Critical Film Condition

There are movies that have so much hype on them that sometimes, many times, the public reacts negatively only because they were expecting a little too much. The Star Wars series has suffered such fate, even though some of the new movies really did suck. "Iron Man" is a rare example of something that lives up to the hype, because it really is that good. "Indiana Jones 4" (shorter name for the review), with or without hype, is just not a good movie.

I might just be the perfect person to review this, since I am a professional involved with cinema but am not a complete Indiana Jones fan. I probably saw "The Last Crusade" about thirteen years ago and that means I was about ten years old back then. So seeing "Indiana Jones 4" was just like watching another over-hyped summer blockbuster for me.

The story, as everyone knows, follows Dr. Henry Jones Jr. in his quest to the Crystal Skull, which he has to find before a group of evil Russians does (the film is set in 1957… Cold War… You know this drill). It is said that the one that returns said skull to its original resting place with behold its power forever (and yada yada yada, been there, done that).

One interesting thing, one that got me so interested in this movie, was the fact that Steven Spielberg was directing and George Lucas was writing and producing. Lucas has been absent since "The Revenge of the Sith" and even before that he contributed to projects on rare occasions. This, my friends, gives a new meaning to blockbusters. Steven Spielberg and George Lucas might just be the most powerful people in Hollywood, so we can expect almost anything when these guys work together. And this is where "Indiana Jones 4" fails, miserably. Their excessive use of pyrotechnics and CGI ruins the movie.

First of all, those who think that Harrison Ford is too old for the titular role are dead wrong. He’s fit, active and having a ball putting the fedora hat one more time. This is far from being a problem for the movie. The problem lies in the fact that the team was so focused in showing their movie-making powers that they forgot that they had a whole movie to make. While the all-star cast is doing their job, the situations that they get involved in seem so random that you just have fun with the action sequences (which are stellar) and forget that there’s a story to be seen… Actually, there is almost no story. While the premise is brilliant, moving away from the supernatural themes from previous Indys and coming closer to a sci-fi setting, it gets lost in the middle of the movie and pathetically tries to play catch-up in the end. The movie starts in Area 51, for chrissakes… THAT caught my attention, but where the hell was the rest of it? From then on it moves on to bizarre displays of visual effects that are so randomly put there that you forget that 10 million dollar scene five minutes after you’ve seen it.

And towards the end it only manages to get more and more absurd. George Lucas was such a good story-teller and grabbing David Koepp as the scribe was a bold move. It’s all thrown away by Lucas’ recent arrogant attitude of thinking that people will like whatever the hell he writes. The movie gets progressively bad towards the end, so it is nigh impossible not to get out of the theater with a sour taste in your mouth… That "what the hell was that" taste.

By the way… The effects? The gazillion dollar effects? Terrible. The worst action scenes are the ones with CGI and the rest is just brilliant. The motorcycle escape with Mutt (Hollywood’s worst kept secret in recent history) is one notable example of how good a director Spielberg is and it’s a sequence that doesn’t involve a second of CGI.

Again, kudos for the cast, except (and this is the biggest surprise) Cate Blanchett. She’s one of my favorite actresses these days, but her Irina Spalko just doesn’t deliver. Her accent is ridiculous and she even says some words in her native British accent (where’s the language coach?). This is surprising, coming from a person who perfectly impersonated a southern-American woman once. Other than that, newcomers Shia LaBeouf, John Hurt and Ray Winstone play along perfectly with Indy veterans Harrison Ford and Karen Allen. It’s not hard to believe, though. Wether you’re returning to the series or joining it for the first time, getting a part in an Indiana Jones movie is such a coveted fact for actors that they truly give it their best (theoretically). It kills me to say that the acting score wasn’t perfect because of Kate Blanchett, but it is the unfortunate truth.

So, here it is, boys and girls. My final verdict on "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is that it is, in short, a bad movie. That’s not going to stop you from seeing it, I know, but don’t expect much from the Spielberg/Lucas joint-venture, since the megalomaniac result of this venture becomes a flaw of catastrophic proportions. Sure, they had fun playing with their ridiculously expensive toys… But coming from the people that brought us the original "Jurassic Park", "Star Wars" and "E.T." (not to mention the other Indiana Jones movies), a movie with such lack of a storyline is the biggest definition of bullshit.

Popularity: 1%

What do you get when you put a critically acclaimed white actor playing a critically acclaimed white actor who turns into a black actor, surgically, to prepare for a role in a movie? Well, you get cheap controversy from people who can’t take a joke.

But then again, I’m white, so I can’t speak for minorities who get affected by this type of humor. In my Point of View, though, Robert Downey Jr.’s role in this movie is harmless.

Anyway: Four actors, one of them the character played by Downey Jr., get thrown into a real war-zone by a crazy director who wants to make the movie more realistic. That’s about it.

It’s directed by Ben Stiller, so you also know what to expect. The trailer? AWESOME. I bet even the ones who feel sooooo affected by the black jokes (none offensive, by the way) hide themselves so that they can laugh from Downey Jr.’s acting later on. This promises to be the sleeper comic hit of the end of the summer season, with or without the controversy (that will die out in about a month). The only problem is that Downey is so good that he makes his fellows Ben Stiller and Jack Black completely forgettable (and he does take over 80% of the trailer).

By the way, this is the review for the recent RED BAND trailer released on iTunes. It has blood, swearing and all those things that I happen to love but may be a little too much for some people.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/tropicthunder/

Popularity: 1%

Rob Cohen is a director as stable as the American economy these days. “The Fast and The Furious” and “Dragon” were good movies, but then again he was the guy who made “Stealth”.

“The Mummy” franchise has had mixed results with me, since the first was a very-well-made “Indiana Jones” knock-off and the second was just a cheap money-making sequel that brought nothing new to the table.

Along comes “The Mummy 3″, directed by Rob Cohen (out of a job since “Stealth”) and you can guess what my first impression was. Cohen said in an interview that the trailer would blow everyone away and I didn’t believe him…

But I said: “Okay, I’ll bite”… you know, for the sake of the movie industry.

And the trailer is pretty good. It didn’t blow me away or anything (in any sense of the word), but it did impress me more that the previews for “The Mummy 2″. Maria Belo replacing Rachel Weisz as Evey looks pretty cool, as does Jet Li’s villain. And I like Michelle Yeoh, so again, I’ll bite. No need to comment on the awesome effects, which are always mandatory in “The Mummy” series.

Remember, though, it’s Rob Cohen and he has zero connection with Joel and Ethan Cohen. He’s unstable and mostly bad.

http://www.movieweb.com/news/79/28679.php

Popularity: 1%

I liked “X-Files”, but wasn’t a big enough fan of series in general to become a big fan. The first movie was a much above-average adaptation of a series-to-film project. This sequel is coming a little late, but I’ll take it. Duchovny and Anderson are back again as Mulder and Scully, which is good… And without Chris Carter this could become disastrous.

This teaser-trailer is the typical sci-fi “we won’t show you anything” preview, but after a minute it shifts into second gear and shows potential, but never manages to amaze. It’s not GREAT, but it’s not bad either.

The trailer convinced me to watch the movie in July, but somehow I just wasn’t impressed by it.

http://www.xfiles.com

Popularity: 1%

Everybody knows that my favorite movie of all time is "The Matrix" (Actually, my favorite of the trilogy is "Revolutions", but the original was more significant in my life). I’ve reviewed "V for Vendetta" here, which was written and produced by the Wachowski brothers, who directed "The Matrix". "Speed Racer" is their first directing job since.

"Speed Racer" is based on a Japanese cartoon-series of the 19-what evers about a futuristic race-car driver, his family and his car, the notorious Mach 5. The movie’s story is nearly identical to that of the cartoon, save for a few liberties the directors took to surprise fans . The trailers already showed that the movie was excessively colorful, but boy was I in for a surprise.

"Speed Racer" reminds you of the 1970s on a ton of acid. I think every color of the world’s largest painting palette is in this movie. And at first it’s daunting, mainly because it is a little too much for the brain to process. This is, in my opinion, the main problem with "Speed Racer" and the reason why so many critics crucified the movie. Added to the cocaine-driven editing (not much in "The Matrix" fashion), this crazy-though-innovative style is tough to be understood. Some people (most, maybe) fail to get the point: The directors were pushing for a stylized way of adapting the cartoon into live-action without losing the anime aspects of the source-material. It LOOKS like a cartoon and it is BEAUTIFUL.

Another problem is that, at least in the first races, the editing is so fast-paced that it gets boring because nobody understands a thing. When they get to the desert race, though, things get much much better. They slow things down a bit and racing gets more exciting than any display of cinematic automobilism you can find. The final race is one of the most dramatic, heart-pounding moments in movies that I’ve ever seen in my entire life. If only the first forty-five minutes were the same…

By the way, Emile Hirsh isn’t bad at all in the title role, but Matthew Fox (of "Lost" fame) is steals the show as Racer X. John Goodman and Susan Sarandon are adorable (gay word) as always in the roles of Pops and Mom Racer… And when the HELL did Christina Ricci get so hot?

It gets to a point where you realize that the original cartoon is so significant in people’s lives that every actor involved in the picture looks proud to be in it. The chemistry between Hirsh, Goodman and Sarandon is so perfect that you have a hard time believing that they’re not a real family.

One point the critics are hitting on is the visual effects. I saw the movie with a couple of friends from film-college and, after arguing, they both agreed with me: It is impossible for the effects to be bad. The Wachowskis have one of the most successful film franchises in history in their portpholio, so it is not possible for the effects to be the way they are due to budgetary limitations. The effects are the way they are due to the artistic liberty the directors took to assimilate the movie with the cartoon to every extent.

I’m here defending "Speed Racer" from the nay-saying critics in the US, but this movie does have many flaws. The directors took too many liberties that, independently, may seem fine, but when added up, annoy the viewer. I have a high tolerance level when it comes to movies, but the excessive coloring did bother me until it got to the desert race and things calmed down. Another problem is the redundant story. Aside from a few surprises, the story is the same as the cartoon, which was just an excuse by the Japanese to show exciting races. Movies require content these days, especially one that runs over two hours.

So here it is, ladies and gentlemen. "Speed Racer" isn’t perfect, but it is far from being as bad as the critics are saying. If you get past the terribly-cut first forty-five minutes, you’re in for one hell of a roller-coaster ride. For fans of the series, the amazing soundtrack that revives the score from the cartoon and mixes with orchestrated music will give goose-bumps all around. For non-fans, there is much to be liked, but only if you choose to "free your mind". It’s a different experience from anything else, but then again, did somebody expect any different from the Wachowskis?

PS: I dare anyone to not want to jump out of their seats screaming "GO, SPEED, GO!" in the finale of the last race.

Popularity: 1%

Just when I thought no movie trailer could surpass the second trailer for "The Dark Knight", along comes a third trailer to prove me wrong.

This trailer has a better pace than the second and still doesn’t reveal more than it should.

A third trailer could be considered unnecessary, but the need for a shift in the marketing campaign towards Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhard) and away from the Joker (Heath Ledger), due to Ledger’s tragic death in January, led the company to release a third full-fledged preview. The result is a taste of the movie’s plot (absent in the second trailer) and a greater display of the Joker’s genius/psychotic personality.

Yes, I do believe that Ledger will get an Oscar nod for this, partially because of his tragic death. One other thing that I believe, though, from reading previews from advanced screenings and hearing from a BASTARD FRIEND who has been to one of those screenings, is that "The Dark Knight" has enough baggage to be considered the best film of this year, even by the most skeptical critics. Oh, MAN, I can’t wait to see it.

http://movies.yahoo.com/summer-movies/The-Dark-Knight/1809271891/trailers/129/865

Popularity: 1%

"The Spirit" is based on a Sin City like graphic novel by Will Eisner and directed by Sin City’s own Frank Miller.

The trailer has good pace and all, but shouldn’t they have at least tried to make it a little different from Robert Rodriguez’ "Sin City" movie?

"The Spirit" tells the story of a detective who comes back from the dead to fight crime in Central City… What follows is, well, whatever graphic novel in The Spirit universe that the screenwriters wanted to adapt (like, uh, "Sin City").

I’m not being skeptic about this one, but it needs to differ a little from "Sin City" if it doesn’t want to be considered a cheap follow-up.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/thespirit/

Popularity: 1%

The first trailer that I reviewed here was the teaser for this same movie. It didn’t reveal much, but set the tone for what the movie could be (BOOM! "Something Incredible").

This trailer, on the other hand, shows a little too much. Sure, it looks cool and the effects seem to integrate into the "real-world" objects nicely, but this trailer shows that Louis Leterrier is just a regular film director without much originality in his work. The Hulk looks awesome and the action scenes look amazing… I mean, everything is in place, but nothing seems really mind-blowing. It’s worth watching, but it has that "been there, done that" feel to it.

What would really have rocked, although it would have been a little too gutsy for Leterrier, would be to scrap this trailer and release the first teaser a little later on. It looks like an anxious attempt to shut up nay-sayers who liked Ang Lee’s "HULK".

PS: The new poster looks great!

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/theincrediblehulk/

Popularity: 1%