Review: Jack the Giant Slayer

Snow White (and the Huntsman), Hansel & Gretel (Witch Hunters), and now Jack the Giant Slayer (sans Bean Stalk) – having finally viewed the latter I have officially completed the recent trifecta of fairy tales turned Hollywood action vehicles.  And suddenly my confidence in director Bryan Singer’s next X-Men is considerably shaken.  And this isn’t a case of high expectations either as I went into Jack the Giant Slayer with very little hope.  While box office receipts aren’t the be-all-end-all indicators of quality filmmaking, a $65M domestic take against a reported $195M budget (which was really more like $235M) will temper any and all hype surrounding a movie.  So where did this dud (one in a extended string of underwhelming WB theatrical releases) go wrong?

It wasn’t necessarily the premise.  Unlike some of its fellow fairy tale adaptations, the story of Jack and the Bean Stalk would seem to lend itself nicely to an action treatment without too much cajoling.  The mythical beans, a magical crown, nefarious giants, a princess, and the potential for some large-scale battle scenes are elements that could easily provide a decent foundation for an epic fantasy film in the vein of so many other classics.  And with Bryan Singer at the helm - no newcomer to the action genre, the table seemed set for a raucous ride.

Where I believe the film first goes awry is with the tone.  There’s a fine line between catering to a young adult audience and then to a more mature one, and it so rarely works when a script tries to toe that line.  There are moments in this film when the characters dialogue and actions seem to pander to youthful viewers and that in turn greatly diminishes its credibility with the older viewers.  So when those characters enter grave moments in which the stakes are raised and consequences dire, those scenes fail to carry the weight that they should.  This proves true even when characters of varying significance meet their demise.

The second major issue plaguing this film is most definitely the CG.  With a budget hovering around the $200M mark, it’s hard to fathom that the effects could be so shoddy, but that’s precisely what they are.  From start to finish, the CG appears second rate and this is incredibly crippling for a film that is set in a fantasy world with an army of computer-generated giants as the chief antagonists.  Needless to say, that any “willing suspension of disbelief” is impossible to achieve while watching this film when the visuals keep reminding you that none of it is real.

The third major issue with the film surprisingly has to do with the work of the cast.  On paper, a roster that features Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci, Ian McShane, and Nicholas Hoult would seem very impressive.  Unfortunately, things never come together for this ensemble.  Hoult as Jack is merely satisfactory, and not nearly dynamic enough to carry a film of this scale.  McGregor’s performance as Elmont, the head of the royal guards, is completely over-the-top.  Clearly in this for the paycheck and loathing himself for it, McGregor turns in the kind of performance we haven’t seen since the days of Star Wars Episode II.  As for the usually interesting Stanley Tucci and intense Ian McShane, to say that they sleepwalked through the film would be an understatement.  The words “bag job” would probably be a more accurate description.

The lone bright spot in the cast has to be Eleanor Tomlinson as Princess Isabelle.  I have never noticed her work before and am not in a rush to see more, but she was credible and did her best with very little support from her cast mates.  Regardless, she could have turned in an Oscar winning performance and it would have been for naught in a film such as this one that was plagued with so many issues.

I would have to concur then with all the people who decided not to watch this move in the cinema (and there were many of them).  There’s just so little to truly like about Jack the Giant Slayer and because of this, I don’t think you should waste your time renting it.  There is a plethora of action movies out there in the home entertainment sphere that may not be great films but are exponentially more entertaining than this title.  If you happen to catch this movie on television and your only other viewing option is MTV’s Teen Mom, then I would suggest you give it a look.  Otherwise take a pass.  Going forward, here’s hoping Bryan Singer does a better job with his re-entry in Marvel’s Cinematic Universe.

Standout Performance:  Eleanor Tomlinson, for not being as bad as the rest of her cast mates.

Read More

Review: Warm Bodies

A zombie rom-com is not something that easily rolls off the tongue in a figurative sense.  The two genres seem to go together about as well as “lamb and tuna fish” (obscure Big Daddy reference).  So when I first heard about Warm Bodies, I was a bit skeptical.  Since it was based on the novel by Isaac Marion, I figured there could be a market for it with the young adult/tween crowd, but was not sure how it would play for the rest of society.  Having watched the movie I can you tell that it is very much a mixed bag of a film.

The movie places us in a post apocalyptic world where three different humans reside – the living, zombies, and bonies (the equivalent of zombies on steroids).  The plot details the existence of our protagonist R – a zombie played by Nicholas Hoult, who is struggling with his existence as a corpse.  When he meets the lovely Julie (Teresa Palmer), he finds that she brings out a new side of him.  Can he overcome the obstacles that would separate a zombie and a living person from having a relationship?  Well, you have to watch the movie to find out the answer to that question.

What is refreshing about this movie is that it comes at the zombie genre from a different angle.  Seeing things through the lens of the zombie definitely makes things feel fresh and provides an opportunity to spoof zombie flicks in a way that Shaun of the Dead and other such films cannot.  The protagonist provides a witty and lucid inner monologue, which sets up a nice contrast to his physical action.  In this role, Nicholas Hoult does a very credible job and displays a better than expected comedic sense.

Another check mark in the good column is the overall work of the cast.  Rob Corddry as R’s zombie best friend M, is funny in limited screen time.  While he will never get top billing, you can be sure that once a movie, Corddry will provide at least one memorable laugh-out-loud moment. Teresa Palmer as the love interest won’t be nominated for any awards for her work in this film, but she is good at looking endearingly at our love struck zombie protagonist.  As simple as this may sound, those romantic glances are a huge necessity to pull off the kind of romantic cheese writer/director Jonathan Levine is trying to peddle.

Despite this good stuff, flawed logic and plot holes drag this film down.  It’s almost silly to say because we are talking about a film featuring a romance between a zombie and a living woman, but the film’s plot breaks the rules of its own reality a number of times, which is a major letdown because it seems that just a bit of due diligence would have cleaned this script up a lot.  I came away from the viewing feeling that Levine wrote down to his audience rather than produce a clean narrative with larger aspirations.

So when a film is a mixed bag of good and bad like this one, the best you can hope for is that the positive outweigh the negatives.  In Warm Bodies, the interesting premise and fresh take on two genres is essentially negated by foolish errors and patches of mediocre writing, but the work of the cast in this film ultimately tips the scales towards the positive.  Hoult, Palmer, and Corddry along with John Malkovich and Dave Franco provide just enough laughs and “awww” moments to keep the audience engaged.  Unless you are really desperate for a romantic Valentine’s Day movie, I don’t think it is necessary to see this one in the theaters.  It’s a classic rental that won’t make a big impact on your life, but also won’t have you cursing at the Red Box vending machine.  However, should you find yourself in a bind to find a cinematic adventure to cap off a perfectly romantic Valentine’s Day, might I suggest A Good Day to Die Hard.  Nothing says love like Bruce Willis blowing up a bunch of stuff.

Standout Performance: Rob Corddry.  At one juncture, he made the whole cinema erupt with laughter.  Kudos to him.

Read More

Review: X-Men: First Class

I was a fan of comics as a kid – definitely DC over Marvel.  I would save all the coins I could find until I reached seventy-five cents and then I would harass my mom into stopping at the local comic book shop on the way back from the supermarket.  Some forty-five minutes later, I would have whichever issue of Superman featured the slickest artwork that month.  So whenever a film comes out based on a hero straight out of the funny pages, I am always excited to see these visuals on screen that during my youth could only be realized through the imagination.

X-Men: First Class is a good movie.  It will not crack my Top 5 Superhero Movies list (Thor, The Dark Knight, Spiderman 2, Iron Man, and of course Superman the Movie) but it is a very strong entrant in the genre.  That it did only $146M domestic and $206M foreign speaks more to a bit of franchise fatigue and the stink of Brett Ratner emanating from the debacle that was X-Men: The Last Stand.  It also had to overcome the stigma of prequels that historically do not do justice to the original (i.e. Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd).   What makes this film better than its peers is that it features a storyline reasonably grounded in reality executed by a solid cast.

One does not necessarily think of a superhero narrative as a period piece, but the film is firmly grounded by the fact that it is loosely set against the backdrop of significant historical events of the 1960’s.  James McAvoy and his “John Lennon sideburns” do an admirable job of playing an unfamiliar version of Charles Xaviero – a fully ambulatory non-follicularly challenged one, while Michael Fassbender brings a sense of brooding to the proceedings minus the camp that plagued Ian McKellen’s Magneto.  Director Matthew Vaughn has the two friends/foes leading a group of young mutants mostly unfamiliar to the general public, and he strategically breaks from the canon of X-Men mythos for the sake of good story telling.  

As for the rest of the cast, Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult stand out amongst the young X-Men; Kevin Bacon is thoroughly unlikable as the chief villain amongst villains; and Rose Byrne and Oliver Platt do a fine job of playing G-Men working furiously to prevent the Cuban Missile Crisis.  My one complaint about the cast is about January Jones who fails to deliver a single line with any kind of conviction.  I have not seen this kind of apathy in an actor since Natalie Portman played Padme in Star Wars: Attack of the Clones.

I would absolutely recommend this film.  You don’t have to be a fan of the genre or familiar with the history of the X-Men to enjoy it.  The film has good pacing and a bit of humor to accompany the action that drives the film, thus avoiding the overwrought sense of gloom that at times overrides Nolan’s Batman films.  Watch it as a stand-alone though because while it was a very good film, it may not have performed well enough at the box office for 20^th Century Fox to greenlight another installment.

Standout Performance: Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence stand out amongst the accomplished cast.  Look for them in the upcoming “Prometheus” and “The Hunger Games” respectively.

Read More