Into the Woods (2014)

3/5

Into the Woods is a musical fairy tale that revolves around a baker (Corden) and his wife (Blunt) who cannot seem to get pregnant. They discover that a curse of infertility has been placed on them by the witch living next door (Streep). The only way to reverse it is to bring her ingredients from other fairy tales: Rapunzel's hair, Little Red Riding Hood's little red riding hood, Jack and the Beanstalk's white cow, and Cinderella's slipper.

The film version of Into the Woods suffers from the fact that it was made by Disney. The play's raison d'être is to satirize the overly-romanticized fairy tales on which Disney prides itself, to make them darker and dig deeper into their sentimental "happily ever afters." Disney's version is no longer edgy; all the adulteries and deaths are cleaned up and hidden so that the film will be appropriate for little kids. There is one glaring exception to this general sentiment and that is the Big Bad Wolf. Johnny Depp somehow manages to turn the character of a hungry wolf into a stalker pedophile, which would be uncomfortable to watch in any film but is downright disturbing in a Disney film.

As if that wasn't enough to ruin the movie, they cut out my favorite part. In the original production, the narrator eventually becomes part of the action and gets killed in the ensuing chaos. There is no narrator in Disney's movie. (Well, there is, but he's not a character involved in the story.) The worst!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951265/

Rango (2011)

3/5

Rango tells the story of a lizard (Depp) who stumbles into a Western. The town of Dirt is inhabited by other similarly-sized creatures, although sometimes it's really difficult to tell what kind of animal each character is supposed to be, and they are in the midst of a water shortage crisis. Rango manages to earn himself a sheriff's star by unwittingly taking out the town's predator and is soon tasked by the mayor (Beatty) with giving the townspeople hope in the face of rapidly dwindling resources. They must find out who is stealing their water and why before it's too late.

The acting is solid, the animation is fun, and the pacing is fluid. The plot is essentially a rehashing of Chinatown with the occasional twist and turn to make it a little bit more exciting and kid-friendly in the hopes that it doesn't feel predictable. Unfortunately, it is predictable. Adding failed plan after failed plan in the last 10 minutes doesn't make it surprising. It just makes it painful for everyone waiting for the film to end.

The best part about this movie is probably the character of Rango, who seems to be able to confabulate on the fly in a very entertaining manner. It makes for a clever script with sharp dialogue, including some excellent jokes, but on the whole I didn't get much out of it. Ultimately, the film tried too hard to satisfy too many different genres that it never really impressed me on any one of them. All in all, this is a strange but fairly mediocre film that entertains but doesn't stick with you. Watch it if it sounds interesting, but don't go out of your way to see it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1192628/

Dead Man (1995)

1/5

Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man is one of the most uninteresting, meandering, meaningless movies I've seen since Truffaut's The Soft Skin. I sat there for two hours watching scenes transition to different scenes with the barest semblance of plot or purpose. The movie follows William Blake (Depp) as he makes his way from Cleveland to the West in the late 19th century. He gets mixed up in violence and must go on the run to save his life, but I think the title is meant to insinuate that he is already dead. People who like the movie will tell you it's about a man's transformation in the time of our country's transformation, but I think those people are just seeing stuff that isn't there. Or, perhaps, seeing the bits and pieces of stuff beneath all the garbage piled on top of it.

Johnny Depp kind of reminded me of Guy Pearce in this movie, and I mean that in a bad way. He has dead expressions and no depth. He sounds entirely uninterested in just about everything going on, even when he's supposed to be scared or excited. Regardless of whether his affect is intentional or not, it's simply boring and painful to watch. I don't even want to talk about the dialogue, because I'll just get upset. The script tries to be edgy and badass, but instead it's spoken by what sounds like bad student actors trying to be edgy and badass. Mix this bad acting (or bad directing, I'm honestly not sure which it is) with crappy special effects and cheesy old-time film techniques and you have an entirely laughable production. It's times like these I wish I had waited before burning an entire director's oeuvre until I knew I liked them.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112817/

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)

2/5

Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a mesmerizing acid-trip of a film, but little more. The plot follows the centuries-old Dr. Parnassus (Plummer) and his troupe of storytellers (Garfield, Troyer, Ledger) as they attempt to free the minds and save the souls of modern-day Londoners through his imaginarium. He must win over 5 souls before the devilish Mr. Nick (Waits) wins over 5 souls as part of a wager to save his daughter (Cole) before she turns 16. Yes, it's fairly convoluted and entirely fantastical, but it is precisely this freedom from rules and expectations that make this movie so exhilarating and captivating. Because it is so bizarre, you never know what happens next or how it will end--you are continually drawn along its winding trail until the very end.

But that is also one of the film's flaws. Sometimes it feels drawn out or scatterbrained. And while it keeps stringing you along, you get the sense that most of the questions you have about what exactly is going on will never be answered. As for the other technical aspects, this film is a mixed bag. The acting is competent (as far as I could tell), but the characters are all so unorthodox and otherworldly that it's hard to appreciate the acting that they're doing. Some aspects of the writing and story are fascinating, but the plot overall is unnecessarily tortuous and confusing. The movie as a whole feels like the work of a mad genius, someone so far ahead of everyone else's reality and so far ahead of modern technology that frustratingly incomplete ideas obscure the underlying brilliance. Either that or Gilliam is just crazy. Gilliam has made much better movies; this is nowhere near his best.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054606/

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

3/5

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is as weird and darkly comic as all his other movies. The plot follows the young Alice (Wasikowska) after being proposed to in front of a huge party by a wealthy lord named Hamish. She is a young independent soul who doesn't like corsets or stockings and certainly doesn't want to wed someone just because he is rich and she is getting older. But that is the option she is presented with, and the hundreds of guests in attendance seem to be pushing her towards the safe choice. She asks for some time to think it over. And with that time, she manages to fall down a rabbit hole and into "Underland," which she mistakenly calls Wonderland.

The movie is blandly quirky and innocently morbid, but somehow also reassuring and uplifting by the end. There were some funny moments (almost entirely involving Helena Bonham Carter) and some boring moments (almost entirely involved Johnny Depp). The oddness of the story didn't work for me. I found it neither charming nor endearing; it was just a charade to distract the audience from the simpleness of the story. And the visuals, while Burton-esque to a T, were filmed and/or animated poorly. Quite frankly, nobody understands 3D as well as James Cameron does right now. (That scene where Alice is falling down the rabbit hole made me almost vomit from nausea.) At first I thought Tim Burton just made bizarre movies for the sake of being bizarre, but now I'm starting to think that he doesn't really know how to make a movie that isn't bizarre. That, or he doesn't see the point in it. Still, this is a pretty entertaining movie. Watch it if you're a Burton or Depp fanboy, but don't expect anything grand.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014759/

Public Enemies (2009)

2/5

Michael Mann's Public Enemies is a disappointment from start to finish. The plot follows bank robber John Dillinger (Depp) in the early 1930's and the rising crime spree that spurs the police to declare a war on crime. Melvin Purvis (Bale) is put in charge of the Dillinger Squad and is responsible for taking him down, dead or alive. Where Mann's films usually succeed--tense action--here he fails. The gunfights are little more than confusing cuts and annoying noise. The fact that everyone looks, dresses, and talks the same makes it even harder to tell what's going on and who's getting shot. It completely deflates the tension. Mann's use of digital cameras at night without lighting worked in his modern revision of Miami Vice, but the grainy picture feels anachronistic in this film. The romance with Billie Frechette (Cotillard) actually feels slightly stronger here than in his previous films, although love stories were never his strong suit. But all in all, it's a fairly frustrating film and simply doesn't live up to my expectations. I don't know who should see this film, but I would not recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152836/

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

3/5

After the atrocity that was Pirates 2, I told myself I wouldn't see the third one. But I did anyway. Partly because Sameer said it was pretty good, but mostly because I had the option to see it in Blu-Ray. Here are my conclusions: Blu-Ray is amazing. Pirates 3 is okay.

The best thing about Pirates 3 is how pretty it is. The striking cinematography combines seamlessly with the special effects. And it is breathtaking in high definition. (The text was so crisp!) The second best thing is the humor. The drama and tension are very regularly punctuated by comic relief that I found hilarious. (I was especially happy when I discovered that Ragetti, the pirate with the wooden eye, was played by the same actor who played Gareth on the UK version of The Office.) The third best thing is the action. It was always fun, mostly because it was so utterly preposterous and fantastical. Also the music worked pretty well.

The worst thing about the movie was how unnecessarily convoluted the plot was. I had no idea what was going on. Ever. About an hour and a half through, I gave up, paused the movie, and forced everyone else to explain to me what was going on. That took about 20 minutes. Then there was another hour and a half of movie. Which brings me to the second worst thing about the movie. The length. It is unnecessarily long. This is probably to deal with the unnecessarily convoluted plot. But there are also literally about 30 minutes that could have been taken out without any effect on the movie, except making it better. Also, I'm sick of movies that lead into the sequel at the end. That also happened at the end of Heroes, season 1. And that show sucks.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0449088/

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

4/5

Sweeney Todd is yet another uniquely comic tale of the macabre from Tim Burton. And this time it's a musical! The plot follows Sweeney Todd in Victorian England as he seeks revenge on Judge Turpin for viciously sentencing him to prison and stealing his wife and daughter. The first thirty minutes were inexorably boring backstory that revealed nothing that wasn't in the two minute trailer. So why make it thirty minutes in the movie? (And I was less than underwhelmed by the ugly, "bad CGI" intro credits.) But I can forgive all that because the ending was absolutely amazing. It spiraled out of control while simultaneously tightening both the characters and story. It was Dickensian in the most perfect way possible.

The songs were a mixed bag for me. I was in awe at the beauty of "Epiphany" and the orchestral pieces, I loved the hilarious "By the Sea" and "A Little Priest," but the rest merely disappointed me. I found most of the singing acceptable but not exceptional, save for the young Ed Sanders's remarkable voice. (His acting could use some work though.) What Gretel brought to my attention is the fact that the singing is really well integrated with the speaking. It's a truly seamless and fluid transition. The acting and character development of the leads (Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter) were terrific, but I found most of the secondary characters to be rather flat and uninspired. Thanks to superb make-up, costuming, and set design, the trademark Burton look is brilliant--especially in comparison to the Broadway musical. All in all, a thrilling and exciting movie that I wouldn't mind seeing again. Highly recommended for Burton fans.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0408236/

Edward Scissorhands (1990)

4/5

Edward Scissorhands is another one of those "weird" Tim Burton movies. But it is also incredible entertaining. Burton is able to create this world so vividly, from the first frame to the last, that you really feel like you are there. I love the pastel houses inhabited by pastel women. I love the shrub and ice sculptures. And who can forget the man with scissors as hands? Everything in this movie is so distinct that you cannot forget it. And it made me laugh the entire time. My favorite character was by far Alan Arkin's father. The way he thinks and talks is simply amazing. I don't even know how to describe it; just watch it. Winona Ryder's daughter was literally angelic; she looked beautiful in this movie, and I now understand Pooya's obsession for her. Danny Elfman's signature Burton-esque music is in full force here--definitely one of his best soundtracks.

I hated the stupid framework for the movie. Why do we need someone to be telling us a story? Tim Burton should be telling us the story with his visuals, not an 80-year-old Winona to her granddaughter in flashback mode because the dumb kid asked her where snow comes from. Grow some balls and tell the story yourself, Timmy. A lot of the special effects are cheesy, along with the characters' outfits and hairstyles. The movie feels quite a bit dated. I don't know if it was the TV screen distorting the anamorphic edges or what, but it seemed like the entire movie was shot with a fish-eye lens. It may not be the movie's fault, but it was extremely distracting. The rest of the movie was quite good, but let's face it: you go to a Tim Burton movie to check out the brand new world he has thought up, and this is one you will never forget.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0099487/

The Ninth Gate (1999)

2/5

The Ninth Gate follows Johnny Depp as he travels around Europe trying to authenticate a rare text believed to be able to conjure up the devil. Yes, it does sound a little similar to Indiana Jones, but it doesn't play like that awesome adventure series. Instead, this piece of crap is filled with predictable subplots, hollow characters, boring action, unexplained scenes, bland cinematography, uninspired editing, unnecessary nudity, and mediocre acting. It is, in a word, bad. But in truth, as I was watching it, I was entertained. It was always pretty interesting and enjoyable. I kept waiting for an explanation, and the fact that none came only disappointed me at the end of the movie, not during! Also, there were some pretty funny parts (some unintentional). Save yourself the trouble of watching this movie because, though it may look interesting, you will get nothing out of it except exasperation.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0142688/