The Cinema File #296: "Walking With Dinosaurs" Review

Sometimes it is difficult to tell whether the creative failure of a movie is the fault of the filmmakers themselves, or the meddling of executives. Other times, it is incredibly easy to tell this, as is the case with the new childrens' film Walking With Dinosaurs, a live action/CG hybrid that essentially serves as two completely different movies airing at the same time, depending on whether or not you have the sound on. A unique visual style boasting sometimes breathtaking imagery and an interesting blend of real locations and computer generated creatures is rendered almost unwatchable by some of the most annoying and unnecessary ADR punch up dialogue in recent memory, in a clear and regrettable example of post production tinkering gone horribly wrong.

Walking With Dinosaurs follows the epic journey of a Pachyrhinosaurus from his birth as the runt of the little to his eventual ascendance as leader of his herd. I make a point not to note the unbearably cutsie name given to this rhino-like protagonist, because I prefer to pretend that like all real animals in the wild, he remains nameless, and that at no point did a wacky Spanish bird voiced by John Leguizamo fly in to tell me what his name was or anything else about him. I certainly didn't need any of this information, as the film works well enough on its own without the voiceovers, originally designed to be a silent study of imagined pre-historic nature. Not being entirely shallow, I do not require my non-human characters to be anthropomorphized in order to engage with them, but then obviously I'm not in the target audience for this movie.

But then, I'm not sure what the target audience of this movie ever was, or at what point it changed from fans of naturalistic animation to whoever the hell this juvenile nonsense would appeal to. At some point, after all the animation was done, the film was apparently re-edited and re-dubbed with character voices, placed over action obviously meant to convey the story without dialogue, so that all the newly voiced characters have room to do is explain what they are doing as they are doing it, in case the movie was ever going to be showcased in a film festival for the blind. That is, the blind and devoid of good taste, as in addition to the pointless exposition spouted every other line or so, every line in between is some lazy pun or poop joke. Because that's what's best to capture the majesty of dinosaurs. Remember that scene with the poop in Jurassic Park? Wouldn't it have been awesome if every humorous beat afterwards called back to it?

For a film like this, butchered after the fact into something so unlike its original intended form, it goes without saying that it simply didn't have to be this way. As it was made, this could have been a bold experiment in storytelling, at least in the context of modern animated movies aimed at children with famously low attention spans. If successful, it could have ushered in a new paradigm for how we gauge just what mainstream audiences would be willing to tolerate in terms of subtlety and deviation from formula. In defense of those who decided to end the experiment before it started, I doubt a voiceless version would have broken box office records, but I can't imagine they thought this "salvaged" version could have done so much better. Of course, we know it didn't, and my contention that the artsy take would have been worth a shot is seen through the 20/20 vision of hindsight, but I have to wonder when this kind of complete overhauling has ever helped a film?

Like many kids, I grew up with a deep abiding fascination with dinosaurs, and judging by the success of the recent 3D re-release of Jurassic Park, that love of all things prehistoric is not lost on the current generation of youngsters. That Walking With Dinosaurs fails to claim the mantle of modern dino-centric fantasy isn't its greatest sin, as those are big shoes to fill even for a good movie. The biggest problem with this film is that it came so close to being great, only to have its potential squandered by the shortsightedness of people who obviously had no understanding of why this subject is so beloved. The impulse to force creative and original ideas into easily recognizable and relatable boxes is understandable, but no less tragic when the result is the loss of something possibly magical, and in this case, the only saving grace is that my eventual DVD copy will play on a television with a mute option.

The Dirty Sons Of Pitches - Episode 70, Yet More Madea. Now Available.

Hey gents, no Saturday Night Jive this week, but there is a new episode of The Dirty Sons Of Pitches to tide you over. This week, we celebrate the new year with Madea movie pitches, and possibly end the show and the whole concept of pitching with one of the most disgusting visuals ever referenced on a podcast. Enjoy.

DOWNLOAD THE EPISODE HERE

The Cinema File #295: "Dallas Buyers Club" Review

Thanks to modern advancements in medication, the last thirty years have seen the AIDs virus transformed from a post-industrial plague to a relatively manageable condition, and just as the science has evolved, so too has the cultural perception of the disease. In retrospect, it seems unrelatably horrifying to think back on how widespread the stigma surrounding AIDs once was, associated with a class of people consigned at the time to the fringes of society. Dallas Buyers Club attempts to capture a complicated slice of life centered around this period of uncertainty and prejudice through the true story of an unlikely advocate for tolerance, and while it can be said to be more a showcase for great performances than a great movie in its own right, those performances alone elevate it to being one of better movies of 2013.

Over the last few years, it would be hard not to come to the conclusion that Matthew McConaughey can do no wrong. Even when he shows up in a movie that isn't that great, his unique ability to embody pure charm and affability makes every role he takes the standout of whatever he's in. In light of that and his career choices of late, his take on homophobic drug smuggler Ron Woodrufff almost feels like a test of his ability to make us like a character just because he's playing them. When Woodruff finds himself with AIDs and still can't bring himself to find common cause with gay people, it would be understandable to dismiss his plight as karmic retribution, but McConaughey is just so damn good at making this character real and sympathetic that you can't help but root for him even with all his flaws.

And the best part is, the flaws don't magically disappear just because the formula of dramatic cinema demands it. This is a character that would seem to beg for a heavy handed redemption story where the once gruff and bigoted redneck learns the error of his ways and acknowledges how wrong he was in treating gay people like monsters, but for the most part, that never really happens. Yes, he's a little better by the end of the story than he was at the start, but only so much as he would have to be, and no more. He's still uncomfortable around gay people and still spends most of the movie basically exploiting them, even if he happens to do so in a nicer way than everyone else is exploiting them. His entire motivation is essentially selfish and this doesn't really change, which is both true to life and refreshing considering the inclination towards pat schmaltzy resolutions most movies like this have.

McConaughey famously lost 50 pounds to realistically portray the wasting body shape of an AIDs patient, and watching him work in this spindley new physicality is spellbinding. Seeing a man who so frequently appears on Sexiest Man Alive lists and is so prone to showing off a well built shirtless physique suddenly skeletal and weak is as shocking as it was no doubt intended to be, and that's even before the character starts hurling offensive slurs at the equally gaunt Jared Leto. These kinds of drastic actor transformations are sometimes unnecessary and pretentious, but in this case, it makes the film so much more engrossing as you can't help but be both repulsed and transfixed at the same time. Leto deserves credit as well for his own commitment, but then his pattern since Chapter 27 suggests he might be too eager to take on these kinds of physical challenges purely for the stunt.

Its hard to really get too far into the plot of Dallas Buyers Club, because beyond knowing the premise, there really isn't all that much to it. Its interesting only because the main character, and to a lesser extent the larger cast of characters around him are so much fun to watch. The consequences of the story are actually a bit muddled, as a last minute text scrawl suggests the big bad of the movie might have been right after all, as the drugs said to be poisonous to AIDs patients are still used today in lower doses while the ones used illegally by the titular club all seem to have been phased out. As with all character studies, its best not to think about the details too much and just enjoy the performances, which in this case are some of the best you'll see this year and deserving of all the awards they're almost certain to get. Ordinarily, for me at least, that isn't enough, but this time, I just couldn't say no to this lovable homophobe.

The Cinema File #294: "Saving Mr. Banks" Review

In terms of modern historical figures without significant biographical movies to their names, its hard to think of someone more interesting and more deserving than Walt Disney. We're talking about a complicated visionary who built a lasting multi-media empire from nothing, an anti-Semite and possible Nazi spy beloved by millions of children, and a man whose head just might be frozen somewhere under Epcot. Is there any story that needs to be told more than his? This missed opportunity is only the first and worst sin of the new sort-of-but-not-really-true-to-life dramedy Saving Mr. Banks, perfectly cast but otherwise willfully ignorant of everything Disney-philes would want to see in a movie featuring old Uncle Walt in any capacity.

Rather than being about the person you're actually interested in, Saving Mr. Banks is actually the story of P.L. Travers, the prim and proper British author of Mary Poppins, whose stubborn refusal to sign away the movie rights leads Disney himself to take a personal hand in wooing her away from her principles. Of course, that analysis is not one you would find in the film, as what plainly comes off as a domineering corporate bully strong arming a woman to compromise her art is presented in just the opposite fashion. As one would expect from a Disney movie, Disney is the hero and P.L. Travers the stuffy antagonist, her attachment to literary integrity merely a mean spirited front disguising every author's secret desire to have their work Disney-fied and sapped of any nuance. As an artist, I'm insulted, but just as a fan of movies, I don't see how they thought this would work?

P.L. Travers is still the main character after all, and in the context of a film that needs her to be the villain, she is made to be so unlikable as to be grating almost every second she is on screen. To the movie's credit, it accomplishes what it sets out to do, as its hard by the end not to side with the affable Disney in his innocent mission to keep a promise to his children in the face of this shrill obstinate harpy, but that doesn't make this approach any less despicable. One might be tempted to give the film a pass considering its made by the company Disney founded and needs to cast him in an impossibly noble light, but that only assumes that its okay for a movie studio to be spineless and self-serving as long as they're making a movie about themselves, which is admittedly a rare situation, but not one that would seem to merit a special exception.

Naturally, proprietary concerns make the kind of Disney biopic I'd want to see, complete with frozen heads and Jew-hating, impossible, but even as the next best thing, Saving Mr. Banks fails to deliver. Not that this was ever designed to be a Walt Disney movie, but every minute Tom Hanks is on screen, you realize why it should have been. Even if P.L. were more likable, her story is still the least interesting one (next to the flashbacks, which I'll get to later), and one wonders if the whole reason they made this film as opposed to a more Walt-centric cradle to grave story might be to avoid the uncomfortable questions that would naturally arise from all the necessary omissions. Hanks is wonderful as Disney, so charming that you almost want to believe the sanitized version on display, but his relatively diminished role in the film is conspicuous and disappointing.

For the record, despite a thankless role, Emma Thompson is as good as always (still pulling for her as the first female Doctor), and all around the cast is better than this movie deserves. Colin Ferrell and Paul Giamatti are the standouts among the supporting cast, the latter providing probably the most heartwarming performance in a largely minor role. Ferrell's drunken patriarch is an odd mix of whimsy and sadness, infusing a running series of flashbacks to Travers' childhood with an increasingly depressing tone that works, but not enough to justify so much time wasted on back story that could have easily been handled in dialogue. The majority of the film outside of Disney's office ends up the same way, good for what it is, but not good enough that I don't still want more Walt.

Last year, the guerrilla-filmed sci-fi noir Escape From Tomorrow received a lot of criticism for its lack of a plot strong enough to live up to its style, a critique I accept even as I defend the film purely for its raw indie chutzpah. The problem in a nutshell was that a story set amid the wide and often weird world of Disney had so much more potential than what was suggested by the film. Saving Mr. Banks falls into a similar trap, flawed though well made and entertaining enough, but ultimately nowhere close to the kind of movie it could have been, and should have been. The factors limiting its potential were less technical and practical than in the case of Escape, but no less daunting, especially given the bigger budget and expectation of mainstream appeal. It may be the best movie we're ever going to get dealing with this subject, but that doesn't make it great in its own right.

The Cinema File #293: "Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues" Review

No other film did more to cement Will Ferrell as a bonafide movie star post SNL than the original Anchorman, and in retrospect, it still stands as arguably his best and funniest movie to date. In the wake of Ron Burgundy's first adventure, Ferrell did more than his fair share of phoning it in with less than genius performances in movies like Semi-Pro, Blades Of Glory, and Land of the Lost, often proving that his brilliant improvisational skill is not always capable of completely doing the job of an otherwise funny script. Going back to the well that made him a household name, Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues does its best to recapture the magic of San Diego's stupidest news team, and in brief moments almost feels like old times, even if the end result comes off as a bit of a hollow imitation.

Anchorman 2 finds the arrogant perpetually 70's newsman bringing his old gang back together again to restart their careers at the forefront of what will become the next big thing in broadcasting, the first 24 hour news channel. The back together montage is probably the highlight of the film as we see where all the characters from the last movie have been in the years between, selling fried bats, taking photos of cute kittens, and being dead, and the single funniest joke in the entire movie comes just afterwards as the newly reassembled crew realize they can't drive a car with cruise control, though regrettably this moment was ruined by the trailer. Thankfully, Anchorman 2 is not one of those movies that blows all of its funniest moments in the advertising, and even if the best bit was spoiled, there are at least enough laughs per minute to justify the ticket price for anyone who liked the first one.

Perhaps most surprising is how much of Anchorman 2 feels new even despite the familiar setting. Its all the same style of absurdest humor and the characters all fall into their same molds, but for the most part the movie eschews the sort of direct joke re-treads that we've seen all too often in comedy franchises like the Hangover series, and most egregiously, the Austin Power sequels. The commitment to relying on as few self-referential callbacks as possible throughout is commendable, but only makes the finale that much more disappointing, when all the old jokes are unleashed in one orgasmic explosion of shit we've seen before. Without giving too much away, the last fifteen minutes represent the only significant nod to the original movie, and when I say significant, I mean a self-indulgent mess of chaos that only makes sense because it follows the best part of the first Anchorman, only to an even more gratuitous degree.

To its credit, Anchorman 2 seems to have taken its ethos of excess to heart in every aspect of the story, to the extent that you can call it a story at all, and brought a few things to the forefront that I always felt were lacking in the previous installment. The media satire element in particular, confined to knocks on cutesy panda-centric human interest news in the first movie, is central to the new one and takes on the laziness and ratings hungry press of today with a mostly keen sense of what ails them. Unfortunately this comes just short of diagnosing the biggest problem of our news today, ignoring the partisan issues plaguing modern day news networks in favor of the much safer criticism that they're all just craven and shallow. What little is there is welcome, but much like last year's Ferrell effort The Campaign, it comes off as too afraid to single out and alienate anyone but the most obvious targets.

Anchorman 2 feels like a sketch movie tied together by the loosest of connective tissue, less cohesive and direct than its predecessor, but still mostly enjoyable for what it is. Its as if Ferrell and Adam McKay spent the intervening years between movies coming up with five or six different ideas for potential sequels, and when the time came to pick one, they just smashed them all together in a Frankenmovie, hoping that nostalgia and improv would push them through to the end. It mostly works, even if it goes off on a few too many tangents along the way, such as in extended sub plots involving Burgundy going blind or having an elicit affair with his African American boss. With the exception of the ending and perhaps Steve Carrell's brief romance with an autistic Kristen Wiig, it never grates, and even when a joke here or there falls flat, there are always at least two or three good ones coming up after it to make you forgive and forget. Overall, a worthy if flawed successor to the original, with little to disappoint the faithful.

New Podcasty Goodness, and some Podcasty News of Import!

Looked up 2013 in film in Google Image Search and this came up. Figures.

Hey y'all.

Just wanted to throw out a few updates on my rapidly growing network of independent podcasts. The latest two part year-in-review episode of The Dirty Sons of Pitches is up. We talk about our top ten and bottom five movies of the year (though I couldn't keep it to just five shitty ones).

Part One Is Here

Part Two Is Here

Also, a few notes about my other podcasts. Both Stop Or My Mom Will Podcast and Saturday Night Jive are now available and searchable on Itunes (as is Dirty Sons Of Pitches for the record). If you're a fan or become one at any point, please do us a favor and subscribe.

Additionally, each podcast now has its own dedicated blog.

Stop Or My Mom Will Podcast Archive

Saturday Night Jive Archive

These are just bare bones sites with direct links to each episode in the order they are published, for use in the RSS feed sent to Itunes, but if you want to get them directly from there, that is an option as well.

So, enjoy, and stay tuned for as many as two or three more podcasts to be added to the roster in 2014 as soon as I get off my lazy ass and start them.

The Cinema File #292: "The Hobbit" The Desolation Of Smaug" Review

Being the second movie in a series that really shouldn't have been a series in the first place, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug already has the deck stacked against it for the most skeptical observer. Now, when I refer to the most skeptical observer, I'm not speaking abstractly. That's me. I'm that guy. I hated the first Hobbit movie precisely because it was far too long and drawn out to justify the effort and took the "boring but pretty" ethos of the original Lord of the Rings trilogy to new heights of, well, pretty goddamn boring. I hated it so much that I actually found the 90 minute Asylum knockoff with cannibals and the guy from Stargate SG-1 to be more entertaining. My point is, this one had a long way to go to impress me, and while it still has its flaws, many the same as the last time around, even I have to admit that this is a far superior, and dare I say even worthwhile film.

The Desolation Of Smaug continues the adventures of that plucky band of dull as Hell Dwarves trying to reclaim their homeland from the Orcs, or a Dragon, or a Necromancer, or....something. I'm not quite sure at this point, but it seems like these movies are taking great pains to throw so much at us as to suggest it doesn't really matter. I know they're not trying to take their land back from Tom Bombadil, that's for sure, but I digress. This time around the set pieces are a little more familiar at least in terms of my favorite scenes I remembered from the book, namely the shapeshifting bear guy, the capture of the Elves and the barrel escape, and the giant spider, all culminating of course with the classic Hobbit on Dragon confrontation implied by the title. That we had to wait until the second movie to get any of this is somewhat insulting, but now that its here, I can't say it isn't fun to watch, finally.

My main criticism of the original Hobbit was that it just took so damn long for them to actually do anything of interest, and by the time they did, the movie was basically over. The structure of this new film is pretty much the same, and the accomplishments are just as slight in retrospect, but this new movie is just a little better at hiding this fact and creating the illusion that the mostly pointless string of madcap escapes and adventures are actually significant to the mostly nonexistent story beyond eye candy. The Dwarf crew is captured and forced to mount a daring escape no less than four times throughout the course of the film, and until the last one, none of these feel like anything more than what they are, filler to get to the Dragon, but since they're at least a little more iconic, they don't grate as much.

If there is one solid reason to extend this franchise beyond the single film, it is to provide room for one of the few story beats this movie gets perfectly right, and that's the slow evolution of Bilbo Baggins from a timid woodland nobody to a brave adventurer with a dark secret. Now with the ring in tow, Bilbo is gradually transforming into the creepy addict we saw brief glimpses of in the beginning of Fellowship, and Martin Freeman once again proves why he's the perfect choice to embody this complicated protagonist, finally given the time and the chance to shine independent of the tedious warrior clan escorting him through each CGI set up. One moment in particular with the spider (or rather spiders, even though I remembered only one from the book) promises more of this character growth to come, and considering how much more intriguing it is than the rest of the quest, I welcome it.

The award for standout performance however must go to Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug, who despite providing only the voice and motion capture for a character one would think was too inhuman to work in that medium, fully embodies this creature and brings it life in a way only he can. The evidence of Cumberbatch's face is subtle, just a glint in the eye and a twist in the smile, and his voice is masked somewhat by modulation, but he's so powerful and commanding that he forces his way through the technology and creates one of the best villains of the year and probably the next as well. Staring into his eyes as he stalks his prey, which is impossible not to do as they are so captivating, he lures you in just long enough to chill you to the bone, evoking the kind of alluring terror of classic fantasy demons like the Gmork or the Skekses, which for this 80's fantasy junkie is the highest praise I can give.

If only the entire movie could live up to its intense third act, then this whole three movie expansion gimmick might actually be justifiable. Until the Dragon shows up, its mostly trifling fluff, though admittedly much better paced than it was last time, and elevated by a more kinetic and less pretentious approach that seems to embrace the silliness of the whole thing a little more than any of these films to date. The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug is the first film in Peter Jackson's Tolkien obsession to feel anything like the Peter Jackson movies I grew up with and still love, certainly not as gory or uncompromising, but just a little more crazy and fun than we've been used to. Yes, the additions still feel like out of place padding (especially an extended subplot with Gandalf that really goes nowhere) but at least its not a chore to sit through, and if the fun parts are this fun the next time, even I'll have to forgive the shameless excess of this one book trilogy.