|
|
Why so much virtual ink spent on Tin Man, a piece I'm not particularly invested in? Perhaps because, as just about everyone else I've worked with knows, I would rather see a valiant attempt that doesn't quite work than a perfectly executed mediocrity.
I am somewhat taken aback by the almost unbridled enthusiasm with which Tin Man was greeted on the Internet Movie Data Base; is our hunger for something at least marginally original so deep that we fall all over ourselves indulging in overpraise? For God's sake, people, be a little discerning. Don't get enthralled by a piece because it's given you a Lewinsky.
I thought some of the "re-imagining" was very original, if not precisely inspired. The notion of the Evil Queen Azkadellia being DG's sister worked very well, especially the concept that it was DG's fault Azkadellia became, er, wicked. I also couldn't help but grin at the inside-out-ass-backwards reworking of Toto, probably the best thing in the piece. The Mystic Man was a nice variation on the traditional Wizard, and before he could ever become annoying he was killed off.
I liked the concept of "family" broadened beyond "traditional family values" (DG, Sis, Mom & Dad) to include outsiders (Glitch, Cain, Raw and Toto). How Fred Dalton Thompson and the Religious Right must have bristled at the notion of including everyone in the definition of "family." The notion of redemption (especially with DG's line about the whole adventure being about "second chances") was pleasantly reminiscent of pieces as diverse as The Magnificent Seven and Return of the Jedi.
The climax was a bit ponderous (and looked a lot like Obi-wan, Han, Luke and Chewie skulking around the Death Star in A New Hope) but was ultimately pretty good and certainly satisfying (especially DG's mildly incredulous "She melted" line).
I have always thought that the cast of David Lynch's Dune was remarkably good: whatever you may have thought of their individual performances, from Francesca Annis to Sting every actor absolutely, positively looked right for his/her role. The same can be said for Tin Man. Richard Dreyfuss's performance was excellent. He got the tone precisely right.
Everyone in Tin Man's cast, without exception, looked absolutely right. DG wasn't nauseatingly beautiful, Glitch wasn't annoyingly cute, Cain had a markedly "haunted" look to him (which, frankly, actor Neal McDonough has in every friggin' role he plays), DG's parents didn't have twinkling eyes and, best of all, Kathleen Robertson as Azkadellia was the most physically beautiful member of the cast.
Unfortunately, that's where my enthusiasm hits a bridge abutment. The performances are remarkably flat -- not bad, per se, but merely competent (which I hold as one step above the dreaded "mediocre"). There was an overall lack of energy and intensity evident in everyone except Richard Dreyfuss.
Zooey Deschanel as DG was especially disappointing, as -- though her acting was competent -- her posture was positively atrocious (round-shouldered and stooped) and her movement was more lacking in physical grace than Arnold Schwartzenegger's.
Something that really bugged me was the overall appearance of Tin Man. To elaborate, the "classiest" of the James Bond films (Casino Royale, Die Another Day, Octopussy, et al) and films like Gone With The Wind have what I can only call a "glossy" look, rather like a very expensive magazine about very expensive locations and possessions. This is predominantly the purview of the Director of Photography. Tin Man, despite its largely computer-generated spectacle, has a very flat, almost stark look to much of its scenes, which has the effect of making the whole film look "cheap" (even though it certainly wasn't).
This flatness extends further: it permeates the dialogue, which overall was about as flat and uninspired as a CNN talking-head commentary. Sure, it conveyed necessary information, but it certainly didn't "roll trippingly off the tongue." This is a danger in modern writing when pieces like this are adapted: the tendency to utilize colloquialisms to an enormous extent, usually under the wrongheaded assumption that the modern audience will balk at "formalized" dialogue. This is utter nonsense and I am continually shocked at how widespread the attitude is. Speak up, people: the writers, producers and filmmakers are not giving you the credit you deserve; you can follow "formal" English (can't you?).
Inexcusably bad grammar and extreme overuse of anachronistic terms (especially the ubiquitous "okay") is not only distracting, it diminishes the characters. Tin Man needed a dialogue consultant (like Tom Mankiewicz or Tom Stoppard) desperately.
The musical score by Simon Boswell was, frankly, a third-rate attempt to imitate the great John Barry (especially in its usage of quarter-note triplets throughout). The orchestrations had a decidedly "tinny" feel to them (appropriately enough, I suppose) and lacked the sumptuousness the piece cried out for.
The design was an interesting matter. It brought back memories of (here he is again) David Lynch's Dune for not only sets and costuming, but even in the "retro" look of the various technological elements. I can't say I minded or that it hurt the film, but to me it seemed rather uninspired.
The only other things that stuck in my craw apart from the dialogue were the design of the "Realm of the Unwanted" (which looked like Blade Runner meets Escape from New York/Escape from LA) and the cliché of Cain's son leading the Merry Men in Sherwood Forest.
I'm being hard on Tin Man precisely because it was trying so damned hard. I commend the valiant attempt. It's an important step on the way back to the originality so lacking in mainstream entertainment.
score 7/10
stevensjts7 6 December 2007
Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1775941/ |
|
1-12-2020 01:48:14