| | This is INFURIATING--I've seen two movies this week and have absolutely no one to discuss/analyze them with. Fine, be that way...I'm going to do the next best thing and analyze/review them MYSELF. So, nyah. You have no one to blame but yourselves.
First up, The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian.
Plot Summary: Hamlet by way of the Book of Exodus by way of LotR by way of a PG rating.
What I missed most: Tilda Swinton as a main character.
What worked: the battle scenes, Reepicheep, the tone, the Hamletiness(!!!)
What didn't work: the title character being completely bland, Susan as a badass, direct visual references to LotR (the moving trees and magical river CGI thingers in particular)
Would I see it again: Yes.
Advice for improvement of next installment: Make Caspian interesting, dammit!
If you thought "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" flirted with the boundaries of its PG rating, you ain't seen nothin' yet. "Prince Caspian" is darker and more violent in every way, albeit sans any sightings of blood. Unfortunately, this movie's villain, King Miraz, simply cannot measure up to Tilda Swinton's White Witch (who, in a short cameo, proves that she can devour the scenery and everyone on it whole even while encased in an ice block). And the titular prince himself is easy on the eyes (his age has been upped from thirteen in the book to about eighteen here, to allow for flirtation between him and Susan) but has about as much character development as a cardboard cutout, which isn't a plus when you're supposed to be a mixture of Hamlet and Moses. But do not be afraid: this movie has its own scene-stealer in the form of Reepicheep, the mouse knight voiced by the brilliant Eddie Izzard. The four child actors are still very good, although my favorite character Edmund has very little to do here--although the actor makes the most of what he does get--and Susan does much too much (Susan as a Legolas-like, bow and arrow badass just plain doesn't work, and Susan nurturing a crush on Prince Caspian isn't much better). Overall, though, I greatly enjoyed the movie's darker and more battle-pic story, even if the direct nods to sequences from "The Lord of the Rings" (trust me, you'll know them when you see them) got a bit irritating at times. And hey, it's based on Hamlet. What more do you want?
Next, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
Plot Summary: Indiana Jones fights communism and has close encounters of the third kind.
What I missed most: Sean Connery.
What worked: bringing back Marion, the casting in general, replacing Nazis with Ruskies
What didn't work: anything involving CGI, crystal skulls as a plot device
Would I see it again: You bet!
Advice for improvement of next installment: Don't make one. But if you do, FIRE GEORGE LUCAS FIRST.
Make no mistake about it, George Lucas's crystal skull/alien idea is by far the worst McGuffin this series has ever used--worse even than those stone thingies from "Temple of Doom". And yes, CGI looks ridiculously out of place in an Indiana Jones movie (although fortunately, there is far less CGI use than I had feared). And yes, several sequences go over the top even for an Indy film (you get the impression that George Lucas ran into the conference room where Spielberg was working and yelled "HAI GUYZ I HAZ THIS GREAT IDEA LULZ!" at intermittent points of the movie). And yes, Harrison Ford is old, although still game for anything. But--and this is a big but--the movie somehow manages to still be utterly awesome. The actors are all well cast and having way, way too much fun. In particular, bringing back Marion Ravenwood was a stroke of genius--she was the only Indy girl anybody ever actually liked, largely because she and Indy made such great foils, and that chemistry is still there in spades. And although I had my misgivings, the new character of Mutt fits in just fine (although George Lucas's stated desire to make a spin off series around him is decidedly not fine--stop being a franchise whore, Lucas!) and Cate Blanchette makes a really creepy Ukrainian villainess. Oh, and speaking of that, the switch from Nazis to Commies works, and beautifully at that, as does the switch from pulping up the thirties to pulping up the fifties. So, overall, the movie works because everybody is having too damn much fun for you not to join in--which, truth be told, is what has made most of the Indiana Jones movies work (and the relative lack of fun-having is what made "Temple of Doom" fail). This one isn't "Raiders" redux, but it's much, much better than "Temple of Doom".
|
| | Posted 5/24/2008 6:44 PM - 54 Views - 2 eProps - 1 Comment
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
