Drive Angry 3-D

Rating: **1/2

There are two schools of thought in this new era of 3-D; either it gives your film prestige, or it gives your film a gimmick. One of those schools is championed by Avatar filmmaker James Cameron, who has called out filmmakers and studios for shoddy, eleventh hour conversions to 3-D along with the old school pop outs and gags, for cheapening the technology. The other school is one in which Patrick Lussier belongs to.

Lussier, who was perfecting sharp objects being thrown at the audience in 3-D by releasing My Bloody Valentine while Avatar was still in post-production, now gives us Drive Angry. It’s a giddy romp through the grindhouse triple threat of swear words, violence and nudity, but in glorious 3-D. The problem is that only the director’s exuberance is there on screen. Cheap tricks, blood-filled gun fights, and exploding cars can be executed well, but if the actors are acting like they’re doing King Lear. It just doesn’t feel the same.

The plot follows John Milton, a character named with such lack of subtlety that he could only be played by Nicolas Cage. Milton tears into a gang of nogoodniks to find the whereabouts of his kidnapped granddaughter, the infant of his late daughter kidnapped by Satanist and certified nutjob Jonah King (Billy Burke). Along the way, Milton picks up Piper (Amber Heard) and her ’69 Charger. Together they head to Stillwater, a prison in Louisiana where King will sacrifice Milton’s granddaughter to bring Hell to Earth. The thing of it is though, the “prison” that Milton escaped out of, is really Hell, and hot on is trail is “The Accountant” (William Fichtner), Hell’s version of a U.S. Marshall.

The ludicrous concept and characters should have yielded Drive Angry to a delightfully cheesy deliciousness. The combination of in-your-face 3-D, practical stunts and Nicolas Cage should have at least given us a giddy delight and edge of your seat thrill. This is about as far from Oscar material as you can get, so it poses the question as to why many of these characters are so stolid. Only Fichtner seems to realize what movie he’s in and delivers his lines with a sardonic tone and pitch-perfect straight man delivery. The Accountant bears the appearance of a man bored with humans after chasing down Hell’s escapees for eons. To him, chasing Milton offers giddy excitement. Not that he’s going to let it show, or interfere with getting the job done.

But the most important question is: Where is CRAZY Nicolas Cage? The Nicolas Cage from Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans. Where was the guy that appears from behind the door and starts interrogating you while using an electric shaver and being clearly hung over? Seriously, I’ve seen Cage look screwier in the National Treasure movies, middle of the road Disney adventure movies. And speaking of middle of the road, one would have thought that Billy Burke would have seized the opportunity to play a child-sacrificing, false-prophet Satanist, especially after playing the role of Twilight heroine Bella Swan’s straight-laced, button-down Sheriff father over three films.

The rather tepid performances of many of the actors, with their confusing restraint and insistence that lines like “I don't want to disrobe before a gunfight” as Milton says while sex with a sluty waitress, literally before a gun fight breaks out, doesn’t give the film the energy it needs. When a tanker truck full of hydrogen is barrelling down on the cops preventing Milton and Piper from reaching the Satanists, and no one makes a “full of hot air” pun about the loud-mouth Sheriff, something’s amiss. There was honestly more humour in The King’s Speech than Drive Angry, with the previously noted exception of Mr. Fichtner.

The stunts though were satisfying and well-executed. The film moves at a satisfactory pace and seems like a good length. Lussier allows his effects team to revel in the conventions of 3-D with stuff being thrown at you, the audience, every couple of minutes. But there are no jumps, and you never feel particularly threatened, though the gimmick works on a giddy/enjoyable level. If the writing and the acting had been a little more up to snuff, this could have been something truly enjoyable, but Drive Angry should have been more accurately entitled: Drive Slightly Irritated. But that probably wouldn’t have sold as well.

Unknown

Rating: **1/2

A few years ago, a movie called Taken opened to surprising results. It was an action movie, starring Liam Neeson, set in Europe and released in February, so there wasn’t a lot of hope. But when Taken bowed, not only did it hold its own at the box office, but it was actually a pretty descent flick in its own right. Watching Neeson as an ex-spook tearing up Paris to find his missing daughter was highly enjoyable, and going into Unknown there was a feeling that the filmmakers were trying to catch lightning in a bottle.

The plot is a Bourne Identity game of amnesia and spy-fi where Neeson plays a botanist arriving in Berlin for a major conference. He arrives with his wife played by January Jones, but when they get to the hotel, Neeson’s Dr. Harris realizes that he’s forgotten a key piece of luggage at the airport. A freak accident sends his cab off a bridge, and after spending four days in coma, Harris wakes up with slight amnesia and a desire to get back to the hotel where his wife will be surely worried about him. But back at the hotel, there’s another Dr. Harris with his wife. Nobody recognizes Harris for who he is and the whole world’s gone topsy-turvy.

The plot is basically a series of chases and half-hearted clues as Harris tries to put together the hows and whys of his missing memory and why a guy that looks like Aidan Quinn is now living his life, zooming his wife and why she’s going along with it. Diane Kruger plays the taxi driver that saved Harris’ life and becomes his inadvertent sidekick as he tries to solve the puzzle of his predicament.

There were no real surprises though, and the whole thing seemed to be going through the motions. Every 10 minutes or so, we get a new clue, and the revelation of who Harris is and why everything went off the rails for him was somewhat less than satisfactory. It would have been different if there was some kind of build-up, like if it was explicitly explained who Harris was, and why someone might want to impersonate him and take over his life. I suppose the screenwriter thought that going deep into the details would somehow spoil the “twist,” but Neeson’s pursuit seems largely empty and void of substance without them.

But at least Neeson is engaging as a personality. He exudes intensity and determination even if the story doesn’t deserve it. If Unknown works on any level, it’s because you believe him as man caught up in circumstances seemingly beyond his control. Jones does her usual distant ice queen thing, but it makes it hard to believe that Neeson would risk so much to get back to her, and meanwhile Kruger just seems to be going through the motions.

But that’s not to say that there aren’t some surprises. German actor Bruno Ganz (Downfall) plays an ex-East German spy that tries to help Harris piece together the mystery of his pass. There’s a scene at the end of the second act where Ganz is confronted by another old spy played by Frank Langella, and there’s a wonderful subtext to their scene that instantly makes you realize that these are two experienced players that know how the (spy) game is played and are masters at it. It’s a brilliant piece of acting that I wish translated into the rest of the cast throughout the movie.

Between Neeson, Ganz, and Langella there is something salvageable in the Unknown but the plot is tired, and there seems to be only a marginal effort in trying elevate it into something compelling. As a thriller, it’s perfectly serviceable, and maybe even enjoyable on a basic, there’s nothing else to watch level. But even with the unfortunate, half-hearted attempt to revisit Bourne, there’s still room for improvement.

Barney’s Version

Rating: ****

Like any good life story, the autobiography of Barney Panofsky spans times of great joy, sorrow, doubt, self-obsession, and fascination. And like the film based on it, the entire experience goes by like a breeze, it loads you with emotion and leaves you with fleeting memories as you try to hold on to the best parts. The wonderfully acted and richly photographed film version of the Mordecai Richler novel Barney’s Version is an extremely satisfying film that rewards viewers that like the complexities of human life and drama.’

Barney’s Version follows the life-long adventure of Barney Panofsky, who over the course of his life marries no less than three women. His first wife, who he marries after getting her pregnant, commits suicide after their child is stillborn. He meets his second wife years later while doing a bizarre bit of unenthusiastic fundraising for the cause of fighting Anti-Semitism, and then meets and falls for the third while at his wedding reception to his second wife. The film is replete with lessons of love won and lost, and with a potential murder mystery to boot.

At the centre of the film is a tremendous performance by Paul Giamatti as the titular character, a Jew from Montreal that often dives head first into love only to ding his head on the hard bottom of the pool. Of course that doesn’t stop him from getting right back out and trying again, and try again he does. Three times. Although he can come across as a sometimes selfish and self-indulgent character, Giamatti fills Barney with an easy likeability that makes you root for him through the screw-ups and just plain hiccups of life.

At the same time Giamatti leads a wonderful ensemble, including, first and foremost, Dustin Hoffman as Barney’s father, Izzy. Izzy could have been a caricature, but in Hoffman’s hands there’s a naturalness and ease that makes the character very grounded. Hoffman plays well off Giamatti, with the more exuberant Izzy playing well, in mismatch way, against Barney’s neurosis. Scott Speedman, meanwhile, adds another feather to his acting cap as Barney’s good friend Bernard 'Boogie' Moscovitch, a troubled writer that ends up at the centre of a darker chapter of Barney’s story. Speedman plays raw and tortured as ‘Boogie’, but still maintains his sense of charm.

Of the three wives, Rosamund Pike gets the most screen time as Barney’s third wife Miriam, so naturally she gets the most opportunity to create a well-rounded character. She’s gorgeous sure, but Pike does a really great job of portraying a lot of what goes on inside Miriam, the quiet frustrations and uncertainties that she can’t say, but nonetheless feels. Minnie Driver’s a blast as Barney’s unnamed second wife, and adds a lot of humour to the film’s middle. Rachelle Lefevre gets to stretch her acting muscles a little as the ill-fated first wife, who makes a brief but all so memorable appearance at the beginning of the film.

The technical specs are excellent thanks to the beautiful, globetrotting locales like Rome, New York City and, of course, Montreal. The cinematography by Guy Dufaux (The Trotsky) consumes every detail and renders it in loving fashion; the colours, the buildings and the foliage all create a wonderful pallet on which the drama takes place. The script by Michael Konyves doesn’t take anything for granted and director Richard J. Lewis keeps the action moving tightly, and expeditiously. The film is over two hours long, but doesn’t feel the least bit bloated. Another fun touch by Lewis is the Who’s Who cameos by a few famous Canadian filmmakers.

But in the end, Barney’s Version is a fun tear jerker, a sad clown kind of movie that is carried simply by the quality of the actors and the characters they play. The worthy Golden Globe winner Giamatti deserves every accolade in what maybe his finest performance since Sideways, and for, at the very least, making cigar smoking a colourful affectation for a film character once more. Of course the title of the film, and the book, implies that there maybe only a little truth in how this character tells his story, but for the most part I bet that Barney’s Version is the version that’s the most fun.

The King's Speech

Rating: ****

In the spirit of renewed interest in the British Royal Family thanks to the upcoming nuptials of a certain prince, perhaps the timing is serendipitous for a bio-pic of Prince Williams’ great grandfather, a man who understood very well the importance of looking good in front of the media, if only because he was powerless before it. Ruling in the age of the radio, it’s almost like something out of story book to think that this man that wasn’t originally supposed to be King, was hampered in his public speaking by a stammer. All the more so given that he became King in a time when his countrymen would need to hear his voice the most.

Impeccably cast and directed with a light touch by Tom Hooper, THE KING’S SPEECH is everything a movie like this should be: inspiring, thoughtful, dramatic, dynamic, and with a touch of humour as well. It’s easy to see why so many have become enamoured with this movie, and admittedly, it’s hard not to walk away enamoured yourself. It’s a real life fairy tale based on a true story. A king-to-be, felled by a weakness he must overcome to save his people after they’re abandoned out of selfishness and pettiness by his brother. It’s the stuff of legend.

Fortunately, the actors keep things very real. Colin Firth is the future King George VI, who we first see stumble through a simple pronouncement, and you get the sense that this isn’t the first time that this Prince has had trouble getting through a speech. His wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) visits a speech therapist off the beaten track named Lionel Longe (Geoffrey Rush) to see if there’s anything he can do for her husband. Longe, a failed actor from Australia who does speech therapy as a way to make money, uses his unconventional techniques to help the Prince, and starts to get results as the British throne faces one of its greatest challenges.

Firth is great, a natural at conveying a kingliness that can be at once commanding and yet loaded with self-doubt. I glad that there weren’t a lot of “pity me” moments for this King, and that the story focuses more on his confrontation against his affliction and the camaraderie that develops between the King and Longe as they work to overcome the King’s speech. Interestingly, the solution is less about beating the stammer as it is about using it, but the film does a great job in portraying how difficult it is to overcome a stammering affliction.

But I’m not sure the film would have worked as well with Rush’s relaxed charm as Longe, a man whose life could not have been too relaxed as he was trying to help the King of England address the British people on the eve of World War II, or any day before that for that matter. Rush’s cool head and confidence makes you believe that this was a man who could get away with calling the King “Bertie” and the way it’s played between Firth and Rush makes you believe that George VI was a King that would let it slide.

But the film isn’t all speech lessons and phonetics, there’s some serious drama in the mix as well. Most of it concerns George’s elder brother King Edward VII, who ascended to the throne after their father George V died. Edward VII of course abdicated when he was too infatuated with American divorcee Wallis Simpson that he either had to give her up or give up the throne. History shows how self-centred Edward was and how he basically shirked his duty to God and Country for the lust of a woman who was known to many. Edward isn’t played too broadly, but it would be somewhat incorrect to say that he isn’t a bigger villain in the film than Hitler.

Still, the film isn’t so much about outer conflict as it is about internal conflict. It’s about fulfilling one’s duty and making it our own despite our fallibilities. It’s about the rewards of hard work, perseverance and determination. All these are quality lessons for any story, and of course, the basic building blocks for any good movie looking for Oscar gold. THE KING’S SPEECH treads lightly the ground between sentimental and cynical and the result is a winning drama, which is, essentially, a two hour long build-up to a guy giving a three minute speech.

It's a Trap!

Rating: ***1/2

I suppose it was inevitable, even the writers of Family Guy’s latest Star Wars parody seemed poised to agree. The Griffins are watching TV when the power goes out, to which Stewie immediately observes, “We’re doing Jedi, aren’t we?” Yes Stewie, yes you are. And despite the protests of the show’s staff, by this point the Family Guy renditions of the original Star Wars trilogy are more than a get rich quick gimmick by the good sports at Fox. Having said that though, one detects a hint of exhaustion. One Star Wars spoof let’s you get most of the funnier jokes out of your system, a second let’s you think about what you might have missed, but a third…

Well, to start of with, It’s a Trap is still pretty darn funny. Fans of Family Guy’s mix of pop culture cut away gags and no they didn’t just say or do that moments will be well rewarded. Written by Cherry Chevapravatdumrong and David A. Goodman, the episode gets a lot done. It stuffs in a lot of cameos from other Seth McFarlane shows like American Dad and The Cleveland Show, a lot of jokes at the Ewoks’ expense and a lot of roasts at the expense of Seth Green. Overall, it’s a solid effort with plenty of laughs, though a few of those jokes couldn’t have been more obvious. (Meg as the Sarlacc? A little on the nose, guys.)

So what works? First of all, the writers’ room clearly knows the material and, despite jokes to the contrary, are still passionate about it. This has to be the only time in history (aside from the three Robot Chicken Star Wars’ specials too, of course) where repeated, obsessive, detail-oriented viewing of George Lucas’ space saga has paid off. Aside from being an enthusiastic spoof, It’s A Trap is also a pain-staking homage to Return of the Jedi, at least artistically, and certain scenes seem practically rotoscoped from the original film. Family Guy is not typically cited for the skill of its animators, but for this they deserve kudos.

As for the gags, the Family Guy crew get things fairly spot on. Recasting the Rancor as Rush Limbaugh was an uproarious bit, especially considering that Rush himself cameos. The Chips Ahoy bit is also fun gag, but for pure pointless hilarity there’s an elongated sequence of the characters nodding to each other before the fight on Jabba’s Sail Barge. For innuendo laughs, it’s got to be the commercial for Han Solo’s staffing service called, not-so-appropriately, “Hanjobs.org,” but fortunately for fans that not the most risqué that the episode gets. (Hint: What did happen to those Imperial prisoners on Endor?)

On the downside, there was almost an over reliance on cameos. Conway Twitty appears in another cutaway, and I’ve got believe even his estate is getting sick of those royalties by now. I also felt that there was maybe a bit too many characters from the “McFarlane-verse” Casting American Dad’s talking fish Klaus as Admiral Akbar was great, but an appearance by Dad’s Roger the Alien as Moff Jerjerrod and The Cleveland Show’s Rolo as Nien Nunb was a little much. And sorry fans, but it’s my sad duty to report that despite Ernie the Giant Chicken’s reappearance as Boba Fett, there is no Giant Chicken Fight. I think we’re all feeling a little cheated there.

Still, I applaud the Family Guy cast and crew for their accomplishment with these Star Wars parodies. It’s kind of sad that it’s over, but I can’t help but think that having The Cleveland Show do parodies of the prequel trilogy is a better idea than the writers might think. As for It’s A Trap, it’s an improvement over the Empire spoof Something, Something, Something, Dark Side, with tighter gags and more energy, but it still can’t top the freshness and excitement of the original Blue Harvest. Regardless, this is a must have for Family Guy fans.

TRON: Legacy

Rating: **1/2

The hype was outstanding, which is interesting because when the original TRON came out in 1982 it was, to borrow the phrase, an unmitigated disaster. Still, to a lot of children of the 80s there is something to recommend it with a retro-futuristic charm from back in the day when Commodore 64 and Atari 2600 were the cutting edge of home computing. It’s as quaint as it is antiquated in the cyber-age, and the legend has been fuelled through the years by a small and growing chorus of fans. Disney heard the siren song of endless, sweaty wads of geek money and knew that the long gestating sequel was to be moved to the top of their to-do pile. But honestly, what was the point?

The original TRON, much like last year’s AVATAR, was a creature of style before substance. It was a GULLIVER’S TRAVELS tale of a stranger in a strange land whose triteness was obscured by the cutting edge filmmaking that was being employed to tell the story. I wish that TRON LEGACY had the same problem. The story is a whirlwind of philosophical technobabble and special effects porn tied together by the loosest tendrils of a story. When your film’s called TRON and the actual character the film is named after comes across as a mere after thought, there’s cause for concern.

But that’s just part of the problem. For some reason Kevin Flynn, the computer visionary played by Jeff Bridges in both the original TRON and its sequel has morphed from a young Bill Gates to an older Dude. As in THE BIG LEBOWSKI’s Dude. There’s actually a scene where Flynn tells his anxious son Sam (played with perfect woodenness by Garrett Hedlund) that he’s messing with his zen thing. Well sorry there Flynn, but the son who hasn’t seen you in 20 years has a lot to deal with, including being sucked into the computer-based wonderland of The Grid.

The backstory is basically that Kevin Flynn disappeared two decades ago, leaving behind his son Sam orphaned and ambiguous as to whether or not he wants to continue his father’s legacy at Microsof… I mean, Encom. Content to live like a digital anarchist, Sam does what he can to skewer Encom’s capitalist agenda. He’s still visited by his father’s friend Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner, also of TRON part 1) who this night comes with interesting news: he’s received a page – like, on a pager – from Kevin Flynn’s old arcade, where the porthole to TRON land resides.

Once inside, Sam does the usual TRON stuff like racing on light cycles and throwing flying discs in gladiatoresque struggles. It’s part of the machinations of KLU (a younger-by-way-of-CG Bridges) to escape The Grid and take over the real world because the porthole can only be opened from the outside. Flynn, for his part, has been trying to protect the last of the “isomorphic algorithms,” a group of programs that evolved naturally in the environment of The Grid. Quorra (Olivia Wilde) is the last of these programs after KLU’s genocidal spree.

One of the key problems is that the story is almost needlessly convoluted. What could have been a solid father-son story is loaded with a lot of misspent and unrealized mythology, and that’s a complete turn-off. “Isomorphic algorithms” don’t exactly have the same simplicity as, say, The One Ring, or a mystical alien rain forest, and getting talked down to with the cyber speak by The Dude is somewhat less than appealing. The plot holes were galling, and odd little Easter Eggs are inserted with no subtlety at all. For example, Cillian Murphy appears as “Edward Dillinger II,” a character named after the antagonist played by David Warner in the original film. He appears in one scene, and such heavy emphasis is placed on naming this character with three lines, they might as well have put in one of those You Tube footnotes saying, “See more about Edward in TRON 3.”

The acting is also demure. Bridges looks like he’s thinking about all the better roles he’s done lately and how he’s back here in TRON land in spite of all good sense. “Younger” Bridges doesn’t fair much better as the film seems to teeter between believability and outright goofiness so far as the effects work is concerned. Hedlund almost seems like a computer himself, as Sam is remarkably emotionless in spite of a story that should have had him on a roller coaster of emotion. Wilde manages to defy the odds by being engaging and energetic as Quorra. She’s easily the best part of the film. Michael Sheen also shines in a brief bit as a Ziggy Stardust looking nightclub(?) manager.

But despite the fact that this was a fan driven enterprise, I can’t possibly see why a fan of original TRON could find this film approachable. There’s not a lot of fun here, and because the effects are state-of-the-art, photo realistic 3-D, even the kitsch value of the production design is lost. The movie is pristine to look at, and the music by Daft Punk is amazing, but at most, TRON LEGACY is an awesome, two hour Daft Punk music video. Sadly, TRON LEGACY is another example of a movie not living up to its own hype.

Destination Forks

Rating: ***1/2

I go to a lot of comic conventions and sci-fi festivals, and at every one of these occasions there are people running around in elaborate costumes based on anime characters. I don’t get a lot of anime, I haven’t really been able to engage in a lot of it, but God bless those fans because they care about their stories, they take pride in them, and wear that pride on their sleeves. Literally.

Now I know the fandom surrounding those hopelessly devoted to the Twilight series of books and films is seen down the nose of a lot of people, but are they really that different from any other fan? Like Trekkers they have their own cute little nickname: Twihards; like Star Wars or Harry Potter fans they line-up at midnight on open night to see the next movie; and like the people who take the Seinfeld tour of New York or visit the real life “Cheers” in Boston, Twilight fans have their own Mecca, the small town of Folks, Washington.

Destination Forks is an interesting companion piece to The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, which also came out this week. To the people for whom the fandom around Twilight is incomprehensible, this documentary may shed some light on the phenomenon. Then again, it might not. Amongst my group of friends, associates and fellow critics, I’m probably the easiest on the sparkly-vampire/shirtless werewolf epic romance, but as these things go, I don’t think the simple charms of Destination Forks is going to convert the conscientious objector to The Twilight Saga.

As for the documentary itself, I think it sometimes struggles to get over a point where it can stop proving why it’s something more than an expanded extra that probably should have been left on disc two of one of the Twilight releases. From the loving, travelogue-esque photography of Forks to the corporate video-like title cards, I struggled to get into to Destination Forks initially, but as soon as we start diving into the cottage industry of Twilight-related tourism in the town, I have to admit that I was hooked.

Among the stops are the respective homes of Bella, Edward and Jacob. The owners of each home are interviewed and they talk about their experiences with the fans and their place on the pop culture radar. What’s interesting is that it’s more than a money-making scheme for these people, and you can tell how deeply they’ve entrenched themselves into the lore. The retired couple that run the real life bed and breakfast at the fictional home of the vampire Cullen clan can trace the ownership of the house back to when the Cullens might have, theoretically, bought the house. Additionally, the owner at that time was a doctor himself with five children – three boys and two girls. Coincidence, or inspiration.

Another stop I liked was a visit to Port Angeles and the restaurant Bella Italia, the real life location where the fictional Bella and Edward had their first date. The owner of the restaurant talks about how their mushroom ravioli dish was a seasonal menu item until Twihards started coming in year-round asking for it. (For non-fans, mushroom ravioli is the dish Bella was served on the aforementioned date.) Another handy piece of info from the owner is that if you plan on stopping by his restaurant for some mushroom ravioli, make a reservation. Apparently, people line-up to get in an hour before this 55-seat eatery opens.

The rest of the film more or less documents the fan experience from the intergenerational bonding to the silent minority of male Twilight fans. One of the things that interested me, from a sociological standpoint anyway, was hearing some of the young women talking about the appeal of the story. It affirmed something a blogger from Entertainment Weekly wrote this past summer that part of what attracts girls to the story is the old-fashionedness of the romantic leads. One girl espoused the gentlemanly qualities of Edward and how “you don’t find guys like that anymore.” I’m not sure if it’s enough to let the “Twihaters” give a pass on the franchise and its fans, but who knows.

Regardless, I found Destination Forks a delightful little documentary. I’m still not sure if there’s enough to it to justify buying it as an entirely separate disc, but I enjoyed it just the same.