Insomnia

This thrilling drama draws you in to the mind of a detective deprived of sleep, burdened by guilt and dazed by the endless sunlight in far northern Alaska – and it’s a gripping crime story to boot!

From the mind behind Memento comes another film that deals with loaded psychological issues. The hook here is the setting – the town of Nightmute, Alaska, where the sun shines 24/7 in the warmer months. The issues are ones visited by Nolan time and again - guilt, justice, responsibility. Al Pacino plays Will Dormer, a detective of legendary stature sent north to assist local police on a particularly puzzling case, while back in LA he is under the scrutiny of Internal Affairs.

The film is basically a straightforward crime drama until half an hour in, when a chase through the Alaskan fog leads to an accident that changes the course of the investigation, and the film. The majority of the film deals with Wills struggle against the murderer, Walter Finch, despite his deteriorating state as he fails to sleep, night after night.

The performances here are fantastic, particularly Al Pacino as the bad-ass cop slowly coming apart and Robin Williams as a surprisingly chilling villain. The editing is nice, with recurring flashbacks that add to the mystery and atmosphere, especially the very creepy extreme close-up of blood drops soaking through a piece of fabric. For lovers of crime films, this is a must-watch thriller, with heavy atmosphere and surprising plot turns.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

The fourth instalment in the 15 year spy series, leading man Tom Cruise brings back the action with spectacular flair. Balls-to-the-wall from start to finish, this spy adventure delivers the thrills, especially on the big screen. Watch this film, and enjoy.

First a few changes to my blog: Spoilers will now be placed 'after the jump'. Everything on the front page of the website, and the front page will be much more compact. Hopefully people are interested enough to click a single button to get to the meatier bits of whatever I'm talking about. Also, I'll write a summary of the film and my opinion at the head of each post, before the picture. I need to work on creating a hook for the post, and encourage people to start reading rather than blabbing on about never getting time to watch movies. Speaking of watching movies, I actually got up off my lazy arse and made it out to the cinema this week! Here's a review of something that's actually screening right now...

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. MI4, some may call it. If they keep at it a few more films, this series will be verging on Bond territory. In short: I loved it. In long: think The Incredibles in live action, with real(ish) people. Or Bourne, with high-tech gadgetry. Or Bond, with failing gadgetry. I'm not in a position to comment on how this film stands with the Mission series as a whole, but from what I've read, this is undoubtably the best of them. The pace is frantic, as the narrative thrusts us from one action set piece to the next, via some short expository interludes. The breathless pacing is matched in every scene by visceral and frenetic action, and more broadly by the urgency of the world-ending threat. This is something close to a perfect action movie. 

Characters have arcs, and a little time is given to each of them, but that's not the point. There's just enough backstory to understand where each member of the team is coming from, and to establish them as a tight group - with a dynamic that ranges from hilarious to occasionally tense, but consistently watchable and entertaining. Given the lack of character moments, the actors contribute hugely to creating this tight sense of belonging in our small group of hapless heroes.

What did I not like? Well, spoilers...

Paul

This post is late; I'm surprised how strongly I reacted to this film.

I'll say upfront that I haven't (yet) seen any of Simon Pegg and Nick Frosts' other collaborations, but by the sounds of it they are funnier than this one, and I definitely look forward to checking them out... eventually.

As for Paul, I'll keep the review brief then share a few thoughts about what stuck with me after the movie. A short history: Paul is the result of yet another collaboration (the third, I believe) between Nick Frost and Simon Pegg - although it is not counted in their 'Blood and Ice-cream trilogy' alongside Sean Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz. This is probably appropriate, as it doesn't appear to have garnered such high praise and classic status as those films. This may not be entirely their fault; reportedly there was some heavy studio intervention during pre-production on this film, in an effort to make it more 'mainstream', possibly to justify the cost of the CGI. The end result, however, still seems aimed squarely at a narrow audience of sci-fi nerds. The film is, essentially, a love letter to geekdom. And that's probably how it was originally intended.

Sadly, the film is just above average - with hints of potential greatness in some of it's ideas. It's funny, but I never laughed out loud (granted, I watched it alone). It drags a bit in the middle, although the last 20 minutes suddenly get very exciting. It's loaded to bursting with references to science fiction and pop culture, at least half of which went straight over my head. The way the alien is integrated into the the world of the story is extremely clever - in such a way that leaves the filmmakers free to rip off any alien movies they like, and have it make absolute sense. The concept is so great, and the execution is mostly adequate but there's something just a little off... I think Roger Ebert summed it up best: the problem lies in the character of Paul; he is, essentially, Seth Rogan with green skin.

SPOILERS FOLLOW:

Ok, so the main thing that resonated with me in the film was the subplot involving Ruth, the stereotypical naive fundamentalist christian girl, suddenly encountering this alien, and absorbing his knowledge in a faith-shattering experience. As a Christian, it's a little disappointing to see my faith on screen being represented as reprehensible, unlikable, unagreeable, narrow minded... The sort of things atheists accuse Christians of being over the internet, when they're more interested in stirring up a fight than having an actual argument. I'm not saying that all Christians are above this, but it's frustrating to see such deep and important issues reduced to Straw Man and Ad Hominim arguments (look them up).

This film has an overtly atheistic slant, poking fun at the extremity and hypocrisy of some christian sects (Jesus shooting Darwin??) and more generally poking fun at the idea of God, in a universe clearly driven by naturalistic mechanisms that have produced life separately, on more than one planet; Paul himself being the clearest evidence for this.

So my first reaction was just to be annoyed. Later, I found myself wondering about the themes of the film. Risk might be one of them; Paul encourages Graeme to 'roll the dice'; to take a chance. I thought it kind of surprising that Paul turns out to be... exactly who he says he is. Graeme puts his trust in him at the start - for no real reason other than to take that chance - and in the end finds his trust rewarded. His faith rewarded. That was it, this movie is about faith. That got me thinking.

Take the character of Paul; a being from another world, who imparts knowledge and demonstrates fantastic powers. He heals the blind, and sets the girl free from her confined life. He's persecuted by authorities, trusted by a few friends. Ultimately, he puts his life on the line in order to save his friend from death and ascends from earth... Need I go on? He's a perfect Jesus allegory! Down to the point that Ruth paraphrases the Bible, saying "Now I see". She means this literally in that her eye has been healed (Jesus reference) and metaphorically in that he has opened her mind to the reality of the universe, delivering her from the set ways of her old religion and, dare I say, freeing her from sin.

But I get the feeling that's not what they were going for. In bringing up God and aliens, though, it seems the film was going for a discussion of faith. These two nerds have a religion of their own, and Paul appears to them like a saviour. I'm sorry! Enough with the allegory. If we just examine the idea of faith from this film, what we see the 'true' faith of the nerds is rewarded completely. Paul is everything he claims to be, and becomes a great friend as well as a cool guy to hang out with. And it's this that makes the film, as almost every reviewer has called it, a 'sweet' film. There's no deception, there's no bitterness or cynicism; just a couple of dudes hanging out, with this other dude with green skin. This is about faith gone completely right. It may be overtly anti-religion, but underneath it seems to carry a different message; sometimes it pays to just have faith.

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight

I'm going to do something a little different this week. Firstly, since I was too busy to blog last week, I'm going to write a double post this week - on a series of movies that I love. Secondly, I'm going to start writing my post, then watch the two movies back to back, then finish writing with what stands out to me this time around (my fourth or fifth viewing). 

Some obligatory speculation on what the third instalment in this trilogy will bring will probably be included, but that's not what this post is about. This post is about appreciating a series which has elevated a 'mere' comic book into a spectacular tale interwoven with fantastic production values and deep explorations of themes. This is Christopher Nolans' Batman.

I'll start by saying I have very little history with Batman lore prior to these films. I saw Batman: The Animated Series a few times in my childhood, and I saw Batman action figures aplenty back then as well. I never saw Tim Burtons' films (but I think I remember seeing Batman Forever), and I certainly never saw the 60s serial. I learnt about all these after seeing Batman Begins. 

From what I understand, Spider Man was the movie that demonstrated how a comic book about a super hero had the potential to achieve commercial success as a blockbuster film, with huge crowd appeal and spectacular action. Batman Begins was the first time a comic book character achieved all that and could be taken seriously. The gritty realism in Batman Begins coupled with the believable characters, dark and serious themes and a powerful atmosphere made for a blockbuster that was unique, and thoughtful, unlike much of commercial Hollywood.

The Dark Knight was even more remarkable - firstly because it was a blockbuster sequel that deepened rather than destroyed the canon of the first film. But mostly because it took the comic book blockbuster to a whole new level of credibility. It carried on the themes, characters and world of the first film, but developed them from that origin story. It introduced new elements (most notably the Joker) to discuss different themes, as well as delivering more action and powerful drama. The film played like a conventional crime thriller, and despite the fact it was basically about a man in a bat costume fighting a clown, it was executed so well people were clamouring for a nomination for Best Picture.

There's a lot to be said about both of these films, especially The Dark Knight. My favourite discussion has to be from Christian podcast More Than One Lesson, which explores the underlying philosophies behind Batman and Joker, tracing the latter back to Frederick Nietzsche, and drawing comparisons between TDK and Lord Of The Flies.

And without further ado, I'm going to interrupt this blog with a screening for myself of the films in question. I will be back in a few hours to give my thoughts on the series as a whole, and whatever else springs to mind.

...

...

5 IN-MOVIE HOURS LATER... BRING ON THE SPOILERS!

...

...

Alright, I'm not going to try do this again. It's been 24 hours since I wrote the first half of this post, and spaced out across that time I have watched both Batman movies. Life just gets in the way of everything doesn't it.

I'll start with the big issues of Batman. Justice, for one, is laboured upon heavily in Begins, with the League of Shadows representing an absolute system of justice and punishment, while Batman forges his own path of compassion, intended to inspire redemption of the city. The second film focuses on the role of the hero - as times change, people begin to rise up against the corruption of their city (inspired by Batman), but begin to look to others, such as Harvey, to be the hero.

It is fascinating to see the transformation that goes on in Bruces' mind from grand idealism (in childhood, following his father) to mere vengeance (wanting to kill his parents murderers) to seeking justice (training with the League) to finding a balance between justice and compassion (inspired by Rachel, and in opposition to the League). In TDK he gets even further from his initial concept of justice, leaning more and more towards compassion for the people of Gotham. Eventually he sacrifices his own reputation in order to save that of Harvey Dents'. Jesus parallels abound, and the final montage of TDK sums up his position perfectly: people deserve to have their faith rewarded. Bruce realises that justice is not about revenge, not about balance, not even about himself, the hero, but the thing he started out to create; an idea. Batman symbolised the beginning of the end of corruption in the city, but could not see it through. He had to set aside his lone hero persona, in order to let Gotham save itself.

Initially, it seems, Harvey goes on a similar journey to Bruce Wayne; from the sweeping idealism of the political hero, the good man in the spotlight; to suddenly losing it all, and thirsting for revenge. Who knows, if given time and the right influence, maybe Two-face could have become more like Batman. But Gotham no longer needs Batman; they need a White Knight. And because Batman has taken responsibility for his crimes, Harvey is immortalised in the minds of the people as the ideal; the public face that they can aspire to be.

One scene in TDK reminds me of a video game. It's a shot that spins around the trio of Gordon, Harvey and Batman - in a way that's stylish and effective at presenting them as the three pillars of good in the city - but somehow feels a little like the cutscene right before a mission in a game. Gordon and Harvey argue, while the Batman silently watches; the player character. After some exposition, some character moments, some conflict, the pair of them turn to Batman as if to say 'we've laid it out for you, now go play the level.' Batman of course says yes, because that's always the answer video game heroes give. He then proceeds to Level 10: Hong Kong, where we witness our next action set piece. That's not a criticism, just an observation. Perhaps indicative of the way video games rely on the 'hero' concept for almost every story they tell.

But The Dark Knight shows us Batman as the perfect hero, in a way that most games, and most movies for that matter, don't. Batman is the perfect hero because when it comes time for him to step aside, he does so. More than that, he takes on a heavier burden to allow other people to continue what he started. He set his goals in Batman Begins - to become a symbol and to inspire people to stand against injustice - and stayed true to them to the point of self sacrifice. For most heroes, if it came down to something like that, their pride would get in the way.

It occurs to me now, I've pretty well finished my raving, I haven't said a thing about The Dark Knight Rises. Well, I have high hopes for the film. And having just watched these two, I'm all the more excited. I've heard talk about the idea that Batman may die at the end of the next film. I honestly can't tell whether or not that's something that Christopher Nolan might do! Or something he might want to do, but the studio would never allow. In any case, I feel like that ending would be (on the one hand) appropriate, to completely round out the story, carry the themes of justice and sacrifice, and bring a real gravity to the film. That is, of course, if it is executed well... doubtless it will be though. On the other hand, Batman is a character who should endure. The appropriate ending to a Batman movie is one like the other two we've received; the Dark Knight overcomes all obstacles and ends up standing on a rooftop, surveying his city, which he will continue to defend. Of course, the discussion of Batman passing on his mantle in TDK casts some doubt on that ending, and TDKs ending itself carried some implications for Batman that are bound to make the next film completely and utterly unique, even amongst these two already different films.

In sum: I don't know what's coming, but I sure look forward to it. Batman has lived long enough to see himself become the villain... and don't we all want to know what he'll do next!

Firefly (so far)

Note to self: stop procrastinating and write the thing on the day it's due. Or write in advance and publish on time!

I haven't finished Firefly yet, but my viewing of it has been spread out across such a long time, I think if I get a few thoughts out now, I can do a post about the series (or the movie) later to wrap things up. For now; my impressions and my questions.

Firstly what I think of the show: love it. When my girlfriend and I started dating we decided to watch some favourite TV series together. I chose Trigun (definitely worth a post in the future) and she chose to show me Firefly (Buffy being her true favourite). Interesting that they both be Sci-Fi Westerns, albeit completely different in style. In a word, Firefly is brilliant. The setting is interesting and well fleshed out, characters have great personality brought on by a fantastic cast with solid writing - I understand Joss Whedon is a bit of a legend of television. I know it's old, but the whole show feels utterly fresh to me, and the blend of old styles, new ideas, and random eccentricities of speech thrown in is so great, and the story thus far is engaging as well.

If you haven't seen this beloved Sci-Fi classic, and have any interest in the genre at all, give it a watch. I can't speak for the second half, but at least the first is well worth checking out.

I THINK THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY WITHOUT SPOILING THINGS, SO HERE GOES...

Today I watched the episode "Ariel", the 9th in the series. If you include Serenity, thats probably the halfway point, right? I'm really looking forward to getting some answers from the remainder of the show/film. What happened to River, and why? What kind of powers has she got, and what will she do with them? I know the Reapers will come back, and presumably those men in blue gloves (two great, creepy and threatening villains), how will that pan out? I already know there is lots of shooting and space battles involved. Does team Serenity win? I guess that's a given, but will they all survive? And the ship?

The character of Mal is an interesting one, as a hero. In a scene I watched today, he knocked his treacherous crew mate out, threw him into the airlock and threatened (very seriously) to shoot him off into space as they left the atmosphere. That's pretty brutal. But, necessary? It certainly was a heinous betrayal, and the ordeal no doubt got the message across. Mal is in many ways an admirable leader; true to his word, compassionate towards his crew, if only in secret. He's tough on those who oppose him, but considerate to those who are vulnerable. Perhaps his trouble is that he's too honest with the kind of scum-of-the-universe that he deals with (I don't think any heist they've attempted has gone smoothly), and he's too closed about his compassion for those around him; expressing it only reluctantly, or in anger.

Where am I going with this? I don't know, but I think he's my favourite character in the show, and it will be great to see how he fares throughout the remainder of it. I expect to see some serious bad-assness, as well as some touching moments - though I'm not sure if he can ever get the girl. Something about that wouldn't sit quite right; he's too independent and headstrong to be able to depend on anyone else. Of course he has this flirty thing going on with Inara, but I think in order to develop that relationship he would have to embrace a completely different side of his character - one that she loves but he's hesitant to acknowledge.

Or I'm just rambling. Will post an update as the series draws to a close, for me at least.

Twilight: Breaking Dawn

No, I don't care that its full name is The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1. That is not a snappy title for a blog post. Or a movie, for that matter.

So it is I'll admit, with only a twinge of shame, that I saw Breaking Dawn the other night (instead of writing my blog post on time!). Wasn't sure what I was going to write about anyway, so since I've gone and done it I might as well review a popular new release film. I actually enjoyed my experience in the cinema watching this - perhaps in part because my local Hoyts just opened up a new and especially large screen in time for it. Also, I'm grateful that my girlfriend is not a die-hard fan of the series, so if I feel the need to laugh at a scene, she'll just slap me and smirk.

For the purpose of this review, I'll assume a little familiarity with the Twilight franchise, as I'm sure most people probably have. I've only seen the first two movies myself, and never read the books. I'll start with what I liked about Breaking Dawn...

Firstly: the Dad. I liked him from the very first film - not only does he have the best one liners in all the movies (I know he'll be a good husband... Because I own a gun.), but he's the only character I find that I really sympathise with emotionally. As he walks her down the aisle in an early scene, I could feel the conflict inside of him more than whatever Bella was feeling. You can see it in his eyes; he isn't completely sure about the wedding, but he wants his daughter to be happy, and he wants to trust her judgement.

WARNING: SPOILERS FOLLOW (AS IF YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW WHAT HAPPENS)

There are also two scenes in particular that stand out as awesomely intense - at least in the theatre I was in. One scene when Jacob is fleeing in anger (his main purpose in this film) and Bella... psychically calls him... or something? I don't know, but it was confusing and cool, even if I'm not sure there was a purpose to it. It's solid, well-directed filmmaking, at least for these scenes. The other is the delivery scene, which is pretty graphic and really intense for a series aimed at kids. The sound, the blurriness, the confusion, the imagery, the heavy red saturation... it's a well cut sequence which delivers the horror without the gore of a cross-bred monster tearing its mother apart from the inside. Mind you, once she's out, she's really not that much of a monster. She looks like a normal, albeit 2-month-old, newborn.

And having seen that bit where her back snaps as she goes into labor, I cringe every time I read the title... "Breaking Dawn"

Ok, what was bad? A lot. But I'll try and focus on what stood out for me the most: character relationships.

I may have missed a lot of this love triangle drama in the third film, but what is up with Bella and Jacob? Every scene that these two are in together is really uncomfortable... especially if Edward is also there. I gather they are supposed to be friends? Why do they dance so close, snuggle so much, and have whatever psychic connection nonsense? If she knows how frustrated he is that he can't have her, why does she lead him on like that? If he knows she's just going to tease him, why does he keep coming back? When Edward and Jacob interact it's fine. It's like two dudes have to get stuff done, and they might have some history, but whatever, they're dudes. Bella just brings in an uncomfortable, disconcerting group dynamic whenever she's with them.

In fact, everyone seems so desperate to stick their neck out for Bella... BUT WHY?? She's being stupid and stubborn about something that's dangerous to herself and others. It's like bad news doesn't affect her - in her mind, as long as she acts tough and sees it through it will all be fine. Her well thought-out retort to Jacobs attempts to reason with her is "Everything will be alright." Even in the face of the doctor saying "It will kill you before you can give birth", she's straight down the line. What happened to that anyway? The movie seemed to just ignore that seemingly solid piece of evidence, and proceed with a deus ex machina series of coincidences which systematically saves everyone, and resolves everything peacefully. Don't worry young girls, if you're stubborn enough, the world will be a happier place. Goodness comes from wanting things your way, and getting it.

In short; I don't hate Twilight. What I hate are the lessons that it teaches, and the fact that this franchise is so astoundingly popular. It's not even that surprising, but it is tragic.

PS. Ranting is fun! I hit 800 words... I'm not very good at this cap thing.

Grand Theft Auto IV

Or, a short reflection on storytelling in video games, and the gangster genre.

I know the trailer for GTA 5 just came out, but I still haven't finished the last game! As such, I've been playing it incessantly. And I'm picking up more than ever on its similarities to films in the gangster genre - and films in general for that matter. For those who don't know, the Grand Theft Auto franchise is over 14 years old; it's a video game series known for allowing players to commit acts of theft and violence in a realistic open world, emphasising free play and exploration, although there are always main objectives and side quests to be completed. More recent instalments have woven in a central story to the missions. I haven't played a whole lot of GTA - I played San Andreas a little on the PS2, but only picked up GTA 4 last year, because it was 75% off on Steam.

Best. Value. Ever.

Not only is the open world format ridiculously fun, and can soak up hours of time, but the main storyline is lengthy as anything, and thoroughly engaging... at least, as far as I'm up to. In terms of films, the game obviously has a lot in common with the gangster genre (Although this morning I played a mission which felt like a re-enactment of the truck scene from Raiders!). The main character, Niko, rises through the ranks of the underworld, coming into contact with a number of archetypal gangster film characters - from the Italian mafia, to the Irish family, the corrupt cop, to the prison-hardened black man. Everybody has enemies, and dirty work that needs doing.

Like Goodfellas, GTA 4 take us through life in 'the business', - drawing the player in to the mind of Niko. He does bad things, but he's a sympathetic character, and one to be identified with, in cutscenes at least. Interactivity is a crucially unique aspect of video games - decisions that can affect the story help involve the player in a way that film simply can't. Choices like whether to kill or spare a character, or who to side with can affect the way the narrative plays out, which makes for a far more interesting and potentially complex experience. To be honest, I don't know exactly how much the little choices matter in this game (at least not yet), but as I'm going through, it's certainly giving me the feel of control over the story, and a chance to affect the outcome. Exactly how, I'm not sure. I'm not there yet.

My one criticism with the narrative of GTA 4 is that its thrust is utterly deflated after almost every mission. The problem (in the broadest sense of the term) is that the game is too fun. The random stuff you can do in an open world like this is compelling enough to warrant hours upon hours of free-play, and (in my case at least), it may be several sessions before you get around to continuing with the storyline. The immediate tension of the plot is lost due to the nature of both the episodic open-world gameplay, and the lengthiness of the story itself, that demands several sittings. This was particularly frustrating when I picked up the game after several months break, to be confronted with the choice to kill on or the other of two brothers who had each been instructing me in the past few missions. I couldn't remember what either of their relations were to other characters, or which one I actually liked the more. Apparently one of them was sick? I don't remember. I spared the one who I vaguely remember giving me more interesting quests in the past. Unfortunately, thats where his mission path ended, so I feel like I made the wrong decision.

But this also speaks to the potential for games as narrative devices: I care about Niko, and the people around him; I am invested in this story, and I want to see it through to the end. Games are more and more frequently mining the potential for story-telling through interactive gameplay. I haven't played Heavy Rain, but it sounds like a fascinating experiment in this kind of innovation; other games by Rockstar have developed on other genres (like the western and film noir/crime). By and large, right now, games tell crap stories. Usually it's an excuse to blow things up and kill people. But GTA feels just a little more complex then that. Apart from all the shooting and mayhem in between, GTA 4's storyline holds up as one great trip through gangster world. delivering what film has been called upon to provide in the past: an escape from reality, wrapped up in a cathartic emotional journey.

Gee, I hope the ending for this game is good!