Skip to content

Review: Alice in Wonderland

Saturday, March 27, 2010

As apparent from the abundance of DrChocolate reviews and the scarcity of my own reviews lately, it’s been a long time since I’ve been to the theaters for a movie. I was very excited to finally get back and lose myself in the big screen. Alice in Wonderland was the perfect movie for such an occasion, I’m a huge Tim Burton fan and have followed Johnny Depp since his days on 21 JumpStreet, yet I found myself walking away somewhat unsatisfied.

Tim Burton is at the top of his game in this movie. The costumes and makeup were mindblowingly intricate and imaginative, and the scenery was exactly how I always imagined it reading Alice as a child. The Tweedles were spot on, as were the Red (Helena Bonham Carter) and White (Anne Hathaway) Queens, and Crispin Glover (yes, George McFly) is true to form as the Red Queen’s right-hand creepo. Then there’s Johnny Depp, who steals every scene to the point that I began longing for his Hatter antics whenever he was absent. Even Alice (newcomer Mia Wasikowska) was a perfect cast. Her mannerisms and voice seemed to be pulled straight out of the books. This movie was more than watchable and extremely enjoyable, yet something was lacking.

The story is your standard Hero’s Tale, as Joseph Campbell puts it:

A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.

Think Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings, or even Homer’s Odyssey, the Hero’s Tale follows the standard formula: “separation – initiation – return.” The Lewis Carroll books follow this formula to the tee, but Tim Burton’s iteration picks up after Alice’s initial visit to Wonderland and we miss the meat of the initiation section of the formula. Burton seems to leave it in the earlier tales, choosing only to recall the initiation rather than put Alice through a new one. There is little suspense in Alice’s character arc. Her destiny is foretold from the moment she returns to Wonderland and you are given very little reasons that she would ever choose to stray from that destiny. Any obstacles in her way seem more like speed bumps, and she begins to appear almost inhuman, never making a mistake, never straying far from her chosen path. It all seems a little too easy.

Maybe that’s the point. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to show that having a certain future can get boring; that a life without mistakes is uninteresting. Maybe they were making a case for reality television, where programs are seemingly founded on the idea of throwing as many mistakes into a controlled environment as they can [I doubt it]. Maybe they were just trying to show that without a little uncertainty in our lives or even in our movies, we begin to find ourselves longing for the company of a Hatter.

– 36 disappointingly arbitrary stars

Filed in Movie Reviews | Tagged , , | Comments (2)

Review: Shutter Island by DrChocolate

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Shutter Island

In 1954 a woman who drowned her three children is missing. She’s escaped from her cell in a maximum-security prison for the criminally and violently insane. Ashcliffe Prison is situated on an imposing island in the outer reaches of Boston harbor. Two federal marshals are called in to search the island and interrogate the staff about the woman’s disappearance. And a hurricane is approaching. Obviously, this being a Scorcese movie based on a Dennis Lehane novel (writer of Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone), dangerous, twisty shenanigans ensue.

I had read the book previous to seeing this film and will admit that my knowledge of the book colors my review of the film. Not to say that it is not true to the book or divergent from it (it’s actually a very faithful adaptation), just that in a story such as this, knowledge of the events previous to viewing them changes ones perception. I’d love to know what someone who hadn’t read the novel thought of the film.

Leo DiCaprio has his detractors, (chiefly, the namesake of this site) some of which criticism is valid, some of which I don’t understand. Regardless, as Teddy Daniels, the senior marshal called to deal with the disappearance, DiCaprio gives a stellar performance, quite possibly his best to date. Nightmarish WWII memories and a dead wife (an excellent Michelle Williams – she needs to be in more movies) haunt Daniels as he investigates the disappearance and he is deeply troubled by what appears to be an ever-expanding web of collusion and secrecy. The guards are on edge, the patients are rehearsed and there are rumors of Mengele-like experimental procedures being performed on the patients. The weight of which is masterfully relayed in DiCaprio’s shifty eyes and hitching mannerisms.

Mark Ruffalo (his new partner – Chuck Aule) and DiCaprio have an easy, compelling chemistry (and fit the characters book-wise too) playing well off each others supicions and skepticisms. As the rabbit hole of Ashcliffe deepens and more and more secrets and scares and dangers ensue Scorcese suitably ramps up the gothic visuals, of particular note is the atmospheric, doom-laden lighting and camera work. Every frame is filled with dread and paranoia that only increases as the film progresses. Daniels flashback riddled nightmares are particularly unnerving in their abstracted reality. And if you’ve ever wanted to know what a migraine felt like – wait until Teddy experiences his in the film, it’s uncomfortably like having one without all the pain involved.

There are scene-stealing turns around ever corner too, by a veritable who’s who list of of superb character actors – Max Von Sydow and the ever-reliable Patricia Clarkson, as well as a chilling monologue by the always creepy Ted Levine (aka – Buffalo Bill…gah). Jack Earley Haley also shows up and executes a perfect turn as a particularly disturbed patient.

This bendy psych-thriller is well worth your time and money and I’d be surprised if it doesn’t stick to your bones and last with you into the night. Recommended. So too is the book – just try putting that down. I don’t know which you should do first – but they’re both worth the effort.

Filed in DrChocolate, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Review: Moon by DrChocolate

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

moon

In the not too distant future, earth’s primary energy source, helium-3, is mined from the surface of the moon by the faceless Lunar Industries. It’s a one-man job to live on the moon and watch over the equipment and the operation. Currently, Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) is on the tail end of his 3-year stint and is itching to go home to his wife and daughter. (There’s a mild spoiler ahead, but its not a guarded Sixth Sense-style spoiler, it’s the impetus to the rest of the story but feel free to stop now.) That is until the situation goes awry and he fids himself standing face-to-face with himself. Is he a clone, is he crazy, has his isolation turned him into a lunar Jack Torrance? What’s going on isn’t really that much of a mystery but the stroy still remains intriguing.

First time director Duncan Jones (who happens to be David Bowie’s kid – nope, no obvious Ziggy Stardust jokes here) works a rather familiar story (his own) into a interesting space fable that feels more 1970’s than 2000’s and that’s actually, in my opinion, really refreshing.

However, Moon is insulated. Insulated from outside elements like the lunar station where the entirety of the movie takes place. It feels distant and aloof; I was constantly reminded of the glass through which I was watching the movie. The fourth wall was painfully solid. I really wanted in, but felt like I wasn’t allowed. I was entertained and fascinated by it but never felt a part of the events. I wanted to be moved, wished to be moved, by what should have been profound, affecting events but instead I found myself curiously distant and apart.

Rockwell is impeccable and further cements himself into that cadre of underrated, underappreciated actors populated by the likes of Mark Ruffalo, Stanley Tucci and Laura Linney. Watching him debate, sympathize, and reason with himself is remarkable, so much so that I forgot it was actually one actor rather than two. Kevin Spacey’s mannered, sly voicing of onboard computer GERTY – an obvious, wry homage to HAL – is a welcome, almost amusing balance to Rockwell’s performance.

For a low-budget film, reportedly only $5 million, the film has a gritty industrial look that trumps much of what a Hollywood future looks like. The geometric station and the hulking mining trucks and diggers are mechanically and aesthetically functional rather than the now favored spacey clean and smooth. There’s no flair or wit in the designs, it all seems realistic, like the objects design only furthers the function. I found this throwback approach rather refreshing in the face of so much futurized, ipod-like gloss that populates much of the current sci-fi scene.

The film also gets bonus points for a beautiful, often haunting, piano based score that could stand alone as a nice musical piece without the need of accompanying visuals and for also having one of my favorite movie posters in a while.

It’s not wildly original, or groundbreaking and, as stated, is unfortunately emotionally distant but it’s definitely worth a viewing. Rockwell’s turn is something to see, the grimy atmosphere is arresting, and I have a feeling that Jones’ is soon going to be a rather well known name – so you can then reasonably say in your best snob accent, “I liked him before you.” Recommended but expect to remain detached.

Filed in DrChocolate, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments (1)

This Spring in Television

Monday, January 11, 2010

Never settle for cartoons.

Spring is here, which means the networks have crunched the numbers, analyzed the data, and shed the empty calories of failed Fall programs … for the most part. There aren’t a whole lot of new shows starting this Spring, so I’m going to tell you both what to watch for and what you should already be watching, because as witnessed by the fact that Two and a Half Men is consistently the top-rated sitcom, America has no idea how to watch TV.

New Shows:

  • Human Target (Fox) – Apparently based on a DC Comic and an old series on ABC, this show stars Mark Valley (Fringe) as some sort of elite bodyguard who lives on the edge. Expect high-paced action and plenty of gun-play, this is Fox after all. Should be some good dumb fun. Premieres Jan 17
  • Life Unexpected (CW) – It’s a “Dramedy” on the CW. Not interested. Premieres Jan 18
  • The Deep End (ABC) – They’re calling it “Grey’s Anatomy with lawyers.” I’m calling it poor timing. I’m sure a show about a bunch of pretty twenty-somethings poised to make millions off the plight of others will do great in this economy. But what do I know? I write about TV for free. Premieres Jan 21
  • Undercover Boss (CBS) – Look people, if you quit watching these lame reality shows, the networks will actually have to hire some real production crews and writing teams to make some quality programming. Promote the economy, don’t watch this show. Premieres Feb. 7
  • Parenthood (NBC) – This show employs what I like to call the shotgun method of producing, basically you load up a movie or TV show with as many recognizable names as you can and hope you hit something. This one stars Craig T. Nelson, Lauren Graham, Dax Shepard, and Erika Christensen and is based on the 1989 Ron Howard film of the same name. I’m sure people will watch this, but I’m still upset about the whole Leno-sticking-around debacle and the fact that they cancelled Southland just so Leno didn’t throw a temper tantrum and will probably just move him back after the Olympics anyway. If they screw Conan, I’m calling for an NBC boycott. Who’s with me? Premieres March 1
  • The Marriage Ref (NBC) – Another lame NBC attempt to pinch pennies rather than produce real shows, this is a reality show about couples having stupid arguments that need TV to settle them. And we wonder why people are smuggling explosives in their underwear. Watch this show and the terrorists win. Premieres March 14
  • Justified (FX) – This show’s on cable and I usually stick to network TV, but cable is quickly turning into the only way to find good TV these days. Justified stars Timothy Olyphant (Deadwood, Die Hard 4) as a sharpshooting US Marshall in his hometown Kentucky. Think of it as a modern spaghetti-Western with Timothy Olyphant as the modern-day Clint Eastwood. Premieres March

Returning Shows that Should Already be on your Radar:

  • 24 (Fox) – As ridiculous as this show is getting, there’s still nothing like sitting down to watch Kiefer Sutherland run around, shooting guns and torturing bad guys for an hour to get the blood pumping. It’s good, old-fashioned, American fun. Premieres Jan 17
  • Flash Forward (ABC) – This was my favorite drama of the Fall, and I’m mainly including it here because it comes back so late in the season. I just hope they don’t stretch this blackout out too long. Premieres March 4
  • V (ABC) – It’s all been done before, but I can’t stop watching. It’s just very well done. Another late starter. Premieres March 30
  • Glee (Fox) – You know my thoughts on this show. I want more satire and less non-plot-moving musical interludes, but there’s worse out there. Premieres April 13
  • Project Runway (Lifetime) – This one is only here so Megan knows when it starts. That and it’s one of the few “real” competition shows out there. There’s no time for pointless drama when Tim Gunn has you running around NYC (yes, they’re back in NYC) to design a dress for the likes of Nicole Richie. Premieres Jan 14
  • Southland (TNT) – NBC cancelled it so that Leno could move to 10pm and ruin the ratings of local news across the country and TNT picked up all the episodes already shot. They’ll start by airing all the episodes from the first season and go straight into the new season. This was my favorite drama of last year. Let’s hope TNT picks up more episodes. Premieres Jan 12
  • Lost (ABC) – NBC should take note, this is how you experiment with television programming and succeed. The Lost writers had an ending in mind almost from the very beginning and this season, we’ll see it. What is the island? Will they ever really get off? Will J.J. Abrams work in any cast members from Felicity? All of these questions have been promised answers in this, the final season of Lost. I hope FlashForward follows suit and gives us viewers a definite ending to look forward to. Premieres Feb 2

Filed in Articles, This Week in Movies | Tagged , , | Comments (2)

Review: New Moon by DrChocolate

Monday, December 21, 2009

NewMoon

DrChocolate sees the movies I can’t afford to see in theaters (apparently including movies I’d rather gouge my eyes out than sit through) so this site can stay current.

Time to get crucified. Any sort of credibility I may have built up with those of you who don’t know me and read Luke’s site and my hyperbole ridden reviews is probably about to dry up. My wife is a fan of the Twilight series, and because I make her sit through such manly fare as Blackhawk Down and because she indulges my penchant for B-movies I have agreed to see the Twilight films with her. Really, New Moon isn’t nearly as bad as you think it would be and it’s miles better than Twilight, which had some fun style but was ultimately clunky and hollow. Additionally, I’m going with a two pronged approach for this review: one addressing the movie itself; second, I’m going to frame that review with my thoughts on the Twilight phenom/backlash itself.

First, the movie: again, it’s not as bad as most of you’d probably imagine. It’s actually entertaining. However, it is by no means a great movie either – just an entertaining one. The trio of actors is functional enough, with the strangely gorgeous Kristen Stewart being the best, despite the frustrating vacillation of her character. All three of the leads are attractive, but in an odd way, each with their own appealing imperfections (Pattinson’s shovel face, Lautner’s caveman brow, Stewart’s general awkwardness) – which to me was smart casting. Their non-traditional beauty makes them interesting and out of the CW-casting-call ordinary – it serves them well during the thin times in the movie. They’re always watch-able and Stewart has good chemistry with both love interests making the love triangle a little more intriguing. Michael Sheen (who’s never less than perfect) steals the movie as he delightfully chomps his way through his scenes as the head of an aristocratic vampire family; Dakota Fanning is pretty game as a sadistic vamp too. With its fair share of contrivances and conveniences the plot is thin (I haven’t read the books) but apparently this is the set-up book in the series, which always means a thinner plot. Overall, it’s not great, it’s entertaining, and I’ve seen far worse movies far more deserving of the derision and hatred that is piled, unremittingly, upon this franchise. That leads me to my next point.

In all honesty, I find the abject hatred of this franchise rather unfortunate. Why? Because I think the hate is almost solely because of the fan base. Teen girls and moms. There’s a thinly veiled misogyny in the contempt for this series. Because it is adored and loved by teen girls and moms it must be awful. Right? Unfortunately, that’s sort of endemic in our critical society. Anything beloved by girls is trite and not of value (look at the user ratings breakdown on imdb.com – I’m positive a large portion of the 14,000+ voters who rated it a 1 did not, in fact, see the film). Think about if for a second. Titanic suffered a similar, vitriolic backlash. While a better movie than New Moon, there was a massive backlash against it once teen girls embraced its romance. Leo Dicaprio suffered the same fate. Guys in my age group, late-20s to early-30s, despised him at the time, almost solely because girls loved him and his Jack Dawson character. Now, not so much; he’s actually embraced by males my age. Why? He’s now made manly movies like Blood Diamond and The Departed and dates supermodels. He’s not in “girly” flicks anymore. New Moon suffers a similar sexist fate. I’m not a card carrying member of NOW and I’m not saying it shouldn’t be viewed critically, where we still might find it very lacking, but rather it shouldn’t be outright dismissed because of its target demographic and fan base. Boy-driven entertainment hasn’t proven to be any better lately than this franchise. The Transformers series is equally vapid and convenient, maybe more so. It is built around simplistic, hackneyed stories and is stuffed with things to make pubescent boys and college age slackers squeal, not the least of which is the ridiculous Megan Fox. They are the boy equivalent of Twilight yet receive almost none of the ire. I admit that the obsession with Twilight is disconcerting and may speak to some larger societal concern, but obsession again is not reason to disregard something. Have you seen ComiCon and cos players lately? If we treated those unhealthy obsessions they way we do a Twilighters fixation we’d have to dismiss Star Wars, LOST, Halo, comic movies and any number of other manias ranging from the good to the awful. If I where to dismiss female-friendly fare out of hand I would miss out on a few things I really have a fondness for. The smart, touching and funny Love Actually. The effervescent pop of the Spice Girls (honestly, reevaluate this girl power act and you’ll find some irresistible pop hooks and savvy song construction). So You Think You Can Dance, while manufactured and manipulative, with its subtext of dance education has help reinvigorate a discipline that has previously suffered a cultural dearth in this country. I just don’t think you can invalidate entertainment solely on judging the fan base; regardless of whether it is done consciously or not.

In closing, is there more worthwhile entertainment out there than the Twilight series? Yes, of course. Is there worse than this? Plenty (The Christmas Carol, the remakes of The Wicker Man and Friday the 13th). Should you see it? I don’t know, I’m afraid many of you have already made up your minds and my review and gender treatise won’t do anything to sway your opinions. Overall, it’s a reasonably enjoyable, if tame and simplistic, movie with some fun moments and performances, but it’s not deserving of the effusive praise nor the raging revulsion heaped upon it’s mild shoulders.

Filed in DrChocolate, Movie Reviews | Tagged , , | Comments (4)