Leon (1994)

Title: Leon (1994)

Director: Luc Besson

Cast: Jean Reno, Natalie Portman, Gary Oldman, Danny Aiello    

               

The most controversial aspect of Luc Besson’s Leon (1994) is the suggested romance between Mathilda, the 12 year old girl who wants to become an assassin, and Leon, her protector and mentor. Mathilda is a little girl who lives in a very troubled household in which everybody is always screaming at each other, everybody spews hatred, you know, you’re a-typical ass backwards dysfunctional family. Mathilda’s father even steals cocaine from his drug dealers and therefore places his entire family in jeopardy! Of course Mathilda hates living there, which is why she spends most of her time outside of the house, smoking cigarettes behind her abusive father’s back. One day, Mathilda’s father has to answer to a crooked DEA officer about some missing cocaine, and since the coke never turns up, Mathilda’s father is killed, and so is her entire family! Lucky for Mathilda, she was out in the convenience store buying milk for Leon. One thing leads to another and Leon ends up taking Mathilda, unwillingly at first, into his life. Will this new lifestyle workout for Leon?  Can he take care of something else other than himself?  

So why does a little girl fall in love with a man three times her age? Well, she develops feelings for Leon because he protects and cares for her, something she never got from her family. Leon also ends up saving her life at one point. He doesn’t slap her around the way her father did either, so she begins to fall for the guy even though he is considerably older than she is. Relationships with huge generational gaps are not unheard of in cinema, examples of this are Kubrick’s Lolita (1962), Adrian Lyne’s Lolita (1997), Harold and Maude (1971) and Birth (2004). But after a test screening in L.A. in which the audience reacted negatively to Mathilda’s advances towards Leon, these elements were deemed too racy and so director Luc Besson decided to edit the film in order to omit those Mathilda/Leon scenes that displayed some intimacy between the characters. Jean Reno says he wanted to portray the character of Leon as slow of mind, as a character who wouldn’t even think about having a relationship with Mathilda; this element of Leon comes across exactly like that. He is shocked beyond measure when Mathilda confesses her feelings to him. In reality, Mathilda’s affections come off as childlike and more than likely misguided, but you get the vibe that her feelings are of genuine affection for Leon. If you watch the American version of the film entitled ‘The Professional’, then you are getting the edited version. You’ll get less scenes of this interplay between Leon and Mathilda, but if you get the deluxe edition, then you’ll see a bit more of what goes on between them, which by the way is not in bad taste, Luc Besson handles things extremely well displaying Mathilda’s affections, which come off as nothing more than a harmless child hood crush. 

  

The film was also edited in other ways, for example, the character of Mathilda is a 12 year old girl who wants to become “a cleaner” or a hired assassin. So we have scenes of Mathilda cleaning her guns, dismantling a gun and putting it back together again, we even have a scene in which she threatens to kill herself by putting a gun to hear head. Images of kids handling guns in a film are always a risky because it’s an idea that will be seen in a negative light by ultra conservative audiences and the Motion Picture Association of America. Why? Because it’s an idea that we don’t want to propagate; the idea of children carrying instruments of death. If you choose to show scenes such as these on your film, you have to make sure that it is justified or else your film will more than likely get flamed by critics and moral snobs. Many times a film will receive a cold reception at the box office if it gratuitously displays children handling guns in one form or another. For example, Irving Kirshner’s Robocop 2 (1990) got a lot of heat because it depicted a 12 year old kid running a drug cartel, cursing like a sailor and shooting machine guns. The Monster Squad (1987) suffered from the same malady; on that one we have kids stabbing female vampires square in the chest and a character called ‘Fat Kid’ loading a shotgun, cocking it and shooting The Monster from the Black Lagoon with it. Most recently, Kick- Ass (2010) and its sequel Kick Ass 2 (2013) also got criticized for the character of Hit-Girl, a gun totting, sword carrying teen. But while the violence in some of these films I’ve mentioned might come off as gratuitous (yet tons of fun to watch) on Leon it feels justified. Mathilda feels threatened by the world she lives in, she was abused physically by her own father, she lost her entire family to a mad man and now avenging her little brother’s death is what drives her.  She has nowhere else to go, and the only father figure she knows is an assassin named Leon, you do the math. I say Mathilda is a character that speaks volumes about adapting in the wake of adversity.  

True, the scenes in which Mathilda asks Leon to train her to become a killer and the subsequent scenes in which he actually takes her on an assignment to kill somebody will probably result shocking to some, to me it’s just a movie with high entertainment value and good ideas. I like it when a film attempts to shake me up a bit. But behind the controversy and the violence, at heart there is a good film about two people who actually need each other. Mathilda obviously needs Leon for the reasons I’ve already mentioned, but Leon is an extremely lonely man. When he is not killing, he is training or going to the movies, or cleaning his plant, which he calls his best friend. At heart, we have a man whose life is empty and sad; a man who needs the light that Mathilda brings to his life. There are some great scenes where both characters are simply having fun being all silly and goofy around each other, lightening up their lives as best they can. So the film isn’t as violent as you might be led to believe, it’s actually a sweeter film then it is violent.

An astounding element of this film is the cast; starting with Natalie Portman who was 11 years old when she was cast for this film. The numerous array of emotions she conveys on her performance is amazing and made even more amazing when we take in consideration how young she was 11 when she made this film. The casting director was going to say no to Portman because she was so young, but when Besson saw her audition, he gave her the part! The film basically revolves around the character of Mathilda so the right casting of this role was essential.  The young actress who would embody Mathilda needed to convey a plethora of emotions necessary for the part. In my opinion, they couldn’t have made a better choice than Portman, who is amazing here. There’s this awesome scene where Mathilda is getting drunk in a restaurant…awesome stuff, in some scenes she's terrified, in others she's crying beyond redemption, she really displays a whole spectrum of emotions. Gary Oldman is an amazing actor who used to play a lot of villains earlier in his career and this is one of his best ones, if you ask me, Oldmans character on this film is right up there with ‘Drexl’ from True Romance (1993) in terms of craziness. Oldman is bat shit insane on this film, even more so when he takes his pills! In turn, Jean Reno plays his character with a cool mellow vibe, he’s got a childlike innocence to him; he will be the nicest killer you’ve ever met. Funny how this film makes you feel empathy for a cold blooded killer!

The idea for Leon came to Besson while making La Femme Nikita (1990), if you notice, both films share a few similarities, starting with the fact that they are both about women who want to become killers. On La Femme Nikita, Jean Reno also plays a killer who even dresses in the same fashion as Leon. Besson always felt that he could expand on this character, center a film around the killer, so he wrote Leon, always having Jean Reno in mind for the part. Funny how this film was the film that Besson made while waiting for Bruce Willis’s schedule to clear up so he could finally film The Fifth Element (1997) with him. In the interim between that waiting, Besson wrote Leon and shot it! The Fifth Element was a dream project of Besson’s, yet it is Leon, the film he made in between his big dream project that is considered to be the superior film. Me? I say they are both good on different levels, each good within their genre. So my final words is, if you haven’t seen Leon, do yourself a favor and check it out, it’s filled with awesome performances all around and let’s not forget, this was Portman’s breakout performance! She does an astounding job in this film, you’ll love her character, a little girl who struggles to survive as best she can in this harsh world.  

Rating: 5 out of 5

Mars Attacks! (1996)

Title: Mars Attacks! (1996)

Director: Tim Burton

Cast: Pam Grier, Jack Nicholson, Glenn Close, Annette Bening, Pierce Brosnan, Danny DeVito, Martin Short, Sarah Jessica Parker, Michael J. Fox, Tom Jones, Jim Brown, Lukas Haas, Natalie Portman, Lisa Marie

Review:

Back in 1994, Tim Burton directed Ed Wood, a film that pays loving homage to science fiction and horror film director Edward Wood Jr., a director better known as ‘the worst director who ever lived’. One look at his movies and you’ll agree, Ed Wood wasn’t the best filmmaker in the world. But any film buff will tell ya that all the things that make a film like Plan 9 From Outer Space (1957) a ‘bad movie’ are the very same elements that make it a completely watchable film. I like seeing those strings hanging from the toy flying saucers, I like seeing the set falling apart as the actors walk through it, I like those random scenes of Bela Lugosi doing things that had nothing to do with the story, I liked the unnecessary, yet wildly entertaining voice over. These are the elements that give Plan 9 From Outer Space its charm, because even through all that, at its core, there’s a message, it says something, it’s good intentions cannot be ignored. It’s in that spirit that Tim Burton made Mars Attacks!, a film that Ed Wood would have made himself if he was still alive and had 70 million dollars to spare.

Mars Attacks begins in the dark recesses of space, as we follow an armada of thousands of Martian spaceships headed directly towards earth. We are then presented with the many characters that we’ll follow throughout the movie, characters who will no doubt converge at some point in the story. So we get Louise Williams (Pamela Grier) a bus driver and stern mother of two. We get Byron Williams (Jim Brown) an ex-boxer who is trying to get back with his wife and kids before the Martians attack. We get Jack Nicholson playing two roles, one as the president of the United States, and another as a gambler/empresario whose looking to open up his new hotel and casino, which by the way looks like a giant flying saucer. Basically, we meet a bunch of characters all living different lifestyles, who have to deal with the fact that these Martians do not come in peace, they come to take over! They’ve come to attack! Is humanity doomed to destruction by little green men?

I watched Mars Attacks in theaters way back in ’96 when it was first released and I remember feeling really strange after seeing it. I’d seen it with my parents and I remember them saying something like “I don’t feel like I saw a movie”. My reaction was a bit different. I remember thinking it was undoubtedly a strange movie and I remember leaving the theater with this weird feeling of ‘what did I just watch?’ But I also couldn’t deny I had enjoyed it. I like Tim Burton when he does films like this one, films where he doesn’t give a crap what anybody is going to think, he just does what he finds entertaining, which is often times goofy and offbeat. I mean, can you deny that Beetlejuice (1986) is one of the weirdest movies you ever saw? No you can’t; but you can’t deny that it’s quite entertaining either. Sadly, Burton isn’t making films like these anymore, right now, his films play it safe. Though recently, Frankenweenie (2012) did manage to bring back some of that old Burton weirdness I love so much, I miss the old Tim Burton, the one who would wallow in his weirdness. I haven’t seen a truly risky Tim Burton film in a long while. I wish he’d do it more often; Burton works best when he does his own thing, left to his own devices. Mars Attack has that feeling going for it. It’s a film that isn’t afraid to go all the way bonkers. This is a big budget film that’s purposely showing its b-movie sensibilities, which of course spells awesome for me.

How bonkers is this movie? Well, for starters the movie is based on a series of Topps trading cards composed of 55 trading cards that came out circa 1962. These little cards would show gruesome depictions of Martians eradicating the human race. These might be little trading cards that fit into the palm of your hand, but they sure packed lots of gruesomeness! So much so that Topps had to cancel the trading cards out of public outcry! So these cards had an edge! I don’t think they were entirely aimed at kids, though I’m sure it was the kids that bought them. The film retains some of that gruesomeness without going into ‘R’ territory. This is why we get to see people smashing giant Martian brains, with green ooze slipping out and Martians doing all sorts of weird experiments on humans; like giving Sarah Jessica Parker the body of a Chihuahua, so these Martians have a meanness to them! The cards also had a bit of a sexual vibe going for them which on the film translated to Martians checking out playboy magazine. The film retains the spirit of the cards, sometimes while watching the movie you’ll feel like you’re watching a snapshot coming straight from the Topps card series. 

Another element that makes the movie interesting is that almost everyone is famous in one form of another! This is a star studded cast filled with cameos left and right. Thing is that most of these cameos are extended, they aren’t five minute cameos. Instead, you get to see quite a bit of each of the actors who appear on the film. I liked that about it, we go from Jack Blacks white thrash family, to Michael J. Fox’s stale marriage to Sarah Jessica Parker, to the President of the United States deciding if he should  nuke the Martians or not. It’s one of those movies with a lot of stories going on, but at some point they all come together. Jack Nicholson is absolutely amazing here as a businessman/gangster called Art Land, “I’m not a crook, I’m ambitious, there’s a difference!” He’s this sleazy drunkard who wants to open a new hotel; boy Nicholson really got into that character! He made me laugh on a regular basis, I was surprised to see him so game in a movie of this nature. Even Tom Jones shows up to kick some Martian ass! Natalie Portman plays the president’s daughter in one of her earliest roles, it's always fun to see artists who have become great (like Portman) doing their earliest stuff. Here we also get to see Jack Black taking his first baby steps as an actor. 

Tim Burton’s always displayed an admiration for stop motion animation, his first short ever was a stop motion animated feature called ‘Vincent’. Burton’s also produced and directed various stop animation films like Nightmare Before Christmas, The Corpse Bride and most recently Frankenweenie, so it didn’t surprise me when I found out that Burton originally wanted to bring the Martians to life through the use of stop motion animation Unfortunately, the studio wanted to cut down the budget of the film so stop motion animation was eliminated from the project, plus, the special effects crew convinced Burton they could pull the effects off with computers, so Burton went with the CGI. Gotta wonder what the film would have been like had Burton used stop motion animation. So anyways, overall, with this kind of film you either get it or you don’t, it’s a love it or hate it movie. If you love 50’s science fiction films, trading cards, comic books, and the plain bizarre side of life, chances are you’ll get this movie. The rest of the world just won’t get it, which is probably why this film underperformed at the box office.  It didn’t lose money, but it didn’t make a significant profit either. But who cares about all that noise, the movie is fun times. At its core is an anti-war message: while fear mongers want to nuke the hell out of the Martians, the humble people of the world want to save the earth by other peaceful means. I highly recommend Mars Attacks! to those who enjoy a good laugh.

Rating: 4 out 5

THOR (2011)

Title: Thor (2011)

Director: Kenneth Branagh

Cast: Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Chris Hemsworth, Stellan Skarsgard, Kat Dennings, Rene Russo

Review:

Thor is the second big summer movie of 2011 (first one was Fast Five) and honestly it’s one of the ones I was most looking forward to seeing. I’ve been a life long comic book fan and I love all things related to the wonderful world of sequential art, I love comics as an art form almost as much as I love movies. When we get down to it, comics and films are extremely similar in many ways. In Thor’s case, I was curious to see how they would translate all the cosmic grandness of the city of Asgard and the Gods that inhabit it. The previews gave me a good sign, I liked what I saw, and the fact that Keneth Branagh was directing the film gave me good vibes since Branagh is a director that has made films that can be considered some of the best films based on Shakespeare’s most important works like Hamlet (1996) and Henry V (1989) among others. So the film was in the hands of a guy who understood drama and stories about family feuds between royalty. The cast was shaping up to be nothing short of impressive, Natalie Portman and Anthony Hopkins? Awesome! Plus this Chris Hemsworth guy really looked the part! Still, the question remained: how would all this translate to the world of films? Would the transition be a smooth one? Would it work?

Thor and his brother Loki

Story wise, Thor sticks pretty close to the kind of stories we could find in Marvel’s comic books, mainly, the eternal fight between Thor and his brother Loki. On this film we first meet Thor when he is about to be crowned King of Asgard by his father, King Odin, played by Anthony Hopkins. Problem comes when the Frost Giants of Jutenheim decided to crash the party and steal the Casket of Ancient Winters, an ancient relic that is the source of the Frost Giants chilling powers. Thankfully, the Frost Giants are stopped before they manage to steal the trinket. The event ignites an anger in Thor who from that point on wants to do nothing more then go to Jutenheim and kick the Frost Giants collective asses! Odin advices against it, because he being the wise King that he is, would rather preserve the truce between both kingdoms instead of starting another war. Thor doesn’t agree with that course of action and so he convinces some of his warrior friends to go to Jutenheim anyways to stir up some trouble. When Odin hears of Thor’s disobedience, the Mighty Odin’s anger is stirred and so he ends up not naming Thor King of Asgard after all! Instead, he rids Thor of his god like powers, takes away his magic hammer (called Mjolnir) and banishes Thor to earth. Odin hopes that this banishment will teach Thor a lesson or two on humility and what makes a good king. Will Thor learn his lesson? And what evil scheme does his envious brother Loki have in mind?

So finally I got to see Thor, sadly, it was not all I hoped it would be. Mind you, I didn’t think it was an awful movie, I just thought it was kind of a disjointed tale. Not all together, kind of a mish mash of ideas not well strung together. Maybe what this movie suffered from was having too much story to tell in too little time. The story is epic in scale, yet at times you feel that things are happening way too fast, as if the movie was going through some beats to simply keep things going at a brisk pace, so the kiddies won’t get bored with lots of babbling. I have to admit, I didn’t like how fast the movie was going. I mean, the film had everything it needs to be epic, the story deals with Gods! Unfortunately, the film doesn’t give us any breathing room and because things happen so fast, events just don’t come off as believable. To me this was meant to be the Gone with the Wind of superhero movies, you know, a grand old tale taking its time to hit those beats, but with some character development, some depth. Instead, things happen briskly and fast, you don’t have time to absorb it all. Ladies and gentlemen, meet the first Marvel movie suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder! Movie goes something like this: Thor’s going to be King! Boom! Bad guys crash the party! Boom! Thor is banished! Boom! Thor learns humility! Boom! Thor gets his powers back! Boom! He goes back to Asgard to kick ass! Boom! Movie is over! Boom! Boom! Boom! We go from one beat to the next in a very unbelievable pace. I mean, yeah most films cut a few corners here and there to go through their story, but this one was ridiculous.

Yet, in spite of this the movie has many positive things going for it. First up, Chris Hemsworth as Thor was the best choice they could have made, I mean the guy IS Thor! He’s plays the role with the right level of arrogance, but at the same time, he’s got a likability to him. A lot of what makes the character work is the wardrobe which is excellent, they really nailed the look for Thor. He looks like he could have leapt off the comic book page and on to the screen, literally. Same goes for the wardrobe of the Gods, impressive stuff! Cool looking helmets, awesome capes, armor with muscles…I mean these guys look powerful, and at times, the design of their armor reminded me of something Jack Kirby (comic artist legend) could have cooked up himself. Actually, he did cook these characters up back in the 60’s when the first issue of Thor was printed. He worked alongside Stan Lee in creating these stories based on the Norse God of Thunder. By the way, Stan Lee has a hilarious ‘blink or you’ll miss it’ cameo in the film.

In terms of art direction, the film excels as well. I mean, I loved the way Odin’s throne room looked! In fact all of Asgard looks appropriately gargantuan. A city filled with huge glistening statues and steps upon steps upon steps! Loved how everything is so spacious and gigantic, pretty impressive film in terms of art direction. Same goes for the visual effects which were pretty astounding. In fact, in spite of the films flaws, I think I will be seeing it again simply to enjoy its visual flair. Aactually, the films art direction and all those scenes with Thor fighting other Gods reminded me of those scenes from Master of the Universe (1987) that took place in Eternia, that was a film that also had Gods fighting each other over ultimate power.

These Marvel films have all enjoyed a connectivity to them. They all end up connecting with each other somehow, like one big cinematic comic book! This one is no different. On this one they mention Tony Stark and Bruce Banner a.k.a. The Hulk. We get to see the agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. trying to make sense of Thor and his Hammer, plus, as in most of these Marvel movies, Samuel L. Jackson shows up as Nick Fury. We even get to very quickly meet Hawkeye (played by Jeremy Renner) a character we will no doubt be seeing a lot more of in the upcoming The Avengers film which is being filmed as I type this. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you guys to stay after the credits role for that extra tacked on ending that connects us to The Avengers, which should be premiering summer 2012 if the world doesn’t end first! That was a joke by the way. But seriously folks, that Avengers movie better be something awesome, they’ve been hyping it in every single one of these Marvel movies!

Natalie Portman plays Jane Foster, an astrophysicist who discovers Thor when he first falls from Asgard. This isn’t the performance of her life, but I’m sure you guys weren’t expecting that either. I wish they would have given her a meatier role on this film, something more intense, something that involved her a bit more in the proceedings. She deserved something more dramatic and intense. Unfortunately, she gets lost in the shuffle between Asgard and Earth and all the Gods. Same can be said for Kat Dennings. She’s cute as hell, but her character is only in the film to make facebook and IPod “jokes”. Honestly, she’s one of the most worthless characters in the whole film.

Kenneth Branagh directs a scene

My final word on Thor is that it was a good superhero movie that could have been better had it not been shy with its running time. Sadly, many of these summer movies gotta play by that rule of making the film short enough to squeeze as many showings as possible in a day. The studios gotta squeeze these films for all the can and a short running time assures them that a film will make as much money as it can in theaters. In the end, that’s the only problem I had with this flick which is kind of weird because Thor is a film that comes to us from a director who knows a thing or two about character development in films. If only he hadn’t succumbed to the pressures of making fast paced film to please the studio! Still, its worth the price of admission for the spectacle it offers. 

Rating: 4 out of 5

Your Highness (2010)

Title: Your Highness (2010)

Director: David Gordon Green

Cast: Danny Mc Bride, James Franco, Natalie Portman, Justin Theroux

Review:

I had high hopes for Your Highness for various reasons. One of them was that David Gordon Green was directing. Green is a director who’s mainly known for directing indie dramas like George Washington (2000) and Undertow (2004). But in 2008 David Gordon Green decided to break out of his indie drama mold and ventured into big budget commercial comedy territory, the result was Pineapple Express. A film that ended up being a good stoner comedy in my book. So I kept that in mind, also noting the fact that Your Highness was a Pineapple Express re-union of sorts. It had the same director (David Gordon Green) and it reunited James Franco and Danny McBride both of which had worked together on Pineapple Express. So I was feeling confident about this movie. Add to that the fact that it now had Oscar winner Natalie Portman along for the ride and I was sold! And it was a stoner comedy! And it had magic and monsters! And Justin Theroux was playing the bad guy! I mean, this movie had all the makings of an awesome movie! So why did this film end up being such an atrociously unfunny disaster?

The sad part is that Your Highness is Danny McBride’s first attempt at carrying a big budget theatrical release on his shoulders. He is the lead, it’s his movie. He wrote it. Should this film fly or get shot down, all fingers will point to him. That type of thing tends to be a decisive moment in an up and coming actors career. This type of thing can either make or break your future in Hollywood. It reminded me of the time I first saw Ace Ventura in theaters, way back in 1994. That moment was magical; I have never seen an audience laugh so hard in my whole life as a film enthusiast. From then on, I knew Jim Carrey was going to make it big. And he did, it was one of those things where the film was so funny, that you just knew he was going to make it. Sadly, Your Highness was to be Danny McBride’s Ace Ventura. This was to be the film where McBride was going to show the world that he is a funny guy, and that he can continue making us laugh for years to come. Sadly, if I was to judge Danny McBride’s future in films based on Your Highness alone, I would have to say that he is dead on arrival. It’s a sad thing too because Danny McBride is one of those actors that always got second billing in comedies where he was funny enough for people to say “this guy is funny, he should be making his own movies!” Well, he finally got his chance to prove himself to audiences in a film where he is the main star. He’s been given the keys to the kingdom; did he make the best of it? Hell no he didn’t!

The main problem with Your Highness is that it just isn’t funny. I watched it in a theater filled with people who like me, decided to give it a chance, probably expecting McBride to be as funny as he has been in other movies where he wasn’t the main star. At the very least, he should have been as funny as he is in his own show, Eastbound & Down. Unfortunately, this was not the case. I giggled once or twice, but most of the time I was cringing at what I was seeing on screen. I remember the words “this is not funny” popping up in my head on various occasions. McBride and crew seem to think that saying the word fuck every five seconds is a funny thing. It isn’t. Curse words are to be used sparingly, like a bit of salt on your favorite food. If you over do it, you mess things up. Then it just becomes irritating every time you hear it. Maybe on a Gangster movie it would have been okay, cause Im sure gangsters say “motherfucker” every five seconds; but not on a fantasy film. And trust me; you’ll hear the word fuck and all of its derivatives every five seconds in this movie. On top of that, they chose to include these really crude sexual jokes, like having to give a hand job to a wizard so he can help them on their quest, or showing a Minotaur’s erection, I mean, literally, you can see the Minotaur’s erect member. I just typed that. Great. Thank you very much Your Highness.

And here’s the other thing, I love fantasy movies! I love movies about magic, monsters, dragons, swords and all that jazz. I was actually looking forward to seeing warlocks and wizards using their magic powers. I was thinking this was a great opportunity to spoof films like the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And yes, I did enjoy those moments where we have warlocks and witches using all these fantastical magic powers, showcasing some nifty special effects. I enjoyed all the creatures we get to meet in the film, the Cyclops, the Minotaur, The Wizard. You kind of get the feeling that McBride watched Princess Bride (1987), Labyrinth (1986), Legend (1985), Robin Hood Men in Tights (1993), History of the World Part I (1981) and Monty Python’s Holy Grail (1975) and wanted elements from all those films on this one. I have to hand it to the guy, he had his influences in the right place. Unfortunately, he didn’t quite get there. I mean, this was a 60 million dollar big budget production. These guys had all the resources needed to make a decent fantasy film; unfortunately, the result wasn’t a very good one. That’s one thing I always enjoyed about Mel Brook’s films, they were raunchy, and had sexual jokes in them, but they were never super offensive, they knew just how far to take it. Your Highness doesn’t just want to make sex jokes, they want to offend you with them. Shock you with them. Hence the Minotaur’s schlong in the film.

Justin Theroux as the evil wizard Lazaar

And I speak of Mel Brook’s films because he was obviously a major influence on this film. Right down to having Natalie Portman wear a chastity belt. But I think that McBride and Green forgot one very important thing that Mel Brooks got right most of the time. You can spoof a film, but you also have to make a good film within the genre you are spoofing. This didn’t always work for Mel Brooks (just look at Dracula Dead and Loving It) but more often then not, it did work. Take for example Young Frankenstein (1974). It was not only a great (actually genius) spoof of all Frankenstein films; it was also an excellent Frankenstein film on its own right. Same goes for Spaceballs (1987). A great spoof, but also, a good sci-fi film. I guess the big difference between Your Highness and the films I’ve mentioned is that Mel Brook’s spoof’s had good scripts. Hell, Young Frankenstein was nominated for a freaking Oscar for its screenplay! Not the case with the script for Your Highness which was written by McBride himself, who really hasn’t proven himself as much of a writer save for having written the script for The Foot Fist Way (2006). According to David Gordon Green himself, most of the dialog was improvised during shooting; a trick that can work if you are working with a cast of comedic geniuses. I mean Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Will Ferrell, they’ll work wonders with improvisation. Doesn’t always work with everyone, apparently, it didn’t work with the cast on Your Highness.

Weird thing is, I have seen McBride being funny. He just wasn’t entirely ‘on’ for this film. Now, if Hollywood has taught us anything, it’s that it does not forgive gargantuan multi million dollar failures. You make them loose some moolah instead of making it for them, and it’s adios to you amigo. I hope this won’t be the case with McBride. I think the guy has potential to be one of the greats; he just needs a project that will really go with his personality and style of comedy. Something tells me that a fantasy farce simply wasn’t the way to go with McBride, he seemed to think so. I mean he wrote the damned thing. Sadly, he didn’t even write a good role for himself. He is the lead in the film, yet he isn’t the hero, James Franco is. And speaking of that cast! What the hell. Okay, Franco was obviously there to re-live the good times he had while making Pineapple Express, but Natalie Portman sticks out like a sore thumb in this movie! I guess she was on this production to lighten things up after having made the dark and brooding Black Swan (2010). Plus, they convinced her to show us her ass to sell the movie, sadly, even that old trick failed. This movie cost 60 million dollars and barely made 20 million at the box office! That’s a 40 million dollar loss my friends! That is something that Hollywood won’t easily forgive, I just know it. I’ve seen it happen. But who knows, maybe McBride will do a better film next time, one that fits his style of humor better. Actually, his next film up is called 30 Minutes or Less (2011) and it looks like the kind of project that’s right up his alley. Let’s hope that it will actually be funny. And that it will actually make its money back, if not, I fear we won’t be seeing much of McBride in the near future. Here’s hoping we do!

Rating: 1 ½ out of 5

Black Swan (2010)

Title: Black Swan (2010)

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Cast: Natalie Portman, Vincent Cassel, Mila Kunis

Review:

Darren Aronofsky has this incredible ability to make films that play with premises that I would normally not care about. Yet somehow, the way he weaves his tale completely pulls me, and before I know it, voila! I’m hooked! This happened to me with Aronofsky’s The Wrestler (2008). When I first heard that Aronofsky was making a movie that took place in the world of wrestling, at first I was turned off by the idea. I was like what? I freaking hate wrestling! It’s so fake! Yet Aronofsky managed to pull me in with this incredibly personal and introspective story about an aging ex-wrestler trying to do what he loves, trying to recapture his glory days. And there I was, watching a movie about wrestling. And I was completely moved by its honesty and its emotion. Now here comes Black Swan, a film about a ballet dancer. And it happened again! I was like: what? Ballet? Seriously? Still, I’ve come to entirely trust Aronofsky as a director. He has never disappointed me with his films. Ever! Was Black Swan going to be his first one? Or would he wow us again with another amazing film?

Black Swan tells the story of a New York City ballet dancer named Nina (Portman) who really wants to make it. Her dream is to play the Swan Queen in a play called Swan Lake. She tries her best to impress the director of the play (Vincent Cassel) so that she will get her chance. Much to her surprise she is actually chosen! Finally, her dreams are coming true! Now she has to learn to deal with the pressures that come with participating in such a prestigious play. In the play, she has to perform the role of two characters at the same time, the White Swan and the Black Swan. One is innocent, the other more sensual and daring, edgy. The director of the play doesn’t think Portman has enough of an edge to play the Black Swan, so he is constantly pushing her to “let go” to “live” to let the dark side of her soul emerge and run wild. This is Portman’s struggle in the film; should she continue trying her best to be the good girl her mother wants her to be? Or should she live her life the way she wants to live it? Which side will win the battle?

Once again, Aronofsky succeeds in blowing me away. Black Swan, in my opinion is another stunning work of art in Aronofsky’s repertoire. In many ways, it’s similar to The Wrestler. They are both films about the working class, struggling to do what they love. They are both films about someone loving what they do so much, that they’d rather die doing it, then waste their lives doing something else. And they are both very personal stories. On both films, we follow a character closely, to the most intimate moments in their lives. The camera plays the role of the ultimate voyeur, always looming on top of the actors face, or behind them, following their every move. The similarities between both films do not end there. Originally, what Aronofsky wanted to make was one film in which a Wrestler falls for a Ballet dancer. Ultimately, The Wrestler ended up falling in love with a whore (played by Marisa Tomei) and Aronofsky separated that story into two films deciding that it would all have been too much for one movie. So in many ways, Black Swan can be seen as a companion piece to The Wrestler.

Aronofsky once again uses that documentary style that he used in The Wrestler, where the handheld camera is active all the time, following characters around. This story focuses mainly on Nataly Portman’s character, her struggles in trying to make it professionally. This is a girl who loves dancing and wants nothing more then to really make it, she wants to get a taste of greatness, of being recognized and appreciated. What I really loved about it though was that she also has to struggle with all these things that get in her way. The over protective mother, the rivalries with other dancers and her own psychological woes. It all builds up to that climactic moment when she finally achieves her goal, and you are right there with her when she makes it, you kind of get a taste of that greatness yourself. In this way the film was similar to many of Aronofsky’s other films, where events start to build momentum, slowly rising, in a crescendo, until by the films last frames we reach this amazing finale.

The film addresses themes that I wasn’t expecting. Like for example, the over protective mother who doesn’t let her daughter live her life and be herself. And this is really where the film caught me off guard because I thought it was only going to be about the struggles of a ballerina trying to make it, about following her dreams and all that. And it does address these themes, but as it turns out, the film explores a whole other group of themes as well. This is really the story of a sexually repressed girl who is so uptight, so wound up, and so conservative that she hasn’t really lived her life. Everyone keeps telling her to “relax and live a little”. So this is a story about someone learning to let go of all these rules that she lives by and learning to just have a little fun. She is the kind of girl who says she isn’t a virgin, but her shyness when it comes to talking about sex let’s us know otherwise. What I loved most about the movie was how Aronofsky compares the duality between the Black and White Swans in the play with the battle in the ballerinas’ life between being the good girl or the bad girl. That internal struggle is externalized in the play with both of the swans representing innocence and lust. Will she ever transform into who she’s really supposed to be?

The film is very dark, and at times it felt as if I was watching a Roman Polanski film. I make this comparison because like many Polanski films, Black Swan stars a female as the central character and this female is paranoid and unstable psychologically. Aronofsky plays with the notions of Natalie Portman’s character having a double, a doppelganger, so theres always that paranoia of “is someone watching me?” Aronofksy is always questioning the main characters mental state. I loved how he used mirrors on the film to illustrate her mental instability. And though it does feel like Polanskis The Tenant (1976) or Repulsion (1965) at times, it’s also very much a Darren Aronofsky film. I especially noticed this by the way he shot everything documentary style, and also because of how the film works itself up in a crescendo, by the end of the film both music and images have completely taken over. Even dialog falls into second place in the end. The direction, the shots, the editing is flawless.

By the way, I was not at all aware of it, but this “independent” film that comes to us from Fox Searchlight Pictures (20th Century Fox’s indie minded films division) was such a huge event! Well, at least here in Puerto Rico people are going to see this movie by the droves! I had not seen a line like that one at the art house theater in a loooong time! I was trying to pinpoint exactly what it was that was attracting so many people to the cinema to see Black Swan. Could it be the awesome poster? Natalie Portman? Darren Aronofsky as a director? Then it dawned on me, people are coming in droves to see this movie because they have heard that Portman pleasures herself and has oral sex with another woman in it. I guess that’s the main draw for most people. But to those that are going to see it for that reason alone, I can say this: you might be going to see Portman pleasure herself, but you will also be seeing another diamond in Darren Aronofsky’s directorial career. I have to wonder, what’s next for this amazing director?

Rating: 5 out of 5

 

Vincent Casell and Aronofsky talking out a scene