Tag Archives: movie review

“How the Grinch Stole Christmas” – 2 STARS

by

1

GRINCHAs audacious as filmmakers can sometimes be, their finished products don’t always match their ambition. Such is the case with the normally reliable Ron Howard’s “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”. When I first saw this film, I left the theater with a pretty gnarly opinion of it. My dislike has eased up after a recent viewing, this time in the presence of my two children. They thoroughly enjoyed the picture and watching their pleasure naturally effected my experience. But while I have a slightly more favorable opinion of the film now, it can only go so far, and I still can’t call this a good movie.

Howard certainly had his work cut out for him. First, making a feature-length film out of a 26 minute animated short was a challenge. The script makes some required additions, some that work and more that don’t, and gives its star Jim Carrey many scenes by himself to just do his thing, this time in full green Grinch attire. When first seeing him, you’ll wonder how you’ll ever take the Grinch getup seriously, but the truth is it’s a pretty amazing transformation (Rick Baker and Gail Ryan won the Oscar for Best Makeup). But his shtick grows tiresome after a while and you almost feel like you’re watching a standup routine instead of a full-length movie. The film also creates storylines involving the Whos to try to stretch things out. But honestly, other than the expansion of the ‘cute as a button’ Cindy Lou character (played nicely by current hard rocker Taylor Momsen), the Whoville storylines are flat and utterly forgettable.

The second big challenge was visually capturing this unique world created by the pen of Dr. Suess in 1957 and the classic animation of Chuck Jones in 1966. I have to say the film looks pretty incredible. The scenery and background environments are nothing short of gorgeous and certainly capture the location created in the original material. Whoville is a busy and colorful assortment of visual splendor which makes watching these Christmas loving locals go about their frantic lives a bit easier in spite of Howard’s roughshod directing. On the other hand I didn’t remember the Whos looking quite so freakish. Their protruding front teeth, wolf-like noses, and peculiar hairdos more closely resembled small woodland rodents. To be honest, they were pretty silly looking and a bit distracting.

grinch photo

But for me this movie’s biggest transgression lies in its overall lack of charm that made the original short so great. Now to be fair, Howard does try to inject some feeling into the storyline. He does try to give it some heart. But these few instances of emotion are smothered by the film’s overall dependency on in-your-face slapstick and bathroom humor which sometimes makes it feel more like a dark comedy than a spirited Christmas film. The main story of the original is still intact and there are several clever nods that fans of the original will appreciate. But unfortunately it’s missing too much of the key component that made 1966 short so special – heart and soul. Carrey gives it his all, but Howard pushes too far.

“How the Grinch Stole Christmas” would be tough for any filmmaker to transform into a feature-length film. But here Ron Howard shows us enough to know that it can be done. But he, along with a sometimes grinding script, undermine everything they get right. Yet I still have to say that my reaction to the film now isn’t as vitriolic as it initially was. In fact, I can appreciate what the film does well a lot more especially after watching it with my children. But even with all of its aspirations and risk-taking, it still falls short of being the really fun movie that it could have been. With a little more polish and a lot more restraint this could have been a holiday treat. Instead it’s a repetitive and sometimes laborious exercise that just doesn’t pack the emotional punch that it should. That’s a shame.

REVIEW: “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” (2000)

by

15

GRINCHAs audacious as filmmakers can sometimes be, their finished products don’t always match their ambition. Such is the case with the normally reliable Ron Howard’s “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”. When I first saw this film, I left the theater with a pretty gnarly opinion of it. My dislike has eased up after a recent viewing, this time in the presence of my two children. They thoroughly enjoyed the picture and watching their pleasure naturally impacted my experience. But while I have a slightly more favorable opinion now, it only takes me so far with it.

Howard certainly had his work cut out for him. First, making a feature-length film out of a 26-minute animated short was a challenge. The script makes some required additions, some that work but more that don’t. And the movie gives its star Jim Carrey plenty of space to do his thing, this time in furry green Grinch attire. At first glance it’s hard to take the Grinch getup seriously. But it’s a pretty impressive transformation (Rick Baker and Gail Ryan won the Oscar for Best Makeup). Yet Carrey’s shtick grows tiresome and at times feels like a standup routine rather than a role in a full-length movie. The film also creates new storylines involving the Whos to try to stretch things out. But other than the expansion of the ‘cute as a button’ Cindy Lou character (played nicely by current hard rocker Taylor Momsen), the Whoville stuff falls pretty flat.

The second big challenge was visually capturing this unique world, first created by the pen of Dr. Suess in 1957 and and later with the classic animation of Chuck Jones in 1966. The scenery and background environments are vibrant and capture the imagination created in the original material. Whoville is a busy and colorful place which makes watching these Christmas-loving locals a bit easier. On the other hand, I didn’t remember the Whos looking quite so freakish. They’re protruding front teeth, wolf-like noses, and peculiar hairdos more closely resemble small woodland rodents. They’re quite silly looking and a bit distracting.

grinch photo

But for me this movie’s biggest transgression lies in the overall lack of charm that made the original short so great. To be fair, Howard does try to inject some feeling into the storyline. But these few instances of emotion are smothered by the film’s overall dependency on in-your-face slapstick and bathroom humor. And at times it feels more like a dark comedy rather than a spirited Christmas movie. The original story is still mostly intact and there are several clever nods that fans will appreciate. But unfortunately it’s missing the key components that made 1966 short so special – heart and soul.

“How the Grinch Stole Christmas” would be tough for any filmmaker to transform into a feature-length live-action film. Here Ron Howard delivers enough to know that it can be done. But he, along with a sometimes grinding script, undermine much of what they get right. There are things to appreciate about the film and it can be fun watching it with children. But even with all of its aspirations and risk-taking, it still falls short of being the fun and festive treat it wants to be. Instead it’s a repetitive and laborious exercise that just doesn’t pack the emotional holiday punch that it should.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “Miracle on 34th Street”

by

10

MIRACLE POSTER

While there have been two serviceable remakes, neither come close to the magic of the original “Miracle on 34th Street”. This 1947 Christmas picture has become a stalwart for Christmas movie watchers each and every year. But while most modern Christmas movies are cheap and gimmicky, “Miracle on 34th Street” rightfully holds its place as a true Christmas classic as well as an incredibly well-made film. It’s also one of the few seasonal pictures to get recognition from the Academy Awards. It won four Oscars, was nominated for Best Picture, and is a movie that deserves the accolades and treasured status it has received.

George Seaton directed and wrote the script which begins on Thanksgiving day. The beautiful Maureen O’Hara plays Doris, a cynical single mother who works for Macy’s and is in charge of their Thanksgiving Day Parade. As she frantically works to get the parade under way, she discovers that her Santa Claus is drunk off his feet. Desperate to find a replacement for the big finale of the parade, she convinces a passerby named Kris (Edmund Gwenn), who strikingly looks the part, to fill in. His convincing work eventually earns him a spot as Macy’s department store Santa. His only quirk? He claims to be the real Santa. But Doris’ bosses overlook that after seeing their customers positive reaction to him.

MIRACLE

But the core of the story and the most satisfying component of it revolves around the relationship between Kris, Doris, and her young daughter Susan (Natalie Wood). Susan is just like her mother, cynical and skeptical about all sorts of things, most notably the existence of Santa Claus. Kris sets out to not only convince Susan that he is Santa Claus but to convince Doris that there are many things in life worth believing it. Helping him along the way is Fred Gailey (John Payne), a struggling attorney who is also attracted to Doris. Fred uses the crafty old technique of getting close to the daughter in order to get close to the mother. He and Doris eventually hit it off even though his willingness to believe in things sometimes clashes with her stubbornness.

I really like the chemistry between O’Hara and Payne. Their developing relationship is easy to buy into especially thanks to O’Hara’s cautious confidence and Payne’s witty self-deprecating humor. Both give spot-on performances. Also, young Natalie Wood is fantastic. She wonderfully portrays Susan and her childlike innocence combined with her inherited skepticism. And then there is Edmund Gwenn who is still the most convincing Santa Claus I’ve seen on film. His undeniable sincerity and infectious charm flows from every scene he’s in and his Oscar was well deserved. The movie also gives us great supporting roles such as Porter Hall as Macy’s psych evaluator and the movie’s chief antagonist, James Seay as a nursing home doctor and friend to Kris, and Jerome Cowan as a district attorney given an certain impossible task. The cast is fantastic from start to finish.

“Miracle on 34th Street” is a nice mix of holiday sentimentality (in a good way) and genuine feel-goodness. But it’s also a wonderfully written story that’s flawlessly realized through sharp direction and the perfect cast. It’s easy for some to dismiss Christmas movies as shallow seasonal escapism. But there are those special gems that are simply great movies. They show us that sense of style and craft that remind us of how good movies can be. This is one of those films.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Dream House” (2012)

by

10

Don’t you hate it when you buy a new house only to find out it was the scene of some grisly murders? Such is the case with Jim Sheridan’s schizophrenic psychological thriller “Dream House” – well, kinda. This is a movie featuring loads of talent and at its core a familiar but fairly interesting story. But it’s also a movie plagued with amateurish writing and an off-the-rails ending that undermines everything the movie tries to do.

The film starts with the standard yet pretty interesting haunted house treatment. Will (Daniel Craig) has quit his job as a successful editor to spend more time with his wife Libby (Rachel Weisz) and his two daughters in their new suburban home. As always things seem lovely at first. But through several discoveries they find out that five years earlier some horrible murders had taking place in their home. Their weird-acting neighbors and the uncooperative Police Department sends Will on an investigation of his own.

It’s here that the movie offers a big twist, and then another twist, and then another twist. Now I’ve always appreciated when a movie tries to shake things up. But here it’s done in a hamfisted and clunky way. The first big reveal does offer promise although it doesn’t necessarily take things in a better direction. From there the story launches into several different directions mimicking everything from “Shutter Island” to “The Shining”. This wouldn’t be a problem except everything feels fractured and manufactured and the constant shifts in tone are jarring. It just keeps throwing things at you right up to its ludicrous and off-the-wall ending. I mean the finale is so poorly conceived, so under developed, and utterly preposterous.

A lot of what does work can be contributed to the committed performances from Craig and Weisz. While the material is all over the place the two do inject some energy and spark into the script and I enjoyed them on screen. On the flip side, the usually good Naomi Watts seems bored playing a neighbor who knows more than she’s letting on. And then you have an equally flat performance from Marton Csokas as her jerk ex-husband. He ends up having a fairly important role in the movie but he’s without a doubt the worst written character in the entire film.

“Dream House” is ambitious and it starts on a pretty good note. But all of its ambition ends up being its undoing. Yet while critics have universally panned it, there are certainly worse thrillers out there. In fact, “Dream House” is a very watchable movie and it’s easy to digest. But it’s also an easy movie to forget and unfortunately it’s plagued with too many faults to forgive. And the biggest bummer is that all of this great talent simply goes to waste.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

“Snow White and the Huntsman” – 4 STARS

by

29

Call me a sucker for fantasy pictures, but I really enjoyed “Snow White and the Huntsman”. In fact, I would go as far as to call this movie one of the biggest surprises of the year. In cinematic terms, this darker retelling of the classic Snow White fairy tale is pure fantasy through and through. We get trolls, dwarves, fairies, and magic but there is nothing lighthearted about it. Unlike the other Snow White movie of 2012 “Mirror Mirror”, “Snow White and the Huntsman” aims for a broader audience by creating a dark and often times creepy fantasy world that doesn’t shy away from cool horror elements and death. In the end, it was an effective approach that completely caught me by surprise.

One of my main concerns about the movie centered around Kristen Stewart in the lead role. After seeing her previous work I was never convinced she was a good actress. “Snow White and the Huntsman” does nothing to change that. But the writers seem aware of that and the script cleverly limits what Stewart is required to do. Much of her story unfolds through the words of other characters so Stewart isn’t asked to do much. It was a smart approach and I can’t help but think the movie benefits from it. For the most part Stewart is a good Snow White. She runs, rides horses, and innocently looks in wonder at the new world around her. It’s only when Stewart is asked to rouse the crowds in the third act that you’re reminded of her past work.

The movie takes the key ingredients from the popular fairy tale and mixes them with several unique twists. As a child Snow White witnesses the murder of her father the king at the hands of her wicked stepmother Ravenna (Chalize Theron). Queen Ravenna takes over the entire kingdom and throws Snow White into a tower prison cell. Ravenna is dependent on dark magic for her power thanks to a spell cast on her by her wicked mother. She maintains that power by draining the lifeforce of the young girls from the nearby villages. Years pass and Snow White has grown up yet is still confined to the tower. Queen Ravenna learns from her magic mirror that Snow White is destined to topple her so she figures it’s time to suck the life right out of her competition. Snow White escapes into a dark and marshy forest where the Queen’s powers can’t reach. The queen bribes a drunken widower (Chris Hemsworth) who has survived the forest to lead her forces in order to capture the princess.

While Hemsworth seems to be falling into the same type roles for each of his films, I still really like him. Once again he plays the tough and rugged sort and once again he’s very good. It’s a pretty simple role that fits the fantasy character model well. He has a decent chemistry with Stewart which is helped by the fact that the script doesn’t force anything on their character’s relationships. And what is Snow White without dwarves, right? Several fantastic actors played the dwarves, or at least had their faces placed on different, smaller bodies. It’s a remarkable bit of animation. Ian McShane, Ray Winstone, Bob Hoskins, and Toby Jones are a blast to watch in the roles. But it’s Theron who steals the show as the wicked queen. She sells each calculated expression and devious grin and she opens up a fairly layered character. Theron has a lot of fun and it shows.

Another standout component to the movie’s success are the wonderful special effects and cinematography. The fantasy environments are well done and often times stunning. There are several cool creatures, beautiful landscapes, and some really slick magical effects. As alluded to, “Snow White and the Huntsman” isn’t necessarily a kid’s movie and some of the effects attest to that. Maybe that’s one reason it worked so well for me. It helps make the movie more closely resemble “Lord of the Rings” than the Brothers Grimm classic fairy tale. And as a fantasy fan, that’s a really good ingredient to this incredibly surprising movie.

“SKYFALL” – 4.5 STARS

by

32

Skyfall” may be the best James Bond movie ever. Better yet, Daniel Craig may be the best James Bond ever. Now before the Bond diehards come at me with torches and pitchforks let me make something abundantly clear. I am not the biggest Bond guy. I haven’t seen even half of the Bond movies. So I certainly don’t consider myself a Bond expert. In fact I may not even qualify as a true Bond fan by some. I’m not well versed on Bond lore, the Bond girls, or the history that has surrounded this universally loved character for the last 50 years. So I don’t live under the false assumption that I’m an expert when it comes to the James Bond franchise. But I like to think that I know a good movie when I see one and “Skyfall” is a very good movie.

My Bond apathy changed in 2006 with the release of “Casino Royal”. It introduced a grittier, more grounded Bond in the form of Daniel Craig. He wasn’t as prim and polished and a sense of reality was brought to the character that I had never seen before. It was also a fantastic movie that I thoroughly enjoy. The Bond appeal grew for me in 2008 with the lesser but equally entertaining “Quantum of Solace”. And now he’s back with “Skyfall”, a 007 film that’s every bit as good as “Casino Royale” and for my money even a bit better. Sam Mendes directs the film, the 23rd installment of the franchise. Mendes tips his hat to several of the previous 007 films and has fun with many things that Bond fans should love. But he also maintains the emotional edge to Bond that has made Daniel Craig’s run so effective for me.

The film starts with a jaw-dropping opening chase sequence that uses cars, motorcycles, trains, and cranes. It moves through market streets, on rooftops, through tunnels, and finally on a huge bridge where Bond is inadvertently shot off of a speeding train by a fellow agent at M’s command. Believed dead, Bond goes off the grid and submerges himself in a life of anonymity and alcohol. Now the movie never gives a satisfying reason as to why Bond became a closed off boozer. We get a few hints of it later but it seemed pretty drastic and off-the-wall. But we wouldn’t have a Bond movie if 007 wasn’t spoiling evil plots with his well-pressed suits and assorted gadgetry. He makes his return after MI6 is devastated by terrorist attack with M seeming to be the main target. Judi Dench returns to the role that she first played in 1995’s “GoldenEye”. This time she’s not only a terrorist’s target but she’s facing heavy political pressure concerning her handling of MI6. As with each of her other performances in the series, Dench is marvelous and here we get to see a different side of her and her relationship to 007.

The big baddie this time is none other than Javier Bardem. He plays Raoul Silva, a psycho former MI6 agent with a rather large grudge against M. Bardem is deliciously villainous and once he makes his appearance the movie’s intensity amps up. Unfortunately he doesn’t show up until well into the film. Now that’s not a knock on the first part of the movie. But I wanted more of Bardem and I couldn’t help but feel that they could have built up the character and his motivations more in the early parts of the movie. Some of the movie’s best moments feature Bardem. There is a tense first meeting between Bond and Silva that you can’t take your eyes off of. There’s also a fantastic “Silence of the Lambs” styled exchange between Silva and M that sets the table for what’s to come later in the movie. It’s one of my favorite exchanges in cinema this year.

Another new addition to the cast is Ralph Fiennes. He places an ex-military man and current government intelligence official who regulates MI6. Fiennes is rock solid, as you would expect. Albert Finney also has a fun role as an old family friend of Bond’s and Ben Whishaw steals several scenes as Q, the gadget granting quartermaster. All the performances are good and this is probably the best overall cast in a Bond movie yet. They are helped by a crisp, intelligent, and perfectly paced script that pulls absolutely everything out of these characters. And the screenplay knows how to be respectful of the franchise while also having fun with it as well. There are several good laughs but for the most part this is the same serious, no-nonsense Bond that we got in the last two films and I’m thankful for that.

There are several other things that worked incredibly well that I could mention, most notably Roger Deakins brilliant camera work, the wonderful editing by Stuart and Kate Baird, and Thomas Newman’s perfect score. But not everything worked that well. The Bond girls have become almost as popular as 007 himself. But with the exception of the unconventional M, these Bond girls are bland and for the most part forgettable. Now Naomie Harris is fine as a fellow MI6 field agent who holds her own with 007. She has some really good scenes when working in the field, but she also has a couple of almost obligatory flirt scenes with Bond that didn’t work as well for me. Then you have Bérénice Marlohe who certainly looks the part but disappears almost as soon as she arrives. Also, I know Bond is a ladies man. But there are a couple of scenes featuring out-of-the-blue “romance” that are thrown in just because its expected from the character. Never mind that they clash with the tone and pacing of the story. Both are scenes that were poorly conceived and I could have done without them.

While these few flaws may keep “Skyfall” from being a perfect movie, they don’t stop it from being great movie. More importantly, the Daniel Craig era of 007 movies has won me over to the point that I’m anxiously awaiting the next installment. There has been a lot of internet buzz lately over who may be the next 007. But for my money Craig has earned the position for as long as he’s willing to take it. And as long as the studio is willing to surround him with a fine supporting cast, intelligent writers, and sharp directors, the possibilities are endless for this iconic character. One thing is for certain, I’m now officially a Bond fan and “Skyfall” only cemented that. Bring on oo7 #24!