Posts Tagged ‘movie review’
Thursday, October 27th, 2011
Based on the beloved teen dance movie of the eighties, the remake of the classic Footloose would be totally forgettable were it not for its faithfulness to its original source. Nevertheless, this update is at least a refreshing change from the unimaginative dance movies plaguing the silver screen these days that depend heavily on choreography rather than plot.
This new incarnation of Footloose stays true to the original film for the most part. A city boy named Ren (played by newcomer Kenny Wormald) arrives in the small town of Bomont to live with his uncle following his mother’s death. The remake shifts Ren’s city of origin from Chicago (in the original film) to Boston, which accounts for Wormald’s strange way of “tawking.” Badboy Ren’s outsider status brings trouble to him wherever he goes. With his popped collars, tight t-shirts and defiant attitude, this foreign extraction is the embodiment of all the parents’ worst fears. Ren struggles to obey Bomont’s extreme laws, which impose strict curfews on minors and ban them from dancing in public.
These laws were implemented by the town council after a group of students were killed driving home from a school dance three years prior. The reverend (Dennis Quaid), who exerts a strong influence over the town, proposed this law because his son was one of the victims killed in the car crash. Ren befriends the reverend’s daughter Ariel (Julianne Hough), who rebels against her conservative father by wearing tight cutoffs and organizing underground dance parties. When Ren and Ariel’s relationship turns romantic, the reverend becomes suspicious of Ren. This tension intensifies when Ren starts a petition to abolish the ban on public dancing.
In portraying the teen renegade Ren, Kenny Wormald is charged with the difficult task of filling Kevin Bacon’s shoes. In 1984, Footloose made Bacon a superstar and critics praised his vibrant and energetic performance. Wormald is not fully up to the task. Although his Ren is likable, with ruffled hair and a John Travolta attitude, he does not quite possess the charisma that catapulted Bacon to fame. In fact, for most of the movie, Wormald is at risk of being overshadowed by the fantastic comic presence of supporting actor Miles Teller. Teller plays Willard, Ren’s humorous best friend, who declares that he cannot dance. Through Ren’s tutelage, Willard becomes one of the most exciting dancers in the film to watch. The two young actors have terrific chemistry together, making their scenes the most entertaining of the film.
Dennis Quaid successfully portrays the unlikable reverend who struggles to strike a balance between his duties to the town and his duties as a parent. The only real disappointment in the cast is Julianne Hough, who tries too hard to be the wild, misunderstood teenager desperate to leave the small town. However, Hough’s dancing abilities make up for her poor acting skills.
It is a shame that in the remake the choreography from some of the classic scenes is purposefully sexed up. This may be an attempt by the filmmakers to connect to a younger audience, but the end results are uninventive and clumsy dance sequences.
Many of the scenes are copied directly from the original, but the remake does offer a few improvements. For example, the actors in the 2011 adaptation perform all their own dances, while the 1984 version required dance doubles in many scenes. There is also more backstory offered about the car crash in the remake, whereas the original only briefly mentions that the reason for the ban was due to an accident. Also, director Craig Brewer more accurately portrays the South and the wide-reaching influence of the church. For that reason, the remake places greater emphasis on the social matters that the general American audience can relate to.
The updated Footloose is yet another entry into the ever-growing catalogue of classic movie remakes gone awry. It contains some good attempts at storytelling, but it has nothing new to offer. I would advise filmmakers that revamping such a revolutionary classic is perilous work, especially if they do not change enough about the movie to make it unique and memorable. For the sake of audiences everywhere, let’s hope future remake directors will learn from Footloose’s misstep.
Tags: Footloose, movie review, remakes
Posted in Arts & Entertainment | No Comments »
Thursday, October 6th, 2011
 Photo courtesy of IMDB.com Straw Dogs, starring James Marsden, Kate Bosworth, and Alexander Skarsgard, is a remake of the original film Straw Dogs directed by Sam Peckinpah in 1971, which starred Dustin Hoffman and Susan George. The film deals with strong themes, including the meaning of manhood and the treatment of women. The film is set in modern day Mississippi and revolves around the story of David Sumner and his wife, Amy. This setting is a clear departure from the original film, which was set in the bucolic English countryside.
Similar to the original, the updated film opens with the couple arriving in Amy’s hometown of Blackwater, Mississippi. Amy is a small town girl, who left the south to follow her dreams of becoming an actress, while David is an Ivy League graduate who has made it as a Hollywood screenwriter for Amy’s hit TV series. He views their temporary move to the south with anthropological interest, as he clearly comes from a different background than his wife. The couple heads to Blackwater in order to repair Amy’s family property, treating the project as a creative reprieve for David who’s working on a new screenplay about the battle of Stalingrad during World War II.Settling into the beautiful property, David is, from the start, made to feel like an outsider in Blackwater and differs immensely from Alexander Skarsgard’s character Charlie. Charlie, who is both Amy’s old high school sweetheart and the leader of a gang of thugs that later becomes David’s enemies, treat David poorly from the beginning. It’s obvious that there’s a massive chasm between David and the men of Blackwater.
Charlie sees David as overly pretentious and blatantly disrespects him. Charlie’s gang abuses, mocks, and takes advantage of David, especially when Charlie and his crew take David hunting, only for David to discover that he kills a buck that is illegal to hunt.
The physically imposing Charlie, portrayed with dangerously repressed anger by Skarsgard, has a lingering attraction to his ex-girlfriend despite her marital status. He teasingly calls her “Amycakes” throughout the film—an action that directly hints at the sexual tension that transpires and occupies much of the focus of the movie.
This lingering tension and the emerging ugly theme of misogyny is something that increases as the movie progresses. It starts with Charlie nicknaming Amy “Amycakes” and escalates to Charlie and his crew blatantly ogling Amy as she jogs along a road. However, after the fact, David implies that Amy’s scantily clad body partially makes their actions her fault. The movie continues to escalate from these earlier scenes to the controversial scene that made the original film infamous. Audiences should be warned that this scene is extremely graphic and disturbing, frankly depicting a brutal sexual assault.
While David is away from their house, Charlie and his gang break in and attack Amy, forcing themselves on her. In the same scene in the original 1971 film, there was an uproar over Peckinpah’s depiction of Amy’s attack, showing her alternately enjoying and being repulsed by Charlie’s violent advances.
The updated film’s director, Rod Lurie, does not appear to have a real point to make, so the assault feels disturbingly gratuitous. Overall, there is complete lack of respect towards women in the film.
Straw Dogs is overtly comprised of a discussion on sexual politics. It’s about the class differences, cultural differences, and meaning of manhood. It’s about the disgust with which not only small town men treat women, but upper class individuals like David Sumner as well. It’s a film that the general population might not agree with, but it is, nonetheless sure to spark controversy.
Tags: movie review, Straw Dogs
Posted in Arts & Entertainment | No Comments »
Thursday, March 11th, 2010
When I first saw the trailer for Alice in Wonderland, I knew that it was going to be a dark, twisted and wonderful ride. Director Tim Burton has once again teamed up with Johnny Depp, who plays the Mad Hatter. I was a bit surprised that Disney was behind it, as this is the studio’s second expedition into Lewis Carroll’s novel, and this is definitely not the 1951 animated adaptation.
Combining the stories of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, Alice (played by Australian newcomer Mia Wasikowska) returns for her second trip down the rabbit hole after escaping her surprise engagement party. There is some debate among her old friends if she is the “right” Alice, a champion who will end the reign of the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) by battling and killing the Jabberwocky in order to restore peace and the crown to the White Queen (Anne Hathaway).
Wasikowska plays Alice well, although I had a hard time believing her as a 19-year-old young woman on the cusp of adulthood. She seemed younger and distant, perhaps 13 or 14, stuck in the dream-world fantasies of her childhood. Once in Underland (the actual name of the land, since apparently ‘Wonderland’ was a name little six-year-old Alice created for the world on her first visit), Alice does grow up a little bit, becoming a little braver and more self-confident in making her own choices.
The madness that you would expect from Wonderland is all there. Even the supposed ‘good’ guys and friends that Alice has are just a bit off. Depp’s Hatter was brilliant, handling the script with effortless grace; however, at times, when he would switch between a Scottish accent, feminine whisper and fast-talking babble, I couldn’t help but notice similarities to Depp’s roles as the now-infamous Captain Jack Sparrow and Willy Wonka. In Wonderland, the Hatter has become a darkly-twisted “Mad” version of himself because of a past incident with the Red Queen. He is defined by his orange hair and bright green bug eyes that turn yellow when he becomes angry.
Bonham Carter as the Red Queen was a delicious treat, with her giant heart-shaped head, sickly-sweet yet blunt attitude, and favorite howl of “Off with his/her/their head(s)!” Crispin Glover plays her semi-loyal Knave of Hearts, a slimy sidekick role that he pulls off with ease. I was a bit hesitant at the casting of Hathaway as the White Queen, but she played the role with elegance and a hint that even this Queen was not all there. Michael Sheen voices the pocket-watch leading White Rabbit with prim and proper ease, Matt Lucas delights as twins Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and Stephen Fry brings a grin as the evaporating and semi-elusive Cheshire Cat. Paul Whitehouse is perfectly insane as the March Hare who becomes fascinated with shiny spoons and chucks teacups every-which-way while Alan Rickman is cool and collected as the Blue Caterpillar Absolum.
Burton’s take on the story is a fun adventure and a journey away from the blandness of the real world. The CGI effects are thrillingly eye-catching, making Carroll’s world a fascinating spectactle. Creatures such as the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky become lifelike and believable. The usual strangeness that comes with a bona-fide Burton-Depp collaboration is ever present and you can’t help but feel a little ‘round the bend yourself once you leave the theater. But, as Alice says to the Hatter, repeating reassuring advice about madness given to her when she was younger by her father, “I’ll tell you a secret. All the best people are.”
Alice in Wonderland is cuurently playing in theaters.
Tags: movie review
Posted in Arts & Entertainment | No Comments »
Thursday, February 25th, 2010
“My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist.”
These are the words Rizwan Khan, a Indian Muslim immigrant living in California, wants to say to the President of the United States. Khan travels across the country for nearly a year by plane, bus and foot to meet the Pre ident (first Bush and then Obama) to share his message, attracting attention from federal authorities and the media. But Khan, who suffers from Asperger Syndrome, doesn’t quite understand why the media, authorities, and the American public are invigorated by his journey. Khan doesn’t see the message of identity and tolerance that he is spreading. As far as Khan knows, he is simply traveling across the country for love and to reunify his family after a great tragedy.
If this plot summary makes My Name is Khan seem far-fetched and overwrought with melodrama, you are correct. After all, My Name is Khan is a Bollywood film and melodramatic love stories are an essential aspect of these films. Here the main protagonists, Khan and Mandira, are played by Bollywood megastars Shahrukh Khan and Kajol. But My Name is Khan is certainly not a traditional Bollywood film like Devdas (2002), Main Noon Ha (2004) or Om Shanti Om (2007). There are no song and dance sequences that saturate the screen with movement and color. In fact, the three musical-esque numbers in My Name is Khan are just montages that show Khan and Mandira’s sweeping and abruptly disrupted love for one another.
My Name is Khan moves beyond the melodramatic love story and the Aspergers Syndrome subplot. Like 2009’s New York, it is one of the few Bollywood films set in paranoid post-9/11 America that emphasizes the affect the attacks has had on the Muslim-American community. As Khan tells us, there are three periods in Western history: B.C., A.D. and 9/11. Movies rarely show the effects that 9/11 had on Muslim immigrants living in the US; not in Bollywood films and certainly not in Hollywood films. (American independent cinema is a completely different market, where these films such as Man Push Cart (2005) and Amreeka (2009) are lauded to no end.)
My Name is Khan shows stereotyping, victimization and racially-motivated violence endured by characters such as the teased middle school student and the tortured shop owner who’s stories feel straight out of a “This American Life” podcast. The devastating effect this prejudice has on Khan and Mandira’s young son Sam, and the reason for Khan’s Odysseus-like journey, is absolutely heartbreaking. The film goes as far as to compare the plight of Indian Muslims in the US to that of black Americans, in scenes where Khan finds himself in rural Georgia and taken in by Mama Jenny, a woman whose son was killed in Iraq. These scenes are as comical (for instance, the sight of Shahrukh Khan in an oversized woman’s dress) as they are enlightening (a group of Muslims rescuing black Americans from a devastating hurricane).
I am compelled to call this film the Bollywood Forrest Gump. There are several similarities—an autistic character, a sweeping look at American history, even a character named Jenny. But to do so is to broadly categorize it as one type of movie and to discredit it in some ways. While its post-9/11 narrative is, at times, far-reaching and its romance is melodramatic but sincere, My Name is Khan is about the reclamation of identity in the face of personal tragedy and prejudice. Khan’s journey inspires countless others to stand up to the intolerance they face.
This is why the most powerful story in My Name is Khan is not Khan’s or Sam’s or Mama Jenny’s but his sister-in-law’s, Haseena, a professor of psychology who chooses to wear a hijab. After 9/11, Haseena is verbally abused and in one instance, she is shoved to the ground as her hijab is forcefully removed. For most of the remainder of the film she remains uncovered. Inspired by Khan’s cross country journey she boldly wears her hijab again, not because it is just her religious identity but because it is her identity.
Bollywood is arguably the most popular and influential film industry worldwide. The fact that films such as My Name is Khan and New York tackle current social and political issues speaks volumes. It removes the notion that Bollywood cinema is just fantastical and audience-pleasing. My Name is Khan is no doubt a moving and entertaining film; you will find yourself rooting for Khan to meet the President. My Name is Khan engages its audience by addressing current issues, instead of through fantasy. This film is emblematic of the necessity of cinema to represent and not downplay current issues that seep into our everyday lives.
Tags: bollywood, movie review
Posted in Arts & Entertainment | No Comments »
|
Photo courtesy of IMDB.com
