Search This Blog

Showing posts with label gore verbinski. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gore verbinski. 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

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End 06/07/07

Here's a blockbuster with a brain. And I couldn't be happier. This is my type of blockbuster, the type I hope to catch on with all other blockbusters.
At world's end, we catch up with the pirates where we've left off. In almost complete confusion, people switching sides for personal gain in flurries. In my last review of Dead Man's chest I mentioned the unique ability of the screenwriters to use every single characther in their own arc. This held over in spades in this movie. Each person has their own motives and goals. What this creates is a sense of chaos that permeates the entire picture. controlled chaos I must mention, if you pay attention you will understand what's going on. But you must pay attention. How many of today's blockbusters require critical thought. My point exactly, that's what makes this franchise so special. I would take the two sequel on an equal par with the original. They are all very good. 

The only inferior parts are miniscule and forgivable. These are the muted restrained love scenes between Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley. They put the film in a lull for stupid reasons, especially since you know there's no way they won't get back together. When they finally get married it's a huge relief. The second part is the Calypso charachter. Her seriousness just puts all of her scenes off. I didn't like her in the second film and still don't in the third. I think it's because every other characther is weird yet funny. She's just weird. Hopefully they get it right in the 4th installment.

Jack Sparrow is sorely missed when he's not on screen. So it was a good idea to provide more than one of him. Johnny Depp owns the charachter. The two are inseperable, and they shouldn't try a pirates film without him.
Geoffrey Rush looks like he's having a hell of a time. The pirate league is colorful. The bad guy is delightfully malignantly restrained. and the costumes are ridiculously cool. There's a summit of the main charachters on this desert island in the middle of the film where they're all dressed to the nines. It's a costume designers wet dream I'm sure. 
Overall the film is very good and exceptional in almost all areas. Most blockbuster sequels have over the top spectacle but a deceptively hollow story. This movie has over the top spectacle but with a story that is overflowing with plot. Not your average fairy tale me harty.

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.