REVIEW: The Lone Ranger

The Lone Ranger (2013): Dir. Gore Verbinski. Written by: Justin Haythe, Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio. Based on The Lone Ranger by Fran Striker and George W. Trendle. Starring: Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, Tom Wilkinson, William Fichtner, Barry Pepper and Helena Bonham Carter. Rated PG-13 (Guns blazing). Running time: 149 minutes.

2 stars (out of four)

The Lone Ranger is two-and-a-half hours long. If you’re wondering why an action reboot of a 1950s TV show (itself based on a 1930s radio serial) needs to be so long, you may find enlightening the fact that the director, Gore Verbinski, is the man who squeezed a total of seven hours and forty-three minutes’ worth of high seas adventures out of an eight-and-a-half minute theme park ride.

In all fairness, there are a few sequences in The Lone Ranger that gallop along with such jubilant energy you may be willing to forgive the bloated excesses of the film, which too often feels as though it is wading through molasses.

The best of these scenes is the climactic fight on a pair of speeding trains on parallel tracks. Set to the triumphant march of the William Tell Overture (the TV show’s theme), the battle adheres to Looney Tunes laws of physics and is an absolute thrill, though figuring out what exactly is happening and why might prove difficult. The scene is the climax of a jumbled and needlessly complicated plot and features no less than a half dozen participants. But as long as our heroes keep leaping, swinging and dueling, nothing matters except the chugga-chugga-choo-choo nonsense of the action.

During the film’s quieter passages, however, it is hard to muster much enthusiasm for the characters who populate this wild west world or understand their murky motivations. You know a script is weak when you’ve got Tom Wilkinson playing a corrupt politician, Barry Pepper as a mustachioed Army officer and Helena Bonham Carter as a one-legged prostitute, and your mind still wanders during the exposition.

But credit should be given to Armie Hammer who, it turns out, has charisma to match the impressive bone structure of his chiseled jawline. He is likable as John Reid, the dopey lawyer-turned-vigilante of the film’s title. He seeks to bring to justice (not revenge) to his brother’s cannibalistic murderer (William Fichtner, chewing the scenery and at least one man’s cardiovascular organ).

Getting just as much if not more screen time is Johnny Depp as Tonto, the wise-but-dumb Injun sidekick to the Lone Ranger. Tonto talks in fortune cookie phraseology and practices all kinds of goofy hokum, trying the Lone Ranger's patience and very often saving their skin. The character, a mostly inoffensive caricature rooted in decades’ old stereotypes, is a jokester who pokes fun at the white man’s hypocritical ways and acts as a catalyst for much of the film’s action. Johnny Depp, a gifted comedic actor, has a lot of fun with the role.

There’s a weeping damsel too who I very nearly forgot to mention. Rebecca (Ruth Wilson) is the widowed wife of the slain brother and (naturally) a romantic interest for the Lone Ranger. Keeping with the sexist traditions of the genre, the movie uses her as a prop. She spends half her screen time wringing her hands, gripping a scarf and holding back tears.

The Lone Ranger is a genial, good-natured waste of time, as pleasant as it is forgettable. And if you see it on a hot day, you’re guaranteed to get your money’s worth of air conditioning.

- Steve Avigliano, 7/8/13

REVIEW: Les Misérables

Les Misérables (2012): Dir. Tom Hooper. Written by: William Nicholson, Alain Boubil, Claude-Michel Schönberg, Herbert Kretzmer. Based on the musical by: Alain Boubil and Claude-Michel Schönberg. Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen, Samantha Banks, Isabelle Allen, Aaron Tveit and Daniel Huttlestone. Rated PG-13 (Hopes torn apart, dreams turned to shame). Running time: 158 minutes.

2 ½ stars (out of four)

For a big-budget, end-of-the-year musical spectacle, director Tom Hooper’s Les Misérables is surprisingly light on spectacle. The film indulges in its share of sweeping cityscape views and crowds of costumed extras but spends far more time on close-ups, especially during its performers’ solos.

It’s a technique used to particularly devastating effect in Anne Hathaway’s show-stopping first act number, “I Dreamed a Dream.” As she laments a dream long gone and faces the cruel reality of her life, tears stream down her face. We can hear the pain in her voice and see it too. It is the sort of jaw-dropping moment that freezes time and is the reason musical fans flock to movies like this one and their stage counterparts. Nothing else in the film matches its emotion.

Ms. Hathaway’s Fantine, a prostitute who sends money regularly to a daughter she never sees named Cosette (the sweet and very talented newcomer Isabelle Allen), is but a minor player in a large cast of miserable men and women in nineteenth century France. There is the story’s hero, Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman, commanding the screen as always), a former slave who has spent half his life in bondage as punishment for stealing a loaf of bread. Valjean is given a new lease on life from a gracious and forgiving bishop (Colm Wilkinson) who catches Valjean taking silver from the church in the middle of the night.

Then there is the emotionally tortured Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe), a man wed to the law and desperately (even bizarrely) committed to catching Valjean, who has broken his parole, and seeing justice served. Mr. Crowe lends the role a certain sense of dignity and authority but, regrettably, is the weak link vocally in the cast. He doesn’t embarrass himself or anything but the disparity in talent is clear whenever he shares the screen with Broadway darling Hugh Jackman.

The themes in the film’s first half – justice, honor, duty, forgiveness – are well-suited to the grandeur and beauty of the songs, taken from the 1980s musical which was, in turn, based on the 1862 novel by Victor Hugo. But rather than painting on an huge canvas, where the pain and heartbreak of these characters might have gotten lost, Tom Hooper focuses closely on his actors.

There is a raw quality to the performances, which were recorded live on set. The actors’ expressions match their intonations, and the songs become intimate in a way they could never be on stage.

Despite his best efforts, however, Mr. Hooper cannot overcome the weaknesses of his source material. In the final act, the film leaps forward in time and is hijacked by a new generation of miserable people. Two young men, Marius (Eddie Redmayne) and Enjolras (Aaron Tveit), lead a revolution to overthrow the government, but Marius becomes distracted by a beautiful girl he sees in the marketplace – Cosette all grown up (a lovely Amanda Seyfried). Marius is so overcome with puppy love that he barely notices the girl next door, Éponine (Samantha Banks), who longs for his love and affection.

But the sting of unrequited love pales in comparison with what Valjean and Fantine had to endure. (OK, so he likes you but he doesn’t like you like you… Try being a slave! Or a prostitute! Kids these days have no perspective…) And speaking of Valjean, where is he in the last act? Why is he sidelined and not a major player in the revolution?

Even when the story falters, however, the movie looks great. Cinematographer Danny Cohen beautifully films production designer Eve Stewart’s sets, and though Tom Hooper resists overplaying the epic qualities of the movie, there is no mistaking the hugeness of the production. This is prime Oscar bait and no expense is spared.

Les Misérables is also bolstered by a strong ensemble cast, including a wonderful Sacha Baron Cohen as a pickpocketing innkeeper and Helena Bonham Carter as his wife and partner in crime. Watch too for that little scene-stealer Daniel Huttlestone as a young boy scampering through the gutters who assists the revolutionaries.

Now is probably a fair time to acknowledge that I’m not big on musicals like this. I’d be surprised if a fan of the stage show was disappointed but then, having never seen the original production myself, I have nothing to compare the film to. And at 158 minutes, boy, is this movie long. I’ll never say I didn’t get enough Les Mis for my money.

- Steve Avigliano, 1/5/13

REVIEW: Dark Shadows

Dark Shadows (2012): Dir. Tim Burton. Written by: Seth Grahame-Smith. Story by John August and Seth Grahame-Smith, based on the TV show Dark Shadows by Dan Curtis. Starring: Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Helena Bonham Carter, Eva Green, Jackie Earle Haley, Jonny Lee Miller, Chloë Grace Moretz and Bella Heathcote. Rated PG-13 (Plenty of blood-sucking and some suggestive but non-graphic sex). Running time: 113 minutes.

2 stars (out of four)

At this point, one may safely assume a new Tim Burton movie will not break new ground. He has found he can work comfortably in his pop-goth niche producing mixed results and he rarely has much interest in expanding his aesthetic or exploring outside the box. What he does instead is find new ways to play inside that box, or coffin, as the case almost always is.

This time he revives the late-1960s vampire soap opera Dark Shadows (unseen by me) for a tongue-in-cheek broad comedy. Mr. Burton’s pal Johnny Depp plays Barnabas Collins, the heir to a wealthy fish-packaging family who is cursed by the family’s young maid, Angelique (Eva Green), when he does not reciprocate her love. She is a witch, apparently, and transforms Barnabas into a vampire. She then turns the townspeople against him (torches, pitchforks and all) and they bury him alive.

There he rests until 1972 when construction on a new McDonalds unearths his coffin. To the old Collins manor he goes, to see what living relatives he may have who are willing to help him exact revenge on Angelique. The current residents of the Collins manor include Elizabeth (Michelle Pfeiffer), her daughter Carolyn (Chloë Grace Moretz), her brother Roger (Jonny Lee Miller) and his son David (Gulliver McGrath). David claims to be able to communicate with ghosts (in particular his deceased mother), an oddity the family treats by hiring a boozing, live-in doctor (Helena Bonham Carter) to hang around the house and watch him.

Also employed at the manor are a drunken groundskeeper (Jackie Earle Haley) and Victoria (Bella Heathcote), a young woman who has just arrived from New York and bears a striking (perhaps even mystical) resemblance to Barnabas’s dead lover. (Did I forget to mention Barnabas’s lover was killed by Angelique back in the day?)

Not that any of this matters much. The lengthy introduction turns out to just be a set-up for gags involving Barnabas wandering around and marveling at modern innovations such as automobiles and ice cream. The jokes in these scenes are tired and predictable but, thanks to Mr. Depp’s unflagging enthusiasm, made me chuckle about half the time.

At any rate, the comedy is more interesting than the undead love triangle that is supposedly at the center of this dramatically limp script by Seth Grahame-Smith and John August. The movie fails to convince us its characters are worth even paying attention to, much less emotionally investing in their fates. A number of scenes drift past without leaving any impression.

Playing eighteenth-century vampire-types must be a walk in the park for Johnny Depp by now but he finds ways to have fun with the part. Bella Heathcote’s gaunt, bug-eyed face makes her a classic Burton babe and she plays the character dull and submissive, which is how Mr. Burton typically portrays innocent and virginal young women. Michelle Pfeiffer and Helena Bonham Carter are amusing in underdeveloped bit parts and Jackie Earle Haley, in a rare comedic turn, seems to be enjoying himself. The weak link here is Chloë Grace Moretz, usually a firecracker, who here stomps around in one-note teen angst.

In one of the movie’s last scenes, a character reveals a major secret about herself but kindly asks everyone in the room to not make too big a deal out of it. Fair enough. Dark Shadows is not a movie that warrants a big response. It disappears from the mind as quickly as an apparition.

- Steve Avigliano, 5/13/12

REVIEW: The King's Speech

The King's Speech (2010): Dir. Tom Hooper. Written by: David Seidler. Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Michael Gambon and Guy Pearce. Rated R (some language). Running time: 111 minutes.

3 ½ stars (out of four)

Prince Albert of York (played by Colin Firth) has a problem. As the second son to King George V, he is called upon to make the occasional public speech, but a crippling stammer leaves him silent behind the microphone, struggling to get his words out. The recent invention of radio allows his public speaking failures to be broadcast to an entire nation. At one point in The King’s Speech, George V remarks how earlier kings had it easy. All they had to do was stand still and look good for their portrait. In 1925 (when the film begins), however, radio was a revolutionary modern invention that forced politicians and royalty alike into a new realm of public attention.

The King’s Speech captures a society that is still adjusting to its newfound modernity. Coming into the 20^th Century, the British monarchy had more symbolic power than it did political. Britain’s kings were expected to simply give voice to the nation’s people, leaving the actual politicking to the Prime Minister. Such expectations are understandably daunting for Prince Albert considering his speech impediment. The film dramatizes Albert’s ascension to King (when he becomes known as George VI) and focuses on his struggle to overcome his stammer.

King George V (Michael Gambon) has no patience for his son’s disability and though he knows Albert is the more capable of his two sons, he fails to understand what holds him back. The rightful heir is David (Guy Pearce), but the firstborn’s cavalier attitude and infamous womanizing make him a less than ideal candidate for the throne. This puts pressure on Albert to be ready should his brother step down from the responsibility.

A king with a stammer, however, is no king at all and so Albert’s wife (Helena Bonham Carter) takes him to a number of correctional doctors, all of who are unable to help. Then she discovers the Australian speech specialist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), who takes a more Freudian approach to Albert’s condition by treating it as a mental impediment. Logue’s unconventional treatment is met at first with resistance, but a friendship and an understanding soon forms between the two men.
In some ways, the film is reminiscent of the excellent 2006 film The Queen, which also examined a brief period in the life of a British monarch. Both films touch on larger themes of leadership and British nationalism by focusing on a ruler’s struggle with their public persona.

As in The Queen (whose star Helen Mirren won a deserved Oscar), at the center of The King’s Speech is an excellent peformance. Two, actually. Colin Firth gives a superb performance as the soon-to-be King by humanizing him. His recreation of the stammer is entirely convincing, but his performance goes deeper than this. The stammer is a key to the character’s emotional life. Watch how he not only shuts down in public speeches, but in private conversations with his father and older brother too. We see how he is a good man at heart capable of great leadership if only he can overcome his anxieties.

Geoffrey Rush is wonderful as well and his playful take on Lionel gives the film much of its lighthearted tone. The scenes between Albert and Lionel are a joy to watch and director Tom Hooper wisely gives the two actors the time and space to stretch out and develop their characters’ relationship. In one scene, Lionel pushes Albert and asks him to vent his anger. The slew of profanities that fly out of Albert's mouth make for one of the film’s funniest and surprisingly touching moments.

Also good is Helena Bonham Carter, whose performance may get overshadowed by those of her co-stars. In the role of Albert’s supportive wife, she lends a tender, warm-hearted performance to the film and while her scenes with Firth are not as noteworthy as those between him and Rush, they give the film an emotional core.

Shot largely on location, The King’s Speech is also beautiful to look at. The spacious, luxurious halls of castles and cathedrals fill the screen and cinematographer Danny Cohen shoots the film’s regal locales with their awe-inspiring size and grandeur in mind. Hooper uses these settings to heighten the pressures put on Albert, who is more at home in smaller, cozier rooms. We can understand how the pressure put on him must feel when he’s positioned at the bottom of a frame that captures a vast and expansive ballroom.

The King’s Speech questions what it means to be a leader and brings up historical themes of British nationalism but never pushes these larger ideas too hard. This is an enjoyable, often humorous character-driven film that, like all good biographical films, transcends the facts and tells a human story, an exceedingly charming one at that.

- Steve Avigliano, 1/02/11

REVIEW: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010): Dir. David Yates and Ben Hibon (animated sequence). Written by Steve Kloves, based on the novel by J.K. Rowling. Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman. Rated PG-13 (some sequences of intense action violence, frightening images and brief sensuality). Running time: 146 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

The Harry Potter franchise has always faced a catch-22. The first film was released while J.K. Rowling was only halfway through writing the series, so for many fans, the books and movies are intertwined in a way unlike any other book-to-movie adaptation. During a summer when we were bombarded with simultaneous ads for the final novel and the fifth movie, how could one read The Deathly Hallows without picturing Daniel Radcliffe as Harry or imagining how certain scenes would eventually play out onscreen? The movies changed the way we pictured the world and characters of the novels. Similarly, it is difficult watch the films without making constant mental comparisons to the books still fresh in our minds.

This presents a problem for the filmmakers. Ideally, a film adaptation should be free to make whatever adjustments are necessary make the story work in movie form. For the Harry Potter films, however, the filmmakers feel extra pressure to remain faithful to the books. Change or condense too much and you upset the fans. Each installment in the series has handled this issue to varying degrees of success. The third, Prisoner of Azkaban took the greatest liberties with its source material but in some ways stayed most true to the tone of the novel. On the other hand, the fifth film, Order of the Phoenix, excised so many subplots that the pacing was thrown off. The movie moved too fast to tell such a complex story. Then again, maybe that was just the Potter fan in me disappointed to see my favorite book (a whopping 800+ pages long) condensed to a lean two hours.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a different sort of beast for a few reasons. The filmmakers elected to divide the book into two movies and release them eight months apart, a decision that has its benefits and its drawbacks. By splitting the story down the middle, the viewer is left with the anticlimactic feeling of having only seen half a movie. Part 1 also ends on a pretty limp cliffhanger that fails to excite because we don’t yet understand how it fits into the larger picture.

Yet in spite of this unnatural division, the additional running time afforded by the two-part release plan gives the film a chance to breathe, something the last three films rarely got a chance to do.

The film opens with Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) hissing his plan to his Death Eater disciples (as if they didn’t already know): to kill Harry Potter. Here, Fiennes finally gets the opportunity to delve into the nastiness of Voldemort and his performance reminds us why the character is such a great villain.

Meanwhile, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) are on the search to find Voldemort’s missing horcruxes – objects that contain fragments of the Dark Lord’s soul. In order to kill You Know Who, they must first destroy the hidden horcruxes. This quest leads our young heroes away from Hogwarts, which means considerably less screen time for most of the supporting characters. Series favorites such as Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) only get a handful of scenes, but will no doubt return for Part 2.

The relaxed pacing of TDH Part 1 also allows for some wonderful scenes that might not have made it into a more condensed script. The best of these is an animated sequence that tells the mythical fable of “The Three Brothers,” which plays an important role in the story. The scene, directed by animator Ben Hibon, is one of the film’s most visually inventive moments and its inclusion enriches the mythology of Rowling’s universe.

The film also strikes a balance between the bleak tone of the later films and the ever-present whimsy of Rowling’s world. There’s even room for a few laughs when the gang infiltrates the Ministry of Magic disguised as wizarding adults.

The Deathly Hallows Part 1 is one of the strongest installments of the series and will hopefully become even better when taken into consideration with Part 2. Could the two films have been condensed into one longer film? Perhaps, but at the cost of which scenes? There may be no perfect way to adapt the books, but this may be as close as the films come to delivering a satisfying and faithful Harry Potter film.

- Steve Avigliano, 12/02/10

REVIEW: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009): Dir. David Yates. Written by: Steve Kloves. Based on the novel by: J.K. Rowling. Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Sir Michael Gambon, Jim Broadbent, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton, Helena Bonham Carter. Rated PG (scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality). Running time: 153 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

"No time for dancing, or lovey dovey. I ain't got time for that now."

So sings David Byrne of “Life During Wartime.” Screenwriter Steve Kloves and director David Yates however find considerable room for lovey dovey in the The Half-Blood Prince, an often lighthearted adaptation of J.K. Rowling’s sixth novel. The war between the Dark Lord and his resistors is just kicking into gear, but try telling that to the burgeoning hormones of a bunch of sixteen-year-olds.

The film opens darkly with the naysayers of the last film conceding that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named has indeed returned and, along with his entourage, the Death Eaters, is wreaking havoc on both the wizarding and Muggle world. Life continues though and Harry, Ron and Hermione (Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, respectively) return to Hogwarts to find an increase in security and a decrease in smiles. Meanwhile Dumbledore (Sir Michael Gambon) has been taking mysterious leaves of absence and Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) may or may not be serving the Dark Lord. There’s also a new professor inclined towards favoritism, Horace Slughorn, played with great humor by Jim Broadbent. As with most of the supporting roles in the Potter series, Broadbent’s performance is one of the film’s strengths, adding several laughs and bringing to life the easily excitable Potions teacher with something to hide. But all mysteries aside, the biggest changes going on in the lives of our heroes are the internal ones, and the romantic subplots often upstage the main storyline, remaining true to the snogfest of the book.

Like each of the Potter films after the first two, The Half-Blood Prince features heavy editing of its source material. The politics of the wizarding world, which were prominent in the last film, are gone, and many characters’ roles have been reduced or removed entirely (most regrettably, the begrudging house elf Kreacher who I understand is to return again in the next installment). All but two of the Voldemort flashbacks, which made up the dominant thread in the novel, have been cut and the climactic ending has been altered to include less action. There is however a new scene involving a thrilling chase through tall grass that punches up the film’s midsection.

Despite these deviations, The Half-Blood Prince is an improvement on Order of the Phoenix, which excised so many storylines from Rowling’s sprawling novel it felt far removed from the magic of the beloved castle. Each Potter film thus far has struggled, to varying degrees of success, to capture onscreen what makes the books so enjoyable, but always lacks Rowling’s sense of limitless invention. They remain, as blockbusters must, plot-oriented, and while they retain the overall outline of the books, they cut Rowling’s doodles in the margins, her embellishments that bring this fictional world to life.

This remains an entertaining film however, and remains true to the tone of the sixth novel, balancing the darkness of an impending war with adolescent angst. More so than other films of the series, The Half-Blood Prince strives to recreate at least some of Rowling’s magic on the page with visual flourishes and some truly funny moments. This ain’t no party, and this ain’t no disco, but we’ve got time to fool around a little before the two-part Deathly Hallows sobers things up.

- Steve Avigliano, 7/28/09