Anchorman (Film) - Review

Anchorman should be so much better than it actually is. It casts Will Ferrell alongside the likes of Steve Carell and Paul Rudd, to parody 70s-style misogyny in news broadcasting.  It's produced by Judd Apatow. Maybe by the standards of 2004 this was better, but today, at least, this is bad. What could have been a hilarious ride of mocking sexism is a joyless mess of a film that is only occasionally funny.

Ferrell's character Ron Burgundy is the beloved lead anchorman for a San Diego news station, along with other respected anchors for sports and weather and such. I can't tell you their names, because they're too boring for me to remember. One's gimmick, the one played by Carell, is that he is mentally retarded with an "IQ of 45," but the only real difference between him and just about every other character is that his mental problem has been diagnosed.

They're on top, so when a woman is hired on the station and garners some success, they become enraged, because she's a woman! This premise lends itself to an ongoing joke in the film; the anchors are sexist! They treat women like means for sex, and this is acted out in a very juvenile fashion. Prejudice is funny when it's made to look ridiculously bad, but here, it feels like just another joke. Initially the film-makers try to make the woman, played by Christina Applegate, a straight-man to their idiocy, which was functional until they gave up on that idea. Eventually her character becomes a whole lot less strong, and she falls for sexist dope Burgundy because that's what the dumb script calls for. I cringed and literally face-palmed throughout the film.

The core issue here is that the movie really doesn't know what it wants to do. Is it really trying to smartly satire old-school misogyny? If so, why is the woman turned into a submissive (and even damselized, at the end) joke? Is it about Burgundy's station beating out its competitors, like a very involved fight scene towards the middle, and an important exchange of dialogue at the climax, both seem to allude to? If so, why is it so underdeveloped? There's a colorful bit of animation abstractly visualizing sex, is it really just supposed to be a senseless, ludicrous collection of comedy?  If so, why ground the movie in troubling, serious subject matter?

The movie also has a habit of pretending its actors are much more talented than they actually are. And that isn't a slight at the talent here, because it really does bring together impressive performers. It's just that most of the jokes are one-man shows. We're usually watching an actor act towards the camera. To sustain a movie, it would make more sense to have the cast working off of each other more.

I can be a bit positive about the movie. It's not actually offensive, it just doesn't work. And it is occasionally funny. The attempts at satire don't really work, but when it's just trying to be humorously stupid, it tends to work a good bit. That animation I mentioned earlier is quite funny, and there's some good laughs when things get very ridiculous towards the end.

But the high points really aren't enough. I was surprised how much of a mess this movie is. Anchorman sports an all-star cast alongside its fantastically talented leading man. It's a shame that it's so awful. 

Paranorman (Film) - Review

The commercials leading up to the release of Paranorman did not properly represent what it is. These previews made the movie out to be a mindless kids-slanted comedy, albeit with some pretty animation. And that's really not a fair depiction of this film. It's much better than that. Paranorman is funny, and has some stunning visuals, but it also tells a thoughtful, moving little tale.

Paranorman is a mash-up of drama, comedy and horror. The movie's endearing protagonist is Norman, a kid ostracized because of his supernatural powers. He can see the dead, and while it's very real to him, others don't believe him and don't wish to attempt to understand him. However, things get interesting when an outbreak of zombies attack the town, and Norman is the only one that can save the day. It's a clever set-up that lends itself to a compelling theme.

Paranorman confronts the nature of fear, and how it makes well-intentioned people treat others poorly. And all throughout the movie, there are bits of smart, more random satire that fit in snugly. I was taken aback at how well Paranorman manages to make commentary without attacking any kind of people. Bullies, for example, are challenged in this movie, but through comedy and simple logic, the movie lets the audience know why we should be against bullying, without demonizing the children who happen to be bullies. And then some of the humor is just gags, and it's mostly very funny and clever. Like most comedies, it slips into awkward, groan-worthy territory at times, but here it's very rare.

This movie has superb aesthetics, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has seen a commercial for it. The stop-motion animation is quick, snappy and gives the movie a distinct and delightful charm. The movie is vibrant within its specific color palette, which is a bit dark, but it fits. All of the characters have exaggerated personalities that are perfectly represented visually, and the performances for their voices are also great, for that matter. The dull, teenaged beef-cake, for example, has a ridiculously toned chest, rarely seems to look people in the eyes when he speaks to them, and has a compressed, simple voice. The movie effectively plays up a light-horror vibe. The movie's intro sequence and end credits do an especially good job of this, but the creepy yet goofy monsters and nods throughout also do the trick.

Paranorman surprised me. It's a brilliant film. It looks excellent and is filled with creativity. It's very funny. And it's also a very intelligent movie that says a lot and does a remarkable job of saying it all. I love this movie: It's truly fantastic.

Man of Steel (Film) - Review

For the last five, maybe ten years, Batman has been the king of superheroes in the mainstream, as well as in the not-so-mainstream realm of actual comic books. Because of this, the hype for Man of Steel, a Superman movie directed by Zach Snyder and produced by Christopher Nolan, has been big. The movie is out today, and it's great. Snyder and co. have crafted a fantastic story that nails what makes Superman so special, and sets a pretty much perfect foundation for future movies, but some shoddy film-making takes away from the high quality of the story. 

This movie starts from the beginning of the Superman mythos, with Kal-El being born into a dying Krypton and put into a spaceship to Earth, where a pleasant country family finds and adopts him as their own. Krypton is filled with future-technology and dragon-like creatures and it's all quite cool. The premise is established clearly in this scene - Kal-El is being sent to Earth, and once he's there, he would be like a god to humans. His loving parents reluctantly say goodbye to their son, finding comfort in the possibility that he'll serve as a source of hope for humanity. 

Man of Steel nails the most important thing for it to nail - Superman's supreme moral goodness. Superman is much more powerful than anyone on Earth, but chooses to do good. Having these powers gives him a heightened sense of moral responsibility. Life is sacred to him, regardless of whether it be humans, or Kryptons, and he feels as though he has to help because he can. We see Kal-El, or as his Earth parents come to name him,  Clark Kent, struggling with his place in the world from a young age, to a teenaged age, to an adult age. Henry Cavill does the role flawlessly as well: There isn't much more one could ask from him. The various child and teen actors Snyder casts as Clark at earlier stages in his life do an equally impressive job for their respective roles. 

Not only does Clark have to figure himself out, but he needs to be accepted amongst the people of Earth, as he's potentially very dangerous from an outsider's perspective. Because of this, General Zod is the perfect villain to use first, because his philosophy towards Earth is the exact opposite. The movie smartly compares his mentality to cold, evolutionary biology - the dominant species will get rid of the inferior ones, and claim their land and recourses as their own. Michael Shannon's performance is nothing special but he does his job, and Zod's an intimidating villain, threatening the entire planet. It's through this character that humanity understands that Superman is not a threat. He's the perfect character foil, exemplifying Superman's supreme moral goodness.

The problem with the movie is that it doesn't have the punch that it needs. The movie has an excellent story and sets up an excellent world with an excellent hero-villain dichotomy, but it doesn't deliver the powerful cinema that it needed to. There are essentially two action scenes, both of which are quite long, and they're not that great at all. The first action scene is cleverly brutal, showing truly the first challenge that Clark faces, having been amongst mere humans his whole life, but it's really just a bunch of punching. A bunch of punching for a long period of time with buildings blowing up all over the place gets boring. The second fight scene, at the end, is mostly more of the same from the first, albeit with some cool things thrown in here and there - like Zod attempting to hit Superman with a girder only to have Kal's laser beams cut it in half - but it's not enough. Aside from just better action, more could have been done, like cheers or teary-eyed thank-you's from the people of Metropolis, but none of that is here. The only fist-pumpingly exciting scene in the movie is a small moment that a member of the supporting cast has. 

And then there are smaller things that I didn't like. This is a nitpick, but Snyder has Cavill doing a good bit of screaming in the movie, and it's a little annoying. Less of a nitpick, Amy Adams plays a very well-written Lois Lane, but she doesn't have the fierceness that I want a badass reporter like Lois to have. She has a soft voice and a welcoming gaze, and that's not what I want. And the comedy here is good but I could have used maybe a bit more to help cleanse my palette from all of the sternness. It is a movie about a dude that wears a big, red cape, after all.

But overall it really is great. Not only are Superman and General Zod brilliantly built up, but the supporting cast is excellent. Russell Crowe is a perfect Jor-El (Superman's actual father); assertive yet calm and collected. Diane Lane and Kevin Costner as Clark's adoptive parents are sweethearts. Laurence Fishburne as the editor-in-chief of the Daily Planet and Christopher Meloni (Stabler!) also stick out, especially the latter, whom steals the show with that fist-pumpingly good scene I mentioned earlier. Despite the action being nothing special, the special effects and the hammering score in the background are impressive. And the ending is cute. 

Like The Amazing Spider-Man from last year, Man of Steel is a great, but not excellent or fantastic movie, that lays a pretty much perfect foundation for sequels. This movie gives us an amazing Superman made even better by a brilliant character foil in General Zod. It just simply isn't as enjoyable of a movie as this story could have easily been, due mostly in part to action that is just okay. But it's the first movie in a series, and with that in mind, what Zach Snyder and Christopher Nolan delivered is admirable. 

Dredd (Film) - Review

 When Dredd was announced and trailers started coming out for it, the response seemed pretty negative. I saw people write it off as Hollywood frigidly attempting to make a quick buck off of the nostalgia of its audiences for the 90s Stallone film and Judge Dredd comic book series. When the movie actually hit theaters, the reaction was surprisingly positive. Those that saw the movie generally had great things to say about it, and the movie was critically well-received despite being a financial flop, actually losing money at the box office. I haven't extensively read the comics, nor have I seen the Stallone movie, but my interest was piqued. I just got done watching it on Blu-Ray, and I'd say it's a pretty good action-filled romp, despite some problems with characterization. 

The movie starts off with an incredibly awesome intro sequence establishing Dredd as a badass cop [called a "Judge"] trying to establish justice in a city filled to the brim with crime. After that, Dredd is introduced to a rookie named Anderson that just narrowly failed her exam to become a Judge. He is instructed to take her out on duty and judge whether or not she should be hired, because she not only shows potential but she has psychic powers. The two decide to investigate a block at the scene of a triple-homicide.

They encounter a man that Anderson's psychic powers tells her is responsible for the triple-homicide, but Dredd decides rather than trust her "ninety-nine percent" certainty, it's best to take him in for interrogation. This intimidates drug-lord Ma-Ma, who has employed this man in her gang's murderous domination on other gangs and the production and distribution of an illegal drug called "Slo-Mo." She devises a plan that sends the entire block into lockdown, and intends to kill Dredd and Anderson in order to stop them from taking in the man for interrogation and spilling the details on her operation. The basic premise is established: Dredd and Anderson have to get themselves out of this block alive, and ensure justice is served. 

It's a pleasantly simple premise. This allows for tons of action, and the action is good. The violence looks great. It certainly leans on the cheesy side, but that doesn't take away from the entertainment value. People's faces get torn apart, mush that looks like bubble gum is underneath of skin, the "Slo-Mo" drug allows for some sweet slo-mo sequences, and the various applications of Dredd's weaponry are fun to watch. It's brutal, but rather than being uncomfortable, the brutality serves as spectacle when it's supposed to be spectacle and service to the story when it's supposed to be service to the story. The low budget makes the film look noticeably less produced than other movies you'd see at the theater, but it's not much of a problem. The story is unaffected and what they do with the budget is creative and looks good, so I can't knock it too much for its noticeably low budget.

My biggest issue with the movie is a rather annoying plot hole dealing with Dredd's characterization. As I said earlier, Dredd decides at the beginning of the movie that Anderson's "ninety-nine percent" certainty wasn't good enough to execute the man for the triple homicide, so they have to take him in for interrogation. This implies that he needs a spoken confession or hard evidence for an execution. However, later in the movie, in an act of rage, Dredd decides to do a makeshift interrogation of his own, and eventually allows Anderson to read the man's mind. "If you leave it to me he doesn't have to speak," Anderson says. She learns about Ma-Ma's operation in full through just her psychic interrogation, and not through a spoken confession or any hard evidence. Dredd doesn't object this time, and even formally accuses Ma-Ma of the new information he acquires from this moment shortly after. Is this because he gained more trust in Anderson from the start of the movie up to that point? Maybe that's what they were going for, but nothing here substantially makes that implication. By the end Dredd certainly seems to have gained trust in her, but I think the moments that made that change in him happen after this troubling scene. As it stands, Dredd seemingly makes a decision during this makeshift interrogation that contradicts the decision at the beginning of the film that gets them wrapped up in this predicament in the first place. 

Looking past that, the performances are great and the film does some great things thematically. Karl Urban plays a badass Dredd and has some really satisfying dialogue. The movie establishes him as an uncompromising function of the law that isn't against executing those that the law finds guilty of such a punishment. This of course raises ethical questions about government-sanctioned execution, that is thankfully challenged through Anderson's character, played by Olivia Thirlby. She hesitates to use her power to execute as she is more empathetic and kind, seeing the good in people and the problem with the coldness of government execution. Lena Heady plays a detestable bad guy as Ma-Ma that sets up a conclusion that has Dredd giving her a taste of her own medicine. How Dredd does what he needs to do comes off as uncharacteristically cruel from him, but brings her story arc full-circle in an inventive way.  

The action really is great, and unabashedly violent without being uncomfortable. The characterization of Dredd takes some head-scratching turns towards Unchallenged Contradiction City, which really hurts the film. But the characterization at its best is when the movie really shines, portraying Dredd as an utterly badass but ethically questionable function of law-enforcement and Anderson as a sympathetic counterweight, both fighting against the despicable baddy in Ma-Ma. As a whole, it's pretty good.