DARK SHADOWS.

My expectations for this weren't all that high going into it. Keep that in mind during this review. The film follows Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp), a young man who is turned into a vampire by a young witch named Angelique (Eva Green) with whom he had an affair. He ends up trapped in a coffin for a couple hundred years only to wake up in the 1970s. His descendants--Elizabeth (Michelle Pfeiffer), Roger (Johnny Lee Miller), David (Gulliver McGrath), and Carolyn (Chloe Moretz), as well as their psychiatrist (Helena Bonham Carter) and caretaker (Jackie Earle Haley)--are now residing in his home. He falls for a new resident, as well, a young woman named Victoria (Bella Heathcote), who looks just like his previous love, who Angelique once killed. But Angelique is still alive and taking over the towns businesses and driving the Collins business out of... well... business. And it's up to Barnabas to help.

This is going to be a pretty short review. I have one main negative and one main positive about the film. The negative... is that the film is incredibly unfocused. Damn near The Room-level unfocused. It starts off with about a 10-minute summary that gets Barnabas in the ground. Then we follow Victoria for a big chunk of the beginning of the movie. So for pretty much the first 30 minutes or so, it's got a more creepy atmosphere, what I'm assuming to be closer to the show. But then Barnabas shows back up and Victoria all but disappears. The film gets incredibly cheesy from this point on (not necessarily a bad thing), and I can't tell what the story is supposed to be. Is it a revenge tale? Is it Barnabas saving the family business? Is it a ghost story? I could continue on and on here. There are just so many damn subplots it was hard to keep anything focused. The worst part is that a big one is the fact Barnabas basically falls in love with Victoria, but once he shows up, Victoria is barely in the movie. There is hardly any interaction between the two characters so it's hard to build up any caring about this relationship. Not to mention there are so many horror subgenres going on here. There's vampires, ghosts, witches, werewolves, etc. (I actually almost lost it when the werewolf twist showed its face, which is rather late in the movie.)

On the upside, despite all of its flaws, I was still really entertained by it. I thought it was rather humorous and charming in its own right. The comedy was solid. The cheesiness was plentiful but not overwhelming. The acting was also good all around, with Depp and Moretz shining through the most. So yeah, I can definitely see why people wouldn't like this flick and would give it a low score. I just happened to be entertained by it. And I don't even think it's in a so-bad-its-good kind of way. It's just a good film with a lot of flaws. For what it was, it was really entertaining, and that was enough for me.


I Am McLovin!

(P.S. My positive feelings were actually stronger right after seeing it, but I've come down just slightly. Still, it's entertaining and harmless, and I don't think anyone should act viscerally toward it.)

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES.

Unlike everyone else, I didn't absolutely loathe the second and third Pirates movies. Sure, they weren't as good as the first one, and all the Davey Jones stuff was just a wee bit too much, but they had their moments. I particularly liked the crazy, over-the-top sword-fighting sequences--mainly for their fun choreography. But with a new director coming in, would this fourth installment be even remotely the same?

This installment gives us almost sole focus on Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). Because of his past with Angelica (Penelope Cruz), he ends up on the Queen Anne's Revenge, the pirate ship helmed by Blackbeard (Ian McShane). Blackbeard then forces Jack to help him find the fountain of youth. But he's not after it alone. Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) is back and working for the British king, leading his men to the fountain, as well, bringing along Jack's first mate Gibbs (Kevin McNally), too. Along the way they meet some people, fight some mermaids, and have generally wacky adventures.

The first thing I noticed was that it was horribly clear this was a different director. Not only does the movie feel different, but Jack as a character feels off slightly. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's not necessarily a good thing, either. The film pulls back and tries to capture the charm of the first film, though it doesn't quite get there. And in the process, it loses even some of the better things from the two sequels. For instance, there are maybe 3 good sword fights, but only one is really all that memorable, and it's pretty early on in the film. The action in the movie is scaled back, which is unfortunate, as that was always my favorite part.

Also sorely missed are some of the more secondary characters from the first three films. And no, I don't mean Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann. No, I mean the comedic duos (and often Greek Chorus) Pintel and Ragetti, as well as even the two British guards whose names I can't remember at the moment (that both become pirates by the end of the third movie, if I remember correctly). In fact, the whole of the Black Pearl crew is gone because, well, the Black Pearl is gone. It's a plot device--a really weak and overall unexplored one, but one that's there.

But the movie isn't all that bad. It's not all that great, but it's not all that bad. There's just nothing incredibly memorable about it. It's a fun time while watching, but afterwards it's just pretty decent thinking back. The mermaids are a lot of fun, though, to be honest. The whole mermaid sequence was pretty scary, actually, and unnerving. And then the use of the mermaids from that point on is interesting, even though the movie doesn't really go too deep into their mythology after the surface level.

Is Captain Jack back? Not completely, but he's getting there. My feelings on this film were almost equal to my thoughts on Fast & Furious (the fourth installment in that series, as well). It's fun while you're there, but there was a lot that could have been better about it. And hopefully, like that same series, a fifth will come about that will prove to be just as good as if not better than the original. If you're a fan of the series, this one won't hurt you. It's good--it just could have been better.


I Am McLovin!

(P.S. It's a weak McLovin, but between the few fight scenes we got, some good Jack humor, and the mermaid stuff, I think it was good enough to bump up from an OK to that score.)

60/60 Review #20: Platoon.

Of course, I know all about Oliver Stone and his type of film-making, and I've heard of the majority of his films. However, surprisingly, this is the first full one of his films I've seen. I know, right? And with all the Charlie Sheen craziness going on right now, this was pretty good timing. There's really no story to this film. It's mainly a platoon's journey through the Vietnam War. There's the new guy who actually enlisted, Chris (Charlie Sheen), who narrates the film. Then there are the two alpha males that split the platoon into two ways of thought. There's the weed-smoking nice guy, Elias (Willem Dafoe), and the hot-headed, war-torn crazy guy, Barnes (Tom Berenger). Also part of the platoon are King (Keith David), Big Harold (Forest Whitaker), Bunny (Kevin Dillon), O'Neill (John C. McGinley), Junior (Reggie Johnson), Wolfe (Mark Moses), Lerner (Johnny Depp), Warren (Tony Todd), among others.

This movie really ticked me off--probably in the ways Stone meant. I know Vietnam was an 'everybody loses' war that drove a lot of people crazy and do inhuman things. In that trail of thought, this movie captured the war very well. When the movie got to the village scene, I was so upset with what I was watching. It was just so brutal and insane.

I'm starting to wonder if war movies get some of the best ensemble casts, because practically every one I've watched so far has such a great group of actors. My favorite of this bunch were definitely Willem Dafoe and John C. McGinley. Dafoe was just awesome (and he gives the famous on-the-knees-arms-up shot from the film (which is on the poster/cover, as well). I always enjoy seeing McGinley in things outside of Scrubs, too. And I felt really bad for his character. He probably had one of the more tragic characters, but not for the reason you might think (if you haven't seen the film). Then, of course, you have crazy Mr. Berenger with his scarred-up face... a pretty terrifying villain. And then, yes, Charlie Sheen. Even he goes a little crazy during the village sequence, which feels almost out of character for the rest of the film--before and after (even immediately after). A lapse in sanity, perhaps?

I'm really not sure what else to say about it. The cinematography was good and the action was brutal. The whole film was a bit too dark and heavy for my tastes, and I almost immediately put in a goofy musical as soon as it ended just to balance things out. Regardless, it was still a very well-made movie with intense and well-acted characters. Otherwise, I don't think I have anything else to add. I'm not exactly sure how to rate it, because this is one of those quality vs. taste preference things. I think quality nudged it up one from what I would have otherwise given it... so consider it a low one of these:


A Keanu 'Whoa'

ALICE IN WONDERLAND.

I tried going last weekend, but it kept being sold out. So I went this weekend instead. And my showing was still relatively full, but it didn't get that way until right before the movie started, so it was easy enough to get it early. Anywho... let me prelude by saying I have no deep connection or obsession with the original cartoon movie or the source material. I also do not obsess over Tim Burton, though I do enjoy (most of) his movies. And it didn't bother me in the slightest that this one followed his formula: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, twisted designs, and black and white juxtaposed against brighter colors. In other words, what every other movie blogger/review has been bitching and moaning about for the last year hasn't bugged me whatsoever. In fact, most reviews I've read have focused on the fact that it's Tim Burton being Tim Burton, while I looked at the movie purely as a movie and not as a "Tim Burton" movie. That being said, let's get into it.

This film acts like a sequel of sorts where Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is grown up and about to be proposed to by a Lord. But when she runs off to go think about it, she falls down the rabbit hole yet again. Despite growing up with strange dreams of Wonderland, she doesn't recognize any of it and can't figure out what to do, which causes some of its bizarre characters to wonder if she's truly "the" Alice. You see, Underland (not Wonderland) has been taken over by the tyrannical Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) because she controls the dangerous Jabberwocky. But it is apparently Alice's destiny to regain the Vorpal Sword, return it to the White Queen (Anne Hathaway), and become the champion that will slay the Jabberwocky and return peace to Underland. To help her are some memorable characters including, but not limited to, the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), Tweedledee and Tweedledum (Matt Lucas), the Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry), and Absolom the Blue Caterpillar (Alan Rickman). Other actors to grace this film include Crispin Glover, Michael Sheen, and Timothy Spall.

There's not a whole lot to say about the movie. Let's start with the positive. Visually, the movie is magnificent. There are a couple issues here and there, but for the most part, the CGI is wonderful to look at. The story itself is also interesting, though there are a couple logic holes here and there. For instance, if the Cheshire Cat can evaporate and do whatever he wants, what stops him from just destroying the Red Queen himself? He's already damn near invincible. Also (bit of a spoiler here), there's kind of a leap of faith to take that the Bandersnatch will change sides just like that (end spoiler here).

Acting-wise, it was about half and half. Mia Wasikowska does pretty good as Alice, and Johnny Depp, Stephen Fry, and Matt Lucas are the next stand-outs. In fact, I really only had three issues with certain characters. First was Crispin Glover's character. Something about how he moved really irked me and just came off as overly fake, like they weren't done with the CGI but released the film anyway. I really didn't care for that character overall. The next big issue I had was with Anne Hathaway. I don't know whether to blame Hathaway or Burton, but the way the character was portrayed was just... stupid. It was overly regal and just plain silly. Her hands wear always up like a drunken T-Rex, and she had to flow about and spin around to make any kind of basic movement. It was all incredibly annoying to watch. Luckily, though, she's not in the movie all that much. The last little irksome bit was actually with Depp. I'm sure it was to help portray his character as, well, mad... but his constantly changing accents bugged me. Sometimes he'd be British, sometimes Scottish, sometimes... well, who knows? It was more of a subtle thing, but it still bothered me a bit.

Those were actually my biggest issues with the movie. It didn't blow me away, but I didn't hate it. The visuals were outstanding, and most of the acting was pretty well done. The story was engaging, though it did start to drag a bit near the third act. I just wanted to get on with the battle already. Again, I'm not sure how one would take it if you're an Alice fanatic or if you have a bias against Burton for being too similar in all his movies, but if you aren't those types, then I'm sure you'll find it at least pretty good and enjoyable.


I Am McLovin!

(P.S. The 3D aspect of it was pointless. Besides maybe a couple scenes here and there, there wasn't any point to having it in 3D).

2 In 1: Miss Potter and Finding Neverland.

This 2 In 1 focuses on movies based on two famous children’s authors with even more famous works of literature. Both movies also tend to have a bit of magical realism played into it, for better or worse.

Miss Potter.

This film is based on Beatrix Potter, famous for writing and illustrating the children’s story The Tale of Peter Rabbit. But the movie, really, isn’t about that. However, it’s hard to pinpoint what the movie is about. It really isn’t a story about her rise from nothing to fame, because she starts off rich and gets published in the first scene of the movie and then begins to gain fame within the first 30 minutes. It’s more of a love story between Beatrix (Renee Zellweger) and her publisher, Norman (Ewan McGregor), as well as her friendship with Norman’s sister, Millie (Emily Watson)… as well as her relationships with her parents. So if I were to be asked what this movie is about, I’d answer ‘the many relationships of Beatrix Potter.’

Obviously one of the major faults of the movie, to me, is that it has no clear purpose. The movie moves as an almost breakneck speed, leaving no room for plot, character development, or chemistry. It moves from scene to scene adding more tidbits on the life of Beatrix Potter without really extending on any given moment besides its importance on the surface level. There was no real chemistry between Zellweger and McGregor. There was only a marginal bit of chemistry between Zellweger and Watson. But none of the characters really grew. They all stayed exactly the same, including Beatrix. Sure, she moves on with life and eventually stands up for herself… but she did that numerous times in other different ways as shown in the movie. There needed to be a lot more to the movie, especially on the character of William Heelis, who has all of 4 or 5 scenes in the entire movie, but turns out to be highly important in Beatrix’s life. His complete lack of screen time gives the audience no ability to attach to him or actually care about what the heck happens (much like with any character in the movie). And then within the last 15-20 minutes of the movie, it continues to go in a completely unimportant direction before abruptly ending. There’s no real conflict or climax to the movie. It’s just like “moments in the life of Beatrix Potter.”

As for acting, I felt Ewan McGregor and Emily Watson did the best job. Renee Zellweger, though I’m not sure why, got on my nerves. Something about the way she acted the part was just irritating. Not to mention she came off as clinically insane for most of the movie. It was interesting, at the least, how her pictures kept coming to life via her imagination, but they really didn’t make too much use of the idea (except in one scene to show a mental breakdown, though, as I said, she was arguably already mentally unstable anyway).

I usually talk about a movie more than this, but I honestly don’t know what else to say about it. The movie was at least somewhat entertaining for the most part, though it had a lot of flaws to me, and the last 20 minutes or so was pointless and needed a lot more meat to it. The best visual is toward the beginning when the young Beatrix is picturing her parents getting into a pumpkin-carriage being led by giant rabbits (and driven by a mouse, if I remember correctly). I really didn’t care for Renee’s acting in the part, and the movie could have just used more of a plot in general. That’s about all I can say on that.

Feed Me, Seymour!

Finding Neverland.

How is it that this movie only won a single Oscar again (and only for Original Score, at that)? J.M. Barrie (Johnny Depp) is a failing playwright, much to the chagrin of his producer (Dustin Hoffman), with a failing marriage with his wife, Mary (Radha Mitchell). But when he happens across a family headed by widow Sylvia Davies (Kate Winslet), with four boys including the much-troubled Peter (Freddie Highmore), both his life and his imagination find a sudden spark. Even against the wishes of Sylvia’s strict mother (Julie Christie), and through all the slanderous rumors against Barrie’s true purposes with the family, the friendships strive on as Mr. Barrie creates his masterpiece, Peter Pan.

There’s so many wonderful things about this movie. The acting is magnificent, from Johnny Depp all the way down to Freddie Highmore (I would argue that this and August Rush are his two best films). Johnny Depp is great and diverse as usual, as well. The only slight buggy bit was when he kind of dropped the accent to do a pirate accent at one point, which made it more reminiscent of Captain Jack than of a proper Scotsman. The actress that catches my attention the most, though, is Radha Mitchell, who really seems to be one heck of a diverse actress. I mean, she’s played a troubled, badass ship pilot in the Sci-Fi/Horror flick Pitch Black, she’s played the worried mother in the Horror film Silent Hill, and now here she is playing the snotty English woman. It’s just fun to see the range she can take and still do well in (we all know Johnny Depp is pretty much the same, but I’m talking in the terms of actresses here. There aren’t many actresses out there who can do these vastly different roles and pull them all off well).

The sense of imagination/magical realism in the film is handled very nicely, as well. It isn’t played up like J.M. Barrie is insane or whatnot, but simply opening his imagination and inviting everybody else to join him in doing so. My favorite bit, which really shows the contrast between characters, is when Barrie and his wife are going to bed in their separate rooms. Mary opens her door, which is just to a dark bedroom, while J.M. opens his door to a bright, flowery meadow. There’s quite a bit of symbolism between reality and the imagination imagery, which is handled nicely (especially toward the end when Kate Winslet ‘Finds Neverland’, so to speak).

The music was beautiful, obviously, since it won an Oscar for it. This is really a short review, as well, because there’s not much more to talk about. The movie was handled very well on all fronts, and it’s a shame that it was relatively ignored. It’s just a beautiful film overall.

Royale With Cheese

2 In 1: Sweeney Todd and Little Shop of Horrors.

If you can’t figure out the theme for this 2 In 1 just from knowing something about either movie, it’s a theme of romance, dark comedy, singing, and murder. That’s right! The dark romantic musical comedies of death and murder! Or something like that. Anywho, as stated in the title, I finally got around to seeing Sweeney Todd, and I’m pairing it up with one of my favorite movies growing up, Little Shop of Horrors. So here we go!

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

Sweeney Todd is a revenge story about unrequited love with almost every character in the movie (at least the love part). And it stars at least a good fourth of the cast of the Harry Potter movies (okay, so that’s an over-exaggeration… but seriously, you could probably combine this movie with Gosford Park, and you’d have practically every important adult role in Harry Potter). But anyway, to the film: Sweeney Todd (Johnny Depp), once Benjamin Barker, is a scorned barber whose wife and baby daughter were stolen away by an evil Judge (Alan Rickman) and his ambiguously gay sidekick (Timothy Spall). Over the years, he plots revenge before finally coming back to London to exact it. He meets Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), a meat-pie shop owner, and together they work together to help exact Mr. Todd’s revenge on those who have wronged him.

I have to say that the first half of the movie almost lost me. The music wasn’t overtly catchy (with a couple exceptions), and it was just kind of bland (no help to Tim Burton’s drab coloring scheme). But then the second half of the movie picks up once Sweeney loses it completely and goes utterly insane. The song immediately after that part, the one about how to get rid of the bodies, has to be my favorite from the movie. It was darkly hilarious and reminded me of something Stephen Lynch would sing. So yeah, the second half was much better than the first half.

On the subject of the music, the songs were either hit or miss—hit being the previously mentioned song, miss being the one and only song (albeit a short one) Timothy Spall attempts toward the latter end of the movie (unless I forgot another, but I think that was it). Some were catchy, some were just plain good, and some were either too weird (like Sacha Baron Cohen’s song) or too boring. And as the movie is almost entirely nothing but singing, that means the movie is really either hit or miss at times.

I think acting-wise, everybody did a really good job, even Sacha Baron Cohen (after I got over the weirded-out phase). Depp is brilliant as always, and Carter and Rickman were equally as good. Timothy Spall bugged me the most, but I think that was just the character, not his acting. He was just… odd. But the kudos’ for this movie go to the young Ed Sanders who played orphan-boy Toby. He did really well, especially the emotions on his face at the end of the movie.

Of course I have to mention the visuals. I sustain my thoughts that I had prior to seeing the movie: what was bleak and gray was very bleak and gray; what was bright and colorful was very bright and colorful. There was no in-between, and the majority of the movie had grays and blacks (and the occasional white to show off the blood red).

I’m not sure what else to mention about it. I think those were really all my major thoughts. The movie was pretty good, but it could have been better. Though, also to help me boost the score up to the point I do is not only because there were parts able to keep me on my toes, but I was caught off guard at the end with a twist I wasn’t expecting. I love it when movies can do that. It always makes me appreciate the movie more. And I really do appreciate what this movie did, even if it was disturbing (though I might have enjoyed it more had I not watched it with my mother, who was complaining about the blood and such for the entire last half of the movie).

I Am McLovin!

Little Shop of Horrors.

Back in 1960, Roger Corman made a cult classic in two days using left-over sets and such from a previous movie he had finished early (with a cameo by a very young Jack Nicholson). Years later, it was turned into an off-Broadway musical, which would later be adapted by Frank Oz and Howard Ashman into the 1986 musical extravaganza! Seymour Krelborn (Rick Moranis) is a skid-row orphan working under Mr. Mushnik (Vincent Gardenia) at Mushnik’s floral shop. He’s desperately and longingly in love with co-worker Audrey (Ellen Greene), but she’s shacking up with abusive and sadistic dentist, Orin Scrivello, DDS (Steve Martin). But after a total eclipse of the sun, Seymour discovers a fly-trap-esque plant and takes it in. He names it the Audrey II, and it immediately brings instant success to the bankrupt shop. But then Seymour discovers a deadly secret: the plant can only survive by drinking blood. So he feeds it his own blood until it gets too big and starts talking (voiced by Levi Stubbs of The Four Tops), requesting that Seymour go out and kill people to feed him.

This movie was my favorite growing up (which explains quite a lot, really). I’ve watched it an uncountable amount of times, and I know the words and lyrics backward and forward. It’s dark, it’s funny, it’s romantic, and it’s scary. This movie still creeps me out at times, and I hate being around plants in the dark. The one specific scene that will never ever stop scaring the crap out of me is toward the end when Audrey II calls up Audrey (who lives right across the street) and sings to her. Audrey slowly turns to her window and sees this enormous plant staring and laughing at her from across the street. God, just thinking about that scene creeps me out.

The singing is done very well, and Rick Moranis really has some pipes in him. Great voice. Really, every song is a classic with me, even if they aren’t my favorite (such as the more romantic ‘somewhere that’s green’. However, after I heard about the original ending and the irony around that song and its original purpose, I came to appreciate it much more).

And speaking of the ending, this movie has one of the most famous stories in cinema. They shot the original ending, the one taken from the stage play, where everybody dies and the plants take over the world, but it did poorly with test audiences. So they spent millions of more dollars to film a happier ending just to please the audience. That’s Hollywood for you. But I’ve seen the original ending, as well, and it’s pretty creepy (though the last frame of the happy ending is creepy in itself, too).

And this movie is cameo-central. There’s Bill Murray as the pain-loving dentist's patient (originally played by Jack Nicholson in Roger Corman’s version), and he has, hands down, the funniest scene in the entire movie. And he and Steve Martin improv’d the entire scene. Hilarity. There’s also Christopher Guest, John Candy, and James Belushi (also, as I just realized, for another Harry Potter reference, Miriam Margolyes is also in the movie (she was Professor Sprout in the first two HP movies)).

I really don’t know what else to say about this movie. I love every inch of it. I really recommend it to people who like musicals, dark comedies, or just anything twisted in general. It’s great fun (for the whole family!).

Royale With Cheese