Meet In The Lobby

by Allison S.
2.5 / 5 stars

Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is as amazing to look at as you could imagine. The attention to detail is impressive. Not only does the Queen of Hearts have a heart shape painted on for lips, the others in her kingdom follow suit (ha) with spades, clubs and diamonds for lips. And somehow they all still make sense as lips. Even the executioner offs heads from a heart-shaped stone platform. Every inch of the screen appears to have had an immense amount of time and creativity poured into it. A world you never could have gone far enough to imagine is presented to you. On top of that, the movie takes full advantage of your 3D glasses, the actors are good, and the music is good (no surprise with Danny Elfman at the helm).

All of this effort — I felt like the movie should be bursting from the seams with excitement. But … and I can’t believe I’m about to say this about a Tim Burton film … I was bored. I don’t know how it could be. There is a plethora of crazy characters to keep me entertained. Unfortunately, there wasn’t enough of a story to support these fascinating characters and scenery.

Instead of telling the traditional Alice in Wonderland story or some of the lesser known parts of the story (i.e., its sequel, Through the Looking Glass), Burton tells a sort of retrospective Alice in Wonderland, taking place somewhere in between those two stories. I’m not one that fears a “re-imagining” so if I heard this was Burton’s strategy, I’d be the first to think he could pull it off. Unfortunately, instead of offering a new perspective on Alice in Wonderland, the film comes off as a TV clip show, showing us everything we’ve seen before and not doing anything new with the story.

The story’s premise is actually similar to Hook. Alice is older now and she returns to Wonderland via rabbit hole (of course) after running away from a marriage proposal.  She encounters all the famous characters of Wonderland — the caterpillar, the door mouse, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, and so on) in pretty much the same scenarios as she had previously — but this time she thinks it’s all a dream, a dream she’s had over and over since she was a kid.

When Alice walks into one of the standard Wonderland scenarios, the audience is expecting to see either what happened in the original story, or some completely different take on the same set up since this is, after all, her second time there. Instead, these do-overs feel like empty space with just small hints at what happened there before. But nothing actually does happen there in this film. The characters kind of just stand around having short awkward conversations like it’s a 6th grade dance. During each skeleton of a scenario, Alice doesn’t take it seriously, claiming it’s all a dream. The characters are cryptically disappointed and/or annoyed with her and then she moves on to the next classic scene where again nothing really seems to happen. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The magic of the previous versions of Alice in Wonderland has always been that the audience gets to accompany Alice on this crazy journey. We all encounter the oddest things for the first time. Alice, with more self-assurance than we could ever imagine having as a kid, would reflect on the insanity of it all, inspiring us not to get caught up in the silliness our own world. When we join Alice for her journey in this film, her sense of self is still very much admirable (the best thing the film offers). However, when the audience recognizes Alice is about to encounter something crazy, much to our disappointment, Alice recognizes it as well and she’s not all that impressed with what she already saw in her “dream”. The crazy journey never begins and Alice never exposits on the wonders of Wonderland. It is not until Alice enters the Queen’s castle that we start to see some new interactions.  And it is not until the very end of the film that things start to get exciting.

Helena Bonham Carter is fantastic as the Red Queen/Queen of Hearts. She manages to really put some substance behind the Queen’s self-absorbed, self-righteous antics so that she’s not dismissed as just another villain. You never want to take your eyes off of Mia Wasikowska: she makes Alice natural and grounded, smart without being too snotty. Johnny Depp appears to use the same strategy he used to create the Jack Sparrow character, combining the speech and mannerisms from different people and inspirations. Despite how cool his character looks, the combo he selected makes it difficult to understand a word he says.

That Disney lets Burton make any movie for them is surprising. But I was also surprised at the lack of quirkiness and darkness in this film. Anne Hathaway tries to add her own quirk but it comes off forced. And the usually creepy Crispin Glover is just okay as the Knave of Hearts. I’m way more weirded out and traumatized by the 1972 version of Alice in Wonderland I watched as a kid.

Tell me this wouldn’t give you nightmares:

All of this isn’t to say that you and your young one won’t enjoy the Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland. As I mentioned, there’s tons of great visuals and 3D fun. But that alone does not do the story of Alice in Wonderland justice.

Share your comments
Like this post?
DIGG IT

Author: Allison

March 5th, 2010
Categories: Reviews . Comments: 2 Comments

As an American-based site, we’ve always appreciated our UK fans and colleagues. Now, we’re jumping into the Oscar fray with them, as part of a contest from a pleasant British discount site called VoucherCodes. They’ve asked me to join fellow movie critics and bloggers in a contest, and log Oscar predictions for this Sunday’s self-congratulatory little Hollywood shindig. I can pick as many categories as I want — I just have to be right.

Okay, here are the official Meet In the Lobby Oscar picks. Wish us luck.

Best Picture: Avatar

Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow — James Cameron is now so powerful in Tinseltown that his publicized hope for Bigelow to win this award will be granted.

Best Actor: Jeff Bridges — Consider this 5th nomination for Bridges his lifetime achievement award; voters will figure Jeremy Renner has more time — and plenty of talent — to be considered again.

Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz — If I’m wrong, it’ll be Stanley Tucci. I hope I’m not wrong.

Best Actress: Sandra Bullock — She’s almost universally admired at this point, and she lifted a film that surprised just about everyone.

Best Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique – A nod to Precious, and to a woman playing way against type.

Best Animated Feature: Up — Is there such a thing as a unanimous Oscar vote?

Best Art Direction: Avatar – Will the team that developed a completely new, fully detailed fictional world please stand up?

Best Documentary Short: China’s Unnatural Disaster — Painful, unique, on-the-spot filmmaking, with decent visibility.

Best Animated Short Film: A Matter Of Loaf and Death — It’s a Wallace and Gromit, Nick Park movie. They just don’t lose.

Best Visual Effects: Avatar — Duh.

Best Adapted Screenplay: Up In The Air – A widely beloved movie that won’t get much Oscar love beyond this award.

Best Original Screenplay: The Hurt Locker — Mark Boal and Bigelow, co-producers on the film, each get an Oscar since they won’t get the Best Picture statue.

So what do you think? We’ll keep you updated on how we Yanks will do against our pals across the Pond.

Share your comments
Like this post? DIGG IT

Author: Norm Schrager

March 4th, 2010
Categories: Awards . Comments: 3 Comments

While Avatar’s visual design continues to stun audiences (and will snag a couple in-the-bag Oscars) we got to thinking… specifically about science fiction/fantasy films that, much like Avatar, delivered groundbreaking production design. In no particular order, here’s a quartet of movies with look and feel that still resonates. Rent them again. And watch closely.

:: Blade Runner (1982)
Production Design: Lawrence G. Paull
Ridley Scott’s film set a standard for cyber-punk production design that still exists today. Its futuristic, pollution-ridden skylines, pyramid skyscrapers, and 50-story tall digital billboards placed us in an environment where anything natural is an aberration.

This is the one Scott film where his excessive use of smoke and fog actually fits the film instead of just feeling like a cheap film noir device (i.e. the laughable Black Rain). Certainly the only film to achieve the perfect technology-gone-wild look, it has been often imitated, but never truly duplicated.
Blade Runner Collector’s Edition Blu-ray on Amazon

:: Dune (1984)
Production Design: Anthony Masters (Art Director on 2001)
David Lynch’s difficult-to-follow adaptation of the classic sci-fi novel fails in many ways. But in terms of effects and design, the movie is an overachiever. From the sea planet of Caladan, rich in its futuristic-medieval look, to the Harkonnen home world, a planet-wide megalopolis greased with oil and slime, to sprawling sand dunes of Arrakis stretched to infinity, Lynch deftly makes each planet feel exactly how the novel describes it. The costumes are opulent, the worm effects way above par. Unfortunately, the film’s plot is such an oversimplified version of the novel that it’s incoherent. Still, this is one of the few instances where watching a film before reading the book is a benefit — simply because this complex universe is tough to imagine, yet Lynch captures it perfectly.
Dune Blu-ray on Amazon

:: Until the End of the World (1991)
Production Design: Sally Campbell, Thierry Flamand
This is the best not-too-distant-future production design ever in a film. Wim Wenders gives us a view of the world sans apocalyptic pollution or oppressive technology.

The air looks cleaner, the streets are wiped, the cars and vehicles sparkle. It is a future that combines eco-friendliness with high technology, where the sun still shines, and phone booths are not only futuristic, but also practical. The cities are as beautiful as the countryside. And the software used by the bounty hunter characters is both imaginative and hilarious. This is one of the few films that does a great job at imagining our ever-shrinking world while presenting a brighter future that may be just ten or twenty years away.

:: Excalibur (1981)
Production Design: Anthony Pratt (Art Director on Hope and Glory and The Phantom of the Opera)
John Boorman’s epic King Arthur tale is a visually opulent feast, with forest greens and browns so rich, they look as if magic is infused in every root, branch and leaf. Men’s armor is sparklingly silver and reflective, women’s dresses are flowing and gorgeous, and blood is a striking red. Excalibur’s sets are so detailed and beautiful they easily convey a lustrous vision of a mythic England that never existed. The production design is even more profound when contrasted to the last few shots of the film which show the foggy, dreary England as it truly is, minus special effects. Only Guillermo del Toro’s films acheive this mythic, fairy-tale design in today’s films.
Excalibur DVD on Amazon

Share your comments
Like this post? DIGG IT

Author: Scott David

March 3rd, 2010
Categories: Lists . Comments: 3 Comments

(Editor’s Note: Allison graces The Lobby for the first time in a while — and we love it. Wanna know where she’s been? Keep reading…)

I have finally returned from a short stint in South Africa. And I come back not just with stories of baboons breaking into our place and stealing food, but also with thoughts on some great South African cinema.

One of the things I love about traveling is the selection of movies I get to watch on the plane ride (yes, I genuinely enjoy watching movies). Since getting to Africa meant a 24-hour flight, I had plenty of time to pack them in. After taking care of those on my must-list (The Informant!, Public Enemies, Michael Jackson’s This is It) and those I was embarrassed to be curious about (All About Steve, Post Grad), I finally turned my attentions to the South African cinema section on my return flight, shamed that I hadn’t done so earlier.

I watched and thoroughly enjoyed Jerusalema, an excellent film based on the true story of Lucky Kunene, a boy who grew up in the slums and eventually rose to be a powerful crime boss, taking over the city one apartment building at a time. Jerusalema gives Hollywood a run for its money with tense action and a driving story. Interestingly, it was submitted for the Foreign Film Oscar the same year as Tsotsi (also filmed in South Africa and covering a lot of the same themes). Tsotsi got the nomination instead of Jerusalema and ended up winning the Oscar.

Jerusalema certainly stands its own ground next to Tsotsi, so I wonder if the use of Hollywood-style action over the indie spirit we tend to expect from foreign films (which Tsotsi delivered) could be the reason Jerusalema didn’t get the nomination. I did read one South African review which criticized the action segments as unoriginal because they take cues from several famous American action films. Since Hollywood itself rehashes the same crap over and over again, as an American, I found it completely unique to see an action film from a South African point of view — set in a place where the violence and crime depicted is a very real problem.  While I liked Tsotsi, I felt it used every textbook film metaphor in existence.

Also interesting: Of the couple of South African films I saw, the same two actors appear over and over again, including in District 9. These actors go from playing rich, upright fathers to hardened criminals to goofy sidekicks. And because these films take place in different regions of Africa, the actors have to know several languages (up to four languages in the films I watched), which could explain why the industry uses the same actors over and over again. Here’s the perfect example: Star Rapulana Seiphemo as crime lord with a gun… or crazy sidekick with a cigar.

Share your comments
Like this post? DIGG IT

Author: Allison

March 1st, 2010
Categories: International Cinema . Comments: No Comments

by Norm Schrager, posted 02.26.10
2.5 / 5 stars

In this era of lightning-fast flesh-eating zombies and the relentlessly pugilistic diseased, you’d expect a remake of George Romero’s The Crazies to be full-blast nuts. It’s not. That’s okay, you can appreciate that director Breck Eisner would rather inject his update with a more traditional flavor — but there isn’t enough ingenuity or consistency for something truly tasty.

The material is there for the taking. In the small town of Ogden Marsh, Iowa, a severe lack of control is about to attack the population of 1200 or so, courtesy a small plane crash that’s probably released some nasty chemical. Normally friendly folk become impulsively violent, slowly disintegrating into madmen and madwomen. And, as is the case with many small Midwestern farming towns, everyone has access to huge mechanical equipment and lots and lots of firearms.

Eisner, working from a script by Scott Kosar (The Amityville Horror and Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes) and Ray Wright (Pulse), has the right idea in terms of rhythm and revelation, but lacks real punch and one necessary evil: paranoia.

Pod people, medical epidemics and chemical mishaps have been infecting movie innocents for decades (pity the bit players!), stealing minds and souls while being crazily contagious. The better entries in this cinematic substratum have mastered that sick feeling of anxiety, that loss of control inside usually comfortable surroundings.

It’s the type of film that teases people’s fears during times of weakness — during McCarthyism and the Cold War, planting the right seed made Americans wonder if there was a Red under their bed. Your neighbor could be anyone, even the proverbial boogeyman, and you’d never even know it. It’s a level of mental unrest a filmmaker like John Carpenter has deftly relied on, and it’s not used enough in The Crazies.

That said, the final third of The Crazies gets to a more riotous place, with Eisner happily putting the proceedings into high gear. The movie’s quartet of stars — including Timothy Olyphant and Radha Mitchell, the most attractive pair in town by a country mile — encounter a a tense collection of on-the-move challenges, with Eisner inching each sequence just beyond the feel of a real-time framework. When sunrise sneaks up, you barely notice that a dozen hours have gone by onscreen.

But why does The Crazies have to hit the road to really get going? Eisner and company have the opportunity to counter Ogden Marsh’s homey feel with some frightening widespread hatred. Instead, the story concentrates on a couple isolated incidents, putting a damper on the bigger scope that’s just waiting in the wings.

When those few remaining survivors do beat a path outta Dodge, they have to get past vengeful townsfolk, a faceless government and military, and finally, each other. A wild setpiece in a car wash is a scream, and a slam-bang finale helps too. But when nice folks’ faces — and minds — are melting, you expect a little more, you know, crazy.

Share your comments
Like this post? DIGG IT

Author: Norm Schrager

February 26th, 2010
Categories: Reviews . Comments: No Comments