Search This Blog

Showing posts with label bill nighy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bill nighy. Show all posts

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Rango (4/5 Stars)




Alright all you cinema lovers you’ve got a Netflix assignment before watching “Rango.” Knowledge of the following should enhance your viewing enjoyment ten-fold: Francis Ford Coppola’s “Apocalypse Now,” Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood’s “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” at least the first chapter of Hunter S. Thompson “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” the chapter “Red Queen” from Marc Reisner’s “Cadillac Desert,” and most importantly Roman Polanski’s “Chinatown.” It also wouldn’t hurt if you’ve familiarized yourself with the walking style of John Wayne, the Indian from "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," the Eye of Mordor from “The Lord of the Rings,” the wheelchair movement of the Big Lebowski, cursory knowledge of desert flora and fauna, Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night,” and any and all Looney Tunes parodies or something to do with a “New Sheriff in Town.” You don’t need to have seen any of these to enjoy “Rango,” but then again you won't be in on some of the jokes. Unlike most movies that dumb themselves down to the lowest common denominator in order to appease the ignorant, “Rango” has absolutely no shame for looking peculiar, channeling classic movies, and counting on the audience to appreciate the quirky references not to be turned off by them. Overall, “Rango” is a good movie that was made by people who love great movies for people who love great movies.

“Rango,” is about a pet chameleon wannabe thespian that spends his days in his glass case acting out Shakespeare with inanimate props. Then a crisis occurs, the speeding convertible transporting his case hits an armadillo, and he is thrown out of the back where he subsequently almost hits a red shark and lands in a desert wasteland in the middle of nowhere. Actually circumstantial evidence suggests he is somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert on the road to Las Vegas. We don’t know the chameleon’s given name although again circumstantial evidence suggests he’s one of those “Goddamn Animals!” Anyway in search of water, he comes upon a town aptly named Dirt. The place looks like a Spaghetti Western inhabited by Ralph Steadman drawings. The characters are various desert animals dressed in western attire, all of them looking like there hasn't been enough water for showers in years. The amount of detail that went into the visual aspect of Rango suggests somebody put a lot of love into this thing. Gore Verbinski, who previously directed the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise, is at the helm here. It may be a few movies too soon to say this, but I think one day he may be regarded as an equal among such other great artistic directors like Tim Burton, Terry Gilliam, and Guillermo Del Toro. Animation in general has reached such a level of sophistication that I wonder if movies like this will ever be recognized by the Academy for Art Direction or Costume Design. I mean most of the design in last year’s “Alice and Wonderland” was entirely CGI. Why wouldn’t “Rango” be considered?

 Johnny Depp continues his career long quixotic quest to not look attractive by voicing the odd-looking chameleon with different size eyes and a potbelly. Upon coming to the town, he decides to put his acting skills to the test. Instead of simply admitting he’s lost, he calls himself “Rango” and tells a far out story about how he killed seven members of the same family with one bullet. He must have seen “True Grit.” I liked that movie too. This chameleon has good taste. Unfortunately for him, the town is in an enormous water crisis and actually needs a really good sheriff, what with the last one getting killed and all. So you can see where this is going.

The dialogue in “Rango,” is verbose and witty. The level of vocabulary in “Rango” is on the level of “Pirates of the Caribbean.” It should be. John Logan (Aviator, Gladiator) wrote the screenplay but Gore and James Ward Byrkit both straight from “Pirates” also get story credit. The Pirate accents have been switched for Western accents, but everything is still gruffly poetic delivered in a slurred multisyllabic rough and ready converse. Isla Fisher voices a lizard named Beans, giving us the least romantic name for a love interest ever. Abigail Breslin provides the voice of Priscilla, who I think might be some sort of Jewish possum. Bill Nighy is Rattlesnake Jake with suspiciously familiar eyes. Ned Beatty continues his dominance in evil cartoon voices (see Toy Story 3) with the Mayor. This time he's channeling John Huston in “Chinatown.” The Spirit of the West also shows up to counsel Rango in the form of Clint Eastwood in his Man-with-no-name garb driving a golf cart with a bunch of Oscars in the carriage. It’s a scene on par with Ed Wood getting advice from Orson Welles in “Ed Wood.” Unfortunately Eastwood didn’t voice himself. It was Timothy Olyphant. That’s too bad. It would have been so cool if he did.

The story of “Rango” is a movie cliché and one well-versed in movie knowledge will perhaps guess all the plot points before they happen. That didn’t bother me at all really because the movie itself is counting on me knowing everything anyway and instead spends its enormous energy in making all the old memories fresh and new. This movie is a great example of what the difference is between rip-off and homage. A Rip-off is a cynical attempt to capitalize on a popular trend. Homage is a nostalgic callback to something remembered fondly. Actually in practice they are exactly the same thing. What makes a movie one or the other is how deserving it is to be in the same class as that it is imitating. If a movie is lazy and dumb, then it is almost an insult to the classic to see itself in the inferior product. However, when the movie is creative and smart, as is Rango, a callback can be a compliment between artists who are on an equal level. “Rango” does not rely on its references. Take out every homage and it still would be funny and look great. That’s why it is full of homages and not rip-offs. Depp and Verbinski aren’t riding any coattails here.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Valkyrie (3/5 Stars) 01/17/09

Valkryie is the code word for the failed mission to assassinate Hitler and overthrow the S.S. by senior members of the German Army. The leader of the movement was a Colonel Stauffenberg played in this movie by Tom Cruise. Other rebellious generals are the character actors Kenneth Branaugh, Bill Nighy, and Tom Wilkinson. Tom Hollander plays the short part of the ambiguous ‘maybe he knows’ Nazi. The director is Bryan Singer of X-Men and The Usual Suspects fame. 
I like Tom Cruise movies and I like Bryan Singer movies and the chance for them to work together you would think are a match made in heaven on paper. The problem for about half of this movie is that the story does not fit the mold of that gung ho epic Cruise/Singer style. This movie is about a very intricate, secretive plot to kill Hitler. It should not be getting the blockbuster treatment. It doesn’t fit. I talk in particular of those very ‘Lord of the Rings’ shots where Singer takes his camera and shoots a moving car from the vantage of a helicopter. Now this works in the second half of the film as the attempt goes underway and there is substantial action in the picture. But in the first half they are completely uncalled for. The camera shots should be tight on Cruise creating a claustrophobic conspiratorial atmosphere. After the bomb goes off and coup becomes underway then the choices Singer has made are all very good. There is a particularly good shot where military men are running amidst a large plaza full of flags of Nazi Swastikas. Cruise then is allowed to be ‘Tom Cruise’ finally and the movie picks up speed. Still it is not perfect. The best movie to compare this one to is ‘Apollo 13.’ They are both movies based on real life whose success largely depends on the maker’s ability to create suspense out of a situation the audience already knows the outcome of. The question must be transformed from ‘Will it be successful?’ to ‘How is it going to be a success/failure?’ Apollo 13 was certainly a masterpiece of that genre. Valkyrie is simply good. It lacks the amount of smart dialogue and complex problem solving that took place in the former. It is like Apollo 13 but not enough like it. I can venture to say that even if you have no interest in NASA you will likely get a kick out of Apollo 13. On the other hand, if you are a history buff you will like Valkyrie but if you think history is bunk then I’d give you a 50-50 chance of liking it. I like history so I liked it.
I was particularly impressed by the nervous performance of Bill Nighy. Tom Cruise does an upstanding job, as always, particularly with his amputations. Hitler is a letdown; we never get to see that famous temper I witnessed in ‘Downfall.’ Tom Wilkinson, Tom Hollander, and Terrence Stamp have roles that speak to the skills of the casting director. What I mean by that is that we’ve got some very good character actors filling roles that are below their pay grade. It’s like I was watching a Woody Allen film, (who is perhaps the best casting director ever.)

Notes on a Scandal 03/27/07

Here we have the female version of Hannibal Lector. The yin of Judi Dench to Anthony Hopkin's yang. A true sociopath, much more passive, but just as cold. This movie made me cringe at times. Especially through Judi Dench's voiceovers. She has great lines to say and she outperforms them with perfection. They become crisp and clear, cutting and grating the airwaves of this film. True sociopathic poetry. 
Cate Blanchett also brings in an understated performance. She tones down everything that is special about her and presents the unknowing victim of this crime. Guilty herself of a scandal, but more innocent than Judi Dench's old witch. At least she has blood in her veins.
But does Judi Dench also. The most interesting thing about her charachter is it's dual cyclical nature. She doesn't like anyone and complains about them bitterly in her journals. She gives them nicknames and berates them constantly. This makes noone like her, which in turn makes her incredibly lonely which in turn fuels her bitterness towards people which isolates her and makes her more solitary.
This is one of those people you would hate to meet. Because most people, if they were smart enough to know their faults they would try to better themselves. This person is smart enough to know her own faults, knows them, but is determined to make the same mistakes over and over again. She just doesn't get it and everyone she meets suffers.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest 07/09/06

fresh: This is one of those movies that I would be curious to see twice, because as a rule I hate sequels but I loved this one so darn much. Therefore I must have missed what I usually hate and only a second viewing would bring about my much brewed ire for this film. 
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that only a really good sequel could overcome my natural bias against sequels. This is a really good film. The best sequel since "The Empire Strikes Back."
A great part of why this film is great is because everyone came back. This seems more like a labor of love than a enterprise for more money. Here we have both producers from the first one: Walt Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer, the same Director: Gore Verbinski, the same screenwriters, the same main cast from Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, and Keira Knightley, to much of the supporting cast: each one with a place and purpose in the story. The screenwriters must have gone through hell to make this story work as a parody of a theme park ride, a action adventure with great spectacles, a witty farce in the moments where there couldn't be huge effects, a sequel as good as the first but leads charismatically into the third, lots of fun, and a great ensemble effort where each character pulls their weight, noone grandstands, and not one part of the ensemble, filled with great new charachters, does one want to quickly get off the stage. It's a great accomplishment how everything fits. I wish I knew their names. I'd mention them with great praise.
Also to mention is the way they do not fail where so many other special effect extravaganzas do. They know how to use the visuals not rely on them, and it is clear that the makers had an effective story even if there weren't any. A great moment arrives when two supporting stooges pontificate on the correct pronounciation of the word Kraken. (rack or rake) A Kraken is a large sea monster that we periodically witness killing everybody in a ship. Here we have two characters arguing on the correct grammer of the word. It reminded me of that classic moment in Ghostbusters where the characters discussed the Giant Stay Puff marshmallow man who was terrorizing the city. Future directors should pay attention. That's how to handle huge special effects. With a smile and a friendly wink. A little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down.

Just one more note: This movie has quite alot of death and destruction. Since it's a pirate movie, that's understandable. The problem is I know many parents will bring their kids (I saw quite a few in the movie theatre) and I think the creators should of had that in mind when they started slitting throats, making ravens peck out eyes, and killing people quite constantly. I myself have no problem with that, but I bet a ten year old would have nightmares.