Search This Blog

Showing posts with label matthew broderick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label matthew broderick. Show all posts

Monday, November 21, 2011

Tower Heist (4/5 Stars)




Beautifully orchestrated if not especially funny

What is most impressive about “Tower Heist” is the obvious superlative aspects of its production. The story takes place mainly in the Central Park West Trump Tower, herein referred only as the “Tower.” It is a beautiful building in a beautiful part of New York City and the cinematographer, not to mention, the location scouts, have milked the opportunities for all its worth. We see really gorgeous vistas of the Manhattan skyline, we witness the opulence of the tower itself and especially its spectacular penthouse apartment, and in a rather convenient move, the title “heist” takes place during the Macy’s Thanksgiving parade when all those gigantic floats of Snoopy and Kermit the Frog are making their way down the skyscraper-laden avenue. The professionalism shown by Ben Stiller and company is perhaps the tops of any comedy production team around. Notice how they have put in special care to develop the vast array of characters, from the building manager Josh Kovacs played by Ben Stiller himself, the concierge Charlie played by Casey Affleck, the doorman Lester played by Stephen Henderson, the new elevator operator enrique played by Michael Pena, the maid Odessa played by Gabourney Sidibe, etc. etc. The story sets up that this is a well-oiled team of superior service professionals and then actually puts in the effort to prove it by throwing in the requisite vocabulary, routines, and details needed to establish such a claim. The team of writers, Ted Griffin, Jeff Nathanson, Adam Cooper, and Bill Collage seem to know what they are talking about. But above all else, notice how clean and clear the editing, directing, and score is in moving the story along. Ben Stiller’s last movie “Tropic Thunder,” was especially impressive to me in the exact same way. It did something very hard in that it kept up a breakneck pace that never confused the storyline. To help accomplish this, they seamlessly edited hardcore rap into many of the scenes. In "Tower Heist," the story's action is perfectly complemented by a brilliant "heist" score composed by Cristophe Beck. I was humming the main tune as I left the theater. Beck deserves an Oscar nomination. And I would, if I felt I had more technical expertise, also claim that the editors, sound editors, and director, Brett Ratner, also should deserve some recognition. Having said that, there is something missing here that “Tropic Thunder,” one of the best movies of 2009, had that “Tower Heist” does not: consistent laughs. “Tower Heist,” is a well-made beautifully orchestrated movie but it is not especially funny.

One of the main reasons for this has to do with the actual storyline. Whereas “Tropic Thunder” dealt with ridiculous characters making a serious Vietnam movie for the purpose of baiting the Oscars, something that is far more pretentious than actually important, the heroes of this movie are hardworking honest working men who have been defrauded of all of their pension and retirement money by the penthouse billionaire Arthur Shaw, played with just the right amount of sociopathic tendencies by Alan Alda. One of the workers, Lester the doorman was just about to retire and travel the world with the 73K he had responsibly saved up during the last three decades he had been opening doors for people. It is shown that Arthur Shaw knew his ponzi scheme was going to go up in smoke in a few months when he took all of Lester's money in order to “invest” it. When the fraud is found out and the doorman learns the fate of his life savings, he attempts suicide. This is not funny. It’s more enraging than anything else, especially because of all the real world parallels involved. Such a story line is definitely effective. We love the heroes who are trying to steal their money back. We dislike with special venom the dishonest and disrespectful billionaire. We care about the outcome of this story, but we aren’t laughing all that much during it. The fate of the doorman’s pension is not a joke.

“Tropic Thunder,” had the almost uncanny ability to get laughs from every single character in the movie. Even the straight man, Jay Baruchel, was funny. Here only a few characters can be described as comic. Gabourney Sidibe, Michael Pena, and Matthew Broderick tend to say funny things from time to time. Eddie Murphy is the funniest although his part is hardly large enough to make the movie a full blown comedy especially when the two main characters, Ben Stiller and Alan Alda, don't get any laughs at all. What they are involved in is a dramatic game of life chess with rather big stakes attached to the outcome. Like I said, it is effective, but it isn’t all that funny.

Of course in the end, a heist movie, whether it is comedic or not, will always be judged by how well done the heist is. In other words, would it have worked in real life? That’s a good question here. There are a few moments when I was like, well that shouldn’t have worked that way, but overall there were enough intelligent parts of the heist (like for instance how they got Arthur Shaw out of the apartment, how they snuck into the tower, how they cased the place, how they knew where the safe was) that the few moments that are a bit ridiculous could be swept under the movie rug we call the “suspension of disbelief.” At times the direction of the movie was so clear that I was vaguely reminded of how it felt to watch "Die Hard," the landmark movie that all skyscraper thrillers should be judged by. "Tower Heist," does not rise to the heights of "Die Hard," but I will say this; I hope you are not afraid of heights. There are some moments in this movie where you will definitely be feeling the vertigo. It was sort of unrealistic how Matthew Broderick didn’t die but hey, I can forgive the movie for not killing him.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Bee Movie 11/07/07

. Education can in fact be fun and lively. And it is both in Jerry Seinfeld's new animated comedy "Bee movie." This movie not only provides plenty of one liners and colorful charachters but it is also surprisingly knowledgeable about bees, bee society, pollen and nectar cultivation, honey production, and bee psychology. It's probably as good as a anything on the DIscovery channel, and funnier too.
The story itself lags in some parts (due to the educational part) but there is some really clever stuff here. I liked the courtroom scenes, the plane landing, and the bee-human romance. The voice talent is incredible too. The beloved Renee Zelleweger sounds like a seasoned professional at this sort of thing. Her voice is unlike any other. It's distinctive and vibrant and there's isn't a fear of sounding silly. She doesn't have much tonal range and her voice hits this pitch where it starts to rasp and waver. She uses that to her advantage. It's a great performance. John Goodman is fantastic too as a corporate lawyer. It's amazing how different he sounds in this movie than his previously animated Monster Inc. charachter. The way the animators drew the charachters onscreen is great too. Apparently no one told them that any overacting was too much. The charachters bounce around everywhere. It's pretty cool.
Jerry Seinfeld trademark humor is at display here for the first time since his documentary "Comedian," which has been awhile. The story lags sometimes because I don't think Jerry is that comfortable with this new animated format, but there are consistent laughs throughout and the plot contains alot of material. I especially liked the jealous boyfried (Patrick Warburton) who sees a bee taking his place and decides to try to drown him in the toilet. Chris Rock has a mosquito was pretty funny also. Too bad he wasn't in the movie more. That is probably my biggest complaint (which isn't that big). I wouldn't have minded ten more minutes of movie.

The Producers 01/02/06

There is a common belief that remakes, in terms of art, are subpar. That sequels can never be better than the original and back in the day we all lived in a cinematic utopia where story and art fused together to make the best stuff ever possible at all times forever.
How complete crap that idea is.
I've seen a good deal of movies this year. And some of the best of those movies were remakes. Here's a few "Pride and Prejudice" "King Kong" and now the "The Producers." To say that these are subpar because of the fact that they are remakes is, for lack of a better word, crap. I think these are perfect examples that old material can be resurrected and shown in as bright a way (sometimes better) as the original movie. This is not new. In regular theater, we constantly regurgitate Shakespeare. Is that a crime. Would tomorrow's Hamlet not be as good as yesterdays because of the different actors, directors, settings yada yada yada. In my opinion great stories are timeless and if people want to hear them again from different people than where's the harm in that. In fact it's probably a good thing. Different people give different takes on the story, giving it extra levels and more meaning. Sometimes it's bad, but in many other ways it can be good. A good example of that is "The Producers" a remake of the Broadway musical that was a remake of the 1968 movie. 
I saw both the 68' version and this version. They are both funny, they are both likable in all their own way.
What the 68' version lacked in any way was made up by this movie. The added musical numbers and choreagraphy was inspired. Instead of the low-budget sets the first gave us, now we have what unlimited budget can produce. There's new jokes, new great performances, and new storylines that tie up different points. Alot is taken out also. Which is more a testament to how much new material was put in. The show is a good hour longer, and contains great new scenes. (Genius Accounting scene with Jon Lovitz). If there's too much, than there's too much of a good thing. One final note: I loved especially, how happy this movie was. It was joyful singing and dancing the entire time. The makers knew that they were simply putting on a show and did nothing but that. This movie is pure entertainment. No stops for morals or lecturing. Classic Mel Brooks. All the stops are pulled out for a good time or else period.