Posts Tagged ‘Hugh Jackman’

 

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

A Glutton for Punishment

May 6th, 2009

wolverine
In a land where every dinner is a TV dinner and people watch remotely, “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” will mollify the packs of Nielsens swooping down on America’s megaplexes.

But the first movie to christen the blockbuster season is a long 107 minutes of nothing special. With an estimated $150 million budget, the producers have concocted to make a quite unspectacular popcorn flick. When a film is endowed with such a massive expenditure as “Origins: Wolverine” one wonders where the money went when compared to the sardonic rush of “Iron Man” or the fully-realized macrocosm of “The Dark Knight,” because it’s an uninspired project void of the magic of those franchise foundries. Perhaps when you’ve dropped this magnitude of an exorbitant investment into a tepid film, producers are forced to tack on an ambiguous and presumptuous conclusion suggesting a wholly underserved sequel.

Essentially a prologue to the X-Men films, “Origins: Wolverine” begins with the backstory of the Logan/Wolverine character and his brother, Victor Creed/Sabretooth, as children in the 1840s Antebellum South. They bound through successive U.S. wars as indestructible soldiers during the mundane opening credits until they are recruited into a post-Vietnam War commando unit. Adopting distinct military tactics, the brothers become estranged, each hunting the other until the inevitable last reel.

Filmed unconvincingly by director Gavin Hood, it’s an untextured effort with no discernible cohesive tone or pace. Action sequences are neutered by the special effects. The over reliance in post-production fiddling means that real thrills and genuine tension are jettisoned for clunky, newfangled visuals.

The lame script by David Benioff and Skip Woods is equally lackadaisical but there are moments when it’s just plain infantile. As he stalks his lumberjack younger brother in the Canadian Rockies, Victor scrawls with his fingernails into the wooden bar of a dark, unpopulated tavern in the middle of nowhere that for no apparent reason is the size of a jumbo jet hanger. The quizzical bartender asks Victor, “You’re not from around here?” Moments later, when Logan enters the bar, Victor peers over his left shoulder and drawls, “Look what the cat dragged in.” As the brothers race towards each other in the cavernous watering hole and begin to engage in battle, the barkeep peeps up with “Guys, take it outside.”

Burdened by the soporific screenplay, the game cast plows through. Bravely sporting mutton chops throughout history, Liev Schreiber lends Victor hubris with a perverse glint. Danny Huston, looking like a short back and sides Anthony Bourdain after a summer of prix fixe dinners, adds a trenchant interpretation to the commando unit chief, William Stryker, but like his co-stars is encumbered with dopey dialogue. Ryan Reynolds enhances his reputation as a funny fellow with a smart-alec turn as commando Wade Wilson, yet when he returns later in the film as Deadpool, a mutated government project, he is muted with bandages and stitches. (The film hints at the mutant’s irony; just maybe not the one the makers intended.)

Brooding, with trapezius muscles inflating with every swipe of his rapier hands, Hugh Jackman certainly put the requisite hours in the gym. But the character is written so rudimentarily that there’s no connection to his tortured plight. In several instances, Logan expresses himself with a vengeful cry to the heavens as the camera bids a clichéd retreat into the clouds. But at the very least the perpetually tank topped and frequently shirtless Jackman could bring hairy back into vogue. While his charm and charisma are rarely utilized to their best in this film, he has the affable hunkiness to play a part like Thomas Magnum. You can envision a mustached Jackman beaming behind the wheel of a Ferrari. (May I suggest William H. Macy as Higgins.) Again, a big screen presence for small screen tastes.


The Wrestler

Out of the Cellar

March 14th, 2009

rourke_lo
It’s good to have Mickey Rourke back.

The best actor whose career was born in the 80s seemed lost to us. By the close of that decade, he had amassed a stellar resume which promised his ascension into the 1990s as the most vital leading man of his generation, and then he was gone, vanished from prominence, vanquished by his demons.

His resume in the 1980s has only grown in stature since. In the wondrous “Diner” and evocative “Rumble Fish,” he was a man among boys. In “The Pope of Greenwich Village” he let Eric Roberts concoct fidgety affectations while he simmered with a succulent slow burn. The versatile Rourke could play Charles Bukowski and a lothario with equal credibility. And he went toe-to-toe with a prime De Niro in “Angel Heart” giving the devil as good as he got.

But even then he seemed like a throwback. Blessed with the tumescent presence of Robert Mitchum yet the fragile vulnerability of Montgomery Clift, Rourke was the quietest big presence on the silver screen. He was the New Romantic Brando.

Yet, despite this talent meshed with charisma, no actor of any significance became a non-entity for longer. It was only 10 years between “Mutiny on the Bounty” and “The Godfather” for Marlon Brando. And while it seemed that John Travolta was an outcast longer than he was, in those 14 years between “Urban Cowboy” and “Pulp Fiction,” he still persisted with boffo box-office numbers in the “Look Who’s Talking” flicks. When an actor generally enters the wilderness — say a Ryan O’Neal or Michael Keaton – typically its a self-imposed retirement or the lack of acting pedigree catching up to them.

Three years ago, Rourke reappeared in “Sin City” as Marv, the gentle humungous, and while he exuded his signature pathos, Marv was a green screened creation in an ensemble piece. But here, as Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson, a former wrestling superstar toiling in a northeastern minor-league circuit, it’s Mickey in flesh and blood. Randy pines for his glory days in the 1980s when arenas (both wrestling and rock) were his temple. Now, he performs (with good grace) to dozens perched in rec center folding chairs in matches he crams around his schedule hoisting goods at a local supermarket.

It’s astonishing to see Rourke in his leotard sporting a ripped upper body with a hulking chest, guns protruding from his shoulders and, most disconcertingly, a face brutalized by boxing, by Botox, or maybe almost two decades of bad choices. However, despite his massive body, or perhaps because of it, one is drawn to his hands which, like his voice — that unmistakable husky whisper — are strong but capped with fingernails hearty and delicate, like finely sliced almond.

Rourke exudes a quiet, understated strength early in the film, especially in the genuine camaraderie he shares with his younger, fellow wrestlers. The backstage scenes are casual, heartfelt, and touching as they express respect and reverence for the “Ram,” which he accepts with gracious reluctance

“The Wrestler” is an imperfect film as it charts Randy’s hopes for a comeback. Marisa Tomei is a top notch actress, and she excels at what she does in this movie, but the part of Cassidy, a stripper who Randy befriends, feels incomplete. Similarly, Randy’s attempts to reconcile with his estranged daughter, played defiantly by Evan Rachel Wood, seem slung together. And the characterization presented of Todd Barry’s harrying boss is a tad too dickish.

But perhaps what most blights “The Wrestler” is what makes it most riveting. The film is overpowered by Mickey Rourke’s presence. It’s hard to watch the movie and not constantly gawk at his performance. It’s head-shakingly amazing to realize that Rourke was 55 during the filming. To give this feat some perspective, Brando was 47 when he returned to play the burnt-out, cynical Paul in “Last Tango in Paris.” This feeling of wonder isn’t just in the first few scenes; it permeates every shot. But if his performance puts the film in a stranglehold, perhaps this is to be expected from a movie so saturated in the irony of seeing an 80s wrestling superstar pining for a career resurrection played by an 80s icon who is delivering one.

This film was clearly built around Rourke and for this the credit must go to director Darren Aronofsky, who insisted, ultimately, that Rourke was the logical choice for the role. The widely circulated story states that Aronofsky first offered the part to Nicolas Cage but had second thoughts almost immediately so that we were spared the absurdity of Cage, who one feels currently doesn’t have either the girth or the chops to handle a stripped-bare part like “The Ram.” Why expose an audience to a spandexed, steel Caged-match when you have a national treasure like Rourke?

Aronofsky shows admirable versatility by shooting “The Wrestler” in a gritty, unadorned style so unlike his last effort, “The Fountain,” an ornate, existential exercise replete with Hugh Jackman as a bark eating monk. It was overstuffed with video techniques, celestial imagery and a cluttered metaphysical vibe. He presents this film with a hand-held intimacy and a washed-out color palette, the visual style matching a main performance savagely raw and real. In a movie shorn of the abstract, perhaps it’s fitting that when Randy, enjoying a beer in a tavern with Cassidy, hears a favorite song, it instantly creases his battered face with a knowing grin as the 80s classic sums up not only the hope of “The Ram” but the rebirth of Rourke.

Round and round
With love we’ll find a way just give it time, time, time, time
Round and Round
What comes around goes around
I’ll tell you why, why, why, why


Kung Fu Panda

Haiku Fidelity

August 28th, 2008

kung_fu_panda_movie_image
The grandest asset of “Kung Fu Panda” is its greatest pitfall. Jack Black dominates as the title character and he’s undeniably terrific but his presence is so overpowering that he suffocates the film. 

When a comedian becomes iconic like Black, the humor begins to emanate from familiarity. The rhythm of his voice, the cadence of his delivery, and his bountiful physical exuberance can lead an audience to laugh in anticipation even before Black has delivered a punch line.  In “High Fidelity” Black captivated with his manic energy and people became instant fans of the dynamo with the soulful pipes in one of the films of the 2000s.  Since then Black’s tenacious persona has become a distinctly beloved comic presence. “The School of Rock” could have been a cringe-worthy exercise with a lead who brought less commitment and belief to the role of Dewey Finn. A recent Sesame Street appearance made a lesson about octagons a winsome moment. And as illustrated in DreamWorks’ “Kung Fu Panda,“ no one says “Awesome” with the same joyous verve.  

So you can’t blame directors Mark Osborne and John Stevenson for making a film which is essentially a Jack Black vehicle. But it’s a glaring example where moderation would have been a wiser option, and a less-is-more approach may have ensured a more complete and resonating work. 

“Kung Fu Panda” opens on a vibrant, teeming Chinese city reminiscent of a scene from Richard Scarry’s “Busy, Busy World” but the film falters as the focus turns to Black‘s lovable yet hapless panda, Po.  The film feels smaller and less robust than several recent animated wonders, especially the studio’s own “Flushed Away.” The other characters lack true distinction and are lumped into a not-Jack Black pack. They simply aren’t given the personality or pizzazz of Po. Secondary characters feel, well, secondary. Furthermore, the script wavers in quality and relies all-too-often on trite aphorisms.  

The makers of “Kung Fu Panda” should have studied the efforts of those quality animated films and noticed they haven’t allowed a single vocal talent to dominate.  You would have to be well coached to know that Craig T. Nelson was the voice of Mr. Incredible.  And few would have recognized instantly that the lead actors in “Flushed Away” were Hugh Jackman and Kate Winslet.  And just last year “Ratatouille” utilized Patton Oswalt’s talents but the tremendous stand-up’s distinct comic persona doesn’t begin to overwhelm. It simply melds into a larger, luxurious tale.

 “Kung Fu Panda” is enjoyable and you’d have to be a surly curmudgeon to dismiss its charming moments.  But making Black the whole focus creates an unbalanced film that is something short of “Awesome.“