Catwoman (2004)

Catwoman (2004)
Going into Catwoman I knew I was going to get a bad movie. However, I didn't know that this Catwoman was not the DC comics character but a new, very different version for the film. Halle Berry's Catwoman is named Patience Phillips and doesn't act much like the Selina Kyle of the comics. For example, Phillips is a shy artist working for a cosmetics company before she becomes Catwoman. What is the origin story of Catwoman in this movie you ask? Well, Phillips is resurrected by cats after she dies in a sewage pipe... I don't care that this is not like the comics, it's just stupid.
The story is pretty weak as it doesn't feel like there is that much at stake. A cosmetics company is going to release skin care products with bad side effects because it's cheaper than recalling the items. Sure that is deplorable, but why can't the FDA handle this? Or does it not exist in this universe?
Sharon Stone plays the main villain, Laurel Hedare, whose husband owns the cosmetics company that Catwoman works for. The owner of the company is played by Lambert Wilson, best known to me for his role as The Merovingian in The Matrix sequels. Halle Berry isn't the problem with the movie as she doesn't have much to work with, though she doesn't do a good job either. Sharon Stone could've been a great Selina Kyle Catwoman, but it's probably too late now unless she only voices the character or we get a live action adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel "The Dark Knight Returns."

Catwoman had a $100 million budget but the production values feel a lot cheaper. I'm assuming most of the budget went to Halle Berry who was coming off her role as Storm in the popular X-Men movies.
The director of Catwoman is Pitof. That's right, only one name. But at least it's still a better name for a film director than McG. It's no surprise that Pitof hasn't directed a theatrical feature film since this dud.
As you can probably guess, this movie doesn't take place in any sort of DC universe as there is no mention of Batman/Bruce Wayne let alone Gotham City. I found this odd since Batman Begins only came out a year later, but trust me, it's a good thing. People complain (usually unfairly) about Batman & Robin but at least that movie was fun. Although Catwoman is feels like a quick cash grab, it's still watchable for anyone who enjoys dumb Hollywood train wrecks. Catwoman came out same year as some much better super hero movies such as Hellboy, The Incredibles, and Spider-Man 2.
3/10

Spring Wrap-up Part Three

I just realized that my blog has been up for over a year! Yay! Well since I just figured this out now and am over a week late I don't have anything special planned. Maybe I'll do something next year... if I remember! But in the spirit of this blog here is another post on three very different movies as my seemingly endless quest to get caught up continues!

Saved! (2004)
Saved! reminded me of Heathers as both movies are satires that take place in high school. Jenna Malone's performance even recalled Winona Ryder in that movie. But Saved! takes a different route as it's about religion, specifically fundamentalist Christians. However I never felt that the movie was mean spirited as there are some religious characters at "American Eagle Christian High School" who are perfectly reasonable.
Saved! features one of Macaulay Culkin's first film appearances since 1994's Richie Rich. Culkin's comedic timing was very good and its nice to see him acting again even though he hasn't done much since.
Pop star Mandy Moore has a major role in the movie and she did a good job, especially for somebody who is not primarily an actress. I am surprised she would accept a villainous role given her image, but commend her for taking the risk here as it paid off.
I quite liked Saved! and found it pretty funny but I felt that its biggest weakness was its shift in tone at around the midpoint. The first half of the movie is a satire while it turns into a straight-up teen dramedy for the last half.
7/10

Alice in Wonderland (2010)
I came into this movie ready for great special effects but not much else. I pretty much got what I was expecting, although to be honest it was a little better than I thought it would be.
I liked the angle of an older Alice coming back to Wonderland. In this sense it feels more like Return to Oz meets The Chronicles of Narina than an Alice in Wonderland movie made by Tim Burton. There are already tons of TV and movie versions of this story so I guess they tried to put a different spin on it while not making it too dark, which has already been done anyway. I'm only familiar with the Disney animated version, which I love, and have never read the original Lewis Carroll stories.
When it comes to the acting Crispin Glover (who has a surprisingly large amount of screen time) did a nice job, as did Helena Bonham Carter who played the Red Queen. Christopher Lee, Alan Rickman, and Stephen Fry all provided voices which was a lot of fun. Of course this movie was advertised as a Johnny Depp film but he isn't in the movie quite as much as you would think and wasn't as over the top as I was expecting for the Mad Hatter.
Alice in Wonderland won Oscars for art direction and costume design. It was also nominated for best visual effects but lost out to Inception. Lighting and Compositing technical director Brian Blasiak also worked on Avatar (among other movies) and worked his special effects magic for this film as well. Alice in Wonderland looked fantastic in High Definition. It was marketed as a 3-D film even though it was not filmed in 3-D but was instead converted in post-production.
Usually I have some issues with CGI but this is exactly how it should be used. The real world bookend scenes were done well made and are a nice contrast to the CGI world of Wonderland. The Jabberwocky was CGI but its design appeared to be influenced by the designs of Ray Harryhausen's monsters.
While this is not a bad movie, it's not very good either and is a movie I probably will never watch again. Still, I enjoyed it more than Burton's weaker efforts like Mars Attacks! or his 2001 Planet of the Apes remake.
I was surprised that Alice in Wonderland made so much money (11th highest grossing film of all time without adjusting for inflation), especially since it didn't come out in the summer or around Christmas. I'm don't think it deserved to make $1 billion worldwide but if you look at how much those Transformers movies made I guess I'm fine with it! It was rated PG so I could see it appealing to families with older and/or younger children as well as adults which is probably why it hauled in so much dough.
6/10

Garzey's Wing (1996)
Technically this is not a movie but a three part OVA (direct to video) anime with each episode being 30 minutes long. Garzey's Wing was written and directed by Yoshiyuki Tomino, the same man who developed the classic Gundam series. This is proof that even the best creators can have horrible misfires.
I'm not even going to bother describing the plot as Garzey's Wing is an incoherent disaster that is unintentionally hilarious due in part to a terrible dub. You can see what I mean here and here.
Garzey's Wing makes the infamous MD Geist (which I wrote about earlier) look like a masterpiece in comparison which is really saying something!
Despite being a total mess I must admit that Garzey's Wing is an enjoyable watch even though its for all the wrong reasons. If you want to watch a bad but fun anime with a group of friends this certainly fits the bill!
3/10

The Harry Potter movies, Part I

In preparation for the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, I have been re-watching all the Harry Potter films in chronological order. Today I'll post my thoughts on the first four Harry Potter films.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
I started reading the books as a kid before the movies were announced, let alone had been released. At the time it seemed like turning these books into movies would be challenging, especially since the book series wasn't even finished yet! Despite the degree of difficulty, director Chris Columbus did a great job of creating the immersive Harry Potter movie universe. Without this set-up the sequels would have failed. Scenes like Diagon Alley not only capture the feel of the book, but explore the depth of the wizarding world. The first two movies, both directed by Columbus, are very close to the books, but stand alone so that if you didn't read the novels you could still jump into the film series. While I love film adaptations that are close to the original source material, I always think that a movie should be able to be seen and enjoyed without having to watch or read what it is based on before you watch it. Of course if you have read the books you will get even more out of these movies. The CGI is a bit dated, for example the mountain troll, but this is a problem with all movies that use CGI. To be fair, there are a surprising amount of practical effects for a film series like this. The success of this film, its sequels, and the Lord of the Rings movies have really made almost anything film-able.
7/10

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
After seeing this movie for the first time in years I actually liked it better than I remembered. This has a similar feel to the first Harry Potter movie, which makes sense since Columbus also directed this movie. I really liked the mystery aspect of trying to figure out who has opened the Chamber of Secrets. Like Sorcerer's Stone, this one also stands alone if you haven't read the books before. I loved the casting of Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart. Although this was Columbus' final Potter film, it did a good job of setting up Ginny Weasely and Voldemort's back story. The Chamber of Secrets is even better than the first since the world was already established and now we could focus more on the characters. The story gets a bit darker, although the series doesn't fully commit to this new tone until the fourth movie, which is also the case with the books.
8/10

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
After re-watching it I actually liked the third Potter movie a little less than I had remembered. The Prisoner of Azkaban was directed by Alfonso Cuaron and it shows as the style is noticeably different from the first two movies. Gary Oldman was perfectly cast as Sirius Black, I just wish he could have had more screen time throughout the series. Although I love the concept of time travel, I don't think it belongs in the Harry Potter universe for a number of reasons. That said, the time turner sequence is done even better than in the book. This is partially because we can actually see and hear what is going on. We get to see the events from before and after the time travel, which show that this is actually a fixed timeline. My main issue with this movie was that this is really the first one that had important plot elements that were mentioned in the movie, but only fully explained in the book. For example, the Marauder's Map plays a pivital role in both the novel and the film. However, the movie never explains who Moony, Wormtail (he is sort of explained but not his relationship to the others), Padfoot, and Prongs are. This must have been confusing for those who had not read the books, especially since I noticed in the fifth movie they mention Padfoot again. If you read the books like me its not an issue, but it would have only taken a couple of lines or a brief flashback to explain it.
7/10

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
While I still feel that Goblet of Fire is currently the weakest of the Harry Potter films, I actually liked it a little more this time around. We have our third director in four movies as Mike Newell takes the helm. Like when Cuaron took over, we have another stylistic shift, but it still feels like a Harry Potter movie. The main problem with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is that is is based on one of the longer Harry Potter books. There is a lot of material to cover, and since it was only filmed as one 157 minute movie, several important sub-plots and characterizations had to be cut. I also still don't quite understand why Harry had to participate in the tournament since he didn't put his name in the cup and nobody else wanted him to enter. To be fair, I think this was explained in the book but its been awhile since I read it. I wish they filmed this Lord of the Rings style, as it was my favorite Potter book, but its still an enjoyable movie and worthy installment in the Harry Potter movie series.
6/10

I'm going to be seeing Deathly Hallows Part 2 at midnight Thursday so I'll get a review up of that on Friday with the wrap-up of the other three Potter movies. Then we'll be back on schedule with a film topic post on Saturday and the weekly wrap-up on Sunday.