Movie Review: "Equestria Girls" (2013)

A while back I wrote a piece entitled “What’s the big deal about Ponies?” In that piece, I talked about a television show that I had recently gotten into, entitled “My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic” and how I felt that it was a near perfect children’s show that can be enjoyed by people of all ages. 

That even though it’s show clearly aimed for little girls and features brightly colored ponies as its main cast, there is enough witty and clever humor, writing and morals for it to be enjoyed by anyone.

Well, like any other successful children’s show, like Power Rangers and Transformers, the program has now garnered it’s own movie, “My Little Pony: Equestria Girls.” The key difference with this product though is that the same people who created the television show were also the ones to create this film.

From the beginning, the creative team made it clear that this would not only be a continuation of the show’s story, but also have enough substance to create a spin-off show, which would have the same cast but they would be humans instead of ponies. Granted, this was all the Hasbro toy-line’s idea to create new ways to sell toys and dolls, but let’s look past that since the creative team had nothing to do with that.

As a fan of the show, it’s strange watching the film since it retells the story of the first two episodes, except with the main cast now being oddly colored humans going to high school. It’s done in much of the same style as the show, with the writing style still being crisp and clever, but the animation style is jarring to watch.

For those unaware, “My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic” uses a flash animation-like style, with many distinct colors and quick movements. In a show about ponies, some of whom can fly or use magic, this kind of animation style suits the off-the-wall comedy and sets the tone for the colorful and quirky world. 

However, when it becomes humans instead, the animation doesn’t quite fit. Characters attempt to move like humans, but they try to keep the same energy and style of their pony counterparts. Thus watching them even walk feels awkward and clunky. 

Normally I’d give a short description of the plot, but to do so I’d also need to explain three seasons worth of plot points. To describe it rather briefly, the main character in the show, Twilight Sparkle, has be chosen to go on a quest into an alternate world to retrieve a magical crown. In this world, she is transformed from a pony into a human and must learn how to act in this brave new world before another corrupted pony uses the crown for her own selfish needs.

The question I’m left pondering is, if you’re not a fan of the show, would you like the film? 

There are many jokes that only people who have watched the show will get, like the first time Fluttershy introduces herself to Twilight or a reference to Pinkie Pie’s “Party Cannon.”

Fans of the show will love little in-jokes like that, but non-fans will just scratch their heads. Still, there is plenty of humor for all sorts of people, like Twilight trying to act like a human, so those who have never watched an episode won’t be left out in the rain.

What I enjoyed the most about the film was something new to the series: the villain, Sunset Shimmer. The creative team could have easily made her the stereotypical snobby popular girl, but instead chose to give her an interesting parallel to our protagonist. 

She was raised on the same principals as Twilight and tutored by the same god-like pony. The key difference is that Sunset never made any friends, because she was so absorbed with the power she wielded. Twilight eventually became one of the most powerful and well-respected ponies in the land, and Sunset was shunned.

Sunset represents what Twilight could have been if she didn’t accept elements of kindness, generosity, honesty and others into her life, choosing to use her powers to inspire instead of conquer. Sunset not only strengths Twilight’s character, but makes for a cool but unique villain.

As such, I feel there is enough substance here for non-fans to enjoy the film. The writing is still crisp as the show, even if a little clunky at times, the humor is typically solid and the morals still ring true. However, the animation style doesn’t fit with most of the character actions and there are quite a few moments that come off as hooky.

Honestly, “My Little Pony: Equestria Girls” just feels like a watered-down version of the show. Instead of watching this film, I’d recommend just watching a couple really good episodes.

For fans of the show, watch it for all the little neat and cute references. For non-fans, watch it if you’re not too sure about show. Maybe this film will give you the incentive to watch a 20% cooler program...

...Now you know why I don’t like putting in references in my reviews.

Final Grade: C

Seeing Is Believing Movie Reviews: "Pacific Rim" (2013)

Let’s talk for a minute about monster movies. As my “The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms” review made clear, I’m a huge fan of giant monster movies. But, that doesn’t mean I love all giant monster movies, also made clear by my last review. Like any other film, I have my standards when it comes to monster movies and if a film fails to live up to those standards, then I’m going to look down on that film.

What is it about monster movies that makes me so interested in them? What draws me into these types of films more than most others? Why do I love them so much?

I have no clue.

Ever since I was a kid, I’ve loved watching giant monster movies, especially the Godzilla movies. Yet whenever anybody asked me why I enjoyed these particular movies so much, I could never give a satisfactory answer. I’ve always hoped that, as I gained more knowledge of film and developed my tastes in cinema that the answer to this question would become clear.

It still eludes me to this day.

Maybe it’s because of the idea of monsters: These creatures that defy all the realms of logic and reality, but exist anyway. That they shouldn’t be able to walk around and destroy us, but they’re able to just the same. Maybe it’s because humans are in part to blame for these abominations of life through nuclear testing, pollution or exploring where we weren’t ready to go yet.

Maybe it’s because of nostalgic effect. That these films bring me back to an earlier age of happiness in my life and provide a distraction from reality.

In any case, I’m not sure. What I am sure about is that the newest giant monster film, “Pacific Rim” does remind me of my childhood years and does a great job at providing solid entertainment. 

As a giant monster movie fan, I wholeheartedly approve of “Pacific Rim.”

The film begins with a hole in the Pacific Ocean opening up, creating a portal between our world and a world full of kaiju (Japanese for “beast” or “monster”). Somehow, only kaiju are able to go through this portal and wreak havoc on several costal cities. 

After several kaiju attacks, the world leaders decide they’ve had enough of this and band together to create the ultimate defense against the monster attacks: the Jeagers (German for “hunter”), giant robots built to combat the beasts.

As more kaiju begin to pile through the rift, and Jeagers are slowly taken out, Colonel Stacker (Idris Elba) enlists the help of a former Jeager pilot, Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnam) and a young recruit, Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi) to command one of the last remaining Jeagers and take down the kaiju threat once and for all.

But let’s face it, the story is rather arbitrary in getting to the good parts: the monster/robot battle scenes. While I’m okay with a story being secondary to the action, I do prefer to see a well crafted story that blends a good human element with some excellent monster bits in a seamless fashion. Unfortunately, “Pacific Rim” doesn’t really do this, but that’s fine.

However the battle scenes themselves are spectacular. Every shot of the Jeagers and kaiju battling is beautiful to look at. The Jeagers are brightly colorful and stick out from the contrasting colors of the kaiju. When most of the fight scenes are taking place in cities like Hong Kong, it really feels like they’re in Hong Kong and not some computer generated city. 

You can feel the weight of a punch from one of the robots and it’s so interesting to see the different kind of variety in attacks and motion that the monsters have. To me, that’s the sign of a good action scene.

Not how many explosions or CGI moments you can pack in, but the weight and the strength behind the attackers. How varied and unique the attacks and powers can get. That’s the power of “Pacific Rim.”

If there’s one other non-action bit worth mentioning about this film, it’s how they’re able to build up this world of monsters and robots so fast and effectively. 

Early on, during the opening montage that explains everything the audience needs to know, we see images of the Jeager pilots being treated like celebrities and television shows ridiculing the kaiju because, at that point, the Jeagers make them look like jokes.

I have always enjoyed these scenes way more than I should. They help to establish how different this particular world is from our own. What makes them unique and why we should pay attention to what’s happening to them. There’s always something to learn and observe from watching a world that slightly differs from ours.

Because if giant monsters started to invade our world and were practically immune to modern weaponry, would we really act any differently?

Overall, I would describe “Pacific Rim” much in the same vein that I describe a film like “The Avengers.” It’s a perfect summer blockbuster. Everything that you would hope for out in a summer movie can be found here: Well made action, many colorful and quirky characters, comedy that usually hits the proper notes and a good mix of drama and suspense to make a complete film (even if the story is simple).

As a giant monster movie fan, I have the utmost respect for Guillermo del Toro and his entire cast and crew for doing such a great job on this film. I can tell that del Toro cares deeply for monster movies, and it really comes through in “Pacific Rim.” The love and detail that he puts into his monsters and world reminds me of Ishiro Honda’s daikaiju films, and I always appreciate that.

Final Grade: B+

Seeing Is Believing Movie Reviews: "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms" (1953)

 

Dear god, I did not like this movie. And the weird thing is, I should like it.

Many film historians and critics say that “The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms” is the biggest inspirations for one of my favorite movies of all time: “Godzilla” (not to be confused with the 1956 American version with Raymond Burr). 

While I certainly see the similarities for plot elements and the (slight) theme of the horrors of atomic bombs, both films go about their presentation and characters in an entirely different manner. Any similarities between the two can be written off as a coincidence as far as I can see.

Not to mention, “The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms” in particular manages to screw up so many things on the side of plot, characters, pacing and even the theme of nuclear weapons. There were several points in the movie where I found myself rolling my eyes and saying how much better “Godzilla” was able to do it.

The movie begins in the arctic, where a group of scientists are setting up the area to test an atomic bomb, while the narrator explains every little detail in jargon that most audiences won’t understand. After the successful test, two researchers go out to look the area over, only to find that the bomb woke up a giant prehistoric dinosaur from its icy slumber.

Only one of these scientists survives the encounter with the monster, Thomas Nesbitt (Paul Christian). He wakes up in New York, convinced that he saw a dinosaur that has been extinct for over 100 million years. Of course, no one believes him. 

Nesbitt is determined to find out the truth. Thus, he spends what feels like the entire remaining run time of the movie, trying to tell everyone that the monster is real, with limited success. 

Here’s the problem with this kind of plot in a movie: When the main character spends what feels like an eternity trying to tell people who won’t believe him about a creature that the audiences knows is real, it really comes off like a waste of time. We already know that this dinosaur exists, so all this is doing is delaying the inevitable reveal. Call it a pet peeve if you want, but this kind of story has never worked for me.

It would be interesting if we didn’t see the monster in the first few minutes of the film, then it could be a mystery. Is this once trusted scientist telling the truth? Or did he suffer a blow to the head and all of this is in his imagination? 

But no, we had to have the monster in the beginning to ruin all the suspense and mystery of that plot point.

Also, something that also distracted me was Paul Christian’s accent and how it reminded me so much of Jean Claude Van Damme. I know that’s really not a fair comparison, but the whole movie I expected Christian to roundhouse kick all the doctors in the face.

Or maybe he would just say this?

Speaking of doctors, let’s talk about the biggest problem with this film: It falls into the same rut as films like “The Killer Shrews” or “Bride Of The Monster,” of too many scenes with scientists making long boring speeches about sciencey stuff. 

I swear, there are no fewer than three scenes in this 80 minute movie with nothing but science lingo. They go no where, they disrupt the pacing and tension of the monster scenes and they just keep going on way longer than they need to. There is more focus on these scenes than there is on monster scenes, and that just frustrates me. 

When you have someone like Ray Harryhausen working on the special effects in your movie, that’s where you should spend the majority of the movie on. Not some scientists with no personality or apparent lives outside of their jobs. 

If there is one great thing about “The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms” though, it is Harryhausen’s fantastic stop-motion special effects on the monster and ensuing destruction. Harryhausen never disappoints. It always felt seamless during big action scenes and the sound helped to compliment the impact of many cars or buildings getting destroyed.

It’s a pity though that there’s so little of these well-done moments in the movie. Apart from the monster’s big rampage on New York City, there are about four scenes that involve the dinosaur and only last long enough to get in one thing getting blown up. 

Rather disappointing, actually.

In all, “The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms” mostly helped to remind me how “Godzilla” (1954) is such a fantastic movie. I know that I said earlier that the two had next to nothing in common, but now I see that this movie serves as the framework for “Godzilla.” They might have some elements in common, but both films go about those elements in entirely different ways. 

Final Grade: D

Movie Expectations

Let’s face it, there’s always one movie every year that everyone gets excited for.

The trailer comes out, we hear about all the big names attached to it, we see some promotional footage for the film that gets us hyped for it and long before the movie is even close to be in theaters, people are talking about how awesome it’s going to be and how it’ll be the biggest film of the year.

I’ve never been that way since I was eight years old. All thanks to the 1998 Roland Emmerich film “Godzilla.”

When I was a child, nothing was more exciting to me than Godzilla. I loved every single one of his movies and would discuss how awesome they were with my friends. I could never get Godzilla off my mind. Hell, I’m still a huge Godzilla fan, though I’ve calmed down with my talk of him.

But in 1998, there came word that a new Godzilla movie was being made, and it would be shot in America. As a little kid who adored Godzilla, you could imagine just how excited I was for this film. I’d stay up late at night just thinking about how amazing this new movie would be.

Then the Memorial Day weekend came of the release. I was the first in line to watch the film and was practically bouncing off the walls of the theater as the film started.

But as the film progressed, my excitement levels disappeared. The film was nothing like the Godzilla that I knew and loved. This creature, who had the name of Godzilla, had no fire breath, hardly ever destroyed any buildings and was taken down my military-grade missiles. 

I was disappointed.

But I’m the kind of guy who looks for a lesson in every bad event in my life. To make sure that nothing like ever happens again and leads me to a better life. 

So what was to be learned from the disappointment of “Godzilla?” Getting too excited about something will always lead to negative thoughts and emotions.

When we get over excited for a summer blockbuster, the film will never live up to the expectations that are assigned. There will always be something in the film that catches your eye or is brought to your attention which will diminish your view of the film.

There is always that chance that the film you invest all your hype and excitement into will not be nearly as good as you think it will be. When that happens, disappointment strikes.

So when you go to watch your big summer blockbuster for the summer, whether its “Pacific Rim,” “The Wolverine,” “Elysium” or anything else, try not to get too excited for the film. A little hype and excitement can go a long way, and at least disappointment doesn’t lurk around every corner.

Seeing Is Believing Movie Reviews: "Despicable Me 2" (2013)

“Despicable Me 2” (2013)

Being fresh off of watching “Despicable Me” for the first time, I thought it’d be appropriate to watch its recent sequel and see how it stacks up. 

Going in, I expected to see more of what made the first one so popular, but also developing the idea of super-villain filled world and it acts. What we got is much of what made the first film so appealing, but not necessarily more of the latter.

Super-villain Gru (Steve Carrel) has decided to give up his villainous life style to support his three new daughters, even though clearly he doesn’t want to leave. But when another baddy steals a top secret and highly dangerous formula, the Anti-Villain League, an organization dedicated to stopping crime, decides to recruit Gru and find this fiend before his plan comes to fruition.

I’ll say that, while typing this review, it has come to my attention that I’m leaving out several major plot points. What I wrote above only takes up a portion of the film. There is also a romantic subplot involving Gru and an agent of the Anti-Villain League (voiced by Kristen Wiig). Then there’s also a subplot involving Gru’s eldest daughter (Miranda Cosgrove) and her own romantic interests.

I think “Despicable Me 2” has a bit of trouble staying focused on its tasks and goals.

While all of this is going on, there is scene after scene with the Minions. I swear, there are at least five scenes in this film that involve only the Minions. In “Despicable Me” the amount of scenes involving them is at a good number and followed the “less is more” approach. Here, many of the scenes involving these little yellow guys don’t add anything to the movie, go nowhere and are forgotten about mere moments after they’re finished. 

I understand that the Minions were by far the most popular characters about the first film. At some point, even too much of a good thing can become irritating. Now that’s not to say these guys don’t have good moments. There are quite a few scenes that are very funny, like when a large group of them are on vacation in a tropical paradise. However, near the end, the Minions have not one, but two musical numbers in their strange language. Not only can you not understand them, but they don’t really add anything to tone or atmosphere of the final scenes.

While I feel that it was a good idea to have more of the Minions in this film, I also feel that their scenes could have been handled better.

In my “Despicable Me” review, I mentioned that what I enjoyed most about the film was the idea of a world filled with only super-villains and no heroes. I also talked about how the film didn’t do much with this idea and could have expounded upon it in more detail, hoping that “Despicable Me 2” would do that job.

It did not.

Oh sure, we’re introduced to one or two new villains and Anti-Villain League (notice how they don’t call themselves “heroes”), but there are still so many things I want to know about this world that are never touched on.

This is a unique world with so many creative and comedic possibilities, but they hardly ever do anything with it. In a film like this, the world and how it reacts to Gru’s antics can be just as much of a character as anybody else in the film. Instead of developing that character and letting the audience see how much their world differs from our own, we get lots of predictable scenes involving Gru trying to get a girlfriend.

Huzzah.

Now, don’t take these harsh words as a way of saying “Despicable Me 2” sucks. Because it doesn’t. It is very similar to the first film in many ways: Rather predictable, doesn’t take many chances, but it’s cute and has good family fun comedy. 

Everything that was cute in “Despicable Me” has been amplified in this film, especially the youngest of Gru’s daughters and her big puppy-dog eyes. There is also quite a few jokes that will appeal to wide range of ages, such as when Gru tranquilizes one of his dates and has to take her home, leading to a lot of wacky slapstick hijinks. 

And I’m a man who loves his slapstick.

Overall though, while I was entertained by “Despicable Me 2” in much the same way I was by the first film, I can’t help but feel that there is so much more that could have been done. Exploration and world-building are forgotten to have more time with the Minions, but I guess that appeals to more people. 

If you liked the first “Despicable Me” then you’ll like “Despicable Me 2.” It’s more of the same, but when was that a bad thing?

Final Grade: C

The Hopper: Episode #1

No, not that Hopper. 

Welcome to a new segment of my blog, where I go see a block of movies all in one day at the theaters and then give my feelings on each one I see. At the end, I’ll go over what stuck out the most to me and what I think people should go out and see. Since this is the first of these, I might change the way I go about doing this, but we’ll see. 

With that said, let’s get started:

“Monsters University” (2013)

I’ll go ahead and admit it: To me, Pixar can do no wrong. Every movie they’ve done has never disappointed me. Though lately their films have decreased in quality, such as “Cars 2” and “Brave,” and they seem only intent on making sequels to their previous work at the moment, with the upcoming “Planes” movie being a sequel to “Cars” and this one, “Monsters University,” a prequel to “Monsters Inc.”

The film follows Mike Wyzowski (Billy Crystal), a one-eyed green monster, as he attends Monsters University to pursue his life-long dream of becoming a scarer. Very quickly, he meets his rival, James Sullivan (John Goodman), and the two set out to prove who is the better monster.

While going in, I didn’t know what to expect, once again Pixar delivers the goods where they need it and gives a solid entertainment from start to finish. One thing that Pixar has always managed to do incredibly well is adding in adult themes and messages about how difficult or strange life can be into a children’s film...and actually making it work.

If you’ve seen “Monsters Inc.” then you know from the start that Mike does not become a scarer. Though he spends most of the film going after a goal that he ultimately doesn’t reach, Mike has a revelation that I don’t think I’ve ever seen in a kid’s film before. That even if you spend your entire life working towards something, try your hardest and sacrifice everything you’ve got, that doesn’t mean you’ll reach your goal. Sometimes, certain people just aren’t cut out to make it.

To see themes of failure, regret and acceptance of the bad being address, and in a children’s film no less, “Monsters University” immediately has my attention and admiration. 

Grade: B+

“Now You See Me” (2013)

Oh, the joys of taking a critical thinking philosophy class that talked about how mentalism and cold reading is nothing but bullshit.

The reason I saw this movie was because of all the big named actors attached to it that I enjoyed. Jesse Eissenberg, Woody Harrelson, Morgan Freeman, Mark Ruffalo and Michael Caine are all some of my favorite actors, so this was a must see for me. It would be like a combination of “Zombieland” and “The Dark Knight” only with magic thrown in there as well. Too bad this film didn’t have any zombies in it, as that would have made things so much better.

“Now You See Me” follows The Four Horsemen, who are all aspiring magicians, con-mans or escape artists, as they attempt to pull of some of the greatest magic tricks the world has ever seen. It’s too bad that all of these magic tricks involve bank robbery, putting innocent lives in danger and getting the police involved. Darren Rose (Mark Ruffalo) is the cop assigned to their case and always seems to be three steps behind the Horsemen, as they seem to have a greater plan than it seems, which involves an ancient club of magicians, known as The Eye.

If that plot description sounds confusing, it’s only because it is. I didn’t even get into a third of all the crazy and non-sensical events that happen in this film. While they try to explain most of what’s going on, they leave so much up in the air that it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on without bringing a flowchart to explain everything.

Something interesting to note about this film is that every single character is rather unlikable. Everyone has committed a terrible act in their past or just does douchey things to other people. By the end of the film, you really want to slap every single one of these characters for being such assholes. 

But then again, maybe that’s just the thing about this film. The world of magicians and illusions has become so tainted and hateful that being a dick is the best way to get around. As such, I think the best thing about the film is how it builds up the world with only a few characters and their actions towards one another. 

Still, no amount of good world building is any substitute for a coherent and understandable story. As such, “Now You See Me” has some good things going for it, but overall it felt rather forgettable.

Grade: C

“This Is The End”

You know, I think the most difficult kind of movie to review is a comedy that isn’t funny. For one, comedy is entirely subjective. True that film itself is rather subjective art form, but there are a lot of things in movies that everyone can agree on. Not so when it comes to comedy. 

Either something is funny to someone, or it isn’t funny. And while I’m sure that lots of people found “This Is The End” to be hysterical, I’m not one of those people. I may have chuckled a couple times at a few celebrity cameos or jabs at some stars for their previous roles, like Seth Rogan in “The Green Hornet,” but that was about it. Everything else was just kinda awkward or insulting.

Jay Bruchel decides to take a vacation and visit his best buddy, Seth Rogan, in Los Angeles. After an day of getting high and listening to the Backstreet Boys, they decide to visit James Franco’s house party, much to Jay’s irritation. But as the party progresses, the earth opens up and it seems that the apocalypse has begun. Now the few remaining celebrities in Franco’s house must hold out until the apocalypse has settled down.

This lead me into my next reason why comedies that aren’t funny are hard to review. When the comedy doesn’t do it’s job, there’s really just one kind of comment you make: That joke didn’t work. That wasn’t funny. But let’s try to figure out why some of the comedy in “This Is The End” doesn’t work for me.

Most of the comedy in this film is rather crude and rude to the actors in this movie. If they aren’t cracking a joke about one of the actors smoking marijuana or drinking, then they’re talking about their junk or getting off on something. To me, that kind of humor has never been funny, only gross and disturbing.

There’s a scene where the remaining celebrities are kicking around a severed head, and I could hear people in the audience laughing. In my head, I was thinking, “Is this funny because severed heads are hilarious? If so, these people would be on the floor laughing if Vlad the Impaler was still around.”

Another thing about many of the scenes in this film is that they’re rather pointless. Some scenes will come up out of no where, add nothing to the film or the plot, then leave and never be mentioned again. And example of this is when James Franco and Danny McBride spend what feels like three minutes arguing over a Playboy magazine and getting their jollies off on it. Is the scene funny? To some, maybe. What does it add to the film? Nothing.

If you enjoy rude and crude humor, or just want to watch a movie with lots of famous comedian actors in one movie, then give this one a try. If you’re not a fan of that kind of humor, like I am, skip this one.

Grade: D+

Final Thoughts: 

The highlight of this block of movie hopping was certainly “Monsters University” with its smart and clever outlook on pursuing one’s life long dreams and goals. Not to mention, the animation was beautiful and the voice acting hit all of the notes that it needed to. The humor was a little wonky at times, but it consistently made me smile. I would even go as far to say that “Monsters University” is a better movie than it’s predecessor. Then again, both films go for an entirely different approach, but I believe that the newer film did much better job at building up this world of monsters and how it connects to our own world.

This just goes to show you the power of animation nowadays. We are now at a point in movies where a Disney/Pixar film is a better source of quality filmmaking than from movies featuring actors like Morgan Freeman, Jesse Eissenberg, Seth Rogan and James Franco. 

And with other recent animated films, like “Wreck-It Ralph,” “Paranorman,” “Rango” and just about any Pixar film, I think it’s safe to say that animation has become one of the most powerful forces in movies.

Seeing Is Believing Movie Reviews: "The Lady From Shanghai" (1947)

Poor, poor Orson Welles.

When Welles first started making movies in the 1940s, the studios gave him total creative control over his work. The result was “Citizen Kane,” often regarded as the greatest movie ever made.

The problem was that Welles couldn’t get enough of this creative freedom, and demanded it for nearly every movie he would make after it. Studios never gave Welles that kind of freedom again, and many would argue that his work suffered because of it. For example, RKO Studios demanded that Welles do an entirely new ending to the film he made after Kane, “The Magnificent Ambersons.” Another would be Universal Studios reediting what Welles thought was his masterpiece, “Touch Of Evil.”

I bring this up because his 1947 film, “The Lady From Shanghai” is another example of that lack of creative control. Unfortunately, in Hollywood, directors and producers don’t get nearly as much freedom as we like to think. The heads of the studios will ultimately have the final word on a film, even if it’s nothing like what the director wants.

In the case of “The Lady from Shanghai,” producer Harry Cohn was desperate to make a movie with Orson Welles. So much so that he was willing to give Welles anything he wanted, including near total control over the movie, including directing, writing, producing and even starring. The result is a mess of a movie with an incoherent story, lousy pacing and terrible editing.

“I’ll pay a thousand dollars to anyone who can explain the story to me,” said Cohn.

The film follows Irish sailor Michael O’Hara (Welles), who has become smitten with the lovely Rosalie Bannister (Rita Hayworth). The only problem is that she’s married to the best criminal lawyer in the land, Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane). After Michael saves Rosalie from being attacked, Arthur takes a liking to the Irishman and decides to hire him as a boat-hand on his yacht.

As tension develops between Rosalie and Michael, Arthur’s coworker George Grisby (Glenn Anders) joins them on their voyage from New York to San Francisco. Grisby takes a liking to Michael after he learns that O’Hara killed a man many years ago. It’s at this point that Grisby decides to recruit Michael into his plan to fake his own death and disappear. As the plan progresses, it’s revealed that there’s more people in on this than Michael originally thought.

If there’s one thing wrong with this film, it’s the story and the lack of focus or goal. It meanders from plot point to plot point with no regard to human life. There are certainly big events going on, but most people won’t know how one event ties into another. Some events seem to even happen at random, leaving the audience confused as to what the hell just happened.

Probably the biggest indication of this is when Michael thinks he has figured out everything about what’s going on, and we get this big exposition dump through Michael’s narration about the plans of the villain. This narration falls victim to the classic problem with movies: Show, don’t tell. Film is a visual medium, and anything that can be done visually should be done in that manner. Never tell how something happens, show it instead. Not to mention, most of the narration seems like guess work by Michael. 

If that narration had been removed from the film, it probably wouldn’t have effected the story and events of the film at all. That way, at least the audience would be less confused.

That’s how convoluted this story is, people. The exposition that explains everything about the motivation of our characters is entirely irrelevant.

Though if I did have to give the movie credit for anything, it would be the cinematography and would nightmarishly beautiful the film looks. The camera angles, the lighting and use of shadow throughout is classic Welles and is used to great effect in this film. It really does help to set the mood of the piece and build atmosphere where nothing else does. There’s a scene in an aquarium where that shows just how small and insignificant these characters look next these giant fish and sea creatures, especially when their faces are cast in shadow.

It’s hard to describe some of the main performances, since in the case of Welles and Hayworth, they’re so far removed from the traditional roles they play. Welles has an Irish accent the entire movie (playing a little more into the whole nightmare setting) while playing this tough confident guy and feels at ends with Charles Foster Kane. Rita Hayworth, on the other hand, has had her hair cut short and dyed blonde (supposedly done by Welles himself) and is playing the femme fatale that every film noir must have. To be fair, she does a convincing job at that role, as does Welles, so I guess there’s nothing to complain about in that regard.

Also, Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders both do a fantastic job at the roles they’ve been given. With Sloane coming off as both powerful in his lawyer role, but helpless by being on crutches. Anders was creepy, but was still goal-oriented and intent on having some fun with his character.

Overall though, I felt like “The Lady From Shanghai” was a rather forgettable film, in that with no focus or traction from scene to scene, events just go by without seeming to have any significance. There’s much to be admired in the cinematography, performances and the ambition of Orson Welles, but that lack of solid story takes away from that.

If “The Lady From Shanghai” is an example of giving the filmmakers near total creative control, then maybe it’s a good thing that studios don’t allow that very often.

Final Grade: C