Film Review: Red Riding Hood, or That Wasn’t As Bad As It Could’ve Been But It Still Wasn’t Good

Let me preface this by saying that I had very low expectations going into this movie, and maybe that’s what allowed me to enjoy at least the mystery aspect. I did guess who the werewolf was then discarded that person as a suspect, so that by the end I wasn’t like HOLY SHIT OMG IT’S YOU?! but I wasn’t like, WELL THAT WAS OBVIOUS either. The clues are certainly there, but it’s easy to get distracted by red herrings. In this respect, the movie was moderately successful. Truthfully, it’s the only thing that kept me watching.

As for the characterization, well everyone seems like a type, rather than a real person, and no one’s particularly interesting, Valerie (Red Riding Hood) least of all. I’m supposed to believe this girl has a dark side, sort of, except she doesn’t. Oh you killed a bunny when you were a little girl because a boy told you to? Who the hell the cares? Give me something I can USE. The movie is not as dark or edgy as it pretends to want to be. Yes, read that again. “as it pretends to WANT to be.” Meaning it doesn’t really want to be edgy, it just wants to appear edgy. It’s not particularly sexy either. Valerie’s world mostly revolves around this guy she likes, who is about as exciting as a plank of wood. In what seems to be increasingly typical Hardwicke fashion, there’s this great love I’m supposed to buy into that I don’t because neither character has any real personality, there’s no chemistry, and there’s no true relationship development. This is something I accept from Disney films from the 1950s (ILU Sleeping Beauty), not a movie made in 2010. Notice how more recent Disney films like Rapunzel and The Princess and the Frog let the romances develop over time? You still see it coming from a mile away but at least they’re trying.

The actors (Gary Oldman notwithstanding) barely bring anything to the roles perhaps because there’s nothing there to begin with or because the director is not pushing them hard enough or because they all suck as actors. The dialogue is stilted. The storyline mostly cliché. There is some interesting stuff brought to the werewolf storyline, but the rest of it is a total loss. I had two endings in mind for Valerie, both of which would have been more interesting, neither of which happened. Because again, the movie is only pretending to want to be edgy.

The movie mostly confirms for me that Catherine Hardwicke should not be allowed near The Bitch Posse with a ten foot pole. I’m afraid that she’s going to turn it into Twilight 3 (Red Riding Hood being Twilight 2 if you couldn’t already tell), which doesn’t seem possible given the material and yet…

Film Review: True Grit, or how many names can we shove in front of Hailee Steinfeld’s name on this poster

Can you tell just how bitter I am about Hailee Steinfeld’s name appearing FIFTH on the poster? I hate the way billing works in Hollywood. It’s such a load of BS. I’m of the opinion that if names aren’t going to appear in alphabetical order then they should appear in order of importance of the character.

But enough of that because that has nothing to do with the quality of the film itself, which I liked but didn’t love. This is partly due to my having read the book first and partly due to not really caring for Westerns. I actually found my attention drifting in certain parts, and I don’t think I can blame that part on my general distaste for adaptations. That said, I was more focused on this than any other Western I’ve ever pretended to watch so that’s definitely something.

What I Liked:
• I thought the acting was really strong. Hailee Steinfeld is truly impressive as Mattie. When you consider that this is her first major role, the feat is that much more amazing. And Jeff Bridges is Jeff Bridges — he’s awesome, and he plays Rooster well.
• I respect the fact that the Coen Brothers were committed to creating a faithful adaptation. Though there were a few changes I didn’t care for and one that I actually did like, it was clear they were working with and on behalf of the book, not on behalf of The Great John Wayne, née Marion Mitchell Morrison.
• The film definitely captured the humorous side of the book.
• Mattie gets her moment, just as she should’ve in the book (no really Charles Portis, I’m still giving you the side eye on that one)

What I Didn’t Like
• There was quite a bit of unnecessary drama between Rooster Cogburn and LaBoeuf. Yes, they argued in the book, but the arguing never resulted in their separating. It just smacked of Hollywood doing more than necessary to make this story interesting
• Continuing on that, I might have been able to tolerate one separation but two? TWO? And Mattie Ross telling LaBoeuf she chose the wrong man? That was almost laughable. Like 14 year old Mattie would admit to being wrong out loud. Ha! But more importantly, the two separations resulting in a new problem: LaBoeuf conveniently showing up just at the right moment. Oh I just happened to be in the neighborhood might work once, and even then it can result in an eyeroll. Unless you’ve got a magic doe at your disposal a la Ron in HP7, I really don’t want to see these kinds of coincidences.
• Toward the end, I felt Mattie’s efforts to save herself from the “ditch” were lacking. On the one hand, they probably didn’t want to belabor the point too much. On the other hand, in the book, girl was damned resourceful and kept herself from falling in while fighting off bats and snakes. Yes, Rooster ultimately goes down and saves her (her arm is broken after all) but she held her own until he came. In the film, she seemed somewhat inept, which just isn’t Mattie.

So all in all I enjoyed it, but it’s not something I’d make an effort to watch again.

Cracks vs. Cracks

After re-watching Cracks last night, I felt oddly compelled to give my thoughts on this film adaptation of Sheila Kohler’s book of the same name. I then re-considered, maybe I should just review the book — after all, I did just read it last year, so I do remember quite a bit. But then I just decided that the phrase Cracks vs. Cracks sounded better — like Spy vs. Spy, and so I decided to just do a combined book / film review a la Gillian because I am at a point where I cannot actually separate my thoughts on the book from my thoughts on the film.

The film stars Eva Green, Juno Temple, Maria Valverde, and Imogen Poots, and is set for a limited release in the US this March, which means later this year I will be able to buy a Region 1 Blu-Ray, which will make me very happy. As you can probably guess from that statement, I like the film a great deal. I also happened to hear about the film first, before realizing it was based on a novel. Had I originally known about the book, I probably would have made an effort to read it first. And had I read the book first, there’s a very good chance I probably wouldn’t have bothered seeing the film. As you can guess from that statement, I didn’t like the book all that much. I thought it was OK, somewhat unmemorable. Rarely do I prefer a film over its book, but alas, this is one of those cases.

What I should say now before I go any further is that the film is very different from the book, not as different as say Girl, Interrupted is from the book (unfilmable book is unfilmable), but the two have only superficial commonalities. Diving plays a key role in both, there’s an all-girls school, a foreigner who comes in, and that outsider’s fate is ultimately the same though the cause is different.

What’s different then? Well for starters, the film is set in 1930s England. The book is set in present day, 40 years after the girls have left the school, with (extensive) flashbacks of the girls time at the school. The boarding school is in South Africa, and I no longer remember when it is actually set, but I don’t think it’s the 1930s at all but the 1950s. In the film the foreign girl is from Spain; in the book, she’s from Italy. What is the purpose of this small change exactly? I’m not sure. Like the recently read, The Fates Will Find Their Way, this book is told in the first person plural, and Sheila Kohler is one of the characters in the novel. Unsurprisingly she does not feature in the film. Di, the captain of the diving team in both, is far more important in the film than she is in the book. She might as well not even be captain in the book since her presence is no more felt than any of the other girls’ and her personality barely explored. In both, the students have a crush on Miss G, the oh-so-seemingly-cool diving instructor. This is in fact where the term “cracks” comes from — they’re cracked out on Miss G essentially. How serious their crush is, I suppose varies from girl to girl though it is hard to tell in a novel that insists on using the collective we. In the film, Miss G and Di are especially close; in the novel, this does not seem to be as much the case.

The brevity of the novel (160 pages or so), made for a quick but ultimately unsatisfying read, particularly when you consider how many characters there are and how little time is devoted to each. It seemed incomplete and even after we learn of the secret the girls, now women, have been harboring all these years, it’s difficult to really care because even that’s not handled with much depth.

Now, for the major spoilers (of both the novel and the film), which can be found below the jump.

[Read more...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 96 other followers