Dororo - Review

Based on the manga from Osamu "God of Manga" Tezuka, Dororo serves up an entertaining bit of manga-to-multiplex fun despite never finding the right tone. Director Koichi Chigira does a lot of things right but also a lot of things wrong, leading to long patches of boredom and the occasional unintentional laugh. Still, there's fun to be had along the way. Satoshi Tsumabuki stars as Hyakkimaru, a cursed fellow who lacks forty-eight vital pieces of his body. Once upon a time, warlord Kagemitsu Daigo (Kiichi Nakai) traded away forty-eight pieces of his unborn son's body to evil demon gods in exchange for unmatched power on the battlefield. The demon gods agreed, each asking for one part of the boy's body. The reason: the child will one day possess the power to vanquish all demons, and obviously the demon gods don't want to see that happen. This deal looks to make all parties happy - except, that is, the kid himself who's put into a basket and sent down the river like Moses. Unlike Moses, however, this kid has no arms, legs, eyes, ears, and many more body parts.
Fortunately for the incomplete tyke, a crackpot inventor named Jukai (Yoshio Harada) finds the kid, and proceeds to develop fantastic prosthetic limbs that enable him to walk, see, and talk. Sort of. The boy is really blind, deaf, and dumb, but it's his heart, mechanical though it may be, that can see and hear (an artificial voice-box handles the talking). The boy also possesses swords (one of them a famous demon-slaying one) built into his limbs, and prosthetic hands to place over his swords. Now grown to adulthood, the boy has become an incredibly handsome and kick-ass version of Edward Scissorhands, and begins a quest to kill the demon gods who made off with his appendages. Given the name Hyakkimaru, the would-be demon killer takes on a sidekick, a childlike thief named Dororo (Kou Shibasaki of Battle Royale). Together, the two roam the countryside, killing demons and moving closer to the mystery of Hyakkimaru's missing limbs. That mystery: that his father, Kagemitsu Daigo, is responsible for his missing limbs AND he killed Dororo's family AND he's sort of a tyrant who generally treats the common folk rather poorly. What are the odds that Hyakkimaru's demon-slaying blade will taste his father's human flesh before the 141 minutes of Dororo are up?
Why Dororo is called Dororo is a bit of a mystery. After all, the true star of the film is Hyakkimaru, while Dororo is just a glorified sidekick/conscience to the incomplete hero of the story. That said, Kou Shibasaki makes the most of her screentime, acting as annoyingly boyish as a woman of her beauty possibly can. Her performance borders on grating, but she handles her emotional scenes quite well. The same can't be said for Satoshi Tsumabaki, who handles Hyakkimaru's moroseness well, but doesn't bring a lot of inner life to the character. He seems much more comfortable once he gets to stop acting blind, which occurs when he kills the two demon gods who stole his eyes. You see, after killing one of these offending gods, Hyakkimaru doubles over in pain, ejects the synthetic body parts, and regrows his former appendage, complete with chintzy CGI effects. It's actually somewhat amusing to see a tough swordsman cough up a fake liver before growing a new one. During the course of the film, Hyakkimaru also drops a leg, an ear, an arm, and - in the imagination of teen girls in the audience - probably some, uh, more vital body parts that we're not privy to. Thankfully, the movie doesn't go there.
Hyakkimaru also lacks a human heart, which means he can get impaled with no ill effects, but also that he simply cannot feel the true pain of being a human being. Who wants to bet that heartbreak won't be a moment of wonder for this Pinocchio-Tin Man wannabe? You can almost smell the moment in the screenplay, and true to form, the filmmakers deliver. What's surprising is that the moment registers, as do many of the emotions delivered during the climax. Credit the actors for managing to wring some depth out of the pages of static exposition. Dororo clocks in at well over two hours, and a lot of it is people talking, talking, and talking some more. Nearly all the important exposition happens when people are sitting around doing nothing, and seldom does an important revelation occur, say, during an action sequence. Also, some characters in the film seem to exist solely to show up and dispense exposition whenever the script requires it, and sometimes their sudden appearances can cause unintentional laughter.
The action sequences can also cause guffaws. Hyakkimaru faces off against numerous CGI-created or enhanced demons, but some of them are clearly still men in suits. With the bouncy music score and the sometimes subpar CGI chipping in their share of cheap cheesiness, Dororo sometimes resembles one of those wacky Henshin TV series. Veteran Hong Kong action director Ching Siu-Tung provides the sometimes over-the-top action, which only adds to the onscreen silliness. Making things even more uneven is the film's dalliance with the macabre. Jukai's workshop is filled with spare body parts, some of which were collected from dead children on the battlefield. The very notion that Hyakkimaru's prosthetics are made from dead kids is creepy enough to give one the willies, as are some of the creatures, who purportedly feed on kids and talk about it happily. Simultaneously horrific, comic, and dramatic, the concept of Dororo probably works better as a manga or anime than as a live-action film, though the film's cheesiness would seem to indicate that it's some sort of a kid flick. Given the omnipresent blood and gore, that doesn't seem likely.
Then again, the Japanese have a larger tolerance towards violence, meaning the film's copious blood would probably be more disturbing to Mr. and Mrs. Smith than Mr. and Mrs. Tanaka. Besides, genre film is now a thing for adults. It's not just kids who salivate over live-action versions of Spider-Man or Casshern, but ticket-buying adults who get off on seeing their childhood memories rendered in flesh-and-blood big screen form. With that in mind, Dororo has the goods to be fun and enjoyable, albeit a bit messy and slow-paced. Ching Siu-Tung's action is perfectly suited for this sort of acrobatic fantasy film, and the New Zealand location is gorgeous. Plus, watching Hyakkimaru hunt down the thieves of his body parts is kind of fun, in a gotta-collect-them-all kind of way. Whenever Hyakkimaru dispatches his latest demon, there's an undeniable curiosity factor in seeing which body part grows back. Rooting for Hyakkimaru isn't hard. After all, who wouldn't want to see the former incomplete boy become whole once again? Speaking of which, Hyakkimaru doesn't collect all forty-eight parts during the course of the film, meaning Dororo 2 and even Dororo 3 are in the offing. It's an obvious bit of commercialism, but Dororo succeeds more than enough as throwaway fun that the sequels don't seem like a bad idea at all.

Evening - Review

Evening is, to put it mildly, not an easy movie to sell to men. It’s told from the perspective of Ann (Vanessa Redgrave), a woman on her deathbed recalling a pivotal moment in her life 50 years earlier. When she randomly blurts out, “Where’s Harris?” her grown daughters (Toni Collette and Natasha Richardson) have no idea what she is talking about. And there’s no reason they would--in her near-death state of delirium, she is letting them in on a secret.

If ever there were a movie custom-made for women, Evening would fit the bill. It sports a hefty, female-friendly bag of tricks: mother-daughter strained dynamics, wilted romances from years past, deflated dreams, life-changing memories and even a few long walks on the beach. There’s enough sentimentality here to coat a football field, but it excels at what it does and will likely find some weepy-loving fans among the Terms of Endearment/Notebook loyalists.

Evening, the second feature by acclaimed cinematographer-turned-director Lajos Koltai (Fateless), is based on the book by Susan Minot, who wrote the screenplay with Michael Cunningham (The Hours). The story jumps from the present, where Ann is joined by family and a doting night nurse (Eileen Atkins) for her final moments, to the past, where she spends a weekend with close friends for an impending wedding. Young Ann is played by Claire Danes (who looks nothing like a mini Redgrave, but we’ll let that one slide) with an air of sophisticated whimsy.

Her best friend Lila (Mamie Gummer, a.k.a. Meryl Streep’s real life daughter) is set to marry a man she doesn’t much care about, mainly because she can’t be with the one she wants, Harris (Patrick Wilson). He’s a handsome, semi-unattainable doctor that wins everyone over, despite the fact that he’s as exciting as a bowl of Muesli. Even Ann is wooed, much to the dismay of Lila’s brother Buddy (Hugh Dancy), an unstable, vivacious guy who’s been holding onto feelings--and a crusty old note she passed him years ago--for a frightening span of time. Dancy is achingly good at playing this beautiful disaster.

At its core, Evening is about regret and longing. Ann has lived her entire life, with a few failed marriages along the way, and has never forgotten about this dreamy man she barely knew before a tragedy sent them in opposite directions. Was Harris truly all that wonderful? Not really, and that’s one way that Evening gets it right--hindsight can be a nasty mind trick, up to the last breath.

Where Evening gets it wrong is in trying to squeeze too many gifted female actresses into this overstuffed drawer. Collette and Richardson aren’t developed enough to make any real impact, Atkins is criminally underused and Glenn Close appears in a throwaway part as the bride’s mom. The smallest role with the biggest impact is played by (who else?) Streep, as the grown-up Lila. There’s a scene between her and Redgrave, both powerhouse talents, which should be screened in acting classes to teach inquiring minds how it’s really done.

Even with its lack of subtlety, and occasional flair for the melodramatic, Evening is a solid family drama that is hard to dismiss. The incredible all-around acting and sense of bittersweet nostalgia help make the movie seem stronger than it actually is. Don’t be surprised if, much like the girls flocking to Harris, you fall prey to its charms, leaving caution (and arguably logic) out to dry.

28 Weeks Later - Review

In 2004 28 Days Later arrived as a pleasant surprise. British director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland had delivered a real modern rarity: A horror film with substance. Set in the early days of a pseudo-zombie apocalypse, the film followed a small group of people trying to survive in a world gone completely mad. What’s great about that original film is that it’s so much more than just another post-apocalyptic horror movie. 28 Days Later had something to say, as it explored the breakdown of society and questioned the very heart of human nature.

Flash forward three years and Fox Atomic is releasing 28 Weeks Later, a sequel made with a screenplay written by group of different writers, new actors, and helmed by a replacement director. The result is a film that feels like it only exists to set up another movie. It’s as if Fox executives counted the first movie’s box office receipts and then locked a committee of writers in a room and asked them to come up with a way to stretch this idea out into three movies. 28 Weeks Later is means to an end and, unlike the original movie, it has absolutely nothing to say except stay tuned and give us your money.

28 Weeks Later picks up, as the title suggests, 28 weeks later after the release of the Rage virus which started everything in Days. Rage is transmitted by body fluids and anyone coming into contact with the liquid innards of one of the infected is instantly turned into a crazed, flesh-eating, mindless killer. After the first movie the island of Britain was left ravaged and devastated, but apparently the outbreak was confined to those shores. 28 weeks later all of the infected, having eaten all the flesh they could find, have died of starvation and a US led military force has moved in to rescue the handful of survivors still left and repatriate those British citizens who were abroad at the time of the disaster.

Anyone who has seen a movie before will instantly realize this is a mistake. Should the world ever find itself in a similar situation, let’s hope the United Nations has the good sense to sterilize the place with a few nuclear bombs before letting people back in. Sadly, that would leave us with a pretty short movie and so we follow the well-intentioned but doomed military and civilian population as things go awry and they lose control. The film starts out following Don (Robert Carlyle), a father who was there during the initial outbreak and survived to be re-united with his kids by the military’s rescue force. His story is an interesting one, and might have provided the philosophical punch 28 Weeks Later so desperately needs to justify its existence but, after only a cursory brush up against his tortured past, the movie abandons him in order to devolve into a big, predictable, pseudo-zombie mess. It might as well be the latest Resident Evil sequel.

Except at least Resident Evil has the scantily clad hotness of Milla Jovovich kicking ass to help sell it. 28 Weeks Later winds up following a couple of kids as they run from the infected, leaving a trail of poorly acted and extremely dead adult characters behind them. The movie seems more interested in lingering over wide, aerial shots of a deserted London than in actually telling a story. When something important does happen, it’s buried under so many camera gimmicks that it’s hard to figure out what’s going on anyway. By the way, 28 Weeks Later’s idea of cinematography is to shake the camera around like it’s being ripped apart by zombies during action sequences, thus obscuring your view and, presumably, saving a lot of money on bothering with things like special effects.

This is a really thin, poorly developed script directed by a stand-in who struggles and fails to mimic Boyle’s movie without adding in anything of his own. Ok, that’s not fair. He does do a night-vision sequence. That’s new. It’s just not very good. If I wanted to watch the movie through a night vision scope I’d bring one with me.

There are a few solidly entertaining moments in the film involving the military’s attempt to exterminate the spreading virus and the civilian attempt to escape from it. A car pushing sequence which evokes the one from the first movie is well executed and there’s the aforementioned abandoned sub plot involving Robert Carlyle’s father character. It’s not enough though. By the time 28 Weeks Later shakes out and figures out where its going it becomes pretty evident that the movie only exists as a setup for whatever globe-spanning, big-budget zombie movie they’re planning to turn the franchise into next. This one is more of a paper-thin transition between Boyle’s gritty, gutty, unique approach to zombies and an almost certainly impending third movie in which they stick the number 28 in front of another standard, glossy, epic zombie apocalypse clone directed by Paul W.S. Anderson.

Becoming Jane - Review

It’s a shame that Jane Austen wasn’t around to write the not-quite-autobiographical movie Becoming Jane, or it might have been filled with the charming insights she injected into her novels. What made the sharp-witted author so brilliant and timeless is strangely absent here; instead, we’re served up another bland, passionless costume drama as stuffy and oxygen-depriving as its corsets.

Pride and Prejudice, one of Austen’s most beloved novels, was adapted for the big screen (again) in 2005 to surprising success, earning over $100 million worldwide and landing acting nods for skinny star Keira Knightley. It was an unexpected, much-adored hit that, naturally, encouraged studio heads to cook up a second helping. The big idea? To make a film about the author while she was writing Pride and Prejudice, so they could essentially make the same movie twice under the guise of creativity. High five.

But Shakespeare In Love this isn’t. Becoming Jane, which is based on Jon Spence’s biography, takes numerous liberties with her life since not much is known about her love affairs. By watching this movie, you’d think that Jane could barely string together an interesting sentence until she fell for a cocky young lawyer from Limerick who, in turn, is to thank for inspiring Pride and Prejudice.

Hear that, ladies? Get into a fleeting, go-nowhere relationship and you just might write the next great novel. Who needs journalism school or, better yet, an ability to write of things you haven’t personally experienced?

Idiotic launching pads aside, the PG-rated Becoming Jane is not terribly interesting to watch. Anne Hathaway stars as Jane and James McAvoy is Tom Lefroy, the guy who steals her heart. It has the typical back-and-forth-banter-as-foreplay exchanges found in all of these movies, but in this case it quickly evaporates. What was harmless, regurgitated fun soon becomes a tiresome, sullen trip with money woes, dead youngsters and enough sulking to make even Paris Hilton roll her eyes.

Director Julian Jarrold (Kinky Boots) is partially to blame for valuing style over substance (attractive actors, beautiful scenery) and TV writers Kevin Hood and Sarah Williams present Jane and Tom as mostly vapid stick figures. The basis of their “romance” is watching him try out his smarmy moves on her (“your horizons must be widened,” he says with predator sleaze) and watching her find it ever so irresistible--anything to avoid marrying the sweet but dull heir (Laurence Fox) that her parents (James Cromwell and Julie Walters) have in mind.

Hey, even the late 18th century yielded its fair share of offspring rebellion. But even if the folks’ dating advice could be fine-tuned, they remain the most engaging, semi-developed characters in Becoming Jane, along with an amusing turn by Maggie Smith as the snooty Lady Gresham.

Just don’t expect to find any of them onscreen much. Chalk it up to another misstep in a marathon of many.