What is it that makes a film a box office success? Is it the combination of stars, script and budget? Some would have you think so. Alright, I concede. Those things are all true. The general public wants to see their favorite stars doing what they do best in films that look like they were manufactured at an Apple store. Put a high-powered machine gun and some machine gun-like dialogue together with a Will Smith or Tom Cruise and you've got yourself a recipe for big money. Be afraid though average viewer. For you this cheque will likely bounce.
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a crime-thriller delivered to our shores from Sweden. The film is the highest grossing in Sweden box-office history so it comes highly recommended or is popularity in Sweden the best litmus test for overseas success? If a film makes money in Sweden, does it really make a sound? If The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is evidence enough it certainly does. Just not always in tune. The film is mosaic of extreme gratuity and mainstream conventions. It heads down a certain path, one that ultimately cannot be backpedaled, and then parks itself into a corner. With each scene the movie evolves from a dark, intriguing film into a conventional serial killer thriller. That is to say revelations rely on twists rather than intrigue — and always at the most opportune moment (Oh my! He's in danger!). This is where the film hiccups.
When a film is a box-office success in any country, it's because it appeals to the average fan. People who only watch the films they anticipate they'll enjoy. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is unique in that it blends the thematic inventiveness of a foreign film with the conventions of a mainstream film. Which is to say its message is inconsistent. For every hit, there is a miss. So if a film makes money anywhere outside North America, does it make a sound? Yes, it does — every once and a while.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Iron Man 2
By mid-May, summer blockbuster fever is well under way. The first of the major big-budget films has already hit box offices to whet the palate and provide a taste of what is to come. Are the early indications positive? Are the appetizers flavorful? What is to be expected of the main course?
Iron Man 2 i the follow-up to the immensely successful original. Virtually the entire original cast returns to reprise their roles headlined by Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. Downey Jr. has once again found the perfect pitch and tone for Tony Stark, a virtual anti-hero in many ways who remains too admirable and good-intentioned to be anything less than a defender of justice. Tony Stark is perhaps the best superhero character ever adapted to the screen. The supporting cast is good – adequate to the point of being collateral damage of Downey's dominating performance. The standout has to Sam Rockwell — a scene stealer in every role — as Stark's competitor Justin Hammer. Originally one of the last choices for the role of Tony Stark, Rockwell portrays Hammer as Stark 2.0, Stark Lite, the diet Pepsi of Stark, and the Hammer Zero of Stark. His performance leaves little doubt that had he been cast as Iron Man the role would have lost very little. The story of the film is decent and follows the same blueprint as the first. Its less a story as much as a guideline. Perhaps the guideline it followed is the summer sequel blueprint that reads 'bigger and badder'. Too many new characters doing too much creating too little to enjoy. The production values are excellent as to be expected. Perhaps the greatest achievement of the film is proving that when in the hands of the right director (Jon Favreau) and showcasing the skills of the right star, a superhero summer sequel can in fact make noise outside of the box office realm.
If Iron Man 2 is any indication, perhaps this summer won't be so bad. It will likely lack substance and concede that the summer is a time where style matters. How else can audiences be convinced to go inside? For those waiting for something with more meat, the summer is not the season. Substance comes later in the year when the weather is more conducive to heading inside, the studios are more flexible and the stories are ripe.
Iron Man 2 i the follow-up to the immensely successful original. Virtually the entire original cast returns to reprise their roles headlined by Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. Downey Jr. has once again found the perfect pitch and tone for Tony Stark, a virtual anti-hero in many ways who remains too admirable and good-intentioned to be anything less than a defender of justice. Tony Stark is perhaps the best superhero character ever adapted to the screen. The supporting cast is good – adequate to the point of being collateral damage of Downey's dominating performance. The standout has to Sam Rockwell — a scene stealer in every role — as Stark's competitor Justin Hammer. Originally one of the last choices for the role of Tony Stark, Rockwell portrays Hammer as Stark 2.0, Stark Lite, the diet Pepsi of Stark, and the Hammer Zero of Stark. His performance leaves little doubt that had he been cast as Iron Man the role would have lost very little. The story of the film is decent and follows the same blueprint as the first. Its less a story as much as a guideline. Perhaps the guideline it followed is the summer sequel blueprint that reads 'bigger and badder'. Too many new characters doing too much creating too little to enjoy. The production values are excellent as to be expected. Perhaps the greatest achievement of the film is proving that when in the hands of the right director (Jon Favreau) and showcasing the skills of the right star, a superhero summer sequel can in fact make noise outside of the box office realm.
If Iron Man 2 is any indication, perhaps this summer won't be so bad. It will likely lack substance and concede that the summer is a time where style matters. How else can audiences be convinced to go inside? For those waiting for something with more meat, the summer is not the season. Substance comes later in the year when the weather is more conducive to heading inside, the studios are more flexible and the stories are ripe.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Australia
Ah, the Second World War. Nations were battling over political ideologies. Bombs were dropping. Love was in the air. Families were broken up. Young lovers were separated. Some people got it back. Others didn't. However, extraordinary circumstance can lead to extraordinary stories.
Australia is set at the outset of the Japanese joining World War II. It's about a British socialite who travels to Australia to help resuscitate the cattle property owned by her husband and in the process falls in love with the country, the aboriginal people, and a rough cattle drover. The film starts quickly and if you don't pay attention you could miss a few things. It switches character perspectives very quickly while combining specific dialogue that is difficult to follow. After that speed bump it settles into a solid romance film. It feels very much like an Australian Casablanca — two star-crossed lovers battling the circumstance of the war to be with each other. The film adds in some racial themes regarding the treatment of aboriginals to add a made-in-Australia authenticity to the film. All in all, it won't blow you away but it will tug on some heart strings.
The generations of people that have come since World War II will never know how it effected the lives of the people. We have no great war ourselves — other than the war on terrorism — which hardly hits as close to home. Films like Australia and Casablanca serve to educate and teach. Regardless of whether you like romance films or not these films will always serve to remind us how valuable the people we love are and how not to take them for granted.
Australia is set at the outset of the Japanese joining World War II. It's about a British socialite who travels to Australia to help resuscitate the cattle property owned by her husband and in the process falls in love with the country, the aboriginal people, and a rough cattle drover. The film starts quickly and if you don't pay attention you could miss a few things. It switches character perspectives very quickly while combining specific dialogue that is difficult to follow. After that speed bump it settles into a solid romance film. It feels very much like an Australian Casablanca — two star-crossed lovers battling the circumstance of the war to be with each other. The film adds in some racial themes regarding the treatment of aboriginals to add a made-in-Australia authenticity to the film. All in all, it won't blow you away but it will tug on some heart strings.
The generations of people that have come since World War II will never know how it effected the lives of the people. We have no great war ourselves — other than the war on terrorism — which hardly hits as close to home. Films like Australia and Casablanca serve to educate and teach. Regardless of whether you like romance films or not these films will always serve to remind us how valuable the people we love are and how not to take them for granted.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The Ring
Spooky is as spooky does. Or so says Forrest Gump. Ok that's a lie. Yet the concept is still the same. Spooky movies are only spooky if they do spooky. A movie could brand itself a horror film and not be scary at all. Isn't this in some way a misplacing of trust? Of all the genres, horror and action are perhaps the two most tied to their titles. If you go to see a horror film you expect horror. If you don't get it, the film is a failure.
The Ring is a 2002 American re-make of a Japanese horror film. The story focuses on a journalist named Rachel (Naomi Watts) who investigates a mysterious videotape that kills it's viewers within seven days of watching it. The plot is steady and effective. It's refreshing (or not, considering the film is almost a decade old) to watch a horror film that actually has well-defined story and characters. Under the direction of Gore Verbinksi (The Weather Man), the film picks and prods at the mystery until the picks and prods cause a tear. I was not at all scared by the conventional means of the term but I was uncomfortable. The film succeeds because it focuses on atmosphere and imagery rather than shocks. The colour scheme, although sometimes annoying, work to create the feel of a gloomy time and place. The videotape itself is full of creepy images that work to build the overall suspense.
Scary movies need to be scary. It's quite simple. If they aren't, they fail. The Ring succeeds at being scary without necessarily making you jump out of your seat. It's like a cold - you feel the scratch on day one and gradually you're consumed by it. That's how scary is.
The Ring is a 2002 American re-make of a Japanese horror film. The story focuses on a journalist named Rachel (Naomi Watts) who investigates a mysterious videotape that kills it's viewers within seven days of watching it. The plot is steady and effective. It's refreshing (or not, considering the film is almost a decade old) to watch a horror film that actually has well-defined story and characters. Under the direction of Gore Verbinksi (The Weather Man), the film picks and prods at the mystery until the picks and prods cause a tear. I was not at all scared by the conventional means of the term but I was uncomfortable. The film succeeds because it focuses on atmosphere and imagery rather than shocks. The colour scheme, although sometimes annoying, work to create the feel of a gloomy time and place. The videotape itself is full of creepy images that work to build the overall suspense.
Scary movies need to be scary. It's quite simple. If they aren't, they fail. The Ring succeeds at being scary without necessarily making you jump out of your seat. It's like a cold - you feel the scratch on day one and gradually you're consumed by it. That's how scary is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)