Tag Archive: box office bombs


   Hello there, dear readers! Soooo due to both crazy scheduling in my daily life as well as my laptop being MIA for almost two weeks, I haven’t been able to post in quite a long time, and for this, I am most apologetic and ashamed. HOWEVER! In lieu of this vast gap in movie review posting, I have decided to go ahead and do my very first ever MOVIE REVIEW COMBO to make up for lost time! That’s right, instead of one long, giant ass review of one movie, you get several semi-long reviews about a variety of films! Don’tcha just love the feeling of compensation? Well get ready, my friends, because this is like a movie review OVERLOAD…in the best sense of the word! COMMENCE!

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

LINCOLN (2012)
Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Daniel Strathairn, Tommy Lee Jones, James Spader, Hal Holbrook & Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Written by Tony Kushner
Produced by Steven Spielberg & Kathleen Kennedy
Cinematography by Janusz Kamiński
Music by John Williams
Edited by Michael Kahn

lincoln-poster_743x1100

It was a nice touch for them to accurately depict the angle at which Lincoln actually had to tilt his head when talking to most people.

   There’s a certain type of feeling when you’re walking into a movie with this much pedigree. It’s an almost curious, theme park-like sense of wonder, the kind that fills you with anticipation for some kind of experience you’re about to have while you’re shuffling in to find your seats with the rest of the congregated citizens. You know you’re about to see something significant unfold…but you’re not really sure what. At least, that’s what I was feeling as I walked into the theater screening Steven Spielberg’s latest sprawling opus, Lincoln – the kind of feeling that this certainly wasn’t gonna be any regular come-and-go, fast-food type of flick. This was gonna be a four-course gourmet meal type of flick, the sort of dish served to you by the utmost professional and fancy chefs, all with exceedingly gi-normous track records for producing the zestiest types of exotic film flavors. Translated from weird, I’m saying that this movie has pristineness and dignity embedded into its DNA right from the start: It’s a biopic directed by Steven Spielberg, starring Daniel Day-Lewis, about one of the most iconic and legendary figures in American (and world) history – Abraham Lincoln. Oh, and not to mention John Williams and Janusz Kamiński – legends both – doing the score and the cinematography respectively, for a film written by Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner. Plus, a huge cast of talented character actors. GEE. I wonder how much THIS is going to suck?!

   Of course, Lincoln delivers every bit of cinematic esteem, credibility and bliss you could ever hope for in spades. It’s a 2 ½ hour-long exploration of the trials and tribulations a wise yet worn-out and weary leader of a fledgling, self-destructive nation must endure to somehow try and keep the whole damn thing from falling apart…oh, and also make some fucking real progress in the process. In 1865. Obviously, this is going to be a long, dialogue-heavy piece that focuses on performances and features little-to-no massive explosions. If the thought of sitting through something like that somehow startles or frightens you, then I suggest you go watch the completely relevant and entirely necessary new Red Dawn remake playing in the theater down the hall, because this is pure old-school film drama-cy turned up to Maximum Nobility Overdrive Power (MNOP). Long, slow-paced, contemplative, moment-focused, politically charged, philosophically complex, mood-building filmmaking that – despite those seemingly droll adjectives I just listed – never ONCE feels boring. Now that’s a damn hard thing to do, and Spielberg & Co. got juuuust the precise amount of baller cred to pull the whole damn thing off. Quite simply, they’ve lived up to every expectation I could have had for a movie of this caliber – it’s a damn fine piece of filmmaking.

AP740006339194_620x350

Lincoln looked around the room cautiously, hoping someone would eventually do the right thing…for he had indeed smelt it, but he was surely not the one who dealt it.

   Now, that isn’t to say that the narrative-bound Lincoln is a perfect movie. It isn’t. But, it’s far above the standard set by the average modern film, and it is sensationally executed by everyone involved – most especially the gifted cast, populated by all types of actors from all over the place who will have you saying “don’t I know that guy from somewhere?” a couple of times. Essentially, Lincoln is the story of our 16th president’s valiant efforts to both end the morally, physically, mentally, and financially taxing Civil War, and to pass the controversial 13th amendment, which would effectively end slavery in America for all time. Having just been re-elected to a 2nd term, Lincoln doubles his efforts to accomplish these two goals by any means necessary – even risking his reputation as an honest man at one point to pull it off in a pinch. The movie focuses on the political atmosphere of the era, with many scenes detailing the somewhat petty and unproductive arguments in the House of Representatives and the political bulldogging to get one’s own agenda accomplished. (Some things never change, huh?) Lincoln knows the 13th Amendment will never pass if the war is ended before it goes to vote, so he focuses all the attention he can on getting the Amendment voted upon before the bloody war reaches its conclusion…a dangerous ploy, given that the war is claiming lives everyday and most people would not approve of Lincoln’s stalling just to free some people from eternal enslavement. Such are the risks taken when trying to make history.

   The film also explores Lincoln’s personal relationship with his family as well, particularly with his wife and older son. This is where things begin to get a little shaky in the film’s narrative, specifically with the subplot involving Lincoln’s son Robert and his desperate attempt to participate in the war that his presidential father is trying to end. Robert is portrayed by the talented but tragically underused Joe Gord-Lev, in a role that provides a teensy bit of familial drama compounding upon Lincoln’s overbearing burdens, but is ultimately overshadowed by Sally Field as Lincoln’s devoted but overemotional wife, providing all the familial crises needed for Lincoln to be thoroughly stressed. The way the film sort of skims over this juicy conflict with his son makes it feel like it shouldn’t have really been in the movie in the first place – I mean, it definitely gives us another insight into Lincoln’s life, and there are a few really nice scenes with Robert and Abraham, but overall the subplot ends up feeling tacked on and underused, mainly because there’s so much more important stuff the movie’s trying to focus on. Joe Gord-Lev does nicely, but it just starts to stray into “we had to throw this in here too” territory. It’s really the biggest problem with the movie, apart from its length – but I’m not really bothered by long movies (unless they FEEL long, which Lincoln does not) so I give that a pass.

s_500_slate_com_0_Day-Lewis_Lincoln_trailer.png.CROP.rectangle3-large

Lincoln drifts off, using his large mind to ruminate on the possibility that someday, somebody somewhere will create a mediocre depiction of him as a hunter of some kind of supernatural creature…the thought does not sit well.

   Now of course, Daniel Day-Lewis tears acting an even newer asshole with his warm, thoughtful performance as the title character. The role was originally going to go to Liam Neeson, who might have been nice in the part, but since he’s recently become more of schlocky actor in recent years (Wrath of the Titans, anyone?), an actor of Day-Lewis’s pedigree is far better suited for this monumental role. You pretty much forget you’re watching an actor whenever Day-Lewis is onscreen – such is the strength of his acting prowess. Now, personally, I still prefer Day-Lewis’s powerhouse performance as a greedy oilman in Paul Thomas Anderson’s masterpiece There Will Be Blood –that is simply one of the greatest performances in all of cinematic history.But in this film, he really imbues Lincoln with a sense of almost godly prestige, yet totally approachable openness all at once…it’s a subtle and tricky balance, but he pulls it off nicely. I really liked how pretty much everyone around Lincoln was portrayed as having a sort of reverence towards him – like they were standing in the presence of someone clearly beyond them. It’s juxtaposed sublimely with Day-Lewis’s human portrayal of this man, a man who was obviously already a legend in his own time. There’s a great scene in the movie where Lincoln walks into a busy and frantic war room, with people running to and fro in a storm of hurried chaos. Lincoln simply begins telling a lighthearted story to seemingly nobody in particular, but everyone in the room stops everything they’re doing and shuts the fuck up, just listening to the man tell his seemingly out of place yet highly relevant tale. This scene – as well as a few other storytelling moments – really show how Lincoln was not just a gifted public speaker who knew how to address a crowd, but also a warm and friendly human being who’s not above taking a moment to sit back and spin a yarn despite pressing matters weighing down constantly. It’s a tricky nuance to pull off, and Daniel Day-Lewis pulls it off with absolute expertise. Basically what I’m saying here is, there is absolutely no hope for any other actor nominated for the 2012 Best Actor Oscar next year – Day-Lewis has this one in the bag.

   Lincoln isn’t really a biopic in the conventional sense of the term – it doesn’t focus on his entire life, in a somewhat vain attempt to convey a person’s entire complex story. Instead, it centers on perhaps the most important period of Lincoln’s life, in which almost every single aspect of the world was against him and yet he somehow managed to pull off ending a bloody, gruesome war and freeing an entire group of people from horrible servitude. In this sense, it’s more of a political thriller than anything, with Lincoln as the main character. As an audience, we’re left to sort of fill in the rest of his story with the information presented to us, and that information presents Lincoln as a determined yet calm and patient individual who knows how to play his cards right. Like Lincoln, the movie knows how to take its time, and the end result is considerably elegant. Overall, Lincoln is a competently made and genuinely though-provoking portrait of one of America’s most compassionate and honorable leaders during a time of considerable crisis.

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

FLIGHT (2012)
Starring Denzel Washington, Kelly Reilly, Don Cheadle, Bruce Greenwood & John Goodman
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Written by John Gatins
Produced by Laurie MacDonald, Walter F. Parkes, John Rapke, Steve Starkey & Robert Zemeckis
Cinematography by Don Burgess
Music by Alan Silvestri
Edited by Jeremiah O’Driscoll

flight-poster

As if you need any other image to sell your movie with.

   Let me just get this out of the way first: Denzel Washington is my absolute favorite actor. Of ALL time. The dude simply commands the screen whenever he’s on it, playing every role that’s handed to him with honesty, intensity, emotional complexity, and obvious skill. He’s definitely been in a few clunkers in his time (Heart Condition, Virtuosity, Ricochet) but even in the worst films of his catalog he ALWAYS turns in a great performance. Besides, the amount of quality films he’s been in far outweighs the schlock, so he can easily be forgiven for a few early career missteps. He’s just a natural actor, someone who was clearly born to be a performer of the highest form. He can take an otherwise mediocre and somewhat formulaic cop flick like Training Day and turn it into a grade-A film simply based on his performance alone. Basically, the D rules. Okay, now that my showering of overblown fanboy praise is out of the way, we can focus on his latest tour de force: the emotional, tense, and dramatically powerful Flight. Directed by Robert Zemeckis, in a welcome return to live-action filmmaking after some hit-or-miss forays into the realm of motion-capture animation that his homie Steven Spielberg utterly upstaged him in with The Adventures of Tintin, Fight is a compelling if sometimes questionable character study that focuses on the struggles of alcoholism as well as the pressure of being in the public light. And if you’re going to be focusing an entire story solely on a single character, you best get a damn fine actor to fill the part. Luckily, Zemeckis was wise enough to hire Denzel Washington for the role.

   Flight begins in a trashed hotel room, one that has obviously been filled with lots of booze-drinking and sex very recently. We’re introduced right away to William “Whip” Whitaker, who groggily answers the ringing phone to argue with his ex-wife while the naked woman he’s with goes about her business in the background. Clearly, this guy is of the self-destructive sort. After having a few drinks and few snorts of cocaine, Whip cleans himself up and goes in to his job – being a pilot for a commercial airliner, with this specific flight travelling from Orlando to Atlanta. Yup, he’s pretty responsible. Right off the bat, Flight throws us an interesting curveball – it gives us a lead character that we just might not want to support very much over the next 2 hours. Whip himself is clearly a likeable guy – he’s charismatic, charming, and has a pretty good sense of humor with the people around him. He just happens to make some incredibly poor decisions, especially when you take into account he’s personally responsible for the lives of more than 100 people aboard his aircraft. So, we’re shown that Whip is actually a pretty damn good pilot despite his inebriated mindset by successfully navigating the plane out of a very nasty storm right after takeoff. After making himself a nice mid-flight blend of vodka and orange juice before passing out, Whip is knocked conscious by a sudden jolt in the flight. Something is wrong with the plane’s mechanics, and the plane begins to nosedive. While his co-pilot begins to freak out, Whip stays utterly calm and begins trying to save everyone on board. After one of the most intense and harrowing plane crash scenes I’ve ever seen, Whip manages to sustain the plane’s gliding speed by inverting it – as in, flipping the plane upside-down. It’s an insane and visually stunning move that miraculously works – the plane crashes in a field, and most of the passengers walk away with their lives.

Flight

The D proves you can never be too drunk to look fly.

   Instantly, Whip comes to be recognized as a public hero – someone who managed to save nearly every soul aboard a seemingly doomed flight. Unfortunately, the few deaths resulting from the plane’s malfunction – including Katerina Marquez, the flight attendant Whip had gotten busy with the night before – bear down upon Whip’s psyche far more than the saved lives do. Not to mention the toxicology reports taken from Whip’s unconscious body upon arrival at the hospital, which verify that Whip was indeed inebriated at the time of the accident. This pretty much means that even though Whip was able to miraculously rescue most of the people aboard the doomed airplane, and the accident itself wasn’t his fault, he’s still liable for being drunk and flying a goddamn airplane. Ya just can’t do that, ladies and gents. Wrought with guilt over his drinking problem, Whip immediately tries to quite alcohol cold turkey, and looks like he’ll be successful at first, but once he receives word of his toxicology report and his impending lawsuit he…starts…drinking again.

   Flight does a pretty good job of showing a man confronting his own guilt while simultaneously struggling with addiction, and it handles it in a mostly realistic way. I say “mostly” because something about Whip actively quitting drinking before he’s made aware of a toxicology report, then immediately starting to drink afterward, rings a little false to me. I just don’t know why somebody would make that sort of decision, especially after they have already resolved to STOP drinking in the first place. Wouldn’t continuing not to drink be the most sensible thing to do? Now, I myself am not an alcoholic, so I can’t speak on the logical machinations of a mind not only addicted to alcohol, but overcome with guilt, but basic deductive logic would denote that if you’re under scrutiny for drinking on the job, and you quit drinking before you’re even aware you’re under said scrutiny, that you would probably just say “well, good thing I stopped doing that shit” and continue being sober. However, it also sort of makes sense that the overbearing guilt of the entire situation would lead to that mindset being eradicated, so I can see it working that way too.

   What I’m trying to get at here is, it simply doesn’t make any sense for Whip to just keep drinking irrationally when it’s been established that he knows the drinking isn’t a great idea in the first place. I understand that’s the point of the whole movie, but it’s just really hard to remain sympathetic for a main character when he is continuously making self-destructive and boneheaded decisions, with seemingly no effort to even try and stop. Apart from the brief period of time Whip tried to stop drinking right after the crash, there’s no other point in the film where we see him struggle with trying to remain sober – at least, until it’s forced upon him by other people. Some scenes with him deciding to quit, and then slowly but surely turning back to the bottle would have been appreciated! He stubbornly and inexplicably sticks with getting wasted, to the point that it just starts to get ridiculous and you can’t help but say “is this guy a damn moron?” Now, I understand that alcoholism is NOT an easy thing to kick, I really do. But in terms of movie logic, why was it even shown that he tried to kick his alcoholism before he was even aware of his toxicology report when he makes absolutely no effort to remain sober AFTER he is told about said report – the results of which are extremely incriminating and could land him in TONS of trouble?! The logic there just doesn’t add up to me. I totally get that Whip is acting irrationally and self-destructively, perhaps even somewhat purposefully because he might believe he should be punished on a subconscious level, but his complete lack of effort to even try and be a little sober is not only frustrating to everyone around him in the film, but to the audience as well. I found myself questioning his actions many times throughout the film, and not really in the way I feel like the filmmakers intended…less in a concern-for-the-character type of questioning, and more in the “is this realistic?” type of way.

FLIGHT

Whip sits anxiously, trying as fast as he can to muster up a cooler story about how he obtained his flashy head bandage.

   That being said, Flight still packs a powerful dramatic punch, and it really gets under the skin of what addiction truly is. We see a pretty unorthodox relationship build between Whip and Nicole, a young heroin-addicted woman whom Whip meets in the hospital right after the crash. (She was in the hospital because of a heroin overdose.) Whip and Nicole take an instant liking towards each other, both broken people crippled by addiction who are able to console each other in times of need. Their relationship blossoms, but Whip’s alcoholism and pride begin to drive a wedge between them, and it’s pretty sad to see. It’s actually easier to sympathize with Nicole’s character, because she actually makes an effort to recover from her addiction without any outside reason while Whip egregiously continues on with his, despite the fact he has an overbearing burden directly related to that addiction weighing down upon him. She gives him support and even tries to get him to go to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting (which he attends but scoffs at and leaves, brilliantly enough), but his pride ends up ruining everything…it’s pretty heartbreaking stuff.

   As I said before, Flight takes the interesting choice of having a main character you can’t really sympathize with all the way through. It’s a gamble, but luckily, one that really pays off in the long run. Denzel Washington, predictably, turns in yet another incredible performance; it’s arguably his best one since Training Day, or Man on Fire at least. He really makes Whip a well-rounded character, giving him a lot of humor and seriousness all at once, and really driving home that this guy is troubled and wracked with too much grief for one man to handle. I will be both disappointed and shocked if Denzel doesn’t gain an Oscar nom for his performance in this movie – it’s just a damn shame it has to be this year, when Daniel Day-Lewis is being critically lauded and singled out as the prime contender for the Best Actor win for Lincoln. I definitely think Denzel would be a shoo-in for the win if it weren’t for Day-Lewis and his damn fine acting skills, but oh well – that’s just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. Overall, Flight is a dramatically sound yet slightly logically flawed film that delivers on several emotional levels, and offers a pretty devastating look at the nature of addiction and being in the public eye. It shows that Robert Zemeckis is still a very competent director, and the guy to go to if you want a harrowing and realistic plane crash sequence in your movie – this flick and his earlier one Cast Away both sport the best movie plane crashes I’ve ever seen. It has great performances from the entire cast (Don Cheadle and John Goodman both do great, I didn’t really talk about them but they shine in this movie, especially Goodman as Whip’s profane yet loveable drug-dealing friend) and it takes considerable chances, and for that I can only give it my most emphatic recommendation. Plus, it’s a friggin’ Denzel movie – that alone is worth the price of admission!

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

JOHN CARTER (2012)
Starring Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Willem Dafoe, Mark Strong & Samantha Morton
Directed by Andrew Stanton
Written by Andrew Stanton, Mark Andrews & Michael Chabon
Produced by Jim Morris, Colin Wilson & Lindsey Collins
Cinematography by Daniel Mindel
Music by Michael Giacchino
Edited by Eric Zumbrunnen

john-carter-poster-red-mars

In case you were wondering, he’s the not-red guy.

Some movies just don’t hit the mark they’re supposed to. This year’s horribly named yet excellently executed sci-fi/adventure epic John Carter is, unfortunately, one of those movies. It’s a movie that pretty much does everything right – methodical pacing, fun action scenes, interesting story ideas, epic and engulfing music, decent performances, and solid characters are all features of this unique flick. Sadly, some movies are destined to not find a solid audience, no matter how well-made they are. Who woulda thunk that a Disney-funded sci-fi/adventure flick that’s actually pretty well made would end up being a box office bomb?

   Personally, I blame the title. John Carter is an absolutely terrible name for this film. Anything, literally anything would have been better than simply naming the flick after the main character of the movie. It could have been called Mars Battle Adventures or something generic like that and that still would have been a better name for it, because then it at least describes what you’re getting. But John Carter? That sounds like a damn inspirational sports movie or something, or some kind of character-based story about some boring schmuck. It’s just NOT evocative of what kind of movie this is. I don’t know why they didn’t just call it A Princess of Mars, the name of the sci-fi/fantasy pulp novel written in 1917 by Edgar Rice Burroughs which this film is adapted from. I guess having “Princess” in the title is just WAY too gay, so they opted to take both that word and “Mars” out of the equation – even though those are by far the most exciting and descriptive words in the whole sentence – and just lazily name it after the main character. The fact that the word “Mars” does NOT appear in the title of this film is baffling to me. Why would you pass that opportunity up?! And then you consider how the sequel – I mean, the hypothetical sequel at this point – was going to be named John Carter of Mars, which by all logic and reasoning should have been the name of THIS film, if we’re changing names and shit….aggh it just really pisses me off, because this movie totally deserved to find a wider audience and its stupid ass name probably made people think it was about some real-life asshole they never heard of. SUCH a wasted opportunity.

John-Carter-1-680

John and Tars are awed by the sight of the Mighty Budget slowly rising from the horizon.

   Because, my friends, despite its tepid reaction upon its release, John Carter is actually a pretty damn fine film – it’s exciting, it’s humorous, it’s got all kinds of crazy alien shit going on in it, and it keeps your interest all the way through. And SOMEHOW, it actually gets you to care about and sympathize with weird events and strange aliens (respectively) that don’t even correlate to our planet in the slightest. If that isn’t some good filmmaking, I don’t know what is. And hey, I’m not too surprised about that aspect either – this movie is the live-action debut of Andrew Stanton, a two-time Academy-Award winning computer-animated film director of Pixar fame, specifically Finding Nemo and WALL-E. That pretty much means that this dude is an accomplished filmmaker (even if his previous movies technically don’t take place in reality) and can definitely be trusted with material such as this.

   So why did this film flop? Well, apart from the title problem I’ve already addressed, I’d have to say that it’s also because this film is pretty esoteric for the most part. It’s based on an almost 100-year old series of sci-fi books, cost a good $275,000,000(!), and featured no massively major stars of any real sort. It was pretty much a gamble from the get-go. In fact, I’m not entirely sure how or why Disney even let this film get made, and why they gave it the budget they did. I mean, they must have believed in the subject matter if they were willing to drop THAT many millions of dollars on it, right? A film this epic and large-scale surely would have been a sure bet, right? Well……no. Quite simply, the lack of any kind of public interest is the main reason this movie flopped. But the movie itself does not suck, despite what some critics out there have said.

   Speaking of the movie, well, it’s about a guy named John Carter (played with Indiana Jones-esque fervor by Taylor Kitsch), a Civil War Confederate Army Captain who is accidentally transported to Mars (known as Barsoom to the locals) via a magic medallion belonging to a mysterious figure John ends up murdering in a cave. Due to the planet’s lower gravity and his different bone density, John Carter is something of a Superman on Barsoom, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound and knock the shit out of enemies with extra strength. He’s instantly picked up by some aliens known as Tharks, whose leader Tars Tarkas (motion-captured by Willem Dafoe) recognizes the power within this stranger. Before long, John Carter is wrapped up in an interplanetary conspiracy and war, and must fight to protect the residents of Barsoom from an otherwise unstoppable force.

johncarter

You know when something’s so adorable you just want to rub your face in its cuddle parts? ……This is not one of those occasions.

   It’s a wild setup, but then again, it’s a wild movie. John Carter simply looks fantastic, executed with a visual style that shouldn’t be too surprising once you realize an animated film director made the flick. The colors are vibrant, the locations are rich, and the special effects looks extremely realistic – you can see where that $275,000,000 of Walt’s money went. Elaborate set pieces and costume design really drive home the “epicness” of the project, as well as the somewhat overblown acting. If there’s one negative thing I should say about John Carter, it’s that the acting is just a liiiiittle bit subpar. Not so bad that it’s groan inducing, but you can definitely tell that working with real, live actors is something this animation guy Stanton will have to learn over time. As lavish and elaborate as the sets and special effects are, it tends to shine a bigger light on the somewhat mundane acting. The actors do their part, and it doesn’t necessarily bog the movie down, but you can feel the somewhat forced feel coming out of the performances on occasion. It’s a shame because the rest of the movie that surrounds them is really quite vivid and wonderful. Another slight complaint I have is that the ending feels a bit rushed and forced…I don’t want to give too much away, but the film’s ending suffers from the Super Mario Bros. Ending Syndrome…a setup for a sequel that just might never be.

    John Carter isn’t the game changer Disney was most likely hoping it to be. It won’t be making any huge appearances at Disneyland anytime soon. But, despite the fact the film probably came about 40 years too late, it really does a good job of being solidly entertaining, and for that I give it some credit. I’m actually pretty glad that it just exists and is now out on home video, where perhaps it will find a new life from people who missed it the first time around. It certainly deserves some kind of accolades, if only just for its production design and nothing more. But, I was very entertained while watching it, and even though I didn’t go very in depth with this review, I highly recommend it to anyone kind of on the fence about it. It’s worth your time, and maybe – just maybe – there will be another one with a better title coming out soon.

    Although I highly doubt it.

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

   Well, that does it for my first review combo. Hopefully in the future I’ll be more consistent with my updates so I don’t have to punish myself with epic multi-reviews such as this one. But, keep checking back for new reviews, and happy viewing to you all!

Advertisements

Review: SUPER MARIO BROS.

SUPER MARIO BROS. (1993)
Starring Bob Hoskins, John Leguizamo, Dennis Hopper & Samantha Mathis
Directed by Rocky Morton & Annabel Jankel
Written by Parker Bennett, Terry Runté & Ed Solomon
Produced by Jake Eberts & Roland Joffé
Cinematography by Dean Semler
Music by Alan Silvestri
Edited by Mark Goldblatt

If this awesome poster doesn't make you want to see this, then brother, I don't know what will.

   It was bound to happen eventually – a big-budget, full-length feature film based on a video game. After decades of adapting from other mediums, it was only a matter of time before somebody in Hollywood decided to make a movie inspired by the interactive worlds that games offered. And in the early 90s, the video game market was still relatively new – still evolving and growing to the level of sophistication (depending on who you ask) that we know and understand today. And at the forefront of the video game revolution was Super Mario Bros. – undoubtedly the most successful video game of all; the game that singlehandedly made Nintendo a household name and saved the video game industry from becoming a forgotten, irrelevant fad during the mid-80s. Mario was the Mickey Mouse for the gaming generation, a veritable icon for the ages and beloved mascot for a titan entertainment company. So it’s really no wonder that Super Mario Bros. became the first ever movie based on a video game – and unwittingly set the unfortunate precedent for almost every video game-to-film adaptation to come.

   Upon its release in 1993, Super Mario Bros. was universally despised by pretty much everyone who saw it. It was loud, strange, tonally inaccurate with the games that inspired it, and generally boneheaded in its execution. The film cost $48,000,000 to make and only recouped $21,000,000 from the box office. Siskel and Ebert gave it two thumbs down – an unavoidable kiss of death for movies during the 1990s. Bob Hoskins, who had the distinction of portraying Mario in the film, would go on to say that it was the worst thing he ever did and that he wished he could delete the film from his life – and this is coming from the dude who was in Heart Condition. If there were a picture in the dictionary to go alongside the word “failure”, the poster for Super Mario Bros. would surely do the most justice.

Or maybe this one, actually.

   But, my friends, I have a sort of deep, dark secret I would like to confess to all of you right here and now: I actually kind of enjoy Super Mario Bros. I know, I know, what the hell could possibly be wrong with me?! How can any of you trust my word on films when I actually enjoy a travesty such as this film?! Well to that I can assure you that Super Mario Bros. exists for me purely in the realm of guilty pleasures – something that is so horrendously, appallingly terrible that I just have no choice but to love it for being so bad. I first took a shine to the movie as a young lad, when I rented it from Zip’s Video without any knowledge of its abysmal performance at the box office or any care what critics thought of it – I was just a little kid who loved the Mario video games, so a live action movie was pretty much the coolest idea ever! I really liked the movie as a little kid, so maybe that effects my judgement of it as an older, semi-wiser adult. But, to reiterate, I definitely do understand that the movie is bad. And to be fair, Super Mario Bros. isn’t bad in the way that a movie like, say, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is bad. Super Mario Bros. actually has several redeeming qualities about it that save it from the realm of evil, offensive, mind-destroying crappiness that so many other movies fall into. What could those qualities possibly be? Read on, my friends, read on!

   For one thing, Super Mario Bros. actually tries to take itself seriously – which can either be construed as a bad thing or a noble thing, depending on your view. There is a sort of devotion to the reality the film is trying to present, even if it is a silly and over-the-top one. You get the feeling that the characters in the movie actually believe they’re participating in the ridiculousness being put upon them, and because of this, it’s actually possible to be drawn into the world of the movie, rather than being alienated from it and detached while things are going on. I guess what I’m trying to say is, while the tone of the film is COMPLETELY different than the tone of the games, it establishes itself for what it is and remains consistent throughout its running time. This is something which cannot be said for a LOT of movies considered to be in the same vein as Super Mario Bros., so I give the movie some credit for actually staying faithful to its own grand design…unfortunately, it’s just a very misguided one.

   Anybody who’s ever played a Mario game knows what the deal is: Princess Toadstool (later renamed Peach) gets kidnapped by Bowser, a big, menacing, fire-breathing, evil & spiky-shelled turtle, and it’s up to Mario (and sometimes his brother Luigi) to go on a magnificent quest through bright, colorful worlds to rescue her – all while defeating troublesome enemies along the way. There’s not really much else to the early Mario games – they’re lighthearted platform adventure games with catchy music with a VERY thin plot to give you an excuse to bop digital bad guys on the head. I’m sure when people went to go see the movie back in 1993, they were expecting something similar to this, since – you know, it was based on the game n’ shit. But instead of seeing this bright, colorful world filled with smiley happy characters, they got a grungy, dilapitated hellhole populated by unfriendly and ugly dinosaur people and controlled by Dennis Hopper. The plot is, Mario and Luigi are plumbers from Brooklyn, and get sucked into an alternate dimension where dinosaurs have evolved into intelligent beings (who happen to look exactly like humans), and are now actively being pursued by King Koopa (NOT Bowser) for harboring a piece of meteorite which belonged to Princess Daisy (NOT Toadstool) that can be used to merge the dino-dimension and the human dimension into one. If you’re saying “What the fuck?” to yourself after reading that sentence, trust me….you are NOT alone. The makers of the film, in a vain attempt to modernize and ground the film in some kind of reality, completely morphed the concept of Mario into some kind of sci-fi/action/comedy spectacle flick….and the effect is, needless to say, quite confusing.

Seriously, how do you go from THIS........

..........to THIS?!

   Gone were the bright green pipes which housed chomping Pirahna Plants. Gone were the mushrooms which made Mario grow larger and stomp enemies. Gone were the green-shelled turtles and mushroom-shaped Goombas which populated Mario’s world. Gone was anything that even remotely tied in to the Super Mario Bros. franchise visually, save for the appearance of Mario & Luigi themselves and one sole Bob-Omb. It was all replaced by lavish, S&M-inspired hysteria and dystopian grunge with only mild references to the actual games themselves (a nightclub called “Thwomp” and another called “Bullet Bill’s”, for example) in a sort of send-up of 90’s New York culture. I think this is primarily why so many people rejected Super Mario Bros. upon its release: it was just way, WAY too different from what they knew and loved from the video games. Not only that, but it was a lot more violent and harsh than the games, which exemplified kid-friendly cuteness in almost every way. I’m positive there were MANY parents out there who stormed out of the theater with their children once they laid eyes on the dark, dystopian society the loveable Mario & Luigi found themselves trapped in and the surreal, violent antics which occurred there. You go from such simple themes as adventuring and saving a princess to fascist rule by an oppressive dictator, childhood abandonment, the concept of evolution AND de-evolution, and inter-dimensional domination, to name a few.

   So what hell happened here? Well, I think that when time came to develop the Mario license into a live-action movie, there were several problems that instantly came into play:

1. There’s no plot.
2. Nothing in Mario’s world tangibly exists in reality.
3. Faithfully recreating the exact style of the games would cost a shit-ton of money.
4. The only people who played video games were little kids….and maybe weird adults.
5. Nobody had ever made a video game into a movie before.

   I think this last one was the most troubling for the creators of this film, since they had absolutely nothing to go off of – they were essentially creating a brand new genre of films. Now personally, I think that notion would be incredibly exciting and open up a nearly endless well of creativity, and maybe it did for the movie’s producers – but they didn’t necessarily use that creativity in a very productive way. I still believe it is VERY possible to make a good, solid Mario movie using the actual style and characters from the universe of the games, but apparently at the time the filmmakers thought they needed something a bit more substantial to make a live action movie with. The result, unfortunately, was something wholly unworthy of being considered anywhere near the quality of the games which inspired it.

   But, if you recall, I did say that I actually enjoy Super Mario Bros., and I really, truly do. I completely understand that it is is a terrible movie, with a hopelessly inept script and somewhat hammy acting from all parties involved, but for some reason, I can’t bring myself to completely write it off as another failure from the bowels of Hollywood. There’s a sort of quirky charm to the movie, a kind of lightheartedness that endears itself to me. The movie begins with what could possibly be the worst animation ever committed to celluloid – I don’t know if they were trying to emulate the 8-bit look of NES games, but the poorly-drawn, barely lip-synced dinosaurs in the intro look laughably terrible. Then a cheesy-sounding narrator with a bad New York accent begins to awkwardly expose the plot before the opening credits even begin, effectively showing that these filmmakers have absolutely no idea how to begin their own movie. Seriously, they could have done away with this entire opening segment and the movie probably would have made at least 10,000 more dollars…but this is just speculation. Anyway, the movie really begins with a mother leaving her baby (a giant, unhatched egg) on the front stoop of a nunnery in the middle of the rain, along with a mysterious piece of blue rock. Then, when she goes back underground to go into her dimension, Dennis Hopper comes out of the shadows and grabs her by the shoulders….which makes the whole cave shake for some reason, and the mother screams while the rocks presumably bury her alive. We don’t know for sure because it cuts away instantly to present-day Brooklyn, where we meet Mario and Luigi, two plumbers who are dangerously low on funds. We follow them around and get to know their personalities, and they eventually run into Daisy, whom Luigi falls for and which gets out plot going. I’ll stop summarizing here because I think you get the idea – this movie is pretty damn ridiculous.

Koopa wants to hit it too.

   Despite the shortcomings of the heavily flawed script,  it does actually make sense in its own way – I know what motivates each character, I know what the stakes are and what happens if Mario and company fail, and because of that, I can actually squeeze a small amount of dramatic tension from the story. The characters have a sort of goofy charm about them, and the actors try their best to breathe a little life into them. It’s not Shakespeare, but c’mon, it’s a stupid movie based on a video game! And hey, the production value on the film is GREAT! It really is a fun film to look at, even though what’s transpiring onscreen is enough to make you question what the hell the directors were thinking. The set designs are creative and elaborate, the makeup effects are pretty damn dazzling, and the creature effects are very impressive. It’s very clear that a lot of money went into this production, and they actually used it to create a believably hostile environment filled with strange and perplexing characters. This is all part of what makes movies fun to watch – complete immersion into a make believe world.

   Although, for this feat, I should really give credit to production designer David L. Snyder – the same man who designed the sets for Blade Runner. He’s pretty much the reason why the movie looks cool, because the film’s directors – the husband and wife team of Rocky Morton and Annabel Jankel – probably didn’t have much to do with that. Stories of the duo’s inability to control what was happening on their set are now infamous, but needless to say just from watching the movie, these two people were in way over their heads. It’s really mind-boggling to me that the movie’s producers (including Roland Joffé, the director behind the critically lauded filmed The Killing Fields….WTF?!) didn’t try to find someone with a bit of a track record for big-budget adventure flicks….the only movie these two yahoos had directed was a little noir film called D.O.A. (1988) which was critically accepted but bombed at the box office. Their biggest success was creating the popular 80s commercial character Max Headroom. Other than that, Rocky and Anna were pretty much hacks whose “arrogance had been mistaken for talent”, according to Bob Hoskins. Inexplicably these two people were put in charge of a big-budget video game adaptation and this was the result. Not to mention the screenplay had been rewritten several times by several different writers and wasn’t even completely finished by the time production began…in essence, making Super Mario Bros. was almost more unbearable than the movie itself. It’s really a shame, because the potential for something great was squandered by people who thought they knew what they were doing.

When we said we wanted to "gross millions" this isn't exactly what we meant.

   Super Mario Bros. exists as one of those rare movies where everything goes completely wrong but is, for some reason, still somewhat entertaining. Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo actually have pretty good chemistry and are pretty believable as Mario and Luigi, and Samantha Mathis, who plays Princess Daisy, tries her damned hardest to be a convincing emotional center for this movie and somehow manages to succeed at doing so. Dennis Hopper gets to have the most fun by being a completely over-the-top asshole, and I’m pretty sure he just agreed to appear in the film to score drug money – but his performance is memorable nonetheless and one of the saving graces of the film. And for all the silly antics and ridiculous occurrences that happen, the movie is actually smart enough to give Mario and Luigi character arcs – Mario is portrayed as a sort of average Joe everyman, someone who doesn’t believe in supernatural phenomenae or wild stories until he finds himself in the middle of one, while Luigi is portrayed as a goofy younger guy who has trouble talking to girls, until he falls for Daisy and eventually gains confidence…ok, I might be reaching with that one, but it’s still a small semblance of an arc nonetheless. My point is, things actually happen in this movie, and the characters have things to do and are developed semi-well. It’s not complete garbage, as most people who see this movie would have you believe. It’s harmless popcorn entertainment, just smart enough to provide some inspired moments but ultimately an unfocused, flawed production. I’d only recommend it to those who like to sit around with friends and watch subpar movies for fun, but other than that, I can’t really recommend it in any serious fashion – even though I personally like the film for what it is. What could have been at least marginally great is now instead one of the biggest blunders in recent cinematic history, and it set the stage for even more atrocious video-game-to-film adaptations that are still being made to this day. I guess there’s something about the interactive experience games provide that gets lost in translation to movies – or maybe the people who make video game movies think that the movies themselves have to be like actual video games, instead of actual movies. Whatever the reason is, it’s definitely been one of the worst genres to exist in film history – and it all stems back to Super Mario Bros.

   Oh, I almost forgot to mention the best part: the movie ends with Daisy running back to our dimension to fetch the Mario Bros. for another adventure, ostensibly setting up a sequel which would never, EVER come. Such high hopes, yet nothing to show for it…in a tragic way, it pretty much sums up the entire movie.