I quietly dreaded Kung Fu Panda for quite a while. Here was a pretty clever idea, done by DreamWorks animation. DreamWorks doesn’t have a very good track record with animated movies. They typically have big-name stars voicing their movies, a weak story with lazy/sloppy writing, and then market the movies based off the star power (I remember a couple trailers of movies that did this, actually showing the stars in the recording studio instead of showing clips from the movie). Don’t get me wrong, they do make some pretty good movies, but for every Shrek, there are a couple Antz or Shrek the Third's.
And the star power they got for this show pretty much spanned the spectrum of voice talent. Jack Black, good choice. James Hong, excellent without resorting to the A-List. But Lucy Liu as a rather friendly snake? Seth Rogan as a kung fu bug? Jackie Chan doing voice work? In English?
And then there was the Kung Fu Panda licensed game demo on Xbox360. Now, movie-licensed games are typically bad games. You can’t judge a movie based on the game, but you can get some flavor of the movie. And yes, as a game, Kung Fu Panda is pretty ho-hum. Except for the intro. The intro pulled straight from the movie. The movie that instilled more joy in me and pulled more laughter out of me than any movie I’ve seen this year.
Yes, Kung Fu Panda is freakin’ wonderful. I don’t really know where to start. The writing was probably the best part. As Pixar demonstrates over and over again, you have to start with a good script before you make a good movie. The script here has a good, if formulaic story, and the “believe in yourself” message is a bit heavy-handed (although I personally think that this message is one that bears multiple repetitions), but the dialogue is snappy and witty and the story just works. And the acting both by the animators and in the voices, was excellent. The story does have The Furious Five (five “star” fighters) as supporting cast, with the aforementioned Seth Rogan, Lucy Liu, and Jackie Chan among the voices. And other than David Cross, their voices don’t add much (Angelina Jolie was the fifth, but also not that notable). But even with the weak voice acting, it’s less noticeable because the animation acting is so subtle and “real.” And, adding to the excellent animation acting, Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, Ian McShane, and yes, James Hong, shine. They more than make up for the mediocre voice work of other people in the cast.
I’m a big fan of kung fu movies, and was a little concerned about how an animated film was going to handle it. Yes, with the recent trend in over-the-top action that the kung fu genre has become, animation is the way to go with it, but I was still a little concerned that the action would appear stiff and contrived. And another no. The action was really on par with most recent movies of its ilk. It’s obvious the action wasn’t choreographed by Woo-ping Yuen, but it’s still a graceful and artistic ballet of violence, one in which it’s easy to forget that the characters are animated (even despite them being animals).
I could go on, but it’s becoming a long post already. This is a must-purchase movie on my list. John’s recommendation: see it.
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Iron Man
I had absolutely no expectations for Iron Man before it came out. I had seen the preview once or twice; since we don’t get TV, we don’t really get the media saturation that goes on for some movies. What I did know is that any superhero movie can make a spectacular trailer. Ooooo, big effects! Oooo, the superhero using his superpowers! Ooooo, cinematography! Oooooo, look at the actors! The trailer is usually spectacular, the movie, not so much. Therefore my expectations were pretty much nonexistent. I have a lot of bad superhero movies buried deep in my Netflix queue, and if I get to them in a year or two, they’ll be lucky. I was going to see what Rotten Tomatoes had to say about it, and if it was good, then I’d see it. On Wednesday, Rotten Tomatoes had it rated at 90%. On Thursday, it slipped a bit to 86%. Friday was a busy day, so I only had a few moments to see, but it went up to 95%. So I didn’t really get excited for it until Wednesday, but when I did get excited for it, I got really excited. So we saw it on Saturday morning, when the prices are cheap, and damn!
First off, this isn’t Batman Begins. Its initial reaction is definitely positive, but not as much for the fancy action or climactic battle. What really sticks with me is that it’s actually a good character piece, particularly strong considering it’s a flashy superhero movie. I’m not saying it’s Citizen Kane, but we see Robert Downey Jr (who’s a really good actor, despite his checkered personal life) developing from a playboy, care-free, self-centered genius, to someone who recognizes value in people after an attack, capture, and subsequent escape from Afghan terrorists. There are believable human moments, and moments of real, but not forced or excessive, comedy (which is something that isn’t in enough superhero movies). The action is nice and fancy, but nothing special. I like the power armor concept, and am kind of surprised that I never got into Iron Man when I wore a younger man’s clothes, so I was able to overlook the fact that some of the action really isn’t all that exciting (please note that I did say “some”). The climactic battle at the end is actually a little awkward, but I was able to give in to the moment and accept it. But what made the movie for me, what makes me want to see it again, what makes me want to own the DVD, is the fact that I really like how Tony Stark is played, and I really like who he becomes, and I really like the relationships that develop.
John’s recommendation: see it.
First off, this isn’t Batman Begins. Its initial reaction is definitely positive, but not as much for the fancy action or climactic battle. What really sticks with me is that it’s actually a good character piece, particularly strong considering it’s a flashy superhero movie. I’m not saying it’s Citizen Kane, but we see Robert Downey Jr (who’s a really good actor, despite his checkered personal life) developing from a playboy, care-free, self-centered genius, to someone who recognizes value in people after an attack, capture, and subsequent escape from Afghan terrorists. There are believable human moments, and moments of real, but not forced or excessive, comedy (which is something that isn’t in enough superhero movies). The action is nice and fancy, but nothing special. I like the power armor concept, and am kind of surprised that I never got into Iron Man when I wore a younger man’s clothes, so I was able to overlook the fact that some of the action really isn’t all that exciting (please note that I did say “some”). The climactic battle at the end is actually a little awkward, but I was able to give in to the moment and accept it. But what made the movie for me, what makes me want to see it again, what makes me want to own the DVD, is the fact that I really like how Tony Stark is played, and I really like who he becomes, and I really like the relationships that develop.
John’s recommendation: see it.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Gone Baby Gone
We just saw Gone Baby Gone, Ben Affleck's directorial debut. He also cowrote the script, and really the best thing I can say about it is, "Go Ben!"
In it, Patrick Kenzie (palyed by Casey Affleck, yes, Ben's brother) is a private investigator charged with the task of looking into the abduction of a four year old girl. Yes, the police are working on the case as well, but the girl's aunt knows that some people won't talk to the police, which is why she hires Patrick. What follows is really heavy. There are a lot of obvious things that come to mind when the terms "child abduction" and "really heavy" are used to describe the same thing, and those things are obviously on a lot of people's minds during the film, but the movie doesn't go there, but to places I never expected.
It is a movie that explores the depth of humanity, not the depth of human depravity. Humanity is in a fallen state, and we see that clearly. Integrity has a price, and we see that clearly. This is ultimately a film about choices and the cost/benefit of them. It's a show in which morality is not particularly clear-cut, much like actual life.
I can't go into greater detail than that, other than to recommend the movie highly. This show is difficult to talk about without spoilers, and I would hate to spoil such a deep and powerful film. I will say that I can't recommend it very highly to parents. If I had children and watched this film, I wouldn't sleep well for a week. I still would have liked the movie, but it would havee left me much more uneasy than it already did. This is not a fun escapist movie; it is deep, it is powerful, it is disturbing, and it is freakin' wonderful.
In it, Patrick Kenzie (palyed by Casey Affleck, yes, Ben's brother) is a private investigator charged with the task of looking into the abduction of a four year old girl. Yes, the police are working on the case as well, but the girl's aunt knows that some people won't talk to the police, which is why she hires Patrick. What follows is really heavy. There are a lot of obvious things that come to mind when the terms "child abduction" and "really heavy" are used to describe the same thing, and those things are obviously on a lot of people's minds during the film, but the movie doesn't go there, but to places I never expected.
It is a movie that explores the depth of humanity, not the depth of human depravity. Humanity is in a fallen state, and we see that clearly. Integrity has a price, and we see that clearly. This is ultimately a film about choices and the cost/benefit of them. It's a show in which morality is not particularly clear-cut, much like actual life.
I can't go into greater detail than that, other than to recommend the movie highly. This show is difficult to talk about without spoilers, and I would hate to spoil such a deep and powerful film. I will say that I can't recommend it very highly to parents. If I had children and watched this film, I wouldn't sleep well for a week. I still would have liked the movie, but it would havee left me much more uneasy than it already did. This is not a fun escapist movie; it is deep, it is powerful, it is disturbing, and it is freakin' wonderful.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Excellence in Animation
I've been thinking about this since I saw Ratatouille, and I'm not much closer to a solid conclusion or even a solid direction. However, writing is all about structuring your thoughts, so here ya go.
Ratatouille is arguably one of the worst concepts I've heard of for an animated movie. Yay. A rat who cooks. I really wasn't all that interested in seeing it, but Pixar had wowed me on another bad-concept-good-execution movie, Cars (Yay. Talking cars. What will they think of next, a cooking rat?). The only reason I saw this movie was that it was Pixar, and I trusted their work. And I was right to trust their work, as only a group of people as skilled as the folks at Pixar could make that concept work. See the movie. It's freakin' amazing, and includes one of the funniest moments I've seen in any Pixar film.
Hayao Miyazaki has been my vote for the greatest animation director of all time (even surpassing Walt Disney) since I understood what animation directing was. I clearly remember seeing Princess Mononoke in the theatres, and leaving with an altered perspective on life. That movie is, for lack of a better term, transcendent. The man has an uncanny knack for creating some of the most amazing scenes and/or animations for whichever genre he happens to be doing.
Brad Bird, however, has made me challenge my beliefs. His first film, The Iron Giant, started as The Iron Man, a novel written in 1968 by Ted Hughes. In 1989, Pete Townshend (of The Who) released an album based off of The Iron Man, one that I remember had a frequent spot in my car's cassette player at the time. In 1993, a stage musical was created based off of this album. This musical was optioned by Warner Brothers for a film. The final story of The Iron Giant is dramatically different than that of The Iron Man, but I think the changes made it a better movie (and I think it's cool that Pete Townshend was named an Executive Producer on the movie). In any case, when I saw The Iron Giant, I was torn. Was this the best animated movie I'd ever seen? Or did Princess Mononoke still hold that spot? They're very different movies, and based off of that, I chose to not make a decision at the time.
Life moved on (as it often does) and I watched more movies, some of them animated, some of them not. I saw Spirited Away, another of Miyazaki's films. This one was more subtle and ethereal than Princess Mononoke. I didn't care for it as much as the previous film, but I did find it fascinating.
Time passed and I saw more movies. The Incredibles, written by Brad Bird and him alone (he also directed, but animation is much more collaborative than any other style of filmmaking; directing isn't as auteur as it sounds in this context) was next on the list, and also added to the debate of my favorite animated movie of all time. This was his first jaunt with Pixar, and at the time, I just wanted to see the next Pixar film. I also loved the concept, and was excited about this film since I saw the teaser trailer the year before (it's the one where Mr. Incredible is trying to put on the belt of his supersuit over his fat gut, and the belt buckle pops off and ricochets around the room). I didn't know it was Brad Bird doing it; it wasn't until I was watching the first several credits that I realized, hey, that's the guy that did Iron Giant! Hmmm, the man is talented.
Brad Bird had done two of the movies I thought could be the best animated films of all time. Hayao Miyazaki did one, but I hadn't seen all of Miyazaki's work, and I pretty much had seen all of Bird's. Still, he was rapidly gaining ground.
I saw a few other Miyazaki films since then. My Neighbor Totoro is notable not so much for the story (although it is really cute), but more for the characterization of the younger two girls. I have never in my life seen a characterization in a movie as convincing as the portrayal of the youngest girl (about four or five years old); not even when it was played by a live action four or five year old. I was floored by how "real" that show was, especially when it was very much a fantasy.
Rataouille is actually my least favorite Brad Bird film. Not because it's not a fantastic film, but rather because it doesn't make me question whether or not this is the best animated film I've ever seen. But it did hit another home run for Bird.
So I've been thinking about this for nearly a month; who is the better of the two. I have a problem picking favorites. There are so many variables that it's very difficult to point out this one thing is better on all levels (or even enough to count) than anything else. They're both amazing, but for different reasons. They both have a mastery of not only the medium, but of whichever genre they choose to animate. I still ahven't seen a lot of Miyazaki, due to the fact that most of his work hasn't been translated to English. And I think that right there is what tears it. Miyazaki is Japanese. There's a cultural difference. I don't always "get" Miyazaki, in part because I haven't lived in the Japanese culture for any length of time. I know they're much more interested in ephemeral narratives, that don't necessarily make a lot of sense to Western minds. The denoument doesn't necessarily leave an American audience satisfied, as if something "more" should have ended the story. This generally doesn't apply to Miyazaki's work, but its influence is still there.
I think, therefore, that because I am American and Brad Bird is American, I will call him my favorite. On the whole, I think Miyazaki is actually (marginally) the better of the two, but I have a deeper understanding of the cuture from which Bird creates. That's why I feel as though I'm missing something with Miyazaki sometimes.
So there ya have it. Thanks for sticking with me through my somewhat self-indulgent ramblings.
Ratatouille is arguably one of the worst concepts I've heard of for an animated movie. Yay. A rat who cooks. I really wasn't all that interested in seeing it, but Pixar had wowed me on another bad-concept-good-execution movie, Cars (Yay. Talking cars. What will they think of next, a cooking rat?). The only reason I saw this movie was that it was Pixar, and I trusted their work. And I was right to trust their work, as only a group of people as skilled as the folks at Pixar could make that concept work. See the movie. It's freakin' amazing, and includes one of the funniest moments I've seen in any Pixar film.
Hayao Miyazaki has been my vote for the greatest animation director of all time (even surpassing Walt Disney) since I understood what animation directing was. I clearly remember seeing Princess Mononoke in the theatres, and leaving with an altered perspective on life. That movie is, for lack of a better term, transcendent. The man has an uncanny knack for creating some of the most amazing scenes and/or animations for whichever genre he happens to be doing.
Brad Bird, however, has made me challenge my beliefs. His first film, The Iron Giant, started as The Iron Man, a novel written in 1968 by Ted Hughes. In 1989, Pete Townshend (of The Who) released an album based off of The Iron Man, one that I remember had a frequent spot in my car's cassette player at the time. In 1993, a stage musical was created based off of this album. This musical was optioned by Warner Brothers for a film. The final story of The Iron Giant is dramatically different than that of The Iron Man, but I think the changes made it a better movie (and I think it's cool that Pete Townshend was named an Executive Producer on the movie). In any case, when I saw The Iron Giant, I was torn. Was this the best animated movie I'd ever seen? Or did Princess Mononoke still hold that spot? They're very different movies, and based off of that, I chose to not make a decision at the time.
Life moved on (as it often does) and I watched more movies, some of them animated, some of them not. I saw Spirited Away, another of Miyazaki's films. This one was more subtle and ethereal than Princess Mononoke. I didn't care for it as much as the previous film, but I did find it fascinating.
Time passed and I saw more movies. The Incredibles, written by Brad Bird and him alone (he also directed, but animation is much more collaborative than any other style of filmmaking; directing isn't as auteur as it sounds in this context) was next on the list, and also added to the debate of my favorite animated movie of all time. This was his first jaunt with Pixar, and at the time, I just wanted to see the next Pixar film. I also loved the concept, and was excited about this film since I saw the teaser trailer the year before (it's the one where Mr. Incredible is trying to put on the belt of his supersuit over his fat gut, and the belt buckle pops off and ricochets around the room). I didn't know it was Brad Bird doing it; it wasn't until I was watching the first several credits that I realized, hey, that's the guy that did Iron Giant! Hmmm, the man is talented.
Brad Bird had done two of the movies I thought could be the best animated films of all time. Hayao Miyazaki did one, but I hadn't seen all of Miyazaki's work, and I pretty much had seen all of Bird's. Still, he was rapidly gaining ground.
I saw a few other Miyazaki films since then. My Neighbor Totoro is notable not so much for the story (although it is really cute), but more for the characterization of the younger two girls. I have never in my life seen a characterization in a movie as convincing as the portrayal of the youngest girl (about four or five years old); not even when it was played by a live action four or five year old. I was floored by how "real" that show was, especially when it was very much a fantasy.
Rataouille is actually my least favorite Brad Bird film. Not because it's not a fantastic film, but rather because it doesn't make me question whether or not this is the best animated film I've ever seen. But it did hit another home run for Bird.
So I've been thinking about this for nearly a month; who is the better of the two. I have a problem picking favorites. There are so many variables that it's very difficult to point out this one thing is better on all levels (or even enough to count) than anything else. They're both amazing, but for different reasons. They both have a mastery of not only the medium, but of whichever genre they choose to animate. I still ahven't seen a lot of Miyazaki, due to the fact that most of his work hasn't been translated to English. And I think that right there is what tears it. Miyazaki is Japanese. There's a cultural difference. I don't always "get" Miyazaki, in part because I haven't lived in the Japanese culture for any length of time. I know they're much more interested in ephemeral narratives, that don't necessarily make a lot of sense to Western minds. The denoument doesn't necessarily leave an American audience satisfied, as if something "more" should have ended the story. This generally doesn't apply to Miyazaki's work, but its influence is still there.
I think, therefore, that because I am American and Brad Bird is American, I will call him my favorite. On the whole, I think Miyazaki is actually (marginally) the better of the two, but I have a deeper understanding of the cuture from which Bird creates. That's why I feel as though I'm missing something with Miyazaki sometimes.
So there ya have it. Thanks for sticking with me through my somewhat self-indulgent ramblings.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Stardust
I heard nothing about the movie Stardust prior to it coming out. I saw the placard in the movie theatre, and thought it looked interesting, but nothing beyond that. When I mentioned it to Heidi as looking interesting, she was thinking the same thing. To take a break from the car panic and the packing frenzy, we chose to go see a fun little happy movie. Indeed, it was fun, happy and a movie. Not so much on the little.
This is one of the grander adventures I've seen in a while. I loved Lord of the Rings, but it was an epic quest, not really an adventure. It's a story of a young English man by the name of Tristran (Charlie Cox) living in the 19th century from the village of Wall. Aptly named, the town is near a very long wall with one gap in it. Not many people know of it, but the wall separates England from Stormhold, a magical, mythical fantasy realm, ruled by a monarchy based almost entirely on fratricide. The king of Stormhold (Peter O'Toole) lies dying, somewhat passive aggressively chastising his four remaining living sons that they haven't killed one another off yet. Meanwhile, the dead sons' ghosts are providing a hilarious commentary on various situations as they follow the action along, waiting for the next king to be crowned before they can pass on to their actual afterlife. The king decrees that the next king will not only be the last living male heir of the line, but the one who restores his diadem/amulet/necklace. As he dies, the ruby flies from his castle into the sky. Menawhile, Tristram is trying to win Victoria's (his female obsession) heart by spending his entire savings on a champagne picnic under the stars. She mentions that his rival will return in a week with a ring for her, they see a star falling from the sky and Tristram promises he will bring that star back for her before the week is out, in return for her hand in marriage (and yes, it's even more pathetic in the movie). The star is on the other side of the wall, and Tristram makes it across. As it happens, the star is a lovely young woman named Yvaine (Claire Danes), who was knocked out of the sky by the king's diadem. Michelle Pfeiffer plays a hideous old witch who stays young and beautiful through easting the heart of a star. When she sees the falling star, she heads out to get her and her sisters Yvaine's heart. Sounds like a complex setup, doesn't it? It is, and it makes for a fantastic experience.
The princes are simultaneously trying to off their siblings while racing to find and restore the ruby. Lamia is desperately trying to find the star so she can cut out her heart. Tristram is, somewhat ineptly at first, trying to get Yvaine back across the wall to Victoria. Eventually the one remaining prince realizes that if he eats the star's heart, then he will live forever and establish a kingdom eternally under his rule. Through the various travels and misadventures, we meet fun and quirky characters (particularly Robert De Niro playing a sky pirate trying to hide his flamboyantly gay side from his rough-and-tumble priate crew) , see amazing sights, and are along for a great ride.
This is a wonderful movie. It's akin to The Princess Bride in that it's a fun and dynamic adventure, with a quirky sense of humor, but it's more complex and smarter than The Princess Bride. It inspires me to be a man, to be noble, to be an adventurer. It inspires me to love my wife and to be truthful to my heart. It makes me feel like a big kid again. It actually makes me beleive that a story can actually end "Happily Ever After." It's almost as if it's a two hour advertisement for an exciting life.
I'm not sure if this is going to be an all-time favorite (although it'll be in the short list for 2007), but it will be one of those films that I can see once a month for the rest of my life and have as much fun the 157th time as I did the first. Highly recommended.
This is one of the grander adventures I've seen in a while. I loved Lord of the Rings, but it was an epic quest, not really an adventure. It's a story of a young English man by the name of Tristran (Charlie Cox) living in the 19th century from the village of Wall. Aptly named, the town is near a very long wall with one gap in it. Not many people know of it, but the wall separates England from Stormhold, a magical, mythical fantasy realm, ruled by a monarchy based almost entirely on fratricide. The king of Stormhold (Peter O'Toole) lies dying, somewhat passive aggressively chastising his four remaining living sons that they haven't killed one another off yet. Meanwhile, the dead sons' ghosts are providing a hilarious commentary on various situations as they follow the action along, waiting for the next king to be crowned before they can pass on to their actual afterlife. The king decrees that the next king will not only be the last living male heir of the line, but the one who restores his diadem/amulet/necklace. As he dies, the ruby flies from his castle into the sky. Menawhile, Tristram is trying to win Victoria's (his female obsession) heart by spending his entire savings on a champagne picnic under the stars. She mentions that his rival will return in a week with a ring for her, they see a star falling from the sky and Tristram promises he will bring that star back for her before the week is out, in return for her hand in marriage (and yes, it's even more pathetic in the movie). The star is on the other side of the wall, and Tristram makes it across. As it happens, the star is a lovely young woman named Yvaine (Claire Danes), who was knocked out of the sky by the king's diadem. Michelle Pfeiffer plays a hideous old witch who stays young and beautiful through easting the heart of a star. When she sees the falling star, she heads out to get her and her sisters Yvaine's heart. Sounds like a complex setup, doesn't it? It is, and it makes for a fantastic experience.
The princes are simultaneously trying to off their siblings while racing to find and restore the ruby. Lamia is desperately trying to find the star so she can cut out her heart. Tristram is, somewhat ineptly at first, trying to get Yvaine back across the wall to Victoria. Eventually the one remaining prince realizes that if he eats the star's heart, then he will live forever and establish a kingdom eternally under his rule. Through the various travels and misadventures, we meet fun and quirky characters (particularly Robert De Niro playing a sky pirate trying to hide his flamboyantly gay side from his rough-and-tumble priate crew) , see amazing sights, and are along for a great ride.
This is a wonderful movie. It's akin to The Princess Bride in that it's a fun and dynamic adventure, with a quirky sense of humor, but it's more complex and smarter than The Princess Bride. It inspires me to be a man, to be noble, to be an adventurer. It inspires me to love my wife and to be truthful to my heart. It makes me feel like a big kid again. It actually makes me beleive that a story can actually end "Happily Ever After." It's almost as if it's a two hour advertisement for an exciting life.
I'm not sure if this is going to be an all-time favorite (although it'll be in the short list for 2007), but it will be one of those films that I can see once a month for the rest of my life and have as much fun the 157th time as I did the first. Highly recommended.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Gotham Ongoing
The new Batman movie is using the Post Office Building for a lot of things. Set, staging area, all sorts of crap. For weeks, I've seen film trucks outside and signs pointing to the set. It's getting almost commonplace. I lived in LA, and worked in film (occasionally). This really isn't that big a deal, but (A) it's freakin' Batman and (B) it's freakin' Chicago!
Anyway, to share the love, here's a couple shots taken with my crappy camera phone. The Gotham Police department here was zoomed in about as far as my phone will go, and subsequently cropped, so it doesn't have much of the image, but doesn't really need much either.
The truck here is sort of a maybe. Don't know much about it, although I'm sure it'll all come together when I see the movie next summer. You can't quite tell, but it looks to me inside like there's a lot of pyrotechnic gear. And it's an upside down smashed truck on top of another truck that's supposed to cart it to its location.
That's all I got.
Anyway, to share the love, here's a couple shots taken with my crappy camera phone. The Gotham Police department here was zoomed in about as far as my phone will go, and subsequently cropped, so it doesn't have much of the image, but doesn't really need much either.
The truck here is sort of a maybe. Don't know much about it, although I'm sure it'll all come together when I see the movie next summer. You can't quite tell, but it looks to me inside like there's a lot of pyrotechnic gear. And it's an upside down smashed truck on top of another truck that's supposed to cart it to its location.
That's all I got.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Doggy Poo
Netflix has a feature in which you can watch on demand programming, as many hours a month as you're paying in dollars. We're right now on the $4.99 plan, for other reasons which I'll get into later.
Anyway, it's Friday night after a long difficult week for both of us, and we wanted to do a whole lot of nothing tonight. My plan was to eat Chinese food and watch anime, a great thing to do on a whim. I was looking through the list for Akira (wonderful dinnertime viewing), and happened upon something very very different: Doggy Poo.
It's a story of a Doggy Poo trying to find its purpose in life. It is laid unceremoniously by the side of a road, and shunned for being the most worthless kind of poo. It discusses its lot in life with a clump of dirt and a leaf, until finally finding purpose in fertilizing a dandelion.
Sounds bizarre enough? But wait, there's more! It's very slow paced, as if it's aimed at kids in their very early years (like before five years old). Kids who like poo. Kids who might not understand the concepts that are being spouted, were it not for the fact that the characters are fun little pieces of the environment. Such is the parable nature of the show.
That's right, it just wasn't bizarre enough! It's a children's animation about poo that's actually a Christian parable. It reminds me a bit of Davey and Goliath in the animation style, the pace and the ultimate message (it's not so overt as Davey and Goliath were, but they also were never about excrement). The poo is born feeling worthless and dirty, abandoned by the dog who shat it. Nobody wants the poo, evidenced by the birds who refuse to eat it. The clump of dirt has sinned egregiously in his past, and all he wants to do is go back and make it right (which is called "works based salvation," and is not part of the evangelistic tradition). The leaf is blown wherever the wind sends her, and is not grounded like the poo (meaning in some metaphorical sense that she cannot be of one opinion about anything). The poo only finds its purpose in giving its entire self to the beautiful flower. I'm sure it makes a lot more sense in a Sunday School classroom, when the teacher (the teacher who shows her kids scatological movies) tells her kids what it all means.
So there ya have it: A children's Christian parable animation about a dog turd. Certainly wasn't planning on THAT for our dinner viewing.
Anyway, it's Friday night after a long difficult week for both of us, and we wanted to do a whole lot of nothing tonight. My plan was to eat Chinese food and watch anime, a great thing to do on a whim. I was looking through the list for Akira (wonderful dinnertime viewing), and happened upon something very very different: Doggy Poo.
It's a story of a Doggy Poo trying to find its purpose in life. It is laid unceremoniously by the side of a road, and shunned for being the most worthless kind of poo. It discusses its lot in life with a clump of dirt and a leaf, until finally finding purpose in fertilizing a dandelion.
Sounds bizarre enough? But wait, there's more! It's very slow paced, as if it's aimed at kids in their very early years (like before five years old). Kids who like poo. Kids who might not understand the concepts that are being spouted, were it not for the fact that the characters are fun little pieces of the environment. Such is the parable nature of the show.
That's right, it just wasn't bizarre enough! It's a children's animation about poo that's actually a Christian parable. It reminds me a bit of Davey and Goliath in the animation style, the pace and the ultimate message (it's not so overt as Davey and Goliath were, but they also were never about excrement). The poo is born feeling worthless and dirty, abandoned by the dog who shat it. Nobody wants the poo, evidenced by the birds who refuse to eat it. The clump of dirt has sinned egregiously in his past, and all he wants to do is go back and make it right (which is called "works based salvation," and is not part of the evangelistic tradition). The leaf is blown wherever the wind sends her, and is not grounded like the poo (meaning in some metaphorical sense that she cannot be of one opinion about anything). The poo only finds its purpose in giving its entire self to the beautiful flower. I'm sure it makes a lot more sense in a Sunday School classroom, when the teacher (the teacher who shows her kids scatological movies) tells her kids what it all means.
So there ya have it: A children's Christian parable animation about a dog turd. Certainly wasn't planning on THAT for our dinner viewing.
Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix
A lot of people have been reviewing this movie. The biggest Harry Potter fan I know didn't like it. Other people did. We saw it Monday, I haven't had a chance to say anything for a while, but I was one of the latter.
I didn't much care for this book. At the time I was working in a suicide-inducingly bad job, having just come back from LA after having failed miserably, and was now living with my mother. I read to get away from my life. In the fifth book, Harry was depressed and annoyed the bulk of the book, and it just didn't work for me. Perhaps if I read it today, it would be a better book. In any case, the movie made me want to read it again.
Whereas it's difficult to fit a huge book into a single movie without it being 3+ hours long, this one did a good job of it. I thought the Goblet of Fire a good movie, but too cramped and crowded, and could have used another 20-30 minutes (I have to say, though, that I am haunted to this day by the acting of Cedric's father when Cedric died). This movie brushed over a lot of elements that I did want to see, but it was for the sake of the larger narrative, and it worked really well.
In this one, the war is brewing between most of Wizarding society, and Lord Voldemort and his cronies. Both sides are recruiting, although the "good" side is hindered by the government's refusal to believe there's a problem. Enter the Order of the Phoenix. These are a handful of freedom fighters who had formed during Voldemort's first "reign of terror." As it happens, the vast majority of the adults Harry likes are part of the Order of the Phoenix.
The show introduces a couple new characters to the field: Luna Lovegood (played by Evanna Lynch) and Dolores Umbridge (played by Imelda Staunton). Both are freakin' amazing and steal the show. The story is more about Mrs. Umbridge than Dumbledore, more about Luna than Ron or Hermione. Umbridge is the Ministry of Magic's plant inside Hogwarts, and subsequently starts to take over the school with Ministry agenda. Among the Ministry rules is that there is to be no practical teaching of Defense against the Dark Arts, as that would indicate that there is a problem. Harry, being the proactive rebel he usually is, starts an illegal school club where the kids learn how to defend themselves. This makes for some of the most fun scenes in the show.
I won't mention how the show ends. You've probably read the books by now, and know it all, but I'm not going to spoil anything. I will mention that there is a wizard battle at the end, and it's arguably the best bettle between two great wizards that I've ever seen on film.
This film is vying for my favorite among the Harry Potter shows. It does lose a lot of elements the book had, but it's a magnificent addition to the franchise. Highly recommended.
I didn't much care for this book. At the time I was working in a suicide-inducingly bad job, having just come back from LA after having failed miserably, and was now living with my mother. I read to get away from my life. In the fifth book, Harry was depressed and annoyed the bulk of the book, and it just didn't work for me. Perhaps if I read it today, it would be a better book. In any case, the movie made me want to read it again.
Whereas it's difficult to fit a huge book into a single movie without it being 3+ hours long, this one did a good job of it. I thought the Goblet of Fire a good movie, but too cramped and crowded, and could have used another 20-30 minutes (I have to say, though, that I am haunted to this day by the acting of Cedric's father when Cedric died). This movie brushed over a lot of elements that I did want to see, but it was for the sake of the larger narrative, and it worked really well.
In this one, the war is brewing between most of Wizarding society, and Lord Voldemort and his cronies. Both sides are recruiting, although the "good" side is hindered by the government's refusal to believe there's a problem. Enter the Order of the Phoenix. These are a handful of freedom fighters who had formed during Voldemort's first "reign of terror." As it happens, the vast majority of the adults Harry likes are part of the Order of the Phoenix.
The show introduces a couple new characters to the field: Luna Lovegood (played by Evanna Lynch) and Dolores Umbridge (played by Imelda Staunton). Both are freakin' amazing and steal the show. The story is more about Mrs. Umbridge than Dumbledore, more about Luna than Ron or Hermione. Umbridge is the Ministry of Magic's plant inside Hogwarts, and subsequently starts to take over the school with Ministry agenda. Among the Ministry rules is that there is to be no practical teaching of Defense against the Dark Arts, as that would indicate that there is a problem. Harry, being the proactive rebel he usually is, starts an illegal school club where the kids learn how to defend themselves. This makes for some of the most fun scenes in the show.
I won't mention how the show ends. You've probably read the books by now, and know it all, but I'm not going to spoil anything. I will mention that there is a wizard battle at the end, and it's arguably the best bettle between two great wizards that I've ever seen on film.
This film is vying for my favorite among the Harry Potter shows. It does lose a lot of elements the book had, but it's a magnificent addition to the franchise. Highly recommended.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Transformers
We just saw Transformers. I was really looking forward to this movie, even to the point of wanting to take off work early so I could go see it sooner. On Friday, I checked Rotten Tomatoes for early reviews. At the time, they were 100% positive. I had also read good reviews from a couple people whose opinions I trust. And yes, it was a hell of a lot of fun.
The plot is little more than giant robots that can transform into nearly anything they see come to Earth in search of "The Allspark." Some of the robots go about it for different motivations, and using different means. The bad robots are very good at destroying things. Humanity likes living. Hilarity ensues.
This is an action movie; there is no question that's what it's trying to do, and it does that quite well. It's a bit long on scenes of rather goofy dialogue, but when it comes into the action, it shines.
Transformers has some freakishly die-hard fans, and there was some significant backlash when this movie was announced. There were a lot of people that were appalled that Michael Bay was making it, and expected horrible things. However, this was built with thought. There were internet forums up, asking the fans to have input. There was semi-meaningful dialogue going on between the creators and the fans. I remember when the first shots of Optimus Prime (in truck mode) were shown, and there was backlash (that Prime's semi cab had a nose instead of a flat front). The moderator stepped in and rationally explained why. This film was built with fans in mind.
I'm a geek, and have been for the vast majority, if not all, of my life. I was a teenager when Transformers was in it's original TV iteration. I remember going to see Transformers: The Movie by myself, having driven myself there and paid for it with money I earned at my job. Yes, I'm that much of a geek. I loved it at the time, but I've seen the movie again recently, and it wasn't quite what I remembered (as in it was kind of bad). But here's the thing: they're really similar films.
They seem to be made for the same age bracket. The dialogue is campy and cheesy, and the events don't really move forward with a lot of sense, much like the 1986 version. In fact, there are moments of dialogue (specifically between robots) that are lifted verbatim from the 1986 movie. It seems to be built for kids, with a few double entendres thrown in so the adults can giggle during the slow stretches. And the screenwriter absolutely loved using the phrase, "No, no, no, No, NO, NO NO!"
It's a bit of a bugger for me; I like the Transformers. Optimus Prime kicks ass (and is voiced by Peter Cullen again... bout damn time), and when Starscream was introduced, I got a little shiver down my spine. But this show was a long and expensive toy advertisement. It was aimed at younger viewers, and not in a favorable way. It almost talked down to its viewers, making some characters more goofy than they needed to be simply for the goofy fun factor. Sometimes I was sitting in the theatre (particularly when the Autobots are being introduced) cringing in embarrassment for the writers and actors.
Let me state yet again, the action in this show is freakin' amazing. The effects are seamlessly beautiful. It's a hell of a lot of fun. If you can swallow some goofy stuff, and view parts of it as aimed towards children, you will love this movie. It practically makes you want to fly out of the theatre crying out for the inevitable sequel, but it's built to brainwash kids into getting some admittedly cool toys.
I still recommend it, but not as highly as I had hoped.
The plot is little more than giant robots that can transform into nearly anything they see come to Earth in search of "The Allspark." Some of the robots go about it for different motivations, and using different means. The bad robots are very good at destroying things. Humanity likes living. Hilarity ensues.
This is an action movie; there is no question that's what it's trying to do, and it does that quite well. It's a bit long on scenes of rather goofy dialogue, but when it comes into the action, it shines.
Transformers has some freakishly die-hard fans, and there was some significant backlash when this movie was announced. There were a lot of people that were appalled that Michael Bay was making it, and expected horrible things. However, this was built with thought. There were internet forums up, asking the fans to have input. There was semi-meaningful dialogue going on between the creators and the fans. I remember when the first shots of Optimus Prime (in truck mode) were shown, and there was backlash (that Prime's semi cab had a nose instead of a flat front). The moderator stepped in and rationally explained why. This film was built with fans in mind.
I'm a geek, and have been for the vast majority, if not all, of my life. I was a teenager when Transformers was in it's original TV iteration. I remember going to see Transformers: The Movie by myself, having driven myself there and paid for it with money I earned at my job. Yes, I'm that much of a geek. I loved it at the time, but I've seen the movie again recently, and it wasn't quite what I remembered (as in it was kind of bad). But here's the thing: they're really similar films.
They seem to be made for the same age bracket. The dialogue is campy and cheesy, and the events don't really move forward with a lot of sense, much like the 1986 version. In fact, there are moments of dialogue (specifically between robots) that are lifted verbatim from the 1986 movie. It seems to be built for kids, with a few double entendres thrown in so the adults can giggle during the slow stretches. And the screenwriter absolutely loved using the phrase, "No, no, no, No, NO, NO NO!"
It's a bit of a bugger for me; I like the Transformers. Optimus Prime kicks ass (and is voiced by Peter Cullen again... bout damn time), and when Starscream was introduced, I got a little shiver down my spine. But this show was a long and expensive toy advertisement. It was aimed at younger viewers, and not in a favorable way. It almost talked down to its viewers, making some characters more goofy than they needed to be simply for the goofy fun factor. Sometimes I was sitting in the theatre (particularly when the Autobots are being introduced) cringing in embarrassment for the writers and actors.
Let me state yet again, the action in this show is freakin' amazing. The effects are seamlessly beautiful. It's a hell of a lot of fun. If you can swallow some goofy stuff, and view parts of it as aimed towards children, you will love this movie. It practically makes you want to fly out of the theatre crying out for the inevitable sequel, but it's built to brainwash kids into getting some admittedly cool toys.
I still recommend it, but not as highly as I had hoped.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Back to the Bank
A couple months ago, the old Post Office building downtown was transformed into the Gotham National Bank temporarily for the new Batman movie. The filming stopped there due to some unfortunate circumstances: they set the Post Office on fire. This was unintentional, but I'm sure they were shooting the six fire trucks and the whole cacophany surrounding it and will try to find a way to work it into the movie. But that meant that they couldn't shoot there for a while.Well, they're back, and I got a picture. Since it's my phone, and it's grey on grey, and it was kind of a cloudy day, you need to pop the picture a little bigger to really see the signage, but I can also give you a bit of a closeup.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Two great tastes that taste great together
I can't say these are two of my favorite things put together, but these are two things that mesh really well together, and it makes for some incredibly entertaining watching. I haven't laughed this hard since Borat.
I tried to embed the video in here, but it's not working. Bugger.
I tried to embed the video in here, but it's not working. Bugger.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Pirates of the Caribbean: At Franchise's End
We saw Pirates of the Caribbean a couple days ago. Now, I'm a big fan of pirates and pirate movies. I think it's a great thing to see a mess of people leaping from ship to ship, and being all swashbuckley. But this was a really bad movie.
It clearly tried hard to be a good movie. I liked the second one a lot, despite other people's abject hatred of it. But this just didn't really go anywhere fast, and it kind of stayed in that nothing place for the whole movie. Sure, it wrapped up some of the open plotlines from the previous movie, but it was just really unsatisfying.
I really can't get into a lot without adding spoilers, but the climaxes aren't all that climatic, the choices made were stupid ones, and the action scenes were too chaotic to be as fun or suspenseful as they should have been.
The performances of the best actors weren't as good as they had been, although the performances of the weak actors were better than usual. Therefore we have a lowball average; you don't really go to a show to see Orlando Bloom and Keria Knightly act, you go there to just look at them. Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, and Bill Nighy, you go to see act (alright, women can go to swoon over Johnny Depp, but not so much in that role). Their performances were little more than charicatures of their characters, taking out a lot of the spontenaity and fun that they developed in the earlier films, and replacing it with shallow hamming.
So anyway, I'm afraid the "season of the threes" (Shrek, Pirates, and Spiderman) is going to be a weak one. I've not seen the other two, but haven't heard particualrly good reviews of them. I'll still see them, doubting that they can be as much of a disappointment as this one was.
It clearly tried hard to be a good movie. I liked the second one a lot, despite other people's abject hatred of it. But this just didn't really go anywhere fast, and it kind of stayed in that nothing place for the whole movie. Sure, it wrapped up some of the open plotlines from the previous movie, but it was just really unsatisfying.
I really can't get into a lot without adding spoilers, but the climaxes aren't all that climatic, the choices made were stupid ones, and the action scenes were too chaotic to be as fun or suspenseful as they should have been.
The performances of the best actors weren't as good as they had been, although the performances of the weak actors were better than usual. Therefore we have a lowball average; you don't really go to a show to see Orlando Bloom and Keria Knightly act, you go there to just look at them. Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, and Bill Nighy, you go to see act (alright, women can go to swoon over Johnny Depp, but not so much in that role). Their performances were little more than charicatures of their characters, taking out a lot of the spontenaity and fun that they developed in the earlier films, and replacing it with shallow hamming.
So anyway, I'm afraid the "season of the threes" (Shrek, Pirates, and Spiderman) is going to be a weak one. I've not seen the other two, but haven't heard particualrly good reviews of them. I'll still see them, doubting that they can be as much of a disappointment as this one was.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Blood Diamond
I just saw Blood Diamond last night. This came out in December, while we were still coping with the leftover schedule of the wedding, so I didn't get a chance to see it at the time. I see the value of not going to see it in the theatres: if I saw it in the theatres, Heidi would have seen it with me, and she has an issue with overly intense, overly violent movies. This was one of those.
It's set in Sierre Leone, during a civil war in which the government was bad, and the rebels were worse. The RUF (Rebel United Front) attacked and burned villages, killing everybody but the boys that they could brainwash and use as combatants, and the men who would make good slaves for the diamond mines. With these diamonds, they would buy weapons with which they would carry on the fight with the government. It was very similar to my concept of hell.
This show is primarily focused on the RUF, as Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) was one of the men taken for labor in the diamond pits, but not before he gets his family on their way to relative saftey (compared to the rebel extermination of the village). During his slavery, he does find a huge, nearly perfect pink diamond (astonishingly rare and expensive), and manages to hide it from the rebel leader, burying it near the camp. Meanwhile, Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio, doing an exceptionally convincing South African accent) is a weapons dealer, being paid by the rebels in diamonds, and subsequently smuggling them across the border to sell them. Eventually the two come together, (more manipulated by Archer than by chance), and they subsequently set off in search of Solomon's family and the diamond.
It's an interesting and complex plot, but the biggest aspect of the film that stands out to me is the chaos the country is going through. I've seen a fair share of the chaos that happens with warlords throughout Africa on various TV shows and films, and by nature these are fictional accounts. But I know that horrible things are being done in Darfur, and I have doubts that it's much different than depicted. Certainly, Blood Diamond was only showing the horror of life plagued by these gangs of rebels, and not that African life is pretty similar to life everywhere else most of the time, but the horror is still pretty horrible.
I'm sure that was the point of the movie, and not so much the story (although the story was pretty good as well). It was a pretty heavy-handed call for people to do something about the hell in Africa. There's even a dialogue between Solomon and Jennifer Connelly's character (who is a journalist that ends up working with Danny and Solomon):
There are a few quips from Jennifer Connelly's character that talk about how the chaos and horror they're witnessing might be shown "between sports and the weather." Or that "the world is falling apart, and all they talk about is [the Clinton sex scandal]."
My own reaction to this was a sort of resigned acceptance. In America, we simply don't hear about what's going down in various other countries, simply because it's deemed unimportant or not ratings-friendly. It's also a little discouraging to be reminded just how messed up the world can be. I find myself overwhelmed to the point that I don't even know how to start, even in prayer.
So yeah, it's a good movie, and I'm glad I saw it, but I'm not sure I can recommend it. It's good, but be prepared to be really uncomfortable for a couple hours (or maybe an hour and a half... the last half hour is much more of a Hollywood movie).
It's set in Sierre Leone, during a civil war in which the government was bad, and the rebels were worse. The RUF (Rebel United Front) attacked and burned villages, killing everybody but the boys that they could brainwash and use as combatants, and the men who would make good slaves for the diamond mines. With these diamonds, they would buy weapons with which they would carry on the fight with the government. It was very similar to my concept of hell.
This show is primarily focused on the RUF, as Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) was one of the men taken for labor in the diamond pits, but not before he gets his family on their way to relative saftey (compared to the rebel extermination of the village). During his slavery, he does find a huge, nearly perfect pink diamond (astonishingly rare and expensive), and manages to hide it from the rebel leader, burying it near the camp. Meanwhile, Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio, doing an exceptionally convincing South African accent) is a weapons dealer, being paid by the rebels in diamonds, and subsequently smuggling them across the border to sell them. Eventually the two come together, (more manipulated by Archer than by chance), and they subsequently set off in search of Solomon's family and the diamond.
It's an interesting and complex plot, but the biggest aspect of the film that stands out to me is the chaos the country is going through. I've seen a fair share of the chaos that happens with warlords throughout Africa on various TV shows and films, and by nature these are fictional accounts. But I know that horrible things are being done in Darfur, and I have doubts that it's much different than depicted. Certainly, Blood Diamond was only showing the horror of life plagued by these gangs of rebels, and not that African life is pretty similar to life everywhere else most of the time, but the horror is still pretty horrible.
I'm sure that was the point of the movie, and not so much the story (although the story was pretty good as well). It was a pretty heavy-handed call for people to do something about the hell in Africa. There's even a dialogue between Solomon and Jennifer Connelly's character (who is a journalist that ends up working with Danny and Solomon):
Solomon: Will [the American people] do anything?
JC: No. They might send a check, but that's about
it.
There are a few quips from Jennifer Connelly's character that talk about how the chaos and horror they're witnessing might be shown "between sports and the weather." Or that "the world is falling apart, and all they talk about is [the Clinton sex scandal]."
My own reaction to this was a sort of resigned acceptance. In America, we simply don't hear about what's going down in various other countries, simply because it's deemed unimportant or not ratings-friendly. It's also a little discouraging to be reminded just how messed up the world can be. I find myself overwhelmed to the point that I don't even know how to start, even in prayer.
So yeah, it's a good movie, and I'm glad I saw it, but I'm not sure I can recommend it. It's good, but be prepared to be really uncomfortable for a couple hours (or maybe an hour and a half... the last half hour is much more of a Hollywood movie).
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Working Near Film
For the last month and a half, some workers have been building an extension onto the face of the old post office building north of the highway. I didn't think much of it, other than that it was kind of flimsy (wood framework with concrete facade). They brought in cranes yesterday (like enormous cherry pickers, not the monstrous, skyline-changing cranes). I figured they were going to work in earnest. I was partially right.
This morning, as I was walking from the train to work, I noticed a lot of what looked like HMI lights on the top of those cranes. I thought that odd, and then saw what the big deal was. They weren't shining on the old USPS building, they were shining on the Gotham National Bank. Yep, the letters over the entrance had been changed for the new Batman movie. I didn't get a picture of it, because the cranes obscured the view, but it's definitely there. I might be able to get a glimpse of it on my way back home, but I assume they'll be there for a couple days. If I get a picture I'll post it.
So, when you see the next Batman movie, and you see the Gotham National Bank, you can know where it is.
This morning, as I was walking from the train to work, I noticed a lot of what looked like HMI lights on the top of those cranes. I thought that odd, and then saw what the big deal was. They weren't shining on the old USPS building, they were shining on the Gotham National Bank. Yep, the letters over the entrance had been changed for the new Batman movie. I didn't get a picture of it, because the cranes obscured the view, but it's definitely there. I might be able to get a glimpse of it on my way back home, but I assume they'll be there for a couple days. If I get a picture I'll post it.
So, when you see the next Batman movie, and you see the Gotham National Bank, you can know where it is.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
300
I just saw 300. Wow. Big wow. This is a film based off of the graphic novel by Frank Miller (Sin City was the last and first of these). Since Frank Miller is really picky about having his work filmed, it's shot exactly as the graphic novel is drawn. As a result, it's visually stunning, with remarkably little work on the director's part. It's about the 300 Spartans that stood against the might of Xerxes' Persian army, roughly a million in number. This actually did happen, probably not quite in the way the movie portrays.
In any case, there's no question that this is a really violent movie, but some of the reviews I read used terms along the lines of "bloodbath." I wouldn't use terms like that, as it's so visually arresting and so artistic, that it doesn't really register as violence and gore. Saving Private Ryan was a violent movie, in part because it was so gritty and realistic. In 300, it was more like a ballet of steel and bodies. This really is a less violent movie than any one of the Lord of the Rings movies.
There's not really a lot to say about this movie, other than that I recommend it. It's a good story and a work of visual poetry. Here endeth the review.
In any case, there's no question that this is a really violent movie, but some of the reviews I read used terms along the lines of "bloodbath." I wouldn't use terms like that, as it's so visually arresting and so artistic, that it doesn't really register as violence and gore. Saving Private Ryan was a violent movie, in part because it was so gritty and realistic. In 300, it was more like a ballet of steel and bodies. This really is a less violent movie than any one of the Lord of the Rings movies.
There's not really a lot to say about this movie, other than that I recommend it. It's a good story and a work of visual poetry. Here endeth the review.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Lady in the Water
We didn't see Lady in the Water when it came out primarily because of mediocre reviews. Not many critics thought it was a decent film, and we really didn't want to waste our time and money on a film that wouldn't be worthwhile. It recently came out on DVD, and so we rented it. I'm kind of wondering what movie the critics were reviewing, as this thing is one of M. Night Shyamalan's best films since The Sixth Sense (although Signs is a really strong contender in my book).
Effectively this is a fairy tale. Not the charming, innocent fairy tales that the Shrek movies lampoon so well, but rather a dark and dangerous fairy tale that the Brothers Grimm would have written (the real ones, not the movie ones). It's set in an apartment complex, which Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti) manages, and is filled with much quirkier characters than are usually in a single apartment building. Cleveland finds a "Narf" (I'm kind of surprised there wasn't a creture named a "poit"), and asks the local Korean family about it. They start relating the fairy tale within the fairy tale, but not in one sitting. As the story unfolds, several iconic characters are mentioned, and Cleveland starts figuring what roles people in the apartment complex play in the story. M. Night Shyamalan plays a much larger part in this one than he usually plays in his films; it seems a bit self-indulgent at first (he plays a writer who will go on to change the world with his book), but it's a convincing character, and it's really tough to direct oneself and be good at both.
This story could have been told in twenty minutes, but it unfolds over a much longer period of time. This is not to say it should have been twenty minutes, but it could have been done quicker, to its detriment. It was a great film, as long as it should be, and not a moment longer.
This is a character piece, really. The plot is interesting, but you're introduced to a number of different characters that are all really quirky and fun to get to know. The characters turn what would otherwise be a good movie into a great one (when I say great, I don't mean Bridge on the River Kwai great, but Signs great).
I highly recommend this film. If you haven't seen it yet, put it on your netflix list (or whatever you use to rent films) and see it soon.
Effectively this is a fairy tale. Not the charming, innocent fairy tales that the Shrek movies lampoon so well, but rather a dark and dangerous fairy tale that the Brothers Grimm would have written (the real ones, not the movie ones). It's set in an apartment complex, which Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti) manages, and is filled with much quirkier characters than are usually in a single apartment building. Cleveland finds a "Narf" (I'm kind of surprised there wasn't a creture named a "poit"), and asks the local Korean family about it. They start relating the fairy tale within the fairy tale, but not in one sitting. As the story unfolds, several iconic characters are mentioned, and Cleveland starts figuring what roles people in the apartment complex play in the story. M. Night Shyamalan plays a much larger part in this one than he usually plays in his films; it seems a bit self-indulgent at first (he plays a writer who will go on to change the world with his book), but it's a convincing character, and it's really tough to direct oneself and be good at both.
This story could have been told in twenty minutes, but it unfolds over a much longer period of time. This is not to say it should have been twenty minutes, but it could have been done quicker, to its detriment. It was a great film, as long as it should be, and not a moment longer.
This is a character piece, really. The plot is interesting, but you're introduced to a number of different characters that are all really quirky and fun to get to know. The characters turn what would otherwise be a good movie into a great one (when I say great, I don't mean Bridge on the River Kwai great, but Signs great).
I highly recommend this film. If you haven't seen it yet, put it on your netflix list (or whatever you use to rent films) and see it soon.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Children of Men
Heidi and I took a trip into the city to see Children of Men yesterday, as the only place it was playing was River East. In retrospect we won't do that again, as it cost an arm and a leg, but it was a decent time.
Anyway Children of Men was a brilliant film, filled with intrigue and maintaining a really high level of tension through a moderately long movie. It establishes a unique and intriguing concept and, at the core of it, distinguishes between the solid, enduring qualities of faith over the randomness of chance.
The film is about a world in which nobody has been born for over 18 years. As a result of no children being born and the imminent death of the human race, the entire world is in complete chaos. Britain is slightly less hosed than the rest of the world, which results in countless illegal immigrants to Britain. Subsequently, the British government initiates a violent, oppressive crackdown on illegal immigration. This is a world of despair, a dying world. The people have a lot of choices to deal with their misery, from antidepressants to easily available suicide kits. It is criminal for people to avoid fertility tests. Through a twisted series of events, Theodore Faron (Clive Owen) finds himself responsible for transporting a young pregnant girl to the coast, where she can get onto a hospital ship of a group called "The Human Project," a sort of underground science community that are working on the infertility issue. She, being the only pregnant woman anybody has seen for nearly two decades, is a commodity to whoever has a political agenda, and there are a lot of those.
This show tells its story succinctly and tightly, but with the viewer open to filling in a lot of the gaps. Not that there are much in the way of plot holes, but there's a lot of exposition that is left up to us to figure out (or not, as the case may be). As it is, it's still tightly packed with information, getting us up to speed on the world and the characters. I like how they use the countless bullets flying around the one remaining hope for humanity (that we know of, anyway) to such great degree. It's a plot device, but as soon as you see that this girl is pregnant, about a half hour into seeing the effects of infertility on the world, she suddenly becomes more important than any other character in the world. And there are alot of people dying through excessive violence around her.
This is a very violent movie, but I have a theory why (and keep in mind that, like much of the movie, this is completely up to the viewer). People fight because they're angry at how the world just seems to have shut off the switch for the human race; they end up taking it out on anybody around them. But also, what had stemmed the tide of excessive violence in society before was that there were children to think of. Without that impetus, there is nothing to live for, and therefore people don't so much care about the consequences.
The show isn't so much about acting or interesting character interaction, but Michael Caine plays Theodore's father figure Jasper, and does it with style. He's a great character that is an old, eccentric, hippie and Michael Caine plays him with great energy and fun. He's a little remaining spark of life in a society that has little life left.
I recommend this film, but it isn't for everyone. Heidi didn't much care for it, but I find it to be a deep and rich vein of thought-provoking material.
Anyway Children of Men was a brilliant film, filled with intrigue and maintaining a really high level of tension through a moderately long movie. It establishes a unique and intriguing concept and, at the core of it, distinguishes between the solid, enduring qualities of faith over the randomness of chance.
The film is about a world in which nobody has been born for over 18 years. As a result of no children being born and the imminent death of the human race, the entire world is in complete chaos. Britain is slightly less hosed than the rest of the world, which results in countless illegal immigrants to Britain. Subsequently, the British government initiates a violent, oppressive crackdown on illegal immigration. This is a world of despair, a dying world. The people have a lot of choices to deal with their misery, from antidepressants to easily available suicide kits. It is criminal for people to avoid fertility tests. Through a twisted series of events, Theodore Faron (Clive Owen) finds himself responsible for transporting a young pregnant girl to the coast, where she can get onto a hospital ship of a group called "The Human Project," a sort of underground science community that are working on the infertility issue. She, being the only pregnant woman anybody has seen for nearly two decades, is a commodity to whoever has a political agenda, and there are a lot of those.
This show tells its story succinctly and tightly, but with the viewer open to filling in a lot of the gaps. Not that there are much in the way of plot holes, but there's a lot of exposition that is left up to us to figure out (or not, as the case may be). As it is, it's still tightly packed with information, getting us up to speed on the world and the characters. I like how they use the countless bullets flying around the one remaining hope for humanity (that we know of, anyway) to such great degree. It's a plot device, but as soon as you see that this girl is pregnant, about a half hour into seeing the effects of infertility on the world, she suddenly becomes more important than any other character in the world. And there are alot of people dying through excessive violence around her.
This is a very violent movie, but I have a theory why (and keep in mind that, like much of the movie, this is completely up to the viewer). People fight because they're angry at how the world just seems to have shut off the switch for the human race; they end up taking it out on anybody around them. But also, what had stemmed the tide of excessive violence in society before was that there were children to think of. Without that impetus, there is nothing to live for, and therefore people don't so much care about the consequences.
The show isn't so much about acting or interesting character interaction, but Michael Caine plays Theodore's father figure Jasper, and does it with style. He's a great character that is an old, eccentric, hippie and Michael Caine plays him with great energy and fun. He's a little remaining spark of life in a society that has little life left.
I recommend this film, but it isn't for everyone. Heidi didn't much care for it, but I find it to be a deep and rich vein of thought-provoking material.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Happy Feet
Warning: this post contains spoilers. If you wish to be surprised about the movie Happy Feet, read no more. But seriously, who reading this would desire to be surprised by this movie?
Heidi and I saw Happy Feet recently, being that we were near a movie theatre, and the next show of the seven or eight films I wanted to see was this one. It's clearly the oddest animated movie I've ever seen that got a major release (I've seen some really odd animated movies in my time, but they didn't get much of a release). Heidi likened it to "March of the Penguins: The Musical," and it's pretty darn close for the early part of the show. Here's the crux of the story, which is pretty obvious from the trailers. All emporer penguin have a heart song, which is how they attract a mate. Mumbles is born without the ability to sing, but instead the ability to dance. And he can dance well. But here's the thing: if you're going to have a movie about dancing animals, are penguins really the best choice? Penguins have some really stumpy legs, especially the young penguins. Dancing loses some of it's charm if you can't see anything but the most broad movements.
In this show, Mumbles gets the whole penguin community dancing, except the elders. The elders are focused on their penguin god, and his call to sing and his resultant bounty of fish. There's a drought of fish recently, and the right-wing conservative religious elders assume his sin of dancing is the cause. They force Mumbles to leave, for the heresy of dancing instead of singing. Mumbles seeks out the source of the fish drought, which turns out to be Antarctic fishing by humans (or "aliens" as he and the other Antarctic birds call them), and eventually learns to communicate with humans through his dancing (it's not interpretive dance by any means, it's more of a tap dance, usually to Stevie Wonder). Ultimately, the humans stop fishing in Antarctica, and the fish are restored to their former bounty (it makes marginally more sense in the movie).
But here's the thing. Mumbles can't attract a mate the same way most penguins can, and is forced out of the community by the religious leaders for it. His mother loves him, but his father continues to suggest that he should conform to society's standards. This style of attracting a mate ends up being the way to get in touch with the aliens, who restore the source of nourishment to the community. So, here's what the movie is really about: his sexually deviant behaviour saves the community.
I have to say that this is an interesting movie, but I can't really call it a good one. There's a lot of cool music in it, and the dance scenes are amazing, and Robin Williams leads a group of smaller penguins that are freakin' hysterical. It's incredibly strange, though, and not really in an eye-opening, fresh way; it's more like a "what the hell" way.
Heidi and I saw Happy Feet recently, being that we were near a movie theatre, and the next show of the seven or eight films I wanted to see was this one. It's clearly the oddest animated movie I've ever seen that got a major release (I've seen some really odd animated movies in my time, but they didn't get much of a release). Heidi likened it to "March of the Penguins: The Musical," and it's pretty darn close for the early part of the show. Here's the crux of the story, which is pretty obvious from the trailers. All emporer penguin have a heart song, which is how they attract a mate. Mumbles is born without the ability to sing, but instead the ability to dance. And he can dance well. But here's the thing: if you're going to have a movie about dancing animals, are penguins really the best choice? Penguins have some really stumpy legs, especially the young penguins. Dancing loses some of it's charm if you can't see anything but the most broad movements.
In this show, Mumbles gets the whole penguin community dancing, except the elders. The elders are focused on their penguin god, and his call to sing and his resultant bounty of fish. There's a drought of fish recently, and the right-wing conservative religious elders assume his sin of dancing is the cause. They force Mumbles to leave, for the heresy of dancing instead of singing. Mumbles seeks out the source of the fish drought, which turns out to be Antarctic fishing by humans (or "aliens" as he and the other Antarctic birds call them), and eventually learns to communicate with humans through his dancing (it's not interpretive dance by any means, it's more of a tap dance, usually to Stevie Wonder). Ultimately, the humans stop fishing in Antarctica, and the fish are restored to their former bounty (it makes marginally more sense in the movie).
But here's the thing. Mumbles can't attract a mate the same way most penguins can, and is forced out of the community by the religious leaders for it. His mother loves him, but his father continues to suggest that he should conform to society's standards. This style of attracting a mate ends up being the way to get in touch with the aliens, who restore the source of nourishment to the community. So, here's what the movie is really about: his sexually deviant behaviour saves the community.
I have to say that this is an interesting movie, but I can't really call it a good one. There's a lot of cool music in it, and the dance scenes are amazing, and Robin Williams leads a group of smaller penguins that are freakin' hysterical. It's incredibly strange, though, and not really in an eye-opening, fresh way; it's more like a "what the hell" way.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Borat
We saw Borat on Saturday, and I've been trying to formulate a way to write about it since then. I didn't put much effort into it yesterday, as it was an otherwise busy day, but also because I didn't really have words to describe it. In any case, it's intended to appear like a Kazhakstani documentary about America. Borat, the character, is based off a Russian doctor the Sascha Cohen met once, and was the most unintentionally funny person he'd ever met. And now he's made a movie.
I can see why the Kazhakstani government had a problem with this movie. It paints all Kazhakstanis as impossibly anti-semitic misogynists. It is an apalling, crass, crude, obscene and horribly, horribly funny movie.
There's few films which can successfully walk the narrow line of unrepentantly obscene humor. Either they completely turn me off, or their really not that obscene. In this move, I laughed as hard as I've laughed at any movie, even while my stomach was turning. It's primarily sexual and racial humor, which is offensive, but not as bad as it could be.
It seems as if the entire movie was improvised, usually without the people involved being aware of what was going on (they clearly saw the camera, but it appears as if they thought it was actually a Kazhakstani documentary about America, and not the comedy intended). Borat manages to offend innumerable people, most of the time with the interviewees feeling uncomfortable without wanting to show how uncomfortable they actually are. And he really goes out of his way to find easily offended people, and stick it to them.
A fair number of scenes were very likely staged, otherwise the filmmakers would probably have been arrested. And it is a comedy that's pretty much about watching other people be offended, confused or both. At the same time, it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
I can't say I recommend this film, as it does put South Park to shame, both on the humor and offensiveness scale. So be warned, but if you choose to go, prepare to laugh until you cry.
I can see why the Kazhakstani government had a problem with this movie. It paints all Kazhakstanis as impossibly anti-semitic misogynists. It is an apalling, crass, crude, obscene and horribly, horribly funny movie.
There's few films which can successfully walk the narrow line of unrepentantly obscene humor. Either they completely turn me off, or their really not that obscene. In this move, I laughed as hard as I've laughed at any movie, even while my stomach was turning. It's primarily sexual and racial humor, which is offensive, but not as bad as it could be.
It seems as if the entire movie was improvised, usually without the people involved being aware of what was going on (they clearly saw the camera, but it appears as if they thought it was actually a Kazhakstani documentary about America, and not the comedy intended). Borat manages to offend innumerable people, most of the time with the interviewees feeling uncomfortable without wanting to show how uncomfortable they actually are. And he really goes out of his way to find easily offended people, and stick it to them.
A fair number of scenes were very likely staged, otherwise the filmmakers would probably have been arrested. And it is a comedy that's pretty much about watching other people be offended, confused or both. At the same time, it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
I can't say I recommend this film, as it does put South Park to shame, both on the humor and offensiveness scale. So be warned, but if you choose to go, prepare to laugh until you cry.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
The Illusionist
We saw The Illusionist last night. This will likely be an Oscar contender. The story is brilliant, but it's really the acting that sets it apart. The film is about a great stage magician, who does amazing tricks that can't be explained through any natural means. Considering The Prestige is coming out shortly, I didn't expect him to be an actual, true magician, but the film has you guessing until the end. Whether or not he is, I'll let you see the movie. Anyway, he has a duchess as a childhood friend, and as children, they fall in love. They are forceably parted, and he travels, eventually coming back to Vienna to do his truly incredible show.They meet up again, unfortunately now, she's almost-engaged to be married to the Crown Prince. They quickly acknowledge that they've been thinking about one another ever since they were parted, and drama ensues.
It's a complex and excellent story, but the acting was freakin' amazing. Paul Giamatti plays the detective inspector who is in the employ of the Crown Prince, and it's one of the most amazing performances I've ever seen him do, possibly one of the more amazing I've seen anybody do. He was entirely different from his usual persona, and displayed his thoughts and feelings with a subtlety I haven't seen in a long time. Edward Norton, in the title role, developed a complex and dynamic character, portraying an exceptional showman with a depth that is pretty impressive. Edward Norton typically portrays deep characters, and is an impressive actor, but his performance was pretty much par for the course. This doesn't mean it wasn't good, just not exceptional. Another brilliant, but probably underrated, performance was Rufus Sewell, as the Crown Prince. I like Rufus Sewell, I think he's an interesting presence, but I never really considered him a great actor. I'm glad to see this show, because, much like Giamatti, he had a subtle performance and was completely unlike his usual role. Jessica Beil, as the duchess in question, was even pretty impressive, based off her usual performance. It was a moderately generic character, but she played it well.
I highly recommend this film. See it as soon as you can.
It's a complex and excellent story, but the acting was freakin' amazing. Paul Giamatti plays the detective inspector who is in the employ of the Crown Prince, and it's one of the most amazing performances I've ever seen him do, possibly one of the more amazing I've seen anybody do. He was entirely different from his usual persona, and displayed his thoughts and feelings with a subtlety I haven't seen in a long time. Edward Norton, in the title role, developed a complex and dynamic character, portraying an exceptional showman with a depth that is pretty impressive. Edward Norton typically portrays deep characters, and is an impressive actor, but his performance was pretty much par for the course. This doesn't mean it wasn't good, just not exceptional. Another brilliant, but probably underrated, performance was Rufus Sewell, as the Crown Prince. I like Rufus Sewell, I think he's an interesting presence, but I never really considered him a great actor. I'm glad to see this show, because, much like Giamatti, he had a subtle performance and was completely unlike his usual role. Jessica Beil, as the duchess in question, was even pretty impressive, based off her usual performance. It was a moderately generic character, but she played it well.
I highly recommend this film. See it as soon as you can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
