60/60 Review #23: Schindler's List.

This is my third Spielberg film I've reviewed for this 60/60 List. The first one, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, didn't sit super positively with me. Next was Saving Private Ryan, a film that I did enjoy it quite a lot. Now we're up to what is probably considered Spielberg's best film. But did I perceive it as such?

Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson) is a member of the Nazi party who also acts as a war profiteer. He starts hiring Jews to work in his factory, getting a lot of help from a man named Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley). But when another Nazi named Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes) shows up and begins committing cold-blooded murders on the Jewish population of the ghetto, Schindler starts to become more and more sympathetic toward the Jews. And when he gets word that they're going to be sent to their doom at Auschwitz, he puts together a list of names that he can save by bringing them to another factory in his hometown.

The acting is of course fantastic. This is probably one of Liam Neeson's finest performances. Ben Kingsley was the most likable in the movie. Ralph Fiennes as the crazy Nazi was the most fascinating. He's completely psychotic, sniping Jews from his balcony just because he feels like it or gets upset. But at the same time, he works along with Schindler, letting him keep his "workers" and even (somewhat) helping to have Schindler's workers safe from Auschwitz. He's still a total evil bastard, though. And the way everyone is acted is superb. That being said, however...

I honestly don't know how I feel about this film. Obviously I can tell you it was masterfully made. Mostly in black and white, there are only a few segments in color. The film is bookended in color, and there are a couple parts in the middle--some candles and the girl in the red dress, specifically. So the cinematography is great, the acting is top notch, etc. So why can't I figure out how to talk about this movie?

There really is no "plot," per se. There's a story, but up until the last hour of the film (in a 3+ hour film), the story is more like a random set of events that sometimes include overarching characters. You see a lot of things happening to characters whose names we might not even learn. The film is more interested in giving us a window into the lives of these particular Jews in this place rather than giving us any kind of heavy plot. It's just... these are Jews; these are Nazis; this is World War II; watch what happens between them. Then in the last half or so of the movie, we start to get things happening in the sense that the story starts to become more focused and there's a clear idea of what's going to happen and/or where the film is headed. It's no longer just Nazis killing Jews and Schindler making money.

I'm just going to wrap this up, because this is one of the toughest reviews I've had to figure out and write for this project thus far. I really enjoyed the ending that showed us the real survivors. Like I said, the movie is masterfully made and has great acting and fine characters (I know they were real people, but still). I just guess I was partially bored despite all that. It's one of those "It's not my cup of tea, but I still enjoyed it" kind of things that puts me in an awkward place. So here's where I'm at: It's a great film, but I didn't love it. However, I certainly didn't hate it, and I more than merely "liked it." For the sake of this review, I'm starting with a score at the top due to the film's quality, but I'm going to drop it down a notch because I didn't love it. I guess.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER.

Despite having seen all the films in theater, I'm not a huge Narnia fan. They're all right, of course. But in the leagues of Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, Narnia is like the red-headed step-child. for those who say Potter films are for children, check out a Narnia movie and compare. The books themselves were essentially written as the children and Christian equivalent of Lord of the Rings (as Lewis and Tolkien were friends). And you can tell.

Voyage of the Dawn Treader reintroduces us to the two younger Pevensie children, Lucy (Georgie Henley) and Edmund (Skandar Keynes). They're currently staying with their aunt and uncle and have to--unfortunately--put up with their snobby cousin, Eustace (Will Poulter). The three kids end up transported to Narnia and are pulled onto the Dawn Treader, a ship headed by now King Caspian (Ben Barnes). They're traveling Narnia trying to spread world peace and end up on a journey to find seven Lords to retrieve their mystical swords and place them on Aslan's (Liam Neeson) table to stop an evil mist from kidnapping people and destroying the world... or something like that. Also returning are the characters of the White Witch (Tilda Swinton) and Reepicheep (Simon Pegg taking over voicing duties from Eddie Izzard).

When you have a series of fantasy films (i.e. Harry Potter), usually the films get darker as they go. But I'd put Dawn Treader somewhere between the first two films. However, it still shares all the problems of the previous films.

The acting is mediocre as usual, though Ben Barnes (again) is OK. Even Liam Neeson's voice made him sound like he was just phoning it in. But there are two that did shine and made the film worth watching. Last film, I said that Reepicheep--the warrior mouse voiced by Eddie Izzard--was the best part of the movie. The character was taken over by Simon Pegg, and I think that made it even better. Pegg sounded as if he had a lot of fun doing it. But the real star of the film is Will Poulter as Eustace. His character was a lot of fun and was most of the comedy. But at the same time, his character changes the most over the course of the film and was the real emotional heart of the film. And, of course, you might remember Will Poulter from Son of Rambow (which is pretty much this blog's "lost review").

Wherein the previous films the CGI is half good, half bad, the CGI in this installment is almost entirely terrible. Everything looks fake. Even when the Dawn Treader is first introduced, the ship looks like it's horribly fake CGI (kind of redundant, but you know what I mean). Really? You can't make a ship on a sound stage or something? Why must everything in these Narnia films be so smooth and shiny? And the "big bad" is this green mist that looks like Shrek farted in a live-action SyFy Channel Original adaptation.

And speaking of, that's one of the big issues with this movie. There is no real sense of urgency or purpose. There is no sense of dread. There is no connection between our heroes and the "villain." I mean, this villain is less menacing than the wind in The Happening. Though I did get to make a fun joke near the end. There's a moment where they were like "Clear your minds! Don't think of anything bad. They'll use it against us!" This was immediately followed by an "uh oh." My first reaction was "Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man!"

The action is OK. It's certainly not as good as in the previous film. There is a good "fight" sequence between Eustace and Reepicheep that is a lot of fun, though. But it could have gone on a little longer. Though when you really think about it, there is very little fighting in this movie. There are plenty of set-ups for fights, but either they don't happen or they last a very little amount of time. The climax is probably the biggest action set piece, and it's decent (except for a near-comical fight against the green mist).

There are little subplots that are randomly tossed in that at times feel out of place. For instance, Lucy feels inferior to her "prettier" older sister. Edmund, of course, still feels inferior to everybody in existence and wants more power. There's even an extremely out-of-nowhere moment where he and Caspian start yelling at each other that made me go "OK, WTF is going on? Where did this come from?" I know these things were put in so that the green mist could see inside their hearts and tempt them with stuff, but it was all very forced and somewhat stilted.

But the big thing about these films is the Christian allegory. The first film is the Resurrection story. The second is about keeping faith. This one is about, basically, finding and believing in God. The themes aren't bashed over your head for the bulk of the film. And then the ending comes in, and it's such an eye-rolling segment. I mean, there's even a moment when Aslan says "I'm known by another name in your world" or something like that. That whole last 10 minutes or so is almost painful if you can't stand things like that shoved down your throat.

Luckily, it is only that short chunk of time. I know I've bashed the movie in this review, but it's no worse than the other films. If you enjoyed those, you'll enjoy this one. The true reason to see the film is for Eustace and Reepicheep, both separately and the relationship between the two characters. Honestly, if they were to make another Narnia film that just focused on Eustace (which they kind of hint at), I'd probably see it. I don't know if it would be the same considering he essentially "finds faith" by the end so he would be a slightly different character, but I'm sure it could be fun if done right. Overall, it was actually an entertaining watch, despite the bad CGI and (mostly) mediocre acting.


I Am McLovin!

CLASH OF THE TITANS.

I haven't seen the original since I was in high school, but I remember its cheesiness (and the mechanical owl). But I was still incredibly excited for this remake. I love Greek mythology, and this movie looked totally epic. It tells the story of demigod Perseus (Sam Worthington) who, after his family is destroyed by Hades (Ralph Fiennes), is taken to the blasphemous town of Argus, where they hate on the gods and want to overturn their rule. Well, Zeus (Liam Neeson) doesn't like that, so he's easily talked into a little plan by his brother, Hades. In 10 days time, Hades will summon the Titan-killing beast, the Kraken, and destroy Argus and every person inside unless they decide to sacrifice the beautiful Princess Andromeda (Alexa Davalos). But Perseus, being a demigod, is foretold to have the power to defeat the Kraken, despite him only wanting to destroy Hades in vengeance. So Perseus must go on a journey, along with a band of other soldiers, as well as the immortal and all-knowing Io (Gemma Arterton), to discover how to defeat the Kraken and then return before it's too late.

The movie starts off kinda shaky. Up until Perseus gets to Argus, and even arguably up until they leave on their journey, the movie suffers from plot-point jumping. For what feels at least 15 minutes (or more) of the movie, it's simply going from one brief scene to the next, setting up plot points necessary for the film or characters. It just feels a bit jumpy and disjointed at that point. However, once he gets to Argus, the film slows down a bit, and then once he begins his journey, it really finds its stride.

The best thing about the movie, of course, are the visuals. The visuals are frakkin' fantastic. Some of the best I've ever seen in a movie not titled Avatar. It isn't all CGI, either. There is actually a fair balance of CGI and animatronics in the film... and even some old-school guys-in-costumes (really reminded me of Guillermo del Toro at times). But what is CGI is seamless. From the giant scorpions to the Pegasus to the Kraken itself, everything looks stunning. The only CGI shortcoming, I think, is Medusa, who reminded me of a better-done version of the Scorpion King from The Mummy Returns. But regardless of it being better done, it still looked fake, especially in comparison to the other effects in the film.

As it is a remake, I'm sure people are wondering how it compares to the original. Well, like I said before, I don't remember a whole bunch from the original, but I do remember snippets. There is a funny homage to the original with the metallic owl that was a good laugh. The original didn't have Hades as the bad guy, I don't believe, and I think Perseus fell in love with Andromeda in the original (which isn't the case here). Instead, Io replaces Athena as Perseus' helper, and you can say there is a bit of a connection there. Also (doing a bit of research here on the original), the Calibos character is a bit different, if that matters to you.

The only real major issue I had, besides the choppy beginning, is the fact that I really didn't know or care for any of the secondary characters. Besides Perseus, Andromeda, Io, Zeus, and Hades... I couldn't even tell you their names. I mean, you like them because of their personalities (the funny one, the stoic one, the newbie), but that's about as far as it goes. There are even a pair of characters that seem incredibly promising, but the film basically dismisses them as plot contrivances.

Otherwise, the film was a ton of fun. The action was awesome, but what else would you expect from Louis Leterrier, the man who brought us Unleashed? So to wrap this up, go for the action, the visuals (including creatures and cinematography), and the Greek myth fun. There's even a fair bit of humor in it, too. The film isn't perfect, but it's still a load of fun.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Maybe I'm just getting too nit-picky, but the supposedly gods-hating general dude telling Perseus to accept help from the gods and pray to them for help... it seemed a bit out of character. But then again, maybe he didn't care if Perseus did it, since Perseus was there to help them survive. I'll go with that.)

TAKEN.

I read a pretty good description of this movie a couple days ago that I think fits it nicely: Jason Bourne (of the movies, not the books) gets older and has a daughter, then the daughter gets kidnapped and he goes after the bad guys. Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) used to work for the government as a sort of super-agent. But after his wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) splits with him and takes their daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) to live with her new husband Stuart (Xander Berkeley), he retires so that he can live closer to them and make up for lost time. Soon after Kim’s seventeenth birthday, her friend Amanda (Katie Cassidy) invites her to spend the summer in Paris. Reluctantly, and with conditions, Bryan signs the papers (as she is underage) to go out of the country. Unfortunately, not long after they get to Paris, both are kidnapped and sold into human sex trafficking. So now it’s up to Bryan to get to Paris and hunt down who is responsible and get his daughter back, no matter what.

I’m a fan of anything Luc Besson is involved with (writer/director/producer), from his more brilliant works (Leon, Angel-A) to his more brainless fun (The Transporter). So when I heard that he had his hand in writing this script, I knew I was there. So where in the Besson-Spectrum does it fall? It’d say it’s somewhere in the middle, teetering on the edge between. I wouldn’t say it’s fully brilliant as there is a vast expanse of action and little-to-no character development. But I wouldn’t say it’s brainless, either, because there is a depth to it.

Some will say that the movie starts off slowly, but I disagree. I think that the first twenty or so minutes are really important in doing what so many action movies these days skip: setting up the relationships between the characters. Without seeing how deeply caring and devoted Bryan is to his daughter, would we care as much as we do when he does eventually go on his rampage through Paris? I’m not so sure. And I think the setup works well to help with that.

As far as the actors go, Liam Neeson was a bit stale at times, but at other times I knew he was the only person who could have pulled off some of the dialogue he was given. Famke Janssen, for the little we see of her, does well as the pain-in-the-ass ex-wife who refuses to give Liam a break. I’ve read some people had a problem with Maggie Grace playing a seventeen year old (convincingly). But I didn’t have any issues. She’s not in the movie long enough for me to have really cared how well she did. Though that’s another thing I think the movie does well. Most Hollywood action movies always cut to the kidnapped victim and show his or her (usually her) side of the story. After Kim is kidnapped, that’s the last you see of her until her dad finds her, so you don’t know if she’s going to be dead or alive when he gets there until the truth is finally revealed. It helps with the suspense.

Overall, I thought it was pretty good. There were a few logistical issues that I had, but they weren’t so big to where it would ruin the movie as a whole. There’s some good action and some intense moments (though, oddly, for a movie about human sex trafficking, no nudity). So if you want a good action movie that actually has characters you can care about and a decent plot, I’d recommend it.

I Am McLovin!

Bizarre Noir #7: Batman Begins.

Welcome to the seventh (and final) of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoyed the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

-------------

Batman Begins.

Year of Origin: 2005.

Director: Christopher Nolan.

Why it's bizarre: Superhero!

I’m sure you probably wouldn’t think of a Batman movie as noir, but it is. It has the majority of the common elements. Batman is a detective, for all intents and purposes. He always has a strong female counterpart. He has a troubled past, and he’s a troubled person. And there’s no darker or grittier of a setting than Gotham City. And it has never been grittier than in Batman Begins. Christopher Nolan’s revamp of the series takes us back to the very beginning on how and why Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) first became Batman. After leaving to discover the dirtiness of the world, Bruce is found by Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), a spokesperson for a group known as the League of Shadows, led by Ra’s Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe). But when Bruce finds out what they’re really about, he backs out and returns home to Gotham to butler Alfred (Michael Caine) and childhood sweetheart Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes). But all is not well in Gotham. Crime is higher than ever with crime lord Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) and the mysterious workings of asylum owner Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy). So Bruce, with the help of Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), gets the cool gadgets to use as Batman, and then gets the help of policeman Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) to help bring down the crime of the city.

Obviously, there’s a load of big names in this movie, so the acting is phenomenal. Christian Bale, to me, is the perfect Batman/Bruce Wayne. The only acting downfall was Katie Holmes, but even she wasn’t completely horrible.

There were quite a few things when I first heard about this movie that I thought were mistakes. For instance, the look of the batmobile. I thought it was ridiculous… until I saw it on film and realized it was awesome. Also, as much as I love Gary Oldman, he wasn’t exactly how I pictured Gordon, but he pulled it off, as well.

The cinematography is great, dark, and gritty, as it should be. Christopher Nolan has a great style that was really fitting for the world of Batman. And all the action is cool, especially the batmobile chase through the streets and rooftops. Batman is dark and mysterious, yanking people from the sky, hiding within the shadows, etc., which is exactly how he should be.

The only negative I can really give it is that, on subsequent viewings, I find it’s way too long. I always have trouble getting through the whole thing. There’s two interconnected stories in the movie, so I know a lot is important, but there just feels like some of it could have been trimmed a bit to make it slightly shorter. Other than that, the movie is great, and I can’t wait for The Dark Knight.

A Keanu 'Whoa'