Tag Archives: brendan gleeson

REVIEW: Murky 3-D Can’t Sink Spirited Pirates! Band of Misfits

The latest feature to emerge from Britain’s Aardman Productions workshop, The Pirates! Band of Misfits , succeeds in spite of a faint but persistent sense of factory settings and finishes. Following their partnership with Sony Animation for last year’s computer animated Arthur Christmas , Aardman (whose co-founder, Peter Lord, directs here, along with Jeff Newitt) has returned to the stop-motion claymation that helped build the company name. It’s a strange thing, knowing that a movie was literally handmade and still feeling it is vulnerable to the glaze of mass-farmed entertainment. The story, adapted from the first two installments of a children’s serial by Gideon Defoe (who also wrote the screenplay), is the first source of this feeling. It’s 1837, and we meet the garrulous Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant, dining on his dialogue with impeccable form) as he resolves to enter an annual Pirate of the Year contest somewhere in the West Indies. Pirate Captain leads a ship of holy fools, each one sillier and more plainly named than the next. There is The Albino Pirate (Anton Yelchin), The Pirate with Gout (Brendan Gleeson), and The Pirate with a Scarf (Martin Freeman), among others. Pirate Captain’s rivals are announced with fanfare: Black Bellamy (Jeremy Piven), the brash American, Cutlass Liz (Salma Hayek), the Jamaican cutthroat, and Peg Leg Hastings (Lenny Henry), the… peg legged one. It’s all rather casual — not unengaging, exactly, but lacking a narrative energy all its own. Flashy introductions are made, but the set-up feels like that of a franchise coasting through its third or fourth installment. Pirate Captain cuts an inglorious figure—he lacks looting and pillaging chops but desperately seeks the validation of his co-pirates, who see him as something of a tragic clown. The Pirate with a Scarf plays ego-fluffer, insisting that real piracy isn’t about winning trophies, it’s about swashbuckling adventures and glossy beards. And Pirate Captain is certainly blessed with the latter: His facial hair is much discussed and much deployed, for good reason — it forms a perfectly sculpted pelt, with curls like browned fiddleheads. Much of Pirates! is as beautifully made, but you wouldn’t know it to look through the murkifying lens of 3-D glasses. About halfway through, around the time Pirate Captain attacks a ship carrying Charles Darwin (David Tennant) and is informed that his beloved parrot is actually a rare dodo bird, I slipped the glasses down my nose. Like many animated films with 3-D packaging, plenty of Pirates! doesn’t use the technology to much discernable effect. What you notice, then, is the way the animator’s work comes to life — begins to gleam, even — without the darkening of the glasses. I watched as much as I could of the rest of the movie this way, and began to resent the shots where the effects were central, forcing a reversion to three dimensions. In this case the depth of the actual fields involved in making the film are not worth what they cost in the color and texture of the clay figurines. As the images begin to feel drained of their luster, the story starts to spark with more of Aardman’s antic spirit. Devout monarchists will want to skip the part where Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton), with whom poor Darwin is painfully besotted, goes into martial mode to acquire the dodo bird Pirate Captain is lured into presenting to a scientific conference in London. A deadpan monkey whom Darwin has trained to speak with cue cards is a clever touch, and Grant and his inspired line deliveries only get better as Pirate Captain sells his soul for a bit of glory and then faces off with a Queen who runs a rare animals eating club and hates pirates for being so sentimental and passé. The sight of Queen Vicky slashing and burning in her bloomers in the set-piece finale make you wonder what might have happened had the movie not felt obliged to dull its shine for anyone’s sake. Follow Michelle Orange on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .

Read the original here:
REVIEW: Murky 3-D Can’t Sink Spirited Pirates! Band of Misfits

REVIEW: The Raven Makes a Po’ Case for Poe

James McTeigue ’s The Raven , a thriller set in Baltimore during the last days of Edgar Allan Poe’s life, is a handsome-looking thing, with fairly grand period costumes and reasonably lavish sets. So much for production values: In every other way the picture is stiff and unyielding, hampered by a clumsy plot and diorama performances. The whole thing has the feel of a second-rate living-history exhibit. John Cusack plays the beleaguered Poe, who hasn’t had a literary hit in a long time and doesn’t even have enough dough in his pocket to buy the good stiff drink he sorely needs: When the barkeep at the local watering hole refuses to serve him, he tosses a pile of coins and crumpled money on the bar, and there’s an old button mixed in there, too. Still, Edgar finds some solace in his romance with the pretty, vivacious Emily Hamilton (Alice Eve), whose father greatly disapproves of the match. (It helps that he’s played by a gruff, grouchy Brendan Gleeson, taking his role only about as seriously as he needs to.) Meanwhile, there’s something really ugly going down in Baltimore. A serial killer is offing his victims via grisly means clearly inspired by Poe’s stories: A mother and daughter suffer a throat cutting and a strangulation, respectively, a la “The Murders in the Rue Morgue.” A critic (!) named Griswold – based on one of Poe’s real-life adversaries — is slowly, excruciatingly bisected by a scary slicer thing right out of “The Pit and the Pendulum.” Fields (Luke Evans), a young detective working on the case, appeals to Edgar to help him find the culprit. To complicate matters, the creep absconds with Emily and challenges Edgar to find her before she succumbs to the nasty death he’s got planned for her. That’s not a terrible premise for a film, and The Raven at least offers the occasional spurting blood vessel of gruesome fun. Sometimes, though, it seems to aspire to be a sort of period Saw — albeit a much tamer one – with a degree of sadism it really doesn’t need. McTeigue (who directed, seemingly a century ago, the adaptation of Alan Moore and David Lloyd’s V for Vendetta ) is working from a script by Ben Livingston and Hannah Shakespeare, and you can see he’s pedaling hard to keep the suspense level high: The Raven seems to be striving to jazz up Poe the way Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes movies tried – unsuccessfully – to capture the spark of Arthur Conan Doyle. Along the way, the plot wobbles off the rails too many times to count, particularly as the movie rattles toward its convenient wrap-up, but that isn’t even the major problem with it. It all could have worked, maybe – if only Cusack, as the frustrated, impoverished genius, weren’t so insufferable. Cusack tries to turn Poe into a tragic crank, a man whose brilliance was sorely underappreciated by the masses, and even if the approach is believable enough, Cusack too often comes off as an imperious bore. He peers at the folk around him through those small, dark, glittering eyes; sometimes he condescends to them with that reluctant crinkle of a smile. Cusack has often been a marvelous actor – he was convincingly haunted in the 2007 Stephen King adaptation 1408 – but he makes a smug Poe, not a tortured one. It doesn’t help that the character keeps reminding everyone in the movie, and us, how brilliant he is. The real Poe was brilliant, and the literature he left behind elicits a particular type of delicate but bone-rattling shiver; no artist since has been able to match it. Do we really need John Cusack strutting around in a floaty cape, bellyaching about how the simpletons around him just don’t get his genius? Poor Edgar sure didn’t have it easy in life; the last thing he deserves is to be portrayed as a pompous ass. Follow Stephanie Zacharek on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .

Visit link:
REVIEW: The Raven Makes a Po’ Case for Poe

Pen a 10-Word John Cusack Review, Win Tickets to the Premiere of The Raven

John Cusack dives into the twisted psyche of 19th century author Edgar Allan Poe in this week’s The Raven , a fictional adventure-mystery that blends the writer’s real life with the kind of dark, macabre tales he wove — and Movieline has your chance to catch it before it opens on April 27! Enter Movieline’s 10-word review contest (critiquing any film from Cusack’s nearly three-decade career) and you could win a pair of tickets to the Los Angeles premiere and after party for the film. So turn on the hot tub time machine and crank up the high fidelity, tapeheads and grifters and America’s sweethearts, because, um, the cradle will rock over Broadway. Or something. It’s a sure thing! Oh, just say anything… Okay, that was terrible. But my point is, there are so many great Cusack flicks to choose from. Submit your best 10-word Cusack review in the comments below (or on Facebook or Twitter) and your faithful Movieline editors will pick the most clever, lyrical, and inspired one of the bunch; the writer of the best 10-word review will receive a pair of tickets to the Raven premiere and afterparty, to be held Monday, April 23rd at the LA Theater (615 Broadway, Downtown Los Angeles). CONTEST RULES: – Submit an original 10-word review of any John Cusack movie in the comments below. Entries must be exactly 10 words, no more, no less! – Enter with your full name and an email address where you may be reached. – Eligible entrants must be at least 18 years of age and able to attend the premiere in Los Angeles on the evening of Monday, April 23rd. One (1) winner will be selected. Tickets must be picked up at will call at the Los Angeles premiere and are not transferable. Contest ends Friday, April 20 at 3pm ET/12 pm PT — so get to reviewing! More on The Raven , in theaters April 27: The macabre and lurid tales of Edgar Allan Poe are vividly brought to life – and death – in this stylish, gothic thriller starring John Cusack as the infamous author. When a madman begins committing horrific murders inspired by Poe’s darkest works, a young Baltimore detective (Luke Evans) joins forces with Poe in a quest to get inside the killer’s mind in order to stop him from making every one of Poe’s brutal stories a blood chilling reality. A deadly game of cat and mouse ensues, which escalates when Poe’s love (Alice Eve, She’s Out of My League) becomes the next target. Intrepid Pictures’ The Raven also stars Brendan Gleeson (In Bruges) and Oliver Jackson-Cohen (Faster). Follow Movieline on Twitter .

See more here:
Pen a 10-Word John Cusack Review, Win Tickets to the Premiere of The Raven

Harrison Ford Not Actually in Talks For Movie Ridley Scott Will Never Make

The filmmaker clarifies: “We’re still in discussions about whether it should be a prequel or sequel. It’s an interesting conversation. I’m meeting with writers and I’ve also gone back to [ Blade Runner co-writer] Hampton Fancher and he still speaks the speak. He’s right there. I spoke with him this week. But we don’t even have a script yet. I’m not sure that that’s going to be a story point, so I don’t know. But if it were, nothing would please me more. Honestly.” [ EW ]

Originally posted here:
Harrison Ford Not Actually in Talks For Movie Ridley Scott Will Never Make

REVIEW: In Darkness Takes the Holocaust Underground — to Dull, Didactic Effect

Based on a true story out of World War II-era Lvov, Poland (now Lviv, Ukraine), In Darkness seeks to distinguish itself from the painfully distended genre of Holocaust movies with relentless “you are there” realism. It’s not quite Smell-o-vision, but the idea seems to be to try and make the experience of the 12 Polish Jews who hid in a sewer for 14 months as uncomfortable for the audience as it was for them. It seems significant that even a movie like The Reader paused in the midst of its “I was deflowered by a war criminal” melodrama to acknowledge that there is nothing to be learned from the Holocaust. Because its stories of annihilation and survival have taken on the ritual interplay of genre, often they have as much to tell us about current narrative appetites as they do about history. In Darkness , currently nominated for a Best Foreign-Language Feature Oscar, is foremost a Holocaust movie that asks to be measured against all the others; its primarily lessons are directed toward the genre itself. Not all of the victims, for instance, are noble or even particularly nice. Director Agnieszka Holland ( Europa, Europa ) seems so enamored with her own resolution on this account that little more is offered in the way of characterization. But making the victims “human” does not necessarily make them complicated, or well drawn; in fact it leaves them vulnerable to cliché. So here we have the upper-class couple (Maria Schrader and Herbert Knaup) and their two small children, the resourceful hero (Benno Furmann), the rogue (Marcin Bosak), the pretty sister (Agnieszka Groshowska), the wanton redhead (Julia Kijowska), and a few others who never really emerge from the sewer’s shadows. Crammed together into a miserable crevice of the Lvov underground after a pogrom destroys the city’s Jewish ghetto, they all behave badly some point. There are fights over food, space, noise — and though bitter religious recrimination occasionally erupts, it feels more like a requirement of the genre than a reflection of deteroriating inner lives. In Darkness is based on the story told in a 1991 book called In the Sewers of Lvov , by Robert Marshall (adapted here by David F. Shannon). Its central figure is also one we have come to recognize on film: the benevolent gentile. Leopold Socha was a Catholic Pole and prolific thief when the war broke out; he also worked in the sewer system, and offered to help hide the group of Jews in exchange for payment. Robert Wieckiewicz, an enigmatic performer with a tough potato face, plays Socha as a Polish Tony Soprano by way of Graham Greene, with all the charisma, martyr issues and ambivalence about his own better nature that suggests. In Darkness is most successful when it follows Socha through a city where life goes on despite the nightmares unfolding in plain view and underfoot. The opening scenes use an effective contrast to set up the question: What kind of times are these? Socha and his sidekick (Krzysztof Skonieczny) shake down a couple of teenagers in what appears to be a middle-class family home; during their getaway they cross paths with a group of naked women racing through a forest, pursued to their death by nattily uniformed gunmen. From there Holland continues to effectively exploit the tension between Lvov’s ominous sense of suspended reality and the denial human beings are capable of when not directly threatened themselves. Socha and his wife (Kinga Preis) speak about the massacres that take place in their streets like they have just read a report about a country halfway around the world. Though the tensions are not addressed in depth, the fact that German, Yiddish, Russian, Polish, and Ukrainian are spoken more or less interchangeably evokes the clashing ethnic currents that made Poland the Holocaust’s crucible, a better host than most of the region for genocide. Absolutely everyone is on the take, and the sudden perishability of human life has only heightened the instinct for self-preservation. That that instinct is more acutely felt in the character of Socha and his life above ground suggests the overriding misery emanating from the film’s depiction of life in the sewer. With a few exceptions — including cinematographer Jolanta Dylewska’s bravura depiction of a flash flood that threatens to drown the stowaways — Holland cannot make the group’s determination felt because she’s so intent on making us feel the mortification of their suffering. The squeaking and scampering of rats becomes a motif over two and a half hours — it ends almost every scene with one last dash of disgust — and the seemingly high incidence of sewer sex gets lingering attention as well. Rather than beginning with the assumption that there is no possibility of our coming to know that kind of suffering exactly and using imagination and insight to truly take us inside the Lvov Jews’ plight, Holland makes the base conditions of their confinement a narrative as well as aesthetic priority. And frankly it’s boring as shit. Follow Michelle Orange on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .

Read the original post:
REVIEW: In Darkness Takes the Holocaust Underground — to Dull, Didactic Effect

REVIEW: Damn! My Eyes! Who Hit Safe House with the Ugly Stick?

Safe House is a twisted claw of a movie, a picture so visually ugly that, to borrow a line from Moms Mabley, it hurt my feelings. Let’s forget, for a moment, about the sub-sub-sub- Training Day plot, in which a wily old-coot operative played by Denzel Washington simultaneously annoys and educates spring-chicken CIA agent Ryan Reynolds. The plot mechanics don’t matter much. What does matter is the inexplicable horror of how lousy this film looks. Movies aren’t strictly a visual medium — they’re too complicated for that — but there’s something wrong when the only thing you can think of while watching a picture is, “Damn! My eyes!” Where to lay the blame? It’s hard to say, but let me unwrap these gauze bandages and I’ll try. The director of Safe House is Swedish-born director Daniel Espinosa, who made a 2010 crime caper called Easy Money . Are the horrors of Safe House completely his fault? Probably not. The script, by David Guggenheim, seems serviceable enough, if generic: Washington’s character, a fugitive smoothie named Tobin Frost, is brought in by the CIA for questioning and a little waterboarding. It’s all in a day’s work, right? Frost has info the organization desperately wants. Of course, other people want it, too: The joint where Frost has been locked up is suddenly overrun by Middle Eastern-looking baddies, who try to kill him. Poor Matt Weston, Reynolds’ character, has been entrusted to watch Frost and needs to spirit him away to safety, thus giving Frost many opportunities to chuckle derisively at the antics of this plucky little greenhorn. Meanwhile, somewhere at CIA headquarters, a bunch of people in suits — played by Sam Shepard, Brendan Gleeson and Vera Farmiga, among others — call up info on Frost on big computer screens, loudly reciting Important Facts about this Very Dangerous Man. Through it all, Frost and Weston have to run around. A lot. They also have to shoot people. A lot. And they also get shot at. A lot. All of these things are standard in contemporary action thrillers — by themselves, they’re not enough to make or break a picture. Washington and Reynolds don’t seem to give particularly bad performances — in fact, they run around, shoot people and get shot at with actorly proficiency. The problem is, it’s just so hard to look at them. Like many features these days, Safe House was shot with a handheld camera. But while smart filmmakers have learned to chill out with the camera jiggling, the Safe House cameras are partying like it’s 2009: This isn’t just shaky-cam, it’s super -shaky-cam. The camera moves back and forth, up and down, just because it can. Craving a bunch of wholly unnecessary circular pans? Safe House has ’em! The tonal palette consists mostly of ochre yellows and greeny grays — cataract colors. And the editing is razor-sharp, meticulous and rapid-fire — so razor-sharp, meticulous and rapid-fire that you can’t really see anything. It’s like eating vegetables that have been sliced so thin they barely exist. Safe House is, I guess, pretty violent, from what you can actually see: There’s some ewky business in which flesh is stabbed with a shard of glass. Yet despite the presence of this sort of brutality, the picture has no pulse. It’s so crappy looking it anesthetizes you — the story it’s trying to tell dissolves away to vapor. So who’s holding the bag for this stinkbomb? The cinematographer, Oliver Wood, has shot plenty of other movies that look perfectly fine, including Surrogates and Fantastic Four , as well, as perhaps most tellingly, the Bourne movies. The editing is by Richard Pearson, who cut The Bourne Supremacy , as well as other cogent features like Quantum of Solace and United 93 . Moviegoers are divided, of course, on the way the Bourne movies have been shot and edited: For some, they’re too crazy, too disconnected, too frenetic. I think they generally work, coasting on their sheer peripatetic energy — but it’s possible their time has passed. It’s also possible that Safe House , while borrowing its style from the Bourne movies, is simply missing some key ingredient: What if every shot were held just one or two seconds longer? What if the camera jiggle was controlled even by just a few centimeters at the top, bottom and sides of the frame? What if the colors didn’t look as if they’d been run through the washer and dryer on the extra-hot setting, every day for three months straight? Then, maybe, it would be possible to look at Safe House directly without having to immediately remedy the experience with two Tylenol. Extra-strength. And throw in some Codeine, too. Please. Follow Stephanie Zacharek on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .

Read more:
REVIEW: Damn! My Eyes! Who Hit Safe House with the Ugly Stick?

REVIEW: Flailing Don Cheadle and Brendan Gleeson Can’t Rescue The Guard

For those weary of parsing which part of the post- Dirty Harry , post-Tarantino cops and robbers homage is demonstrating its fondness for the genre and which is just declaring it, writer and director John Michael McDonagh’s The Guard is more exhausting than entertaining. Ideally one would have better things to do while in the act of watching a movie — like say watching the movie — but from its assaultive, nihilistic prologue to its last flat invocation of American culture, The Guard foregrounds the extent to which it is leaning on artifice and affect to get over.

Read more:
REVIEW: Flailing Don Cheadle and Brendan Gleeson Can’t Rescue The Guard

Sundance Sales Round-Up: Tobey Maguire’s Family Hell and Lethal Weapon with Don Cheadle

While we were all picking apart the Oscar Nominations and putting them back together yesterday, the busy distributors at Sundance were forging ahead, keeping their nose to the ground and making serious deals! Well okay, two distributors. One deal each. Fine! Things slowed down a bit yesterday, but it didn’t stop the completions of a few high profile sales. Read ahead for the details about Tobey Maguire’s descent into a suburban nightmare and what sounds like an Irish version of Lethal Weapon with Brendan Gleeson and Don Cheadle.

See the rest here:
Sundance Sales Round-Up: Tobey Maguire’s Family Hell and Lethal Weapon with Don Cheadle