Pan Review

I do enjoy the concept of Peter Pan, though I've found the book and most of the movies it inspired to be subpar. Then along comes an unnecessary prequel movie that no one was asking for; Pan (2015). It certainly takes some creative liberties; Pan raises some questions no one thought to ask, introduces more of Neverland which we'd never thought to wonder about, and shows us events which don't make a lot of sense considering its source material. But on the other hand, it shows us some genuinely good scenes and some fantastic special effects.

Peter (Levi Miller) is a tiresome golden-child orphan in second-World-War London. But the nuns who run this orphanage are selling off their charges to Pirates who drop from the ceiling on bungee cords and pluck them from their beds before stowing them aboard an airborne galleon to Neverland. Head of the Pirate's exploits is Captain Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman), who imprisons Peter and the other boys as slave labor to mine for Pixum; a rejuvenating substance with magical properties. Peter meets a fellow minor named James Hook (Garrett Hedlund) and his accomplice, Mr. Smee  (Adeel Akhtar). The three steal one of Blackbeard's flying ships and escape into the forest where they are found and nearly executed by the natives before the Chief's daughter, Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara), notices Peter's pan flute pendant, left to Peter by his mother (Amanda Seyfried). The natives decide that Peter is their people's greatest hero, the legendary Pan. As part of his heritage, Peter should have the ability to fly, but lacks the ability to do so. Peter, Hook, and Tiger Lily race to reach the hidden Fairy Kingdom to enlist the help of the fairies to defeat Blackbeard before Blackbeard, himself, launches an attack to destroy all the fairies.

The story here has little rhyme or reason to it. It's a prequel for the sake of a prequel, and prequels notoriously anger fans and bore audiences. Sure there are images that herald back to the original Peter Pan, but it's all mashed up, weird, and inaccurate. It's like an origin-myth reboot of the Peter Pan story from studio executives who don't care how it got booted in the first place. And then for good measure, they shoehorn some steampunk where it has no business being, not unlike 2011's The Three Musketeers. Sure, there's some neat scenes, but the story raises questions no one was thinking to ask and then doesn't even bother answering them all. The story is very bland, by-the-book re-imagining of a classic story that was simply not called for.

On the other hand, there are some really neat scenes in Pan that probably couldn't have occurred without this particular twisted take on the classic story. One of the earliest action scenes involves Peter and a few other boys being abducted by a flying pirate ship in the middle of World War II London. Naturally, this draws the attention of the British air force and an exciting aerial battle between a cannon firing galleon and World War II fighter planes ensues. This scene was incredible! Later when making their escape from Blackbeard's clutches, Peter, Hook, and Smee rotate their flying ship upside down and have to cling on the ships rigging to avoid falling hundreds of feet to their deaths. That was another truly fun scene that probably couldn't have been done in the original setting.

The camera work was above average. Granted, a large portion of this movie had to be filmed in front of a green screen. So many of the impressive wide shots of detailed scenery were mostly impressive thanks to a large number of busy CGI artists. I think that in order to emphasize Peter's lack of ability to fly, there are a number of scenes that showcase some dizzying heights. The shots in those scenes were probably more impressive in 3-D. There were a number of scenes that made me stop and simply appreciate how well organized the shot looked, despite how bland the story is and how CGI intensive it is.

Ignoring the fact that nuns are in cahoots with pirates from another world, Pan does some weird things with its characters. James Hook is a miner in Blackbeard's mines, he's got an awkwardly fake cowboy accent, and seems to be a dreadful amalgamation of Indiana Jones and Slim Pickens from Dr. Strangelove. How this Stetson-wearing steampunk cowboy eventually becomes the infamous dreaded Captain Hook, I'll never understand. In what looks like it could have been a deleted scene from Mad Max: Fury Road, thousands of grubby slave-worker youths mine for Pixum while singing along to the rock band Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" from their album "Nevermind." (Get it?) This is just as bizarre and out of place as watching some medieval peasants sing Queen's "We Will Rock You" in A Knight's Tale. Sure creative liberties were taken, but golly, some of them are just so weird it makes the movie hard to swallow. To be fair, though, it was a pretty good cover of Nirvana's song.

Of the many things I can rant about the Pan movie, the one that bothers me the most is how "The Natives" were handled. The orignal book has a tribe of wigwam-dwelling Native Americans who live in Neverland and are referred to by the author as "Redskins" or the Piccaninny Tribe. In what is possibly the best known rendition of Peter Pan, Disney's 1953 animated movie has these characters depicted in the most embarrassing of racial stereotyping and political incorrectness. To avoid risking such racial profiling, "The Natives" in Pan were a cluster of multiple racial backgrounds, and instead of living in wigwams, their culture seems to be inspired by Polynesians and the tree dwelling Ewoks of Star Wars. There are Asians, blacks, whites, pacific islanders, Hispanic, and middle-eastern people making up The Natives. Of course, the one Native that we're meant to be concerned with (Tiger Lily) is white, which ends up being another example of whitewashing in the film industry in spite of obvious attempts to appear multi-racial and politically correct. Pan seems to be trying to show us how open minded it is with the natives and falling flat on its face.

Pan does have some good scenes here and there, but overall it's a weak attempt to start a franchise specifically made in hopes to make sequels. The movie raises questions no one thought to ask about a solid, well-established piece of literature, and then doesn't bother answering them. This was probably in hopes of tackling them in a sequel. Pan has done so poorly in the box office and with critics that I doubt there will be one. Sure, the movie takes a generous number of creative liberties, but it retains the adventurous spirit of the classic tale and finds a few bursts of magic in its treatment of classic characters, though not enough to offset the rushed plot and GCI-fueled action. Some scenes I think are worth seeing on the big screen, but not at full ticket price; get a matinee ticket if you can. If you don't really value the big screen experience as much, wait for it on home video.

What is your favorite Peter Pan-inspired movie? Comment below and tell me why!

Red Riding Hood Movie Review

I have praised the recent dark fairy tale movies that have come about recently, Snow White and the Huntsman and Jack the Giant Slayer were both creative and decent movies. The first of these dark fairy tale movies to hit theaters was Red Riding Hood (2011), so in the interest of seeing the movie that started the trend, I finally got around to watching it. Big mistake.

Valerie (Amanda Seyfried) is a beautiful young woman torn between two men. She is in love with a brooding outsider, Peter (Shiloh Fernandez), but her parents have arranged for her to marry the wealthy Henry (Max Irons). Unwilling to lose each other, Valerie and Peter are planning to run away together when they learn that Valerie's older sister has been killed by the werewolf that prowls the dark forest surrounding their village. For years people have maintained an uneasy truce with the beast, offering the creature a monthly animal sacrifice. But under the blood red moon, the wolf has upped the stakes by taking a human life. Hungry for revenge, the people call on famed werewolf hunter, Father Solomon (Gary Oldman), to help them kill the wolf. But Solomon's arrival brings unintended consequences as he warns that the wolf, who takes human form by day, could be any one of them. As the death toll rises with each moon, Valerie begins to suspect that the werewolf could be someone she loves. But as panic grips the village, Valerie discovers she has a unique connection to the beast -- one that inevitably draws them together, making her both suspect and bait.

So I didn't realize it at first, but Red Riding Hood was directed by Catherine Hardwicke, who had directed Twilight three years prior. I'm not entirely sure Hardwicke realized she was directing a different movie; both movies feature supernatural killers, a love triangle between unbelievably simple and shallow characters, long moments where the plot seems to go out for doughnuts while the movie keeps going, and a very likely abusive relationship framed as if it were romantic. To its credit, Red Riding Hood was better than Twilight, but not by much.

Amanda Seyfried is a pretty talented actress. She was great in In Time, she was a lovable spunky young lady in Mama Mia!, and she was an excellent Cosette in Les Misérables. Gary Oldman is a stellar actor who is often the best part of most movies he's in. To be honest, they were both very good in Red Riding Hood, it's just that the script they had to work with was as insipid as it was dull. I can't imagine what drove each of them to be in this movie, I'm hoping they somehow didn't get to see a script before accepting the role or something. And get this; Billy Burke, who played Valerie's father, also plays Bella Swan's father in Twilight. He's not much better in Red Riding Hood.

The script was pretty awful. Valerie spent a lot of time fretting over what to do about the two men who want to have her in their lives. Peter and Henry have to act manly, virile, and try win Valerie's attention in each scene. Even the dialogue was awful; they actually talk about having crushes on other characters. They actually use the word "crush." This is the dark ages, not a modern middle school! This is what makes up a bulk of the script. Fortunately it's interrupted on occasion to remind us there is a werewolf in the movie; I think we actually get to see it two times. I liked the McCarthy-Era type paranoia they tried to incorporate as the villagers grow more distrusting of one another during the werewolf hunt. Uninteresting love triangles have become a trite cliché in movies recently. Red Riding Hood is not bad in scenes where the love triangle isn't the main focus, but unfortunately it is the main focus for a lot of the movie.

They did work in the classic elements of the original Little Red Riding Hood story in creative ways; the "what big teeth you have, Grandma" line, the red hooded cloak, don't talk to strangers in the woods, etc. You expect to see them in the movie, but when they do appear, they don't show up in a way you'd expect. It also made some allusions to other fairy tales that feature a "big bad wolf," which was neat. It's really about the only thing to get excited over.

Red Riding Hood was a disappointment. It could have been a good werewolf movie with a strong female protagonist, some great werewolf fight scenes, and a new twist on the classic fairy tale that so many enjoy. But no, this is basically just Twilight set during the dark ages. The special effects were lackluster at best. The werewolf was little more than a large CGI black wolf; no half-man-half-wolf thing going on at all. The whole village may as well have been middle school students by the way they talked. You may like Red Riding Hood if you're a fan of Twilight, but otherwise don't bother with this movie; it's just awful. It's not even worth borrowing from a friend.

Are there GOOD movies with a love triangle in it? I'm getting pretty fed up with them. I'd love to see one that was actually good, not overwrought and weepy. Can you think of one? Comment below and let me know!

Les Misérables Movie Review

Les Misérables is a story that has been told through the medium of film many times before. It's a classic novel by Victor Hugo and has had at least two film adaptations per decade since 1907. But the 2012 version is the fist film adaptation of the stage production. Les Misérables brought all the power and emotion of the longest running Broadway Musical ever to the big screen.

After 19 years in prison (five for stealing bread for his starving sister and her family, and the rest for trying to escape), Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) is released on parole by the policeman Javert (Russell Crow). After a merciful Bishop (Colm Wilkinson, who famously played Valjean on stage) gives Valjean some precious silver to sell for money, Valjean turns his life around and makes himself a wealthy factory owner and mayor of a town in France. Javert is still hunting for Valjean since he did not meet parole. One of his workers, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), has a fight when the other workers discover she is sending money to her secret illegitimate daughter. When Valjean discovers that Fantine has resorted to prostitution to care for her daughter, Valjean swears to the dying mother that he will rescue and care for the girl himself. Valjean takes the young Cosette away from The Thénardiers (Sacha Baron Cohen & Helena Bonham Carter), and she grows into a fine young woman (Amanda Seyfried). Later Cosette falls in love with a young man named Marius (Eddie Redmayne) who is deeply involved in the French Revolution. It is through Marius's friend, Éponine (Samantha Barks) that Marius discovers Cosette. In the interest of keeping Marius alive for the sake of Cosette, Valjean aids the young rebels in their revolt while being ever vigilant to avoid Javert who remains hot on his trail.

When you see Les Misérables on stage you're watching singers act; but in this movie you're seeing actors sing. Several of the actors had some musical background, while others clearly did not. Russell Crow is a great actor, but not much of a singer. He sounds like he stifling a yawn while singing; but given his lack of vocal training, he hit the notes right and did a descent job. Eddie Redmayne's singing sounded nasal, and you could see his jaw and neck trembling with his vibrato. That's not necessarily bad, but it was distracting and an indicator of lack of vocal training. Hugh Jackman was phenomenal! He has Broadway experience and he did a great job singing this iconic role. I think the best performance was from Anne Hathaway. She did very well singing, but her emotional delivery simply blew me away.

Fans of the Broadway play will be head over heels in love with this movie version. As mentioned above, this is actors singing. The classic Broadway music is secondary to the story; the opposite of what happens on stage. I've heard these songs countless times before, but seeing an actual context for them made them much more poignant. In Les Misérables, we are shown close up images of the emotions and pain the characters are experiencing as the story progresses. I've heard “I Dreamed a Dream” before, but Hathaway's delivery made you really think about the lyrics and the pain the words are portraying. That whole song was filmed in one take; the camera doesn't move from her as she weeps and sings of broken dreams and abandoned love. It was powerful, and brought me to tears.

Possibly one of the things that made Les Misérables so good was that is was recorded live. Normally for a filmed musical, the individual actors sing the parts ahead of time in a studio before gathering together to film the scenes and lip-syncing to their own recorded voices. This causes the actors to have to make any acting decisions months before ever seeing their costars face to face. That removes some potential for the actors to act off of each other and generate emotional depth and realism in their delivery. For Les Misérables, the actors sung their lines as if it were the script and later had the music added. This allowed the actors to create a real sense of emotion and projection with their characters that has not been done before in a musical movie like this.

The sets were numerous and gorgeous. The bigger sets were probably enhanced with computer graphic additions, but it was so seamless. We got a feel for the French locations with sweeping exterior shots; it didn't feel confined to a stage. The historic costumes were so detailed and believable. The muskets fired at the barricade looked authentic and even the foley art was excellent.

There was very little actual spoken dialogue; the whole script was dependent upon the songs from the Broadway play. This made the interactions between characters seem unrealistic from time to time. The shots between songs were rushed; for example, one song ends and we see two or three short shots of the unconscious Marius being taken to a hospital, a doctor tending him, Marius walking again, and then suddenly he's at the old tavern where he and his friends used to hang out before starting in on his next song. That should take a lot of time, but we're thrown a couple of shots to suggest the passing of time in a matter of seconds to lead into the next song. While it's clear what has happened, it made the flow of the movie a bit choppy and rushed.

If you enjoy musicals, you will enjoy Les Misérables a lot. This was a powerful rendition of the Broadway classic, and it brings the story and characters to life on a level of reality that cannot be done on a stage. It's a classic story of broken dreams, unrequited love, passion, sacrifice, redemption, and the survival of the human spirit. I've never seen Les Misérables on stage, but this version does the story and music justice. If you don't enjoy musicals much on general principle, you'll likely be waving a white flag of exhausted defeat well before rebels wave the French tricolors. I think this was a beautiful movie and easily one of the best films of 2012. Not many movies can cause me to tear up multiple times, and Les Misérables certainly did. Go see it in theaters while you can. I recommend that you consider buying a copy for your home collection as well.

What is a Broadway Musical that you would love to see made into a major motion picture? Comment below and tell me why!

Movie Review: In Time

Good science fiction makes commentary on contemporary issues in a unique, metaphorical way. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), comments about anti-communism McCarthy-era paranoia. George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead (1968) critiques 1960s domestic racism. In Time (2011) is a creative science fiction movie that makes some interesting social commentary about issues of today.

In the future, scientists have discovered how to make people stop aging after 25 years. At this point, they have one year left; the minutes are visibly ticking down on a digital readout on their left forearm. Everyone is allowed to earn more time through work, gambling, or investment. As a result, time has become the main currency. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) lives in a time ghetto with his mother (Olivia Wilde), barely making ends meet with scarcely a whole day on their hands. Will rescues a wealthy, depressed man named Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer). They fall asleep after a long talk about life. Will wakes to find a century on his clock and Hamilton about to jump off a bridge. Will tries to stop him, but is too late. This is caught on a security camera; making Will a prime suspect in Hamilton’s supposed murder. Will uses his newfound time to get to a wealthier time zone. There he meets Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried), daughter of the richest man alive, Philippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser), who is himself heavily involved in controlling the time markets. A Timekeeper police officer, Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy), attempts to arrest Will who takes Sylvia hostage. After seeing what the time ghetto is like, Sylvia decides to help Will overthrow the system that perpetuates the socioeconomic divide, all while eluding the Timekeepers.

In Time was written and directed by Andrew Niccol, who also wrote and directed Gattaca (1997). The two movies have some qualitative similarities; Niccol seems to make up an amazing and creative science fiction setting, and put an underdeveloped storyline into it. The premise in In Time is just fascinating! You see subtle background details about how time as currency has changed things; I like the 99 Seconds Store and the Timeshare Savings and Loan. This is some good science fiction that makes you think about the real world; the value of a dollar, how you spend your time, and the current economic status of the world. It does this very well. Unfortunately that is about all that In Time does. It seems to continually beat you over the head with the premise to make sure you know there is a socioeconomic divide, and that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Niccol could have developed story further and expanded the premise more; he just didn’t venture deeper into the movie’s potential.

Whenever I see Justin Timberlake, I can’t help but think of the boy band fad of the 1990’s. Timberlake was pretty good in In Time, given the script and material he had to work with. He pulls off the action hero look well: lean figure, facial stubble, and buzz-cut hair. I can overlook his *NSYNC years after seeing In Time. Cillian Murphy delivers a good, but different villain as Raymond Leon than he did as Scarecrow in Batman Begins (2005). He was suave and well mannered in his cruelty. His motivation for wanting to stop Will was selfish, but understandable. He is the kind of villain you like because you can relate to him on some level. Amanda Seyfried did a good job of playing a pretty sheltered brat. That’s about the extent of the character, but like Timberlake, she did a good job with what she had to work with.

In Time was a really interesting science fiction combination of Logan’s Run (1976), Bonnie & Clyde (1967), any Robin Hood movie, and the real world Occupy Wall Street movement. In fact, if you are involved with Occupy Wall Street in any way you’ll love In Time. I’d highly recommend seeing it. If you are not, I still recommend seeing it just because the setting and themes are so interesting. But since the story isn’t all that dynamic, I’d recommend a matinee viewing or just wait for it on home video.