Here, in it's entirety, is my review for the film Catfish, which I watched while studying abroad in Barcelona:
o_O
Showing posts with label Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Review. Show all posts
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Monday, July 19, 2010
Inception
Prologue 1:
September 1, 2009:
Bitches.
...
Prologue 2:
This is my longest post ever. Whatever I happen to say down there, remember this: you should go see Inception if for no other reason than I had this much to say about it. Too many movies are just "there were cool explosions" or "he got the girl in the end" these days. This one had thousands of words in it, and I still have more to say. So get yourself to a theater already.
Review:
Man, it's been a while. Since I've done a real movie review update, but also since I thought about Inception. I was so pumped back when that first trailer came out, and then last weekend it was suddenly in theaters. So I went.
While I recommend going into Inception without having a plot summary since the way the thing was put out there for most film goers, I also just want to put down into words what I remember happening. If we're going to think about a movie like this, it couldn't hurt to have a quick recap. So here goes: Leonardo DiCaprio is a professional thief, but instead of stealing real stuff he goes into people's dreams (with fantasy technology that's just sort of taken as a given throughout the film) and steals their ideas. He's got a team of people who help him with this, including the 500 Days of Summer guy, some other dude who is a pretty serviceable actor, and Juno. Michael Cain shows up for like 10 lines, too. Anyway, playing around in people's dreams is a super cool setup and leads to some pretty sweet special effects (though maybe not enough sweet special effects - more on that in a minute).
Our heroes screw around for a while as the movie lets us figure out for ourselves what the hell is going on for the first half an hour, a technique I appreciated. There was danger that the audience just wouldn't figure out what was up and the whole film would be impossible to follow, but that didn't happen at least to me personally. I'm sure someone's movie experience was ruined by it, though. After the initial action scene shenanigans take us through this setup, we get to the basic plot of the film: some Asian dude wants DiCaprio to go into someone else's mind and preform inception. That is, instead of stealing an idea from someone else, he wants to plant one there. 500 Days of Summer guy says it's not possible, but DiCaprio insists that it is. Gasp! So they gather up their team who I already introduced to you and get down to business planning what is essentially the coolest heist movie since Ocean's 11.
By this point, we've already been introduced to the concept of a dream within a dream, so it's no surprise when it turns out that the heist / inception is going to take 3+ levels of dream. This is cool. There are also complications that arise from DiCaprio's dead wife, who still lives on in the dream world as a projection from his subconscious. She keeps lurking around in the background, potentially sabotaging our heroes plans. Then there are further complications, etc, etc.
Damn good movie, in my opinion. I'd been comparing the previews to Blade Runner, Chinatown, and The Matrix, and while I'm not sure it lived up to quite those standards, the feel was definitely along those lines. The noir aesthetic wasn't as good as Chinatown's, and the script could've used more work. Usually when I say that it's because the dialog was bad, but in this case it was more like they didn't take enough time to flesh out the supporting cast of characters. DiCaprio gets a good amount of personality since the movie basically comes down to his relationship with his wife, and Juno certainly gets moments. We get a hint of something great from 500 Days guy, but it looked to me by the end that that was just because he's a good actor. There's like 4 team members who are more or less disposable, which begs the question of why they were included the first place. Cut a couple and give more time to fleshing out our principals. I mean, the whole inception heist is based on this sort of character study of the guy they're planting an idea inside, yet even he seems a little empty by the end.
Just a quick aside, have you been following all those imdb links I've been throwing out? Holy crap. This movie's cast was just awesome. It's like a who's who of actors that I like seeing in pretty much anything.
So we don't get as much character as I'd like, which is a shame. But characters are boring - what about cool action sequences and sweet dream effects? Sadly, the film does in this area pretty much what it did in the characters section: while full of good intentions, but it didn't push them far enough. You get a couple really great moments like the train plowing through the middle of city streets and the hotel fight scene that takes place as the van one dream level up does a barrel roll, but then it feels like things slide. I want the creativity of Eternal Sunshine, or at least something a little bit more dream-like. I'm okay with relatively mundane settings, but it feels like there should be more terribly out of place things like that train. You've got this troubled guy's entire subconscious to work with, why not make some waves?
Even better, you could kill two birds with one stone by having weird dream projections showing up that give us a deeper insight into our characters. If DiCaprio's wife is coming out of his head, what's to stop other people's personal demons from arriving and giving them trouble? At least let us see some traumatizing clown from our subject's childhood. I wanted to feel more Spirited Away and less action movie. Obviously you can't just drop the action entirely, but you can find cool stuff to do here.
The synchronized kicks I was totally on board with. I love the idea that in order to wake up from a dream you have to get that falling sensation because I know how readily falling in a dream wakes me up. The same goes for death - right up until they changed that rule, I was totally in love with their system. It was the sort of rules system I'd wished we'd gotten to see between Jacob and The Man in Black by the end of Lost. Of course then they went and blew it all by changing the death rule. I don't think they had to do that - instead of putting more on the line in the dream world and compromising your awesome system of rules, but more on the line out in the waking world. That way, for every person that gets killed in-dream and wakes up, the task of inception becomes more harder, and we get drama that way. If the cost of failure is essentially death (as it is for DiCaprio), we'll worry nearly as much about the character's survival without having to re-suspend our disbelief.
Whatever. My original point there was that the kicks system was cool, and they got clever with how each level's kick was delivered. The cue music was perfectly atmospheric, the elevator thing was priceless... basically everything about the kicks I liked.
I have one major technical gripe with the movie, and that is that all the cutting back and forth between dream levels was too quick for me. Instead of going 4 seconds of falling van -> 4 seconds of elevator -> 10 seconds of snow dialog, I kept wanting to see bigger chunks on each level. This way, I feel like we could have actually watched 500 Days guy in the hotel solve the various problems he was faced with, and maybe think about solutions along with him. Instead, I felt like we just kept coming back to him doing some new random-ass thing. I wanted to see him thinking, and larger chunks in each place would have let that process be more visible to us viewers.
Also, the snow level was just kind of random.
Alright, we're getting deeper here. I haven't even touched the big gun issues yet.
As I said earlier, the movie basically comes down to DiCaprio dealing with his wife's death (and the other issue that I'll get to, I promise). I felt like they handled this relationship well. While I wish there were more bits in the film that felt like a slasher flick with Mal (the wife) as the villain who could be just around any turn, the actual characters were good. As much as I complained about the lack of imagination in dreamscapes before, I thought the elevator trip through DiCaprio's memories was near flawless. I would've liked to see multiple trips to this elevator to let the idea build and ferment, but I guess there wasn't time. That seems to be one of the recurring problems with Inception: there were so many ideas packed in that not many of them got room to breathe, even with a 2:20 runtime.
Back to the wife, there's that point at the end when DiCaprio is facing her down in limbo where he talks about how she's not nearly as complex as the real Mal, how she's only a memory, a facet of the complex woman who he actually knew and loved... I loved that bit. I'd sort of already assumed this is what Nolan had been going for with her character, but it was a still a cool pointer in the direction he wanted us to look regarding Mal.
Speaking of limbo, what the hell. That was by far my least favorite part of the film. I didn't understand what it was, how you got there, or what purpose it served. I guess the plot devices it created were important. It let us look at that basic idea of limitless creation that comes with total lucid dreaming, and it set up the foundations for everything between Mal and DiCaprio. Still, it was explained just awfully. How did DiCaprio end up in the same limbo that he'd been trapped in with Mal? Is there really just one, and if so, are we to believe that the two of them were the only ones who ever lost themselves there? Then there's the whole deal with DiCaprio trying to find the Asian guy there which just didn't make any sense at all to me. Why do you need that? Just have the Asian guy not die, and you can have the same ambiguity in the end since DiCaprio has to go down into limbo to bring back the Scarecrow actor guy. What's the point?
Which brings us neatly to the end.
I walked out of the theater with this huge grin on my face. Joey and Danl followed me out the theater and to the bathroom where I promptly broke out laughing and exclaimed, "That was retarded." I mean, as soon as you find out that the opening scenes are a dream within a dream, you have to see it coming that the whole movie could be set up as one big-ass dream. I'm much more okay with this in a movie than on a TV show - if Lost had been a dream (or god forbid it turn out they were dead the whole time), I'd have been pissed. But two hours examining that sort of reality question is fine by me.
So I think I did like the ending despite the fact that it bugs me. Leaving things open for interpretation allows stupid kids like me to think about them for hours on end, which can be fun. Joey thought just having the top fall over should have been how the film ended, and I agree that it would have been a fine conclusion a fun action piece about dreams and reality. Certainly much better than most we get these days.
As is, I'm trapped between two opinions on the ending. The first is that it was perfect. It does so many things at once. It lets you decide on which ending you like better - whether DiCaprio was in a dream the whole time or whether he got back to living his life at the end. This doesn't quite work since the people who want the top to fall over are pissed that the top doesn't fall over, but it's perfect for those who like the idea of the whole movie being a dream. It also plays into my favorite theme in the movie: determining your own reality. We see this a lot as everyone takes turns shaping each other's realities. For starters we've got Juno creating dream worlds, the actual dreamers populating them, and DiCaprio sprinkling his subconscious all over everyone else. Then there's the dreamers in the sedative guy's basement, DiCaprio and Mal's control over limbo, Mal's manipulation of DiCaprio once they're both back in the "real" world, etc. At the end, we see DiCaprio ultimately choosing his own reality as he abandons Mal in limbo so he can return to his kids. He makes the conscious choice to stop all this nonsense and just live his life. In that sense, it doesn't matter whether or not the top falls over after the final cut to black. The important thing is that DiCaprio decided for himself how he was going to live and went and lived that way.
I like that message a lot.
The other thing this ending does is make Carol Donelan super happy. That is, it's commentary on watching movies within a movie. One could argue that since we hear the top wobble just as the film cuts to black at the end, the top must fall over right at about that time. Coincidentally, what else is happening just as the film cuts to black? The film is over. And just after a film engrossing as this one, you really do feel like you've woken up from a dream. At least I do. Having the film end on the wobbling of the top is this great nod at the way we take in films. I can see the arguments either way about whether it's better for the plot to have the top fall or not, but this particular thing about the ending is great.
All that said, my other opinion about the end is that it's just trying to hard. If you let the top fall over, you give us a satisfying conclusion to a fine story. There's plenty of material to be discussed within the rest of the piece, especially if they'd taken the time to flesh everything out a bit more. You can give us our real ending while still asking interesting questions. I guess then you aren't going to get a bunch of free press post-release, though. Probably less of a cult movie, too.
Critics seem to be just shitting themselves over Inception. I definitely liked it a lot. It's better than anything else in its same class that's come out in years. The problem is just that there's so little coming out in that class. So few movies are trying to be good and thought provoking rather than money makers. Hell, so few good movies these days aren't based on some pre-existing intellectual property. When someone comes along and makes a good movie with a budget that doesn't focus primarily on explosions, everyone freaks the fuck out. I liked it, yes, but it was merely quite good. It's just that quite good looks like solid gold when it's peers are a bunch of monkeys.
The monkeys also have bazookas.
September 1, 2009:
Or maybe the whole movie takes place in DiCaprio's head, and it's just about him going nuts. You heard it here first, kids. If I'm right, I totally called that 9 months before the movie came out....
Bitches.
...
Prologue 2:
This is my longest post ever. Whatever I happen to say down there, remember this: you should go see Inception if for no other reason than I had this much to say about it. Too many movies are just "there were cool explosions" or "he got the girl in the end" these days. This one had thousands of words in it, and I still have more to say. So get yourself to a theater already.
Review:
Man, it's been a while. Since I've done a real movie review update, but also since I thought about Inception. I was so pumped back when that first trailer came out, and then last weekend it was suddenly in theaters. So I went.
While I recommend going into Inception without having a plot summary since the way the thing was put out there for most film goers, I also just want to put down into words what I remember happening. If we're going to think about a movie like this, it couldn't hurt to have a quick recap. So here goes: Leonardo DiCaprio is a professional thief, but instead of stealing real stuff he goes into people's dreams (with fantasy technology that's just sort of taken as a given throughout the film) and steals their ideas. He's got a team of people who help him with this, including the 500 Days of Summer guy, some other dude who is a pretty serviceable actor, and Juno. Michael Cain shows up for like 10 lines, too. Anyway, playing around in people's dreams is a super cool setup and leads to some pretty sweet special effects (though maybe not enough sweet special effects - more on that in a minute).
Our heroes screw around for a while as the movie lets us figure out for ourselves what the hell is going on for the first half an hour, a technique I appreciated. There was danger that the audience just wouldn't figure out what was up and the whole film would be impossible to follow, but that didn't happen at least to me personally. I'm sure someone's movie experience was ruined by it, though. After the initial action scene shenanigans take us through this setup, we get to the basic plot of the film: some Asian dude wants DiCaprio to go into someone else's mind and preform inception. That is, instead of stealing an idea from someone else, he wants to plant one there. 500 Days of Summer guy says it's not possible, but DiCaprio insists that it is. Gasp! So they gather up their team who I already introduced to you and get down to business planning what is essentially the coolest heist movie since Ocean's 11.
By this point, we've already been introduced to the concept of a dream within a dream, so it's no surprise when it turns out that the heist / inception is going to take 3+ levels of dream. This is cool. There are also complications that arise from DiCaprio's dead wife, who still lives on in the dream world as a projection from his subconscious. She keeps lurking around in the background, potentially sabotaging our heroes plans. Then there are further complications, etc, etc.
Damn good movie, in my opinion. I'd been comparing the previews to Blade Runner, Chinatown, and The Matrix, and while I'm not sure it lived up to quite those standards, the feel was definitely along those lines. The noir aesthetic wasn't as good as Chinatown's, and the script could've used more work. Usually when I say that it's because the dialog was bad, but in this case it was more like they didn't take enough time to flesh out the supporting cast of characters. DiCaprio gets a good amount of personality since the movie basically comes down to his relationship with his wife, and Juno certainly gets moments. We get a hint of something great from 500 Days guy, but it looked to me by the end that that was just because he's a good actor. There's like 4 team members who are more or less disposable, which begs the question of why they were included the first place. Cut a couple and give more time to fleshing out our principals. I mean, the whole inception heist is based on this sort of character study of the guy they're planting an idea inside, yet even he seems a little empty by the end.
Just a quick aside, have you been following all those imdb links I've been throwing out? Holy crap. This movie's cast was just awesome. It's like a who's who of actors that I like seeing in pretty much anything.
So we don't get as much character as I'd like, which is a shame. But characters are boring - what about cool action sequences and sweet dream effects? Sadly, the film does in this area pretty much what it did in the characters section: while full of good intentions, but it didn't push them far enough. You get a couple really great moments like the train plowing through the middle of city streets and the hotel fight scene that takes place as the van one dream level up does a barrel roll, but then it feels like things slide. I want the creativity of Eternal Sunshine, or at least something a little bit more dream-like. I'm okay with relatively mundane settings, but it feels like there should be more terribly out of place things like that train. You've got this troubled guy's entire subconscious to work with, why not make some waves?
Even better, you could kill two birds with one stone by having weird dream projections showing up that give us a deeper insight into our characters. If DiCaprio's wife is coming out of his head, what's to stop other people's personal demons from arriving and giving them trouble? At least let us see some traumatizing clown from our subject's childhood. I wanted to feel more Spirited Away and less action movie. Obviously you can't just drop the action entirely, but you can find cool stuff to do here.
The synchronized kicks I was totally on board with. I love the idea that in order to wake up from a dream you have to get that falling sensation because I know how readily falling in a dream wakes me up. The same goes for death - right up until they changed that rule, I was totally in love with their system. It was the sort of rules system I'd wished we'd gotten to see between Jacob and The Man in Black by the end of Lost. Of course then they went and blew it all by changing the death rule. I don't think they had to do that - instead of putting more on the line in the dream world and compromising your awesome system of rules, but more on the line out in the waking world. That way, for every person that gets killed in-dream and wakes up, the task of inception becomes more harder, and we get drama that way. If the cost of failure is essentially death (as it is for DiCaprio), we'll worry nearly as much about the character's survival without having to re-suspend our disbelief.
Whatever. My original point there was that the kicks system was cool, and they got clever with how each level's kick was delivered. The cue music was perfectly atmospheric, the elevator thing was priceless... basically everything about the kicks I liked.
I have one major technical gripe with the movie, and that is that all the cutting back and forth between dream levels was too quick for me. Instead of going 4 seconds of falling van -> 4 seconds of elevator -> 10 seconds of snow dialog, I kept wanting to see bigger chunks on each level. This way, I feel like we could have actually watched 500 Days guy in the hotel solve the various problems he was faced with, and maybe think about solutions along with him. Instead, I felt like we just kept coming back to him doing some new random-ass thing. I wanted to see him thinking, and larger chunks in each place would have let that process be more visible to us viewers.
Also, the snow level was just kind of random.
Alright, we're getting deeper here. I haven't even touched the big gun issues yet.
As I said earlier, the movie basically comes down to DiCaprio dealing with his wife's death (and the other issue that I'll get to, I promise). I felt like they handled this relationship well. While I wish there were more bits in the film that felt like a slasher flick with Mal (the wife) as the villain who could be just around any turn, the actual characters were good. As much as I complained about the lack of imagination in dreamscapes before, I thought the elevator trip through DiCaprio's memories was near flawless. I would've liked to see multiple trips to this elevator to let the idea build and ferment, but I guess there wasn't time. That seems to be one of the recurring problems with Inception: there were so many ideas packed in that not many of them got room to breathe, even with a 2:20 runtime.
Back to the wife, there's that point at the end when DiCaprio is facing her down in limbo where he talks about how she's not nearly as complex as the real Mal, how she's only a memory, a facet of the complex woman who he actually knew and loved... I loved that bit. I'd sort of already assumed this is what Nolan had been going for with her character, but it was a still a cool pointer in the direction he wanted us to look regarding Mal.
Speaking of limbo, what the hell. That was by far my least favorite part of the film. I didn't understand what it was, how you got there, or what purpose it served. I guess the plot devices it created were important. It let us look at that basic idea of limitless creation that comes with total lucid dreaming, and it set up the foundations for everything between Mal and DiCaprio. Still, it was explained just awfully. How did DiCaprio end up in the same limbo that he'd been trapped in with Mal? Is there really just one, and if so, are we to believe that the two of them were the only ones who ever lost themselves there? Then there's the whole deal with DiCaprio trying to find the Asian guy there which just didn't make any sense at all to me. Why do you need that? Just have the Asian guy not die, and you can have the same ambiguity in the end since DiCaprio has to go down into limbo to bring back the Scarecrow actor guy. What's the point?
Which brings us neatly to the end.
I walked out of the theater with this huge grin on my face. Joey and Danl followed me out the theater and to the bathroom where I promptly broke out laughing and exclaimed, "That was retarded." I mean, as soon as you find out that the opening scenes are a dream within a dream, you have to see it coming that the whole movie could be set up as one big-ass dream. I'm much more okay with this in a movie than on a TV show - if Lost had been a dream (or god forbid it turn out they were dead the whole time), I'd have been pissed. But two hours examining that sort of reality question is fine by me.
So I think I did like the ending despite the fact that it bugs me. Leaving things open for interpretation allows stupid kids like me to think about them for hours on end, which can be fun. Joey thought just having the top fall over should have been how the film ended, and I agree that it would have been a fine conclusion a fun action piece about dreams and reality. Certainly much better than most we get these days.
As is, I'm trapped between two opinions on the ending. The first is that it was perfect. It does so many things at once. It lets you decide on which ending you like better - whether DiCaprio was in a dream the whole time or whether he got back to living his life at the end. This doesn't quite work since the people who want the top to fall over are pissed that the top doesn't fall over, but it's perfect for those who like the idea of the whole movie being a dream. It also plays into my favorite theme in the movie: determining your own reality. We see this a lot as everyone takes turns shaping each other's realities. For starters we've got Juno creating dream worlds, the actual dreamers populating them, and DiCaprio sprinkling his subconscious all over everyone else. Then there's the dreamers in the sedative guy's basement, DiCaprio and Mal's control over limbo, Mal's manipulation of DiCaprio once they're both back in the "real" world, etc. At the end, we see DiCaprio ultimately choosing his own reality as he abandons Mal in limbo so he can return to his kids. He makes the conscious choice to stop all this nonsense and just live his life. In that sense, it doesn't matter whether or not the top falls over after the final cut to black. The important thing is that DiCaprio decided for himself how he was going to live and went and lived that way.
I like that message a lot.
The other thing this ending does is make Carol Donelan super happy. That is, it's commentary on watching movies within a movie. One could argue that since we hear the top wobble just as the film cuts to black at the end, the top must fall over right at about that time. Coincidentally, what else is happening just as the film cuts to black? The film is over. And just after a film engrossing as this one, you really do feel like you've woken up from a dream. At least I do. Having the film end on the wobbling of the top is this great nod at the way we take in films. I can see the arguments either way about whether it's better for the plot to have the top fall or not, but this particular thing about the ending is great.
All that said, my other opinion about the end is that it's just trying to hard. If you let the top fall over, you give us a satisfying conclusion to a fine story. There's plenty of material to be discussed within the rest of the piece, especially if they'd taken the time to flesh everything out a bit more. You can give us our real ending while still asking interesting questions. I guess then you aren't going to get a bunch of free press post-release, though. Probably less of a cult movie, too.
Critics seem to be just shitting themselves over Inception. I definitely liked it a lot. It's better than anything else in its same class that's come out in years. The problem is just that there's so little coming out in that class. So few movies are trying to be good and thought provoking rather than money makers. Hell, so few good movies these days aren't based on some pre-existing intellectual property. When someone comes along and makes a good movie with a budget that doesn't focus primarily on explosions, everyone freaks the fuck out. I liked it, yes, but it was merely quite good. It's just that quite good looks like solid gold when it's peers are a bunch of monkeys.
The monkeys also have bazookas.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Love N' Dancing
...
Do I actually need to say anything about this movie? You should be able to imagine a 95% accurate version of the film just from the poster.
Let's start at the beginning.
Carleton has a termual (that's once a trimester) tradition called the Library Silent Dance Party. The idea is that a few days before the last Friday of the term, an email starts being forwarded around to pretty much every email list on campus. It contains a link to an mp3 and instructions to download it, put it on your music listening device of choice, and show up to the first floor (aka the Monastary Quiet floor) of the library at 11pm on Friday. Then when all 200+ people have shown up, some pre-designated leader silently counts down on his fingers. When the countdown ends, everyone presses play. Thus begins a dance party in the most quiet location on campus.
The LSDP moves through the library, slowly making its way up the floors. After the break 30 minutes in, it generally beings to move around campus like an ooze, engulfing building after building of innocent by-standers trying to study for finals. It's probably the single coolest thing I've ever done at Carleton. And college is pretty cool, and Carleton is pretty cool for a college. In the middle of it, you just feel connected to all these strangers in a totally awesome non-creepy way. Like, you're just dancing with people. It's great.
...
So midnight comes around this past Friday night, and everyone's leaving the LSDP. Of course, after an hour of such an experience, you can't just go home and go to bed. As tired as you are, your energy level is through the roof. I didn't know what to do, but eventually I went to get smoothies at the snack bar with a bunch of Social Dance Club people. That got us a decent ways, but after the smoothies were gone, what then? I mean, watching a movie is always on the table, but...
I made the mistake of making a comment about how all the things in life that make me feel amazing are slowly converging to dance. Swing dance club, social dance club, contact improv, the LSDP... All these things just make me feel unbeatable in a way that not much else ever has. I say this comment was a mistake because I was in the presence of one Kendra, who immediately demanded that we spend the rest of the evening watching Love N' Dancing.
A few organizational shenanigans later, I found myself along with several other dancers in Kendra's apartment with the opening to what looked like Dirty Dancing all over playing itself in front of me. How had it come to this?
The plot was exactly what you expect. Early on, I made a comment about how the girl was going to take off her big glasses, let down her hair, and rapidly become a ridiculously good dancer. Not only did all of these things happen, but later during a crisis her friend says to her (I shit you not): "Girl, you're wearing contacts. You've let your hair down. You're happy. Why do you think this is?"
And Kendra goes "Dancing". And the friend goes "Dancing".
It was brutal to sit through, though I admit the dancing was awesome. Now that I actually dance a lot, I can appreciate that sort of thing in bad dance movies. I also spent an unreasonable amount of time marveling at how the director had hid the cameras in a dance studio where all the walls were mirrors. Let me just say that there were some very conveniently place pillars and many clever angles. I made a point of it to ruin every moment possible with yet another technical comment.
Still, no matter what I may say about this movie's quality, the dancing was great. And like Kendra, I wish I could do this. Still wasn't worth being up until 3am for.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
The Ghost Writer
Not to be confused with Ghost Rider, which is a crappy superhero movie starring Nicholas Cage and sounds pretty much exactly the same when you say it out loud.
Saturday was the last day of my spring break in the sense that it's the day I moved back in to college. Sunday sort of counts, but Sunday is a school night, plus I had to work all afternoon. So Saturday was the last "real" day of my spring break. Coincidentally, it was also the first day of my friend Joey's break, and the only day he was going to be both free and in Minnesota. It was pretty much a given that we'd have to hang out.
Plans weren't really made. We knew eating somewhere nice was a on the agenda, and we knew one of us would have to wrangle up a car. Beyond that, we didn't have much idea of what we'd end up doing. So on the way up to dinner, Joey asked if I'd ever gotten around to seeing Hot Tub Time Machine.
(Damnit Danl)
After a delicious meal at Taste of Thailand in Apple Valley, we drove over to Lakeville to see what was showing. This was the first time I can remember just showing up at a theater and then deciding what to see when I got there. It's a much different experience, but one that I like. It's really just giving yourself over to the idea that you're going for the experience of going to a movie rather than going to see anything in particular. There's an added mini-game of trying to remember what all the movies on the marquee are about and deciding how long you're willing to wait to see something. I quite enjoyed it.
We weighed our options, and eventually decided on a movie I'd never heard of - The Ghost Writer. The plot was something like a young Obi-Wan Kenobi does covert spy work to take down James Bond, who is actually George Bush. Meanwhile the old guy from Eternal Sunshine and Adele DeWitt watch from the sidelines.
Wait a second, scratch that.
Ewan McGergor is an out of work British writer who gets a job as a ghost writer for the memoirs of an old British Prime minister (Pierce Brosnan) after the old ghost writer turns up dead in the ocean. Apparently the old writer was drunk, but if you can't figure out from this premise that he was actually murdered you need to watch more movies.
That plot summary is really great. The whole movie felt the same way - we follow the increadibly likable McGregor around doing odd bits of investigation here and there, and he slowly puts together a giant conspiracy. It's fun to watch, intense. I likened it to the feeling I get playing Myst-style adventure games, where you're constantly snooping around in these places and expecting someone else to show up and ask you what you're doing, to which you will have no good response. There's this ever-present feeling of tension. I like it when a movie can give me that.
About halfway through, I was reminded of Hitchcock. We spend the whole film following this one male protagonist as he is accidentally thrown into a world of political intrigue and deception, then gradually gets his bearings. At all times, we know exactly what he knows - nothing more or less. This is such a Hitchcock thing to do. Not to say that The Ghost Writer was as good as most Hitchcock. It was fun, to be sure, but it wasn't amazing. Great atmosphere from the tension coupled with the color palette, sets, weather, etc. The acting was fine. It came together quite well and in a way that didn't need to use explosions or chase scenes (beyond a choice few that again reminded me of Hitchcock in that they actually seemed reasonable). The clues our hero uncovered were all very reasonable. The only gaping plot hole in the movie came at the very end, literally in the last 2 minutes. For a modern film, I can't ask for much more than all that. I highly recommend.
EDIT: OH snap! I almost forgot my favorite part of this movie. The Observer was in it. Yeah. It was hilarious.
Saturday was the last day of my spring break in the sense that it's the day I moved back in to college. Sunday sort of counts, but Sunday is a school night, plus I had to work all afternoon. So Saturday was the last "real" day of my spring break. Coincidentally, it was also the first day of my friend Joey's break, and the only day he was going to be both free and in Minnesota. It was pretty much a given that we'd have to hang out.
Plans weren't really made. We knew eating somewhere nice was a on the agenda, and we knew one of us would have to wrangle up a car. Beyond that, we didn't have much idea of what we'd end up doing. So on the way up to dinner, Joey asked if I'd ever gotten around to seeing Hot Tub Time Machine.
(Damnit Danl)
After a delicious meal at Taste of Thailand in Apple Valley, we drove over to Lakeville to see what was showing. This was the first time I can remember just showing up at a theater and then deciding what to see when I got there. It's a much different experience, but one that I like. It's really just giving yourself over to the idea that you're going for the experience of going to a movie rather than going to see anything in particular. There's an added mini-game of trying to remember what all the movies on the marquee are about and deciding how long you're willing to wait to see something. I quite enjoyed it.
We weighed our options, and eventually decided on a movie I'd never heard of - The Ghost Writer. The plot was something like a young Obi-Wan Kenobi does covert spy work to take down James Bond, who is actually George Bush. Meanwhile the old guy from Eternal Sunshine and Adele DeWitt watch from the sidelines.
Wait a second, scratch that.
Ewan McGergor is an out of work British writer who gets a job as a ghost writer for the memoirs of an old British Prime minister (Pierce Brosnan) after the old ghost writer turns up dead in the ocean. Apparently the old writer was drunk, but if you can't figure out from this premise that he was actually murdered you need to watch more movies.
That plot summary is really great. The whole movie felt the same way - we follow the increadibly likable McGregor around doing odd bits of investigation here and there, and he slowly puts together a giant conspiracy. It's fun to watch, intense. I likened it to the feeling I get playing Myst-style adventure games, where you're constantly snooping around in these places and expecting someone else to show up and ask you what you're doing, to which you will have no good response. There's this ever-present feeling of tension. I like it when a movie can give me that.
About halfway through, I was reminded of Hitchcock. We spend the whole film following this one male protagonist as he is accidentally thrown into a world of political intrigue and deception, then gradually gets his bearings. At all times, we know exactly what he knows - nothing more or less. This is such a Hitchcock thing to do. Not to say that The Ghost Writer was as good as most Hitchcock. It was fun, to be sure, but it wasn't amazing. Great atmosphere from the tension coupled with the color palette, sets, weather, etc. The acting was fine. It came together quite well and in a way that didn't need to use explosions or chase scenes (beyond a choice few that again reminded me of Hitchcock in that they actually seemed reasonable). The clues our hero uncovered were all very reasonable. The only gaping plot hole in the movie came at the very end, literally in the last 2 minutes. For a modern film, I can't ask for much more than all that. I highly recommend.
EDIT: OH snap! I almost forgot my favorite part of this movie. The Observer was in it. Yeah. It was hilarious.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Blood Simple
I'm beginning to recognize 90s style. There's a certain film grain to films from that decade and the late 80s. I don't know if it's just better cameras or what, but movies look a bit different these days. Probably just technological improvements; the whole shift to digital has come since then, after all.
Blood Simple is the first movie made by the Coen Brothers, and like most of their movies, [SPOILER ALERT] pretty much everyone dies in the end after a crime gone horribly wrong. This one in particular reminded me a lot of Quentin Tarantino - Reservoir Dogs, to be specific. The time the movie was made is about the same, they both have this crime gone wrong thing, they both end in with lots of people getting killed... There's also the whole scene where the main character is cleaning up his bloody car where I kept thinking of The Cleaner from Pulp Fiction.
I feel in some ways like No Country For Old Men was the Coen Bros way of remaking Blood Simple. The motives behind the killings are very different, but they have lots of similarities. Both are set in Texas. Both start with roaming shots of landscapes voiced over by one of the main characters. Both have a nasty bad guy running around trying to kill everyone. Both involve crimes gone wrong leading to massive amounts of bloodshed.
On the other hand, Blood Simple has music. It has a girl who survives. It has dream sequences and that amazing section where the main guy is burying the other guy (oh my god so creepy). It has driving sequences, though they come straight out of Fargo. Or I guess the ones in Fargo come straight out of here. This movie also has a huge emphasis on sound. The music is crazy atmospheric. There's this recurring motif of a repeating sound beating over and over. It starts with windshield wipers but comes back again as a fan, an alarm clock ticking, and the footfalls of someone in the next room. Very soothing but placed in this context that's so intense. It put me on edge the whole film.
Another thing this movie does really well is setting the scene with little close up shots of all sorts of details. Like when the two men are meeting in the back room of the bar: we see some fish heads. We see the fan. We see a chair. We see one of the men talk. We see a cigarette. All these shots come together to give us a really rich scene.
Man, those pipes at the end of the movie...
And that sequence dealing with the first dead guy's body...
Damn.
Damn, y'all.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Up: Animation Isn't Just For Kids
I've been reading a lot of comics recently. Comics have always had this thing going on where no one takes them seriously. You've got all these great stories like Sandman and Watchmen and all the really famous ones like Maus and Persepolis (or however you spell it), but no one respects them because the medium has such a bad rep. Just because the people who wrote comics in the 30s and 40s made pulp superhero novels doesn't mean that all comics are about superheroes or that all comics are mediocre pulp in quality. There's some seriously good stuff going down out there and a teeny-tiny audience appreciating it. Web comics have helped, but there's still very little in the way of comic "books", graphic novels if you will. Most of the well appreciated stuff is single strip at a time ala xkcd or Questionable Content. One joke a day, soap opera plots at best (good ones mind you), etc. I freakin' love those comics, but I still don't see much in the way of more serious stories being told with comics.
Animation, I feel, is in a very similar boat. People have done awesome things with animation - look at Bugs Bunny, etc. The Simpsons is a landmark television series. Disney has (had?) been winning awards for decades by putting out amazing animated movies. But when you get down to it, there hasn't been a lot of "adult" stories told with animation. It has the reputation of being a medium, you know, for kids. That's fine since it gives us stuff like Beauty and the Beast, Toy Story, and so forth, but there's this huge untapped potential for animation that involves telling the same kinds of heart-wrenching, gotta see 'em love stories, fast paced action, blockbuster, cry-all-the-way-through, beautiful tales that you get in great live action film. Occasionally you get the great innovative piece ala The Triplets of Belleville, but that's not often. Then you've got all the stuff the Japanese have been up to... In fact, if you speak Japanese, a lot of what I've just said is just lies. They're way ahead of us in comics and animation.
Whatever. Animation is a hugely untapped medium for story-telling. Thankfully, the guys who founded Pixar figured this out back in college and have been slowly getting us, the public, ready to accept animated movies for adults. There's always been jokes for the adults - pop culture references if nothing else - but Pixar has been pushing the morals of their stories farther and farther with every movie. The Incredibles was all about suburban life, a topic the depths of which elude most tweens that I know this sort of movie is classically marketed towards. WALL.E was something special. That opening sequence could've just gone on for ages... I feel like the world building they did there was for an ageless audience. Then the lesson about nature was for adults as much as it was for kids. Still felt kiddy once they left Earth, though.
Up, however... Up is not a kids movie. The whole plot is about letting go of the dead. That whole opening montage of Mr. Fredrickson's life is just... beautiful. That sequence is probably entertaining for kids, but I just can't imagine the full impact of it hitting anyone under a certain age. Honestly, I don't believe the full impact will hit me until I'm middle aged at least. Sure the whole movie is peppered with stuff for the kids. The talking dogs, Kevin, most of what's going on with the boyscout... It's all kid stuff. Not that I didn't like it, quite the opposite. It's just that's the sort of kid targeted stuff I've come to expect from animation. I have not come to expect shots like the one of the house floating down through the clouds as Mr. Fredrickson finally lets go of his wife. That's just... That's just amazing.
So bravo, Pixar. Your master plan of introducing animation to adults has finally come to fruition. And I, for one, applaud you for it. Bravo indeed. I loved everything about this movie except for the fact that I had to pause in the middle of it.
Before I go, I want to step back to my more broad points about animation to say that I'm sort of lying. After all, we see more and more CG in every summer blockbuster, and what is CG but animation? Motion capture is blending the line between animation and live action more and more, redefining what we think of as "cinema" at every turn. Already we don't notice the line between the real and the computer generated. And really, who's to say what constitutes "real" on the silver screen? That sounds like a whole paper all by itself. In a couple years, maybe "animation" will be the standard for all films.
Anyway, I just hope the ride through uncanny valley isn't too bumpy.
Animation, I feel, is in a very similar boat. People have done awesome things with animation - look at Bugs Bunny, etc. The Simpsons is a landmark television series. Disney has (had?) been winning awards for decades by putting out amazing animated movies. But when you get down to it, there hasn't been a lot of "adult" stories told with animation. It has the reputation of being a medium, you know, for kids. That's fine since it gives us stuff like Beauty and the Beast, Toy Story, and so forth, but there's this huge untapped potential for animation that involves telling the same kinds of heart-wrenching, gotta see 'em love stories, fast paced action, blockbuster, cry-all-the-way-through, beautiful tales that you get in great live action film. Occasionally you get the great innovative piece ala The Triplets of Belleville, but that's not often. Then you've got all the stuff the Japanese have been up to... In fact, if you speak Japanese, a lot of what I've just said is just lies. They're way ahead of us in comics and animation.
Whatever. Animation is a hugely untapped medium for story-telling. Thankfully, the guys who founded Pixar figured this out back in college and have been slowly getting us, the public, ready to accept animated movies for adults. There's always been jokes for the adults - pop culture references if nothing else - but Pixar has been pushing the morals of their stories farther and farther with every movie. The Incredibles was all about suburban life, a topic the depths of which elude most tweens that I know this sort of movie is classically marketed towards. WALL.E was something special. That opening sequence could've just gone on for ages... I feel like the world building they did there was for an ageless audience. Then the lesson about nature was for adults as much as it was for kids. Still felt kiddy once they left Earth, though.
Up, however... Up is not a kids movie. The whole plot is about letting go of the dead. That whole opening montage of Mr. Fredrickson's life is just... beautiful. That sequence is probably entertaining for kids, but I just can't imagine the full impact of it hitting anyone under a certain age. Honestly, I don't believe the full impact will hit me until I'm middle aged at least. Sure the whole movie is peppered with stuff for the kids. The talking dogs, Kevin, most of what's going on with the boyscout... It's all kid stuff. Not that I didn't like it, quite the opposite. It's just that's the sort of kid targeted stuff I've come to expect from animation. I have not come to expect shots like the one of the house floating down through the clouds as Mr. Fredrickson finally lets go of his wife. That's just... That's just amazing.
So bravo, Pixar. Your master plan of introducing animation to adults has finally come to fruition. And I, for one, applaud you for it. Bravo indeed. I loved everything about this movie except for the fact that I had to pause in the middle of it.
Before I go, I want to step back to my more broad points about animation to say that I'm sort of lying. After all, we see more and more CG in every summer blockbuster, and what is CG but animation? Motion capture is blending the line between animation and live action more and more, redefining what we think of as "cinema" at every turn. Already we don't notice the line between the real and the computer generated. And really, who's to say what constitutes "real" on the silver screen? That sounds like a whole paper all by itself. In a couple years, maybe "animation" will be the standard for all films.
Anyway, I just hope the ride through uncanny valley isn't too bumpy.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
A Serious Man
Wow.
Wow.
...
Wow.
So I'm a total Coen Brothers fanboy. It's cool, I know it's true. If I watched movies by myself more often, I might need an intervention. Thankfully, I usually need other people to help fuel my addiction... Whatever. The point is that I love their erratic story-telling style in which things often happen for no reason, totally out of the blue. In which every character is more often than not bat-shit insane in one way or another. In which we have iPods in the 1960s. I mean, wait, what?
Doesn't matter. A Serious Man is a movie about a middle aged Jewish guy in the 60s who just can't keep it together. Through no fault of his own he just has too many things thrown on to his plate, and all of them just keep dragging him down. It's horrible to watch, but as someone who is currently experiencing that "too many things" syndrome it was nice to watch this guy be much worse off than myself. Really just depressing stuff, folks. And then, in predictable Coen Brothers fashion, everything seems about to get better, then everything gets a lot worse, and then there's a smash cut to credits. Hilarious.
I don't know, man. What does it all mean? I feel like they're almost parodying themselves with the dentist story. It's this bizarre fable that clearly wants an ending, a lesson, but then provides no such thing. The story teller just doesn't give his audience what they're looking for; in fact, the teller doesn't give the audience anything. So what was the freaking point of telling the story? This is what troubles me about the brothers Coen: they keep telling these compelling stories, and I keep being unable to make any sense of them. What were they trying to say? If they're astute enough to make all the clever jokes that they do and to parody their own story-telling style with the second rabbi, why won't they give us some sort of closure? "What did we learn, Palmer?" I don't fuckin' know either.
I guess we can find some sort of moral in that tornado, and the fact that our hero gets that fateful telephone call right as he gives in right at the end of the movie. But is it enough? And what was the deal with the opening fable? Why was that included?
I think I'm not Jewish enough to get all of this movie. Still loved it a lot, though. I'm intentionally keeping this short because this is one of the places where I actually care about spoilers (and I have to go to bed). I'm still kind of just in awe. If you've got stuff you want to talk about from the movie, though, let me know. I'd love to talk about more specific stuff.
Wow.
...
Wow.
So I'm a total Coen Brothers fanboy. It's cool, I know it's true. If I watched movies by myself more often, I might need an intervention. Thankfully, I usually need other people to help fuel my addiction... Whatever. The point is that I love their erratic story-telling style in which things often happen for no reason, totally out of the blue. In which every character is more often than not bat-shit insane in one way or another. In which we have iPods in the 1960s. I mean, wait, what?
Doesn't matter. A Serious Man is a movie about a middle aged Jewish guy in the 60s who just can't keep it together. Through no fault of his own he just has too many things thrown on to his plate, and all of them just keep dragging him down. It's horrible to watch, but as someone who is currently experiencing that "too many things" syndrome it was nice to watch this guy be much worse off than myself. Really just depressing stuff, folks. And then, in predictable Coen Brothers fashion, everything seems about to get better, then everything gets a lot worse, and then there's a smash cut to credits. Hilarious.
I don't know, man. What does it all mean? I feel like they're almost parodying themselves with the dentist story. It's this bizarre fable that clearly wants an ending, a lesson, but then provides no such thing. The story teller just doesn't give his audience what they're looking for; in fact, the teller doesn't give the audience anything. So what was the freaking point of telling the story? This is what troubles me about the brothers Coen: they keep telling these compelling stories, and I keep being unable to make any sense of them. What were they trying to say? If they're astute enough to make all the clever jokes that they do and to parody their own story-telling style with the second rabbi, why won't they give us some sort of closure? "What did we learn, Palmer?" I don't fuckin' know either.
I guess we can find some sort of moral in that tornado, and the fact that our hero gets that fateful telephone call right as he gives in right at the end of the movie. But is it enough? And what was the deal with the opening fable? Why was that included?
I think I'm not Jewish enough to get all of this movie. Still loved it a lot, though. I'm intentionally keeping this short because this is one of the places where I actually care about spoilers (and I have to go to bed). I'm still kind of just in awe. If you've got stuff you want to talk about from the movie, though, let me know. I'd love to talk about more specific stuff.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Sherlock Holmes
It looked like a blasphemous interpretation of the source material. It looked like a bad action movie toting a well known lead character to draw audiences since everyone loves watching the same recycled things over and over again. It looked like it could perhaps be made tolerable by the awesome actors they had in the lead roles, but I didn't have my sights set very high.
It was sooo much better than it looked.
This is not to say that it was a great movie. It was fun, things exploded in a cool fashion, the script was never awful, the actors were great, etc. Action movie done right. But action movies done right are still rarely "A" grade material, more like "B+". Sherlock Holmes followed these lines. I walked out of the theater saying it was the "best mediocre movie" I'd seen in a long time, and I stand by that. Maybe I even upgrade that a twinge.
Going in, the biggest concern of many people I knew was that it looked like a desecration of the Holmes of Doyle's stories. Obviously there were changes - it's hard to make a main-stream blockbuster action movie starring a little old man who's basically just really smart. The Holmes of the screen was a snappy badass, running around and through explosions, beating people up, and thoroughly bitter inside. He always had the comeback, he always knew where to land the punch. There was a boxing scene in particular that seemed bad to me. What Sherlock Holmes ever beat the hell out of people in a back-alley boxing arena?
Apparently the Holmes of Doyle's work, according to my sister. I consider her an expert of source material faithfulness in movies since she's such a stickler on the stuff that she likes, and she knows Holmes waaay better than I do. Holmes is a boxer in the stories. There aren't too many explosions in the stories, but that's just a concession it was necessary to make to the silver screen. Overall, I'm told, Robert Downy Jr.'s Holmes is very faithful in spirit to the books; much to my surprise, my sister approved.
There's a moment about a minute into the film where we're really introduced to our protagonist. He's infiltrating some sort of basementy area and there's a guard up ahead. We hear Holmes narrate as we see each action in slow motion:
This is exactly how I expect an action hero Holmes to act: he uses his intellect to efficiently and effectively eliminate his enemies. At the time I felt uncomfortable with the idea that this character I knew as an old fart sitting around a fireplace snorting cocaine and noticing miniscule details would be out and about beating the crap out of people. I'm still not totally comfortable with it, but I'm much more accepting. And either way, the scene was awesome.
And that beggar in front of the carriage thing? And the boxing match? And the smoke from the fireplace? All equally awesome.
The music helped with this transition, I think. It was all fiddley-Irishy music at a quick pace as Holmes didn't punch, but slapped his opponents blows out of the way. Light hearted, jumpy, prancing about like a rabbit, this made Holmes feel like a light guy who just knew how to fight rather than a totally ripped action hero. And not just appropriate but a beautiful score, too, and timed wonderfully.
So I've accepted that this Holmes is faithful enough to the source material to deserve my recognition. My big pre-movie concern satisfied. But oh is there more to say. There's so much more.
Let's start with the plot: the big bad evil guy (not Moriarty) aka BBEG has been murdering people in an occult fashion around London. Holmes captures him at the beginning, and BBEG is hanged. Soon after that, he uses his "magic spells" (it's a matter of argument whether he's really using magic or not) to rise from the grave. He resumes killing people magically. Holmes starts tracking the guy down, meets up with the girl, and eventually uses his cunning to track him to the big finale where Holmes saves the day. Pretty standard.
The most interesting thing is this plot's inclusion of magic, making it reminiscent of the Cthulhu / Holmes crossover adventure game I played with Danl and Paul a while back. I never made it all the way through that game, but it's similarity in plot is worth noting. People seem to love combining the logic of Sherlock Holmes with the impossibilities of fantasy. It's a paradox that's very pleasing to the mind. Neil Gaiman wrote a story in such a universe very effectively. This combination of two opposites is a reliable way to make an intriguing premise. Take note, all aspiring story-tellers.
Really, though, the magic is all a lie. This ending is taken straight from The Illusionist, which is again interesting. Has every twist been used before, or is this one just a fun one? The idea that you would start the Sherlock Holmes movie franchise by introducing magic is silly since you're already going to piss a lot of people off with whatever you make. I guess it makes sense. Sherlock Holmes is all about reason triumphing over everything else.
This presence of "magic" had a very unique effect on the feel of the setting. It felt distinctly steampunk. Steampunk is becoming more and more mainstream, and has been for years. I'm glad we're seeing more of it since it's one of my favorite genres. There were similarities to memorable books everywhere I looked. The bureaucratic society of wizards in London of Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, the weird magic stuff in the 1800s of The Anubis Gate, the CG look of the backgrounds that resembled so well The Golden Compass, the token anachronism in the form of the stun baton... I loved it all. What was odd was how anachronistic the whole movie felt as a result. This shouldn't come as a surprise - any modern action movie set in the 1800s is going to feel anachronistic, but it opened my eyes in a way that they hadn't before.
Many things felt very 2010 about the film - the seamless use of bullet time during fight scenes, the distortion of the whole audio track when an explosion or a gunshot went off right next to the camera. It felt like you were actually there in a "new" way (I use quotes because I know this effect has been used before, but not as commonly as I'd like). The whole movie is something that's all the rage right now in cinema: take a beloved book, action it up, cast some well known names or attractive young actors, and rake in the dough. They even added this whole magic thing to make it seem more like Harry Potter! This is, like, the defining example of a movie from this time period. It's so perfect. Precisely mixing modern cinema with old familiar characters and stories. It's beautiful.
I was reminded of Inglourious Basterds. As with all of Tarantino's work, Basterds was as much about movies as it was about anything else. One of the central themes was that "this is a movie - it doesn't have to act like the time and place it is set, nor does it have to pretend to. This is a modern movie, and it is being made in 2009, and it is about 2009, and it is however the director wants it to be." My favorite part of this was in the middle of a big gala full of powerful German leaders, titles in what looked like a hand-drawn font would pop up on the screen with arrows and point out the important people and who they were. It's so out of place. It's so wrong. And it's exactly how it's supposed to be. All at the same time.
That is how I felt watching Sherlock Holmes. I felt like the writers / director / whoever were all keenly aware of what they were presenting. The story was not set in the 1800s, it was set in what people in 2009 expect the 1800s to be like, with little patches of falsehood here and there to service the plot.
AND THAT'S NOT ALL! This is all just build up for what is no doubt one of my favorite scenes in modern cinema. Holmes has just finished a ritual he's gotten from BBEG's spellbook, and now the girl and Watson are on the scene. Yes, it's now time for the first of Holmes's big reveals, in which he tells us everything he's discovered so far (but not what he's going to do next!). He talks about how the murders have all been around the city in the shape of a pentagram, how each has represented a different animal that's part of the mythic Sphynx, how the next target is going to be parliament, and how we all must go now to save the day! And what does he do? The whole time he's giving the speech? WHAT DOES HE DO?!
...
He uses a cane.
Bitches.
The Sherlock Holmes of 2009 is channeling House, a character DIRECTLY BASED ON SHERLOCK HOLMES. Holy freaking shit is that meta. That's so meta! That's soooo meta. It's so modern. It's a complete anachronism. It means the writers are consciously putting references to the modern world into their version of the 1800s. It means they were using this other character as a basis for their character, but it's all actually just based on their original character! It's exactly what Inglourious Basterds was telling us about. It's so cool.
This modern feel doesn't end at House references and computer graphics. The way the story is told is a modern way of telling a story. There's bullet time. There's a man hanged to death from a giant bridge by a metal chain - very hard core. There's the presence of magic. Everything about this movie is a 2009 thing, right down the raven that appears whenever a new death is about to be discovered.
This movie made my day.
...
Also, Rachel McAdams is pretty.
It was sooo much better than it looked.
This is not to say that it was a great movie. It was fun, things exploded in a cool fashion, the script was never awful, the actors were great, etc. Action movie done right. But action movies done right are still rarely "A" grade material, more like "B+". Sherlock Holmes followed these lines. I walked out of the theater saying it was the "best mediocre movie" I'd seen in a long time, and I stand by that. Maybe I even upgrade that a twinge.
Going in, the biggest concern of many people I knew was that it looked like a desecration of the Holmes of Doyle's stories. Obviously there were changes - it's hard to make a main-stream blockbuster action movie starring a little old man who's basically just really smart. The Holmes of the screen was a snappy badass, running around and through explosions, beating people up, and thoroughly bitter inside. He always had the comeback, he always knew where to land the punch. There was a boxing scene in particular that seemed bad to me. What Sherlock Holmes ever beat the hell out of people in a back-alley boxing arena?
Apparently the Holmes of Doyle's work, according to my sister. I consider her an expert of source material faithfulness in movies since she's such a stickler on the stuff that she likes, and she knows Holmes waaay better than I do. Holmes is a boxer in the stories. There aren't too many explosions in the stories, but that's just a concession it was necessary to make to the silver screen. Overall, I'm told, Robert Downy Jr.'s Holmes is very faithful in spirit to the books; much to my surprise, my sister approved.
There's a moment about a minute into the film where we're really introduced to our protagonist. He's infiltrating some sort of basementy area and there's a guard up ahead. We hear Holmes narrate as we see each action in slow motion:
Head tilted slightly to the left, so he's partially deaf in that ear. That's the first point of attack. Next paralyze the vocal chords to prevent screaming. Probably a heavy drinker, so punch to the weak liver. Final blow to the kneecap. Estimated recovery time: two weeks.Then we back up to Holmes behind a corner, and he executes everything we've just seen in slow motion but in full speed. It all goes according to plan.
This is exactly how I expect an action hero Holmes to act: he uses his intellect to efficiently and effectively eliminate his enemies. At the time I felt uncomfortable with the idea that this character I knew as an old fart sitting around a fireplace snorting cocaine and noticing miniscule details would be out and about beating the crap out of people. I'm still not totally comfortable with it, but I'm much more accepting. And either way, the scene was awesome.
And that beggar in front of the carriage thing? And the boxing match? And the smoke from the fireplace? All equally awesome.
The music helped with this transition, I think. It was all fiddley-Irishy music at a quick pace as Holmes didn't punch, but slapped his opponents blows out of the way. Light hearted, jumpy, prancing about like a rabbit, this made Holmes feel like a light guy who just knew how to fight rather than a totally ripped action hero. And not just appropriate but a beautiful score, too, and timed wonderfully.
So I've accepted that this Holmes is faithful enough to the source material to deserve my recognition. My big pre-movie concern satisfied. But oh is there more to say. There's so much more.
Let's start with the plot: the big bad evil guy (not Moriarty) aka BBEG has been murdering people in an occult fashion around London. Holmes captures him at the beginning, and BBEG is hanged. Soon after that, he uses his "magic spells" (it's a matter of argument whether he's really using magic or not) to rise from the grave. He resumes killing people magically. Holmes starts tracking the guy down, meets up with the girl, and eventually uses his cunning to track him to the big finale where Holmes saves the day. Pretty standard.
The most interesting thing is this plot's inclusion of magic, making it reminiscent of the Cthulhu / Holmes crossover adventure game I played with Danl and Paul a while back. I never made it all the way through that game, but it's similarity in plot is worth noting. People seem to love combining the logic of Sherlock Holmes with the impossibilities of fantasy. It's a paradox that's very pleasing to the mind. Neil Gaiman wrote a story in such a universe very effectively. This combination of two opposites is a reliable way to make an intriguing premise. Take note, all aspiring story-tellers.
Really, though, the magic is all a lie. This ending is taken straight from The Illusionist, which is again interesting. Has every twist been used before, or is this one just a fun one? The idea that you would start the Sherlock Holmes movie franchise by introducing magic is silly since you're already going to piss a lot of people off with whatever you make. I guess it makes sense. Sherlock Holmes is all about reason triumphing over everything else.
This presence of "magic" had a very unique effect on the feel of the setting. It felt distinctly steampunk. Steampunk is becoming more and more mainstream, and has been for years. I'm glad we're seeing more of it since it's one of my favorite genres. There were similarities to memorable books everywhere I looked. The bureaucratic society of wizards in London of Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, the weird magic stuff in the 1800s of The Anubis Gate, the CG look of the backgrounds that resembled so well The Golden Compass, the token anachronism in the form of the stun baton... I loved it all. What was odd was how anachronistic the whole movie felt as a result. This shouldn't come as a surprise - any modern action movie set in the 1800s is going to feel anachronistic, but it opened my eyes in a way that they hadn't before.
Many things felt very 2010 about the film - the seamless use of bullet time during fight scenes, the distortion of the whole audio track when an explosion or a gunshot went off right next to the camera. It felt like you were actually there in a "new" way (I use quotes because I know this effect has been used before, but not as commonly as I'd like). The whole movie is something that's all the rage right now in cinema: take a beloved book, action it up, cast some well known names or attractive young actors, and rake in the dough. They even added this whole magic thing to make it seem more like Harry Potter! This is, like, the defining example of a movie from this time period. It's so perfect. Precisely mixing modern cinema with old familiar characters and stories. It's beautiful.
I was reminded of Inglourious Basterds. As with all of Tarantino's work, Basterds was as much about movies as it was about anything else. One of the central themes was that "this is a movie - it doesn't have to act like the time and place it is set, nor does it have to pretend to. This is a modern movie, and it is being made in 2009, and it is about 2009, and it is however the director wants it to be." My favorite part of this was in the middle of a big gala full of powerful German leaders, titles in what looked like a hand-drawn font would pop up on the screen with arrows and point out the important people and who they were. It's so out of place. It's so wrong. And it's exactly how it's supposed to be. All at the same time.
That is how I felt watching Sherlock Holmes. I felt like the writers / director / whoever were all keenly aware of what they were presenting. The story was not set in the 1800s, it was set in what people in 2009 expect the 1800s to be like, with little patches of falsehood here and there to service the plot.
AND THAT'S NOT ALL! This is all just build up for what is no doubt one of my favorite scenes in modern cinema. Holmes has just finished a ritual he's gotten from BBEG's spellbook, and now the girl and Watson are on the scene. Yes, it's now time for the first of Holmes's big reveals, in which he tells us everything he's discovered so far (but not what he's going to do next!). He talks about how the murders have all been around the city in the shape of a pentagram, how each has represented a different animal that's part of the mythic Sphynx, how the next target is going to be parliament, and how we all must go now to save the day! And what does he do? The whole time he's giving the speech? WHAT DOES HE DO?!
...
He uses a cane.
Bitches.
The Sherlock Holmes of 2009 is channeling House, a character DIRECTLY BASED ON SHERLOCK HOLMES. Holy freaking shit is that meta. That's so meta! That's soooo meta. It's so modern. It's a complete anachronism. It means the writers are consciously putting references to the modern world into their version of the 1800s. It means they were using this other character as a basis for their character, but it's all actually just based on their original character! It's exactly what Inglourious Basterds was telling us about. It's so cool.
This modern feel doesn't end at House references and computer graphics. The way the story is told is a modern way of telling a story. There's bullet time. There's a man hanged to death from a giant bridge by a metal chain - very hard core. There's the presence of magic. Everything about this movie is a 2009 thing, right down the raven that appears whenever a new death is about to be discovered.
This movie made my day.
...
Also, Rachel McAdams is pretty.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Avatar
No surprises here, kids. If you've heard or seen anything about Avatar you should already know what I'm going to say here.
It looked freaking awesome. Giant blue dudes falling through the jungle, raptors with wings flying through floating mountains, a mech warrior suit Matrix 3 style in a knife fight with a giant panther, amazing lights at night, crazy good motion capture effects, explosions, giant planets bright in the night sky, etc. Hells yeah. It was coolicoolicoolio. At 2 and a half hours it gets a little long, but it's still probably worth seeing just for the effects.
Good thing, too, since the rest of it is trash. The plot is bad and predictable. The science is BS - case and point, the valuable mineral being mined on the wonderful new planet is called unobtainium. I shit you not. The blue aliens are tribal, stereotypical, and otherwise offensive whether you interpret them as Africans or Native Americans. It doesn't matter; they've got headdresses and a deep resounding connection with their nature god either way. Then there's the half-hearted attempt at a typical mother nature theme. Basically it goes: people who like nature - good! People who blow up giant trees - baaaad. My sister said she left the theater "offended as a person and a scientist". She tends to get worked up about these sorts of things, though. I mean, after all, the point is that it looked really cool.
The story reminded me of Princess Mononoke much more than it should have. Mononoke actually has substance to its plot, but I felt like the message (if there was one) was predominantly the same. Also, there were moments when it felt a little like Dollhouse. I kept waiting for the avatar body to develop a consciousness of its own and start calling itself Echo. Of course that'd be way too interesting for an action flick like this, so instead we just watched Jake "learn the ways of The People". There were definitely traces of Star Wars Episode 2 where you got the feeling that the director should be in charge of every visual effect you lay eyes on for the next decade but that he needed to be tied up out back while someone else wrote a half-way decent script.
That's a lot of other source materials that Avatar felt like. Maybe I'm becoming more well versed in movies, but I find it much more likely that Hollywood is just recycling the same crap it always has and that I'm just starting to realize that it's visuals too, not just plots, actors, and scripts.
EDIT: Oh man, 2 things I forgot. First, the planet is named Pandora, prompting me to wonder where all the skaags were (and more importantly Danl). Second, that tree network giant computer ecosystem thingy was pretty sweet until I remembered it was just that Myst 3 world, again prompting me to wonder where Danl was.
It looked freaking awesome. Giant blue dudes falling through the jungle, raptors with wings flying through floating mountains, a mech warrior suit Matrix 3 style in a knife fight with a giant panther, amazing lights at night, crazy good motion capture effects, explosions, giant planets bright in the night sky, etc. Hells yeah. It was coolicoolicoolio. At 2 and a half hours it gets a little long, but it's still probably worth seeing just for the effects.
Good thing, too, since the rest of it is trash. The plot is bad and predictable. The science is BS - case and point, the valuable mineral being mined on the wonderful new planet is called unobtainium. I shit you not. The blue aliens are tribal, stereotypical, and otherwise offensive whether you interpret them as Africans or Native Americans. It doesn't matter; they've got headdresses and a deep resounding connection with their nature god either way. Then there's the half-hearted attempt at a typical mother nature theme. Basically it goes: people who like nature - good! People who blow up giant trees - baaaad. My sister said she left the theater "offended as a person and a scientist". She tends to get worked up about these sorts of things, though. I mean, after all, the point is that it looked really cool.
The story reminded me of Princess Mononoke much more than it should have. Mononoke actually has substance to its plot, but I felt like the message (if there was one) was predominantly the same. Also, there were moments when it felt a little like Dollhouse. I kept waiting for the avatar body to develop a consciousness of its own and start calling itself Echo. Of course that'd be way too interesting for an action flick like this, so instead we just watched Jake "learn the ways of The People". There were definitely traces of Star Wars Episode 2 where you got the feeling that the director should be in charge of every visual effect you lay eyes on for the next decade but that he needed to be tied up out back while someone else wrote a half-way decent script.
That's a lot of other source materials that Avatar felt like. Maybe I'm becoming more well versed in movies, but I find it much more likely that Hollywood is just recycling the same crap it always has and that I'm just starting to realize that it's visuals too, not just plots, actors, and scripts.
EDIT: Oh man, 2 things I forgot. First, the planet is named Pandora, prompting me to wonder where all the skaags were (and more importantly Danl). Second, that tree network giant computer ecosystem thingy was pretty sweet until I remembered it was just that Myst 3 world, again prompting me to wonder where Danl was.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Duplicity
I honestly don't remember what this movie was about. I think it was pretty unnecessarily confusing, though.
Also, I've never liked that SAM'S VERDICT thing that I do. Probably time to stop doing that and just making people judge what I say by what I say instead of a one sentence summary. If I want people to read a one sentence summary, I'll write them a one sentence summary. What idiot made it a requirement, anyway?
PS: Dollhouse season 2 is super duper good. Like, super duper. Get on that.
Also, I've never liked that SAM'S VERDICT thing that I do. Probably time to stop doing that and just making people judge what I say by what I say instead of a one sentence summary. If I want people to read a one sentence summary, I'll write them a one sentence summary. What idiot made it a requirement, anyway?
PS: Dollhouse season 2 is super duper good. Like, super duper. Get on that.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The Blind Side
This is the one with Sandra Bullock doing a southern accent. Quite admirably, I might add. If you’d seen her in lots of other stuff it might be hard to adjust to, but it sounded natural enough to me.
The previews make this look like another bad sports story movie. Southern white woman takes in poor black kid, buys him stuff, fixes him up, makes him a football star, and then the cast of characters together overcomes whatever twist begins the third act. I’ll be honest, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. The Blind Side follows this plot to a tee but turns out to be enjoyable all the same.
Hold that thought: it bothers me how much I seem to open these reviews with a paragraph like that one. I describe some stereotypical movie formula, say that whatever I’m reviewing fits said formula like a glove, and then follow that up with a “but it wasn’t that bad”. Apparently formulas work. That must be why Hollywood keeps using them.
Back to the review. Actually, do I even need to go back to the review? If you’ve ever seen a movie about a disadvantaged person coming from behind and overcoming obstacles to become some sort of hero, you know exactly how this movie will go. And holy balls is there a lot of movies about that. There’s a lot of books, comics, verbal tales, etc about that. That’s, like, one of the most basic story arch-types. It’s a good’un. This one doesn’t stick out much, but it does have uniquenesses(amases). Sandra Bullock’s character is great. It’s not a new character, but she plays a mean tough modern woman doing what she thinks is right. The story focuses a lot more on the home life of the characters rather than football, which I prefer.
Yeah.
On the flip side, there’s some probably racially insensitive black thugs, a really dumb excuse for the cops to get involved with our heroes, and some really odd “look at us, we’re in a southern movie; isn’t that wacky?” moments. Like, they hire this old woman to tutor the poor black kid when he needs better grades to get into college, and there’s this awkward moment where Sandra is about to hire her. The tutor lady goes “now before you hire me, there’s something you should know… I’m… I’m a democrat”. This is set up as a total *gasp* moment, which is kind of weird. I felt kind of offended for southerners.
Anyway, it was good.
SAM’S VERDICT: It’s the good version of exactly what you‘d expect from the back of the DVD box.
The previews make this look like another bad sports story movie. Southern white woman takes in poor black kid, buys him stuff, fixes him up, makes him a football star, and then the cast of characters together overcomes whatever twist begins the third act. I’ll be honest, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. The Blind Side follows this plot to a tee but turns out to be enjoyable all the same.
Hold that thought: it bothers me how much I seem to open these reviews with a paragraph like that one. I describe some stereotypical movie formula, say that whatever I’m reviewing fits said formula like a glove, and then follow that up with a “but it wasn’t that bad”. Apparently formulas work. That must be why Hollywood keeps using them.
Back to the review. Actually, do I even need to go back to the review? If you’ve ever seen a movie about a disadvantaged person coming from behind and overcoming obstacles to become some sort of hero, you know exactly how this movie will go. And holy balls is there a lot of movies about that. There’s a lot of books, comics, verbal tales, etc about that. That’s, like, one of the most basic story arch-types. It’s a good’un. This one doesn’t stick out much, but it does have uniquenesses(amases). Sandra Bullock’s character is great. It’s not a new character, but she plays a mean tough modern woman doing what she thinks is right. The story focuses a lot more on the home life of the characters rather than football, which I prefer.
Yeah.
On the flip side, there’s some probably racially insensitive black thugs, a really dumb excuse for the cops to get involved with our heroes, and some really odd “look at us, we’re in a southern movie; isn’t that wacky?” moments. Like, they hire this old woman to tutor the poor black kid when he needs better grades to get into college, and there’s this awkward moment where Sandra is about to hire her. The tutor lady goes “now before you hire me, there’s something you should know… I’m… I’m a democrat”. This is set up as a total *gasp* moment, which is kind of weird. I felt kind of offended for southerners.
Anyway, it was good.
SAM’S VERDICT: It’s the good version of exactly what you‘d expect from the back of the DVD box.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Lars and the Real Girl
Nice. Nice.
So Lars is an anti-social guy. Kinda weird. Actually, it turns out he's SUPER weird when he orders a Real Doll and starts insisting "Bianca" is his half Danish half Brazilian girlfriend. Yeah. There's a brother who's gruff and mad about the whole thing and who looks like Sylar. There's a sister in law who's very maternal. Actually breathing love interest at the office. Creepy friend as a cubical roommate. Kind old woman psychiatrist. And so on. The plot is predictable - every side character gets a scene or three depending on their importance in which they interact with Bianca and Lars. Lars ends up falling for the office girl who has had a crush on him since before she appeared on screen, they go on a date, and eventually he finds a way to remove Bianca from the picture.
Lars and the Real Girl is marketed as a comedy, and I guess it is. It's... light-hearted, I guess. There are some funny moments. I think it's less a comedy and more just a story. A well told story, at that. Whether or not you like the premise, and I think you do, it's a well told story. The pace is oddly slow; the moments that could have made for an odd-ball million dollar budget shitty rom-com are instead played for emotion, and it shows. By the end of the film, I was cheering for everyone even though most of them were pretty one or two dimensional. The acting, the script, and everything else made me emotionally invested in the characters in a way that not many movies have in the modern day. I didn't expect everything to work out in the way I do a lot of the time, I really wanted everything to work out. Spoiler alert: it did.
Okay, reality check, the premise is stupidly unrealistic. Lars' "delusion" is weird and more a good gimmick for a movie than something that could actually happen. Let's suspend our disbelief for that, though, and take one step closer. If Lars did start dating a Real Doll named Bianca, I don't think the whole town would be so supportive. Someone would be an asshole and shoot him down. There's dozens of people working together to support his insanity in the film, and that just seems... not likely.
But maybe that's the message of the movie - people are willing to love and support each other like that. Maybe we forget how much (most) other people are willing to help when we need them. We forget how much they care, and how much we care about others.
In the end, it doesn't matter whether the plot is realistic or not, because I believed it enough as I was watching the movie. The story was told well enough that I didn't notice or care about the plot holes enough to worry about them. I was too busy thinking about Lars and the people in his life. Most movies are ridiculously fake, and we go to them for the spectacle. This is a movie that's just pretty fake, and I watched it to hear the tale and listen to what the writer had to say. I liked what I heard.
SAM'S VERDICT: Well told, optimistic, and cute. Unless you have an aversion to that last one, you'll probably like it.
Also, what is up with these girls I keep seeing in the movies? Evidently there's some pretty girl in every shy guy's life who is just not noticed by said guy but who would be perfect for him. Have I always been that oblivious or has Hollywood LIED TO ME YET AGAIN?
...probably both.
So Lars is an anti-social guy. Kinda weird. Actually, it turns out he's SUPER weird when he orders a Real Doll and starts insisting "Bianca" is his half Danish half Brazilian girlfriend. Yeah. There's a brother who's gruff and mad about the whole thing and who looks like Sylar. There's a sister in law who's very maternal. Actually breathing love interest at the office. Creepy friend as a cubical roommate. Kind old woman psychiatrist. And so on. The plot is predictable - every side character gets a scene or three depending on their importance in which they interact with Bianca and Lars. Lars ends up falling for the office girl who has had a crush on him since before she appeared on screen, they go on a date, and eventually he finds a way to remove Bianca from the picture.
Lars and the Real Girl is marketed as a comedy, and I guess it is. It's... light-hearted, I guess. There are some funny moments. I think it's less a comedy and more just a story. A well told story, at that. Whether or not you like the premise, and I think you do, it's a well told story. The pace is oddly slow; the moments that could have made for an odd-ball million dollar budget shitty rom-com are instead played for emotion, and it shows. By the end of the film, I was cheering for everyone even though most of them were pretty one or two dimensional. The acting, the script, and everything else made me emotionally invested in the characters in a way that not many movies have in the modern day. I didn't expect everything to work out in the way I do a lot of the time, I really wanted everything to work out. Spoiler alert: it did.
Okay, reality check, the premise is stupidly unrealistic. Lars' "delusion" is weird and more a good gimmick for a movie than something that could actually happen. Let's suspend our disbelief for that, though, and take one step closer. If Lars did start dating a Real Doll named Bianca, I don't think the whole town would be so supportive. Someone would be an asshole and shoot him down. There's dozens of people working together to support his insanity in the film, and that just seems... not likely.
But maybe that's the message of the movie - people are willing to love and support each other like that. Maybe we forget how much (most) other people are willing to help when we need them. We forget how much they care, and how much we care about others.
In the end, it doesn't matter whether the plot is realistic or not, because I believed it enough as I was watching the movie. The story was told well enough that I didn't notice or care about the plot holes enough to worry about them. I was too busy thinking about Lars and the people in his life. Most movies are ridiculously fake, and we go to them for the spectacle. This is a movie that's just pretty fake, and I watched it to hear the tale and listen to what the writer had to say. I liked what I heard.
SAM'S VERDICT: Well told, optimistic, and cute. Unless you have an aversion to that last one, you'll probably like it.
Also, what is up with these girls I keep seeing in the movies? Evidently there's some pretty girl in every shy guy's life who is just not noticed by said guy but who would be perfect for him. Have I always been that oblivious or has Hollywood LIED TO ME YET AGAIN?
...probably both.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Au Revoir Les Enfants (et des autres choses)
I watched this movie for my French class. Actually, we had to read the novelization of this movie for my French class. We watched most of the movie, too, but the main point was to do reading. Traditionally when I have to read a book for a class, I end up hating it. Part of this is because times change, and old books no longer had the appeal they once did. Part of this is because I hate being forced to do anything, especially on a schedule not of my own devising. Part of this is because English teachers aren't traditionally good at picking books high school guys want to read.
They didn't tell us it was a novelization when we started reading it, or maybe that bit was just lost in translation for me. Either way, I figured out what was up about a third of the way through the book and promptly torrented the original movie with subtitles. I'm more of a movie than book person.
I was impressed. Maybe it's just that a movie is so much easier for me than a book, but maybe the movie was just really good. I liked it.
The plot is a cross between a stereotypical boarding school story and stereotypical "hide the Jews from the Nazis" story. There's a boarding school and a kid at it. Kid is secretly unhappy but also the coolest kid in his class. New kid shows up, starts getting picked on by other kids. Main character kid starts seeing subtle hints that new kid may be a "Jew" (quotes because he's not actually sure what that means), and eventually they become friends after a capture the flag game gone wrong ends with them both lost on a bonding experience in the woods. Main character kid starts to get the implications of new kid being Jewish just in time for their friendship to blossom and the Nazis to show up and take new kid away. Loss of innocence, etc, etc.
Let's get the pesky review part over with quick.
SAM'S VERDICT: It was good if you like boarding school movies. I don't mind them.
The big question this movie raised for me was "why can stereotypical plots be so good or so bad depending on how they're used?" There wasn't a single twist in this movie I didn't see coming, and I predicted most of the key scenes within the first 15 minutes. Yet in the end, I still liked it. In fact, as I watch more and more movies, I get better and better at predicting everything before it happens. And if I can tell what's going to happen before it occurs, then what's the point of seeing the movie? Why not just read a blurb about it and construct it in my head, then get back to playing video games?
It's always fun to watch stories unfold, even if you know where they're going. It's the same reason (some) people enjoy watching the same movies over and over. The familiarity of a story can be comforting, and thinking about an old plot in a new way can also be worth your while. Predictable plots can also let us focus on some other part of the film - action movies all have similar plots so that we can keep our minds on the explosions, and Disney movies all have similar plots so that we can keep our minds on making sure our 3 year old doesn't choke on something. Also the music.
Beyond that, it's fun to watch a predictable movie you haven't seen before because there's always the chance that they'll defy your expectations, that this time you really will be surprised. We have to put up with the predictability of most movies so that the few that cut through all that have something to stand against. If everything was unpredictable, then unpredictability would become the new predictability. There has to be a base line for the top 5 contenders.
I think familiarity is the biggest reason. People don't like change.
They didn't tell us it was a novelization when we started reading it, or maybe that bit was just lost in translation for me. Either way, I figured out what was up about a third of the way through the book and promptly torrented the original movie with subtitles. I'm more of a movie than book person.
I was impressed. Maybe it's just that a movie is so much easier for me than a book, but maybe the movie was just really good. I liked it.
The plot is a cross between a stereotypical boarding school story and stereotypical "hide the Jews from the Nazis" story. There's a boarding school and a kid at it. Kid is secretly unhappy but also the coolest kid in his class. New kid shows up, starts getting picked on by other kids. Main character kid starts seeing subtle hints that new kid may be a "Jew" (quotes because he's not actually sure what that means), and eventually they become friends after a capture the flag game gone wrong ends with them both lost on a bonding experience in the woods. Main character kid starts to get the implications of new kid being Jewish just in time for their friendship to blossom and the Nazis to show up and take new kid away. Loss of innocence, etc, etc.
Let's get the pesky review part over with quick.
SAM'S VERDICT: It was good if you like boarding school movies. I don't mind them.
The big question this movie raised for me was "why can stereotypical plots be so good or so bad depending on how they're used?" There wasn't a single twist in this movie I didn't see coming, and I predicted most of the key scenes within the first 15 minutes. Yet in the end, I still liked it. In fact, as I watch more and more movies, I get better and better at predicting everything before it happens. And if I can tell what's going to happen before it occurs, then what's the point of seeing the movie? Why not just read a blurb about it and construct it in my head, then get back to playing video games?
It's always fun to watch stories unfold, even if you know where they're going. It's the same reason (some) people enjoy watching the same movies over and over. The familiarity of a story can be comforting, and thinking about an old plot in a new way can also be worth your while. Predictable plots can also let us focus on some other part of the film - action movies all have similar plots so that we can keep our minds on the explosions, and Disney movies all have similar plots so that we can keep our minds on making sure our 3 year old doesn't choke on something. Also the music.
Beyond that, it's fun to watch a predictable movie you haven't seen before because there's always the chance that they'll defy your expectations, that this time you really will be surprised. We have to put up with the predictability of most movies so that the few that cut through all that have something to stand against. If everything was unpredictable, then unpredictability would become the new predictability. There has to be a base line for the top 5 contenders.
I think familiarity is the biggest reason. People don't like change.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Where The Wild Things Are
When I first saw the trailer for this movie, I was blown away. What a remarkable trailer - it seemed full of the imaginative world of the wild things, full of discovery. The soundtrack was perfect, and it looked like the director may have tried to do something a bit dark with the story. Lord knows I love a good corrupted children's story from time to time. Still, I expected that what I saw in the trailer was about all I'd ever need to see of Where The Wild Things Are. It is, after all, a 7 sentence long story. No matter how awesome the guy who made the trailer was, it was unlikely they'd be able to pull 90 quality minutes out of 7 sentences.
Turns out I was dead on in my expectations. It was cool to see them try something other than your traditional uplifting kids story and play with the themes of divorce and the loneliness of childhood, but as I foretold, 7 sentences do not a 90 minute movie make. There was a lot of space and boredom to be had, so I used the time to practice not being embarrassed in public.
No matter how the movie actually was, the puppets looked amazing. It was reminiscent of the giant puppet parade I used to see as a child up in the cities. Great big things that move both like people and like puppets at the same time and inspire wonder. The CG they did with the mouths, too... very impressive. It legitimately looks like the giant live action monsters are moving their mouths as they speak, and not just in a Kermit the Frog up and down way. I mean a forming of each syllable way. Very cool.
There were some surprisingly dark scenes. The end was just kind of sad, and it's not a totally happy ending. Max doesn't solve any of his problems, he just learns that freaking out isn't the best way to deal with them. My favorite part of the movie, however, is this almost The Talented Mr. Ripley moment where the main wild thing freaks out and tears another guy's arm off. In a PG movie. Then it starts "bleeding" this white goop... it's scarey, man. Plus, after that, the guy who's now missing an arm doesn't, say, reattach his arm. Oh no. He grabs a stick that looks sort of like an arm and wears it around in his shoulder socket like a snowman. What the crap, guys.
The most infuriating part of the movie were the voices. I recognized almost everyone, but couldn't remember from where. IMDB saved me from tearing my ears out after I'd gotten home. This is a common phenomenon: recognizing a voice is easy, but pinpointing who's voice it is without their face there on the screen is much harder. Anyway, this seems to me like prime time to play another round of
Spot The Actor
I'll post a picture (and maybe a youtube link to give you the voices), and you tell me who that actor is or what else they've been in. Hoo Ha!
In order, we have Carol, Douglas, Judith, KW, The Bull, Alexander, and Ira. I think. If those names are wrong I'll be very sad, but what can you do. I know I at least thought I recognized the voices of Carol, KW, Judith and Ira, but I couldn't place any of them without IMDB help. What about you?
But yeah. Pretty mediocre movie. Like most modern pop culture films, it looks great and is only tolerable in the long run. At least they tried new stuff even if it didn't pan out too well for them.
SAM'S VERDICT: It's a kids movie, guys. And not one made by Disney or Pixar. What were you expecting?
Girlfriend thought it was cute, at least. Though Ponyo is probably a better choice if that's what you're in the mood for.
Spot The Actor Answers:
1. James Gandolfini. The Soprano's star. Also the American general from In The Loop.
2. Chris Cooper. I saw him in Breach a few years ago.
3. Catherine O'Hara. I think I know her best from the Waiting for Guffman documentaries.
4. Lauren Ambrose. Apparently she was in Cold Souls, but I don't recognize her.
5. No one actually cares who this guy was.
6. Paul Dano of Little Miss Sunshine fame. Nice 5 degrees of Kevin Bacon connection with Steve Carell.
7. Forest Whitaker. He's probably famous, but I don't know who he is.
Turns out I was dead on in my expectations. It was cool to see them try something other than your traditional uplifting kids story and play with the themes of divorce and the loneliness of childhood, but as I foretold, 7 sentences do not a 90 minute movie make. There was a lot of space and boredom to be had, so I used the time to practice not being embarrassed in public.
No matter how the movie actually was, the puppets looked amazing. It was reminiscent of the giant puppet parade I used to see as a child up in the cities. Great big things that move both like people and like puppets at the same time and inspire wonder. The CG they did with the mouths, too... very impressive. It legitimately looks like the giant live action monsters are moving their mouths as they speak, and not just in a Kermit the Frog up and down way. I mean a forming of each syllable way. Very cool.
There were some surprisingly dark scenes. The end was just kind of sad, and it's not a totally happy ending. Max doesn't solve any of his problems, he just learns that freaking out isn't the best way to deal with them. My favorite part of the movie, however, is this almost The Talented Mr. Ripley moment where the main wild thing freaks out and tears another guy's arm off. In a PG movie. Then it starts "bleeding" this white goop... it's scarey, man. Plus, after that, the guy who's now missing an arm doesn't, say, reattach his arm. Oh no. He grabs a stick that looks sort of like an arm and wears it around in his shoulder socket like a snowman. What the crap, guys.
The most infuriating part of the movie were the voices. I recognized almost everyone, but couldn't remember from where. IMDB saved me from tearing my ears out after I'd gotten home. This is a common phenomenon: recognizing a voice is easy, but pinpointing who's voice it is without their face there on the screen is much harder. Anyway, this seems to me like prime time to play another round of
Spot The Actor
I'll post a picture (and maybe a youtube link to give you the voices), and you tell me who that actor is or what else they've been in. Hoo Ha!
In order, we have Carol, Douglas, Judith, KW, The Bull, Alexander, and Ira. I think. If those names are wrong I'll be very sad, but what can you do. I know I at least thought I recognized the voices of Carol, KW, Judith and Ira, but I couldn't place any of them without IMDB help. What about you?
But yeah. Pretty mediocre movie. Like most modern pop culture films, it looks great and is only tolerable in the long run. At least they tried new stuff even if it didn't pan out too well for them.
SAM'S VERDICT: It's a kids movie, guys. And not one made by Disney or Pixar. What were you expecting?
Girlfriend thought it was cute, at least. Though Ponyo is probably a better choice if that's what you're in the mood for.
Spot The Actor Answers:
1. James Gandolfini. The Soprano's star. Also the American general from In The Loop.
2. Chris Cooper. I saw him in Breach a few years ago.
3. Catherine O'Hara. I think I know her best from the Waiting for Guffman documentaries.
4. Lauren Ambrose. Apparently she was in Cold Souls, but I don't recognize her.
5. No one actually cares who this guy was.
6. Paul Dano of Little Miss Sunshine fame. Nice 5 degrees of Kevin Bacon connection with Steve Carell.
7. Forest Whitaker. He's probably famous, but I don't know who he is.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
The Hangover and The Saturday Night Fever Effect
I'm sure you've heard of The Hangover if you paid any attention to the 2009 summer movie season. When the trailers came out in the spring, it looked like another one of those atrocious movies where a couple of guys get really drunk, forget their wild and crazy night, then have to piece together what happened over the course of the movie. I've never seen one of these movies get acceptable reviews, and the quick plot summary isn't interesting enough to get me to go see one. Thus, I assume they're all awful.
When The Hangover came out, this was the generally accepted way of thinking about it. "Doesn't that look terrible?" could've been its tag-line. But then something happened: people started seeing it and liked what they saw. Reviews popped up all over the place praising it. Friends of all kinds said it was the must see comedy of the summer. It was apparently the funniest thing ever, and therefore I felt a little guilty when I never got around to seeing it. And let's face it: this is not the kind of movie I'd pick up from a video rental place.
Fall came and I returned to college. Carleton has this awesome program called SUMO. Don't ask me what it stands for, but what it does is find two movies a weekend that are either somewhere between theater and DVD release or classically awesome and screen them multiple times over Friday and Saturday. It's a great thing to do if you're bored on a weekend night, especially if you like movies. Since that last sentence seems to specifically describe me, I tend to go to a lot of SUMO movies. This week, as you no doubt have guessed, they showed The Hangover.
I wasn't even planning on going, to be honest. Few of my friends wanted to see it, and I still wasn't intrigued enough to check it out myself. After all, what's sadder than seeing a guy bonding movie all by yourself*? Then 11:30 on Friday night rolled around, and I happened upon a friend making her way over to the Olin lecture hall to attempt to stay awake through the subject of today's review. (Generally the drunk people yelling at the screen help with that awake thing.) I followed her over, and...
What a mediocre movie. I mean, I liked it, but it was super average. The plot is nothing we haven't seen plenty of times before. The crazy antics of the night before are exactly what you'd expect from a blackout bachelor party set in the silver screen version of Vegas. The jokes made me smile but rarely laugh. What was so wonderful about this movie that it made so many people recommend it to me?
Here's my theory. I believe this is a perfect case of The Saturday Night Fever Effect at work. A term stolen from the book First Among Sequels in which the characters discuss the movie their effect is named for. The idea is that if you go in expecting Saturday Night Fever to suck, then it will be great - an eternal classic. But if you go in expecting that classic status, it turns out to suck. Expectations completely change your opinion of a work. I've seen this thing at work even on movies I've seen before. When I saw the first Harry Potter movie, I thought it was bad. A week later when I saw it again, I thought it wasn't half bad. This is because the first time my expectations were through the roof, and the second time they were in the toilet.
I think The Hangover is a victim of this effect. People must have gone in expecting crap since that's what the preview seems to promise. Then when it wasn't crap, they told everyone it was solid gold. Then everyone else went expecting solid gold and, well, it didn't deliver.
Perhaps I'm over thinking this. Maybe the people that actually went and saw it were just the kind of people that goes to a movie like The Hangover even before they've heard it's good. These people would be used to low quality films, so an average one would knock their socks off. They told their friends, and their friends went and found what was actually there: a few laughs and tolerability.
Whatever the case, The Hangover is an okay movie. The important thing to take away here is that I want to study the way expectations shape our experiences. Such a cool idea. I'm trying to think of other movies that have been colored by what I've heard about them, but I'm falling short. Catch-22 wasn't great for me probably because the book was so amazing. That's a common occurrence with adaptations, I think. I bet I wouldn't hate Spiderman 3 as much as everyone else does since I'd go in expecting nothing. Little help, anyone?
SAM'S VERDICT: Okay. Delivers exactly what it promises.
*Answer: twelve dead puppies**.
**Be glad I didn't go with my original answer***.
***You thought this was going to be the original answer, didn't you? Instead I'm just going to say "WOOOO NESTED FOOTNOTES".
When The Hangover came out, this was the generally accepted way of thinking about it. "Doesn't that look terrible?" could've been its tag-line. But then something happened: people started seeing it and liked what they saw. Reviews popped up all over the place praising it. Friends of all kinds said it was the must see comedy of the summer. It was apparently the funniest thing ever, and therefore I felt a little guilty when I never got around to seeing it. And let's face it: this is not the kind of movie I'd pick up from a video rental place.
Fall came and I returned to college. Carleton has this awesome program called SUMO. Don't ask me what it stands for, but what it does is find two movies a weekend that are either somewhere between theater and DVD release or classically awesome and screen them multiple times over Friday and Saturday. It's a great thing to do if you're bored on a weekend night, especially if you like movies. Since that last sentence seems to specifically describe me, I tend to go to a lot of SUMO movies. This week, as you no doubt have guessed, they showed The Hangover.
I wasn't even planning on going, to be honest. Few of my friends wanted to see it, and I still wasn't intrigued enough to check it out myself. After all, what's sadder than seeing a guy bonding movie all by yourself*? Then 11:30 on Friday night rolled around, and I happened upon a friend making her way over to the Olin lecture hall to attempt to stay awake through the subject of today's review. (Generally the drunk people yelling at the screen help with that awake thing.) I followed her over, and...
What a mediocre movie. I mean, I liked it, but it was super average. The plot is nothing we haven't seen plenty of times before. The crazy antics of the night before are exactly what you'd expect from a blackout bachelor party set in the silver screen version of Vegas. The jokes made me smile but rarely laugh. What was so wonderful about this movie that it made so many people recommend it to me?
Here's my theory. I believe this is a perfect case of The Saturday Night Fever Effect at work. A term stolen from the book First Among Sequels in which the characters discuss the movie their effect is named for. The idea is that if you go in expecting Saturday Night Fever to suck, then it will be great - an eternal classic. But if you go in expecting that classic status, it turns out to suck. Expectations completely change your opinion of a work. I've seen this thing at work even on movies I've seen before. When I saw the first Harry Potter movie, I thought it was bad. A week later when I saw it again, I thought it wasn't half bad. This is because the first time my expectations were through the roof, and the second time they were in the toilet.
I think The Hangover is a victim of this effect. People must have gone in expecting crap since that's what the preview seems to promise. Then when it wasn't crap, they told everyone it was solid gold. Then everyone else went expecting solid gold and, well, it didn't deliver.
Perhaps I'm over thinking this. Maybe the people that actually went and saw it were just the kind of people that goes to a movie like The Hangover even before they've heard it's good. These people would be used to low quality films, so an average one would knock their socks off. They told their friends, and their friends went and found what was actually there: a few laughs and tolerability.
Whatever the case, The Hangover is an okay movie. The important thing to take away here is that I want to study the way expectations shape our experiences. Such a cool idea. I'm trying to think of other movies that have been colored by what I've heard about them, but I'm falling short. Catch-22 wasn't great for me probably because the book was so amazing. That's a common occurrence with adaptations, I think. I bet I wouldn't hate Spiderman 3 as much as everyone else does since I'd go in expecting nothing. Little help, anyone?
SAM'S VERDICT: Okay. Delivers exactly what it promises.
*Answer: twelve dead puppies**.
**Be glad I didn't go with my original answer***.
***You thought this was going to be the original answer, didn't you? Instead I'm just going to say "WOOOO NESTED FOOTNOTES".
Thursday, September 10, 2009
9: Why College Is So Important
So there's this guy, we'll call him Ane Shacker. He grows up as the quiet kid in class who doesn't speak much even when you're trying to have a conversation with him. In high school he doodles through history instead of taking notes, and comes up with some pretty cool sketches. When he goes off to art school, he's already got this idea floating around in his head: it's for this group of little guys made out fabrics and nick-nacks, and he sketches them a lot. Pretty much every project he does features these little guys in some way, and in the ones where he can't he tries to find ways to fit references in anyway. In portraits they show up as logos on shirts; in pictures of flowers they're silhouetted in the background. He doesn't mind that they look corny, he's more into computer arts anyway. Eventually he starts developing a story for them, too.
Somewhere along the line, Ane gets lucky. He's showing off some of his digital sketches to someone important, and they think it's great stuff. He gets some money and some buddies willing to work for tiny amounts of money, and they put together pieces. This is looking even better now, and a big studio is even thinking about picking them up. Things start going fast; they get more money, more people, and pretty soon they've got a whole movie made about these guys! Damn they look cool, too. Tim Burton's even signed on to hook his name up with the publicity. Ane's dream has come true! He's gotten his little doll-guys onto the big screen! Now everyone can see his sketches in full 3D! But wait, shit, were they supposed to write a story to go along with it somewhere in there? Ane's always pictured them as fighting soul stealing robots, so some of those get thrown in. The robots look cool, too, because Ane did a series of roboty looking things back in school. Yeah! Movie done!
Okay, so that's probably a bit off from the facts. Maybe. Check out this imdb page, though. Yes, that's a link to 9, a short film made by the same guy who made the movie this review is about. A short film made in 2005. Wikipedia says it took 4 and a half years to make, so this thing's been in the works since 2000! This guy's been working on this project his whole life! It's his baby. It's just too bad he didn't hang out more around the English department so that he'd make some friends that can write.
9 looks awesome, you can't argue with that. I'm always looking for animated movies that target themselves at people above the age of 4. It's just that I want them to make sense, too, and this movie doesn't.
The plot is... well, take all the post-apocalyptic stories and all the AI gets too advanced and kills all the humans stories, put them together, shake them up, and draw out like 6 at random. Chop those up, use a couple pieces from each, and voila: you've got 9. Evil machine creatures? Check. A band of people seemingly alone in the world? Check. Each of them is a boring stereotype? Check. Beautiful sky above the clouds but dry crappy world beneath it? Clues hidden by someone who came before this group about what they should do to survive? Sacrifice of the selfish guy who turns noble at the last minute? Cool explosions? All checks. Seriously, it's a boring plot, and it's full of holes. There's something about souls being sucked out of our numbered heroes, and something about saving them from the machines. There's a deux ex machina ending. There's even a fucking HAL9000 style red circle for the evil bad machine's "face". Everything is a cliche. My dad speculated that some of the scenes were actually homages to other movies, but we both thought hard and couldn't come up with anything. Conclusion: the scenes are all so cliched that it just feels like they're homages because they're so fucking overused.
But enough about the bad. I'm only so pissed because I was hoping the plot would be good so that animation as a genre could take a step forward. And because it would have been SO EASY to give it a mediocre plot instead of a bad, nonsensical one. Why would you want to see 9? Here's some reasons:
Yeah baby. That last one especially; it may not look like much, but that snake slash machine thing is awesomely creepy. You've gotta see it to appreciate just how disturbing it is, but basically it uses one of the puppets that has died as bait for the rest of them, hypnotizes them with the dead puppet's eyes, then picks up the limp bodies, sews them with blood red thread into a subdued form, then puts them inside itself to carry back to the machine lair. It's terrifying.
The character design is also great. It's an intriguing puzzle: how does one differentiate nine of these little rag doll guys? Each opens up along the chest, and each closes in a different way (buttons, zipper, shoe laces, etc). Each has different looking eyes. Each is made from a different fabric. More impressive is how each of these design choices helps bring across the doll's personality. The hunter has a bone mask. The girl looks softer and lighter than the rest. The angry guy has different eyes, more capable of looking angry and suspicious. The librarians are small, thin, and don't speak. Every one of them looks unique and cool.
Man, I could sit here all day and talk about how cool looking this movie is. I could also sit here for the same amount of time and bitch about the stupid plot. If you just want a sweet looking 80 minutes, what are you waiting for. Otherwise, you can pass this one up.
Hey, it beats an art museum.
SAM'S VERDICT: Easy on the eyes, just bring some earplugs.
Somewhere along the line, Ane gets lucky. He's showing off some of his digital sketches to someone important, and they think it's great stuff. He gets some money and some buddies willing to work for tiny amounts of money, and they put together pieces. This is looking even better now, and a big studio is even thinking about picking them up. Things start going fast; they get more money, more people, and pretty soon they've got a whole movie made about these guys! Damn they look cool, too. Tim Burton's even signed on to hook his name up with the publicity. Ane's dream has come true! He's gotten his little doll-guys onto the big screen! Now everyone can see his sketches in full 3D! But wait, shit, were they supposed to write a story to go along with it somewhere in there? Ane's always pictured them as fighting soul stealing robots, so some of those get thrown in. The robots look cool, too, because Ane did a series of roboty looking things back in school. Yeah! Movie done!
Okay, so that's probably a bit off from the facts. Maybe. Check out this imdb page, though. Yes, that's a link to 9, a short film made by the same guy who made the movie this review is about. A short film made in 2005. Wikipedia says it took 4 and a half years to make, so this thing's been in the works since 2000! This guy's been working on this project his whole life! It's his baby. It's just too bad he didn't hang out more around the English department so that he'd make some friends that can write.
9 looks awesome, you can't argue with that. I'm always looking for animated movies that target themselves at people above the age of 4. It's just that I want them to make sense, too, and this movie doesn't.
The plot is... well, take all the post-apocalyptic stories and all the AI gets too advanced and kills all the humans stories, put them together, shake them up, and draw out like 6 at random. Chop those up, use a couple pieces from each, and voila: you've got 9. Evil machine creatures? Check. A band of people seemingly alone in the world? Check. Each of them is a boring stereotype? Check. Beautiful sky above the clouds but dry crappy world beneath it? Clues hidden by someone who came before this group about what they should do to survive? Sacrifice of the selfish guy who turns noble at the last minute? Cool explosions? All checks. Seriously, it's a boring plot, and it's full of holes. There's something about souls being sucked out of our numbered heroes, and something about saving them from the machines. There's a deux ex machina ending. There's even a fucking HAL9000 style red circle for the evil bad machine's "face". Everything is a cliche. My dad speculated that some of the scenes were actually homages to other movies, but we both thought hard and couldn't come up with anything. Conclusion: the scenes are all so cliched that it just feels like they're homages because they're so fucking overused.
But enough about the bad. I'm only so pissed because I was hoping the plot would be good so that animation as a genre could take a step forward. And because it would have been SO EASY to give it a mediocre plot instead of a bad, nonsensical one. Why would you want to see 9? Here's some reasons:
Yeah baby. That last one especially; it may not look like much, but that snake slash machine thing is awesomely creepy. You've gotta see it to appreciate just how disturbing it is, but basically it uses one of the puppets that has died as bait for the rest of them, hypnotizes them with the dead puppet's eyes, then picks up the limp bodies, sews them with blood red thread into a subdued form, then puts them inside itself to carry back to the machine lair. It's terrifying.
The character design is also great. It's an intriguing puzzle: how does one differentiate nine of these little rag doll guys? Each opens up along the chest, and each closes in a different way (buttons, zipper, shoe laces, etc). Each has different looking eyes. Each is made from a different fabric. More impressive is how each of these design choices helps bring across the doll's personality. The hunter has a bone mask. The girl looks softer and lighter than the rest. The angry guy has different eyes, more capable of looking angry and suspicious. The librarians are small, thin, and don't speak. Every one of them looks unique and cool.
Man, I could sit here all day and talk about how cool looking this movie is. I could also sit here for the same amount of time and bitch about the stupid plot. If you just want a sweet looking 80 minutes, what are you waiting for. Otherwise, you can pass this one up.
Hey, it beats an art museum.
SAM'S VERDICT: Easy on the eyes, just bring some earplugs.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
5 Movies You Haven't Seen But Should
Okay, so you may have seen some of these, especially if you're my dad and watch all the same stuff I do. But the rest of you probably haven't even heard of most of these, and they're all great. If you're looking for something new to see, check this list over and see if anything catches your fancy.
The Hudsucker Proxy
I'm a sucker for everything Coen Brothers. They've got a pretty standard forumula that about half their movies follow. It involves various groups getting involved with some sort of illegal activity, then due to either people being stupid or just bad luck everything goes to hell. People die, the heist / murder / what-have-you goes fowl, etc. I like that formula. They've done it adapted from a book with No Country For Old Men, they've done it as a comedy in The Big Lebowski, they've done it straight in Blood Simple, and they've gotten it nominated for best picture with Fargo. This movie, The Hudsucker Proxy, is one of their movies that does not follow this formula.
So you've got a hyper-stylized version of the "newsies" era. What is that, the 20s maybe? Whatever. It's New York City, people are all walking around in gray suits with briefcases not turning their heads. The sky is white rather than blue. All the buildings all super tall. Tim Robins is a young guy fresh out of school looking for a job, and he finds one in the hectic mail room of Hudsucker Industries.
Meanwhile, Mr. Hudsucker jumps out the top floor of a skyscraper. That sucks. The board of directors, being evil and such, tries to decide how to deal with the fact that they will no longer have control of the company. They devise a plan to put an idiot in charge, drive the company into the ground, buy up all the cheap stock, then get back in charge and make millions.
And just after this, who should walk into the office of the Head Evil Guy with a BLUE LETTER
but Tim Robins. He gets the job, and it goes from there. And yes, before you ask, there is a fast-talking, hard-working, woman-in-a-man's-world reporter with too much sass and not enough patience.
The brilliant red pops so well against the otherwise gray pallet of this movie. If I ever get disheartened as an artist, I'm just going to watch this movie again. Ideas can come from anyone, guys. Everyone has a beautiful idea inside of them waiting to blossom, and everyone has a different take on everyone else's ideas. Remember that.
Metropolis
Not the modern animated one. I haven't seen that one, but I hear it's good. No, I'm talking about the old school black and white masterpiece that's never been fully recovered and has substantial sequences missing because they've been lost to time. Metropolis is one of those old movies you see the poster of in classrooms inhabited by old people or cinema profs with movie posters on the walls. I know what I think when I consider watching old movies: no way. Times have changed, stuff that was funny even just 15 years ago is stupid now. Action has gotten better, drama has gotten more dramatic, and everything has gotten more colorful. Seriously, though. This movie is a masterpiece. It's arguably the first sci-fi movie ever made, and certainly a very early story in that genre in any medium. On top of that, the plot is good. It's just a good movie. I only watched it because I was forced to for a high school film class, but it was great. I stopped looking for techniques like I was supposed to super early on and just watched it because I wanted to know what happened next.
I'd give you a quick plot synopsis, but I honestly don't remember what happens. Something about a girl and some serious class divisions. Heaven and Hell imagery frickin' everywhere, man. I think there's robots involved.
The Weatherman
I know what you're thinking: first he wants me to watch a "classic" piece of cinema for entertainment rather than to be able to say that I've seen a "classic" piece of cinema, and now he wants me to endure Nicholas Cage. Yes, that is what I'm telling you, but keep reading. I swear. He's actually tolerable in this one.
Tolerable... that's an apt word to describe The Weatherman with. This is the bleakest of comedies I have ever seen. It's black as a black bear wrestling Malcolm X at midnight on a moonless night, all covered in black paint. If you take me up on this suggestion, be prepared to be depressed.
Nicholas Cage is this guy. He's got a dad who's a famous writer who he's always stood in the shadow of. His ex-wife has custody of the kids, and she's got a new boyfriend. Cage only gets to see the kids from time to time, and both of them have some pretty serious problems. His job is as the weatherman for a medium level network. Basically, his life is going down the toilet and he doesn't know what to do about it. The movie is about it circling the drain, and the slight glimmer of hope that comes to him in the form of the chance to interview to be the weatherman for a really big network, maybe make 6 figures...
It's as bleak as it sounds, but it's also heartwarming in some sense. It has a few of my favorite bits of all time in it; the discussion of people throwing stuff at Cage, the tarter sauce bit, and the brilliant ending thing with Cage narrating and walking through the streets as people dissipate around him... It's all so depressingly beautiful.
Plus it has Michael Cain in it. Everything with him in it is at least watchable. Oh! And the kid from About A Boy. Yeah.
Man On Wire
You see that movie poster? That is a guy slacklining between the towers of world trade center. Need I say more?
...
I don't think I should have to, but I know you won't be motivated to actually go watch the movie unless I do. Also I want to. So there.
Man On Wire is a documentary about this French dude in the 70s who slacklined between the twin towers. No joke, this actually happened. It's an awesome idea to begin with, but the telling of the tale just gets better. Watching it felt like watching Ocean's 11. There's a good script, there's a love interest, there's all this great history, and then there's the way they tell the story.
It comes in two parts that jump back and forth throughout the movie. The first is the story of actually getting into the twin towers with all the necessary equipment, which feels like a crime movie. This was by no means legal, remember, so they had to sneak past guards and such. Some guys dress up as business men, some as construction workers, there's an inside man, security guards... it's exhilarating. The other story thread is all the history behind Philippe (the guy you see in the poster there). This wasn't the first giant structure he'd slacklined on / around / between...
It's a beautiful movie. Gymnopedies is probably my favorite piece of music ever, and I've never seen it better used.
Hoodwinked
It's one of those movies where they tell the same story from lots of different perspectives, except that going into it we already know the story: it's Little Red Riding Hood. It's like we were already given one perspective, and now we get 3-5 more (I don't remember how many). I love this movie because I love all point of view movies, but also because it's a great animated movie done at a tiny fraction of the cost that Pixar works at. I'm always happy to see someone come close to matching a giant in any field, even if the giant is lovable like in this case. But yeah, it's funny, it's clever, it's unique, and it has Joe / Brock / Patrick Warburton in it. I love his voice acting.
Trust me on this one, though. You don't need an excuse like babysitting your cousin to go watch this one. You may have to pretend you're 14 again to not feel awkward while watching it, but if you can get around that feeling that you're too old, this is a kick. High squirrels, British frogs, snowboarding grandmas, everything you could want from an early teen movie.
There you have it, people. 5 movie suggestions that you probably haven't heard from me before. I recommend them all, even though I doubt any of you will take that too far to heart. Even if you don't like one of these, go watch a movie sometime soon! I know any readers here do a lot anyway, but seriously. Pick up something new next time you've got the opportunity. Who knows, you may be pleasantly surprised. Branch out! Try new things! ENJOY THE CINEMA!
Edit: I discovered after writing this that Hoodwinked actually has a sequel coming out called Hoodwinked Too! Hood Vs Evil. Title aside, it looks as good as the first. Apparently it's got a Hansel and Gretel thing going on. Go check out the first one before that gets here so that if you're interested you can grab some friends and all go to the second together so it's less awkward.
The Hudsucker Proxy
So you've got a hyper-stylized version of the "newsies" era. What is that, the 20s maybe? Whatever. It's New York City, people are all walking around in gray suits with briefcases not turning their heads. The sky is white rather than blue. All the buildings all super tall. Tim Robins is a young guy fresh out of school looking for a job, and he finds one in the hectic mail room of Hudsucker Industries.
Meanwhile, Mr. Hudsucker jumps out the top floor of a skyscraper. That sucks. The board of directors, being evil and such, tries to decide how to deal with the fact that they will no longer have control of the company. They devise a plan to put an idiot in charge, drive the company into the ground, buy up all the cheap stock, then get back in charge and make millions.
And just after this, who should walk into the office of the Head Evil Guy with a BLUE LETTER
but Tim Robins. He gets the job, and it goes from there. And yes, before you ask, there is a fast-talking, hard-working, woman-in-a-man's-world reporter with too much sass and not enough patience.
The brilliant red pops so well against the otherwise gray pallet of this movie. If I ever get disheartened as an artist, I'm just going to watch this movie again. Ideas can come from anyone, guys. Everyone has a beautiful idea inside of them waiting to blossom, and everyone has a different take on everyone else's ideas. Remember that.
Metropolis
I'd give you a quick plot synopsis, but I honestly don't remember what happens. Something about a girl and some serious class divisions. Heaven and Hell imagery frickin' everywhere, man. I think there's robots involved.
The Weatherman
Tolerable... that's an apt word to describe The Weatherman with. This is the bleakest of comedies I have ever seen. It's black as a black bear wrestling Malcolm X at midnight on a moonless night, all covered in black paint. If you take me up on this suggestion, be prepared to be depressed.
Nicholas Cage is this guy. He's got a dad who's a famous writer who he's always stood in the shadow of. His ex-wife has custody of the kids, and she's got a new boyfriend. Cage only gets to see the kids from time to time, and both of them have some pretty serious problems. His job is as the weatherman for a medium level network. Basically, his life is going down the toilet and he doesn't know what to do about it. The movie is about it circling the drain, and the slight glimmer of hope that comes to him in the form of the chance to interview to be the weatherman for a really big network, maybe make 6 figures...
It's as bleak as it sounds, but it's also heartwarming in some sense. It has a few of my favorite bits of all time in it; the discussion of people throwing stuff at Cage, the tarter sauce bit, and the brilliant ending thing with Cage narrating and walking through the streets as people dissipate around him... It's all so depressingly beautiful.
Plus it has Michael Cain in it. Everything with him in it is at least watchable. Oh! And the kid from About A Boy. Yeah.
Man On Wire
...
I don't think I should have to, but I know you won't be motivated to actually go watch the movie unless I do. Also I want to. So there.
Man On Wire is a documentary about this French dude in the 70s who slacklined between the twin towers. No joke, this actually happened. It's an awesome idea to begin with, but the telling of the tale just gets better. Watching it felt like watching Ocean's 11. There's a good script, there's a love interest, there's all this great history, and then there's the way they tell the story.
It comes in two parts that jump back and forth throughout the movie. The first is the story of actually getting into the twin towers with all the necessary equipment, which feels like a crime movie. This was by no means legal, remember, so they had to sneak past guards and such. Some guys dress up as business men, some as construction workers, there's an inside man, security guards... it's exhilarating. The other story thread is all the history behind Philippe (the guy you see in the poster there). This wasn't the first giant structure he'd slacklined on / around / between...
It's a beautiful movie. Gymnopedies is probably my favorite piece of music ever, and I've never seen it better used.
Hoodwinked
Trust me on this one, though. You don't need an excuse like babysitting your cousin to go watch this one. You may have to pretend you're 14 again to not feel awkward while watching it, but if you can get around that feeling that you're too old, this is a kick. High squirrels, British frogs, snowboarding grandmas, everything you could want from an early teen movie.
There you have it, people. 5 movie suggestions that you probably haven't heard from me before. I recommend them all, even though I doubt any of you will take that too far to heart. Even if you don't like one of these, go watch a movie sometime soon! I know any readers here do a lot anyway, but seriously. Pick up something new next time you've got the opportunity. Who knows, you may be pleasantly surprised. Branch out! Try new things! ENJOY THE CINEMA!
Edit: I discovered after writing this that Hoodwinked actually has a sequel coming out called Hoodwinked Too! Hood Vs Evil. Title aside, it looks as good as the first. Apparently it's got a Hansel and Gretel thing going on. Go check out the first one before that gets here so that if you're interested you can grab some friends and all go to the second together so it's less awkward.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Ponyo and Miyazaki's Relationship to Disney
SAM'S VERDICT: This is the most adorable thing I have ever seen.
Okay, first thing's first. I went to see this movie at this new theater in Burnsville called The Cinemagic Atlantis Theater. Yeah bitches. Cinemagic. And it's Atlantis. What place could better house your movie viewing experience? No other. You walk in the front door and there's a ticket both in front of you with an elaborate cage between you and the cashiers, and the whole place is decorated to look like marble. Then once you get your ticket, you step into the main lobby where there's all kinds of giant pillars, crazy elaborate fantasy murals of muscular men and scantily clad maidens, and giant statues of a guy with a trident and his babe. After taking that in, you realize that the awesomely epic music you're hearing is not coming from the usual tvs showing a loop of previews, but rather hidden speakers. This is some seriously epic music we're talking about, too. Big building and booming pieces that sound like the soundtrack to a place that has earned the right to the name Atlantis. Walking down the hall to the theater, the music kept playing. It was great. I bet the employees want to kill themselves, though. Listening to one 4 minute loop over and over for 8 hour shifts can't be good for morale.
Then there were the seats! These were the most comfortable movie theater seats I'd ever sat in. Big, comfy things with leather headrests. They leaned back so far it felt like mine was trying to eat me up. Plus they were brand new, so they didn't squeak at all. Movie theater heaven, let me tell you.
Anyway, what movie was I going to talk about? Oh yes: Ponyo.
I heard a lot of talk a couple weeks before Ponyo came out about how Miyazaki was selling out with this movie by associating it with Disney. To that I say "BS". Just because someone accepts corporate sponsorship for their artwork doesn't mean they're somehow getting worse. People who make good art should be rewarded for their efforts, and if they're being offered lots of money, well, who doesn't want that as a reward? If Disney had taken creative control away from Miyazaki that would be something else, but my sources tell me this was not the case.
A related topic is the huge number of famous American actors doing voices for Ponyo. This is a more debatable point; some of the same people that thought Miyazaki was selling out with Disney thought he was also selling out by agreeing to let all sorts of famous American dudes into the cast. Seriously, look at that cast: Cate Blanchett, Matt Damon, Tina Fey, Liam Neeson, Betty White... that's some serious name dropping going on. This is something one could get mad about for more legitimate reasons. After all, it's possible that an actor would get cast in this movie for their fame rather than their talent. I liked the voice acting myself, so this wasn't a problem. I always feel weird listening to famous actors do animated characters, though. It's like... I know that voice, and I know the person that voice belongs to, and it's not the person who's body that voice is coming out of. Liam Neeson and Betty White bothered me a lot in this movie for this reason, though they both did fine acting jobs.
On to more review-y things! As I said in my verdict, this is probably the most adorable thing I've ever seen. Cuter than lol-cats, cuter than baby pictures, cuter than pretty much everything. I haven't seen any of Miyazaki's "for kids" work before, just Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke. I actually laughed out loud many times just at how hilariously cute the scene in front of me was. That bit where Ponyo is running across the ocean following Sosuke is just so full of innocent glee, it makes me feel all young and pure again. The movie has the marks of a kid movie all over it, you know, because it is one. Stuff like there not actually being any villains just challenges, no unlikable characters, messages about acceptance and love, the works. It's so happy and optimistic, like if we were all like this everyone would be happy all the time.
[IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THE INNOCENCE OF THIS MOVIE ALIVE STOP READING NOW PLZKTHNX]
So yeah. Adorable kids movie. Too bad I'm an adult now, and thus the ending was ruined for me. I kept thinking about what would happen if after Ponyo and Sosuke grow up he stops loving her? What happens if he finds someone else? Does she turn into sea foam? Does she summon her mother and wreck havoc on the land? Does she just cry her eyes out live a crappy life as a human? Then I realized that I was a monster - all I can think about is the repercussions of the ending, I can't just accept it as a beautiful children's story. I'm tainted by age. Me, someone generally considered optimistic, I can't help but try and find faults in the perfection of this tale of love. What's wrong with adults?
Life is hard. I do my best to have fun, and hopefully that will do me well.
[OKAY YOU CAN READ AGAIN GUYS]
Ponyo is a wonderful kids movie, but it is a kids movie. I know a bunch of people out there not into that sort of thing, and that's fine. This isn't the movie for you. But you Miyazaki fans and older folks that enjoy a good kids piece would do well to go see this. It's blissfully innocent.
Okay, first thing's first. I went to see this movie at this new theater in Burnsville called The Cinemagic Atlantis Theater. Yeah bitches. Cinemagic. And it's Atlantis. What place could better house your movie viewing experience? No other. You walk in the front door and there's a ticket both in front of you with an elaborate cage between you and the cashiers, and the whole place is decorated to look like marble. Then once you get your ticket, you step into the main lobby where there's all kinds of giant pillars, crazy elaborate fantasy murals of muscular men and scantily clad maidens, and giant statues of a guy with a trident and his babe. After taking that in, you realize that the awesomely epic music you're hearing is not coming from the usual tvs showing a loop of previews, but rather hidden speakers. This is some seriously epic music we're talking about, too. Big building and booming pieces that sound like the soundtrack to a place that has earned the right to the name Atlantis. Walking down the hall to the theater, the music kept playing. It was great. I bet the employees want to kill themselves, though. Listening to one 4 minute loop over and over for 8 hour shifts can't be good for morale.
Then there were the seats! These were the most comfortable movie theater seats I'd ever sat in. Big, comfy things with leather headrests. They leaned back so far it felt like mine was trying to eat me up. Plus they were brand new, so they didn't squeak at all. Movie theater heaven, let me tell you.
Anyway, what movie was I going to talk about? Oh yes: Ponyo.
I heard a lot of talk a couple weeks before Ponyo came out about how Miyazaki was selling out with this movie by associating it with Disney. To that I say "BS". Just because someone accepts corporate sponsorship for their artwork doesn't mean they're somehow getting worse. People who make good art should be rewarded for their efforts, and if they're being offered lots of money, well, who doesn't want that as a reward? If Disney had taken creative control away from Miyazaki that would be something else, but my sources tell me this was not the case.
A related topic is the huge number of famous American actors doing voices for Ponyo. This is a more debatable point; some of the same people that thought Miyazaki was selling out with Disney thought he was also selling out by agreeing to let all sorts of famous American dudes into the cast. Seriously, look at that cast: Cate Blanchett, Matt Damon, Tina Fey, Liam Neeson, Betty White... that's some serious name dropping going on. This is something one could get mad about for more legitimate reasons. After all, it's possible that an actor would get cast in this movie for their fame rather than their talent. I liked the voice acting myself, so this wasn't a problem. I always feel weird listening to famous actors do animated characters, though. It's like... I know that voice, and I know the person that voice belongs to, and it's not the person who's body that voice is coming out of. Liam Neeson and Betty White bothered me a lot in this movie for this reason, though they both did fine acting jobs.
On to more review-y things! As I said in my verdict, this is probably the most adorable thing I've ever seen. Cuter than lol-cats, cuter than baby pictures, cuter than pretty much everything. I haven't seen any of Miyazaki's "for kids" work before, just Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke. I actually laughed out loud many times just at how hilariously cute the scene in front of me was. That bit where Ponyo is running across the ocean following Sosuke is just so full of innocent glee, it makes me feel all young and pure again. The movie has the marks of a kid movie all over it, you know, because it is one. Stuff like there not actually being any villains just challenges, no unlikable characters, messages about acceptance and love, the works. It's so happy and optimistic, like if we were all like this everyone would be happy all the time.
[IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THE INNOCENCE OF THIS MOVIE ALIVE STOP READING NOW PLZKTHNX]
So yeah. Adorable kids movie. Too bad I'm an adult now, and thus the ending was ruined for me. I kept thinking about what would happen if after Ponyo and Sosuke grow up he stops loving her? What happens if he finds someone else? Does she turn into sea foam? Does she summon her mother and wreck havoc on the land? Does she just cry her eyes out live a crappy life as a human? Then I realized that I was a monster - all I can think about is the repercussions of the ending, I can't just accept it as a beautiful children's story. I'm tainted by age. Me, someone generally considered optimistic, I can't help but try and find faults in the perfection of this tale of love. What's wrong with adults?
Life is hard. I do my best to have fun, and hopefully that will do me well.
[OKAY YOU CAN READ AGAIN GUYS]
Ponyo is a wonderful kids movie, but it is a kids movie. I know a bunch of people out there not into that sort of thing, and that's fine. This isn't the movie for you. But you Miyazaki fans and older folks that enjoy a good kids piece would do well to go see this. It's blissfully innocent.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Taking Woodstock
My cinema prof once told me that all movies are really about the time in which they're made. If nothing else that time period is reflected in the film, and we can help make more sense of a movie if we view it through the lens of its time. This is a good thing to remember with Taking Woodstock. It will help a lot when I talk about why they chose not to show much (if any) of the concert itself.
But first, let's see what I said about the trailer:
I'm still having trouble coming up with things to say about it. I think this is because it wasn't that compelling for me. This is a movie with jokes in it, but I'd hesitate to call it a comedy. It feels... empty a lot of the time, a space that Madelyn and Marie filled with talking about how attractive Demetri Martin is.
The story is that of a guy who offers up some fields in his town to Woodstock, and it's the 20-something version of a coming of age story. Demetri is this wannabe artist who's never broken out of his shell, largely because he spends most of his time and money keeping his parent's small town hotel afloat. His parents are both great characters. Mom is a stingy, tough, little old Russian Jew. When all the hippies show up, she starts charging people for pillows at the hotel, and there's a good bit where she hits some kids bangin' in the woods with a stick. Dad is also an old Russian Jew, but he's more depressed. He's the kind of guy that feels like he's got nothing left to do but wait around to die. Both parents are good performances on the part of the actors, and the characters are much more 3 dimensional than you would expect from a bad summer comedy. This is probably because Taking Woodstock isn't a bad summer comedy.
What else did I predict? This movie does have a heart; I was right about that. You won't find any of the scenes I listed, though. There are some townspeople who get mad and try to shut Woodstock down, but they're not a major plot point. The point of their scene was more to demonstrate just how enormous this thing had become and just how futile their efforts to shut it down were.
Oh, and I was wrong about how you spell "Demetri".
Back to the story. So Demetri is unsure about what to do with himself since he wants to take care of his parents but recognizes that this is eventually going to ruin him. With nothing else to do he does nothing. Until Woodstock shows up.
[Begin spoilers]
Ultimately, the film's conclusion did not conclude everything. Demetri finally breaks away from his parents, largely because his dad gets some life back into him after participating in the organization of the concert. Mom has some serious unresolved issues, though. She's just a messed up woman, and it's probably too late to do anything about it. She'll probably end up okay with dad taking care of her for as long as he can, but it's just sad to see her so screwed up. At least dad gets healed. Demetri wanders off into the world, presumably to California to start a career in art. Woodstock happens.
I'm not sure what the conflict was in this story. Okay, that's a lie. The conflict is in Demetri's head; it's the decision to either head out into the world or stick around with his parents. This conflict is even resolved. Maybe my problem was just that the movie didn't make me care enough. The theme of family obligation vs your own life is not one I've ever connected with well, and this movie wasn't above average at making that connection.
But there were good things! Number one on this cinema nerd's list was the allusions to the famous Woodstock documentary by liberal use of split screen action. One scene with lots of cameras all showing the action simultaneously was a recurring feature. There were even some shots that were framed and set up to look like footage from the documentary; a lot of the construction comes to mind, but there were other moments, too.
The acting was good. There were plenty of funny moments - the theater troop's performance was particularly spot on parody. Demetri is, I'll admit, a pretty awesome dude. Having a gay main character is something I admire. It's getting more and more acceptable to actually show GAYS IN THE MOVIES. Scary, I know. I was saying on the way home that I was fully expecting an academy awards style movie about being gay soon only to be one-upped by Madelyn. Milk already exists, apparently. Whatever. The point is that it's good more movies are having this as a (sub)plot, even if Taking Woodstock didn't do much with it. In fact, if the real life person Demetri was based on hadn't been gay, I bet Demetri's character would've been straight. At least it's good that they aren't leaving that out entirely; a decade(ish) ago, the main character just wouldn't have had a love interest.
Which brings us back to my first comment, that every movie reflects the time period it was created in. It's an obvious time to make a movie about Woodstock since it's an anniversary that's a multiple of 10, but it's never an obvious time to make a movie about Woodstock with no scenes that take place at the actual concert (drug trips excluded). There's got to be symbolism in the fact that Demetri's character never makes it to the concert despite trying for three days. The directer had better have a damn good reason not to include any scenes at the actual concert, because that's what would otherwise sell this movie. It's ballsy to make this movie with no concert footage. There's gotta be a reason.
Let me get into CAMS analysis mode real quick here.
...
...
Alright. If this movie is about the present, then it's not much of a stretch to say that Demetri represents an average guy from 2009. For one thing, Demetri the actor is this more or less average guy in 2009. He acts just like he does in 2009, he looks just like he does in 2009, etc. From there, let's look at his progression through the movie. He starts off without much direction; he hasn't been doing well recently. He's in trouble financially, and he's at a loss as to what to do next. He's busy dealing with obligations he's given himself in the form of his parents, and he's got a barn full of crazy 60s hippies that he occasionally checks in on.
Next he calls up the guys organizing this concert that needs a place to happen and tells them to come to him. A whole bunch of stuff happens real fast, and pretty soon he's finding out all sorts of things. He's gay. On top of that, there's other gay people out there, there's people who are even weirder sexually than he is, and his dad doesn't really care about any of that. The world is an interesting place full of all sorts of great, wacky people, and there's way more of them than there are naysayers. This whole thing is sounding like a statement about the 2009 silent majority, if you will.
On the other hand, maybe we see Woodstock as a representation of the 60s ideals: peace, acceptance, happiness, etc. After the concert actually begins, Demetri is encouraged by his dad to go. He tries every day, but each time something gets in his way. Drugs, the weather, his parents... Everything keeps him from actually getting there. We haven't gotten to that heightened level of acceptance.
In the end, he at least gets somewhere. We may not be loving everyone and the world around us, but at least Demetri ends up with some sort of direction. We don't know exactly what he's going to do out there, but we're confident it's a move in the right direction.
...
SAM'S VERDICT: Appearances can be deceiving. It's more character and less comedy than the box would have you believe! Still just okay.
But first, let's see what I said about the trailer:
This one is a Madelyn request. I wasn't impressed when I first heard about this one, and the trailer I saw before District 9 was hardly inspiring. This Hulu trailer, though... It gets me more excited. Demitri Martin is mostly great, and this trailer takes it from "probably bad comedy" to "mediocre comedy with a heart" in my mind. That's much more viewable. Still, while trying to come up with things to say about it, I can't think of much. It's a pretty bland story; I could write you the plot and all major twists from the name alone. There will be a scene with someone from town trying to shut them down, parents not liking the idea then deciding it's great, a revelation on the part of or humiliation of the bad guy just in time for him to join in on that mud slide, and undoubtedly a romantic scene on a hill with a beautiful girl and Demitri that gets rudely interrupted by the crazy / in your face / over the top best friend. Still, stereotypes can be fun, and I'm curious about any progress in Martin's career. Friends could convince me to go. Okay, I'll be honest, a girl would have to convince me to go.I was right about at least one thing: a girl got me to go.
I'm still having trouble coming up with things to say about it. I think this is because it wasn't that compelling for me. This is a movie with jokes in it, but I'd hesitate to call it a comedy. It feels... empty a lot of the time, a space that Madelyn and Marie filled with talking about how attractive Demetri Martin is.
The story is that of a guy who offers up some fields in his town to Woodstock, and it's the 20-something version of a coming of age story. Demetri is this wannabe artist who's never broken out of his shell, largely because he spends most of his time and money keeping his parent's small town hotel afloat. His parents are both great characters. Mom is a stingy, tough, little old Russian Jew. When all the hippies show up, she starts charging people for pillows at the hotel, and there's a good bit where she hits some kids bangin' in the woods with a stick. Dad is also an old Russian Jew, but he's more depressed. He's the kind of guy that feels like he's got nothing left to do but wait around to die. Both parents are good performances on the part of the actors, and the characters are much more 3 dimensional than you would expect from a bad summer comedy. This is probably because Taking Woodstock isn't a bad summer comedy.What else did I predict? This movie does have a heart; I was right about that. You won't find any of the scenes I listed, though. There are some townspeople who get mad and try to shut Woodstock down, but they're not a major plot point. The point of their scene was more to demonstrate just how enormous this thing had become and just how futile their efforts to shut it down were.
Oh, and I was wrong about how you spell "Demetri".
Back to the story. So Demetri is unsure about what to do with himself since he wants to take care of his parents but recognizes that this is eventually going to ruin him. With nothing else to do he does nothing. Until Woodstock shows up.
[Begin spoilers]
Ultimately, the film's conclusion did not conclude everything. Demetri finally breaks away from his parents, largely because his dad gets some life back into him after participating in the organization of the concert. Mom has some serious unresolved issues, though. She's just a messed up woman, and it's probably too late to do anything about it. She'll probably end up okay with dad taking care of her for as long as he can, but it's just sad to see her so screwed up. At least dad gets healed. Demetri wanders off into the world, presumably to California to start a career in art. Woodstock happens.
I'm not sure what the conflict was in this story. Okay, that's a lie. The conflict is in Demetri's head; it's the decision to either head out into the world or stick around with his parents. This conflict is even resolved. Maybe my problem was just that the movie didn't make me care enough. The theme of family obligation vs your own life is not one I've ever connected with well, and this movie wasn't above average at making that connection.
But there were good things! Number one on this cinema nerd's list was the allusions to the famous Woodstock documentary by liberal use of split screen action. One scene with lots of cameras all showing the action simultaneously was a recurring feature. There were even some shots that were framed and set up to look like footage from the documentary; a lot of the construction comes to mind, but there were other moments, too.
The acting was good. There were plenty of funny moments - the theater troop's performance was particularly spot on parody. Demetri is, I'll admit, a pretty awesome dude. Having a gay main character is something I admire. It's getting more and more acceptable to actually show GAYS IN THE MOVIES. Scary, I know. I was saying on the way home that I was fully expecting an academy awards style movie about being gay soon only to be one-upped by Madelyn. Milk already exists, apparently. Whatever. The point is that it's good more movies are having this as a (sub)plot, even if Taking Woodstock didn't do much with it. In fact, if the real life person Demetri was based on hadn't been gay, I bet Demetri's character would've been straight. At least it's good that they aren't leaving that out entirely; a decade(ish) ago, the main character just wouldn't have had a love interest.
Which brings us back to my first comment, that every movie reflects the time period it was created in. It's an obvious time to make a movie about Woodstock since it's an anniversary that's a multiple of 10, but it's never an obvious time to make a movie about Woodstock with no scenes that take place at the actual concert (drug trips excluded). There's got to be symbolism in the fact that Demetri's character never makes it to the concert despite trying for three days. The directer had better have a damn good reason not to include any scenes at the actual concert, because that's what would otherwise sell this movie. It's ballsy to make this movie with no concert footage. There's gotta be a reason.
Let me get into CAMS analysis mode real quick here.
...
...
Alright. If this movie is about the present, then it's not much of a stretch to say that Demetri represents an average guy from 2009. For one thing, Demetri the actor is this more or less average guy in 2009. He acts just like he does in 2009, he looks just like he does in 2009, etc. From there, let's look at his progression through the movie. He starts off without much direction; he hasn't been doing well recently. He's in trouble financially, and he's at a loss as to what to do next. He's busy dealing with obligations he's given himself in the form of his parents, and he's got a barn full of crazy 60s hippies that he occasionally checks in on.
Next he calls up the guys organizing this concert that needs a place to happen and tells them to come to him. A whole bunch of stuff happens real fast, and pretty soon he's finding out all sorts of things. He's gay. On top of that, there's other gay people out there, there's people who are even weirder sexually than he is, and his dad doesn't really care about any of that. The world is an interesting place full of all sorts of great, wacky people, and there's way more of them than there are naysayers. This whole thing is sounding like a statement about the 2009 silent majority, if you will.
On the other hand, maybe we see Woodstock as a representation of the 60s ideals: peace, acceptance, happiness, etc. After the concert actually begins, Demetri is encouraged by his dad to go. He tries every day, but each time something gets in his way. Drugs, the weather, his parents... Everything keeps him from actually getting there. We haven't gotten to that heightened level of acceptance.
In the end, he at least gets somewhere. We may not be loving everyone and the world around us, but at least Demetri ends up with some sort of direction. We don't know exactly what he's going to do out there, but we're confident it's a move in the right direction.
...
SAM'S VERDICT: Appearances can be deceiving. It's more character and less comedy than the box would have you believe! Still just okay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)