Archive for 'eyeCandy'
eyeCandy: X-Men 3: the Last Stand (2006) 4/5
Posted on 29. May, 2006 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | 3 Comments
X-Men 3: the Last Stand is the latest in the X-Men franchise and, for the most part, it is a decent film that should satisfy most viewers. I’ve put it at 4/5 b/c I believe the first two movies are awfully close to 5/5 for this genre, though I thought long and hard about giving this one a 3/5 b/c of issues I had with the directing.
In this film, we have a storyline taken from the X-Men comics which is massaged to construct the plot of the Last Stand. Jean Grey’s character returns from her apparent demise in the previous film but with some disturbing differences. The power she evidenced at the close of X-Men 2 has, in the absence of Professor X’s psychic assistance, blossomed to the point where her own control of this incredible power, indeed even whether or not this can even be thought of as Jean Grey (as opposed to the Phoenix, from the comic storyline), is doubtful. This discovery arises in the context of the government having developed a weaponized “anti-mutant” serum that would permanently remove mutants’ powers and revert them back to homo-sapiens.
The characters of Beast (another blue furry guy, to replace Nightcrawler I guess 
, and played by Kelsey Grammar), Kitty Pryde (formerly the little girl who walked through walls, and played by Halifax’s own Ellen Page), and Angel (who is barely in the film, played by Ben Foster) are introduced for the “good guys”. They join Professor X (again, perfectly acted by Patrick Stewart) and returning X-Men Colossus (Daniel Cudmore – who we saw briefly turning to metal in the previous film), Storm, Iceman, and, everybody’s fav, Wolverine (fanboy note: this movie introduces the “fastball special” combo move by which Colossus takes Wolverine and launches him at the enemy).
Magneto (Ian McKellen – superb as always) has also done some recruiting, giving flamer Pyro (Aaron Stanford) a bigger role, and introducing the inspired choice of Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut (whose powers actually come from a mystical gem and so who is not a mutant at all despite being a member of Magneto’s Brotherhood of Mutants – more fanboy trivia). A variety of other members have roles of varying significance.
So what’s the problem with this movie? The story is decent (decent enough to make a movie on par with the earlier two) but the realization of the story is where this movie falls flat. Some of the dialog seems a little dumbed down and awkward, and frankly (although not surprisingly) Bret Ratner, whose most known movies are probably the Rush Hour series, just can’t direct as well as Bryan Singer who, along with crafting two of the best superhero movies ever with the first two X-Men (and hopefully a third in the works with the new Superman), can claim the Usual Suspects and other successful and challenging films on his resume.
Indeed, Bryan Singer was supposed to direct X-Men 3 but instead jumped at the opportunity to take over a flailing production of the new Superman Returns from… who? Brett Ratner. With typical studio wisdom, 20th Century Fox declined Singer’s offer to simply start on X-Men 3 after his work on Superman Returns was over (an opportunity he understandably did not want to miss), and instead gave the job to Ratner who, coincidently, was also one of the potential directors for the original X-Men in 2000 (we see from X-Men 3 that it is a blessing that Singer was chosen instead). A strange turn of events and ultimately the decision that I think made this movie not stand up to the previous two.
In short, if you think you’d like this movie then I think you will. If you’re a bit worried that it won’t stack up to earlier X-Men b/c of the loss of Singer’s direction then you’re right. However, it’s still a decent movie, and where else can you so many live action superheros and villains in one place?
eyeCandy: the Da Vinci Code (2006) 4/5
Posted on 22. May, 2006 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | 7 Comments
The Da Vinci Code, the movie, is based on the best-selling novel by Dan Brown. The story begins with the murder of the curator of the Louvre museum in Paris, a man who was supposed to meet with the film’s main protagonist, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (well-played by Tom Hanks), that evening. What results is an intriguing chase through riddles and historical legend to unravel an ongoing battle between the secret Priory of Sion society, whose duty it has been to protect the secret of Holy Grail over the years, and the Opus Dei, “a clandestine, Vatican-sanctioned Catholic organization” (or at least they are in the book – many of the more direct organizational connections have been “softened” in the film in an attempt to avoid provoking the church and its followers – with varying degrees of success), who wish to destroy the secret the Priory has been guarding.
The movie is directed by Ron Howard who, although a little out of his usual element in this thriller, does a capable job of the storytelling (the pacing could be a little tighter) but a laudable job of the film’s gorgeous visuals (which include historical recreations of some of the myths examined, as well as some beautiful on-site location shots – I desperately wanted to travel to Europe again after seeing this). Rounding out the main characters in the story are the beautiful French actress Audrey Tautou as Sophie Neveu, a cryptologist who has a very personal involvement in the case, and the fantastic Ian McKellen, always an absolute pleasure to watch, as the crippled Holy Grail expert, Sir Leigh Teabing. Jean Reno, Paul Bettany, and a few other familiar faces round out the cast.
This film has been largely panned by critics, and I’m just not sure why. Let me say that I have not read the book (though a friend said the movie played quite close to the book in most instances), so I am not victim to the inevitable “but it’s not as good as the book” syndrome. I expect that at least some of this has to be the result of misguided religious sentiment, as the movie (although to a lesser degree than the book, it would seem) certainly presents some ideas that would make any “true believers” more than a little uncomfortable. To this end it must be said that the author, director, and others have taken great pains to explain that this is a work of fiction that, although based on some vague historical evidence, does not profess to be taken as gospel, or so to speak >:-) . Others might want to take a bit of the shine off of golden boys Howard and Hanks, both of who I think perform at least satisfactorily here. I don’t know, maybe it’s just that I LIKE all the riddles and puzzles, I LIKE the historical interconnectedness – sure, there are some weak points in the movie, but I would expect that anyone who enjoys thrillers and some thought-provoking elements to their films would certainly enjoy the Da Vinci Code.
If someone questioning the mythology of Christian religion bothers you then do us all a favour – go see another movie and leave us to enjoy this one – I, for one, like movies that question established beliefs, and I believe it’s this very questioning that should strengthen any belief that is worth believing in.
PS: I don’t want to focus on this too much, as I have no problem with anyone believing what they wish (as long as they don’t expect me to necessarily share their beliefs), but check out some of the comments for the book Beyond the Da Vinci Code, which examines in further depth some of the topics explored in Dan Brown’s novel, for an example of why I find the reaction to these “explorations” frustrating. NOTE: I have NOT read this book either, I just thought it was a useful demonstration of people who take simple questioning as an attack on their values.
eyeCandy: The Matador (2005) 4/5
Posted on 20. Feb, 2006 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | 3 Comments
I just finished watching The Matador, and I really liked it. The darkly comic storyline revolves around a hitman, or “fatality facilitator”, Julian Noble (Pierce Brosnan), who has a chance meeting with a friendly businessman, Danny Wright (Greg Kinnear), in Mexico. Initially coy about his work, Julian ends up revealing to Danny over a bullfight exactly what it is he does in his life. Skepticism turns to fascination and the two share in conversation and antics until Danny heads home and Julian heads off to his next job. While all goes well with Danny, Julian quickly unravels and his failure to make his next hit ends with Julian himself as the target. The result is a late night arrival to the Wright residence by Mr. Noble, a turn of events which ends up being more than just a chance visit to whom Julian reveals is his only friend.
The movie is well written and provides some very funny dialog (Brosnan’s ongoing one-liners are great, e.g. “I look like a Bangkok hooker on a Sunday morning after the navy’s left town”), but the greatest pleasure in the Matador is watching Pierce Brosnan play so dramatically against type as a crass, manipulative hitman – no James Bond here (and you won’t want to miss his notorious Speedo and boots scene)! The chemistry between Brosnan and Greg Kinnear is also a highlight, with the two sliding perfectly into their respective roles and working perfectly off one another.
The story takes a couple of unexpected turns (the biggest of which turns right back around again) but is generally straightforward and easy to follow. The focus on character exploration is appropriate and the 96 minute running time feels just right. Maybe this won’t be the most memorable movie you’ll ever see, but it’s a solid and rewarding effort – a movie that knows what it is, what it wants to accomplish, and which goes about doing so without getting caught up in any excess. Great acting, funny dialog, and a solid story – sounds like a good movie to me! 
eyeCandy: Capote (2005) 4/5
Posted on 15. Feb, 2006 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | No Comments
The film Capote is about the infamous writer, Truman Capote – a role which is played to eerie perfection by the exceptionally talented and versatile Philip Seymour Hoffman (who lost 40 lbs for his part).
The story centres entirely around Capote’s research for, and subsequent writing of, his popular “non-fiction novel”, In Cold Blood (which, along with Breakfast at Tiffany’s, is among his most popular works). The book is to be written about the murder of a family of four in Kansas, an act for which the two perpetrators provide no real explanation. As his research continues, the lead character establishes a relationship with one of the killers, with whom he develops a trust that Capote must ultimately break (given that, despite his occasional attempts to help the killers, Capote is convinced that this is the book that will make him, and a death sentence would wrap things up nicely).
The film provides some interesting insights into Capote, the man (e.g. he claims to have “94% recall about conversations” and was harassed about his unusual voice in school), and the story is well developed and delivered. There isn’t exactly a lot of excitement in Capote, but the performances by Hoffman, Chris Cooper, and others are top notch. Once again, the movie, in my opinion, is that much better due to being based on a true story – it is interesting to see the times and tribulations of Capote in his heyday.
Capote was filmed in just 36 days, though this doesn’t seem to have affected the craftsmanship evident here (it was nominated for 5 Academy Awards). In the end, though, the movie just didn’t impact me very much, despite being a solid film. Still, it is a worthwhile watch (and respectfully clocks in at under two hours ).
eyeCandy: Underworld: Evolution (2006) 3/5
Posted on 22. Jan, 2006 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | 1 Comment
Underworld: Evolution is, despite a fairly contrived plot and a couple of hokey sentimental moments, pretty much what you’d expect in a decent follow up to the original Underworld. The movie is great to look at (and, in fact, you also get to look at Kate Beckinsale without that pesky skin-tight black suit on in a little Vampite/Hybrid love scene), but it’s a more of a colleciton of cool sequences than a great movie.
The tone is consistent with the first Underworld – dark and hip, sort of a Matrix feel but with vampires and werewolves. The story revolves around the two proginators of the original vampire and werewolf lines. These two first-of-the-species creatures are brothers and, in the intro of the movie, we are shown how the wild werewolf brother was imprisoned long ago for his beastly acts, much to the chagrin of his vampire brother. The vampire brother, after patiently biding his time, is now on a quest to free his ancient werewolf sibling with only our heroes (the vampire Kate Beckinsale and the vampire/werewolf hybrid Scott Speedman) standing in his way.
To their credit, the creators of Underworld are at least trying to develop their own mythology around this endless war between Werewolves (called Lycan here) and Vampires (or Death Dealers) – somewhat in the spirit of what Anne Rice did more successfully in her Vampire Chronicles novels.
In short, if you saw the 2003 Underworld and liked it, or if you’re just looking for some action/horror/sci-fi eye candy, then you probably won’t be disappointed with Underworld: Evolution. If this doesn’t sound like something you’d be in to then I’d give it a pass .
eyeCandy: Syriana (2005) 4/5
Posted on 15. Jan, 2006 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | No Comments
Wow, busy, busy past week for me. However, in the interests of starting this week off on the right foot, here is a review of a movie I saw this weekend.
Syriana is a political thriller focused around the oil business and intelligence interests in the Middle East. The myriad characters and crossing storylines (as well as the political aspect) is very reminiscent of Steven Soderbergh’s Traffic (he was an Executive Producer on this film), although I don’t find Syriana to be quite as successful a film.
The movie is based on ex-CIA operative Robert Baer’s book, “See No Evil – the True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA’s War on Terrorism. In the film adaptation, George Clooney plays Baer’s character (gaining 35 pounds to do so), Matt Damon is a US energy consultant employed by one of the princes in Iran, Christopher Plummer, Jeffrey Wright, Chris Cooper, and a host of other well known Hollywood actors, round out a large and talented cast. This is a film that you need to pay attention to – the storyline is thick and intricate, and distributed between a half a dozen different interwoven tales. Like Traffic, Syriana (though again, less successfully) aims to show the range of individuals involved in the central theme, from young terrorists, to wealthy businessmen, to CIA agents, to Iranian royalty.
Those not particularly intrigued by this subject area, or who don’t like to have to pay close attention to a movie for it to be rewarding, might be advised to take a pass on Syriana. But for the interested and attentive, the 126 minute Syriana is well worth seeing.
eyeCandy: Good Night and Good Luck (2005) 5/5
Posted on 08. Jan, 2006 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | 1 Comment
Good Night and Good Luck is the second film directed by George Clooney. At a slim 93 minutes, Clooney exercises restraint (far too uncommon in directors nowadays) without ever shortchanging the viewer. The quality of Good Night, combined with his excellent directorial debut, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, has caused me to re-evaluate my earlier hypothesis that Confessions was a collaborative directorial effort in which I suspected Steven Soderbergh of playing a much larger role than his Executive Director title suggested.
Good Night and Good Luck is the true story of CBS reporter Edward R. Murrow (played to perfection by David Strathairn) who, in early 1950′s America, played a significant role in taking down Senator Joseph McCarthy, the head of a veritable witch-hunt for alleged communist sympathizers in United States. This is not the first movie to address the unfortunate era of McCarthyism (Guilty by Suspicion with Robert DeNiro is another good one), but it may be the best yet.
I sometimes find the use of black and white in modern films to be a little pretentious, but here it is effective and entirely justifiable. From a more functional standpoint, it allows the seamless incorporation of archival footage from the time in question – in fact, there is no actor playing Senator McCarthy, he is depicted solely and to great effect through actual footage. On top of this important consideration, the black and white film certainly reinforces the feel of those times as well.
As I’ve said before, there is something I find very rewarding in films based on fact, especially ones that deal with such important historical events as this. Watching the movie, one cannot help but be impacted by Mr. Murrow’s powerfully effective prose (much of his on-air dialog in the film is taken directly from his actual broadcasts) – balanced and rational, but with an emotional poignancy that comes from knowing what you are saying is right and true and good. George Clooney plays Murrow’s producer, Fred Friendly (just as Clooney took a significant role in Confessions), and the cast as a whole is top-rate (including Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Daniels, and many other familiar faces).
I’ll end this entry with a quote from the Mr. Murrow’s “A Report on Joseph R. McCarthy” aired on CBS on March 9th, 1954:
“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.
This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.”
We’d all do well to still heed those words today.
eyeCandy: Memoirs of a Geisha (2005) 4/5
Posted on 02. Jan, 2006 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | 1 Comment
First of all – Happy New Year to everyone out there! I’ve been away for the past couple of weeks, making posting difficult, but I’m back and am rarin’ to go for 2006. So on to my first post of the year…
Memoirs of a Geisha is a gorgeous, gorgeous movie. It depicts the life of a young girl who is removed from her family and raised to become a geisha in early 20th century Japan. The story follows her separation from her sister (not deemed attractive enough to be geisha), her challenges as she grows to maturity in the geisha house (a very competitive environment at times), the changes wrought by the Second World War, and her attempts to deal with a love that cannot be. I will leave the details at that so as not to give away any surprises.
Geisha, which translates from Japanese roughly as “person of the arts”, were female “entertainers” who, from a young age, were highly trained in artistic and social skills to entertain men (including dance, conversation, musical performance, ceremonial arts – it’s worth noting that having sex was not their primary concern). Memoirs outlines this training and includes several effective demonstrations of the lead’s mastery of these arts, the most poignant being her breathtaking snow-dance.
Story-wise, the movie occasionally departs from Arthur Golden’s popular novel of the same name and the subject material seems to be viewed through a lens which obscures some of the negative aspects of the historical life of a geisha. However, when it comes to visual presentation, the movie is essentially flawless. Director Rob Marshal (of 2002′s “Chicago”) has crafted a film that, despite having a story that might not appeal to all and that doesn’t always “gel”, is sumptuous to observe. Scenery, sets, costumes, lighting, and, of course, the beautiful lead actresses (who look absolutely stunning in their kimonos, white face make-up, etc.) combine in every scene to create a powerful and exotic setting around which the plot flows. Indeed, I enjoyed watching this movie as much (and maybe more) for this incredible attention to detailed design (in addition to the fine acting by Ziyi Zhang, Gong Li, Michelle Yeoh, and Ken Watanabe) as for the story itself.
It seems to me that the world of the geisha presented here might never have existed in this way but (despite the obvious hardships) it is certainly a beautiful dream.
eyeCandy: King Kong (2005) 4/5
Posted on 18. Dec, 2005 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | 2 Comments
I got the chance to finally see Peter Jackson’s King Kong with the guys from Hak5 and WASD this weekend. I enjoyed the movie but, if I had to use just one word to describe it, it might have to be “overwrought”. Don’t get me wrong, the movie is beautifully filmed – jungle shots are fantastic, the scenes on the Empire State Building are so dazzling that I felt like I would fall out of my seat, and a fantastic amount of attention has been invested in this production. However, the movie certainly has its flaws.
My biggest complaint is that it is over three hours long! The original 1933 King Kong, the main inspiration for Jackson’s movie, ran only 1 hour and 40 minutes. It takes almost the length of the original movie (or at least over an hour) before we even see Kong in the newer version. Jackson spends way too much time overdeveloping the main characters of Ann Farrow and Carl Denham – these are stock character types and just don’t need this kind of depth – we already know who these characters are because they are cliches. A lot of other things could be tightened up as well, but the first hour could easily be compressed into fifteen minutes with no loss to the story.
However, there are lots of good things for sure. The fight between the T-Rexes and Kong is awesome – beautifully choreographed and well-rendered. The jungle is teeming with interesting creatures and the attention to detail is staggering. The movie as a whole certainly communicates its central “beauty and the beast” theme more strongly than the original and sympathy for Kong is strongly evoked. Although I was a little surprised that the compositing of some shots wasn’t a little smoother (the dinosaur stampede for instance), the visuals were typically an absolute pleasure (even down to the wonderful recreation of 1930′s New York City).
I think I understand how this movie became a little bloated. Jackson has been self-admittedly obsessed with the original since he was young and I expect his fascination yielded more content than your average person would need. In addition to this, coming off the tails of the Lord of the Rings, it’s understandable how Jackson would have trouble massaging his epic efforts back to accomodate a much simpler story. Hopefully this isn’t a trend for Jackson, as most movies can’t accomodate the scope of Tolkien’s work.
All in all I think that the new Kong could desperately use a “Phantom Edit” treatment – cut the first hour down to 15 minutes and compress the next couple of hours as needed. Jackson had a chance to make a superb 1.5-2 hour movie and has instead given us a pretty good 3 hour one – directors take heed.
PS: I am very excited to play the new video game based on the movie, though. Jackson and others in the film had integral roles to its development and it looks great.
eyeCandy: Chronicles of Narnia (2005) 4/5
Posted on 11. Dec, 2005 in All, Blog, eyeCandy | No Comments
Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is based on the book by C.S. Lewis, a contemporary of J.R.R. Tolkein. Indeed, the movie feels somewhat like a cross between the Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter movies. The fantastic mythology has the more robust approach of the Rings, but this is, at heart, a story about young people and fantasy, making it somewhat more akin to (although much better executed than the Potter series IMHO).
The movie begins during the second world war as four siblings are moved from their mother’s care in London to the house of an eccentric professor in the English countryside in order to avoid the bombings of the Germans. The house contains a magical wardrobe that acts as a portal into the mystical world of Narnia. The children venture through the wardrobe to find themselves an integral part of an ancient prophesy which holds the balance in a struggle between the good lion god of Narnia (voiced by Liam Neeson) and the evil White Witch.
The visuals are wonderful. Like Tolkein’s world, Narnia has a very animal-based mythology, where common creatures are imbued with intelligence and speech, and exist alongside centaurs, minotaurs, faerie folk, and other monsters. Unlike the typically indulgent Potter films, the 2 hour 20 minute running time did not seem to drag for me and the pacing of the movie is effective. The story arc is consistent and understandable, and the level of writing simply seems to be of a higher caliber. The young actors in the main roles (especially the youngest sister) are compelling, and the “children’s film” element is most strongly felt because of their involvement, as opposed to the sophistication of the story itself.
Though not as epic or monumental as the Lord of the Rings, this film is exceptional well-done and I very much look forward to subsequent episodes (there are seven books in the Narnia series).
