John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum

Jack the Giant Slayer

Directed by Bryan Singer.

2013. Rated PG-13, 114 minutes.

Cast:

Nicholas Hoult

Eleanor Tomlinson

Ewan McGregor

Stanley Tucci

Eddie Marsan

Ewen Bremner

Ian McShane

Christopher Fairbank

Bill Nighy

Mingus Johnston

Ralph Brown

By now, you've probably heard the tale of Jack and the Beanstalk. Jack (Hoult) is a poor farm boy and things aren't going so well. He is sent out to sell his horse so his family can buy some food. Instead of money, he swaps the animal for some supposedly magic beans which is none too pleasing to the person who sent him. Lo and behold, the beans get planted accidentally, resulting in a beanstalk that stretches to the sky. At the top of this beanstalk is a man-eating giant and a princess to save. If my memory serves correctly.

Basically the same thing happens, here. The first difference is that we're dealing with an entire race of giants. Another is that along with Jack, King Brahmwell (McShane) sends a rescue party after Isabelle (Tomlinson), the princess. Among them is his top advisor, Lord Roderick (Tucci), and his top guard Elmont (McGregor). Elmont is a faithful soldier, but Roderick wants to take over both realms as he is in possession of a magic crown enabling him to do so. Oh, almost forgot something you probably already know. Jack is falling hard for Isabelle.

There is another difference more major than any I've mentioned thus far. In this world, the magic beans and the giants are part of a famous legend on par with the boogeyman in the eyes of many. A select few, the king and Roderick for sure, know the stories to be true. This adds a misplaced and unnecessary layer of self-awareness. Instead of the tale just being, we have to hear constantly about how they all thought it was just a myth. By itself, that wouldn't be terrible, but it's talk that goes nowhere and doesn't enhance the film. It just pads the run time with more needless exposition than we already get from the rest of the movie.

Everything else that happens is paint-by-numbers. It's a fairy tale told from Prince Charming's Jack's point of view, but that's hardly enough of a change in perspective to make a difference. In fact, it's only a very slight change. Normally, these are male-centric stories told through the eyes of the damsel in distress and the wicked person who put her there. This dispenses with any faux-girly pretenses yet still gives us the same outcome. We know what's going to happen, when it's going to happen. The kids in the target audience know it, too.

What all of this menas is Jack the Giant Slayer is a movie that has its worth resting completely upon its spectacle. At being one, it's a modest success. The beanstalk itself is fabulously rendered and causes all sorts of mayhem. The giants are also pretty well done. A few of them even have personalities which helps the cause a bit. The action scenes, which almost always involve the stalk, work out solidly. Our hero, portrayed by Nicholas Hoult of Warm Bodies is rather bland, here. As the villain, Stanley Tucci is typically excellent. Neither is enough to save or sink this movie. It can only be what it is: pretty, somewhat fun, and entirely derivative.

Snow White and the Huntsman

Directed by Rupert Sanders.

2012. Rated PG-13, 127 minutes.

Cast:

Kristen Stewart

Charlize Theron

Chris Hemsworth

Sam Claflin

Ian McShane

Bob Hoskins

Toby Jones

Eddie Marsan

Ray Winstone

Nick Frost

Lily Cole

Christopher Obi

Sam Spruell

The gang’s all here. Of course, there’s Snow White (Stewart) and, eventually, seven dwarves. It should go without saying that we have a wicked stepmother/Queen (Theron) and her knowledgeable, talkative mirror (Obi). Like any fairytale worth its pixie dust, there is also a prince (Claflin). Finally, there’s the guy who takes the dwarves’ place in the title, the huntsman (Hemsworth). The general parameters of the story are familiar. Mama White dies and a short while later her widowed hubby, the king, re-marries and finds himself all killed by his new bride. She takes over the kingdom, locks Snow White in a foreboding tower and brings in her mirror as her top consultant. Years later, Snow White manages a daring escape into the Dark Forest, a bit different from the most famous versions of the story. Since the queen’s powers are useless in that particular part of the kingdom, she hires the huntsman to track her down and bring her back.

Why the queen needs our heroine alive is part of the twist that provides this reimagining a darkness missing from the tale we’re used to, but a few steps closer to how it was originally told with regard to tone. The queen’s main purpose in life is maintaining her beauty, some semblance of youth and remaining fairest of them all. No matter what. To do this, she has young maidens hauled into the castle whom she robs of the qualities she desires, leaving them old, wrinkled and near death. She soon finds out that if she does the same to Snow White, she’ll no longer have that craving to satisfy.

There are some other twists, none hindering our recognition of the story we all know. The magic lies in the tricks played on our eyes. The purposefully drab interiors and pristine white snow filled exteriors make wonderful canvasses for splashes of color and quick striking, well executed special fx. All along the way we’re treated to images that seem sparse, but are deceptively lush. Our pupils dart around the screen grasping at fleeting flourishes of cgi goodness. Though not as big or overwhelming as in something like The Avengers, they’re perhaps more believable in their presentation. This includes our dwarves, all played by, for lack of a better term, normal sized actors. Apologies due to any little people who feel slighted by the phrase or being excluded from the cast. Still, it’s very nicely done.

Of course, fx alone don’t make a movie. The meat we readily chew on is the performance of Charlize Theron. She dominates the film much the way Julia Roberts does in the same role in 2012’s other Snow White flick, Mirror Mirror, but in a different fashion. Where Roberts’ queen cackles maniacally in the self-aware manner that lets us know she’s playing as much for laughs as she is menace, Theron’s queen has no clue she’s a character in a fairytale. She seethes, hisses and vampirically gains strength by literally draining it from others. Like the bloodsucker, she earns both our dread and the pity we reserve for one whose seemingly boundless power is really fueled by a fatal flaw. Perhaps, this flaw is really a thinly veiled commentary on our mass obsession with defeating Father Time. A less talented actress might have unconsciously imbued the character with more of the Roberts qualities, but being in the wrong movie, would undermine the seriousness with which this fantasy is approached. It would be like Cesar Romero’s Joker in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight as opposed to Heath Ledger’s. Perfectly suited for the 1960s TV show, he’d be sorely out of place in the more realistic Gotham City. Obviously, the kingdom is not meant to be realistic but it is meant to evoke the Middle Earth of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy (and upcoming movie The Hobbit), not Gilligan’s Island.

Since we brought up vampires and less talented actresses, let’s talk about the person whose character gets top billing, Kristen Stewart. Unsurprisingly, she’s a weak link but not as much as one would think. Thank goodness for low expectations, I guess. She “Bellas” her way through another role, albeit less depressingly, as her character actually wants to live as opposed to just yearning to be undead. Our rooting for her is due to our Pavlovian conditioning to do so for “the good guy,” not because she’s the least bit compelling. Trust me, she isn’t. If there is a movie where she is, I’d have to say it’s The Runaways, an underrated biopic about the 70s all-girl rock band of the same name. Even there, Dakota Fanning acts circles around her.

Our heroine’s shortcomings aside, I find Snow White and the Huntsman an enjoyable spin on the old tale. Admittedly, Theron is hamming it up, but she is so good at it we can’t help but be spellbound. Then there are those enticing visuals. They help drive the story rather than smother it beneath an avalanche of pixels. Liberties taken with the narrative are fun, if a tad predictable. In any event, they enhance the telling of this version, not desecrate our memory of others. It is by no means perfect, but it is fun without the corniness and boring stretches of the kiddie-fied Mirror Mirror.

MY SCORE: 7/10

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Directed by Rob Marshall.

2011. Rated PG-13, 136 minutes.

Cast:

Johnny Depp

Penélope Cruz

Geoffrey Rush

Ian McShane

Kevin McNally

Astrid Bergès-Frisbey

Stephen Graham

Keith Richards

Richard Griffiths

Sam Claflin

Ava Acres

Cpt. Jack Sparrow (Depp) is back for another adventure on the high seas. This time he is in search of the original fountain of youth. More accurately, he’s a reluctant guide for Blackbeard (McShane) and his daughter Angelica (Cruz) who need to find it for selfish reasons. Cpt. Barbossa (Rush) is hot on their tail. He wants to catch up with Blackbeard to settle an old score. Lots of swashbuckling, wisecracking and Cpt. Sparrow prancing about ensues.

As usual, Depp and his cast mates have a grand time hamming it up. Nearly every role is merely an excuse to mug for the camera. Our performers willingly dive over the top. The movie, even the entire franchise is better for it. Played straight this would likely be a dreadful affair. Played as it is, with a wink and a smile, allows both the viewer and the movie itself to revel in its absurdities. Like the best moments of the series: On Stranger Tides functions as much like a vaguely risqué comedy as it does an adventure film about pirates.

Wisely, this fourth installment in the “PotC” series sticks with a few easy to follow storylines. This is a welcome regression from the hyper-convoluted abyss that is At World’s End. While that movie is an incoherent jumble of parts, On Stranger Tides is a cohesive unit that moves forward at a brisk pace without leaving us behind. For some the entire franchise has lost its luster and will want nothing to do with this movie. For me, it’s a gleeful return to what we love about the PotC world. That said, I wouldn’t mind if they didn’t make any more of these. The time has come for Cpt. Sparrow to flitter away. This would be going out on a solid note.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

Death Race vs. Death Race

Death Race 2000
1975. Rated R, 84 minutes.
Director: Paul Bartel. Starring David Carradine, Sylvester Stallone, Simone Griffeth, Mary Woronov.
In the year 2000, racecar drivers compete in the annual "Transcontinental Race," a three day race across the continental United States. Each driver has a navigator of the opposite sex, two of the drivers are female. The winner is determined by some combination of where a driver finishes and how many points they have. They earn points by killing civilians with their cars. Of course, different types of people are worth different amounts with babies (70 points) and senior citizens (100) being worth the most. The race was created by "Mr. President," who's now become a dictator and governs the country from abroad. The race itself is a ridiculous premise but the filmmakers know this and play it to its campy hilt. We get humor from the drivers mowing down pedestrians and the hilarious commentary of our announcing team. In particular, Grace Pander (Joyce Jameson) cracks me up with her "dear friend" schtick. The two overnight pit stops are an excuse for nudity, fighting and yelling. Speaking of yelling, a pre-Rocky Sly Stallone does most of it while obviously hamming it up as Machine Gun Joe. Usually, its about all the adulation his arch-rival Frankenstein (Carradine) gets. At the end of the day, it's a socio-political satire that takes itself even less serious than most. It also gets about 25 years ahead of the reality-TV craze, even about a decade before The Running Man (+1 for Sly over Arnie). Still, it's main strength is absurdity. It flexes those muscles often, making it "so bad its awesome!" MY SCORE: -10/10


Jumping into my Delorean and getting up to 88 mph I arrive at...

Death Race

2008. Rated R, 105 minutes.

Director: Paul W.S. Anderson. Starring Jason Statham, Tyrese Gibson, Joan Allen, Ian McShane, Natalie Martinez.

Plot: Prisons have become privately owned entities. One of them broadcasts "Death Race" worldwide, a series of three day auto racing events featuring inmates driving armed vehicles on a closed course on prison property. Jensen Ames (Statham) is "recruited" by Warden Hennessey (Allen) to replace the series' biggest star.

The Good: It knows exactly what it wants to do and does it. DR is only interested in amping up the testosterone levels via an incessant stream of car crashes, gunshots, explosions and the occasional peek at hot female inmates in tight t-shirts and tighter jeans. All of this is punctuated by shots of Joan Allen talking tough and doing her best "game face." With videogame sensibilities (the cars actually have to pass over various icons on the track in order for certain weapons to be enabled) and attention to "graphics," its an unabashedly aggressive action-junkies wet dream. By the way, those "graphics" are a nice mix of cgi and organic stunts."

The Bad: A minor problem is that its exceedingly dumb. Every action is taken simply because the result promises to be spectacular. That's okay with regard to the race itself but it's even done outside the race. However, if you only want a popcorn movie then that's minor and you let it slide. The bigger problem is only a problem if you're familiar with the original, Death Race 2000. That was a campy satire taken to absurd extremes while keeping it's tongue firmly in cheek. Its silly on purpose, yet still has something to say. All of this makes DR 2000 "so bad its awesome!" This new version keeps only the action and replaces all the rest with grunts and scowls. It takes itself way too seriously like it has something really insightful to say but it doesn't. This makes its stupidity seem accidental which is always worse.

The Ugly: What happens to the guy who says "You can't kill me!"

Recommendation: This is strictly a popcorn movie. Its watchable crap akin to a vapid supermodel. There's nary a thought in its pretty little head and lots of eye candy but easily forgotten once the next pretty girl walks past. Like most remakes, or "reimaginings" it works best if you haven't seen the original.

The Opposite View: Nathan Lee, New York Times

What the Internet Says: 6.7/10 on imdb.com (5/20/09), 42% on rottentomatoes.com, 43/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

So, if you're keeping up you realize I like the movie with the lower score better.