The NJNM Podcast: Ep. 66 - Dragonheart (Guest: Mike Eisenberg from ScreenRant)

In this week's episode, Tyler and Ben are joined by Mike Eisenberg (from ScreenRant) to discuss Rob Cohen's 1996 film, Dragonheart.

Introduction

Character Name Game Intro - 1:51

Media Consumed

Mike
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - 2:20
Like Crazy - 3:53
J. Edgar - 4:30


Tyler

"Green Lantern: The Animated Series" - 14:30
Season 2 of "The Walking Dead" - 17:10

"Nova" on PBS - 19:25

Ben

AFI Film Festival Review -22:06

Review

Dragonheart - 31:40

Wrap-Up

Next Time: Flash Gordon - 1:02:50

Listener E-mail/Voicemail/Twitter - 1:03:30

Character Name Game - 1:06:20
Know Your Specs - 1:10:00

Where You Can Find Us - 1:16:53

Immortals

Full disclosure: I studied Greek and Roman mythology when I was in college, so I'm a sucker for these kinds of movies. Now that you can take this review with the appropriate grain of salt, I liked Immortals. It certainly won't end up anywhere near my favorites of the year list, but it's a pretty fantastic union of a director with a unique visual style to a script that desperately needs the distraction of that style.

Immortals
Director: Tarsem Singh
Starring: Henry Cavill, Mickey Rourke, Freida Pinto, Luke Evans, Isabel Lucas

A fusion of stories from Greek mythology, Immortals follows Theseus (Cavill), a young peasant chosen by Zeus (Evans), and Phaedra (Pinto), an oracle priestess, as they lead humans against the evil King Hyperion (Rourke) and his legions of warriors. Snubbed by the gods, Hyperion plans to take vengeance on them by releasing the Titans, the gods' archenemies who have remained trapped in the earth following an epic battle years prior. But Hyperion needs the Epirus Bow, a legendary weapon capable of producing powerful arrows out of thin air, to accomplish his goal.

The movie is being sold as a companion piece to Zack Snyder's 300, and it's clear that the studio had a huge influence on those comparisons, even down to the story level. The two films share many of the same plot points: a traitor defecting to the opposing army, warriors wearing masks, cheesy speeches, and one sequence involving a tunnel near the end that's ripped directly from Snyder's breakout film. To its credit, though, I actually liked Immortals a lot more than 300. Most Greek myth stories probably feel familiar from a story perspective, and if most feel cliche these days, it's because these old myths are the basis of western storytelling as we know it. We've seen these stories told before in thousands of variations in movies and television shows over the years, so it makes sense that the only way audiences will find them interesting is attaching visionary directors to give us a fresh look at the material.

For me, it comes down to performance. Mickey Rourke owns this movie as King Hyperion, relishing every line and squeezing every dramatic drop out of his twisted villainy on screen. It's a much more interesting performance than Gerard Butler's constant bellowing in 300, and Rourke alone gives Immortals a higher likelihood of rewatchability for me. I also prefer Tarsem's grandiose symmetrical visuals to Snyder's speed-ramping; Tarsem's predilection for eastern imagery and fascinating production design - on full display in his fantastic second film, The Fall - seems to fit well with this kind of storytelling. 

Speaking of Snyder, he's got a new Superman movie coming up called Man of Steel, and cast none other than Henry Cavill as the lead. While this role doesn't demand much of anything from him, aside from running around shirtless and throwing the occasional spear, I saw flashes of both Clark Kent and Superman in his performance. (As of this writing, we haven't seen any trailers or footage from Snyder's film, so my gut feeling is that Cavill is going to be a really good Superman in a pretty terrible Superman movie.) Getting back to Immortals, the gods, played by young 20-somethings with chiseled bodies, wear insane headgear that would make even Tim Burton do a double take. One piece in particular looks like the head of a dragonfly. Why would Tarsem do this? The only answer I can think of: "because he's Tarsem."

The fight sequences are clearly depicted through the use of Brendan Galvin's impressive cinematography (he reunites with Tarsem for their upcoming Snow White film, Mirror, Mirror), and if my only complaint with the action that it gets a little overdone by the film's ludicrous ending, then I'd say that's a compliment. After all, no one comes to movies like this for the dialogue. (Though there are some interesting religious points touched on here about faith and belief that I found surprisingly well-handled for a movie that's otherwise brash and borders on garish at times.) The score is influenced heavily, as most action films seem to be now, by Hans Zimmer's work on Inception, with quick strings highlighted by bursts of booming brass.

Immortals is a fluff piece with almost no real weight to it, but it's also a beautifully shot film that marries a visionary director to the perfect subject matter for his tastes. If nothing else, it will expose people to Cavill, an actor best-known for a small role in The Count of Monte Cristo and the Showtime series "The Tudors," and get them ready to see him take flight as Superman in 2013. Until next time...

The Adventures of Tintin (AFI Film Fest 2011)

Much like Catch Me If You Can, Steven Spielberg's The Adventures of Tintin begins with a slick animated credit sequence. But unlike any of Spielberg's directorial efforts thus far, Tintin unfolds in beautiful motion capture animation and proves that even after the embarrassment of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Spielberg is still at the top of his game in the action/adventure genre. The director's history with this character goes all the way back to Raiders of the Lost Ark, at which time he read a review of his film that compared his hero to Tintin. He spoke with Tintin's creator, Herge, and secured the rights to make a film. Years later, Spielberg partnered with producer Peter Jackson and his Weta Workshop, incorporating the latest technology to render Herge's comic world in breathtaking 3D and resulting in one of the most fun films of the year.

The Adventures of Tintin
Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Jamie Bell, Andy Serkis, Daniel Craig, Simon Pegg, Nick Frost

Tintin (Jamie Bell) is a fearless young boy reporter with no family left except for his trusty canine sidekick, Snowy. When Tintin buys a model of a ship called the Unicorn, the mustache-twirling villain Sakharine (Daniel Craig) immediately asks to buy it from him, but Tintin's not interested in selling. Soon, our hero discovers his house has been ransacked because of the model ship and he uncovers a trail of clues that lead him across the world on a race for a legendary treasure. Along the way, he encounters bumbling policemen Thomson and Thompson (Nick Frost and Simon Pegg) and a drunken sea captain named Haddock (Andy Serkis) that aid him in his race against Sakharine to retrieve the treasure.

Weta's animation here is absolutely flawless, bringing Herge's art to dazzling life and competing with Rango for the best-looking fully animated film of the year. On a technical level, The Adventures of Tintin is an indisputable masterpiece; but unlike another impressive visual achievement, James Cameron's Avatar, Tintin's story seems to be as important to the filmmakers as technological innovation. The action - and there is plenty of it - is classic Spielberg, recalling the best sequences in his Indiana Jones films while also showing some flashes of the Playstation 3 video game series Uncharted (itself heavily inspired by Spielberg's fedora-wearing icon). One shot in particular - a sublime long take through the streets of Bagghar as Tintin attempts to recover scrolls from an elusive eagle - seems ripped directly from an Uncharted game, with the video game vibe apparent to anyone who's touched a controller in the past ten years. 

That long take is so astoundingly perfect that it instantly became one of my favorites in cinema history, and because it wouldn't be possible with traditional live action filmmaking, it's almost as if Spielberg chose to make this film using motion capture specifically to accomplish that shot. A raging pirate battle told in flashback seems like the director giddily taking another shot at imagery that didn't quite fit into his own pirate film, 1991's Hook, and a brilliantly executed plane sequence is perfectly suited for this type of adventure. These are just a few of the spectacular action beats featured in The Adventures of Tintin, and I would highly suggest seeing the film for yourself (in 3D) to see the rest of them for yourself.

Interesting note: aside from a burly opera singer used more as a plot device than a character, there are no women characters in this story. I'm like most Americans in that I don't have any prior knowledge of Tintin (though the character is popular seemingly everywhere else in the world), so I'm not sure if the fact that there are no female characters stems from the source material or if it's just a choice by writers Steven Moffatt, Edgar Wright, and Joe Cornish. Perhaps there will be opportunities in the sequels; this series was always intended for Spielberg to direct the first film, Jackson to direct the second, and for the two of them to co-direct the third.

The collaboration between Spielberg and John Williams continues here, emerging with another perfectly realized melding of music and imagery that extends the relationship between two of the medium's most celebrated icons. There's even a funny throwback to one of the duo's most celebrated efforts, 1975's Jaws, as Tintin swims with his recognizable Conan O'Brien-esque hair sticking out of the water like a shark's fin. The pacing is quick and energetic, whisking the viewer across with globe with Tintin and his friends, and the writing is equally adept. Moffatt, Wright, and Cornish (the latter of whom have are also directors responsible for some of my favorite movies of the past couple years with Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and Attack the Block, respectively) do a great job of blending three of Herge's stories together to form a cohesive narrative, and the only complaint I have is with the character of Tintin himself. I found him to be a bit too bland with not enough personality of his own; in this case, though, it's kind of understandable because as the audience, we imprint ourselves onto the character to experience the adventure for ourselves.

Despite this, though, The Adventures of Tintin is unquestionably one of the most fun films I've seen in a while and also one of the best action movies of the year. A return to form for one of the best directors of all time, this movie rejuvenates my hope that Spielberg can direct a thrilling action movie again - he just has to stay away from Indiana Jones to do it. Until next time...

J. Edgar

It's easy to see how J. Edgar was one of my most anticipated films of 2011. It stars my favorite working actor, is directed by a living legend, and features a script by an Academy Award winning screenwriter. But who knew that those elements could combine to create something so...boring?

J. Edgar
Director: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Naomi Watts, Armie Hammer

The film tracks the trajectory of the professional and personal life of J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio), the first director of the FBI, from the early days of his career in 1919 until his death in 1972. Hoover meets a young graduate named Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), and even though he doesn't fit the profile for a job on Hoover's coveted new squad, Hoover brings him on anyway. See, Hoover's been bullied into not accepting his homosexuality. Even his own mother (Judi Dench) says she'd rather have a dead son than a gay one. On a first date with a new woman at the Bureau (Naomi Watts), Hoover is so socially inept that she has to interrupt a proposal from him. She's married to her work, she says, and Hoover brings her on as his personal secretary (a position she'll have for the rest of his life). But he can't help himself with Tolson, what with the young man's booming voice and broad shoulders and all. Though things never get too sexual - check out another film that played at the AFI Film Festival this year, Steve McQueen's Shame, if you're looking for that - their relationship takes center stage as Hoover makes a name for himself and his department.

"Information is power," an elderly Hoover dictates to one of numerous agents tasked with writing a book about him (the structure of the film is told from the old man's point of view through flashbacks), and the film does add a tiny bit of complexity when dealing with the issues of how far Hoover is willing to go to keep his power in Washington, simultaneously commenting on the state of American politics and freedoms in a post-9/11 world. I wish more of those concepts were explored instead of what we are actually shown: a stale biopic about a tortured man whose private life was undoubtedly messed up, but was also, as the marketing hails, "the most powerful man in the world."

There's much made of the creation of the FBI and Hoover's crusade to secure the adoption of the investigation techniques used in regular police work today. But since our modern media is saturated with a different CSI or NCIS show seemingly every night, the "magic" of the implementation of those tactics seems dull and uninteresting. The film doesn't really help us out in this department: the centerpiece of the use of this technology surrounds the infamous Lindbergh baby case - specifically, agents studying wood from a ladder found outside the home the day of the kidnapping. Yep, you read that correctly - guys standing around in a lab analyzing a wooden ladder. Some movies may be able to make a scene like that interesting, but J. Edgar is not one of them.

Behind the camera, this is not the rough and tumble Eastwood I prefer. Instead, it's as if adhering to his notoriously quick directing style - Fincher did 99 takes for the opening scene of The Social Network, while Eastwood prefers to do everything in one or two takes - became more important than the content of the film itself, rendering the movie completely devoid of any passion or personality. It could have been directed by anyone, and that was a big disappointment for me.

Another disappointment? This is not DiCaprio's best work. More distracting than the heavy age makeup for me was his speech, as he adopts what one can only assume is an accurate representation of the way Hoover actually spoke. But accurate as it may be (or maybe it isn't, how should I know?), DiCaprio's delivery is brittle and jerky, with an accent sliding in and out depending on the scene. This is the same actor who received high praise for his South African accent in Blood Diamond, one of the most difficult accents to replicate. So I'm sure it was just a choice on his part in J. Edgar, but it was one that I could never quite get past as the movie progressed. Armie Hammer and Naomi Watts were both fine, but the monotonous script doesn't allow them to live up to their potential and never gives them a true "moment" to make their own, save for a laughably over-the-top emotional outburst from Hammer seen in the trailers.

Sometimes the combination of some of the best talent in the business results in a misfire. In the blockbuster genre, take a look at Cowboys & Aliens from earlier this year: Jon Favreau, Harrison Ford, Daniel Craig, Damon Lindelof, Hawk Otsby, Mark Fergus, Alex Kurtzman, and Roberto Orci all had their hands in that pot, and it was pretty awful. If the nicest thing I can say about J. Edgar is that it's the dramatic equivalent of Cowboys & Aliens...well, there's that saying about "if you can't say anything nice," so maybe I shouldn't have said anything at all. Until next time...