision and unwise choices. He realizes too late he isn’t strong enough to commit to either woman, to the band or to himself. 
 
Worth Seeing? If you’re a fan of music, namely its history, then this little sliver portraying an element of Joy Division will go on to be mandatory. Today there are bands showing Ian and the others’ influences: the Editors and Interpol are two obvious examples. Fans of biographical pictures? Maybe yet I doubt it, Ian Curtis isn’t well known. Everybody else, I would recommend avoiding it unless the song “Love Will Tear Us Apart” brings tears to your eyes. Call me dorky, wimpy or whatever, but the first time I heard it I couldn’t help it, still do occasionally. My roommate had told me basic story or myth built up around the single weeks before I actually listened to it while someone at a record store was playing it. Ian’s baritone and lyrics really convey how much anguish he must have felt when sang it. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ November 19, 2007 7:42:55 PM CST ( 0 comments )

Whenever Hollywood remakes a movie, the litany of Creative Bankruptcy roars across the land. I don't completely agree, I think the major studios are just run by risk-averse morons with MBAs incapable of passing Film History 101. 3:10 to Yuma has all those immediate concerns even though the original starring Glenn Ford isn't as well-known; the studio is probably counting on the audience's ignorance of this. To director Mangold's credit, he did a decent job and did more than just raise the body count, gore and sympathy for the villain; the Dawn of the Dead remake's tactic. 
 
Ben Wade [Crowe] and his gang have been robbing stagecoaches carrying the Southern & Pacific Railroad's payroll for months. Dan Evans [Bale] is a struggling rancher who is about to lose his ranch due to debts amassed during the dry season. Their paths cross during a one of Wade's brutal robberies but Wade is a killer with a sense of honor; he lets Evans and two sons live because they're only witnesses and he used their escaped cattle to stop the stagecoach. Then Wade is captured in nearby Bisbee through Evans' assistance, it's more of an accident. S&P's representative, Mr. Butterfield [Roberts], insists on Wade being shipped to Yuma Prison for trial and sentencing. One slight complication, the S&P doesn't run through Bisbee [yet] and the closest train stop is two days on horseback in Contention. So the surviving Pinkerton mercenary from the heist, McElroy [Fonda], and Butterfield hire Evans, the town horse doctor [Tudyk] and a local bully [Durand] to escort Wade with them for $200 a piece. 
 
Yuma is decent for a modernized Western. The violence isn't excessive by today's standards [maybe I'm just desensitized] but I think it's amplified to pad for time. However, I found the last ten minutes implausible [no spoiler alert], especially with the ending. Wade is a killer and he says it best to Evans' oldest son, "…I'm as rotten as Hell," then pulls a lot of punches at other times. Not a good trait to have when leading a gang of murderers, namely his number two Charlie Prince [Foster]. Then there's Evans, motivated through standard Western clichés: the youngest son has Tuberculosis, the railroad is going to run through his land if he doesn't get the money, he's a Civil War vet-amputee and his oldest son has no respect for him so this macho stunt will win it back. 
 
Worth Seeing? A lukewarm yes but wait until it's on cable or rent on DVD. There's nothing the theater experience adds to this flick for $6.25, what I paid at Alamo South Lamar during matinee pricing. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ September 12, 2007 6:15:29 PM CDT ( 0 comments )