I Have No Idea What Just Happened... And That's Bad

There are a lot of movies out there. Some are great, many are good, a great many are bad and some just leave you wondering what the heck you just saw. Such is the case with my recent (chance) viewing of Valhalla Rising via Netflix On-Demand.

Written and directed by Danish filmmaker Nicolas Winding Refn, Valhalla Rising stars Mads Mikkelsen (Casino Royale) in a quiet role. Literally – his character never utters a word. This is problematic because I, and the audience I viewed it with, still have no idea what the character's motivations were or why any of the events of the film actually happened. An important aspect of storytelling is the part wherein the audience is made aware of certain plot elements that serve to connect us with the characters and engage us with the story. This never happened in Valhalla Rising, replacing interest with confusion. In that sense, this film is sort of like those magic eye picture where if you stare at it long enough (or figure out how to relax your eyes' focus properly) you discover an image hidden within a seemingly meaningless swath of patterns and colors. The problem here is we saw the picture and don't know what it is.

The film's “setting” visuals are good, comprised of an endless stream of sweeping shots of what one might reasonably assume is a Nordic landscape; the cinematography gives it a very epic feel. Still, I am unsure as to where it actually takes place as that wasn't very clearly conveyed along with everything else. There are some brutal, but short, fight sequences and the rest is mostly a collection of close-up shots of weathered men staring off into the distance, pondering God-only-knows what. They do A LOT of that. Perhaps they too were wondering what was going on.

Here is what can easily be discerned from the film:

1. One-Eye (Mikkelsen) starts out as a slave who is forced to fight other slaves to the death. Is he really fueled by hate or just a will to escape his bondage? It remains uncertain, but a vision leads him to find an arrowhead which he uses to brutally kill his captors.

2. One-Eye and his boy companion come across a band of Christian crusaders who are headed to Jerusalem to fight for Christ. This is where you might think that this film might become like 13^th Warrior, and you would be wrong.

3. One-Eye, having joined this literal ship of fools, sets out with them for Jerusalem only to end up lost in a thick fog for an unspecified amount of time. It is during this time that one of the group, believing them to be cursed by One-Eye's companion, attempts to throw him overboard only to be brutally killed by One-Eye. No one else seems to bat an eye to this development and they continue.

4. They end up somewhere that is definitely not Jerusalem that we can only assume is North America due to the natives, collectively go crazy (one man rapes another in the mud) with the story (if you can call it that) culminating in One-Eye ultimately sacrificing himself to the natives in a beating that goes so smoothly it can be assume to have been pre-arranged. Why? I have no idea.

It is absolutely confounding how little information is actually conveyed, using motion picture no less! Is their journey supposed to be a metaphor for hell (juxtaposed against their intended quest for God?) Is is supposed to be a metaphor for life's journey? Is is a metaphor for self-discovery? One might easily assume that the meaning bestowed is entirely unique to the viewer, but there just aren't enough concrete bits of information to go on to even begin to form a reasonable assumption. Maybe if One-Eye would open his mouth even once and share at least some of his thoughts, we'd know. He does appear to be the only character who knows what is actually going on at any given time. But he never does. He only speaks with his eye and we are as lost as what can only be described as the most incompetent group of crusaders ever. EVER! Perhaps the audience is supposed to share somewhat in their madness, but that is total speculation on my part.

Equally frustrating is the Wikipedia entry for Valhalla Rising which offers no additional explanation whatsoever, but merely serves as a recap of the scenes of the film. Very insightful!

I will give credit to the film for being a (relatively) short 90 minutes. They could have dragged it on and on very easily I'm sure. Yet, how this film manages a 70% Fresh rating on RottenTomatoes is a true spectacle of wonderment to me and those I viewed it with.

In reflecting on Valhalla Rising, I conclude that as a film it is either the result of inadequate narrative style or extremely pretentious on the part of Refn. If the intent is to be an art film, maybe pretentious is the right word. If the intent is to be an interesting and engaging story, it is as incompetent as its character's, save One-Eye. Actual silent films communicate more than this one. I'd rate it, but I still don't know what I'm judging. ???

Reporting For Duty, Captain America Delivers

The parade of superhero movies rolls on in 2011 and now we have Captain America reporting for duty. Much like the first Iron Man, I found myself really having a good time at the movies. What can I say – Captain America does a lot of things right and it just didn't feel as “weighted” as say an X-Men movie where there is a lot of politics built in (mutants vs human, prejudice, etc.). The premise is simple, the effort solid and the result is fun.

Captain America is more or less a World War II movie with the comic book treatment and it works surprisingly well. I think it does work because the premise is not convoluted – America is at war and Steve Rodgers (Chris Evans), a young, scrawny, but well-intentioned man, wants to do his part. Unfortunately for Steve, he just isn't fit for duty as a soldier physically. However, that doesn't keep him to trying to enlist over and over again with different names and addresses. It also eats at him that his best friend is shipping out to fight in Europe without him.

Luckily for Steve, a government scientist happens to pick up on his zeal and realizes that he is an ideal candidate for testing a new top secret super-soldier serum because he respects power and is less prone to abuse it. Suddenly, and much to his surprise, Steve is accepted into the Army. Before long he finds himself in the lab ready for the experiment. They run the test and bam its work! Just like that, Steve is suddenly the perfect physical specimen of a soldier with superior speed, strength, agility and mental facets. However, the Germans (or more specifically their secret science division codenamed “Hydra”) had spies among them and in an attempt to sabotage the program and steal the formula, the serum's creator is shot dead leaving Steve as the only American super soldier. Feeling him too valuable to risk in combat, the Army decides to use him as a war bond pitchman and once again Steve finds himself on the sidelines much to his chagrin.

Meanwhile, Hydra, run by a Nazi scientist Dr. Schmidt (Hugo Weaving) has discovered the power of the gods hidden away in Norway (think Thor tie-in here) and are planning to use it against all nations who oppose them, including their bosses, the Nazis. So as it turns out, the super-soldier serum was the Allies' counter-punch and Schmidt himself was the recipient of an earlier, less stable version of the serum.

Long story short, it isn't long until Steve with the help of Agent Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) and Dr. Howard Stark (father of Iron Man, Tony Stark) that Steve sneaks out to conduct a rescue mission behind enemy lines without authorization in order to do his part in the war and prove his usefulness to his commander (Tommy Lee Jones). The mission is a rousing success and Steve quickly finds himself where he wanted to be all along - on the front lines. I won't spoil any more from here.

As I said, Captain America does a lot of things right. Director Joe Johnston was clearly the right choice for the job. The story is immediately accessible to a general audiences because the premise is simple and because they did a fantastic job presenting Steve Rodgers a relate-able everyman who is genuinely charismatic. They don't have to waste any time or effort driving home the point that “you need to like this guy.”

Now to the points of execution. The film is paced very well and doesn't have any segments that bog it down in needless exposition. It clocks in at a tidy 2 hours, 5 minutes. The editing room was used and in an era of seemingly longer and longer “blockbusters,” it was welcome relief. The casting was also superb! Evans is a good fit for Cap (and this role allows him to escape the Human Torch stigma from the Fantastic Four) and Hugo Weaving always make for an excellent villain. Atwell is paired well with Evans in the role of Peggy Carter as a romantic interest that isn't overplayed. Had it been played too heavy, it would have bogged down the story. Additionally, the movie uses comedy well, not using too much and timing it well and never coming across as overly cheesy (when it isn't intended).

The bottom line is this - Captain America is a solid comic book adaptation that is fun, lighthearted at times, action packed and never devolving into an unintended parody of itself. The latest addition to the superhero movie pantheon is a winner! 8/10

Reel Quick Review - The Social Network

I was in Duluth this past weekend to visit a buddy of mine. During my visit we watched The Social Network. I'm a little surprised that I hadn't gotten around to seeing it sooner consider all the praise and positive buzz I had heard in my social circles, but better late than never.

If nothing else, the one thing that The Social Network has going for it is an undeniably interesting story - the origins of Facebook, the madly successful social networking site. Mark Zuckerberg, portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg in the film, is one hell of a character study - brilliantly gifted with computers, but socially inept, at least in the sense of understanding the workings and nuances of interpersonal relationships. He created one of the world's most successful internet websites and it has brought him both fame and infamy!

Based on actual events, the film, penned by Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing) and directed by David Fincher (Seven, Fight Club) is fast moving and filled with sharp dialogue that actually made me laugh out loud a few times, not necessarily because the situations were funny, but because the one-liners were superbly executed. Zuckerberg, by all accounts, is not likable for reasons made very obvious in the film - he says exactly what is on his mind, seemingly without any filtering whatsoever, and he just doesn't understand social moires. It's hard to know if he is actually as saavy as circumstances would have you believe or if much of his success is due to outside influences such as Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake).

As I said, the story is engaging and engrossing and Fincher does an excellent job of melding the present (legal depositions from Zuckerberg's lawsuits) with the past (flashbacks to what actually transpired) as the method of storytelling. No doubt Eisenberg was tested in his role as the laconic Zuckerberg and it all shines on screen as watch the story of the destroyed friendships behind the world's biggest "friend" driven network. 9/10

Rating Adjustments Vol. 1 - Judgments Revisited with the Passage of Time

So now and then I go back and peruse the history of the Film Lounge's reviews and reader comments. It's interesting for me, especially with the really old posts, to revisit them and check out my initial thoughts of a film a few years removed. Quite frequently I'll go back and read a review and worry that I no longer would rate it the same, but then I get to the end and see the rating and breath a sigh of relief because I feel that I did get it right and I would still give it the same rating.

But not always.

First, I feel its important that we be able to admit when we are wrong; we cannot be afraid to do so. And second, I think that it helps me to be a better reviewer and viewer in general to be able to, with the passage of time, be able to go back, think it through again and re-rate a movie if I can find justification. Quite often people tend to overreact (both positively and negatively) right out of the gates and I am no exception to that. I am, after all, only human.

During a recent trip back through the blog I ran across three entries that, as I read them and then saw the rating I gave the movies, I argued with my judgment at the time. So now I will address them and hopefully the record will be set straight.

Spiderman 3 (was rated 8/10) – Oh superhero movies.... My recent viewing and review of Green Lantern has really had me mulling things over during the past week. I've done a lot of thinking on the genre and looking back at all of them through the lens of full decade, I've had a lot of interesting thoughts, some of them expressed in my Green Lantern review.

One of the things that didn't make it into my final draft of the Green Lantern review was a portion where I put my feelings about GL into perspective by listing which superhero movies I felt were worse than GL. After much contemplation I feel Spiderman 3 is one of them. Many people will call me crazy, but I can't help my feelings. Agree or disagree, one thing is certain – Spiderman 3 is not 8/10 material.

First, it is the weakest of the trilogy - by far. Second, when I talk about Spiderman 3 with people it is never fondly. We all seem to complain about the “emo” sequence and how Tobey Maguire's Spiderman, while not terrible, is not really true to the comics. He isn't enough of a wise-cracker and is way too pathetic. Don't get me wrong, Peter Parker often battles with his self-image in the comics, but Maguire's version just doesn't get it right. Finally, Sandman, while the effects were well done, was under-utilized as a villain and we really didn't care about his story. It's largely forgettable as a movie. If you were going to sit down with friends and watch a Spiderman movie, it would either be 1 or 2, not 3.

The passage of time has only magnified Spiderman 3's flaws and the flaws of the trilogy as a whole, but 3's most of all. Therefore I am adjusting it's rating to 6/10.

Transformers (2007) (was rated 9/10) – Here is another film that has lost some luster. Perhaps not a lot, but some and more because of the second installment than anything else. Looking back, 9/10 seems a tad high to me. The visuals, which carried the movie, were great then and still are now, but Michael Bay's name is uttered in jest these days and he consistently puts out summer cash-cows with little, if any, substance. Let's face it, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was not good, and by not good I mean irritatingly bad! (Don't make me invoke the twins!) That said, Transformers did meet my expectations in 2007 and didn't do anything to offend its in own right and did genuinely entertain. However, thanks to number two (A PUN!) I won't be seeing Transformers: Dark of the Moon. New rating – 8/10

Next (was rated 7/10) – Here is a movie that is largely forgettable to me. In fact, the only thing I really recall about Next is that the concept was really cool and I feel like I gave it an extra point for having an interesting concept. Now, I still think the concept is interesting, but I can't justify a 7/10 rating as it definitely is not as good or entertaining as some of the other 7/10 movies I've reviewed on this site. So, to make myself feel more at ease, this movie is getting adjusted down to 6/10. Sorry Nick Cage – Kick Ass is still awesome!

Green Lantern May Not Shine, But It Definitely Glows

After a full decade of the comic book movie wave coming out of Hollywood, it appears, at least to this reviewer, that the honeymoon with audiences is over. After X-Men, Spiderman, Hulk, Batman, Superman, Fantastic Four, DareDevil, Ironman, Thor, etc, etc, etc., people are starting to get bored. How do I know? I went to go see Green Lantern and was shocked.... shocked that is wasn't nearly as bad as the swath of reviews would have you believe. Admittedly, Green Lantern (henceforth GL) has its share of flaws and areas that could have been stronger, but the majority of reviews out there would have you believe this movie carries the plague. It doesn't. It's very run-of-the-mill, formulaic and isn't as easily accessible to those unfamiliar with its mythology as say Spiderman or Batman, thus slowing it down with explanations. However, if those are its sins, then I think a lot of people giving it bad press have overreacted.

Admittedly, as a fan and reader of the comics, I've been looking forward to GL for months now, albeit with great trepidation and concern. Then as we got close to release and the reviews started coming in, I got really disheartened. RottenTomatoes has it hovering between 22% and 25%, but I told myself I would see it and so I did.

First let me talk about the movie itself. Having read plenty of reviews beforehand, I lowered my expectations. It's an origin story and it stayed pretty faithful to the source material. Ryan Reynolds did a fine job as Hal Jordan and while he didn't always have the strongest script to work with, his charismatic charms went a long way. There was also a lot going on for a movie on the shorter end of the run-time spectrum. They had to explain a lot of back story quickly to set up Hal's being chosen by Abin Sur's ring to join the GL Corps. (If you are getting lost just reading this synopsis, then we're hitting one of the major hurdles facing GL as a movie.)

Aside from the back story, the movie crammed in Sinestro and his role, the Guardians of the Universe and two separate villains – Hector Hammond and Parallax. To put it into perspective, that is like cramming Joker, Catwoman and the Penguin all into one Batman movie. (They came close, but never got that crowded).

The quality of the CG effects were one thing that really had me concerned going in, but they actually turned out pretty good and I never found myself distracted. The script was weak at times, but for a writing committee that included three novices, it wasn't as bad as I was expecting either. Interestingly enough, the action was less than I was expecting, but again, there was much to explain and the movie was fairly short.

Lower expectations aside, GL is nowhere near 25% territory. It simply isn't. I've been to movies in the last couple of years that made me wince (Sucker Punch), groan (Transformers 2) and keep checking my watch (Harry Potter 7, Pt. 1) and I did none of those things with GL. The movie has it's problem, but not all of them are the movie's fault. As an origin story it is derivative, and that is the term that many reviews are invoking as they pan the movie.

Guilty.

Here is one of the problems – many superhero stories have the same basic formula. Take Spiderman for instance. You have a normal kid and one day he gets bitten by a radioactive spider. The next thing he knows BANG he has super spider powers. At first he is overwhelmed and doesn't know what to make of it. Then he begins to harness and control the abilities and starts “strutting” and showing off. Finally, he must decide if he will act using those powers. Now take away “Spiderman” and the radioactive spider and you have a template for a sequence of events that is used, more or less, by Ironman, DareDevil, the Fantastic Four, the X-Men and, yes, GL. Hell, even Hulk to a certain extent! That is the nature of a lot of superhero stories, folks. Now, once you get past the origin phase, then each character's adventures go off in their own unique direction. It is because of this that I would argue that this movie would have had a much better reception, say, five years ago when comic book movies were still relatively new. People complain that it is derivative because it is.

Another problem is that GL isn't as well known to general audiences as say Spiderman, Superman or Batman, thus making it a bit harder to just sit down and immediately understand the premise if you haven't read the source material. GL spends a bit of time explaining and for those unfamiliar it really needs to. The story isn't primarily set on Earth, the powers aren't “physical” in nature and there is a lot of back story. GL packed a lot of stuff into a movie that doesn't even run two hours; I would say a little too much. People are saying that they had a hard time following the story and I don't doubt it or fault them for that. Again, it goes back to the accessibility problem.

I've also read reviews that criticize elements that are innately part of the story, things like Hal's “daddy issues”. Look, if that bothers you or seems contrived, then GL probably isn't for you because Hal Jordan has “daddy issues” and family issues to boot. It's actually a big part of who he is and why he is special as a lantern. Remember, even Spiderman has “uncle issues” and Batman has “parents issues”.

Some are blasting the child-like sense of wonder the movie plays up, saying it will play better to kids. I won't take issue with that observation, but I will tell you that there were elements that conjured up memories of Spiderman's rooftop sequence for me. Again, derivative.

One comment I've read that I think is fair compared GL to the 1980's The Last Starfighter (one of my childhood faves and now a sentimental favorite). The similarities abound and that doesn't necessarily make it a bad movie.

Ultimately my initial reaction is that I was entertained, but I think the fact that I am a GL fan helped for reasons already stated. As a comic book movie it didn't bring anything revolutionary to the table which seems to be trying the patience of many reviewers. Yes, it could have been better and stronger in some areas, but as a whole it isn't terrible, just generic. Again, five years ago, this wouldn't have been as much an issue as it is in 2011.

I don't think it is fair to call GL a disaster. It could have been stronger, but its not a failure. It's is admittedly harder to get into than other superhero flicks and probably better suited to the readers and fans than for general audiences. While it didn't blow me away, I was entertained and not disappointed. For its problems, Green Lantern may not shine, but it definitely glows. 6/10