The Lone Ranger

Posted on July 7, 2013 at 11:32 pm

C
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence, and some suggestive material
Profanity: Some mild language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Scenes in bar
Violence/ Scariness: Extensive action-style violence, some graphic, many deaths and injuries
Diversity Issues: A theme of the movie but some insensitivity to racial differences
Date Released to Theaters: July 4, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN: B008JFUOC2

lone rangerFor more than a century the movies have been telling us the story of America through westerns, and each decade gets the version it deserves.  We have seen films range from the optimistic, heroic, and racially insensitive movies of the 40’s (“Destry Rides Again,” “My Darling Clementine”) to the more politically metaphoric movies of the cold war era (“High Noon,” “The Ox-Bow Incident”) to the subversive 60’s (“Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” “Cat Ballou”), to the bleakness of spaghetti westerns and the Oscar-winning “Unforgiven.”

And now, 110  years after Edwin S. Porter’s “Great Train Robbery” (considered the first movie western), we get an update on the radio show-turned television series-turned forgettable 1981 movie version starring model-almost-turned-actor Klinton Spilsbury and Michael Horse, “The Lone Ranger.”  And it is indeed a reflection on the era of Citizens United and squestration.  It is the very essence of soulless corporate excess and celebrity self-regard.

The folks behind “Pirates of the Caribbean” have reunited for a reboot of “The Lone Ranger,” but this is more like the overstuffed sequels than the fresh and charming original.  Everything is out of balance in this bloated two and a half-hour endurance challenge.  The worst part is that pared down to lose 40 minutes or so of filler, this could be a nice little action movie.  It has the key ingredients: a story and characters that have stood the test of time, inventive and absorbing action sequences, and talented performers.  Unfortunately, it is hard to find any of that in the midst of all of the bombast and overkill and tooooo many cooks.

It is now well known that Depp became a superstar with his performance as Captain Jack Sparrow in the “Pirates” movies, a performance of such quirk and weirdness that it completely freaked out the suits.  So of course now, with him as producer, they let him do whatever he wanted for the character of Tonto, including spending the entire movie with his face completely painted and wearing a dead crow on his head, inspired by a picture he saw.  This is when the suits should have stepped in.  Instead they were enablers, allowing the quirks to become distracting and unpleasant.  That is especially true in a completely unnecessary framing story set in 1933, with Depp in old man make-up appearing in an old west display, telling a little kid dressed as the Lone Ranger his story.

Armie Hammer does his best in a thankless role.  His John Reid is part James Stewart in “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” (bookish lawyer who wants to bring Lockeian notions of a civil society to the west), part doofus.  He isn’t as smart as Tonto or the villains, which is fine, but he isn’t as smart as his horse, either.  He isn’t as smart as the blanket under his saddle, except when he is, or when he is called upon to do crazy stunts like racing the snow-white “spirit horse” across the top of a racing train, shooting his gun as he goes.  He is a fine actor with a strong screen presence and he is clearly game.  He deserves better.

The many, many references to other movies seem like crutches, not tributes.  The many, many anachronisms are sloppy and show contempt for the audience, not meta-commentary.  People in 1869 did not say “Let’s do this.”  They did not eat hot dogs in buns with ketchup.  The “Star Spangled Banner” did not become the national anthem until 1931. There was no such thing as “health code violations” in a bar — or a house of prostitution.  And the all-purpose conspiracy that has the military, a hostile takeover, and an outlaw feels desperate and generic.  Any commentary on today’s economic and political woes is purely coincidental.

The real commentary on the failures of capitalism is in spending $250 million of the Disney shareholders’ money on this uninspired vanity project.

Parents should know that this film has intense and graphic violence for a PG-13.  A villain literally eats the heart of a man he has murdered and there is massive slaughter, with many characters injured and killed.  There are prostitutes, a cross-dresser, bathroom humor, some alcohol, and mild language.

Family discussion:  Why did Tonto feed the crow?  Why was trading so important to him?  Read the Lone Ranger’s creed and discuss how it applies to your life.

If you like this, try: “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,” “Silverado,” “Cat Ballou,” and “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”

Related Tags:

 

Action/Adventure Based on a television show Comedy Drama Movies -- format Remake Western

Much Ado About Nothing

Posted on June 20, 2013 at 5:59 pm

A-
Lowest Recommended Age: Middle School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for sexuality and brief drug use
Profanity: Some crude humor and sexual references
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking and drunkenness, brief drug use
Violence/ Scariness: Mild peril and skirmishes
Diversity Issues: Brief racial reference
Date Released to Theaters: June 21, 2013
Date Released to DVD: October 7, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN: B00ECR7KX2

MuchAdoJoss Whedon’s take on Shakespeare’s classic tale is swanky, sexy, and sophisticated, as crisp as a dry martini poured from a silver shaker on a summer night.

In many of his best-loved romantic comedies, William Shakespeare sends his mixed-up couples into the woods so they can learn some lessons and straighten out their complicated alliances away from the strictures of society and surrounded by the natural world.  But in “Much Ado About Nothing,” the two couples resolve their mix-ups and misunderstandings at home.

Whedon’s new film version of the play takes that literally. The movie was filmed in the director’s own house.  Whedon had a break in filming “The Avengers” and decided to invite some friends over to  make a movie.  There are scenes in his daughters’ bedroom.  While characters confer in Shakespearean iambic pentameter we can see the girls’ dollhouse, music box, and stacks of stuffed animals.  His kitchen, back yard, and hot tub provide the settings for eavesdropping, plotting, pining, and law enforcement.  Wisely, Whedon had cinematographer Jay Hunter film in a lush black-and-white that gives magic and timelessness to the modern dress and decor.  It seems to dip the proceedings in moonlight, very fitting for the story of two moonstruck couples, one dramatic and one comic, who mirror each other with themes of trust, honor, and intimacy.

Every romantic comedy with witty repartee between initially antagonistic lovers can trace its origins to “Much Ado’s” Beatrice and Benedick, who spend so much energy discussing their dislike for each that other they must be in love.  “There is a kind of merry war” between the couple, a character explains, with a “skirmish of wit” whenever they see each other.

A silent opening scene added by Whedon shows us Benedick (Alexis Denisof of Whedon’s “Angel”) sneaking out after spending the night with Beatrice (Amy Acker, in a performance of striking intelligence and grace).  He thinks she is still sleeping.  She does not let him know that she is watching him leave.  Much later, he returns with his friends the Prince (Reed Diamond) and Count Claudio (Fran Kranz), triumphant after success in battle. He is welcomed by Beatrice’s uncle Leonato (Clark Gregg of “The Avengers”), but not by Beatrice, who mutters, “You always end with a jade’s trick: I know you of old.” We understand what she is remembering.
Their friends conspire to make them fall in love.  They let Benedick overhear them talking about Beatrice’s love for him and when they know she is listening they discuss his love for her.  The next thing you know, the sworn bachelor Benedick has changed his mind about marriage. “The world must be peopled!” he reminds himelf.

Claudio impetuously falls for the lovely Hero (newcomer Jillian Morgese), daughter of Leonato.  The Prince’s bitter half-brother (Sean Maher) tricks him into believing that Hero has been unfaithful.  In the middle of their wedding ceremony, Claudio accuses Hero and storms off.  Claudio is so afraid of his feelings, he clings to the certainty of believing the worst rather than take on the risks of intimacy.

The capable cast is mostly made up of Whedon regulars, with Nathan Fillion a standout as the clueless cop Dogberry, who is a challenge to modern audiences with less tolerance for slapstick and malapropism than the 16th century audience at the Globe Theatre and modern actors who tend to overplay him.  Fillion plays him with a light, understated touch that conveys confusion rather than coarseness.

Whedon brings the same light touch in making the comic couple in every way the heart of the story.  Beatrice and Benedick may be clueless about their own feelings, but they are the only characters who have the wisdom and integrity to understand the injustice of Claudio’s accusations.  That unity of understanding and purpose is as important in sealing their union as their friends’ trick was in revealing that their “merry war” concealed a deep affection. This play about the ability to see through disguise and misdirection has been brought to the screen with wit and style that illuminate its true spirit. 

Parents should know that this film has some bawdy language and sexual references and situations, some drinking and drunkenness, and brief drug use.

Family discussion: Why is it hard for Beatrice and Benedick to admit their feelings?  Why is it easy for Claudio to mistrust Hero and the Prince?

If you like this try: The 1993 version with Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson

 

Related Tags:

 

Based on a play Classic Date movie DVD/Blu-Ray Pick of the Week Remake Romance

Man of Steel

Posted on June 12, 2013 at 6:00 pm

B-
Lowest Recommended Age: Middle School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language
Profanity: Mild language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Some drinking
Violence/ Scariness: Extensive sci-fi/action violence including acts of terrorism, characters injured and killed
Diversity Issues: A theme of the movie, diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters: June 14, 2013

man of steelCome on, guys, can’t you give us one superhero who is not all angsty and conflicted? Director Zack Snyder, who presided over the ultimate superhero deconstruction in Watchmen, and producer/co-screenwriter Christopher Nolan, who put the cinematic “dark” in Batman’s Dark Knight have taken the original superhero, the one all the others are a reaction to, the one who never needed to be reminded that with great power comes great responsibility, and saddled him with an existential crisis.

This is less an updating of Superman than a downgrade.

That is not the fault of British actor Henry Cavill, who plays Clark Kent and Superman with a lot of heart behind that flawlessly heroic jaw, cleft chin, and broad shoulders.  It is the sour tone of the script and the drab look of the film, with completely unnecessary post-production 3D adding a greyish cast over the bleached-out images.

And a reboot really does not require yet another retelling of the origin story.  We all know about the little spaceship sent off from Krypton by Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and Lara (Ayelet Zurer) before the planet exploded, and the baby who was discovered by the childless Kents, honest farmers who called their new son Clark.  Here the re-telling is used to lay the foundation for a battle of former Kryptonians, with towering rage specialist Michael Shannon as General Zod (memorably played in “Superman II” by Terrence Stamp).  A new wrinkle: as in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and “Gattaca”, the decadent, depleted Kryptonian society genetically programs fetuses for particular purposes.

In defiance of this system, Jor-El and Lara produce a child the old-fashioned way, the first such birth in generations.  But it is too late.  Krypton has ignored its inconvenient truths for too long.  The world, including technology that features a phone that looks like a talking pomegranate, is about to end.  General Zod, once Jor-El’s friend, rebels, killing Jor-El, and vowing revenge as he and his followers are sent to the Phantom Zone.  (And by the way, the Phantom Zone here is not nearly as cool as the rotating glass plane in “Superman II.”

After the Kryptonian prologue, we get a distractingly disjointed story, beginning with Clark as an adult, saving the day in secret and disappearing before he can be identified.  In flashbacks, we see that Martha Kent (Diane Lane) teaches him how to manage his super-senses without getting overwhelmed.  Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) tells his adopted son not to reveal his powers because the world is not ready to understand and appreciate him.  Though he loves his parents, Clark feels isolated and anguished.  He cannot help stepping in when rescue is needed (and in one case when a bully needs a comeuppance), but then he has to move on so his secret cannot be uncovered.

Lois Lane (Amy Adams), spunky as ever (“What can I say, I get writer’s block if I’m not wearing a flack jacket”) finds out Clark’s secret immediately.  She is not someone who is going to be fooled by a pair of glasses and a timid demeanor.  Indeed, one reason this story seems so sterile is that it leaves out some of the core elements of the Superman story.  No kryptonite.  Instead of graceful soaring through the sky, he takes off like a jumping bean.  He does not call himself Superman and is only called it once.  Instead of the iconic bright red and blue uniform, he wears a textured supersuit with a dramatic but not very practical  ankle-length cape.  Edna Mode, where are you when Superman needs you?

Clark keeps his secret, with tragic consequences, until General Zod arrives and insists that Earth surrender its lone Kryptonian.  This leads to a half-hour fight sequence that is ably staged but empty in spirit.  Post-production 3D effects are applied indiscriminately, with the pores of the actors’ skin unsettlingly immersive.  The action is indiscriminate and overblown.  Perhaps some day we will be able to appreciate mass destruction without painful associations.  But here and now, it feels gratuitous.  Clark Kent/Kal-El gets so caught up in his own existential angst he overlooks some complex moral issues in his fight with Zod.  The plot draws too heavily from “Star Trek” (in at least two places) and not enough from Superman’s decades of history.  What about Mr. Myxlplyx?  The City of Kandor?  Bizarro World?  Don’t make Superman into another Dark Knight.  Let Superman be his own super-self.

Parents should know that this film includes extended scenes of comic book-style action violence with fights, chases, explosions, tornado, planet annihilated, sad deaths of parents, crashes, and massive city-wide destruction. Many characters are injured and killed including fetuses. There is a non-explicit childbirth scene, some strong and crude insults, and some drinking.

Family discussion: Was Clark’s father right to tell him to keep his powers secret, no matter what the cost? How does this Superman differ from other portrayals and why? Is morality an “evolutionary advantage?” What would you pick for the symbol of your house?

If you like this, try: “Superman” and “Superman II” and the new book about the teenagers who created the character of Superman: Super Boys: The Amazing Adventures of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster

Related Tags:

 

3D Action/Adventure Comic book/Comic Strip/Graphic Novel Fantasy Movies -- format Remake Superhero
The Great Gatsby

The Great Gatsby

Posted on May 9, 2013 at 6:00 pm

Kids, here’s a hint: Don’t think you can pass a sophomore English exam on F. Scott Fitzgerald’s jazz age classic and high school reading list perennial by watching this movie.  While this version of the story of a man who changes everything about his life so that he can win back the woman he loves hits the Cliff’s notes highlights, spending more time on the green light on the dock than Gatsby and on the eyeglass billboard than Nick Carraway, co-writer and director Baz Luhrmann misses the forest for the trees.   His trees are fun to look at, though.  

Copyright Village Roadshow 2012

It goes off the rails from the very first moment, when it turns out that narrator Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) is telling the story in a snow-covered sanitarium, presumably because the events he is about to disclose are so traumatic they have caused him to have a breakdown.  Or, perhaps this is Luhrmann’s way of eliding Carraway with Fitzgerald himself, though there is no indication that Fitzgerald wrote this book as therapy.

The more significant violation, though, comes from the mangling of the book’s famous opening lines.  Like the book, the movie begins with Carraway telling us that his father warned him not to judge people.  But it leaves out the most important part — the reason why. “In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since. ‘Whenever you feel like criticizing anyone,’ he told me,‘just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.’”  This is crucial for understanding the way Nick looks at Gatsby and his rival, Tom Buchanan.  But Luhrmann inexplicably does not think it is worth including.

Perhaps it is because he is so eager to get to what matters to him, the pageantry.  He is the genre/mash-up “Moulin Rouge” guy whose motto seems to be “more is still not enough, even with glitter on it.  And firecrackers.  And 3D.  And Jay-Z.”

The story takes place in 1922.  Nick is a WWI veteran who has literary tendencies but is working at a low-level job “in bonds” on Wall Street.  He is living in a small cottage in the Hamptons, next door to a vast mansion owned by a mysterious man named Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), who gives fabulously decadent parties but is seldom seen.   They are across the bay from the old-money side, where Nick’s cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan) lives with her wealthy, upper class, polo-playing brute of a husband, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton).  He is having an affair with Myrtle (Isla Fisher), the restless wife of the struggling owner of a garage.

It turns out that Daisy and Gatsby knew each other five years earlier, when he was in the military and before she was married to Tom.   But “rich girls don’t marry poor boys.”  Gatsby has changed everything to change himself into the man Daisy could have married.  He lives across from her home so he can look toward her (and the green light on her dock).  He hopes that his parties will lure her to his home.  When he discovers that his neighbor is her relation, he goes to great lengths to assure Nick that he is trustworthy and to persuade Nick to invite him to tea with Daisy, so he can see her again.  He is convinced that they can erase the past and go on together as though five years that included her marriage and child never happened.  Nick admires Gatsby for his ability to hope.  And in Lurhmann’s version, that is a quality that more than makes up for the compromises and selfishness of Gatsby’s single-minded quest.

Of course, thoughtful consideration of issues like those is not the purpose of this film.  It is a confetti gun of a movie, all sensation and senseless mash-up.  The party scenes and period details are gorgeous for the sake of gorgeousness, with no sense of perspective or irony.  Fitzgerald, who had a love-hate relationship with wealth and status, had some ambivalence in his descriptions of the characters luxuries, but in general Lurhmann’s portrayal of the negligent opulence of the old money Buchanans and gauche display of the new money Gatsby is somewhere between awe and envy.  The Jay-Z-produced soundtrack is not as anacronistically intrusive as one might fear, only because the sensory overload barely allows it to register.  But it is thin compared to the book.  Fitzgerald’s carefully chosen songs and the lyrics of the era that he included are far more evocative and illuminating as words on a page than all of the thump thump thumping  of the music we hear.

Luhrmann may be trying to make some point with the marginalization of African-American characters, relegated to playing music, dancing, and looking on at what the white folks are doing from tenements.  But it is distracting and unsettling to see them treated as just another set of props.   But then, the white characters are not much more than props, either, with a director more interested in posing them and moving the camera than in any kind of performance.  Daisy’s friend Jordan (Elizabeth Debicki), impossibly long and thin, is like a Giacometti sculpture towering above mere mortals.  DiCaprio has some affecting moments, but seems too old and too sleekly comfortable for the role.

After at least five unsuccessful attempts to make this novel into a movie, it may be time to declare it unfilmable.  There is no cinematic equivalent to Fitzgerald’s voice.  This is not “The Great Gatsby.”  It’s an often-visually pleasing kaleidoscopic music video with a 3D shower of shirts.

Parents should know that the movie features violence including murder, suicide, a fatal traffic accident, and domestic abuse, also drinking and drunkenness, pills, smoking, sexual situations that are explicit for a PG-13, and brief strong language including racist and anti-Semitic epithets.

Family discussion:  What do the green light and the billboard symbolize?  Why does Nick say that Gatsby is hopeful?

If you like this, try: the book by F. Scott Fitzgerald and compare this to the other versions, including the 1974 Robert Redford film, the Mira Sorvino miniseries, and the updated “G”

Related Tags:

 

3D Based on a book Drama Remake Romance

A Remake of “Guys and Dolls” with Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Channing Tatum?

Posted on April 24, 2013 at 10:12 pm

New York Magazine’s Vulture blog says that a remake of the Frank Loesser classic musical “Guys and Dolls,” based on the stories of small-time gamblers and crooks by Damon Runyon.  The original movie starred Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra, Jean Simmons, and, from the Broadway cast, Vivian Blaine and Stubby Kaye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m0yN3j7fLU

It’s a delightful movie, but Brando and Simmons were not known for their singing and dancing, and Goldwyn was not the musical powerhouse of rival MGM.  I’d love to see another movie version.  Like Tatum and Gordon-Levitt, they’re too young for the roles, but I’d love to see Anna Kendrick as Adelaide and Amy Adams or Anne Hathaway as Sarah Brown.  Three of my favorite songs from the play were omitted from the movie — I hope if they do a remake they will include “Bushel and a Peck,” “More I Cannot Wish You” and “Marry the Man Today.”  Here are Lauren Graham and Kate Jennings from the recent Broadway revival.

And wouldn’t it be nice to have Sir Paul show up to sing this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HThERfdA1BA
Related Tags:

 

Musical Remake
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2026, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik