• The Secret World of Arrietty
     
      http://bartybooks.com/the-secret-world-of-arrietty.htm
  • Gone
     
      http://bartybooks.com/gone.htm
  • Wanderlust
     
      http://bartybooks.com/wanderlust.htm
  • This Means War
     
      http://bartybooks.com/this-means-war.htm
  • Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
     
      http://bartybooks.com/ghost-rider-spirit-of-vengeance.htm
  • The Vow
     
      http://bartybooks.com/the-vow.htm
  • Safe House
     
      http://bartybooks.com/safe-house.htm

Posts Tagged ‘Helen Mirren’

Movie Review: Arthur

Everything that made the original “Arthur” (1981) such an appealing but politically-incorrect romantic comedy is conspicuously missing from the lackluster remake co-starring Russell Brand and Helen Mirren. Freshman director Jason Winer’s slick, glossy, $40-million rehash of “Arthur” includes several hopeless changes from the original that don’t improve the finished product. Moreover, Warner Brothers looks like it was banking heavily on “Arthur” to make millions because they let the producers shoehorn one of the studio’s hottest, million-dollar plus properties into the plot: Batman. “Arthur” opens and closes with our irresponsible hero joy-riding through the streets of New York City in a replica of the Batmobile. Winer and “Bruno” scenarist Peter Baynham have updated the story line and sharpened the focus. Unfortunately, this overt realism detracts from what essentially was a hilarious “Cinderella” fairy tale for adults. Mind you, the chief characters–particularly the eponymous zillionaire playboy–emerge as more often obnoxious than sympathetic.

The idea of casting Russell Brand in the role that Dudley Moore immortalized with his considerable wit and subtlety had some modicum of merit. After all, Moore and Brand both hail from England, and Brand is an exotic misfit. He takes himself no more seriously than Moore took himself. Sadly, the comic sensibilities that differentiate them from each other doesn’t make Brand’s Arthur Bach either more interesting or sympathetic. As his nanny, Helen Mirren succeeds far better than anybody in a biological role change. Meanwhile, Nick Nolte is a perfect fit as the grumpy father of the woman, Jennifer Garner, who our protagonist is fated to wed against his wishes. Baynham fails to replicate the sparkling dialogue of the original and none of the lines are quotable. When everything is said and done, “Arthur” amounts to an inferior remake and none of Brand’s antics can compensate for these shortcomings.

Arthur Bach (Russell Brand of “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”) doesn’t know the meaning of work. Indeed, Arthur has never earned a dime by the sweat of his own brow in his life. Nevertheless, he has more money to blow than most people ever dream about, and he indulges his every whim and desire with his millions. Such is Arthur’s notoriety that the police are already familiar with his outrageous shenanigans. Nothing that he does surprises them. When the authorities pull over his devoted but simple-minded chauffeur, Bitterman (Luis Guzman of “Mystery Men”), at the outset of the action, they know that only Arthur has enough money to not only buy his own Batmobile replica but also careen around the streets in it. Furthermore, it comes as no surprise to them that Arthur is sloshed. Arthur rarely does anything without an alcoholic drink in his hand. Mind you, the cops catch up with Arthur not because they are better drivers, but because Bitterman and Arthur cannot handle their Batmobile. The humor here is our tipsy hero crashes into the famous statue of a huge bull on Wall Street. When Arthur tries to extricate himself from the wreckage, he finds himself wedged up against the bull’s abundant scrotum.

Eventually, Arthur’s long-suffering mother, Vivienne (Geraldine James of “Gandhi”), who manages the family business, tires of her son’s excesses and forces him to grow up. Namely, Vivience plans to deprive Arthur of his $950 million inheritance unless he bows to blackmail and marries a wealthy heiress, Susan Johnson (Jennifer Garner of “Catch and Release”), who she holds in high regard for her business acumen. Naturally, Arthur doesn’t like his mother’s ultimatum. Initially, he tries his hand at working. Predictably, Arthur’s attempts at holding done a job at Dylan’s, Gotham’s most illustrious candy store end in disaster. Arthur’s life-long nanny and confidante, Hobson (Helen Mirren of “Red”), believes that a trip to the altar might straighten him up. Hobson has spent most of her life picking up after Arthur and forcing his hookers and one-night stands to cough up his expensive toys and valuables than they tried to steal.

Along the way, rebellious Arthur discovers penniless Naomi Quinn (Greta Gerwig of “No Strings Attached”), the woman that he has spent his entire life looking for. Naomi works as a Manhattan tour guide without a license. Indeed, like Arthur, the authorities know about her and have repeatedly warned her about her illegitimate job. In the original “Arthur,” the girl of his dreams, Liza Minnelli’s hard-working waitress Linda Marolla, was a shoplifter who liked to steal ties for her unemployed father. Naomi and Arthur hit it off splendidly because our hero knows how to spend big. Arthur makes a major mistake when forgets to inform Naomi about his predicament. When she learns that Arthur is about to marry Susan, Naomi washes her hands of him. It doesn’t help matters that Arthur has pulled strings to get a publisher for her children’s book.

As remakes go, “Arthur” seems rather pointless, no matter how well Winer and Baynham have updated the protagonist’s antics. Sadly, those antics are more tasteless than amusing. Worse, in an effort to differentiate themselves from the original, they have poor Arthur sober up following the Twelve-Step Alcoholics Anonymous program. Brand possesses none of the charm and wit that made the original Dudley Moore character so infectiously funny. Instead, Brand tries to convert the title character into the rock’n roll miscreant that he portrayed not only in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” but also “Get Him to the Greek.” “Arthur” fails to generate any chemistry between its leads. Brand and Mirren don’t bond, and she doesn’t get to deliver the acid-tipped barbs that John Gielgud in the original administered with such relish.

warhorse ending, Jennifer L Bolduc, Sarah Hajney and Jennifer Bolduc

The Tempest (2010)

The Tempest shows a filmmaker just itching to let loose her turbulent, big-splash-of-a-canvas vision of Shakespeare onto the screen, and the itch, for better or worse, is scratched sufficiently. This is a work that takes the delightfully and eerily dark take on the Bard that Taymor had before with Titus and suffuses it with the computer-generated surreal landscape of Across the Universe. Whether you can really dig into Taymor’s films or not, to varying degrees for some, at the least it’s hard to ignore her artistic prowess, of pushing the envelope of what might be acceptable or just what is “normal” and stretching the boundaries until you wonder what boundaries are even for in the first place – that is, you wonder so that people like Taymor or Terry Gilliam can break them, f*** them about, and give audiences something different with the acting and the mood of the piece while, oddly enough, staying true to at least the original spirit of the source material (Beatles, Frida Kahlo, the Bard).

This time her Tempest is almost nearing all over the place visually, but luckily it’s anchored on one of Shakespeare’s most underrated works ; it’s one of my personal favorites from him actually, a work drenched in fantasy and ideas of late 16th century God’s law and man in the high and low areas of class, meaning those who have it (i.e. explorers) and those that don’t Djimon Hunsou’s native character. The big change to anyone who has read the play is that Prospero is now Prospera, played with big emotions and big movements of poise and stamina by Helen Mirren. Oh she’s a force to be reckoned with, as a star and as a character that she’s playing, and she’s a practitioner of alchemy. This might already be subversive – in that time and era women like that were branded witches right away, but here it’s something that is not only encouraged but flaunted – but then comes more ‘colorful’ though normal elements of explorers, washed up on the shore, and part of the King’s army of sorts (Alfred Molina and Chris Cooper make up some of this bunch).

There’s also a love story thrown in the mix between the two youngest members of the cast, actors whom, I’m sorry to say, I don’t remember their names as they are kind of forgettable due to the script and Taymor’s direction of them. I get the sense that among the rest of what she has to work with this is either the thing she’s least concerned with, or she botched this part of the film. I didn’t really buy any of this young-love stuff, not the interactions or the dippy acting, or even (to go back to the source if it’s that) Shakespeare’s dialog. This and a few other odd moments, such as a few scenes with CGI (some of it, though not all of it, with Ben Whishaw’s spirit character Ariel who is up there with the clouds and the smoke of air) do detract from the quality of the rest of the film.

The rest of it, I should add, is a lot of fun, and extraordinary to take in. Djimon Hunsou makes his Caliban a terrifying but oddly sympathetic character, one who will do bad things and can- the scar on his face says ‘Don’t mess with me, Whitey’ pretty clearly, even if it’s said in old-school Bard speak- but has also been damaged over time. There is some depth there that isn’t with some of the other supporting characters, as interesting as they are and acted as well as they are. Among the lot that I’ve mentioned and who are really excellent in scenes that just need plenty of good close-ups and not too much music, Molina, Cooper and a magnetic David Straitharn take up really good chunks of screen time.

The oddity here is Russell Brand. Appearing as himself, or what I can figure is him”self” after playing a similar crazy rock-and-roll type in Judd Apatow comedies, here he’s kind of the Fool character, Trinculo, and it was kind of delightfully bizarre to see him here doing his thing with such gusto and humor. Maybe that was Taymor’s intention, as with Mirren as Prospera in a way, to give this work that is centuries old and dealing with the aspect of Post-Colonial theory a modern uplift and change up the nature of the characters without taking too much away from their roots. But more to the point, one of the strengths of the film and that Taymor connected with is that Prospera’s an artist in her own right, only with magic, and may be reckless with her ‘art’ but will go to the lengths that she will do to her will. An extreme example, but I have to wonder if what Taymor is doing here, as all over the place and great and not-so-great as it is, in its broad strokes its a really raw expression of her own art through this flawed ex-member of royalty.

Taymor’s work is an “acquired taste” as the euphemism goes, another way of saying “go in at your own risk”. The wild takes on set-pieces like the ship-crash, the trippy-hallucinogenic visions of characters, and the eccentric acting turn the Tempest into a curious delight, but you need to expect something like that. This is Shakespeare for the Modern Museum of Art group, not for stuffy intellectuals looking for Masterpiece theater. For its faults, some of them crucial, its alive and throbbing and that’s good to have in this Awards season.

molina birch

Red (2010)

A retired CIA operative, hunted by his own people, reunites his old team for one last mission. It’s certainly not an original story, mashing together ideas that we’ve seen before in the Bourne series, The Expendibles and The Losers. ‘RED’ (which stands for ‘Retired, Extremely Dangerous’) is the 4th film this year to be adapted from a graphic novel. It is also the 4th to feature men going on a mission, and the 5th with a plot involving the CIA. I couldn’t help but feel skeptical. But then I noticed the cast list and realised that this is meant to be a comedy. At this point I saw the project in a different light. ‘RED’ is a film in which John McClane, God, Cyrus the Virus and The Queen join forces and kill people for laughs. Clearly this was going to be a film where story and sense came second to cast and chemistry.

From ‘Die Hard’ to ‘Sin City’, Bruce Willis’ good-guy-having-a-bad-day routine has evolved little, but it does not need to be fixed. His performance in ‘RED’ is familiar, but he is never less than entertaining. This time he brings with him an air of self-parody. Throughout the film he maintains a carefree poker-face, as though he’s done this so many times over the years that he can afford to be relaxed. There are valid attempts at making Willis seem more normal, and these can be quite amusing. The first 10 minutes, which show him adjusting to retirement and aimlessly wandering around the house in his dressing gown, are reminiscent of Carl Fredricksen’s first appearance as an old man in ‘Up’. Deeper characterisation, however, only serves to show how abnormal he really is, and it is a delight to see him in action.

With the exception of Willis, the cast is made up of actors who have no business waving guns around. Helen Mirren was an inspired choice, as if making up for the predictability of Willis’ casting. Flower-arranging OAP on the outside and bad-ass hit-woman on the inside, Mirren is strangely suited to action. There is something about the juxtaposition of her gran-like demeanour with exaggerated violence that makes her very funny and extremely watchable.

John Malkovich is particularly entertaining in his performance as a mentally questionable conspiracy theorist who refuses to retire peacefully. After the numerous roles he has played with an undercurrent of insanity, it is hilarious to see him go full-on howling mad. It is not often that Malkovich gets to flex his comedy muscles, but he steals every scene in which he appears.

Morgan Freeman is unfortunately the weakest part of this alternative A-Team, not because of his performance but because he is under-utilised. He has little action time and even less characterisation. There is a glimpse at pervy-old-man behaviour (which could have been funny) and a mention of health problems (which could have been touching) but these are quickly forgotten. It is as though the writers were distracted, trying too hard to develop a secondary storyline involving Willis’ romance with a pension office clerk. This subplot adds little and distracts from the main picture. It is a pity, because the wasted effort could have been more effectively put into making the story tighter, or on giving Morgan Freeman more screen time.

Overall, this is a good laugh, even if you won’t remember it afterwards. Taking things less seriously and trying less hard to be cool means that ‘RED’ is more fun than ‘The Expendibles’, and less embarrassing too. Stallone can mumble all he wants about “shooting real action” – I’d rather see the Queen fire machine guns.

40 queries. 1.067 seconds.