Out with a Bang

Hi everyone. This is the end of the Phantasmagoria of Complaints. To explain why, in brief: I find that more and more I want to dedicate my time to pursuits that take me away from my desk chair during the months and moments when I'm not literally chained to it by school work. And so... my time as a mediocre, snarky, internet-based critic of the cinematic arts comes (perhaps mercifully?) to a close.

As a celebratory/conciliatory gesture, I will leave you with some reviews of movies I have seen since last posting ages and ages ago.

Here goes:

Magic Mike: WooWOOO!!!!! Weinerz lollllzzz ^_-

Brave: Meh. Disappointing for various reasons.

The Avengers: Meh... because I didn't care about any of the characters. Bonus points though for having a very reverent fan in the audience-- his drawn out yet quiet comment "goddamnit" when that one guy took a bullet for the team and died made the whole experience worth it.

Sherlock Homes 2: Actually really entertaining to me. I hear it was exactly the same as the first one, of which I didn't have anything resembling a high opinion. Perhaps I was just too distracted during the first one, the experience of which was ruined by a group of truly out of control teenagers who heckled a woman in the theater so much that she had to leave.

Underworld Awakening: Also surprisingly enjoyable. I like Kate Beckinsale, ever since /Cold Comfort Farm/ way back when. And, obviously, vampires and werewolves!

The Hangover 2: Literally exactly the same as Hangover 1. Although... I do have to admit that the photo series at the end of both movies made me want to write a (probably pitifully theoretically underdeveloped) essay on the role of tableaux (and phantasmagoria?) in the movie (and maybe others like it... though I couldn't name any off the top of my head). I can already hear the grad school adviser's voice in my head asking, deadpan, "So, where are you going with this idea?" I don't know. That's why I chose blogging (and now teaching) instead of academ-ing.

Moonrise Kingdom: Thank you, Wes Anderson, for finally making a movie that nears The Royal Tenenbaums in goodness (if not greatness). Bonus points for the excellent timing in the ear piercing scene.

Hugo: Uhhmmm... I failed to find anything redeeming in this silly, boring story. Am I the only one who though this was a total snooze? I thought I would love it due to its connection to early film history. I was wrong.

And with that, the Phantasmagoria fades to black. I have enjoyed writing reviews for the past however long it's been, but it's time for me to move on now. I will be leaving the blog up, however, because there are just too many people who visit to find the time stamp of the shitting scene in Severed Ways. I can't let them down. For that special group of people, this blog is practically a public service.

On a more sincere note. You can always call or email me if you want to hear me complain some more about movies or any other topic. I'll always have opinions and usually some zesty one-liners, just not the time to write that way I would like.

Thank you for reading.

 -Cait

Heyyyy...

Hey Everyone,

I have on my list of reviews to write:
1) Hugo
2) Underworld: Awakening
3) the Hallmark movie "A Smile As Big As The Moon"

Here's what's on the to-do list above that stuff:
OMG SPRING SEMESTER STARTED AND I HAVE TO START WORKING WITH CHILDREN LIKE 24 HOURS A DAY AND PREPARING FOR THAT AND SOME HIGH STAKES EXAMS THAT WILL BE REARING THEIR UGLY HEADS HERE PRETTY QUICK

So I just wanted to say that there'll likely be ungainly, unprofessional, and unpleasantly long delays between posts from here until late May. When (not if, right guys?! heh..heh..hehhh..trails off, eyes glazed over staring in general direction of stack of books and papers) I do end up posting, I'll put a status update on the ol' facebook. So if you're into reading this blog, cast your errant eye on my page when you feel like it (or more likely when you don't feel like working) and you'll find out pretty quick if there's anything new for you to look at or not.

-the complainer

Iris (Cirque du Soleil-- Kodak Center, Los Angeles)

Iris (pronounced the French way, "ee-rees") isn't a movie; it's a Cirque du Soleil show that's playing right now at the Kodak Theater (where they film the Academy Awards) in L.A., the theme of which is the history of cinema and movie making.

Needless to say, when I several months ago first saw the advertisements for this show, I was overwhelmed with enthusiasm and excitement. This buoyant feeling almost immediately (and predictably) devolved into anxiety that Cirque would somehow manage to screw it up and thereby incur my wrath for sullying the subject that has been my passion for quite some time now. Despite my apprehension, however, I ended up deciding to go to the show anyway, because I've been fortunate enough to have seen several Cirque shows over the last ten years and I thoroughly enjoyed them all.

Fast forward to September 11th, 2011 (yes, I'm a little behind on my blogging) and you'll find me nearly moved to tears within seconds of being seated before the show starts, because I can see from the get-go that the crazy French Canadian Guy Laliberte (CEO of Cirque du Soleil) has done yet another mind bogglingly competent job putting together a crazy-weird-circus-fantasy spectacle.

My favorite pre-show attraction was the female mime wandering the crowd with a metal contraption surrounding her body. She solicited several people to spin her curious cylinder-skirt, and when no one would do it fast enough to suit her needs she gave it a yank herself. To the delight of the crowd, her skirt (which resembled a film reel turned on its side) revealed itself to be a working zoetrope showing boxers fighting each other in a short, repeated loop. Rewind to February of 2005 and you'll find a fresher-faced me sitting in my history of early cinema class at UC Berkeley watching a very enthusiastic young professor (Professor Kaveh Askari, a graduate of the University of Chicago (?) if you were wondering) demonstrating much smaller versions of the same pre-cinematic device and others like it. This was probably the moment that I decided I loved film and wanted to learn everything about it, and so for the Cirque show to reference it meant a lot to me. (<-- huge understatement) The rest of the show was no different in terms of its emotional impact. Nearly every single aspect connected to some aspect of film as an art form, film history, or film production. Some of the references made were: - Norman McLaren's "Pas de deux"

- Georges Melies' "A Trip to the Moon"

- Edison's "Electrocution of an Elephant" (part of the Cinema of Attractions)

"The Kiss"

- Lotte Reiniger's "Adventures of Prince Achmed"

- Dziga Vertov's "The Man with the Movie Camera" or "The Cinematic Orchestra"

- The Al Jolson film "The Jazz Singer"

- And even what I took as a reference to a particular character from a Hayao Miyazaki film (Howl's Moving Castle)

All these references (and many, many more) were integrated with the usual Cirque spectacle of acrobatics, contortionists, a loose, somewhat dubious romantic narrative that ties the show together, wonderful live music, and some silly clowns which Cirque here opted to use to refer to modern day Hollywood industry stereotypes.

My favorite part was the McLaren reference, because it took a series of dancers and placed them in front of an enormous screen that showed their motion trails, just like in "Pas de deux". I also greatly relished the carnival/vaudeville aspect to this particular Cirque show (though I recognize it's a somewhat common theme throughout them and circus in general), because it connected back to the roots of film as a sort of freak show attraction. I also was just as much impressed by the integration of technology into the acts (I'm thinking in particular of one scene that's incredibly difficult to describe, so I'll leave it up to you to go experience it for yourself) as I was by the skill of the performers, some of whom are Olympic athletes.

I can't say whether many people in the audience understood these myriad references to cinema, but whether or not they did is not important to me. I loved the show because it reminded me of a time in my life not so long ago when I was ruled by a singular passion and drive inspired by the art form of film. Though this time isn't very far distant from me, it feels miles away. Because I am acutely aware of the literal (and metaphorical) distance I've traveled since those glorious days of oblivious (arguably naive) infatuation with my chosen subject of study, Iris moved me quite deeply insofar as it helped me reconnect with past moments in the sun, and I know this intensely personal experience would certainly not be what most people experience on seeing the show.

I highly recommend that you see Iris if you love film and you're in Los Angeles. You won't regret it.

Harry Potter Update

So. As some of you may have noticed, I have NOT been keeping up with my self imposed goal of writing one Potter review a month leading up to the big night (which is tonight).

This comes as a result of extreme busy-ness on my part, which, while not unforeseen, nevertheless could not be helped.

As it stands I have Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince sitting on my desk waiting to be watched, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 in my Netflix queue, and a ticket to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 safely tucked away in one of my rendezvous's wallets for later on.

After I finish this post I'll be heading upstairs to prepare coffee for the midnight viewing, which I will be attending with friends who are willing and eager to share in my extremely nerdy enthusiasm for "the end," which sadly and also awesomely begins tonight at midnight.

I'm going as Luna Lovegood, re-imagined as a college student or maybe a young adult going to her Hogwarts 10 year reunion. This is my thinly veiled excuse for not having enough time to brush up and create my props anew. I do, however, still have the wand I made and the robe I grudgingly* bought, both of which will be coming with me tonight to help me fully realize my true potential for ridiculous dress-up play.

Anyway. The long and short of it is that the Phantasmagoria of Potter will continue longer than originally planned.

Thereby prolonging the end a bit longer for you all, which if you're anything like me, isn't such a bad thing at all. -sniff-

*(They didn't even have one in Ravenclaw colors, so I'm hoping I won't catch the eye or the wrath of any rabid purists this evening before the show!)

Harry Potter Series!

To My Approximately 15-20 Regular-ish Readers:

In acknowledgment, celebration, and preemptive nostalgia (if not outright mourning) of the upcoming end of the Harry Potter series of films, I will hereby commence reviewing each and every one, beginning with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001).

The final installment of the series will arrive in July of this year, and as we all know the last book of the septuple series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, has been split into two movies. This means that if I do two reviews this month (January), each month hereafter will conveniently contain one review of a Harry Potter film for your enjoyment and consideration, ending with the review of the final film in July.

I hope this is as exciting for you as it is for me. Perhaps it will provide you with a valid excuse to watch the whole thing all over again along with me. The prospect certainly brightens my January day.

Look for the review of the first film late this week or early next.

-Cait

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (2010)

Caution: SPOILERS ABOUND!

Jake Gyllenhaal runs around in the desert flailing swords and other weapons while half-heartedly courting an extremely beautiful but predictably shrewish woman. Oh crap! Everyone dies!! But wait—here come the magic swirling sands of time travel. BOOM! Every problem is fixable when you have the ability to access the ultimate do-over. Falling in love all over again, but now under the perfect circumstances instead of really really tragic ones. The end!

Ok now, despite what you may expect, I didn’t hate this movie. Even though the plot was decidedly silly, I still was left with a feel-good glow after all was said and done. Why? Several reasons:

1) I actually really enjoyed the wholesomeness of the romance between Gyllenhaal’s main character, Dastan, and Tamina, played by Gemma Arterton. There weren’t any of those lurid almost-but-not-really-sex-and why-would-anyone-like-this-when-they-could-just-watch-porn scenes. Instead there was some sweet hand holding and maybe two kisses. Refreshing.

2) I thought the color was really well done. Not something I usually notice unless it’s especially good or bad, and in this case, the images were just really beautiful to look at scene after scene. They were tied together into one wonderfully vibrant palette of oranges and blues, for the most part. Very nice.

3) The absurd moment of realizing I was looking at Alfred Molina in brown-face (playing the character Sheik Amar). What the hell? So ridiculous that I had to laugh. (Almost as ludicrous as Jake Gyllenhaal playing a “Persian” prince with an inexplicably British accent.)

4) Sometimes I like a sugar-coated happy ending and Prince of Persia definitely delivered in that regard. I was actually pretty appalled over the course of the movie as it became clear that literally everyone close to Dastan was going to die. So when the end rolled around and everyone was alive again, my relief was palpable.

So. Not the best entry for the one year anniversary of A Phantasmagoria of Complaints, largely because I didn’t really have too many complaints. However, I’ve enjoyed blogging for a year now, and I hope you’ve enjoyed reading it.

The Phantasmagoria continues soon with a photo of a yet to be baked celebratory one year blog anniversary dessert, a top and bottom five (or ten?) list of movies that feature a jump to the future (or maybe time travel in general), as well as a review of a friend’s exciting indie film that I’ll provide a link to so you can watch it if you like.

As always, please let me know if there is anything you’d like to see reviewed here, or if you have a bone to pick with me regarding one of my reviews.

Thanks for reading! Always good to see hits on my statcounter.
-Cait, The Complainer

Alice in Wonderland Commentary Followup

...Because it was so big it merited its own post.

@Chris

You say that you don’t like Tim Burton for two reasons. 1) “his dark and creepy imagery that is portrayed in nearly all of his films” and 2) “the constant praise by die hard conformist followers of "Tim Burton is hip and weird, thus awesome… so I'll believe he is hip and awesome too!" crowd.” But then later you say “knowing the bizarreness naturally associated with the Alice in Wonderland saga, I couldn't bring myself to hate this movie but at the same time, I wasn’t overly captivated or wowed by it.”

What I gather from your commentary is that you don’t like Tim Burton because of the bizarre imagery and dark themes he often uses and because he is, in your opinion, overrated by people who are simply following the crowd. But in this case you grudgingly accept Burton’s bizarre imagery in Alice because the pre-existing story world seems to require it.

So my question for you, Mr. Guy Who Loves Dark Twisted Movies Like The Tin Drum, is would you be willing to accept Burton’s work, and even maybe really enjoy it, if he wasn’t so popular? Or is it something in particular about Burton’s aesthetic/thematic creepiness that puts you off?

Just wondering!

@Alla

With regard to the moral of the story:

I didn’t say that there is no moral to the story in this decidedly different variation of a distinctly Disney movie. What I said was that I was relieved that Burton didn’t rely on elaborate yet obvious direct metaphors to carry his heroine through her fantasy world. In other words, what I was dreading was a sort of Wizard of Oz scenario in which each character presented to Alice in Wonderland has a direct counterpart in the real world—i.e. the Red Queen being directly relatable to some tyrannical figure in the real world, the Mad Hatter being analogous to a quirky acquaintance, etc. I was so happy to see that a lot of the characters in this version of Alice were actually just independently random (odd, endearing, frightening, horrifying) weirdos.

I also liked that the blue butterfly at the end (presumably the now metamorphosized Absolom the blue caterpillar) showed up in the “real” world, thereby further highlighting the tenuous boundaries between the fantasy space and that of “reality.” I think what really appealed to me was that Alice’s whole Wonderland/Underland adventure was consistently emphasized to be real—that there were fairly high stakes despite the whimsy of the place. It was emphatically not just a dream, and Alice was affected (physically by wounds, mentally by whatever growth she achieved during her stay) by this world.

This all set aside, I do realize that when the White Queen says the line about “when you face the Jabberwocky, you go alone” that this is a literal voicing of a message or moral Alice is supposed to be gaining from her adventures. I concede that the moral is obvious in this moment, and frankly, probably really necessarily so, because I think this movie was a bit crazy and probably difficult for children to process without such a handy take away statement of “the point”. I guess for me this obvious moment is forgivable, though, for a few reasons.

Firstly, that this message comes from The White Queen, who was a character that I thought felt pretty new and interesting. She was not your typical motherly figure, nor a romantic interest, nor even a particularly heroic figure herself. I don’t know where I’m going with this—something about her just really appealed to me. And secondly, and definitely more importantly, I loved that the moral itself was about independence and decision-making. It related to personal responsibility and consequences, risk taking and facing unknown outcomes. Even though the characters referred to the Oraculum throughout the film to see what “destiny” held for Alice, there was still a lot of room for deviation from this path. They kept checking the thing to see if it had changed. It felt less like a sword in the stone, destiny cannot be avoided type of thing than a “you may or may not live up to your potential depending on your choices” sort of thing.

About the Mad Hatter and Alice’s Relationship:

Woah. I totally did not read any kind of romantic relationship into their interaction with one another. I read only a weird and friendly vibe between them. Regardless as to what either one of us did or did not take from their onscreen interactions, the more important point, for me, is that there is no blatant love/romantic relationship in the film that determines Alice’s success or failure as a character. Even her relationship with her suitor in the “real” world is presented as a joke from the get-go. We are never led to believe Alice’s fate hinges on her getting a guy. I mean, obviously, we know that things would probably suck for her if she did marry the weak-chinned suitor, but it’s not like she’s going to seem like a failure if she doesn’t find a replacement.

About Imperialism:

Similarly to the questionable romance between the Hatter and Alice, I don’t think that any kind of endorsement of imperialistic values was really supposed to be the point of this movie. I’m not saying it wasn’t in there—it totally was. I mean… she was pretty much the heir to the British East India Company. “To be the first to trade with China! Imagine it!!”

But I think the whole Imperialism thing was just a product of Alice in Wonderland being written in 1865, not a plot by Tim Burton to indoctrinate young moviegoers into that particular mentality. So it didn't bother me at all.


Anyway… thanks for the provocative commentary. I think I wrote more and thought more about this comment than I’ve written on anything in … a really long time. And I didn't even think this movie was that awesome! I just liked it!

Hope you are enjoying your own adventures!
:)

Welcome!

The Basics:
This is a blog which features my personal opinions on movies that I watch. The aim is to help readers decide whether or not they want to invest any time or money in watching a movie, and to get readers to think more about movies they have seen.

My Qualifications:
- I have opinions about movies. Have you ever met someone who said they liked pretty much every movie they saw? I'm not that person.
- I like to have conversations about my interests and hobbies-- in this case, (sometimes) popular entertainment.
- I have two degrees in Film Studies. What this means is that I watch a lot of movies and am fairly accustomed to writing about them and talking about them. What this does NOT mean is that I am willing or able to 1) validate your taste in film, 2) confirm or challenge your knowledge of movie trivia, or 3) back up your insider knowledge of production techniques and/or the "real meaning" behind scenes or dialogue.

My Standards:
- I would really like to avoid a star or grading system. For now. I'll try to outline what I liked and disliked about a movie and why, and you can judge where my opinion indicates that the movie might fall on your own scale.
- I try to watch a lot of different kinds of movies, but admittedly I do have genres and directors I favor as well as those I avoid. That being said, if you get obsessed with reading my blog and enjoy reading about my opinions (fingers crossed), and then find yourself wanting to know what I think about a particular film, I would not be averse to having a look.

Your Role:
- I want people to read and enjoy my blog. If you form an opinion, favorable or unfavorable, pertaining to my writing style, reviews, format, layout, etc, whatever, please feel free to comment. If you don't like the public-ness of commenting, you can make your post anonymously or email me directly.


Finally:
- Please enjoy! I am writing this blog for myself and others, and it is meant to be of some value to all parties involved. If you find yourself angrily swearing at my critiques or developing an irrational grudge against yours truly as a result of my terrible syntax and obnoxious vocabulary, just stop reading.


-Cait