tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20009781829237022432024-03-12T23:37:52.354-07:00SnippetsShort little chunks of thought about film & media I am currently consuming.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-75043183658703568292014-01-07T19:08:00.000-08:002014-01-07T19:08:50.861-08:00This Blog Has MovedThanks for stopping by!<br />
<br />
I've stopped publishing to this blog, but you can find it carried on here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://mrjoshpaul.wordpress.com/">http://mrjoshpaul.wordpress.com/</a><br />
<br />
Thanks to all my past and improbable future readers at this blog.<br />
<br />
JoshAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-58645600020867680912013-10-25T06:03:00.001-07:002013-10-25T18:05:54.289-07:00GravityA phenomenal accomplishment in filmmaking supported by an excellent cast, a strong script and bombastic soundtrack. In sum: the theater experience of the year. See it.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTTD8DPJR4ODywFp5yqvzBu4gcqbXmNxdp3zI25bkjj6HFFXvzwHVX1iQqBvn-sJVH34TKi-UvUehZf0YyFpyjytu9TujyuwIKvSDMaix_Y6XnONYR7yyvVeNvY98GYqy3BxKXhBmZgsM/s1600/gravity.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTTD8DPJR4ODywFp5yqvzBu4gcqbXmNxdp3zI25bkjj6HFFXvzwHVX1iQqBvn-sJVH34TKi-UvUehZf0YyFpyjytu9TujyuwIKvSDMaix_Y6XnONYR7yyvVeNvY98GYqy3BxKXhBmZgsM/s400/gravity.jpg" width="270" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
I've been on hiatus for a while, which has been disappointing because I love writing these things. I'm planning to overhaul my blog once I'm free from Uni commitments, but in the meantime... I've been watching lots of stuff! I'll do my best to pump out a few mini-reviews in the coming days as my essay deadlines loom and I need to start digesting all this information into something academically presentable, but in the meantime... Here's <i>Gravity</i>.<br />
<br />
With all the buzz around this film I just couldn't resist dashing out to the theater last week to see it. It's almost like a perfect conclusion to my sort-of series about the Hollywood system: When big-budget movies go right. I don't really have much more to say about that, except that it does happen! There are creative people working in the industry - not every film that achieves blockbuster status is cookie cutter. <i>Gravity</i> is a totally unique film to experience.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The film was made with a budget of around $100 million, and every cent is on screen. Almost everything you see here was created in a computer, but at no point watching it did I feel the artificiality coming through. The visuals of this film are eye-popping... jaw dropping... stupendously breathtaking. This is a film that greatly benefits from 3D - and the larger the theater, the better. Try and catch it in that format if you can, because it's the kind of film that really loses a lot of its luster when downsized to a television or computer screen. Not all its luster though.<br />
<br />
By way of proper introduction, in case you haven't heard of this film: <i>Gravity</i> tells the story of a group of astronauts conducting maintenance on the Hubble Space Telescope. Suddenly disaster strikes in the form of a cloud of space debris orbiting the Earth causing a ripple effect; the HST is destroyed and becomes part of the cloud, which drifts on and destroys more satellites - a potential real-life catastrophe for astronauts called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome" target="_blank">Kessler Effect</a>.<br />
<br />
This film does great justice to the real science of space, but it is ultimately a human story. As the astronauts desperately struggle to get a grip in zero gravity, what transpires in Sandra Bullocks character is a metaphorical rebirth as she is forced to overcome her situation - both physically out in space, and emotionally in her state of grief. Early on we see her strip off her space-suit and curl up in a fetal position, floating in zero-g as in the womb. It's a beautiful image, and one of several clear symbolic ones throughout the film that add depth and texture to the otherwise straightforward narrative. The final scene of the film is a visceral and satisfying conclusion that drives home the impact of the roller-coaster thrill of the entire piece.<br />
<br />
One phrase that shooting around the internet now is: <i>Gravity </i>does for space what <i>Jaws </i>did for water. In other words, through its exceptional production, the film has become a proof-of-concept for films that are set in zero gravity. It's possible that this marks the first in a whole new genre of space-survival films, or realistic sci-fi. Only time will tell, but in the meantime I reiterate: Go and watch <i>Gravity</i>!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-86349191820273075282013-08-09T20:06:00.002-07:002013-08-09T20:09:31.455-07:00MudA beautiful looking, fantastically written, acted and paced, all-round excellent film. Mud is a shining example of the upside to the bigger-is-better culture of Hollywood,<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ5dcYNJJ7S8I4Ozv1o0rqGu3IXqADils0oHCBTAO4iNUenPykXEJfFUasnJ2Q2Vjc12akKnu5escSUKJCeRBmYAq2UJyQdR9lnaoUuxqAmL8kf2fwRb5PoVtv4fIIzY5IfBSPiPJsgtE/s1600/mud.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ5dcYNJJ7S8I4Ozv1o0rqGu3IXqADils0oHCBTAO4iNUenPykXEJfFUasnJ2Q2Vjc12akKnu5escSUKJCeRBmYAq2UJyQdR9lnaoUuxqAmL8kf2fwRb5PoVtv4fIIzY5IfBSPiPJsgtE/s400/mud.jpg" width="300" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In my last post I spent a good deal of time dwelling on the problems with Hollywood's obsession with bigger and yet bigger pictures, built for the mass market. To be clear; I enjoyed my time in the cinema watching <i>Man of Steel</i>, and a good many other blockbusters of its ilk. Some of them are abominations though. I don't review them often, because I don't often bother to see them.<br />
<br />
But here I want to focus on one of the upshots of modern Hollywood, and especially one that has come about with the recent proliferation of affordable digital film-making equipment. <i>Mud </i>is a relatively low-budget film - $10 million is pittance compared to $200 million superhero films - but it has all the professional production quality and artistic finesse of the best of those films.<br />
<br />
<i>Mud </i>is directed by Jeff Nichols (who also directed <i>Take Shelter</i>, which I love). It's about two boys who live in the Arkansas delta - Ellis and Neckbone, born and raised on the river. Exploring the swampland, the boys stumble across an old boat suspended in a tree, and even stranger, a grown man living in it. The man's name is Mud. He has crosses in his footprints, and a snake tattooed upon his arm. The only things he values are his shirt, his gun, and the girl he's waiting for; Juniper. As they befriend Mud and begin to uncover his past, the boys are also being boys; living and learning as they throw themselves headlong at life.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The film is packed with fantastic actors. Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland are fantastic at expressing the experience of rural American boys (Sheriden has previously appeared in <i>Tree of Life</i>, while Lofland was formerly unknown). Matthew McConaughey is the next best highlight as the eponymous Mud. To make the link between <i>Mud </i>and <i>Man of Steel</i> even stronger I offer you this: Michael Shannon, who plays Zod in <i>Man of Steel</i>, also appears in <i>Mud</i>, as Galen; Neckbone's scuba-diving, womanizing cousin. He's also great. Everything about this movie is great.<br />
<br />
The film exists in the shadow of epic blockbusters, but expresses over and above the raw human experience of those gargantuan entities of blandness. <i>Mud</i> is bursting at the seams with drama as Ellis struggles to reconcile the ideals of love burned into his spirit, with the harsh realities that confront him in everyday life. His parents are on the verge of divorce, his prospective girlfriend doesn't respect him (she being a few years his senior), Mud and Juniper can't find it in themselves to remain devoted. Love is supposed to be eternal; it's supposed to break the barriers of age and distance; to look over past wrongdoings, to inspire and empower future happiness.<br />
<br />
As I look back on the <i>Mud </i>I realize that the only consistently positive relationship in the film is the relationship between the two boys. They aren't always on the same wavelength - Ellis is more curious about the boat, while Neckbone is thrilled to find a naughty magazine in it - but they are always there for each other. Specifically, Neckbone is always at Ellis's side when he does something stupid, like punching a hit man.<br />
<br />
So in Ellis we see the embodiment of the ideal of love; an undying desire to <i>see </i>faithfulness in other people. In Neckbone we see that faithfulness realized in every action he takes. He's a most humble character in that way, really.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-28954436240084865252013-07-23T16:00:00.001-07:002013-09-21T23:38:06.405-07:00Man Of SteelBombastic and ambitious, <i>Man Of Steel</i> creatively re imagines the Superman mythos for the modern audience. It lacks in acting, pacing and story, but makes up for it in sheer spectacle.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMRYjF1rd8mWJ6brDyVv0QxNhNfgynC15zTUGwQ7gow7lQ4aewNOzgguuQbL_Phv_FWP7ispPlcH6apy9SxgY72hMfIi-LJzF8mplEex28qCG-dD3GWqSZnyJaFY5e76QNZlWUDho7558/s1600/New+Man+of+Steel+Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMRYjF1rd8mWJ6brDyVv0QxNhNfgynC15zTUGwQ7gow7lQ4aewNOzgguuQbL_Phv_FWP7ispPlcH6apy9SxgY72hMfIi-LJzF8mplEex28qCG-dD3GWqSZnyJaFY5e76QNZlWUDho7558/s400/New+Man+of+Steel+Poster.jpg" width="274" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
In response to the massive success of Marvel's <i>Avengers</i> franchise, DC Entertainment and Warner Bros. have unveiled their plans to create a Justice League film, featuring iconic comic book characters such as Superman and Batman.<br />
<br />
While Batman has found great success on film recently, Christopher Nolan's <i>The Dark Knight</i> series was heavily grounded in reality, delving deep into the psychology of its central figure. Not the stuff of science-fantasy franchise building. But in the wake of Batman's success, Nolan was brought on board (along with <i>Dark Knight </i>writer David Goyer) to develop Superman into a story that could not only resonate with today's audience, but could also form the foundation for a whole series of DC-universe blockbusters that could intersect and expand.<br />
<br />
The two super-powers of the comic book film franchising realm are clashing, and in the glorious carnage, we the audience are about to reap the benefits. Or endure the consequences. It's hard to say, really, whether this kind of film making is good for the industry or not.<br />
<br />
"New" Hollywood tactics - of throwing as much money as possible at a film, and having it appeal to the widest audience possible - have been around for well over 30 years now. Has anything changed? Today's industry, it seems, is exacerbating the trend started by <i>Star Wars </i>and <i>Jaws</i>, with bigger budgets, bigger marketing, stronger branding, deeper pockets to be emptied and refilled. What do we call films like <i>The Avengers</i>, and the Justice League project? Mega-blockbusters? AAAA movies?<br />
<br />
<a href="" name="more"></a><br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<br />
They're really big, is the point I'm trying to get at. And whether this trend continues until absolutely everything we see in theaters is a part of one mega franchise or another, or whether one of these massive projects bombs out and topples the major studios... Who knows?<br />
<br />
Alright, I suppose I'd better get to the film. Hopefully my ranting about the state of the movies has given you some idea of the context in which this film appears (I haven't covered anything about previous Superman films though, so if you're interested you'll have to look them up yourself).<br />
<br />
<i>Man Of Steel </i>is... well, mediocre I suppose.<br />
<br />
Which is an absolute shame because there are so many great ideas in here - especially in the way the story unfolds, and the way classic Superman tropes have been re purposed for this film. You can see the fingerprints of Nolan all over the place; in the non-linear storytelling, in the grittier atmosphere, in the way he avoids more tired tropes like Kryptonite, and Lex Luthor.<br />
<br />
You can also see the hand of Zach Snyder all over the place. The film is about as bombastic and overblown as you would expect - but the style really works when dealing with super-humans clashing into one another.<br />
<br />
The special effects are wondrous. Krypton is fantastically realized, especially in the way its technology is presented. Scenes on earth are shot very nicely, with a lot of moody close-ups and nature shots that inspire a nice sense of connection to the earth and nature - a sharp contrast to late-game action scenes.<br />
<br />
Boy oh boy, those action scenes. When General Zod finally arrives on earth, and Superman is called upon to protect the planet from him, all hell breaks loose... and it's amazing. Clashes between the human military and the Kryptonian super-soldiers are elegantly done, evoking the terror and the awe experienced by the humans. Clashes between Superman and the Kryptonians are insane, with two or three mighty beings pummeling at each other, hurling one another through buildings, and leveling cities in their wake. One moment they're tossing cars around Smallville, the next they're out in space, battling upon the arms of an ill-fated satellite.<br />
<br />
There's a lot of variety in these battles, so they never seem to get boring. The contrasting settings, characters, objectives, and moods in each smaller scene make the final two acts a smorgasbord of great action beats strung together. The film lives up to all expectations on the action/spectacle front. <i>Man Of Steel </i>is a sight to be seen, preferably on the big screen, in 3D.<br />
<br />
So what's wrong with it?<br />
<br />
There is something I can't quite put my finger on; something in the pacing that probably comes down to the writing, or the editing. For starters, the transition from Superman in hiding to announcing his presence to the world felt rushed. A lot of the character development felt rushed to be honest - Superman's was mostly well-done, as was Lois Lane's, but some of the side characters seemed to have no arc - or worse, an incomplete one. The acting is hit-and miss. Most of the main actors do a great job, but again the supporting characters suffer on this front.<br />
<br />
Finally, the fight scenes didn't always gel together very well either. There are moments when the super-humans Superman is fighting just give up and leave. There's an explanation for this in the story, but it feels pretty contrived and inconsistent; like the writers just needed a way to make the fighting stop, so they implement this whenever the feel the need to. But the breaks between the fights aren't very long - it feels almost as if much of the middle action should have been woven together into one long fight scene, without the arbitrary pauses that just confuse.<br />
<br />
There's also the glaring issue of collateral damage in this movie. Both as it functions in the story, and as it is present to us on screen. (Note: there are some minor spoilers here)<br />
<br />
I'll start with the story problem: Superman does not kill. Superman does everything in his power to save people. This is exemplified quite well in a few instances when he sees a stray civilian falling, or something like that: he rushes out of his way to catch them, and saves them from a messy end. This logic doesn't seem to hold when considering people in buildings though, or planes. The number of buildings collapsed by Superman flying into them - or throwing Zod at them... it's just unbelievable. A spectacular sight, to be sure, but after a while one starts to wonder what Superman's kill count must be up to - directly, or indirectly by allowing the fight to remain in the city, surrounded by people.<br />
<br />
Then there's the way all of this is shown to us in the film. Countless buildings are destroyed, true. But how many people do you suppose we <i>see </i>inside those buildings? I haven't watched closely, but at a guess I would say the answer is none. Every wall the brawling titans obliterate reveals an office block completely devoid of precious human life that might have been squashed by the catastrophe. It's almost as if the film is actively avoiding making us watch people die.<br />
<br />
Indeed, I think this is the case, and a sad side-effect of the way blockbusters are made nowadays. Everybody loves seeing wanton destruction - it's all a lot of fun. Seeing cars crushed by a gravity beam, seeing invincible characters hurling each other through walls, seeing buildings collapse and gas stations explode... It's cinematic gold. But not a lot of us like to see the human consequence of what might happen if these events <i>did</i> take place in a crowded city. A lot of people would die, and we don't like seeing innocent civilians die anywhere near as much as we like seeing a good fiery explosion. To make the film appeal to the largest possible audience, the studio has downplayed the effect that those explosions may have had on the random passers by.<br />
<br />
This problem is exacerbated by the aforementioned motivation of Superman: to save everyone. The film tries to raise the stakes by staging its fights within the city; around people that Superman wants to protect. But the stakes are artificial; they ring false because Superman makes no effort to stop buildings from falling on people, and because there aren't any people in those buildings as far as we can see anyway.<br />
<br />
The ending particularly suffers from this effect - and I can't get this across without spoiling a few things (not that they would surprise you). In the climactic moment, Zod suddenly raises the stakes on Superman, by aiming his laser vision at a cowering family of civilians nearby (who have conveniently appeared). Superman is forced to make a choice. As he tries to wrest Zods head away, the laser beam inches ever closer, almost consuming the family - until Superman suddenly snaps Zod's neck. Zod collapses, dead, and Superman falls to his knees beside him, tears in his eyes.<br />
<br />
Why is Superman crying though? Is he crying because he was forced to kill Zod? That didn't seem like such a big deal before - he was really brutal to him in those fights. Is he crying because the civilians died? Ah, that's the million dollar question, because the film doesn't show us! The final shots are framed in such a way that we never catch a glimpse of that corner of the room - which would reveal either a gory sight, or a sense of relief. In its most crucial moment the films artifice is most obvious. We know that in reality actions have consequences, but the film doesn't want us to really feel them. It tries to convince us they aren't there, undermining the challenging issues that it does grapple with.<br />
<br />
So I've beaten up on it a bit for being the most egregious example of conservative blockbuster film making in recent memory (I don't think Iron Man 3 suffered from this at all!). I've also praised its creative choices, and spectacular special effects.<br />
<br />
I haven't even mentioned the amazing score by Hans Zimmer. That's worth mentioning. It's amazing.<br />
<br />
It all adds up to pretty much standard popcorn summer movie fare. It's definitely worth seeing, and my hopes are high for the future of this franchise. I think the foundation laid by this movie is solid enough to stand on. If DC can up their game, Marvel may have their work cut out for them in the years to come.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-26738360474327841422013-05-28T09:00:00.000-07:002013-05-28T09:00:02.840-07:00Elvira MadiganPretty and romantic and sweet and sad... but I couldn't get into this love story.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK6ql_83H-PufKxaQW3RRnbxpQm6UvIj8VwjydvLUTYG-yHvaplDYo2cDE6KBtHVwEgC-s3kPhos2X7lB5tAxbRTUIeI5SJT9HrfctToG233hjfUlhSTAHp3NyTJQzi4Xk5W7_BCfQOJI/s1600/elvira+madigan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK6ql_83H-PufKxaQW3RRnbxpQm6UvIj8VwjydvLUTYG-yHvaplDYo2cDE6KBtHVwEgC-s3kPhos2X7lB5tAxbRTUIeI5SJT9HrfctToG233hjfUlhSTAHp3NyTJQzi4Xk5W7_BCfQOJI/s400/elvira+madigan.jpg" width="277" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<i>Elvira Madigan</i> tells the (true) tragic story of Danish tightrope-walker Hedvig Jensen (stage name Elvira Madigan), and her lover Sixten Sparre; deserter of the Danish army. The two run away together, and find themselves penniless and starving, but happy in love as they make their way through the beautiful Danish countryside, evading their pursuers, making friends and enemies along the way.<br />
<br />
The film opens with the two of them together, sitting in a field. He has a razor and mirror with him, and shaves off his beard in an attempt to disguise himself, as they are planning to run away together. This takes a while, as he pauses halfway through to finish making love, but once relieved of his facial hair and libido they set off.<br />
<br />
Inexplicably, though she has a more distinctive look and a higher public profile, they make no attempt to change her appearance. Plus, after spending the entire scene pulling the gold lining off his military coat so that it looks more like civilian clothing, he inexplicably hangs it around a scarecrow's shoulders, in a most conspicuous fashion. This is the first of many careless mistakes the two make.<br />
<br />
This, I suppose, is the epitomy of being carefree in love.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
I watched this for a film and music class, and the music is definitely an important element. The film repeats one phrase from Mozarts Piano Concerto No. 21; a gentle, uplifting melody emblematic of their love, and the joy they feel, and lightheartedness and stuff. It repeats it at every sweet little moment they have together.<br />
<br />
Over and over.<br />
<br />
For the whole hour and a half.<br />
<br />
It's very interesting actually. You become acutely aware of where their relationship is at based on whether or not the music is present. When Sixten meets his old army friend and spends the day with him; no music. When Elvira is angry a Sixten; no music. Until they make up; cue the Concerto to the love scene. As the film unfolds (and the plot is not quite as boring as I've made it sound), you start to realize that you are hearing the music less and less. It's a real and effective indicator that things are heading downhill.<br />
<br />
As they hurtle towards a tragic ending (it's not surprising; it tells you what's going to happen in the opening titles), you start to miss the music, and what it means to them (and it is a very fine piece of music). It comes back one final time; this time as a bittersweet requiem for the better times they spent together, and a farewell to the beauty of their love that ended in tragedy.<br />
<br />
So, the film is effective in what it's trying to accomplish.<br />
<br />
I had a few problems with the plot of this film. I think the main one is that the "cheating on partner for the sake of true love" trope makes me mad. Sixten, it turns out, has deserted not just the army, but a wife with two children! Elvira knows about this... and always tries not to think about how they might be feeling. Carefree in love, and totally self absorbed; forgetting about everyone else.<br />
<br />
To be fair, the film tries it's best to make us forget about them too. They're never shown on screen, rarely mentioned, and the smallest indication that they might be suffering is quickly passed off as a lie. The film doesn't try to deal with the heartbreak Sixten's new-found love has caused; just love. Love is a blissful, and splendid thing. Until it makes you forget how to eat.<br />
<br />
So this combination of the illegitimacy of their affair, combined with their general foolishness (Spending their last money on cream and berries for a picnic! Leaving a trail of clues for people to follow them with!), just made me cranky at the pair for most of the movie.<br />
<br />
I'll try not to be too cynical about it: <i>Elvira Madigan </i>is a nicely put together film, and very pleasant to watch and calmly enjoy. But if those kind of details nag at you like they do at me, then perhaps just give it a miss.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-59017512779549767372013-05-12T18:24:00.002-07:002013-05-12T18:24:43.916-07:00Star Trek Into Darkness<i>Star Trek Into Darkness</i> is a perfect continuation of a supremely well-executed reboot. It draws on the old lore, builds on the new, with a balance that will likely please both the casual audience and the hardcore.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCRrKDZSUgMO4omonMx0X3gnUBvmtiakfylwHKxfoflpEP_UrDajOdTLMlo0wLx_DtKVdlM-wAZI2DDH3pLR7R1XBtFuHi4kf9MqjUcWlW467loXCLNdFul-woeG5rgv0-RVokn7dwyHg/s1600/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCRrKDZSUgMO4omonMx0X3gnUBvmtiakfylwHKxfoflpEP_UrDajOdTLMlo0wLx_DtKVdlM-wAZI2DDH3pLR7R1XBtFuHi4kf9MqjUcWlW467loXCLNdFul-woeG5rgv0-RVokn7dwyHg/s400/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness.jpg" width="270" /></a></div>
<br />
(This review will spoil some major plot developments from J.J. Abram's first <i>Star Trek.)</i><br />
<br />
<i>Star Trek Into Darkness</i> takes the solid foundation of the first film, and builds on it fantastically. The aesthetic of 2009's <i>Star Trek</i> remains with the action scenes, the creatively envisioned future gadgetry and even the infamous lens flare. Yes, the first film caught a bit of flak for the incessant lights that seemed dialed up to 11, but this film tones it down only a touch. It's no longer blinding, but it's familiar and consistent with the feel of the first film. Good compromise.<br />
<br />
J.J. Abrams 2009 effort to reboot one of sci-fi geekdom's most well known franchises<i> </i>was perhaps the most brilliantly executed in reboot history. Recasting new faces as iconic characters, Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto), the trick they pulled in that film was to make the new series occur in a parallel universe; one affected by time travel. Different from the original series, but with the same characters and settings (well, minus Vulcan).<br />
<br />
What made it really work was the presence of old Spock, played by the original actor, Leonard Nimoy. Nimoy's presence in the film served both to tie it in with the old series; acknowledging its existence, and also allowed the new series to take it's own direction with this slightly altered timeline. It was like the old franchise was giving its blessing that the new one be made, and be made differently. And how different it is! Unlike previous iterations, <i>Star Trek</i> was an action/adventure blockbuster, and a good one at that.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
Star Trek as a franchise has always been interested more in the philosophical; forgoing action scenes for dialogue, problem solving and negotiation. The central corporate entity, Star Fleet, isn't even a military organisation (despite appearances), their purpose is exploration. While it retains <i>Star Trek</i>'s penchant for action, <i>Star Trek</i> <i>Into Darkness</i> does justice to the tradition by throwing up a challenging situation for the viewer, with a complex plot that asks mature questions. Most of the film consists of two ships facing off against each other, but there are several parties with different objectives negotiating for control of the situation. There are probing questions of morality and responsibility and war and justice and sacrifice and others that are wrapped up in the thrilling story; the viewer is constantly on the edge of their seat being asked "What would you do?" "What's right in this situation?"<br />
<br />
There are a lot of action beats, and some of them are great. The first time we see Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) fight is nothing short of awesome, and there are a few huge set pieces that are stunning to look at. Scenes where ships get shot, and people are suddenly sucked from their workstation into space are brutal, as are a few close-quarters combat sequences (although none of them are graphic, the sounds they make sure do set the imagination firing). There's also great stuff done with the simple premise of Scotty (Simon Pegg) running through a large room. You don't need to go over the top to create great entertainment. Perhaps as a whole the film is on the action-heavy side, with a few scenes running longer than necessary.But it doesn't feel badly imbalanced; the action doesn't get in the way of the dramatic development of the plot or characters.<br />
<br />
Overall, I'd definitely recommend <i>Star Trek Into Darkness</i>, as probably the best follow-up to a blockbuster film so far this year.<br />
<br />
(SPOILERS AHEAD)<br />
<br />
For those of you that have seen it and might have missed it, I'll explain just how much old lore is crammed into this film. And it's a great surprise, really, so don't read on if you haven't seen the film yet.<br />
<br />
It turns out that Cumberbatch's character is actually Khan. If you know even the pittance that I do about Star Trek you'll know that Khan is the main villain of it's most acclaimed film, <i>Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan</i>.<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm not sure how well Khan's backstory in this lines up with the original series. I do know that in <i>Wrath of Khan</i>, Khan is originally stranded on a desert planet with his followers, alive and standing by him. The changes they made suit well, I think. Khans character seemed whole and coherent, driven by the desire to save his crew. Kirk and Spock's reversed roles serve each of their character arcs in this film, with Kirk learning humility, and Spock learning how to care like a human being. It's all very well done, and I hope the series continues to allow these characters to walk their own path.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
And apart from borrowing that character, there are also large plot threads borrowed from that movie too. The whole business of Khan coming up from a deserted planet, to engage in a duel with the Enterprise crew, ship to ship. Yes there are a whole lot of twists and turns in this film, but beats such as the warp drive needing to be manually fixed; a major character sacrificing his own life by going into the radiation zone, and the death behind the glass door are all lifted from the older film.<br />
<br />
The roles are reversed though! In the new film, Kirk sacrifices himself, rather than Spock; they are on opposite sides of the door. After Kirk dies in <i>Into Darkness</i>, Spock cries out "KHAN!", in much the same way Kirk did in <i>Wrath of Khan</i> (in a different scene). There are so many little details like this that go to show how intricately constructed <i>Into Darkness </i>is.<br />
<br />
If I had to criticize it, I would point to its reliance on old Star Trek lore as a potential weakness. They pulled it off beautifully in this film, but if they lean on it too heavily in the future, the third film may suffer. They've well and truly established the universe as one where the same events <i>may </i>occur, but also as one that can break free and do its own thing. I hope they stay creative, because I love this re imagining.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-29282633922985295602013-04-30T16:54:00.001-07:002013-04-30T17:00:34.965-07:00Iron Man 3In Marvels ongoing quest for world domination via massive interconnected blockbuster franchises, <i>Iron Man 3</i> is utterly expected, but full of surprises. A step down from <i>The Avengers</i>, but a big step up from <i>Iron Man 2.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7ogsNRizDG7E19UU7a5PBM6wjp53pnOpUKRu33A9gz7gsU7epgDeTKP-rRBxUzUxj47xN6YPcldWZhNkHfRu7mXglyauSzaCO2za0ee3cyla8J2JbAGnHLfseivhpG0_fUzUJIrMuujU/s1600/iron-man-3-international-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7ogsNRizDG7E19UU7a5PBM6wjp53pnOpUKRu33A9gz7gsU7epgDeTKP-rRBxUzUxj47xN6YPcldWZhNkHfRu7mXglyauSzaCO2za0ee3cyla8J2JbAGnHLfseivhpG0_fUzUJIrMuujU/s640/iron-man-3-international-poster.jpg" width="432" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
<br />
Disney/Marvel's Iron Man film franchise has never looked more cartoonish than in the closing credits of <i>Iron Man 3. </i>Unlike the previous films, which featured first line drawings, then comic-strip style illustrations splashing across the screen to the music, this film uses live action snippets from the film, and from the gag reel (I believe). Despite the photo-realism, the mad-dash editing and brisk musical beat give it the feel, more than ever, of a Saturday morning cartoon title sequence.<br />
<br />
It's a fine and fitting credit sequence, but I mention it because it's representative of where the franchise has been heading. <i>Iron Man</i>, way back in 2008 took a fairly realistic approach to the superhero film. It featured topical themes, and only barely stretched the boundaries of realistic technology. It was unique at the time. There have been a slew of more recent films that have connected with the original <i>Iron Man</i>, using that film's established credibility, and expanding its universe to include a large array of colourful characters who have been referenced and cameoed to no end in this ambitious project. And with each little step, this universe has grown further and further from our own; straining credibility both in the science-fiction aspects (which might as well be labelled fantasy at this stage), and with the fundamental principles of reality, such as the fact that a mere mortal cannot survive (let alone continue to fight) after a certain amount of force is applied to the body. All this is to say that <i>Iron Man 3 </i>continues Marvel's franchise-wide trend of turning this world that looks like ours into their own thoroughly cartoonish one.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I honestly don't have a problem with this, it's just interesting to observe - especially in stark (haha, geddit?) contrast to DC Comics approach, who's only recent success has been the Dark Knight trilogy. Nolan took that franchise in an ultra-realistic direction, and for the most part it paid off in spades, making them boatloads of money (I don't know how much, but I'm sure it was heaps), plus creating arguably the best Action/Superhero/Crime/Film of all time, and inspiring a reboot of Superman which is shaping up to be different, but similarly epic.<br />
<br />
Back to Iron Man. This film deals with Tony Stark reeling in the wake of the events of <i>The Avengers</i>. I suppose what happened in <i>Iron Man 2</i> probably plays into this as well, but I honestly can't remember all the craziness that went on there. Anyway, soon after the incident in New York involving inter-dimensional aliens and Tony Stark flying through a wormhole, Tony sees that a mysterious figure called The Mandarin is making threats against America. Meanwhile, corporate espionage, threat of new bio-enhancing technologies, robot tinkering wizardry, and mass destruction also ensue - the film is packed with all the goodies you already know and love from previous Iron Man's.<br />
<br />
On the upside, it's totally unpredictable, in a good way. You're never sure quite where the film is going, but by the time it gets there you will walk away satisfied. It's a strong, coherrant story, with flashbacks from Tony's past effectively worked in to set up an interesting central plot.Thankfully, the plot isn't nearly as cluttered as the last film, although a few threads hang loose. At times the film touches on Tony's miraculous escape at the end of <i>Avengers</i>, but it doesn't ask anything in a meaningful way, and it doesn't offer any resolution to this question.<br />
<br />
Then there's that surprisingly long section of the film spent with a random kid that Stark meets. Their interaction is so strange, I half expected the boy to be an apparition of Tony's younger self, and soon he would wake up alone in the wilderness. That doesn't happen.<br />
<br />
But while I was skeptical at points, the whole thing builds into a satisfying climax that pays off a lot of what comes before it. Little things, like the self-building suit that you've seen in the trailers, are utilized to great effect in the last act, and there's a particularly fantastic reveal about the villain that both utterly surprises, and completely satisfies. Indeed, I don't think we've ever seen a villain quite like The Mandarin. His early scenes are a little mediocre, with the obnoxious editing of an Anonymous video coupled with the stereotypical setup/preaching of a Bin Laden tape. But the more you learn about him the more fascinating he becomes, and his final few scenes are some of the best in the film.<br />
<br />
The action is well staged, shifting between stock-standard, and sheer awesomeness - highlights include Tony trying to rescue a bunch of people who have fallen out of a plane, and Tony trying to fight baddies while his suit is only half constructed. Probably the best part of the movie is that it takes joy in surprising the audience. There are a lot of fake-outs, and throwaway one-liners, and awkward moments, and moments of brilliance.<br />
<br />
The film deals with the identity of Iron Man, and Tony's dependence on his machines, and his relationship with Pepper, and his treatment of people in his past, and all sorts of other kinda-familiar-but-still-kinda-sweet themes. It doesn't dig deep, it doesn't spend too long developing character or theme. It shows up, shows off, and leaves. It's the quintessential Marvel blockbuster, and one of the better ones as far as those go. It leaves the characters in an interesting place, so how this all shapes up in <i>Avengers 2</i> (or <i>Iron Man 4</i>, or whatever) will be exciting to see.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-21418309048579507282013-04-30T09:13:00.002-07:002013-04-30T09:15:21.795-07:00SadnessWilliam Yang's <i>Sadness </i>is a short, poignant and powerful piece about loss and identity. There's something amazingly warm about it, despite the grim subject matter.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7i65M5ychPpZTdYJZrPa8iP-AQhyphenhyphenWmZJVl2Gkj0zck3G0runtTlGdb0XuA0e_gT_vrUrLr3y4xpebmfUu-KzlFe5YWHsWfwhKpImcl3WuF1emWg6ZR6sdpBvwWX8PHCW3ARFRIBgi8yA/s1600/sadness.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="299" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7i65M5ychPpZTdYJZrPa8iP-AQhyphenhyphenWmZJVl2Gkj0zck3G0runtTlGdb0XuA0e_gT_vrUrLr3y4xpebmfUu-KzlFe5YWHsWfwhKpImcl3WuF1emWg6ZR6sdpBvwWX8PHCW3ARFRIBgi8yA/s400/sadness.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
If you've got a spare hour, you should watch <i>Sadness</i>.<br />
<br />
Fair warning though: as if the title didn't give it away, <i>Sadness</i> is a powerful and exceedingly sad film. It will make you feel things, and some of those things aren't pleasant. But they are important.<br />
<br />
You can watch it <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/aplacetothink/?#watch/mh_1990/sadness/watchVideo" target="_blank">RIGHT HERE</a>, now.<br />
<br />
William Yang is a social photographer, who has made a living taking pictures, but also uses his pictures to perform unique storytelling pieces in art galleries. In 1999, Tony Ayres directed a film based on one of those performances: <i>Sadness</i>. The performance basically consists of what is pictured above: Yang sits on a stool, facing the audience with an unwavering neutral expression. Behind him, a slide projector casts images on the wall from his photography. In monotone, he tells stories that link with the pictures.<br />
<br />
If you want to be surprised by this film, stop reading now and go watch it. I'm going to give a little detail about the stories he tells, but it may be that they are more effective if you don't know what you're in for.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
The stories Yang tells in <i>Sadness</i> are of two different aspects of his identity. Yang's heritage is Chinese, but his mother suppressed that culture when he was growing up; he has long considered being Chinese to be undesirable. Yang is also a gay man, who grew up in a community of gay men who, in the 1980s, were hard hit by the outbreak of the AIDs epidemic.<br />
<br />
The film is divided into sections, cutting between stories about family and friends. The family segments follow a single narrative through-line, following Yang's quest to find out the truth behind the murder of his uncle, Fang Yuen. These scenes play out like a murder mystery, although the killer is known from the start, with Yang visiting a number of his relatives, asking them if they know anything about it. Here the director adds his touch; re-enactments of each story told by the relatives are woven into the story - still under Yangs mediated narration. These re-enactments are almost comical, at times, playing into the exaggerations of his eccentric old aunts and others. The story builds to a very real climax though, and while it seems unrelated to Yang's discussion of his friends, it becomes strongly tied by the end.<br />
<br />
Sections about Yang's friends are the most brutal. In each section he introduces us to one of his friends who has passed on. ("that night he died." he says - it's heart wrenching!) He gives them a few scenes each for us to get to know who they are, what they were into, how they felt about death. One by one, they all die. Yang took photos of all his friends - some of them he captured on their deathbeds.<br />
<br />
Here's the craziest thing about this film: <i>Sadness</i> did not make me feel depressed. Indeed, I would argue that watching the film is a healthy experience of empathetic grief. Yang invites the viewer to share in his story, but at no point exhibits any kind of emotional reaction to the saddening course of events. This means that the onus is on the viewer to react - and react they do. For most people, and for me, this is a film that makes them <i>feel. Hard. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
But these stories of sadness are laced with hope. Yang does not act sad, but does talk about his optimistic attitude. In telling us about his friends, he conveys to us the joys of their lives, and the joy he found in knowing them. The wake at the end of the film is so powerful, yet somehow so uplifting, it's like in mourning these people you feel afresh that vitality of life that made them who they were. It's a vitality we all have somewhere in us, but perhaps we forget sometimes.<br />
<br />
Of course, <i>Sadness</i> is definitely not for everyone. If reading this far has made you cry... maybe the film is not for you. If you've read this far and remained stony-faced, or stony-hearted, then I recommend it to you all the more. We live such sheltered lives behind all our screens. Yang succeeds in breaking through them. Click the link above, go feel something for once.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-71439630300649277162013-04-21T18:39:00.000-07:002013-04-21T18:39:38.378-07:00VertigoHitchcock's classic thriller/romance about a man with a fear of heights has recently been labelled '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sight_%26_Sound" target="_blank">the greatest film ever made</a>'. <em>Vertigo</em> is everything Hitchcock did best; a rollercoaster ride of suspense and surprise, an absolutely engrossing film.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfZz78EOGYY2czBES4zX1i_mDkVR0PWmytySsLn_fWqBj_2SJHoswW0a6vwVLd9LcobZeEby0ndt4fFubZ24-fE0XXsQWb3SGDhEdxpJrL7aX0EsI3DFc7QvU-HdR_kUMA0qE-ec0O_sk/s1600/vertigo1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfZz78EOGYY2czBES4zX1i_mDkVR0PWmytySsLn_fWqBj_2SJHoswW0a6vwVLd9LcobZeEby0ndt4fFubZ24-fE0XXsQWb3SGDhEdxpJrL7aX0EsI3DFc7QvU-HdR_kUMA0qE-ec0O_sk/s400/vertigo1.jpg" width="255" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The nice thing about Hitchcock's masterpiece is that, despite its incredible plot twists, it's a hard movie to spoil. I could tell you what one or two of the revelations are, but they wouldn't make sense without a fair bit of context first. I'll give you some context, but I won't spoil the film here.<br />
<br />
James Stewart (one of my favourite actors ever) plays John "Scottie" Ferguson, a detective who retires after an incident in which, while on a chase, a police officer falls to his death trying to save Scottie from hanging off a building. The doctors diagnose Scottie with acrophobia; a fear of heights (often confused with the dizzy sensation known as vertigo). He encounters an old school friend, who asks him to follow his wife Madeline, concerned for her welfare. It seems Madeline believes that she is possessed by someone from the past; a mysterious figure named Carlotta.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
As I said, one of the most enjoyable aspects of <em>Vertigo </em>is its unpredictability. As the story unfolded, I had no idea where it was going, but I could certainly feel it heading somewhere. It puts you right in the shoes of Scottie, trying to figure out what the deal is with Madeline. Is there something supernatural going on? We don't see evidence for it, but she sure does disappear a lot...<br />
<br />
Perhaps some of the unpredictability comes from the outlandish, even absurd plot developments that occur later on. These are forgivable though, because the story is told in such a brilliant way. Scottie and Madeline do eventually interact, then fall in love, then some crazy things happen. The film is constantly transforming itself from a mystery, to a romance, to a thriller, to a drama. It deals with madness, murder, obsession, regret, longing for the past, fear and pain and the idealization of women. Ultimately, I suppose, it would have to be called a tragedy, but its a tragedy of such depth and complexity, it seems condescending to try and wrangle it into any particular label.<br />
<br />
There's so much one could say about <i>Vertigo</i>. I wrote an essay in which I claimed that the entire thing is in fact a nightmare had by Scottie. <a href="http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-vertigo-1958" target="_blank">Roger Ebert</a> wrote a fascinating piece about the way Hitchcock expresses his own relationship to women in the film (contains spoilers). It's utterly deserving of the label it's been given precisely because there's so much you can get out of it.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Hitchcock was also a popular director, and if you just want to sit back for 2 hours and be thrilled, this movie still delivers on that front, surprising audiences like myself even today.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-22719125364117592652013-03-31T23:49:00.000-07:002013-03-31T23:49:24.508-07:00Django Unchained<i>Django </i>is by no means Tarantino's best - far from it in fact. However, by the very nature of what the film is about, it may wind up being one of the most important things he's ever done.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGEhMyBihhCaSsdUkSt74feo3u1pozx3TA9KBVuAL9m0FofpMMqgjt_8Arqf_zmmVwnl3E-qUY02nAQSTW_6kBxsDryYUT6MeyiHr_AGwPecG5zTsSwCmopVdUl_90oSWU3DnsVkLc7_U/s1600/django-unchained-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGEhMyBihhCaSsdUkSt74feo3u1pozx3TA9KBVuAL9m0FofpMMqgjt_8Arqf_zmmVwnl3E-qUY02nAQSTW_6kBxsDryYUT6MeyiHr_AGwPecG5zTsSwCmopVdUl_90oSWU3DnsVkLc7_U/s400/django-unchained-poster.jpg" width="268" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Films about slavery are few and far between. In my lifetime, I've seen one - <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454776/" target="_blank">Amazing Grace</a></i> from 2006. Wikipedia lists <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_about_American_slavery" target="_blank">twelve</a> (three of those are set for release in 2012 or 2013). A scant few compared with many hundreds - if not thousands - of films that have been made about the greatest crime against humanity in the twentieth century; holocaust films.<br />
<br />
After the holocaust came a swell of films about the holocaust; providing an outlet for the widespread feelings of anger, horror, repentance and regret. They came from all sorts of countries, but German cinema especially was shaped by a generation of Germans looking back on their past. Likewise, in the wake of the Vietnam war, there were a flood of films that depicted the horrors that unfolded there, and called into question America's longstanding pride in superiority in warfare. The scars of the Vietnam war are still there, but it has been 'dealt with' on a cultural level. These films helped entire nations move on from the mistakes they've made; they are a result of and a part of the healing process. It's a trend that has gone on for centuries, and we see it now in today's trend of movies about wars in the Middle East.<br />
<br />
But America hasn't finished dealing with its past yet. <i>Django Unchained</i> is an important movie because it is an American film about American slavery before the civil war. The practice is arguably more inhuman than the holocaust; treating entire people groups as animals to be commanded, traded, and bred. It was widespread around the world, and lasted far longer than the holocaust or any other genocide (for a solid rundown on the context of slavery, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnV_MTFEGIY" target="_blank">click here</a>). And as I said before, there is relatively little in American popular culture that reflects on precisely what transpired across those decades.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
So I'll get this out of the way really quick: Django Unchained is something of a letdown. Director Quentin Tarantino is known for big, bold characters, pulpy story line, quirky dialogue and brutal violence. <i>Django Unchained </i>delivers all of these elements, but without some of the polish of his previous films. It's not as revolutionary as<i> Pulp Fiction</i>, and it's not as tightly executed as <i>Inglorious Basterds</i>. So in some ways, it's a disappointment. But the film is still pretty solid, and because of the fact that it deals with slavery, it serves as a crucial point of discussions, and comparisons.<br />
<br />
Of all Tarantino's work, <i>Inglorious Basterds</i> is probably the most apt comparison. Like <i>Django, Basterds</i> is a historical revenge fantasy centered around a particularly brutal point in human history (an aforementioned holocaust film). Indeed, Christoph Waltz plays much the same character in that film as in this one - only this time he uses his lethal cunning for good. The stakes are lowered too; the actions of the Basterds and other characters in that film resulted in nothing less than the premature halting of the most destructive war in history. In this film, Django is fighting for his wife and his life. Historically significant events such as the civil war are omitted, and we are left with a recreation of a dismal time to live in, and something of a fantasy of how we wish that time might have gone.<br />
<br />
Why is this? Why not alter history to the point of a wide-spread role reversal? Couldn't Django have incited a black uprising, taken control of the south, and joined the union, averting the Civil War entirely? I can't say for sure, but I can suggest a few things. As I said before, holocaust films have been done to death. It was probably an easy stretch in Tarantino's mind to make <i>his</i> holocaust film the one that kills Hitler. On the other hand, slavery has not been dealt with properly. Tarantino is breaking new ground here, so he must break it gently. Baby steps.<br />
<br />
(The following paragraphs contain SPOILERS)<br />
<br />
There are a plethora of westerns to which Tarantino pays homage. The whole look and feel and setting of the piece takes after the 'spaghetti westerns' of Sergio Leone, with their drawn-out face-offs and hyper-stylized violence. Tarantino uses that kind of glorified violence in everything he does, but there was something particular I noticed about it in this film. Violence is only exaggerated and glorified when white man is the victim; in the climactic shootout for example (one of the bloodiest I've ever seen). We see flashbacks of Django's slavery days when he was whipped, but the actual whipping takes place offscreen, as do many brutal acts towards the slaves involving dogs and hammers. While toning the violence down in terms of gratuity, Tarantino is dialing up the significance of it. When one slave is forced to kill another in combat, we don't see anything, but we <i>feel</i> it profusely. He takes the attitude of the time; that the well being of blacks is insignificant compared with the well being of whites, and turns it on its head.<br />
<br />
There are a few exceptions to this; one is the execution of Stephen (played by Samuel L. Jackson) at the end of the film. It's a relatively long showdown, in which Django exerts his new found power over Stephen in a brutal fashion. It's fun though, because after only a couple of scenes with this character, we peer into the depths of his soul, and see the joy he takes in evil. His death is a satisfying act of justice, and depicted in the same style as all the other white characters. As a traitor to his own kind, Steven is as bad as, or worse than, the likes of Calvin Candie.<br />
<br />
Another is the execution of Calvin's sister, Lara. Lara is not depicted as an evil character - indeed, she is sharper than most of the men in the film. Her death is quick, clean, and a little bit comical. This might be due to the fact that women were also underprivileged in this time. Lara is the only white woman we see, and Calvin treats her like a princess, but apart from a few insightful observations (that are important to the plot), she's really just a doll on a stand to be admired. The real blame for just about everything that went on at that time rests squarely on the shoulders of white men.<br />
<br />
Reaching back deeper into American film history, compare this to <i>Birth of a Nation </i>a seminal film, but also an infamous one for its depiction of African-American peoples in the period just after the civil war. In some ways they are similar; once liberated blacks begin wreaking havoc on the established white order. In <i>Birth of a Nation</i> this comes in the form of blacks taking over the parliament, acting detestably, and terrorizing the innocent white folk. In <i>Django</i>, the innocent black man shoots all the detestable white men. It took a hundred years, but the tables are finally turned.<br />
<br />
Then there's Django's direct reference to the Klu Klux Klan - both the historical entity and the one depicted in <i>Birth of a Nation</i>. The Klan comes charging over the hill to triumphant music, torches blazing. They jeer and stamp, and surround the trailer where they believe our protagonists to be (directly mirroring the earlier film). In the middle of this scene, we flash back to a few minutes earlier. As the Klan is preparing to ride, one of them whinges that he can't see through the mask. The result is a hilarious argument over whether the masks are worth the effort. It's quite a brilliant scene (although some have observed, out of place with the rest of the film), and one that I think most would agree needed to be in any film that responds so directly to <i>Birth of a Nation</i>.<br />
<br />
I am in no way an authority on this issue. I'm a well-off white man. I'm not even American - I'm about as removed from the issue of African-American slavery as I could possibly be. The character I identified most with was King Shultz, the German-American, especially in the scene when he watches a slave torn apart by the dogs. In order to achieve freedom for Django's wife, he and Django must maintain character, and turn a blind eye to the cruelty. Schultz can't, and ultimately this leads to his death. Only Django can rescue his own wife, because only he can look the issue in the eye, overcome his knee-jerk emotional reactions, in order to achieve true freedom. This is not a discussion for Germans or Australians to take part in. We can do our best to help, we can talk, we can grieve, whatever we want. But slavery is an issue that white Americans and black Americans need to work through for themselves, together. I hope this film is not alone in seeking to do so.<br />
<br />
There's a lot I haven't talked about. I haven't talked about how the use of modern rap music that plays over Django's entrances evokes the future of the people of this time. I haven't mentioned 'Blaxploitation' films, mainly because I don't know anything about them. I haven't talked about the hero's journey and its mythic qualities. I haven't mentioned that Quentin Tarantino blows himself up in this movie. It's a long, meaty movie with themes and references pouring out of it's ears. It will probably get in a little hot water for the excesses of its content, but look past that. This is an important movie.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-89051250819986344542013-02-24T23:10:00.000-08:002013-03-22T05:36:36.079-07:00CasablancaA classic film from the golden age of cinema, rightly regarded as one of the finest.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPy40KivTQ2S5h4XIs8KKMhwRINlLbdRyq9fuEycNM4sPG_WcDku90ZNa3nkvOGb2oapNo-O7izLp8zJkWIzCkK2LUcizz3F8k6YNa8fu-9Xw2yn3s8kfTLVgihehHPEDDgGBhLVx9-W4/s1600/casablanca.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPy40KivTQ2S5h4XIs8KKMhwRINlLbdRyq9fuEycNM4sPG_WcDku90ZNa3nkvOGb2oapNo-O7izLp8zJkWIzCkK2LUcizz3F8k6YNa8fu-9Xw2yn3s8kfTLVgihehHPEDDgGBhLVx9-W4/s400/casablanca.jpg" width="267" /></a></div>
<br />
You have definitely heard of this movie. At least, if you haven't explicitly heard of it, you have heard it quoted or seen it referenced a thousand times over. Such lines as "Play it once, Sam. For old times sake", or "Here's looking at you kid", or to my surprise, "I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship..." This is a film that has totally saturated pop culture, influenced many films for decades to come, and is held up as a contender for the 'greatest movie ever made'.<br />
<br />
And I liked it. In fact, I think other people will like it too. While it exists in our cultural memory as a sweeping romance film - and, yes, the romance is integral to the plot - it's actually more of a drama/thriller, centring around the tension between characters trying to escape from Casablanca. The film was made and is set in the midst of the second world war, in a town in French Morocco called Casablanca. A melting pot of different cultures, Casablanca is located on the northern tip of Africa. In 1942 it is ruled by the French, who are occupied by the Germans, but is far enough from both that neither exerts complete control over it. Refugees from across Europe have made their way here in order to escape the war, by boarding a boat for Lisbon, and eventually getting to the United States. (The film was written before the States joined the war, but was released the year after.)<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
So, Casablanca is kind of the Mos Eisley cantina of WWII, if Han Solo had owned the place. Yes, the loveable rogue from <i>Star Wars</i> is a spitting image of Humphrey Bogart's Rick, who owns a diner in Casablanca. He maintains a hard neutrality when dealing with politics, motivated by a cynicism and self interest. A friend entrusts him with the care of two exit visas, obtained by murdering some German soldiers. When the friend is arrested Rick doesn't lift a finger in his aid, but nor does he reveal his possession of the visas. Much of the films' drama hinges on this inciting incident; who knows about the visas, where are they, what will Rick do with them?<br />
<br />
Like Han Solo, Rick's hard-hearted exterior is softened by the arrival of a woman; an old flame by the name of Ilsa. Their past together is shrouded in mystery, as is her reason for leaving him at the train station in Paris, and her connection to the French resistance leader, Victor Lazlo. If you're a romance fan, perhaps the love triangle setup will appeal to you, but for me it was completely secondary to the political intrigue that was going on around it. Ricks character arc is great as well, although Ilsa and Lazlo don't seem to have one.<br />
<br />
Apart from all this mystery, the movie is just a lot of fun. The dialogue is witty and breathlessly paced, the characters are fun to be around, even the small parts such as Ricks business rival, and Sam, the piano man. Rick has a chummy relationship with a senior German officer, which is a lot of fun to watch (especially when the officer's superiors come to town).<br />
<br />
There are brief action scenes that are bloodless, and not particularly spectacular, but satisfying. The music is particularly good (with some grand sequences to which the soundtrack is integral) And while many of the technical aspects of the film are dated, they serve to uphold the story which still resonates. Casablanca is a great movie, and still enjoyable to watch to this day.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-72008068876251994412013-02-15T17:16:00.000-08:002013-02-15T17:16:13.096-08:00Dr. NoThe first in the Bond franchise is only really remarkable in light of its legacy.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9vuopbtRDt1Z7XW-HDTKf9mFevo6uJnRX5CIMpZbmgJ1ahDIQhsqiScbyQq4qzGeD9b7YYEGrz9cOcNGo9JkZDlASvDYf6wwxnNyNaTgJPp5DNWhQfFrdUFfsJwtuQHL_zAJ3pKQiCHM/s1600/007+Dr+No.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9vuopbtRDt1Z7XW-HDTKf9mFevo6uJnRX5CIMpZbmgJ1ahDIQhsqiScbyQq4qzGeD9b7YYEGrz9cOcNGo9JkZDlASvDYf6wwxnNyNaTgJPp5DNWhQfFrdUFfsJwtuQHL_zAJ3pKQiCHM/s400/007+Dr+No.jpg" width="253" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
James Bond is a legendary figure of pop culture. First envisioned by author Ian Flemming in 1953 in his<i> </i>novel, <i>Casino Royale, </i>the name has become synonymous with the film series, and the universally recognized catch phrase; "Bond... James Bond." <i>Dr. No</i> was made in 1962, and was the first in a long, long, line of films featuring James Bond, with several actors playing the role of the central character (and others) throughout the 50 year run.<br />
<br />
The first film opens unexpectedly with three goofy looking old men crossing the street, to the tune of 'Three Blind Mice'. This strangeness abruptly gives way to thriller material when the three men break into a building and kill everyone inside. This prompts MI6, to send their best man. Here we meet James Bond, suave agent of British Intelligence. He's introduced to us in a nightclub, playing poker, because that's what gentlemen do. We see him briefed by his superior, 'M', and given a different pistol by 'Q' (a shadow of the scene in later films), and flown off to Jamaica to investigate.<br />
<i></i><br />
<a name='more'></a><i><br /></i>
In a 1962 interview, Flemming stated that Bond was originally conceived as an "extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened." This is unfamiliar to Bond as made famous by the films, but rings more true in this film then (perhaps) any other. Later films, starting with the second, make Bond something of an invincible super-agent, but in Dr. No he is quite grounded, relatively passive, and a more mundane character.<br />
<br />
Sean Connery is excellent at delivering smooth talk and dropping one liners, but in routine conversation he sounds a bit awkward - like he's clamouring to overact, but has to restrain himself, so every line is as forcibly dull as can be. This isn't a terrible problem, but being used to the slick pace and tight dialogue of newer films, it irked me a little. Likewise, action scenes in this movie have an old-timey awkwardness about them; humble beginnings for a franchise that would become known for its over-the-top action.<br />
<br />
As for the espionage and the villain and his evil plan... I hardly followed. I can't recall the motive behind the murder that Bond is sent to investigate, I'm not sure how the woman was connected to Dr. No, and I have absolutely no idea what Dr. No was trying to accomplish (later, I read that he is planning to disrupt a rocket launch from his secret base. The motive? He's a terrorist, I guess).<br />
<br />
The film didn't really seemed all that concerned about whether or not we were following the complexities of the plot; only that we were entertained. To that end they deliver the action beats, attempted murders, gratuitous bikinis, and bizarre evil lairs that are hallmarks on the series, but it all feels like it's still in development (with the exception of Honey Ryder, who seems to be the definitive 'Bond Girl'). I know people love this movie, but I found it slow and mediocre, and only really remarkable for its iconicism, and the fact that it spawned a pop-culture juggernaut. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-6254849982564259892013-01-23T21:00:00.000-08:002013-01-23T21:00:18.709-08:00Gangster SquadFrom the director of the fresh, funny, surprising <i>Zombieland </i>comes something utterly mediocre.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibnKQ2Um78oOsGJu83Y7979ewhY3y1Uf_VVFIHviRCU6_4yrnP2bkn4h04IBgBdQ_LfEhBRPDnBaOpntKmJHYnawNPmiijFHGW7y2OUmmqz122x7lRWtPBH9bVYydyCJSKlySPIYuXQOk/s1600/gangster-squad-poster-has-a-b-movie-vibe-117331-1000-100.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibnKQ2Um78oOsGJu83Y7979ewhY3y1Uf_VVFIHviRCU6_4yrnP2bkn4h04IBgBdQ_LfEhBRPDnBaOpntKmJHYnawNPmiijFHGW7y2OUmmqz122x7lRWtPBH9bVYydyCJSKlySPIYuXQOk/s400/gangster-squad-poster-has-a-b-movie-vibe-117331-1000-100.jpg" width="270" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Gangster squad is set in late 1940s Los Angeles, with the city under the control of real life gangster Mickey Cohen. Hotheaded but honest cop John O'Mara, played by Josh Brolin, is chosen to put together a squad off the books to wage guerrilla warfare against the 'enemy occupation' of drug runners, whorehouse overseers and tommy gun toting gangsters that wear the badge of Mickey Cohen. <br />
<br />
This true story is exaggerated into life on the big screen with stylish flair. Fast forward and slo-mo is liberally applied to the competent action beats to give them a glossy sheen. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone provide the sex appeal as the sexy cop and sexy femme fatale (although unlike real femme fatales, Stone's character is a good girl pretending to be bad). O'Mara and his wife give moral grounding and warm fuzziness. Giovanni Ribisi plays the gang's tech expert and sympathetic family man (after O'Mara), while Max Kennard plays the gunslinging bad-ass and Michael Peña his junior partner and part time comic relief. There's also a black guy who's good with knives, because every team needs a black guy and someone who uses knives. So I guess they saved money by rolling them into one? Anyway, he's played by Anthony Mackie and he's pretty bad-ass as well.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Pretty much all the actors do well with their parts. The chemistry between Gosling and Stone isn't great (I've heard they had another film together where they shone, but that's not evident here), but it serves its purpose. Everybody plays it up and creates a fun atmosphere at the times when the film hits its stride; there are some good montages and exciting action moments. Sean Penn plays Mickey Coen, and while he's nothing like the real life gangster, he's over-the-top and fun to watch. He gets a couple of monologues declaring himself 'God' and 'progress', and the crazy really comes out in these moments, it's all good fun.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
The tone of the film is inconsistent though. The first scene is a gruesome one, introducing the villain as cold hearted and brutal in nature. It's a pretty cool set up, although the execution of the snooping Chicago policemen is a bit much. Throughout the film Coen executes anyone who gets in his way or let's him down, including a lot of his minions who survive the interference of the titular squad. It makes him a ferocious villain, though you have to wonder after a couple of rounds of this if he's really going to keep killing his own men when his business begins to crumble - wont he need all the help he can get?<br />
<br />
But sometimes the film seems to be wanting to be taken seriously. Apart from the executions, which are gratuitous but forgivable, there is also a scene where Ribisi's character wonders who the real monsters are; 'What separates us from them?'. The scene feels slapped on, shoddily done, and it also rings hollow because we've just seen a montage of the gangster squad doing their thing - doing horrible violent things to the bad guys for sure, but also burning money, saving captured women and disrupting the influence of crooks on the city. They may have done some bad things, but there's a clear line between them and the villains. Most would agree that what they've been doing is for the greater good. There are elements of the film that are unexpected - even refreshing - but cramming this cliché in there (amongst others) doesn't do it a lick of good.<br />
<br />
Other than that... not much to say. There's a boxing scene. It's alright. There's a car chase. It's alright. It's a fine film if you want a bit of violent fun and a few good laughs, but nothing about it reaches the level of exceptional.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-19414095199873914952013-01-11T18:22:00.000-08:002013-01-11T18:24:25.824-08:00HitchcockThe film succeeds on many levels, but doesn't quite touch the heights of greatness of the titular director.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyH1RgBSA3-WPN1uQzfYHdqHxxH0kXFVpHhx0RCTbdrOn6yDqcBur6gKqJCU_FvQas7BaW3CWnQ7Qx5T-p4zNkCSaIsQFY_146OKQMO4ye9mo3M3I7iLahKOvghQOmH8RAfCky9A6Z5nE/s1600/Hitchcock-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyH1RgBSA3-WPN1uQzfYHdqHxxH0kXFVpHhx0RCTbdrOn6yDqcBur6gKqJCU_FvQas7BaW3CWnQ7Qx5T-p4zNkCSaIsQFY_146OKQMO4ye9mo3M3I7iLahKOvghQOmH8RAfCky9A6Z5nE/s400/Hitchcock-poster.jpg" width="270" /></a></div>
<br />
(This review contains spoilers for <i>Psycho</i>)<br />
<br />
Alfred Hitchcock is still today the master of cinematic suspense. For the most part his films still hold up; I watched <i>The Birds</i> for the first time this week, and was enthralled at how such an admittedly silly premise could be turned into such a nail-biter. True, there were some awfully outdated "yellowscreen" effects, and times have certainly changed since the 1960s, but considering films like <i>The Happening</i> are made to this day, it's a wonder how well it holds up.<br />
<br />
<i>Psycho</i> even more so. <i>Psycho</i> is perhaps most closely associated with the director today, but in 1960 when the film was in production it was considered a risky project, so different it was from Hitchcock's other works. The studio refused to fund and market it, the censors refused to approve it, and when it was released it was met with middling reviews. Since then, however, it has become most beloved by critics, with near universal acclaim. The film is considered both the genesis and the apex of the slasher/horror genre.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I suppose it just wasn't something the audience was prepared for back then. Hitchcock was a dependable director, making spy thrillers about murder, but never broaching on the cheap exploitation of the horror genre. The star, Janet Leigh, really was at the height of her career, and a selling point for the film. Her picture appeared on all the posters, and she looked to all the world like every other blond girl in a Hitchcock film: the centrepiece, the grounding force of the film.<br />
<br />
What a shock for audiences, then, when the girl is killed in the first act of the film. Sheer brilliance, pure horror. Suddenly, they find themselves invested in this story, but without any of the familiar trappings or narrative rules. Nothing is as it seems, anyone could die. No wonder the film made ripples throughout history.<br />
<br />
So now to the film about the man making the film; <i>Hitchcock</i>. If you've seen the trailers you'll pretty much know what to expect. The film stars Anthony Hopkins as Alfred Hitchcock as, at 60 years old, he strikes out on a daring project that defies expectation, but reignites his creative passion. Helen Mirren plays his wife, Alma Reville, who was a close collaborator and advisor on many of his films. The story focuses on their relationship while he's making <i>Psycho</i>.<br />
<br />
The whole cast - Scarlett Johansson, James D'Arcy, Toni Collette, Jessica Biel, Danny Huston... All great. This is a well packed all-star cast and none of them disappoint with what little screen time they're given. However, none of them are given the focus that the two leads are. Mirren and Hopkins totally knock it out of the park.<br />
<br />
The trailer, I feel, cheapened some aspects of the film. Helen Mirrens line about killing the leading lady off after 20 minutes instead of halfway is brilliant, but probably would have been better left out of marketing. The reason: it's her first indication that she might support Hitch on the project, and the first evidence we see of her genius in his work. The scene is still effective, I suppose, but watching it and knowing precisely what she was about to say took away from what could have been a nice surprise. And what a great crunch sound.<br />
<br />
Helen Mirrens' finest moment is, of course, her emotionally charged speech when Hitch accuses her of not giving him full support. This also appears in the trailer, but its impact is in no way diminished by it. It's such a fine speech, both confronting and evidently loving, snapping Hitch out of his paranoia. Mirren delivers it with the breathless gusto of an innocent woman wrongly scorned, and it brings out the force of her character, who is usually such a quiet pillar in Hitchcocks' life. I had such an appreciation of Alma from that one moment; it was like a tent pole for the whole film. Hitch's reaction is a little unsatisfactory. The fact is there's nothing he can say, so he says nothing. The scene is over. But it's a brilliant scene.<br />
<br />
The trailers did a great job, though, at hiding some of the more creative aspects of the film. Minor spoilers ahead, don't read on if you want to be surprised.<br />
<br />
The inclusion of Ed Gein, the killer, giving Hitchcock therapy in his nightmares was a stroke of brilliance. It's played quite realistically at first, but then we see evidence that Gein appears only to him, and we start to realise that he is representative of the murderous urges that Hitchcock is struggling with. We see more evidence of his encroaching madness when he is shooting the shower scene. Here, <i>Hitchcock</i> takes the most famous scene from <i>Psycho</i>, and absolutely makes it its' own. Hitch wants a more visceral response from his leading lady, so he takes up the knife himself, and wields it in a way that seems to genuinely frighten Janet Leigh. What follows is a suggestive montage, similar to <i>Psycho</i>, with Hitchcock stabbing, Janet screaming, then Alma and Whit screaming in her place... I'd have to watch it again to tease it out, but it was an effective moment that seemed to express his urges and his angst.<br />
<br />
The final scene featuring Ed, Hitch confronts him in a creepy looking basement. This comes fairly soon after Almas speech, and seems to be in response to it. Police lights flash, and Hitchcock finally cracks a joke at Ed. Up until this point he's been completely out of character in all of these scenes. The psychopathic recesses of Hitch's mind have been settled; the project is successfully finished, and he is at peace.<br />
<br />
<i>Hitchcock</i> displays hints of greatness, but just falls short. The book-ending narration, when Hitchcock turns to the camera and talks about the film, is classic Hitchcock. For this picture though, it was a little out of left field. I feel like perhaps it should have been differentiated more from the rest of the piece; it looked and felt exactly like every other scene, but with a disorienting break in the fourth wall. It could have been shown to be something Hitch was filming for some other project, or it could have been cut from the film and used as marketing material (which is how Hitchcock did market his films).<br />
<br />
Janet Leighs' character is a little inconsistent; she seems visibly disturbed by Hitchcocks' directorial style, when he shouts at her and when he wields the knife. The camera lingers on her in obvious discomfort as everybody around her has stopped acting and begin preparations for the next scene. But her interactions with Hitch off the set indicate no such trauma, and the film ends with him playing a light-hearted prank on her, to which she seems to respond positively. There is little indication of the future Hitchcock who will go on to traumatize his stars in other films such as <i>The Birds</i>. This is fine though, it works for this movie.<br />
<br />
But the films worst quality, I think, is both the assumed familiarity with <i>Psycho</i> and Hitchcock, and the fact that the film never shows footage from the project that everybody is getting so worked up about. This might come down to an issue of copyright, which is a shame, but what the film lacked was evidence of what was achieved. What was the audience watching that made them so frightened; how did Hitchcock know when the screams would come (in a great scene referencing his quote about 'playing the audience like a piano')? I know because I've seen the shower scene from <i>Psycho</i>. So has Hitchcock, so has Alma. But if the audience for this film has never heard of <i>Psycho</i>, what then?<br />
<br />
All in all, <i>Hitchcock</i> is a lot of fun, especially if you are a Hitchcock fan. If you're not, I suggest watching <i>Psycho,</i> and see if that changes your mind. Even if it doesn't, you may yet enjoy <i>Hitchcock</i>. It's nowhere near as contentious. That's why it won't be as well-remembered.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-80979287550965522082013-01-07T18:57:00.001-08:002013-01-07T19:04:19.759-08:00The Hobbit: An Unexpected JourneyPeter Jackson's <i>The Hobbit </i>is finally here! Epic-ness overload!!!<br />
Like really, way too much.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcTcFox1J29SEv3cX2wpCC4rozsUTJTZacCzGZVK00EWRaKPc-BoatGTHKI7E91WM-Mjkyz6mLmY4_BvtDQjqnQevmy0zq4-9SsP776pYmur-nc0V4LYAf0KWBhLIk2zH8gmiL84qztaY/s1600/THE-HOBBIT-AN-UNEXPECTED-JOURNEY-Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcTcFox1J29SEv3cX2wpCC4rozsUTJTZacCzGZVK00EWRaKPc-BoatGTHKI7E91WM-Mjkyz6mLmY4_BvtDQjqnQevmy0zq4-9SsP776pYmur-nc0V4LYAf0KWBhLIk2zH8gmiL84qztaY/s400/THE-HOBBIT-AN-UNEXPECTED-JOURNEY-Poster.jpg" width="270" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<i>The Hobbit</i> is one of my favourite books from childhood. I tried to get into <i>Lord Of The Rings</i>, but found it too dense. <i>The Hobbit</i> was a shorter story, on a smaller scale. A straightforward adventure with a tight band of characters. The book indicated links to a larger world and a broader story, but it was really an intimate tale of humble beginnings that built to an epic - but still relatively small - climax.<br />
<br />
I feel like the films have gotten this mixed up.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<i>The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey</i> is Peter Jackson's adaptation of that fantastic book to the big screen. No doubt this is a film that was bound to happen, what with all the success of the <i>Lord Of The Rings</i> trilogy; a series that might be considered far more challenging to effectively adapt. The book just screams film material too, with a simple narrative strand, far more appropriable than its bloated, artsy cousin trilogy.<br />
<br />
The problem is that while this story is certainly film-worthy, it doesn't justify <i>three</i> films. With the copious amounts of padding crammed into this picture, it feels like Peter Jackson is going the way of George Lucas, with an unnecessary prequel trilogy. So in love is he with the world he's created, and the power he wields to construct it, that he's gone overboard expanding the story, inserting extraneous characters and sequences, using dazzling special effects to turn the small encounters from the book into drawn out sequences of grand scale, high stakes and nail-biting tension.<br />
<br />
The book I read did not feature 14 characters suspended on one burning pine tree, leaning over a cliff. The book I read was far less cartoonish.<br />
<br />
I suppose I can't beat up on it too much though. Sure, there were sequences of utter silliness (like the chase through the goblin mine) that play like an indulgence of Jackson's taste for the inflated and feel like an insult to the humble story he's working with. But not all the additions are bad; Radagast the Brown is a curious insertion, but has some good scenes. The necromancer plot, which was told in footnotes in the book, is fleshed out a bit here and seems set to play a larger role in the forthcoming films. This could play out well.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure how I feel about Azog the Defiler. Just ambivalent I guess. I'll mention CGI in a second, but his narrative purpose in this film seems to be just to give it a tangible villain. This seems unnecessary, but he's alright as a bad guy, and through him the film accomplishes for me what the book didn't: Thorin stands out as a hero figure.<br />
<br />
Lots of this film is actually excellent. There are times when it matches my conception of the book perfectly - like the dwarves invading Bilbos house, particularly when they sing about their lost gold (sadly, they cut the song short). The <span style="background-color: white;">riddles </span>in the dark sequence is excellent, and the absolute highlight of the film.<br />
<br />
Now, to the CG, and this requires a little technical information. I watched the film in 3D, at 48 frames per second - that is, twice as many frames as a standard film. The film is taking a bold step into unexplored new technology, and I'm not sure how this affects the viewing experience. The film has a strange look and feel about it, but I don't know whether to put that down to it's style, it's graphics, or the the technology used to shoot and project it. I'd be curious to know how the regular frame rate (and 2D) version stacks up.<br />
<br />
Marketing has dubbed it 'High Frame Rate' filmmaking, claiming it makes it look extremely realistic. I'm not sure if that's the case. The word I would use is hyperreal; an enhanced reality. I think what I'm seeing is a clearer distinction between what has actually been filmed, and what is computer generated. The CG imagery looked more obvious than ever; Gollum looks more obviously fake than <i>The Two Towers</i>.<br />
<br />
But the line between the two is blurred. Whether a result of the framerate, or a mighty effort from the folks at Weta, I couldn't for the life of me pick where the real footage ended and the CGI began. I knew it when I saw it, but I just couldn't pick where it began.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, scenes with little or no human elements look more or less like something Pixar would have come up with on a bad day; the final shots of the film, for instance, feature a bird flying across a forest, up to the mountainside. The camera then tracks through the mountain, down into it's depths, across mountains of gold, to where the dragon sleeps... but during the whole sequence it's painfully obvious that nothing we're seeing is <i>real</i>.<br />
<br />
Part of the job of fantasy is to incorporate elements of the real in order to draw us in, and to make a statement about real life. This comes through in Tolkien's story of someone who's life has stagnated stepping out on an adventure, or of the underdog rising to the challenge. This also comes through in Jackson's previous films in Middle Earth, when vast hordes of orcs were made up of people in heavy make-up and costume; the attention to detail in those films is exquisite, and pays off in their gritty realism.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, part of the job of fantasy is to transport us into a fantastic world. Jackson dreams big, with his elaborate set pieces, dramatic landscapes, and creative creature design. The storm giants are wondrous to behold; the goblin king is utterly repulsive, and sweeping shots of digitally enhanced New Zealand are still impressive.<br />
<br />
To me, this Hobbit movie is overblown. The technical advancements are flawed, the additional plot points muddy the beauty of the book, and worst of all is Jackson's obsession with blowing out every small confrontation into a battle on the scale of Armageddon. <i>The Lord Of The Rings</i> was an epic. <i>The Hobbit</i> is it's smaller prequel. The moments when <i>The Hobbit</i> tries to out-epic the epic are the moments it falls the hardest.<br />
<br />
There's still plenty of hope for future instalments. I'm not sure if the problems with High Frame Rate will go away any time soon, but the plotting problems might. The additional material looks like its building into an interesting larger story. I still look forward to Bilbo's adventures from Mirkwood to the Lonely mountain being reincarnated on screen. All in all, this trilogy may yet achieve its potential, despite a rocky start.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-71509577026690765952012-12-31T20:57:00.001-08:002013-03-29T20:17:42.846-07:00CoriolanusShakespeare's elegant verse translates beautifully into this tale of modern warfare... As long as you have the patience for it.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQsHvaNoIzZ0Jk3is84EaCyc_7H_9tgLA_RGZIVV-SoLtSDFU0kBz4dO3k0Go1SYiyq0DPp-tddIsA2Rx3Vwcu1u-ioDF1b0OkS25CDK-Y_kZ7k9_2AjoovCy1-cMZV9Q5H_WF_vPfRzs/s1600/coriolanus-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQsHvaNoIzZ0Jk3is84EaCyc_7H_9tgLA_RGZIVV-SoLtSDFU0kBz4dO3k0Go1SYiyq0DPp-tddIsA2Rx3Vwcu1u-ioDF1b0OkS25CDK-Y_kZ7k9_2AjoovCy1-cMZV9Q5H_WF_vPfRzs/s400/coriolanus-poster.jpg" width="268" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Up until last year, Shakespeare's <i>Coriolanus</i> has never been adapted to film. Is that not astonishing?<br />
<br />
Ok, there was a <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086467/" target="_blank">BBC series</a> from the 80s, and it had some decent actors and direction behind it. I watched a little; it's a pretty much your standard BBC Shakespeare. This film is very different.<br />
<br />
<i>Coriolanus</i> is tells the tragic tale of a Roman general, Caius Martius (played in the film by director Ralph Fiennes), who wins glory in battle and runs for consulship (similar to presidency) of Rome, urged on by his ambitious mother. The play is about patriotism, rivalry, jealousy, ambition and pride. There's a fair bit of Freudian psychology involved too, but since that wasn't invented when Shakespeare wrote it's a testament to his grasp on human nature that he hits on themes that will fascinate humanity for centuries to come.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
The film adaptation takes the story and retells it as a modern crisis; still set in Rome, and still using middle-english dialogue, a la<i> <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117509/" target="_blank">Romeo + Juliet</a></i>. The film opens with a montage of scenes that establish the conflict in Rome - a conflict that could easily be ripped from tomorrows headlines. People riot over food shortage, armies roll across urban landscapes in tanks and soldiers fire guns into smoke clouds, just like they do on the news.<br />
<br />
The world-building is great, and serves to make the situation a believable one, evoking images of conflicts such as the Arab Spring, and the Yugoslav Wars. News reports replace several messenger characters; talk show hosts replace people discussing in the marketplace; a scene where two men exchange news is replaced with an interrogation scene captured on video tape - the filmmakers make great use of modern technologies to make this medieval tale a timeless one.<br />
<br />
There are several scenes of action, of a couple of different types that I discerned. There are the modern combat scenes - like <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887912/" target="_blank">The Hurt Locker</a></i> and <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0947810/" target="_blank">Green Zone</a></i>. These are competently executed, but short and a little lacking. It's hard to tell who's shooting who or what the objective is, and it is quite a stretch to believe in the soldiers spinning sophisticated rhymes as the bullets whiz past, but at least they look good.<br />
<br />
Then there are the knife fights, something I loved about this movie. Because Shakespeare wrote scenes in which characters fight hand to hand, and because guns have since done away with this fighting style, Fiennes had to find a way to make it believable when Martius and Aufidius confront each with knives. There are some clever staging tricks, such as when Martius runs out of bullets and is suddenly set upon by an enemy soldier from around a corner. Then there are fights between Martius and his enemy, Aufidius (played by Gerard Butler). The two have a mutual hate, which compels them to lay down their guns and engage "beard to beard". These fights are intense and visceral: The two actors put on a furious display of testosterone which, underscored by the illustrious dialogue, paints a powerful picture of their rivalry.<br />
<br />
All the actors are fantastic, with Vanessa Redgrave as the clear standout playing Martius's mother. The course of the conflict is set by a number of her monologues, and she sells them well. Her relationship with Fiennes as Martius is the core of this film.<br />
<br />
Martius displays an interesting sort of arrogance - almost humble in it. He doesn't want to show his scars to the people; he doesn't want to hear tales of his own victories; he doesn't want to lie to the people in order to achieve political power. He is set in his ways. Glory must be honestly through battle, not through manipulation or exaggeration like the tribunes. He knows that he is an accomplished general, and considers himself above those around him because of it. He is proud not out of self love, but out of principle.<br />
<br />
So as a thematic work of character and relationships, it's true to its roots, and uses the film medium effectively to underscore it's ideas. If I were to lay down criticism, however, I would say that it was poorly marketed. The trailer sells it as a modern war film, with emphasis on the fighting and shooting. As I said before, these elements are lacking. If you go into this film expecting a mindless action movie, rather than a true Shakespearian adaptation (olde words and all), then you might be disappointed.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-62988077842250646542012-12-29T20:11:00.000-08:002012-12-29T20:12:53.137-08:00SkyfallDespite lagging a little behind in action movie trends, the newest Bond pulls them off flawlessly, delivering a fantastic spectacle, and reigniting the franchise's potential.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB8geWp5mq81_TcSn7gDca4UfbQUJBJ3CULsMOoO0LPryXEAcRKTYkZXZD2vZtfykZ-vYbJZcsOUyj13osTFpSlgLdwHkq6RD4eJCqekMYc8GGiEkQt9A_8Fd5h45Sh6GDLaJYhjZMU4w/s1600/skyfall-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB8geWp5mq81_TcSn7gDca4UfbQUJBJ3CULsMOoO0LPryXEAcRKTYkZXZD2vZtfykZ-vYbJZcsOUyj13osTFpSlgLdwHkq6RD4eJCqekMYc8GGiEkQt9A_8Fd5h45Sh6GDLaJYhjZMU4w/s400/skyfall-poster.jpg" width="291" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Like my little blog that lags behind schedule, and reviews films after they've been in theatres for a month, James Bond returns with all the action movie tropes you've seen in other films over the past few years, complete with the motorcycle chase from <i>The Bourne Legacy</i>. That's not to say the Brit's are lacking in originality; Bourne didn't hijack a caterpillar on a flatbed, and use it to rip a hole in a train carriage in order for him to board. Bourne just kind of ended.<br />
<br />
There's a lot in <i>Skyfall</i> that riffs off recent action films. There's also a lot that riffs off the rich history of the character in the past 50 years. For Christmas I received the Bond 50 collection, and as I work my way through them I'll be posting reviews for each. So while I had to look up a few of the references in this film, I expect over time I will grow to appreciate it more.<br />
<br />
And please hear me: I really, really enjoyed this movie.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Bond has come a long way since 1962. <i>Skyfall</i> is blockbuster action filmmaking at it's finest, with several strong characters played by excellent actors, a tight script that keeps the pace moving from one spectacular set piece to another, breathing room to build the tension, a memorable villain, complex characters and a weighty, satisfying climax.<br />
<br />
But the whole time I was watching it, the thing that kept running through my head was "I've seen this before in <i>_____</i>."<br />
<br />
Let's go through some shall we.<br />
<br />
Like <i>The Dark Knight</i>, <i>Skyfall</i> features a memorable and frightening villain - Raoul Silva. Silva is played by Javier Bardem, who also played a terrifying villain in No Country For Old Men. The man has a knack for playing crazy killers, but his performance in each is unique, and he is clearly a very talented actor who hopefully won't be typecast for the rest of his life. If he does though, we will have a generation of fantastic villains.<br />
<br />
Much of Silva's plan bears resemblance to The Joker's in <i>The Dark Knight</i> - even borrowing the image of the villain disguised as a cop, riding in a police car. Like the Joker, Silva is meticulous, crazy, cunning and lays everything on the line, forcing our hero to question himself. Unlike Batman, Bond doesn't brood on the problem. He's too busy having a smashing good time.<br />
<br />
Like <i>The Dark Knight Rises</i>, <i>Skyfall</i> deals with the idea of it's main character becoming too old for the job. It's no secret that Bond is shot early in the picture, and presumed dead. Of course this isn't true, but when he comes back he finds himself struggling to cope with the task. The film digs deep into the question of whether or not Bond is still relevant today, and there are some particularly poignant moments including Judy Dench reading poetry.<br />
<br />
I already mentioned the similarity to Bourne. This was more a thing with <i>Casino Royale</i>, when Bond suddenly lifted shakey-cam and parkour chases from that franchise. Those elements are still here, but briefly.<br />
<br />
The film plays off other Bond films, offering little origin stories for some elements, such as the 'shaken, not stirred' line. There's an Aston Martin featured from one of the old films, and Judi Dench, who played M in both the Pierce Brosnan and the Daniel Craig Bond films, plays a central role in this film. While <i>Casino Royale </i>represented a distinct departure from previous Bond movies, <i>Skyfall</i> brings the series full circle in an exhilarating fashion. If you've been a fan for a long time, you'll probably love these elements of the film.<br />
<br />
From other films, <i>Skyfall</i> features a scene where the villain is locked in a prison, taunting the heroes, echoing <i>The Avengers</i> narratively and visually. The taunting is different though. Silva explains his motivations with a disturbing illustration that is remarkably harrowing, and cranks up the tension for the chaos that is soon to come.<br />
<br />
Like the old Bond films, James is unafraid to kill, unafraid to die, gets any girl that he glances at twice, has excessive luck in gambling, fashion in fighting and all the best cars. They don't even bother to explain where they come from: James Bond just has awesome cars. With machine guns.<br />
<br />
The credits sequence at the beginning is especially noteworthy. Probably one of my favourite credit sequences ever - the combination of the vivid imagery and Adele's phenomenal vocals created an atmosphere of excitement and mounting dread as we watch Bond wander through this whirlwind of crazy, cards in a standoff, guns firing, fire falling, shadows fluttering about, and through the bullet hole we go again. Great stuff.<br />
<br />
So in all that it borrows, <i>Skyfall</i> improves. It's a cut above the rest, and those that call it the best Bond film ever... well, I can certainly understand it, but I'll speak for myself once I get through them all.<br />
<br />
(The following paragraphs contain SPOILERS)<br />
<br />
If I had to fault the film (and I do, because I strive for a false sense of objectivity), I would have to say first that the main character is unlikable, and second that the whole franchise reeks of adolescent male fantasy.<br />
<br />
James Bond is, at several moments in this film, in a position to save someones life. In almost every instance of this, he sits and waits. I know, James Bond is no superhero, and adheres to no such idealistic code as Batman, but it was frustrating, especially when he watches Silva murder his lover in cold blood as part of a twisted joke of a game, only to moments later spring into action, kill all the baddies, and capture Silva. If he had acted moments sooner he'd have saved her, why wait? He got the jump on them, but was that element of surprise really worth her life?<br />
<br />
Ok, so his job isn't to save the few, it's for the benefit of the many. For Queen and country or something? So letting an assassin complete his job unhindered before taking him out, in order to let his employer think that all was well, I can kind of understand. He's following the protocols of MI6, but when MI6 is in shambles what then? Bond doesn't seem to be accountable to them by the end of the film, he practically kidnaps the boss. Why is her life so worth protecting, especially when her continued existence causes the death of so many others?<br />
<br />
At the end of the film, Bond kills Silva with a knife to the back, and M dies from her wounds. So what would be different then, if Silva had succeeded in his double suicide attempt? I suppose Silva would have won, and Bond would have lost. And it's the principal that's at stake right? But Bond, like Silva, is totally unprincipled - at least as far as I can see. He doesn't live by any consistent code of ethics except for 'get the job done', which is vague at best.<br />
<br />
I guess what I'm saying is that Bond does some pretty repulsive things in this film, and if the 'hero' of the piece can't be differentiated from the villain by his principals, what is there that makes us want to root for him?<br />
<br />
That said, I could say the same goes for M. And she would say to me "I made a judgement call". It adds complexity and perhaps realism to the characters, but there were times in the movie where I just didn't like James Bond.<br />
<br />
Alright, finally, the male fantasy bit. This will be brief, as I'm sure it's been said many times before: James Bond is an immature fantasy of a suave, rich, invincible, masculine man who shoots guns, blows things up, lays with sexy woman, all under the banner of saving the world.<br />
<br />
As if the franchise hadn't contributed enough to our culture of objectifying females as sex objects; with M's death the Bond series may have lost its only female that didn't exist for eye candy. Moneypenny is given a good role in this film, with a strong performance by Naomie Harris, but if she's the most developed female character in the next movie... feminists, grab your pitchforks.<br />
<br />
Ralph Fiennes confidently steps into the role of M, and I have great faith in him moving forward. Same for Daniel Craig, who is signed on to play Bond for 2 more films. I'll reserve my judgement on my favourite Bond until I've seen at least a few of them, but to me he suits the role just fine.<br />
<br />
Oh, and what was with his test scores - did he fake them? Or was he just running on adrenaline that whole time...Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-62830206280069779672012-11-22T02:21:00.000-08:002012-11-23T04:15:07.435-08:00TedThe humour relies completely on vulgarity and shock value to succeed. But this movie is so vile, and so shocking, its almost brilliant. It's also got a warm heart, I guess.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjpztZutxEP5j-_swWktsPZI85k499wOCfX91puuOssRFoXHaTYUkLFthyQKRy1Jb7i8HYaIXzd3QBI_CI-HG99MeacMt2VIZw3KD4Xk5MPRY4z7dJeEaGtREL7Utt3recGTydRPwG6Kc/s1600/ted-movie-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjpztZutxEP5j-_swWktsPZI85k499wOCfX91puuOssRFoXHaTYUkLFthyQKRy1Jb7i8HYaIXzd3QBI_CI-HG99MeacMt2VIZw3KD4Xk5MPRY4z7dJeEaGtREL7Utt3recGTydRPwG6Kc/s400/ted-movie-poster.jpg" width="231" /></a></div><br />
I get Seth Rogan and Seth Macfarlane confused. I'm sure some would consider that a crime, but I this that's just my taste in comedy. I've seen a little <i>Family Guy</i>, and laughed at it for a bit, but I don't think I've ever found anything with Macfarlane in it compelling enough to seek out. <i>Robot Chicken</i>, <i>American Dad</i>, <i>Drawn Together</i>, his <i>Star Wars</i> parodies (<i>Robot Chicken</i> <i>and</i> <i>Family Guy</i>); all quite funny, but I haven't <em>really</em> watched any of them. I'm so out of touch that when I heard <i>Ted</i> was Macfarlane's first big picture, I thought "But what about <i>Paul</i>, just last year"? To add to my confusion, Seth Green does the voice of Joker in <i>Mass Effect 2</i>, and I found myself racking my brain to remember if this was the Seth from <i>Family Guy</i> or the Seth from <i>Austin Powers</i> or the Seth from <i>Pineapple Express</i>... <br />
<br />
My current theory is that the three are in fact one dude, with pseudonyms for each voice he puts on.<br />
<br />
All this is to say: I wasn't sure exactly what to expect going into <i>Ted</i>. I guess you could say I wasn't disappointed?<br />
<br />
The movie opens with an old-timey narrator telling the story of once upon a time on a magical Christmas day where our story begins. The narrator doesn't stay long, but sets the tone for the rest of the film by occasionally diverting from his bedtime story voice to crack racist jokes, talk about Apache helicopters, and other such things.<br />
<br />
On this magical night, a young boy named John Bennett wishes his Teddy bear was really real. When he wakes up the next morning, the bear comes to life! What happens next is perhaps completely plausible in todays celebrity culture: 'Ted' becomes an overnight sensation, appears on talkshows, signs autographs, and all the other things.<br />
<br />
Cut to 20 years later: the life of a has-been celebrity.<br />
<br />
John and Ted are living together in a messy looking middle class house, smoking pot and watching spongebob. There are lots of pop culture references, many surrounding the campy 1980 film <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080745/" target="_blank">Flash Gordon</a>. </i>The best scene in the film involves the original star, Sam Jones, showing up to one of Ted's parties. The scene is bombastic, vulgar, racist, flippant, trippy, wisecracking, self-reflexive, and at times hilarious; it pretty much encapsulates the whole film.<br />
<br />
There's something of an action/thriller plot involving a creepy father stalking Ted on behalf of his creepy son. There's also a bit of romance/drama between John and his girlfriend, who wants him to stop playing with his teddy bear and take responsibility for his life. This stuff is actually played almost entirely straight, and works really well. The chemistry between Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis is strong, and makes for a believable relationship that grounds the film.<br />
<br />
Given the absurdity of the premise, and the vulgarity of the humour, it's surprising to see such a solid romantic subplot. Because of it, though, <i>Ted</i> is elevated to something more than a mediocre shock humour film. I watched it twice, and enjoyed it still. Despite its foul mouth, this is ultimately a feel-good film with a warm heart.<br />
<br />
(Update: I am now aware that <i>Robot Chicken</i> is made by Seth Green, not Seth Macfarlane. I think this just emphasises how confused I am.)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-8462620106969921982012-11-20T15:46:00.001-08:002012-11-20T16:07:47.203-08:00Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2Apart from a few really clever surprises, <i>Twilight</i> is mediocre on every level. This is no Harry Potter finale.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHnsY8_jlPJ01sB3FtIcFIWqdRX86_c3PEESo2Ekj5oWcfGvbNQ9bHVyEvE97S0AWXniGHTCJrOEkOLOz0NhtYgKh3_FeuJvc03a-697sqSaXaAwlgAqwGeLXAwnWCj4Afo2LVv1KQCAk/s1600/breaking-dawn-part-2-poster-bella.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHnsY8_jlPJ01sB3FtIcFIWqdRX86_c3PEESo2Ekj5oWcfGvbNQ9bHVyEvE97S0AWXniGHTCJrOEkOLOz0NhtYgKh3_FeuJvc03a-697sqSaXaAwlgAqwGeLXAwnWCj4Afo2LVv1KQCAk/s400/breaking-dawn-part-2-poster-bella.jpg" width="288" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
Yes, it's nice to know that <i>The Twilight Saga </i>has finally drawn to a close. Despite its occasional hilarity, its importance in popular culture today is somewhat disturbing to me. <br />
<br />
I'll start with the good.<br />
<br />
The opening credits in <i>Breaking Dawn Part 2</i> are really pretty. All those close ups of snow and roses freezing and melting... great stuff.<br />
<br />
Plot-wise there are a couple of moments that stand out; when Edward makes a rousing 5 second speech, all the vampires from around the room pledge to join him in the fight. One vampire turns to another and says "That was easy." My thoughts exactly. Billy Burke gets one good scene in which he watches Taylor Lautner strip - It's intentionally very funny. The best jokes in the film are the ones with an air of self-referential mockery about them, and the the film doesn't suffer for them.<br />
<br />
What I don't think was intentionally funny was when the Cullen's give Edward and Bella a house as a gift. "It's perfect" says Bella, having barely had time to glance at the thing. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
The film is riddled with plot holes, so I'm trying not to get bogged down in them... but I have to wonder why vampire sex doesn't break down the whole house? Didn't he smash the bed last time? Aren't they both now super-human, doesn't she say "You really were holding back last time?". The scene is well shot I suppose, and it's interesting how they represent super-speedy beings in slow motion.<br />
<br />
At some point along the line, this Romeo-Juliet mutation became an <i>X-men</i> ripoff. More vampires are introduced in this one, with a whole range of different 'gifts'. With Bella just becoming a vampire, we see the entire plotline of a super-hero story crammed in; she discovers her power, learns to control it, has an awkward family conversation while trying to hide it, starts to train and get better at it, then uses it to defeat the Big Bad. The films action becomes a matter of 'my-power-contradicts-yours', which can be spectacular when it's done well (see most of <i>X-Men </i>franchise), and God-awful when done terribly (see <i>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</i>). <i>Twilight</i> doesn't do it terribly though, so... it's a bit uninteresting.<br />
<br />
A large part of the plot involves searching for witnesses; vampires who will attest to the squeaky-cleanness of the Cullen clan. They come from all over the world, and all have different and interesting powers... and mostly boil down to a few lines per racial stereotype. I notice none of them are really unattractive; all are young and sexy-looking. I'm sure they have eternity to get themselves in shape or whatnot, but why do only the Volturi bite old people?<br />
<br />
This all adds up to protecting Renesmee, Bella and Edwards creepy daughter who has a creepy relationship with Jacob, which results in all-around creepiness (but awkward hilarity with that, so it's fine). As a baby she's especially creepy; they've applied CG to her to make her younger or older or something and it comes off a bit weird She grows super-humanly fast though, and by the midpoint or so she's an innocent and adorable little girl. She 'communicates' with people by touching their face and sharing memories or thoughts or something with them. This telepathic thing happens repeatedly throughout the movie; many scenes consist of the little girl putting her hand on someone's cheek, and their eyes suddenly lighting up with understanding. It's a little tedious because we feel out of the loop, but it would be more tedious if we watched every one of these visions, and the film chooses its moments carefully.<br />
<br />
Of course, we do get the obligatory romantic montage at the end, bizarrely delivered telepathically by Bella without explanation as to how she acquired the power. It's cheesy and cliché but after five films I suppose they've earned it. What isn't cliché is climax, which I will proceed to talk about because it's actually pretty remarkable.<br />
<br />
THE THIRD ACT IS ACTUALLY REALLY INTERESTING, SO SPOILERS BEGIN HERE<br />
<br />
Recently I read a Shakespeare play called Coriolanus, in which the climax involved a Roman General turned against his own city, about to destroy it. His mother meets him and pleas him to reconsider. He does, and war is averted. <i>Twilight</i>, of course, features a scene in which a Shakespeare book is burnt. But credit where it's due: the way this film turns Stephanie Meyers climax consisting of negotiation, dialogue and agreement into a balls-to-the-wall action scene is actually pretty clever.<br />
<br />
In fact the whole ending is completely bonkers. I got totally lost from about the moment that Carlile lost his temper, and charged at Aro... only to be beheaded by the collision. Wha...<br />
<br />
From there they go all out, killing off character after character, and showing off as much of their mutant - I mean vampire - powers as the budget will allow. The <i>Twilight</i> franchise has never been good at shooting action; previous instalments have featured vampire/wolf conflicts in which it was impossible to tell who was who and what was happening. It was forgivable though, because nobody died and nothing of consequence was ever achieved. But suddenly this fight has stakes; the family that we've seen grow and develop haphazardly throughout the series is in dire straits, and many actually do die.<br />
<br />
I did have a much better sense of what was going on than in previous instalments There was even a moment where one of the wolves died, and I felt sad when I realised it was one who had been in the last two installments (Seth?)... but then a shot lingered on it's dead body, and I noticed how terrible the CGI was. There was also a point where one of the Voltari is being charged at by the two Russian vampires; he has a look of glee on his face and he says something like "Finally". They collide and limbs go flying. Who was torn apart? Did the Volturi just completely own those two? Did he see they were about to kill him and was thankful? Nevermind, the fighting continues...<br />
<br />
But as our heros finally fight their way to the villainous Aro and defeat him (with a loud pop), the film pulls out the mother of all twists... It was all just a dream. A vision from Alice being read by Aro, showing him that if he continues to persecute the Cullens it will result in his own doom. Ok, I actually really loved this twist. It took me by surprise, it gave Hollywood a chance to include their crowd-pleasing action scene, it was a ballsy fake-out to put to Twi-hards, it's all-around bold and clever.<br />
<br />
It's implications are interesting though. Previously the <i>Twilight</i> franchise has touched upon abstinence and abortion; this film seems to be touching on the nature of conservatism. Bella and her crew represent the progressive and the inclusive; the Volturi just want to keep everything the same. I guess the moral of the story is that if the staunchy old order could only see how their action would lead to their own firey death... then they would understand! (but only out of self-preservation). This is a bit strange considering the stance the series takes on those topics I just mentioned, but I guess they've got to retain the young crowd somehow? I don't know, the series just seems like a mixed bag of ideas that sound appealing, thrown together with imagery of sex and violence that draws in crowds. Call me cynical, but as a cultural phenomenon, <i>Twilight</i> is simultaneously bizarre, understandable and worrying to me. I'll be glad its over.<br />
<br />
But if any of that chaos sounded the least bit entertaining to you, you might not hate this film as much as you expect. The more I think on it, the more I loved the third act. From reading interviews it seems director Bill Condon poured much of his efforts into pulling it off, and while <i>Twilight</i> will never have the 'legitimate' status, and fine pedigree of film making of the Harry Potter film franchise, this final instalment is packed with entertainment value, and it shocks me how much praise I just heaped upon it.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-39537612224612300672012-10-18T07:42:00.000-07:002012-10-18T07:45:34.764-07:00Paris, TexasThe pace is slow going at first, but the drama is dynamite.An ultimately uplifting story of a man's quest to restore his broken family.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLIvN10E4MH82l8TQLxH2LlpFMv3nbbQB32DSZ0EYC0Gc76eA3xGvY6ZHDgWvXww5rIaNh1nKKvFFF7CgkIOp4KFHmxSCwlSdvihWrA2kcgblVGHJOzlUycEmccKltZPDXiEmZ193Hq04/s1600/paris,+texas.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLIvN10E4MH82l8TQLxH2LlpFMv3nbbQB32DSZ0EYC0Gc76eA3xGvY6ZHDgWvXww5rIaNh1nKKvFFF7CgkIOp4KFHmxSCwlSdvihWrA2kcgblVGHJOzlUycEmccKltZPDXiEmZ193Hq04/s400/paris,+texas.jpg" width="302" /></a></div>
<br />
Oh, it says heartbreaker on that poster. There's a few ways you could read it, I guess.<br />
<br />
You can also get it in formats other than videocassette nowadays.<br />
<br />
Enough stalling, here's what this movie is about: a man is wandering through the desert in Texas, and runs out of water. When he makes it to a salon he manages to swallow a mouthful of ice before collapsing.<br />
<br />
The mans name is Travis, we learn when Walt, his brother, comes to pick him up. Travis has been missing for four years, and has an 8 year old son now in the care of Walt and his wife Anne. Travis has amnesia, but slowly begins to remember his life before he went missing (though exactly where he went and what he did remains a mystery). He begins to develop a fresh relationship with his son, Hunter, a bright kid with an adorable charisma about him. Hunter's plans are equal parts childish and silly, and mature and useful. He functions as a kind of therapy for Travis, drawing him back to sanity after his bizarre long absence. Slowly, Travis becomes more and more fatherly to his own son.<br />
<br />
Eventually, Travis decides that he needs to search out his wife, Jane. Walt and Anne still don't know what happened between Travis and Jane, or why the pair both went missing separately. I don't want to spoil the second half of the movie, because it's brilliant. Although the first half can drag at times, it builds to a powerful sequence in Houston, Texas, and a thouroughly satisfying conclusion.<br />
<br />
The title; Paris, Texas, is a running 'joke' of the film. Inverted commas, because for Travis it's much more serious than a joke. His mother was from a town called Paris in the state of Texas, and his father would always hesitate before the word Texas; allowing them temporarily to believe his wife was French. It speaks to a broader motif of the film; of imagery, facades and deception. Walt's business is billboard construction, his wife is actually French, and the most apparently perfect character in the film. The town itself is never visited, only shown in a photograph... of an empty block.<br />
<br />
It's a deeply layered film, its message delivered in the subtleties of the film making. It's beautifully shot, with characters who are well acted, but more noticeably well fleshed out. Every person in the film seems to act entirely within reason, and you can fully comprehend exactly why they act the way they do. None of this Hollywood villain crap; just real people, with real issues.<br />
<br />
Alright, there are some pretty crazy issues, but they all seem to be in the past. What I took away from the film is the impression of a man who has made mistakes, and is trying to bring his family back together. To do so he must break the facades - or run away from them if necessary. His love for his son is evident in the lengths he goes to deliver him a good life; I found their relationship sweet and invigorating to watch (despite some sad moments).<br />
<br />
Paris, Texas takes its time, but delivers with some extraordinary answers to its plaguing mysteries. There's a lot you could take away from it, but by the end of it, I was happy.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Seen Paris, Texas? Want to? Won't?<br />
Leave a comment, start a discussion :) Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-3444008041475930182012-10-15T04:27:00.000-07:002012-10-15T04:27:00.238-07:00AnonymousThe story of the truth about the greatest poet who ever lived... is dragged down by bad writing. The irony?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-rJK5jXoquVP-nmsrH0-pdXv4LtPPQudjvVEBG9Ersn4HrArVIeV2A4Og1MdZ7Bv3YHyP0k8btW5RYV7RllLUsDM-6w2z813DeqS1gbW9nLXXwYuj40PP7vUY7l9cAnh73X6fBQcOFws/s1600/anonymous_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-rJK5jXoquVP-nmsrH0-pdXv4LtPPQudjvVEBG9Ersn4HrArVIeV2A4Og1MdZ7Bv3YHyP0k8btW5RYV7RllLUsDM-6w2z813DeqS1gbW9nLXXwYuj40PP7vUY7l9cAnh73X6fBQcOFws/s400/anonymous_poster.jpg" width="270" /></a></div>
<br />
Well, it's about time I reviewed a film I flat out didn't like. Most of what I watch I choose because I expect it to be good - or because my class work demands it. Once in a while, though, it's fun to go into a film with no idea what to expect beyond the poster and the premise.<br />
<br />
So... was Shakespeare were a fraud?<br />
<br />
That's the question this film boldly dares to ask. And its a really nice idea. One that's surprisingly passed over in the world of film, considering the popularity of the speculation (although most scholars agree that Shakespeare was indeed Shakespeare). Shakespeare's work has been adapted hundreds of times over, dating way back into the silent era of film. Can you imagine watching Romeo and Juliet without sound? I can't, but<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0000754/" target="_blank"> they did it</a>. But the historic figure of Shakespeare himself, has that ever been tackled? I can only think of Shakespeare In Love, which I haven't seen, but apparently is a very effective story about Shakespeare... well, falling in love.<br />
<br />
Anonymous, though, asks the question: was he a fraud? It then answers "Yes", and proceeds to tell an unrelated story of medieval intrigue. I'll start with what I liked the least: the character of Shakespeare. I guess I should have expected this going in, but Will Shakespeare in this film did not write any of the work that is credited to him. In fact, he's kind of a jerk.<br />
<br />
Anybody who's familiar with Shakespeare's work will probably like Shakespeare - at very least respect his brilliance. He's the golden standard by which all English writing is judged after all. This film characterises Shakespeare as an illiterate actor; bursting with charisma and energy and ego and apathy. He's not even supposed to be in on this con, he just shows up and attaches his names to things. Every time I looked at the character I thought he seemed more like Jack Sparrow, minus the ability to act, or the charming humour, than anybody who could even pretend to have written the works of Shakespeare. The other problem is that he's hardly present in the picture. The film is less about him and how he pulls off this con, and more about these bizarre connections within the royal family, and how the plays are somehow connected to control of the throne.<br />
<br />
But that's just a story choice I disagree with, I probably wouldn't have minded the place of the Shakespeare character if it weren't for two other more damning gripes: firstly, the film is confusing.<br />
<br />
The movie jumps back and forth in time; I guess I can deal with that. The first scene is a modern day theatre in New York, where none other than Derek Jacobi is narrating a performance of the film we're about to watch. There is then a clever transition from the stage performance 'Anonymous' into the Elizabethan era, and the film proper. Ok, so far so good, I'm intrigued.<br />
<br />
We see a character we don't know running from the law, into the iconic Rose theatre in London. He hides some papers in a box, and is arrested as the soldiers torch the building. Cut to five years earlier, with a helpful little title card. From there we are introduced to some of the main characters, including Elizabeth the First... who has a flashback to 40 years earlier. These flashbacks are given by many characters throughout the film.<br />
<br />
Ok, so the movie is weaving about four different time periods in parallel <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482571/" target="_blank">Other </a><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/" target="_blank">films </a>have done this quite successfully, but somehow this film fails miserably. I think it's because so many of the characters look very similar, and the film doesn't work hard enough to connect young people to their older selves. Those handy title cards disappear after the first instance, and there is little differentiation between the Elizabethan past and 'present'. Sometimes the only way I could tell what year a given scene occurred in was by the age of the queen, but she doesn't appear in every scene.<br />
<br />
So I was confused, but as the film dragged on I began to piece things together, reconsider what I thought was happening, and work out what I think went on.<br />
<br />
Did I say dragged?<br />
<br />
My second point: this movie is boring. The mystery of who wrote Shakespeare's plays is cleared up very quickly, and after that there's not much else to get invested in. There is the matter of who the crown of England goes to, and a lot of screen time is devoted to that, but the film is so confusing that by the time you figure out who's who and what they want, you'll have no time wonder, and no time left to care.<br />
<br />
I guess the most frustrating thing about this movie is that there are so many good ideas in here. It's trying to be a grand tribute to Shakespeare's writing, imbuing it with the power to move people, shift nations. Sometimes, it seems to do that, especially when it deals with the character of...<br />
<br />
Edward de Vere<br />
<br />
... Sorry, I had to look up his name, because after watching the movie I had no friggin clue.<br />
<br />
Edward de Vere is the nobleman who, on some historical theories, wrote the complete works of Shakespeare. And he was my favourite part of this movie. His characterization is great - from a talented (although disturbingly ambitious) young boy to an adult who flouts his responsibilities, and hears voices that urge him to write. We see parts of his life that directly reflect ideas in Shakespeare - like when, as a young man, he stabs a spying servant through a curtain. We see him use his wit and verse to seduce women; we see that wit crushed under the pressures of responsibility, and we see the wonder in his eyes as he watches his writings come to life, albeit with Will taking the credit.<br />
<br />
It's a little disconcerting that nobody in the medieval world talks like Shakespeare - with his 'wherefore's and 'shalt's. I guess if they actually had the actors speak Middle English it would be too confusing for a modern audience. It does also mean that when Edward speaks he produces marvellous effect, but I couldn't help but notice that the writing in this film just isn't on par with real-life Shakespeare.There is a neat little third-act twist which takes after another classic play, which I found quite brilliant, although it didn't seem to affect any of the characters in any way, except that it ushered in the films conclusion.<br />
<br />
There are lots of little references to Shakespeare and other theatre, as well as to historical figures and events.<br />
<br />
The biggest flaw in this film is not the writing; I think it's the direction and editing. The film feels unfocussed, and confusing. I didn't think of Shakespeare as a fraud, I though of Will as Captain Jack, and Edward as Shakespeare. For all the dilly-dallying about the crown of England, I didn't care, I just wanted to see more of Edward, and understand what the film was on about.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-19547302937797911472012-10-12T09:47:00.002-07:002012-10-12T09:47:23.878-07:00Once Upon A Time In AnatoliaRevelations come slowly, and lack the dramatic punch that you might expect of them, but this film flaunts the stunning beauty of the Turkish countryside, as well as some fine acting and filmmaking.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWkJR9SgsHogjMc5Nc7P63XArQaY5QdHqi2MTIMZveVWyZyKEdMYTtA5LCJxiN1JQAUtrw4d85Z2l0WTjdE0JnXCe_vPvwA2exzMbKAhxaB29WPnmN2OoxKvIAPEXxXBmva8s_VDZBtig/s1600/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_Anatolia_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWkJR9SgsHogjMc5Nc7P63XArQaY5QdHqi2MTIMZveVWyZyKEdMYTtA5LCJxiN1JQAUtrw4d85Z2l0WTjdE0JnXCe_vPvwA2exzMbKAhxaB29WPnmN2OoxKvIAPEXxXBmva8s_VDZBtig/s400/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_Anatolia_1.jpg" width="268" /></a></div>
<br />
A police chief, a prosecutor, a doctor, a driver and a suspect are driving through the countryside in the middle of the night. They stop, look around, ask the suspect to identify landmarks, argue about routes and the lay of the land. It becomes clear that they are looking for a dead body. The suspect has killed him, and buried him somewhere, but he can't remember because he had been drinking, and his brother was asleep.<br />
<br />
What you see above is among the first shots of the film; before we are introduced to any characters, we see their convoy pull over, and people get out and talk. We hear their conversation from afar, but the camera doesn't budge; the entire scene plays out in one still shot, and we are left to ponder what we've heard, its relevance unclear until later on.<br />
<br />
You should be able to tell from this image: this movie looks beautiful. Much of its time is spent driving through the country at night; director Nuri Bilge Ceylan photographs it with such vivid colouring and careful framing, it evokes a fairtytale-like quality that matches its title.<br />
<br />
It is an interesting blend though; the film is mostly very realistic, actions play out in real time, and trivial issues concern characters as much as grander ones. Occasionally the film breaks its strict reality to play out a surreal sequence. Two men have a conversation without moving their lips; one man sees a ghost; a woman appears like an angel to all the men... These sequences flow seamlessly from the main thrust of the film, and give a richer sense of the characters while also adding to the air of mystery that pervades most of the movie. I have no doubt that a second viewing would be very rewarding, given the context of each character in these dreamy sequences.<br />
<br />
This is a film that rewards patience. It plays out slowly, with generous screen time devoted to moments void of dialogue; the scenery, the sounds and the atmosphere allowed to sink in. If you like action movies, or fast-paced thrillers, perhaps this one isn't for you. If you like a good drama, or crime yarn though, you may get a lot out of it. For a long time nothing happens but driving, and talking. But as the plot advances, the stage is set for some great revelations that take place in the third act. <br />
<br />
And here is my major gripe with this film - although perhaps it was just not to my taste: these third-act revelations are groundbreaking, and cast everything that has come before in a new light. But they aren't treated as such. They are treated just like any other dialogue or setup in the film. I felt as though the movie should begin to hit its stride when the party finally reaches the town; that everything should begin to fall into place, and the great mystery that's been constructed should be revealed, and the exposure of the truth should lead to some gut-punching dramatic beats that stick with you long after watching.<br />
<br />
Well, everything did fall into place. The truth was exposed, and each character was given enough time for a substantial exploration. The film sticks with you after watching... I guess I just didn't get that punch in the gut. The big reveals happen slowly, and it's up to the viewer to figure out exactly what they mean. Once Upon A Time In Anatolia is a film I'd definitely want to see a second time. I'll reiterate: this film rewards patience. And it's a very rewarding film.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-83730165691775549212012-10-06T08:19:00.000-07:002012-10-06T08:19:13.152-07:00Capitalism: A Love StoryMoore is undeniably charismatic and engaging, even if his methods are manipulative and extreme.<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisU1jxEHUXSpeCvCce3-q9WyMPdZAyT90ayARG93aXMb6kCvcFCIN8y9BPCIhpbbhl-EEivZJLLpyQFZZ2hxO_4pSlLMWVvWhAqhZnUy0MjSkiydmK8NFpIp4KdUU-HGLLq2gXNxY4btw/s1600/capitalismlovestoryart1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisU1jxEHUXSpeCvCce3-q9WyMPdZAyT90ayARG93aXMb6kCvcFCIN8y9BPCIhpbbhl-EEivZJLLpyQFZZ2hxO_4pSlLMWVvWhAqhZnUy0MjSkiydmK8NFpIp4KdUU-HGLLq2gXNxY4btw/s400/capitalismlovestoryart1.jpg" width="275" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Explaining the problems of capitalism in a nutshell, it's Michael Moore, known for many controversial works such as Bowling for Columbine, and Fahrenheit 9/11. This film did not make as much of a splash as those though, probably in part because money isn't as interesting as tragedy, and partly because most people will agree with what this film espouses (at least, to some degree).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The film was made in the wake of the financial crisis in 2008, which resulted in the bailout of Americas biggest banks by the government. While I think it is by no means his 'Magnum Opus' (see the quote on the cover), it's interesting that this film seems to come full circle - he starts the film in his home city of Flint, Michigan, which was the subject of his first ever film, Roger & Me. Moore observes that the desperation and social decay that occurred there when the GM factory closed down years ago, is being repeated all over America with the growing power of the banks.</div>
<div>
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div>
Towards the start of the film, footage is shown of people being evicted from their homes. Moore asks the question "Is this what America will be remembered for?" But these images appear with little context, and are not explained until much later in the picture. It's a clever technique, because the footage is powerful enough to engage us, and make us wonder 'why?'. Moore doesn't tell you why until after he's laid down a few more arguments.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Often the film employs manipulative tactics to make its arguments, such as dubbing over dialogue (for laughs), heavy editing in interviews, animating the background of George Bush's speech, and playing ominous music when the bankers appear onscreen. The use of archival footage is marvelous though, and almost everything is done to great effect. One scene of senators reminded me of <a href="http://mymoviesnippets.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/mr-smith-goes-to-washington.html" target="_blank">Mr. Smith Goes To Washington</a>, with the 'good' senators making earnest pleas to the house of reps to deny the banks any more money, and the rest of the representatives leaving the room.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In one sequence Moore interviews a series of Catholic ministers, who decry capitalism as sinful and evil. Moore makes a snide comment about their boss (because the pope is rich?), and plays some footage of Jesus dubbed over with silly capitalist sayings like "I cannot heal your pre-existing condition". It's all played for laughs, and very funny, but here is where the movie asserts its central thesis. This is also, I think, the problem with the film and with Moore in general: Capitalism is evil. Democracy is good. Capitalism is not democracy, therefore it is evil. One extreme, or another.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There's so much packed into this movie, so much silliness, so many serious problems, so many bad arguments, so many important messages. Moore is a sensationalist filmmaker, with a sharp sense of humour, an eye for entertainment, and a mouth for shouting stuff. If you want to get angry at scumbags in power, Michael Moore is your best friend, but for a more considered, objective approach to the ills of capitalism, try <a href="http://mymoviesnippets.blogspot.com.au/search/label/light%20bulb" target="_blank">The Lightbulb Conspiracy</a>.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-50720840298344459512012-10-06T03:42:00.000-07:002012-10-06T07:48:10.783-07:00Mystery TrainGreat characterization, clever narrative structure, and very entertaining. This film takes its time, but the world and the characters will grow on you.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfnTlmT-5RDvAxUcNfvJuohK50Ug8hLVpRE4dAh85V3PyqsJcK1l4LLppYHXRWmDsTa9I_cZmXZ1E6DlKDYM9IBthiFww-jSihnkmM3aVLm1UGr_Y7hgl41QpgpOZOJe_49XiknAHSyoQ/s1600/Mystery-Train.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfnTlmT-5RDvAxUcNfvJuohK50Ug8hLVpRE4dAh85V3PyqsJcK1l4LLppYHXRWmDsTa9I_cZmXZ1E6DlKDYM9IBthiFww-jSihnkmM3aVLm1UGr_Y7hgl41QpgpOZOJe_49XiknAHSyoQ/s400/Mystery-Train.jpg" width="295" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Jim Jarmusch is an American independent filmmaker, whose name most closely resembles 'muscular', according to my spellchecker here (if you look at the guy though... he isn't.) What he is is talented, and Mystery Train demonstrates why.<br />
<br />
The film follows three groups of characters, and their experience of one night in the city of Memphis. First, a young Japanese couple from Yokohama. The girly, Mitsuko, is bubbly and excitable and totally obsessed with Elivis; the guy, Jun, is quiet, aloof, cool, and prefers Carl Perkins. After exploring the town for a day, the two settle into a hotel for a night, The second story follow Luisa, an Italian woman stranded for a night in Memphis; she flees some creepy strangers, and ends up in the same hotel. In the lobby she meets Dee Dee, who has just broken up with her boyfriend and needs a place to stay. The two agree to share a room together. The final story follows Johnny, Dee Dees former boyfriend, and Charlie, her brother. Through a complex chain of events, the two also end up crashing at the same hotel.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
The film works on a few different levels; a tribute to the city of Memphis, a tale of the tourist experience of Memphis, and more broadly as a comment on the state of American pop culture. The film constantly talks about Elivs - every room in the hotel has a painting of Elvis, Johnny is nicknamed Elvis for his hairstyle, Elvis's ghost comes up, his statue is visited, and the Japanese girl has a photo album of people that look like Elvis (people like Madonna, and the Statue of Liberty).<br />
<br />
There is no doubt that Memphis is Elvis's city. But the city is represented as a ghost town - all the buildings are dilapidated, the hotel is cheap and rundown, only two cars are seen (one of which breaks down constantly), and the streets are cracked and empty. There are a couple of shots with the city skyline in the background; silver skyscrapers shining in the distance. But that's all they are: distant. Like the grand American culture the Japanese couple has idolized before arriving here, like all the representations of Elvis throughout the picture, it's just an image. A shadow of what it once was.<br />
<br />
There are some clever narrative devices at play; the three stories play out one after another another, but all occur simultaneously. There are a few time indicators present that keep the stories closely linked and help the viewer understand how the fit together, such as the one moment that night where all three groups of characters turn on the radio, and listen to the same song (Elvis, of course). Realistically a stretch, but it works beautifully because we come to anticipate it, and the song plays out in different ways in each story.<br />
<br />
The first story is extremely effective at setting up all the constants that play out over the course of the other two; the grimy hotel, the quirky desk clerk, the radio and the mysterious gunshot - a point that comes up in the first story but isn't resolved until the third (and then, not how you would expect it). The best part about the film, though, is the couple themselves. Despite the striking contrast in their personalities, they gel so well. Mitsuko is especially cute and excitable, wishing the desk clerk "Good Night!" as she greets him.There are some hilarious miscommunications between them and the American characters, but perhaps the best moments of the film are when the two interact with each other, with such sweet, honest, charm; they are the heart and soul of the film.<br />
<br />
I've said a lot more than I expected about things I love about this movie. There are a few things I didn't love: one was that the film is slow paced. Really slow paced. There are a lot of long, quiet moments where not a lot happens. The other is the character of Dee Dee. She's very annoying. Indeed, much of the second story is just a bit uninteresting, especially once the focus shifts away from Luisa. But, the second story is absolutely necessary to mesh with the other two, and it has some great moments as well.<br />
<br />
If you give the film a little patience, a little brainpower to process the way the stories are linked, the way the characters are portrayed, then this film will absolutely reward you for your time. And when it's not being slow, it's very clever, and often funny. Give it a try.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000978182923702243.post-72665596194038561532012-10-02T08:44:00.000-07:002012-10-02T08:44:08.853-07:00Days Of HeavenA phenomenal film, partly for its charming cast and tragic story, but mostly for the absolutely stunning visuals. It's an experience, worth embarking on twice, and it's also one damn pretty picture.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz3JN4N96pOivjK2wDYxTWmPRWkPgJ5ePqKosIqgIT0bWZggVcY5IHA8nmpftlvRtDG-Ep0KSCSF75tc_RDcxwzFFLGJ9XsezFgHi6CTvME9wVpioEW4gs_pnJCTrYVHEe2UHJAmhyphenhyphenvRU/s1600/409_box_348x490.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" mea="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz3JN4N96pOivjK2wDYxTWmPRWkPgJ5ePqKosIqgIT0bWZggVcY5IHA8nmpftlvRtDG-Ep0KSCSF75tc_RDcxwzFFLGJ9XsezFgHi6CTvME9wVpioEW4gs_pnJCTrYVHEe2UHJAmhyphenhyphenvRU/s400/409_box_348x490.jpg" width="283" /></a></div>
<br />
Terrence Malick is possibly the most interesting filmmaker working today. His first picture was Badlands in 1973, which garnered him critical acclaim in America and internationally. It took him five more years - until 1978 - to finish his second film, Days Of Heaven. After that, he moved to France, and stopped making films for twenty years. In 1998 he came out with The Thin Red Line, again to wide acclaim. Since then he has made The New World (2005), The Tree Of Life (2011), and To The Wonder (as yet unreleased).<br />
<br />
What's fascinating about him is that despite garnering such critical and commericial success - and being known even by artsy European directors as a great director - there's reletively little known about him. He doesn't seem to do public interviews, or offer comment on puzzling aspects of his films. He just makes them, and sets them loose upon the world.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Ok, if you haven't seen a Terrence Malick film (or if you have and it just flew over your head), it helps to know that he has a background in philosophy. Specifically, he translated the work of Martin Heidegger, but that's neither here nor there. What's important is how this influences his films.<br />
<br />
So we come to Days Of Heaven. Set in the 1910s, in the Texas pan-handle (that is, farming country), the film basically consists of a love triangle between Bill and Abbey and the farmer who hires them. While on the run from Chicago to a farm to work, Bill has his girlfriend pose as his sister. When the farmer takes a liking to Abbey, Bill encourages her to get closer to him, knowing that the farmer has a terminal illness and won't live much longer. As you can imagine, this leads to all sorts of comedic situations, and hilarity ensues.<br />
<br />
I kid, of course. The film is almost totally serious but not, as its tragic plotline might suggest, pessimistic or 'sad'. Malick has such an eye for natural beauty, and captures mesmerising scenes of the vast open plains, industrial landscapes, animals, plants people... everything is just so beautiful. It's probably the most criticized aspect of the film: why did he make it so darn pretty?<br />
<br />
Bills real sister, Linda, narrates the film in fragments, often going on random tangents and talking about anything from a patch of scenery, to the end of the world (her performance, by the way, is marvellous). Continuity is not strict as it is in most films. The farmer rides out on horseback at night, and arrives to talk to Bill sometime during daylight. It doesn't matter, the film is not about details, or a meticulous storyline, it's about poetry.<br />
<br />
It's a lyrical film, one that deals with human tragedy and passions reflected on an epic scale by the environment. The sun burns orange over the dusty plains as the little people frolick in the fields. The train moves accross the screen puffing little wisps of smoke into the vast blue sky above. Insects are shot in extreme close-up, their spindly legs and figiting mandibles dig into everything they touch.<br />
<br />
And at the centre of it all is Malick, the ultimate auteur, formulating every unconventional cut, every breathtaking setpiece to create a master work of arresting beauty, reflective quiet, and phenomenal power.<br />
<br />
You will probably watch this film and say 'eh, it's ok'<br />
<br />
But trust me, this is one of those rare films that gets better with every viewing.<br />
<br />
And holy smokes, it is pretty.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04507619301613145334noreply@blogger.com0