Jumper

When I saw the first trailer for Jumper I was very excited . . . and appalled. The special effects were clearly top-shelf and the story line promised a departure from the mundane; but in that I was horrified! I had written a story just like that when I was 15! Someone had stolen my idea! As it is, no one actually stole anything from me, so all I can assume is that Steven Gould and I are great minds and we must have been thinking alike.

In the summer of 1995 I wrote a short story about a group of teenagers who could jump through time and space. I entitled the story The Wall Jumpers because of the “scientific” phenomenon of jumping “the wall” between this space-time continuum to the next. Anyway, I never did anything with the story, but when I started a band later that year I adopted the name. You can learn more about
The WaLL JuMPeRs all throughout my site and at Pure Volume.

Anyway, in my story the protagonists were good guys who policed the world. In Doug Liman’s Jumper, David Rice (Hayden Christensen) is less than an upstanding citizen. After running away from his home at the age of fifteen, he quickly turns to robbing banks to stay alive. The film has certain coming-of-age elements, but few were expanded and even less were resolved. This may have to do with the director’s vision of a Jumper trilogy, but if Liman’sdreams aren’t realized he’s going to wish he’d done more with Rice’s character to show that he really did grow and change. The very first time we see “grown-up” Rice he’s jumping around his apartment as if in a casual, daily routine. At one point he turns on the news and watches, in apparent annoyance, as hundreds of people are stranded in torrents of flooding water. The announcer says it would take a “miracle” to save these people, and Rice changes the channel. This is clearly a hint as to where Liman wants to take the character in future installments . . . I only hope he has the opportunity to do so.

The basic gist of the film is that there’s a thousand year old feud between Jumpers and Palladins. Jumpers can transport themselves instantly to almost any place in the world. Palladins believe only God should have the power of omnipresence. Though I doubt it had anything to do with the their faulty theology, the Palladin’s motivation for hunting down and brutally murdering Jumpers (with the occasional friend and family member thrown in for good measure) was barely believable. It’s one thing to be jealous of someones powers. It’s another thing to do your best to protect the world from those who would misuse their special abilities. But it’s a completely different thing when your motivation is tied up in your view of God: “I’ll gladly brake God’s 6th commandment (don’t murder) because I don’t think He’d want you disappearing from one place and appearing in another without having to use a door.” I don’t know . . . it seemed a little hypocritical and superficial. 

I’m not going to say a lot about the special effects. It’s true they’re first-rate, but I was more impressed by what they went through to createthe effects. First of all, though it may seem hard to believe, they didn’t rely on any more CGI than they had to. I always appreciate that in a special effects movie. Second of all, the people in charge all sat down months before and devoted countless hours to create the effect from a real-world standpoint. What kind of things influence a jump? Would there be reciprocal effects in the atmosphere after a jump? Do things like emotions, distance, and weather variables have an effect on the way the jump looks and the amount of damage created. For example, one of David’s most violent jumps (causing a supreme amount of damage) occurred as he jumped his murdered father to the hospital. A close examination of each of the jumps in the context of the scene show how the director and crew put a lot of emphasis on consistency. Their attention to detail is refreshing in a world of fly-by-night films.

I was extremely leery about the quality of acting when I saw their line up. First of all there was Rachel, a relative newcomer who didn’t really appear on the Hollywood scene until 2003, and hasn’t done too many movies since. Then there’s Sam. Good ol’ Samuel L. Jackson, the words greatest supporting actor. I wasn’t concerned with his screen presence, but I knew he wouldn’t deliver any Oscar winning performances. And lastly the much debated Hayden Christensen. I was sorely disappointed withhis acting in Star Wars II, and he just barely redeemed himself with his performance in Star Wars III. Let’s just say I was curious to see if he’d grown much as an actor or if he still relied on his Australian Soap training to carry him through.

                 

                  

Overall I say the movie delivered. There were fantastic effects, a decent plot, refreshing acting, and lovable characters (Griffen and Milly particularly). I honestly look forward to future installments: I’m curious what they do between Rice and his mother. Oh, you didn’t know? Rice is a Jumper. His mom is a Palladin. That makes for unique family reunions.

Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix

I am a huge fan of Harry Potter. I don’t care how many foolish mistakes Rowling makes while platforming for her books and ideals, the story she’s created will be remembered as long as there are people who read.

So it follows that I’m a huge fan of anything Potter-related. I own both sets of books: the American and the British releases, and yes . . . there is a difference. I own all the movies. I even own a replica of Harry’s wand. But we’re not here to talk about wands, let’s get to the movie.

Since I am crazy about the story, that makes me a harsher critic. For example, I think Micahel Gambon’s portrayal of Dumbledore has been consistently dismal. If only poor Richard Harris was still with us; he truly understood the complexities of the magnificent character. I also think that certain of the directors (sorry Alfonso. And Mike, you’re almost on my list too) have tried to hard to realize their mundane visions and got in the way of Rowling’s spectacular dream.

But, with all of that said, I think Order of the Phoenixis one of my favorites. On the positive side, this is the best job Michael Gambon has done. He chiseled off that un-Dumbledore-like, roughshod facade and lightened up a bit. I actually enjoyed his performance.

As directing goes, David Yates did a phenomenal job himself. The scenes, acts, shots, and cinematography beautifully complimented the characters and plot-line of Harry Potter.

There were a number of story-changes though. In the past Steve Cloves and Rowling were very close as they crafted the screenplay. In Order, the newcomer Michael Goldenberg worked solo . . . and it shows. His adaptation showcased some important character developments, for example: Ginny’s continued admiration of Harry. Also, in the book Dobby helped Harry find the Room of Requirement. In the movie Neville discovers the room. That’s not a such a bad thing since Dobby’s character makes fewer and fewer appearances while Neville eventually comes into his own.

Still, there were important elements completely jettisoned. Dumbledore and Harry’s heart-to-heart at the end. The revelation that Voldemort is half-possessing Harry was so powerful in the book, but in the movie was thrown away by Severus. And why did Cho have to be the one to turn in Dumbledore’s Army? C’mon! Goldenberg wrote a completely sideline plot just to cater to this changes. Also, when the DA is discovered by Dolores Umbridge, she manages to break into it. Number 1: you can’t break into the Room of Requirement. Number 2: Harry tries to do it throughout the Half Blood Princeand is unsuccessful . . . because it can’t be done. Allowing Umbridge to explode her way in was a poor choice.

Like I said, I’m a detailed critic when it comes to Harry Potter, and there are a number of other things I could say on the subject, but I want to leave you with this.

 The Order of the Phoenixis one of the best Potter films to date. I bought it the day it came out and I don’t regret it. The confrontation between Dumbledore, Voldemort, and Harry is outstanding on every level, and the Triad of Potter (Harry, Ron, & Hermione) improve in their acting with every take.

Olsen’s Rating?

“A” for overall genius, acting, story, cinematography. They would have received an A+ if Goldenberg hadn’t gotten frisky with the script.

A Less than Heroic Ending

The second season of Heroes came to a close on Monday, 12/3/2007. And if they’re not careful it may stay closed.

I think Heroes is outstanding, I always have. I’m sad the season is over. I fell in love with the characters, the writing, the shooting, everything. The story became one of my all time favorites. Yet, despite all of that I have to admit the second season left me a little wanting. Though the story had some wonderful elements, it lacked the suspenseful moments the first season thrived on. Sure, I wanted to throw my TV off my 3rd story balcony when I saw Noah Bennet get shot, but the prestige was given away too quickly and the effect was ruined. I do give them credit for final moments of the finale. No one saw that coming. And thankfully they didn’t give it away two seconds later. What am I talking about? I’m not telling.

I was also unsure about bringing Sylar back. I know he did a great job. His character was phenomenal! But, do you “kill” a character in the first season., drag his impotent-self by the lapels through the second season, just to say “guess what! He’ll be back in the third!” What new material can Sylar bring to the table? And speaking of over-worked plot lines . . . how much of Mom Petrelli can we really stomach? What varying degrees of world-wide calamity can she cause before we say ”honestly, give us a break”? I wish Adam had knocked her off.

All in all, I will add Heroesto my DVD collection. The overall concept and delivery is fantastic. I was just really bummed by the last half of the second season, and not overly impressed by the finale. Hopefully the producers and writers can collect their thoughts, summon the muse they let get away, and craft a show that will continue to deliver amazing actors handeling stellar lines, and doing heroic acts in an suspenseful and captivating story for all time.

Blades of Sorry

I watched Blades of Glory last weekend and witnessed everything I’ve come to expect from Will Ferrell and Jon Heder.

I liked Jon in Napoleon Dynamite, and though his performance in Blades wasn’t a complete removal from Napoleon, it was fun and enjoyable.

With Will I have a love/hate relationship. I hate most of his comedies but love his serious roles. Stranger than Fiction was an outstanding movie and Ferrell’s acting was superb! His acting in Blades reverted back to his extreme knack for silly, slap-stick. Hey, some people go for that. I have to admit I laughed a little.

In the end Blades of Glory was occasionally witty but mostly silly, occasionally funny but mostly sorry, and occasionally clean but mostly not.

I won’t even bother rating this one . . . I’ve already spent too much time talking about it. But if you’re in the mood for farce . . . I guess you can check it out. But I wouldn’t recommend it for kids.

Transformers: More than Met my Expectations

The day I heard the Transformers were being made into a live action movie I was hesitant at best. Hollywood has such an amazing knack for ruining child-hood memories and international icons. If something becomes famous without Hollywood there’s generally little the West Coast can do to boost its appeal.

 

I was actually so tentative to embrace the film I didn’t see it in the theater. Why spend all the money? So I patiently lingered and almost forgot it entirely. The fact that many of my friends (who are all avid movie goers) didn’t have anything to say about it solidified my doubts. Finally one of my co-workers informed me they’d seen Transformers and they liked it. Unfortunately I couldn’t wholeheartedly embrace his opinion . . . he spent most of his time intoxicated. Heck, even Loathing in Las Vegas is cool . . . if you’re on drugs.

 

Well, as you know, Transformers is now on DVD . . . and I’m so glad it is.

 

I don’t know why I waited so long! As a child I loved watching the cartoons and I had a rather large collection of the action figures. Sure, you could waste half your day twisting, snapping, and turning the figures only to end up with a half-robot/half-semi truck, side-show freak, but the cartoons took no dexterity or memorization to enjoy. I even had Transformers bed sheets! Let’s just say the movie lived up to all that’s gone before . . . sheets, cartoons, action figures, underwear, and more.

 

The plot stayed true to the original concepts. Nothing’s worse than adulterating a good story. Hem, hem, Mission Impossible I; Jim Phelps would never become a bad guy. I hate you Jon Voight! Actually, Jon was in Transformers as well and he did a good job. Okay, so you have a hot daughter . . . I forgive you for desecrating Jim Phelps’ memory. Sorry about that, now back to the non-biological extraterrestrials. Transformers was believable and well thought out. All of the sub-plots received their due time and no interesting characters fell through the cracks (except maybe for the cute, computer chick). Though the first half took a teeny-weeny while to get going, the ending made up for it.

 

As to the writing, I give it a one-and-a-half-thumbs-up. Though there was a huge, gaping target with cliché written across the front . . . the writers did a great job missing it. Even the lines taken out of the original series rang genuine. There’s nothing cooler than hearing Optimus Prime say “there’s more to them than meets the eye,” especially when Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime, is saying it. I could’ve done without the whole “masturbation” dialogue though, and when will Hollywood stop making adults look like complete morons. Maybe it’s because all the adults in Hollywood are morons . . . I don’t know. Either way, they didn’t inject unrealistic humor too often. Sure, the whole Autobots acting like grade-schoolers in Sam’s backyard was annoying, but it could’ve been worse. Think I’m being too hard? What do you expect from a guy with only half a thumb?

 

The acting was better than the average epic movie. Shia LaBeouf is definitely growing as an actor, and Jon Turturro was fantastic. I was also glad to see the voice of Megatron performed by Hugo Weaving. He rocks. As for the new girl, Megan Fox, I think she gave a stunning performance. Her tow-truck sequence communicated so much raw emotion without a single line.

 

I’ve been saying for a long time “there’s noting you can’t do in movies anymore.” The only room left to grow is in presenting the effects realistically. Well, the Transformers were a genuine work of art. Half the time I tell what was C.G. and what was real. The animators seamlessly worked the computer world and our world into a stunning portrait of realism. I would’ve hated to be the guy who designed the characters; they were so complex and intricate. I can’t wait to see the extra content and find out how they animated the twisting, shifting, flexing machines. There facial expressions and body movements had so much personality. There was the occasional moment where all the gearing metal, exploding buildings, cannon fire, and running made it a little hard to follow the action, but I guess that’s the price of realism.

As to the overall theme, it was consistent and value driven. Freedom of choice and the importance of life are always worth fighting for.  

In the end the Official Olsen Rating gives Transformers a very good score (out of ten).

 

Plot: 9

Writing: 8

Acting: 8

Cinematography: 9

Special Effects: 10

Theme: 9

 

With a combined total an 88%, that makes Transformers an awesome film for the family.

The Amazing Spiderman Franchise

So Spiderman III has slammed into the video store. Even though I saw it twice in the theater I still had to rent it the day it came out.

With the exception of The Lord of the Rings, the Spiderman saga has become the most well-developed, well-rounded, and the best cross-genre trilogy ever.  It hits every tone with a pitch-perfect performance. It deals with morality in a real world way. It displays a stunning cross-section of love, action, didactic lessons, drama, suspense, the battle between good and evil, mystery, and superb acting.

From a plot standpoint (with the exception of Do. Oc. and his less than believable, A.I., tentacle-dictated motivation) the trilogy has always been very grounded in realism. Even the sub-plots have risen to almost Rowling-like complexity. What with the Hobgoblin losing his memory and regaining it, and Flint Marco’s involvement with Uncle Ben’s death, the story keeps swinging forward. Of course the main plot points have every eight-legged fanatic totally psyched. Even though Eddie Brock’s physic is scrawnier than expected, the introduction of the vengeful, symbiotic Venom made me soil my proverbial knickers.

In the first film, Mary Jane’s lines were obviously written by a man. But as the franchise has matured, so has MJ’s conversations and internal monologue. She’s speaking like a woman and, though her femininity can be occasionally cliched, she’s much more believable. As always, Peter’s lines are right on; especially in III where his character goes through so much flex and turmoil.

One thing that’s remained consitent since the genesis of the project is the caliber of acting. Toby McGuire is solid and will always be solid. And we must thank Spiderman for introducing us to James Franco who’s acting style has grown dramatically through the series. The same is true for Kirsten who, though she suffered a little from poor-writing-syndrome in the first two movies, is finally getting lines she can work with. Her dumping-Peter-on-the-bridge-bit was outstanding! And welcome newcomer Topher Grace who was able to distance himself from the 70’s and create a wonderfully believable character who did true justice to Eddie Brock. He was given a big break and he broke it well (muscle-less or not). And of course I couldn’t not mention one of my personal favorites . . . Bryce. Miss Howard, daughter of the film icon Ron Howard, is definitely making a name for herself. Her role was played with the grace and passion that ony Bryce Dallas Howard can bring to a scene.

The cinematography, in short, was very well done. It didn’t get in the way of the story but did a wonderful job making the plot-points come alive and drive the movie forward.

What can I say about the action? The special effects were phenomenal. The digital artistry and the practical stunts deserve a round of applause, a cacophony of whoops, and random high-fives. It’s also cool to see how Spidey’s agility and skills have been improving over the three films. Someone thought that one through.

Lastly, the theme is unlike most blockbusters in that it promotes cleanliness and upright living. Its success proves the American people do have a core value system. The franchise fights as strongly for love, redemption, forgiveness, the destruction of bitterness and revenge, hard work, friendship, promises, and good communication as Spiderman did in the epic finally against Venom and the Sandman.

For Spiderman III the Olsen Rating is a solid A:
Plot: 10
Writing: 10
Acting: 9 (hey, not everyone’s perfect)
Cinematography: 10
Special Effects: 10
Theme: 10
Total: 59 out of 60 = 98%.

With a bonus point for having the spinnerets to write a morality-tale in a post-modern world . . . I give it 105%

 Watch it. Buy it. Love it.

Tom Hanks: the unsullied star

This will be short, but it doesn’t need to be long. Tom Hanks is one of the few top performers of our age who doesn’t involve himself in the nasty, nitty-gritty underbelly that is the movie industry.

You don’t see him in tabloids. You don’t hear his name on TMZ. He does his job, he does it well, and he goes home. He hasn’t been hauled off for drug rehabilitation. He hasn’t been married to everyone else’s ex-wife. You don’t find out he was dancing naked at a club and cussing out teh cops as they threw him out. He also doesn’t pride himself by playing questionable characters or sleazy roles.

Tom Hanks is a true genius. He gives life to amazing characters and he writes complex and endearing scripts. And all the while he manages not to get mixed up in the refuse that is Movie Stardom.

“My Heroes”

“Save the cheerleader, save the world.”

Do these words kindle excitement in your soul? Then you’re either way too involved with high school cheerleading or you’re one of the chosen; those who see the true awesomeness of the T.V. show Heroes.

As most of you know the second season of NBC’s Heroes is in full swing. But I’m not here to talk about this year’s installment . . . that will come later. I’m here to discuss the beginnings, the genesis of Heroes.

This phenomenon is one of the few shows that rightly deserved all the hype. The story line was fantastic, the characters were both extremely believable and totally loveable, and the cinematography rivaled that of the big screen. Though the basic plot is not, in itself, original (it compares with movies like Spiderman &  The Incredibles) it has moved the super-hero genre into the living room. I see this show actually being an extension of M. Night Shyamalan’s Unbreakable. We’re introduced to a cast of real people who’re grappling with a shocking change in their DNA. And just like Bruce Willis in Unbreakablethe cast is 100% believable. The action takes place at school, in the kitchen, on the job, and it occurs without the over-dramatic, sensationalized, uber-action that saps a scene of its humanity. I’m reminded of Claire as she saved the fireman. Nothing fancy, just a bunch of flames, but powerful nonetheless.

Of course this has everything to do with the writing. I bow before the genius that crafted those scripts and I offer up virgin sacrifices on the alter of jealousy. The personal conflict, the multi-faceted plot lines that weave in and out of each other seamlessly, and the unique villains kept me lapping at their creative river. And can you believe they created all of that without constantly throwing sex into our faces or demeaning our intelligence with vociferous profanity? I thought family values and good old character didn’t sell anymore?

In the future (I know because I’ve been there) I’ll deal more thoroughly with the characters, plot, and overal themes of the second season. Until then, keep watching on Monday nights . . . and keep visiting Kevin Olsen: Artist.

Nicholas Cage in Next

Nicholas Cage.

For some that name screams talent, energy, empathy, and rough good looks. For others it’s merely another way to spell “unoriginal.” Nick has done many things from chick-flicks, to action, to super-hero, to character sketches (yuck). But through it all he remains Nick Cage, bringing the good and the bad to dinner. Yes, he’s been known to patent his style and over-produce it; occasional redefining the phrase “in a rut,” but then other times wows us with a performance that leaves us wondering what muse of fire descended on his bright heaven of invention?

In Next he was better than average . . . he was pretty darn good.

On a purely aesthetic level I appreciated his new look. Though it’s reminiscent of Tom Hanks in The DaVinci Code, it worked well for him. From an acting standpoint I don’t think he did his best work, but bye-golly he sure performed better than he did in Ghost Rider.

Unlike his flaming, chain-toting vigilante, this character rang true, especially under the circumstances he was faced with. Much like in City of Angels where Cage had to become a very ethereal character, Nick handled the uniqueness of his role without succumbing to cliched motivations. No one living truly understands the pressures of knowing everything that might happen in the next five minutes. The tri-persona strain that would put on a man would drive some insane, others into a life of crime, and others into monastic solitude. His performance choices are to be applauded.

Of course the writing was very good . . . that’s like giving a blue-ribbon thoroughbred a five minute head-start. He worked the script like a pro and played against his co-stars like the seasoned vet he is. Speaking of co-stars . . . are there any beautiful women he hasn’t played opposite of?

To bring this to a close, I will say that, though this wasn’t his best work, the movie was extremely pleasing. It was written well, acted well, directed well, shot well, and probably “everything-elsed” well I can think of.

Though I won’t rub my autographed-photo of Nicholas Cage on my head before every play I’m in (well, okay maybe sometimes), I will say I look up to him for the model he exemplifies and the motivations he explores.