Moving Time!

Now that I've decided to take a serious run at developing this site (and maybe adding a couple of reviewers), I've purchased a URL and moved my efforts there.  Please update your bookmarks: www.spoilerfreereviews.com

Seeya there!

Kick-Ass

One piece of housekeeping and then it's on to the review.  I'll be attending and reviewing in-theater movies on Tuesdays from here on out.  You can also expect reviews from older releases in the latter half of the week.  And, as always, I take requests; I'll watch crappy movies (within reason...Gigli is off the table) so that you don't have to.  Now on to the review:

Let's get one thing straight: if you're thinking of taking your girlfriend/kid/grandpa to see Kick-Ass, don't.  Just DON'T.  That first might seem sexist, but if it is, the magnitude of the sexism is minimal.  See, Kick-Ass earns its R rating and revels in the violence while it does.  We're talking Clockwork Orange levels, folks.  AND there's an aspect to the violence (which I won't mention, because it's deep in spoiler territory) that many have found upsetting.  So if you aren't desensitized to violence, male or female, you're gonna want to skip this.

Still there?  Good, because Kick-Ass is also terrific.  The violence level caught me off guard at first, but then I remembered the pedigree of the movie.  Kick-Ass is based off a graphic novel from the same mind (Mark Millar) as Wanted.  So if you've seen the latter, you should know what you're in for with the former.  And, to be fair, the movie's concept warranted gritty violence, if not quite in the prodigious quantity delivered.

Actually, comparisons to Wanted reveal a couple more similarities.  Both feature voice over narration and a pretty subversive sense of humor.  Kick-Ass is the more approachable of the two, however; the day-to-day challenges of the protagonist keep the movie more firmly tethered to some semi-approximation of reality.  I liked both, but if Wanted was a bit too off-the-wall for your tastes, you might still enjoy Kick-Ass.  The movie oozes fun and makes viewers feel like they're watching a top-notch superhero movie despite the lack of...well, superheroes.

Kick-Ass also reflects the casting strategy of Wanted.  Both movies wisely cast a relative unknown as the protagonist and surround them with stars.  In the case of Kick-Ass, Aaron Johnson plays a very likable high-schooler who, like any guy who can lay the slightest claim to nerd-dom, wishes he was a superhero.  Supporting him are Nicholas Cage and Christopher Mintz-Plasse ("McLovin" from Superbad).  As someone who finds 9 out of 10 Nicholas Cage movies to be utter drivel, I was shocked to find Cage in an engaging, transformative role.  I'd say that he steals the show, but newcomer Chloe Moretz makes a pretty strong case for that herself.  Another welcome appearance is Mark Strong, a Stanley Tucci look-alike whose role in Revolver personifies bad-assery (being in grad school give you license to create new words).

If you find yourself down with the level of violence, you'll find it well filmed.  There's also some pretty decent choreography for a movie that isn't really focused on the fights, themselves.  Between the two, Kick-Ass is stylish and moves at a swift clip.  What really sets the movie on fire, however, is the pulse-pounding score, which effectively funnels viewer emotions- especially during the action scenes.

Consensus from those who have read the original graphic novel is that many plot points were changed.  But as someone new to the world of Kick-Ass, I thoroughly enjoyed my viewing.  Consider this escapist paradise big-screen money well-spent and proof that the summer blockbusters are nearly upon us.  8.5/10

Agree? Disagree? Questions?

Things yet to come...

Readers who have stumbled here up to this point may have noticed that new posts were rare.  That all changes now.  Look for new reviews to show up at least twice a week.  My Kick-Ass review should show up in the next couple of days.  That's all folks!

Alice in Wonderland

Oh, what to do with poor Alice? This was the question swimming through my mind as I sauntered out of the theater last Friday. In the interest of full disclosure, I should admit right now that Burton's Gothic stylings often strike a chord with me. Sweeney Todd was a dream come true.

Early images from Alice revealed brilliant visual re-interpretations of classic characters such as the Mad Hatter and the Red Queen. From an aesthetic standpoint, Alice constitutes a sumptuous feast. Yet our parents used to warn us that snacks before dinner could ruin our appetites, and the same lesson applies here. The ad campaign promoting the movie has been so vicious and aggressive in distributing images from the movie that I nearly felt as though I'd seen it before even stepping into the theater. Full-screen pop-up, trailers, and the like ate away at my ability to enjoy the movie, itself...despite my best efforts to avoid them.

What, then, can be said of the story? Burton was careful to avoid explicitly raising the ire of Alice fans by telling a story that didn't attempt to follow the original books. Noble though the goal may have been, the result left me cold and ambivalent. As Burton told his tale, I struggled to make any connection between his Alice and the one from my recollection. One by one, familiar characters are paraded out for all to see, but this never coalesces into a greater whole. The audience needs a reason to care about Alice's struggle in Wonderland, but Burton shows very little of the realm, itself. In truth, the movie probably needed another ten minutes to better establish his vision. Instead, the entire affair takes a turn for the generic. Strangely enough, the movie seems to take a number of cues from the recent Narnia movies.

Alice plays out like a morality tale, and it does a poor job of clothing its core ethic. At every turn, the movie invests time in browbeating the audience when it should be further developing the characters in this strange world. Worse, the denouement that should act as a final proof of the core feels flimsy, rushed and entirely inadequate.

The writing isn't all bad; there are some witty one-liners and a couple of particularly amusing characters. Thankfully, the best of the script is used to full effect by a stacked cast of actors and voice actors. Stephen Fry and Alan Rickman are perfectly cast; Johnny Depp and Helen Bonham-Carter are their usual talented selves...even if Depp's performance might feel a tad familiar; and Crispin Glover, who delivers the best line in the movie, is a welcome addition whenever he pops up.

I can say little about the score, and that's a rarity for me. Some directors and composers seem more attached than most married couples. Perhaps the best example is Burton and Elfman. I don't really remember much about the score, so I assume that it was typical but unremarkable Elfman.

Is Alice worth your time in a theater? That depends...were you more successful than I in avoiding the reprehensible quantity of advertising for the movie? If so, then you've got a visually dazzling 100 minutes ahead of you. Just don't expect too much; Burton's Wonderland is a tad low on the wonder.