Your Highness (2010)

Title: Your Highness (2010)

Director: David Gordon Green

Cast: Danny Mc Bride, James Franco, Natalie Portman, Justin Theroux

Review:

I had high hopes for Your Highness for various reasons. One of them was that David Gordon Green was directing. Green is a director who’s mainly known for directing indie dramas like George Washington (2000) and Undertow (2004). But in 2008 David Gordon Green decided to break out of his indie drama mold and ventured into big budget commercial comedy territory, the result was Pineapple Express. A film that ended up being a good stoner comedy in my book. So I kept that in mind, also noting the fact that Your Highness was a Pineapple Express re-union of sorts. It had the same director (David Gordon Green) and it reunited James Franco and Danny McBride both of which had worked together on Pineapple Express. So I was feeling confident about this movie. Add to that the fact that it now had Oscar winner Natalie Portman along for the ride and I was sold! And it was a stoner comedy! And it had magic and monsters! And Justin Theroux was playing the bad guy! I mean, this movie had all the makings of an awesome movie! So why did this film end up being such an atrociously unfunny disaster?

The sad part is that Your Highness is Danny McBride’s first attempt at carrying a big budget theatrical release on his shoulders. He is the lead, it’s his movie. He wrote it. Should this film fly or get shot down, all fingers will point to him. That type of thing tends to be a decisive moment in an up and coming actors career. This type of thing can either make or break your future in Hollywood. It reminded me of the time I first saw Ace Ventura in theaters, way back in 1994. That moment was magical; I have never seen an audience laugh so hard in my whole life as a film enthusiast. From then on, I knew Jim Carrey was going to make it big. And he did, it was one of those things where the film was so funny, that you just knew he was going to make it. Sadly, Your Highness was to be Danny McBride’s Ace Ventura. This was to be the film where McBride was going to show the world that he is a funny guy, and that he can continue making us laughs for years to come. Sadly, if I was to judge Danny McBride’s future in films based on Your Highness alone, I would have to say that he is dead on arrival. It’s a sad thing too because Danny McBride is one of those actors that always got second billing in comedies where he was funny enough for people to say “this guy is funny, he should be making his own movies!” Well, he finally got his chance to prove himself to audiences in a film where he is the main star. He’s been given the keys to the kingdom; did he make the best of it? Hell no he didn’t!

The main problem with Your Highness is that it just isn’t funny. I watched it in a theater filled with people who like me, decided to give it a chance, probably expecting McBride to be as funny as he has been in other movies where he wasn’t the main star. At the very least, he should have been as funny as he is in his own show, Eastbound & Down. Unfortunately, this was not the case. I giggled once or twice, but most of the time I was cringing at what I was seeing on screen. I remember the words “this is not funny” popping up in my head on various occasions. McBride and crew seem to think that saying the word fuck every five seconds is a funny thing. It isn’t. Curse words are to be used sparingly, like a bit of salt on your favorite food. If you over do it, you mess things up. Then it just becomes irritating every time you hear it. Maybe on a Gangster movie it would have been okay, cause Im sure gangsters say “motherfucker” every five seconds; but not on a fantasy film. And trust me; you’ll hear the word fuck and all of its derivatives every five seconds in this movie. On top of that, they chose to include these really crude sexual jokes, like having to give a hand job to a wizard so he can help them on their quest, or showing a Minotaur’s erection, I mean, literally, you can see the Minotaur’s erect member. I just typed that. Great. Thank you very much Your Highness.

And here’s the other thing, I love fantasy movies! I love movies about magic, monsters, dragons, swords and all that jazz. I was actually looking forward to seeing warlocks and wizards using their magic powers. I was thinking this was a great opportunity to spoof films like the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And yes, I did enjoy those moments where we have warlocks and witches using all these fantastical magic powers, showcasing some nifty special effects. I enjoyed all the creatures we get to meet in the film, the Cyclops, the Minotaur, The Wizard. You kind of get the feeling that McBride watched Princess Bride (1987), Labyrinth (1986), Legend (1985), Robin Hood Men in Tights (1993), History of the World Part I (1981) and Monty Python’s Holy Grail (1975) and wanted elements from all those films on this one. I have to hand it to the guy, he had his influences in the right place. Unfortunately, he didn’t quite get there. I mean, this was a 60 million dollar big budget production. These guys had all the resources needed to make a decent fantasy film; unfortunately, the result wasn’t a very good one. That’s one thing I always enjoyed about Mel Brook’s films, they were raunchy, and had sexual jokes in them, but they were never super offensive, they knew just how far to take it. Your Highness doesn’t just want to make sex jokes, they want to offend you with them. Shock you with them. Hence the Minotaur’s schlong in the film.

Justin Theroux as the evil wizard Lazaar

And I speak of Mel Brook’s films because he was obviously a major influence on this film. Right down to having Natalie Portman wear a chastity belt. But I think that McBride and Green forgot one very important thing that Mel Brooks got right most of the time. You can spoof a film, but you also have to make a good film within the genre you are spoofing. This didn’t always work for Mel Brooks (just look at Dracula Dead and Loving It) but more often then not, it did work. Take for example Young Frankenstein (1974). It was not only a great (actually genius) spoof of all Frankenstein films; it was also an excellent Frankenstein film on its own right. Same goes for Spaceballs (1987). A great spoof, but also, a good sci-fi film. I guess the big difference between Your Highness and the films I’ve mentioned is that Mel Brook’s spoof’s had good scripts. Hell, Young Frankenstein was nominated for a freaking Oscar for its screenplay! Not the case with the script for Your Highness which was written by McBride himself, who really hasn’t proven himself as much of a writer save for having written the script for The Foot Fist Way (2006). According to David Gordon Green himself, most of the dialog was improvised during shooting; a trick that can work if you are working with a cast of comedic geniuses. I mean Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Will Ferrell, they’ll work wonders with improvisation. Doesn’t always work with everyone, apparently, it didn’t work with the cast on Your Highness.

Weird thing is, I have seen McBride being funny. He just wasn’t entirely ‘on’ for this film. Now, if Hollywood has taught us anything, it’s that it does not forgive gargantuan multi million dollar failures. You make them loose some moolah instead of making it for them, and it’s adios to you amigo. I hope this won’t be the case with McBride. I think the guy has potential to be one of the greats; he just needs a project that will really go with his personality and style of comedy. Something tells me that a fantasy farce simply wasn’t the way to go with McBride, he seemed to think so. I mean he wrote the damned thing. Sadly, he didn’t even write a good role for himself. He is the lead in the film, yet he isn’t the hero, James Franco is. And speaking of that cast! What the hell. Okay, Franco was obviously there to relieve the good times he had while making Pineapple Express, but Natalie Portman sticks out like a sore thumb in this movie! I guess she was on this production to lighten things up after having made the dark and brooding Black Swan (2010). Plus, they convinced her to show us her ass to sell the movie, sadly, even that old trick failed. This movie cost 60 million dollars and barely made 20 million at the box office! That’s a 40 million dollar loss my friends! That is something that Hollywood won’t easily forgive, I just know it. I’ve seen it happen. But who knows, maybe McBride will do a better film next time, one that fits his style of humor better. Actually, his next film up is called 30 Minutes or Less (2011) and it looks like the kind of project that’s right up his alley. Let’s hope that it will actually be funny. And that it will actually make its money back, if not, I fear we won’t be seeing much of McBride in the near future. Here’s hoping we do!

Rating: 1 ½ out of 5

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Title: Iron Man 2 (2010)

Director: Jon Favreau

Writer: Justin Theroux

Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Mickey Rourke, Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, Sam Rockwell

Review:

The first Iron Man (2008) film was an incredible box office success. It was a hit for Marvel Comics Productions, a company that has been producing some of the best (and worst) superhero movies ever. Iron Man was one of their really good ones. Jon Favreau brought together an excellent cast and production team, the end result was pure superhero magic. Not to mention the film single handedly brought Robert Downey Jr. back into the spotlight, making one of the best comebacks in recent history. And of course, after such an incredible success, a sequel just had to be churned out. I mean the name of the game with commercial films such as this one is making money. Was Favreau able to catch lightning in a bottle again?

This time around, Iron Man has become something of a celebrity, everyone knows who he is, he has brought world peace to the planet and has essentially become something of a god on planet earth. Righteous and invincible. But what happens when ever one individual gets to powerful and too successful on his own? The Government wants a piece of him now! That’s right, government is salivating at getting their hands on Tony Starks Iron Man armor. They want to use it for military applications, while Tony Stark is interested in using it to keep world peace, and since no one can challenge the awesome power of the Iron Man suit, well then, Iron Man remains the protector of the planet. Or at least of the United States. But the question that comes into play with this movie is: Is Tony Stark the right man to wear this powerful armor?

Expectations for this movie are high for various reasons. It’s a sequel to a very successful film that many loved. The original made so many millions at the box office, that it is expected that for a sequel, Hollywood would treat its new cash cow with some respect and made sure they delivered a decent superhero film. So a huge budget and big stars is something to be expected with this sequel. In my opinion Hollywood delivered. This film has lush production values and a impeccable cast! Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell as villains? That’s a winning combination right there! Scarlett Johansson and Gwyneth Paltrow as the hot super hero babes? Double knock out! Don Cheadle as the sidekick who is awesome on his own? The Icing on the cake! So at least casting wise this movie headed in the right direction. In thing that I found kind of funny is how Jon Favreau gave himself a bigger role this time around. On the first film he was just Tony Starks limo driver. On this sequel he still plays Starks limo driver/body guard, only thing is this time around he actually ends up kicking some ass and serving as comedy relief in an action scene. I guess being the director has its privileges.  

Script wise, the film develops at just the right pace in my opinion. Many people complained that theres not enough action, but I don’t think I agree with these comments. Sometimes people complaint that there isn’t enough character development in a film, that the film is hollow and has no heart, but then when they give them a movie that fills those gaps, they complain that there isn’t enough action. If you ask me, this movie had the perfect balance between awesome action sequences and good character development. The film was written by Justin Theroux who wrote the super funny comedy Tropic Thunder a couple of years ago and has also acted himself on a couple of films like David Lynch's Inland Empire and Mullholand Drive. I think he wrote a good superhero film. It explores its characters and doesnt only concentrate on action and special effects. We get to know Tony Stark a little better this time around. We get to know about his past, his father, how he grew up, why he is who he is.   

In my book the flaws on Iron Man 2 were not many. The only thing that I can complaint about is that I wished the ending had been just a tad more elaborate and spectacular. Destruction had to be on gargantuan levels, yet they never peeked with the climactic action sequence. It is a good and extended action sequence, but it needed a little extra oomph to take it into epic and spectacular levels. It needed to be a bit closer, more in your face. More visceral. We needed to see Iron Man getting into bigger trouble, be in more peril. As it is, during the last action sequence you never feel the hero is in peril. Whenever he has his suit on, the guy is invincible. This guy’s body armor is indestructible, nothing harms it. Iron Man's invincibility takes away the tension, the peril. The final fight with Whiplash (Rourke) needed to be something that would wow us, instead, it ends with a whimper. This is really the one and only problem I had with the movie.

The rest of the film is fantastic in my opinion. It explores Iron Mans darker side when we see Tony Stark getting drunk in a party while wearing the Iron Man suit. This is an element that I loved in the movie because it comes straight out of the comics. I mean, Iron Man has always been a hero that’s had to battle with his drinking problem. There was a story arc called "Demon in a Bottle" which showed us a Tony Stark going into drunk rages, going all sorts of evil and crazy, kind of like that time that Superman turns into "evil Superman" in Superman III. They translated that struggle in the film really well. It offers us one of the movies funniest moments. Robert Downey Jr. is a pleasure to watch in the role of Tony Stark, he is lively, funny, and spontaneous so it never gets boring whenever he is on the screen. Mickey Rourke pulled off a pretty convincing Russian accent in the film, which can be a problem when not done well. Speaking of his character, he looks bad ass with those electrical whiplashes; the scene in the middle of the car race is awesome. If only they had more of that awesomeness during the films last frames and the movie might have been perfect.

Iron Man going on one of his drunken rages, it gets pretty ugly in the comics

The biggest draw about this movie is the introduction of the War Machine character, played by Don Cheadle. I have to say that it was pulled off very well. The character looks exactly the way he does in the comics. I loved how he serves as Tony Starks conscience, telling him things like “you are not worthy of wearing that armor!” The teaming up of the two in the ending is awesome, if only it had been more complex than getting chased around by a couple of flying drones!

The thing about reading Marvel Comics (or any comic series for that matter) is that they usually leave you with a cliffhanger; they always have some sort of continuity to them to get you involved so you can come back next week for the next issue. This element of reading comic books has been effectively translated to the silver screen with films based on Marvel characters. Samuel L. Jackson returns as Nick Fury agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. I love how he has been a constant through out all these movies…lets just hope that that Avengers movie thats coming in a few years (supposedly Josh Whedon will be directing) lets him truly shine in the role. Samuel Jackson has a more elaborate participation on this film, but his performance in Iron Man 2 remains an extended cameo of sorts. So was Iron Man 2 better then the first? Well, I had fun with it. It has excellent production values, the effects and action sequences were great. I really dont have anything bad to say about this movie save for the short fight between hero and villain in the climax. A fun summer blockbuster, made better because its excellent cast. As with most Marvel Comics movies, theres a little something extra after the credits. Hint: it has something to do with Mjollnir!

Rating: 4 out of 5

 

Inland Empire (2007)

Title: Inland Empire (2007)

Director: David Lynch

Cast: Laura Dern, Jeremy Irons, Justin Theroux, Harry Dean Stanton, Diane Ladd, William H. Macy, Mary Steenburgen, Nastassja Kinski

Review:

David Lynch along witn many other artful directors (like Terry Gilliam) are having a hard time getting their movies made in todays Hollywood. It's not easy for a director like Lynch to get funding or distribution deals for films that are so surreal, so hard to describe and define. Producers and Hollywood executives only want to invest in films that they know will make them millions of dollars for sure, they aren't interested in art. No place for anything too weird or too strange. They are interested in money. Studios want their movies to have some sort of coherence, logic and if at all possible, something that's easy for audiences to digest. Not something that they have to try and use their brains to decipher. Cant say I blame them, after all, they are investing millions of dollars. But where does that leave art films? Films that dont necessarily subscribe themselve to logic or rules on how to make a movie? Theres very little room for films like this, which is why we dont see a hell of a lot of them. Which is why a geniuses like David Lynch have to make their films independently of the hollywood system. Problem is that after these self produced indy projects are made, no studio wants to market them. They dont know how to sell them. This is the reason why well respected film directors like Lynch have to go and promote themselves on the street to try and get somebody to notice their new film. If I remember correctly, Lynch actually went out on the streets of Hollywood California accompanied by a cow and a sign that showed a picture of Laura Dern in Inland Empire and words that read "for your consideration" and "without cheese, there would be no Inland Empire ". Terry Gilliam has also been seen on the streets with a sign that read "will direct for food". Its sad but true. I like the idea of a director like Lynch going out on his own and trying to make movies his way, without any studio interference. Trying to get his films out there into the world on their own buck. So, what was the result of Lynch making Inland Empire on his own terms, without any studios interfering with his creative process?

Lynch catching the bigger fish

The film is about an actress named Nikki Grace, she's ultra famous and rich and she's a celebrity. She's also on the verge of starting to work in a new film project. Problem is that after she commits to working on the project and meets with the director and costars she finds out that the film they are making (entitled On High in Blue Tomorrows) is in fact a remake of a film (called 47) that was actually never finished because the films main stars where murdered before the film could be completed. Now director Kingsley Stewart (played by Jeremy Irons) is interested in remaking this film and actually finishing it. The problem is that Nikki thinks this project will also be cursed and that somehow, she and her co-star Devon Berk will somehow end up dead as well. Will the curse fulfill itself? Are the stars of this movie doomed to die a horrible death before they finish filming the movie?

So as you can see from that plot outline above, the movie is set in mystery, which as some of you may know is a David Lynch staple. Its something he always does in his movies. There's always something we don't know, a mystery which slowly but surely unfolds before us in the darkest most intriguing way possible. And this is not the only Lynchian thing we get in this film. This movie is Lynch unfiltered, pure David Lynch without any restraints at all. As if the floodgates of Lynch's mind were suddenly open! You better be ready for the onslaught of crazyness that will ensue! But Im getting ahead of myself. First I want to talk about what sets this film apart from previous David Lynch films. For starters this film has a different style all together. Lynch's films are always carefully shot and lit in a certain way, every light source, every chair, every room, every curtain, looks exactly the way that Lynch wants it to look. Inland Empire has a very raw look to it; less refined then his previous films. A lot has to do with the way he shot the film. You see, this is Lynchs first film shot entirely on digital video, so it has that rawness that shooting in digital brings to a project. I hate to compare a Lynch film to an action film, but it feels like Lynch has been influenced by the new wave of documentary style films (which is not so new anymore) like The Bourne Identity, The Blair Witch Project or The Wrestler. You know, the kind of film that feels as if someone shot it with a hand held camara. So that's what makes this film different from the rest. An augmented sense of reality. Lots of handheld shots, lots of close ups, and a lots of natural light. Lighting in Lynch films is something crucial to the mood of the piece. On this one he does have his distinctive lighting style, but as I mentioned before its less refined, more in the moment, more natural.

And that goes perfectly with the type of film Lynch was going for. He didn't have a finished script when he started making this movie. He wrote as he went along, and this gives the movie a feeling of improvisation all through out. But hang on right there, don't think that this movie doesn't have something to say or is just aimlessly wandering about, cause thats not the case. At first glance you might get the impression that Lynch has lost it, that this film makes no sense whatsoever, but it in fact does. This film is like an amalgamation of many of Lynch's favorite themes. Lets see, it has that really dark grimy aura and look of Eraserhead. Blue Velvet introduced us to the unforgettable and incredibly evil character of Frank Booth (played by Dennis Hopper) who got his kicks from physically abusing women, an element that is also shown in Inland Empire through the character of Nikki's husband, who is constantly hitting and abusing her. We also get the crazy chics out of control element seen in Twin Peaks with Nikki's friends, a group of prostitutes that live the wild life. It also has elements from Lost Highway with characters who have double personality and people shifting from one person to another from time to time. But the film that this one is most similar to in more ways then one is Mullholand Drive. First off, the film makes a major comment on the realities of filmmaking. How hard it is to make a film, how tricky and back stabbing the industry can be, how unglamorous the life of some actors and crew members can be. Much like Mullholand Drive, this is a movie in which Lynch poors all his frustrations and anger about the film industry and vents them all out through his script, through his film. And it shows. Some of the situations feel very real and genuine and you can tell that Lynch is mirroring himself in many of the situations. Aside from that, Inland Empire is also sprinkled with your typical David Lynch images and situations, beautifully lit rooms, supernatural undertones, double personalities, people who can communicate with the dead and who can see the future and just good old fashioned weirdness.

The cast is like a wet freaking dream my friends. Laura Dern is a David Lynch veteran having been in four of his films now. Here she returns to Lynch's dark universe giving a damn fine performance which Lynch tried to promote for an Oscar. To no avail. Still, I agree with Lynch, her portrayal of a battered woman trying to escape her violent relationship was Oscar worhty. Laura Dern really went down some dark paths with her character. And by dark I don't mean just dark and gloomy, nope, her character really looses it at one point, and the movie kind of turns into a nightmare, almost like a horror film which is something common in Lynch films, where suddenly you feel like you are watching a horror film. You switch from Nikkis life to the movie shes making, and then there comes a point where you dont know if your watching Nikkis life or the movie shes making, and Nikki looses it, she doesnt know whats real or whats not anymore! That's where Laura Dern went with her character and a fine performance it was. I was really happy to see Justin Theroux back in a Lynch film, his performance in Mullholand Drive was one of the coolest things about it and Im just happy to see him in a film again. We get a slew of cameos in this movie with every one from William H Macy to Nastassja Kinski making some sort of collaboration. It was cool to see all these familiar faces pop up all through out the film. It seems everyone wanted to jump into the David Lynch band wagon this time around, no one wanted to be left out.

So what was this film really about? Whats the underlying theme in this film? Well aside from Lynchs comments on how frustrating Hollywood can be, this movie tackles some issues that have always concerned Lynch. Mainly, women suffering because of the violent and abusive men in their lives. That's always been a reoccurring theme in many Lynch films (most notably in Blue Velvet) where women suffer horribly at the hands of maniacs. And how hard it sometimes is for women to break free of that violence in their lives, how hard it is sometimes for them to break ties with the men that cause them so much pain and suffering. But this movie goes a bit further then that. In one scene we see a young woman (who has obviously suffered abuse) crying as she watches the tv screen. Through out the film we are led to believe that she is watching the movie that we are watching, and shes crying like a baby because she can obviously identify with what she is seeing. Much like you or I would cry if we see a film that is about something that we can identify with, a movie that speaks about something we are living through. We also see a scene in which Laura Dern walks into an empty theater and she sees herself playing the character of the abused woman, telling her tale. With this I think Lynch is trying to tell women that he is talking about them, talking about their situations and that they shouldn't just see a movie, but learn from it, and do something about what's happening to them. Film is a mirror image of our society, and I think that this is what Lynch was trying to address with this movie. How he is mirroring a decease that's afflicting our society, and how we should see ourselves in his films. Lynch has always shown great appreciation for females in his films, they are constantly the central characters of his films. In this sense he is similar to Fellini. Which would explain why he constantly talks about the horrors of phisically hurting one. But that's just my take on it and I could be wrong. Or you could see something else in it, cause that's how Lynch films work. They often times mean different things to different people which is a great thing about them.

Battered women just dont have any fun

On the downside, I do think that only a Lynch fan can enjoy this film. If you have never seen a David Lynch film and suddenly plunge yourself into this one, good luck my friend, you are going to feel very lost! Then again, you might like this kind of film. I leave it entirely up to you. But it would be good going into this film with a small idea of what Lynch is about. It would certainly help. Or maybe you can just enjoy the film for what it is. David Lynch sustaining the "mystery" vibe for as long as he can. He loves asking questions, and not giving answers! If you like the feeling of being lost, not fully getting it, but feeling, then indulge on this the strangest of David Lynch's films. And thats saying a lot!

So that's my take on Inland Empire . On the negative side I will say that I wish the movie had more of a closure to it. As it is, towards the ending the film sort of looses its momentum and doesn't know where to go. So it just kind of ends and that's it. It leaves a couple of storylines hanging in the air, with no resolution in sight. Also, some of the images are way too surreal and out there for anybody to grasp. What about those bunnies? What about that circus guy who could disappear and hypnotize people? There were a lot of scenes that really did seem to come out of nowhere and you see them, they look beautiful, but will ultimately leave you feeling like you don't know what the hell you just saw and what the hell it has to do with the rest of the film. So be ready for some scenes that will test your logic. Also, the film is long (3 hours long to be exact) and really takes its time to tell its tale. It has a pace which you have to get used to, its in no hurry to tell its story. You will watch the story unfold very slowly. If your one of those people who cant take a slow paced film that very slowly unravels itself, then don't even bother. This is a Lynch film after all, weirdness is part of the package, and Ive only seen the film one time. Im sure upon repeated viewings things will start making more sense. That's one thing I love about Lynchs movies. How we have to try and figure them out like some sort of puzzle. So that's that, get ready cause this is Lynch raw and unfiltered. This is pure Lynch, and with something to say. Pay attention and you just might "get it", in your own way of course.

Rating: 4 out of 5