88 posts tagged “movies”
"GET SMART" Review
Over a week ago, I saw "GET SMART", a comic action movie based upon the 1965-1971 television comedy that starred Don Adams. Only this version starred Steve Carell as CONTROL Agent 86 - Maxwell Smart.
I can only think of five or six movies based upon old television series that I have ever really enjoyed. And if I must be honest, "GET SMART" is one of them. Many people have stated before its release that they found the idea of someone other than Adams portraying the Clouseau-like spy, Maxwell Smart (Agent 86 of CONTROL). It is understanding, considering it was Adams' most famous role and he really made it his own.I never thought I would say this, but Steve Carell can be the second actor who has the right to boast the Smart character as his own. He was truly superb. And what made his performance so astounding is that instead of attempting a replica of Adams' performances, he portrayed the Smart character in his own style. What also made this movie different from the TV series is that Smart starts out as an intelligence analyst for CONTROL, who desires to become a field agent. He finally gets his chance when CONTROL Headquarters is attacked by their arch-enemy, the evil KAOS organization led by Siegfried (Terence Stamp). Almost all of CONTROL's Agents are either exposed or killed. Max becomes Agent 86 and is partnered with Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway), whose recent plastic surgery has protected her identity. Together, the pair investigate how KAOS has been getting nuclear weapons and who was the mole who had betrayed CONTROL.
Portraying Agent 99 is Anne Hathaway ("BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN" and "THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA"), whose take on the character is slightly different than Barbara Feldon's in the television series. Hathaway's Agent 99 is a cool and very competent agent like her television counterpart. However, her 99 is more experienced than Max. She is also slightly sardonic and a little more aggressive. What really surprised me was how Hathaway and Carell managed to create a sizzling screen chemistry between them. I mean they really sizzled. Alan Arkin (who co-starred with Carell in "LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE") really shined as the Chief of CONTROL. Like his television counterpart, he found the antics of Max and certain other CONTROL operatives rather exasperating. But what really seemed to annoy him is the idea that he might be too old for any action in the field.
The rest of the cast included Dwayne Johnson as CONTROL'S top operative, Agent 23. He portrayed the agent with a charm, smoothness and arrogance that justified Max's envious worship of him. Both Terry Crewes and David Koechner made a great comedic pair as CONTROL agents 91 and Larabee. So did Masi Oka ("HEROES") and Nate Torrence as CONTROL's two top techies - Bruce and Lloyd. My only complaint centered around Terrence Stamp, as KAOS's head honcho, Siegfried. With that impervious expression fixed upon his face, Stamp seemed to try too hard in being funny. And no amount of sardonic lines could convince me otherwise. But I must admit that he managed to have one very humorous scene involving Max's attempt to penetrate a KAOS lair in Russia.
Thanks to screenwriters Tom J. Astle and Matt Ember, along with director Peter Segal ("MY FELLOW AMERICANS") and Steve Carell, this version of "GET SMART" turned out to be just as funny as the television series from the 1960s. And believe it or, "GET SMART" also turned out to be a first-class action movie centered around betrayal in the intelligence community and the threat of a nuclear bomb. I hope to see it again - at least before it leaves the theaters this summer.
Second Look: "MANDINGO" (1975)
About thirty-three years ago, Paramount Pictures released an adaptation of Kyle Onscott’s 1957 novel of the Old South, ”MANDINGO”. This movie, which has developed a reputation as lurid, exploitive and racist, is considered to be one of the worst films to be released in the 1970s. Directed by Richard Fleischer, it starred Perry King, Ken Norton, James Mason, Brenda Sykes, Susan George and Ben Masters.
However, there are recent film critics who refuse to dismiss ”MANDINGO” as simply lurid trash. They contend that despite its melodramatic tone, the movie offered a portrait of the antebellum South that may have been a lot more accurate than shown in Hollywood movies before or since. I have found an article on the movie you might find interesting:
------------
Also included are photos from the movie:
"MANDINGO" Photo Gallery
And here is a video clip from the movie:
"GET SMART" (2008) Photo Gallery
Below are photos from the movie version of the 1965-1971 television comedy, "GET SMART". The movie stars Steve Carrell, Anne Hathaway, Dwanye Johnson, Terrence Stamp and Alan Arkin:
"GONE WITH THE WIND" (1939) Review
About a month ago, I had come across an article that provided a list of old classics that the author felt might be overrated. One of those movies turned out to be the 1939 classic, ”GONE WITH THE WIND”. Not only did the author accuse the movie of being both racist and sexist, he also claimed that the movie had not aged very well over the past 69 years.
Did I agree with the author? Well, let me put it this way. I would say that "GONE WITH THE WIND" has managed to withstand the tests of time . . . to a certain extent. As the author had pointed out, the sexism and racism are obvious and rather off-putting. The slaves came across as too servile for my taste. And although the slave Prissy was not the only dimwitted character in the story (think of Aunt Pittypatt, the Tarleton brothers and Charles Hamilton), she had the bad luck to spout that unfortunate line that must have been the bane of actress Butterfly McQueen’s life - ”Miz Scarlett, I know nothin’ bout birthin’ no babies.”. And the sexism was no better. I found Rhett’s determination to view Scarlett as his own personal child bride rather distasteful – along with his act of marital rape. But if I must be honest, I have seen movies that are just as bad or even worse. I had once seen ”GONE WITH THE WIND” at one of my local movie theaters when it had been re-released to celebrate its 50th anniversary in 1989. The first half of the film struck me as being well-paced and filmed. The dialogue sparkled and Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable, and the rest of the cast could not have been better. I could not say the same for the film’s second half.
The real problem with ”GONE WITH THE WIND” manifested in Part Two. Once Scarlett married Rhett . . . the movie simply fizzled. Oh sure, it had its iconic moments – Scarlett appearing at Ashley’s birthday party in the infamous red dress and Bonnie Blue Butler’s death. Unfortunately, it did not take me very long to fall asleep . . . even before poor Bonnie Blue’s death. I managed to wake up in time to witness Hattie McDaniel's brilliant monologue on the decline of Butlers' marriage. I do not think one can really blame the movie's credited screenwriter, Sidney Howard and the screenwriters who worked on the project. Margaret Mitchell's novel has the same problem as the movie. Namely, it started brilliantly and ended with me crying in despair for the story to end. I suspect that Selznick had decided not to risk earning the fans' ire by refraining from changing the novel's structure too much.
And the main reason why ”GONE WITH THE WIND” threatened to fizzle out in the end? Quite frankly, the story seemed unable to maintain the same pace throughout the film. Even worse, this seemed to have turned ”GWTW” into a movie with conflicting genres. I do not know whether to list it as a historical drama or a costumed melodrama. Most of the movie seemed like a historical drama – especially the first half that ends with Scarlett’s return to Tara. But once Scarlett’s second husband - Frank Kennedy – was killed during the Shantytown attack sequence, the movie became a costumed melodrama. This change in genre not only made the movie seemed slightly schizophrenic, it nearly grounded its pacing to a halt.
But . . . despite its political incorrectness and the dull last hour of the film, ”GONE WITH THE WIND” still managed to hold up pretty well. Despite being nearly 70 years old.
”THE INCREDIBLE HULK” Review
When I first heard that another movie based upon the Marvel Comics character – Bruce Banner/the Hulk – would hit the theaters soon, the word in both Hollywood and on the Internet was that it would be better than the 2003 film directed by Ang Lee, namely ”THE HULK”. Well, I have finally seen ”THE INCREDIBLE HULK”. Below is what I think of the film and whether I believe if it has surpassed the 2003 movie.
The first film that starred Eric Bana as Bruce Banner ended with the main character in South America, providing medical services to impoverished local citizens. This movie, in which Edward Norton takes up the role, picks up with Bruce in South America – namely Brazil. Only he is working as a day laborer at a soft drink factory in Rio de Janeiro, while at the same time seeking a cure to get rid of the Hulk within him with the help of an internet friend. At the same time, he is being pursued by General Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) and a Russian-born, British Royal Marine on loan to the U.S. Army named Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth).There are some changes in which director Louis Leterrier, screenwriters Zak Penn and an uncredited Edward Norton made changes. One, aside from Brazil and Mexico, the movie is mainly set on the East Coast – suburban Virginia and New York City; whereas the 2003 version is set in San Francisco, Berkeley and Nevada. The movie’s opening credits showed the origins of the Hulk, which has nothing to do with the 2003 story. In the 2008 version, Bruce and Betty were assisting General Ross in an experiment to create the Perfect Soldier”. Only Bruce became exposed to Gamma radiation during a lab experiment and injured and/or killed a number of people, including Betty. In the 2003 movie, Bruce unwittingly became the subject of his father’s DNA research not long after his birth. His altered DNA is exposed to Gamma radiation during a lab experiment as an adult, and the Hulk is born. And of course, there are different actors in the major roles.
Naturally, Edward Norton did a great job portraying Bruce Banner. He managed to capture all the pathos, desperation and anger of the fugitive scientist/comic book hero. He managed to put his personal stamp on the role just as Bana had done, five years ago. At first I had a hard time accepting Liv Tyler as Betty Ross, Bruce’s love and former colleague. She did not seem as effective as Jennifer Connelly in projecting Betty’s emotional personality. And I found it slightly hard to believe that she was a scientist. But she eventually grew into the role. I must admit that I have to say the same about William Hurt as General Thaddeus Ross. There were times when it seemed that Hurt was trying too hard to portray Ross’ obsessive and hostile personality. To be perfectly frank, he lacked Sam Elliott’s natural intensity. But he eventually did a good job. Tim Roth had no such problems. I thought he was perfect as Emil Blonsky, the Royal Marine determined to take down Bruce/the Hulk in any way. It really came as no surprise when he was willing to become a subject of another one of Ross’ Perfect Soldier. And finally there is Tim Blake Nelson, who portrayed Dr. Samuel Stern, an eccentric scientist and Internet ally of Bruce, who becomes infatuated with the potential power of Gamma radiation, after he witnesses Bruce’s transformation. Although a little over-the-top at times, Nelson does a good job in portraying Sterns’ eccentric nature.
Do I believe that this new version of the Hulk is better than the 2003 version? Honestly? NO. And my family feels the same. I had expected this version to be better and was slightly disappointed that it failed to live up to the hype. At least for me. I wish that Marvel Films and Universal Pictures had allowed this film to simply be a sequel to the 2003 film. Instead, they tried to reboot the saga by changing the story of the Hulk’s origins from what was joined in the previous film. I feel that the story involving Bruce’s father gave the Hulk a special angst factor that the 2008 film lacked. Now, some people have claimed that the 2003 film had too much angst. We are talking about the Incredible Hulk that is a major character from Marvel Comics. Angst is Marvel’s middle name. And most of its movies – especially those focusing upon Spider-Man, the X-Men and Daredevil – have angst up the yahoo. This movie is a little more action oriented than the 2003 movie. Actually, I feel that it is more action oriented than ”IRON MAN”. But I do not believe that the presence of more action made this movie better than the 2003 movie or ”IRON MAN”.
I really had a problem with the story’s finale. Granted, I was not fond of Bruce’s showdown with his father in the 2003 film. It came off as too vague for me. Although the Hulk/Abomination showdown was less vague in this film, I was not that impressed by it. The fight came off as too crude for my tastes. But the really problem is that the movie ended on a vague note. Perhaps this was Leterrier, Penn and Norton’s way of saying that the saga will continue. I think it could have been written better. The movie made it clear that it only defeated and not killed Abomination, but what later happened to Blonsky? Did he end up as Ross’ prisoner? Does the Army general really believe he can control Abomination? And those familiar with the Hulk comic saga knows that Sterns, who was exposed to Bruce’s blood in a confrontation with Blonsky, will become another one of the Hulk’s nemesis, the Leader. Unfortunately, not everyone would know this and the movie’s script makes this hint rather vague. It is almost as if the writers and the directors were afraid to give the story a more solid ending – like ”IRON MAN” or even ”THE HULK”. Not even the last shot of Bruce with a Norman Bates-style grin on his face or Robert Downey Jr’s cameo appearance as Tony Stark could really stave off my disappointment over the ending.
Despite the ending, ”THE INCREDIBLE HULK” is a damn good movie . . . one that Marvel Films to be proud of. But the vague ending and my initial problems with Tyler and Hurt make it impossible to accept the prevailing view that it is better than 2003’s ”THE HULK”.
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: "Consequences"
Has anyone noticed something odd about the main characters in "POTC: At World's End"? Most or all of them either ended up with a less than happy ending or with their fates up in the air.
If one must be brutally honest, the trilogy's main characters had committed some kind of questionable act or one dangerous to others. Jack Sparrow was a pirate, who had no qualms about using others for his own personal gain. And that included bartering Will to Davy Jones in "Dead Man's Chest" in order to avoid paying his debt to Jones . . . and lying to Elizabeth about it. Hector Barbossa, as well all know, was a murderous pirate who led a mutiny against Jack, threatened the lives of many and also double-crossed Tia Dalma by tossing her into the Black Pearl's brig in "At World's End". And then there is straight arrow Will Turner, who turned out to be not so straight arrow. He had left Jack to the mercies of Barbossa and the latter's crew in "Curse of the Black Pearl" and double-crossed the Pearl's crew to Sao Feng and the East India Trading Company in order to get his hands on the ship in "At World's End". Will's beloved and future Pirate King - Elizabeth Swann -committed one of the worst acts by leaving Jack shackled to the Black Pearl for the latter to be killed by the Kracken in "Dead Mans Chest". And in that same movie, James Norrington betrayed his new crew members from the Black Pearl, by stealing Davy Jones' heart from and handing it over to Lord Cutler Beckett in order to regain his military position in society.Not exactly a sweet bunch, are they? Many societies, religions and what-have-you seemed to believe in the old adage of what goes around, comes around. Or paying the consequences of one's actions. My favorite happens to be - "Payback's a bitch". And judging from the fates of the major characters in the trilogy, all of them - in one form or the other - seemed to have paid the consequences of their actions.
For Norrington, payback came in the form of death at the hands of poor deluded Bootstrap, when he helped Elizabeth and Sao Feng's crew escape from the Flying Dutchman's brig. After marrying Will during a battle against Jones and his crew, Elizabeth found herself nearly a widow and facing ten years of marriage . . . without her husband. And where was Will? During that battle, Jones stabbed him with the sword he had made for Norrington. And when Jack helped him stab Jones' heart before he could die, Will became the new captain of the Flying Dutchman, ferrying souls lost at sea to "the other side" . . . apart from Elizabeth for ten years. Barbossa seemed to have had it made in the end. He managed to get back the Black Pearl from Jack. Unfortunately, he found himself facing a possible mutiny due to Jack's theft of Sao Feng's chart that could lead them all to a new treasure. And what about dear old Jack? Well . . . he found himself left behind at Tortuga, after Barbossa took the Black Pearl from him again.
Mind you some of the characters like Norrington and Will suffered a more severe consequence than the other characters. But not one of them had the glowing "happily ever after" that was seen in the conclusion of "At World's End". Even though Will and Elizabeth were finally reunited in the film's post-credits scene, I wonder if there were some shadows in their reunion. After all, Will and Elizabeth have to adjust being married. And Will has to learn to be a father . . . something of which Elizabeth already has ten years of experience.
Below is a gallery from the new Marvel comics film - "THE INCREDIBLE HULK" - starring Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth and William Hurt:
"THE INCREDIBLE HULK" Photo Gallery
Here is a gallery featuring photos from the third "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN" movie - "At World's End":
"PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: At World's End" Gallery:
"SPEED RACER" Video Clips
Here are three video clips that feature scenes from the movie:
