Score: **** out of *****
Long Story Short: Pixar gets itself into the game of strong film heroines with its first non-sequel in several years. Everything is the done with the high quality you expect from Pixar - animation, pacing, humor, etc. The only area where I felt a bit of a letdown was in the ideas department, where Brave sticks closer to convention than most Pixar films.
For the next installment in my review of summer films, I'm pleased to go to yet another genre, this time animation. It has been awhile since I've seen an animated film in theaters, since I passed on last year's Cars 2 which did not appeal to me and (by Pixar's standards) was critically panned. This year Pixar decided to come up with a new idea rather than another sequel to one of their successful franchises, so I was happy to come back to support them. Brave was directed by Brenda Chapman (first) and Mark Andrews (took over later), and features voice work from Kelly Macdonald, Emma Thompson, and Billy Connolly.
The first few minutes of Brave set the scene for the film's main characters, the ruling family in medieval Scotland. Merida (MacDonald), the king (Connolly) and queen's (Thompson) daughter, is seen as rambunctious from an early age and even as she nears the age of betrothal she resists her mother's attempts to make her into a lady and instead enjoys adventures in the forest and practicing archery. When the lords of Scotland bring their heirs to seek Merida's hand in marriage, she instead humiliates them all in an archery contest. The queen is horrified by her daughter's rebelliousness, and Merida, frustrated by her mother's control of her life, storms off into the woods.
There, Merida follows a trail of luminous will-o'-the-wisps to an area circled by giant pillars. The next thing she knows she is standing in front of a witch's hut, and she eventually convinces the witch to give her a spell to take back her fate from her mother. The spell, however, soon wreaks havoc on the royal family. Merida is forced to push aside her personal goals in order to prevent her family from being torn apart forever.
Obviously, in an animated film there isn't any acting per se, but I'll review the characters. Merida is the main character, the first female lead in a Pixar film, and another in a growing roster in Hollywood recently (rather similar to The Hunger Games' Katniss, in fact). Merida, like Katniss, is not only physically capable but also emotionally independent yet fiercely loyal to those close to her. The queen is a standard strict yet loving mother (who also commands respect from Scotland's lords). The king is a bit of a goofball, a former warrior who is now content to wrestle with Merida and his three energetic, mischievous young sons. In the supporting cast is an appropriately eccentric witch, as well as three very proud lords and their not-quite-ready heirs. (Note: despite the Scottish accents, the voice work throughout is both beautiful and easily understandable)
Digital animation has become so good these days that it is hard to impress audiences, but Brave manages to push the boundaries even further. Merida's long, unruly red hair is the top example of this, displaying an organic, realistic feel that surpasses all other previous efforts. Beyond the technical wizardry, Pixar continues its great work at the subtle movements of characters and objects that creates a unique liveliness. Brave is not quite as humorous as many of its predecessors, but there are still some good moments, generally involving the lords and their heirs, and Merida's young triplet brothers. The soundtrack really stands out in this film, with not only beautiful orchestral music but also some very nice singing pieces as well.
***
Pixar is back at it again, making films of consistently higher quality than other studio in Hollywood right now. Just about everything in Brave is perfectly done, from the aforementioned animation to great pacing to strong focus to emotional investment. The only thing that keeps me from rating Brave a little higher is, to me, a lack of "wow" in films like Up! and WALL-E and a not particularly inventive structure. Yes, Brave executes that structure better than 99% of its peers... yet, I feel like I've seen it before. Brave does a great job of focusing on the mother-daughter relationship and there are some really nice moments between the two; but there was also little about it that struck me as new. So it doesn't quite measure up to the best of Pixar (IMO: Toy Story, Up! and WALL-E); the quality is on par, just not the ideas. I still highly recommend it, and it's a great choice for any audience.
2012 NBA Finals
To start off, I'd like to give myself a small pat on the back for doing pretty well in my championship odds post to preview this year's playoffs. I listed the Miami Heat at #1, OKC at #2, and San Antonio at #3. My only major errors were the Bulls losing (who saw that coming?) and, to me, the Clippers' shocking upset of the Grizzlies. To get to the Finals this year, OKC had a pretty easy path. They swept the Mavs, lost just one game to the Lakers, and won four straight against the Spurs after losing the first two games (by the way, either the Mavs, Lakers or Spurs had played in the Finals every year prior to this year since 1999!!!). The Heat destroyed the Knicks in five games, then struggled a bit against the Pacers when Bosh got hurt, winning in six, then fought for their lives against the Celtics, winning in seven after being down 2-3.
Although I predicted the Heat to win the championship prior to the start of the playoffs, by the start of the Finals I thought the odds had switched to the Thunder. While dismantling the Mavs was no big deal, they took care of the Lakers surprisingly easily, and then had one of the finest playoff series I've ever seen in beating the fantastic Spurs four times in a row, a team that had won their previous twenty games. Both their offense and defense seemed to be at their highest levels ever. Meanwhile, the Heat was just getting Bosh, their third best player, back into the lineup after a nine-game absence. A short-handed, aging Celtics team had just pushed them to seven games. Oh, and OKC had home court advantage. Virtually everything seemed to be in OKC's favor.
Game 1 went pretty much how I thought the series would go, with OKC swatting away Miami's halftime lead and basically holding them off at arms length throughout the fourth quarter. But then in game 2, OKC got off to another terrible start. Miami held their lead in the third quarter, and barely held off the Thunder's fourth quarter charge. Of course, they benefited from a no-call on LeBron's foul on Durant's game-tying attempt with ~12 seconds remaining. I was confident that OKC would steal at least one game in Miami, but the Heat won an ugly game 3 by scoring at will in the paint and somehow making 31 of 35 free throws while the Thunder missed too many of their own. The Thunder finally got a fast start in game 4, but the Heat erased it completely in the second quarter and slowly took control in the second half. Despite Westbrook putting in the best individual performance of the 2012 Finals, the Heat's PGs (Chalmers and Cole) gave them the advantage. And in game 5, Miami built up a sizable lead before halftime and then just buried the Thunder in the 3rd quarter with insane 3-point shooting and a thunderstruck young OKC squad.
So, how did the Heat upset the Thunder and even win in a paltry five games? I think the biggest reason was coach Spoelstra's starting lineup, using Chalmers, Wade, Battier, James and Bosh. In fact, Bosh's earlier injury may have been the reason, forcing Miami at the time to use Haslem/Anthony at center and make Battier the starting small forward. In this series, that small tweak (rather than using the traditional lineup of Chalmers-Wade-James-Haslem-Bosh) wreaked havoc with the Thunder's big men. Ibaka and Perkins dominate the paint defensively when they can guard post players. But Ibaka was forced to guard Battier, who of course lives at the 3-point line. With the old lineup, I think the Thunder likely would have won in 5 or 6; that smaller Heat lineup caused chaos for the Thunder starters, though, and got them out of their comfort zone.
In addition, Battier, after playing quite poorly in the regular season and playoffs, finally came around. In the first three games he hit 11-15 from 3-point range (!!) and slowed down Durant enough to take defensive pressure off James. On the other hand, while James Harden won 6th Man of the year during the regular season and was great earlier in the playoffs, he flat out stunk in games 1, 3, and 4, and when forced to guard LeBron was completely destroyed. Overall, the Heat simply had different players step up when they were needed, from Wade all the way down to Norris Cole and Mike Miller, while the Thunder had to rely way too much on Durant and Westbrook. Despite this being the Thunder's third postseason run together, the Heat simply seemed more comfortable with the Finals pressure. And, of course, the Heat had the best player on the court and on the planet, LeBron James.
***
Finally LeBron James, or "King James," or "the chosen one," of whose greatness we were all "witnesses," won his first championship. Most of you probably know that I am not a fan of James - my first post for this blog was a criticism of James' Decision, after all. But as a basketball fan, I have to say that there is some small satisfaction in seeing the best player of his generation finally come through and perform to his potential when it mattered the most. His performance against Boston in game 6 should go down as one of the greatest ever in the NBA playoffs, reminding me of both Jordan, and LeBron's own game years earlier against the Pistons when he scored the Cavs' last 25 points. After last year's epic, historic fail in last year's Finals, LeBron played brilliantly throughout this time. He set the pace for his team on offense with consistent aggressiveness and then shut down Durant on defense when he needed to. So while I'm still not a LeBron James fan, I greatly respect his performance in this year's playoffs and Finals and for the sake of the game am glad to see him finally rise to his potential.
One other thing I would like to address about LeBron, though. In all the hoopla over the Heat's victory it's been said/written many times that this somehow nullifies everything that happened in the summer of 2010. Ummm, what? LeBron's performance and the Heat's championship does these things: 1) end legitimate criticism of LeBron's play in both high pressure games and high pressure moments (ie: 4th quarter); 2) end speculation that LeBron is content with statistical dominance yet not competitive enough to win at the highest level; and 3) end debate about whether the James-Wade-Bosh trio can win a championship. If Miami had lost the Finals this year, pundits would have a much better argument that the anger over summer 2010 was overrated because then there might have been some question that that trio is not as disgustingly unfair as it seemed to be. To me, though, LeBron's and the Heat's success does nothing to change my great disappointment in LeBron's decision and my disgust in the way that he made it. Whatever; I look forward to seeing the Thunder's organic big three (Durant, Westbrook, and Harden - all drafted and developed by the same team) battling the Heat's artificial big three (James, Wade, and Bosh - brought together by impatience and fear of failure) for years to come.
Tennis
At the French Open last month, #2 ranked Rafael Nadal won yet again, keeping his phenomenal streak there alive (ignoring 2009 when he was injured). Federer and Djokovic met in the semi-finals again, where Djokovic got some sweet, sweet revenge for last year, yet Nadal then prevented him from achieving the calendar Slam (winning four Grand Slams in a row). Sharapova also achieved an impressive accomplishment, getting a career Grand Slam (has won each tourney once - only tenth woman to ever do so) by winning the ladies' section.
In two days the most important tennis event of the year begins: Wimbledon. Here are some of my predictions.
Men:
(1) Novak Djokovic: after destroying Nadal in last year's finals, Djokovic is probably the favorite this year. I'm hoping that my favorite player can indeed repeat, but it's never easy at Wimbledon. On grass, Federer is probably his biggest threat.
(2) Rafael Nadal: after Djokovic knocked him off the top perch bewilderingly quickly last year, Nadal has gotten his mojo back this year. Nadal has won Wimbledon twice, but grass is not his best surface; still, with his consistency and current momentum, he should get to the semifinals at least.
(3) Roger Federer: he just keeps defying "old" (for tennis) age, although it's clear he prefers playing in doors now. Still, he has both the skill and experience to know what it takes to win at Wimbledon, even if he has been shocked by non-Big Three opponents in the last few years.
(4) Andy Murray: the wobbly fourth leg of the men's stool, Murray has really struggled this year after losing in the semifinals to Djokovic. With the huge pressure to win his home tourney at Wimbledon, Murray is unlikely to get as far as his fans would like. (5) Tsonga is probably more likely to go deep into the tourney than Murray is.
Women:
(1) Maria Sharapova: very competitive and hard-working, Sharapova is always a threat and now finally back on top as the favorite. Her serve is often a concern, however, and it's been years since a woman has won back-to-back Slams in this era lacking any dominant players.
(2) Victoria Azarenka: after a great start to the year (including a brief rise to #1), she has struggled a bit. However, she did get to the semifinals at Wimbledon last year. To be honest, I haven't seen her play enough to know what her strengths and weaknesses are.
(3) Agnieszka Radwanska: with consistent play, she has risen to #3 in the world. She's a smaller player with more of a solid, precision game, and it could be tough for her to beat the stronger servers on the fast courts at Wimbledon.
(4) Petra Kvitova: speaking of strong servers, she can hit just about anybody off the court if she's on her game and won the title last year. However, like so many other Eastern Europeans (sorry to stereotype), she often has mental or emotional breakdowns that lead to shocking and/or lopsided losses. Still, Wimbledon suits her game (and there's also Serena Williams still lurking...)
Men's winner: Novak Djokovic
Women's winner: Petra Kvitova
Score: ***1/2 out of *****
Long Story Short: Prometheus explores some interesting ideas, just as Alien fans explore how close it comes to a prequel to their beloved franchise (answer: they're clearly in the same world, but it's not a direct predecessor via either story or character). A good cast, great sci-fi atmosphere and non-stop entertainment basically make up for it coming apart a little bit in its accelerated second half.
For another change of genre pace, the next film up for review is Prometheus. The film is directed by Ridley Scott, who also directed Alien back in 1979. Quite a bit of speculation came up about this new film being a prequel to that franchise. While I'm not a big fan of Alien, the idea of it being a prequel also didn't turn me off. I enjoy many sci-fi films (Star Trek, Star Wars, etc.), and the addition of some horror sounded like a fun diversion from the usual. Prometheus stars Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, and Charlize Theron.
The opening credits show pretty, expansive vistas before we meet Elizabeth Shaw (Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), archaelogists on a dig. Suddenly, four years later a spaceship run by android David (Fassbender) is speeding through the galaxy with Shaw, Holloway, and crew along in stasis. When the ship arrives at its destination, a moon capable of supporting life, Weyland Corporation (expedition funder) leader Vickers (Theron) briefs the crew on their mission. The mission is to look for the "Engineers," alien life forms alluded to in a variety of archaeological finds on Earth. Shaw and Holloway eagerly lead a trip out onto the planet's harsh surface.
Shaw and co. find the corpse of a life form there, but the team gets separated when they are called back to the ship due to an approaching storm. Although the planet has clearly been abandoned by the "Engineers," Shaw quickly finds herself fighting for survival in a rapidly deteriorating situation, against not only the Engineers' remnants but also the secret agendas of her fellow humans on their "scientific" mission.
The cast of Prometheus is good, although somewhat uneven. Noomi Rapace as scientist Shaw is the main character, a clear parallel itself to the Sigourney Weaver's heroine-led Alien. Rapace does a very good job in the most intense moments, lending the scenes extra believability, tension and/or horror. At times she doesn't behave quite the way you'd expect a scientist to, but that's probably more about the script. Michael Fassbender as David the android is the standout. He doesn't have Data's (from Star Trek) obviously nonhuman speech, but his mannerisms still make clear that he is an artificial life form. His character is also perhaps the most interesting, despite obviously not having "motives." Logan Marshall-Green is pretty annoying as Shaw's partner/lover. Theron as Vickers (cold corporate type) and Idris Elba (blue collar and disciplined) as the ship's captain are both good but they also unfortunately both have limited screen time.
Prometheus generally does a good job on the other things, beyond basic plot and character work. Perhaps what it does best is create a sense of scale, whether showing the fancy space ship dwarfed by the strange alien world, or the people lost in dark, massive alien-made tunnels. It all goes to help create the impression that these people are by themselves and there's no help coming no matter what happens. The horror is also very effective (of course, I set a low bar for them to clear) in both psychological, unseen and brutal, up-close-and-personal ways. Fantastic special effects, used somewhat sparingly, further aids all of the above. The film even has a little bit of humor, much of which is provided by minor characters (who also, and I doubt I'm spoiling anything here, provide much of the gore).
***
I thought about maybe giving Prometheus four stars, but ultimately it falls just short, in my opinion. The pace of the first half of the film is a bit slow but quite good, and then it speeds up significantly the rest of the way. Now, many times when this happens the effects on the film are bad, but Scott mostly keeps it under control and there's more logic to the change of pace than most similarly accelerated films. Still, a few parts start to jiggle loose on the streamlined Prometheus as things go faster, and most disappointingly the main moral and scientific theme turns to shambles. The film begs for a sequel, and without one it will probably fade from memory before long since it has no emotional component. With all that said, it's an entertaining film throughout with gorgeous visuals. Fassbender may steal the show, but Rapace does an admirable job in the lead role, too. If you want a change of pace at the cinema and you like/don't mind sci-fi, it's worth seeing.
Score: ** out of *****
Long Story Short: An impressive cast and tempting trailers are all that's good about this "horror/comedy" mess. The plot picks up threads and then unceremoniously drops them off, going instead for pointless and strange tangents. There's little comedy here, or horror, either, but plenty of head-scratching. Avoid.
For my next film of the summer, I chose Dark Shadows, a horror comedy (at least, according to Wikipedia). I was amused by the ads for the film, and, although it got mostly mediocre reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, I thought it would be worth a try. Also, it would give me the chance to review a film of a different genre than usual. Dark Shadows was directed by Tim Burton and stars his usual partner in crime Johnny Depp, along with Eva Green, Michelle Pfeiffer, and others.
Dark Shadows begins with a history of the Collins, a wealthy English family that settled in Maine in the mid-1700s and developed a successful fishing company, around which the town of Collinsport grew. Mr. and Mrs. Collins' son Barnabas (Depp) spurned one of his family's servants, Angelique (Green), who unfortunately was a witch. In revenge, Angelique tore the family apart and finally turned Barnabas into a vampire before burying him in the woods. In the present day, a young woman comes to the now-decrepit Collins manor desperate for a job (governess of the extended family's youngest son). Here she meets head of the estate Elizabeth (Pfeiffer); her obnoxious teen daughter Carolyn (Chloe Moretz); brother Roger and his young son; psychiatrist Dr. Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter); and the family's two servants.
A construction crew shortly thereafter unearths Barnabas, freeing him. He returns to Collins manor and, although he reveals his true identity to Elizabeth, begins life anew as a "distant English relative" come to restore the family's business and prestige. This he does, but he also attracts the attention of Angelique, whose own business had supplanted the Collins'. Angelique becomes determined to possess Barnabas once again, forcing him to deal with her and yet keep his true identity secret.
Dark Shadows has a great cast; it's too bad that the film wastes their talents. Johnny Depp plays the main character, Barnabas the vampire. From the commercials/trailers, it seemed his role would be a humorous one; swap drunken pirate for aristocratic vampire. Depp pulls off the calm confidence and demeanor of his character pretty well, but there's very little humor in it and not much substance to the character, either. Eva Green does alright as the witch Angelique, alternatively both insane and seductive. Her part is a bit off the deep end, though. Michelle Pfeiffer is a believable, strong head of the household but she gets little screen time or variety. Helena Bonham Carter is clearly bored with her role, and understandably so as it's a generic one, albeit with an inexplicable, absurd plot twist. Jackie Earle Haley is perhaps one of the film's few bright spots as one of the cantankerous servants. Chloe Grace Moretz plays an uncomfortably sultry, over-the-top brat. And so on.
This film is pretty much a disaster. The plot starts off alright, if rather cliche, but doesn't take long before it just careens off the tracks, never to recover. It jumps all over the place. Just when you think that one thread will be a major storyline (particularly the new governess), the film suddenly drops it save a word here or there until much later. Then other mini- (and dumb) plot lines crop up (particularly concerning Roger and Dr. Hoffman) with little to no explanation or purpose. As I've mentioned, the trailer's promise of comedy is greatly, greatly exaggerated (in fact, I'd recommend watching the trailer and skipping the film). There's not really any horror, either, just a few somewhat gross scenes where Barnabas decides to stop acting like a British gentleman and indulge in his vampirism. A few scenes of action and one "love" scene are all ludicrously done and boring. I didn't notice the score.
***
As you saw with my score at the top of this review, this is indeed the worst film I have seen since I started my blog. Interesting comparison with Rise of the Planet of the Apes: while both had very deceptive marketing campaigns, Apes turned out much better than its marketing, and Shadows much worse. Quite simply, there is just nothing worth seeing in this film. It tries to do so many different things - the plot being nicely symbolic of this - and ends up doing, impressively, none of it well at all. I have to admit, it's kind of fun to write this kind of review, and easier than describing the accolades of good films. Hopefully, though, it's one of the few of its kind I have to write. Not recommended, unless you are a 100% completist Burton-Depp fanatic.
