Didn't Get Around to Watching "Now You See Me"? No Big Deal. Watch "The Prestige" Again Instead.

Directed by Louis Leterrier, written by Ed Solomon, and Boaz Yakin & Edward Ricourt, starring Mark Ruffalo, Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine - Rated PG-13

Pretty much completely indifferent on this one.

 

 

 

 

Movies about magic are not exactly a subgenre just yet, but it’s getting close.  Previous films in recent memory like The Prestige and The Illusionist were all about a mystery that the audience had to look for.  In the case of The Prestige you have Michael Caine flat out talking to you about looking closely.  I suppose it’s fitting that Caine also appears in Now You See Me, the latest mystery magician film in which the audience is dared to look closely and figure it out (once again, the audience is directly addressed).  I consider “The Prestige” to be one of the finest and most engaging films of the past decade (I was not a fan of The Illusionist), so Now You See Me has some big shoes to fill.  In an unfair comparison to The Prestige, Now You See Me does not hold up very well.  But as a piece of forgetful entertainment, it gets the job done.

 

First off, it’s unfair to compare the two magician movies because Now You See Me has a much more light-hearted tone than that film.  This isn’t a film that is truly about magic.  In other words, you don’t get to see a lot of tricks painstakingly planned out and explained.  There is a little of that, but for the most part the audience is left completely in the dark and we’re told how it all worked after the fact.  I suppose that’s fine and all, but the film seemed to be cheating at times.  The viewer doesn’t really have the chance to think the film through because the evidence is limited.  We’re reduced to simply guessing who is behind it all.  It’s still interesting enough to stay involved and want to know the answer, but it’s not as satisfying as it could have been.

 

Part of the problem of the film is that it seems unsure of who the main characters are.  I know that this is part of the point what with misdirection and all, but the film suffers for it.  The basic plot involves four street magicians played by Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, and Woody Harrelson.  We’re introduced to them individually, and it seems like they are the protagonists (the preview would lead you to believe this as well).  But once they are brought together, we leave them, for the most part.  Once they are brought together and named the Four Horsemen (is Isla Fisher a man?), the film becomes a detective story told from Mark Ruffalo’s perspective as he (and the audience) tries to figure out who’s behind it all. 

 

The detective gets involved because the magicians turn criminal when they rob a bank as part of their big Las Vegas show, promising that it’s just the beginning.  It’s really the beginning of this movie becoming less interesting.  Ruffalo’s detective is so cliché and boring that you just want to see what the magicians are up to, but we rarely get to see things from their perspective.  This is a problem because it’s not as if the movie never follows these characters…it started with these characters!  So the rules of the film allow the camera to be with these guys as they plan their act and whatnot, but it chooses not to show us because the filmmakers probably couldn’t think of anything interesting for them to do. 

 

I think the film would have been better if we just got to know the tricks and illusions as the magicians came up with them.  The tricks are not so amazing that the mystery is worth it anyway.  Instead of this turning into a cops and robbers story, it would’ve been an interesting film about magicians figuring out how to perform cool tricks, and we would still have to figure out who the benefactor is.  It’s a win-win.  Such a missed opportunity…

 

Despite that major gripe, the movie’s worth a watch when it comes out on HBO or something.  It’s filmed adequately and the performances are sufficient.  It’s a slightly fun magician movie.  It wants to be a mindbender, but the focus and the mystery were lacking.  I think I’ll go watch The Prestige for the twentieth time now…

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

I wasn't kidding at the end there.  I am actually watching The Prestige again as I post this.  And speaking of that film, it's not that I wanted Now You See Me to be just like that film.  That would be pointless.  If anything, the fact that this film tried to mimic a "twist" like The Prestige had is what limits it.  So it's actually too much like The Prestige.

 

As for the "twist" ending, it is only effective in that it makes Ruffalo's character make a bit more sense.  He's really only playing at being a cop.  Although he probably had to be a real cop for the misdirection to truly work.  What dedication...  The movie isn't worth watching again to check for all the tell-tale signs, but looking back it makes the film seem that much more deceitful.  There were a few moments when Ruffalo was the only guy in the scene yet he kept up the act.  I get that it shows total devotion to the illusion, but I just don't buy it. 

 

Kind of harsh on Morgan Freeman, by the way, isn't he?  So Freeman exposes his father as a weak magician, which goads Ruffalo's father to perform a trick that proves without a doubt that he's a weak magician.  (Or at least an unlucky magician that picks a safe that is too crappy for a trick?  I wasn't quite clear on the safe problem, I was ready for the movie to be over at that point.)  Why is this Freeman's fault?  I get that without Freeman's action, Ruffalo's dad wouldn't have tried it, but it's not like Freeman challenged him to do it.  This line of thinking would lead someone to blaming a car company a for fatal car wreck even if the driver was at fault.  Let's hope no other bad things happen to Ruffalo's loved ones...who knows how far he'll expand the blame.

"The Dark Knight Rises"

Directed by Christopher Nolan, written by Nolan, Jonathan Nolan, and David S. Goyer, starring Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Gary Oldman, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Marion Cotillard - Rated PG-13

"When Gotham is...ashes, then you have my permission to die."

There has already been way too much online controversy concerning The Dark Knight Rises (hereafter just Rises) after the first few negative reviews came out.  I don’t want to get into a whole film criticism in an internet age debate, but I will say that having a different opinion is not a big deal.  It makes no sense for people to freak out about a bad review, especially if they haven’t seen the movie yet.  When I heard about a handful of negative reviews, I had a little impulse to get defensive as well because I am a Batman fan.  I didn’t freak out and write a threatening letter or anything, but I did start to think, “What a bunch of crap! They just want to be different.”  Maybe that actually is true (there are certainly people out there who only want to be contrary to get a reaction), but odds are there are people who honestly won’t like Rises. 

I bring all of the critic backlash stuff up because Rises is destined to be a victim of hype and that is certainly why “fans” are defending a film they haven’t seen.  I also think that some critics (or people like me, who are not “professional” critics) will be negative because their lofty expectations were not met.  That is an unfortunate way to judge a film (and I am guilty of doing it from time to time).  The Dark Knight did not face this same fate because people were pleased with Batman Begins but did not freak out about it.  Heath Ledger as the Joker got people hyped up for the film and most people were blown away.  That’s a hard act to follow and it’s easy for someone to be disappointed if the exact same type of film is made for the sequel.  I am not one of those people.  I loved the newest Batman film and I think director Christopher Nolan has delivered an amazing endpoint to a great trilogy.

Rises is closure in the best sense of the word.  Batman Begins was all about Gotham City and whether or not it deserved to be saved.  Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale) lives only to save his city.  In The Dark Knight that idea seemed to be focused more on the people rather than the city itself.  Batman wasn’t trying to save the physical city; he was trying to save the soul of the city.  In Rises, the city itself is up for grabs.  In fact, nearly everything is up in the air in this film.  All of the buildup has led to this giant film about the fate of a troubled city.

Gotham has never felt more real.  There has always been a personality to Gotham City in these films, but it’s been a growing process.  Gotham just feels like more of a character in this film than the others.  That is immensely important since the whole point of the film is whether or not the city survives.

Of course, the main reason to watch the film is to see the people fighting for the city, and there are a lot of them.  There’s the usual crew of Batman, Alfred (Michael Caine), Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman).  Added to the lot are young cop John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), philanthropist Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), and veteran officer Foley (Matthew Modine).  Then there’s Selina Kyle, a.k.a. Catwoman (Anne Hathaway), who plays both sides to her advantage.  And finally, there’s Bane (Tom Hardy), the masked mercenary who wants to destroy Gotham and make Batman suffer immeasurably. 

Sounds like a busy film, right?  It is.  In fact, when I first heard about the extended cast I started to worry if this film would make the same mistakes that so many sequels do: overstuffing to try and please everyone.  I was surprised by how well it all tied together.  Sure, some might complain that some characters do not get enough attention (Batman, for instance, feels nearly like a supporting player rather than the hero), but I thought the film was perfectly balanced.  In fact, the lack of focus on one individual adds to the point of the film: Batman is not meant to be an unmasked hero, but a persona that anyone can step into to do good.  Who said the Dark Knight had to be Batman or Bruce Wayne, anyway? 

This brings me to why this trilogy has been so special in the first place: themes.  Sure, themes can be applied to all films, but there’s something about Christopher Nolan’s trilogy that always makes me think a bit more than other superhero films like, say, The Avengers.  Perhaps it’s Batman’s constant preaching about what Gotham needs, but I always find myself thinking about what it means to be “good” in society and when, or if, it is ever okay to lie a little to protect a lot.  No matter, these films have a self-importance to them that doesn’t come across as pretentious but rather makes everything happening onscreen that much more compelling.

Thankfully, what’s happening onscreen is also pretty awesome.  Nolan has always been able to bring the goods when it comes to cinematic set pieces and he keeps it going with Rises.  I don’t want to go into specifics, but what impressed me the most was the transformation of Gotham.  Aside from that, just know that you get to see every dollar that was spent on this movie.

The characters of the Batman world have always been the real appeal, though.  No offense to Mr. Wayne, but as a character, both he and Batman have grown a bit less interesting with age.  This went unnoticed in The Dark Knight because everyone loved the villain so much.  But is Bane an interesting enough villain to keep things fresh?  I say yes.  The mask and the physicality of Tom Hardy make Bane an imposing villain already, but the boldness of his actions and his words make him interesting.  I still like the Joker more, but Bane is right up there with him.  As for the whole voice controversy, I did have trouble understanding him here and there and the sound of the voice is kind of jarring at first because it seems too loud, but I got used to it and, after a second viewing, really liked it. 

The other big addition that had everyone talking was Catwoman.  (To be clear, she is never really called Catwoman, but it’s easier to refer to her that way.)  I have never been a fan of the character so I was very skeptical about her inclusion, but I was dead wrong.  This is mainly thanks to Hathaway’s performance (and her physicality doesn’t hurt, either).  She does a great job of playing the victim, then quickly reverting back to her natural survivalist state.  She definitely livened up the screen when Bane was away. 

Gordon-Levitt was a bit of a shot in the arm for the franchise, as well.  He seemed like a pointless addition when I heard about it months ago, but once again, I was wrong.  His do-gooder cop works well with Oldman as he keeps things moving in the film when they would otherwise come to a crawl.

The rest of the actors do their usual fine job as their characters haven’t changed very much.  I will point out that Bale was a bit better this time as Batman.  His growling has been toned down a bit and didn’t sound as ridiculous as it did in The Dark Knight.  I also liked his portrayal of Bruce Wayne as a broken man.  This may be the best performance he has given in the trilogy.  

The Dark Knight Rises simply delivered everything I wanted in a final chapter to my favorite superhero franchise.  This is not a perfect film or anything, though.  But I’ll ask what I always ask: is there such a thing as a “perfect” film?  Many have written articles about the faults of the film and, to be honest, I agree with a few of them.  But I did not really notice any problems while I watched it.  I just loved it because I am a dorky fanboy and if I get to see Bane and Batman throw down, I can ignore some logic problems with the story.  And I write this having seen the film a second time and still not having major issues with it.  So this makes Rises one of the best films of the year for me and a more enjoyable film than The Avengers.  But the larger question remains: does it live up to the hype?  In other words, is this better than The Dark Knight?  Well, time will tell on that one.  But why even separate the films?  The first time I watched Rises was as part of a marathon screening of all three films (I mentioned I was a dork, right?), and it felt like one long story with a couple of intermissions.  So is it better?  I don’t know.  I do know that it is part of the greatest comic book storyline of all time and a fitting end to a great trilogy.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I think I ended up absolutely loving this film because I realized how engrossed I was in it.  I've read where people were spotting the twist that Miranda Tate was actually Talia al Ghul very early on but it was completely lost on me.  This is ridiculous because I'm normally focused on predicting the ending or the twist of a film and this one is pretty easy to spot, especially when you pay attention and you know who Talia is before watching the film (and I was aware of the character before the film came out).  Even after seeing the child escape the Pit I didn't put it together.  I wondered how the child escaping could be Bane since it didn't have a mask on, but I was so into the movie that I didn't realize that it had to have been someone else.  When a movie gets me like that, then it's good enough for me.

I also liked where this leaves the franchise.  I was recently extremely disappointed with the decision to reboot the Spider-Man franchise so quickly and I was already bracing myself for the Batman reboot sure to come in less than a decade.  But since Blake was left the keys to the castle, so to speak, the films could continue on with him as Batman.  Nolan is done, but at least the films can go on without rebooting it and giving yet another origin story.  Of course, they'll probably completely reboot it anyway.

Bane and Batman duking it out was great.  I loved their first encounter and it was awesome to see Bane "break" Batman. 

There was a Joker in this movie.  Matthew Modine was Joker in Full Metal Jacket.  Does that count?

The happy ending was a little cheesy, but I'm okay with it.  Doesn't Bruce Wayne deserve a little happiness?  Initially, I wanted Batman to die, but I can accept a fake death.

It was great to see the Scarecrow back in action as a judge.  I really wish he had gotten more screen time throughout the trilogy. 

It was refreshing for the mob bosses to be out of the picture.  It made this seem more realistic (even though this is arguably the least realistic film in the series what with the whole Escape from Gotham scenario).  Let's face it: Batman facing off against mobsters seems a bit anachronistic. 

"RED"

RED - Directed by Robert Schwentke, written by Jon Hoeber and Erich Hoeber, starring Bruce Willis, Mary-Louise Parker, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman, Brian Cox, and Karl Urban - Rated PG-13

The Kurgan is cool with the elderly kicking some ass, hell, he's hundreds of years old himself.

I read the graphic novel of RED (Retired, Extremely Dangerous) as soon as I heard that it was to become a movie starring Bruce Willis. Willis seemed perfect for the grim story of Frank (Paul in the comic) Moses, a tough retired CIA operative forced back into action. I was excited because the graphic novel is filled with brutal action peppered with references to CIA black ops. Well, the film RED is a bit different, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing…well, I guess it is if you’re married to the source material (which I wasn’t).

This film is not grim and the violence is PG-13. Sometimes the censoring of an action film to get the teens in bothers me, but RED is fun enough that I forgive it. Instead of the dark solo mission of the comic, RED is more of an elderly operative reunion movie, and I mean that in the best possible way.

The story goes like this: Frank Moses is attempting to live a quiet, retired life. But he’s bored. His only enjoyment comes from talking to the customer service lady (Mary-Louise Parker) who deals with his pension checks (Frank keeps ripping them up so he has a valid excuse to call). Suddenly a death squad is sent after him in suburbia, so he kidnaps the customer service lady/love interest and heads off to find out why someone tried to kill him.

Willis is joined by former friends and foes such as Morgan Freeman, Brian Cox, Helen Mirren, and John Malkovich. Richard Dreyfuss and Karl Urban are also tossed in for good measure. Needless to say, the cast is quite impressive. I could write a few paragraphs talking about all of their moments, but I’ll just stick with my favorites. Malkovich was my favorite part of the movie, period. Some of his wacky dialogue was a bit over the top, sure, but the crazed faces he makes throughout had me laughing consistently. Cox was fun as well as a former Russian agent. I also enjoyed Freeman’s appearance in the film, but he doesn’t factor into the movie nearly as much as the previews and the poster might lead you to believe. In fact, Cox (who I didn’t even know was in this until he showed up) has a larger role than Freeman.

The previews do deliver on one thing, though: ridiculous action. Don’t take that the wrong way; I was completely okay with the crazy action scenes in this movie: literally shooting a house to pieces, sniper-worthy precision with a grenade launcher, a hand gun versus an RPG, etc. I dug all of that wackiness. I was okay with it all because the tone of the film allowed it. This is not meant to be some realistic, gritty action movie. It’s meant to be fun, and it is.

RED isn’t a complete blast, though. It does suffer from an overlong running time, or at least long for this type of film. It’s cheesy at times, mainly during scenes involving Mary-Louise Parker. Nothing against Parker’s performance; it’s really just a character thing. I was hoping for more CIA humor as well. There are plenty of casual comments about killing people, but I wanted references to actual (or at least rumored) covert CIA operations. In other words, I was hoping for a slightly smarter film. And the score was kind of annoying at times. In a movie like this the score is something that should not be noticed, but multiple times this stupid happy-go-lucky music would be playing during an already goofy scene. It was just overkill.

There is another factor that works for this movie, though: Bruce Willis. I’ve barely mentioned the star of the entire film. He isn’t breaking any new ground in this film, sure, but the guy is a star for a reason. I’m always up for seeing Willis kill roomfuls of random enemies; he’s just fun to watch. Sure, it would’ve been great to see him face off with a specific villain (the “bad guy” role is vague at best in this film), but Willis does have a few excellent moments opposite Karl Urban. Their office fight was great and that scene in which he steps out of a spinning car, while completely stupid and disrespectful to the laws of physics, was still pretty awesome.

RED might not be the dark, brutal action movie some people were hoping for; in fact, I can imagine some people absolutely hating it. If you’re expecting a faithful adaptation, you’ll most likely despise it. (Just check out the film’s message board on IMDb.com for evidence.) If you’re expecting realism, you might even walk out. But RED is just good old-fashioned (emphasis on “old”) fun. It’s crazy, ridiculous, and funny. Lighten up and I’m sure you’ll enjoy it.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

So, kind of a bummer that Morgan Freeman gets killed off, twice. It was just kind of strange since they were all so happy and goofy at the end. I had to laugh when Parker says something along the lines of, "It all worked out." Yeah, except for Morgan Freeman, you heartless slag!

Seriously, you can't just step out of a spinning car like that.

Julian McMahon is not old enough to play a character that was a lieutenant in the Army back in 1981. Assuming he was 20 (and I'm not sure if that's a possible age to reach that rank), that would make him 49. McMahon himself is only 42 and they didn't age him for this movie. It was just kind of weird.

Cool to see Ernest Borgnine still rocking on the big screen.

It seems way too easy to break into the super secret records room in Langley. Just kick in the drywall right next to the door and there you have it. Yeah, I know, definitely not the dumbest part of this movie, but still.

And finally, this weird coincidence: Brian Cox starred in a movie called Red with Tom Sizemore in 2008.

"Invictus"

Invictus - Directed by Clint Eastwood, starring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon - Rated PG-13

I think "District 9" is a more interesting film about South Africa and apartheid, but "Invictus" is still very good.



Invictus, Clint Eastwood’s latest directorial effort, is a well made inspirational film with an important message, but it falls short of greatness. The story is about South Africa after apartheid and the struggle to keep the racially divided country together. Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) is the newly elected president who has been given this task. With mass poverty, an economic crisis, and open hatred between the races he decides to focus on South Africa’s rugby team. He enlists their captain, Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon), to motivate his team to win the rugby world cup (which is a much bigger deal in the rest of the world than it is in North America).

Invictus is not just a motivational sports movie, though. The focus is more on the political side of things. As Mandela enters the office for the first day of his presidency, most of the white office workers are packing up and leaving, assuming they are to be fired. Mandela allows them all to stay and he also makes a point to diversify his security staff (more on them later). He realizes that these small scale changes will not accomplish much and he finds his solution at an appearance at a rugby match. Mandela notices that the white fans cheer for South Africa, and the black fans cheer for England (or whoever happens to be playing South Africa), which is exactly what he did when he was imprisoned. Mandela realizes that “petty revenge” won’t solve anything, so instead of doing away with the team’s traditions, he encourages all of South Africa should embrace the team.

This sounds all well and good, but it’s a bit hard to get into a movie in which all the action takes place through a sport that is obscure at best to an American audience. I understood that the games were about more than winning, but I had almost no idea what was going on during the matches. This is actually a joke in the film as the black characters in the film are just as baffled by the game as the audience in the theater. I get the joke, but I wanted multiple, intense rugby scenes that focus on the simpler parts of the game rather than a few gags in which characters ask, “What happened? Is that good?” Eastwood does accomplish this in the final game with some great sound work and slow motion, but it was too little too late for the rugby.

Regardless of the cultural divide, the importance of the games is easy to understand. I may not have understood what was happening most of the time, but I knew how I felt when it was over. This is one of the most hopeful, uplifting movies I have seen in recent memory. In a cinematic world that seems to focus more and more on misery, death, and violence it was nice to watch a movie about human beings that overcome hate. Is that sappy? Maybe, but it’s also refreshing. But the movie does crossover into extremely sappy territory when it comes to song selection, though. Eastwood goes with an original song titled “Colorblind” that features lyrics such as, “it’s not just a game.” The music is too obvious and it’s stating things that Eastwood has already accomplished.

The musical missteps and confusing rugby scenes aside, this is a solid film. Freeman and Damon strengthen the film immensely. I don’t think they’ll be winning Oscars for their work or anything, but they do carry the film very well. Freeman is great, (as he should be, since Mandela himself has said that Freeman is the only actor who could play him) but his performance is really just a great impersonation. He does convey a presidential authority in every scene, though, and he made the film amusing at times. Damon is fine; it’s just that his character didn’t have much to do. His performance in The Informant! was much more impressive.

What makes this movie a bit more interesting, though, is the fact that the focus isn’t solely on Mandela and Pienaar. A subplot about the newly diverse security detail supplies much of the heart of the film. Add to that subplot scenes of the rugby players teaching kids about the sport, a child trying to listen to the game alongside police officers, and regular people coming together to watch the championship game and you have an encompassing picture of how important that one rugby match was to an entire country. Despite the slight missteps, Eastwood crafts an inspirational film that manages to (barely) get past an audience’s ignorance of rugby and show that a country can overcome severe differences, with the help of some born leaders and a common goal. Even if that goal involves a sport in which it is really hard to tell how goals are scored.