JeffMacArthur.com

eyeCandy: Alpha Dog (2007) 4/5

Posted on 14. Feb, 2007 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | No Comments

I didn’t know what to think when I first heard about Alpha Dog. I mean, was this going to be a Justin Timberlake vehicle or a serious movie. Turns out it is a serious movie, and quite a good one at that.

Alpha Dog is based on actual events: the kidnapping and subsequent murder of a crazed druggy’s 15 year old brother by a group of teenagers led by the local pot dealer/wanna-be-gansta. The movie is a disturbing look at the increasing disconnect between real life and the life depicted in rap videos and tabloid news.

Jake Mazursky (played by the talented Ben Foster, best known for his role as Claire’s boyfriend in HBO’s Six Feet Under) is a psychopathic, drug-abusing Jewish kid with some serious Nazi tats who owes teenage kingpin Johnny Truelove (Emile Hirsch) $1200 in drug debts. The diminutive Truelove tries to play tough and is wholly outclassed by the crazed Mazursky, who demeans Truelove in his retaliation. When Truelove and his crew (including Mr. Justin Timberlake, who is surprisingly capable in his role) happen across Mazursky’s younger brother, Zack, Johnny decides kidnapping the kid would be some serious payback. Zack (Huff’s Anton Yelchin) is happy to party with the “big kids” (which is what he ends up doing after the first few hours) and figures he’ll be back home within days. Needless to say, things escalate beyond all reason.

Alpha Dog is ably directed by Nick Cassavetes, and has a great supporting cast, including Bruce Willis (Johnny’s dad), Sharon Stone (Zack’s mom), and the first I’ve seen (although it is brief) of Alan Thicke in years. The fact that this atrocity actually happened is totally disturbing, and it’s not exactly a movie that’d make your average parent very optimistic about raising a kid today (at least not amongst the idle rich in Southern California). That said, with the copious sex, drugs, and hip hop involved, that’s probably not the target audience anyway.

PS: I hope you didn’t expect a romantic movie for Valentine’s Day .

eyeCandy: Rome – HBO (2005, 2007) 5/5

Posted on 14. Jan, 2007 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | 7 Comments

I just finished watching the second season premiere of HBO’s Rome and I simply cannot imagine a series more cater-made for my particular interests. There is political intrigue of a level rarely found on television (or movies, for that matter), there is a setting so beautifully foreign yet strangely familiar, there is an intricately woven story that follows a web of relationships amongst a fantastic ensemble case, and, to top it all off, this is the stuff that history is made of, literally.

Without giving anything away, Rome follows (as quoted from Wikipedia) “the violent transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire; a change driven by the class struggle between Patrician and Plebeian, the decay of political institutions, and the actions of ambitious men. While showing the lives of the rich, powerful, and historically significant, the show’s perspective is centered around the lives, fortunes, families, and acquaintances of two Roman soldiers: Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo, two soldiers mentioned in Caesar’s Commentarii de Bello Gallico.”

Rome is an incredibly sophisticated production, and the complex storyline requires (and more than amply rewards) the attentive viewer. Having absolutely fallen in love with the series over its first season, I was pleased to find (after some casual research) that, although the story itself takes some liberties with the historical specifics (all the while following the broad strokes of what actually happened), the sets, costumes, and depiction of life in the “capital of the world” circa 50 BC is, as far as I have read, remarkably accurate. On top of the fascinating story, Rome is an onslaught of visual splendor supplemented by a wonderful soundtrack and all the trappings that have made HBO the source of so many great productions over the years.

I really don’t want to provide much in the way of storyline details, as I think anyone who is interested would be best served by simply renting the first season and then scrambling to watch the second season as soon as possible (I couldn’t imagine leaping into season two without at least having read about what has happened in the first season). So if history intrigues you and you love movies then you could simply ask for nothing better than HBO’s Rome.

PS: This still doesn’t mean I can forgive HBO for cutting off Carnivale immediately after its second season cliffhanger. Please, somebody wrap up that story for me. I’ll read it in book form if necessary, but stringing me along and then pulling the rug out from under me at such an integral plot point is just not right (and I’m sure I’m not alone in feeling this).

eyeCandy: Blood Diamond (2006) 5/5

Posted on 07. Jan, 2007 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | 8 Comments

NOTE: It’s been a while since I’ve posted (work, travel, and a broken hand all being major factors) but I’m happy to come back with a review of this fantastic movie and will be posting each week in 2007 – so thanks for your patience and a Happy New Year to you all!

Blood Diamond is the best movie I’ve seen in a long time. It’s not often that I leave the theatre without a single item in mind that I would have liked to be handled differently, but I am at a loss as to anything to change here. Director Edward Zwick (The Last Samurai, Glory) has crafted a magnificent film, full of poignancy and emotional power while being both balanced and restrained – a difficult achievement to say the least.

In the midst of the brutal civil war in 1990′s Sierra Leone, Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), a South African diamond smuggler, crosses paths with Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou), a simple African man who, after losing his family to the rebels, has buried an enormous diamond found while working in their slave mining camps. When Archer learns of this, he promises Soloman that he will help him find his lost family in exchange for returning with him to the camp to locate the priceless jewel – Archer’s ticket out of the miserable existence he has endured in the dark continent.

The acting in the movie is superlative. DiCaprio, one of the great actors of our day, once again shows his amazing versatility as well as his prowess for choosing exceptional films of which to be a part. Hounsou, who I first remember from Amistad, is similarly exceptional and both actors are utterly believable in their roles. The film moves from beautiful landscapes to chaotic urban battles to understated but highly emotional personal scenes, creating a fascinating tapestry that is all the more moving because of the reality of the situation it portrays.

Without being preachy, Blood Diamond shows us a part of our collective past that cannot help but promote a deep consideration of the great wrongs (and some of the rights) of the world we live in. From the struggles of a family to the machinations of global enterprise, from the cruelty and ruin of a savage war to the beauty and dignity of human kindness and love. The film is simply without flaw.

eyeCandy: the Illusionist (2006) 4/5

Posted on 21. Sep, 2006 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | No Comments

The Illusionist is a bit of a rarity in the movie world today because, despite the potential for over-the-top supernatural elements that could have clouded the film, it has been executed with such tasteful restraint, providing an end product that is essentially without flaws. I didn’t know what to think of the movie when I saw the previews but I am very happy to have finally seen it.

Set in Vienna around 1900, this tale revolves around a mysterious illusionist, Eisenheim (Edward Norton), who arrives in town to the delight of the audiences for whom he performs. However, when the ruthless and cynical Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell) invites Eisenheim to his royal residence to perform, he gets more than he bargains for. The Prince’s fiancee, Sophie (Jessica Biel – a strange choice for the role, but who performs suitably), becomes somewhat enthralled with Eisenheim – a situation beyond toleration for Leopold, who will stop at nothing to eliminate this “problem”.

The film is based on the Steven Millhauser short story, Eisenheim the Illusionist, and the movie has wisely not been stretched to the breaking point – a problem with many films based on short stories. Instead we have a finely paced and totally compelling story with absolutely gorgeous period sets, rich characters, and superlative acting (Edward Norton is one of the finest actors of his generation and the wonderful Paul Giamatti has once again been given the opportunity to show his own copious skills as Chief Inspector Uhl, the Prince’s right hand man).

The Illusionist has an intelligence such that, unless you are absolutely determined to figure out everything that is going on and second-guessing each turn of events, it allows the audience to simply flow with each twist and turn of the story – a journey that brings with it the surprise and delight that is entirely fitting with the film’s title.

eyeCandy: World Trade Center (2006) 4/5

Posted on 16. Aug, 2006 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | 2 Comments

World Trade Center is Oliver Stone at his most restrained, and that is a very good thing given the subject material (and a rare quality for his movies, in my humble opinion). Aside from some minor pacing difficulties (partly due to the nature of the dilemma of the characters), I think he has done a fine job with a difficult task.

The film deals with the September 11th tragedy from the point of view of the rescue workers, specifically outlining the stories of two real-life New York Port Authority cops who were trapped in the destruction (Nicolas Cage as Sgt. John McLoughlin and Michael Pena as Officer Will Jimeno, both exceptional performances). [United 93, also based on true events at the time, takes a totally different focus and is also a worthwhile film]

The movie, although spending considerable time with the families of these men and without going into much other detail beyond what was experienced at the site itself, still manages to conjure up an enormous range of emotions in the viewer. From virulent anger at the atrocities committed, to crushing sadness and despair at the effect this had on so many people. However, much to the credit of the filmmakers, the ultimate point put forth here is how the unforgivable evil that was committed was more than matched by the unimaginable heroics of those involved in recovering from its effects. And, to paraphrase the movie, just because it was the right thing to do.

What else can I say – we know this tragedy and the film shows it in another way. It is probably one of the most emotional movies I have ever seen, but it’s hard to separate how much of that is watching the movie and how much is remembering what happened. In any case, it is a fitting tribute to the real-life heroes who made it so we all didn’t give up hope in humanity entirely.

eyeCandy: Miami Vice (2006) 3/5

Posted on 28. Jul, 2006 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | No Comments

The Miami Vice movie is a lot like a really good episode of the original Miami Vice TV show. And although it’s very stylish and gritty (some of it filmed Dominican Republic), it never quite seems to be able to gear up to being a really good movie. The plot is typical of the 1980′s ground-breaking television series this is based on: the lead detectives go undercover with lots of drugs, guns, and women around (this time posing as professional international drug smugglers). Things go wrong, people get shot, and in the end its just another day being on the vice squad of America’s sin city.

Michael Mann‘s direction is certainly very competent but, at almost two and a half hours, I think there could have been some additional editing done to good effect. Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx were certainly appropriate choices to take over from Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas‘ classic vice detectives, Sonny Crockett and Rico Tubbs, but neither of them can quite break through the ice that keeps this incarnation from being a great movie (as an aside, Colin Farrell’s Irish accent creeps out every once in a while, which sort of breaks me out of believing he’s Sonny Crockett (or Don Johnson)).

I grew up when TV’s Miami Vice was the coolest, grittiest thing you could see on television, and I’m not quite sure how or if that affects my view of this movie. I think I’ll probably go back and try to determine when Miami Vice was at its height and then rewatch a couple of those seasons (the first two are out on DVD – the rest are held up b/c of music rights, etc.), because I remember it as being a really good and original show (the unprecedented $1.3 million per television episode budget might have helped separate it from the pack back then). In any case, I was happy to see this movie and, if they can haul in the running time a bit, I’d probably go see the next one. Not great, but frankly good enough for a popcorn flick.

eyeCandy: Ultraviolet (2006) 1/5

Posted on 27. Jul, 2006 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | 3 Comments

Part of my obsessive-compulsive nature is that I will almost never not watch all of a movie, no matter how bad it is. By the end of what I thought was going to be a mercifully short 88 minutes, I deeply regretted not stopping Ultraviolet much, much earlier. I don’t know anything about the comic this is based upon, but the movie is terribly lacking in almost every respect.

The storyline is convoluted and almost non-sensical: a genetically engineered super-virus goes awry and infects a great number of people, turning them into “Hemophages”, also called Vampires (because of their pointy teeth, need for blood, and light intolerance, but who aren’t actually vampires. Go figure). Leading lady Milla Jovovich, whose lamentable acting certainly doesn’t distract us from the awful script, is a superhuman Hemophage called “Ultraviolet” and is sent to intercept some bad guy’s package containing something that could destroy all of her kind. It turns out to be a child who has been infected in some way and who kindles lost feelings of potential motherhood in Jovovich’s character. Touching. She subsequently tries to rescue him from a great many dangers, and there is a lot of running around so Milla can single-handedly kill dozens upon dozens of opponents. In fact, everything feels more like a video game than a movie. Unfortunately, this includes the graphics to some degree, which are too often a little “chunky” looking onscreen, like some inter-mission animated sequence from a high-end video game.

The film had an interesting visual character, but this was simply not enough to combat its many other inadequacies. Director Kurt Wimmer apparently had Ultraviolet taken out of his hands and completely re-edited by the studio after they did not like his original version. If the original was better than this one then this is a good example of how a studio can destroy a film – I shudder to imagine it being worse than what was released. This is just not a good movie (and Milla Jovovich’s skeletal figure even robs us guys of the normally oh-so-hot super-futuristic-heroine costume perks ).

eyeCandy: Pirates of the Caribbean – Dead Man’s Chest (2006) 4/5

Posted on 21. Jul, 2006 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | 3 Comments

Okay, okay, okay. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest is probably a 3/5 movie if I wanted to be totally objective – it’s a serious retread of the original film and, clocking in at almost two and a quarter hours, it’s in dire need of tightening – but I just get too much enjoyment out of the marvelous visual work done on the oceany Davy Jones and his crew and, as I believe I’ve already mentioned on these pages, I think Johnny Depp is the greatest actor of his generation and is simply a pleasure to watch act.

So what’s this one all about? Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and his love Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) have gotten into trouble for helping out that rascal Jack Sparrow (as accounted in the first film). Their only way out of this situation is to somehow acquire Jack’s mysterious compass and return it to some scheming nobleman for a pardon. Unfortunately, this quest coincides with the supernatural horror of Davy Jones and his mutated crew of undead sea-men who have returned seeking Jack’s soul in repayment of a debt. But what chance is there of defeating such horrors? Only to recover the Dead Man’s Chest containing the still-beating heart of Davy Jones – possession of which allows you to control Jones and the waters he rules!

Johnny Depp once again does a great job on his cross-dressing, rock star pirate, Captain Jack Sparrow, but the impact is simply not as powerful as it was in the first movie, which isn’t that surprising. For the most part, the other actors in the film perform aptly but the movie doesn’t really seem to be moving until Depp hits the screen. Actually, there is one exception to this – Davy Jones is a wonder to behold. This computer animated creature (performed by Bill Nighy) is a phenomenal achievement in visual effects. His crew are similarly interesting to behold, but Jones himself really transcends his animated nature to become a suitably convincing foil for Depp’s Sparrow.

Was this movie as good as the first one? No, I don’t think so. Although director Gore Verbinski and co. definitely made a valiant effort to add more flash and flair to the proceedings this time, the fact remains that the results exhibit some poor pacing and, in the absence of the superb technical work that was achieved, could have resulted in a relatively flat picture. That said, I certainly enjoyed the Dead Man’s Chest and hold out some hope that the third installment of the series will leverage this considerable technological investment while learning from the missteps made here.

PS: This film ends with a scene leading immediately into the third installment of the series – Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, coming in 2007 – which was shot back-to-back with this movie.

eyeCandy: Superman Returns (2006) 4/5

Posted on 05. Jul, 2006 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | 6 Comments

Superman Returns is an attempt to revive the Superman franchise, much in the same way as Batman Begins, and, I’m happy to say, it’s a very successful attempt. Unlike Batman Begins, Superman Returns doesn’t scrap all the movies that came before it and start from scratch. Although there is a certain amount of re-envisioning, Superman Returns picks up after a five-year absence from Earth by the Man of Steel. During that time Superman was in deep space investigating the remains of his home planet, Krypton, and Lex Luther was sitting in jail (a convenient convergence of events ). I’ve heard people refer to this as “Superman 3″, essentially, on the basis that the original 1983 Superman III and 1987′s Superman IV are movies best forgotten. Having recently re-watched the original 1978 Superman, I’m not sure I wouldn’t say that about the first two as well. In fairness, though, at least Superman I and Superman II were fairly true in spirit to the legend of Superman, whereas nothing so generous can be said about III and IV (the addition of Richard Pryor to the cast for the third installment should have been a strong hint).

Superman Returns is superbly directed by the talented Brian Singer, of Usual Suspects and X-Men fame (Singer also has a hand in the story development here as well). Singer was brought on after Brett Ratner left Superman Returns to direct X-Men 3, which Singer was supposed to direct but wanted to put off until he had a chance to try his hand at Superman Returns (the result: a big step up for Superman and a step down for X-Men 3). Brandon Routh does a fantastic job as Superman – he intensely evokes the memory of Christopher Reeve’s original performance as the Man of Steel, not only bearing a physical resemblance, but carrying himself similarly and even emulating Reeve’s speech (not since Ewan McGregor’s takeover of the role of Obi-Wan Kenobi from Alec Guinness have I seen such a pitch perfect interpretation of character). Kevin Spacey‘s Lex Luthor, while generally (and correctly, I think) harsher and more ruthless than Gene Hackman’s original, is also inspired. In fact, all the characters (including Kate Bosworth’s Lois Lane, who is now a mother and living with another man) have been fleshed out nicely and given a grittier edge than in the originals (Clark Kent even drinks a beer! ).

I saw the IMAX version of the movie not only because I love the big, big screen, but because it presents some parts of the film in 3D. The 3D scenes were pretty neat and I was happy to see a major live-action picture experimenting with this kind of technology. That said, your seating position does have some effect on how realistic the 3D parts are (try to get to the middle of the theatre for this one to avoid the minor “double vision” you can get from some angles) and the fact that you have to put your glasses on and off at several different points in the film (there are only a few segments that are 3D, so you don’t need to wear those goofy glasses the whole time) takes you out of the story a bit. Given that this is basically a “popcorn” movie, I don’t think that’s a major problem, though.

A couple of other pieces of trivia worth noting. Singer makes multiple references to the original movie in this film (e.g. the closing lines in Superman Returns, see PS below; when Superman saves Lois from a plane crash he says: “I hope this doesn’t put any of you off flying. Statistically, it’s still the safest way to travel”, the same words Reeve spoke when he saved Lois from the helicopter crash in the first movie), but the one that really stood out for me was when it is said that Superman stands for “truth, justice, and that kind of stuff” (I’m paraphrasing) instead of “truth, justice, and the American way” – quite a telling amendment reflecting upon the perception of the United States in today’s world. In other trivia, Superman’s father, Jor-El (cast as Anthony Hopkins by Ratner), is actually played once again by Marlon Brando. Singer used Brando’s parts from the original Superman, and discarded scenes from Superman II, to assemble an effective performance from the now-deceased actor.

All in all this is a wonderful new beginning for one of the most iconic characters in our culture. The hokiness and comedic relief (e.g. Luthor’s bumbling cohorts in the originals) are pretty much gone, as is, thank god, the completely unbearable Margot Kidder poem from the first movie (I can’t recall cringing so intensely at any part of any movie in recent memory). Despite his humble small-town roots, this is a 21st century Superman and one who I hope to see again before too long.

PS: There is a pretty major twist in this movie that doesn’t fully reveal itself until close to the end. I won’t mention it here but it shouldn’t be hard to find out about if you’re curious.

eyeCandy: Star Wars I.2 – the Phantom Edit (2001?) 4/5

Posted on 23. Jun, 2006 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | 4 Comments

The Phantom Edit is a finely crafted re-edit of George Lucas’ disappointing Phantom Menace prequel to the original Star Wars movies. Put together by an (at the time) anonymous film editor who calls himself “the Phantom Editor”, the original Star Wars I.1 – the Phantom Edit was painstakingly assembled from the VHS release of the Phantom Menace. Although I have seen this older copy years ago (it helps to have friends at ILM ), this review is for the more recently assembled Star Wars I.2 – the Phantom Edit which, although almost identical to Episode I.1, was created from the DVD release with 5.1 soundtrack, and so is a much more seamless and enjoyable version to watch. It even has the Phantom Editor doing a Commentary track, which is of tremendous benefit to understanding what changes have been made and why.

I’m not going to get into the story of the Phantom Menace, since anyone who has any interest in the Phantom Edit already knows far too much about these movies , but I will instead focus on the changes made. As the Phantom Editor says in the commentary, this was not done to diss George Lucas, who was actually one of the Phantom Editor’s film idols growing up. Rather, this re-edit was made in response to the terrible disappointment (for almost every hard-core fan) of Lucas’ first prequel and his apparent ignorance of the very film principles used to make the original movies the classics that they remain today. Remember as I go through the following that there was no additional footage available to the editor (in fact, the movie is now mercifully more than 20 minutes shorter, clocking in at about 1.50 when the credits roll) – everything had to be assembled from visual cuts already in the movie and the masterful use of the 5.1 channel sound mix. Here are the main changes:

Job number one: remove Jar-Jar Binks as much as possible. As the Phantom Editor relates, Jar-Jar can’t be removed completely b/c he is too integral to the story in the end. Would he have written the Phantom Edit story without Jar-Jar? Of course. But since Jar-Jar is important to the storyline, the Editor does the next best thing: he edits out all of Jar-Jar “antics” whenever possible. No stepping in “doopoo”, no distracting the audience with his clumsiness during high-intensity scenes, nothing like that. The result is that jar-Jar becomes a very bearable character and, if you can forget the hatred you feel for him from your first viewing of Lucas’ movie, then he just seems to fit into the story like any other character.

Job number two: remove the story redundancies. Ever notice how Lucas will put in a scene with the Jedi killing the droids and then the very next scene has another group of people telling one another that, you guessed it, the Jedi killed the droids? The Phantom Editor chalks this up to Lucas crafting this movie for kids instead of adults, and has mercifully spared us the countless occurrences where one scene simply recaps the previous scene. The positive effect that this has on the pacing of the story is enormous.

Job number three: make Anakin more of a bad-a$$. There’s nothing much that can be done about the substantially less than stellar acting of the young Jake Lloyd, who plays Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader in the first film, especially in his verbal delivery. The approach the Phantom Editor has taken is inspired. On one front, simply cut out Anakin’s non-essential dialog. Lloyd is far more effective visually just standing there than he is with his poorly written dialog, and this simple cut makes it so the audience is often left wondering what dark thoughts lie behind Lloyd’s eyes (e.g. when the Jedi council is skeptical of whether to train him, Anakin appears to be seething without saying anything). On another front, the Editor has cut off all the “oops”, “awws”, “yippees”, and other meaningless (and, for a young Darth Vader, out-of-character) fragments at the end of Lloyd’s sentences. An example of how effective this is comes when Anakin has taken refuge inside one of the Naboo fighters and Qui-Gon tells him to stay inside the cockpit for safety. When the droids come and endanger Padme, instead of having Lloyd saying “Gee, I wonder what this button does” before he fires of the ship’s weapons and “Whoops” after he destroys the droids, the young Vader now just looks over the cockpit at them and swings into action – quickly annihilating Padme’s aggressors and showing that there is something very powerful within this young boy.

There are other cuts made, of course, but those are the three main categories that really help the film. As the Editor says, one of the biggest hurdles in enjoying the re-edit is in letting go of the hate you felt for the original Phantom Menace (hate, after all, leads to the dark side ). In the end, the re-edit is a fascinating example of the enormous power that editing can have on a lackluster movie (oh, if only Hollywood could see that with the years of bloated films we’ve had to endure). What was once a hardly bearable children’s film has been transformed into the space epic that it was supposed to be. So, if you’re a big Star Wars fan, seek out a copy of this (it’s not for sale anywhere, or Lucas would probably hunt down and kill the people selling it, but I’m sure you industrious computer users can figure out how to find it), listen to the Commentary, watch the movie, and then give a silent thanks to Mike J. Nichols, the Phantom Editor, for saving what should have been an incredible film.

PS: There are other re-edits of the Phantom Menace which play with the story a lot more and are simply not as well-crafted or effective as this version, so beware. If you start to see Jar-Jar espousing deep Jedi philosophy through subtitled dialog then you’ll know you don’t have the real “Edit”.