Showing posts with label Robert Pattinson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Pattinson. Show all posts

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Double Feature: Hyde Park on Hudson and Breaking Dawn Part 2

We're rapidly approaching the year's end, and I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having too little time to see too many movies. This will only become more complex in the coming week, as Christmas weekend brings us a number of decent-to-great options that include Les Miserables, Django Unchained, Parental Guidance, The Guilt Trip, Jack Reacher, This is 40 and the 3D re-release of Monsters Inc. That means that as much as I want to avoid them, I have to at least try getting to the more poorly-received November/December releases while they're still around. I can't discover hidden gems otherwise, and in the worst-case scenario they'll just hit my Worst of the Year list, which goes up every December 31'st.

Today, I saw two flicks with an excellent chance of making that list, for wholly different reasons. It's blatantly obvious that Hyde Park on Hudson is bucking for an Oscar opportunity for lead actor Bill Murray, playing former US President Frank Delano Roosevelt Sorry, I know all I seem to talk about lately is the Best Actor race, but to be fair it's the only category that seems to be getting any action lately. In the film, the country is in the fragile state between the worst of the Great Depression and the future global conflict of World War II. At home, the people have enough trouble holding down jobs and want little to do with the problems halfway around the globe. But the leaders of Great Britain know that war with Nazi Germany is inevitable, and King George and his wife Queen Elizabeth have been invited to Roosevelt's private home to convene about the island nation getting future support from us.

Another Dark Horse Oscar contender?
The movie pushes its actors first and foremost, and of course a lot of attention is given to Murray, who adds this performance atop an impressive list of roles in the past decade in films like Lost in Translation, Broken Flowers, Zombieland, and this year's Moonrise Kingdom. Once again the actor manages to blur the line between dramatic composure and comedic relief with ease, and any acclaim he earns from this is well deserved. He's also surrounded by an abundance of talented ladies, with Olivia Colman, Olivia Williams and Elizabeth Marvel as Queen Elizabeth, Eleanor Roosevelt and Roosevelt's private secretary Marguerite LeHand, respectively. The biggest surprise however, is easily Samuel West as King George VI. It seems the Queen's father has been appearing everywhere lately, from Colin Firth's well-deserved Academy Award-winning performance in The King's Speech to Madonna's romance film W.E. Credit has to go to West for not allowing the role to go stale, and even managing to be as impressive in scenes both with and without Murray. Director Roger Michell (Notting Hill) also does a great job focusing on the similarities and differences between the President and the King, sharing in disabilities but separate in their appreciation for their wives, among other things. When the story focuses on the budding friendship between these two great men, it's simply amazing.

Seriously, why is nobody talking about this guy?
Unfortunately, the film's tale is told through possibly the worst witness of all, simple-minded sixth cousin to the President Margaret "Daisy" Suckley, invited to help Franklin relax. The pseudo-incestuous relationship that follows is both uncomfortable to watch and lacking in any major impact. Even if the trite love tale is actually based on a true story (discovered letters between Suckley and Roosevelt), Laura Linney's performance as Daisy is weak beyond words, and her voice-over narrations are dull and uninterested, dragging down both the tempo and importance of the event as a whole. It certainly makes it difficult to recommend Hyde Park on Hudson as anything more than a potential rental; Murray and West put in spellbinding performances, but they're stuck in a story that needed more cutting if it wanted any chance of turning out well.

But that's Shakespeare compared to every teenage girl's image-destroying teen paranormal romance finale The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2. First, the admission: I've never read or watched anything to do with the Twilight franchise. Even with former roommates who were hardcore fans I've managed to avoid the Stephenie Meyer phenomena for as long as it's been in existence. In fact, the ONLY reason I had any interest in seeing this final entry to the series? The promised battle royale between the heroic Cullen clan and the Illuminati-esque Volturi, with the fate of the future in the balance. The question was whether I could sit through an hour and a half of trite dialogue, poor story and cringe-worthy romance before I got my promised ten minutes of bloodshed.

Breaking Dawn Part 2 definitely gets off to a poor start, with director Bill Condon (this is the same guy who did Chicago?) showing off some of the absolute worst CGI to appear in a major blockbuster. These are special effects so bad, the term "special" takes on a whole other meaning. Looking haphazard and slapdash, they never get above the level of "mediocre", and it's shocking that care wasn't made to get decent SFX for a proven franchise worth billions. Thankfully so much of the movie focuses on pretty people problems and setup for the final battle that once you get past the opening half hour, effect use is minimal at best.

So... why are we doing this again? Oh, right, the mortgage...
On the other hand, one of the best kept secrets in the Twilight series is that it has actually developed some pretty good actors. Sure, everybody gets stuck on Kristen Stewart's wooden and lifeless performance throughout (and that doesn't change here), but for the most the films have done a good job showcasing the talents of Robert Pattinson and many of the secondary actors who have made careers off of the franchise, from Ashley Greene to Peter Facinelli to Anna Kendrick (who sadly does not appear in the finale). Okay, Taylor Lautner has gone stale, but while you need a scorecard to keep track of the dozens (!) of characters who appear in Breaking Dawn Part 2, many of them are either very talented actors or carry the benefit of playing fascinating characters who suffer in the shadows of the "Big Three". Standouts include Michael Sheen, Lee Pace, Dakota Fanning (who I don't believe even says a word), Jamie Campbell Bower, Rami Malek, Casey LaBow and a sorely underused Joe Anderson, and they're supplemented by a wealth of depth that includes ultra-violent Irish vampires (of course), old-school Romanian vamps, female Amazon warriors, and others with special abilities (none of which explains how they survive in the sunlight, however). It's surprising how talent-rich the series has become, and most of these people will go on to have special Hollywood careers.

If you ever see this, it's probably too late.
But while the final battle (15-20 minutes of bloodless fun, up from the 10 I had been expecting) was everything I could have hoped for, the whole experience is undone by shoddy logic, amateurish writing, and ultimate failure by resorting to deus ex machina to immediately undo any emotional turmoil by fans. On one hand, this final act of Twilight is probably the most accessible entry to the saga for genre fans. On the other hand, that decent 20 minutes was all I really wanted, and am left with no interest to go back and revisit the story behind it. Now that I've sated my brief, insane sparkly vampire desire, I can go back to REAL blood-sucking fun from the Underworld series or Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, which I already own on Blu-ray (thank you, Black Friday midnight sales). The point is that when I want a vampire film, I don't need the silly romance and stupid dialogue that is clogging up teen romance shelves these days. I want blood, guts, and a little animal cruelty, and that's just not something you're going to see from Stephenie Meyer.

Friday, April 29, 2011

A Watershed Moment

I can't really remember ever going to see a circus growing up. No, Cirque du Soliel doesn't count. The circus most people are familiar with seem as though it has remained the same after countless decades. Even if you've never been, you probably have an idea of what to expect: high-wire escapades, exotic animals, human acts like the bearded lady or the tattooed dwarf, clowns. The more things change, the more they stay the same, as many of these circus companies have adjusted over time to become the entertainment juggernauts they are; even their most ardent opponents have to acknowledge the effect that those colorful tents and performers have on the average populace. But those same opponents would love to point out the countless acts of animal cruelty and human rights violations that have gone practically unnoticed, for fear it would diminish the drama that is the "Greatest Show on Earth." That's where Water for Elephants comes in. The film, based on the bestselling book by Sara Gruen, takes a hard look at the methods of traveling circuses during one of America's darkest hours, the Great Depression, and introduces to those who watch things they cannot help but be entranced by, whether they've seen a circus or not.

Supposedly, Rosie was a better kisser
Robert Pattinson stars as Edward Cul... I mean Jacob Jankowski, who one day has his whole life planned out ahead of him, only for everything to change irrevocably in one day. The day he is to take his final exams to graduate from Cornell University with a Veterinary degree, Jacob's parents are killed in an automobile accident, and he learns that due to his father being behind on the mortgage, the bank is foreclosing on his house. Homeless and wandering, Jacob finds himself an unlikely job with the Benzini Brothers traveling circus. He eventually enters a guarded friendship with circus manager August Rosenbluth (Christoph Waltz) and the star of the show, his wife Marlena (Reese Witherspoon). Hired on as an animal handler, Jacob sees how abusive August is of both people and animals, and it is only a matter of time before he must do something, if only to save Marlena - who he loves - and new show elephant Rosie, who he finds under his care.

Four Best-Actor nominees in one shot, anyone?
It may be too often said that the performance of an animal is the best part of a film, but far more rarely can that be construed as a good thing. From the moment adorable elephant Rosie - played by a very talented Asian elephant named Tai - makes her appearance a third of the way through the film, she manages to steal every scene in which she takes part. Obviously intelligent and showing impeccable timing (not to mention a comedic flair), Tai excels in whatever she's tasked with, whether it be a simple trick or as a victim of physical abuse. She is by far the best performer on screen, but don't be fooled into thinking that everyone else are just chumps. Pattinson is especially a surprise, proving he can put on a good show outside of the Mormon vampire set. Perhaps setting the stage for a long career combining all of his Dean-esque talents, Pattinson proves that he can handle the leading man moniker with ease. Witherspoon is also a delight, proving that she's worth so much more than her relatively brainless roles in films like Legally Blonde and 2010's How Do You Know. Hers is even more challenging for having to learn physical routines with her pachyderm co-star, and she works the different angles of her character like a true professional. That Waltz is practically the least of these four stars should not weigh negatively on him; as the film's villain, he is properly dangerous, skeevy and manic. However, Waltz also manages to convey the few positive traits Augustus contains, making for far more than a mere one-dimensional bad guy. All the performances, from the biggest star to the tiniest bit role, are excellently played and truly connect with the audience.

Sigh. He's so DREAMY.
One thing I was impressed by was the story that director Francis Lawrence chose to tell. He could have easily made the film all about the romance between Jacob and Marlena at the expense of the two-faced circus business. Instead, most of the film actually focuses on the conflict between Jacob and Augustus, with the fate of the circus and everyone aboard somewhere in the middle. Rosie is also featured much more than you would guess from the previews, as her role and that of some of the other animals shows us of the horrible cruelty that performance beasts underwent at a time when fresh meat couldn't be afforded for the lions, star horses are driven to the point of physical breakdown and a cruel trainer would leave welts and open sores on the skin of an elephant in a fit of rage. While we are led to believe that this was partly due to the crushing realities of the Depression, there's no reason to believe that these types of goings on don't happen nowadays. Animal cruelty still happens, as recently as 2009 when Kenneth Field (CEO of Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Circus) admitted to treatment of elephants in ways counter to the US Animal Welfare Act. Presumably even worse in this earlier era, Water for Elephants does a good job showing us abusers who treat these innocent victims even worse than the underpaid manual labor they use to set up their Big Tops.

Trivia fun! In a deleted scene in Vanity Fair, these two played estranged mother and son!
The film does use some CGI effects, most notably in a few scenes in which characters ride atop the circus train while the night sky twinkles in the distance. Sadly, these scenes don't look too realistic, but at least they manage to convey the comfortable mood the story is going for. Most of Water for Elephants is nothing like Lawrence's previous works, the more visually-stylish Constantine and I Am Legend (or his countless music videos). Most everything looks quite realistic, and while the few instances of SFX usage are not meant to wow us, the actual bits and pieces of circus acts are the true eye-poppers; from glimpses of the aforementioned high-wire acts and animal tricks we get our excitement, as though we were patrons of the circus and not the cinema. If there's anything involved there besides amazing camerawork and a great idea of what the director wanted to show, I sure couldn't find it.

Not even the "Greatest Show this Year", but still good nonetheless
Water For Elephants has a few flaws, the most notable being a contrived ending that surprises only in the fact that you never thought they would take the simple route to victory. Still, the word "magical" perfectly works for the majority of the film's execution, and for that reason it makes the 2011 Top 10 list at #7. Of course, if you're more interested in seeing elephants, you can always check out the International Elephant Foundation or perhaps even this article about them. I had a great time and this is a title I would definitely recommend for audiences of all ages.