First thing's first: I left the theater last night after having seen The Muppets feeling almost exactly like this.
I grew up with the Muppets. The Muppet Movie and The Muppets Take Manhattan were family favorites when I was little. I absorbed Muppet Babies and reruns of The Muppet Show on TV when I was in elementary school. However, I recognize that this isn't the case for everybody in my generation. I had to orchestrate a mass viewing of The Muppet Movie my senior year of undergrad after realizing -- to my dismay -- that only a couple of my friends had ever seen it. All of them knew the Muppets. They'd seen Muppet Treasure Island / Christmas Carol / In Space growing up, but they didn't share my boundless love for these timeless pieces of felt. The reason, pretty simply, was because they'd never seen the Muppets under the direction of Jim Henson.
Henson's unexpected death in 1990 necessarily resulted in a shift in all Muppet related work. Without their chief visionary around, it was nearly impossible to recreate the whimsical sincerity that made the Muppets what they are. They could pull off the tongue-in-cheek goofy self-awareness, but there was something lacking in the joy department of everything that has come in the past two decades. The Muppets is a very strong step towards rectifying that.
The basic plot of the movie suggests that something has happened to fundamentally alter the relationship that the Muppets share, driving them apart. Into this world walk Gary, Mary, and, most importantly, Walter. These are agents external to the Muppet community who recognize the impact the Muppets have had on society, and who intervene to help the Muppets move beyond whatever happened and realize that they can still accomplish a lot of good together.
This could be seen as mirroring the making of this production. The event that drove the Muppets apart could, implicitly, be understood as the loss of Henson. There have been Muppet creations in the last 20 years, but plenty of people would be happy writing them off. Into this void walked Jason Segel and his partners (including plenty of writing and directing talent from Flight of the Concords), eager to show the world that it was still possible to capture the original spirit of the Muppets. Willing to show them the respect that they deserve both as performers and characters.
No matter what Rotten Tomatoes might say, The Muppets is not as good as The Muppet Movie. Henson's passing still weighs too heavily on this franchise for that to be the case. There's something obviously different about this movie than the Henson Muppet cannon. Chiefly, the Muppets themselves (or at least the original Muppets) aren't front and center they way they would have been years ago. They play a prominent role and take up much of the screen time, but by and large, this is a movie from the perspective of outsiders. But in a world without Jim Henson...it kind of has to be. We can't replicate his magic, his boundless idealism tempered by patient realism. We can only endeavor to describe how it made (and continues to make) us feel and provide our best recreation.
On that account, The Muppets succeeds as well as any effort could. Bolstered by incredibly eager contributions from the always sincere Jason Segel and Amy Adams, there is a hopeful, joyous quality to this movie that can only be described as Muppetacular. Having seen it once, I'm fully confident that I'll see it at least once more, and possibly twice before it leaves theaters.
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Friday, November 25, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
Deathly Hallows: Part 2
Fresh back from the midnight showing of the final chapter in the Harry Potter film series, so, of course, I'm going to write about that instead of taking this opportunity to go to sleep at what would only be a mildly unreasonable hour. I'll try to minimize spoilers, but they're obviously going to be here.
First of all, a reminder that I'm not the hugest fan of the Deathly Hallows book. Long story short, my general sense about the movie is about the same as with Part 1, only generally more favorable because of the portion of the story captured. With a few small exceptions, the adaptation itself is about as strong as you could want. By and large, deviations from the source made perfect sense within the characterizations given in the movies and the nature of the medium. More important, the aspects of the book that I found most frustrating -- The Hallows, wand lore, Gringotts -- were minimized to the extent possible, while full attention was paid to the most important factors -- Snape's past, King's Cross, and others. In fact, I came into the theater thinking "If they handle Snape right, that will account for all other sins." And while I mostly feel they did this and more, I can't quite give it a completely free pass.
See, there were too many moments that just seemed...manufactured. Scenes that wanted to be emotional rarely were, and the execution just had a number of moments where it just didn't feel all there. It seemed, at times, like they were including sequences because they knew that the fans would be clamoring for them and just letting it ride on that fact. In general, I'd say that the more people who were on the screen, the less honest anything seemed. The core cast continues to be largely phenomenal, but the Wizarding World somehow felt less real than ever. Heck, early on, even the small moments seemed a little bit too rushed and matter-of-fact.
I want to end on a positive note, though. Even if it will never be the first Harry Potter film I reach for on a lazy day, Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 was an enjoyable time and a worthy ending to one of the most lucrative film franchises of all time. I'd really like to watch a cut of this and part 1 blended together to eliminate the handful of redundancies and see if I still have problems with some of the early pacing or if the momentum carries. I suspect that it would, elevating both movies considerably (thank God, DVD will also let us skip over Harry and Hermione dancing in Part 1).
First of all, a reminder that I'm not the hugest fan of the Deathly Hallows book. Long story short, my general sense about the movie is about the same as with Part 1, only generally more favorable because of the portion of the story captured. With a few small exceptions, the adaptation itself is about as strong as you could want. By and large, deviations from the source made perfect sense within the characterizations given in the movies and the nature of the medium. More important, the aspects of the book that I found most frustrating -- The Hallows, wand lore, Gringotts -- were minimized to the extent possible, while full attention was paid to the most important factors -- Snape's past, King's Cross, and others. In fact, I came into the theater thinking "If they handle Snape right, that will account for all other sins." And while I mostly feel they did this and more, I can't quite give it a completely free pass.
See, there were too many moments that just seemed...manufactured. Scenes that wanted to be emotional rarely were, and the execution just had a number of moments where it just didn't feel all there. It seemed, at times, like they were including sequences because they knew that the fans would be clamoring for them and just letting it ride on that fact. In general, I'd say that the more people who were on the screen, the less honest anything seemed. The core cast continues to be largely phenomenal, but the Wizarding World somehow felt less real than ever. Heck, early on, even the small moments seemed a little bit too rushed and matter-of-fact.
I want to end on a positive note, though. Even if it will never be the first Harry Potter film I reach for on a lazy day, Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 was an enjoyable time and a worthy ending to one of the most lucrative film franchises of all time. I'd really like to watch a cut of this and part 1 blended together to eliminate the handful of redundancies and see if I still have problems with some of the early pacing or if the momentum carries. I suspect that it would, elevating both movies considerably (thank God, DVD will also let us skip over Harry and Hermione dancing in Part 1).
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Thoughts on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (pt. 1)
Last summer, I re-read and posted my thoughts on the seventh and final entry in the Harry Potter series. At the time, I mentioned that I had serious problems with a number of elements of the book, both in terms of content and in structure. I also noted that my love of the characters and the ultimate redemption of Snape ultimately made the experience worthwhile. It's safe to say that, by and large, the same holds of part 1 of the film adaptation.
Since I already said pretty much all I have to say on the content of the book, I'm going to take this space to focus on some issues unique to the movie.
First, as anybody familiar with both the books and the movies would expect, the creators had to do a bit of backpedaling in order to make certain elements work. Instead of simply cutting the wedding scene, we get a ridiculously half-assed introduction of Bill ("Hi, Harry, I'm Bill Weasely. I got attacked by a were-wolf and like my meat on the raw side now!" "Oh, nice to finally meet you, Bill").
More distracting, as you might expect, was the way that Dobby was forced back into things after having all of his involvement since Chamber of Secrets cut out. I know that Dobby's sacrifice is immensely moving in the books, but movie-watchers have no familiarity with Dobby's work at Hogwarts or his adventures with Winky or Hermione's creation of SPEW.
I'm not even going to try to describe all of the problems with the scene where Harry and Hermione dance in the tent.
The final problem is that the screenwriters obviously didn't put enough time into some of the dialogue. There were a few lines so clunky that the audience actually laughed. In some cases, it was simply because the characters needed to express thoughts or explain things that could not have been spoken by a human being in a way that didn't sound ridiculous. This is a relatively common problem with any fantasy setting, and in these instances, the writers did a decent job of hanging the lampshade* and creating intentional humor out of the situation. But there were other areas where they didn't seem to recognize the problems. Similarly, the way they shot Harry's interactions with "Bathilda Bagshot" evoked laughter at a number of times in what was supposed to be a tense scene.
The filmmakers did a number of things extremely right, though. For one thing, the death of Hedwig, while a bit abrupt, made far more sense in this setting. Instead of getting hit randomly by a killing curse while stuck in her cage, she swoops in and harasses a Death Eater who was trying to shoot Harry. Not only did it provide Voldemort a much more reasonable means of identifying Harry than "OMG, he used expeliarmus! It must be Potter", but it makes more sense, since there's no good reason that Harry wouldn't have let Hedwig fly freely and find him at The Barrows later.
Second, the infiltration of the Ministry was one of the most entertaining scenes in the series so far. The actors who got to play the Ministry officials into whom our heroes polymorphed must have had boatloads of fun. The physicality of their performances was just perfect. It turned what was kind of an awkward, tense scene in the books into a great tension alleviator, punctuated at points by signs of just how twisted the Ministry had become under Death Eater control.
Third, as much as a handful of critics complained about the camping scenes, I felt that they were handled quite well (with the exception of the aforementioned dance). The creators did a good job of displaying the impact of The Locket on people's temperaments and of Ron's growing insecurity with minimal time commitment. Hermione's almost run-in with the Snatchers seemed a bit purposeless beyond showing the potency of the charms they had set up, but I won't complain too much about that. Unfortunately, we didn't get to see much of how Ron's absence strained Harry and Hermione, but I won't hold that against them overmuch. Ron was only gone for 80 pages in the book (mostly spent at Godric's Hollow), and the impact of his departure is something that was almost entirely told and not shown.
Finally, the animation used for the Story of the Three Brothers was absolutely fantastic. I would buy a DVD just containing the various Tales of Beedle the Bard told in that fashion in a heartbeat.
So, not a great movie for a person who isn't particularly fond of the source material, but an enjoyable time for Harry Potter fans. I'll never be convinced that Deathly Hallows was the appropriate way to end the series, but David Yates and crew are showing that they're devoted to making the best adaptation they can.
Since I already said pretty much all I have to say on the content of the book, I'm going to take this space to focus on some issues unique to the movie.
First, as anybody familiar with both the books and the movies would expect, the creators had to do a bit of backpedaling in order to make certain elements work. Instead of simply cutting the wedding scene, we get a ridiculously half-assed introduction of Bill ("Hi, Harry, I'm Bill Weasely. I got attacked by a were-wolf and like my meat on the raw side now!" "Oh, nice to finally meet you, Bill").
More distracting, as you might expect, was the way that Dobby was forced back into things after having all of his involvement since Chamber of Secrets cut out. I know that Dobby's sacrifice is immensely moving in the books, but movie-watchers have no familiarity with Dobby's work at Hogwarts or his adventures with Winky or Hermione's creation of SPEW.
I'm not even going to try to describe all of the problems with the scene where Harry and Hermione dance in the tent.
The final problem is that the screenwriters obviously didn't put enough time into some of the dialogue. There were a few lines so clunky that the audience actually laughed. In some cases, it was simply because the characters needed to express thoughts or explain things that could not have been spoken by a human being in a way that didn't sound ridiculous. This is a relatively common problem with any fantasy setting, and in these instances, the writers did a decent job of hanging the lampshade* and creating intentional humor out of the situation. But there were other areas where they didn't seem to recognize the problems. Similarly, the way they shot Harry's interactions with "Bathilda Bagshot" evoked laughter at a number of times in what was supposed to be a tense scene.
The filmmakers did a number of things extremely right, though. For one thing, the death of Hedwig, while a bit abrupt, made far more sense in this setting. Instead of getting hit randomly by a killing curse while stuck in her cage, she swoops in and harasses a Death Eater who was trying to shoot Harry. Not only did it provide Voldemort a much more reasonable means of identifying Harry than "OMG, he used expeliarmus! It must be Potter", but it makes more sense, since there's no good reason that Harry wouldn't have let Hedwig fly freely and find him at The Barrows later.
Second, the infiltration of the Ministry was one of the most entertaining scenes in the series so far. The actors who got to play the Ministry officials into whom our heroes polymorphed must have had boatloads of fun. The physicality of their performances was just perfect. It turned what was kind of an awkward, tense scene in the books into a great tension alleviator, punctuated at points by signs of just how twisted the Ministry had become under Death Eater control.
Third, as much as a handful of critics complained about the camping scenes, I felt that they were handled quite well (with the exception of the aforementioned dance). The creators did a good job of displaying the impact of The Locket on people's temperaments and of Ron's growing insecurity with minimal time commitment. Hermione's almost run-in with the Snatchers seemed a bit purposeless beyond showing the potency of the charms they had set up, but I won't complain too much about that. Unfortunately, we didn't get to see much of how Ron's absence strained Harry and Hermione, but I won't hold that against them overmuch. Ron was only gone for 80 pages in the book (mostly spent at Godric's Hollow), and the impact of his departure is something that was almost entirely told and not shown.
Finally, the animation used for the Story of the Three Brothers was absolutely fantastic. I would buy a DVD just containing the various Tales of Beedle the Bard told in that fashion in a heartbeat.
So, not a great movie for a person who isn't particularly fond of the source material, but an enjoyable time for Harry Potter fans. I'll never be convinced that Deathly Hallows was the appropriate way to end the series, but David Yates and crew are showing that they're devoted to making the best adaptation they can.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Scott Pilgrim
Sometime in March or April of 2008, I heard that Edgar Wright, of Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead fame, was writing and directing a film adaptation of a comic series called Scott Pilgrim and that it would star Michael Cera. I love Edgar Wright, I love Michael Cera (note that this was just before Michael Cera fatigue swept a good portion the nation along with the backlash against Juno), so I immediately went and checked out the series and fell in love with it. I've eagerly anticipated each new volume (up to the final one, which released in July) and this movie ever since. I just recently finished re-reading the books and tonight I finally saw the film, so I figured it was about damn time I blogged about it.
The comics and the movie are really cut from the same cloth, so most of what I can say will apply to both, and the same can be said of the most common criticism: what's really at stake? By far the most common criticism of the movie was that it was hard to care about Scott and even harder to see why he was fighting for Ramona. That's a pretty legitimate complaint, until you take a closer look and see the point: None of this is about being in love. It's entirely about growing up. This relationship is just a catalyst, as they so often are.
Scott and Ramona are, quite frankly, the two least likable characters in this story. Scott is an idiot with no attention span, job, or prospects. He doesn't particularly care about anything and moves through life on a whim, unwittingly hurting people left and right, often times without even remembering how things went down. Ramona is slightly more responsible in that she at least has a job and her own apartment, but she's similarly capricious. The only difference is that she's fully aware of the hurt she's created and simply runs away from it any time it catches up.
Scott's battles with Ramona's exes simultaneously force him to fight for something for a change and make Ramona confront her own baggage and acknowledge that there are things and people in her life worth keeping around. Whether or not she's "the one" or Scott really loves her is hardly the question. The issue at hand is that both of them are realizing that we have to live in this world as it is, not as we'd prefer it to be. We can't live by mooching off our friends and wasting our time on idle fancies or by staying ahead of the inevitable changes. More importantly, we can't live our lives thinking we're the perfect hero of our story. We need to take charge of our affairs and of our faults and face the hard fact that reality is tough and being a good person in spite of that is tougher.
The book and the movie, which entered development and writing about halfway through the series, have different ways of letting Scott come to terms with these facts. In the movie, Wright has Scott acknowledge that he's fighting for himself and "earning the power of self-respect" when he confronts Gideon for the second time. This is slightly more straightforward and certainly happier than the comic's approach. In O'Malley's version, Scott encounters nega-Scott and he finally admits to himself what he's done and how many people he's hurt more than necessary by being willfully oblivious. Being the guilt-ridden penance junkie I am, I think I like this better, but both work well. In either case, Scott comes to terms with the fact that his life is his life, and he can't continue brushing it off if he wants it to turn around, and that's the important part.
So, that's my big reason for not caring a whole lot about whether Ramona appears to be worth fighting for. The other one is simply this: who are we to judge? As a rule, I've generally given up trying to figure out what it is that draws people to each other. We all have our own criteria, and it's hardly our place to judge. Most movies and books try to establish that people are right for one another with grand arm waving and a showiness that just doesn't happen in life. I prefer it when I'm allowed to just trust that these people are making the choice that they feel is best for them in their lives.
Not much else to say on the matter. The other big component is just the referential/stylistic component, which is the upfront draw. Both O'Malley and Wright have a near perfect understanding of homage and parody, and they keep the in-jokes coming at a blinding pace while keeping the bulk of the overt material readily accessible. Especially as a member of the in-group, I can't think of anything to complain about on this end.
Short version: Check out both the movie and the comics. They're not perfect, but you'll still be glad you did.
The comics and the movie are really cut from the same cloth, so most of what I can say will apply to both, and the same can be said of the most common criticism: what's really at stake? By far the most common criticism of the movie was that it was hard to care about Scott and even harder to see why he was fighting for Ramona. That's a pretty legitimate complaint, until you take a closer look and see the point: None of this is about being in love. It's entirely about growing up. This relationship is just a catalyst, as they so often are.
Scott and Ramona are, quite frankly, the two least likable characters in this story. Scott is an idiot with no attention span, job, or prospects. He doesn't particularly care about anything and moves through life on a whim, unwittingly hurting people left and right, often times without even remembering how things went down. Ramona is slightly more responsible in that she at least has a job and her own apartment, but she's similarly capricious. The only difference is that she's fully aware of the hurt she's created and simply runs away from it any time it catches up.
Scott's battles with Ramona's exes simultaneously force him to fight for something for a change and make Ramona confront her own baggage and acknowledge that there are things and people in her life worth keeping around. Whether or not she's "the one" or Scott really loves her is hardly the question. The issue at hand is that both of them are realizing that we have to live in this world as it is, not as we'd prefer it to be. We can't live by mooching off our friends and wasting our time on idle fancies or by staying ahead of the inevitable changes. More importantly, we can't live our lives thinking we're the perfect hero of our story. We need to take charge of our affairs and of our faults and face the hard fact that reality is tough and being a good person in spite of that is tougher.
The book and the movie, which entered development and writing about halfway through the series, have different ways of letting Scott come to terms with these facts. In the movie, Wright has Scott acknowledge that he's fighting for himself and "earning the power of self-respect" when he confronts Gideon for the second time. This is slightly more straightforward and certainly happier than the comic's approach. In O'Malley's version, Scott encounters nega-Scott and he finally admits to himself what he's done and how many people he's hurt more than necessary by being willfully oblivious. Being the guilt-ridden penance junkie I am, I think I like this better, but both work well. In either case, Scott comes to terms with the fact that his life is his life, and he can't continue brushing it off if he wants it to turn around, and that's the important part.
So, that's my big reason for not caring a whole lot about whether Ramona appears to be worth fighting for. The other one is simply this: who are we to judge? As a rule, I've generally given up trying to figure out what it is that draws people to each other. We all have our own criteria, and it's hardly our place to judge. Most movies and books try to establish that people are right for one another with grand arm waving and a showiness that just doesn't happen in life. I prefer it when I'm allowed to just trust that these people are making the choice that they feel is best for them in their lives.
Not much else to say on the matter. The other big component is just the referential/stylistic component, which is the upfront draw. Both O'Malley and Wright have a near perfect understanding of homage and parody, and they keep the in-jokes coming at a blinding pace while keeping the bulk of the overt material readily accessible. Especially as a member of the in-group, I can't think of anything to complain about on this end.
Short version: Check out both the movie and the comics. They're not perfect, but you'll still be glad you did.
Monday, August 16, 2010
It's Not Too Late, George!
So, George Lucas has announced his plans for theBlu-Ray release of the Star Wars trilogy. It's just the '97 "Special Edition" versions of the movie released at a higher resolution. Now, this is disappointing to me because, as many of you know, I had a brilliant idea for this inevitable release a few months back. The short version is this: Create Your Own Edition.
Basically, provide a menu system that allows viewers to choose which version of the films they want to watch at any point where there is a difference between versions. Who shot first? Did Han meet Jabba in the docking bay at Mos Eisley? Did Alderaan's explosion look like special effects from the '70's or from the '90's? Was the destruction of the second Death Star celebrated by awesome, dancing Ewoks or by an interplanetary throwing down of Palpatine statues? (for the record: Han, No, '90's, and Yub Yub!).
Everybody has their own perfect version of Star Wars, so let them create it and share it (hell, give us a BD-Live feature that lets us watch our friends' cuts!). Seriously, this is an idea that would have satisfied *everybody* and made the release something really special instead of just another Lucas cash-in opportunity. I make no official claim to this idea, so feel free to spread it around in case it somehow makes its way to the fine folks at Lucasfilm before the planned Fall 2011 release.
Basically, provide a menu system that allows viewers to choose which version of the films they want to watch at any point where there is a difference between versions. Who shot first? Did Han meet Jabba in the docking bay at Mos Eisley? Did Alderaan's explosion look like special effects from the '70's or from the '90's? Was the destruction of the second Death Star celebrated by awesome, dancing Ewoks or by an interplanetary throwing down of Palpatine statues? (for the record: Han, No, '90's, and Yub Yub!).
Everybody has their own perfect version of Star Wars, so let them create it and share it (hell, give us a BD-Live feature that lets us watch our friends' cuts!). Seriously, this is an idea that would have satisfied *everybody* and made the release something really special instead of just another Lucas cash-in opportunity. I make no official claim to this idea, so feel free to spread it around in case it somehow makes its way to the fine folks at Lucasfilm before the planned Fall 2011 release.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Porco Rosso is Beyond Pleasant
Like most self-respecting human beings, I have an abiding love for the bulk of Miyazaki's films. So, when Ponyo came out stateside last summer and Rotten Tomatoes was running a countdown of his ten highest rated films, I was shocked to see that one of the top movies was one I'd never heard of: Porco Rosso. A month or so later, when I was signing up for Netflix, I immediately added it to my queue. Unfortunately, as much as I took advantage of my instant queue, I was pretty slow to go through the actual disks they sent me. Last night, though, I finally got around to watching Porco Rosso, and while it isn't going to top Spirited Away (or even Totoro) on my list of my favorite Miyazaki movies, it was still absolutely delightful.
There isn't a whole lot of plot to Porco Rosso. Pretty much all of what you need to know is right there in the basic summary on the back of the disk. An ace Italian seaplane pilot fights sky pirates in the Adriatic (and resists Fascism in the mainland). Oh, and said pilot has suffered a curse that has turned him into an anthropomorphic pig. Like so much of Miyazaki's work, though, this isn't a movie that isn't about an elaborate sequence of unfolding events, so I can't find fault on this point.
Similarly, most of the characters aren't terribly deep. With the exception of Marco (the true name of the pilot feared by his enemies as Porco Rosso), most of the characters are pretty much open books. They wear their intentions and their characters on their sleaves. But since this also isn't a movie remotely concerned with exploring the nature of its characters' motivations, this isn't a drawback.
If the movie isn't about its plot or its characters, then, what's it's purpose? It's about spending some time in the company of some likable characters and observing their beautiful world. It's about seeing how these people interact with this world, remaining hopeful and carving out a niche for themselves despite the hardships and sadness that exist there. Really, it's a lot like Totoro if that movie were made for a slightly older demographic, one that prefers dogfights and star-crossed love to woodland exploration. Because of the increased complexity of the subject matter, it doesn't manage this style quite as well as Totoro (a movie I would describe as delightful); but it manages to be a perfectly enjoyable experience throughout.
*Mild spoilers from here until the final paragraph*
Other than Marco's affliction, the movie is strongly based in reality. It's 1929, the post-WW1 European Depression is in full swing, and the fascists are starting to take power in Italy. Times are hard, and everybody is doing what they can to survive and showing what courtesy they can afford to everybody else. At the beginning of the film, after Marco stops one band of pirates and recovers their hostages, he allows them to keep a portion of their stolen money so that they can affort to eat and repair their planes. He knows that this means running into them again (which, in a darker universe, could be seen as a motivation by itself), but he's not going to tell anybody that they can't fly. It's this sort of fundamental decency, contrasted with his gruff attitude and appearance, that defines Marco as a character. The world is a hard place, and he doesn't want to add any more sadness to it than he has to. He refuses to take a shot when it might result in another's death. He feels guilt when old women and young girls need to be brought in to do repairs on his plane, fundamentally a tool of destruction. Having seen his friends being robbed of their happiness by death in the War, he refuses to seek his own. It's a complex character, and it's portrayed as simply and subtly as one can imagine.
While Marco may be the protagonist, this wouldn't be a Miyazaki movie without a strong female protagonist, and, really, Porco Rosso has two: Fio and Gina. Gina shows up first, but Fio gets much more screen. Really, though, the two are cut from the same cloth, as can be seen by the almost identical interactions they have with the supporting cast. Neither is willing to accept that her womanhood is legitimate cause to keep her from doing what she loves. Both respond powerfully to Marco's strong convictions and masked gentleness, knowing that those same convictions will drive him to keep his distance. Neither character is allowed a great deal of depth, but this simplicity comes across as an earnestness. Both have such energy and faith in the fundamental goodness of people that it's not hard to see why every pilot in the Adriatic is in love with them.
The supporting cast of sky pirates, including the American pilot-for-hire and would-be antagonist Curtiss, are primarily there for humor, whether it's a result of a willingness to go to ridiculous ends to be free of Marco's meddling or a complete disconnect with reality. The real enemy isn't any of these desperate men, but the situation that drove them to such desperation; so when we see dozens of pirates bursting out of Marco's tent in an attempt to take him by force, it brings a smile to your face instead of a sense of dread.
Of course, being a Studio Ghibli film scored by Joe Hisaishi, everything is accentuated by gorgeous visuals and a wonderful soundtrack. I could watch Marco flying across the Italian countryside or the islands of the Adriatic while listening to "To the Adriatic Sea" for hours and feel nothing but contentment.
Ultimately, while Porco Rosso isn't going to challenge Spirited Away, Totoro, or Princess Mononoke to become one of my favorite three Miyazaki films, I really need to see Kiki's Delivery Service and Nausicaa again before I can have any confidence that it hasn't cracked my top 5. In any case, I immediately added it to my Amazon Wishlist and will probably watch it again (dubbed) with my family before sending it back.
There isn't a whole lot of plot to Porco Rosso. Pretty much all of what you need to know is right there in the basic summary on the back of the disk. An ace Italian seaplane pilot fights sky pirates in the Adriatic (and resists Fascism in the mainland). Oh, and said pilot has suffered a curse that has turned him into an anthropomorphic pig. Like so much of Miyazaki's work, though, this isn't a movie that isn't about an elaborate sequence of unfolding events, so I can't find fault on this point.
Similarly, most of the characters aren't terribly deep. With the exception of Marco (the true name of the pilot feared by his enemies as Porco Rosso), most of the characters are pretty much open books. They wear their intentions and their characters on their sleaves. But since this also isn't a movie remotely concerned with exploring the nature of its characters' motivations, this isn't a drawback.
If the movie isn't about its plot or its characters, then, what's it's purpose? It's about spending some time in the company of some likable characters and observing their beautiful world. It's about seeing how these people interact with this world, remaining hopeful and carving out a niche for themselves despite the hardships and sadness that exist there. Really, it's a lot like Totoro if that movie were made for a slightly older demographic, one that prefers dogfights and star-crossed love to woodland exploration. Because of the increased complexity of the subject matter, it doesn't manage this style quite as well as Totoro (a movie I would describe as delightful); but it manages to be a perfectly enjoyable experience throughout.
*Mild spoilers from here until the final paragraph*
Other than Marco's affliction, the movie is strongly based in reality. It's 1929, the post-WW1 European Depression is in full swing, and the fascists are starting to take power in Italy. Times are hard, and everybody is doing what they can to survive and showing what courtesy they can afford to everybody else. At the beginning of the film, after Marco stops one band of pirates and recovers their hostages, he allows them to keep a portion of their stolen money so that they can affort to eat and repair their planes. He knows that this means running into them again (which, in a darker universe, could be seen as a motivation by itself), but he's not going to tell anybody that they can't fly. It's this sort of fundamental decency, contrasted with his gruff attitude and appearance, that defines Marco as a character. The world is a hard place, and he doesn't want to add any more sadness to it than he has to. He refuses to take a shot when it might result in another's death. He feels guilt when old women and young girls need to be brought in to do repairs on his plane, fundamentally a tool of destruction. Having seen his friends being robbed of their happiness by death in the War, he refuses to seek his own. It's a complex character, and it's portrayed as simply and subtly as one can imagine.
While Marco may be the protagonist, this wouldn't be a Miyazaki movie without a strong female protagonist, and, really, Porco Rosso has two: Fio and Gina. Gina shows up first, but Fio gets much more screen. Really, though, the two are cut from the same cloth, as can be seen by the almost identical interactions they have with the supporting cast. Neither is willing to accept that her womanhood is legitimate cause to keep her from doing what she loves. Both respond powerfully to Marco's strong convictions and masked gentleness, knowing that those same convictions will drive him to keep his distance. Neither character is allowed a great deal of depth, but this simplicity comes across as an earnestness. Both have such energy and faith in the fundamental goodness of people that it's not hard to see why every pilot in the Adriatic is in love with them.
The supporting cast of sky pirates, including the American pilot-for-hire and would-be antagonist Curtiss, are primarily there for humor, whether it's a result of a willingness to go to ridiculous ends to be free of Marco's meddling or a complete disconnect with reality. The real enemy isn't any of these desperate men, but the situation that drove them to such desperation; so when we see dozens of pirates bursting out of Marco's tent in an attempt to take him by force, it brings a smile to your face instead of a sense of dread.
Of course, being a Studio Ghibli film scored by Joe Hisaishi, everything is accentuated by gorgeous visuals and a wonderful soundtrack. I could watch Marco flying across the Italian countryside or the islands of the Adriatic while listening to "To the Adriatic Sea" for hours and feel nothing but contentment.
Ultimately, while Porco Rosso isn't going to challenge Spirited Away, Totoro, or Princess Mononoke to become one of my favorite three Miyazaki films, I really need to see Kiki's Delivery Service and Nausicaa again before I can have any confidence that it hasn't cracked my top 5. In any case, I immediately added it to my Amazon Wishlist and will probably watch it again (dubbed) with my family before sending it back.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Representations of Violence in Kick-Ass
The movie Kick-Ass, based on the comic series by Mark Millar, came out yesterday. Went to see it tonight with some friends. People familiar with Millar's work will probably know immediately if this is a move for them or not. If that name means nothing to you, well, the name of the movie is probably a pretty good indicator. For my part, I was plenty entertained, but be warned, it is very violent and profane and obscene at times, too. Lots of critics have talked about the amount of violence in Kick-Ass, particularly whether or not it's reasonable to have so much of it being perpetrated by a character who is supposedly 11-years-old. For my part, I was just fascinated by the completely different approach the movie took with filming violence depending on the character perpetrating it. Spoilers ahead, obviously.
Let's start with the title character. Kick-Ass doesn't actually engage in a whole lot of violent activity; and when he does, it takes one of two distinct forms. At the start, when Kick-Ass first goes out and starts picking fights with criminals, the action is chaotic and uncoordinated. This is obviously fitting. Kick-Ass isn't really a fighter. He has no training and is in completely over his head; and he gets his ass kicked as a result. At the end, when Kick-Ass is actually living up to his name, it is in the most ridiculous, nerd, wish fulfillment ways imaginable. In those twin moments, Kick-Ass is living his dream.
Hit Girl, on the other hand, gets several impressive action sequences in which she brutalizes her enemies mercilessly. The over-the-top, hyper-stylized approach taken here is also fitting. Hit Girl, being a child raised to think that this is normal (and, as her father says, to look at it sort of as a game), likely has no real concept of what she's doing. She's acting on instinct, doing as she's been taught. Not thinking so much as responding. There are two exceptions to this rule: The scene in the lobby of D'Amico's building, and the showdown with D'Amico himself. The first scene comes just after Hit Girl is overcoming the death of her father. Suddenly aware of the stakes of this game, she talks her way into the building and does what she needs to do efficiently and coldly. Notably, she isn't wearing the Hit Girl costume in this scene. Once it's back on, the theatricality and sense of distance return. The fight with D'Amico is different because it's the only time she ever seems to be in real danger, and she responds to it. There's a sort of panic hindering her, and some of the chaos (and lack of coordination) of the Kick-Ass fights enter the picture.
The one time we see Big Daddy taking out multiple opponents is strikingly similar to Hit Girl's sequence in the lobby. The scene is visceral and clean. If there is chaos, it is only on the part of the thugs as they try to figure out what is happening to them. Unlike his daughter, Big Daddy knows exactly what he's doing and why he's doing it, and, as a result, he moves with purpose and efficiency. It's stark in its contrast from most of the rest of the film.
Not much else to say on the matter. I just thought this was interesting and figured I'd put it here instead of bugging people over and over with it. Like I said, I enjoyed the movie, and I'm particularly glad that, even in what was entirely meant as a popcorn movie, Matthew Vaughn took the time to add touches like this.
Let's start with the title character. Kick-Ass doesn't actually engage in a whole lot of violent activity; and when he does, it takes one of two distinct forms. At the start, when Kick-Ass first goes out and starts picking fights with criminals, the action is chaotic and uncoordinated. This is obviously fitting. Kick-Ass isn't really a fighter. He has no training and is in completely over his head; and he gets his ass kicked as a result. At the end, when Kick-Ass is actually living up to his name, it is in the most ridiculous, nerd, wish fulfillment ways imaginable. In those twin moments, Kick-Ass is living his dream.
Hit Girl, on the other hand, gets several impressive action sequences in which she brutalizes her enemies mercilessly. The over-the-top, hyper-stylized approach taken here is also fitting. Hit Girl, being a child raised to think that this is normal (and, as her father says, to look at it sort of as a game), likely has no real concept of what she's doing. She's acting on instinct, doing as she's been taught. Not thinking so much as responding. There are two exceptions to this rule: The scene in the lobby of D'Amico's building, and the showdown with D'Amico himself. The first scene comes just after Hit Girl is overcoming the death of her father. Suddenly aware of the stakes of this game, she talks her way into the building and does what she needs to do efficiently and coldly. Notably, she isn't wearing the Hit Girl costume in this scene. Once it's back on, the theatricality and sense of distance return. The fight with D'Amico is different because it's the only time she ever seems to be in real danger, and she responds to it. There's a sort of panic hindering her, and some of the chaos (and lack of coordination) of the Kick-Ass fights enter the picture.
The one time we see Big Daddy taking out multiple opponents is strikingly similar to Hit Girl's sequence in the lobby. The scene is visceral and clean. If there is chaos, it is only on the part of the thugs as they try to figure out what is happening to them. Unlike his daughter, Big Daddy knows exactly what he's doing and why he's doing it, and, as a result, he moves with purpose and efficiency. It's stark in its contrast from most of the rest of the film.
Not much else to say on the matter. I just thought this was interesting and figured I'd put it here instead of bugging people over and over with it. Like I said, I enjoyed the movie, and I'm particularly glad that, even in what was entirely meant as a popcorn movie, Matthew Vaughn took the time to add touches like this.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Summer Move Round-Up
Lots of movies came out this summer. Many of them were very good. Some of the more high-profile ones were very bad. I saw a lot of them. Here are my thoughts:
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Awful. Simply terrible. The acting was crap, the plot was fragmented, and the level of respect on hand for not only the previous movies in the series but the greater X-Men cannon was abysmal. It might have been worth the $4.50 I paid to see it if the theater had been empty enough for me to be willing to yell at the screen. D+
Star Trek
A great reboot to the series. J.J. Abrams managed to remember that Star Trek really is about the chemistry between its ensemble, and the entire cast managed to reinvent their characters in a way that stayed true to the spirit of the original cast. The action never slowed up to allow time for reflection or to introduce any deeper themes, but everything remained coherent and enjoyable throughout. B+
Up
Up was fantastic. Breezy and entertaining while still touching on universal issues of loneliness, Up may well edge out Ratatouille as my third favorite Pixar film. The animation and voice acting are spectacular, and I can't foresee the early montage of Carl and Ellie's married life not making me tear-up at least a bit any time soon. A
The Hangover
Everybody was blown away by the box office performance of The Hangover. This little raunchy, over-the-top bachelor party comedy starring no well known actors (though Zack Galifianakis and Ed Helms both have their dedicated fans) somehow managed to gross $275 million dollars. I'm not quite certain it deserved that kind of gross, it most certainly was a crazy ride. There are situations that arise in this movie that are entirely original, which is something that few comedies can say; and watching these ultimately likable guys get into so much trouble is made even better by the fact that they simply aren't very good people. In a summer dominated by action movies and family films, a male-oriented comedy was going to be a million grosser no matter what, but The Hangover had the novelty and quality to earn its legs. B
Transformers 2
A confusing mess of a movie. The tone and pacing were inconsistent, the over-arching plot made essentially no sense, and the visuals were so cluttered that I rarely knew what was going on in the supposedly spectacular action scenes. This wasn't helped by the fact that virtually none of the decepticons had the same sorts of visual or personality distinctions that the auto-bots had. I'll admit that I enjoy watching Shia LeBouf do his thing more than I ought to, but not nearly enough to enjoy this movie as a whole. D-
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Upon my first reading, the sixth Harry Potter book was my favorite. I enjoyed the various romantic subplots and how they contrasted with the more somber tone of life beyond the gates of Hogwarts. I liked how they fleshed out Lord Voldemort's character. Unfortunately, these are not quite the things that translate well to film, and yet Yates, Radcliffe, Gint, Watson, and company managed to make this a greatly enjoyable film. All of the major subplots were stripped down to their bare minimum, and the humor that accompanies the awkwardness of adolescence was ramped up to keep things entertaining. The addition of the Christmas action sequence half way through is understandable, but the scene didn't contribute much. I'm glad that they left out most of the ending battle, though. It may be the climax of the book, but it ultimately distracts from the rest of the ending. They kept the important aspects. Since this is the first Harry Potter movie I've seen since reading the books, I feel like I need to see it again before issuing a final verdict. I missed certain scenes from the book, but I was also more strongly disposed towards liking it than I was past movies in the series. For now, though, I'm comfortable giving it a solid B.
(500) Days of Summer
This may be my favorite movie of the summer. Up is its only serious competition. In an age where everybody is trying to hard to be "indie" and instead coming across as cloyingly manufactured, (500) Days of Summer captures the hipster essence by focusing on its characters instead of its ambiance. It's a story about love that isn't a love story so much as a look at our expectations of love and relationships. People who know me well ought to know why this resonates the way it does. My adoration for this movie doesn't just follow from my appreciation for the subtext, though. The writing, performances, and soundtrack are all just pitch-perfect. It even manages to end on a hopeful up note that, if it's contrived, is fittingly so. A+
The Hurt Locker
As intense a movie as you're ever likely to see. By focusing on bomb-squad soldiers, The Hurt Locker manages to avoid much of the direct controversy associated with the Iraq war and instead helps us to understand the psyche of men who never know which moment could be their last. The Hurt Locker manages to be unbiased in its depiction, presenting characters honestly without any attempt at evaluating them. It's not a movie I could watch with any regularity, but it's a movie I would readily recommend to anybody who can stomach the suspense. A-
Moon
I really enjoyed Moon. In an age where the sci-fi genre is universally associated with pulpy, high action space operas/fantasies, Moon is a slower, more contemplative in the original tradition. There's a great subtlety to Moon, and my friends and I were still talking about it, putting the pieces together days after we went to see it. I'm looking forward to seeing more from this first-time director. A-
Funny People
Funny People is a strange movie, and I doubt that anybody who went to see it knew what they were in for. It's a movie from an acclaimed comic director starring an acclaimed comic cast that isn't a comedy, not really. This is a drama about how funny people, people who are used to diffusing difficult situations instead of confronting them, handle their personal lives when confrontation becomes necessary. It's a well made film, but not necessarily an immediately enjoyable one. I think that it will be recognized for what it is and shown greater appreciation in the future, though. B
Ponyo
Overall, I enjoyed Ponyo even if I was disappointed by it. It was a light, fun movie that was artistically gorgeous. Still, I take certain issues with the plot, and I was annoyed by the title character as often as I found her endearing. In general, I think that a love story about children (and whether you want to admit it or not, in this case it was plainly about a romantic attraction and not platonic love) is not appropriate. I was also incredibly frustrated that Ponyo, who, in her "free spiritedness", to be polite, caused every single bit of conflict in the movie, was never held accountable for her actions. Instead, she was praised and given exactly what she wanted. Maybe I'm being overly-analytical. Maybe I'm too distracted by my love of Tina Fey (whose character, unknowingly, suffered the most at Ponyo's hands). But I can't help feeling that somebody, at least, should have been upset with this little girl come the end of the movie. In any case, it's an good enough children's movie, but not quite up to par with Totoro, Spirited Away, or the other greats of Miyazaki's oeuvre. C+
District 9
The third great sci-fi film of the summer approaches the genre in yet another way. Where Star Trek was pulp entertainment and Moon was a subtle contemplation, District 9 was a powerful allegory. With a very interesting protagonist and a fascinating alternate history, District 9 does a great job of pulling viewers in and lending weight to the action pieces. For lots of people, this was the movie of the summer. I didn't appreciate it quite that much, but I can understand what they see in it. A-
Inglourious Basterds
A Tarantino movie by just about any measure. The writing and characterizations were outstanding. The direction was unique. The plot was outlandish. It occasionally broke tone in jarring ways. It needed more editing than it got. I really liked this movie, but I think that, with a bit of work, it could have been even better. Some scenes just went on too long, and there were a few too many self-indulgent moments. B-
There were too many movies here for me to try and rank them beyond this, especially considering how long it's been since I saw most of them. As disappointing as a lot of the larger "tent pole" films of the summer were, though, I think this list is a testament to the quality of independent film making right now.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Awful. Simply terrible. The acting was crap, the plot was fragmented, and the level of respect on hand for not only the previous movies in the series but the greater X-Men cannon was abysmal. It might have been worth the $4.50 I paid to see it if the theater had been empty enough for me to be willing to yell at the screen. D+
Star Trek
A great reboot to the series. J.J. Abrams managed to remember that Star Trek really is about the chemistry between its ensemble, and the entire cast managed to reinvent their characters in a way that stayed true to the spirit of the original cast. The action never slowed up to allow time for reflection or to introduce any deeper themes, but everything remained coherent and enjoyable throughout. B+
Up
Up was fantastic. Breezy and entertaining while still touching on universal issues of loneliness, Up may well edge out Ratatouille as my third favorite Pixar film. The animation and voice acting are spectacular, and I can't foresee the early montage of Carl and Ellie's married life not making me tear-up at least a bit any time soon. A
The Hangover
Everybody was blown away by the box office performance of The Hangover. This little raunchy, over-the-top bachelor party comedy starring no well known actors (though Zack Galifianakis and Ed Helms both have their dedicated fans) somehow managed to gross $275 million dollars. I'm not quite certain it deserved that kind of gross, it most certainly was a crazy ride. There are situations that arise in this movie that are entirely original, which is something that few comedies can say; and watching these ultimately likable guys get into so much trouble is made even better by the fact that they simply aren't very good people. In a summer dominated by action movies and family films, a male-oriented comedy was going to be a million grosser no matter what, but The Hangover had the novelty and quality to earn its legs. B
Transformers 2
A confusing mess of a movie. The tone and pacing were inconsistent, the over-arching plot made essentially no sense, and the visuals were so cluttered that I rarely knew what was going on in the supposedly spectacular action scenes. This wasn't helped by the fact that virtually none of the decepticons had the same sorts of visual or personality distinctions that the auto-bots had. I'll admit that I enjoy watching Shia LeBouf do his thing more than I ought to, but not nearly enough to enjoy this movie as a whole. D-
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Upon my first reading, the sixth Harry Potter book was my favorite. I enjoyed the various romantic subplots and how they contrasted with the more somber tone of life beyond the gates of Hogwarts. I liked how they fleshed out Lord Voldemort's character. Unfortunately, these are not quite the things that translate well to film, and yet Yates, Radcliffe, Gint, Watson, and company managed to make this a greatly enjoyable film. All of the major subplots were stripped down to their bare minimum, and the humor that accompanies the awkwardness of adolescence was ramped up to keep things entertaining. The addition of the Christmas action sequence half way through is understandable, but the scene didn't contribute much. I'm glad that they left out most of the ending battle, though. It may be the climax of the book, but it ultimately distracts from the rest of the ending. They kept the important aspects. Since this is the first Harry Potter movie I've seen since reading the books, I feel like I need to see it again before issuing a final verdict. I missed certain scenes from the book, but I was also more strongly disposed towards liking it than I was past movies in the series. For now, though, I'm comfortable giving it a solid B.
(500) Days of Summer
This may be my favorite movie of the summer. Up is its only serious competition. In an age where everybody is trying to hard to be "indie" and instead coming across as cloyingly manufactured, (500) Days of Summer captures the hipster essence by focusing on its characters instead of its ambiance. It's a story about love that isn't a love story so much as a look at our expectations of love and relationships. People who know me well ought to know why this resonates the way it does. My adoration for this movie doesn't just follow from my appreciation for the subtext, though. The writing, performances, and soundtrack are all just pitch-perfect. It even manages to end on a hopeful up note that, if it's contrived, is fittingly so. A+
The Hurt Locker
As intense a movie as you're ever likely to see. By focusing on bomb-squad soldiers, The Hurt Locker manages to avoid much of the direct controversy associated with the Iraq war and instead helps us to understand the psyche of men who never know which moment could be their last. The Hurt Locker manages to be unbiased in its depiction, presenting characters honestly without any attempt at evaluating them. It's not a movie I could watch with any regularity, but it's a movie I would readily recommend to anybody who can stomach the suspense. A-
Moon
I really enjoyed Moon. In an age where the sci-fi genre is universally associated with pulpy, high action space operas/fantasies, Moon is a slower, more contemplative in the original tradition. There's a great subtlety to Moon, and my friends and I were still talking about it, putting the pieces together days after we went to see it. I'm looking forward to seeing more from this first-time director. A-
Funny People
Funny People is a strange movie, and I doubt that anybody who went to see it knew what they were in for. It's a movie from an acclaimed comic director starring an acclaimed comic cast that isn't a comedy, not really. This is a drama about how funny people, people who are used to diffusing difficult situations instead of confronting them, handle their personal lives when confrontation becomes necessary. It's a well made film, but not necessarily an immediately enjoyable one. I think that it will be recognized for what it is and shown greater appreciation in the future, though. B
Ponyo
Overall, I enjoyed Ponyo even if I was disappointed by it. It was a light, fun movie that was artistically gorgeous. Still, I take certain issues with the plot, and I was annoyed by the title character as often as I found her endearing. In general, I think that a love story about children (and whether you want to admit it or not, in this case it was plainly about a romantic attraction and not platonic love) is not appropriate. I was also incredibly frustrated that Ponyo, who, in her "free spiritedness", to be polite, caused every single bit of conflict in the movie, was never held accountable for her actions. Instead, she was praised and given exactly what she wanted. Maybe I'm being overly-analytical. Maybe I'm too distracted by my love of Tina Fey (whose character, unknowingly, suffered the most at Ponyo's hands). But I can't help feeling that somebody, at least, should have been upset with this little girl come the end of the movie. In any case, it's an good enough children's movie, but not quite up to par with Totoro, Spirited Away, or the other greats of Miyazaki's oeuvre. C+
District 9
The third great sci-fi film of the summer approaches the genre in yet another way. Where Star Trek was pulp entertainment and Moon was a subtle contemplation, District 9 was a powerful allegory. With a very interesting protagonist and a fascinating alternate history, District 9 does a great job of pulling viewers in and lending weight to the action pieces. For lots of people, this was the movie of the summer. I didn't appreciate it quite that much, but I can understand what they see in it. A-
Inglourious Basterds
A Tarantino movie by just about any measure. The writing and characterizations were outstanding. The direction was unique. The plot was outlandish. It occasionally broke tone in jarring ways. It needed more editing than it got. I really liked this movie, but I think that, with a bit of work, it could have been even better. Some scenes just went on too long, and there were a few too many self-indulgent moments. B-
There were too many movies here for me to try and rank them beyond this, especially considering how long it's been since I saw most of them. As disappointing as a lot of the larger "tent pole" films of the summer were, though, I think this list is a testament to the quality of independent film making right now.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
WALL-E Revisited
I love WALL-E. It may be my favorite Pixar film. Whenever I say that, though, people give me kind of a look. "Seriously?" they say. Most people agree that the first half hour or so, up to the point where WALL-E and EVE are on the ship, is spectacular, but lots of people tend to get hung up on the "environmentalist agenda" of latter half of the film. To these people I say, please don't turn setting into subtext.
WALL-E is not a movie about condemnation. It's not a movie about our responsibility to the planet. It's a celebration of remembering what it is to be human. The humans in space don't want to re-cultivate the earth because of any sense that they've done wrong. They want to do it because there's something about growing things, about dancing, about falling in love that innately appeals to us as human beings. WALL-E and EVE, in their initial discovery and pursuit of these joys, serve as a catalyst for the human beings in their rediscovery of them.
I think that what get's people hung up is the extreme way the humans are portrayed in the film. Maybe I get it because it's a rhetorical strategy that I like so much, but that's just a variation on captatio benevolentiae. It's a straw man built with a wink and a nod, a caricature actively recognized as such so that we can feel better about ourselves and our more legitimate situation. After all, if these poor oafs can get back to basics, what's to stop us?
Sure, responding to those fundamentally human callings towards creativity and relationship may require us to reject consumer culture, to an extent at least, but they don't make any insistence about that point, so what's the a problem? Beats me.
WALL-E is not a movie about condemnation. It's not a movie about our responsibility to the planet. It's a celebration of remembering what it is to be human. The humans in space don't want to re-cultivate the earth because of any sense that they've done wrong. They want to do it because there's something about growing things, about dancing, about falling in love that innately appeals to us as human beings. WALL-E and EVE, in their initial discovery and pursuit of these joys, serve as a catalyst for the human beings in their rediscovery of them.
I think that what get's people hung up is the extreme way the humans are portrayed in the film. Maybe I get it because it's a rhetorical strategy that I like so much, but that's just a variation on captatio benevolentiae. It's a straw man built with a wink and a nod, a caricature actively recognized as such so that we can feel better about ourselves and our more legitimate situation. After all, if these poor oafs can get back to basics, what's to stop us?
Sure, responding to those fundamentally human callings towards creativity and relationship may require us to reject consumer culture, to an extent at least, but they don't make any insistence about that point, so what's the a problem? Beats me.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Too Many Movies...
Alright, so the only summer movies I've commented on so far are Iron Man (awesome), Indy IV (meh), and Wall-E (wonderful). I've seen way more movies than that in the last 3 months, so let's get caught up, shall we?
Speed Racer:
Surprisingly, lots of fun. I think that the weird shiny filter was over-applied towards the beginning of the movie, but they got the over-the-top nature down well ("it's a shame what passes for a ninja these days"), and the car-fu worked remarkably well. I feel like the tone was a bit uneven, but all in all it was loud, flashy, and kinetic enough to do the job it set out for. This is a movie I would have liked to have seen a second time to get a better feel for it after knowing what to expect - literally everybody I know who was on the fence after one viewing liked it a lot more after a second. It's really a shame that it bombed so hard. It probably walks away in the number five slot for movies this summer.
Prince Caspian:
This one is a bit weird. It's kind of like Final Fantasy X-2 in that, without the pedigree, it probably wouldn't be able to get anywhere, but I think it would be more successful if it didn't have to live up to the book franchise. It works as a better than normal fantasy adventure flick, but it steps too far from the book in too many places to be a good adaptation. That what is probably the best sequence in the film is entirely non-canonical is the most solid proof I can back this statement up with. I really don't know what else to say. Try to pretend you have no familiarity with the names and you'll probably like this more.
Don't Mess With the Zohan:
Shut up, I went to see this with a friend. Like most Adam Sandler movies, it's a million times better if you're willing to drop your pretensions and just be amused. There are dead spots aplenty, but I've seen far, far worse. Rent it if you can get the right audience together and feel like reliving junior high...though Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison are probably both better picks for that.
The Incredible Hulk:
Good enough. I've never actually seen all of Ang Lee's Hulk pic, so I'm not going to try and declare which one is better. The whole movie felt a bit rushed, like they didn't want to waste too much time between action scenes, and I think the film suffers a bit for it. We really have no clue what drives Bruce Banner at all, other than his desire to not have this thing inside him anymore. Considering that, in the last 18 months, Marvel has had Planet Hulk and World War Hulk, I would have expected more (by the way, was World War Hulk any good? I only read the first couple of comics that were related. I liked Planet Hulk quite a bit. Seeing a scenario in which Hulk needed to keep Banner in check was an interesting spin).
Get Smart:
Don't go in expecting the amazing old TV show and you should be alright. It's a fun action comedy in its own right. Some good physical comedy and sight gags, and a few decent enough explosions. Worth a rental or a viewing in the cheap theaters if you're looking to keep busy.
Kung-Fu Panda:
I was very pleasantly surprised by this film. Within the first 2 minutes I remembered why I love Jack Black despite myself, and continued to be amused throughout. The fights were well choreographed without giving away entirely the fact that we were watching CG animation, and the moral was a healthy one. I'd put this at number 4 for the summer so far.
The Dark Knight:
People probably expected a big write up on this one. Sorry, not enough to talk about with this movie specifically. It was, for all intents and purposes, perfect. Heath Ledger played the best Joker I could have ever thought possible. Christian Bale still does an excellent Bruce Wayne - we could have actually used more of these moments just to remind us of this fact - and Two-Face was handled about as appropriately as I can think possible. I'm terribly excited to see where Nolan and Bale bring us with the next one - so long as it doesn't involve Angelina Jolie as Cat Woman. I'm finishing up Kingdom Come right now, and I'll probably have a long post on Batman in general before the month is out.
Now for some older films I've finally gotten around to seeing courtesy of my dad's Netflix account:
The Darjeeling Limited:
I like Wes Anderson...but The Darjeeling Limited didn't resonate as well with me as I'd hoped it would. Everything about the movie from the music to the visuals to the delivery screams Wes Anderson, and maybe that's why it doesn't work as well. This director that we once thought was so innovative and new is sticking too closely to a formula instead of doing something new. Maybe he was scared by the poorer performance of The Life Aquatic - which I'm fairly certain I enjoyed more than this, I need to see it again - but I'd like to see him try and tell a new story in a new way. I will forever love Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums, but this just can't fly much longer.
In the Name of the Father:
Striking, but not as powerful as it would have you believe. In its time, or really any time before the Bush Administration and the Patriot Act, it probably would have had more pull, but the story of a young Belfast native wrongfully accused of and imprisoned for involvement in IRA bombings in London just doesn't shock the way it probably once did.
My Left Foot:
Another movie based on a true story staring Daniel Day Lewis in an Oscar nominated (and this time winning) role! How Lucky! My Left Foot holds up a bit better, just because the issues of crippledness and the way we treat those who aren't immediately apparent as our equals will never be comfortable. It's predictably inspirational without shying away from unhappy truths of existence. I enjoyed it quite a bit.
Unforgiven:
Excellent. It's like A History of Violence with Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman as aging western gunman instead of Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello having incredibly awkward sex. Once I understood that Eastwood was trying to convince himself and not those around him that he wasn't a killer anymore, the whole thing fell well into place for me. It deserves its accolades.
Punch Drunk Love:
...It's a P.T. Anderson film. I had a look of puzzlement and wonder on my face throughout nearly the entire thing. I don't think that the notion of "taking an Adam Sandler character and making him believable" is quite accurate. Believable within the absurd world of the film, certainly, but that's nothing new, and he's still not believable in general. That said, the entire proceeding of the film just needs to be seen to be appreciated, and Anderson's visual sense in impeccable. It's a sweet tale of love blooming between two incredibly broken people for whom trying to fix their problems just isn't worth it anymore.
Millenium Actress:
Satoshi Kon has a wonderful way of keeping you from knowing what's "real" and what's "fantasy" in his movies and not really caring, and I'm starting to love him for it. Millenium Actress is a beautiful film about an aging star actress reliving her life through the image of her career and the parallels between her own life and those of her characters. It captures something vibrant about a life lived in pursuit of something always just out of reach in a wonderful way. I think that I'll need to try and grab this whenever I get around to picking up Paprika, as I think that each will just enhance my appreciation of the other.
Annie Hall:
I've said many times recently that I enjoy movies that make me smirk while leaving me a bit depressed. Annie Hall does that perfectly. It's nearly 30 years old, but the things it still has a lot of valid things to say about what we expect out of relationships and why they fail. I imagine that most of you who would like it have already seen it, though.
So, lots of movies. I'll just say a couple quick things and then I'll be done again.
Summer 2008 movie quality run-down so far:
1/2. The Dark Knight
1/2. Wall-E
3. Iron Man
4. Kung-Fu Panda
5/6 Speed Racer
5/6 Get Smart
7. The Incredible Hulk
8. Prince Caspian
9. Indian Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
10. Don't Mess with the Zohan
That's all there is, there isn't anymore.
Speed Racer:
Surprisingly, lots of fun. I think that the weird shiny filter was over-applied towards the beginning of the movie, but they got the over-the-top nature down well ("it's a shame what passes for a ninja these days"), and the car-fu worked remarkably well. I feel like the tone was a bit uneven, but all in all it was loud, flashy, and kinetic enough to do the job it set out for. This is a movie I would have liked to have seen a second time to get a better feel for it after knowing what to expect - literally everybody I know who was on the fence after one viewing liked it a lot more after a second. It's really a shame that it bombed so hard. It probably walks away in the number five slot for movies this summer.
Prince Caspian:
This one is a bit weird. It's kind of like Final Fantasy X-2 in that, without the pedigree, it probably wouldn't be able to get anywhere, but I think it would be more successful if it didn't have to live up to the book franchise. It works as a better than normal fantasy adventure flick, but it steps too far from the book in too many places to be a good adaptation. That what is probably the best sequence in the film is entirely non-canonical is the most solid proof I can back this statement up with. I really don't know what else to say. Try to pretend you have no familiarity with the names and you'll probably like this more.
Don't Mess With the Zohan:
Shut up, I went to see this with a friend. Like most Adam Sandler movies, it's a million times better if you're willing to drop your pretensions and just be amused. There are dead spots aplenty, but I've seen far, far worse. Rent it if you can get the right audience together and feel like reliving junior high...though Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison are probably both better picks for that.
The Incredible Hulk:
Good enough. I've never actually seen all of Ang Lee's Hulk pic, so I'm not going to try and declare which one is better. The whole movie felt a bit rushed, like they didn't want to waste too much time between action scenes, and I think the film suffers a bit for it. We really have no clue what drives Bruce Banner at all, other than his desire to not have this thing inside him anymore. Considering that, in the last 18 months, Marvel has had Planet Hulk and World War Hulk, I would have expected more (by the way, was World War Hulk any good? I only read the first couple of comics that were related. I liked Planet Hulk quite a bit. Seeing a scenario in which Hulk needed to keep Banner in check was an interesting spin).
Get Smart:
Don't go in expecting the amazing old TV show and you should be alright. It's a fun action comedy in its own right. Some good physical comedy and sight gags, and a few decent enough explosions. Worth a rental or a viewing in the cheap theaters if you're looking to keep busy.
Kung-Fu Panda:
I was very pleasantly surprised by this film. Within the first 2 minutes I remembered why I love Jack Black despite myself, and continued to be amused throughout. The fights were well choreographed without giving away entirely the fact that we were watching CG animation, and the moral was a healthy one. I'd put this at number 4 for the summer so far.
The Dark Knight:
People probably expected a big write up on this one. Sorry, not enough to talk about with this movie specifically. It was, for all intents and purposes, perfect. Heath Ledger played the best Joker I could have ever thought possible. Christian Bale still does an excellent Bruce Wayne - we could have actually used more of these moments just to remind us of this fact - and Two-Face was handled about as appropriately as I can think possible. I'm terribly excited to see where Nolan and Bale bring us with the next one - so long as it doesn't involve Angelina Jolie as Cat Woman. I'm finishing up Kingdom Come right now, and I'll probably have a long post on Batman in general before the month is out.
Now for some older films I've finally gotten around to seeing courtesy of my dad's Netflix account:
The Darjeeling Limited:
I like Wes Anderson...but The Darjeeling Limited didn't resonate as well with me as I'd hoped it would. Everything about the movie from the music to the visuals to the delivery screams Wes Anderson, and maybe that's why it doesn't work as well. This director that we once thought was so innovative and new is sticking too closely to a formula instead of doing something new. Maybe he was scared by the poorer performance of The Life Aquatic - which I'm fairly certain I enjoyed more than this, I need to see it again - but I'd like to see him try and tell a new story in a new way. I will forever love Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums, but this just can't fly much longer.
In the Name of the Father:
Striking, but not as powerful as it would have you believe. In its time, or really any time before the Bush Administration and the Patriot Act, it probably would have had more pull, but the story of a young Belfast native wrongfully accused of and imprisoned for involvement in IRA bombings in London just doesn't shock the way it probably once did.
My Left Foot:
Another movie based on a true story staring Daniel Day Lewis in an Oscar nominated (and this time winning) role! How Lucky! My Left Foot holds up a bit better, just because the issues of crippledness and the way we treat those who aren't immediately apparent as our equals will never be comfortable. It's predictably inspirational without shying away from unhappy truths of existence. I enjoyed it quite a bit.
Unforgiven:
Excellent. It's like A History of Violence with Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman as aging western gunman instead of Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello having incredibly awkward sex. Once I understood that Eastwood was trying to convince himself and not those around him that he wasn't a killer anymore, the whole thing fell well into place for me. It deserves its accolades.
Punch Drunk Love:
...It's a P.T. Anderson film. I had a look of puzzlement and wonder on my face throughout nearly the entire thing. I don't think that the notion of "taking an Adam Sandler character and making him believable" is quite accurate. Believable within the absurd world of the film, certainly, but that's nothing new, and he's still not believable in general. That said, the entire proceeding of the film just needs to be seen to be appreciated, and Anderson's visual sense in impeccable. It's a sweet tale of love blooming between two incredibly broken people for whom trying to fix their problems just isn't worth it anymore.
Millenium Actress:
Satoshi Kon has a wonderful way of keeping you from knowing what's "real" and what's "fantasy" in his movies and not really caring, and I'm starting to love him for it. Millenium Actress is a beautiful film about an aging star actress reliving her life through the image of her career and the parallels between her own life and those of her characters. It captures something vibrant about a life lived in pursuit of something always just out of reach in a wonderful way. I think that I'll need to try and grab this whenever I get around to picking up Paprika, as I think that each will just enhance my appreciation of the other.
Annie Hall:
I've said many times recently that I enjoy movies that make me smirk while leaving me a bit depressed. Annie Hall does that perfectly. It's nearly 30 years old, but the things it still has a lot of valid things to say about what we expect out of relationships and why they fail. I imagine that most of you who would like it have already seen it, though.
So, lots of movies. I'll just say a couple quick things and then I'll be done again.
Summer 2008 movie quality run-down so far:
1/2. The Dark Knight
1/2. Wall-E
3. Iron Man
4. Kung-Fu Panda
5/6 Speed Racer
5/6 Get Smart
7. The Incredible Hulk
8. Prince Caspian
9. Indian Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
10. Don't Mess with the Zohan
That's all there is, there isn't anymore.
Monday, January 28, 2008
...I've seen a lot of movies lately
So, I lied. I'm going to talk about movies without going in-depth about thematic elements or issues that got under my skin. I'll do this in the order in which I've seen them this last month:
Sweeney Todd:
Went with a bunch of friends to see this when we intended to see Juno (none of them had seen it, and it's definitely worth a second viewing, in my opinion). The show was sold out, so we made the same decision as probably 80% of the people in our theater and went to see Sweeney Todd half an hour later.
I'll start by saying, my friends by and large loved Sweeney Todd. It certainly cracks my top five Burton flicks, but I'd be loathe to put it in my top three. From a technical standpoint, the movie is excellent; Burton is at the top of his game visually here, as well. The performances were quite good, as well. Ultimately, I had two issues with it:
I expect more out of the vocal performances in musicals. Johnny Depp snings a lot like a 16-year-old boy with a couple of years of high school choir under his belt. Mostly talking to a tune, with a very boy-band, kind of nasaly falsetto coming in for the high notes. Helena Bonham Carter comes out a bit better, but not always by much. Some might say that this is part of the charm of the film...but when I'm watching a film adaptation of a Broadway musical less than a week after seeing Avenue Q live...I'm not so forgiving.
Other than this, I've decided that I just don't like quite so many cheesy blood effects in my slasher musicals. I understand that the first rounds of killings are meant to be over the top in a very Evil Dead way...but at the end, when the movie goes into morality play mode, it's distracting and the mood change suddenly makes it hard to watch.
In any case, it was certainly a well constructed film; especially if you're more forgiving of vocal performers than I am. 8/10
There Will Be Blood:
This movie most certainly deserves all of the award season buzz it's been getting. Not my personal favorite out of the Best Picture Oscar nominees that I've seen (all but Michael Clayton, which I should see before award time), but quite possibly the most deserving of the award. Be warned, though, it can be a strangely difficult film to watch at times...this is probably due to a combination of things, but, in my opinion, owes chiefly to the brilliant performance of Daniel Day-Lewis, who consistently brings you to the brink of adoring Daniel Plainfield before reminding you of just what a terrible human being he is. 9.5/10
Atonement
Another best picture nom here, and for good reason. Atonement was a brilliant film with an ending that actually surprises. The beginning act is probably the best theater experience of the year, and the ending is sobering in a very Of Mice and Men style. The second half of the film loses a bit compared to the beginning, but is essential and operates in exactly the way it needed to. Also, I loved the soundtrack. Anybody who has listened to a practiced typist working on an old, mechanical typewriter can tell you there's almost a melodic quality to the sound, and I loved the use of that sound in a couple of the recurring themes really tickled me. 10/10
The Host
I'd just like to remind people that I tend to really like weird movies, and The Host is a weird movie. A Korean monster movie comedy about a dysfunctional adult and his equally dysfunctional siblings and father trying to rescue his daughter from some crazy mutant free in the Han river is certainly a unique premise for a film, and the premise delivers. Laughs are consistent, and I found myself worrying about the fate of each member as things got bleak. Not the best comedy of the year, but certainly something different, and a fun way to take a constantly stagnating genre and make it thoroughly watchable. If you're bored and looking for something to watch with your friends, I definitely recommend it. 8.5/10
Sweeney Todd:
Went with a bunch of friends to see this when we intended to see Juno (none of them had seen it, and it's definitely worth a second viewing, in my opinion). The show was sold out, so we made the same decision as probably 80% of the people in our theater and went to see Sweeney Todd half an hour later.
I'll start by saying, my friends by and large loved Sweeney Todd. It certainly cracks my top five Burton flicks, but I'd be loathe to put it in my top three. From a technical standpoint, the movie is excellent; Burton is at the top of his game visually here, as well. The performances were quite good, as well. Ultimately, I had two issues with it:
I expect more out of the vocal performances in musicals. Johnny Depp snings a lot like a 16-year-old boy with a couple of years of high school choir under his belt. Mostly talking to a tune, with a very boy-band, kind of nasaly falsetto coming in for the high notes. Helena Bonham Carter comes out a bit better, but not always by much. Some might say that this is part of the charm of the film...but when I'm watching a film adaptation of a Broadway musical less than a week after seeing Avenue Q live...I'm not so forgiving.
Other than this, I've decided that I just don't like quite so many cheesy blood effects in my slasher musicals. I understand that the first rounds of killings are meant to be over the top in a very Evil Dead way...but at the end, when the movie goes into morality play mode, it's distracting and the mood change suddenly makes it hard to watch.
In any case, it was certainly a well constructed film; especially if you're more forgiving of vocal performers than I am. 8/10
There Will Be Blood:
This movie most certainly deserves all of the award season buzz it's been getting. Not my personal favorite out of the Best Picture Oscar nominees that I've seen (all but Michael Clayton, which I should see before award time), but quite possibly the most deserving of the award. Be warned, though, it can be a strangely difficult film to watch at times...this is probably due to a combination of things, but, in my opinion, owes chiefly to the brilliant performance of Daniel Day-Lewis, who consistently brings you to the brink of adoring Daniel Plainfield before reminding you of just what a terrible human being he is. 9.5/10
Atonement
Another best picture nom here, and for good reason. Atonement was a brilliant film with an ending that actually surprises. The beginning act is probably the best theater experience of the year, and the ending is sobering in a very Of Mice and Men style. The second half of the film loses a bit compared to the beginning, but is essential and operates in exactly the way it needed to. Also, I loved the soundtrack. Anybody who has listened to a practiced typist working on an old, mechanical typewriter can tell you there's almost a melodic quality to the sound, and I loved the use of that sound in a couple of the recurring themes really tickled me. 10/10
The Host
I'd just like to remind people that I tend to really like weird movies, and The Host is a weird movie. A Korean monster movie comedy about a dysfunctional adult and his equally dysfunctional siblings and father trying to rescue his daughter from some crazy mutant free in the Han river is certainly a unique premise for a film, and the premise delivers. Laughs are consistent, and I found myself worrying about the fate of each member as things got bleak. Not the best comedy of the year, but certainly something different, and a fun way to take a constantly stagnating genre and make it thoroughly watchable. If you're bored and looking for something to watch with your friends, I definitely recommend it. 8.5/10
Monday, December 31, 2007
Blame This on Juno
So, I've done this with a few of my movie commentaries before, but it's going to be standard now, so I'm gonna give you a heads up. I'm pretty much done "reviewing" movies. When I talk about movies from this point on, I'll give you a quick summary of what I thought and then I'm going to proceed to delve into whatever issues it got me thinking about and how they are pertinent. So, here goes this one:
Simple introduction: Juno rocks. I'm glad I saw it today so that I can legitimately put it on my top 5 for the year. It's sharply written and features stellar performances by a few of my favorite actors (Michael Cera, Jason Bateman, J.K. Simmons, and Allison Janney). People seem to like comparing it to Little Miss Sunshine, but that's just because people like making comparisons. The two have little in common beyond being incredibly well written independent comedies that like to ignore most of the standard formulas. Juno is more accessible in style...but Little Miss Sunshine was very dark and more than a bit absurd, and as such, certainly not everybody's cup of tea. I'd say I like Little Miss Sunshine more (I don't think Juno will quite make its way onto my Top 10), but that's because I the subtext of Little Miss Sunshine (the frailty of humanity; the hollowness of being a "winner" and leading a self-seeking life; and the necessity and healing power of love) is a little bit more important to me.
That said, the subtext of Juno deals with another issue that has become incredibly important and intriguing to me in recent months: relationships. What we build them on; what we expect from them; what they mean to us...we live in a backwards society in a lot of ways, not the least of these is the way we look at relationships of all sorts. We're so obsessed with this idea of "falling in love" that we forget what love really is. We get so caught up in the ideas of romance and passion that we don't remember that the cliché of your spouse being your best friend is supposed to be true.
Relationships in any sense, whether it's a normal friendship or a marriage/dating relationship, should be rooted in the same basic principle: love. Caring for the needs, desires, and dreams of another individual as much as for our own is what creates the sense of security and comfort that allows us to feel close to one another. As such, common sense says that the chief difference between close friends and a spouse, fiancé, or committed boy/girlfriend shouldn't be the physical relationship or the observance of other societal norms so much as the devotion and openness of the love between the participants. A truly devoted couple can't just hope for the dreams of their partner to come true; they need to incorporate their partner's dream into their own.
The problem is that it's so easy to let the social/physical aspect - the "romantic" aspect - of an intimate relationship become its defining portion that forgetting the depth of the love that a successful relationship requires is easy. Not to mention that the popular semantics of "falling" or "being in love" has so much more to do with physical arousal and passion than with actual love that we, as humans, constantly attempt to enter into relationships with people with whom we have no basis for a normal friendship, and you've got a recipe for the cultural disaster we live in.
I'm going to try and relate this back to Juno now as I finish. Spoiler warning and all that.
Vanessa and Mark's relationship failed for one simple reason. They were committed to the idea of a relationship and not to each other. Vanessa was ready to be a mother, not a wife; but in order to be a mother, she felt that being a wife was necessary. She didn't appreciate her husband's dreams and did her best to try and replace them with her hopes for a picture perfect family. Mark was resentful of his wife's treatment of his goals and couldn't bring himself to appreciate hers as completion of her dreams would do nothing to restore his. Neither was willing to embrace and commit themselves to the dreams of the other; they were unwilling to love each other for who they were, so they failed.
Juno and Bleeker will succeed because they understand the truth behind the opening lyric of the song they sing right before the credits roll. "You're a part-time lover and a full time friend". It worries me a lot that so many people I know tend to forget the order of importance of those things...but there are a few of you in my life who seem to have it right, which is a cause of regular celebration for me, so thank you.
Simple introduction: Juno rocks. I'm glad I saw it today so that I can legitimately put it on my top 5 for the year. It's sharply written and features stellar performances by a few of my favorite actors (Michael Cera, Jason Bateman, J.K. Simmons, and Allison Janney). People seem to like comparing it to Little Miss Sunshine, but that's just because people like making comparisons. The two have little in common beyond being incredibly well written independent comedies that like to ignore most of the standard formulas. Juno is more accessible in style...but Little Miss Sunshine was very dark and more than a bit absurd, and as such, certainly not everybody's cup of tea. I'd say I like Little Miss Sunshine more (I don't think Juno will quite make its way onto my Top 10), but that's because I the subtext of Little Miss Sunshine (the frailty of humanity; the hollowness of being a "winner" and leading a self-seeking life; and the necessity and healing power of love) is a little bit more important to me.
That said, the subtext of Juno deals with another issue that has become incredibly important and intriguing to me in recent months: relationships. What we build them on; what we expect from them; what they mean to us...we live in a backwards society in a lot of ways, not the least of these is the way we look at relationships of all sorts. We're so obsessed with this idea of "falling in love" that we forget what love really is. We get so caught up in the ideas of romance and passion that we don't remember that the cliché of your spouse being your best friend is supposed to be true.
Relationships in any sense, whether it's a normal friendship or a marriage/dating relationship, should be rooted in the same basic principle: love. Caring for the needs, desires, and dreams of another individual as much as for our own is what creates the sense of security and comfort that allows us to feel close to one another. As such, common sense says that the chief difference between close friends and a spouse, fiancé, or committed boy/girlfriend shouldn't be the physical relationship or the observance of other societal norms so much as the devotion and openness of the love between the participants. A truly devoted couple can't just hope for the dreams of their partner to come true; they need to incorporate their partner's dream into their own.
The problem is that it's so easy to let the social/physical aspect - the "romantic" aspect - of an intimate relationship become its defining portion that forgetting the depth of the love that a successful relationship requires is easy. Not to mention that the popular semantics of "falling" or "being in love" has so much more to do with physical arousal and passion than with actual love that we, as humans, constantly attempt to enter into relationships with people with whom we have no basis for a normal friendship, and you've got a recipe for the cultural disaster we live in.
I'm going to try and relate this back to Juno now as I finish. Spoiler warning and all that.
Vanessa and Mark's relationship failed for one simple reason. They were committed to the idea of a relationship and not to each other. Vanessa was ready to be a mother, not a wife; but in order to be a mother, she felt that being a wife was necessary. She didn't appreciate her husband's dreams and did her best to try and replace them with her hopes for a picture perfect family. Mark was resentful of his wife's treatment of his goals and couldn't bring himself to appreciate hers as completion of her dreams would do nothing to restore his. Neither was willing to embrace and commit themselves to the dreams of the other; they were unwilling to love each other for who they were, so they failed.
Juno and Bleeker will succeed because they understand the truth behind the opening lyric of the song they sing right before the credits roll. "You're a part-time lover and a full time friend". It worries me a lot that so many people I know tend to forget the order of importance of those things...but there are a few of you in my life who seem to have it right, which is a cause of regular celebration for me, so thank you.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Once: A Singular Experience
Shortly after I got back to school, I heard from a friend of mine. He told me that he'd been to see a movie the week before, and that he was dragging me and any of our other friends that he could get his hands on to go see it again that week. This movie was Once, and I have to say that I owe Nate a great debt.
A movie about a nameless guy - a 30-something aspiring musician who is living with and working for his father - and girl - a Czech immigrant trying to make a life with her mother and daughter - in Dublin and the impact that they have on each other's lives over the short time they have together; Once is a musical - of a sort - that expresses the human experience more purely and poignantly than any movie I've seen in recent memory.
There's not much else that can be said about the film. It's incredibly simple in scope, being driven entirely by the growth of the relationship between these two rather than the context surrounding it. In this way, it's much like Lost in Translation, but with touching panels of musical performance taking place of Lost in Translation's sort of general meandering and sense of cluelessness in the gaps. It's not an especially good comparison, but it's about the best that can be made.
Ultimately, about the best praise that I can give the film is this: The only music that I have received legally in the last 2 years has been as gifts. I started an account in the i-Tunes store to buy this soundtrack because I felt a desperate need to contribute more than the $3.50 I paid for my ticked to the production. I've also listened to the entire album three times in the last 24 hours.
The film probably isn't anywhere near any of you right now. It started showing in limited release in July, and is more than likely out of your nearest indy theater by now. Nothing on Amazon yet about the DVD release, but you can probably expect it in the next 6-9 months. Do yourself and all your friends a favor and check it out when this happens.
A movie about a nameless guy - a 30-something aspiring musician who is living with and working for his father - and girl - a Czech immigrant trying to make a life with her mother and daughter - in Dublin and the impact that they have on each other's lives over the short time they have together; Once is a musical - of a sort - that expresses the human experience more purely and poignantly than any movie I've seen in recent memory.
There's not much else that can be said about the film. It's incredibly simple in scope, being driven entirely by the growth of the relationship between these two rather than the context surrounding it. In this way, it's much like Lost in Translation, but with touching panels of musical performance taking place of Lost in Translation's sort of general meandering and sense of cluelessness in the gaps. It's not an especially good comparison, but it's about the best that can be made.
Ultimately, about the best praise that I can give the film is this: The only music that I have received legally in the last 2 years has been as gifts. I started an account in the i-Tunes store to buy this soundtrack because I felt a desperate need to contribute more than the $3.50 I paid for my ticked to the production. I've also listened to the entire album three times in the last 24 hours.
The film probably isn't anywhere near any of you right now. It started showing in limited release in July, and is more than likely out of your nearest indy theater by now. Nothing on Amazon yet about the DVD release, but you can probably expect it in the next 6-9 months. Do yourself and all your friends a favor and check it out when this happens.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
HP5 thoughts
I've got quite a bit to write about the concept of adaptations in general. That's coming in a later post (hopefully this week, as I've been thinking about it a lot). This being the case, instead of filling your heads with all kinds of talk unrelated to the film itself, I'm just going to say a few quick things about this movie that any of you who care about have already seen and any of you who don't probably won't no matter what I say. Alright?
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is a very competent film. The acting is probably as good as the series has been thus far, and the visual direction is very well done. It has been about the poorest rated of the HP films thus far critically, but I believe that has more to do with the source material than anything. Not having read any of the Potter books beyond the first one (which I read at the height of my Tolkien fanaticism in late '99 and thus didn't much care for), I can't say for sure, but trying to take a 1000+ page novel filled with important characterization and condensing it into a 2.3 hour film just, generally speaking, doesn't always flow terribly well. Certain, seemingly important characters (Luna Lovegood, Cho Chang, and a few others) just don't get the time to be properly fleshed out, and seem somewhat forced in with an otherwise outstanding primary cast when their relevancy to the plot deems their presence necessary.
That said, the primary triumvirate of Harry, Ron, and Hermione have grown to be quite excellent young actors under the impressive tutelage they've received on the set. Gary Oldman is one of the best actors around (and seems to be part of the reason that our heroes have grown so much) and Imelda Staunton's performance as Dolores Umbridge was absolutely incredible. The story flows well enough despite the slight character foibles mentioned earlier, and it sets up nicely for what I imagine is to follow (hopefully within the next two to three months, I'll actually know what, exactly, that is). I'd also like to say that Yates and Radcliffe did a wonderful Harry seem suitably ornery and mildly angsty without going completely overboard and turning Harry into the screaming emo child that some people seem to have interpreted him as in the book proper. I never once felt that Harry was out of line in his reactions, and, indeed, a couple of times was wondering why people were so shocked by him instead.
8/10
Notwithstanding the fact that I feel like the absolute creepiest person alive every time I'm made to realize that both Emma Watson (Hermione) and Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley) are growing into attractive young women in their own rights.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is a very competent film. The acting is probably as good as the series has been thus far, and the visual direction is very well done. It has been about the poorest rated of the HP films thus far critically, but I believe that has more to do with the source material than anything. Not having read any of the Potter books beyond the first one (which I read at the height of my Tolkien fanaticism in late '99 and thus didn't much care for), I can't say for sure, but trying to take a 1000+ page novel filled with important characterization and condensing it into a 2.3 hour film just, generally speaking, doesn't always flow terribly well. Certain, seemingly important characters (Luna Lovegood, Cho Chang, and a few others) just don't get the time to be properly fleshed out, and seem somewhat forced in with an otherwise outstanding primary cast when their relevancy to the plot deems their presence necessary.
That said, the primary triumvirate of Harry, Ron, and Hermione have grown to be quite excellent young actors under the impressive tutelage they've received on the set. Gary Oldman is one of the best actors around (and seems to be part of the reason that our heroes have grown so much) and Imelda Staunton's performance as Dolores Umbridge was absolutely incredible. The story flows well enough despite the slight character foibles mentioned earlier, and it sets up nicely for what I imagine is to follow (hopefully within the next two to three months, I'll actually know what, exactly, that is). I'd also like to say that Yates and Radcliffe did a wonderful Harry seem suitably ornery and mildly angsty without going completely overboard and turning Harry into the screaming emo child that some people seem to have interpreted him as in the book proper. I never once felt that Harry was out of line in his reactions, and, indeed, a couple of times was wondering why people were so shocked by him instead.
8/10
Notwithstanding the fact that I feel like the absolute creepiest person alive every time I'm made to realize that both Emma Watson (Hermione) and Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley) are growing into attractive young women in their own rights.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Ratatouille is a Treat
I'm going to keep this short, because there's not a whole lot to say.
I really enjoyed Ratatouille. It's visually stunning - I'm talking about the direction and the cinematography more than the animation, which isn't anything we haven't seen before - its simple story is impeccably told; and while the it may be an age old practice, I've rarely seen cooking used as a metaphor for life so well.
It's a somewhat subtler (note the somewhat) film than previous Pixar entries. It generally lacks the gushing sentiment and blunt repetition of its underlying moral present in 99% of animated films, choosing instead to make strong use of its romantic, in every sense of the word, setting to evoke an emotional response. It's due to this manner of allowing you to forge your own attachments rather than forcefully building them up for you that this movie may not appeal as strongly to children, but it's genuinely refreshing to see an animated film geared towards adults with some laughs for the kids rather than the opposite.
Go see Ratatouille when you get a chance, worst case, you should leave with a smile on your face. Don't go into it expecting a traditional Pixar film a la Toy Story or Finding Nemo and you may recognize it as one of their best.
10/10
Also, I'm incredibly excited for WALL*E
I really enjoyed Ratatouille. It's visually stunning - I'm talking about the direction and the cinematography more than the animation, which isn't anything we haven't seen before - its simple story is impeccably told; and while the it may be an age old practice, I've rarely seen cooking used as a metaphor for life so well.
It's a somewhat subtler (note the somewhat) film than previous Pixar entries. It generally lacks the gushing sentiment and blunt repetition of its underlying moral present in 99% of animated films, choosing instead to make strong use of its romantic, in every sense of the word, setting to evoke an emotional response. It's due to this manner of allowing you to forge your own attachments rather than forcefully building them up for you that this movie may not appeal as strongly to children, but it's genuinely refreshing to see an animated film geared towards adults with some laughs for the kids rather than the opposite.
Go see Ratatouille when you get a chance, worst case, you should leave with a smile on your face. Don't go into it expecting a traditional Pixar film a la Toy Story or Finding Nemo and you may recognize it as one of their best.
10/10
Also, I'm incredibly excited for WALL*E
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Why I Feel That the Spider-Man 3 Hate was Completely Excessive
I want to start out by saying that I think that Spider-Man 3 is almost exactly the film that Sam Raimi wanted it to be. Whether this is good or not depends on how much you like Sam Raimi; how much you like Spider-Man; and how much you're willing to let these likes conflict.
Spider-Man 3 isn't a perfect film. It's at times disjointed, it takes strong liberties with its characters' cannon, and, of course, Venom proper wasn't handled well at all. Perhaps the biggest - but least consciously recognized - issue that most people take with the film, however, is that the general atmosphere is just so much different from Raimi's past two Spidey entries. While Spider-Man 1 and 2 were very much movies about Peter Parker and the Spider-Man character, Spider-Man 3 is a love song to both the good and bad of comic books in general.
I picked up on this notion while trying to explain to my dad why I didn't think it was any near as bad as critics were saying after my first viewing of the movie. It was, and remains, my belief that Spider-Man 3 isn't any sillier or more contrived than the previous entries, it's just more upfront about it.
You see, comics are a medium with a history incredibly rich in melodrama, cliché, and archetypes. In Spider-Man 3, Sam Raimi embraces all of these traditions, from the amazingly melodramatic panning shot to Harry in the balcony at the theater during the opening scene to the manner in which the majority of the cast joined J.K. Simmons in playing perfectly into their characters' archetypes.
For better or worse, though, Peter and Mary Jane didn't seem to get the same face-lift, and their characters retention of their more "realistic" personalities tends to ruin the fast paced, highly entertaining, if generic, interactions of the rest of the cast. Having the two most critical characters in the film trying to portray real people amid a cast of one-dimensional clichés drags at the proceedings and makes the shift hard to recognize. It's for this reason that I would have liked to have seen more interactions between "evil" Peter and the rest of the cast, because it was only when Maguire was overacting and trying to milk what little material was given to this part of his character that he seemed to fit in with the over-the top melodrama of the rest of the film.
I don't believe that Maguire isn't primarily to blame for most of his issues in this regard. I think that, were the Peter Parker character written to more accurately reflect his comic book persona, Maguire would have had a much easier job of things. Unfortunately, Peter Parker was irreparably altered for the movies from a wise-cracking genius with some of the world's worst luck to a meek, introspective genius with some of the world's worst luck.
And yet, despite being this incredibly meek character, Parker needs to stand toe-to-toe with a bunch of larger-than-life personalities all focused on tearing him down. In a world of archetypes and walking clichés, a meek character can't do this and remain believably in the same world as the rest of the cast, or the illusion is broken. As the hero, he can't back down; but left without his wit and smarmy remarks as a verbal weapon to combat this personal oppression there's not much he can do to remain in the same one-dimensional reality as the rest of the cast.
Dunst played her part well enough when Maguire wasn't on the set, but when the two were together, things tended to fall back into the mood of the first two films; again causing a rift in the atmosphere in the film.
There's not a whole lot more that can be said about this aspect of the film. In trying to transplant the characters of the first two films into a largely different environment, the writers missed some key issues. Peter's inability to hold his own with the rest of the cast on their terms makes the flimsiness of the film's conceits more visible relative to its predecessors. This is unfortunate because upon multiple viewings, the films are all equally ridiculous and contrived, just in different ways.
Whether you're willing to forgive the flaw in favor of the goal is up to you. Generally speaking, I am, simply because it's not a new problem - I've been craving a truer-to-form Peter Parker from the beginning - and it's about time it bit them in the ass properly anyway. If Raimi, Maguire, and Dunst return for the fourth installment, maybe a Peter with a freshly bolstered sense of confidence will start to develop the proper attitude of his canonical self.
The other major problem that Spider-Man fans have with this film is Venom. Symbiote-Spidey was generally handled excellently, probably among the best parts of the film; Peter should have rid himself of the Symbiote, we should have seen it begin to attach itself to Brock, and that should have been it for Venom until the next film. Instead, we got a super villain that was completely untrue to cannon and did nothing to differentiate itself from Spider-Man in terms of movement and ability.
This is especially sad since this film showed that Raimi was finally up to the task of visualizing these character's abilities. The scene of Spider-Man rescuing Gwen from the crane accident showed the movement of Spider-Man as well as I think is possible. Sand Man, similarly, was incredibly well portrayed visually. Having Venom be as blah as he was was a huge disappointment, as watching a hulking Venom bound 5 stories through the air, pin Peter to a construction girder, and try to split Parker's skull open with his tongue to get at his brain would have been a real treat.
I don't know what else I can say. Spider-Man 3, for me, is a lot like [Star Wars] Episode 3 was. Every time I watched it, I became more forgiving of its flaws in favor of its root material. This doesn't mean that the flaws don't exist, but its charms are just more substantial. So, go watch it again when you get the chance (it's out of most theaters by now), and try to appreciate what Raimi was attempting to do. Maybe you'll enjoy the movie more now that you know what disappointments to expect, maybe you won't, but please stop the hate.
On one final note, I want to yell at those of you who are upset and think that Sand Man's origin was contrived. The afternoon before I went to see Spider-Man 3 for the second time, I swung by a local comic book shop with some friends. While there, my friend Peter picked up a Super Man comic. This particular issue involved a conflict between Supes and Bizarro. From the back of the Car, Peter made a comment as to how he'd forgotten that Bizarro had Ice Vision. Almost everybody in the car looked at him as if to exclaim, "Ice vision? How can he have ice vision?!" because, somehow, it was somehow more absurd than the heat vision we're all so comfortable with. Sand Man's origin as opposed to Spider Man's is exactly that same situation. Calling Sand Man's creation contrived is asinine when you're going to see your third Spider-Man film.
edit: I will admit that the convenient proximity of the testing facility is stretching things a bit, but seriously, just roll with it.
Spider-Man 3 isn't a perfect film. It's at times disjointed, it takes strong liberties with its characters' cannon, and, of course, Venom proper wasn't handled well at all. Perhaps the biggest - but least consciously recognized - issue that most people take with the film, however, is that the general atmosphere is just so much different from Raimi's past two Spidey entries. While Spider-Man 1 and 2 were very much movies about Peter Parker and the Spider-Man character, Spider-Man 3 is a love song to both the good and bad of comic books in general.
I picked up on this notion while trying to explain to my dad why I didn't think it was any near as bad as critics were saying after my first viewing of the movie. It was, and remains, my belief that Spider-Man 3 isn't any sillier or more contrived than the previous entries, it's just more upfront about it.
You see, comics are a medium with a history incredibly rich in melodrama, cliché, and archetypes. In Spider-Man 3, Sam Raimi embraces all of these traditions, from the amazingly melodramatic panning shot to Harry in the balcony at the theater during the opening scene to the manner in which the majority of the cast joined J.K. Simmons in playing perfectly into their characters' archetypes.
For better or worse, though, Peter and Mary Jane didn't seem to get the same face-lift, and their characters retention of their more "realistic" personalities tends to ruin the fast paced, highly entertaining, if generic, interactions of the rest of the cast. Having the two most critical characters in the film trying to portray real people amid a cast of one-dimensional clichés drags at the proceedings and makes the shift hard to recognize. It's for this reason that I would have liked to have seen more interactions between "evil" Peter and the rest of the cast, because it was only when Maguire was overacting and trying to milk what little material was given to this part of his character that he seemed to fit in with the over-the top melodrama of the rest of the film.
I don't believe that Maguire isn't primarily to blame for most of his issues in this regard. I think that, were the Peter Parker character written to more accurately reflect his comic book persona, Maguire would have had a much easier job of things. Unfortunately, Peter Parker was irreparably altered for the movies from a wise-cracking genius with some of the world's worst luck to a meek, introspective genius with some of the world's worst luck.
And yet, despite being this incredibly meek character, Parker needs to stand toe-to-toe with a bunch of larger-than-life personalities all focused on tearing him down. In a world of archetypes and walking clichés, a meek character can't do this and remain believably in the same world as the rest of the cast, or the illusion is broken. As the hero, he can't back down; but left without his wit and smarmy remarks as a verbal weapon to combat this personal oppression there's not much he can do to remain in the same one-dimensional reality as the rest of the cast.
Dunst played her part well enough when Maguire wasn't on the set, but when the two were together, things tended to fall back into the mood of the first two films; again causing a rift in the atmosphere in the film.
There's not a whole lot more that can be said about this aspect of the film. In trying to transplant the characters of the first two films into a largely different environment, the writers missed some key issues. Peter's inability to hold his own with the rest of the cast on their terms makes the flimsiness of the film's conceits more visible relative to its predecessors. This is unfortunate because upon multiple viewings, the films are all equally ridiculous and contrived, just in different ways.
Whether you're willing to forgive the flaw in favor of the goal is up to you. Generally speaking, I am, simply because it's not a new problem - I've been craving a truer-to-form Peter Parker from the beginning - and it's about time it bit them in the ass properly anyway. If Raimi, Maguire, and Dunst return for the fourth installment, maybe a Peter with a freshly bolstered sense of confidence will start to develop the proper attitude of his canonical self.
The other major problem that Spider-Man fans have with this film is Venom. Symbiote-Spidey was generally handled excellently, probably among the best parts of the film; Peter should have rid himself of the Symbiote, we should have seen it begin to attach itself to Brock, and that should have been it for Venom until the next film. Instead, we got a super villain that was completely untrue to cannon and did nothing to differentiate itself from Spider-Man in terms of movement and ability.
This is especially sad since this film showed that Raimi was finally up to the task of visualizing these character's abilities. The scene of Spider-Man rescuing Gwen from the crane accident showed the movement of Spider-Man as well as I think is possible. Sand Man, similarly, was incredibly well portrayed visually. Having Venom be as blah as he was was a huge disappointment, as watching a hulking Venom bound 5 stories through the air, pin Peter to a construction girder, and try to split Parker's skull open with his tongue to get at his brain would have been a real treat.
I don't know what else I can say. Spider-Man 3, for me, is a lot like [Star Wars] Episode 3 was. Every time I watched it, I became more forgiving of its flaws in favor of its root material. This doesn't mean that the flaws don't exist, but its charms are just more substantial. So, go watch it again when you get the chance (it's out of most theaters by now), and try to appreciate what Raimi was attempting to do. Maybe you'll enjoy the movie more now that you know what disappointments to expect, maybe you won't, but please stop the hate.
On one final note, I want to yell at those of you who are upset and think that Sand Man's origin was contrived. The afternoon before I went to see Spider-Man 3 for the second time, I swung by a local comic book shop with some friends. While there, my friend Peter picked up a Super Man comic. This particular issue involved a conflict between Supes and Bizarro. From the back of the Car, Peter made a comment as to how he'd forgotten that Bizarro had Ice Vision. Almost everybody in the car looked at him as if to exclaim, "Ice vision? How can he have ice vision?!" because, somehow, it was somehow more absurd than the heat vision we're all so comfortable with. Sand Man's origin as opposed to Spider Man's is exactly that same situation. Calling Sand Man's creation contrived is asinine when you're going to see your third Spider-Man film.
edit: I will admit that the convenient proximity of the testing facility is stretching things a bit, but seriously, just roll with it.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Transformers: Less Than Meets the Eye
Two things to start. First, I legitimately enjoyed Transformers. Second, I'm sorry for the title, but it's almost a necessity given the situation. Onto the meat...
Transformers is exactly what everybody else has been saying: A fun pop-corn movie and an amazing overall spectacle. I would say small on the plot, but it tries to have a more elaborate plot than it needed to, and that's really its failings. It's an immensely entertaining film filled with explosions and giant robots, but if you go in without a preexisting appreciation for said robots, the fun isn't nearly as infectious.
Bumblebee is the only Autobot that the viewer will have any inclination towards liking based solely on the material in the film. And if Bay hadn't made the obvious choice of casting Peter Cullen as the voice of Optimus Prime, even transformers aficionados would be lacking the much needed emotional connection to this important canonical figure.
That's the real problem with Transformers, and since the good parts are fairly obvious, that's what I'm going to devote what little I have left to say too. Bay spends far too much time setting up the plot lines for the human characters and not enough time on the Transformers themselves; especially considering that almost all of the human plot line is devoted towards explaining how the humans can fight the Decepticons in the closing minutes of the film. Sure, Shia LaBeouf is a great young actor and he deserves screen time, but certainly not at the expense of the titular characters.
That LaBeouf's plot line didn't even need to be reduced to improve the end result is even sadder. The other two concurrent plot threads could have been completely replaced with more Autobot and (especially) Decepticon related story and improved the movie significantly. If Michael Bay didn't feel he had to whore out his military connections at every opportunity, not only would there have been easily an extra 40 minutes to flesh out both sides of the Transfomers crew, but the final showdown would have been much more climactic. Human intervention greatly detracted from the grandeur of Autobot on Decepticon action, especially in the case of the showdown between (a woefully under addressed) Megatron and Prime.
The worse offender, though, is the entirely unnecessary "signal analyst" plot line. All that these guys did that affected the ending in any way was tell the Air Force where to go at the end, and we wasted a good 20 minutes to half hour with a slough of characters that were absolutely terrible and provided only one mildly amusing scene.
Long story short, Michael Bay, if you're reading this, the next time you make a Transformers movie, try to actually devote an acceptable length of the movie to, you know, Transformers.
That said, it was a fun movie. Shia LaBeouf is a great young actor who's a lot of fun to watch, and when the action sequences get going, they are very well done. If you go into it with a love of Transformers and/or a desire to enjoy the movie, you will. If you go in skeptical with an overly critical eye, there's a good chance you won't.
Final score(s):
9/10 for die hard Transformers fans
6/10 if you've got no clue who Optimus Prime is
somewhere in between for everybody else
Transformers is exactly what everybody else has been saying: A fun pop-corn movie and an amazing overall spectacle. I would say small on the plot, but it tries to have a more elaborate plot than it needed to, and that's really its failings. It's an immensely entertaining film filled with explosions and giant robots, but if you go in without a preexisting appreciation for said robots, the fun isn't nearly as infectious.
Bumblebee is the only Autobot that the viewer will have any inclination towards liking based solely on the material in the film. And if Bay hadn't made the obvious choice of casting Peter Cullen as the voice of Optimus Prime, even transformers aficionados would be lacking the much needed emotional connection to this important canonical figure.
That's the real problem with Transformers, and since the good parts are fairly obvious, that's what I'm going to devote what little I have left to say too. Bay spends far too much time setting up the plot lines for the human characters and not enough time on the Transformers themselves; especially considering that almost all of the human plot line is devoted towards explaining how the humans can fight the Decepticons in the closing minutes of the film. Sure, Shia LaBeouf is a great young actor and he deserves screen time, but certainly not at the expense of the titular characters.
That LaBeouf's plot line didn't even need to be reduced to improve the end result is even sadder. The other two concurrent plot threads could have been completely replaced with more Autobot and (especially) Decepticon related story and improved the movie significantly. If Michael Bay didn't feel he had to whore out his military connections at every opportunity, not only would there have been easily an extra 40 minutes to flesh out both sides of the Transfomers crew, but the final showdown would have been much more climactic. Human intervention greatly detracted from the grandeur of Autobot on Decepticon action, especially in the case of the showdown between (a woefully under addressed) Megatron and Prime.
The worse offender, though, is the entirely unnecessary "signal analyst" plot line. All that these guys did that affected the ending in any way was tell the Air Force where to go at the end, and we wasted a good 20 minutes to half hour with a slough of characters that were absolutely terrible and provided only one mildly amusing scene.
Long story short, Michael Bay, if you're reading this, the next time you make a Transformers movie, try to actually devote an acceptable length of the movie to, you know, Transformers.
That said, it was a fun movie. Shia LaBeouf is a great young actor who's a lot of fun to watch, and when the action sequences get going, they are very well done. If you go into it with a love of Transformers and/or a desire to enjoy the movie, you will. If you go in skeptical with an overly critical eye, there's a good chance you won't.
Final score(s):
9/10 for die hard Transformers fans
6/10 if you've got no clue who Optimus Prime is
somewhere in between for everybody else
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Thoughts on Knocked Up
You're all capable of heading over to Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic and finding out that, much like Judd Apatow's last film, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up is an excellent comedy and a generally better than average movie. Saying that Knocked Up was a funny movie and one that I enjoyed seeing really doesn't help anybody, because most of you have already heard it from a number of other people.
I will say that while it's similar to 40-Year-Old Virgin, the two are very different films. The humor in Knocked Up is more refined. The obscenity has more edge while seeming less extreme (any time you can get the 50 year old women behind me in the theater laughing at masturbation jokes, you've done something right), and the situational aspects are handled superbly. I loved the scenes between Alison and her higher ups at E!, granted, I love pretty much any scene with Alan Tudyk.
However, without Steve Carell's sincere, personable screen presence, the storyline and schlock elements don't come across with the strength of 40-Year-Old Virgin's. Don't get me wrong, I love Seth Rogan and Paul Rudd. They added a lot to 40-Year-Old Virgin and they do a wonderful job in this film, but neither has the presence of an experienced leading man that Carell has. Part of this relative deficiency may be attributed to the fact that there isn't as much of a moral as 40-Year-Old Virgin had. The inherent irony of 40-Year-Old Virgin in the manner in which Andy's friends were telling him that he was "putting the pussy on a pedestal" when he had stopped giving a damn and society was the one forcing it up there wad delicious to me. Knocked Up just lacks that sort of message more than anything.
I'd like to take some time now to discuss something else, though, and that is what makes these two films so much better than the majority of mainstream comedies . I've heard a few people refer to some of the more mediocre movies of late as being in the spirit of the screwball comedies of the 30's and 40's. While they may have been written to replicate aspects of this amazing era of cinema, I feel that Judd Apatow's previous two films are much more in the spirit of these great films than the mimickers that flood the markets.
There are a few main reasons that I say this. One thing is the overarching style. Most Screwball Comedies derive much of their comedy from the interactions of realistic characters and those that are larger than life and the antics that ensue when these groups come together. Knocked Up has this, with Ben and Allison being, with the possible exception of their occupation, realistic people surrounded by friends and family that are just too crazy to be real. The fundamental problem is very real, but the pit stops along the road to its resolution can only be called zany.
The biggest thing that Apatow does and most comic directors fail to do, however, is to speak in the language of our time. Most comedies that try to mimic the old screwball ones try to hard to remain in their language. They're like the King James Bible in that way. While the language and situations of the Screwball Comedies or the 30's and 40's spoke excellently to their generation, trying to transplant that exact mindset into more modern situations just seems fluffy and weak.
In their time, many of the Screwball Comedies had strong topical elements. They often gave a cast a strong eye at class relations and gender roles, and people frequently forget this when trying to pay them honor. They focus on the farce and the romance and forget that there was still often a relationship to be shown. In the meantime, both 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up try to show how modern society relates to sex and the awkward standards (typically doule standards at that) that exist.
The concept of virginity as something to be ashamed of, the idea of having sex with a stranger as opposed to raising a family with one. Even in the visual department, while most people are perfectly comfortable with blatant sex in movies, a half second clip of a baby crowning is enough to disgust most people. Apatow is trying to make us think about sex as a part of sexuality and how human sexuality fits (or doesn't fit) into human society.
It's the willingness to be confrontational, both ideologically and within the narrative, that makes films like Knocked Up superior to your average fast talking comedy. It's also what, in my opinion, makes them the true legacy of the golden era of the Screwball Comedy.
Also, the scene where Pete and Ben are tripping on 'shrooms in Vegas is the best comic scene were drugs or alcohol are used to further the plot since the scene The Philadelphia Story.
I will say that while it's similar to 40-Year-Old Virgin, the two are very different films. The humor in Knocked Up is more refined. The obscenity has more edge while seeming less extreme (any time you can get the 50 year old women behind me in the theater laughing at masturbation jokes, you've done something right), and the situational aspects are handled superbly. I loved the scenes between Alison and her higher ups at E!, granted, I love pretty much any scene with Alan Tudyk.
However, without Steve Carell's sincere, personable screen presence, the storyline and schlock elements don't come across with the strength of 40-Year-Old Virgin's. Don't get me wrong, I love Seth Rogan and Paul Rudd. They added a lot to 40-Year-Old Virgin and they do a wonderful job in this film, but neither has the presence of an experienced leading man that Carell has. Part of this relative deficiency may be attributed to the fact that there isn't as much of a moral as 40-Year-Old Virgin had. The inherent irony of 40-Year-Old Virgin in the manner in which Andy's friends were telling him that he was "putting the pussy on a pedestal" when he had stopped giving a damn and society was the one forcing it up there wad delicious to me. Knocked Up just lacks that sort of message more than anything.
I'd like to take some time now to discuss something else, though, and that is what makes these two films so much better than the majority of mainstream comedies . I've heard a few people refer to some of the more mediocre movies of late as being in the spirit of the screwball comedies of the 30's and 40's. While they may have been written to replicate aspects of this amazing era of cinema, I feel that Judd Apatow's previous two films are much more in the spirit of these great films than the mimickers that flood the markets.
There are a few main reasons that I say this. One thing is the overarching style. Most Screwball Comedies derive much of their comedy from the interactions of realistic characters and those that are larger than life and the antics that ensue when these groups come together. Knocked Up has this, with Ben and Allison being, with the possible exception of their occupation, realistic people surrounded by friends and family that are just too crazy to be real. The fundamental problem is very real, but the pit stops along the road to its resolution can only be called zany.
The biggest thing that Apatow does and most comic directors fail to do, however, is to speak in the language of our time. Most comedies that try to mimic the old screwball ones try to hard to remain in their language. They're like the King James Bible in that way. While the language and situations of the Screwball Comedies or the 30's and 40's spoke excellently to their generation, trying to transplant that exact mindset into more modern situations just seems fluffy and weak.
In their time, many of the Screwball Comedies had strong topical elements. They often gave a cast a strong eye at class relations and gender roles, and people frequently forget this when trying to pay them honor. They focus on the farce and the romance and forget that there was still often a relationship to be shown. In the meantime, both 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up try to show how modern society relates to sex and the awkward standards (typically doule standards at that) that exist.
The concept of virginity as something to be ashamed of, the idea of having sex with a stranger as opposed to raising a family with one. Even in the visual department, while most people are perfectly comfortable with blatant sex in movies, a half second clip of a baby crowning is enough to disgust most people. Apatow is trying to make us think about sex as a part of sexuality and how human sexuality fits (or doesn't fit) into human society.
It's the willingness to be confrontational, both ideologically and within the narrative, that makes films like Knocked Up superior to your average fast talking comedy. It's also what, in my opinion, makes them the true legacy of the golden era of the Screwball Comedy.
Also, the scene where Pete and Ben are tripping on 'shrooms in Vegas is the best comic scene were drugs or alcohol are used to further the plot since the scene The Philadelphia Story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)