"The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian"

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Like a younger brother walking into high school for the first time—with teachers and coaches expecting a younger version of the older sibling—High King Peter continues to be overshadowed by Aragorn and Frodo in the latest installment of C.S. Lewis’ series: “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian.” Despite the movie’s adequacy, it is hard to avoid seeing this series as “Lord of the Rings-Light” or “Lord of the Rings-Junior.”

Peter, Edmund, Susan and Lucy Pevensie are just getting used to life back in England after a rip-roaring adventure in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” with each child coping with the absence of magic in a difference way. Peter (William Moseley), who misses the mystical kingdom he once ruled, is restless to return. Susan (Anna Popplewell), on the other hand, has begun to accept the normal life she now leads. Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) are somewhere in-between.

Just as Peter begins to express his complete frustration, the four siblings are returned to Narnia in a windstorm. However, after a moment of jubilation, the family learns that their beloved kingdom is in trouble. In their absence, and without the help of their beloved lion Aslan (Liam Neeson), the human race has become corrupt—killing off all that is magical and innocent.

The lone dissenter in this tragedy is Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), rightful heir to the human throne. However, Caspian’s uncle, Miraz (Sergio Castellitto), desires the throne and is aiming to rid the kingdom of his nephew and only competitor. While on the run, Caspian blows on an ancient horn that summons the “kings and queens of old” (the Pevensie children)—thus resulting in the Pevensie’s wind-swept transportation to Narnia.

Now accompanied by two kings, two queens and a prince, the once-hidden centaurs, dwarfs, skunks and miscellaneous creatures rally together to stage a battle against Miraz and his terrible kingdom. High King Peter goes about battle preparations, but he lacks faith in the absent Aslan—preferring to do things his own way. What results is a bungled attack on the enemy’s castle, dozens of dead friends and a bickering cast of young heroes.

When at their lowest—with the enemy now closing in on their dilapidated sanctuary—the group finally decides to send Lucy to find Aslan. Meanwhile, a challenge and a battle ensue, pitting the wits, minds and hearts of the noble Prince Caspian and High King Peter against the twisted Miraz.

One can imagine C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, good friends living in England in the mid-1900s, sitting down next to each other to write a story. It is tough to tell who was copying off whose paper, considering “The Chronicles of Narnia” and “The Lord of the Rings” were written at about the same time. Although both Lewis and Tolkien were well-versed in mythology, so many details and images in “The Chronicles of Narnia” are strikingly similar to “The Lord of the Rings,” that a viewer cannot help but think the two authors were sharing ideas. The religious imagery, the mythical creatures, the fighting trees—although these are different stories, the cast and setting seem to be the same.

Because it is impossible to avoid comparing Lewis’ and Tolkien’s stories, and because “The Lord of the Rings” was so wonderful, “The Chronicles of Narnia” is going to be worse off. However, the latest Narnia flick is good in its own right and tons of fun. “The Chronicles of Narnia” is directed at a younger audience, as evidenced by children in the lead, simpler concepts and religious symbolism that is more transparent. The acting is slightly sub-par on the whole (mostly due to the casting of Ben Barnes as Prince Caspian), but about average for a children’s movie. Yet the true shortcoming of “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” is that the movie does nothing new or original to set it apart. It is not enough to remind viewers that the story may have been original in the 1950s.

It really is the climate that is going to hurt this movie, because the story is rich in meaning and the movie is exciting. Children will the love the movie and adults will like it too, as long as they have not watched “The Lord of the Rings” recently.

“The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” is rated PG for epic battle action and violence.

"Iron Man"

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Robert Downey Jr. seems about as likely a superhero as Tobey Maguire, and Iron Man is about as well-known and popular as Plastic Man. Yet Downey’s performance in the latest superhero thriller, “Iron Man,” is smoother and more convincing than any number of Batmen or Supermen, and the man of iron ends up being more formidable than the man of steel.

Tony Stark (Robery Downey Jr.) is half suave-playboy, half engineering-genius. He is also very rich and successful, having inherited his father’s engineering company, Stark Industries, which specializes in weapons manufacturing (a lucrative industry indeed). Due to Tony’s unparalleled technical abilities, the company thrives under his control. However, while demonstrating some of his latest military technology in the Middle East, Stark’s convoy is attacked and Stark is captured by thuggish, cave-dwelling terrorists.

Having obtained shrapnel wounds during the skirmish, Stark is lucky enough to be treated by a doctor who implants a mechanical device powered by a car battery into his chest to keep the shrapnel from entering his heart, thus keeping him alive. But shrapnel is the least of his worries, as the terrorists command Stark to build them a copy of his latest weapon, the Jerusalem missile. It is compliance or death. The brash and noble Stark feigns obedience while instead building a method of escape—and so Iron Man is born!

After kicking tons of butt, Stark returns to his California home and announces his intention to quit making weapons. This announcement is to the chagrin of the Stark family’s long-time business partner, Obadiah Stone (Jeff Bridges), and to the surprise of Stark’s long-time beautiful assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). While both seem initially supportive, only one is genuine. With the help of Potts, Stark puts his genius to work in developing a more sophisticated version of Iron Man, while Stone struggles to undo Stark’s position in the company.

The new Iron Man kicks even more butt, and as the design improves, greater evils arise and Stark’s nobility and sense of responsibility kick into overdrive. Stark is forced to discover just how impenetrable his armor really is.

Most people do not go into a superhero movie expecting to see the next Best Picture winner. They do not expect a unique plotline or a profound message. If the average moviegoer is astute, such a person will have noticed that every superhero movie is pretty much the same: an unlikely individual, flawed but genuinely noble, is thrust into a position of responsibility that is at once exciting and frightening. Along the way, this superhero will be confronted with an archenemy—a person that was once a close friend and personal ally. Love will be involved; most assuredly including another unlikely person; perhaps a person that has been in the superhero’s life for a while, and who the audience hopes (and secretly knows) will be “the one.” There will be moments of excitement followed by moments of deep despair and doubt. But ultimately, as if from the ashes, the superhero will triumph.

These facts are rarely short of given. Therefore, because nearly every superhero movie follows the same plotline, what makes such a film stand out is more-or-less unique to the genre. For a superhero movie to be successful the acting has to be good (nothing short of inspirational will do); the action scenes and explosions have to be fast-paced, exciting and somewhat unique, and the screenplay must be smooth, witty and often funny.

“Iron Man” certainly does not transcend the standard superhero storyline, but it is successful because the acting is good, the action is fun and the writing is slick. Robert Downey Jr. is sharp, quick and sassy—characteristics that are strengths for Downey and well-designed in the screenplay. Jeff Bridges’ voice alone makes him well cast as a villain, and Gwyneth Paltrow is nearly always golden.

There are many moments of implausibility in “Iron Man,” but so long as the implausibility is coherent and consistent, which is it is for the most part in this movie, it is the glue that holds all superhero movies together. If you have no patience for this type of movie, don’t waste your time, but if you loved Spiderman, Superman and Batman, “Iron Man” is a worthy superhero flick.

“Iron Man” is rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.

"The Forbidden Kingdom"

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

At first glance, it might be hard to tell what is forbidden in the newly-released Jackie Chan/Jet Li action thriller, “The Forbidden Kingdom.” Is it an ancient Chinese realm? A mystical world of magic? As it turns out, ‘forbidden’ is referring to the prospects of a good script or good acting; to an original storyline or quality editing—all of which must have been forbidden long before Jackie Chan and Jet Li signed on to do this movie. Even if enamored with high-flying kung foo and acrobatic sword-fighting, “The Forbidden Kingdom” falls well short of what it was aspiring to accomplish: anything worthwhile.

Jason Tripitikas (Michael Angarano) is a kung foo-crazed teenager from Boston whose secret obsession with old combat movies is satisfied by buying bootlegged movies at a shop owned by an old Chinese man. On his way home from the shop one day, Jason is confronted by a gang of teenage ruffians who criticize his taste in film. After some pushing and shoving, the gang forces Jason to take them to the old man’s shop so that they can rob him. Jason obliges, and in the uproar of theft, the shop owner is shot. As he crumbles to the ground, the shop owner, who does not seem to be peeved with Jason for letting burglars into his shop, hands the teenager an old staff from the back of his shop and cryptically instructs Jason to take the staff to its rightful owner. Jason then runs away while being chased by the murderous hooligans. When cornered, the staff does its magic and transports him to ancient China.

Jason understandably feels overmatched in a world run by a repressive and cruel dictatorship and vigilante kung foo masters. Luckily he finds Lu Yan (Jackie Chan) who is a drunken immortal—he can live forever so long as he consumes copious amounts of alcohol. Lu Yan informs Jason that he is carrying a mythical staff once owned by the Monkey King, a loveable rascal who cannot be defeated in battle. According to a prophecy, the Monkey King lost his staff when an evil warlord tricked him and turned him to stone, and now the Monkey King is waiting for the foretold person to bring it to him.

Although Jason manages to augment his warrior clan by adding a vengeful dart-thrower named Golden Sparrow (Yifei Liu) and a testy monk (Jet Li), he continues to sense his own inadequacy, and thus despairs. But with the help of his friends, Jason begins to learn kung foo and takes to is mission of returning the staff to the Monkey King. As the clan makes their way to the home of the warlord, many dangers beset them, and when they actually arrive to challenge the warlord, the odds against their survival seems insurmountable.

Everyone has a few movies that they remember loving as a child, but when they return to the movie as an adult, they realize just how cheesy it is. It most likely seems cheesy now because movies have become more sophisticated and what were once original stories have been redone so many times that they seem nothing short of hackneyed. “The Forbidden Kingdom” is this movie without the aid of 20 years of reverie to bolster its sentimental value. Whereas “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” and “Hero” can boast beautiful choreography and cinematography, a genuine and coherent sense of eastern perspective, and quality acting, “The Last Kingdom” offers none of these. The fighting scenes would be entertaining if they were not encased in cheesy dialogue, hollowed-out eastern philosophy and one predictable plot twist after another. Indeed, a way to redeem this movie might be to see if you can find each and every line, each and every interaction, from another movie.

Although mixing east and west in this style is almost always a recipe for disaster and a sure-fire way to make both cultures seem less authentic, the particularly shoddy performance of Michael Angarano as Jason Tripitikas puts this movie beyond repair. A combination of his over-the-top facial contortions and his neat triangle of pubescent chest hair are enough to make you choke on your popcorn without him even saying a word. Yet, perhaps it would have still been better for the movie if he played a mute teenager from South Boston.

"The Counterfeiters"

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“The Counterfeiters” is a moral dilemma. This Austrian film, winner of Best Foreign Film at the Oscars, asks: At what point is it wrong to save one’s own life? When all available options have severe moral consequences, how does one weigh the choices at hand?

“The Counterfeiters” (“Die Fälscher”) is the story of Salomon Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics), a Russian Jew living in Germany in the late 1930s, who made a fortune by becoming the best counterfeiter of documents and currency in the world. But when Sorowitsch is caught and arrested for this crime, he is sent to a Nazi concentration camp where he is left to fight for his life.

However, Sorowitsch’s artistic skills ensure his survival, and he finds himself being favored by SS leaders within the camps he and his less fortunate comrades inhabit. Sorowitsch manages to sell himself as a useful commodity, and his interaction with Sturmbannführer Friedrich Herzog (Devid Striesow) lands him in a relatively comfortable and secure job within a camp. The only problem is that the job requires him to forge the British pound and the American dollar in an attempt to undermine the economies of the Nazi opposition. Sorowitsch is no longer simply asked to go along with relatively innocuous Nazi projects, but instead, is ordered to knowingly sabotage the Allied war effort, thus indirectly leading to the continued suffering and death of the Jewish people.

Sorowitsch accepts the Faustian bargain, explaining to one questioning compatriot that “One adapts, or dies!” Adapts, but adapts at what price? As the story develops, Sorowitsch becomes more and more aware of the consequences of his decisions, while at the same time realizing that the results of any alternative are equally tragic.

Sorowitsch’s character is foiled by Adolf Burger (August Diehl), a young and brash prisoner who actively and openly sabotages the counterfeiting team’s efforts to make the dollar. As the story plays out, all the men involved struggle with the instinctive desire to stay alive, but become more and more aware of the potential implications of their work. Although they are all in it together, some wish to favor their own fortunes and some the fortune of their ideals, but Sorowitsch, the leader of the group, is clearly torn. He attempts to strike some middle ground, but finds himself incapable.

Something hollow ensues. Mirroring the words of Soren Kierkegaard, who once said, “Do it or do not do it—you will regret both,” the ideals of both Sorowitsch and his friends are not practicable in a world where no good result is possible.

The story told in “The Counterfeiters” is intrinsically interesting for the complexity of the moral questions it raises. As the box offices continue to be populated by concentration camp movies, “The Counterfeiters” will stick out because in this story, the victims are asked to take part in the crime—not just to turn a blind eye to the crime, but to actually participate in it. The movie is well acted, well directed, well written and suspenseful enough to keep anyone on the edge of their seat.

“The Counterfeiters” is rated R for some strong violence, brief sexuality/nudity and language.

"Stop-Loss"

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Aimless, reckless, hopeless; a testosterone-driven rebellion; brash, illogical chaos—like a teenage boy navigating his way through awkward adolescence, “Stop-Loss” trips, stumbles and overstates itself for a sometimes moving but mostly perplexing and exasperating two hours. In the end, what you have is an unfortunate cross between “Cruel Intentions” and “Saving Private Ryan.”

Having faithfully fulfilled their contracts amidst brutal battles and terrifying ambushes, a group of enthusiastic and patriotic Texan-American soldiers in Iraq are sent home battle-worn and relieved to end their tour of duty. After a weekend of partying, drinking and fighting, the leader of the pack, Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe), learns that he is being stop-lossed: by executive order, he is being sent back to Iraq for another tour of duty. King argues with his commander over this decision, suggesting that although stop-lossing is legal during time of war, the president had declared the Iraq War a victory, and thus, stop-losses are illegal.

Predictably, the heartless commander would not have it. Instead of facing another tour of duty, King goes AWOL, pinning his hopes on talking to a Senator who promised to help him if he ever needed anything. While King is on the run, his friends and fellow soldiers, Steve Shriver (Channing Tatum) and Tommy Burgess (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), are falling apart mentally, emotionally and physically. Severe post-traumatic stress syndrome sets in for all of them, causing hallucinations, binge drinking and physical violence. Burgess quickly obtains two DUIs and Shriver digs trenches in his front yard with a spade in one hand and a gun in the other.

As the well-being of the group unravels further, Shriver pleas with King, who is making his way to the Canadian border, to turn himself in and help out his struggling comrades. King is torn between loyalty to his brothers-in-arms and what he thinks is right.

The weight of the topic and the power of the opening scenes set this movie up to be thought-provoking and convicting, but as soon as the young soldiers come home, this movie falls to pieces. Moral sympathy for the protagonists quickly fades, as it appears these combat vets have pre-existing dispositions towards reckless and immoral behavior, almost as if that is just the way things are done in Texas. They instantly become drunk, get in fist fights, drive drunk and crash into light poles, all with the approving grins of their parents and loved ones. This is all cast as harmless fun in this MTV production, with the only serious moral issue being the semantics of war.

The best way to think about this movie is to envision a ticked-off high school male, who is always angry and never in control of his emotions, has a tendency to overstate himself with abundant drama, and rarely supplements these attitudes with clarity or logic.

“Stop-loss” is politically charged, with the stated purpose being to portray the injustice of stop-lossing soldiers. But because this common practice is legal in time of war, unless audiences fail to make the distinction between the politics of the current war and long-standing military practices, the ethics of stop-lossing will remain murky at best. Furthermore, the film deals more with the psychological trauma that inflicts veterans after being exposed to war, as well as the legitimacy of the Iraq War, which are only tangentially related to the topic in the title of this movie. A straightforward discussion of the merits of stop-lossing might have been valuable, but this movie has an awkward message: war is ugly, particularly this one, and because this war is ugly, we should talk about common military practices that result in multiple tours of duty instead of criticizing the legitimacy of the first tour.

The acting was adolescent, the screenplay was adolescent, the attitudes were adolescent and the material was adult. Unless you are a teenager apt to be angry at anything, avoid “Stop-Loss.”

“Stop-Loss” is rated R for graphic violence and pervasive language.

"Horton Hears a Who"

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“Even though you can’t see them at all, a person’s a person no matter how small.” The rhyme, the meter and the message, all distinctly Seuss, join forces with Jim Carrey, Steve Carell and engaging animation to make “Horton Hears a Who” a delightful movie for children of all ages as well as adults who have Dr. Seuss in their blood.

“Horton Hears a Who” is about Horton (Jim Carrey), an aloof elephant, who hears a faint, high-pitched voice emanating from a tiny speck floating through the air. Oddly concerned, Horton instinctively tromps through the jungle to save this squeaky speck from destruction. After saving the speck by catching it on a bright pink flower, he establishes a connection with the zany mayor (Steve Carell) of a miniscule town called Whoville located in the center of the speck. Of course, the citizens of Whoville do not know they are little bigger than a molecule, and thus the populace of the community is about as likely to believe their mayor is talking to a giant elephant in the sky as the populace of a jungle is to believe that a goofy elephant has found a microscopic city on a speck.

On the one hand, Horton has to vie with a grouchy and obstinate kangaroo (Carol Burnett) who despises anyone claiming to believe in anything she cannot see, hear or feel. She tries to get Horton to give up his speck, and although one might ask why anyone would care about one elephant’s apparent fantasy, this kangaroo on a mission sees dispelling such fairy tales as a matter of principle. On the other hand, the mayor of Whoville is forced to cope with a pragmatic but delusional city council that strictly defends anything that threatens to sour the happy-go-lucky atmosphere of Whoville. This is not an easy sell-job, to say the least. “Hey, hon,” said the mayor to his wife. “Did you ever get the feeling that you are being watched, and that maybe that thing watching you is … eh, a giant elephant?”

While Horton and the mayor scramble to convince their friends, family and community of what they know, they both discover that Whoville is in great danger, as any slight change in Horton’s environment results in potentially catastrophic changes in Whoville. No one seems to get it besides Horton, the mayor and a select few who are more loyal to their eccentric friends than they are loyal to the idea that another world could exist. Thus, the task is left to Horton to save the speck, and to the mayor to convince the town to prepare for the worst.

How is it that a movie intended for a five-year-old can have more allegory, more metaphor and more meaning than 90 percent of the movies intended for adults? Are kids just more likely to listen? To learn? “Horton Hears a Who” is about faith, about standing up for what you know is right and true no matter what, and about opening ourselves up to the possibility of a world greater or more intricate than our own. Horton promises to save this tiny world, and “he says what he means and he means what he says.” It makes sense that the only characters who are open to the possibility of such alternate realities are the ones that are seen as eccentric, crazy and zany.

The typically-overacting Jim Carrey was perfectly cast as the voice of Horton, as was Steve Carell for the mayor of Whoville. Seth Rogan, Carol Burnett, Will Arnett and Isla Fisher filled out the cast nicely. The animation was brilliant and engaging, and the portion of the screenplay that was in addition to Seuss’ book did not miss a beat. “Horton Hears a Who,” although not at the Pixar level of a genius, was funny, instructive and endearing.

“Horton hears a Who” is rated G.

"The Spiderwick Chronicles"

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“Their world is closer than you think,” or so the movie tagline says. This world full of fairies, griffins and ogres, the world of “The Spiderwick Chronicles,” is a battle of good versus evil. It excites the imagination; it is fantastical—or so the ads say. The growling voices and flittering wings of “The Spiderwick Chronicles” may be whimsical enough to wow younger children, but the sub-par acting and cliché screenplay will ultimately fail to give older kids and adults an adequate excuse to stay inside on a Saturday afternoon.

Originally a book series by Holly Black and Tony DiTerlizzi, the cinematic version of “The Spiderwick Chronicles” begins with an obviously discontented single-parent family arriving at their new haunted-mansion-esque home in the wilderness. Originally from New York, Helen Grace (Mary-Louise Parker), her daughter Mallory (Sarah Bolger) and her twin sons Jared and Simon (Freddie Highmore), clearly have some adapting to do if they are to properly adjust to their new, creepy home—the only thing of which they know is that a relative and the last owner of the home was taken to a “nut house” after claiming that her father, Arthur Spiderwick (David Strathairn) was taken away by fairies.

As is to be expected, the children quickly discover that their long-forgotten relative was not so nutty after all, and her father was indeed taken away by fairies because he authored a book, “The Spiderwick Chronicles,” revealing the many secrets of a magical world not seen by most. As quickly as the family discovers that there is more to their new home than meets the eye, they also discover that this magical world is not all fairies and pixies. An evil ogre named Mulgarath (Nick Nolte) is trying to get his hands on the book so that he can discover the magical secrets chronicled by Spiderwick and use them to destroy everyone and everything. Thus, the task is left to three, out-of-place New York children to protect the book and the magical world from the wrath of this horrible creature.

While these three children are discovering facts about their family’s past, audiences are discovering that this plot is nothing short of formulaic. Even so, the details of the story are somehow still unpredictable at times, and honestly, just about anything with fairies and ogres is fun. At first, the movie seems to be about opening one’s eyes to an imaginative world so often ignored by busy, city-types, but as the story unfolds, the tale also becomes a caution against crippling escapism. Everything in moderation, I suppose is one of the less hackneyed messages of this film. But messages aside, this story is just that—a story. It is a battle between good and evil, and the torn family backdrop gives audiences an easy jumpstart of sympathy for the protagonists.

Unfortunately, the acting was rarely riveting and often inadequate. Even the ever-endearing Freddie Highmore (“Finding Neverland” and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”) and David Strathairn (“Good Night and Good Luck”) register sub-par performances. Hearing the names of these familiar faces is usually reason enough to be excited about a movie, but that is all the more reason to be disappointed with this particular result. Movies like this hinge on the audience-protagonist relationship, and the lack of such a connection in “The Spiderwick Chronicles” kept it from delivering a knockout punch.

This movie is fun, this movie is fun—I keep telling myself. It is fun, but not good. If that is all right with you or your children, check out “The Spiderwick Chronicles.” “The Spiderwick Chronicles” is rated PG for scary creature action and violence, peril and some thematic elements.