Runaway space shuttle piloted back to earth by Marty McFly's mom and Indiana Jones' gal.
(sampled from my Twitter feed - peek if you must)
Jan 18, 2013
Facebook post on Happy Feet
I put this on Facebook a few days ago. You have it to thank for reigniting my urge to write about film.
"Happy Feet" equals one if the most bizarre/surreal film experiences I've ever endured. I'm still processing some of the darker elements. The creepiness factor was enhanced by Elijah Wood's voice and the overweight penguin being slowly suffocated by plastic pop can rings. Also, RIP Brittany Murphy. More disturbing is the fact that there is a sequel which I will one day be expected to watch. What new way will I be made to feel terrible that I am an evil fish-stealing environment-raping human? At least I'm not an evil killer whale, evil sea lion or evil mangy seagull (no actual idea what kind of birds those were). Those bad guys actually try to eat the penguins rather than just taking all their food and putting them in soul-sucking zoos.
Overall rating: weird family dynamic with the penguin dad admitting to having dropped the egg Mumbo; creepy themes; the penguins in Madagascar are way funnier; all the emperor penguins except Mumbo (and especially the Irish-accented elderly leader) looked like scary beady eyed hybrids of penguin bodies and hook nose mardi gras masks; still made me cry at the end because of that darn Beatles song over the humans-altering-their-earth-pi
"Happy Feet" equals one if the most bizarre/surreal film experiences I've ever endured. I'm still processing some of the darker elements. The creepiness factor was enhanced by Elijah Wood's voice and the overweight penguin being slowly suffocated by plastic pop can rings. Also, RIP Brittany Murphy. More disturbing is the fact that there is a sequel which I will one day be expected to watch. What new way will I be made to feel terrible that I am an evil fish-stealing environment-raping human? At least I'm not an evil killer whale, evil sea lion or evil mangy seagull (no actual idea what kind of birds those were). Those bad guys actually try to eat the penguins rather than just taking all their food and putting them in soul-sucking zoos.
Overall rating: weird family dynamic with the penguin dad admitting to having dropped the egg Mumbo; creepy themes; the penguins in Madagascar are way funnier; all the emperor penguins except Mumbo (and especially the Irish-accented elderly leader) looked like scary beady eyed hybrids of penguin bodies and hook nose mardi gras masks; still made me cry at the end because of that darn Beatles song over the humans-altering-their-earth-pi
Jan 17, 2013
The Hobbit: An Expected Disaster
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as all are aware, is installment one of three that will attempt to capitalize on the fame and fortune of its predecessor Lord of the Rings. The events of the LOTR trilogy occur after the events of the Hobbit, so right off the bat we're in "prequel trying to live up to the legacy" territory. The story, (for any who have not read the book, which is splendid) centers around a hobbit in Middle Earth and has all the adventure one would expect from the story out of which every single other fantasy novel ever written was born, including The Lord of the Rings (which when you think about it is another longer book where a large group of unlikely friends walks a long distance to do something at a mountain). Bilbo sets off on a journey, largely against his nature and better judgment, with a wizard, too many dwarves (sic that's they way Tolkien spells it in the book) to care about and the king dwarf Thorin. They have a beef with a dragon called Smaug who stole all their treasure and their kingdom under the mountain. Film the first ends with the company viewing this mountain far in the distance but closer than when they started walking.
Casting Martin Freeman was a stroke of genius as his acting style lends itself to hobbitishness. According to my sister and fellow Tolkien lover, I have unfortunately become too jaded to enjoy Peter Jackson's films anymore. I am too aware of his methods, too steeped in LOTR bonus features.
There were winning moments, but they were largely cancelled out by prolonged action sequences (how else are they going to make this story stretch into three LONG movies?), cheesy attempts at comedy and way too much Radagast the brown. I also found the overt references to psychedelic mushrooms irritating, especially when other audience members did the "420 laugh" in response and right on oh-so-predictable cue. This film aims to be epic in scope only to take the audience out of the action with a lame wink wink, more than once. The villains were too numerous and too silly (even for Tolkien), and the action sequences became too like one another. At least twice a large group of dwarves enters a battle from off camera to save an ally; at least twice a line of dwarves wields an overlarge object in a sweeping movement to knock an oncoming line of enemies off a precipice; at least twice Gandalf miraculously appears moments before many good guys will be mutilated and eaten by bad guys (which in fairness happens in the book but is slightly better explained than it was on film).
To sum it up: over-the-top. As an avid fan I am disappointed that I have no desire to see it again and no desire to obsess over the director's cut (somehow they will make this movie even longer?!) and bonus features (I really don't care how this movie was made). I would watch Martin Freeman outtakes for hours on end.
Casting Martin Freeman was a stroke of genius as his acting style lends itself to hobbitishness. According to my sister and fellow Tolkien lover, I have unfortunately become too jaded to enjoy Peter Jackson's films anymore. I am too aware of his methods, too steeped in LOTR bonus features.
There were winning moments, but they were largely cancelled out by prolonged action sequences (how else are they going to make this story stretch into three LONG movies?), cheesy attempts at comedy and way too much Radagast the brown. I also found the overt references to psychedelic mushrooms irritating, especially when other audience members did the "420 laugh" in response and right on oh-so-predictable cue. This film aims to be epic in scope only to take the audience out of the action with a lame wink wink, more than once. The villains were too numerous and too silly (even for Tolkien), and the action sequences became too like one another. At least twice a large group of dwarves enters a battle from off camera to save an ally; at least twice a line of dwarves wields an overlarge object in a sweeping movement to knock an oncoming line of enemies off a precipice; at least twice Gandalf miraculously appears moments before many good guys will be mutilated and eaten by bad guys (which in fairness happens in the book but is slightly better explained than it was on film).
To sum it up: over-the-top. As an avid fan I am disappointed that I have no desire to see it again and no desire to obsess over the director's cut (somehow they will make this movie even longer?!) and bonus features (I really don't care how this movie was made). I would watch Martin Freeman outtakes for hours on end.
Jan 25, 2012
The worst movies I've ever seen...Off the top of my head
This is just a brief list. I'm sure there are other stinkers that were too boring to be remembered, even as awful. I'd love to see some of your lists in the comments.
How Stella Got Her Groove Back - almost didn't make the cut because I had so much fun watching it with the particular friends I was with at the time. As I recall, the younger guy convinces Stella to pursue her dream of becoming a carpenter in the end, and that was the least far fetched aspect of this too-long movie.
Double Jeopardy - OMG; Tommy Lee Jones, why? WHY?!
U-571 - somehow the makers of U-571 thought that a star-studded cast and dramatic overuse of underwater explosions would compensate for the lack of story or interest in the plot.
Troy - we've seen it time and again; money and special effects do not make for a compelling drama. The filmmakers of Troy tried to get in front of that particular problem by interspersing the action with seemingly endless conversations between different combinations of characters about how war sucks because someone's kids are always getting killed or it rips up families or something that we are supposed to care about because the characters in the movie are imploring us to care.
Geronimo - In fairness, I saw this when I was 13, and it might actually be a good movie, but I remember it being long and boring and mostly set in a desert. Anyone who has seen this movie more recently, feel free to put me in my place.
Equilibrium - Premise, oh please.
Mission Impossible 2 - Large portions ripped off (shot for shot) from Alfred Hitchcock's Notorious; that is NOT homage, it is theft.
Jurassic Park 3 - I would like to find one person on planet earth who actually legitimately liked this movie. Was this before William H. Macy was cool? Or was it after the second wave of Indy coolness? I do have fine memories of seeing this one with good friends too. Not enough to redeem it, though.
I have more. Maybe yours will jog my memory. Cheers to anyone who is still out there reading after such a break.
How Stella Got Her Groove Back - almost didn't make the cut because I had so much fun watching it with the particular friends I was with at the time. As I recall, the younger guy convinces Stella to pursue her dream of becoming a carpenter in the end, and that was the least far fetched aspect of this too-long movie.
Double Jeopardy - OMG; Tommy Lee Jones, why? WHY?!
U-571 - somehow the makers of U-571 thought that a star-studded cast and dramatic overuse of underwater explosions would compensate for the lack of story or interest in the plot.
Troy - we've seen it time and again; money and special effects do not make for a compelling drama. The filmmakers of Troy tried to get in front of that particular problem by interspersing the action with seemingly endless conversations between different combinations of characters about how war sucks because someone's kids are always getting killed or it rips up families or something that we are supposed to care about because the characters in the movie are imploring us to care.
Geronimo - In fairness, I saw this when I was 13, and it might actually be a good movie, but I remember it being long and boring and mostly set in a desert. Anyone who has seen this movie more recently, feel free to put me in my place.
Equilibrium - Premise, oh please.
Mission Impossible 2 - Large portions ripped off (shot for shot) from Alfred Hitchcock's Notorious; that is NOT homage, it is theft.
Jurassic Park 3 - I would like to find one person on planet earth who actually legitimately liked this movie. Was this before William H. Macy was cool? Or was it after the second wave of Indy coolness? I do have fine memories of seeing this one with good friends too. Not enough to redeem it, though.
I have more. Maybe yours will jog my memory. Cheers to anyone who is still out there reading after such a break.
Feb 10, 2011
The Sorcerer's Apprentice: Why not?
I break another lengthy hiatus for a film that was unexpectedly entertaining. Perhaps my expectations were so low that anything above dismal would do. I have a vague memory of unanimously bad reviews following the release of The Sorcerer's Apprentice. It was released around the same time as The Last Airbender, and I wonder if it absorbed some residual negativity since it sort of fills the same genre niche. The trailer highlighted some of the cheesier aspects of the film, as I recall. Couple that with my distrust of Nicholas Cage's role choices, and one might understand my prejudgment. I am glad, on some level, that I gave it a shot, but Nicholas Cage was pretty awful.
So, a brief synopsis: A ten year old wanders into an ancient magician's antique shop, allows Balthazar (Nicholas Cage), the owner and proprietor, to give him a weird little dragon figurine which becomes a hideously nerdy ring upon touching his skin. This is the sign Balthazar has been waiting for for 700 years. Dave (Jay Baruchel) is the Prime Merlinian, the heir of Merlin's great power. Of course, being ten, he manages to release from a magical holding cell Horvath (Alfred Molina), Balthazar's wicked rival. Balthazar must imprison himself with Horvath for ten years in a Chinese urn in order to allow Dave's narrow escape. When Balthazar returns, he hunts down Dave and begins to teach him magic so he can stop the rise of the most evil sorceress of all time. What connects Dave and Balthazar, despite their differences and often hostility towards one another, is that they are where they are because they loved someone. Balthazar cares about saving the world, but he is also motivated by a desire to save his love. Dave came to the magic shop chasing a love note carried on the breeze and was reunited with this childhood crush shortly before his reintroduction to Balthazar after ten years away from both of them.
I was drawn in by Jay Baruchel's strange charm, which may have something to do with the way he sometimes sounds like a young Christian Slater. The jokes were hackneyed, but in an expected and Disney-ish way, and I can't really say they were that bad. I enjoyed the homage to the old Fantasia. Maybe it went a little too far when one of Dave's enchanted mops rammed him in the butt repeatedly while he tried to get his would-be girlfriend to leave lest she discover his magically moving mops just behind the door.
I was not expecting the story to offer such a plausible and sensible explanation for the existence of magic. Balthazar tells Dave, as he acquaints him with the basics that he, Dave, is good at science because he is a magician and magic is simply science controlled by a magician's thoughts at the molecular level. This really works for the movie. It wasn't necessary to provide a reason for magic to be possible, but they did it and well.
Here's the bad part: Horvath finds Dave and wants to kill or capture him. Horvath has been clearly established, up to this point, as a serious badass. The kind of magic that is possible should allow Horvath to magically pin Dave to the wall and crush his windpipe (a la Darth Vader), but Horvath instead allows Dave to run out of the apartment, chased by wolves Horvath conjured from a wall calendar in Dave's apartment . The wolves do run down our hero and nearly kill him, but I have to ask the bad guy, "why risk his escape if you are a sorcerer?" Dave doesn't know any magic yet. He's alone and defenseless. A burglar could have done a better job.
Lame and totally unbelievable escapes aside, this was not a terrible movie. There were some decent visual effects and fun concepts, such as a high speed car chase in which the good guys become imprisoned on the opposite side of a mirror and must race to a reflective surface to get out again while the bad guys (on the right side of reality) smash all the windows and mirrors in Times Square to prevent their escape. The film certainly wasn't great, but the actors each did their part lifting the bad writing to its best potential. There was at least a cohesive plot, which was much more than I anticipated. If you have nothing better to do on a rainy day, and you need to entertain some 13 year olds, this would be the prefect thing to watch.
Here's your BONUS (see David Copperfield link below) for sticking with it to the end: Another nuisance came in the character of quasi-evil sorcerer Drake Stone (Toby Kebbell), a punk-ish version of David Copperfield (so adorable in this picture). The character was annoying and fairly useless to the plot.
So, a brief synopsis: A ten year old wanders into an ancient magician's antique shop, allows Balthazar (Nicholas Cage), the owner and proprietor, to give him a weird little dragon figurine which becomes a hideously nerdy ring upon touching his skin. This is the sign Balthazar has been waiting for for 700 years. Dave (Jay Baruchel) is the Prime Merlinian, the heir of Merlin's great power. Of course, being ten, he manages to release from a magical holding cell Horvath (Alfred Molina), Balthazar's wicked rival. Balthazar must imprison himself with Horvath for ten years in a Chinese urn in order to allow Dave's narrow escape. When Balthazar returns, he hunts down Dave and begins to teach him magic so he can stop the rise of the most evil sorceress of all time. What connects Dave and Balthazar, despite their differences and often hostility towards one another, is that they are where they are because they loved someone. Balthazar cares about saving the world, but he is also motivated by a desire to save his love. Dave came to the magic shop chasing a love note carried on the breeze and was reunited with this childhood crush shortly before his reintroduction to Balthazar after ten years away from both of them.
I was drawn in by Jay Baruchel's strange charm, which may have something to do with the way he sometimes sounds like a young Christian Slater. The jokes were hackneyed, but in an expected and Disney-ish way, and I can't really say they were that bad. I enjoyed the homage to the old Fantasia. Maybe it went a little too far when one of Dave's enchanted mops rammed him in the butt repeatedly while he tried to get his would-be girlfriend to leave lest she discover his magically moving mops just behind the door.
I was not expecting the story to offer such a plausible and sensible explanation for the existence of magic. Balthazar tells Dave, as he acquaints him with the basics that he, Dave, is good at science because he is a magician and magic is simply science controlled by a magician's thoughts at the molecular level. This really works for the movie. It wasn't necessary to provide a reason for magic to be possible, but they did it and well.
Here's the bad part: Horvath finds Dave and wants to kill or capture him. Horvath has been clearly established, up to this point, as a serious badass. The kind of magic that is possible should allow Horvath to magically pin Dave to the wall and crush his windpipe (a la Darth Vader), but Horvath instead allows Dave to run out of the apartment, chased by wolves Horvath conjured from a wall calendar in Dave's apartment . The wolves do run down our hero and nearly kill him, but I have to ask the bad guy, "why risk his escape if you are a sorcerer?" Dave doesn't know any magic yet. He's alone and defenseless. A burglar could have done a better job.
Lame and totally unbelievable escapes aside, this was not a terrible movie. There were some decent visual effects and fun concepts, such as a high speed car chase in which the good guys become imprisoned on the opposite side of a mirror and must race to a reflective surface to get out again while the bad guys (on the right side of reality) smash all the windows and mirrors in Times Square to prevent their escape. The film certainly wasn't great, but the actors each did their part lifting the bad writing to its best potential. There was at least a cohesive plot, which was much more than I anticipated. If you have nothing better to do on a rainy day, and you need to entertain some 13 year olds, this would be the prefect thing to watch.
Here's your BONUS (see David Copperfield link below) for sticking with it to the end: Another nuisance came in the character of quasi-evil sorcerer Drake Stone (Toby Kebbell), a punk-ish version of David Copperfield (so adorable in this picture). The character was annoying and fairly useless to the plot.
Oct 7, 2010
Wall Street: no, not the new one
I recently had the fortune to rent Wall Street using the highly sophisticated Amazon.com media rental apparatus. This was in preparation to see the sequel the next evening, which I never got around to doing somehow.
Wall Street opens in a Manhattan high-rise office where fast-talking Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) is starting his day as a small-time stock-broker. He cold calls possible clients, he jokes with co-workers, and at the end of a long day, he meets up with his blue collar dad (Martin Sheen) at a bar in one of the Burroughs to borrow money for rent. He explains that the glamor believed to be inherent in his chosen profession has not quite visited him yet. This go-getter soon finagles a meeting with famous investment banker Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas). With inside information about his father's small airline operation, he wins an opportunity to invest for Gekko. They quickly become entangled in more illegal activity until it finally becomes obvious to Bud that his relationship with Gekko is corrosive to all his other connections, including and most clearly, his once warm rapport with his father. Sprinkled throughout with awesome 80s hairdos and an apartment-decorating montage that makes Daryl Hannah's involvement almost worthwhile, here is a movie that cannot fail to entertain, for the most part.
It is a shame, since the rest of the movie was really pretty good, that I keep obsessing about the train wreck that was Daryl Hannah's portrayal of Darien Taylor, an almost useless character, made completely so by her abysmal acting. The conversation I keep having with my hubby goes a little something like this:
ME: How is it possible for someone to play a part as poorly as Daryl Hannah did in Wall Street?
HUBBY: I know! She looks like a dude, especially in the checker-pattern blazer with the hulking shoulder pads.
ME: I think they over-dubbed each and every one of her lines, and badly.
HUBBY: She must have been sleeping with Oliver Stone, but I have to wonder why a prominent director would choose to sleep with a woman who looks so much like a dude. He could get anyone back then, right?
ME: Maybe he had a thing for really fluffy, yet somehow wispy, blonde hair in the 80s.
This topic of conversation keeps coming up. Her blank stare was devoid of emotion. Her monotone drone jolted me out of the action. In Short Circuit, Johnny 5 played his part with more inflection.
Put Daryl Hannah aside and you have a decent film about greed and how it can sully personal relationships. I enjoyed the straightforward plot line. The characters were somewhat 2 dimensional at times, but there were other moments when Sheen and Douglas really hit the mark. Most of the things I can think of to criticize are cosmetic (some of them quite literally) and made the film fun to heckle aloud, so I cannot complain too much. Douglas' make-up artist should have been fired on day one of shooting for the red lipstick and blue eyeliner he/she seemed to think did not make him look like a clown. Sean Young (that fixture of 80s supporting roles) appeared in only two scenes, wearing the most ridiculous and at the same time intriguing giant silver earrings. Another eye-catching bit of retro: a small kitchen appliance which automatically shapes rice for nigiri sushi, because it really takes a lot more time to do it by hand.
I know there is more significant relevance to be found in this film's content (especially as set in this period), but I just can't get excited about focusing on Wall Street corruption. [SMALL SPOILER ALERT] I didn't even care that much about the bad guys getting theirs. That is to say, I didn't feel that sense of vindictive pleasure at Gekko's demise as I felt when the Warden in The Shawshank Redemption opened the Bible only to find the space in which Andy Dufresne had been hiding his rock hammer.
Unrelated note: according to imdb.com, Martin Sheen considers himself a liberal democrat, but opposes abortion and euthanasia rights. If true, his bio is worth reading.
Unrelated note #2: looking up Daryl Hannah's imdb page reminds me how much I cannot get over how weird plastic surgery makes people look. Daryl Hannah should not look like Hannah Montana. I just need her to have a few more wrinkles to be plausible. Whatever procedure older actors get that makes their eyes all squinty (ala Steve Martin in It's Complicated) is quite unsettling.
And since I have opinions about almost everything: I really dislike imdb.com's new format. I am opposed to drastic style changes in familiar/popular websites. I have known what to expect and how to find information quickly on imdb ever since I studied film in college, and now look at it. All the film titles are super far away from their release dates, and the layout is sloppy. Why?
Wall Street opens in a Manhattan high-rise office where fast-talking Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) is starting his day as a small-time stock-broker. He cold calls possible clients, he jokes with co-workers, and at the end of a long day, he meets up with his blue collar dad (Martin Sheen) at a bar in one of the Burroughs to borrow money for rent. He explains that the glamor believed to be inherent in his chosen profession has not quite visited him yet. This go-getter soon finagles a meeting with famous investment banker Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas). With inside information about his father's small airline operation, he wins an opportunity to invest for Gekko. They quickly become entangled in more illegal activity until it finally becomes obvious to Bud that his relationship with Gekko is corrosive to all his other connections, including and most clearly, his once warm rapport with his father. Sprinkled throughout with awesome 80s hairdos and an apartment-decorating montage that makes Daryl Hannah's involvement almost worthwhile, here is a movie that cannot fail to entertain, for the most part.
It is a shame, since the rest of the movie was really pretty good, that I keep obsessing about the train wreck that was Daryl Hannah's portrayal of Darien Taylor, an almost useless character, made completely so by her abysmal acting. The conversation I keep having with my hubby goes a little something like this:
ME: How is it possible for someone to play a part as poorly as Daryl Hannah did in Wall Street?
HUBBY: I know! She looks like a dude, especially in the checker-pattern blazer with the hulking shoulder pads.
ME: I think they over-dubbed each and every one of her lines, and badly.
HUBBY: She must have been sleeping with Oliver Stone, but I have to wonder why a prominent director would choose to sleep with a woman who looks so much like a dude. He could get anyone back then, right?
ME: Maybe he had a thing for really fluffy, yet somehow wispy, blonde hair in the 80s.
This topic of conversation keeps coming up. Her blank stare was devoid of emotion. Her monotone drone jolted me out of the action. In Short Circuit, Johnny 5 played his part with more inflection.
Put Daryl Hannah aside and you have a decent film about greed and how it can sully personal relationships. I enjoyed the straightforward plot line. The characters were somewhat 2 dimensional at times, but there were other moments when Sheen and Douglas really hit the mark. Most of the things I can think of to criticize are cosmetic (some of them quite literally) and made the film fun to heckle aloud, so I cannot complain too much. Douglas' make-up artist should have been fired on day one of shooting for the red lipstick and blue eyeliner he/she seemed to think did not make him look like a clown. Sean Young (that fixture of 80s supporting roles) appeared in only two scenes, wearing the most ridiculous and at the same time intriguing giant silver earrings. Another eye-catching bit of retro: a small kitchen appliance which automatically shapes rice for nigiri sushi, because it really takes a lot more time to do it by hand.
I know there is more significant relevance to be found in this film's content (especially as set in this period), but I just can't get excited about focusing on Wall Street corruption. [SMALL SPOILER ALERT] I didn't even care that much about the bad guys getting theirs. That is to say, I didn't feel that sense of vindictive pleasure at Gekko's demise as I felt when the Warden in The Shawshank Redemption opened the Bible only to find the space in which Andy Dufresne had been hiding his rock hammer.
Unrelated note: according to imdb.com, Martin Sheen considers himself a liberal democrat, but opposes abortion and euthanasia rights. If true, his bio is worth reading.
Unrelated note #2: looking up Daryl Hannah's imdb page reminds me how much I cannot get over how weird plastic surgery makes people look. Daryl Hannah should not look like Hannah Montana. I just need her to have a few more wrinkles to be plausible. Whatever procedure older actors get that makes their eyes all squinty (ala Steve Martin in It's Complicated) is quite unsettling.
And since I have opinions about almost everything: I really dislike imdb.com's new format. I am opposed to drastic style changes in familiar/popular websites. I have known what to expect and how to find information quickly on imdb ever since I studied film in college, and now look at it. All the film titles are super far away from their release dates, and the layout is sloppy. Why?
Aug 20, 2010
Vacation is over, and I saw...
I didn't actually see any movies while away on vacation, except the final 15 minutes of Rocky III. Wow are there some good "Mystery Science Theater" moments there, most of them wardrobe-related. Also, Apollo Creed and Rocky Balboa frolicking, (bared midriffs and really short shorts, slow-motion style) in the surf after a good training session on the beach, was a highlight.
The fun thing about this movie (the end of it at least) is this: it manages to be entertaining amid the over-the-top silliness. I'm sure that had mostly to do with the glowing company with whom I saw it. We came to the conclusion that Mr. T (Clubber Lang) is really bad to the bone, since he took about 60 direct blows to the face in round one and didn't even bother to block.
On a totally unrelated, personal note: I got to tour the only facility in the world that makes pinball machines.
The fun thing about this movie (the end of it at least) is this: it manages to be entertaining amid the over-the-top silliness. I'm sure that had mostly to do with the glowing company with whom I saw it. We came to the conclusion that Mr. T (Clubber Lang) is really bad to the bone, since he took about 60 direct blows to the face in round one and didn't even bother to block.
On a totally unrelated, personal note: I got to tour the only facility in the world that makes pinball machines.
Jul 28, 2010
film term of the day: Cross-cutting
Cross-cutting: An editing technique in which two seemingly unrelated scenes are inter-cut forcing the audience to associate the two
Example: The Godfather
The most famous example of cross-cutting occurs when Michael Corleone stands up at his nephew's baptism. While he is vowing to renounce Satan all the rival mafia bosses are getting offed, we presume, under Michael Corleone's orders. These two scenes are interwoven, contrasting Michael's supposed religious devotion with his ruthless killing of several men (and one mistress).
Cross-cutting can create a sense of tension, can mislead the audience into believing that events that are occurring simultaneously are related when they actually are not, and can relate seemingly disparate events.
Example: The Godfather
The most famous example of cross-cutting occurs when Michael Corleone stands up at his nephew's baptism. While he is vowing to renounce Satan all the rival mafia bosses are getting offed, we presume, under Michael Corleone's orders. These two scenes are interwoven, contrasting Michael's supposed religious devotion with his ruthless killing of several men (and one mistress).
Cross-cutting can create a sense of tension, can mislead the audience into believing that events that are occurring simultaneously are related when they actually are not, and can relate seemingly disparate events.
Jul 27, 2010
Underrated: The Game vs. 12 Angry Men
When I think of The Game I usually forget that it was directed by David Fincher. If this movie is underrated, it might have something to do with its being nestled right in between the two most notable Fincher films, Se7en and Fight Club. Maybe it doesn't quite qualify as 'underrated.' Many people like this movie a great deal. However, I take issue with its mere 7.7 rating on imdb. Consider this nuttiness: 12 Angry Men (the actual most boring movie ever made) makes it into the top ten of the 250 list with its score of 8.8. 12 Angry Men was based on a play (usually a bad thing). The action takes place entirely in one room and involves twelve male (go figure) jurors discussing the probability that the defendant is guilty. Not only is there very little action, there is very little moving at all. I suppose at the time it was a good racial commentary and the acting was considered amazing, but mightn't To Kill A Mocking Bird (a respectable #54) be said to fulfill these criteria even more effectively, whilst also entertaining us? I just can't see how anyone watching 12 Angry Men by today's standards can rank this movie higher than the other 241 movies (others of which annoy me too) on the imdb top 250.
I am not trying to contend that The Game deserves the number 9 (as of this writing) slot in 12 Angry Men's place, but I do think it deserves our consideration.
Fincher does the thing he does best: convinces us to trust the narrative and then yanks us up side down by the ankles. Even though we are repeatedly betrayed, we go along and believe we are in control. To a certain extent, I see this movie as a commentary on the power the storyteller holds over the viewer/listener. Nicholas Van Orton (Michael Douglas) is a controlled, shrewd, business man. He is the master of his own destiny, for we learn, despite some really dark stuff in his childhood, he has made a name for himself and excelled at his profession. His routines begin to topple when, at his troubled brother's (Sean Penn) urging, he enlists in a "game" designed for bored rich people to mess with their lives and shake things up. Soon, he has no idea which parts of his life are "the game" and which are under his control. Some freaky stuff happens, he meets a nice girl, he has a shower in his office (so we know he's doing all right - that part always cracked me up), some other crap happens with his brother, and the lines between reality and fiction are blurred. Until the final moment, it is impossible for Nicholas to bring the situation back under his grasp. He is helplessly along for the ride, even though he tries to stop and get out many times, just as the viewer is at the mercy of the storyteller.
I am not trying to contend that The Game deserves the number 9 (as of this writing) slot in 12 Angry Men's place, but I do think it deserves our consideration.
Fincher does the thing he does best: convinces us to trust the narrative and then yanks us up side down by the ankles. Even though we are repeatedly betrayed, we go along and believe we are in control. To a certain extent, I see this movie as a commentary on the power the storyteller holds over the viewer/listener. Nicholas Van Orton (Michael Douglas) is a controlled, shrewd, business man. He is the master of his own destiny, for we learn, despite some really dark stuff in his childhood, he has made a name for himself and excelled at his profession. His routines begin to topple when, at his troubled brother's (Sean Penn) urging, he enlists in a "game" designed for bored rich people to mess with their lives and shake things up. Soon, he has no idea which parts of his life are "the game" and which are under his control. Some freaky stuff happens, he meets a nice girl, he has a shower in his office (so we know he's doing all right - that part always cracked me up), some other crap happens with his brother, and the lines between reality and fiction are blurred. Until the final moment, it is impossible for Nicholas to bring the situation back under his grasp. He is helplessly along for the ride, even though he tries to stop and get out many times, just as the viewer is at the mercy of the storyteller.
Another thing I really like: even though it is dark and suspenseful, there is a justifiable happy ending. It is tried and true way for a storyteller to leave the audience feeling satisfied after spending an hour and a half messing with their brains, and in this film it is done well.
Good acting, good story, some tense moments with a nice payoff at the end. If nothing else, it is entertaining, and that's more than 12 Angry Men can brag.
Jul 23, 2010
film term of the day: Script Supervisor
Script Supervisor: person on a film crew who maintains continuity from shot to shot and records the progress of daily shooting
Catching continuity errors in movies is part of the fun of movie-appreciation, especially if the story loses your interest for a minute or two. If you've noticed a glass half empty in one shot and in the next it is all the way full, your eyes are sharper than those of the script supervisor who should have consulted their notes and insisted on draining that glass to the proper mark before cameras rolled. And you thought the filmmakers were making a subtle comment on the power perception plays in the forming of our optimistic or pessimistic attitudes.
Continuity errors occur when a shot taken at one time during production is edited together with a shot taken at a different time (maybe weeks or months from the time the original shot was taken) in which something on screen fails to match the original shot.
Next time you are watching a sub par film, play along by watching for some of these generic examples:
1. length of cigarette changes randomly
2. items of clothing missing or appearing
3. placement of actors or objects in background is inconsistent
Extreme Example: Troll 2 (This one is for my friends Sarah and Jayson who just had their 4th baby and who introduced me to this fine film.) There is a scene in Troll 2 where the dad and the mom are having a conversation. When the camera is on the mom, the dad's shirt is open (I think). When the camera is on the dad, his shirt is buttoned all the way. As this film was incredibly low-budget, I am guessing that they just didn't have a script supervisor, but it would be that person's fault if they had.
Note: continuity errors are a product of simple human oversight and can crop up in the classiest of films. They are, however, more likely to occur (or be noticed) in bad movies.
I'd love to hear some of your favorite examples.
Catching continuity errors in movies is part of the fun of movie-appreciation, especially if the story loses your interest for a minute or two. If you've noticed a glass half empty in one shot and in the next it is all the way full, your eyes are sharper than those of the script supervisor who should have consulted their notes and insisted on draining that glass to the proper mark before cameras rolled. And you thought the filmmakers were making a subtle comment on the power perception plays in the forming of our optimistic or pessimistic attitudes.
Continuity errors occur when a shot taken at one time during production is edited together with a shot taken at a different time (maybe weeks or months from the time the original shot was taken) in which something on screen fails to match the original shot.
Next time you are watching a sub par film, play along by watching for some of these generic examples:
1. length of cigarette changes randomly
2. items of clothing missing or appearing
3. placement of actors or objects in background is inconsistent
Extreme Example: Troll 2 (This one is for my friends Sarah and Jayson who just had their 4th baby and who introduced me to this fine film.) There is a scene in Troll 2 where the dad and the mom are having a conversation. When the camera is on the mom, the dad's shirt is open (I think). When the camera is on the dad, his shirt is buttoned all the way. As this film was incredibly low-budget, I am guessing that they just didn't have a script supervisor, but it would be that person's fault if they had.
Note: continuity errors are a product of simple human oversight and can crop up in the classiest of films. They are, however, more likely to occur (or be noticed) in bad movies.
I'd love to hear some of your favorite examples.
Jul 22, 2010
A Late Night Facebook Chat (with minor editing to cover up my typos)
11:47pmJayson
did you like inception btw?
11:47pmMe
didn't you read my reviews?
11:48pmJayson
oh i didn't see them geesh
11:48pmMe
i think i am less enthusiastic than most people i have talked to, but i still liked it
11:49pmJayson
i agree with ebert's sentiment. its not that it was perfect, but come on, look at the movies they're making today
everything is a remake or a sequal or another chipmunks movie
11:50pmMe
so i'm supposed to judge it against airbender and sorcerers apprentice?
i was judging it against the dark knight
11:50pmJayson
i would say its better than the dark knight, imho
11:50pmMe
we won't get quality movies if we lay down and take it, which is what ebert suggests
not better than dark knight
11:51pmJayson
i think it was REALLY good. i'm just saying it wasn't perfect like some people think
11:51pmMe
if total recall and matrix didn't exist then maybe
11:51pmJayson
.....
11:51pmMe
i thought it was good too, but i didn't scream and hoot at the end or gasp with surprise is all
11:52pmJayson
what movie did you scream and hoot at? in the theatre?
11:52pm
Spolier Alert
Me
that's a good point
i was comparing myself to the audience with whom I saw the film who all groaned when nolan cut the camera before the top fell
i felt alienated from the human race because i didn't care
11:53pmJayson
really?
11:54pmMe
i knew it was going to be an ambiguous ending (again, total recall), and I knew the top was going to come into play
i'm just saying it wasn't a big shock
End Spoiler Alert
11:54pmJayson
so you're saying that you give independence day positive reviews and this a mildish review?
11:55pmMe
LOL. I guess?... When you put it that way it does sound ludicrous
11:55pmJayson
lol
11:55pmMe
maybe i can appease you
ID4 was exactly what it was supposed to be, ie fluff
I expect cheesy lines and over the top action from a goofy film
Inception was clearly meant to be more serious and more seriously taken. I think it failed to reach its potential, that's all
11:57pmJayson
maybe. for you. but i think it worked for the rest of the audience.
look at this
11:57pmMe
Good Lord. That 250 list is so effed up.
11:58pmMe
Being a critic, for me, is not about choosing what I think other people will like, but about writing honestly about what I like
Jul 21, 2010
film quiz 2 - actor's challenge
Same rules as before. No checking on the internet. Tell your friends to play, don't pump them for answers. Honor System. Play Nice.
Each question is worth 1 point, except number 10, which is worth 3 points. Deadline is August 1. One winner will receive a mystery prize...
Email answers to veronicathefilmcritic@gmail.com
Each question is worth 1 point, except number 10, which is worth 3 points. Deadline is August 1. One winner will receive a mystery prize...
Email answers to veronicathefilmcritic@gmail.com
2. Who plays Shorty in Get Shorty?
3. Which actor sweeps Mrs. Doubtfire's ex off her feet?
4. Who played Alice Ayers in Closer?
5. With which actress did Peter Gallagher have an affair in American Beauty?
6. Who plays opposite Helen Hunt in the 1985 teeny-bopper flop Girls Just Want to Have Fun?
7. Which actor annoys Steve Martin as the wedding coordinator in Father of the Bride?
8. Which actor is lobotomized in the final scene of One Flew Over he Cuckoo's Nest?
9. Which actress nearly destroys The Paper in The Paper?
10. In what way are all the "answers" to the above questions connected to one another?
Have fun!!
Have fun!!
Jul 20, 2010
In Bruges
I know I am woefully behind the bandwagon, stumbling as I run, out of breath as I wave my arms calling, "wait, I like this movie too..." The cart rattles on, down a cobbled street in a fairy tale town, too far ahead for me to catch up.
I don't care though. I am still going to review In Bruges. I have to. 'It's what I do.'
All Colin Farrell-appreciation aside, this was a fantastic movie. It was brilliant choice to write the character Ray (Farrell) as somewhat childish. It was a good way to contrast his character with the older, wiser hit man, Ken (Brendan Gleeson). It was a good way to highlight the conflict he felt, having killed an innocent. It was a funny and clever way to illustrate his loathing of Bruges, Belgium. He has no interest in sight seeing, whines and complains, manipulates Ken into taking him out when Ken wants to stay in and read. The beauty of old buildings and gory art are all lost on him. He scuffles his feet and makes noise on purpose in an old church. He is not awed, but bored; as bored as a ten year old boy being dragged with his family through cultured sights when all he wants to do is go to the hotel pool. Very cleverly done. Farrell pulls it off, but just barely. There were a few moments when it felt like acting; when the mood was broken by an off line or facial expression, but that is getting nit-picky. I loved the scene in the hotel when he was bargaining with Harry (Ralph Fiennes) about where they should try to shoot each other. I also loved his child-like fascination with midgets. He was innocently enthralled, and that was so perfect for his character.
There were a few "Seinfeld" shticks that didn't work for me. The Canadian man Ray hits in the restaurant finds him on his train out of Bruges and has him arrested. The tower where Ray and Ken want to shoot each other in private is closed because a tourist (a fat man Ray tried to convince the day before not to go up all the stairs) has suffered a heart attack in the tower. These are minor details, and I can see how they fit into the story, so I think I'm letting them off the hook.
At the risk of gushing, I will just say that the acting was great all around. Ralph Fiennes was cold-blooded, but also humorous. The scenes with Jimmy (Jordan Prentice) managed to be tasteful while also exploiting midget humor. It is possible, after all.
I am finding it difficult to categorize this film because the dark was somewhat removed from the humor, and it wasn't overwhelmingly a comedy. Part of its charm is that it defies classification. It was compositionally tight. It felt organized and meaningful.
A fine film; entertaining, emotional, touching and fun-ish.
Jul 19, 2010
film term of the day: Steadicam
Steadicam: a camera mount equipped with a gyro that a camera man uses to prevent shaking during hand-held shots.
Example: My Cousin Vinny
Mona Lisa Vito meets Vinny outside the prison where he has been held overnight for contempt. A steadicam follows the couple as they walk away from the prison yard.
Similar shots can be produced using cranes or dollies, but the steadicam tends to provide a more intimate feeling since it can get very close to the action. Also, a steadicam can move along with the action in more versatile ways than a crane-mounted camera can.
Example: My Cousin Vinny
Mona Lisa Vito meets Vinny outside the prison where he has been held overnight for contempt. A steadicam follows the couple as they walk away from the prison yard.
Similar shots can be produced using cranes or dollies, but the steadicam tends to provide a more intimate feeling since it can get very close to the action. Also, a steadicam can move along with the action in more versatile ways than a crane-mounted camera can.
Jul 18, 2010
Inception: a review within a review within a review
In the spirit of fun and to pay homage to the dream within a dream theme (one of a vast number of themes in this flick) I am offering you all your choice of review. If you would like to read a favorable review of Inception, click here. If you would like to read an objective/neutral review, click here. If you would care to hear me lambaste, eviscerate and pan the film, click here. The strange thing is, each review captures my true feelings about this tricky film. I'm not sure how that's possible, I just know I am enjoying the aftermath of its effect on me, even if I didn't completely enjoy the viewing experience. All comments here please.
Also, I heard this quote through the grapevine today via Gorvey Garfoul, and it made me LOL.
Also, I heard this quote through the grapevine today via Gorvey Garfoul, and it made me LOL.
Andrew O'Hehir - Nolan's dreams are apparently directed by Michael Bay
Gorvey - Ha
Things I am yelling at the screen while I watch "Shooter"
Let me briefly preface this post. Everything in quotes is taken word for word from the movie. This movie is a freaking GOLDMINE of one-liners. I had to leave some of them behind because hubby finally refused to push pause. Everything else is the way my brain works while I watch Shooter. Finally, to my best friend, my sincere apologies for any rift in our friendship this post might cause.
worst premise ever
I don't for one minute believe that this guy would take this job (you thought you were going to be arrested, but instead we're offering you a job to help stop people like you from doing what only you can do)
I can't understand Danny Glover's gravely lisp
"He said yes, just doesn't know it yet."
Awe, he's worried about the president. He's a patriot at heart, even though his country screwed him. I know because he asked his dog if he should take the job defending the president. It's sweet, his relationship with his dog. I'm sure that won't be exploited later on.
The cocked eyebrow means, 'I'm thinking hard.'
Slow motion strut out of the garage...with american flag in background. This guy is screwed.
I don't for one minute believe this guy can be this smart but not realize he is getting set up.
I know the rest of the movie has to be about him getting the guys who set him up, because this is happening way too early in the movie for it to be about the assassination attempt
So the government wanted the arch bishop killed, but it had to look like an attempt on the president and there had to be a fall guy... clever, except I figured it out right now, as the arch bishop hit the ground
If your plan is to set up and kill an assassin, why not choose one who is less competent than this guy; and then pick someone more competent than the fat police officer to dispatch of him?
Nice. Ditch Brody-style escape.
Bob Lee Swagger... that's this guys name?
The shooter is a crazy survivalist, so he's just going to go ahead and administer first aid to his shot-up shoulder while his stolen secret service car goes through/hides in the car wash.
Does huffing whipped cream really knock you out?
Bob Lee Swagger is a conspiracy theorist, and it took him 35 minutes (movie time) or 2 days (elapsed story time) more than it took me to figure out that the archbishop was supposed to get shot and that the US government did it.
Who could have predicted the dog's death? Me.
Hubby, filling in dialog for Swagger who just found out his dog is dead: 'Now I'm really mad.'
"They're never gonna stop chasing you." She's wise beyond her southern accent...
Really. These people who just met (one of whom is recovering from very recent gunshot wounds) have time for inappropriate sex?
Why do women "in disguise" always dress like prostitutes?
Good costume change, Swagger, 'cause a black hoodie doesn't look conspicuous
"You are asking questions way outside your pay grade." -FBI gal to FBI guy
"I don't think you understand. These guys killed my dog."
Nick Memphis - who thought up these names?
"This is about to get worse."
"Welcome to Tennessee, the patron state of shootin' stuff."
"Most guys shoot to kill, he'd shoot to wound. Turn one target into four."
lots of compliant women in this movie; compliant and pretty much unnecessary
"Sometimes to catch a wolf you need to tie the bait to a tree." Next scene. "The man we thought was tied up, came untied."
"It's a trap, every time," says the guy who was easily framed in the beginning of the movie. I wish you had figured that out before so this movie wouldn't have to exist.
Hey, he just stabbed that guy; they should have called this movie "Stabber."
Moral ambiguity much? Why is it OK for the hero to shoot a whole bunch of US soldiers who have nothing to do with the conspiracy, who are just following orders (like him in the beginning)?
Hey, Swagger, what the my-hands-are-tied-by-jurisdiction investigator is saying is: 'What this case needs is a little vigilante justice, so just in case Danny Glover turns up dead in the morning, I won't press any charges. Wink Wink.'
Good thing the shooter got to the corrupt Senator and the corrupt Colonel right before they were about to pull another job on another third world village. He just saved a whole bunch of South American babies. I know 'cause he started shooting the bad guys right after they got done talking about their plans to go kill babies in the morning (while smoking big fat cigars and laughing about how above the law they are). At this point in the movie, do I really deserve to be bludgeoned over the head with the notion that these are the bad guys?
Jul 17, 2010
Of sassy camera moves and futile attempts to entertain me...
Something very strange happened to me yesterday which has managed to trump brain space that would otherwise have been fully focused on reviewing Inception. Since it sounds like many of my readers have already seen Inception or are planning to no matter what I say, I am giving myself over to writing about this weird occurrence.
A few days ago, I rented Agora because I like Rachel Weisz and well, that's pretty much why. I watched the first half yesterday afternoon and could not make myself continue. Close to the point at which I had enough the following takes place on-screen: the Christians storm the library at Alexandria (with permission from the emperor) and start destroying everything. There are scrolls flying through the air like streamers. The camera begins to tilt and doesn't stop. Soon the viewer is upside down, just as the pagans, whose former persecution of the Christians was once sanctioned by the emperor, now find themselves displaced from their center of knowledge. I can't help but chide the film in the most sarcastic voice imaginable, "Their world will never be the same." This is the sort of camera movement that has to be subtle as it relates to the story. In this case, it was way too obvious so it just seemed gimmicky, like a substitute for good film-making.
When I came home from Inception, hubby was watching the final half of Carlito's Way, a film he saw many moons ago, and one I have never seen. Here too is a movie I have no desire to watch in its entirety, but it was somehow destiny that I saw these two halves of these two movies on the same day. When Carlito gets shot, they roll him away through the subway station, the camera becomes unbound by gravity and end over end it goes. I am not kidding. It was the same shot. I will now stop to marvel at the likelihood that anyone could be inspired by Brian De Palma or Carlito's Way. It is a camera movement that has been used before and will be used again, in the same tired "my world's turned upside down" way no doubt. So the most likely explanation is that it was all a big coincidence. But, even then, it feels a little like the Universe converging, right? I almost fell asleep before the end of Carlito's Way. I would have missed it! But something made me stay with it. It might have been hubby asking me to watch the end of the movie with him. Yep. That was it. He didn't plan it though. He too was amazed by the similarity of camera movements and overall badness of the two films.
I have to say one thing in defense of Carlito's Way. Sean Penn really is a great actor. I felt like he was channeling my old boss from The Unnamed Law Offices. I wouldn't want to hurt the scumbag's feelings.
Something this poetic happens to a film fan so rarely. I feel quite blessed.
A few days ago, I rented Agora because I like Rachel Weisz and well, that's pretty much why. I watched the first half yesterday afternoon and could not make myself continue. Close to the point at which I had enough the following takes place on-screen: the Christians storm the library at Alexandria (with permission from the emperor) and start destroying everything. There are scrolls flying through the air like streamers. The camera begins to tilt and doesn't stop. Soon the viewer is upside down, just as the pagans, whose former persecution of the Christians was once sanctioned by the emperor, now find themselves displaced from their center of knowledge. I can't help but chide the film in the most sarcastic voice imaginable, "Their world will never be the same." This is the sort of camera movement that has to be subtle as it relates to the story. In this case, it was way too obvious so it just seemed gimmicky, like a substitute for good film-making.
When I came home from Inception, hubby was watching the final half of Carlito's Way, a film he saw many moons ago, and one I have never seen. Here too is a movie I have no desire to watch in its entirety, but it was somehow destiny that I saw these two halves of these two movies on the same day. When Carlito gets shot, they roll him away through the subway station, the camera becomes unbound by gravity and end over end it goes. I am not kidding. It was the same shot. I will now stop to marvel at the likelihood that anyone could be inspired by Brian De Palma or Carlito's Way. It is a camera movement that has been used before and will be used again, in the same tired "my world's turned upside down" way no doubt. So the most likely explanation is that it was all a big coincidence. But, even then, it feels a little like the Universe converging, right? I almost fell asleep before the end of Carlito's Way. I would have missed it! But something made me stay with it. It might have been hubby asking me to watch the end of the movie with him. Yep. That was it. He didn't plan it though. He too was amazed by the similarity of camera movements and overall badness of the two films.
I have to say one thing in defense of Carlito's Way. Sean Penn really is a great actor. I felt like he was channeling my old boss from The Unnamed Law Offices. I wouldn't want to hurt the scumbag's feelings.
Something this poetic happens to a film fan so rarely. I feel quite blessed.
Jul 16, 2010
Out to the movies
I'm off to see Inception. Of course, review to follow, probably at about 1:00AM.
I hope it is better than the movie I tried to watch earlier today, Agora. Who likes these toga epics? Could there be a more boring time in history about which to make a movie. Also, movies about religion walk a fine line between OK and complete rubbish. There are so few I would call good. Let me know if I am forgetting some amazing film about religion. I guess they all fall short of capturing my personal experience, and that makes them almost as exasperating as Christian Rock.
We'll talk later.
I hope it is better than the movie I tried to watch earlier today, Agora. Who likes these toga epics? Could there be a more boring time in history about which to make a movie. Also, movies about religion walk a fine line between OK and complete rubbish. There are so few I would call good. Let me know if I am forgetting some amazing film about religion. I guess they all fall short of capturing my personal experience, and that makes them almost as exasperating as Christian Rock.
We'll talk later.
The Brothers Bloom
Hubby rented The Brothers Bloom because he knows I like Adrien Brody. My initial reaction was to refuse to watch it. I had never heard of it, and the last time my husband was seized with "unknown movie" inspiration at the video store, I suffered through not one but two (OK, one and a half) movies about vacuum cleaner salesmen. Needless to say, we've tried this open-minded-about-unknown-movies thing before, with such disastrous results as actually paying US dollars to see Equilibrium in the theater; again because one of us (this time hubby) really liked Christian Bale.
I think his intent this time was to rib me, "Ha. You like Adrien Brody, and look at this piece of poo (I like to keep it G-rated) to which he willingly connected his name," but we were both pleasantly surprised to find so much entertainment in a movie that was not a box office smash (not that I am against Indie films, but sometimes you do get burned).
There were things I didn't think were necessary or that were a little too outlandish, but for the most part, the story was interesting enough to keep me involved, and Adrien Brody did not disappoint. Also, it was an added bonus when Rachel Weisz (whom I adore from my The Mummy phase) showed up as the love interest.
I thought the opening sequence which introduced the brothers as children was very funny and well-executed. The cinematography was fine, but could maybe have done a bit more with the exotic locales. The end was drawn-out, and felt forced. I'm not big on narration, so the narrated portions of the story irritated me. I like the visual to tell the story when at all possible. It's something that sticks with me from film school, so it is probably not my own, but there it is anyway.
I laughed several times. Rachel Weisz is Penelope, an epileptic "eccentric shut-in rich bitch" who collects hobbies. There is a hilarious montage in which she demonstrates her hobbies for Bloom (Adrien Brody); as well as some funny recurring jokes that occur in the background if you watch for them. She started out pretty eccentric, but that sort of petered out towards the middle. I'm not sure if the writers intended for her to become more normal the more she was around others or if they just didn't have any more ways to make it funny. The epilepsy never came back, so it was weird to have it set up as if it was a thing. All in all though, her character worked because the emotion she and Bloom felt for one another was evident and appealing.
Where I didn't feel the emotion was between the two brothers. Mark Ruffalo is not my favorite actor, mostly because he isn't very good. There were even times when I didn't buy Adrien Brody's performance opposite Ruffalo. I am trying not to make this a treatise on acting technique, so I will leave it there.
The title sort of lacked luster. I was never sure why Adrien Brody was called Bloom. Was Bloom their last name and he chose to go by it? It doesn't make any sense if that wasn't their last name, but that means we never know Bloom's real name. Is that supposed to be symbolic of his character being shrouded in lies? I get that, but it still bugs me as the title. It feels a little like an unnecessary homage to (rip-off of?) The Brothers McMullen.
I think I know why this film didn't smash up the box office. It was mostly about self-loathing but without the proper feel-good finish that most movie-goers crave. The end kind of sputtered to a close, and I never had the sense that Bloom had come to grips with himself. He was "released" in a sense, from his brother's influence, but not necessarily from the power of his own self-hatred. I really wanted the end of the movie to be like this: Penelope (Weisz) shows up in Montenegro with her "Penelope the con artiste" doodles; convinces Bloom (Brody) to embrace his talents and get over the fact that he has to lie all the time; he finally stands up to his older brother, and he and Penelope start up a rival gang of con artists. If he could just own his work and his character, he could be free from regret and live the life he wants. It should be clearer to him that Penelope's acceptance of him, just the way he is, is the only approval he needs.
Personal note: I am so sick of the noble guy in these stories "protecting" the woman they love from the darkness that is their unknown soul. Give me a break. Do you really think we can't handle your evil? We've been in it up to our ears since time began. I always have to wonder how much the guy really loves the girl if he underestimates her abilities so vastly. Bloom goes so far as to try to trick Penelope into leaving him, instead of just telling her that he wants to keep her away from the rottenness inherently attached to his way of life. Here's a novel concept, why not let her choose? Anyway, Penelope is better at card tricks than Steven (Ruffalo), so right there Bloom ought not to dismiss this girl's potential as a con artist. (That was a jab at the overuse of the card-tricks-being-a-micro-version-of-the-con theme).
I wrote the following note to myself during the viewing: "pretty hardcore self-loathing; please let this film be about accepting who you are and embracing it." Alas, it was not about that. It was about blaming someone else for your problems (according to Bloom, his brother keeps writing him into these stories) and only sort of getting over it, and only then when that person is gone. Still, there were enough zany hijinks to keep me going, even though the denouement was protracted and a bit of a let down.
I think his intent this time was to rib me, "Ha. You like Adrien Brody, and look at this piece of poo (I like to keep it G-rated) to which he willingly connected his name," but we were both pleasantly surprised to find so much entertainment in a movie that was not a box office smash (not that I am against Indie films, but sometimes you do get burned).
There were things I didn't think were necessary or that were a little too outlandish, but for the most part, the story was interesting enough to keep me involved, and Adrien Brody did not disappoint. Also, it was an added bonus when Rachel Weisz (whom I adore from my The Mummy phase) showed up as the love interest.
I thought the opening sequence which introduced the brothers as children was very funny and well-executed. The cinematography was fine, but could maybe have done a bit more with the exotic locales. The end was drawn-out, and felt forced. I'm not big on narration, so the narrated portions of the story irritated me. I like the visual to tell the story when at all possible. It's something that sticks with me from film school, so it is probably not my own, but there it is anyway.
I laughed several times. Rachel Weisz is Penelope, an epileptic "eccentric shut-in rich bitch" who collects hobbies. There is a hilarious montage in which she demonstrates her hobbies for Bloom (Adrien Brody); as well as some funny recurring jokes that occur in the background if you watch for them. She started out pretty eccentric, but that sort of petered out towards the middle. I'm not sure if the writers intended for her to become more normal the more she was around others or if they just didn't have any more ways to make it funny. The epilepsy never came back, so it was weird to have it set up as if it was a thing. All in all though, her character worked because the emotion she and Bloom felt for one another was evident and appealing.
Where I didn't feel the emotion was between the two brothers. Mark Ruffalo is not my favorite actor, mostly because he isn't very good. There were even times when I didn't buy Adrien Brody's performance opposite Ruffalo. I am trying not to make this a treatise on acting technique, so I will leave it there.
The title sort of lacked luster. I was never sure why Adrien Brody was called Bloom. Was Bloom their last name and he chose to go by it? It doesn't make any sense if that wasn't their last name, but that means we never know Bloom's real name. Is that supposed to be symbolic of his character being shrouded in lies? I get that, but it still bugs me as the title. It feels a little like an unnecessary homage to (rip-off of?) The Brothers McMullen.
I think I know why this film didn't smash up the box office. It was mostly about self-loathing but without the proper feel-good finish that most movie-goers crave. The end kind of sputtered to a close, and I never had the sense that Bloom had come to grips with himself. He was "released" in a sense, from his brother's influence, but not necessarily from the power of his own self-hatred. I really wanted the end of the movie to be like this: Penelope (Weisz) shows up in Montenegro with her "Penelope the con artiste" doodles; convinces Bloom (Brody) to embrace his talents and get over the fact that he has to lie all the time; he finally stands up to his older brother, and he and Penelope start up a rival gang of con artists. If he could just own his work and his character, he could be free from regret and live the life he wants. It should be clearer to him that Penelope's acceptance of him, just the way he is, is the only approval he needs.
Personal note: I am so sick of the noble guy in these stories "protecting" the woman they love from the darkness that is their unknown soul. Give me a break. Do you really think we can't handle your evil? We've been in it up to our ears since time began. I always have to wonder how much the guy really loves the girl if he underestimates her abilities so vastly. Bloom goes so far as to try to trick Penelope into leaving him, instead of just telling her that he wants to keep her away from the rottenness inherently attached to his way of life. Here's a novel concept, why not let her choose? Anyway, Penelope is better at card tricks than Steven (Ruffalo), so right there Bloom ought not to dismiss this girl's potential as a con artist. (That was a jab at the overuse of the card-tricks-being-a-micro-version-of-the-con theme).
I wrote the following note to myself during the viewing: "pretty hardcore self-loathing; please let this film be about accepting who you are and embracing it." Alas, it was not about that. It was about blaming someone else for your problems (according to Bloom, his brother keeps writing him into these stories) and only sort of getting over it, and only then when that person is gone. Still, there were enough zany hijinks to keep me going, even though the denouement was protracted and a bit of a let down.
Jul 14, 2010
District 9: One of the Best of 2009
I am dumbfounded that Sharlto Copley had no prior acting experience before starring in District 9. I can only marvel at the quality of his acting and that of the film-making. The story was good, if not a little unoriginal. It is clearly the writer's intent to throw apartheid abuses into a metaphorical spotlight. I am reminded of the metaphor for Native American-resettlement evident in the movie Avatar, upon which I have already commented. All that aside, wow! If you're going to whine about social and racial injustice, the least you can do is entertain those of us who go to the movies to escape the misery of the real world. Nicely done. I was entertained and only mildly riddled-with-guilt.
We meet Wikus Van De Merwe just as he is being promoted. His company MNU is in charge of District 9, an alien-inhabited slum on the outskirts of Johannesburg. Through "documentary footage" we learn that the aliens are being evicted to a resettlement camp far outside of town, and Wicus has just been named the boss of the eviction proceedings. He is giddy, excited, downright school-boyish as he sits at his desk answering interview questions and preparing to go out in the field. Quickly, though, we see another side of his character as he jovially "aborts" illegally spawned alien eggs, makes jokes at inappropriate times with team members who are nervous and uncertain, and fails to provide a flack jacket for another team member (though he is wearing one), saying that they aren't really necessary because everything is going to go smoothly. His demeanor is clearly at odds with the tense and sometimes violent atmosphere. At one point, a severed limb (presumably of one of the human team members) is being loaded into a garbage bag. The carnage doesn't phase him in the least. Then, he is worried about finding a place to get lunch moments after an altercation leads to one alien's violent death. His flippancy toward the aliens who are being evicted and the situation at large (when he encounters the very dangerous voodoo war lord, he smiles into the camera and chides his team to move along, don't make eye contact) served to heighten my interest and feelings of foreboding. I felt that here was a man who was going to be in over his head soon, and I was right. As things go awry, he loses his "cool" (in quotes because his appearance is the very definition of nerdy), batting the camera away in fits of rage and letting more evictions get out of hand. The polite exterior begins to crack, revealing a more uncertain character.
Aside: Here I am reminded of the maddening calm of Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. What makes her so sinister? It isn't merely the cruel things she says and does. It is the way in which she says and does them. Her steady tone and civility refuse to acknowledge the truth about her environment (insane people everywhere doing all kinds of crazy stuff) or about her feelings toward her patients. The condescension with which she addresses her charges is just unsettling.
Unlike, Nurse Ratched, Wicus (as the protagonist) is given a strange and unpleasant opportunity to amend his character flaws. He must bump up against his self perception more than once before the story ends. In many ways the film is about personal and cultural identity and how the two are so intertwined. He begins as a South African and a human. At the end, he not only sympathizes more with the alien whose escape he abets, but he becomes an alien. He wants to return to his human identity, but is physically barred from doing so, until further notice. For now he must now forge an alien destiny, hoping that he will one day be restored to his humanity.
I sincerely hope there is no sequel. The end left me with a final impression that is more powerful because I can only guess at Wicus's ultimate fate. If his alien friend survives and returns in three years, he could be returned to normal. The uncertainty at the end is the perfect punctuation of realism in this fantastic film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)