Men in Black

The film opens with a menacing alien named Boris the Animal (an unrecognizable Jemaine Clement) breaking out of a high security prison. Boris plans to take revenge on Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) for dismembering him and leaving him to rot in a cell. Soon after Boris’ escape, Agent J (Will Smith) realizes that the people around him seem to think that K has been dead for years already – by the (creepy) hands of Boris. This leads J to time-travel back to 1969 in order to try and prevent this possible reality from occurring. In the process, J must team up with a young K (Josh Brolin), leading to discoveries about K’s past that J never knew.

MIB3 rediscovers the balance of sci-fi and comedy that marked the first film without recycling everything from it like the second entry did. It actually has some new things to say about the characters, and finds extra freshness with its 60s settings. Director Barry Sonnenfeld and the scriptwriters make the central relationship of J and K firsthand again, with the action and special effects aiding, rather than dominating (as with the cash-grabbing second film), the story on display.

Smith, as the smooth J, and Jones, as the crusty K, remain a fun and unusual team; it is nice to see the two back together again. Clement also does well as the nasty Boris, though his character makes a grand entrance and then fizzles out a bit. The show-stealer, however, is Brolin. The actor is incredible as the young version of K, perfectly channeling Tommy Lee Jones. He gives a real performance rather than a simple imitation, connecting seamlessly to Jones’ ways but also leaving his own mark behind. He and Smith’s rapport is fully believable and highly enjoyable, with the two on-screen together more than Smith and Jones are.

Rick Baker’s makeup used for the aliens remains remarkable, with the traditional effects often more of a standout than the computerized effects. All of the different creatures from Baker are impressive looking, with Sonnenfeld and the set decorator’s recreation of the 60s matching them. Also good is the soundtrack, put together by the masterful Danny Elfman. Some other highlights are scenes involving Smith adapting to the “cultural ways” of 60s, a thrilling climax involving a rocket ship, and a surprisingly touching (if manipulative) conclusion.

MIB3 may be leagues ahead of the second installment, but it does have some problems of its own. As said before, the character of Boris weakens out after the opening, mostly being reduced to a growling beast of terror. Another negative is that some of the story ideas could have been a bit more juicy or witty (such as a scene in a bowling alley and another scene where Smith encounters some cops), sometimes coming across as dull and ineffective compared to others. By far the biggest problem I had with MIB3, though, was with a character named Griffin. Michael Stuhlbarg may be a good actor, but the character of Griffin (who is meant to be the warm-hearted comic-relief character) just comes across as an annoying turbo-mouth who can predict possible futures.

As said before, MIB3 wasn’t really necessary. However, it is fun. The film is not cerebral in any way and it has its flaws, but it works great as simple summer escapism. And Brolin is just killer as young K.

Rating: 3 out of 4 stars.

*More articles by Daniel Rester are available for reading on Welivefilm.com.

Huntsman starts off in the early days of the princess Snow White, who lives happily with her parents in their kingdom. After both of Snow’s parents lie dead for different reasons, an evil sorceress named Ravenna (Charlize Theron) takes over the kingdom with an army of dark, glass soldiers. The beautiful, wicked woman then locks Snow up inside of a tower for many years.

As the time passes, the land becomes dank and muddy as Ravenna’s evil spreads. She relies on the youth of others (and their hearts) in order to keep herself young, using her magic to suck the life out of them. One day, Ravenna’s mystical mirror tells her that she must eat Snow’s heart in order to become immortal and remain the “fairest of them all.” In an attempt to bring Snow to Ravenna, Ravenna’s brother Finn fumbles and the princess escapes.

In order to retrieve Snow, Ravenna hires (more like forces) Eric the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) to track her down in the Dark Forest. Eric finds her and eventually sides with her against Ravenna. The two are later joined in their travels by an old friend of Snow’s, named William (Sam Claflin), and a host of dwarves. This group then sets out to find a way to defeat Ravenna and have Snow reclaim the kingdom.

Huntsman easily shows that Sanders is an ambitious director. The film is decidedly dark and epic, with some occasionally eye-popping effects to fill the screen. Sanders uses a large scope here, taking the story across big landscapes and capturing them with many long shots. The visuals that fill these areas are stunning, with CGI, art direction/set decoration, and costumes all first-rate. The land of the fairies and the look of the dwarves (all tall actors shrunken down to size through movie magic) were standout visuals for me.

Where Sanders and the scriptwriters struggle is in the middle, with a gradual pace that doesn’t balance with the underdeveloped material at hand. The Huntsman and Snow (when older, played by Kristen Stewart) are too long together alone, without much dialogue exchange between them to boot. When they do come across other characters, the characters are often on screen for fleeting moments and the audience never really grow to care for them. Even the dwarves are on-screen for too short of a time, not becoming defined enough for satisfaction. This mid-section does present some wonders, but it is too thin storytelling-wise to match the pacing (if Sanders and the writers made the story and characters a bit meatier, it could have been fine).         Sanders also seems to struggle with the modulation between scenes throughout the film’s entirety. This is most noticeable towards the end, when Snow transitions from princess to ultimate hero without any observable training involved.

Stewart looks the part of Snow, but she still seems limited in her range as an actress, often gawking and lacking emotional strength (and providing an accent that comes and goes) . Theron and Hemsworth, however, are excellent. Theron is occasionally over-the-top, but she mostly nails the part as the menacing Ravenna—causing some true chills up the spine at times. Hemsworth, on the other hand, is beefy and very likeable as the Huntsman. The actors playing the dwarves (such talents as Bob Hoskins, Ian McShane, Toby Jones, Ray Winstone, and Nick Frost) are terrific as well, providing the film with the little humor that it does have.

Though Huntsman never meets its full potential, it is still a good film. The thinness of the story and characters in middle does cause it to sag a bit, and it could have used a dash more of humor (as the film is relentlessly dark in tone), but Sanders has still crafted an artistic epic with memorable visuals. His future projects are certainly worth looking forward to.

Rating: 3 out of 4 stars.

Though it is recommended to have seen the previous films—Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America—before seeing The Avengers in order to have a better understanding of the overall plot, it is not a requirement. The plot kicks into motion after Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the power-hungry adopted brother of the demigod Thor (Chris Hemsworth), steals the Tesseract from S.H.I.E.L.D. (Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division). The Tesseract is a small glowing cube that can open gateways in the universe. Loki plans to use its powers to launch an attack on Earth (with an army of lizard-machine-like creatures) and control its people.

In order to put a stop to Loki’s plans, S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) turns to an old plan called the Avengers Initiative, which would bring together the universe’s mightiest heroes. On this list of heroes is Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), whose super-suit turns him from a regular man into Iron Man. Then there is Steve Rogers a.k.a. Captain America (Chris Evans), a WWII hero (he was frozen for many years and then thawed out in modern times) with superior strength and a fanciful shield. Also on the roster is Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), who turns into the formidable Hulk when he gets angry, and Thor, a demigod with a big hammer and a strong swing. Rounding out the team are Natasha Romanoff a.k.a. Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), a spy with a wide range of fighting techniques, and Clint Barton a.k.a. Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), a master archer/marksman.

The Avengers, with its pile of superhero ingredients, could have easily fallen apart into a chaotic mess of poor writing/direction and special effects. However, co-writer/director Joss Whedon keeps the film structured throughout. Whedon and Zak Penn’s script doesn’t take the easy way out and just drop the characters into battle without any screenplay strength to back them up. Instead, their screenplay explores how egos like these can easily clash before they come to work as a team. Every character has singular shining moments of skill and personality, and the exchanging pieces between each of the members are even more remarkable. The writers also manage to make the film have equal parts heroism, humanity, and humor. In fact, the script’s sense of humor provides more laugh-out-loud moments than many comedies of recent times.

Whedon backs up this fantastic screenplay by setting a brisk pace and establishing a grand spectacle. Both the action scenes and dialogue-driven scenes are well-executed. The action scenes provide a lot to the viewer at once, but Whedon’s terrific directing style and the editing and visual effects teams make these clear and comprehensible–without sparing an ounce of energy. The smaller scenes are often just as entertaining as the action scenes, allowing the talented cast to play off of each other and have great dialogue exchanges.

There is not a weak performance in The Avengers. Every actor brings their A-game and improve on what they did with the roles in their past films. Downey, Jr. is still exceptional as the witty and narcissistic Stark. Evans is very likable as the old-fashioned but relatable Rogers. Hemsworth is charming and has a strong presence as Thor. And even Johansson and Renner, who played smaller roles in some of the other films and do the same thing here, are ones to root for.

In the end, though, I have to give the biggest recognition to Ruffalo and Hiddleston. The filmmakers finally hit just the right note with Banner/Hulk (though Edward Norton was good too). Ruffalo is perfect as the calm and acute Banner, and the combination of Ruffalo’s performance and the special effects make for a knockout when it comes to Hulk. And boy is Hiddleston great as Loki. The actor delivered in Thor, but in this he is even more sly and vicious, making for one of the best villains in film since Heath Ledger as The Joker in The Dark Knight.

It goes without saying that the special effects in The Avengers are breathtaking. The balance of all the different types of visuals (such as the character designs) is both seamless and dazzling. What is even more impressive is that the 3D conversion is actually pretty good, allowing the characters and settings to “pop” without being obnoxious or too dim.

With all of the love I have for The Avengers, there are a few aspects about it that slightly bothered me. First, the opening of the film comes across as partially dull compared to what follows in the rest of it. Second, the character of Hawkeye is underdeveloped compared to all of the other characters (though Renner still gives a solid performance). And lastly, a key dramatic scene towards the midsection of the film is stretched on for too long. These are all just minor complaints, though, for an otherwise excellent movie.

With The Avengers, Joss Whedon and the cast and crew have made a fanboy experience for the ages. This is a smart, spectacular film with well fleshed-out characters, amazing action (the climax of the film is unforgettable), and a sharp sense of humor. The movie surpasses all of the individual superhero films that built up to it and provides an exhilarating ride at the movies. The Avengers is easily the best film I’ve seen of 2012 so far and one of the best comic book films ever made.

Rating: 3 ½ out of 4 stars.

Byline Contributor

At first glance, it might seem unusual that Martin Scorsese (the legendary man behind such works  as Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and The Departed, to name a few) would make a PG-rated family film that is shown in 3D. That’s exactly what his newest film, Hugo, is, however. After seeing the film, though, one easily comes to understand why the masterful director chose to do the project.

Hugo takes place in a Paris train station in the early 1930s. The title character lives there, in the walls, after his father dies and his uncle abandons him there. His father was a fine clockmaker (and avid filmgoer), and his uncle maintained the clocks at the station. The skills of these two men flow to Hugo, who works on the clocks after the uncle leaves. Hugo not only takes care of the many clocks, but also must search for food and avoid a dedicated station inspector. His biggest project, though, is fixing an automaton (a mechanical man that writes) that his father had found. To fix the automaton, Hugo steals parts in the station, but is caught one day by a toy shop owner named Georges. Hugo then meets Georges’ goddaughter, named Isabelle, who possesses a heart-shaped key that may be a missing link to the automaton. Entering the two people’s lives soon sends Hugo on an adventure which eventually connects to the history of silent films.

The cast of Hugo is marvelous. Newcomer Asa Butterfield is superb in the title role, and Chloe Grace Moretz (of Kick-Ass) is simply luminous as Isabelle, who has a high spirit of adventure in her. Sir Ben Kingsley plays Georges, a fragile man, with quiet but affecting strength, giving one of his best performances in years. Sacha Baron Cohen, as the station inspector, provides great comic-relief, but doesn’t play his character in a silly one-note way, allowing some emotion and understanding to seep through. Jude Law (as the father), Ray Winstone (as the uncle), and the great Christopher Lee (as a book salesman) also pop up and add some flavor.

Though the cast couldn’t be better, Scorsese is the true star, like with most of his films. The film is based on the book The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick, and vividly and passionately brought to life by Scorsese. With the film, Scorsese is able to pay tribute to both the early days of cinema and a specific director (giving away his name would give away a key plot point), showing his love of the arts and sending his personal message of how people need to preserve and admire older films. He recreates scenes and the creation processes of some older movies, but also displays unique and memorable environments of his own (such as the train station and the city) for the story and characters to be in.

Scorsese’s environments really come to life with the use of 3D—some of the best usage in a long time. He uses the effect of 3D to enhance his settings, rather than just resorting to throwing special effects at the audience in an ugly and unsatisfying manner (like many modern directors do). Also, some of the actions that take place in the train station environment between some of his non-moviemaker characters are reminiscent of scenes that could be found in silent films (such as an encounter with a flower girl that leads to an awkward conversation (Chaplin, anyone?)). And while Scorsese’s darker themes from his older films have been dropped, some distinct Scorsese touches can still be seen. For example, one exploration through the train station is similar to the scene in Goodfellas where the camera moves through an entire restaurant.

All of the before-mentioned factors make Hugo an excellent film. The movie is slightly slow at times (younger viewers and non-film buffs may become impatient at moments), and some of the supporting characters could have used a bit more development, but it is still one of the best films of the year. Scorsese has made something highly personal and far different from his other movies in themes. Hugo is a wonderful reminder of why we love movies.

Rating: 3 ½ / 4 stars

Paranormal Activity 3 opened a week before Halloween, and has since broken at least five financial records. One of these was the highest opening ever for a film released in the fall season (previously held by last year’s Jackass 3D). While the money intake is impressive, is Paranormal Activity 3 really worth the view?

The film is actually a prequel to the others (while the second entry was a prequel/sequel), mostly taking place in 1988. The sisters of the other films, Katie and Kristi, are shown here as children, growing up with their mother, Julie, and her boyfriend, Dennis. When Kristi begins interacting with an invisible friend named Toby, Dennis starts to realize that strange things are occurring. After capturing something on camera by chance, he soon becomes obsessed with trying to document the occurrences. This leads him to setting up video cameras around the house. In the end, Dennis and the others get more than they bargained for.

It is true that the first Paranormal Activity was a very impressive breakthrough, made with a thin budget ($15,000) but taking in millions and good reviews. That film was also somewhat understated at times, but still delivered a feeling of freshness and some genuine shocks. These factors made it inevitable that sequels (or prequels) would follow. And so they did, but with the third entry now, much of the novelty is gone.

The second and third films feel more like money-grabbers and gimmicks than true entertainments. While the third film is slightly better than the second (in my opinion, it’s less tedious and boring), it still seems to fall back on formula. We get more of the waiting around for shocks; more handheld camera tricks; more loud noises and slight movements; more of people arguing and flipping out instead of leaving – more of the same for the most part.

But why change the formula if it works and brings in money? True, but the more similar films to come, the more stale and disappointing the series will likely get (Saw series, anyone?). Or the makers will start to overstep the process and start adding stupid elements in that don’t click at all, leaving an even worse viewing experience.

All of this said, Paranormal Activity 3 is not a terrible movie. Yes, it is mostly more of the same, but it does deliver some chills and thrills. Like the others, it provides a tense atmosphere and it’s shock moments are pretty creative. The ending is especially nerve-wracking, with one memorable moment in particular. Another scene (earlier in the film), which involves kitchen appliances, is also inventive and jump-worthy.

Series fans will most likely enjoy the movie, while others may find it as a big bag of tricks in search of a stronger plot and more interesting characters. In the end, it’s a mix-up, both delivering and lacking in certain departments. At least it has some real scares going for it, though, instead of just filling the screen with blood and gore. But who knows what the (likely) future sequels/prequels will hold?

Rating: 2 / 4 stars

Gyllenhaal and Arterton swashbuckle their way through another Summer snooze-fest.

By Mig Windows

Staff Writer

Do you like loud noises? Do you like glittery special effects? Did you like Pirates of the Caribbean, but felt it ought to have had taken place in the Middle-East? Do you like ostriches?

If the answer to any of those questions is “yes,” then this is the movie for you! If you are a fan of the video game, however, you might notice a definite lack of sand monsters. There are no sand monsters present in the film whatsoever. The filmmakers didn’t even throw one in for kicks as a reference. Instead, Jake Gyllenhaal’s Persian prince battles a lot of soldiers, guards, snake-wielding Hassansins and various family members in a series of mildly amusing swashbuckling, parkour, and Tarzanesque rope-swinging.

The plot follows Dastan (Gyllenhaal), the adopted son of the King of Persia, who seems to not really do much as Prince besides hanging out in the streets practicing backflips with his buddies. His uncle, the obviously-evil Nizam (Sir Ben “What am I Doing Here?” Kingsley), announces that a neighboring country contains weapons of mass destruction. Dastan’s brothers, Tus and Garsiv (Richard Coyle and Toby Kebbell) go to attack, and the uninvited Dastan decides to gate-crash the invasion. Succeeding, the princes take the kingdom’s defiant princess, Tamina (Gemma “Keira Knightley Wasn’t Available” Arterton) as a prize, and Dastan loots a cool-looking golden dagger. Their victory is short-lived, however, when their father, King Sharaman (Ronald Pickup) is poisoned by an unfortunate wardrobe choice.

Despite the fact that he’s innocent, Dastan is blamed for the King’s murder and flees with the help of Tamina. It turns out that the dagger he grabbed earlier is actually –surprise! – a mystical McGuffin that not only emits swooshing golden CGI sand, but also can turn back time by one minute – in super-cool slow motion! The two embark upon an adventure across the desert, traveling from one ill-planned goal to the next, all while quarreling in an effort to establish chemistry. Eventually they meet up with illegal-ostrich-racing comical relief Sheik Amar (Alfred Molina) and his knife-throwing buddy Seso (Steve Tossaint), who are pretty much the Jay and Silent Bob of Ancient Persia. Not to be outhammed, evil Nazim seeks the help of the Hassansins, who use snakes, black robes, supernatural powers and overall creepiness to track down and attempt to dispatch Dastan & co. It all boils down to an Indiana Jones-inspired temple crashing party, with plenty of messages about true callings and destiny thrown in for good measure.

For what it was, it was actually a halfway decent popcorn movie. Don’t expect a lot of originality or deep messages that you haven’t seen or heard elsewhere, particularly in Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, which were produced by a few of the same folks. The pacing moves along just quickly enough to keep boredom at bay but is not too fast-paced to follow. The cast does a fine job, and Gyllenhaal seemed surprisingly comfortable in the swashbuckler’s role for someone who has mainly appeared in dramas and dark comedies. Still, the filmmakers easily could have made a semi-historical Middle Eastern zombie movie, which potentially could have been great. Or terrible. We’ll never know.

If I had that magical dagger, though, I might have turned back time to save myself some money and wait for the film to come out on DVD or Blu-ray, where the blaring and repetitive soundtrack can be lowered to a less headache-inducing volume.

By Mig Windows
Byline Staff

Gladiator Oscar winners Sir Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe take a big dump on history in this gritty, big-budget reboot of the legend of the Sherwood outlaw. Don’t expect to see the usual antics of Robin Hood films of yore: there are few tights, little swashbuckling, and exactly one caravan is robbed during the entire film.

The plot, if you could call it that, makes little sense. Most of the action takes place after the death of King Richard (a dreadlocked Danny Huston who is regrettably barely in the film). This means that the King will not be available later in the film to save Robin Hood from persecution by the scenery chewing Prince John (Oscar Isaac), who would surely twirl his mustache were it long enough.

Too bad Russell Crowe can't just bludgeon away his script woes. (Image courtesy of Google.)

What it all boils down to is creative differences. The original screenwriters wrote a revisionist spec script called “Nottingham,” where the Sheriff was sympathetic and Robin Hood more villainous. Director Ridley Scott wanted to make a historically accurate movie about the Crusades (again). Star Russell Crowe wanted to play a hero. More screenwriters were hired (Brian Helgeland, Paul Webb, and Tom Stoppard), and what we’re left with is a polished but flawed epic prequel to the legend – ridiculous since Crowe, at 45, is the oldest actor to play Robin Hood in a film; he is a year older than Sean Connery was when he filmed Robin and Marion in 1976, and that film was about a retired Robin Hood trying to woo a middle-aged Marion one last time.

Scott assembled a very good cast, for the most part. Crowe may look old and silly as Robin Hood, but is still preferable to Kevin Costner’s performance in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Cate Blanchett nearly saves the movie with her subtle and classy Marion Loxley, suppressing the urge to snicker Crowe’s ridiculous costumes.

A bald Mark Strong shows up to look menacing and bash things as an over-the-top villain, which is definitely his element. Max von Sydow plays Marion’s blind (and inexplicably Swedish) father-in-law who spews his clichéd lines with dignity. A few chuckles are provided by Little John, Will Scarlet, Alan-a-Dale and Friar Tuck, (Kevin Durand, Scott Grimes, Alan Doyle, and Mark Addy, respectively), though they do seem at times to be a recycling of the motley crew of screenwriter Helgeland’s earlier film, A Knight’s Tale, including the re-casting of Addy in a similar role. The Sheriff, who was originally going to be the lead character in this film, is reduced to a petty drunkard with five lines played by a confused-looking Matthew MacFadyen, who only succeeds in frightening the girls in the audience who remember him as the dashing Mr. Darcy in 2005’s Pride and Prejudice.

All of Scott’s meticulous attention to historical details (i.e. the preparation of chain mail, accurate costumes and props, etc) do not excuse the non-existent battle in the third act of the film. The French have not been painted so stereotypically since Pepe la Pew. They are given no motivation for behaving evilly; they just do. They attempt a land invasion at the end of the film and are defeated only by Crowe’s obstinate defiance of

the laws of physics, and Marion briefly forgetting that she is not Eowyn from The Lord of the Rings.

With all that said, this is technically perhaps the best Robin Hood film ever made, but that is simply because there are so few good Robin Hood movies out there. The camerawork, costumes, lighting, and all of the technical aspects are well done, but it lacks the fun of the classic 1939 The Adventures of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn, or the grittiness of Scott’s earlier Crusades pic, Kingdom of Heaven (2005).

But hey, at least this version of Robin Hood doesn’t sport an abundance of 80s music and mullets, which is really saying something.

Scarlett Johansson is easy to objectify.

With an all star cast — including the returning Robert Downey, Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow, as well as Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, Sam Rockwell, Mickey Rourke and Samuel L. Jackson — this movie promises a lot of talent. Unfortunately, the script is lacking in character development and plot, leaving talented actors to steal the show in certain scenes, while just going through the motions of a typical action flick in others.

With a highly publicized and sordid past of his own, Downey, Jr. has earned the stripes necessary to pull off this character with a finesse that makes it hard to believe that he isn’t just showing up and playing himself.

This one begins with the final scene of the first film (Tony Stark proclaiming “I am Iron Man” at a press conference) playing on a grainy television screen in Siberia. “That should have been you,” an old, ailing Russian rasps, introducing to the audience to Backlash, the principle villain of Iron Man 2.

The stage is set for the summer’s first real blockbuster. In this film, which centers more on Tony Stark than Iron Man, Stark is faced with his own mortality when he realizes he must find an alternate power source for the arc reactor (the device that is keeping him alive) which is slowly poisoning him. When he can’t find an substitute, Stark enters a downward spiral that includes a lavish birthday party complete with booze and bimbos, and an explosive feud with his best friend, James Rhodes, played by Cheadle.

Stark is confronted in the midst of his superhero crisis by the head of S.H.I.E.L.D., Nick Fury (who was featured in the teaser after the original Iron Man movie). Fury, played by Samuel L. Jackson, reveals that Stark’s father had only begun exploring the arc reactor technology, and that it was up to Stark to complete the legacy.

After facing his “daddy issues” in six minutes or less, Stark found the motivation to continue looking for a new power source for the arc reactor. Like I said, in a movie of this action caliber there wasn’t a lot of time spent on character development. While Tony Stark is just the perfect blend of megalomaniac and narcissist, his sexist shenanigans become irritating. Perhaps in the third Marvel release to feature Iron Man, Stark could focus on his “mommy issues” and possibly stop treating every female that walks into frame like a piece of meat.

Rockwell stole the show in every scene he was in as the diabolical arms dealer Justin Hammer. Rockwell grasps the art of smarminess, right down to the orange, self tanner-stained palms.

Cheadle gave a limited performance to a half-baked character and Johansson is — let’s face it — eye candy. Her talents as Black Widow are only showcased in one scene where she is able to knock out ten thugs, while Stark’s ex-boxer assistant, Harold “Happy” Hogan is only able to defeat one.

I have to say, that it is nice to see a woman kick ass on screen in a testosterone-laden action film, but again, her character is portrayed in a two-dimensional way. Perhaps she will be showcased more in an upcoming Marvel feature.

Iron Man 2 seems to follow the comic book plot of the Michelinie/Layton plotline from the ’80s, focusing on Stark’s alcoholism, the introduction of Stark’s many armored suits (like the briefcase suit used in one scene with Rourke’s character, Backlash.) and his continuous need to fend off robotic suits built to challenge Iron Man.

Marvel comic book fans will enjoy the teaser at the end of the movie, but the uninitiated probably won’t get the reference.

So all in all, if you’re into high action, big explosions, sexy stars and comic book movies, then Iron Man 2 delivers. If you expect any level of character development, or a plot, save your money and add this to your Netflix queue.

One of the many Crayola wonders to be found in "The Lovely Bones" (2009)

BY MIG WINDOWS
BYLINE STAFF

Alice Sebold’s best-selling novel fizzles in this big-budget, confused film directed by Lord of the Rings’ Oscar-winning (really?) director Peter Jackson. The actors, for the most part, look either lost or bored as they go about their half-assed investigation into the murder of Susie Salmon (Saorise Ronan), whose soul is wandering around in the tackiest version of heaven since What Dreams May Come.

True, Stanley Tucci’s impression of Dustin Hoffman playing Stephen Root playing a pedophile is disturbing, but he looked really embarrassed to be there, which is perhaps why he wore contacts, facial hair, a wig, and a mustache. The visual effects in the final scene with his character (I won’t spoil the ending) were so cartoonish I could have sworn they were straight out of The Polar Express.

Perhaps the main flaw with the film is Jackson’s misunderstanding of the book’s tone. Flip-flopping from genre to genre, Jackson spends little time on the character development that made Sebold’s novel a worthy read. Instead he tries to turn the film into an action-packed thriller, where the question is not “whodunit” but rather “when will someone smarten up and notice the obvious pedophile standing near the rose bushes?”

This could easily have been an independent or even a made-for-TV movie. It simply did not need to cost $100 million. In the end, the film’s formula — stunning visuals + action = good movie — may have worked for Lord of the Rings, but, for a drama about the rape and murder of a little girl, it was simply in poor taste.

Cage and Herzog prepare a scene. (Photo by Lina Herzog.)

By Elijah Sullivan

Byline Staff

Filmmaker Werner Herzog has tried his hand at commercial filmmaking before (2005’s “Rescue Dawn”), and although his ill-advised “companion film” to Abel Ferrara’s infamous 1992 film “Bad Lieutenant” was another financial disappointment, the Bavarian auteur’s latest film is a comic masterpiece brimming with fresh imagery.

Nicolas Cage plays the titular character, a New Orleans detective who suffers a back injury rescuing a drowning man in the opening scene of the film. Cage’s lieutenant stalks the tattered streets of post-Katrina New Orleans attempting to solve a gang-related crime, but ends up shaking up his suspects for drugs to ease his discomfort. The bad lieutenant is really just a tour guide across a landscape; Herzog’s real subject is nature’s war to reclaim New Orleans from civilization.

When this project was announced, many pundits did a double take: Herzog – best known for making hallucinogenic pseudo-epics about nature and insanity – was tackling a remake of a American crime film with… Nicolas Cage? Whose idea was that?

Abel Ferrara, the director of the original “Bad Lieutenant,” expressed his exasperation by threatening to murder Herzog and his cast via car bomb. After a career spanning four decades during which he filmed on active volcanoes, dragged a steamboat over a mountain, and spent a year on the Amazon searching for El Dorado, assassination seemed like a plausible conclusion to Herzog’s colorful biography.

Herzog’s narrative films always center on a strong lead performance — the more bizarre the better. With his stooping gait and reptilian rage, critics have compared Cage’s performance to Richard the Third; I think he’s actually channeling Klaus Kinski, whose performance as the humpbacked Don Lope de Aguirre in “Aguirre: the Wrath of God” launched Herzog’s career in 1971. It was one of the great performances in cinema history, and began a string of Kinski/Herzog productions that were amazingly fruitful – even if they occasionally plotted to murder each other.

Ferrera’s original “Lieutenant” was one of the most distressing films I’ve ever sat through, a study of corrosive Catholic guilt that demanded a harrowing performance from lead actor Harvey Keitel. The Herzog/Cage film is (thankfully) presented as satire, pushing deep into absurdist territory. Like Keitel, Cage forgoes powdered sugar, snorting real coke on the set and, in one scene, shows off “his lucky crack pipe” before lighting up with rapper Xzibit. Some people called Cage’s performance an embarrassment (it doesn’t help that the film was advertised as a run-of-the-mill cop picture), but Cage’s performance synthesizes the right amount of campiness and egomania to imitate the Herzog/Kinski experience. I hope they collaborate again.

“Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans”
Directed by Werner Herzog.
Screenplay by William Finklestein.
Starring Nicolas Cage, Eva Mendes, Val Kilmer, Brad Dourif, Xzibit and Jennifer Coolidge.
Now on DVD and Blu-Ray.