I just returned from Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004, Directed and Written by Kerry Conran in his debut). All I can say is – go see it. It is not perfect, it won’t cure cancer, and I doubt that it will change the way Hollywood loves to create movies drained of innovation, but go see it anyway.
The film starts as the dirigible Hindenburg III is docking atop the Empire State Building. A scientist (Dr. Vargas, played by Julian Curry) aboard the airship sends a package to a Dr. Jennings before mysteriously vanishing. Dr. Jennings (Trevor Baxter) then meets with a reporter working hard to crack the case of the missing scientists, of whom Dr. Vargas is only the latest. The reporter, Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) soon learns that All of the missing scientists were part of a secret scientific group called Group Eleven that worked outside Berlin during World War I. All have vanished except for Dr. Jennings, so he know that he is next. As Polly tries to learn who is doing this, air raid sirens sound, sending people running for cover. Before he slips away, Dr. Jennings warns her of a man named Totenkopf.
Outside the sky is filled with odd looking aircraft. Aircraft which land and turn out to be giant robots seemingly bent upon destroying the power generators in the center of town. Unable to stop the 50-foot tall behemoths, the city sends out the call to Sky Captain….
Before I begin the review proper, let me explain a bit about my father. Dad was born in Chicago in 1923, the son of a baker. He grew up on a steady diet of comic books, radio, and movie serials with a thick layer of Edgar Rice Burroughs, H. Rider Haggard, and the pulps as a foundation. He enlisted in the army the day the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and spent what free time he had during the war reading Buck Rogers, Superman, and the great science fiction pulps. He used the G.I. Bill to become a doctor and settled into life as a family doctor in northern Indiana, eventually having 8 children.
And now a bit about me, too. Although one of the youngest children in my family, because of a combination of factors I spent the most time with Dad of all of us. I grew up reading the same things and have always loved John Carter, Alan Quartermain, Doc Savage, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, and all the rest of the two-fisted heroes that modern adventure heroes are based on.
As I result I know a lot of arcane trivia, like the fact that The Rocketeer was not based on Commando Cody from Radar Men from Mars but from Jeff King in the earlier serial King of the Rocket Men. I know, I know – who cares, right? The point is, I have an abiding love of the science fiction of the first three decades of the 20th century. So when I heard the buzz about Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow I was hopeful but afraid of being burned yet again.
You see, after Raiders of the Lost Ark a lot of people in Hollywood realized that there are enough people like me to make money so the ‘80’s were chock-full of poor attempts at 1930’s nostalgia. Most of these attempts thought that period costuming and a ‘retro-tech’ look were enough. But the difference is greater than that. You can’t put modern dialogue into a period movie and expect it to work. And, even more common and an even bigger failing, you can’t use current motivations. In the 1930’s the heroes were brighter and the villains were darker.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow does a top-notch job of capturing the combination of optimistic dreams of the future while living in a gritty present that lies at the heart of 1930’s sci-fi. I have often found fault with Gwyneth Paltrow in the past (I thought she was dreadful in Emma) she can also be quite good (she was excellent in The Royal Tenenbaums). In Sky Captain she was on the ‘quite good’ side as the female lead. And thank goodness they stayed away from making Polly “spunky”; as written and played she is a determined, ambitious, and oh-so-glib homage to Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday.
And Jude Law as the titular Joe ‘Sky Captain’ Sullivan also turns in a great performance. He had a great mix of humor, determination, and (around Polly) exasperation. His performance was spot-on for the period portrayed, as well, and he should consider doing something like it again. His acting here convinces me yet again that the entertainment media spend too much time focusing on Law’s good looks and not enough realizing that he is a far better actor than most believe (just see his multi-layered performance opposite Jennifer Jason Leigh in the overlooked Cronenberg thriller eXistenZ).
While the two don’t match the legendary performances of the 30’s hero/heroine pairings like Grant and Hepburn or Gable and Colbert (and who could every match Powell and Loy?), they have wonderful chemistry and seem to have enjoyed themselves while making the movie. The bantering required from the period was unforced and natural and drew a lot of laughter from the audience when I went, including three ‘whole theatre’ outbursts.
Although Joe and Polly were obviously the focus of the film, there were some great secondary characters, mainly Giovanni Ribisi as Dex, Joe’s friend and the man who makes Sky Captain’s art-deco-tech gear. And Angelina Jolie plays the commander of a British amphibious force: a small role, but she seems to have enjoyed it and added a bit of depth to a potentially dull part. There are several good character actors, especially Mr. Djalili, a favorite in the BMM household. And in a very interesting bit of stunt casting, there is a brief cameo by Sir Laurence Olivier, who ha been dead for a more than a few years. While this could have been tacky, it not only avoids sleaze it works within the context of the movie, as well.
Much has already been written about how this film was shot entirely on soundstages in front of blue screens with very minimal sets. All I can say is, it is done superbly. Even aware of how the movie was made I was usually completely oblivious. Tight and smooth, I only ‘lost my disbelief’ in the settings in one scene, a relatively minor one. Otherwise, the locations seemed entirely believable from snowy Manhattan to steamy jungles.
The story was minimalist, but this is entirely in keeping with the source material and the genre. Pulp heroes didn’t have complicated motivations; the complexities were left to the villains and the death traps. Sky Captain is not overburdened with plot, but then again, neither was Raiders of the Lost Ark. But the story is compelling, the pacing is tight, and the dialogue snaps along.
I recommend this movie to anyone (and you can take the kids), and I heartily recommend it to fans of the pulps, the serials, or the screwball comedies of the ‘30’s.
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Friday, September 17, 2004
Review: What Women Want
We will begin the reviews at Bad Movie Mogul with a movie those who know me personally won’t expect. Today we are looking at the film What Women Want (2000, Director: Nancy Meyers, Written by Josh Goldsmith and Cathy Yuspa).
The movie opens with Gigi (Lauren Holly, looking distracted) explaining how her ex-husband Nick Marshall (Mel Gibson) is ‘a real man’s man’ in a voice-over narration detailing how Nick grew up the son of a single-mother Las Vegas showgirl, raised by scantily-clad women and coarse men. This is a very cute bit as we watch a young Nick cooed over by showgirls and taught how to count by a casino cashier. Unfortunately, it was damn near the highlight of the film.
We cut to Nick as an adult bachelor ad executive in Chicago. Through brief scenes with his maid and his entry into his workplace we learn that he is a successful ad executive expecting imminent promotion to creative director. We also learn that he is boorish, crass, sexist, and totally self-absorbed. He reports to his boss, Dan (played by Alan Alda) to learn that he is not going to be the next creative director. Instead, the company has hired a woman named Darcy (Helen Hunt) to focus on the $45 billion woman-focused advertising market. Nick has heard that Darcy is a ‘man-eater’, etc., and does not want to work for her, but goes about his business. Darcy is introduced, gives all the ad execs a box of products, and sends them on their way.
In a rather funny sequence, Nick goes home and tries the various products by personal use. Soon he has volumized hair, red fingernails, is wearing pantyhose, and has learned that waxing your legs sucks. Hard. He is surprised by his daughter (Ashley Johnson), who is staying with him while her mother re-marries, and his daughter’s boyfriend. After some confusion and meant-to-be-funny moments, Nick is alone in the bathroom again. And in the key point of the beginning receives a near-fatal electrical shock from a bathroom accident. After waking up, he soon realizes that he can hear what women are thinking, letting him know what women want….
I started with this movie because I think it is a good example of how a seemingly can’t miss idea can quickly become a Bad Movie. The premise of a chauvanist who gains the ability to hear what women think of him has a lot of prospects for comedy. Helen Hunt, seen here shortly after her roles in As Good as it Gets and Twister, was box-office gold, and Mel Gibson never fails to deliver. Yet, somehow, What Women Wants is ultimately a failure.
This is a wonderful role for Gibson. With his charm and warmth he is able to take the very one-dimensional character of Nick and actually make him sympathetic. With his portrayal of Nick you realize that Nick acts the way his does with a total absence of malice; he doesn’t dislike women, he just doesn’t realize the effect of his words and actions. When he does learn how women see him, he doesn’t like it and, eventually, tries to change. Without Mel I think this movie may have been unwatchable.
I was totally underwhelmed by Helen Hunt’s portrayal of Darcy. While Ms. Hunt is a fine (and Oscar-winning actress) this movie points out her main failing – a lack of range. Darcy is described many a time as a ‘man-eater’, a ‘bitch’, the ‘Darth Vader of advertising. As a high-powered executive in the hyper-competitive world of advertising, you would expect her to be an aggressive, take-charge professional. With her portrayal, however, Darcy never seems to rise above hopeful confusion. While much of this can be chalked up to poor writing (which we’ll discuss later), the fact of the matter is that Gibson suffered from the same flat characterization and acted his way into a fleshed-out character. Hunt suffers greatly in comparison.
On the other hand, a lot of talent was wasted in throwaway roles. Bette Midler, who has great comic potential, is seen very briefly as a therapist. I was instantly hopeful that we would see a series of vignettes of Nick and his therapist – nope. She’s seen once and vanishes. Marisa Tomei also appears as a lovelorn coffee-shop girl in a role that actually paints Nick as treating women badly after he knows how to treat them well.
And that brings us to the writing. Darcy is repeatedly referred to as ‘a man eater’, aggressive, etc. And, again, you would expect a successful ad exec of either sex to be a go-getter. Instead, Darcy is portrayed as fearful, hesitant, and tentative. Even when we ‘hear’ her tell herself to be assertive, she says and/or does nothing, making her aggressiveness and ‘informed attribute’*. When an underling (Nick) seems to be going strong with an ad campaign, she doesn’t do what a creative director would do (“run with it, send it to me for approval and input”), but just wanders around the edges fitfully, letting him take all the credit and refusing to actively participate. When Alda’s character announces he has fired her it seems fitting – she did nothing to assert herself or control the situation.
The character of Nick is also inconsistent. Totally self-absorbed at the beginning, he treats Tomei’s character shabbily after he tries to improve and after he knows that his actions will hurt her. And his method of ‘making it up to her’ is to pretend he is gay, rejecting all responsibility for what he has done.
The ending (I won’t say conclusion) is a total loss. Nick’s gradual transformation to a caring person does not include being just to Darcy until a sudden last-minute conversion – after he is already in love with her! Darcy gets her job back because Nick gets it back for her – she is totally passive. His reward is to be fired by Darcy for telling her the truth. Although he transformed her unspoken thoughts into slogans, did the work of creating the ads, etc., he is a cad for doing so and is punished for admitting it. But then Hunt’s character ‘saves’ him.
I guess my biggest problem about this movie is, interestingly, its portrayal of women. Darcy is totally passive. Even after firing Nick, she immediately calls him back to join her life. None of the other women ever confront Nick for his bad behavior. The character of Erin, a mousy girl contemplating suicide because she is ignored, never does anything. Nick breezes in, offers her a job (which gives her a reason to live) and she vanishes again. Nick’s daughter Alex (another female character with a masculine name) goes along with her boyfriend’s desires to have sex until the last minute. She does say no, but is devastated emotionally and needs rescuing by Nick. Rather than displaying the reconnection of Nick with his estranged child, it paints Alex as totally dependent upon men.
My next biggest problem is in its portrayal of men. When Nick learns what women wants be begins to act more like how the writers think women act. He no longer watches sports (or actively dislikes them), cries at TV shows, ‘hangs out’ with ‘the girls’, and otherwise also becomes passive. The clear message is that men are insensitive cads and the only way to be ‘good’ is to reject the masculine. Seemingly men can’t like sports, be strong-minded, and be decent to women at the same time. The writers constrain people to being jerks or wimps with no middle ground of maturity.
A wholly unsatisfying experience, despite some early humor.
*All special Movie Nomenclature courtesy of the High Priest of Jabootu
The movie opens with Gigi (Lauren Holly, looking distracted) explaining how her ex-husband Nick Marshall (Mel Gibson) is ‘a real man’s man’ in a voice-over narration detailing how Nick grew up the son of a single-mother Las Vegas showgirl, raised by scantily-clad women and coarse men. This is a very cute bit as we watch a young Nick cooed over by showgirls and taught how to count by a casino cashier. Unfortunately, it was damn near the highlight of the film.
We cut to Nick as an adult bachelor ad executive in Chicago. Through brief scenes with his maid and his entry into his workplace we learn that he is a successful ad executive expecting imminent promotion to creative director. We also learn that he is boorish, crass, sexist, and totally self-absorbed. He reports to his boss, Dan (played by Alan Alda) to learn that he is not going to be the next creative director. Instead, the company has hired a woman named Darcy (Helen Hunt) to focus on the $45 billion woman-focused advertising market. Nick has heard that Darcy is a ‘man-eater’, etc., and does not want to work for her, but goes about his business. Darcy is introduced, gives all the ad execs a box of products, and sends them on their way.
In a rather funny sequence, Nick goes home and tries the various products by personal use. Soon he has volumized hair, red fingernails, is wearing pantyhose, and has learned that waxing your legs sucks. Hard. He is surprised by his daughter (Ashley Johnson), who is staying with him while her mother re-marries, and his daughter’s boyfriend. After some confusion and meant-to-be-funny moments, Nick is alone in the bathroom again. And in the key point of the beginning receives a near-fatal electrical shock from a bathroom accident. After waking up, he soon realizes that he can hear what women are thinking, letting him know what women want….
I started with this movie because I think it is a good example of how a seemingly can’t miss idea can quickly become a Bad Movie. The premise of a chauvanist who gains the ability to hear what women think of him has a lot of prospects for comedy. Helen Hunt, seen here shortly after her roles in As Good as it Gets and Twister, was box-office gold, and Mel Gibson never fails to deliver. Yet, somehow, What Women Wants is ultimately a failure.
This is a wonderful role for Gibson. With his charm and warmth he is able to take the very one-dimensional character of Nick and actually make him sympathetic. With his portrayal of Nick you realize that Nick acts the way his does with a total absence of malice; he doesn’t dislike women, he just doesn’t realize the effect of his words and actions. When he does learn how women see him, he doesn’t like it and, eventually, tries to change. Without Mel I think this movie may have been unwatchable.
I was totally underwhelmed by Helen Hunt’s portrayal of Darcy. While Ms. Hunt is a fine (and Oscar-winning actress) this movie points out her main failing – a lack of range. Darcy is described many a time as a ‘man-eater’, a ‘bitch’, the ‘Darth Vader of advertising. As a high-powered executive in the hyper-competitive world of advertising, you would expect her to be an aggressive, take-charge professional. With her portrayal, however, Darcy never seems to rise above hopeful confusion. While much of this can be chalked up to poor writing (which we’ll discuss later), the fact of the matter is that Gibson suffered from the same flat characterization and acted his way into a fleshed-out character. Hunt suffers greatly in comparison.
On the other hand, a lot of talent was wasted in throwaway roles. Bette Midler, who has great comic potential, is seen very briefly as a therapist. I was instantly hopeful that we would see a series of vignettes of Nick and his therapist – nope. She’s seen once and vanishes. Marisa Tomei also appears as a lovelorn coffee-shop girl in a role that actually paints Nick as treating women badly after he knows how to treat them well.
And that brings us to the writing. Darcy is repeatedly referred to as ‘a man eater’, aggressive, etc. And, again, you would expect a successful ad exec of either sex to be a go-getter. Instead, Darcy is portrayed as fearful, hesitant, and tentative. Even when we ‘hear’ her tell herself to be assertive, she says and/or does nothing, making her aggressiveness and ‘informed attribute’*. When an underling (Nick) seems to be going strong with an ad campaign, she doesn’t do what a creative director would do (“run with it, send it to me for approval and input”), but just wanders around the edges fitfully, letting him take all the credit and refusing to actively participate. When Alda’s character announces he has fired her it seems fitting – she did nothing to assert herself or control the situation.
The character of Nick is also inconsistent. Totally self-absorbed at the beginning, he treats Tomei’s character shabbily after he tries to improve and after he knows that his actions will hurt her. And his method of ‘making it up to her’ is to pretend he is gay, rejecting all responsibility for what he has done.
The ending (I won’t say conclusion) is a total loss. Nick’s gradual transformation to a caring person does not include being just to Darcy until a sudden last-minute conversion – after he is already in love with her! Darcy gets her job back because Nick gets it back for her – she is totally passive. His reward is to be fired by Darcy for telling her the truth. Although he transformed her unspoken thoughts into slogans, did the work of creating the ads, etc., he is a cad for doing so and is punished for admitting it. But then Hunt’s character ‘saves’ him.
I guess my biggest problem about this movie is, interestingly, its portrayal of women. Darcy is totally passive. Even after firing Nick, she immediately calls him back to join her life. None of the other women ever confront Nick for his bad behavior. The character of Erin, a mousy girl contemplating suicide because she is ignored, never does anything. Nick breezes in, offers her a job (which gives her a reason to live) and she vanishes again. Nick’s daughter Alex (another female character with a masculine name) goes along with her boyfriend’s desires to have sex until the last minute. She does say no, but is devastated emotionally and needs rescuing by Nick. Rather than displaying the reconnection of Nick with his estranged child, it paints Alex as totally dependent upon men.
My next biggest problem is in its portrayal of men. When Nick learns what women wants be begins to act more like how the writers think women act. He no longer watches sports (or actively dislikes them), cries at TV shows, ‘hangs out’ with ‘the girls’, and otherwise also becomes passive. The clear message is that men are insensitive cads and the only way to be ‘good’ is to reject the masculine. Seemingly men can’t like sports, be strong-minded, and be decent to women at the same time. The writers constrain people to being jerks or wimps with no middle ground of maturity.
A wholly unsatisfying experience, despite some early humor.
*All special Movie Nomenclature courtesy of the High Priest of Jabootu
Why another movie review site?
I love movies. I love drama, comedy, action, horror, farce, slasher, indie, blockbuster; you name it. And I have a warm spot in my heart for films that mainstream critics call ‘bad’ – Friday the 13th, Brain Donors, Critters 4. On the other hand, I really, really dislike some films that are quite popular – Con Air, Titanic, and more.
I love movies because they are a virtually unique art form. The collaborative effort of perhaps thousands of professionals and amateurs who work together to make a public art form that is very personal for their audience. Unable to be made without a team effort, they nonetheless are undeniably strongly shaped by the individual actors, directors, composers, and others that make them.
Here at BMM I am going to review films, tell you what I like and what I don’t like, and explain the why of both. Why make another review site? Mainly because I like reviews almost as much as I like movies. I like to see how movies have touched others on intellectual and emotional levels. I learn new things about the movies I have already seen and can look for things I otherwise would have missed in movies I will watch later.
I hope I can give you insights into these movies and help you see new things in movies you are familiar with. I will at least try to warn you about movies you might want to give a miss and encourage you to see good movies you might otherwise not consider. And I encourage you to suggest movies to me for review; the more obscure, the better.
I love movies because they are a virtually unique art form. The collaborative effort of perhaps thousands of professionals and amateurs who work together to make a public art form that is very personal for their audience. Unable to be made without a team effort, they nonetheless are undeniably strongly shaped by the individual actors, directors, composers, and others that make them.
Here at BMM I am going to review films, tell you what I like and what I don’t like, and explain the why of both. Why make another review site? Mainly because I like reviews almost as much as I like movies. I like to see how movies have touched others on intellectual and emotional levels. I learn new things about the movies I have already seen and can look for things I otherwise would have missed in movies I will watch later.
I hope I can give you insights into these movies and help you see new things in movies you are familiar with. I will at least try to warn you about movies you might want to give a miss and encourage you to see good movies you might otherwise not consider. And I encourage you to suggest movies to me for review; the more obscure, the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)