Showing posts with label Milla Jovovich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Milla Jovovich. Show all posts

Thursday, November 1

Capsule Reviews: A Perfect Getaway, Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?, Marnie

A Perfect Getaway (David Twohy, 2009)


David Twohy's A Perfect Getaway is a lean, juicy thriller with a twist so good that not even an hour's worth of teasing it saps its effect. "Nothing bad ever happens in Hawaii, right?" says one character during the film's placid opening, though even then his voice betrays doubt, and Twohy's sweeping panoramas of lush forests and beaches communicate remoteness and isolation as much as postcard-ready beauty. Steady long takes let the murmurs of a double murder on a neighboring island sink into the frame visually, casting shadows on its small but dynamic cast of newlyweds and lovers who come to fear for their safety. The actors do their part too, with Steve Zahn's nervously darting eyes suggesting first humorous discomfort, then mounting dread, and Milla Jovovich getting the best opportunity outside one of her husband's films to show off her enigmatic poker face reactions. Perhaps best of all is Timothy Olyphant, almost endearingly arrogant as a "man in full" (as his girlfriend calls him) When the other shoe drops, Twohy's stately, patient direction obviously shifts into a higher gear, but this only shows off other facets of his skill. A chase through the forest is subtly propelled further by comic-panel-like screenwipes that elide over a few steps to give the sequence even more momentum. The final showdown manages to consolidate even the characters' relationships into its tense payoff. (A sidenote: stick with the streamlined theatrical version over the director's cut, which adds most of its extra time to a key flashback, nice and nasty in the original version but overlong in extended form).

Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (Frank Tashlin, 1957)


My first Tashlin, though God knows why. This film plays like Amazon's "recommended for buyers of ____" feature for the entirety of my film-watching habits. From its deliriously cheeky credits, featuring both Tony Randall incompetently introducing the film and a host of leg-pulling fake ads, Tashlin wastes no time setting the frenzied tone of the farce. Tashlin's use of color and light makes artificial voids out of his sets, further emphasizing the mock construction of filmic images and how these false icons become social objectives for viewers encouraged to buy their way into a movie- and TV-approved lifestyle. As much peevish delight as Tashlin gets out of sending up advertisers, however, he also uses Rock Hunter to critique a society that gets its cues from advertising and pop culture, creating a Mobius strip of behavioral influence between pop and life that cheapens both. It ranks among the most pointed social commentaries of American life in the aftermath of World War II through the present, and even its lack of overt cynicism helps it embody the foolish, avaricious optimism that propels our self-image.

Marnie (Alfred Hitchcock, 1964)


Given Tippi Hedren's recent, public revelation of her torment at Hitchcock's hands, it is almost unsettling to consider that this film, taken with Hedren's other star turn in The Birds, contain some of the director's most rounded, sympathetic views of women. (Granted, this is saying nothing, but still.) Marnie privileges its female protagonist's perspective entirely, its flashes of humming red and shimmers of fake lightning, as Robin Wood once perceptively said, throwbacks to the director's early and formative exposure to German Expressionism. Admittedly, it's a shame Hitchcock did not have the faith in either his own talents (or, more likely, the audience's capacity to piece things together for themselves) to let these visuals speak for Marnie's mindset, but the mad, brilliant excesses of the film help keep the film moving where, say, Psycho grounds to a halt. From its early close-up on a purse made to look blatantly vaginal through the disturbing scene of marital rape between Sean Connery and Hedren, and its aforementioned cinematized explanation, this is one of the master's greatest films.

Monday, September 17

Resident Evil: Retribution (Paul W.S. Anderson, 2012)

The Resident Evil movies have elevated the "It was all a dream" conceit into the longest-running Simpsons rake gag in cinema. In the series' expansion ever outward, continuity bends and narratives repeat themselves with minor variations that culminate in massive, butterfly effect divergencies. Afterlife, the previous film in the franchise and the first since the original film to feature Paul W.S. Anderson back behind the camera, gave this tendency an extra push by incorporating some of the distinct styles of the preceding three films. It brought back the claustrophobia of the first film's haunted-mansion setup, Apocalypse's street war congestion of bodies, and Extinction's sense of sheer scale and devastation (taken one further by going from a national backdrop to a global one). In folding back the series into this new film, Afterlife revealed itself to be more concerned with the self-reflexive, and video-game-like, aspects of this franchise than its straightforward upheavals with each film.

Nothing in Afterlife, however, can compare with Retribution. In a defiantly metacinematic opening, Retibution plays a sequence in reverse, instantly calling attention to the falsity of the image even before it zooms into into a black void filled with screens dotted with scenes of the Resident Evil films to this point. Alice (Milla Jovovich) pops up on one of the screens and directly addresses the audience, providing a recap of what has happened so far. I'm not one for lengthy exposition, but in a series filled with convoluted repetitions, incessant reversals and an increasing amount of clones, every little bit helps. Yet Alice's clarifications become amusingly irrelevant mere moments after she concludes her spiel, as Anderson soon plunges into constantly shifting levels of false reality that render moot an awareness of the story from sequence to sequence, much less across films.

Following the gorgeous opening and extended narration, Retribution dissonantly cuts to suburban placidity, with Alice waking to a comfortable life with a loving husband (Oded Fehr) and a deaf daughter, Becky (Aryana Engineer). All is well, until someone turns around and comes face to face with a zombie invasion. Alice frantically fights off the hordes of undead as long as possible, and just when all seems lost, she wakes up in a facility run by the Umbrella Corporation, Resident Evil's own Weyland-Yutani. Or is the Alice in suburbia the same one in a prison cell? This is bewildering stuff, made yet more confusing by the fact that this information, and a rescue attempt, is helpfully conveyed by Alice's overseeing nemesis, Umbrella head Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts) and his operative Ada Wong (Li Bingbing). What's more, Wesker sends a team to extract Alice, featuring a character from a previous film thought dead. Other characters return as well, such as Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory), only to find themselves the villain thanks to mind-control devices.

But to worry about the plot of Resident Evil: Retribution or even how the larger pieces fit together is to focus on the precisely wrong aspect of the film and the franchise as a whole under Anderson's guidance. The hows and whys of Alice's unlikely partnership with her enemy and how some characters can return from the dead (to say nothing of Michelle Rodriguez returning as two characters, a "good Rain" and "bad Rain") hardly matter compared to the grandiose funhouse in which Anderson places these characters. True to Umbrella's outsized corporate greed and unlimited resources, Retribution takes place in a remote underwater facility that houses several zones that recreate major cities as a means of running test scenarios for the companies biological weaponry. As such, Retribution operates less through a linear plot than a routine reset of setting and even character as some figures change between the vast rooms. Having started with a tonally faithful adaptation of one of the most cinematic video game franchises, Anderson at last pulls back so far that his camera captures the conventions of video games themselves. Every room is its own game level, with the only sense of linearity in the arrangement of baddies in increasing threat levels. Where the New York mock-up is in relation to the Tokyo recreation is not immediately apparent, but the presence of massive, weapon-brandishing creatures in the former and merely the average zombies in the latter suggests a path of progression toward the intended escape.

Yet for a series already marked by an overwhelming sense of nihilism, this casual use of false environments and a cloned populace to fill them finds new areas of troubling implication. Overseen by the organizing artificial intelligence program known as the Red Queen, this collection of simulation hubs serves only as a killing field for clones programmed with just enough intelligence to react to their own slaughter. In video-game terms, they are NPCs, there to interact superficially in an environment before inevitably dying. This grim revelation could be seen as a commentary on action film as well, in which the same basic character types are reused time after time, occasionally altered as a means of adding "originality" to stale formulas while still keep ing all the components basically unchanged. Anderson even adds a wisp of melancholy to this human recycling, regularly placing Alice with someone she recognizes but who, as a clone of that deceased person, does not remember her.

Elsewhere, there is something darkly amusing about the largest location hub of this testing floor, and the central passage that links all, is not the fake Moscow or New York or what have you but merely Suburbia. It makes a strange kind of sense: suburbia contains all the oblivious, bourgeois contentment that makes a military-industrial complex possible. Suburbia built Umbrella more than all the national governments represented by their replicated cultural centers, just as idyllic suburbia is where bored, inactive children pass their time playing the sort of hyperviolent, vicariously energetic video games that spawned this franchise.

Take away these clever, insidious ideas, however, and Resident Evil: Retribution still works as a crackerjack action film. If the plot is so deliberately convoluted that it makes next to no sense on a surface level, Anderson's direction has a fluidity and coherence to it that makes following along to the spectacle simple. Anderson's love affair with slow motion, not quite at Zack Snyder-levels of obnoxiousness but close on Afterlife, is not so much reduced here but refined, made less into an awkward crutch than a part of the visual rhythm of the shots. Those shots are also frequently breathtaking, such as the holding cell in which Alice awakens early in the film, a geometrically precise, seemingly endless tower that dwarfs the heroine as the director looks down from far away. Light and color within Umbrella's artificial microcosm is used with audacious control, whether in the rush of red lasers down a brilliant white corridor as the hall turns to darkness behind the wall of beams or in the literal blackening of the "sky" when a massive explosion tears through one of the zones. Perhaps the most self-consciously beautiful shot in the film shows zombies underwater floating up to their prey, the frenzied, feeding mass around the poor soul growing so dense it sinks into the pyramidical rise of fresh feeders below.

Nevertheless, even that moment, lit and framed like a demented but magnificent painting, does not distract from the crowd-pleasing momentum. If Anderson brings auteurist tics to his work, he never allows the immaculate framing and self-reflexive cheek to distract from the simple pleasures of putting together a good sequence. He dots Retribution with homages—Becky being drawn into a sort of Newt-Ripley relationship with Alice, a short burst of spaghetti western music played during the confrontation between Alice and Jill, perhaps a vague nod to Extinction's style but also a fun placement of an arid desert duel in the Siberian tundra—but these are all just one more part of the show, metatextual winks to those who spot them but also valid plot directions and stylistic flourishes in their own right. Retribution, like its predecessors, suffers from stodgy dialogue that locks the actors into wooden deliveries. As a simultaneously unpretentious and surprisingly analytical work of popular art, however, this is one of the most fascinating pictures of the year, and Anderson's finest work to date. Given the manner that these films always find new levels of spectacle, thematic darkness and gloriously shot sets, however, perhaps that designation should be reserved until Anderson finally puts a shotgun blast of quarters through the head of this franchise.


Wednesday, November 2

The Three Musketeers (Paul W.S. Anderson, 2011)

The Three Musketeers is stiff, awkward, preposterous, and defiantly stupid. It is also, to my bafflement, a remarkably fun time, with equal pleasures to be had laughing at its inanity and wooden performances and with them. That's not to say that it is particularly good, but there's something about watching Athos perform aquatic maneuvers like some kind of Navy SEAL or a 17th-century man-of-war looming over the Louvre that is just too absurd to hate. Most big-budget spectacles pumped out by Hollywood are obliviously asinine. The Three Musketeers commits to its idiocy.

The only outright serious moment in the film is its dolorous opening narration, recounting some half-assed play at historical accuracy before immediately cutting to Athos (Matthew Macfadyen) rising out of Venetian waters like Capt. Willard from Apocalypse Now. This exposes even the 10 seconds of seriousness as part of the gag, the first of many in a film that makes goofy fun of both sex and violence. And period costumery. Mustn't forget about that.

The basic plot kinda sorta follows Dumas' novel, with D'Artagnan (an almost endearingly terrible Logan Lerman) heading for Paris to join up with the musketeers and finding himself embroiled in a web of intrigue spun by the young king's chief minister, Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz, who looks vaguely annoyed at having the only continental accent in the film). But then Athos' conniving love interest Milady (Milla Jovovich) steals stolen schematics for an airship designed by Leonard da Vinci and sells them to England, allowing the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom) to get to France within mere hours, allowing him to insult the child king Louis XIII (Freddie Fox) over outdated fashion choices with greater ease.

Oh, right, and wage war. That too. Buckingham wants military superiority over France, while Richelieu pulls strings behind the curtain to ensure that the war will elevate him to open power. Richelieu seems to think that people vote on the whole king thing—maybe he should watch a certain Monty Python film to clarify this—but whatever. The end result is: fighting airships!

Anderson may make some tacky films but he is a competent shooter, and I confess that some shots here were positively delightful in their combination of spacing, rhythm and, when one considers the use of European architectural landmarks for steampunk swashbuckling, visual irony. A crack CGI team seamlessly adds in such garish, striking sights as those dueling man-of-wars within well-composed frames, and the epic action here comes off more formally austere than the muddled, artless orgies of the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels and Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes, films that exert a clear influence here. But even the more conventional swordfights are a blast, the musketeers fearlessly set against waves of sad-sack guards who look as if they just scratched out the next day's events in their planners and wrote "DEAD" before engaging our four heroes.

Various other intimate delights also caught my eye. Juno Temple steals the show with her marvelous facial acting as Queen Anne, always half-smiling with affection for her hapless but well-meaning husband and later in fear at Richelieu's plot to bring about war by shaming her. Her nervous, charming chemistry with Fox proves a damn sight more entertaining than Lerman's boorish entreaties to the comely handmaiden Constance, a romance so repellently dull and chauvinistic I half-expected D'Artagnan to just point at his crotch and raise his eyebrow expectantly. And for all the clever CGI and half-decent 3D, the best special effect in the film is Milla Jovovich, who is so impossibly limber in corsets and period dresses that she simply cannot be real. Also worthy of props is James Corden as the put-upon musketeer servant Planchet, the only comic element in the film to actually earn genuine laughs.

So yes, the plot is ridiculous, most of the intended (dialogue) humor hits a brick wall, and the climax can be hard to take even for those who surrender to the film's delirium. But it's a clever piece of fluff, and more successful at being mindless entertainment than the vast majority of pompously dim films that come out any given summer. I'd rather watch The Three Musketeers again than most of the movies it rips off, and it's the first Anderson film since Event Horizon that makes me curious to see what else he can do. Far from the best piece of escapism in a year already thin on good examples of blockbuster filmmaking, The Three Musketeers is nevertheless a surprisingly solid piece of work built out on the world's flimsiest foundation. It could collapse at any second, but that only makes it more exciting, doesn't it?