November is proving to be as busy as October was. Possibly busier. But I won't waste your time with excuses, I'll just get right to the movies. It's Tuesday, November 17th, and today's old reviews are:
The Incredibles
4 stars
As you may have heard me mention in other reviews, most Disney movies made in the last 12 years have not impressed me, having been either childishly vapid or worse, a pants-on-head retarded sequel to something childishly vapid. There have been, however, a few outstanding exceptions to this rule, and The Incredibles is one of them. Chiefly, this Disney kids' movie is set apart from most other Disney kids' movies because it's not just a kids' movie (and thus, in my opinion, not just a Disney movie). While maintaining a level of superhero-octane action that would make Spiderman stare, AND featuring a loving yet realistic family as protagonists, this movie has an attitude that teens love, topicality that parents appreciate, and humor that all ages can get into. Not all of the comedy is physical, but not all of it is cerebral, either. The villain is basically a kid who never grew up, which implies all kinds of lessons for all ages as well as bringing an interesting perspective to any future viewings of Peter Pan. And three more selling points, BAMF Samuel L. Jackson is in it, Edna Lode is one of the funniest characters Disney's ever come up with, and Wallace Shawn's character gets beat up. And of course, everything turns out great in the end, but not in a sappy-saccharine-want-to-commit-seppuku way. Like I said, one of the few that Disney got right.
---
Once Upon A Time In Mexico
3 stars
This is another of my guilty pleasure movies. Its plot is murky, the allegiances of its characters are hard to define, and at times it borders on complete campiness. And yet I still love it, and for more than the great El Mariachi-type action that was so great in its two prequels. One thing that saves this movie is its cast. Antonio Banderas, Salma Hayek, Mickey Rourke and Eva Mendes are all great in this film, though Rourke's dog is just puny and ugly. Willem Dafoe and Danny Trejo make great villains, and Cheech Marin's cameo is quite funny. Ruben Blades' world-weary retired FBI agent steals his every scene. And Johnny Depp masterfully takes on the ultimate contradiction--a capable, corrupt, cold-blooded agent who is also an irritating, officious, uncool dork.
I'm also a fan of Robert Rodriguez' filmmaking in general, as it does not seem to take itself too seriously. In this movie, the campy farfetched plot and over-the-top characters, things that could be liabilities, become assets under Rodriguez' direction. And since Rodriguez does all of his own editing and score-composing, a certain amount of continuity is inherent. Maybe this movie's not for everyone, but I enjoyed it.
---
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
2.5 stars
Lord of the Rings, it ain't. In fact, I think this movie's major failing might be trying too hard to be like LOTR while trying to be its own film at the same time--perhaps trying to fiit too much into too little time, or make a kids' book into a movie for all ages. It wasn't BAD, it just...wasn't incredible. It did have a great battle scene near the end, but on the whole I preferred the way the story looked in my imagination.
---
Ocean's Thirteen
3 stars
Now I have to say, I broke my own rule about sequels when I rented this movie: not just that I watched it, but that I actually liked it. I suppose it did have one of the Trilogy Rules working in its favor: #3 is invariably better than #2, and Ocean's Twelve royally sucked. But 13, while essentially packaging the same idea in yet another new way, actually managed some masterful filmmaking. First and foremost, it included Eddie Izzard in its cast, who proved (as well he should have) to be much much more than just another heist team member. Second, it worked on a motivation other than money: camaraderie, support and revenge for a friend. Third, it developed some of the heisters heretofore underdeveloped, particularly the two redneck brothers (Scott Caan and Casey Affleck) and Eddie Jemison's Livingston Dell. Third, it didn't change what worked, things like using the house's own systems against it and working a lot of misdirection ploys. Fourth, it excluded Julia Roberts and Catherine Zeta-Jones; nothing against them as actresses, but their characters were not necessary and would have really gotten in the way. Fifth, it didn't act like it was trying to top what came before it. Don't ask me how I could tell that, but that factor was exactly what ruined Twelve for me, and it was mostly absent in Thirteen. And finally, while it jumped back and forth between a huge number of locations, characters and scenarios, the film somehow managed to keep confusion to a minimum. So maybe this movie is the exception that proves the rule of sequels: every now and then there will be one that is good enough to make us keep wanting to check them all out.
---
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
1 star
If you asked me to tell you the difference between Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka and Gene Wilder's of thirty years or so ago, I could sum it up in one word: kindness. Wilder's Wonka was a bit freaky, but by and large he was compassionate, gentle and caring. Depp's Wonka was, to put it bluntly, an asshole. And that, in and of itself, completely overshadowed anything and everything else that might have been cool about this movie.
Thanks for reading, friends. Until next time,
FBS
minviendha, are you getting this?):