Ghost Rider

Comic book movies are a grand little segment of the Hollywood industry for a number of reasons. First of all, there is lots of source material. All you have to do is peek your head into a comic book shop to see that, I wouldn’t recommend anything more than a quick peek however, they are somewhat frightening stores!
Not only is there a lot of pre-made stories and characters just ripe for the filming, a lot of the material is actually quite good. Sadly the page to screen transfer too often reduces the quality significantly.
Second of all, the stories are already cinematic in their nature. The plots are all basically good versus evil, this being one of the most simplistic and celebrated kinds of stories. The fact that the stories come in serial form provides easy ending points for movies, and of course the promise of potential sequels.
Unlike the adaptation of a standard novel, a comic book adaptation benefits from the fact that thousands of images and scenes have already been created in the numerous strips and have only to be translated into live images. So much storyboarding, all you need is a comic book, a pair of scissors and a first grade ability to cut along the lines.
Thirdly, and for studios most importantly, a comic book movie has a built in audience. In fact it has a few. There are the people who read the original comic books, however long ago that might have been. There are the people who enjoy colorful, loud, and action-filled cinema. And, depending upon the actors involved, there are the people who will come to see their tinsel town crush in a tight superhero outfit.
There has been a ever growing wave of comic book adaptations in the past few years, a renaissance, if you will, that began around the time of the first live action X-Men movie. Spider-Man followed to huge monetary success, and then came The Hulk, Batman, The Fantastic Four, and Superman. They don’t all fall into the PG-13 category either, graphic novels became fodder for cinema and we saw the more mature kinds of films like Road to Perdition, The Punisher, Sin City, A History of Violence, V for Vendetta, and the very promising “300” due out in March.
The more widely recognized heroes have been brought to theaters world wide, so it comes as no surprise that studios have begun churning out movies based on lesser known comic books. Here enters the most recent cinematic offering, “Ghost
Rider.”
This time it’s Nicholas Cage’s turn to don a cheesy outfit and save the world, though his costume is mercifully tame compared to some. It’s not his leather jacket that distinguishes him after all; it’s the burning skull for a head.
The story goes that Johnny Blaze, a stunt rider like his father, sells his soul to the devil to save his dad from lung cancer. The cancer is gone, but his dad bites it shortly thereafter and instead of leaving with his girlfriend, Roxanne Simpson, Johnny begins a life of insane stunt riding in an attempt to prove to himself that he won’t live in fear.
Many years later Johnny is still living dangerously and Roxanne is a hot reporter who reenters his life on the day it pretty much goes to hell. The devil’s son, along with his punk demon buddies, decides he’s going to come to earth to collect a bunch of damned souls and by doing so earn the right to unleash his own little version of hell on earth. It seems that Johnny isn’t the only son who takes after his dad.
The devil isn’t too happy about this (he wants those souls for himself) so he summons the aid of Johnny, AKA the Ghost Rider, to act as his personal bounty hunter and do away with the demon gang on earth.
What follows is a pretty by the (comic) books movie featuring plenty of wild action, inconvenient and ignored plot holes, and lots of very exaggerated physical action, undoubtedly taken directly from the frames of the original work.
It’s not a really bad movie, though it’s not a really good one either, certainly not when compared to the best of the comic book adaptations, such as the Spider-Man movies. Be that as it may, it was sufficiently entertaining, thanks in large part to Nicholas Cage who has a knack for turning the worst of Hollywood drivel into semi decent fare.
The dialogue was groan inducing at times (as was Eva Mendes, though in a different sort of way) but I find this to be true of actual comic books as well. To the filmmakers’ credit, the actors playing the young Johnny and Roxanne actually looked like they might be young versions of the older leads, something that is far too often unseen in films.
“Ghost Rider” wasn’t the best we’ve ever seen, but in the down time between Christmas and summertime big budget blockbusters, it’s passable entertainment, and a decent use of an afternoon.

B-

Children of Men

I will make this a very short review, hopefully I can say all I want succinctly. "Children of Men" is one of the best movies of 2006. The story of a world where babies are no longer born is a chilling one all by itself, but with Alfonso Caurón behind the camera and an amazing cast in front, it becomes a movie with so much power and such an incredible message it can hardly be done justice with words. Caurón is the mastermind behind "Harry Potter and Prisoner of Azkaban," (easily the best Harry Potter movie to date, and the only one that captures the wonder of the books) and he demonstrates here, as he did there, a complete understanding of the way a camera can be dropped into a time and place to collect a story, rather than just set up for actors to cavort in front of. The cinematography is breathtaking, specifically in the most dire scenes of the film, and the colors used to convey mood and themes are sensational. Once again Clive Owen, playing a man called Theo here, proves that he is one of the best actors currently working. Michael Cane, however, steals every scene he is in from Owen, as an old hippie who cares for his wife while contemplating suicide by official mail delivered kit. Newcomer Claire-Hope Ashitey, playing Kee, the first pregnant woman in 18 years, holds her own among the many established actors. The most incredible thing about this movie, however, is neither the acting nor the direction, it is the blatant message that it sends. Here is a movie that is unafraid to point out that every single human life, no matter how young, is a miracle. It sounds cliché, but seeing it played out here in such a different and new setting forces the audience to recognize how precious and amazing a baby is. This movie is literally not to be missed, it is harsh but beautiful, terrifying but hopeful, most importantly it tells the truth.

A

Volver

Pedro Almodóvar has made a miniature sort of masterpiece with his latest film, “Volver.” From the first frames on the screen, we know that the movie is about, among many smaller things, death. It isn’t just a single story, neither is it a fractured set of scenarios. It is a segment in the lives of a handful of rather interesting people assembled in a movie that is sweet and sad in equal measures, but always presented with a that quirky brand of movie magic that is rarely seen outside the art house theaters.
The reason, perhaps, that wider audiences can see “Volver” is Penélope Cruz. She has received and Academy Award nominated in the category of Best Actress, and she definitely earns it, but more on that later.
Cruz plays Raimunda, a mother, wife, sister, and daughter in Madrid, Spain. In the beginning of the film we see her, her daughter, Paula, and her sister, Soledad, in a graveyard attempting to clean off the headstone of Raimunda’s mother, Abuela Irene. Raimunda’s mother was lost in a fire years before, and their relationship was a combination of a sad hurt mother and a bitter distant daughter. Raimunda’s relationship with Paula is a happy one, as is her relationship with Soledad.
The story follows the lives of the women in the beginning as they deal with the death of a loved one, and the return (the Spanish word “volver” means “to return” in English) of Abuela Irene who has come back from the dead to complete the things she left unfinished and to repair relationships.
There are a grand total of two men who have speaking roles, and one of them dies within the first twenty minutes. At first glance this movie has all the makings of a sadly cliché chic flick, complete with a salon, poignant mother/daughter scenes and terminal illness. This is no “Steel Magnolias” however; the salon is an illegal one, the mother in half of those touchy-feely scenes is an apparition of a dead woman, and in between these scenes our many heroines take things like murder and rape in strides.
“Volver” never trivializes the many harsh subject matters it deals with, that would be tasteless, something its characters simply wouldn’t allow. What Almodóvar does is blend in the harder elements of life into the lighter ones so that beyond the heartache we see the humor.
The scenes are often a blend of both everyday and extraordinary situations. Who hasn’t had to clean up a mess in the kitchen? Who’s had to tidy up a recently killed man before he permanently ruins the blue tile? Watching the extreme close ups of paper towels being laid down to soak up the blood, I heard the Bounty “quilted quicker picker upper” jungle run through my head and I laughed aloud, much to the chagrin of the elderly couple on my right.
I didn’t feel guilty laughing at the bright and colorful method of telling a bittersweet story, I think Almodóvar meant it to be humorous. That isn’t to imply that there are no sad scenes in the movie. There are a number of really touching moments that, regardless of gender, affect you more than you expect.
This movie was pretty remarkable because, in retrospect, it featured a wide range of emotions and situations, such a range that it doesn’t seem possible they could all fit smoothly together in the same film. The key is Penélope Cruz.
I’ll come right out and say that I really didn’t like Cruz as an actress before I saw this movie. I felt that, despite whatever talent she may or may not have had, she ended up in movies that were too ludicrous to be taken seriously leaving her floundering with a poor script and plot, often times serving merely as dolled up eye candy.
In “Volver” she turns a script and a plot into a character that is instantly endearing to the audience, and she gives, in my opinion, her best work to date as well as one of the most marvelous performances of the year. She doesn’t look like she hopped off the cover of “Cosmopolitan,” she looks honest to goodness real and imperfect. For some reason it was the most charming I’ve ever found her to be.
Cruz brings the two tones of the movie into a kind of harmony so that we can laugh at the humor, cry at the heartbreak, and look back on the whole affair fondly. She is both resplendent and humble, much like this film.
There are no extravagant camera angles, nor dazzling set pieces, but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts because in the end we’ve seen something that, in its own modest way, is sweetly profound.

A-

The Last King of Scotland

“The Last King of Scotland” has all the elements required to satisfy an audience, in other words, it is a good movie. First of all it has an interesting plot, told with a well-written script, performed by superb actors, and directed with the flare of daring director.
The story, as we are informed of in the opening frames, is based on true events and real people. There is so much mystery, romance, scandal, and courage that it is no wonder the story was brought to screen.
Besides all the convenient elements that make the movie’s journey from history book to screen easy, the story is one that ought never to be forgotten, for as they say, “those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
As tedious as history lesson can be, this one did not lose my attention. I could count on my hands the number of shots used for the extremely brief introduction. This intro is not too short considering that it only serves to introduce us to the newly graduated Dr. Nicholas Garrigan, and to show us his decision to work as in Uganda rather than go into practice with his father.
Before we know it we are blazing through African landscape with Garrigan on his way to a medical mission in Uganda. It’s a busy time for the new doctor to be arriving; Uganda has just been through a coup d’etat where Idi Amin overthrew the previous ruler and named d himself President.
The people are thrilled with the new President, and why wouldn’t they be excited for the man who promises them a stronger, free Uganda, and a President who is a normal person just like them. Garrigan, too, is impressed by Amin, and meets him shortly after hearing his passionate message to the people.
The incident of their meeting revolves around Amin’s hand, thought to be broken, and Garrigan’s medical skills, called upon to help the injured President. Amin’s hand is only sprained, but as Garrigan binds it in a splint Amin gains an instant admiration for the young Scottish doctor.
It is not long, merely 30 hours in fact, before Garrigan agrees to be Amin’s personal physician. Garrigan, believing Amin to be a great and well-meaning leader, assures himself that he can serve Uganda best by keeping the President healthy. What he does not predict is becoming Amin’s closest confidante, nor does he guess the horrific situation that is slipped over his head like a noose slowly tightening.
Anyone who knows history will know that Idi Amin was far from the great Ugandan savior he claimed to be, but this movie offers a chance to observe the whole affair from a very personal vantage point, and the result is an Amin who is even more dreadful than we might at first have though.
The performances are solid, though Academy Award nominee Forest Whitaker as Amin is a head above the rest. Amin himself was an actor of sorts, laying on the charm for the crowds and the media, capturing that might have been hard, but Whitaker embodies the historical leader perfectly. In a matter of minutes he might go from a forward thinking calm leader to a barbaric amoral killer, but Whitaker makes the transition believable and, consequently, much more disturbing than it might be in the hands of a lesser actor.
Director Kevin MacDonald knows what he’s doing and pulls the movie gracefully through its story arch, starting first as upbeat and colorful, ending as harsh and unflinching.
When it’s all said and done, after the movie is ended that is, I look back over the aspects of the film and I see that it was indeed good. It never rises to profoundness though; while it is a good movie, it isn’t really a great one.

B

El Laberinto del Fauno (Pan's Labyrinth)

It’s a pretty dirty trick, in the world of writing, to start a written work by pondering the ways you might go about writing that very same work. “How can I even begin to talk about thus and such…” is a common enough introduction. Even bolder is statements like “there are simply not words in any language to describe thus and such!”
Well dirty or otherwise here goes nothing. How can I even begin to talk about “Pan’s Labyrinth?” I will even venture to say that there are simply not words in any language to describe “Pan’s Labyrinth.”
Let’s just establish from the get go that this movie is literally unlike any other movie ever. That phrase, like so many advertisements, is used far to loosely. Here is a movie for which it actually applies.
“Pan’s Labyrinth” is called, by a great deal of critics, a fairy tale for adults. There is no denying this since the movie deals with myth and magic, fairies and monsters, and the ageless conflict of evil versus the innocent.
This movie is not the first fairy tale for adults however; many of the classic fairy tales deal with universal themes and have appeal for old as well as young audiences. What is unique to this movie is that it is unabashedly a fairy tale that is not for the young.
The plot revolves around a young girl, Ofelia, in 1944 post civil war Spain. Ofelia’s mother is married to, and carrying the unborn son of, a fascist military officer named Vidal. Ofelia also lives in a fairy tale world where the faun, Pan, leads her through three tasks that will prove her to be the reincarnated princess of that fantastical world.
The story certainly has appeal for the young, and as a tamed down bedtime story it would be rather excellent. Guillermo del Toro does not tame down his film, it is one of the most violently harsh pictures you are likely to see this year, as it is the end result is nothing short of true brilliance.
The violence in “Pan’s Labyrinth” is not that of the inane “Saw” films or their ever-multiplying fellow gross out horror films, it is never used for frivolous show or in poor taste. What makes the violence here so unnerving is its juxtaposition with the child like imagination of the fairy tale setting.
Imagine if Cinderella’s step sisters captured the fairy godmother and, as her punishment for aiding Cinderella, beat her in the face with a bottle until her nose was crushed inward then threw her to the ground and put three or four bullets into her head at point blank.
I might be tempted to decry “Pan’s Labyrinth” for the brutality, but it is a story of good and evil, and even amidst the brutality that reveals evil there is beauty kept alive by the goodness of a young girl.
Ofelia is not out of her mind, neither is she eccentric or mentally unstable, she is a child who sees the world in all its cruel realities through the eyes of innocence. We see the world through her eyes as well, and it is jarring and terrible but also has the possibility of love and beauty overcoming hate and pain.
The performances are magnificent all around, newcomer Ivana Baquero, playing Ofelia, gives us a completely perfect re-imagining of a fairy tale princess, just as Sergi Lopez, playing Vidal, pulls out all stops bringing evil to the screen that becomes increasingly to the very end of the film.
Maribel Verdu, as the maid with a secret as well as a sort of godmother to Ofelia, turns in a heartfelt and inspiring character. Most memorable of all though, is Doug Jones playing both the faun Pan and the terrifying Pale Man, a creature who keeps his eyes either on his dinner plate, or embedded into the palms of his hands.
The real star of the film is Director Guillermo del Toro; he has crafted a masterpiece, about this there is no question. It is a perfectly imagined and executed film, but it is more than that even. It goes past your mind and right into your heart. It is unimaginable that anyone could leave “Pan’s Labyrinth” the same as when they entered. This movie is rare, for it has achieved something that few other films can boast. It has the power to change you.

A+