The Island

Now, I'm still not entirely convinced The Island isn't a re-make of something I watched on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (was it called... Clonus? Spare Parts?), but I like the movie, nontheless. But then, it does have Ewan McGregor AND Steve Buscemi! And no. I'm not being sarcastic.

A false reality created for your benefit to hide from you, well, actual reality. I think it's actually a pretty nightmarish idea--and when I say that, I'll add that I actually did have that nightmare once. Lincoln Six-Echo, played by always-adorable McGregor, finds himself a clone in just such a situation. Living in a facility where clones are created, fully grown, in what appear to be very, very large breast implants, Lincoln's recurring nightmares eventually lead to him discovering that the outside world might not actually be contaminated, as he's been lead to believe. And uh-oh: his pretty friend, Jordan Two-Delta (Scarlett Johanssen) may not actually be heading for The Island--the world's last, uncontaminated paradise. Chase scenes ensue!

Although it's part Logan's Run, part... whatever that MST3K movie was, The Island is actually a very good movie, and didn't feel like a rehash to me. To live forever is the new American Dream (the movie takes place in 2019), and for the fabulously wealthy, buying a product (which they believe will be kept in a vegetative state) to provide spare parts could double a life-span! The problem for the cloning company, of course, is when a clone doesn't want to move to "The Island," and turn to have just as strong a will to live as their "real world" counterparts.

McGregor is great as a disgruntled clone (why exactly does everyone in the facility have to wear white?!), and Johanssen is at least better than that gosh-darn Jessica Alba from Fantastic Four (sorry, I bring it up because I have a bit of a hard time telling them apart). Buscemi is delightful, as usual, playing a sort of mechanic from the facility willing to regard Lincoln as more than just a product. The villains are slick, I suppose, although the men sent after the escaped clones do seem a little unbelievably well-equipped... but, naw, I'll let that slide and attribute it to the year being 2019. Anything can happen in The Future!

So... I like it. Acting's solid, effects are good (as in: not all that noticeable). I'm skeptical that vehicles flip/smash/crumble quite so easily, but, except for the shaky camera work, I think the chase scenes are good. You know, as chase scenes go. You can't claim it isn't action-packed, and at least this is one action movie that has thought behind the plot and characters, unlike a certain superhero movie I could name.

Bottom Line: Fast-paced, intelligent action movie with teeth.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Well. Well, well, well. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. This is an odd one, I must say. I've had a day to think on it, and I'm still not entirely sure if I liked it or not. But I think I'm leaning toward a positive review. It might be easier if I hadn't had that infectious little "Willy Wonka" jingle running through my head non-stop all day ("Willy Wonka, Willy Wonka, the amazing chocolateer..."). But I digress.

Perhaps I should start by mentioning the original Willy Wonka movie. It terrified me as a child. You see, I thought the children were all being killed off. I will at least tell you that in this movie, I doubt your children will get that impression, altough thanks to special effects (yeah, "thanks"), the... situations the children visiting the factory undergo are a bit more dramatic. Although I've never watched the original movie all the way through (as I said, terrified), I still felt the bulk of the plot was a re-tread. I don't know what I expected, but I found myself a little bored at times. If your children haven't seen the original (or read the book, I suppose, which I haven't), they will likely feel more delighted. There is a different ending, and some different background plots, which at least add some new interest.

But does that mean I found the movie boring, overall? No, I think, a bit predictable, of course, but I'd say it's not a boring movie. It does have some funny moments, although I think I only laughed out loud once (I'm not a big laugher, though, so consider it a compliment that I did at all). If anything, there is at least quite a bit to look at, and some bizarre Oompa-Loompa song and dance numbers, which certainly are better, and substantially less creepy, than in the first movie.

Johnny Depp, as Wonka, reunites here with Freddie Highmore, who plays Charlie, and was also the charming little boy in Finding Neverland, also starring Depp. Freddie's role is once again charming. Depp's is not.

I must say, Depp certainly commits 100% to every character, and this is yet another unique performance. Never does Johnny Depp play himself. What I mean is, it is never "Johnny Depp playing Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka." It's "Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka." Johnny Depp is Willy Wonka, though this is a high-voiced, poorly-coifed, man-child Willy Wonka, whom I would certainly never want to meet.

Is this a problem? Well, this Willy Wonka makes me squirm uncomfortably a bit. But he also seems to make the other characters (not the actors, but the characters) squirm a bit uncomfortably. So I suppose, since the story and cast work with Creepy Willy, rather than him seeing misplaced, it works for me. Would I have preferred a more fun, confident Willy, sans the bob haircut? Yes. But this is a film from Tim Burton, the man behind The Nightmare Before Christmas. So we couldn't expect this movie to be too cuddly, could we?

If anything, I expect the movie will garner a cult following of fans who like oddly-lit movies full of slightly off-looking people. I wouldn't take children too terribly young, just because some of the film is unsettling, but I don't think this movie is too creep-tacular to be unfit for mainstream audiences. Have a go, unless your children have been formerly traumatized by a Burton movie.

Bottom Line: This quirky, kinda-creepy "kids movie" will be fun, so long as you're braced for the bizarre.

Million Dollar Baby: DVD Release

Million Dollar Baby: You know it's a boxing movie, you know it won several Academy Awards, and you may be aware of controversial plot elements, which, while it was in theater release, caused some further controversy over whether some conservative talk show hosts were deliberately sabotaging the movie by revealing what is meant to be a surprise. I will not be commenting on this other than saying the following:

Movies are made to tell a story. What characters do in a film, shouldn't be interpretted by anyone as a call to action, but simply as fictional characters making choices. You can choose to feel these were right choices or wrong choices--it's your perogative. I will also note that I did have the movie's twist spoiled for me, and I think knowing what was going to happen made me view the movie more uneasily, and, had it not been spoiled, it would have been far more effecting. So... I don't give a crap about your politics, and please, if you don't already know what's going to happen, don't look for spoilers (it'll ruin it a little). Can I just review it now?

Hilary Swank plays Maggie, a dirt-poor woman from the sticks, who travels to the gym owned by boxing trainer, Frankie, played by Clint Eastwood (who also directs), hoping the gritty-voiced old-timer will make her a boxer. Morgan Freeman rounds off the cast as an injured former boxer who helps maintain the gym and acts as narrator.

I'll say up front that I was a little confused at first over when exactly this movie is supposed to take place. It became easily apparent soon into the movie that it takes place now (first clue: prominently displayed ad for The Apprentice on the side of a bus). It does seem to me, however, that many of the characters seem to have stepped out of a different time, several decades earlier. I think the movie gets over this, and I didn't really care by the end, but for the first third or so, the gritty realism clash with the slightly stereotyped characters. The characters are expanded, for the most part, though, which is a good thing.

One character I could have done completely without was "Danger," a dim-witted Southern stereotype who makes Gomer Pyle look like a reasonable portrayal. I don't think the humor or possible parallels this character was supposed to bring to movie worked the way they were intended to. He was simply grating a little insulting (you really expect me to buy this character?).

The acting is pretty good, if very low-key, although I still don't understand why Eastwood had to growl quite so much, or if Swank had to be quite so earnest (Maggie's 31, not 14, let's remember). I've heard lots of rave reviews of Freeman in this movie, but let me voice the small complaint that I had a bit of trouble understanding his mummbled narration at times.

Okay. Maybe you think I'm working my way up to a trash fest of this movie. I'm not. It's a good movie. It's original, it's... Well, it's original. It doesn't make you feel good, in my opinion. It's not something I ever want to watch again. But it does deserve some of the fuss it got, if only because it's in the midst of a movie landscape cluttered with American Pie's and, Lord help us, Fantastic Four's.

But... a little over-hyped, over-rated, how ever you want to put it. It's good... but not quite that good. Glad I rented it, never see myself wanting my own copy.

Special Features: "Born to Fight" is what I assume was a special prior to the movie being released. It includes actors from the movie discussing their characters and the plot, but doesn't really offer any fresh insights. It basically rehashes the observations I'm sure you were quick enough to make yourself when you watched the movie. "The Producers Round 15" is a bit more interesting. It contains interviews with the people--producers, and the like--discussing how Million Dollar Baby got made. Finally, "James Lipton Takes on THree" is a Post-Academy Awards interview with Swank, Freeman, and Eastwood. This is a bit ponderous, as the actors discuss different aspects of acting and the film, and the interviewer kisses a little too much butt. Nothing revolutionary or all that fun in the special features (I reviewed the 2-disc version of the movie).

Bottom Line: Rent it to see what all the fuss is about, but be aware there may have been a weeee bit too much fuss.

Fantastic Four

Believe it or not, I like reviewing bad movies. It's much more fun to rip into a crappy flick than wax poetic about a good one. So I'll let you know, this isn't an unpleasant review for me to write, although actually watching the Fantastic Four wasn't much fun.

Now, if you've seen the previews for this movie (which, by the way, are more than enough to see of this movie) you know it's based on the Marvel Comic series of the same name. Due to exposure to cosmic radiation while on a scientific mission, four people gain superpowers. Reed Richards, "Mr. Fantastic," is stretchy, Susan Storm, "The Invisible Woman," can make herself invisible and create forcefields, Ben Grimm, "The Thing," is... made of rocks, and Johnny Storm, "The Human Torch," can set himself on fire and fly (while on fire). Will they figure out a way to reverse the effects of the radiation? Will Susan get back together with Reed? Is their nasty financial backer, Viktor Von Doom up to no good? (Well, heck, just look at his name!)

There are a multitude of reasons this movie is bad, but let's start off with the one that bothers me the most: The Invisible Woman, played by Jessica Alba, who is an actress easily on par with the likes of Hilary Duff and all the kids from the Brady Bunch. Susan is a high-ranking scientist (I think--what does plot really matter in this movie?) under Viktor Von Doom, who used to be romantically involved with Reed. Given that she's supposed to be accomplished professionally and in a love triangle with two characters played by men in their thirties, is 24-year-old Alba really the best woman for the role. Was their no perky-breasted 30-year-old who might have, dare I ask it, some trace of acting ability? Alba's skill set seems to involve grinning, and looking worried. I'm betting the 2D, motionless drawings in the comics have a lot more dimension. Her one-tone acting is the most grating of all the movie's many weak points. Fine, I can buy that an intelligent scientist could be a hot young blonde who agrees to wear tight, cleavage-bearing body suits, but it's hard for me to buy that during a scientific mission in space, she'd have time to apply heavy eye shadow, fake lashes, and a heavy coat of lip gloss. I'm just sayin'.

The other lead actors aren't quite so bad. Certainly, Ioan Gruffudd doesn't show much more range than Alba, but his character is at least supposed to be stiff. Michael Chiklis, whose "The Thing" got the short straw when it comes to powers and super-hero names, does earn my one moment of real sympathy, when he breaks a chair in a bar and says "That's not funny" (aw.), but his tired "tough guy" lines must've been written in half-an-hour. Chris Evans gets all the actually funny lines as The Human Torch, but otherwise comes across as such a jerk it's hard to like him much. Rounding off the cast, Julian McMahon does a decent, if standard, "bad guy," but his characters' motivations are flimsy, and his actions surprisingly violent without a transitional period from jerk to psychopath.

Actors aren't all to blame for this, though. The plot is riddled with problems. First off, the pacing is a bit bizarre. There's an interlude in the middle that's like a sitcom--in fact, it reminds me terribly of a few shorts that would be shown on Dexter's Laboratory--a parody sitcom, "Justic Friends," wherein superheroes, Krunk, Valhallen, and Major Glory were three superheroes picked to live in a house and go through the trials of everyday life. But some how, that seemed funnier. There's the predictable romance between Susan and Reed, a few misplaced "X-Games" segments with The Human Torch, and a series of segments basically revolving around The Thing having a hard time eating and drinking--is this a theme or could they just not think of another joke? (And how, exactly, does becoming stone make you need to eat and drink more? Why would you need to eat and drink at all?) All this leaves what seems like a very short amount of time for actually having any sort of contact and conflict with the Bad Guy, ending in a short and anticlimactic final battle (only battle, actually). This has to be the least exciting action movie I've seen in a long, long time.

And I feel the need to mention a couple of scenes that bothered me (no major spoilers, just nit-picking). There's a scene in which Reed, Susan, and Johnny need to get through a crowd of police officers, firefighters, reporters, etc. Reed comments that they'll never get through, but Susan can. Thus a "humor" scene ensues in which Susan has to turn invisible and undress, only to accidentally turn visible again partway through. Cut to a scene where and Susan is pulling on her clothes, saying she can't believe she did that, and Reed comments that at least she got them through. Did I miss something? Because I have no idea how one person turning invisible "got them through." Whatever. How about an earlier scene, where Susan turns invisible for the first time, and then Reed stretches his arm out. They look a little flumoxed. Wouldn't you have a slightly more dramatic reaction to such a thing happening to you and the person sitting across the table? Again, reactions are odd, when, while snowboarding with a "hot nurse," Johnny bursts into flame, burning off his clothes and landing him in a hot-tub like hole from the melted snow. He says, "Care to join me?" and hot nurse smiles. Appropriate reaction for two people who weren't expecting one of them to burst into flame? And on the thread of women portrayed badly, why exactly does Ben Grimm's fiance come running merrily into the dark, city street in a tiny satin nightie? But what disturbs me most (OK, real spoiler ahead!) is why, after trying to hard to "cure" themselves, at the end of the movie they've decided to stick with them. Ben found a blind girlfriend, so he doesn't mind anymore? What about all the speculation that their powers might worsen or be contagious--why not double-check that? Could somebody call maintanence to get these plot holes filled?

Cliche-ridden (yes, there is a point when one gruff character says to the young upstart, "You done good, kid"), meandering, illogical, and unaffecting, it's as if the makers of this movie were banking on the mediocre effects and curvey Alba to pull in the audience without any thought of making it... you know... good. There's no originality in this film, and it feels as if you've heard every line and seen every character somewhere before. Batman Begins and even the Spiderman movies showed how a comic book could make an original, touching, and exciting film. Fantastic Four does not.

Bottom Line: This stiff slog through comic book territory isn't worth your time.

North by Northwest: Classic Movie

"Funny, that plane's dustin' where there ain't no crops." Thus begins one of my personal favorite scequences from a film chock-full of oft-referenced scenes and situations. North by Northwest, the 1959 Alfred Hitchcock thriller falls easily into the category of "classic." Even those who haven't seen the film would recognize countless scenes from the numerous parodies and clips that populate entertainment even to this day.

The impossible-not-to-like Cary Grant stars as an advertising executive, accidentally caught in a deadly battle between two sides he can neither name nor decipher the motivations of. Eva Marie Saint appears as the femme fatale, as mysterious as everything else the bewildered executive is caught in. She's not entirely "girl power," but she is an intelligent lady in a role that doesn't seem terribly outdated or sexist by today's movie standards. Although, really, could there be a worse time for a girl to break a heel on her shoe? Invest in flats.

This is the ultimate mistaken-identity story, with twists and turns that leave you on the edge of your seat. Okay, admittedly, the car chase early in the film is clearly dated, and a little snicker-inducing. But come on! Real suspense never gets old, and this one will still have you glued to the screen. The acting is solid, the story is a masterpiece, and no amount of time passed can take that away.

If you pick up the DVD release of this movie, you'll find the picture in great condition, with some juicy special features if you really get hooked. I won't review them here, because surely just this film is enough motivation to pick this one up.

Bottom Line: You have to watch this exciting classic, at the very least so you'll get what all the cartoons are mimicking with the Mount Rushmore chase scenes.