Another Lousy Sequel: The Smurfs 2

The Good: Generally good moral, Most of the voice performances are good.
The Bad: Simplistic plot, character arcs, and dialogue, Underwhelming special effects.
The Basics: The Smurfs return with a less-than-spectacular sequel with The Smurfs 2.


Sequels and children’s movies have a hard time getting good reviews from me. I am not against films for young people – often enough they have good messages and the best have a decent charm factor to them – but frequently they are made figuring that their target demographic is less-discriminating and an inferior product is churned out by the studios. Sequels, more often than not, are not the result of having more of a story to tell, but rather the financial success of the first film feeding into the studio’s desire to see similar returns on investment. The Smurfs 2 is definitely that type of sequel.

The Smurfs 2 is a live-action sequel that follows up on the events of The Smurfs (reviewed here!). The movie is intended for a younger audience and while one might assume that Neil Patrick Harris was under contract to do The Smurfs 2, how Brendan Gleeson became associated with the project is a mystery to me. The Smurfs 2 trades on fairly advanced computer generated graphics to blend the live-action elements with the artificial Smurfs and utilizes the voice talents of some very talented individuals (and Katy Perry) to embody the Smurfs and their new, evil, counterparts, The Naughties.

After a retcon with the story of how Smurfette was created, after originally being a creation and tool of Gargamel, Smurfette has a nightmare of reverting. Papa Smurf reassures Smurfette. Meanwhile, in the real world, Gargamel has become a huge celebrity doing magic, using the essence of Smurf stolen from Smurfs in the prior film. At their birthday party for Blue, Patrick’s step-father turns up, much to his annoyance. In Paris, Gargamel reveals his plan: he wants to use the Eifel Tower to open a portal to Smurf Village, where he plans to abduct Smurfette, learn how Papa Smurf turned her blue, then turn his Naughties into Smurfs, extract their essences and rule the world. When he is unable to fit through the portal he opened, Gargamel sends Vexy and Hackus to the Smurf realm to get her. Thinking that the other Smurfs have forgotten her birthday (when, in fact, they are planning an elaborate surprise party for her), Smurfette is susceptible to Vexy’s suggestion (and friendship) and returns to Earth with her.

While Smurfette learns about the Naughties and develops a friendship with the energetic Vexy, Gargamel makes plans to transform his collection of Naughties into Smurfs so he will have an unending supply of Smurf essence. Papa Smurf selects some of the best Smurfs to join him on a trip to Earth to recover Smurfette, but magic events conspire to put him on Earth with the likes of Grouchy and Clumsy instead. When Patrick and Grace encounter Papa Smurf and his crew, they become determined to stop Gargamel, an effort that is hampered by Victor getting himself and Blue into trouble at the same time!

The Smurfs 2 is an utterly simplistic film; Smurfette’s story arc is obvious from the beginning when she believes that she has been forgotten by her entire village and they are planning a big celebration for her. She falls in with the “wrong crowd” in the form of Vexy and Hackus and her willingness to explore her “Dark Side” is curbed long before she goes into truly rebellious territory. The conflict is simplistic, as is its resolution. In fact, the only lingering thematic quality for The Smurfs 2 is that the children’s movie explores the possibility of relapse. Smurfette was created to be an evil spy for Gargamel before the love of the Smurfs changed her; in The Smurfs 2 she is fearful that she will fall back into her old behaviors.

Such complexity is entirely absent from the human characters in The Smurfs 2. Patrick has a pretty reasonable beef with Victor from his backstory, but when Victor pops up and basically forces his way into Grace and Blue’s life – and back into Patrick’s, the movie seems to endorse the action. Victor shows no respect for the carefully-balanced (if annoying) life that Patrick and Grace have (as evidenced by their respecting one of their friends’ children’s peanut allergies and Victor sending the kid to the hospital). Victor becomes the hyper-involved grandparent and the message of The Smurfs 2 seems to be that if a grandparent wants to be involved, be happy and shut up about it!

The acting in The Smurfs 2 is mediocre, at best. Brendan Gleeson appears without any of his innate charm or charisma and even Neil Patrick Harris seems remarkably flat in the role of Patrick. Of the voice talents, only Christina Ricci stands out as Vexy; the rest emote adequately at best. Ricci sounds nothing like herself as Vexy and she gives a good performance with her altered voice.

Ultimately, The Smurfs 2 is simplistic and not even worth recommending to children.

For other works with Anton Yelchin, please visit my reviews of:
Only Lovers Left Alive
Star Trek Into Darkness
Like Crazy
Terminator Salvation
Star Trek
Charlie Bartlett
15 Minutes

2/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Mystery Of How So Many Talented Individuals Could Fail To Create Something Funny

The Good: Excellent cast, Decent concept, One or two moments of humor
The Bad: Terrible use of cast (poor acting), Simple and disappointing plot, Largely not funny!
The Basics: In a complete waste of time and talent, wonderful comic actors end up mired in a superhero dramedy fails to be funny or even entertaining.


Every now and then, there comes a film that has an awesome concept, a great cast, and a convincing trailer and it turns into such a miserable viewing experience for the viewer that it is almost enough to make one swear off movies (especially those featuring the performers in such an abomination) altogether. Mystery Men is one of those types of movies and whatever your hopes for the film are, odds are if you are a fan of any of the principle actors involved - like William H. Macy, Hank Azaria, Janeane Garofalo, Eddie Izzard, and Ben Stiller - you will be woefully disappointed.

Champion City, a generic city in the United States, is a place populated by heroes, none greater than Captain Amazing. Captain Amazing has fallen on hard times and to make some money, he releases the villainous Casanova Frankenstein from prison. His plan soon goes awry and he ends up captured by the enemy. It then falls to a group of lesser, unimpressive superheroes to rise to the occasion to save Captain Amazing and Champion City. The fate of both is in the hands of the perpetually upset (though never usefully angry) Mr. Furious, the fork-throwing Blue Raja, the digging ace known as The Shoveller, the sardonic Bowler, the gassy Spleen, the (not really) Invisible Boy, and the inscrutable Sphynx.

The thing about Mystery Men is that in reading what I just wrote, the movie lived up to its entire potential. What I mean by that is that the only gag of substance in Mystery Men is the revelation of what the less than super powers of the characters are. So, for example, the first time the Blue Raja throws a fork, it's mildly amusing. When he does it repeatedly . . . well, it's stale by the second throw. Invisible Boy is a clever commentary; he reasons that because he is black and everyone ignores him he must be invisible. But that's the joke, it's done and in the movie it's a joke that is completely belabored.

And the less said about The Spleen the better. Yes, it's all fart jokes with him.

This is one of those terrible movies where all of the best material appears in the preview. If you've seen the trailer and enjoyed it, you've seen the cream of this movie. In fact, if you see the Smashmouth video for "All Star," you've seen the best footage from this movie - maybe it's even better without any of the dialogue.

The thing is, the characters in this film are not genuinely characters. Instead, they are jokes and once the joke is revealed (about a minute out of the movie), we're left with two hours of watching a series of jokes try to reinvent themselves over and over again. The best way to describe this movie is like seeing a high school student with a t-shirt with a phrase on it. The shirt says something like "I kiss better than your boyfriend," you read the shirt, evaluate the wearer, laugh or don't, and move on. When the person keeps coming by with that same t-shirt on, most people don't keep reading it over and over again. We got it the first time. Mystery Men is the type of one-trick pony that asks the viewer to continually reread the t-shirt, expecting that our reaction will be the same each time. And they're banking on that reaction being laughter.

Writers Bob Burden, Neil Cuthbert and Director Kinka Usher are lucky when they get the first laugh.

This is a startlingly un-funny movie for a film that has such comic talents as Paul Rubens (best known as Pee Wee Herman), Hank Azaria, Ben Stiller and Janeane Garofalo. These are people well known for making this reviewer laugh. I like their work. Yet here they are operating where the lines are not funny, the situation is not treated as funny and the jokes are mostly simple and stupid.

Unfortunately, there's not enough in the script even to allow the genuine acting talents to break out and impress the viewer with what they can do as far as presentation. William H. Macy is a favorite of mine and he was robbed of any awards for his masterful performance in Magnolia (reviewed here!). In Mystery Men, Macy plays The Shoveller and there is not enough written for him to do anything other than deliver the few lines he has, as best he can and let the performance die its quick death. Similarly, the truly great actress Lena Olin appears briefly in Mystery Men and is not given enough to work with to actually perform.

Adding to the poor writing, terrible characters and the generally low-quality of the acting, director Kinka Usher fails to create any visual sense with this movie that the film is progressing. The pace is belabored and weighed down with continual attempts to replay the same joke and Usher fails to make the film look good while slowly killing the audience with the same stale routines.

All in all, this is a movie that is an utter disappointment that fails to produce anything worthwhile despite having the potential in much of the talent to create something unique and entertaining. Save yourself two hours of life; find something else to watch this weekend!

For other superhero films, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Super
Kick-Ass
My Super Ex-Girlfriend

2/10

For other film reviews, be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Blow: The After School Special For The Gen X Drug Runners

The Good: Most acting, Relationship between father and son, Plot, Pacing, Directing
The Bad: Penelope Cruz, Last frames, Moments of tone
The Basics: A surprisingly good film about the man responsible for the U.S. drug trade in the 70's, Blow is an impressive acting exercise and character study of one man.


Sometimes two actors not only look and sound alike, but there are roles in which they also act alike. Having watched Blow, I was allowed to exercise a rather obscure fantasy of sorts: I allowed Johnny Depp to be Christopher Walken and I allowed myself to believe Ray Liotta was Jeffrey Hunter. Jeffrey Hunter, for the masses who would not know, played Captain Christopher Pike in the pilot for Star Trek. He's been dead for over thirty years; died before his time.

Blow, then is the story of drug distributor George Jung. Jung is apparently the man responsible for the influx of cocaine into the United States in the 1970s. As we watch, Fred Jung, George's father, and Ermine, George's mother, fretting about money. Ermine is the archetypal nag and Fred expresses the bulk of his love and idealism to his son. Fred leaves to the south where he ends up smuggling marijuana into the California and then Massachusetts. Arrested, Fred meets Diego, who gets him involved with smuggling cocaine. From there, it's pretty much the typical rise and fall story. Fred marries Mirtha, they have a baby, Fred makes $60 million dollars, Fred is betrayed, arrested, and loses everything.

What works is that whenever the film seems like it is about to slow down or hit a dead spot, the director changes the look, feeling, timing of the film. The moment the film hits a rough patch, often it actually stops and it changes direction. Right before Diego's wedding, for instance, it breaks into a photo montage. It works. Ted Demme impressed me with his direction. He seems to have an expert sense of timing and that is refreshing given a lot of films I've seen lately.

Even better than that is the character connection between Fred and George. Throughout the film the tether between father and son plays out well. Whenever George experiences a serious loss, a direction, his father is there. It's actually refreshing, if a bit idealistic. It serves to remind us of the concept of unconditional love. And how great is that? I think it's a nice idea and in Blow, it is executed with proficiency and grace.

Most of the acting impressed me. The actors are diverse and for the most part I was convinced. Johnny Depp and Ray Liotta are the obvious acting winners in the film. They become Fred and George and they play the relationship well. Unfortunately, Penelope Cruz didn't impress me as Mirtha. I have to say it was somewhat amusing to me that it took over an hour for the second billed star to even appear. But even the secondary characters are well acted. Paul Reubens and Ethan Suplee appear too briefly and quite well as Derek and Tuna.

I thought the last line almost blew the film. I had been impressed by the level of compassion and love Fred had for his daughter. That the last line, a graphic on the screen appeared saying how she has not visited her father in prison seemed like cheap emotional manipulation and it bothered me that the film stooped to that. Moreover, there were moments where the tone was "have sympathy for this drug dealer" and those moments seemed forced.

What worked were the moments where the idea instead was "have sympathy for this human." In fact, Fred is sympathetic for moments in the end. He is a human and this film does not minimize the fact that he experiences the full range of human emotion. He is not a flat villain, he's not some public relations attempt to make drug dealers look good or glamorous. He's a man. And sometimes, that alone is worth watching.

For other films featuring Johnny Depp, please visit my reviews of:
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
The Tourist
Alice In Wonderland
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Corpse Bride
Charlie And The Chocolate Factory
Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl
Dead Man
Edward Scissorhands

6.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Of All The Lousy Ways To Start, Buffy The Vampire Slayer The Movie Is Pure Camp!

The Good: Decent concept, Moments of witty dialogue
The Bad: Terrible acting, Lack of genuine character development, Not great DVD bonus features, Plot
The Basics: Completely disappointing - especially for fans of the television series - Buffy The Vampire Slayer presents the origin of the latest Slayer, who happens to be very much an L.A. teen!


"They" say you can't go back again, but every now and then, I suppose I give it the old college try! After all, technically, you can't go back to somewhere you have never been, right? What I mean by this is that having seen and reviewed all of the television series Buffy The Vampire Slayer (reviewed here!) and its spin-offs, I felt it was time to finally go back and watch the cinematic endeavor that started it all, Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Believe it or not, I had never seen the film! So, at long last, I sat down to watch it.

I suppose it is a good thing that I did not attempt to start at the beginning; the film version of Buffy The Vampire Slayer is so unrefined, poorly-acted and obvious in its plot and breakdown that I am certain it would have scared me away from the television series if I had started with that instead! Truth be told, I have an immense appreciation for the works of writer-director Joss Whedon and still it is almost impossible to recommend to fans and certainly to casual viewers that they subject themselves to this original film, which was written by Joss Whedon and directed by Fran Rubel Kuzui.

Buffy is a high school girl living in Los Angeles where she is a cheerleader, socialite and generally vacuous teen. While around her, there are a few strange disappearances, Buffy continues dating her boyfriend, judging her friends and avoiding freaks, like the loner rebel Pike. However, she soon finds herself unable to avoid all of the weirdness in Los Angeles when her parents leave town for a weekend and she finds herself stalked by the mysterious Merrick. Merrick, far from being the predator Buffy initially thinks he is, has actually arrived to help Buffy achieve her destiny.

As it turns out, Merrick is a mentor, of sorts, reborn constantly to train Slayers. Buffy, as it turns out, is a Slayer, a killer of vampires. Endowed with certain innate skills, Buffy follows in a long line of Slayers, though she is certainly the most annoying Merrick has had to train. While vampire king Lothos begins using his minions to build an army in Los Angeles, Buffy and Merrick train to stop them with Pike quickly realizing the truth and joining the fight against the vampires as well!

Buffy The Vampire Slayer is an unfortunate film that is, quite simply, pure camp. It is hokey - sometimes in a good way - but more often than not, it seems like a concept film that the participants are so unsure of that they do not know how to present it. The result is a movie that defies genre, not truly being funny for most of the film. Nor does it succeed in being truly terrifying or scary. Instead, it exists in a strange middle-ground limbo that is neither dramatic, comedic or horrific. And while some films can successfully defy such genre boundaries, Buffy The Vampire Slayer is executed in a way that leaves the viewer with the impression that it does not know what it wants to be and ultimately, it ends up being a remarkably unsatisfying teensploitation film.

This incarnation of Buffy The Vampire Slayer is all about laying out the foundations, building up the ideas of the Slayer mythos. So, the viewer is expected to believe in the existence of vampires and their presence in Los Angeles. These vampires have the ability to levitate, suck blood to reproduce, and fight with super strength. As well, they are unable to be killed, save by a stake through the heart or decapitation. Holy water burns their flesh and they are able to keep fighting even after their limbs are removed. Some of the more powerful - and ancient - ones have a hypnotic effect, like Lothos, who is able to hold Buffy in his thrall.

On the other side of this battle for the survival of humanity, there are the Slayers. Merrick describes the long line of Slayers, born into each generation, activated upon the death of the prior one. Slayers have great speed - tested by Merrick throwing a knife at Buffy's head, which she catches - as well as increased stamina and strength. As well, Slayers have a collective unconscious of their own which allows them to recall the history of the other Slayers in dreams, which begin to disturb Buffy. And had the film focused more on the Slayers, the history and execution of them, the film might have succeeded.

As it is, Buffy The Vampire Slayer is crippled by the way the film tremendously tips the balance toward the high school life of Buffy. She is a teen queen, concerned with boys, shopping, fashion and popularity. The film spends far too much time creating her as an annoying anti-hero for most viewers to actually care about her character struggle as she learns that she has a destiny. Moreover, witless romantic subplots between Buffy and her boyfriend and Buffy and Pike drag the film down into the territory where Buffy becomes so unlikable that only teenage drama queens are likely to enjoy large tracts of the film.

As Buffy The Vampire Slayer progresses, though, the film fails to engage adult audiences, most notably because the villain is anything but menacing. Lothos, the vampire king, looks more like a sadistic Robert Goulet than an actual menace. Played by Rutger Hauer, the violin-plucking villain is more campy than menacing and, in fact, only seeks to lower the menace. Watching Buffy confront this mediocre adversary, the viewer is left feeling they are too much made for one another; Lothos is so unmenacing that he could only be a serious threat to a dimwitted, unwilling Slayer like Buffy. Truth be told, I alternated between the secret hope that Lothos would kill Buffy and the dull urge for Buffy to put him out of his misery quicker. In other words, if Buffy couldn't take out this vampire, she pretty much deserved to die.

What Buffy The Vampire Slayer does have is a pretty exceptional cast. The inexperience of such notable performers as Hilary Swank, David Arquette, Ben Affleck (who appears, uncredited, as a basketball player!) and Natasha Gregson Wagner seems to be the only excuse I can find for director Kuzui managing to woo them to the project. More experienced actors like Luke Perry (Pike), Paul Rubens, and Rutger Hauer (Lothos) seem to be involved in their attempts to break the molds they are usually cast in, though the irony is that Perry ends up as the badboy loner and Hauer ends up as the villain, which are pretty much the ruts both actors have always ended up in.

But the film depends largely on the talent of two actors: Donald Sutherland and Kristy Swanson. Sutherland plays Merrick and part of the problem with the film is that far too often, he delivers his lines as if he is rolling his eyes. Much of his dialogue is expository and he sounds bored saying a lot of it.

On the other hand, Swanson helps sink the film because she is - quite simply - too good in her role. Swanson so convincingly portrays Buffy as an insipid airhead that she makes the character entirely unlikable. And when Swanson as Buffy begins training, we are easily convinced she has the physical abilities to fight the vampire hordes, but we lack any ability to care about her at that point. Swanson nails the mannerisms and dialogue of the self-involved teenagers perfectly!

Unfortunately for Buffy The Vampire Slayer, at the end of the day, it makes this film virtually unwatchable. In fact, die-hard fans of the television franchise ought only to watch this if they are prepared to unite, en masse, and demand Joss Whedon remake the film in the television show's canon. Until then, it is best to leave this one for people who have nothing better to do than Mystery Science Theater 3000.

For other works written or created by Joss Whedon, please check out my reviews of:
Firefly
Serenity
Alien Resurrection

3/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

"Blah, Blah, Blah Blah Blah Blah," The Smurfs Is Just Horrendous.

The Good: Hank Azaria and Neil Patrick Harris show up for it . . .
The Bad: Not funny, Not charming, Dull plot, No character development, Terrible special effects, Virtually everything.
The Basics: Entirely underwhelming, The Smurfs is not worth seeing for adults or children, giving it little to no redeeming value during a bloated Summer Blockbuster Season.


One of the nice things about being a reviewer is getting into preview screenings. Unfortunately, many of them are public screenings intended to generate word of mouth and it was one such screening I found myself at yesterday morning for The Smurfs. And it's not like my wife didn't warn me the place would be overrun with screaming children (which it was), but as she correctly guessed, I just can't get enough of panning the works of Katy Perry. The truth is, my disdain for the works of Katy Perry would have been reason for me to brave seeing The Smurfs eventually, but it was my appreciation of the works of Neil Patrick Harris that made me want to see the movie early and go when the place was packed with kids.

Sadly, Neil Patrick Harris and Hank Azaria appearing in the movie is not enough to override the overwhelming sense of suck that this movie possesses.

The Smurfs suffers not from being what it is - which is family-friendly fare - but from being the most mundane, senseless version of what it is supposed to be. There is no message, no strong moral, not even a sense of nostalgia for those of us who grew up on the Smurfs. Yes, despite going into the movie suspecting it would disappoint, I had a secret hope that this would remind me of something simple that I did love as a child, but instead, The Smurfs completely underwhelmed me and left me, if possible, more cynical than ever. And Katy Perry was not the cause of it, which might be the first time I can use the phrases "more cynical" and "not Katy Perry's fault" together. Instead, The Smurfs is a prolonged slapstick chase sequence connected by humor that didn't even seem to grab the under ten crowd that dominated the screening I was at.

The Smurfs are living in peace in their village when the evil sorcerer Gargamel invades to try to capture Smurfs for his nefarious purposes. Fleeing Gargamel, six of the Smurfs - including Papa, Smurfette and Brainy - fall through a portal into New York's Central Park. Their feelings of safety and familiarity are upset when they see the giant buildings and are chased by Gargamel and his cat, Azrael. As the Smurfs try to find safety, they end up in the possession of Patrick Winslow, who is fairly cynical and unappreciative of the magical beings.

Encouraged by his wife Grace, Patrick tries to keep the Smurfs safe and help them return to their village. But soon, the Smurfs and Patrick must work together to stop Gargamel when Papa Smurf is captured by the wizard.

I'm going to start my critique with the most mundane of criticisms of The Smurfs because someone has to say it. The Smurfs in The Smurfs are not three apples high. Right off the bat, there is a huge perspective problem with The Smurfs that will upset purists and make the project seem like it was put together by people who couldn't tell the difference between an apple and a crab apple. Besides that, the best special effect in The Smurfs truly is the make-up that transforms Hank Azaria into Gargamel. Between the make-up, his voice and the goofy sense of movement Azaria has to make him embody Gargamel, Azaria is utterly unrecognizable, even to fans of his work.

The Smurfs suffers because the plot is almost nonexistent and the character development is entirely absent from the piece. The plot is a pretty basic chase movie with Gargamel being a pretty absolute evil character whose motivations are not explored and instead is the Villain For The Sake Of A Villain. The Smurfs are, conversely, good, even Grouchy who lives up to his name by being the contrarian of the lot. The chase from Gargamel is broken up by quieter bits that have Grace and Patrick learn more about the Smurfs as they are subjected to pretty banal humor, usually involving the fact that the Smurfs are so small interacting with the human-sized world and accessories therein.

The Smurfs are characterized by their names. Papa is an old leader, Chef cooks, Clumsy falls down, Smurfette is a girl, Brainy spouts facts and ideas constantly, you get the picture. Beyond their names and the lone trait they embody, the Smurfs are virtually identical. Physically, they look the same with their white hats and white pants, save Smurfette who wears a dress, Papa who wears red, Brainy who wears glasses, and Gutsy, who wears a kilt. The lesson of The Smurfs is, ostensibly, that people need to work together to get things done. So, Brainy is not nearly as useful without Hefty or Gutsy because it is one thing to be smart, but it is another to be able to put a plan into action with strength or stones. We get it. Unfortunately, the children in the audience did not seem to care much about the social message because they were overwhelmed by the CG Smurfs that look utterly fake in the real environments. Moreover, the moral of the Smurf lifestyle is comparatively underemphasized in the film in favor of chase sequences and ridiculously bad puns that are supposed to pass for humor.

As for the acting, Hank Azaria carries his scenes, but the others, including a surprisingly flat Neil Patrick Harris, do not. Harris and Jayma Mays do an excellent job of keeping their eyelines proper for the virtual characters, but Harris has a lack of spark uncharacteristic to his performances. So, while he makes humorous gripes that nitpickers of the Smurfs will appreciate, he does it without any particular zest or irony, as if he doesn't want to upset his mealticket by buying into his lines. Jayma Mays, conversely, plays yet another dew-eyed optimist who gives us nothing we haven't seen from her before. The voice actors all do fine as their characters, including Katy Perry, though none of them are given real voice challenges that warrant their celebrity. Indeed, some of the celebrity is distracting. Each time Grouchy opened his mouth, I was aware I was listening to George Lopez.

Ultimately, The Smurfs is mundane and it is not entertaining to add buoyancy to that averageness, which sinks it further. I suppose not every property from the 1980s is marketable today with CG effects and a tongue-in-cheek attitude to it. Still, I'd pay to see a good Masters Of The Universe flick. I would not pay to see this and cannot recommend anyone else pay for it or even waste their time on it when seeing it is free.

For other works featuring George Lopez, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Marmaduke
Valentine's Day
The Spy Next Door
Swing Vote

1.5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

My Favorite Christmas Movie: Batman Returns Because It's Hard To Do Better Than Michelle Pfeiffer In Pleather!

The Good: Plot, Character, Acting, Effects, Costumes, Everything!
The Bad: Some of the dialogue is admittedly campy.
The Basics: In an almost-perfect superhero action movie, Batman must take on the Penguin and Catwoman while Bruce Wayne wrestles with a rival businessman and a romance with Selena Kyle.


So, I was shocked to learn that for years I've had a review in of the Batman Returns soundtrack but that I had somehow never managed to get around to writing a review for the film Batman Returns! "How could this be?" I asked myself. I mean, for years, there was only one movie I'd watch at Christmas and that was Batman Returns! Now, it's this and Love Actually but the truth is, this might be one of the few films I used to return to once a year. Over the years, I have softened from my childhood belief that Batman Returns is a perfect film (probably more having to do with how I first saw the movie than the quality of the film), but I still believe that Batman Returns is an astonishing film that is underrated. On recent viewings, only a few phrases of campy dialogue truly make me cringe.

Following the events of Tim Burton's Batman, (there is a new, recently-elected mayor) Bruce Wayne is finding the Christmas spirit hard to come by as violence begins to escalate on the streets of Gotham City with the appearance of a new gang. Batman wanders the streets at night cleaning up as part of his vigilante action while during the day Bruce Wayne deals with rival businessman Max Shreck. Shreck is interested in building a power plant, which his secretary, er, assistant Selena Kyle learns is actually a giant capacitor, so he has her killed.

Dying doesn't take well to Miss Kyle and she finds herself resurrected by cats and she takes on the persona of Catwoman, a morally-ambiguous superhero running around in the night. Catwoman attracts the attentions of both Batman and Oswald Cobblepot, a slightly deformed outcast who decides to take over Gotham City with Shreck's help by becoming the mayor. When Batman and Cobblepot clash, Oswald's political ambitions take a turn and he becomes what society creates of him, a villain known as the Penguin.

Batman Returns is the much maligned sequel to Tim Burton's darkly reimagined Batman and in Batman Returns, there is more of what was incredible in Batman with less necessary backstory, making the film overall tighter. What works in Batman Returns that is a common element from Batman? Tim Burton's direction is obsessed with scale and the Gotham City he creates is dark, overbearing and foreboding. This is accented by his partnership with composer Danny Elfman who creates an amazing and distinctive score that works with the visuals to overwhelm the viewer with a sense of scale and scope that is impressive (see my review of the soundtrack for more on that). Burton's sensibilities keep the movie dark, gritty, violent and exciting.

Writers Daniel Waters and Sam Hamm wisely up the stakes in Batman Returns by providing more conflict in the life of Bruce Wayne and Batman. On the plot front, the most clever aspect of the story is that Bruce Wayne and Batman each face one enemy; Shreck and The Penguin, respectively. The intriguing aspect on the character front is that Waters, Hamm and Burton mix it up by throwing Selena Kyle/Catwoman in which gives Bruce Wayne a love interest, but an additional adversary for Batman. This is an intriguing twist that is difficult to do in virtually any other medium, but with the dual nature of the characters in Batman Returns, this can be pulled off and the creative staff here does it wonderfully.

Part of what makes Batman Returns work so very well is that the characters (with the possible exception of the nefarious businessman Shreck) are not monolithic. When Oswald Cobblepot first emerges, Bruce Wayne feels sorry for him. Indeed, Wayne feels a sense of kinship and he sadly notes that he hopes Cobblepot is able to find what he is looking for. Cobblepot, for his part, has tragic roots, having been literally tossed out by his parents as a baby. And Selena Kyle is smart and lonely and completely insecure at work. These are universally troubled characters and watching them collide through their world is entertaining and compelling.

And then there is the Batman. Batman is an intriguing character, especially as superheroes go. He is not an alien, he has no super powers. In Batman, he is motivated almost completely by a sense of revenge, with the resolution of that movie, he is ruled now by a sense of doing right and protecting Gotham City from evil in whatever form it takes. In this case, he must use his brains. Batman's strength is in analyzing his enemies and adapting to defeat them and in Batman Returns, we see Batman doing just that as he pieces together the history of Cobblepot and designs the tools to take down the Penguin.

The refreshing thing about Batman Returns is that the villains are just as clever as Batman. Catwoman's strategy for defeating Batman utilizes similar analytical skills to Batman and Penguin's toys rival the Dark Knight's. Batman is on the ropes in Batman Returns and it is fun to watch a superhero struggle. Our heroes are only as good as the villains they confront and in Batman Returns, Batman proves just how good he can be!

Of course, being that this is a movie, a great burden for creating characters falls to the actors. Batman Returns brings back notable actors Michael Gough (Alfred) and Pat Hingle (Commissioner Gordon) and adds in Vincent Schiavelli (the Organ Grinder) and Christopher Walken (Max Shreck). Walken's time on screen is largely used for comic relief and he lives up as a wonderful foil to Michael Keaton's dark and serious Bruce Wayne. He also plays a wonderful straightman to Danny DeVito's Cobblepot.

Keaton is excellent and dark as Batman and Bruce Wayne. Because much of the emphasis in Batman Returns is on thwarting Batman, Keaton's acting challenge is to emote around a heavy bit of costuming and he does it very well. In scenes where he is Wayne, he is immensely human, which balances well with the very physical performance he is forced to give the rest of the film.

Michelle Pfeiffer is wonderful as Selena Kyle. Her slouching body language is essential to creating the mousy Kyle and the genius of her performance is there's no a hint of that when she is playing Catwoman. Indeed, Catwoman is more than just a sexy outfit (which it is as well) and Pfeiffer embodies that with her performance. She even takes on distinctly different voices for the two roles, enhancing the character conflict.

It is Danny DeVito who rules Batman Returns. DeVito could have played Cobblepot or the Penguin as completely over-the-top, but he gives a very disciplined performance, creating the realistic political threat Cobblepot embodies in Gotham City. DeVito has to act around considerable costuming and he is alternatively menacing, funny and sympathetic. DeVito steals the scenes he is in and it's wonderful to see his range as Cobblepot.

Batman Returns may well be the gold standard of what a superhero movie may be. It was certainly the best one I'd found until The Dark Knight!

For other Batman products, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Batman R.I.P. By Grant Morrison
The Dark Knight
Hot Toys 1:6 Scale Harvey Dent/Two-Face doll

9/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2010, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |

The Nightmare Before Christmas: Not As Wonderful As I Expected

The Good: Imaginative, Adult
The Bad: Choppy, Simplified ending, Musically repetitive
The Basics: Occasionally imaginative, this musical quickly becomes predictable and childlike. Burton and Elfman do better in other works.


I'm a fan of Tim Burton's visual style. Especially when coupled with Danny Elfman's musical styles. The two play off each other to make something great. The team did Batman Returns which is still one of the benchmark sequels of all time. They create a place together using darkness and chords and usually they come up with a magical mood that is extraordinary.

Thus, I was looking forward to Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas. I leave that endeavor somewhat saddened. I was hoping for more, especially after all the praise of it that I had heard in the eight years prior to my seeing it.

The Nightmare Before Christmas is the story of Jack Skellington, the Pumpkin King and de facto leader of Halloween Town. Jack has become disenchanted with Halloween and scaring people that one day a year. While lamenting this, Jack stumbles into Christmas Town. Enchanted by something different, he becomes determined to replace Santa Clause and make the Christmas sleigh flight himself. To that end, he sets the denizens of Halloween Town to making gifts, abducting Santa and preparing for Christmas.

The problem is, the character never truly comes alive. Jack always seems like a type rather than an individual and the overriding question I had while watching the film was that, if everyone else was content with their performances on Halloween and only Jack was disillusioned, why Jack bothers to incorporate the whole town in his plan. Instead, why Jack doesn't simply invade Christmas Town on Christmas Eve and replace Santa Clause and deliver Christmas gifts instead of the hideously twisted Halloween Town gifts, is something I'm left wondering.

A large portion of the film is simply establishing what Halloween Town is and it becomes something of a one-trick pony rather quickly. It's all Halloween stuff, but it just keeps going on like a list. The imaginative portion of the film is in the set and character designs. The visual appeal is great in this film. The rest of the film is Jack pulling off his plan.

Save for the B-plot, which is one Halloween Town woman's love for Jack. Sally is held captive by her creator (she's a frankenstein-like monster), pining after Jack. Her part of the film is relegated to the background and that is unfortunate. The far more interesting plot is how Jack and Sally relate and come together. Instead, a great deal of time is spent with singing about who lives in Halloween Town and how they live.

The success of The Nightmare Before Christmas is that it is imaginative and creates an adult world. The characters in Halloween Town are adult and they have menace and problems adults have. Jack is essentially having a mid-life crisis. And the look of the film is a good idea.  Some of the songs are even catchy, which is good as well.

Problematic, though, is the execution. The claymation is often choppy, the speed at which some things happen is exaggerated. The worse aspect is the soundtrack. This is Elfman music I've heard before. None of it seems terribly new. And the end seems like quite a cop-out. The film starts imaginative and dark and quickly becomes repetitive and predictable.

The truth is, I hoped for better. I wanted Jack Skellington to be more defined. I wanted Sally to have more screen time. I wanted the interaction between the pair to be heightened. I wanted the film to make sense, even if it was creative and wild visually. Unfortunately, I'll hold out for better and rewatch other Burton/Elfman works I know are great.

For other weird movies, please check out my reviews of:
Inception
Land Of The Lost
Despicable Me

5/10

For more movie reviews, please check out my index page!

© 2010, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |