Showing posts with label Paul Bettany. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Bettany. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Overdue for Confession

Last year, in Hello Mr. Anderson's (at the time still called The Latest Issue) first annual Worst Films competition, the ultimate winner was a small sci-fi horror film many won't remember since it was overshadowed by juggernaut Avatar. Legion came in second at the box office on its opening weekend in January, but was nowhere close to the quality of the film it failed to out-gross. Marred by a flimsy plot, lousy storytelling, poor camerawork and a complete mismanagement of a legitimate big-name cast, the film was a disaster in the making, and hardly a strong start to the directorial career of Scott Charles Stewart, a jack of all film trades who specialized in visual effects before creating this particular trash. Normally, when a film is this bad, no studio is clamoring for a director with this particular lack of talent to rush to make more movies, let along give him a little more rope with which to perhaps hang himself. But with a positive audience draw (who actually paid money to see this in the theater?), the film made enough money to confuse someone into paying him to adapt the relatively unknown Korean graphic novel Priest into a full-blown film. Endowed with an even bigger budget, Stewart proceeded to make a film that sure looked pretty in the trailers (and in ho-hum 3D, no less), but with the lingering taste of Legion on my tongue, I could hardly state that I was excited in the least when it came out this past weekend.

Bettany got tired of those "pull my finger" vampire jokes quickly
For untold centuries, there has been war between normal humans and the animalistic vampires, who are ruthless killing machines but thankfully are kept in check by the sun. That is, there WAS a war, until the human side somehow developed Priests, holy warriors, out of seemingly nowhere. Gifted with supernatural strength and skills, Priests turned the tide of the war and ended the vampire threat, supposedly once and for all. Years later, the vampires seem to have returned, and one unnamed Priest (Paul Bettany) has a personal vendetta when they attack his brother's farm and kidnap his niece Lucy (Lily Collins). Despite the ruling of the Church (who govern the few human cities left) that there is no real vampire menace, Priest gathers what few allies he has and gives chase to stop a new human/vampire war before it can begin anew.

That's a big gun; compensating for something, are we?
Of course, we see precious little of the actual war. What we do see, besides an early half-remembered dream of one Priest vs. Vamp mash-up, is displayed using terrible animation as a precursor history to the film's story. I can't help but wish they had come up with a better way, as the imagery is brutish and ugly; while that might have been what Stewart was going for, it doesn't paint a good first impression for those who paid for their tickets. Actually, none of the special effects are particularly effective; while some of the visuals are undeniably pretty, very little else looks remotely realistic. The supposedly-dangerous vampires LOOK like CGI entities instead of flesh-and-blood monsters, and many of the slow-motion camerawork meant to make the fight scenes more comprehensible instead draw the eyes to the film's faults. These are even more exacerbated by the producers' apparent insistence on converting the film to 3D, technology which had already become stale by the end of 2010. The worst thing about the 3D that I can think to say is that you don't even NOTICE it by the halfway mark, and there doesn't seem to be anything so special that it ever benefits from the "enhancement."

Attack of the one-legged she-wolves, anyone?
Of course, that half-assed approach to the visuals permeates into the rest of the filmmaking process as well. You'd never think Stewart knew what he was doing with all the storytelling foibles that are packed into a film that runs only an hour and a half. Scenes feel half-finished and don't blend into the next; it's almost as if the entire film was chopped down from an unbelievably longer cut; nothing seems to gel, and too much is in fact too little, with silly little things like "character development" and "plot" swept under a rug, never to be seen again. What results is film that instead of transporting us to a new universe does us the disservice of stranding us in the desert with only a broken compass and a thumbtack to survive.

The newest Disney ride has a few kinks to work out...
Paul Bettany returns as Stewart's leading man (he also headlined Legion), and while it's good to see him treated as the star he should be, I wish he could be cast as such in a good film. Rightfully praised for his support work in films like A Beautiful Mind and Master and Commander, Bettany definitely has the talent to be a star. But, Paul, I'm begging you: step away from the edge, man! It's fine if you want to do more action-oriented sci-fi films; I'm actually of the opinion that there aren't nearly enough of that genre made these days. But Stewart is simply mishandling Bettany's talents, wasting horrid dialogue on Bettany's voice, who had a deeper role as the artificial intelligence J.A.R.V.I.S. in the Iron Man films. The supporting cast is maligned as well, mostly talented performers delivering rote lines and grim humorless expressions. Probably the best is Collins, whose small role as Priest's niece has the broadest range of all the characters involved. Karl Urban is another underloved talent, like so many from the Earth's Oceanic region. It's a shame when your best-known role was made famous by another actor, and Urban's Dr. Bones McCoy will probably be long overshadowed by DeForest Kelley, even if his performance was well and truly spot-on. As the film's vampiric villain Urban does his best but is hamstrung by his character being one-dimensional and uninteresting. Cam Gigandet is okay as a small-town sheriff who joins Priest, but like everybody else plays a cliched role. I don't even know if I'm supposed to be impressed by Maggie Q; the closest thing the US has to a modern action starlet outside of Angelina Jolie does action okay but is again struck by a complete inability to show emotion. Stephen Moyer, Christopher Plummer and Brad Dourif are similarly unmotivated, playing typical roles meant for unknowns in need of a paycheck, not established actors. That's the problem with Priest, however, as one can't imagine what was presented to the actors to make them take these roles in the first place. You never get the impression that anyone is having FUN on the set, and that's a sobering experience.

Cheery fellow, isn't he?
And that's really what Priest is; a film that didn't need to be made. While Dylan Dog suffered through a lousy opening weekend, at least that could be blamed on lack of a push from the studios, as the similarly-supernatural title failed to make an impact because nobody heard about it. Priest got all kinds of attention, not to mention a shiny 3D conversion to drive up ticket sales, and will probably be remembered as a bust when it finally exits theaters. So why is this? The easy answer is that it's simply a bad movie, but to be fair, the sci-fi genre doesn't often get a big show of support from even die-hard fans, and the big hits are often descended from popular comics or books that developed followings from decades past. That still doesn't excuse Stewart from making yet another contender for the year's Worst Film list, and one has to wonder why he's being given another chance, adapting Cassandra Clare's popular Mortal Instruments book series into a scheduled 2012 release. He's already shown that he doesn't have what it takes, and if he continues to eek a career out of this level of shoddiness, I'm sure I can expect to hate his upcoming work for years to come.

Friday, December 17, 2010

Like a Three Hour Tour

Back in early October, I happened upon a trio of trailers for films coming out later in 2010 that looked so good, I was chomping at the bit for the chance to see them. Hereafter, by Clint Eastwood and starring Matt Damon, was the first I saw but failed to impress, so overwrought with predictability and cheese. The Fighter, which I just reviewed on Wednesday, was much better and will probably be remembered as one of the best films this year. And so we come upon The Tourist. Headlined by hot-topic celeb actors Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp and directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (director of the fantastic German film The Lives of Others), The Tourist SHOULD have been an excellent film. How could you put this much talent in one film, along with co-star Paul Bettany, and not come away with something worth seeing? Answers may surprise you.

"So... come here often?"
In the film, Johnny Depp plays Frank Tupelo, a math teacher from the United States who's in Europe on vacation. While riding a train to Venice, Frank meets the mysterious Elise, played by Angelina Jolie. Elise is trying to throw the police off her trail by making them think that Frank is her husband, Alexander Pearce, who has been on the run from Scotland Yard for not paying millions in taxes on the money he stole from a gangster. The unwitting Frank is not only sought after by the police after meeting Elise, but also by the gangster and his thugs, who arrive in Venice to get the money that was stolen from them and take Elise and the man they think is her husband out of the picture for good.

"And THIS is the hotel we've bought for Maddox..."
The film is actually a remake, though one would have to be quite versed in foreign film (or have Wikipedia access on the fly) to realize that. The film was remade from the little-known 2005 French film Anthony Zimmer, meaning The Tourist is in the same boat as films Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Let Me In as a film that only recently had been released overseas before Hollywood went out and made their own versions. Of course, Girl and Let Me In were international hits, even if they were never promoted properly here. Anthony Zimmer was a bomb in France and never released in the States, so why they would remake this film is a mystery, unless someone liked the plot SO much that making the film was a foregone conclusion. The film does do some things well, especially in the cinematography department. Shots of Venice are absolutely exquisite. If you've never been to the place, you might not understand just how beautiful the city is, but the clarity of the film's shots stands out as one of the film's best aspects, and I found myself going back in time to wandering the ancient city's streets.

Bettany secretly teaches Depp how to be good in mediocre films
While the acting in the film should have been much better, I can't agree with so many reviewers who say that Jolie and Depp had NO chemistry here. It's simply not the kind of romantic entanglement you're used to in this type of film, and I actually thought the two of them did a fairly good job. Jolie was able to extend her "mysterious stranger" muscles as the beguiling Elise, and was much better than her ill-fated stint as an action hero in this year's Salt. Her role (and matching wardrobe) drew images in my head of other classic divas of yesteryear, such as Audrey Hepburn or Ingrid Bergman, and her charm draws the audience into paying attention to her every action. And Depp plays his usual blend of nervous oddball with a small bit of charm at the right moments. The problem with them stems not from their skills or chemistry, but rather that they have overly simplistic interactions. Frank can't take his eyes off of Elise, says something silly; She rebuffs him, often to the laughter of the audience; he can't get enough of it. It's funny at first until you realize that it's this pretty much over and over, with few scenes in between of the other major characters or Frank by himself just to break the monotony. At least they're better than their co-stars, and as sad as it is to say I think Paul Bettany has perhaps lost the ability to be in a decent flick. He's got the talent to be a star, but the best film he's been in recently was when he lent his voice to Tony Stark's digital butler Jarvis in Iron Man. Here his character is no better a law enforcement agent than Gunther Toody, and his obsession and reasons for doing anything to catch Pearce is never explained in any depth. Steven Berkoff as English gangster Reginald Shaw is flat and lifeless. The few instances he's given to be a more lively character go to waste, and Shaw's role in the story is mostly boring and uninspired. Other characters played by Timothy Dalton and Rufus Sewell are in the film so infrequently as to seem almost accidental, and are equally not worth mentioning. In all, there's simply not a lot to do in The Tourist if you're not it's biggest stars, and that gets old fast.

My, what a plunging neckline you have!
For an action/spy film, The Tourist has precious little of either. While the film does maintain excellent outdoor shots of Venice, some of the night or inside scenes look as if they were done on a set, most notably a mid-film shootout in the city's famous canal system. The scene is so unimpressive and overlong that you'd expect the film's other action sequences to be better, but you'd be wrong. The best is one of Depp running from gunmen across Venetian rooftops, and that was only because it took place in broad daylight and looked the most authentic, and even that's hampered by its lack of ingenuity. Elise does nothing badass that you can point at as proper for this genre. In fact, she's practically powerless over anyone who's not Frank. And speaking of Frank, his strength seems to be in running away, which he has to do on multiple occasions.So all the power in this film belongs to side characters who we care nothing about. Amazing work.

He's waiting to see how bad next year's Priest will be
It's a shame that a film that had such potential came crashing down to Earth out of the gate. The film has it's moments, but those amount to about twenty minutes of the film as opposed to 83 minutes in which the viewer  wishes it would stop. When you do the math, it's obvious this film shouldn't have been made without some serious alterations to the story. The worst thing I can say about this film is that for every reason you SHOULD like this film, there are plenty of examples of films you could see instead. Johnny Depp? Re-watching Pirates, Edward Scissorhands or Benny and Joon would help cure that craving. Von Donnersmarck? See The Lives of Others if you haven't already. Hell, if you have, see it again! Paul Bettany? Master and Commander and A Beautiful Mind have wonderful performances by him. Angelina Jolie? Take your pick: Wanted, Girl Interrupted, even Changeling are all superior titles in comparison. Even the lovely view of Venice can been seen in the vastly-superior spy film Casino Royale, even if not as well. So don't go out of your way to see The Tourist. It can be funny, and has it's moments, but not nearly enough to justify the purchase price when the market is filled with much better fare for your perusal.