Being a huge fan of Edgar Wright's work, going so far as to call "Shawn of the Dead" one of my favorite comedies ever, it goes without saying that "The World's End" was up very high on my list of Most Anticipated films of 2013. Like I do with most movies that I'm really looking forward to, I purposefully kept myself somewhat in the dark about it, going so far as to not even watch the trailer for it. And for some reason it didn't play in front of any film I've seen this year. So I went into "The World's End" with basically a clean slate, only expecting quality based on past experience and the cast.
Thankfully what I ended up getting was, as expected, a very well made film that was exciting, stylish, mysterious, funny and surprisingly heartfelt all at once. And while this was only to be expected since that list of attributes could be slapped on the box of every movie Edgar Wright ever made, it still is worth repeating because it just goes to show how impressive of a filmmaker this guy is. I'll say this right now: There are few directors out there whose works are more consistently entertaining than Edgar Wright. When this guy makes a movie, it's to your benefit to pay attention.
"The World's End" follows the adventures of five friends from school who once had a legendary night of pub crawling in their younger days. Twenty years later the de facto leader of the group, Gary (Simon Pegg), who is now a high functioning alcoholic, attempts to get the group back together to relive that night, which in his mind was the greatest moment of his frankly pathetic life. The rest of the group aren't really into it, having moved on and realized that Gary is a titanic schmuck some time ago, but eventually they all cave in and agree.
Oh yeah. Who wouldn't follow this guy?
Past that point is gets a little weird. Once the pub crawl begins, it becomes clear the town and people in it are a bit different since they were last living there. At first they chalk up to them being older, but pretty soon it starts going an "Invasion of the Bodies Snatchers" route, and things get officially, as the English would put it, cocked up. This leads to an escalation of sci-fi craziness that would seem bizarrely out of place had it not been written in such an effective and exciting manner.
The cast is pitch-perfect and made up of some of the funniest people I can think of. Of course Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are two of my Funniest People In The World in No Particular Order, but Martin Freeman does his best revival of his turn as Watson in "Sherlock" to play the uppity one to hysterical effect as well. What's amazing about Simon Pegg though is how much of a pathetic scumbag he's playing in this, but still manages to be somewhat charming and loveable, and you actually want to see him succeed. I suppose that's just called "acting talent."
The script, penned by Pegg and Wright, is full of the usual rapid fire, too-smart-for-most-American-audiences cleverness that is predominant throughout the Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy of this, "Shawn of The Dead" and "Hot Fuzz," but whereas those films hit the ground running at a thousand miles an hour, "The World's End" takes it's time and is a bit slower paced with both story and jokes. The laughs aren't as densely packed as the other films, which gives it a sense of maturity the others lacked but at tradeoff of not being as memorable or endlessly quotable. That's not to say it isn't funny, which it very much is, but it's not nearly as goofy as the rest of the trilogy.
"Reservoir Dogs" would have been far less tragic (and more drunk) if it had been these guys. About the same amount of profanity, though.
All of Edgar Wright's films have recurring themes, among the most common of them being growing up, whatever that means. And finding out what becoming "an adult" is all about and what it means to each individual person is at the forefront of the story of "The World's End." Ultimately it's about Gary making amends for his past transgressions (kind of) and coming to terms with himself and realizing what it takes for him to be happy while embracing his faults. And ultimately he saves the world by doing so (kind of). And thanks in no small part to some surprisingly powerhouse acting on the parts of both Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, it winds up being a rather moving story.
While it may not reach the levels of side-splitting hilarity as the rest of Edgar Wright's filmography, "The World's End" is a worthy final entry in the Wright/Pegg trilogy. It's always nice to know that no matter how many wretched, unfunny comedies are spewed out en masse from Hollywood, there's at least a few people left who still get it. You just have to go to England to find them.
Check out the trailer. I chose the one that DIDN'T give too much away.
THE BOTTOM LINE - "The World's End" is a delightful romp of drunkenness that is charming in the way that only Edgar Wright and his cast of regulars can manage to be. Despite being more leisurely in pace than "Shawn of The Dead" or "Hot Fuzz," it's the most touching and visually impressive entry in the series. And while it's not as jammed to the brim with gags both overt and subtle as the others, it's still very, very funny. You gotta check this one out.
Despite the fact that I am of the opinion that zombies are played out and are officially boring at this point, in an ironic twist one of my favorite comedies remains to this day "Shaun of The Dead," a film that is so genius it manages to make me laugh my fool head off in spite of the zombies within it. It's one of those wonderful movies that gets better the more you watch it, since the jokes contained within are so dense and fast-paced that it's probably close to impossible to catch everything the first, second, or even third time you see it. That combined with the fact that it contains two of my "Three Funniest People in The World in No Particular Order" makes "Shaun of The Dead" a film that I'm always okay with busting out.
The film follows a couple of days in the life of Shaun (Simon Pegg), a 30-something who is a bit of a slacker without much direction in life. After he gets dumped by his girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield), he gets very drunk and then decides to get his life sorted out the next day. Unfortunately for Shaun, the next day is when the zombie apocalypse happens.
Who knew, right?
Shaun and his flatmate Ed (Nick Frost) head out to safety, deciding that the best place to go is the Winchester, the pub they are regulars at. On the way there they pick up Liz and her two flatmates, along with Shaun's mother and step-father. Together do their best to survive the onslaught of zombies, as well as their leader Shaun who, despite the best of intentions, has a habit of mucking things up. To be sure, the whole "Go to the Winchester" idea turns out to not be a very good one. This all leads to a finale which gets surprisingly grim given the light, fun-filled tone of the rest of the film, although at the end of the day "Shaun of The Dead" still ends on a relatively happy note. (And song.)
While both Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are comedic geniuses, that wouldn't
have mattered much had they not had a great script to work with as
well, which they fortunately do. "Shaun of The Dead" is written as tight
as a drum, with barely a word wasted or not made to return later as a gag. This includes
entire sequences both physical and verbal repeating themselves in
different context. Things like a passing exchange during a video game
session coming back verbatim during a last stand at the bar makes for
extremely rewarding re-watching when you catch it. The iconic "walking
to the store" shot playing out twice in extremely different but yet
oddly identical ways is probably the best example of that.
And if you notice, he does switch it to a Diet Coke. I love those little touches.
Most likely surprising to most people is that aside from being very funny, "Shaun of The Dead" functions quite well as a straight-up zombie film. All the tropes and standard elements of the genre are present, which makes sense considering its parodic nature, but what's interesting is that were you to take all the humor away the film is actually a far better zombie movie than most legitimate zombie movies manage to be. And I'm not talking a little bit here. I'm talking light years ahead of anything a maestro like Romaro has done in decades.
Perhaps the reason it works is because of the fact that, since it's a comedy, the stone-faced seriousness of the genre along with its fatalism and commentary on human nature is absent. To me, that garbage usually makes zombie films a boring sit, and I have a difficult time caring about any of the characters because generally speaking, in a zombie movie most every human is a terrible person. And if they aren't, by the end it's usually a good bet that they'll have lost most of the humanity they had. Since you know, these movies are very diverse in their plots.
Since "Shaun of The Dead" is free from that crap, and it's okay to actually like the characters since it's a comedy, when bad things happen to them it actually has the shocking side effect of being sad, which the movie plays up to a heartrending degree on occasion. You don't want to see these people get killed (Well, maybe David), which is such an alien reaction for me to have in a zombie movie that it's hard for me to comprehend. Even Ed, the most obnoxious, dense, and insufferable member of the group is a fantastic character who usually ends up being everybody's favorite despite him being a total chump. In fact he's front and center of the second most emotionally charged and tearful scene of the film. And how many zombie movies can you remember which had a death scene you even felt like considering entertaining the notion of crying at in the first place? And that's for the "loser" of the movie.
Damn it, Ed. That was an original pressing.
I would also feel remiss to not mention that the acting in "Shaun of The Dead" is unexpectedly fantastic. And I'm not just talking comedic acting here, although this film is a master's class in the very finest of British humor. While every single actor here is hysterical, even the deathly serious Bill Nighy (I freaking love that guy), there are scenes of such emotional depth, particularly from Simon Pegg, that on occasion it is easy to forget that you're watching a zombie spoof.
You know, it's a difficult thing explaining why you like a certain comedy. Humor is always troublesome to quantify without sounding redundant, so I'll just leave my comments regarding the comedic aspects at "This is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen." It speaks completely to my particular tastes in comedy. Whether or not it will for anyone else is completely dependent on that individual. But seriously, I have a hard time believing anyone could watch this movie and not love it. Unless of course they're deathly offended by zombie gore and gratuitous f-bombs.
I should probably stop there. The more I think about "Shaun of The Dead," the more I want to write. And I don't really want to write a novel here. Just freaking watch it. If you've already seen it, see it again. It gets better each time. If you're like me and have already seen it like a dozen times, well hell. Let's give it another go. You grab the hog lumps and I'll grab the pints. (Might be a bit warm. Cooler's off.)
I'm actually not a huge fan of this trailer, but it's decent I guess. At least it's not made to look like a dumbass American comedy like the American trailer made it out to be.
THE BOTTOM LINE - "Shaun of The Dead" makes my short list not only for favorite comedies, but it's also probably one of my favorite films, period. Like "The Big Lewbowski," it's an infinitely quotable and re-watchable film that somehow, impossibly still manages to get better every time.
The 2009 "Star Trek" was one of the best films I saw that year. While some geeks bemoaned the alternate timeline Get Out of Jail Free Card, I thought it was a brilliant maneuver which freed it from the albatross of continuity that hangs from the neck of every film in the series before it. And under the efficient yet overly lens-flare zealous direction of newly appointed "Nerd Savior" J.J. Abrams and the amazing acting from the spooky-good cast, the 2009 "Star Trek" was to be quite honest, the best of the series since "The Wrath of Khan."
Naturally expectations were sky high for the followup. Personally I had "Star Trek Into Darkness" pegged as my second most anticipated film of the year, bested only by "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug." The mystery surrounding the plot and the enigmatic villain only served to amp up the anticipation, as Abrams as per usual wouldn't tell us anything outside of vague hints in the trailers. Like I'm guessing was the case with a lot of people, I was losing my mind over it. I needed to see this damn movie.
It must be a sadly amusing thing to watch a nerd freak out over a movie. I wouldn't know. I'd be on the inside looking out. I'd probably sympathize.
It's such a special feeling to have all those hopes and expectations you had been carrying for so long be thoroughly met and even, on occasion, exceeded. I was expecting "Star Trek Into Darkness" to be good on the mere fact that the last one was. I had no idea that is was going to be like this.
This movie blew my damn mind.
Still not sure if I like the "football jersey" uniforms, though.
Once again, as with the 2009 film, "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a sleek, surprisingly humorous and tightly wound action flick that pays homage to the source material while putting its own very distinct stamp on it. There's no way you'd mistake either of these films for the Shatner or even Stewart series besides the fact that they all feature a starship with NCC-1701 stenciled on the hood. The J.J. Abrams series is more like those films if they were one of the bonus levels from "Sonic The Hedgehog 2" cranked up on 5-Hour Energy Drinks and blasting Van Halen. But at the same time the reboot has a clear love and deep respect for the source material, and constantly goes out of its way to pay homage to it and reference it whenever it can. And the best part is you don't even have to be a Trekkie to "get it."
With "Star Trek Into Darkness" however, this was like a whole new beast. This isn't a journey of exploration nor a character study nor a turn-off-your-brain explosion fest. This is a dark, violent, dangerous roller coaster ride which sends you plummeting from orbit. And it's sending you flying at such high speeds and severe turns that the G-force is enough to liquefy your skull as it sends you hurdling through the Earth's core. While you're on fire. And blasting Van Halen.
From the opening scene where Spock enters an erupting volcano, "Star Trek Into Darkness" hits the ground running and never stops. Ever. The closest it comes to down time is right after that when Kirk gets predictably reamed out by Admiral Pike for being a loose cannon who doesn't play by the rules, and Kirk reams out Spock because he can't physically not play by the rules, even when people's lives are in danger. Even in the quiet parts people are yelling. And then a building kind of explodes and that's the end of that. From then on it's non-stop intensity. Full power to the warp core, indeed.
Ah yes. The rare "Inward-Facing Double Coconut Crush" maneuver. Brian Adams would be impressed. #oldschoolwrestingjoke #sorry
The story this time involves a mysterious man named John Harrison, who is doing a very good job of blowing up a whole bunch of Starfleet stuff and killing a lot of people. A LOT of people. (The collateral damage numbers in this film are staggering) Once the situation goes beyond personal for Kirk, he sets out to find Harrison and take him out. But as we could tell by the trailer, there is far more to Harrison than meets the eye, and finding himself quickly outclassed and outgunned, Kirk finds himself in a situation where the fate of his crew and everyone he cares about is in dire straights. And the mystery of who this man is serves as one of the most thrilling reveals I've seen in a film in a long time.
I'm going to once again give every single last bit of praise that I can possibly heap onto the cast. As far as the main cast goes, they get all of it. All of my praise. There is not any among them that doesn't capture the spirit of the original actor, almost like it was the younger version of themselves on screen.
Chris Pine has the swagger and bravado and even some of the same mannerisms and facial ticks that William Shatner brought James T. Kirk to life with, but at the same time he does his own thing with it. This is particularly true with his vocal pacing and inflections, which are thankfully nowhere near the Shatnerian method of acting. But every once in a while he slips a halting, oddly intonated line in there in clear tribute. But Pine brings something that Shatner (as much as I am a fan of his) wasn't really able to do, which was to give Kirk a real sense of vulnerability. Here, Kirk is a man who has been successful mostly due to his freakishly good luck and good instincts. But that has made him reckless and overly confident - something which is about to cost him and his crew dearly.
"Oh. Hi."
This movie finds Kirk at the nadir of his lowest despair and the height of his greatest heroics, and Pine sells it with every word out of his mouth and expression on his face. I got more emotional resonance from Chris Pine in this than I ever did from Shatner, which isn't a slam on Shatner because this is a different kind of movie than he was in, but it made Kirk seem like more of a human being rather than the larger-than-life, nearly mythical figure that he was back in the original series or films. That's not to say he wasn't fully fleshed out as a character back then, but he was just as much a "real person" as Bruce Campbell is when he stars in something. You don't watch it for the subtle nuances of his acting, you watch it because it's Bruce Campbell and he's freaking awesome.
Zachary Quinto threatens to steal to show as Spock, once again capturing Nemoy's signature performance to an eerie degree. And if Kirk shows a huge range of emotions and states of mind in this film, it's Spock's journey here that is arguably even more significant, as we get deeper insight as to the nature of his Vulcan way of thinking, and how he functions as a man who has chosen to ignore fear or pain. But when it comes time for that resolve to be severely tested Quinto, like Pine, is more of a firebrand than Shatner or Nemoy portrayed, and because of that tends to convey emotion more effectively when he does fly off the handle after being annoyingly composed for so long.
Pretty much everyone else is a superstar. Karl Urban IS DeForest Kelley. There's no way around it. His version of Bones is the most accurate of all the cast, and he freaks me out. He's also given some of the best dialogue in the film, including the funniest lines and most foreboding. I was very happy to see Simon Pegg's Scotty get a more significant role in this movie than the previous one, as he is another one of my favorite actors, and likewise does a spot-on James Doohan. Zoe Saldana's Uhura is a bit too aggressively in-your-face than I'd like, as it's not much like Nichelle Nichols, but it's a fine version of that character. Meanwhile Anton Yelchin and John Cho as Chekov and Sulu are fantastic but a bit underused for my liking. But then again, "Star Trek Into Darkness" is, like all the rest, a movie about Kirk and Spock. We can't blame priorities on screen time, and everyone does get their moments to shine, short as some of theirs might unfortunately be.
What the crap is Uhura looking at?
The only person I didn't like was Alice Eve. She's a terrible actress. Just wretched. I've hated her in everything I've seen her in, and here was no different. I was pissed when I found out she was in this, and I was proven right to be mad. She's wooden, she speaks like she's reading cue cards, and can't seem to figure out if her character is a calm, cool, collected hard-ass or ready for a nap. I guess the way to portray "strong female characters" is to act bored and speak in a deadpan monotone. Even in a scene where she's pleading for her life and the lives of everyone on the Enterprise she delivers her lines about as forceful and intense as someone ordering from a Taco Bell drive-thru.
Ugh. Just go away.
But what of Benedict Cumberbatch? What of the villain? That would involve spoilers. Horrendous, unforgivable, ruinous spoilers, and I'm not going to do that to anyone, and I would advise that anyone who hasn't seen it yet to not even look up this film on IMDB or its equivalent before seeing it, because spoilers are already hard-coded into the page. Just go into it blind, as it was meant to be seen. But suffice it to say that Cumberbatch is incredible. Unbelievable. Someone needs to cast him as every villain ever after this film, because he's seriously like the next Alan Rickman, or perhaps a better analogy would be Jeremy Irons crossed with Christopher Lee and a dash of Ralph Fiennes. And you need to see him in this.
If he's not the next Bond villain, I quit life. Seriously. I'm checking out.
The only issue I take with this movie is roughly the last 3 minutes. Everything before that is golden, but at the very end it pulls the rip chord on a fight scene which is so intense and heart-pounding that I don't think I blinked for 15 minutes. Then PUNCH - cut to black - two weeks later - then one year later - some words are said - credits. Done. It's almost like the movie heard his parents coming up the stairs while he was in his room smoking so he had to stamp the cigarette out quick, sit on it, spray half a can of FeBreze and throw the ashtray out the window like "WHOOPS NOPE NOTHING TO SEE HERE. WE'RE DONE. MOVE ALONG."
Additionally I must nitpick that the traditional "Space...the final frontier" speech isn't very well handled. It's kind of crammed in there nonsensically, and the way they do it implies that it's actually the oath that Starfleet captains take when they assume command. This would also imply that every ship in Starfleet is called "Enterprise" and is on a 5-year mission to boldly split infinitives. There's also a problem with Kirk not getting any closure on dealing with the fact that he loses a LOT of people on this trip out. It's never even brought up, which wouldn't be such a huge deal except that at the beginning of the movie Kirk makes it a big point that he's never lost a single crew member. Well, that's changes, and it should have been a very emotional scene and a bit of character development which ties into the themes of hard choices and loss throughout the whole film, but since the movie just decides to slam on the breaks we never get that.
But whatever. That's the last 3 minutes. That's 2% of the run time of this movie. And while those things are annoying, everything else is - simply put - one of the best action movies I've seen since...well...2009's "Star Trek." And you need to see it. NOW.
Oh god this trailer. I have all the excitement.
THE BOTTOM LINE - I have not been this pumped up and pleased by any other film this year. It's the best action movie of 2013 so far, hands down, and it's just as good (if not in some ways better) than the 2009 film. It's in the top 3 best "Star Trek" films, and I honestly really want to see it again. Like, I wish I was watching it again instead of typing this. Guaranteed in the Top 10 of 2013, probably near the top. Unreal.
You know, I've been assaulted, yes - ASSAULTED - with so much crap lately, I need a break. I need a reprieve from the sugary sweet pretentiousness of Spielberg and the dry, boring, plodding dreariness of the spy "thriller." I've sat through kids movies using the director's pedigree to win Oscars. I've sat through greasy, slimy, Swedish rape. I've sat through Victorian England as re-imagined by the same guy who thought "Resident Evil" needed wire-fu. And I've had just about enough.
I need something that will make me feel joy. Something that can bring a smile to my face and put me in the mindset of someone who doesn't dread hitting the "play" button after they put the next disc in their PS3. I need...ENGLISH TALENT.
Enter the master.
Oh thank Crom for Simon Pegg. Simon is one of those guys who can just put a smile on my face from a thousand yards away, and I consider him to be one of my 3 Funniest People in The Universe (in No Particular Order). And even though I feel that his comedies are lacking since he came across The Pond and don't do any justice to him at all, he still has a better track record than most. I mean, he made a movie headlining Seth Rogen, The Unfunny Himself, tolerable. That's pretty impressive.
I had not heard of "Burke & Hare," and after doing a little research, I have a sneaking suspicion why. Here in the US, it played on 1 screen. For two weeks. It made a little over $6,000. True story.
You know, if you want to have a movie not exist, just don't make the damn thing. Now, granted, it made more money in the UK, where it ended up making about $5 million since it actually got a proper release, but I still don't see why it wasn't advertised and widely released in the US. "Burke & Hare," despite its Englishness, is sporting some pretty prestigious talent:
Simon Pegg is a known star now. He was in "Star Trek" and the last two "Mission: Impossible" movies for crying out loud. Co-star Andy Serkis, while being hidden by CGI in most movies he's in, is also thankfully becoming a recognizable figure. I mean, he was only Gollum in "Lord of The Rings." No big deal, right? Isla Fisher was arguably the most memorable character in "Wedding Crashers." Tom Wilkinson has two Oscar nominations! Tim Curry is in it! The Dark Lord himself, Christopher-freaking-Lee has a cameo! IT'S DIRECTED BY JOHN LANDIS! Do I even need to remind you of what's he's done? He only directed "The Blues Brothers," "An American Werewolf in London," "¡Three Amigos!" and "Animal House." Nothing special, really.
Add to the fact that this is the first real movie Landis has directed in about 12 years, and it really does seem like something they would have tried to make a big deal of. Hey, movie studios! Get your priorities straight! John Landis films starring this much talent should not be little-known IFC films.
I guess at some point I should actually talk about the movie, right? "Burke & Hare" is the true-ish story of William Burke and William Hare, two mass murders back in the early 19th century who killed 17 people, all so that they could make a living. You see, the medical field was really getting going then, and doctors needed cadavers to dissect and study. So grave-robbing was a pretty lucrative business, but the freshness was important. So in order to supply demand, these two guys, Burke and Hare, decided to create a product. And the product happened to be bodies.
It's the beginnings of capitalism, really.
What was interesting about the film is that at no point does it try and say that these guys aren't scum. You're never meant to sympathize with their actions, but at the same time, you sympathize with them as people. And as weird as that sounds, I think it's because they're shown as just that: people. There's nothing wrong with them in the head. They're not serial killers. They're not taking perverse pleasure in doing what they're doing. To them, it's just a job. And while you're not exactly cheering for them to kill people, you are cheering for them to "make it."
If anyone is meant to look worse than the other, it would be Andy Serkis as Hare. He's kind of the mastermind of the plan, and Simon Pegg's Burke is seen as more of a victim of circumstances of having to need money to eat, although at no point does he really put his foot down and say "no." It's more like he says "I'm not sure..." for a bit and then Hare flashes some money in front of him and Burke says "Well, I hadn't considered it that way."
So before you wonder too much about what kind of movie "Burke & Hare" is, it's totally a comedy. One would think it would be more in line with a horror flick, and in fact, there have been a couple of those made about these guys, one of them starring Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. But dark subject matter aside, "Burke & Hare" goes for the comedy angle of the story, and actually does a bang-up job of it, and manages to do something that I don't get often: It made me laugh. Quite a bit.
Mark this occasion down, students, because I tell you, this is a rare feat for a movie to pull off. I don't laugh at comedies often, but I found myself laughing out loud on numerous occasions. Sometimes it didn't even take a line, but merely an incredulous look on Simon Pegg's always straight-man face. I swear, that man's face has the greatest range of "frustrated," "shocked," and "offended" looks that I've ever seen.
I swear, all he has to do is make this face and I laugh. It's insane.
"Burke & Hare" was also notable for two other things. First was an historic event which marked the first time in Christopher Lee's prodigious career that his character died by being smothered by someone's butt. I'm serious. Andy Serkis kills Christopher Lee by sitting on his face while reassuring Simon Pegg's misgivings, waxing philosophical about how it's the way he would have wanted to go. It's hysterical.
The second is one of the best, overly sarcastic and cynical lines I've ever heard in a film, and I hope one day I will be able to use it in a conversation. It involves Simon Pegg talking about confidence and farts. I refuse to repeat it here, because it would lose all impact. You'll have to watch it.
If I had any complaints about the film, I would say it's probably the beginning and end. It's book ended by this forth wall obliterating executioner who directly talks the the audience about the story, and it doesn't really work too well, and it's pretty jarring. This is especially noticeable at the end, when we go back to him after having forgot about him about an hour and twenty minutes ago. He gives a little "Animal House"-esque casting call about where everyone in the story ended up afterwards, and while there are some surprises involving historical figures, it really feels out of place.
There's also a sidestory involving an all-female production of "Macbeth" which doesn't add too much to the plot, but it did bring about character motivations and development, so we can let it slide. It was just another thing that felt slightly out of place.
But you do get to look at this the whole time, though.
Other than that, this was a welcome vacation from the crap I've had to deal with lately. Thank you, English humor. Oh, I'm sorry. I meant humour.
THE BOTTOM LINE - "Burke & Hare," won't make anyone's list of favorite movies of all time, but it's a surprisingly good comedy which has a ridiculous amount of talent. Heads above Simon Pegg's American comedies, and more in the style of his Edgar Wright collaborations, as told by the guy who did "Spies Like Us." And Andy Serkis isn't CG! Hooray! Not bad at all. Recommended.
I remember when Steven Spielberg used to be awesome. Do you? "Jurassic Park?" "Hook?" "Saving Private Ryan?" "Jaws?" "Schindler's List?" "Raiders of The Lost Ark?" Good times.
Now he seems to be a parody of himself. The soul seems to have been sucked out of his work now. Between "A.I." and "Minority Report", "War of The Worlds," "Warhorse" and most (not me) would say "Kingdom of The Crystal Skull" it seems like you could replace Spielberg with a robot at this point and not notice much difference. To be fair, he has always, and will always have an amazing eye for incredible visuals. The man knows what he's doing, not doubt, but his films seemed to be more heartfelt before. Now it seems he's making movies because that's what he's supposed to do.
Then again, it's amazing he has time to direct anything in between all the movies he produces. I mean, just take a look at the number of things Spielberg has produced on his IMDB page. It's over 100, and a third of them seem to be in the last 5 years. It's insane.
"The Adventures of Tintin" looked like another Spielberg movie that felt very safe and formulaic, and it was. Don't kid yourself - even with all the flashy visuals and action and explosions, this is a kid's movie. Not that there's anything wrong with that by its nature, but I know Spielberg can make good movies, and I feel this kids fluff is tremendously beneath him.
Kids will love this stuff, though. Undoubtedly they will. I cannot take that away from the movie. In those terms, "The Adventures of Tintin" does exactly what it set out to do, and succeeded quite well. There's lots of shiny things to look at, lots of swinging around on stuff, lots of prat-falls and a drunk guy acting really silly because drunk people are hilarious and not to be pitied. In fact, the captain being drunk quite literally saves the day on more than one occasion, and the heroes literally could not have been successful in their endeavors had the captain not been a hopeless lush.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions and thoughts from that.
"Please, Captain. I know your liver is the size of a boogie board and the consistency of a used grease rag, but for the good of the plot and sake of the world, we need you to shotgun that last sixer of Pabst...
So it's a kids movie. Whatever. That's fine. I'll stop griping about it, with the exception of one last thing that just irritated the crap out of me: Tintin speaking his interior monologues and doing the detective work in his head out loud. This...was nails on a chalk-board for me.
Just so you know what I'm talking about, every time Tintin is thinking about something...ANYTHING, he has to work it out in his head, so he does so out loud. Now this is obviously a hold over from its origins as a comic strip, where there were limited ways of showing what he was thinking, but when it's in a movie it just comes off as obnoxious and honestly making Tintin look like he needs some mental help because he seriously looks like a crazy person rambling to himself about nonsense. But how else could they possibly get plot exposition out there for all us dummies in the audience?
Oh right. He could just think it. Naturally.
He's basically this guy.
What blew my mind watching the opening credits (which admittedly were quite well done) was the cast that has been assembled here. Jamie Bell is the lead, but it also has Daniel Craig, the amazing Andy Serkis, freaking Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, Mackenzie Crook (the pirate with the wooden eye in "Pirates of The Carribean"), and Toby Jones! It's produced by Peter Jackson and the screenplay was co-written by Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish, who are some of my favorite people making movies right now.
Holy. Crap. That's an awesome amount of talent. And to be fair, once again giving credit where credit is due, the cast does do a good job.
Of course, you can't really see them. You see, "The Adventures of Tintin" is CG. Why? I have no idea. It's filmed like a normal, traditional movie. Yes, there are stunts going on that are pretty outrageous but it's not like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," where these things couldn't exist in anything other than animated form. These are all people, and they are made to look fairly realistic, at least as much as the style of the characters can look realistic. It's actually kind of creepy, however. Some things should not be seen in realistic rendering.
What this ends up doing is giving a sense that there was no reason at all for this movie to be CG. Cast it in live-action and it would have still worked. The character models are already made to look a bit like their real-life counterparts. What's the big deal? There was nothing to justify it not being live-action. Heck, it might have made it better in making it not so cartoony and kid-oriented. Or maybe it's because I just want to see one movie where I get to see Andy Serkis' face!
I shall leave on this one final note of rage, because despite the fact that overall, I found "The Adventures of Tintin" to be kind of boring and annoying, there was one thing that legitimately made me mad. The rest of it was just kind of forgettable, but the one thing I can't overlook is the absolute waste of an incredible talent: Cary Elwes.
You see this guy? Right up there? Yeah. He's the man. What? Don't recognize him?
How about now?
Yeah that's what I thought. Cary Elwes is the bomb, and one of my favorite actors. I was so excited when his name appeared in the opening credits. He was listed as "Pilot" on IMDB, which I also had up and running, so I knew when a plane appeared, I would see him.
Well, the plane finally appeared! It gets shot down, and has to make a water landing. Oh man! He's getting out of the plane! He's gonna say something! Ok, he said something! What was it? Was that a French accent? Ok, they're near Morocco, that makes sense. Was that Cary? It sounded like him. Ok, now he's captured. They gonna make him talk? Is Cary gonna get to be all defiant and snooty? Wait, why isn't he saying anything? Why is he in the back of the plane just sitting there? It's been like 10 minutes, why hasn't he had another line? Ok so he's parachuting out of the plane now. And he's gone. Are we going to follow him? What happened to him?
::an hour later...credits roll::
HE NEVER COMES BACK?! WHY DID CARY ELWES ONLY GET ONE GOD DAMN LINE?!?!
One line. I couldn't believe it. You get freaking Westley from "Princess Bride" in your movie and you give him ONE LINE?!?! What's the damn point? How much did he get paid for that? He could have done that role on his lunch break! Wait, screw that. He could have done it in the time it takes to drink a cup of coffee! WAIT, SCREW THAT! He could have done it in the time it takes for him to take a leak!!!
That blatant waste of incredible talent was by far the most upsetting thing to me in this otherwise lukewarm outing, and will probably be the thing I remember most about it, because of the shear incredulous nature of my reaction.
Inconceivable.
Joo kip using dat word...
THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Adventures of Tintin" doesn't suck. But it's a kids movie, and I'm just not interested in that. If you have kids, they'll have a blast, and you won't want to stab yourself in the jugular just to stop the pain, because it's not bad. But I have better things to do with my time. I just don't care, and I want Spielberg to make a movie that floors me again. Is that so much to ask? Recommended, I guess.
I'm going to ruin Tom Cruise for you forever. And when I say "ruin" I'm not referring to what you would probably think of. Let's be honest, he needs little help in that department. But there are two very different sides to Tom Cruise. There is Tom Cruise The Person and Tom Cruise The Actor. Tom Cruise The Person has become a walking punchline with a weird nose and he probably gets his spiritual guidance from Captain Crunch, but the world loves Tom Cruise The Actor, which is obvious considering how utterly crazy Tom Cruise The Person can be and still maintain his alter-ego's massive fan-base. The dude still has crazy box-office draw, but he has always been a big star who is easy to watch for most people. Personally, I like Tom Cruise The Actor, but I'm going to ruin him for you all right now. You ready?
His teeth are off center. Rather severely.
What has been seen cannot be unseen.
Just try and pay attention to his acting now. It's not possible. There will only be funky teeth. You're welcome.
I was a really big fan of the first "Mission: Impossible" from way back in 1996. That movie was the bomb and it still holds up today as one of the best action movies of the 90's, and possibly the most entertaining spy movie ever made outside of a Sean Connery Bond outing. Also, it had Jean Reno, which means that it's at least partly awesome by default.
The second movie was an abomination that still hurts me when I think back on it. Although if I'm being completely honest, there's only two things I remember about that piece of trash: Slow-motion doves and Ethan Hunt suddenly and inexplicably knowing kung-fu. Both of these stupid elements can be attributed to director John Woo, who is one of the worst things to happen to action films since Michael Bay. I think "overindulgent" is about .2% of the strength of the word needed to describe both of their styles, but where they differ is that John Woo uses doves flying in slow-motion and Mexican standoffs, whereas Michael Bay uses helicopters flying in slow-motion and wants to have sex with the U.S. Military. Subtle differences, I know. You kind of have to pay attention. Oh, and Michael Bay also has racism. Can't forget that.
ANYWAYS. "Mission: Impossible 3" was actually pretty good. It's another one that I don't have too clear a memory of, which is weird because it's the one I've seen most recently of the original trilogy. The only thing I really clearly remember is that Philip Seymor Hoffman would have been a much more threatening bad guy if he didn't look like a dude who should be running a Magic: The Gathering tournament. You can't make something that pasty and doughy scary. It's just not feasible, and having him fight Ethan Hunt at the end in hand to hand combat and lasting more than 25 milliseconds was a joke. Other than that it was a solid flick.
So now we come to "Mission: Impossible - We're Not Numbering Them Anymore For Some Stupid Reason." (Is that a rule now? Are movies not allowed to be numbered past 3?) I was looking forward to this one. It looked like a pretty fun romp despite the use of Eminem* in the trailer with that song of his that's been in every trailer for everything now. It also seemed that Simon Pegg was still in it, which I was all about. So yeah, why not?
*Oh geez, spellcheck didn't list "Eminem" as a misspelling. It's in the freaking dictionary now. Seriously?
Above: Tom Cruise in the facility where they keep all his crazy.
Well, turns out that "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" was indeed a fun time. It was a blast, an action packed thrill ride, a non-stop rollercoaster and all those other stupid buzzwords that are slapped on the cover-art of the DVDs. Gah. I feel dirty writing those phrases, but the fact remains that it was a good time which was very much what you would expect from a (not disappointing) big summer blockbuster, except that it came out in winter. Out of all the other films, this one came closest to capturing the awesomeness of the original. It's not as good as that one was, mind you, but it came pretty close.
I think something that "Ghost Protocol" has that the other sequels were lacking in somewhat was gadgets. Part of the fun of "Mission: Impossible" and super-spy movies in general are all the cool toys they get and how they use them. It's kind of like Batman and his utility belt. You have no idea what he has in there, or indeed how he ever packed for all these contingencies, but whenever he whips out a new gadget you're just forced to sit back and say "Of course he had that. He's Batman." It's the same with "Mission: Impossible," but the other sequels didn't give us too many new things. "Ghost Protocol" gives us nifty contact lenses that function like a personal HUD (complete with camera!) magnetic gloves without the magnets, numerous insta-forging devices, a levitation suit, and an absolutely ridiculous "make you invisible" projector screen which has to be seen to be truly understood. It's crazy, but the series definitely needed some super-gizmos again. It just made it far more fun.
"No, Pandora! I DON'T want you to play "Sandstorm!" I don't care how funny it would be!"
Another plus the film had going for it was Simon Pegg. I'm a big fan of his, in fact I consider him to be one of the 3 funniest people on the planet, and I was hoping they would have him in a more prominent role this time out, since he was pretty underused in his introduction in "Mission: Impossible 3." Fortunately I was right, and Simon does have a pretty prominent role in this film, and does more than just provide computer support and provide quips over a headset. And, to the filmmakers credit, they never have him get goofy. You see, "Pirates of The Caribbean?" You can have comic relief with some dignity! Imagine that!
(On a side note, however, I am still baffled how they could get Sawyer from "Lost" in this movie and not get one single funny, smart-ass remark out of him. That just blows my mind.)
The plot is honestly nothing too incredibly special, but then again, it seldom is in movies like this. Bad guys have hurty thing, good guys need to get hurty thing, good guys go all over the world and do outlandish things with spy tech to retrieve hurty thing from bad guys. It's not brain surgery over here. Like I mentioned earlier, that's not why you go to these movies - you go to see them use the cool gadgets.
However, "Ghost Protocol" did something interesting because (slight spoiler alert) Ethan Hunt and team fail every single mission in this movie, apart from the opening mission and the last, final battle. Every other mission in the movie goes bad by the end, and it's really incredible that they succeeded all things considered, because they were not sporting a good batting average.
"Hey Ethan! As long as I've got your attention here, you think I could get a raise, boss?"
There are set pieces in this film which rank among the very best that (the admittedly somewhat paltry) 2011 had to offer. From an exciting and often times funny opening prison escape set to Dean Martin to the much-touted Dubai skyscraper climb which was almost unbearably intense, "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" may have just saved a series which was looking to be pretty much washed up.
THE BOTTOM LINE - A really fun time, and the best of the series since the first one. Will most likely make my Top 10 of 2011...somewhere in the back half.
