I never expected Marvel to go all-in on the sitcom aspect of this show, but as the first two episodes prove, they have, with great love and attention to detail. An homage to the TV comedies most us were raised watching in their original runs or later in endless reruns, they have done what should be impossible: made it truly funny. Just as in "Bewitched," we know the true nature of this suburban couple, as outlandish as it is, and they use who and what Wanda and Vision are, with a wink to a knowing audience, as a source for their humor. The nature of these characters, serious superheroes in the Avengers movies, is delightfully expanded in their domestic tromp through sitcom tropes. Paul Bettnay is a comedian at heart, and he gets a role here that plays to his wit and shows his deft hand at slapstick. Elizabeth Olsen opens her known range as an actor as the spunky, loving housewife always adorably protecting the couple's secret. It is highly entertaining, managing to be offbeat and yet completely familiar. Enjoy!
Reviews
5 Reviews
Action blockbuster in need of a soul
10 May 2017
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a white-hot, whirly-swirly, entertaining mess. It looks like what it is: too much material accumulated over a long time, shoved into just over two hours. It's frantic to encompass favorite shots and lines and tons of manic video game style graphics (including driving music straight out of a gamer's speakers), while managing to be light on plot and character.
Beyond the classic Arthur lore, Ritchie taps Hamlet, Robin Hood, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and even a little Jedi mind trickery, resulting in a mash of familiar fantasy tropes that makes using traditional Arthurian references like "Excalibur" and "Camelot" feel strangely out of place. Similar to his "Sherlock Holmes" movies, Ritchie has gone so far afield from the original mythology that he might have benefited from separating his movie from the source material by letting the parallels to King Arthur play as subtext and naming his hero Max or Bubba instead.
The story is of an orphaned boy prince who discovers as a man the truth of being cheated of his birthright by an evil uncle and then seeking revenge. There are a slew of supporting characters we never learn much about beyond their abilities to fight, conjure gigantic animals, or run. Their do or die determination to see Arthur reclaim his kingdom is not fleshed out in a way that supports an emotional connection. Punches are thrown, arrows shot, and swords swung. You root for the good guys, but you never learn to love them. The one scene of exposition bogs the frenetic flow, so it's no wonder Ritchie didn't do more to create a cohesive picture of the where and why of alliances. What's left is hollow action.
However, if depth-less, churning entertainment is the goal, the movie delivers. Charlie Hunnam is pretty to look at, with hints of charm. Jude Law tries hard to seem demonic. The supporting characters have interesting faces we wish were supported with internal lives. There's a good deal of humor, so lightly rooted in character it often plays more as one-liners, but chuckle worthy. The non-CGI footage is gorgeous, especially scenery in desolate hills and forests. The effects are pretty good, mimicking the best of video game imagery, but nothing innovative. With so much flashing by in jittery hand-held shots and jarring edits, the 3D is ultimately an added distraction to trying to find content.
Action: B+, Heart and soul: D, Entertainment head-buzz: B
Beyond the classic Arthur lore, Ritchie taps Hamlet, Robin Hood, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and even a little Jedi mind trickery, resulting in a mash of familiar fantasy tropes that makes using traditional Arthurian references like "Excalibur" and "Camelot" feel strangely out of place. Similar to his "Sherlock Holmes" movies, Ritchie has gone so far afield from the original mythology that he might have benefited from separating his movie from the source material by letting the parallels to King Arthur play as subtext and naming his hero Max or Bubba instead.
The story is of an orphaned boy prince who discovers as a man the truth of being cheated of his birthright by an evil uncle and then seeking revenge. There are a slew of supporting characters we never learn much about beyond their abilities to fight, conjure gigantic animals, or run. Their do or die determination to see Arthur reclaim his kingdom is not fleshed out in a way that supports an emotional connection. Punches are thrown, arrows shot, and swords swung. You root for the good guys, but you never learn to love them. The one scene of exposition bogs the frenetic flow, so it's no wonder Ritchie didn't do more to create a cohesive picture of the where and why of alliances. What's left is hollow action.
However, if depth-less, churning entertainment is the goal, the movie delivers. Charlie Hunnam is pretty to look at, with hints of charm. Jude Law tries hard to seem demonic. The supporting characters have interesting faces we wish were supported with internal lives. There's a good deal of humor, so lightly rooted in character it often plays more as one-liners, but chuckle worthy. The non-CGI footage is gorgeous, especially scenery in desolate hills and forests. The effects are pretty good, mimicking the best of video game imagery, but nothing innovative. With so much flashing by in jittery hand-held shots and jarring edits, the 3D is ultimately an added distraction to trying to find content.
Action: B+, Heart and soul: D, Entertainment head-buzz: B
Inkheart
(2008)
Great Cast. Not-so-great movie.
4 May 2010
Oh, Brendan Fraser. How does one actor make so many movies that almost work but don't? He's been in a few brilliant films, a few god-awful ones, but the majority of them fall into an ever-widening pool of narrow misses.
"Inkheart" is another one of those. It's frustratingly close. You want to go up to the screen and nudge it a bit so it crosses the line. It's a fantasy-- a genre where logic is only slightly required. If this story had made a wee bit more sense, it would've hit the fantasy-acceptable mark. If the dialogue had more crackle and the characters had more contrast, it would've worked. It looks beautiful. The effects are good. There are clever moments. It's well cast with actors known to be entertaining and who are spot-on for their parts. It could've been a lovely, enjoyable family film if it had been given any amount of extra thought.
The movie tells the story of a man who finds out too late that when he reads aloud, it brings parts of the books he reads into the real world while it randomly sends real people into the book being read. When he reads the little-known children's book "Inkheart" to his wife, menacing charters fall out and his wife disappears. To have any chance of getting her back, he must have a copy of the rare book, so he packs up his young daughter and they spend years going from old bookstore to old bookstore rummaging through stacks of neglected volumes but not finding the one book he needs.
Fraser's bookbinder Mo is a likable good guy, the sort of character that's become Fraser's mainstay. Mo is a loving dad who's frightened by his unwanted ability and whose only quest is to read his wife home. It's a sweet, solid performance as Fraser plays straight man to some class-A scene-stealers. They are:
Helen Mirren-- no explanation required. She doesn't work at upstaging anyone, it just happens. Here she's the wealthy aunt of Mo's missing wife. Despite her flamboyant style, she has hermitted herself away with the collection of books she treasures, preferring to read adventures, not live them.
Jim Broadbent-- no explanation required here, either. He has one of those faces. He has one of those voices. He plays "Inkheart's" author and it's entertaining to see how much glee he gets from meeting the characters he created, even the horrible ones.
Paul Bettany-- He can't not be noticed. He's an actor who has an edgy energy about him--sort of like a younger Peter O'Toole. Twice his supporting characters have diverted attention from Russell Crowe-- as the lively college roommate in "A Beautiful Mind" and as the ship's doctor and naturalist in "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World." Except for looking at Heath Ledger, the only joy to be had in the mess that is "A Knight's Tale" is Bettany's Chaucer. He stole the movie, or at least as much of it as he wanted. In "Inkheart" his juggler Dustfinger is referred to as scary, but he's more scoundrel than villain as he attempts to right the wrong that's been done to him.
Rafi Gavron-- As a teen thief who is thankfully of no consequence to the plot of "Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves," he's adorable and adds a welcome lightness to his scenes. He's the future of scene stealing, earning some preliminary chops here among the pros.
Needless to say, when these actors are on screen together in any combination, you don't know where to look. It's mind-bending to try to understand how anyone could make a marginal movie with this cast.
In addition to the above, Eliza Bennett plays daughter Meggie. It's not a role that requires a lot, but she does a good job of not overplaying what could have been a whiny part. Poor Andy Serkis is stuck playing the same ego-maniacally evil villain we've seen over and over. There's no imagination to his character or to his cliché band of goons. They're not even a particularly scary lot, and the lack of anyone or anything truly frightening contributes largely to making the story tepid.
"Inkheart" has a fun, unofficial running game, a sort of "Name that Tune" where you try to recognize classic children's literature based on a character or a telltale prop. Watch it with your kids, and if they can't tell you what comes from where, move away from the TV and read them a book.
"Inkheart" is another one of those. It's frustratingly close. You want to go up to the screen and nudge it a bit so it crosses the line. It's a fantasy-- a genre where logic is only slightly required. If this story had made a wee bit more sense, it would've hit the fantasy-acceptable mark. If the dialogue had more crackle and the characters had more contrast, it would've worked. It looks beautiful. The effects are good. There are clever moments. It's well cast with actors known to be entertaining and who are spot-on for their parts. It could've been a lovely, enjoyable family film if it had been given any amount of extra thought.
The movie tells the story of a man who finds out too late that when he reads aloud, it brings parts of the books he reads into the real world while it randomly sends real people into the book being read. When he reads the little-known children's book "Inkheart" to his wife, menacing charters fall out and his wife disappears. To have any chance of getting her back, he must have a copy of the rare book, so he packs up his young daughter and they spend years going from old bookstore to old bookstore rummaging through stacks of neglected volumes but not finding the one book he needs.
Fraser's bookbinder Mo is a likable good guy, the sort of character that's become Fraser's mainstay. Mo is a loving dad who's frightened by his unwanted ability and whose only quest is to read his wife home. It's a sweet, solid performance as Fraser plays straight man to some class-A scene-stealers. They are:
Helen Mirren-- no explanation required. She doesn't work at upstaging anyone, it just happens. Here she's the wealthy aunt of Mo's missing wife. Despite her flamboyant style, she has hermitted herself away with the collection of books she treasures, preferring to read adventures, not live them.
Jim Broadbent-- no explanation required here, either. He has one of those faces. He has one of those voices. He plays "Inkheart's" author and it's entertaining to see how much glee he gets from meeting the characters he created, even the horrible ones.
Paul Bettany-- He can't not be noticed. He's an actor who has an edgy energy about him--sort of like a younger Peter O'Toole. Twice his supporting characters have diverted attention from Russell Crowe-- as the lively college roommate in "A Beautiful Mind" and as the ship's doctor and naturalist in "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World." Except for looking at Heath Ledger, the only joy to be had in the mess that is "A Knight's Tale" is Bettany's Chaucer. He stole the movie, or at least as much of it as he wanted. In "Inkheart" his juggler Dustfinger is referred to as scary, but he's more scoundrel than villain as he attempts to right the wrong that's been done to him.
Rafi Gavron-- As a teen thief who is thankfully of no consequence to the plot of "Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves," he's adorable and adds a welcome lightness to his scenes. He's the future of scene stealing, earning some preliminary chops here among the pros.
Needless to say, when these actors are on screen together in any combination, you don't know where to look. It's mind-bending to try to understand how anyone could make a marginal movie with this cast.
In addition to the above, Eliza Bennett plays daughter Meggie. It's not a role that requires a lot, but she does a good job of not overplaying what could have been a whiny part. Poor Andy Serkis is stuck playing the same ego-maniacally evil villain we've seen over and over. There's no imagination to his character or to his cliché band of goons. They're not even a particularly scary lot, and the lack of anyone or anything truly frightening contributes largely to making the story tepid.
"Inkheart" has a fun, unofficial running game, a sort of "Name that Tune" where you try to recognize classic children's literature based on a character or a telltale prop. Watch it with your kids, and if they can't tell you what comes from where, move away from the TV and read them a book.
The Young Victoria
(2009)
No spoiler alert required
4 May 2010
The Young Victoria is a nice movie. It's so nice that everybody mostly gets along most of the time. Then, almost two hours later, it's over. It's a pretty and pleasantly acted movie. Not that it's boring per se. There are hints of conflict-- the lightly abusive step-father who wants to use the future queen's power for his own agenda (although it's never clear what his agenda is—maybe he's a real do-gooder), the mother who chooses her man above her daughter, the charming Prime Minister who has a reputation for manipulating women and is always hanging about (and what woman wouldn't want Paul Bettany in period costume always within view?), the odds and ends of royals from here and there who promote their own candidates for husband of the queen-to-be. Oh and there's that truly nasty business when the head of the other political party is rather put-out because the newly crowned monarch won't include any women from his team on her list of ladies-in-waiting. Zounds! From a feminist perspective, the queen, being a queen, is required to ask her chosen mate for his hand in marriage, instead of the other way around, which is a fun change. But who will she ask?!!!! Who will it be?!!! Who?!!!!
Well, duh.
The most unexpected nugget the film leaves viewers with is that at one point in time, the Queen after whom the Victorian era, with its prim furnishings and tightly-clenched sphincters was named, was a cute, fun girl who liked to dance and knew a good man when she saw one. She even seemed to like sex, albeit within a monogamous relationship. That really is nice, isn't it?
Well, duh.
The most unexpected nugget the film leaves viewers with is that at one point in time, the Queen after whom the Victorian era, with its prim furnishings and tightly-clenched sphincters was named, was a cute, fun girl who liked to dance and knew a good man when she saw one. She even seemed to like sex, albeit within a monogamous relationship. That really is nice, isn't it?
The Search for John Gissing
(2001)
Rickman, yes. Movie, no.
21 February 2009
This movie has the fatal stench of "vanity project." To be an ambitious actor of unknown quality is to be an actor who has to write a movie for himself, then has to direct it so he can cast himself. Mike Binder is the actor/writer/director who knitted this series of clichés and old Neil Simon together as a gift to his own career. No one told him that "The Out of Towners" had been made some 30 years ago, and even the much, much more likable and talented Jack Lemmon couldn't make it's irritating plot tolerable. No one told Mike Binder that there is only gonna be one Ben Stiller. So hopeful he is to be Ben Stiller that he even fetched one of Ben Stiller's former company members, Janeane Garofalo, to play his wife. As the wife, she gets to complain a lot, follow her man from port to port while having no other wish for herself than to settle down and give birth to his children. When you write your own husband role, you get to make yourself a wife like that-- one who's nearly as focused on you as you are.
The writing and directing are uninspired and often lazy. Mike Binder's acting, that present he created for himself, is indeed a watered down Stiller imitation. Unlike his role model, he does run around a lot, which seems to be his acting shorthand for funny. There's his writer/director mediocre attempt to make secondary characters lovably kooky, but by golly, they are poorly realized, never engaging or endearing, just thrown in because, hey, that's what Ben Stiller would do. Mike Binder doesn't seem to have the skill set to make what he's attempting work, hard as he tries to mimic other well-worn comic formulas.
Binder's more self-brutalizing mistake is one even actor/writer/director Kevin Costner made-- allowing himself to be measured against Alan Rickman. Again, why didn't anyone tell him? You cannot out perform Alan Rickman. Rickman is lightly used in the first half of the movie, then dominates the last half. He seems to relish his chance at screwball comedy, and he plays what he's given with deft delight. Although he is the root of all the Binder character's frustrations, Rickman's John Gissing is still the most engagingly appealing character of the bunch. It's a relief when John Gissing is finally found and begins to occupy real screen time.
While Alan Rickman consistently out classes Mike Binder's performance, God bless Alan Rickman's involvement. Without his name on the credits, no one would have sought this movie out. It would have remained with the other vanity projects of needy actors turned writer/directors. Gone. Forgotten-- just the source of the faint sour smell of desperately failed self-promotion wafting up from the bottom of the clearance bin at Blockbusters
The writing and directing are uninspired and often lazy. Mike Binder's acting, that present he created for himself, is indeed a watered down Stiller imitation. Unlike his role model, he does run around a lot, which seems to be his acting shorthand for funny. There's his writer/director mediocre attempt to make secondary characters lovably kooky, but by golly, they are poorly realized, never engaging or endearing, just thrown in because, hey, that's what Ben Stiller would do. Mike Binder doesn't seem to have the skill set to make what he's attempting work, hard as he tries to mimic other well-worn comic formulas.
Binder's more self-brutalizing mistake is one even actor/writer/director Kevin Costner made-- allowing himself to be measured against Alan Rickman. Again, why didn't anyone tell him? You cannot out perform Alan Rickman. Rickman is lightly used in the first half of the movie, then dominates the last half. He seems to relish his chance at screwball comedy, and he plays what he's given with deft delight. Although he is the root of all the Binder character's frustrations, Rickman's John Gissing is still the most engagingly appealing character of the bunch. It's a relief when John Gissing is finally found and begins to occupy real screen time.
While Alan Rickman consistently out classes Mike Binder's performance, God bless Alan Rickman's involvement. Without his name on the credits, no one would have sought this movie out. It would have remained with the other vanity projects of needy actors turned writer/directors. Gone. Forgotten-- just the source of the faint sour smell of desperately failed self-promotion wafting up from the bottom of the clearance bin at Blockbusters
Tell Your Friends