Waking Nightmare: Why Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox Endures!

The Good: Good themes, Clever character twists, Decent construction and edits from the source material
The Bad: Some less successful edits, Simplistic resolution, Packed with multiple flat supporting characters
The Basics: Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox is a clever adaptation of the Flashpoint crossover event in movie form!


This month is shaping up to be a pretty intensive month for me with reviews of Marvel Comics-based works. To balance that, I figured I should seek out some DC Comics-based works. In advance of the third season premiere of The Flash and with a fascination for the more adult-oriented works coming from DC Animation that I discovered by watching Batman: The Killing Joke (reviewed here!), I figured that it was a good time to take in Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox. Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox is an animated film adaptation of Flashpoint (reviewed here!) and while it has been quite some time since I read that crossover event and its various volumes, I recalled it well enough to look forward to both the animated film and the new season of The Flash.

Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox is a work that bends the traditional DC Comics Universe and offers a glimpse into one of the most provocative alternate universe scenarios that DC Comics ever created. The animated rendition of Flashpoint does a generally good idea of portraying the complexity of the graphic novel crossover event while minimizing the less successful subplots of the books.

Opening with a flashback to Barry Allen's backstory in his childhood with his mother before her murder, Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox leaps back to Barry Allen's adulthood. On his mother's birthday, Barry Allen is called to action when the Flash Museum is attacked by the Rogues, who were hired by Professor Zoom. When Eobard Thawne uses the Rogues to carry the bombs he wants to use to destroy the Flash Museum, the Justice League arrives to stop the bombs from detonating. With the Rogues detained and Zoom being sent to S.T.A.R. Labs for containment, The Flash's success is undermined by a remark from Thawne, so he tries to run off his frustration.

Barry Allen wakes up at his desk at Central City Police Department where no one recalls The Flash and he is devoid of his powers. Outside the CCPD, Barry Allen encounters his mother and he is shocked that she is alive. From Nora, Barry learns that the world is on the brink of war and the only superhero she seems to know about is Batman. In Gotham City, Batman is briefed by Cyborg on the impending war between the Amazons and Atlanteans in the ruins of Europe. Batman refuses to join the war effort and when Barry Allen visits Batman, Allen discovers that in this reality, Thomas Wayne is Batman and Bruce Wayne is dead. As the world falls into carnage as various elements get caught between the building armies of the Amazons and Atlanteans, Allen is convinced that the only way to right the world is to find and thwart Professor Zoom, whom he believes is responsible for the destroyed world on the cusp of war. To find Zoom, Allen enlists Batman's help in recreating the accident that made him The Flash, with initially disastrous results. But in attempting to save the world, Barry Allen becomes deeply embroiled in saving the darkened reality!

Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox does a decent job of illustrating how important Nora Allen was to Barry Allen in order to set up the premise of the film. As well, while the initial incident in Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox seems somewhat pointless, it is enough to sell Barry Allen's assumption in the altered timeline. The Reverse Flash is a time-traveling meddler who seeks to undo all of the heroism of The Flash, so when Allen wakes up without powers in a darkened present, Eobard Thawne is a reasonable suspect from the available evidence.

Flashpoint was an incredibly complex crossover event in the DC Comics books, so condensing it down to seventy-five minutes necessitates cutting quite a bit of material. As one who generally enjoyed the book series, the most glaring and frustrating omission comes in the form of leaving out The Joker. Because Thomas Wayne has such a significant presence in Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox, that his search for the Joker is treated as a very minor tangent and dropped after only the second allusion to the Joker is somewhat disappointing.

What is not disappointing is the quality of the animation. Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox is one of the more consistently well-rendered DC Animation projects and given the scope of it, that is no small task. The character designs are distinctive enough that the bulk of the characters are instantly recognizable in every frame in which they appear and that helps the flow of the film stay tight and taut.

It is worth noting that Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox is very much intended for adults; the on-screen kill count is exceptionally high and several of the character deaths are fairly graphic (as is Barry's first attempt to regain his powers!).

The voice acting in Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox quite good. Led by Justin Chambers as Barry Allen, Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox might be a world-bending war story, but the portrayals of Barry Allen and Thomas Wayne make the film far more relatable and present some more universal themes. It is a bit disappointing, based on the clarity of the voice acting and the themes of Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox that no one seems to recognize that Barry's grandmother was simply reciting the Serenity Prayer from Alcoholics Anonymous. That said, that is not a fault of the actors and their clear, emotive, performances help to create the world of the Flashpoint reality as well as the animators.

Ultimately, Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox is a gruesome exploration of what one man's grief can create and it is well-rendered even if it has to gloss over some of the complexities of the source material.

For other animated films based on DC Comics books, please check out my reviews of:
Wonder Woman
Watchmen: Tales Of The Black Freighter
Batman: Gotham Knight

6/10

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

© 2016 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Battleship 2013: Pacific Rim Takes Summer Blockbuster Season To Predictable New Lows!

The Good: Special effects, Idris Elba is fine
The Bad: No real character development, Predictable plot, Lackluster acting.
The Basics: Perhaps summer’s least intellectually ambitious film, Pacific Rim is visually spectacular, but utterly mundane.


Every year, Summer Blockbuster Season produces a movie that might be conceptually weak, but preys upon the “money to burn” crowd. These films are usually big on special effects, low on character and the storylines might have an initially interesting premise, but they venture into predictable conflicts that are seldom compelling or possess a deeper meaning or theme. Last year, for example, there was a particularly low point when Battleship (reviewed here!) was released. This year, Guillermo Del Toro, who seems to be unfortunately committed to crap since Pan’s Labyrinth (reviewed here!) directs the would-be popcorn special effects movie of little substance with Pacific Rim.

Pacific Rim is basically a Godzilla-style monster movie where the creatures are fought by giant robots (a la Voltron). While the movie is a live action film, not an animated work, it feels much like an anime. It is big on scope filled with monolithic characters and a concept that becomes less compelling and original as the film goes on. Instead, as one might predict, Pacific Rim simply degenerates into a special effects film focusing on giant creatures fighting. Given how humanoid some of the creatures – like the knife-headed creature in the opening sequence – are, Pacific Rim looks less like a cutting-edge summer movie in many points and more like a high-tech hokey recreation of something written by a high school student.

Yeears after a rift opens in the Pacific Ocean, unleashing giant alien Kaiju (depending on the creature, they look more reptilian or insectoid). The Kaiju lay waste to the coastal cities. The human response is to develop giant robots called Jaegers. The Jaegers are piloted by pairs of people and because they are essentially psychically tethered to one another to move the Jaegers, the developers have discovered that they are ideally operated by brothers. Raleigh and Yancy Becket are piloting a Jaeger together when the Kaiju manages to wreck their vessel resulting in Yancy’s death.

Stunned and adrift, Raleigh goes to work on the U.S.’s back-up plan to resisting the Kaiju, the Wall. Building a wall to keep out the Kaiju is not viewed as a realistic long-term strategy by Stacker Pentecost, who is coordinating the international effort to build a superior Jaeger. Pentecost taps Raleigh to be part of a team to occupy a new Jaeger that is designed to seal the interspatial fissure under the sea and stop the Kaiju once and for all. Backed by a scientific team that is developing more lethal ways combat Kaiju and a sense of purpose he has not had since his brother die, Raleigh steps up.

While the initial concept of aliens rising out from under the sea and humanity developing giant mechs to stop them is neither original nor inherently bad, Pacific Rim is pretty unremarkable. While it does not dangle obvious Romantic Subplot Bait (or characters around just for basic sex appeal, as in Battleship), the otherwise professional and intelligent Mako Mori is flustered by Raleigh when he is not wearing a shirt. This is a pretty ridiculous element added to the very “guy” Pacific Rim for no particular reason. I suppose for similar reasons, there is a dog included in the film to accompany the working class guys.

Pacific Rim might be the biggest (in scope) film directed by Guillermo Del Toro, but the battle sequences actually seem reminiscent of the types of combat (and reveals) already seen by Del Toro in his works like Hellboy 2: The Golden Army (reviewed here!). In fact, there is something unfortunately formulaic about Pacific Rim in the way it is structured. Mako Mori provides an excuse for a woman to the kick ass of the leading man, much like Selma Blair whacked around Ron Perlman (who is in Pacific Rim). John Hurt is replaced in the mentor role of stature with Idris Elba. Elba, more than the special effects, is the reason to watch Pacific Rim.

Idris Elba has a commanding screen presence that makes it seem entirely plausible that his character (Pentescost) would be coordinating the Jaeger attacks and the effort to seal the breach. Elba has serious eyes and when he delivers his inspirational speech, despite some of the wording there is a powerful use of tone and body language to convey the magnitude of the moment. Elba is exceptionally well-cast, though his resume is not so long yet that one feels they have seen this performance from him. Much more than Charlie Hunnam’s Raleigh, Elba’s Pentecost dominates the film Pacific Rim.

As a film buff and one who generally enjoys It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia, Charlie Day is unfortunately cast and utilized as Dr. Geiszler, one of the scientists studying the Kaiju and refining the technology that mentally links the pilots in the Jaegers. While Day is initially fine as Dr. Geiszler, there are so many beats where it seems like he is just channeling Leland Orser and while I might be the only one who found that distracting, Orser could have just as easily been used. Ironically, the frequently manic Day is restrained in Pacific Rim enough to be a plausible scientist, while one of the physicists screams and runs around like a maniac.

Even Charlie Day’s Leland Orser impression makes more of an impact than either Hunnam or Rinko Kikuchi’s (Mori) performance. The two have very little onscreen chemistry and they are trumped for whatever acting talent they bring to the table by the scope and scale of the Jaeger special effects. When Del Toro cuts between the special effects sequences and the human actors, it only seems to accent how bland and small most of the performers are.

In the end, Pacific Rim is only what it appears to be: a big-budget summer special effects film that belabors the science in its science fiction story before mortgaging any cleverness or originality in favor of giant fight sequences that are much less than inspired.

For other works with Idris Elba, please check out my reviews of:
Thor: The Dark World
Prometheus
Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance
Thor
28 Weeks Later

3/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Alternating Between Boring And Bloody Disgusting, Drive Is An Unfortunate Disappointment.

The Good: Opening, Basic plot, Moments of character
The Bad: Predictable plot, Terribly light on character, Acting is not anyone’s best performance.
The Basics: After all the hype, I finally take in Drive and end up horribly disappointed.


Right now, my wife is upset with me and, truth be told, I cannot blame her at all. We sat down for a movie together and watched Drive and she is upset with me. Here’s why: 2011 was a good year for Ryan Gosling. I saw him in Crazy Stupid Love. (reviewed here!) and The Ides Of March (reviewed here!) and liked his work quite a bit. The part of his 2011 trifecta I was missing was Drive and I got psyched about seeing it for two reasons. The first was that what little I had read about it in advance made it very clear that it was not as vacuous or dumb as the previews initially made it seem. All I knew was that the previews made it look like a dumb The Fast And The Furious-type driving film and it was not that. The other reason I was excited was that Drive was a movie I did not know much about. That is a rarity for me these days and so I was very excited to be able to watch a movie that might honestly surprise me.

Unfortunately, not all surprises are good. Drive was a surprise in that it was not what I hoped it would or could be. Unfortunately, it did not live up to any of my hopes or expectations and it made it exceptionally easy to not recommend. When Drive is not boring the life out of the viewer, it is repulsing those still awake with some of the most intense, gross, violent images I’ve seen in film. Yeah, Drive is just an unfortunate mess.

The Driver is a professional, in all of the aspects of his life. He has a keen tactical mind which makes him an ideal getaway car driver for robbers and thugs as he is smartly able to evade the Los Angeles police. Called the Kid by Shannon, the wounded owner of the car shop he works at, Shannon helps The Driver get work as a stunt car driver in movies. Shannon also wants The Driver to race professionally for him and he uses the Driver to get Bernie Rose to financially back a race car, despite Bernie’s business partner Nino not being so keen on the idea.

The Driver’s life is a quiet, solitary one outside the fleeing from the cops, until he notices his neighbor. Irene lives two doors down and has a son. The Driver is attracted to her and when she reveals that her husband is in prison and getting out soon, he continues to show interest. When Standard is released from jail, he is protective of Irene, but soon the mob comes looking for him. The Driver, eager to get Irene and the boy out of the way of any potential harm, agrees to drive Standard on a robbery, unbeknownst to any of them that it is a dangerous set-up.

Drive is, in many ways, an unfortunate movie. What starts out intriguing quickly turns into a droll, desperately tiresome art house flick (and I love artsy movies!) and then degenerates into a gory killfest that is anything but entertaining. In fact, what makes Drive so disappointing on so many levels is that it starts as one thing and then becomes another without so much developing as abruptly turning. It’s like director Nicholas Winding Refn had three moods when he made Drive. He starts the movie with a decent heist wherein the viewer is given clues about the Driver. He is smart, likes round dials and not digital displays and he has a strong survival instinct. Nicholas Winding Refn sets up an engaging, thrilling movie. Then, he spends forty-five minutes (which feels like about three hours long) creating a quiet, ponderous art movie with a tormented protagonist and a deep sense of weight. Then, it’s like he woke up in his directing chair and decided to make a gory action film because without any real transition, the movie turns into a troublingly graphic bloodletting. It’s not developed, it really is like he just got sick of making one type movie and decided to make an entirely different one.

Sadly, Drive is not a great movie. I was excited about Drive and as it developed, I thought it had the potential to be as engaging as Payback (reviewed here!). No such luck; the dialogue is not as witty, the direction is not as exciting or original and the characters are nowhere near as interesting.

The real letdown for me, outside the fact that as the movie turned especially graphic in the gore and violence departments after lulling my wife and I into near catatonic states and knowing that that would severely upset my wife, was that the acting was nothing to write home about. Carey Mulligan, whose only other work I have seen (to the best of my recollection) is Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (reviewed here!) and is dismally bland as Irene made me figure that she has the best publicist in the world that she keeps getting work! Ron Perlman is woefully underused as Nino and Ryan Gosling is absent all of his innate charisma in Drive.

In fact, the best acting in Drive comes from brief supporting roles. Christina Hendricks is virtually unrecognizable as Blanche and she sells the performance by having none of the whimsy she used in her recurring role on Firefly. Oscar Isaac gives a decent, if brief, performance as Standard. I did not like Standard, but the scene where Standard sizes up the Driver is a masterwork of understatement and physical acting for Oscar Isaac. He truly nails it. Arguably, the best performance in the film comes from Bryan Cranston who limps his way through the role of Shannon. Shannon is a likable character and Cranston uses his eyes to evoke so many of the character’s emotions that it’s a treat to see such a professional.

Drive is a bloody mess the rest of the time. Now on DVD, my wife and I didn’t bother checking out any of the bonus features on the disc because, frankly, it was just that unpleasant of a film.

For other works with John Pyper-Ferguson, be sure to visit my reviews of:
X-Men III: The Last Stand
The Adventures Of Brisco County Jr.
“A Fistful Of Datas”
Unforgiven

3.5/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

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

An Adult Fairy Tale In A Strange Land, The City Of Lost Children

The Good: Visually impressive, Excellent acting, Good characters
The Bad: Fairy tale plot
The Basics: A visual treat, The City Of Lost Children puts a young girl and a strongman together to thwart a mad scientist in an adult fairy tale.


The City Of Lost Children was one of my risk films, the type I saw - actually bought the DVD - without knowing anything real about it. I saw the movie poster when I was in college and, being a fan of Terry Gilliam's work, I was amused by his quote on the poster and saw the images and thought it was very much like Brazil. Brazil (reviewed here!) is my favorite film, so I thought The City Of Lost Children might be enjoyable.

I enjoy being right.

The City Of Lost Children is a distinct place and it's amazing to see. In it, there is a man named One, caring for his "little brother" Denree. When Denree is abducted by a group of people who pluck out their eyes and put in cybernetic implants, he goes on a quest to find him. To that end, he allies himself with a little girl named Miette, an orphan thief for the Siamese twin Octopus. Meanwhile, there is a floating laboratory where Krank lives. Krank is a brilliant scientist who lacks the ability to dream. In fact, he's somewhat sadistic and to that end, he kidnaps children and attempts to try to live in their dreams. Aided by a group of dimwitted clones, a brain in a fish tank and his petite wife, Krank swaps technology for the kidnaped children. So, One and Miette must confront Krank and free the children.

While it's no Brazil, The City Of Lost Children has so much going for it. It is a wonderful chance to see a visually stunning work. The City is an amazing and distinct place, with its waterways in the town and the strange trucks that drive the streets, this is a weird place. The design of the place is enough alone to bring the viewer in.

Refreshingly, the characters support that. One and Miette are interesting. Miette wants something more and she finds that in One, who has a predilection toward protecting children. They are made for each other. And Krank. Krank is the villain. Not much more, but he makes for an adequate villain.

What makes the film worth watching, even more than the simplicity of the spectacle of the production design is the acting. Ron Perlman, who plays One gives an inspired performance. He is kind and gentle with his portrayal of a man who is basically a stranger in the most strange land. Perlman gives a great showing, he is strong and fatherly, which is exactly what the role calls for. And Daniel Emilfork is a great villain. His acting makes Krank a viable villain, even more than the script does. He has a cold stare that is menacing and yet when he softens his face, he can pull off real humanity, which makes him more than the monolithic villain.

But two people steal the show. The first is Dominique Pinon. He plays six roles in The City of Lost Children. He's the clone, working so hard that he slaps other versions of himself in scenes and he does it with utter convincing talent. Add to that that he plays the Messiah, the source material of the clones and he makes a completely different character with him. It's more than just the beard. He makes the man unique. It works wonderfully.

But Judith Vittet is the most impressive talent. At nine years old, she breathes live into Miette. She plays the girl like a woman, lending wisdom to the role that just screams of being someone far older than who she actually is. Judith is incredible and had it not been for her, the film would have almost certainly been far worse than it was.

What is the problem with The City of Lost Children? It's just that it is predictable. It's a fairy tale and it seems like one to watch it.

But, it's an adult fairy tale and it works very well as such. Not for children, The City Of Lost Children is a visual masterpiece that is intrigued with systems, events that affect other events and they work very well. It's interesting and fun to watch. Children won't understand it. If you like Brazil, this will be something you enjoy, though you ought not to expect as much from it. If you did not enjoy Brazil, this is for you; it has the visual weirdness of the superior film with a much more coherent plot.

For other works featuring Ron Perlman, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Tangled
The Clone Wars - Season 1
Hellboy 2: The Golden Army
Hellboy
Star Trek: Nemesis
Alien: Resurrection

8/10

For other film reviews, check out my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2007, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

A Visual Marvel Does Not Mask The Disappointment Of Hellboy 2: The Golden Army.

The Good: Visually imaginative, Moments of character
The Bad: Predictable (obvious) plot, Mediocre acting, Pacing issues
The Basics: Hellboy 2: The Golden Army capitalizes on writer/director Guillermo Del Toro's visual style and love of fairy tales, but gives the viewer little new.


It is a rare thing that I see a movie and review it positively, yet do not look it up well in advance of the release of a sequel. Sometimes when that happens, I check out my original review just to prepare myself for the experience of seeing the new movie. Because I never go back and re-rate my reviews, I am sometimes surprised by what I find when I read my older reviews. This is exactly what I felt going into Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, which I prepared for by re-reading my review on Hellboy (reviewed here!). I remember very little about Hellboy save that the villain became progressively larger and my ultimate feeling was ambivalence.

Still, as I participated in Summer Blockbuster Season (2008), Hellboy 2: The Golden Army sure seemed like a movie I needed to see. After a summer of disappointments and few surprises, I was ready for something good that I would enjoy and might actually surprise me in a good way. Unfortunately, this is not the case with Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, which is sadly average at its best.

As a child, young Hellboy was told the story of a war between the elves and men and the fantastic army of robots that was built for the elves to crush the men. His father read the story of the truce between the two sides and the Elven prince who went into exile rather than accept the peace. There is a crown, split into three parts, which controls the Golden Army and it has been lost to history. As the Bureau of Paranormal Research And Defense struggles to maintain anonymity with Hellboy's antics drawing attention to them, a new director is brought in to establish control.

Around the time the ectoplasmic suit Krauss arrives, there is a brutal attack of tooth fairies that cleans out an auction of prominent citizens in Manhattan at which a portion of the lost crown was being auctioned. Hellboy, Liz, and Abe Sapien find themselves at the mercy of the elf prince. While Hellboy takes on the elf's henchman Mr. Wink and an elemental, Abe discovers the elf princess and pursues her and the last piece of the crown Prince Nuada needs to gain control of the Golden Army. Wounded by a magical spear, Hellboy and Abe must figure out how to prevent the Golden Army from laying waste to humanity and save the life of Princess Nuala, who is mystically tied to her twin brother.

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army is a visually imaginative film by Guillermo Del Toro, perhaps best known for directing Pan's Labyrinth. The problematic aspect of Hellboy 2 is that it looks a lot like Pan's Labyrinth in the lighting and creature design. There are imaginative beings and the scenes in the Troll Market are fun to watch just for the visual spectacle of the creature design. Del Toro has an imagination and it is one that translates well to film, at least for the sense of visual majesty that a good special effects department can execute.

The problem is that Hellboy 2: The Golden Army is a kid's story in many ways set in a fantastic world, remarkably similar to that of Pan's Labyrinth. There is a similar sense of style and story simplicity that carries through both films. The premise of the entire movie is established in the opening story that Hellboy is told as a child and from the moment that prologue ends, the movie is remarkably uncomplicated and terribly predictable.

In other words, this is not a movie where the plot is going to light the world on fire and it certainly is not one that is going to challenge the viewers. The plot is one virtually everyone has seen before, certainly anyone who saw Hellboy has seen a movie with more or less the same plot as this film.

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army almost works best when it is not trying to be serious . . . except at the end when Krauss has a throwaway line that panders to the PG-13 audience's mentality. But in one of the earliest sequences, when Director Manning is walking through the Bureau with Sapien and there is background comedy going on, it is amusing enough.

The problem, essentially, is that when the movie is not trying desperately to be funny and get out the catch phrase punchline that kids might quote or attempting to be visually spectacular in a way that surprises or intrigues the audience, the movie falls flat on the character front. Hellboy is irritable and irritated, Liz has become something of a nag and Abe Sapien is just lonely until both Krauss and Nuala come into his life.

Abe's character makes a great deal of sense then, in that he becomes motivated by love, desire and the strong - understandable - urge to be lonely no longer. He makes decisions that are questionable but comprehensible based on those factors and it works. There is a simplicity to his relationship with Nuala and their mutual ability to read thoughts makes for an intensity that makes more sense than the usual love story in a film. The viewer can easily get the levels that Sapien and Princess Nuala are communicating on in the simple scenes where they put their hands together.

The problem comes in the form of Hellboy and his character. Prince Nuada opens Hellboy up to the idea that humans will never accept or like him. While fighting the elemental creature Nuada unleashes, the elf prince and Hellboy have a great conversation where Hellboy is compelled to acknowledge that unique creatures - when destroyed - diminish the whole. That understanding this vital theme does not lead him to change his perspective or modify his actions becomes incredibly disappointing. Equally disappointing is that many of the moments that could be the best character bits end up as obvious plot points.

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army does not change, challenge or modify the Hellboy character. Instead, he does what he does, more or less as he did them before, until the movie ends and he still does more or less what he wants. This is not a film about growth or change, but it has all of the important elements of a movie that could be a great character study where that sort of change does happen.

In fact, it seems like this movie is mostly about setting up the third installment as opposed to actually being substantial in its own right. As important, Liz makes the key decision that sets up future installments in possibly the last decent scene in the film. One might think this enhances her character, but instead this just seems - again - like a plot point as opposed to a character decision.

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army might well be a decent flick for those looking for a popcorn movie. I wanted excitement, adventure and something that challenged me and was different from what I have seen before. Instead, this was a very typical fairy tale turned action film with increasingly complex villains who Hellboy and his peers must defeat in order to save the world. Or sell movie tickets. Sadly, this might have been the most expensive movie ticket I ever paid for and it is not worth it. I suppose this movie might work if one has a craving for popcorn during the times the film would be shown as a matinee. But full price . . . nah.

This movie is more like watching a video game for all its substance and predictability. It is stylish, but not substantial and it adds up to an ultimately forgettable film. At least when the third film is released, I won't feel bad about not remembering much about this one.

On DVD, HellBoy 2 features a ton of extras that more or less justify the film's existence (though they do not excuse the imaginative flaws). There are deleted scenes with commentary that add more to the relationships between the primary characters. It's a shame they were not re-integrated back into the movie. There is a commentary track as well as a two-hour featurette on the making of The Golden Army on the second disc. Unfortunately, between the two bits there is a lot of overlap and there is a repetitive quality to them. There is also an extensive look at the special effects and that is pretty cool, but not enough to recommend the movie for a permanent collection.

For other works with Jeffrey Tambor, please check out my reviews of:
The Hangover, Part II
The Hangover
Arrested Development
How The Grinch Stole Christmas

4.5/10

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

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

Another Non-Invincible Superhero! Hellboy

The Good: Dark, Well-Acted, Interesting premise
The Bad: Some special effects, Predictable plot
The Basics: When the tortured soul Hellboy needs to save the world, he has to become a team player to thwart monster after monster after monster.


My dad has a philosophy; invincible superheroes are boring. He grew up on X-Men and other Marvel characters and instilled in me an appreciation for heroes who are flawed, yet powerful. After all, what is the fun of a hero that is all-powerful? Of course they'll win. But when you've got a hero who has a weakness and still manages to overcome, that's something. I have to remember to introduce my dad to Angel. As it stands, I think he'd like Hellboy.

Back in World War Two, the Nazis attempted to use paranormal forces to win the war (that's the premise of the movie and not necessarily one of my beliefs!). To that end, they opened a portal which allowed through a small, devilish creature that was subdued by the Allied through the use of candy bars (I kid you not). Now, in our times, that creature has become known as the Hellboy and he is a part of the United States' secret Paranormal Defense team which is protecting us against all sorts of baddies. Hellboy has lain low for a while when someone threatens him and his team, ultimately revealing that the most dangerous element may be Hellboy himself.

Hellboy is, at the end of the day, your pretty standard superhero tale. We get the character's backstory, we meet the character, we see what he's up against - in this case an army of demon dogs that have laid eggs in the sewers - and he goes off to try to thwart them. In the process, he loses the aid of his sidekick - in this case, a cool telepathic amphibian named Abe Sapien -, is forced to go it alone, realizes he can't, enlists the aid of another, and finds that the villain he though he was fighting is just the tip of the iceberg.

The fundamental problem with Hellboy is that it starts with too many villains. Hellboy is brought into the world by Rasputin, his unaging Nazi lover and a mechanical blade-wielding assassin. They are thwarted in the first ten minutes of the movie and we move on to the dog-demon thing and that's cool. It's a fine adversary and the movie works pretty well while Hellboy, Abe, and some other government agents, attempt to kill off it and its spawn. But then the trio of evil resurfaces and we, the viewers, are left wondering when the movie will end. And so, as Hellboy moves toward destroying the trio of goons, in the process learning the meaning of his overlarge rock hand, we begin to feel some catharsis. But, just when the viewer believes that the end has come and Hellboy has thwarted the last of the evil ones, something even bigger enters the picture. I mean bigger, obscenely big. And it's just too hard to care by that point.

Hmm . . . maybe I didn't like it as much as I thought when I sat down to write this review.

The truth is, it's the last creature and the special effect of the gargantuan beast that costs the movie a lot of points. While Rasputin describes the hell that he can use Hellboy to create on Earth, we catch a glimpse of some of the creatures flying through the sky and they are awesome. It's an impressive visual. When Rasputin uses Hellboy to try to open the portal to let some of the big baddies in, that is also a sufficiently cool effect. But what comes next with Rasputin - the genesis of the final evil - is big and ridiculous and not at all impressive.

The truth is, outside the ending effects, the special effects are pretty decent. The effects around Abe Sapien and the dog creatures are wonderful, making them feel like a part of the world, as opposed to comic book aliens. So, the real drawbacks are the plot predictabilities and the pacing and the final special effects battle. It feels like a battle of special effects creations as opposed to characters or forces.

But outside that last battle, the emphasis of the movie does try to be on the characters. And it's a worthwhile venture into superhero universe. Hellboy is tortured by love for a woman, Liz Sherman, and while it seems like something we've heard before, Hellboy does it differently. Unlike something rather safe like Superman - where we never truly see a villain exploit Superman's love of Lois Lane - Rasputin uses his knowledge of Hellboy's love of Liz Sherman to manipulate him, putting him in the position of saving the woman he loves or the world. Moreover, Hellboy is not invincible. Neither is the more powerful Abe Sapien. It's a nice twist; the more intellectually powerful and all-around useful Sapien is exceptionally fragile. Similarly, Liz has the ability to burn well, pretty much the world, but is an emotional wreck. These characters are less monolithic than your comic book standards and that is refreshing to watch.

Add to the depth of character the general quality of the acting. Selma Blair makes Liz empathetic, more than either a damsel in distress or a superpowerful being. Blair has an uncertain quality to her eyes that makes her character seem legitimately unstable. Using David Hyde Pierce to voice Abe Sapien similarly makes that character resonate with intellectual authenticity.

Moreover, Jeffrey Tambor steals just about every scene he is in. Tambor plays the uptight Dr. Tom Manning, a government liaison who has some authority over the Department. Tambor is excellent at modulating between hyperbole comic relief and pragmatism, making Manning a character who is equally interesting to watch as Hellboy.

As for Hellboy, they say this was Ron Perlman's first chance to open a movie on his own and I assume those people are referring to "for an American audience," as he had quite a bit of success in other countries and movies (like The City of Lost Children) long before this. Perlman goes beyond adequate for the part, using his voice and eyes to overcome what could be seen as overbearing make-up. At no point in the movie did I find myself thinking "Ron Perlman . . ." it was always "Hellboy." I can think of no better praise for an actor.

In the end, it is pretty much a razor decision. I'd watch it again if I was bored and wanted a superhero movie. Heck, I'd watch it voluntarily before I ever watched a full episode of Smallville. If you like dark and different, Hellboy will eat up two of your hours, even if sometimes it might feel longer.

For other films based upon comic book characters, please check out my reviews of:
Watchmen
Captain America
Catwoman

6/10

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

© 2011, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Gets An Ugly Stepsister With Looney Tunes: Back In Action.

The Good: Moments of humor/social commentary, Generally charming
The Bad: Predictable, Light on character, Obvious plot, Often painfully self-referential.
The Basics: Funny in a few parts, Looney Tunes: Back In Action is more frequently a painful collection of Warner Bros. references that fall flat as a film.


Perhaps it is the sheer number of great films I have seen lately, but mediocre movies suffer even more under my pen than they did before. Still, my wife has gotten quite sick of being "subjected" to Best Picture winners and to maintain a happy household, I've let her choose movies to alternate with my Best Picture winners. The latest new-to-me flick she wanted to watch was Looney Tunes: Back In Action.

For those who might not have heard of the film, Looney Tunes: Back In Action was a blend of live action settings and actors and animated characters. Hardly seamlessly blended, Looney Tunes: Back In Action is based on the premise that Looney Tunes characters like Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny are real, but are actors. As such, real-life characters walk around interacting with animated characters and the animated characters, puppets and humans are treated with equal respect and sense of reality.

The Warner Brothers are looking to make a new film with Bugs Bunny and have brought in Kate, a network efficiency expert. Kate decides that the old formula with Bugs and Daffy fighting one another is not going to work and she fires Daffy Duck. Daffy is taken off the Warner Bros. lot by D.J. Drake, the son of action star Damien Drake. Despondent, Daffy accompanies the also-fired D.J. back to his home and once there, they learn that Damien has been kidnaped by the Acme Corporation. Acme is after the Blue Monkey Diamond and they are convinced D.J. has the tools to recover it for them.

Unfortunately for Kate, the new movie with Bugs Bunny is testing poorly and the Warner Brothers give her the weekend to get Daffy back. Kate and Bugs head out to Las Vegas to try to get the duck and former security guard back. But once reunited, the quartet works to save Damien, recover the Blue Monkey Diamond and thwart the machinations of the CEO of the Acme Corporation!

Looney Tunes: Back In Action has its moments, but they are few and far between for my tastes. Moreover, the movie oscillates problematically between being a ridiculous slapstick film and a social commentary. The commentary tends to explore how vacuous Hollywood is and how it markets and focus-group creates its works. So, for example, one of the amusing moments involves Kate, D.J., Bugs and Daffy wandering through a desert and encountering an oasis . . . WalMart. On the way in and out, Kate and D.J. reference the appearance of the WalMart in the film and how they keep saying the name of the store. While this is true and actually funny, it does not truly fit the same film where the villain is monolithically maniacally evil, down to his ridiculous over-the-top laugh.

As well, the blending of the live-action, puppets, and humans is not inherently problematic, but the execution in this particular movie is sloppy. At some moments, Daffy Duck appears as a three-dimensional animated character and at others, he is clearly two-dimensional. The lack of consistency in how the animated characters are presented is irksome at best. While the movie is no doubt intended for children, the attention to detail is lacking and adult audiences are likely to be disappointed sitting through it. Still, the movie attempts to make overtures to adults with the commentary on Hollywood.

Similarly, the scenes with the Chairman of Acme have dialogue that explores corporate greed and corruption, but they are broken up with the character devolving into evil laughter. Children as also less-likely to get the barrage of references from other Warner Brothers properties. In addition to Batman and animated Warner Bros. films, Looney Tunes: Back In Action has direct spoofs of Scooby-Doo and Doctor Who. The allusions are often not at all subtle, but many of them take a broad knowledge of Warner Bros. properties.

Looney Tunes: Back In Action seems like it would have been the death of the careers of everyone who was involved in it, but I suppose that so few people saw it that it cannot drag them down. I was particularly delighted to see Robert Picardo in the boardroom scenes, but that's just the geek in me. Steve Martin shows a particularly droll side of his talents as the Chairman of Acme and how Warner Bros. got Timothy Dalton to spoof himself so much is a mystery to me. Martin in particular shows an almost singular neglect of his well-developed talents as the Chairman; he is almost as off as he was in The Pink Panther.

But the live-action portions of Looney Tunes: Back In Action tend to hinge upon the acting talents of Brendan Fraser and Jenna Elfman. Fraser seems perfectly comfortable with acting opposite the virtual characters, but more often than not, Elfman is caught looking in the wrong directions and holding virtual objects awkwardly. This is a mix of poor acting and poor animating as some of the problems could have been animated around to actually make her look like she was more comfortable with them. This is not filled with any stellar performances.

As well, the movie is absent any real character development. The problems are simple problems with simple, formulaic resolutions and when there are surprises, they are hardly monumental or character-enriching either for the characters in the movie or for the audience. As a result, much of Looney Tunes: Back In Action seems like a string of random jokes about Warner Bros. owned properties and the self-referential schtick wears thin quickly.

On DVD, Looney Tunes Back In Action features multiple featurettes. They include stunts and a behind-the-scenes featurette. As well, there are deleted scenes - which are generally funny or charming - and the film's theatrical trailer. There is no commentary track, but truly this is not a movie that needs one.

All in all, this is a comedy that seems to want to be ambitious and smart, but sells out to the kid audience to provide obvious slapstick jokes. As a result, it holds together poorly and is not worth even a single viewing, despite having moments of humor.

For other works with Brendan Fraser, please check out my reviews of:
Furry Vengeance
G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra
Crash
Gods And Monsters

2.5/10

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

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.




| | |

They Should Have Left It Dead: Alien Resurrection

The Good: Acting
The Bad: Latex, Special effects, Inconsistent plot, Characters
The Basics: They should have left the series dead. NOT for a fan of the Alien series or anyone else, for that matter!


Ellen Ripley, the protagonist of the Alien Trilogy has an excellent character arc. Yes, I will stand up and say that if you take a night and watch Alien, Aliens, and Alien 3 in a row, you'll come out saying there's an impressive character and a great story. I'm one of maybe ten people in the U.S. who likes Alien 3; it's underrated.

Alien Resurrection is not.

Hundreds of years after the events in Alien 3, which resulted in the death of Ellen Ripley, the military forces that work for Earth have set about to clone the lost woman in hopes of cloning the alien queen she carried. The military R&D believes the aliens can be trained for use in their wars elsewhere in the galaxy and they succeed in cloning Ripley and the queen inside her. Unfortunately, the clone is more of a hybrid than a pure clone and she has a connection to the new aliens the military makes.

At the same time, a group of smugglers come aboard the military vessel with bodies needed to generate the new alien army. As they relax and have a shore leave on the military ship, the aliens are hatched and soon all hell is breaking loose. The smugglers and the Ripley clone must flee the ship before it unleashes an alien plague on nearby Earth.

Alien 3 had wonderful merits in that it continued a whole set of circumstances and themes that the first two films establish. In fact, Alien 3 becomes necessary as a thematical conclusion to the broader social commentaries of the first two films. Alien Resurrection contains none of the depth of interest of the first three films.

In simple terms, it's just plain bad.

First of all, the film makes the mistake most science fiction films make which is to spend a lot of attention to effects. One of the beautiful things about the first three films was the starkness both visually and technologically of the future presented.

Moreover, Alien Resurrection completely insults the fans of the rest of the series by imitating the plot of the first film. It's like a 90's blood and guts, shoot 'em up, the more violence the better, group attempt to make Alien and it fails. At least Aliens anticipated an intelligent audience coming in after Alien and reveals the android quickly. The "surprise" of Alien Resurrection isn't and if you can't peg the android when it first appears, you ought to be disappointed in yourself.

The characters are inconsistent and the learning curve of the clone Ripley's memory is just way too unbelievably high. The sad thing is, the plot wasn't a terribly bad idea; a clone of Ripley is created and the DNA is corrupted by the Alien DNA. Then again, it doesn't take a biologist to figure out that if you're smart enough to be able to clone something as well as they do in the film, you're smart enough to have a complete map of DNA and know what strings are essentially not human.

Alien Resurrection's superlative moment, the reason I'm even bothering to write this review, is in containing the most vile, disgusting and unnecessary scene in any film ever. Ripley is a clone, the first success and during the opening credits, the attuned viewer will catch that we're getting glimpses of the failures. In the course of Alien Resurrection, Ripley finds the cloning room and what should be a psychologically disturbing scene is drawn out to obscene lengths. In fact, Ripley's humanitarian act that results is hardly cathartic as it is disgusting and the entire scene was over done, over long and incredibly unnecessary.

The only positive side is that Sigourney Weaver's acting range is displayed and she comes across as more talented than she might have before, certainly than she did in the first film of the series.

Between disgusting scenes that were unnecessary, the bizarre Alien orgy scene and the completely repetitive ending, Alien Resurrection only serves to detract from the series that deserved a better ending.

For other works featuring Winona Ryder, please check out my reviews of:
Black Swan
Star Trek
Edward Scissorhands

2/10

For other film reviews, please check out my index page!

© 2011, 2007, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Life And Death Of Ellen Ripley In A (Mostly) Amazing DVD Set! The Alien Quadrilogy

The Good: Three great films, Amazing DVD bonuses, Character, Acting, Mood
The Bad: Plots get repetitive, Final film is absolutely terrible
The Basics: Even exceptional DVD extras cannot save this boxed set from the stink of one of the films, though it is arguably an incredible example of what DVD can be!


For the past few years, I've been arguing that the best older television shows ought to create boxed sets featuring the entire series of a show for true fans and collectors, then break the series up into season boxed sets. This rewards the big fans who shell out the big money first by giving them everything and a little bit more and making those who are more inclined to pick and choose wait. Seriously, who cares what happened in the final season of Family Ties? Who was still watching? The producers of those DVDs where the series ran forever can successfully beat the low-sales virtually guaranteed to come with the later seasons by selling the entire series first. For shows with six season (for example) where the last season may not have lived up to the expectations of the fans, this is more likely to get the material out there and sold as opposed to breaking it down. Given the choice between buying a weak season for completion and getting something else (which given the variety and choices out there is virtually guaranteed each week!), I think most people will opt for getting something new that thrills them rather than completing a collection.

Nothing proves this idea better than the Alien Quadrilogy. This lush, beautiful, big boxed set features three tremendous films and one truly abysmal one. Sales of the Alien Quadrilogy, which preceded the DVD release of the individual films Alien, Aliens, Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection, were phenomenal and the nine disc set features a disc not available to those who picked and choosed. And because it came out before the individual releases, this was not a clear attempt to milk fans for more money by providing something extra in the unified boxed set after one had already purchased the component parts. That is classy. It ought to be the model for DVD producers everywhere.

The Alien Quadrilogy (a term coined for this boxed set, meaning "series of four" the way "trilogy" means "series of three") is a beautiful set of nine DVDs that is obsessed with providing the viewers with everything possible that there is to know about the series that began with Alien. Discs 1,3,5, and 7 feature the films of the Alien Quadrilogy, each with a branching option to allow the viewer to watch the original theatrical cut or a new Special Edition or Director's cut remastered for the set (or before). This means that viewers may choose at the opening menu between watching the 1979 theatrical version of Alien and the 2003 director's cut (with essentially one added scene and bits cut out, resulting in a film that is a minute shorter), the 1986 theatrical version of Aliens or the 1991 Special Edition which restores almost twenty minutes to the film, the 1992 theatrical cut of Alien 3 or the thirty minute longer special edition remade for the DVD release based on notes and an assembly print (the director had nothing to do with this special edition), and the theatrical version of the 1997 release Alien Resurrection and its 2003 special edition made for the DVD which offers an alternate beginning more familiar to fans of The City Of Lost Children with about seven more minutes of footage. The beauty here is that the originals are preserved while the alternate cuts are made available, both with full commentary from production and cast members.

For those unfamiliar with the Alien story, over the course of four films, Ellen Ripley is plagued by a nightmarish alien life form that terrorizes her and those she is with. In Alien, her mining ship is diverted to a remote planet where one of the crew becomes infected with a parasite. The parasite lays an egg which soon erupts from the crewmember and the resulting life form grows fast into a creature that systematically kills the crew. Ripley manages to escape, but awakens years later to find that a colony has been established on that same remote planet and now there are scores of the creatures, which a crew of Marines are brought in to thwart. Barely surviving that encounter, Ripley is thrown into dire straits again with one on a prison planet. Finally, Ripley awakens to find that she is a part of an experiment orchestrated by a corrupt government to use the alien life forms as a weapon.

The common element throughout the films, of course, is the character of Ellen Ripley. Ripley is an iconic heroic character whose journey takes her from worker to mother to leader to . . . well, that's why Alien Resurrection sucks; the character arc is pretty much complete when the fourth film begins and viewers are asked to buy the premises. The truth is, were it not for the overwhelming quality of the bonus features in this boxed set - had it been only the four films included - the rating would have been much closer to average as the final film sucks the series down that far.

Ripley is played by Sigourney Weaver and this is a role that defines Weaver as a badass actress capable of playing the action heroine. Throughout the films, she plays Ripley as terrified and terrorized, strong and in control, and self-reliant and animalistic. She is tough when she has to be, emotive and realistic when it is appropriate. She is a truly great actress and this is one of the highlights of her career.

Weaver is joined in various installments of the series by other notables such as Tom Skerrit, John Hurt, Bill Paxton, Michael Beihn, Lance Henriksen, Charles S. Dutton, Charles Dance, Winona Ryder, and Ron Perlman. This is a series that has attracted some true greats and here they live up to their reputations and deliver performances that involve maintaining a mood, progressing movement and/or delivering some of the most memorable one-liners in cinematic history.

What the Alien Quadrilogy excels at is establishing a mood. Alien pioneered the science fiction-horror, Aliens arguably created the summer blockbuster action-adventure, Alien 3 is a taut character-driven chase film, and Alien Resurrection, for all its problems, is a pretty tight action film with characters fleeing from the new wave of creatures. Even in Alien Resurrection, there's a pretty wonderful sense of movement, even if that's all it has going for it.

The Alien Quadrilogy comes with a ninth disc which looks at the franchise as a whole and has material not otherwise available. Following on the heels of extensive documentary and featurette supplements on discs 2,4,6, and 8, the ninth disc adds to the treasure trove by providing an even larger sense of the Alien universe. This includes a gallery of Dark Horse comic book covers, a look at the props from the films, trailers and more. It's impressive.

All in all, the Alien Quadrilogy is a great value, but its packaging does not inform the buyer of all they ought to know. In short, the universe of the Alien films is a dark, stark, adult universe. These are films intended for adults (all four are rated "R") and the bonus content is honest and frank about the production elements and complications that arose on the sets (especially with Alien 3). This is a wonderful set for the adult science fiction fan.

And yes, the sheer amount of bonus features on these discs blew fans away when it was originally released and it does truly set a standard for DVD quality. Indeed, the only boxed set to give this set a run for its money would have to be Freaks And Geeks, a short-lived television show whose DVD presentation is packed with deleted scenes, outtakes, and featurettes and two commentary tracks per episode! It might be a completely different niche, but when we're comparing DVDs, these two sets stack up as two of the best for the simple volume of materials (the bonus discs in the Alien Quadrilogy are PACKED!).

This set is a must for anyone who loves science fiction, horror or wants to see the true potential of the DVD medium!

For more information on the individual films in the Alien Quadrilogy, please check out my reviews of the films at:
Alien
Aliens
Alien 3
Alien Resurrection

8/10

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

© 2011, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

An Overbearing Mother's Wildest Dreams (With Music): Tangled Is Simple And Direct!

The Good: Interesting characters, Fun (visually and musically), Decent voice acting.
The Bad: Musically unmemorable, 3-D effects are unimpressive, Plot/Moral messages trend too far toward the safe and conservative.
The Basics: Disney's latest animated feature, Tangled is pleasantly direct, delightfully goofy and annoyingly predictable at moments when it could stretch toward the audacious.


As one who loathes some of the business practices of the company, I've given a disturbing amount of money to Disney this year. I'm not talking about the subtle takeovers of the company like Lost or Iron Man 2, but rather the straight, unabashed Disney products that I usually wouldn't spend money on. I felt I had to see the 3-D versions of Alice In Wonderland (reviewed here!) and Toy Story 3 (reviewed here!) after seeing preview screenings in 2-D and I knew the company was going to end the year well with Tron: Legacy. I forgot, strangely because I had seen so very many previews of it, that they still had Tangled coming out. Last night, after making a new addition to our family (more about that very soon!), my wife took me out to the movies for Tangled.

Here I feel it behooves me to mention some things about my reviews and the way I rate. While a ten point scale might be pretty clear to most, and my index page where those numbers illustrate comparatively what I think about movies makes my pantheon a whole lot clearer, the nuance of it is sometimes less clear. Obviously, the extreme ends of the scale 9-10, 1 - 0 are for the absolute best and absolute worst films. But "average" is a wider number than I think most people consider and in my scale it probably ranges from 4 - 6.5. In other words, 6.5 is not bad, it is the best of works which might dazzle in one way shape or form, but might be a bit more predictable or pedestrian in other ways. With Tangled, it had a lot to overcome with this viewer to get to a 6.5 and yet, it made it there and the truth is, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. But it is not flawless and the flaws actually reminded me far too much of why I don't usually like Disney movies.

In a magical kingdom, the daughter of a benevolent king and queen - Rapunzel - is bestowed with magical healing powers. Gothel, who is terrified of losing her youth and yet is feeling the effects of her age, steals the baby Rapunzel away and hides her in a remote tower. There, she raises her as a daughter and uses Rapunzel's healing hair (activated through song) to keep the girl emotionally enslaved and physically isolated from the world. But, as her eighteenth birthday approaches, Rapunzel becomes obsessed with an annual display of lights which is launched from nearby in the kingdom which she knows happens each year on her birthday. When Mother Gothel refuses to let her out of the castle for that, Rapunzel is distraught.

Enter Flynn Rider, rogue and thief, who has stolen the jeweled crown of the kingdom. As he flees the law, a bloodhound-like horse Maximus, and the two thugs with whom he did the operation, he discovers Rapunzel's tower and enters it. There he is captured by Rapunzel - who knocks him unconscious - and his satchel with the crown is taken. Rapunzel offers him a simple deal; he will get his crown back after he takes her to the lantern festival. With no other options, Flynn sets out with Rapunzel, though he tries to scare her out of the whole adventure. But Mother Gothel is hot on their trail and she sees an opportunity to get Rapunzel back into the tower through force, guile and emotional manipulation. As Rapunzel grows more confident, Flynn finds there is more to like about the young woman.

Tangled is, in many ways, a very obvious hero story. The heroine, Rapunzel, is instantly likable and easy to empathize with. Whether she knows it or not, she is a victim of emotional abuse (the song "Mother Knows Best" adequately explores Gothel's campaign of fear used to keep Rapunzel in line) and her confidence is undermined at the outset. Despite her friendship with her pet chameleon, Rapunzel has a lonely life as Gothel comes and goes (using Rapunzel's 70 ft. long hair) while she is kept a prisoner. But even from the outset, Rapunzel has strong goals of her own and she is very expressive about them. So, it is easy to see her as a young woman who is not the stereotypical milquetoast Disney princess who is simply waiting for a man to come along to rescue her.

Moreover, Rapunzel has more strength than Gothel knows and while her naivete allows her to survive an encounter with the worst ruffians in the land, she actually has a force of character that is enviable. Rapunzel, not a simple hero, not a complete victim, takes charge of her own destiny by taking Flynn Rider and making demands of him. In this way, she is expressive about her wants and needs and the moment she takes control of her life, she becomes an exceptional role model.

Rapunzel is also presented with a realism that is decent for her emotions as well. While it is presented in a laughable way, when Rapunzel leaves the tower with Flynn, she has an exceptional feeling of conflict. She is terrified she has ruined her relationship with her "mother," but she is elated by the sudden freedom and the strength that comes with being a self-determined individual. That plays well and is a positive message.

Unfortunately, what might be argued to be a decent feminist message from a Disney film is all undermined in the final five minutes of the movie. While I shall not spoil the classic tale ending, I will state that the movie makes a move toward the surprisingly audacious both in terms of what is shown and what the final voiceover states. But then, writer Dan Fogelman takes a huge leap back to pre-Sexual Revolution politics and with the final voiceover undermines the real strength of Rapunzel's character. The most annoying thing about it is there seems to be no actual reason why Fogelman guts a fairly liberal (or what should have been liberal fifty years ago) idea. It's no funnier, it's no more clever and it's no more character-building with the final change and thus, it just seems like shallow Disney propaganda.

That said, the only other serious problems with Tangled are that it seems to want to be a musical, though characters seldom break into song, and the film is entirely predictable. Tangled does not have a ton of songs in them and while the ode to abusive matriarchs is catchy, it is hardly the popular hit Disney was known for in my teen years. The musical numbers are fun, but they seem a stretch in some places more than organic to the story or even musical. Similarly, the plot is very predictable and surprisingly linear. Beyond being a simple fairy tale, Tangled makes effort not to stray into the surprising. Indeed, the most surprising aspect of Tangled is arguably that the ruffians all want to be artists and lovers of one form or another. I suppose Tangled could actually be seen as a subtle argument for the importance of the National Endowment Of The Arts, but I suspect that is giving too much credit to a gag.

The 3-D effects in Tangled are minimal and are not nearly as impressive as some of the other films I've seen using that technology this year (or in prior years). So, those considering shelling out for the big ticket, I'd recommend save the few extra bucks. Nothing will be lost seeing this in 2-D.

Tangled is brought alive through vibrant colors and some truly wonderful voice acting. Zachary Levi, whose work I was almost entirely unfamiliar with before seeing this movie, has a great voice to embody the suave Flynn Rider and he plays the role well. His deliveries are good and the animation that accompanies it is appropriately gallant. The more adult performers - Donna Murphy (Gothel), Ron Perlman (one of the thugs Flynn pulls off the initial heist with), M.C. Gainey (the guard who is tracking Flynn), Jeffrey Tambor, Brad Garrett, and Richard Kiel - all perform well within what is expected of them, especially for supporting roles. They embody their characters through voice acting well and directors Nathan Greno and Byron Howard get performances out of them that are unsurprising.

As well, lead Mandy Moore is unsurprising as Rapunzel. I write "unsurprising" because as far as I'm concerned, Moore has already cut her acting chops on American Dreamz and Saved! In other words, she is no longer fighting for legitimacy as an actress, so when she makes the wide-eyed, longhaired Rapunzel come to life through the power of her voice, we are not surprised. We are pleased she has continued to confound expectations of anyone who popped up as a pop star during the same rise as Britney Spears. Mandy Moore is fabulous and Tangled is just another notch on what will undoubtedly be a long resume.

Tangled might not be indispensable to see on the big screen, but it is certainly worth seeing. It is fun and while it is annoyingly predictable, it does it well. Very child-safe, Tangled is arguably the family movie of this holiday season.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Love And Other Drugs
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1
The Next Three Days

6.5/10

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

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


| | |