Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I could leave it at that, but I probably should elaborate at least a little, being as this is the last post before 2010.
First the obvious: beautiful visuals, seriously (no really—SERIOUSLY) astounding technology. You will forget that what you are watching isn’t real, which I think ought to be the goal of any movie, heavily CGI’ed or otherwise.
Second: plot. Kudos to you, James Cameron. You got me to genuinely enjoy an admittedly cliché story. Sure, I could turn to Fern Gulley: The Last Rainforest or even (as a friend pointed out) Dances with Wolves for a similar narrative experience, but given the choice I would pick Avatar because it was entirely engaging through and through. I forgot about the cheesiness and just enjoyed the adventure.
Finally: hello grown-up use of 3-D! Thanks for not having random objects fly out of the screen toward my face. Tasteful and thoughtful interaction with human beings’ sense of depth perception.
Don’t wait for DVD—you really need to see this in theaters. Even if you don’t like it or it spurs you to launch your own phantasmagoria of complaints, it is an experience that you really mustn’t pass up.
22 December 2009
20 December 2009
Invictus (2009)
Invictus consisted of Morgan Freeman in his role as Nelson Mandela essentially delivering an endless series of brief yet somehow monumental speeches, the result of which was bringing post-Apartheid South Africa together using rugby. Apparently the quality of his delivery of these speeches designates him as “a great actor.” I do not concur with this assessment, but let’s keep in mind that I’m a cynical and whiney complainer when it comes going along with an assessment of anything as “good,” whether it be acting, plot, or dialogue, unless the criteria used for evaluation happen to miraculously align with my own personal worldview and taste.
The biggest problems with this movie were that it had boring pacing and that it turned a suspiciously blind eye to depicting the hideousness of the South African Apartheid that the real Mandela was striving to overcome. The biggest strengths were that Invictus had an interesting topic, feel-good morals, and OK acting.
Basically: Politics ‘Lite’ with a nice soundtrack.
--
Up next: Avatar!
The biggest problems with this movie were that it had boring pacing and that it turned a suspiciously blind eye to depicting the hideousness of the South African Apartheid that the real Mandela was striving to overcome. The biggest strengths were that Invictus had an interesting topic, feel-good morals, and OK acting.
Basically: Politics ‘Lite’ with a nice soundtrack.
--
Up next: Avatar!
17 December 2009
Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)
Like all other Wes Anderson movies, Fantastic Mr. Fox was entertaining, witty, and well thought out. The film had a decent streak of playfulness in its humor. And while Anderson catered more to adults than children, the movie nevertheless remained sufficiently childlike in its imagination to keep me interested and entertained. However, I found that I couldn’t love it like I loved his other movies, and surprisingly, I think it was because it was animated. Ironic, coming from someone who usually obsesses over all things animated!
I was sincerely awed by animation director Henry Selick’s work on Nightmare before Christmas and Coraline1. And according to Wikipedia, the same crew was employed for Corpse Bride was used for Fantastic Mr. Fox.2 So what happened here?
The source of my dislike was not located in the quality of the direction or the use of technology. The problem was two pronged; I did not like the overall aesthetic and I did not like the design of the characters themselves. The visual feel of Fantastic Mr. Fox is very similar to Anderson’s other movies, especially The Royal Tenenbaums.3 It’s sort of seventies, eclectic, and has lots of pinks, yellows, and browns. Unfortunately, whereas this aesthetic in Anderson's other films seemed unique and quirky, here it just made the whole thing look oddly cheap. Second, I didn’t like the design of the characters. The voice actors were highly expressive but the actual models they used for the foxes and other animals lacked life. They looked more like weird figurine toys than living characters. It is likely that this toy-like quality was intentional on Anderson’s part, but I just didn’t enjoy it very much.
Overall though these qualms with the animation were minor when compared to my overall enjoyment of the movie. Great dialogue, exciting story, and silly antics. In the end it was at least maybe a little bit fantastic indeed.
--
1. To mention only a few. See his imdb profile for details.
2. Sorry, I’m not a grad student anymore. I can’t really be bothered to do actual research. Plus I have no access to an academic library.
3. One of my all time favorite movies ever. EVER.
I was sincerely awed by animation director Henry Selick’s work on Nightmare before Christmas and Coraline1. And according to Wikipedia, the same crew was employed for Corpse Bride was used for Fantastic Mr. Fox.2 So what happened here?
The source of my dislike was not located in the quality of the direction or the use of technology. The problem was two pronged; I did not like the overall aesthetic and I did not like the design of the characters themselves. The visual feel of Fantastic Mr. Fox is very similar to Anderson’s other movies, especially The Royal Tenenbaums.3 It’s sort of seventies, eclectic, and has lots of pinks, yellows, and browns. Unfortunately, whereas this aesthetic in Anderson's other films seemed unique and quirky, here it just made the whole thing look oddly cheap. Second, I didn’t like the design of the characters. The voice actors were highly expressive but the actual models they used for the foxes and other animals lacked life. They looked more like weird figurine toys than living characters. It is likely that this toy-like quality was intentional on Anderson’s part, but I just didn’t enjoy it very much.
Overall though these qualms with the animation were minor when compared to my overall enjoyment of the movie. Great dialogue, exciting story, and silly antics. In the end it was at least maybe a little bit fantastic indeed.
--
1. To mention only a few. See his imdb profile for details.
2. Sorry, I’m not a grad student anymore. I can’t really be bothered to do actual research. Plus I have no access to an academic library.
3. One of my all time favorite movies ever. EVER.
14 December 2009
A Selection of Good Short Films!
I like short films because the time constraint forces filmmakers to cut out everything not absolutely necessary to convey their ideas. In a good short film the result of this aggressive self-censure is that concepts and emotions are boiled down to their very best. What’s left is usually a beautiful portrait of a meaningful moment, an interesting character, or wonderful the nuances of a single emotion.
The problem is that most people don’t get the pleasure of encountering short films very often. Aside from the rare collections of shorts that make it to theaters and the very well done shorts with which Pixar has developed the pleasant habit of opening their lengthier stories, short films are absent from the mainstream box office. The best place to see short films remains the film festival, which not everyone has the time, money, or interest to attend.
So at the suggestion of one interested reader I have assembled a brief list of some great short films available on DVD.
Fear(s) of the Dark/Peur(s) du noir
This is a really intriguing collection of six animated shorts that deal with various dark subjects. Though they are all quite visually interesting and entertaining, I have to say my favorite was the last short of the collection by Richard McGuire, which creates incredible suspense with very minimal imagery.
The Collected Shorts of Jan Svankmajer Vols. 1 & 2
Crazy stop motion animation at its absolute finest! Svankmajer delights in making everyday objects creep the bejeezus out of anybody curious enough to watch. My favorites are “Dimensions of Dialogue,” “Down to the Cellar,” and “Jabberwocky.”
Pixar Short Films Vol. 1
I always look forward to the short film that precedes the Pixar feature I’m about to see because they are usually entirely witty and fun. My favorites so far have been “For the Birds” and “Partly Cloudy” (which is not on this particular DVD), but I have enjoyed all of them so much it’s pretty difficult to commit to just one or two.
Paris, je t’aime
I know I already reviewed this collection but it definitely deserves mention on any top shorts list. Very well executed and emotionally engaging.
The 2008 Academy Awards Short Films Collection (not out on DVD yet)
I got to see these in theaters last year and wow—there is a reason they were nominated for awards. My favorites were “Auf der Strecke (On the Line)” and “This Way Up.”
These are just a brief introduction to a much larger world of short films, and I would encourage everybody to seek out short films in other venues like film festivals and cinematheques. Short films are an awesome way to sample different film making styles and genres!
The problem is that most people don’t get the pleasure of encountering short films very often. Aside from the rare collections of shorts that make it to theaters and the very well done shorts with which Pixar has developed the pleasant habit of opening their lengthier stories, short films are absent from the mainstream box office. The best place to see short films remains the film festival, which not everyone has the time, money, or interest to attend.
So at the suggestion of one interested reader I have assembled a brief list of some great short films available on DVD.
Fear(s) of the Dark/Peur(s) du noir
This is a really intriguing collection of six animated shorts that deal with various dark subjects. Though they are all quite visually interesting and entertaining, I have to say my favorite was the last short of the collection by Richard McGuire, which creates incredible suspense with very minimal imagery.
The Collected Shorts of Jan Svankmajer Vols. 1 & 2
Crazy stop motion animation at its absolute finest! Svankmajer delights in making everyday objects creep the bejeezus out of anybody curious enough to watch. My favorites are “Dimensions of Dialogue,” “Down to the Cellar,” and “Jabberwocky.”
Pixar Short Films Vol. 1
I always look forward to the short film that precedes the Pixar feature I’m about to see because they are usually entirely witty and fun. My favorites so far have been “For the Birds” and “Partly Cloudy” (which is not on this particular DVD), but I have enjoyed all of them so much it’s pretty difficult to commit to just one or two.
Paris, je t’aime
I know I already reviewed this collection but it definitely deserves mention on any top shorts list. Very well executed and emotionally engaging.
The 2008 Academy Awards Short Films Collection (not out on DVD yet)
I got to see these in theaters last year and wow—there is a reason they were nominated for awards. My favorites were “Auf der Strecke (On the Line)” and “This Way Up.”
These are just a brief introduction to a much larger world of short films, and I would encourage everybody to seek out short films in other venues like film festivals and cinematheques. Short films are an awesome way to sample different film making styles and genres!
13 December 2009
Into the Wild (2007)
I had the feeling that I really ought to like this movie, but somehow I just couldn’t. The problem is that I know Into the Wild means a lot to a number of people, including people I am close to. I think this appeal stems from the fact that the ideals expressed by the main character, Alexander Supertramp/Chris McCandless, namely giving up connections to money and possessions in favor of relying solely on oneself for strength and knowledge, are ideals that a lot of people (including me) have felt in one form or another over the course of their lives. I don’t think there is anything wrong with becoming frustrated by all the material responsibilities one faces as an adult, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with feeling disillusioned by hypocritical people, especially parents, which is another theme in the movie.
But my complete disappointment with the film lies not with its spoken ideals and themes, but rather with the delivery and presentation of said themes. From the very beginning I felt like the whole thing was very, very pretentious. There were too many long quotes from Thoreau, ponderous and badly done narration from Jena Malone (as the main character’s sister), and landscapes, landscapes, landscapes. It rang very hollow for me and I ended up irritated and bored by the end of it, just wanting it to be over because I got the point already.
It is not as though I thought there was no value to the movie at all. The scene when the old man asks to adopt Alexander was particularly poignant and well done. I liked the soundtrack, and I liked Vince Vaughn’s character even though I wasn’t entirely clear on the details of what he was actually doing. The scene with the dead moose was appropriately gruesome, and the random Swedish couple from the river were hugely amusing.
I guess at the end of the day I just could not buy into the mentality that Alexander Supertramp was actually doing something noble or valuable, and I was confused as to whether the movie was condoning his behavior or condemning it. A big part of the film was about showing how much his absence negatively affected his loved ones, but for me that aspect got overshadowed by the big ideas supposedly justifying the young man’s journey and behavior.
It seems I am left just as unable to articulate my thoughts regarding breaking away from everything and leaving civilization behind as the movie itself seemed to be. Perhaps I should want that kind of independence, but should know that I can’t realistically have it? Or is it that I could have that type of experience, but shouldn’t want it?
Difficult things to think about, and unfortunately delivered by Into the Wild in a rather clunky fashion.
But my complete disappointment with the film lies not with its spoken ideals and themes, but rather with the delivery and presentation of said themes. From the very beginning I felt like the whole thing was very, very pretentious. There were too many long quotes from Thoreau, ponderous and badly done narration from Jena Malone (as the main character’s sister), and landscapes, landscapes, landscapes. It rang very hollow for me and I ended up irritated and bored by the end of it, just wanting it to be over because I got the point already.
It is not as though I thought there was no value to the movie at all. The scene when the old man asks to adopt Alexander was particularly poignant and well done. I liked the soundtrack, and I liked Vince Vaughn’s character even though I wasn’t entirely clear on the details of what he was actually doing. The scene with the dead moose was appropriately gruesome, and the random Swedish couple from the river were hugely amusing.
I guess at the end of the day I just could not buy into the mentality that Alexander Supertramp was actually doing something noble or valuable, and I was confused as to whether the movie was condoning his behavior or condemning it. A big part of the film was about showing how much his absence negatively affected his loved ones, but for me that aspect got overshadowed by the big ideas supposedly justifying the young man’s journey and behavior.
It seems I am left just as unable to articulate my thoughts regarding breaking away from everything and leaving civilization behind as the movie itself seemed to be. Perhaps I should want that kind of independence, but should know that I can’t realistically have it? Or is it that I could have that type of experience, but shouldn’t want it?
Difficult things to think about, and unfortunately delivered by Into the Wild in a rather clunky fashion.
08 December 2009
Love Actually (2003)
When this movie first came out I watched it and I immediately hated it. In retrospect, my revulsion for Love Actually stemmed from my being at the height of my high school era “I’m so lonely and angry and no one gets me!” angst as well as a serious (perhaps irrational) grudge against Keira Knightley.
Recently, having ditched at least most of my adolescent personality issues and learned to accept (or at least give the benefit of the doubt) to Ms. Knightley, I thought I would generously offer Love Actually another chance. After all, there are tons of other good actors in it and it seems to be a Christmas favorite of a lot of people so why not.
Well my friends, this movie had all the charm of a month old stick of Juicy Fruit gum—a little sweet, a little sickening, overall hugely unimpressive and sure to leave a bad taste in your mouth. Love Actually is not bad enough to outright reject, but has few redeeming qualities that make it crave-able, at least for me.
I would much rather watch a movie that I felt strongly about, whether the film is outright rage-provoking or entirely delightful. Otherwise it just feels like I’m wasting my time in bland, inoffensive, “nice” way.
Not a great way to spend a holiday evening.
Recently, having ditched at least most of my adolescent personality issues and learned to accept (or at least give the benefit of the doubt) to Ms. Knightley, I thought I would generously offer Love Actually another chance. After all, there are tons of other good actors in it and it seems to be a Christmas favorite of a lot of people so why not.
Well my friends, this movie had all the charm of a month old stick of Juicy Fruit gum—a little sweet, a little sickening, overall hugely unimpressive and sure to leave a bad taste in your mouth. Love Actually is not bad enough to outright reject, but has few redeeming qualities that make it crave-able, at least for me.
I would much rather watch a movie that I felt strongly about, whether the film is outright rage-provoking or entirely delightful. Otherwise it just feels like I’m wasting my time in bland, inoffensive, “nice” way.
Not a great way to spend a holiday evening.
06 December 2009
Whisper of the Heart (1995)
This movie… explained EVERYTHING. At least with regard to its sort of sequel The Cat Returns, the oddball adventure movie I reviewed a while back and valued for its sheer whimsy.
In Whisper of the Heart we see that the lead characters of The Cat Returns (The Baron and Muta) are very minor characters that figure in a narrative about finding out what you really want out of life. Whereas Cat takes some serious flights of fancy, Whisper is far more solidly located in the real world. In it we follow Shizuku through Tokyo as she struggles to decide what path she wants to take in life. She has to face obstacles stemming from family, love, and problems with self-worth while she pursues her goal of becoming a writer.
Though Whisper can’t compete with Cat for first prize in weird, Whisper does have hugely superior quality animation. And while Cat is a bit silly and hard to take seriously on the level of plot, Whisper is way more emotionally engaging. Definitely more along the lines of what you would expect from Studio Ghibli.
Overall, Whisper of the Heart is good for the same thing every other Ghibli film is good for—interesting visuals, interesting narrative, and all around great animated filmmaking!
In Whisper of the Heart we see that the lead characters of The Cat Returns (The Baron and Muta) are very minor characters that figure in a narrative about finding out what you really want out of life. Whereas Cat takes some serious flights of fancy, Whisper is far more solidly located in the real world. In it we follow Shizuku through Tokyo as she struggles to decide what path she wants to take in life. She has to face obstacles stemming from family, love, and problems with self-worth while she pursues her goal of becoming a writer.
Though Whisper can’t compete with Cat for first prize in weird, Whisper does have hugely superior quality animation. And while Cat is a bit silly and hard to take seriously on the level of plot, Whisper is way more emotionally engaging. Definitely more along the lines of what you would expect from Studio Ghibli.
Overall, Whisper of the Heart is good for the same thing every other Ghibli film is good for—interesting visuals, interesting narrative, and all around great animated filmmaking!
03 December 2009
Christmas Vacation (1989)
Do you like the kind of movie where everything that could possibly go wrong for the main character does, and with a vengeance? When no matter how hard this character tries, he or she simply cannot seem to accomplish anything? I don’t. I hate that kind of movie. Movies like that make me want to tear my hair out while screaming and repeatedly punching the TV until nothing remains but an irreparable pile of plastic and wires.
Yet somehow, perhaps only by some sort of twisted Christmas miracle, Chevy Chase’s classic Christmas Vacation remains a post-Thanksgiving staple for me, and no holiday season is complete without it.
Even though Chase’s character Clark W. Griswold goes through everything from his precious Christmas tree spontaneously combusting to accidentally getting locked in his own attic for an entire day, I can’t help but participate in this insane disaster of a holiday with a many a heartfelt belly laugh.
My perennial enjoyment of this film probably has as much to do with the gags and slapstick Chase goes through leading up to Christmas Day as it does with the random funny details that come out of the woodwork more and more with each viewing. Plus excellent comedic performances by everyone involved make for a holiday movie experience worth more than a few smirks and half-hearted chuckles.
A definite recommendation for anyone in search of a classic holiday comedy you can watch over and over and over again.
Yet somehow, perhaps only by some sort of twisted Christmas miracle, Chevy Chase’s classic Christmas Vacation remains a post-Thanksgiving staple for me, and no holiday season is complete without it.
Even though Chase’s character Clark W. Griswold goes through everything from his precious Christmas tree spontaneously combusting to accidentally getting locked in his own attic for an entire day, I can’t help but participate in this insane disaster of a holiday with a many a heartfelt belly laugh.
My perennial enjoyment of this film probably has as much to do with the gags and slapstick Chase goes through leading up to Christmas Day as it does with the random funny details that come out of the woodwork more and more with each viewing. Plus excellent comedic performances by everyone involved make for a holiday movie experience worth more than a few smirks and half-hearted chuckles.
A definite recommendation for anyone in search of a classic holiday comedy you can watch over and over and over again.
01 December 2009
The Blind Side (2009)
-Link contains spoilers!-
If you have seen the trailer for this movie there is no need to go to the theater and watch it. You have already witnessed the entire story, gotten a good dose of the humor, and caught wind of the overall theme.
Now, if you nevertheless really feel like you want to watch The Blind Side all the way through, despite my warnings, please at least wait until it is available as a rental. Very not necessary to see it on the big screen. Thanks for nothing, whoever makes decisions about trailers.
However, if you have somehow managed to escape seeing the trailer and don't know a lot about the movie, I would recommend it. If you like feel-good, based-on-a-true-story heart-warmers, which a lot of people these days (entirely understandably) do, then go for it! The Blind Side is a crowd pleaser, a mug of hot apple cider on a cold day, a warm blanket to fall asleep with, through and through.
An overwhelmingly nice pick-me-up if you’re feeling down in the dumps and want to be cheered up, so long as you don't already know everything about it going into it.
If you have seen the trailer for this movie there is no need to go to the theater and watch it. You have already witnessed the entire story, gotten a good dose of the humor, and caught wind of the overall theme.
Now, if you nevertheless really feel like you want to watch The Blind Side all the way through, despite my warnings, please at least wait until it is available as a rental. Very not necessary to see it on the big screen. Thanks for nothing, whoever makes decisions about trailers.
However, if you have somehow managed to escape seeing the trailer and don't know a lot about the movie, I would recommend it. If you like feel-good, based-on-a-true-story heart-warmers, which a lot of people these days (entirely understandably) do, then go for it! The Blind Side is a crowd pleaser, a mug of hot apple cider on a cold day, a warm blanket to fall asleep with, through and through.
An overwhelmingly nice pick-me-up if you’re feeling down in the dumps and want to be cheered up, so long as you don't already know everything about it going into it.
28 November 2009
Ninja Assassin (2009)
The story follows Raizo, a ninja who defects from his clan of assassination-trained orphans when they kill his sweetheart for trying to leave. Some Europol investigators are thrown into the mix pretty randomly and a veritable phantasmagoria of bloody conflict ensues as Raizo tries to avenge his fallen friend while protecting his newfound allies.
They really pulled out all the stops on this one. Geysers of thick, red, corn-syrupy blood, loudly swishing slow motion close-ups blades, and loads of seriously terrible one-liners make Ninja Assassin a must-see for any fan of martial arts who also enjoys having a laugh at a movie that has the guts to make jokes about itself. That’s the best feature of this movie—it knows it’s not to be taken seriously and behaves accordingly.
Probably worth seeing on the big screen. Definitely not for the easily queasy.
Great for a laugh with a friend.
They really pulled out all the stops on this one. Geysers of thick, red, corn-syrupy blood, loudly swishing slow motion close-ups blades, and loads of seriously terrible one-liners make Ninja Assassin a must-see for any fan of martial arts who also enjoys having a laugh at a movie that has the guts to make jokes about itself. That’s the best feature of this movie—it knows it’s not to be taken seriously and behaves accordingly.
Probably worth seeing on the big screen. Definitely not for the easily queasy.
Great for a laugh with a friend.
27 November 2009
New Moon (2009)
All I have to say about the latest installment of “The Twilight Saga” is OMG AWESOME. By that I mean that New Moon is a very appropriate and entertaining adaptation of the second book in the four-part series. It sticks to the original material quite faithfully, using interesting visuals to convey Stephenie Meyer’s addictive (albeit wholly silly) fantasy world of brooding undead and friendly shape-shifters.
Here is what happens: Edward leaves, Bella dies a little, Jacob is hunky. Edward is a drama queen, Bella leaves, Jacob is sooooo sad. Vampires and werewolves, etc. Teenagers—lol!
And as a serendipitous addition to this already guiltily pleasurable emotional rollercoaster, Kristen Stewart actually improves upon the Bella from the books, trading obnoxious whiney inner thoughts for a more compelling and nuanced melancholy moodiness. While the other actors stick to Meyer’s original characterizations, Stewart goes the extra mile of making Bella all the more believable and therefore more emotionally-investable as a character.
New Moon is an obvious must for any follower of Meyer’s books, but is also delightfully engaging for any fan of hyperbolic romance served up fantasy style. You won't regret seeing it on the big screen.
Here is what happens: Edward leaves, Bella dies a little, Jacob is hunky. Edward is a drama queen, Bella leaves, Jacob is sooooo sad. Vampires and werewolves, etc. Teenagers—lol!
And as a serendipitous addition to this already guiltily pleasurable emotional rollercoaster, Kristen Stewart actually improves upon the Bella from the books, trading obnoxious whiney inner thoughts for a more compelling and nuanced melancholy moodiness. While the other actors stick to Meyer’s original characterizations, Stewart goes the extra mile of making Bella all the more believable and therefore more emotionally-investable as a character.
New Moon is an obvious must for any follower of Meyer’s books, but is also delightfully engaging for any fan of hyperbolic romance served up fantasy style. You won't regret seeing it on the big screen.
23 November 2009
A Christmas Carol (2009)
Let me begin by saying that I love Charles Dickens’s classic novella “A Christmas Carol.” I’ve seen countless film adaptations of the story and it never gets old.1 I even dressed up as the unfortunate and terrible ghost of Jacob Marley for Halloween one year during high school after carefully reading the original to make sure I got the details right.
So when Robert “I shat upon the classic picture book The Polar Express by adding Tom Hanks and weird dead-eyed animated children into the mix” Zemeckis took this project on, I cringed, and not a little bit.2 But I went to see anyway it because I still love Dickens’s story, by gum. And as long as they didn’t deviate from the original plot too much, it couldn’t be all bad.
Much to my relief, it wasn’t too horrible at all. Yeah, you do have to contend with the “Ooh look at me using 3-D” moments. One too many scenes with Scrooge falling and flailing through the air for my taste. And yeah, you do have to deal with the persistently dead-eyed characters. I don’t care whether they did use retinal scanning technology to try to get rid of the dead eyes—it didn’t entirely work and the effect is alienating.
But happily the movie does deliver some of the most important pleasures of Dickens's original text. While surprisingly leaving the old style prose intact, Zemeckis nevertheless makes the effort to bring something new to the party by playing up the ghostly characters to an extreme. Plus Jim Carrey does an unexpectedly great job at interpreting many different roles, all mercifully distant from his previous less than fresh work.
Overall, not the best adaptation of Dickens’s story so far, but one which certainly promises many more yet to come. And I can't say humbug to that!
-----
1. Shout out to my all time favorite, The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)!!
2. Not an entirely fair assessment of Zemeckis, to be sure—he has produced, written, and directed a number of movies that I have enjoyed quite a bit. I just took The Polar Express personally because, as a child who was literally devastated by the revelation that Santa isn’t real, I clung desperately to the message of faith that was in the original text of The Polar Express. I still have the little jingle bell that came with the book.
So when Robert “I shat upon the classic picture book The Polar Express by adding Tom Hanks and weird dead-eyed animated children into the mix” Zemeckis took this project on, I cringed, and not a little bit.2 But I went to see anyway it because I still love Dickens’s story, by gum. And as long as they didn’t deviate from the original plot too much, it couldn’t be all bad.
Much to my relief, it wasn’t too horrible at all. Yeah, you do have to contend with the “Ooh look at me using 3-D” moments. One too many scenes with Scrooge falling and flailing through the air for my taste. And yeah, you do have to deal with the persistently dead-eyed characters. I don’t care whether they did use retinal scanning technology to try to get rid of the dead eyes—it didn’t entirely work and the effect is alienating.
But happily the movie does deliver some of the most important pleasures of Dickens's original text. While surprisingly leaving the old style prose intact, Zemeckis nevertheless makes the effort to bring something new to the party by playing up the ghostly characters to an extreme. Plus Jim Carrey does an unexpectedly great job at interpreting many different roles, all mercifully distant from his previous less than fresh work.
Overall, not the best adaptation of Dickens’s story so far, but one which certainly promises many more yet to come. And I can't say humbug to that!
-----
1. Shout out to my all time favorite, The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)!!
2. Not an entirely fair assessment of Zemeckis, to be sure—he has produced, written, and directed a number of movies that I have enjoyed quite a bit. I just took The Polar Express personally because, as a child who was literally devastated by the revelation that Santa isn’t real, I clung desperately to the message of faith that was in the original text of The Polar Express. I still have the little jingle bell that came with the book.
22 November 2009
The Cat Returns (2002)
One day Haru, a down on her luck school girl with poor self confidence, uses her lacrosse stick to daringly rescue a cat from getting hit by a truck. Haru is informed that she has unwittingly saved the Prince of Cats which she thinks is a hallucination until suspiciously cat-friendly gifts start showing up everywhere she goes (e.g. hordes of mice, a field of cattails, stores of catnip). She decides to travel to the Kingdom of Cats to stop the well meaning but often embarrassing gifts, but once there Haru finds herself engaged against her will to the Prince of Cats! Serious weirdness ensues.
This movie’s strength is definitely its tremendous oddness. From Haru’s unpredictable interactions with feline royalty to the crazy chase scenes involving rivers of cat minions that pick up characters and carry them away, everything from the plot to the imagery of this studio Ghibli production seems to be inspired by extreme stretches of the imagination.
Unfortunately any potential for greatness this crazy weird adventure has is dashed to bits by the poor quality of the animation. Characters change size and scale constantly leading to confusion regarding basic spatial relationships. Haru’s face is unexpressive to a problematic degree—there is little difference in her appearance when she is happy, scared, or angry. Continuity errors abound, backgrounds look cheaply done, and there are some serious issues with the way the animators handle changes in lighting.
However, despite the shoddy quality of animation I still definitely recommend this movie for its sheer whimsy. At the end of the day The Cat Returns is a delightful flight of fancy that will make you laugh and feel lighthearted, even while scratching your head and exclaiming “What?!”
This movie’s strength is definitely its tremendous oddness. From Haru’s unpredictable interactions with feline royalty to the crazy chase scenes involving rivers of cat minions that pick up characters and carry them away, everything from the plot to the imagery of this studio Ghibli production seems to be inspired by extreme stretches of the imagination.
Unfortunately any potential for greatness this crazy weird adventure has is dashed to bits by the poor quality of the animation. Characters change size and scale constantly leading to confusion regarding basic spatial relationships. Haru’s face is unexpressive to a problematic degree—there is little difference in her appearance when she is happy, scared, or angry. Continuity errors abound, backgrounds look cheaply done, and there are some serious issues with the way the animators handle changes in lighting.
However, despite the shoddy quality of animation I still definitely recommend this movie for its sheer whimsy. At the end of the day The Cat Returns is a delightful flight of fancy that will make you laugh and feel lighthearted, even while scratching your head and exclaiming “What?!”
20 November 2009
Coco before Chanel (2009)
This quiet biopic about Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel before she got famous is pleasant enough to watch but ultimately forgettable once you walk out of the theater.
It’s not that the acting or the plot is lackluster. On the contrary, it is quite engaging to see how Chanel goes from rags to riches by sheer force of will. Audrey Tautou artfully shows us just what kind of character is needed in order for Chanel to succeed, especially in light of the considerable obstacles with which an orphaned woman in turn of the century France was faced.
I think for me the problem was that the film did have some emotional content, showing Chanel in complicated romantic situations with a variety of men, but that somehow at the end of the day we could still only look on Chanel’s story from the outside. It was as though we had been invited to look through a window at her life, but never quite got invited inside to join in.
Perhaps this keeping the audience at arm’s length was the point; Chanel is repeatedly characterized as independent to the degree of aloofness throughout the film. However, this coldness had the effect of creating a certain degree of indifference in me toward Chanel—at the end of the film I didn’t really feel anything at all.
It’s not that the acting or the plot is lackluster. On the contrary, it is quite engaging to see how Chanel goes from rags to riches by sheer force of will. Audrey Tautou artfully shows us just what kind of character is needed in order for Chanel to succeed, especially in light of the considerable obstacles with which an orphaned woman in turn of the century France was faced.
I think for me the problem was that the film did have some emotional content, showing Chanel in complicated romantic situations with a variety of men, but that somehow at the end of the day we could still only look on Chanel’s story from the outside. It was as though we had been invited to look through a window at her life, but never quite got invited inside to join in.
Perhaps this keeping the audience at arm’s length was the point; Chanel is repeatedly characterized as independent to the degree of aloofness throughout the film. However, this coldness had the effect of creating a certain degree of indifference in me toward Chanel—at the end of the film I didn’t really feel anything at all.
18 November 2009
Pirate Radio (2009)
In the 1960s, BBC radio didn’t play rock music. So a bunch of dudes got on a boat and broadcast what everyone was secretly listening to anyway!
This movie is pretty entertaining, as ‘based on a true story’ movies go. Lots of talent is involved and there are plenty of laughs. The filmmakers keep it lighthearted, even when terrible things are happening. Very tongue in cheek, very fun. Makes the ‘60s look like the most awesome time ever. Excellent soundtrack, of course.
You probably don’t need to shell out to see it in theaters, though. It will make you just as happy as a rental.
This movie is pretty entertaining, as ‘based on a true story’ movies go. Lots of talent is involved and there are plenty of laughs. The filmmakers keep it lighthearted, even when terrible things are happening. Very tongue in cheek, very fun. Makes the ‘60s look like the most awesome time ever. Excellent soundtrack, of course.
You probably don’t need to shell out to see it in theaters, though. It will make you just as happy as a rental.
17 November 2009
Brick (2005)
Drug dealers and high school and hardboiled dialogue, oh my!
Brick successfully highlights the most ridiculous and the most interesting aspects of film noir, celebrating, critiquing, and updating the oft-debated and much loved genre in the process.
A word to the wise—watch this one when you’re not overly tired. With a complicated plot and extremely jargon-filled dialogue, you’ll need to be on your toes to process it. I actually had to have the captions on the first time I watched it because I got really lost.
Sound like your kind of movie? Check it out! It’s definitely one of my favorites.
Up next:
Up
Pirate Radio
Coco Before Chanel
Brick successfully highlights the most ridiculous and the most interesting aspects of film noir, celebrating, critiquing, and updating the oft-debated and much loved genre in the process.
A word to the wise—watch this one when you’re not overly tired. With a complicated plot and extremely jargon-filled dialogue, you’ll need to be on your toes to process it. I actually had to have the captions on the first time I watched it because I got really lost.
Sound like your kind of movie? Check it out! It’s definitely one of my favorites.
Up next:
Up
Pirate Radio
Coco Before Chanel
15 November 2009
Pi (1998)
There was just no chance that I was going to like this movie, regardless as to whether or not it was entertaining, or even “good”. But before I tell you why I was predisposed to hate it, let me tell you about all the things I disliked about it. Deep breath. Here goes.
The all-synthesizer soundtrack. The constantly overexposed, hokey black and white imagery (Wow. Symbolic.). The disgusting excess of references to Un chien andalou (1929). The bad acting. The pseudo-math. The “headaches.” The ejaculate-like goo that mysteriously appears in the computer. The computer itself. The whole premise of the movie. Darren Aronofsky. The sound quality of the recorded dialogue. The faces of the actors involved. The inclusion of the game ‘Go.’ The fact that no one even eats any pie over the whole course of the movie. The pills. The cigarettes. Sean Gullette’s manner. The DVD menu. The title. The credits.
In the interest of keeping myself from some kind of enraged psychotic break, I will not continue. But let me be clear: my obviously polemical opinion regarding Pi is not a result of me thinking that this movie was “not good”. This blog isn’t about objectively good or bad anything. Even if you think this is the best movie ever, if it is your favorite movie, if you watch it every Thursday at 3:14pm; we can still be friends. But only as long as you have your reasons for liking it, just as I have mine for disliking it (see above laundry list of annoyances).
If you haven’t noticed already, most of my reasons for liking or disliking certain movies have to do with emotions the movies bring up in me, or connections I made between some aspect of the movie and other thoughts or emotions or events. Sometimes I make my motives clear, other times I leave them unsaid.
In the case of Pi, I would like to be frank. My irritable, impossible-to-please attitude stems from many tedious conversations in which some person tried to tell me that I had bad or (worse), naïve, taste in movies because I didn’t think Aronofsky, or any other hero-worshiped “genius” of a director, was as awesome as my partner in conversation thought. Wow, guy in a bar. Wow, girl at a party. Wow, professor leaning back in the chair, enlightening me on the subject of “auteurs”. You think your opinion entitles you to lord your taste over mine. Good for you. But I don’t buy it.
There are probably a lot of movies referencing Buñuel’s work that I would enjoy. I know there are movies with over exposed, black and white images that I could list among my favorites. I actually enjoyed The Fountain. And who doesn't love a couple of movies that they know have atrocious acting?
But goddamnit. I feel the way I feel about Pi because it reminds me of all the times someone tried to tell me I don’t know my own mind. And that’s just not right.
Hopefully, even after all this, you still want to go and figure out yours. That's the whole point.
The all-synthesizer soundtrack. The constantly overexposed, hokey black and white imagery (Wow. Symbolic.). The disgusting excess of references to Un chien andalou (1929). The bad acting. The pseudo-math. The “headaches.” The ejaculate-like goo that mysteriously appears in the computer. The computer itself. The whole premise of the movie. Darren Aronofsky. The sound quality of the recorded dialogue. The faces of the actors involved. The inclusion of the game ‘Go.’ The fact that no one even eats any pie over the whole course of the movie. The pills. The cigarettes. Sean Gullette’s manner. The DVD menu. The title. The credits.
In the interest of keeping myself from some kind of enraged psychotic break, I will not continue. But let me be clear: my obviously polemical opinion regarding Pi is not a result of me thinking that this movie was “not good”. This blog isn’t about objectively good or bad anything. Even if you think this is the best movie ever, if it is your favorite movie, if you watch it every Thursday at 3:14pm; we can still be friends. But only as long as you have your reasons for liking it, just as I have mine for disliking it (see above laundry list of annoyances).
If you haven’t noticed already, most of my reasons for liking or disliking certain movies have to do with emotions the movies bring up in me, or connections I made between some aspect of the movie and other thoughts or emotions or events. Sometimes I make my motives clear, other times I leave them unsaid.
In the case of Pi, I would like to be frank. My irritable, impossible-to-please attitude stems from many tedious conversations in which some person tried to tell me that I had bad or (worse), naïve, taste in movies because I didn’t think Aronofsky, or any other hero-worshiped “genius” of a director, was as awesome as my partner in conversation thought. Wow, guy in a bar. Wow, girl at a party. Wow, professor leaning back in the chair, enlightening me on the subject of “auteurs”. You think your opinion entitles you to lord your taste over mine. Good for you. But I don’t buy it.
There are probably a lot of movies referencing Buñuel’s work that I would enjoy. I know there are movies with over exposed, black and white images that I could list among my favorites. I actually enjoyed The Fountain. And who doesn't love a couple of movies that they know have atrocious acting?
But goddamnit. I feel the way I feel about Pi because it reminds me of all the times someone tried to tell me I don’t know my own mind. And that’s just not right.
Hopefully, even after all this, you still want to go and figure out yours. That's the whole point.
14 November 2009
Paris, je t'aime (2006)
The conceptual predecessor to New York, I Love You, Paris, je t’aime is about relationships and love in the city of Paris. Each vignette of this film is named for the neighborhood in which it takes place. Transitions between each story are abrupt, marked only by a cut and an unobtrusive title appearing in one corner of the frame, which tells you which neighborhood you’re now in. There is ample quiet time at the beginning and end of each short to allow you to reflect on what you’ve seen.
Storylines run the gamut between a mother dealing with the loss of her child to mimes making eyes at each other in a jail cell. All different kinds of love, all different kinds of relationships, and all different kinds of people. Hopefully something for everyone.
I liked Paris, je t’aime more than New York, I Love You. I don’t know if it was the French language, the city it was set in, or just the construction of the film itself. But something about the former made the latter look a little like a cheap imitation in my eyes. Not so much that it was completely invalidated, but just enough to make me really appreciate the original.
You’ll have to see for yourself. Definitely worth watching.
Storylines run the gamut between a mother dealing with the loss of her child to mimes making eyes at each other in a jail cell. All different kinds of love, all different kinds of relationships, and all different kinds of people. Hopefully something for everyone.
I liked Paris, je t’aime more than New York, I Love You. I don’t know if it was the French language, the city it was set in, or just the construction of the film itself. But something about the former made the latter look a little like a cheap imitation in my eyes. Not so much that it was completely invalidated, but just enough to make me really appreciate the original.
You’ll have to see for yourself. Definitely worth watching.
11 November 2009
The Beaches of Agnes (Les plages d'Agnes) (2008)
This film is a remarkable reflection by filmmaker Agnes Varda on her life, both personal and professional.
The Beaches of Agnes is visually complex to an impressive degree—Varda layers images from previous films over reenactments of events from her childhood, relayed through mirrors and frames, filtered through even more layers of images, sometimes with commentary from a cartoon cat said to represent the voice of a famous filmmaker of the French New Wave, of which Varda was a part. A mixture of whimsical and tragic, strange and yet strikingly familiar, none of the imagery or commentary can be said to operate around a central theme. Except perhaps the tricky tendencies of memory.
Events and images overlap, temporality is unclear, symbols and metaphors recur but their meanings shift and change. Varda herself provides fewer answers than questions; she makes no pretense of guiding the viewer on a tour of her career or her life, but rather works through her musings on life on her own time. What she shares with us is not a neat autobiography, but rather a collage of the thoughts that might cross through her mind when she thinks back on where she’s been.
What this all amounts to is a movie that requires thought, through and through. Should you choose to spend your time contemplating Varda’s, you may come away feeling lost, puzzled, or perplexed.
This film also, on some level, requires knowledge of Varda’s work—a oeuvre of which a sadly small number of people have knowledge. If you are interested in checking out her movies, which I highly suggest, skim her imdb profile for releases that interest you. Her Cleo from 5 to 7 made it onto my top ten list a while back, but she has many other gems to offer. Some are available on Netflix, and more are coming soon thanks to the Criterion Collection’s recent-ish release of a box set of her films.
Even if you haven’t seen her movies, I think you should still check this one out at your local art house theater, or at least snag it when it comes to DVD.
A truly rare, sincere intervention into memory, film, and life.
The Beaches of Agnes is visually complex to an impressive degree—Varda layers images from previous films over reenactments of events from her childhood, relayed through mirrors and frames, filtered through even more layers of images, sometimes with commentary from a cartoon cat said to represent the voice of a famous filmmaker of the French New Wave, of which Varda was a part. A mixture of whimsical and tragic, strange and yet strikingly familiar, none of the imagery or commentary can be said to operate around a central theme. Except perhaps the tricky tendencies of memory.
Events and images overlap, temporality is unclear, symbols and metaphors recur but their meanings shift and change. Varda herself provides fewer answers than questions; she makes no pretense of guiding the viewer on a tour of her career or her life, but rather works through her musings on life on her own time. What she shares with us is not a neat autobiography, but rather a collage of the thoughts that might cross through her mind when she thinks back on where she’s been.
What this all amounts to is a movie that requires thought, through and through. Should you choose to spend your time contemplating Varda’s, you may come away feeling lost, puzzled, or perplexed.
This film also, on some level, requires knowledge of Varda’s work—a oeuvre of which a sadly small number of people have knowledge. If you are interested in checking out her movies, which I highly suggest, skim her imdb profile for releases that interest you. Her Cleo from 5 to 7 made it onto my top ten list a while back, but she has many other gems to offer. Some are available on Netflix, and more are coming soon thanks to the Criterion Collection’s recent-ish release of a box set of her films.
Even if you haven’t seen her movies, I think you should still check this one out at your local art house theater, or at least snag it when it comes to DVD.
A truly rare, sincere intervention into memory, film, and life.
10 November 2009
Hamlet 2 (2008)
Silliness for silliness’s sake is pure joy to watch. At least for me. And that, my friends, is the best way I can describe Hamlet 2.
We were blessedly spared any overwrought ideas. We were asked to try to understand no metaphors. We were left with no political messages to wade through, and no overbearing comedic personality trying to sell us his point of view. No subject was too taboo to bring up, no group was too sacred to joke about.
It was brazenly ridiculous, and I loved this movie for that reason. I’d recommend it to anyone with an appreciation for the absurd.
We were blessedly spared any overwrought ideas. We were asked to try to understand no metaphors. We were left with no political messages to wade through, and no overbearing comedic personality trying to sell us his point of view. No subject was too taboo to bring up, no group was too sacred to joke about.
It was brazenly ridiculous, and I loved this movie for that reason. I’d recommend it to anyone with an appreciation for the absurd.
08 November 2009
The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)
This one isn’t worth saying too much about, other than that it is not as terrible as you may have heard.
It was a funny bit of fluff, quirky and entertaining at moments. Lots of silly pop-culture references. Some nicely executed slapstick. Big name actors running around willy-nilly in the desert.
Simply put, The Men Who Stare at Goats doesn’t strive to be too thoughtful or to get at any deeper themes. It just wants to give you a few chuckles and then let you move on with your day.
Probably best as a rental for when you’re bored and can’t find anything else.
It was a funny bit of fluff, quirky and entertaining at moments. Lots of silly pop-culture references. Some nicely executed slapstick. Big name actors running around willy-nilly in the desert.
Simply put, The Men Who Stare at Goats doesn’t strive to be too thoughtful or to get at any deeper themes. It just wants to give you a few chuckles and then let you move on with your day.
Probably best as a rental for when you’re bored and can’t find anything else.
07 November 2009
Queen of the Damned (2002)
Why did this movie not make it onto my top ten worst list? Because it is so bad that in order to protect my mental health, my brain quietly erased it from my conscious memory.
And so, during a post-Halloween all day lay-around-a-thon, it was with a sort of naïve, blank-slate attitude that I happily agreed to watch Queen of the Damned. That’s how my day of quiet post-sugar-rush relaxation transformed into a day of unspeakable outrage.
Even if I couldn’t describe myself as the kind of person who as a teenager read every single one of Anne Rice’s novels, even if I wasn’t a fan of movies about the occult, even if I didn’t readily volunteer myself for bits of camp based on popular culture… I would still be embittered by the mere existence of this movie.
Horrifyingly terrible acting by everyone involved, bizarre non-sequiturs, bad jokes, the inexplicable inclusion of the band Korn, and some seriously immature plot points came together with a large budget to make an outrageously vomitous pastiche of not only Rice’s original material, but also of any shred of a decent film that may have originally existed in the mind of any of the cast or crew.
Sickeningly decadent, but not in the way it was intended.
Kudos to you, makers of Queen of the Damned. You’ve inspired me to work some complaints back into my phantasmagoria. Big time.
Up Next:
Hamlet 2
Beaches of Agnes
The Men Who Stare at Goats
And so, during a post-Halloween all day lay-around-a-thon, it was with a sort of naïve, blank-slate attitude that I happily agreed to watch Queen of the Damned. That’s how my day of quiet post-sugar-rush relaxation transformed into a day of unspeakable outrage.
Even if I couldn’t describe myself as the kind of person who as a teenager read every single one of Anne Rice’s novels, even if I wasn’t a fan of movies about the occult, even if I didn’t readily volunteer myself for bits of camp based on popular culture… I would still be embittered by the mere existence of this movie.
Horrifyingly terrible acting by everyone involved, bizarre non-sequiturs, bad jokes, the inexplicable inclusion of the band Korn, and some seriously immature plot points came together with a large budget to make an outrageously vomitous pastiche of not only Rice’s original material, but also of any shred of a decent film that may have originally existed in the mind of any of the cast or crew.
Sickeningly decadent, but not in the way it was intended.
Kudos to you, makers of Queen of the Damned. You’ve inspired me to work some complaints back into my phantasmagoria. Big time.
Up Next:
Hamlet 2
Beaches of Agnes
The Men Who Stare at Goats
30 October 2009
On Hiatus!
Hey Everyone,
I'll be on hiatus for about a week and a day, traveling around the Bay Area looking for work and hanging out with friends.
Don't fret-- I should have a new review or two or three up as soon as I return next Friday.
Happy Halloween, Feliz Dia de los Muertos, Happy All Saints Day, etc.
Don't forget to set your clocks back!
-Cait
I'll be on hiatus for about a week and a day, traveling around the Bay Area looking for work and hanging out with friends.
Don't fret-- I should have a new review or two or three up as soon as I return next Friday.
Happy Halloween, Feliz Dia de los Muertos, Happy All Saints Day, etc.
Don't forget to set your clocks back!
-Cait
27 October 2009
Away We Go (2009)
I don’t know why this movie wasn’t more popular when it first came out. It is funny and pleasant, and it has a well thought out project.
John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph are very convincing as a couple in their mid-thirties who set out on a trip to find the place they want to raise their first child. Both actors are excellent in their respective roles—they successfully detach themselves from the strong personalities of their previous roles while somehow managing to achieve a level of chemistry and rapport that makes them seem like a real couple.
The believe-ability factor in their relationship is important because the other couples they go to visit are more caricatures of obstacles in parenting than they are living breathing people. Though amusing to me, these hyperbolic figures could definitely be annoying to some, if for no other reason than that their unreality serves as a rather harsh foil to Rudolph and Krasinski’s characters’ relationship.
Overall, I think Away We Go has been underrated. It definitely deserves a few hours of your Sunday evening.
John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph are very convincing as a couple in their mid-thirties who set out on a trip to find the place they want to raise their first child. Both actors are excellent in their respective roles—they successfully detach themselves from the strong personalities of their previous roles while somehow managing to achieve a level of chemistry and rapport that makes them seem like a real couple.
The believe-ability factor in their relationship is important because the other couples they go to visit are more caricatures of obstacles in parenting than they are living breathing people. Though amusing to me, these hyperbolic figures could definitely be annoying to some, if for no other reason than that their unreality serves as a rather harsh foil to Rudolph and Krasinski’s characters’ relationship.
Overall, I think Away We Go has been underrated. It definitely deserves a few hours of your Sunday evening.
24 October 2009
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
-Spoilers!-
I didn’t watch this one when everyone was peeing themselves about how good it was. I have the probably unhealthy mentality that if I hear a ton of good things about a movie, I’ll most likely be disappointed when I see it. Because of this, I usually wait a long while before I’ll watch a movie that people rave about to me, saying “You have to see it!” Like an obstinate child, I sulk for a while before I watch anything that’s supposedly amazing. I usually come around in the end.
I am happy that I waited to see Slumdog Millionaire. I think if I would have caved in and watched it when it first came out, or even when it later won the Oscar for best picture, I would have turned against it just because everyone was saying it was the best movie in the world, ever.
Now I can gladly and a little more unbiased-ly state that I thought it was good. It wasn’t great, and it wasn’t better than everything ever. It was just a good movie. I liked the soundtrack a lot, and I appreciated the pacing—not an overload of suspense, but not boring either. Characters I could get involved with.
The only thing I had reservations about was the odd disjunction of all the in-your-face hideous reality scenes (e.g. the kid forcibly getting his eyes burned out so he could make more money for his orphan-pimping boss) with the freakishly happy nearly fantasy ending. It left me asking, “…really?” with narrowed eyes. But I guess the whole point of the movie was about destiny, not about the unpleasant rationality and probabilities of the real world. It was just an odd combination for me.
At the end of the day, I’d say definitely worth watching.
I didn’t watch this one when everyone was peeing themselves about how good it was. I have the probably unhealthy mentality that if I hear a ton of good things about a movie, I’ll most likely be disappointed when I see it. Because of this, I usually wait a long while before I’ll watch a movie that people rave about to me, saying “You have to see it!” Like an obstinate child, I sulk for a while before I watch anything that’s supposedly amazing. I usually come around in the end.
I am happy that I waited to see Slumdog Millionaire. I think if I would have caved in and watched it when it first came out, or even when it later won the Oscar for best picture, I would have turned against it just because everyone was saying it was the best movie in the world, ever.
Now I can gladly and a little more unbiased-ly state that I thought it was good. It wasn’t great, and it wasn’t better than everything ever. It was just a good movie. I liked the soundtrack a lot, and I appreciated the pacing—not an overload of suspense, but not boring either. Characters I could get involved with.
The only thing I had reservations about was the odd disjunction of all the in-your-face hideous reality scenes (e.g. the kid forcibly getting his eyes burned out so he could make more money for his orphan-pimping boss) with the freakishly happy nearly fantasy ending. It left me asking, “…really?” with narrowed eyes. But I guess the whole point of the movie was about destiny, not about the unpleasant rationality and probabilities of the real world. It was just an odd combination for me.
At the end of the day, I’d say definitely worth watching.
22 October 2009
Where the Wild Things Are (2009)
I am still not sure how I feel about this movie.
It is a hectic, violent, somehow even more fantastical version of the brief and wonderful children’s book upon which it is based. Plot, character design, dialogue—all of these aspects as unbounded as your imagination was as a child, and maybe, still is.
How can I describe such an experience? Strange, definitely; surreal at times. Frightening, yes, even to a grown-up. Breathtaking, and not in the way people use that word when they talk about scenic views. More literally breathtaking, like when you are on a rollercoaster and you feel a lurch; you’re not sure if it’s part of the fun of the ride or if the ride is falling apart and you’re careening toward injury or even death. Should you laugh, should you scream? Remain silently terrified? It was without a doubt brutal. Emotionally and visually.
Would I have enjoyed this if I were a child? Maybe. Some of my childhood favorites were very dark—I’m thinking along the lines of movies like Legend (1985), which had some very horrifying images and themes. But the darkness of that film was actually pure fantasy, whereas Where the Wild Things Are is more rooted to sad reality. Here Max, through his dream world, is dealing with his real world familial troubles in his own way.
There is still enough fun and wildness in the movie to keep kids happy though, I think. If I were one of the eight year olds in the theater watching it, I wouldn’t be thinking “this is how relationships fall apart. Great, something to look forward to.” I would most likely be thinking “Look at those weird things!... Hey!! Is that an owl? Why is that guy’s face all smashed?...” and so on.
But I guess the question is, did I enjoy the movie as an adult? I thought it was undeniably, albeit oddly, beautiful. It was poignant and at times painful like when you look through an old photo album of happy holidays from before, but you remember the sad things in between the years, or the fights you had right after dinner. A remembered disappointment, made OK only by the fact that you got through it. A sort of grim acknowledgment of everything that nobody took a picture of.
I thought when I went to see it that I would be treated to some kind of rapturous joy or at least upheaval of real emotion, dredged out by watching one of my all time favorite children’s books made real. But what I was left with was the feeling that nostalgia doesn’t cut it. You have to go to where your memories aren’t so great to really learn something about yourself or your relationships with other people. You have to go where the wild things are.
It is a hectic, violent, somehow even more fantastical version of the brief and wonderful children’s book upon which it is based. Plot, character design, dialogue—all of these aspects as unbounded as your imagination was as a child, and maybe, still is.
How can I describe such an experience? Strange, definitely; surreal at times. Frightening, yes, even to a grown-up. Breathtaking, and not in the way people use that word when they talk about scenic views. More literally breathtaking, like when you are on a rollercoaster and you feel a lurch; you’re not sure if it’s part of the fun of the ride or if the ride is falling apart and you’re careening toward injury or even death. Should you laugh, should you scream? Remain silently terrified? It was without a doubt brutal. Emotionally and visually.
Would I have enjoyed this if I were a child? Maybe. Some of my childhood favorites were very dark—I’m thinking along the lines of movies like Legend (1985), which had some very horrifying images and themes. But the darkness of that film was actually pure fantasy, whereas Where the Wild Things Are is more rooted to sad reality. Here Max, through his dream world, is dealing with his real world familial troubles in his own way.
There is still enough fun and wildness in the movie to keep kids happy though, I think. If I were one of the eight year olds in the theater watching it, I wouldn’t be thinking “this is how relationships fall apart. Great, something to look forward to.” I would most likely be thinking “Look at those weird things!... Hey!! Is that an owl? Why is that guy’s face all smashed?...” and so on.
But I guess the question is, did I enjoy the movie as an adult? I thought it was undeniably, albeit oddly, beautiful. It was poignant and at times painful like when you look through an old photo album of happy holidays from before, but you remember the sad things in between the years, or the fights you had right after dinner. A remembered disappointment, made OK only by the fact that you got through it. A sort of grim acknowledgment of everything that nobody took a picture of.
I thought when I went to see it that I would be treated to some kind of rapturous joy or at least upheaval of real emotion, dredged out by watching one of my all time favorite children’s books made real. But what I was left with was the feeling that nostalgia doesn’t cut it. You have to go to where your memories aren’t so great to really learn something about yourself or your relationships with other people. You have to go where the wild things are.
21 October 2009
Duma (2005)
-Caution, spoilers.-
Xan and his father raise a lost cheetah from a cub after they find him on the road one night. They name him Duma, Swahili for cheetah. When Xan’s dad dies, Xan crosses the entire country on foot to return Duma to his original habitat, something he and his father had planned to do together.
This movie was stupid. It was so saccharine that even a child would have trouble buying into it. And don’t even get me started on the fact that it was set somewhere in Africa, yet we only see black people living out in the wilderness in a village, and nowhere in the suspiciously pristine city we briefly visit along the way. Not to mention the fact that an eleven year old tiny white kid is supposed to have driven a motorcycle across the desert, wandered through the freaking veldt and into the jungle completely unscathed by the many wild animals he encounters along the way.
Sure, there was some nice scenery in this movie. And a ridiculously well trained actual adult cheetah plays Duma, who interacts casually and sweetly with Xan throughout. (A fascinating curiosity, though I feel a teensy bit unethical about enjoying watching this wild animal roll around like a dog and eat lunchmeat out of the kid's hand.)
But seriously. If you feel compelled to watch it just for the cheetah, put it on mute. Movies made for children don’t have to be this simplistic, unrealistic, and predictable.
In other news:
Going to see Where The Wild Things Are tonight!
Xan and his father raise a lost cheetah from a cub after they find him on the road one night. They name him Duma, Swahili for cheetah. When Xan’s dad dies, Xan crosses the entire country on foot to return Duma to his original habitat, something he and his father had planned to do together.
This movie was stupid. It was so saccharine that even a child would have trouble buying into it. And don’t even get me started on the fact that it was set somewhere in Africa, yet we only see black people living out in the wilderness in a village, and nowhere in the suspiciously pristine city we briefly visit along the way. Not to mention the fact that an eleven year old tiny white kid is supposed to have driven a motorcycle across the desert, wandered through the freaking veldt and into the jungle completely unscathed by the many wild animals he encounters along the way.
Sure, there was some nice scenery in this movie. And a ridiculously well trained actual adult cheetah plays Duma, who interacts casually and sweetly with Xan throughout. (A fascinating curiosity, though I feel a teensy bit unethical about enjoying watching this wild animal roll around like a dog and eat lunchmeat out of the kid's hand.)
But seriously. If you feel compelled to watch it just for the cheetah, put it on mute. Movies made for children don’t have to be this simplistic, unrealistic, and predictable.
In other news:
Going to see Where The Wild Things Are tonight!
19 October 2009
New York, I Love You (2009)
New York, I Love You is a collection of short films which sometimes interconnect, sometimes not, all centered on love relationships (not necessarily romantic), all set in New York City.
We get a nicely varied series of portraits of the sad, vulgar, weird, horrible, and sweet interactions between lots of different characters. The pacing was decent and the varying emotional tones managed to flow across the diverse segments. Overall it was pretty good.
The only thing that slightly put me off was the smarmy last segment that attempted to suture together all the disparate narratives into one neat package. Why was this necessary? Just so people not used to seeing short films put together in a program, people who would rather go to a straightforward start to finish plot about love, could somehow feel like they got their druthers?
You know what? Here is my unsolicited advice: try out a movie that doesn’t serve you your expectations with a cherry on top once in a while. Go to a program of shorts at your local cinematheque or a random little film festival. Go watch a movie you'd never normally even consider seeing. You might like it!
Sure, you can try short films on for size with big releases like New York, I Love You if you like—I’d argue its better than nothing. But don’t be too afraid to step out of your comfort zone, like this movie was. Be bold! You might find some new favorites.
We get a nicely varied series of portraits of the sad, vulgar, weird, horrible, and sweet interactions between lots of different characters. The pacing was decent and the varying emotional tones managed to flow across the diverse segments. Overall it was pretty good.
The only thing that slightly put me off was the smarmy last segment that attempted to suture together all the disparate narratives into one neat package. Why was this necessary? Just so people not used to seeing short films put together in a program, people who would rather go to a straightforward start to finish plot about love, could somehow feel like they got their druthers?
You know what? Here is my unsolicited advice: try out a movie that doesn’t serve you your expectations with a cherry on top once in a while. Go to a program of shorts at your local cinematheque or a random little film festival. Go watch a movie you'd never normally even consider seeing. You might like it!
Sure, you can try short films on for size with big releases like New York, I Love You if you like—I’d argue its better than nothing. But don’t be too afraid to step out of your comfort zone, like this movie was. Be bold! You might find some new favorites.
17 October 2009
My Little Chickadee (1940)
W.C. Fields and Mae West team up in this tale from the Old West involving masked bandits, shoot-‘em-up train heists and crooked sheriffs.
This seemed like it was going to be a surefire entertainer from yesteryear because of the personality of the two stars involved. I expected plenty of laughs and lots of racy gags. Maybe some antiquated humor I couldn’t quite grasp. Outdated sexual innuendo. The usual.
Unfortunately this movie was so boring I had to turn it off midway through. This is something I almost never do. I hate giving up on something halfway—I’ll watch a stinker all the way through to the end just to have a complete picture of what I’ll later complain about to my friends.
But the issue with My Little Chickadee wasn’t that it was bad in the sense of being tasteless, humorless, or illogical. There were some jokes worth a chuckle or two. The problem was that the story was just outright boring. Apparently relying on the charisma of the two stars to carry the thing forward, no one bothered to put much stock in plot. Unfortunately both West and Fields fell totally flat in this one, and so without any kind of interesting action to fall back on, the whole thing just completely fell apart.
Wah-wah-wahwahwahwahhhh! (Disappointed trumpet.)
Up Next, Either:
New York, I Love You
Or
Where the Wild Things Are
This seemed like it was going to be a surefire entertainer from yesteryear because of the personality of the two stars involved. I expected plenty of laughs and lots of racy gags. Maybe some antiquated humor I couldn’t quite grasp. Outdated sexual innuendo. The usual.
Unfortunately this movie was so boring I had to turn it off midway through. This is something I almost never do. I hate giving up on something halfway—I’ll watch a stinker all the way through to the end just to have a complete picture of what I’ll later complain about to my friends.
But the issue with My Little Chickadee wasn’t that it was bad in the sense of being tasteless, humorless, or illogical. There were some jokes worth a chuckle or two. The problem was that the story was just outright boring. Apparently relying on the charisma of the two stars to carry the thing forward, no one bothered to put much stock in plot. Unfortunately both West and Fields fell totally flat in this one, and so without any kind of interesting action to fall back on, the whole thing just completely fell apart.
Wah-wah-wahwahwahwahhhh! (Disappointed trumpet.)
Up Next, Either:
New York, I Love You
Or
Where the Wild Things Are
15 October 2009
Monkey Business (1931)
While I was watching Monkey Business last night I slowly became aware that it is not the Marx brothers’ movie I was thinking about when I wrote my Top Ten off the Top of My Head List a while back. Boy oh boy do I feel foolish.
Not only does Monkey Business not contain the lemonade scene I mentioned before; it also does not have the peanut stand scene or the really lengthy immigrants on deck singing scene that (I thought) made the movie memorable to me. But because it is a Marx brothers’ movie and it is set on a ship I somehow mixed it up with the mystery movie I so happily called my favorite.
I wasn’t at all disappointed that this was not the movie I was thinking of, however. This one had its share of hilarity and gags, with plenty of slapstick and racy humor thrown in. If you have never watched any Marx brothers I would suggest starting with this one. It has a fairly logical storyline and plenty of still relevant and fresh jokes.
I later discovered, via Google and Youtube, that the lemonade and peanut stand scene I was thinking of came from Duck Soup, but I’m still not sure if the immigrant singing on deck scene came from that one or a different one. The most likely scenario is that I am taking many funny scenes from different movies and somehow irrationally trying to convince myself that they are all from the same movie.
Awesomely, what this confusion means is that I’ll just have to re-watch all the Marx brothers’ classics to try figure it out!
Not only does Monkey Business not contain the lemonade scene I mentioned before; it also does not have the peanut stand scene or the really lengthy immigrants on deck singing scene that (I thought) made the movie memorable to me. But because it is a Marx brothers’ movie and it is set on a ship I somehow mixed it up with the mystery movie I so happily called my favorite.
I wasn’t at all disappointed that this was not the movie I was thinking of, however. This one had its share of hilarity and gags, with plenty of slapstick and racy humor thrown in. If you have never watched any Marx brothers I would suggest starting with this one. It has a fairly logical storyline and plenty of still relevant and fresh jokes.
I later discovered, via Google and Youtube, that the lemonade and peanut stand scene I was thinking of came from Duck Soup, but I’m still not sure if the immigrant singing on deck scene came from that one or a different one. The most likely scenario is that I am taking many funny scenes from different movies and somehow irrationally trying to convince myself that they are all from the same movie.
Awesomely, what this confusion means is that I’ll just have to re-watch all the Marx brothers’ classics to try figure it out!
14 October 2009
The Garden (2008)
I do not normally enjoy documentaries. In fact, I generally flatly reject them without regard to the topic. What irritates me about them is the interplay between fact and opinion that documentaries sometimes showcase but more often than not sweep under the rug. In short, movies ostensibly reporting “facts” and “situations” while actually just being some random yahoo’s hugely skewed opinions are not really my thing.
Nevertheless, when The Garden arrived in the mailbox, neatly sealed in its perforated red envelope, I politely conceded to watching it. Why not? It was already here and it was about a community farm in South Central Los Angeles. I just moved back to LA! Might as well take a peek at some current-ish local events.
About forty five minutes into watching it I realize I am really getting upset about these peoples' situation. South Central residents were given a plot of land for a community garden following the Rodney King riots of the early ‘90s. Great! But then, through a twisted series of questionably legal maneuvers, the city somehow ended up selling the land back to the original owner, who proceeded to try to evict the gardeners. The landowner did not realize what he was getting himself into. A huge legal battle with many ups and downs ensued.
I do not want to ruin the story for anyone so I will stop short of saying how the story plays out (although you could probably just look up the actual news events online). What I can say is that The Garden is a successful representation of the tenacity of people who for one reason or another enjoy working the land.
I think this movie achieved what it set out to do, which was to represent the side of the gardeners in this conflict. I cannot say that the movie did anything particularly innovative in the way it tells the story. If you are interested in social justice or urban farming initiatives, check it out.
Nevertheless, when The Garden arrived in the mailbox, neatly sealed in its perforated red envelope, I politely conceded to watching it. Why not? It was already here and it was about a community farm in South Central Los Angeles. I just moved back to LA! Might as well take a peek at some current-ish local events.
About forty five minutes into watching it I realize I am really getting upset about these peoples' situation. South Central residents were given a plot of land for a community garden following the Rodney King riots of the early ‘90s. Great! But then, through a twisted series of questionably legal maneuvers, the city somehow ended up selling the land back to the original owner, who proceeded to try to evict the gardeners. The landowner did not realize what he was getting himself into. A huge legal battle with many ups and downs ensued.
I do not want to ruin the story for anyone so I will stop short of saying how the story plays out (although you could probably just look up the actual news events online). What I can say is that The Garden is a successful representation of the tenacity of people who for one reason or another enjoy working the land.
I think this movie achieved what it set out to do, which was to represent the side of the gardeners in this conflict. I cannot say that the movie did anything particularly innovative in the way it tells the story. If you are interested in social justice or urban farming initiatives, check it out.
13 October 2009
I Heart Huckabees (2004)
Want to know why The Happening (reviewed in a rather negative light last time when I tore into The Invention of Lying) didn’t end up on my top ten worst list? It was because I liked Mark Wahlberg’s extremely silly acting job, which helped me not to take the movie seriously. That was what saved it for me.
In I Heart Huckabees Wahlberg appears in weirdo mode again, acting crazed and violent yet somehow lovable in his role as a fireman having an existential crisis. He’s not even officially the main character of this random and satisfyingly entertaining movie, but he was definitely my favorite. Jason Schwartzman, potty-mouth extraordinaire in his role as an environmental activist poet is who the story focuses on, with Dustin Hoffman, Jude Law, Lily Tomlin, and a host of other big names for backup.
But it is not the caliber of the acting that makes this movie entertaining. Instead it is the sheer number of bizarre moments of violence, physical humor, and philosophical sputtering that create the chemistry that keeps the thing going. It is not a movie which asks you to think deep thoughts—it is a movie about people thrashing around while having deep thoughts to comedic effect.
A very enjoyable diversion.
12 October 2009
The Invention of Lying (2009), featuring a brief review of The Happening (2008)
The Invention of Lying was by far the worst movie I have seen in years.
Evidently Ricky Gervais, who co-wrote and co-directed this ridiculously stupefying waste of celluloid, completely and utterly failed to realize that you cannot make a film which tries to make big statements about the nature of faith, honesty, and deception without properly defining these terms.
Time for a huge tangent. Remember M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening? (Or really, any of his movies after Unbreakable?) In The Happening, M Night’s basic premise was that if plants release a chemical into the air which enters people’s systems and disables their self-preservation instinct, everyone will violently kill themselves by whatever means directly and immediately available to them. Just to be clear, we are supposed to understand that:
P (plant chemical) + H (human brain) => -I (lack of self-preservation instinct) => S (suicide by ridiculous means like laying down in the path of an industrial lawn mower or bashing one’s head against a wall until death)
Somewhere between the –I and S portions of that chain of events, we encounter a huge error. Logically, losing the instinct to preserve one’s own well-being does not necessarily imply that everyone is suddenly driven to suicide. Rather, what it would mean is that people just wouldn’t duck if something came flying at them, or they wouldn’t run away from danger, or they wouldn’t experience the fear and cringing reactions normally associated with risky and dangerous situations. Not so much with the impromptu stabbing themselves in the neck with chopsticks and hanging themselves from trees. Another sad swing-and-a-miss for Mr. Shyamalan.
So back to The Invention of Lying. Gervais asks us to go along with the idea that in a world where people haven’t evolved the ability to lie, each person just says what is on his/her mind at any given moment without any self-censoring whatsoever. Here’s the problem: blabbing insults and character-impugning personal facts stream-of-consciousness style is NOT the same thing as being unable to tell a lie. Unfortunately this type of incident is what the movie relies on to produce “humor” throughout.
For example, when in the first scene of the movie Jennifer Garner’s character answers her door and randomly blurts out “I was just masturbating,” we note that this was not, in fact, in response to any query about what she was doing. It was just something she said off the top of her head. It had nothing to do with whether or not she was able to lie about what she was doing. No one even asked her what she was doing! And can I also note that not one person in the mostly high school student audience so much as chuckled at this zinger of an opening punchline?
Gervais not only befouls the definition of honesty from the get go; he also conflates truth with belief in a way that proves highly problematic to his anti-religion argument which comes out of the woodwork later on. Gervais’s character at one point makes up a set of rules and fundamentals that are meant to resemble the basic premises of Christianity (there is a “man in the sky” who controls everything, if you do bad stuff you go to hell, there is heaven which is the reward for doing good stuff, etc). Of course everyone in the world believes him because they are not aware that he is able to say something untrue. But religion, at least for the faithful, has never been about truth and fact. It’s about belief. It’s a FAITH, not a science experiment, not a force with empirical evidence that can be quantified and replicated in a lab. You can’t win an argument against a faithful person by trying to prove them wrong. It’s just completely pointless.
A lot of good actors got dragged into this ridiculous mess. Perhaps the most offensive to me was Tina Fey’s character, whose few crass lines feature the never funny use of the word faggot, which was apparently supposed to be the punchline of the joke in and of itself. What a waste.
Literally the only funny moment of the film was probably originally an outtake. It was a split second shot of Philip Seymour Hoffman (who plays a bartender) smiling with a wedge of lime covering his teeth. The only time I laughed during the entire movie.
I can’t even say that this movie was unfortunately terrible because everything that was terrible about it was a conscious choice made by the people who put it together and acted it out.
I wish I could have my ten dollars and one hundred minutes back.
10 October 2009
Porco Rosso (1992)
In Porco Rosso we follow the story of an inexplicably pig-faced Italian World War I pilot turned bounty hunter who expertly out-flies pirates in his antique red plane. If that doesn’t sound bizarre or complicated enough for a Japanese children’s movie, consider that the pirates Porco Rosso (the Crimson Pig) fights turn out to be more civil than the Air Force who tries to intervene in their affairs. What’s more, at the end of the film we are left with few clear answers to any of the many questions regarding characters and plot that Miyazaki conjures up over the course of the story. We are expected to rely on our own imaginations to fill in the blanks, or not, as we see fit.
What I love best about Miyazaki movies, Porco Rosso included, is they not only display the beauty of a childlike uninhibited imagination visually, but that they also inspire imagination and thought that goes beyond the borders of the screen. Rather than spoon-feed the audience moral values through hackneyed plotlines and sugarcoated romances, Miyazaki instead offers breathtakingly strange and intriguing tales appropriate for any age. We go places when we watch his films. We see new things, we consider new possibilities. Just what animation, and film in general, is supposed to do.
With frequent magical and unexplained interventions into characters’ identities, highly unconventional narrative trajectories (at least in Western terms), and loads of astonishingly unexpected heroes, Miyazaki’s animated masterpieces are crafted for the truly adventurous and imaginative moviegoer. Lucky for us, in the treasure trove of Miyazaki’s work Porco Rosso is only one small gem.
----
If you’d like a bigger list of Miyazaki’s movies, check out his imdb profile.
(http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0594503/)
The majority of his movies are distributed in the US by Disney on very nice DVDs with options for either English language dubbing or English subtitles according to your preference.
What I love best about Miyazaki movies, Porco Rosso included, is they not only display the beauty of a childlike uninhibited imagination visually, but that they also inspire imagination and thought that goes beyond the borders of the screen. Rather than spoon-feed the audience moral values through hackneyed plotlines and sugarcoated romances, Miyazaki instead offers breathtakingly strange and intriguing tales appropriate for any age. We go places when we watch his films. We see new things, we consider new possibilities. Just what animation, and film in general, is supposed to do.
With frequent magical and unexplained interventions into characters’ identities, highly unconventional narrative trajectories (at least in Western terms), and loads of astonishingly unexpected heroes, Miyazaki’s animated masterpieces are crafted for the truly adventurous and imaginative moviegoer. Lucky for us, in the treasure trove of Miyazaki’s work Porco Rosso is only one small gem.
----
If you’d like a bigger list of Miyazaki’s movies, check out his imdb profile.
(http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0594503/)
The majority of his movies are distributed in the US by Disney on very nice DVDs with options for either English language dubbing or English subtitles according to your preference.
09 October 2009
Everything is Illuminated (2005)
Jonathan Safran Foer collects things related to his family. He decides to travel to the Ukraine to investigate a curious item of his late Grandfather’s bequeathed to him by his Grandmother on her deathbed. On his trip he is guided by a young Ukranian translator named Alex and Alex’s grandfather. Together they come to realize the power and value of memory and heritage, each in their own way. Based on a novel of the same title.
The concept sounded interesting and the trailers made it look visually complex, but unfortunately this movie could not deliver on the promises it made.
For one thing, Elijah Wood (who plays lead character Jonathan) wears improbably extreme eye-magnifying glasses which have the undesirable effect of conjuring up another one of his characters, the cannibalistic freakshow named Kevin from Sin City, released the same year. Unfortunate for everyone involved.
Another misstep is that Alex the Ukranian translator/guide narrates the tale with what was intended to be comically bad English. For me the joke wore off about two minutes into the movie. I can only hear someone who is basically a strawman for contemporary Eurotrashy post-Soviet stereotypes refer to a dog as a “seeing eye bitch” maybe once before I stop thinking it is in any way amusing.
Issues of taste and associations set aside, probably the biggest issue with this movie was that it was trying very hard to be creative, but did not really succeed. It was actually a pretty standard narrative about the importance of remembering the Holocaust, and performed all the usual ruminations on the roots of prejudice and hatred. Just adding quirky and obnoxious characters into the mix along with pastoral scenery didn’t really provide a new perspective on how we may, generations after the fact, go about remembering the atrocities committed by the Nazis or figure out how they impact our own lives.
At its best it was vaguely amusing for a few seconds, but at its worst it was irritating and pointless. Just skip it.
07 October 2009
Adventureland (2009)
What happens when a recent graduate’s trip to Europe and grad school plans fall through because of his parent’s money troubles? He loses his university-prescribed rose colored glasses and has to get a crappy job at a local amusement park. All is not lost, however, because James (our down and out Comp Lit major) finds friends and, improbably, actually grows up a little during his stint cleaning up puke and managing the ring toss.
I have seen this movie twice now and happily I was not disappointed after the second viewing. The dialogue was just as low-key as I remembered, and the soundtrack still provided clever yet subtle commentary on the action taking place. Kristen Stewart was still great as the complicated love interest, and other cast members still provided unexpected and thoughtful counterpoints to lead man Jesse Eisenberg’s wry and shy character James.
Adventureland was originally marketed as a silly college comedy, full of vulgar jokes, sex, and misadventures. That is not an accurate representation of what this movie is about, or how it speaks to the audience. It deals with serious themes and is really more of a coming of age narrative than a balls and pratfalls kind of story. There are some of these types of jokes in the movie, but they are far from the main point or even the main appeal.
That being said, this isn’t likely to be the kind of movie where you’ll watch it and have any type of personal revelations after the fact. But should you choose to watch it, you will be treated to a smartly written, quietly good story about a guy trying to figure out what he really needs out of life to be happy. And I think that’s worth watching.
05 October 2009
Whip It (2009)
I am tired of writing favorable reviews. The title of this blog is “A Phantasmagoria of Complaints!” not “A Plethora of Praise”. Yet lately I’ve been on a kick of happy reviews about good movies. Well frankly it’s getting old. At least for me. I don’t know about on your end.
So I went to see Drew Barrymore’s directorial debut Whip It with this “ready to hate it” attitude in mind. The trailers for the movie make it look insufferably stereotypical and predictable. Ellen Page in yet another “I’m a unique and misunderstood teenager” role. Neatly packaged lessons about “growing up” and being “different.” Modern acceptable girl-power femininity (exemplified here by roller derby) versus outdated 1950s ideals (beauty pageants). Basically, a movie that seemed like the perfect opportunity for me to sharpen my claws and get the grouch out of my system.
Had I left Whip It anywhere in the first forty five minutes of the movie my preconceived notions would have remained uncomplicatedly intact. But then, somewhere around the one hour mark, something changed. The movie started getting kind of good.
I don’t know if it was the chemistry between the cast members, which included a lot of very funny ladies, or if it was the excitement of seeing the roller derby matches on the big screen. Or maybe it was the soundtrack that mixed indie music favorites with nice emotional pieces, or some combination of all these factors coming together in just the right way. Whatever happened over the course of the film, I found myself really getting into it, and I walked out with a smile on my face.
Despite my mid-feature change of heart, however, I cannot honestly say that it was an especially good movie. I did enjoy parts of it because it’s fun to watch roller derby and to hear smart, quirky dialogue performed by big name actresses. But the movie was actually pretty guilty of all that it seemed to be after viewing the previews, and my excited enjoyment of it faded after I left the theater.
The bottom line is that I remain uncomfortable and bored with mainstream film’s assumption that teenage girls are always looking for some dreamboat boy to hold hands with while going against their parents’ wishes and painting the town red. Instead of hinting around at woman for woman desire in every other scene, maybe we could actually just have a character or two who are, indeed, actual girlfriends and not just “girlfriends.” It was a smidge heartbreaking for me to watch the slow motion sudden hopefulness scene that happens when Ellen Page’s character sees the roller derby girls for the first time. Because I knew right away that even though it was set up to resemble a romantic love at first sight type moment, we were probably going to be asked to pretend that Page’s character is in love with the roller derby, and not with the women themselves.
Of course my expectations are absurdly out of line with the way Hollywood works, especially when it comes to PG-13 movies aimed at teenage girls. But is it wrong to hope for, and maybe even start asking for a representation of something beyond the girl meets boy scenario we’re so often served?
So I went to see Drew Barrymore’s directorial debut Whip It with this “ready to hate it” attitude in mind. The trailers for the movie make it look insufferably stereotypical and predictable. Ellen Page in yet another “I’m a unique and misunderstood teenager” role. Neatly packaged lessons about “growing up” and being “different.” Modern acceptable girl-power femininity (exemplified here by roller derby) versus outdated 1950s ideals (beauty pageants). Basically, a movie that seemed like the perfect opportunity for me to sharpen my claws and get the grouch out of my system.
Had I left Whip It anywhere in the first forty five minutes of the movie my preconceived notions would have remained uncomplicatedly intact. But then, somewhere around the one hour mark, something changed. The movie started getting kind of good.
I don’t know if it was the chemistry between the cast members, which included a lot of very funny ladies, or if it was the excitement of seeing the roller derby matches on the big screen. Or maybe it was the soundtrack that mixed indie music favorites with nice emotional pieces, or some combination of all these factors coming together in just the right way. Whatever happened over the course of the film, I found myself really getting into it, and I walked out with a smile on my face.
Despite my mid-feature change of heart, however, I cannot honestly say that it was an especially good movie. I did enjoy parts of it because it’s fun to watch roller derby and to hear smart, quirky dialogue performed by big name actresses. But the movie was actually pretty guilty of all that it seemed to be after viewing the previews, and my excited enjoyment of it faded after I left the theater.
The bottom line is that I remain uncomfortable and bored with mainstream film’s assumption that teenage girls are always looking for some dreamboat boy to hold hands with while going against their parents’ wishes and painting the town red. Instead of hinting around at woman for woman desire in every other scene, maybe we could actually just have a character or two who are, indeed, actual girlfriends and not just “girlfriends.” It was a smidge heartbreaking for me to watch the slow motion sudden hopefulness scene that happens when Ellen Page’s character sees the roller derby girls for the first time. Because I knew right away that even though it was set up to resemble a romantic love at first sight type moment, we were probably going to be asked to pretend that Page’s character is in love with the roller derby, and not with the women themselves.
Of course my expectations are absurdly out of line with the way Hollywood works, especially when it comes to PG-13 movies aimed at teenage girls. But is it wrong to hope for, and maybe even start asking for a representation of something beyond the girl meets boy scenario we’re so often served?
04 October 2009
Greenfingers (2000)
Sound improbably cheesy? Like something that would never happen in real life? Too full of gardening puns for you taste? Well here’s the real surprise—this movie is based on a true story.
Even though it’s unlikely you’ve heard anything about it outside of this blog, you should be at least mildly interested in seeing this movie. Though it is admittedly a very sunny, perhaps simplistic, view of what criminals in Britain can and do go through during their stay in prison, this pleasant patch of inspirational fluff is just the ticket for helping you believe that even the worst situations in life can be made better. Also, Clive Owen plays the lead role with Helen Mirren for backup. AND! As if that weren’t enough to entice you to click “Add to Queue”, consider that you'll also get the added bonus of dry humor and lovely garden settings!
A cheerful pick-me-up for any moviegoer who wants a break from the horrors of the evening news but without committing to a fully fledged trip into fantasyland.
02 October 2009
Off Day
Today is an off day, if you couldn't tell by the title.
Upcoming reviews:
I <3 Huckabees
Adventureland
Everything is Illuminated
And either:
The Invention of Lying
or
Whip It
Happy Friday!
-Cait
Upcoming reviews:
I <3 Huckabees
Adventureland
Everything is Illuminated
And either:
The Invention of Lying
or
Whip It
Happy Friday!
-Cait
01 October 2009
Ten Ways to Ruin Your Day
Since everyone seems to be talking about the recent Rotten Tomatoes 100 Worst list, I decided to try my hand at pondering a few unsightly gaffes dished out by Hollywood and beyond.
Here are a few of my least favorites in no particular order. Caution: Spoilers abound.
1) Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Dear Disney: Please don't set us up for the ideal romantic ending between two people who clearly have no chemistry only to make it so they can't actually be together in the end. After three hours of stunts where people roll down hills in round or cylindrical objects while delivering punchline-less jokes, all I wanted was the freaking happy ending. And you couldn't even deliver that. Thanks for literally nothing.
2) Summer Catch (2001)
Gross, humorless, plotless. Even the eggy Freddie Prinze Jr. with his perpetually freshly glossed lips couldn't inspire any interest in this insanely tasteless and bland dud.
3) A League of Their Own (1992)
Before anyone gets upset, I have to say that I used to like this movie. The issue is now I have seen it way too many times and the goodness wore off, leaving behind the aftertaste of how I used to feel when I watched it. Now whenever I see it on TV I have to contend with the onslaught of emotion that used to confront me while sitting on a couch on a Sunday late afternoon in winter watching HBO, knowing I had a huge pile of homework waiting in the next room and an entire week of school ahead of me. Downer! Note that those feelings have nothing to do with the content of the film. Yet just the thought of the music accompanying the final scenes makes me feel middle school era lethargy and depression all over again.
4) Burn After Reading (2009)
Gigantically mis-marketed film. A case of expectations way out of line with what was delivered. Left feeling so let down and sour that the rest of my night was ruined. It makes the list mainly because the Coen brothers are the writers and directors of one of my favorites (that somehow didn't make it onto my top ten list), Blood Simple (1984).
5) Lilo and Stitch (2002)
Obnoxious and intensely not cute. Couldn't get into it at all. Just wanted it to end. Still cringe when I come across clips and stills.
6) Blood and Chocolate (2007)
Based on a popular young adult novel of the same title, this movie had little to nothing to do with the original source material. Terrible acting. Bad cinematography. Ridiculous dialogue. Stayed only because walking out seemed like giving up, and I wanted to prove that I could give the book the respect of sitting through the movie adaptation. Extremely poor judgment on my part.
7) Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
The kind of movie where you go and you just get so angry because of all the unnecessary blue filters and dramatic slow motion. Atrocious dialogue. Poor performances. Generated a headache that lasted beyond the credits.
8) Hancock (2008)
Holy lord. This was a train wreck. Whoever wrote/made this did not edit it. Played like a short story written for a creative writing class by a physics major at 3am after having just taken two midterms and had stomach flu.
9) Birth of a Nation (1915)
I don't care if D.W. Griffith established parallel editing or whatever with this movie, I hate it. I hate it so much. The obvious reason is that its racist, yet still intensely famous. The not so obvious reason is that it just sucks.
10) T,O,U,C,H,I,N,G (1969)
If you ever get the opportunity to watch this avant-garde classic, don't. Just walk away. Don't question me, just walk right back out through the door you came in.
Aaaand that's the long and short of it.
Arguments? Additions? Please feel free to comment!
Here are a few of my least favorites in no particular order. Caution: Spoilers abound.
1) Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Dear Disney: Please don't set us up for the ideal romantic ending between two people who clearly have no chemistry only to make it so they can't actually be together in the end. After three hours of stunts where people roll down hills in round or cylindrical objects while delivering punchline-less jokes, all I wanted was the freaking happy ending. And you couldn't even deliver that. Thanks for literally nothing.
2) Summer Catch (2001)
Gross, humorless, plotless. Even the eggy Freddie Prinze Jr. with his perpetually freshly glossed lips couldn't inspire any interest in this insanely tasteless and bland dud.
3) A League of Their Own (1992)
Before anyone gets upset, I have to say that I used to like this movie. The issue is now I have seen it way too many times and the goodness wore off, leaving behind the aftertaste of how I used to feel when I watched it. Now whenever I see it on TV I have to contend with the onslaught of emotion that used to confront me while sitting on a couch on a Sunday late afternoon in winter watching HBO, knowing I had a huge pile of homework waiting in the next room and an entire week of school ahead of me. Downer! Note that those feelings have nothing to do with the content of the film. Yet just the thought of the music accompanying the final scenes makes me feel middle school era lethargy and depression all over again.
4) Burn After Reading (2009)
Gigantically mis-marketed film. A case of expectations way out of line with what was delivered. Left feeling so let down and sour that the rest of my night was ruined. It makes the list mainly because the Coen brothers are the writers and directors of one of my favorites (that somehow didn't make it onto my top ten list), Blood Simple (1984).
5) Lilo and Stitch (2002)
Obnoxious and intensely not cute. Couldn't get into it at all. Just wanted it to end. Still cringe when I come across clips and stills.
6) Blood and Chocolate (2007)
Based on a popular young adult novel of the same title, this movie had little to nothing to do with the original source material. Terrible acting. Bad cinematography. Ridiculous dialogue. Stayed only because walking out seemed like giving up, and I wanted to prove that I could give the book the respect of sitting through the movie adaptation. Extremely poor judgment on my part.
7) Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
The kind of movie where you go and you just get so angry because of all the unnecessary blue filters and dramatic slow motion. Atrocious dialogue. Poor performances. Generated a headache that lasted beyond the credits.
8) Hancock (2008)
Holy lord. This was a train wreck. Whoever wrote/made this did not edit it. Played like a short story written for a creative writing class by a physics major at 3am after having just taken two midterms and had stomach flu.
9) Birth of a Nation (1915)
I don't care if D.W. Griffith established parallel editing or whatever with this movie, I hate it. I hate it so much. The obvious reason is that its racist, yet still intensely famous. The not so obvious reason is that it just sucks.
10) T,O,U,C,H,I,N,G (1969)
If you ever get the opportunity to watch this avant-garde classic, don't. Just walk away. Don't question me, just walk right back out through the door you came in.
Aaaand that's the long and short of it.
Arguments? Additions? Please feel free to comment!
30 September 2009
Wendy and Lucy (2008)
Wendy and her dog Lucy are driving across the United States on the way to Alaska to look for work, but they hit a snag when the car they live and travel in breaks down in a small town in Oregon.
---
In what amounts to a compellingly understated depiction of the difficulties of a young woman’s transient lifestyle, quiet moments and long takes leave us with plenty of time for reflection. Afforded the rare luxury of time to let my mind wander while watching, I found myself spending a good deal of the film not only processing Wendy’s interactions with her world, but also dwelling on how I might react if I suddenly found myself in her situation.
However, we are not expected to know Wendy by the end of the movie. In fact, we know very little about her at all, save for the events we see unfold on the screen. In this way, Wendy becomes an anonymous every-woman of sorts; that lady you saw at the store once, who said she was just passing through, and was looking after her dog.
Instead, the character most developed over the course of the film is you, as you figure out how you fit into this world where Wendy and Lucy struggle to make their way.
---
Anyone who has ever felt lost could appreciate this film, especially with a warm cup of tea in hand and memories of a time when you were drifting through life in mind.
---
In what amounts to a compellingly understated depiction of the difficulties of a young woman’s transient lifestyle, quiet moments and long takes leave us with plenty of time for reflection. Afforded the rare luxury of time to let my mind wander while watching, I found myself spending a good deal of the film not only processing Wendy’s interactions with her world, but also dwelling on how I might react if I suddenly found myself in her situation.
However, we are not expected to know Wendy by the end of the movie. In fact, we know very little about her at all, save for the events we see unfold on the screen. In this way, Wendy becomes an anonymous every-woman of sorts; that lady you saw at the store once, who said she was just passing through, and was looking after her dog.
Instead, the character most developed over the course of the film is you, as you figure out how you fit into this world where Wendy and Lucy struggle to make their way.
---
Anyone who has ever felt lost could appreciate this film, especially with a warm cup of tea in hand and memories of a time when you were drifting through life in mind.
29 September 2009
Bright Star (2009)
Jane Campion, director of The Piano (1993), has a keen eye for detail in this patient period piece. From the macro shots of the hand stitching to which Ms. Brawne dedicates herself, to the script of Mr. Keats’s love letters, and even in the sad, dark portraits of sickrooms and poverty that punctuate the film we are treated with carefully, beautifully and thoughtfully composed images and a tasteful soundtrack. Period pieces are usually focused on costuming and setting, but here Campion’s efforts shine as something truly special.
As for the story content of the film, I have to say I took the whole thing very personally. Based on historical happenings, the film isn’t about building suspense and action. It is about getting to know characters, feeling how they felt, and knowing what it meant to be them on some level. Excellent acting, real dialogue.
It should be made clear, however, that this movie was far more centered on Fanny Brawne than it was on Keats (which, if you know Campion’s work, is not a huge surprise). We see the story unfold through her eyes and we get many more insights into her emotions than those of the often absent Mr. Keats. That’s not really a weak point of the movie, but you should be aware of that fact so you don’t go to see it thinking you’re going to get to know John Keats.
28 September 2009
Top Ten Off the Top of My Head
People often ask me what my favorite movie is. I always find that type of question very difficult to answer. Do I go with most entertaining? Movies I have watched over and over? Favorite genre of movies? Favorite era? Director? Whatever I think is "the best"? According to what standard?
So I decided to quit stressing and just make a list of the top ten that I can think of right now, without any hesitation. This list will likely change over time, but hey. Fodder for future posts.
In no particular order:
1) Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)
I think it is quite beautiful. And it has a scene where a piglet gets drunk and runs around. It's silent yet its not annoying to sit through.
2) The Goonies (1985)
I have seen it probably over a hundred times and it never ever gets old. Someday I shall go to Astoria, Oregon where it was set and walk around quoting the entire thing while listening to the soundtrack. Then I will have truly reached the pinnacle of annoying, but I will also feel fulfilled.
3) The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
Amazingly complex, Wes Anderson's masterpiece in my opinion. Humor that never gets old, pathos that never goes stale. Excellent soundtrack.
4) Spirited Away (2001)
So strange yet so engaging. Hayao Miyazaki is one of my all time favorites. This movie tied with his rendition of Howl's Moving Castle (2004). Haven't seen Ponyo yet.
5) Boys Don't Cry (1999)
Brutal, terrible, excellent. Not one I can watch over and over, but one that made me cry.
6) The Snowman (1982)
Amazing colored pencil animation, lovely soundtrack, every kid's dream but with a touch of sadness.
7) Monkey Business (1931)
Marx Brothers classic. Hilarious gags from Groucho, Harpo, Chico and Zeppo. The sort of movie where you can't stop laughing once you start. Especially the lemonade scene.
8) La cienaga (2001)
The sort of movie where nothing happens, yet everything happens. Brilliant colors and nuanced characters, even if you don't understand Spanish. Very honest.
9) Labyrinth (1986)
David Bowie, goblin king and baby thief extraordinaire, wears tights and wigs and makeup while he attempts to foil Jennifer Connelly's efforts to rescue her little brother. Of course its a musical.
10) Cleo from 5 to 7 (1962)
A gem of the French New Wave. Shot in lovely black and white in Paris. You'll think you hate the protagonist in the beginning, but by the end you'll cry too when she sings "Sans Toi."
So that's it. For now. Do you have your own list? Its fun to think about, especially when you put a limitation in number on your "favorites."
So I decided to quit stressing and just make a list of the top ten that I can think of right now, without any hesitation. This list will likely change over time, but hey. Fodder for future posts.
In no particular order:
1) Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)
I think it is quite beautiful. And it has a scene where a piglet gets drunk and runs around. It's silent yet its not annoying to sit through.
2) The Goonies (1985)
I have seen it probably over a hundred times and it never ever gets old. Someday I shall go to Astoria, Oregon where it was set and walk around quoting the entire thing while listening to the soundtrack. Then I will have truly reached the pinnacle of annoying, but I will also feel fulfilled.
3) The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
Amazingly complex, Wes Anderson's masterpiece in my opinion. Humor that never gets old, pathos that never goes stale. Excellent soundtrack.
4) Spirited Away (2001)
So strange yet so engaging. Hayao Miyazaki is one of my all time favorites. This movie tied with his rendition of Howl's Moving Castle (2004). Haven't seen Ponyo yet.
5) Boys Don't Cry (1999)
Brutal, terrible, excellent. Not one I can watch over and over, but one that made me cry.
6) The Snowman (1982)
Amazing colored pencil animation, lovely soundtrack, every kid's dream but with a touch of sadness.
7) Monkey Business (1931)
Marx Brothers classic. Hilarious gags from Groucho, Harpo, Chico and Zeppo. The sort of movie where you can't stop laughing once you start. Especially the lemonade scene.
8) La cienaga (2001)
The sort of movie where nothing happens, yet everything happens. Brilliant colors and nuanced characters, even if you don't understand Spanish. Very honest.
9) Labyrinth (1986)
David Bowie, goblin king and baby thief extraordinaire, wears tights and wigs and makeup while he attempts to foil Jennifer Connelly's efforts to rescue her little brother. Of course its a musical.
10) Cleo from 5 to 7 (1962)
A gem of the French New Wave. Shot in lovely black and white in Paris. You'll think you hate the protagonist in the beginning, but by the end you'll cry too when she sings "Sans Toi."
So that's it. For now. Do you have your own list? Its fun to think about, especially when you put a limitation in number on your "favorites."
27 September 2009
Juno (2007)
Since I figure a lot of people have seen it already, I’m going to keep this short. I’ve also been toying with the idea of having more short reviews than long ones, focusing my lengthier diatribes on new releases. This keeps people from having to slog through paragraphs on movies that are old news, and it should theoretically keep my blog more readable on a regular basis. Any thoughts? Please let me know.
Anyway, here goes.
Summary:
High school girl named Juno gets pregnant and then uses a plethora of improbably witty quips to maneuver her way through the process of giving up the baby for adoption.
Good:
It had its moments. There were some parts I laughed at and some cutesy stuff that made me feel all fuzzycuddly. I was entertained through and through.
Bad:
The improbability factor. No matter which way you sliced it, this was a ridiculously rosy view of what happens to a girl during teenage pregnancy in Middle America. Juno cries once during the entire movie. Once. Evidently shielded from actual human (let alone pregnant teenager) emotion by the juggernaut of her verbosity, Juno makes her way from start to finish acting like “it’s really no big deal.” She has parents who support her, finds the perfect woman to be the new mother of her child, and maintains her central friendships and romantic interest with minimal damage. I don’t buy it.
Now, I am aware that Juno isn’t supposed to be a documentary of teenage pregnancy in America. And to be honest, I wouldn’t watch it if it was. It’s just that the sheer fakeness of the dialogue and the plot didn’t charm me in the way I think they were meant to, and for that reason, I think this movie was kind of just ok. Sort of like when you’re craving something sweet out to eat and you settle for stale vending machine candy. It’s not the fresh baked chocolate chip cookie you were hoping for, but it’s not a watery glass of Kool Aid either.
Overall:
Worth watching once as a rental (not that you have any other options currently), for a handful of laughs and a good test of how much snark you can take in one sitting.
Anyway, here goes.
Summary:
High school girl named Juno gets pregnant and then uses a plethora of improbably witty quips to maneuver her way through the process of giving up the baby for adoption.
Good:
It had its moments. There were some parts I laughed at and some cutesy stuff that made me feel all fuzzycuddly. I was entertained through and through.
Bad:
The improbability factor. No matter which way you sliced it, this was a ridiculously rosy view of what happens to a girl during teenage pregnancy in Middle America. Juno cries once during the entire movie. Once. Evidently shielded from actual human (let alone pregnant teenager) emotion by the juggernaut of her verbosity, Juno makes her way from start to finish acting like “it’s really no big deal.” She has parents who support her, finds the perfect woman to be the new mother of her child, and maintains her central friendships and romantic interest with minimal damage. I don’t buy it.
Now, I am aware that Juno isn’t supposed to be a documentary of teenage pregnancy in America. And to be honest, I wouldn’t watch it if it was. It’s just that the sheer fakeness of the dialogue and the plot didn’t charm me in the way I think they were meant to, and for that reason, I think this movie was kind of just ok. Sort of like when you’re craving something sweet out to eat and you settle for stale vending machine candy. It’s not the fresh baked chocolate chip cookie you were hoping for, but it’s not a watery glass of Kool Aid either.
Overall:
Worth watching once as a rental (not that you have any other options currently), for a handful of laughs and a good test of how much snark you can take in one sitting.
26 September 2009
Off Day
Hey all,
No new post today, but be sure to check out the wonderful and welcom insightful comments that have been posted on the reviews so far, and the newish Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs review.
Upcoming:
- List of my top ten (?) favorite movies!
- Reviews of Juno, Sunshine Cleaners, and Wendy and Lucy.
Have a great weekend!
No new post today, but be sure to check out the wonderful and welcom insightful comments that have been posted on the reviews so far, and the newish Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs review.
Upcoming:
- List of my top ten (?) favorite movies!
- Reviews of Juno, Sunshine Cleaners, and Wendy and Lucy.
Have a great weekend!
25 September 2009
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (2009)
Summary:
A ne’er-do-well inventor named Flint Lockwood botches one experiment after another while the local economy of the small island he lives on goes down the tubes too. A botched project unexpectedly leads to a big break for Lockwood and his town as well as for aspiring weather girl Sam Sparks, but circumstances don’t quite turn out to be the bowl of cherries that they initially seem.
Tiny Summary:
Food falls from the sky. Meanwhile, silliness!
Yay!:
This movie was stuffed with hilarious moments. I’m sure that if I were to watch it again I would find even more random little things to laugh at. There are nods to adult comprehension level humor throughout, but still enough just plain silly jokes and gags so that kids aren’t left scratching their heads. Happily, however, the movie avoids relying on bodily humor as a way to cater to the younger crowd (which I maintain is OK as long as used sparingly), instead opting for slapstick and scenarios kids recognize, like being the odd one out at school and trying to make friends.
Also, let’s talk about the surprisingly varied all star cast for a second. Usually I frown upon big names doing the voices for animation, because to me it’s distracting to be thinking “This is Billy Crystal as Calcifer” instead of “This is the fire demon Calcifer!” (see Howl’s Moving Castle (2004) dubbed and then subtitled for details). Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs features the not entirely superstar but definitely talented talents of Bill Hader, Anna Faris, and Andy Samberg. However, it also has Mr. T (!!!), Neil Patrick Harris, James Caan and Benjamin Bratt. I like all of those people exponentially more now that they were associated with this movie—totally unexpected and zany. Yes, zany.
Now down to the nitty gritty. What can make an animated movie special beyond the level of story? The animation style itself! This includes character design, the way the characters and objects move, color, faithfulness to or departure from reality, and stuff like that. Here we are treated to a pleasantly bright but not over the top color palette, very candied but definitely balanced out by some weird and definitely not aesthetically pleasing imagery (see the water to food conversion machine near the end). Why is color important? You might not consciously register color when you go to watch a movie (animated or otherwise), but it helps set the tone for you on some level. Here the colors work to make you feel happy and interested all the way through, even during scary or sad moments. It’s a kid’s movie, so that’s perfect.
I also think that the 3-D technology was utilized very well here. I am not a fan of 3-D just for the sake of theme park moments like shrapnel flying toward the audience, and I don’t get it when movies are 3-D just because (I saw Coraline (2009) in 3-D and walked out wondering why they bothered). In Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, 3-D helped bring to life otherwise very 2-D cartooney characters, and to help the audience visualize some very farfetched scenarios (e.g. cheeseburgers raining from pink and purple clouds). Basically, the way this movie uses 3-D helps us invest more fully in the fantasy world, which is great!
Going back to the character design, the characters are very stylized, and in a good way. There is no pretense of any type of life-like representation going on here. All of the characters, human, food, and animal alike, are bendy, squashy, and stretchy to the extreme, have huge expressive eyes, and are pretty much visually appealing all around. One of my favorite moments is a self-reflexive nod to the improbability of the characters’ anatomy, which occurs when Flint has to puff out his lips to kiss Sam, because his nose is so large that he can’t possibly reach her face with his mouth otherwise. I bring this point up because recently I saw Up (2009) and one of my major qualms with it was that I found the main characters to be duds in terms of visual appeal. Even the golden retriever Dug wasn’t really visually cute to me, which is saying something considering his addendum to every sentence was “…because I love you.” Not to imply that a character has to be cute or cuddly to get me to like it. Just… appealing. I guess it’s a personal taste issue.
Boo!:
The only drawback I could come up with for this movie was the price. I saw it as a matinee at my local Regal Cinemas and it cost $12.50 plus tax. Kind of a lot of money for a movie in general! However, I think the extra price is supposed to be because of the use of 3-D, which I already decided was justified in the case of this movie. Plus I really think you should see this one in theaters, because on the small screen the colors wouldn’t be as bright, the 3-D effect would be lost, and overall it just wouldn’t be as cool.
Overall:
This movie was great and you should go see it if you are at all interested in animation, children's films, or laughing a lot for about an hour and a half!
Also: The extended trailer for the upcoming Where the Wild Things Are literally made me cry. Again. Looks. SO. AMAZING!
A ne’er-do-well inventor named Flint Lockwood botches one experiment after another while the local economy of the small island he lives on goes down the tubes too. A botched project unexpectedly leads to a big break for Lockwood and his town as well as for aspiring weather girl Sam Sparks, but circumstances don’t quite turn out to be the bowl of cherries that they initially seem.
Tiny Summary:
Food falls from the sky. Meanwhile, silliness!
Yay!:
This movie was stuffed with hilarious moments. I’m sure that if I were to watch it again I would find even more random little things to laugh at. There are nods to adult comprehension level humor throughout, but still enough just plain silly jokes and gags so that kids aren’t left scratching their heads. Happily, however, the movie avoids relying on bodily humor as a way to cater to the younger crowd (which I maintain is OK as long as used sparingly), instead opting for slapstick and scenarios kids recognize, like being the odd one out at school and trying to make friends.
Also, let’s talk about the surprisingly varied all star cast for a second. Usually I frown upon big names doing the voices for animation, because to me it’s distracting to be thinking “This is Billy Crystal as Calcifer” instead of “This is the fire demon Calcifer!” (see Howl’s Moving Castle (2004) dubbed and then subtitled for details). Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs features the not entirely superstar but definitely talented talents of Bill Hader, Anna Faris, and Andy Samberg. However, it also has Mr. T (!!!), Neil Patrick Harris, James Caan and Benjamin Bratt. I like all of those people exponentially more now that they were associated with this movie—totally unexpected and zany. Yes, zany.
Now down to the nitty gritty. What can make an animated movie special beyond the level of story? The animation style itself! This includes character design, the way the characters and objects move, color, faithfulness to or departure from reality, and stuff like that. Here we are treated to a pleasantly bright but not over the top color palette, very candied but definitely balanced out by some weird and definitely not aesthetically pleasing imagery (see the water to food conversion machine near the end). Why is color important? You might not consciously register color when you go to watch a movie (animated or otherwise), but it helps set the tone for you on some level. Here the colors work to make you feel happy and interested all the way through, even during scary or sad moments. It’s a kid’s movie, so that’s perfect.
I also think that the 3-D technology was utilized very well here. I am not a fan of 3-D just for the sake of theme park moments like shrapnel flying toward the audience, and I don’t get it when movies are 3-D just because (I saw Coraline (2009) in 3-D and walked out wondering why they bothered). In Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, 3-D helped bring to life otherwise very 2-D cartooney characters, and to help the audience visualize some very farfetched scenarios (e.g. cheeseburgers raining from pink and purple clouds). Basically, the way this movie uses 3-D helps us invest more fully in the fantasy world, which is great!
Going back to the character design, the characters are very stylized, and in a good way. There is no pretense of any type of life-like representation going on here. All of the characters, human, food, and animal alike, are bendy, squashy, and stretchy to the extreme, have huge expressive eyes, and are pretty much visually appealing all around. One of my favorite moments is a self-reflexive nod to the improbability of the characters’ anatomy, which occurs when Flint has to puff out his lips to kiss Sam, because his nose is so large that he can’t possibly reach her face with his mouth otherwise. I bring this point up because recently I saw Up (2009) and one of my major qualms with it was that I found the main characters to be duds in terms of visual appeal. Even the golden retriever Dug wasn’t really visually cute to me, which is saying something considering his addendum to every sentence was “…because I love you.” Not to imply that a character has to be cute or cuddly to get me to like it. Just… appealing. I guess it’s a personal taste issue.
Boo!:
The only drawback I could come up with for this movie was the price. I saw it as a matinee at my local Regal Cinemas and it cost $12.50 plus tax. Kind of a lot of money for a movie in general! However, I think the extra price is supposed to be because of the use of 3-D, which I already decided was justified in the case of this movie. Plus I really think you should see this one in theaters, because on the small screen the colors wouldn’t be as bright, the 3-D effect would be lost, and overall it just wouldn’t be as cool.
Overall:
This movie was great and you should go see it if you are at all interested in animation, children's films, or laughing a lot for about an hour and a half!
Also: The extended trailer for the upcoming Where the Wild Things Are literally made me cry. Again. Looks. SO. AMAZING!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
