Showing posts with label johnny depp. Show all posts
Showing posts with label johnny depp. Show all posts

30 March 2010

Alice in Wonderland (3D)


I put off writing this one for a few reasons.  In fact, it may be too late to influence anyone, but the irritation I felt still lingers. 

Burton did Alice a disservice.  There I said it.

I wanted to like it, I really did.  I had been excited to see it from the day I heard Time Burton was taking the classic out-of-body tale on.  Until the day I saw the first trailer.  It looked nothing like what I had expected, but Burton was fresh from Sweeney Todd, which I found brilliant, so I hoped that perhaps it was a just an unfortunate edit.  But doing a little non-spoiler research, I learned that the story was completely made-up - a sequel to Alice's first well-known trip.  Yet I pressed on, setting aside my usually-vehement protection of literary sources to see if this reimagining could deliver.

It delivered numerous sighs, forehead-to-palm slaps and a headache (not caused by the forehead slapping). 

An older Alice (Mia Wasikowskafinds herself being forced into a society marriage with a useless fool and in a fit of fear, she runs off and follows a rabbit (Michael Sheen) down a hole.  She meets a string of familiar characters, but doesn't remember that this is her second trip to Wonderland (actually, Underland, we come to find out).  The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) is still impetuous and the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) is useless and she needs the help of Alice to restore her to the throne -- and she can't do it without also saving the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp).

None of these seasoned actors manage to bring anything inventive, though they are not at fault for following Burton's direction.  It all starts to feel vaguely like a Narnia story (human girl must save the magical land, talking animals, good and bad royalty, Quixotic yet wise creatures) that we have seen before.  With all the characters of Wonderland and Burton's imagination, this should have been something incredible.  Sadly, it is as if Tarantino did a fairy-tale in gothic style (not a complement).  It is flat, story-less and boring.  

Little good stands about the animation and effects either.  The Knave (Cripsin Glover) is half-CGI, half-actor and he never looks right.  The Red Queen's floating CGI head is too disturbing and distracting to be effective.  They use cheap 3D tricks like a Atlantic City amusement park.  The opening (and closing) sequences, set in the English countryside, are the only convincing minutes.  Here we see what Burton is truly gifted at.  His Todd-styling is in full swing and there is a subtlety to the characters that is lost everywhere else.


Only the animation of the Chershire Cat (Stephen Fry) is enjoyable.  Whoever was in charge of his creation has a cat - and did their homework.  I'm sorry to see this film raking in so much at the box office.  Though I can't really blame the ticket-buying public.  I was sucked in, and fell down the rabbit hole myself.  But all I was left wondering was why they couldn't manage to get this right. 

06 July 2009

Public Enemies

What was Michael Mann thinking? He had a great story, good actors, a budget and the interest of the audience -- but he squandered it with confusing storytelling, an underused cast, and strange cinematography. It all added up to a jolty, disjunct, and uncomfortable film.
Johnny Depp plays the charming bank robber John Dillinger who knocked over financial institutions in the midwest, got arrested, broke out, and did it all over again. Along the way, he picks up the affections of Billie Frechette, the adorable coat check girl played by Marion Cotillard, and the attentions of the overeager J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) and hungry bloodhound agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale).
If it was attempting to tap into the gangster drama of the early 30s (which we know people in a recession go for), it fell short. If it was trying to remake the genre for a modern audience, it was more annoying that fruitful. We like Dillinger, but only because we know we are supposed to. His character is not particularly likable or despicable. His motives are largely unknown or understood. Boredom, perhaps? Dillinger was loved by the public for his ability to stick it to "the man." He did what they couldn't. There is one scene, the prison transfer, that shows this charm, but surely that was not enough to win over the sympathies of a nation? His wily nature is only sometimes evident, as in the squad room scene.
Cotillard did the best she could with what she was given. She shines in her main scene, when she protects Dillinger. Elsewhere she is almost annoyingly ditzy. Bale, too, has little to recommend him. His best scene is when we first meet him, hunting down Pretty Boy Floyd. He is stoic, assured and cold.
Overall, the best scene may be the ending, when a Myrna Loy montage peppers an intense sequence.
Lastly, and most annoyingly, was the camera work. It is almost all handheld, shaky, and tightly zoomed. When it isn't that, it is some sort of digital HD that makes it look like a History Channel re-enacted special on mobsters. Here's the thing -- "old-timey" movies don't work with a high-tech look (See: Beowulf by Robert Zemeckis). Public Enemies would have benefitted greatly from a least one Panavision with breathing 35mm film. That and another re-write to smooth out the bumps between video-game violence and a director who could have brought out the best in his actors.