Tag Archives: movies

“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!

REVIEW: “Conan the Barbarian” (2011)

by

12

For the past few years Hollywood has been consumed with remaking movies from the 1980’s. I have to admit, “Conan the Barbarian” was one I could see being remade with satisfying results. I’m a fan of the original 1982 fantasy film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was a gritty and violent movie jammed with swordplay and sorcery. This time Jason Momoa takes on the role of Conan and while he does a good job channeling the Barbarian’s grunts, growls, and muscle flexes, ultimately the movie’s story runs out of gas and the special effects don’t live up to what you would expect from a 2011 movie.

We’re introduced to Conan at the time of his birth on the battlefield during an intense attack. His mother dies and he is raised by his father Corin (Ron Perlman), the leader of a tribe of barbarians. Conan grows into a young boy who’s agility and skills with the blade are beyond his years. It’s during this time that his village is attacked by an evil warlord Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang) who is seeking the pieces to an ancient mask he believes will resurrect his deceased wife and eventually lead to his rule over Hyboria. Doesn’t it always come down to that?

Zym and his army destroy young Conan’s village and leaving the boy to witness his father’s death. The story then catapults ahead to an adult Conan working as a mercenary. Still thirsty for revenge, he finds a trail that he hopes will lead to Zym. Zym still hasn’t figured the mask out and now is seeking a monastery that houses a pure-blood descendant (Rachel Nichols), blah, blah, blah. Conan ventures from location to location before tracking Zym down, falling for the descendant, and getting caught between saving her and carrying out his revenge.

The story has promise especially for those who love these types of fantasy films. It has moments that captures what made the original film a cult favorite particularly during the first half. But it hits a point where it begins to lose steam, turning into becomes a conventional and predictable fantasy tale. There are plenty of action scenes featuring snarls, sword twirling, and blood splatters. Some of them work well, but much of the action lacked context and seemed like nothing more than dressing. And I also found the finale to be as underwhelming as the buildup to it.

It’s also surprising to see how bland the special effects turned out to be. Many of the location shots look like hazy paintings instead of lived-in lands. There is also a creature battle close to the end that certainly doesn’t stand up to the visual accomplishments of today’s effects. But there is a really good effects-driven sequence where Conan is battling a group of sand warriors conjured up by Zym’s witch daughter Marique (Rose McGowan). It’s clearly the best the movie offers.

As I mentioned, Momoa is a soild Conan and Nichols is a good match for him on the screen. Perlman is a nice choice for Conan’s father even though it’s a relatively small role. Stephen Lang isn’t as bad as he was in “Avatar” but once again he seems to be following the “How to Play a Movie Villain” handbook. He overplays several scenes and he’s never the slightest bit menacing. McGowan, his co-antagonist, feels like a bigger threat even though her character is pretty shallow and forgettable.

Forgettable is also a good way to describe “Conan the Barbarian”. It’s not a terrible movie but it squanders a lot of potential. It does do a few things right especially in the first half. There are also moments that made me reflect back to the original film and how I responded to it as a kid. Unfortunately this one can’t sustain a compelling story and the visuals don’t feel like a worthy enough upgrade. This was one remake that I expected a lot more from.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

2-stars

“RUSHMORE” – 4.5 STARS

by

16

Whenever you’re watching a Wes Anderson movie, there’s no denying that you’re watching a Wes Anderson movie. The writer and director has made a number of films that feature profound uniqueness that set them apart. His quirky humor is unique in itself but Anderson is also known for his own visual style and presentation, his clever use of music, and familiar reoccurring themes that you can’t help but notice. In 1998, Anderson released “Rushmore”, his second feature film and one of his many collaborations with old friend and co-writer Owen Wilson. “Rushmore” is a perfect introduction to Anderson and his special brand of humor. And while the movie – just like all of Anderson’s pictures – won’t appeal to everyone, I found it to be an infectious comedy from start to finish.

“Rushmore” was the film that launched Wes Anderson’s career. He and Wilson began working on the story a few years prior to the release of his first film “Bottle Rocket”. The two took memories and experiences from their childhoods to form the foundation of this truly hilarious story which also flirts with some darker underlying themes. The movie also launched the career of Jason Schwartzman who plays Max Fischer, an eccentric and egocentric 15 year-old student at Rushmore Academy. Max is a underachiever in the classroom but is by far the most extracurricular student in the school. He’s the leader of school groups ranging from the French Club and the Debate Team to the Calligraphy Club, the Rushmore Beekeepers, and a goofy dodgeball club called Bombardment Society. It turns out Rushmore is his life but he finds himself in jeopardy of expulsion due to his horrible grades.

Max develops an unusual friendship with a wealthy but disenchanted business man named Herman Blume played by Bill Murray. Murray is fantastic and he delivers some of the story’s more straightforward laughs but he also adds lots of humor through his straight-faced, deadpan performance. Blume is a miserable fellow not at all happy with his life. But despite his troubles, particularly with his whacked out kids, he’s drawn to Max, so much so that he offers him a job and funds some of Max’s outlandish school “projects”.

But Max and Herman’s friendship takes a hit when they both end up falling in love with the same woman, Ms. Cross (Olivia Williams), a 1st grade teacher at Rushmore. Ms. Cross becomes aware of Max’s infatuation with her and tries to head it off. But Max is impervious to the truth that she is too old for him. It’s here that the movie is really intriguing. Their “relationship” leads to some really funny moments in the picture. But on the flip side, it’s here that we do get hints of a darker more troubling component to the story. There were several scenes where the internal struggle within Max felt real and in turn made him into a really sympathetic character. But Anderson would then draw out a good laugh from the most unexpected place. So it’s safe to say that “Rushmore” had the uncanny ability to make me laugh out loud in one scene and then feel uncomfortable in the very next one. In other words, there’s much more going on underneath the surface.

Anderson also employs several visual gimmicks that I’ve noticed in the handful of his other films that I’ve seen. Some people don’t really respond to his approach but I thoroughly enjoy it. He never frames an ugly shot and while some of “Rushmore” quick snippets may seem jarring to some, I think they brand the film with a quirkiness that I love. Helping out “Rushmore’s” presentation is the interesting choices of music including a selection of 60’s pop songs that feel surprisingly at home even though there doesn’t seem to be a single connection to the story. But again (at the risk of sounding like a broken record), this is typical for a Wes Anderson picture.

True comedy is subjective and that is never more obvious than with “Rushmore”. Many people wrestle with Anderson’s unique sense of humor and visual flair. But I found myself laughing all through this movie and the style of storytelling really helped the quirky humor. The cast is superb and it’s easy to see why Schwartzman took off from here and why this helped rejuvenate Bill Murray’s career. “Rushmore” is a genuinely funny movie laced with some darker undertones that will cause you to laugh and squirm during the same scene. Considering the majority of modern comedies, that’s something I can really appreciate.

5 Phenomenal Actors Who Never Won an Oscar

by

50

A few weeks ago I looked at 5 phenomenal actresses who were never given an Academy Award despite their incredible talent and strong careers. Today we are focussing on the men. I found this to be a much tougher list to put together. The number of great actors that never won the highest acting award would surprise you. And I found it incredibly difficult to leave certain names off this list. But I think a great case can be made for the five that made the cut. Now, as with the ladies, Lifetime Achievement Oscars don’t count. I’m talking about men who never received the heralded Best Actor or Best Supporting Actor awards. With such a healthy selection, it would be silly to call this the definitive list. But it’s clear that these 5 Oscarless actors are certainly phenomenal.

#5 – FRED ASTAIRE

While I’ve never been a huge fan of musicals, I’ve always appreciated the amazing contributions Fred Astaire made to the once flourishing genre. So it came as a big surprise to see that Astaire never won an Oscar. Now he did receive an honorary Academy Award after one of his retirement stints. But he was never recognized for his acting. Astaire was an amazing talent both with his dance and with his voice. But he was also a talented and always likable actor who made many quality films. There was a lot of doubt about whether he would make it in the movie industry but he would end up putting that to rest. He will always be recognized for his collaborations with Ginger Rogers. The two made a total of ten movies together including “Top Hat”, “Swing Time”, and “The Barkleys of Broadway”. He was superb in “Holiday Inn” alongside Bing Crosby. He would also make many well-received movies with the likes of Rita Hayworth, Judy Garland, Gene Kelly, and Audrey Hepburn. Fred Astaire made many films that should have garnered some Oscar attention. And this is coming from a guy not that crazy about musicals.

#4 – LEONARDO DICAPRIO

From an early age, Leonardo DiCaprio defined himself as an exceptional actor through several incredible performances. He first caught the attention of movie fans with his portrayal of a mentally handicapped boy in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”. This would earn him his first Academy Award nomination. He would star in several recognizable films before making his big splash (pun intended) in James Cameron’s mega-hit “Titanic”. Following it, he began a defining collaboration with Martin Scorsese in films like “Gangs of New York”, “The Aviator” (which earned him his second Oscar nomination), and “The Departed”. Hey would then earn a third nomination in “Blood Diamond”. He would continue to do top-notch work particularly in “Shutter Island”, his fourth movie with Scorsese, and the fantastic “Inception” with director Christopher Nolan. DiCaprio has an impressive resume and several intriguing roles lined up. He’s earned his numerous nominations but cases could be made that one or more of them could have translated to wins.

#3 – ROBERT MITCHUM

It’s hard to believe that an actor who was so highly revered and with so many good movies on his resume never received an Academy Award for his work. Such is the case with Robert Mitchum. Mitchum really made a name for himself in the film noir genre with movies like “Crossfire”, “Out of the Past”, and “The Big Steal”. He also starred in “The Story of G.I. Joe”, a solid picture that would earn him his one and only Academy Award nomination. After playing in a variety of roles, Mitchum would give a mesmerizing and menacing performance in “The Night of the Hunter”. The rest of Mitchum’s career would feature numerous Oscar worthy performances in some really good films such as “The Sundowners”, the creepy “Cape Fear”, “The Longest Day”, “El Dorado”, “The Friends of Eddie Coyle”, and “Ryan’s Daughter”. Mitchum had a recognizable look and unmistakable voice. But he also had a booming screen presence that made his performances all the more memorable. It’s truly amazing that the Academy never recognized him for his work.

#2 – JOSEPH COTTEN

Joseph Cotten had a long film career that spanned over five decades. He was an actor that was always working but was never quite as popular as many of Hollywood’s big names. But personally I loved Cotten and he starred in some of my favorite classic movies. You know things are good when one of your very first feature films in the beloved “Citizen Kane”. Cotten’s performance as Leland stands out and it’s one of the film’s many strong points. After another wonderful collaboration with Orson Welles in “The Magnificent Ambersons”, he would star in one of my very favorite Alfred Hitchcock pictures “Shadow of a Doubt”. In it he delivers yet another true Oscar-calibur performance. The 1940’s were a great year for Cotten as evident by his work in “Gaslight”, “Portrait of Jennie”, and a spectacular movie that I think may offer his very best performance “The Third Man”. While not as strong as the 40’s, the rest of his career would offer several memorable roles in films like “Niagara”, “Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte”, “Soylent Green”, and “Airport ’77”. It’s stunning to me that Cotten never garnered any recognition from the Academy especially for his early work.

#1 – CARY GRANT

It almost doesn’t seem possible. Has Cary Grant really never won an Academy Award especially when considering his brilliant resume? Nope, he never won an Oscar and he was only nominated twice! In 1970 the Academy did give him a “We Feel Terrible for Always Passing You Over” honorary Academy Award, but that doesn’t make up for the shunning. Cary Grant’s career stands on its own and it goes without saying that it was a great one. Grant’s good looks and undeniable charm always translated well to the big screen. He gave so many brilliant and charismatic performances from the 1930’s until his retirement in the mid-60’s. Instead of giving a history, let me just name some of the wonderful films he’s been in and you explain to me how he never won and Oscar – “Bringing Up Baby”, “Gunga Din”, “His Girl Friday”, “The Philadelphia Story”, “Penny Serenade”, “The Talk of the Town”, “Arsenic and Old Lace”, “Notorious”, “To Catch a Thief”, “Houseboat”, “North By Northwest”, “Operation Petticoat”, “Charade”. There are several other great Cary Grant pictures but I think you get the point. He was a wonderful actor who always commanded the screen. He also gave us some of cinema’s greatest films.

There you go. Those are my five phenomenal actors who have never won an Oscar. What say you? Agree or disagree with my list? Please take some time to share your thoughts on this week’s Phenomenal 5.

THE THROWDOWN : Norman Bates vs. Jack Torrance

by

22

Wednesday is Throwdown day at Keith & the Movies. It’s when we take two movie subjects, pit them against each other, and see who’s left standing. Each Wednesday we’ll look at actors, actresses, movies, genres, scenes, and more. I’ll make a case for each and then see how they stand up one-on-one. And it’s not just my opinion that counts. I’ll share my take and then open up the polls to you. Visit each week for a new Throwdown. Vote each week to decide the true winner!

*Last week the zombies (70%) annihilated the vampires (30%) in our horror movie frightfest.*

This week’s Throwdown is a bit of a stretch but it still should be a lot of fun. In keeping with my ’10 Days of Horror’, today we’re looking at two well-known hotel attendants who, let’s just say, have a few issues. Now I know Norman Bates and Jack Torrance’s connection to their hotels/motels are considerably different. But they have more in common than you might think. More importantly, both have gained an almost iconic status in the horror movie genre so why wouldn’t we let them square off? Here’s the question – which is the better/creepier hotel working madman? Is it Norman Bates or is it Jack Torrance. As always you make the final decision. Vote now and defend your favorite. It’s up to you!

NORMAN BATES vs. JACK TORRANCE

I still remember the first time I saw Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates in the Alfred Hitchcock classic “Psycho”. You immediately know that there is something not quite right about him. As the owner of the isolated Bate’s Motel, Norman’s creepiest feature is his flirtation with normalcy. You watch him and he seems like a nice guy but there is that sense of unease that makes him a chilling character. Of course we find out that he is a deranged serial killer with a special “affection” for his dear mother. Norman has given us many great horror moments, none better than the shower scene murder of Janet Leigh. He appears in several other “Psycho” sequels but it’s the original 1960 masterpiece that still resonates.

“Heeeere’s Johnny!” How can you forget Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining”? While I’m not one that thinks “The Shining” is the horror movie classic that many do, I still really like the film mainly due to Nicholson’s whacked out performance. Jack Torrance isn’t the owner of the Overlook Hotel like Norman Bates. He’s a writer who’s hired to watch over and maintain the isolated hotel through the harsh winter offseason. The problem is that Torrance isn’t the most stable of men. His writer’s block and cabin fever don’t mix well with the supernatural presence in the place and before long he flies off the rails. He shares conversations with ghosts who soon convince him to murder his family. He takes off, axe in hand, to do their bidding.

This wraps up my ’10 Days of Horror’. So, which of these two crazy caretakers is the creepiest? Which hotel/motel would you be the most eager to avoid? Both have earned there spots in horror movie history. But it’s you who decides who’s really the best maniac of the two. Vote now and make your choice known!