Anytime a director makes an attempt to recreate a classic on film, whether the original is a book or movie, many moviegoers and critics always seem to take a harsh stance against the effort. I certainly believe this premise to be the case with Spike Jonze's new film, "Where the Wild Things Are." Jonze has always had a flair for the strange, most notably, his direction of the screenwriter Charlie Kaufman's "Being John Malchovich" and "Adaptation," his involvement with the bawdy, slapstick troupe Jackass, or his wacky music videos which initially brought him into the spotlight. This time, Jonze has attmepted his hand at screenwriting in "Where the Wild Things Are," and has brought his very visual and vivid imagination to the big screen.
"Where the Wild Things Are" is very popular childrens book that was written by Maurice Sendak in 1963. It tells the story of a poorly-behaved boy named Max, who is sent to bed one evening without supper. In anger, Max creates a world of his own and travels to the land of the "wild things," (a mishmash of silly monsters) where he is made king of their rambuncious realm. The book is very short (takes about 1-2 minutes to read) and is illustrated with wonderous and detailed pictures by the author himself. I mention the length of the book, not as a means of criticism to the author, but instead, to help you understand how much artistic liberty was granted to Jonze, and fellow screenwriter Dave Eggers, to fill a 101 minute run time.
I thought that the acting in "Where the Wild Things Are" was terrific. The main character, played by relative newcomer, Max Records was very believable in his role as the chaotic and malcontent Max. At only 12 years-old, Records took one of the most recognizable roles in children's literature and delivered a performance worthy of actors twice his age. What was most impressive is there was no drop off or awkwardness in his performance between the world of the real and imaginary; his interactions with both the actors and the puppets were very consistent. Catherine Keener, one of Jonze's regulars ("Being John Malchovich," "Adaptation"), appeared as the responsible and worn down single parent who sacrifices much of her own happiness for her children. Her role is an intergal part of building the story, since it is her attempt at making herself happy, having a date over, that ultimately causes Max's retreet. Keener is able to tell the family's story with her acting; there is no scene which discusses or flashes back on the family's past. What may go unnoticed and unappreciated by many moviegoers, is a sign of great acting on Ms. Keener's part.
Another important aspect of the film was Spike Jonze use, or should I say lack of use, of computer generated ("CG") characters and scenery. Though some "CG" was used to manipulate the expressions of the "wild things," most of the magic of the film can be attributed to Jonze's insistance on using muppets and his employment of the Jim Henson Company to create the beastly costumes. Not one detail was omitted from Mr. Sedak's book and each character looks strikingly similar to the way it looks in the children's classic. With each monster comes specific physical traits, and with these traits varying forms of movements and motions. While watching the film, I felt as if each movement was natural, no less the result of great effort through tedious trial and error.
The biggest complaint that I have heard about this film is that it isn't a children's movie. And I say to that argument, what characteristics define a "children's movie?" What people mean to suggest is that the problem they have with the film is that the age requirement for the book and that of the movie do not match up (i.e. the book is more age appropriate for younger kids, while the movie requires a slightly older crowd). I don't discount the fact that this film is a bit darker than most and addresses subjects that might not be comfortable to discuss with children of a younger age. However, it seems to me that many of the "children's films" made today are no more made for children than they are for adults. With almost any, if not every Pixar film, there are references that only adults pick up on. I seem to recall the line from the 2006 Pixar hit Cars, (Mater to Lightening McQueen) "Oh, man, you get to work with Bessie! I'd give my left two lug nuts for somethin' like 'at." If your biggest complaint is that the world isn't a happy ending with cars hooking up and riding off into the sunset, rainbows, or unicorns, then maybe a reality check is in order.
Though the film can seem strange at moments, this unease is merely Jonze's attempt to parallel the problems facing Max's family in the real world with the issues that face the creatures in realm of the "wild things." In order to cope, Max has take on the role of his mother ("King of the Wild Things") in an attempt to control the chaos. When his methods fail, Max senses that some things are beyond his capacity to control. Only then, does he understand his mother's plight and the frustration and fear he has unintentionally caused her. Though "Where the Wild Things Are" is may initially appear more abrasive than other "children's movies," the message is one of love and hope in a world where things aren't always so easy.
3.5 out of 4
Monday, October 26, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Trick r' Treat (2008): released STV (2009)
"Trick r' Treat," by first-time director Michael Dougherty, is comprised of five interwoven stories that occur on Halloween in the same small, Ohio town (many in the same neighborhood). A couple finds out what happens when they blow out a jack o' lantern before midnight, a high school principal has a secret life as a serial killer, a college virgin searches for the "right guy," a group of teens pay homage to the town's legendary Halloween massacre, and a hermit is visited by a special trick or treater.
I was initially drawn to this film through a random Facebook thread and immediately hit YouTube to see if I could find a trailer. After watching the trailer (which I must say, was very intriguing) I did a bit of research to see when the film would hit theaters. Little did I know, I had stumbled upon a movie, which was already heralded as a "cult classic" before it had even hit the big screen. Not only that, it has never and will never be advertised on your local marquee, for this little ditty was released straight-to-video.
For a while, I thought I had been had, bamboozled by random Facebook advertising. However, the more I looked into it, I discovered that the film had been in a constant struggle with unfortunate releasing delays and had ultimately been driven directly to video. One might think that keeping this film out of theaters might have had a distinctly negative impact on it, but a steadfast amount of people anticipating its release, created quite a beneficial stir via the Internet. I was all set for the release date and even made sure my NetFlix queue was set to view a copy of this film as soon as possible.
Much of "Trick r' Treat's" buzz was due to the casting of Anna Paquin and the recent success of HBO's "True Blood" series. Since she began filming "Trick r' Treat" in 2008, before "True Blood" hit the scene in 2009, Paquin's appearance in and the delay in the former film's release, grabbed the attention of many would-be viewers. Though touted as the film's star, Paquin is in the film as much as any of the main characters in each of the five stories and seems to only receive this billing due to her recent popularity. Instead, the film's main character is a child-sized, violent protectorate of Halloween known merely as "Sam." Adorned with a cinched, burlap sack over his head and a small orange jumpsuit that looks more like pajamas, the supernatural Sam (super creepy) makes sure the everyone in the small Ohio town obeys three basic rules on Halloween: (1) wear a costume, (2) give out candy, and (3) never extinguish a jack-o-lantern before Halloween is over.
With most films, I try not to buy into the initial hype, but with "Trick r' Treat," I took the bait hook, line, and sinker. I'm kind of a sucker for a good horror flick and have been greatly disappointed over the past few years with the new fad of torture films (see, or better yet, don't see "Hostile," "Saw," etc.) and lackluster remakes. The fact that the film was based on a very praised graphic novel and had an intense trailer (*see it below*) didn't lighten my interest either. RottenTomatoes.com, which I typically find very accurate, had given the film a 100% (almost unheard of) rating based on 13 reviews. With all of these factors in mind, my expectations were overflowing and I was over-hyped (maybe a little too) to see this film. My feeling of anticipation was recently personified in my taking of the NetFlix mailer immediately from my mail drop and placing the DVD directly into my player.
Though there are many horror films out there, few actually pay homage to the holiday, Halloween. While John Carpenter's famous series uses the holiday as a backdrop for the exploits of Michael Myers, his films don't quite measure up to the extent to which "Trick r' Treat" uses it. Probably the most appealing part of this film is the setting; it is beautifully shot and the atmosphere of the small town really embraces the carnival-esque environmeant of Halloween night. All of the props, especially the jack-o-lanterns, are spectacular and most of the costumes are very creative and right on target (especially the masks of the school bus massacre children, creepiest paper mache ever *kudos*). The film is very creative and also does a great job of incorporating Halloween urban legends, traditions, and even potential holiday dangers. For example, razorblade-filled candy is an essential piece of little Sam's arsenal of weaponry.
Though I found the film very creative, I had issues with the dialogue. Man was it cheesy! I realize that many horror films are campy, but few campy films can ever be taken seriously as truly great horror flicks (not a lot of silly lines in "Halloween" or the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"). What ends up happening, and what happened for me while watching "Trick r' Treat," was that the poor dialogue derailed my fear. When you chuckle or shake your head over the unbelievability of what you've just heard, it's tough to get back into the frame of mind of being afraid. Most of the suspenseful moments were predictable, and I never found myself really emotionally affected by the film. With that said, I didn't find the acting bad at all; I only felt that it was hindered in spots by bad writing. The film also has a "Pulp Fiction-like" mash-up of chronology, which I was extremely impressed by and felt worked very well.
Maybe my expectations were too high for this film going into it, I can admit that. When I am most ambitious about seeing a movie, I tend to be more critical about every detail. My enjoyment of a film can still go either way, but more times than not, I am going to be disappointed. Having said this, "Trick r' Treat" is a good film and is an enjoyable Halloween film; however, it lacks substance (only an hour and 20 minute run time) and an ability to suspend one's disbelief fully. I would say it's worth a watch and could be added as a worthy supplement to anyone's traditional Halloween viewing line-up.
3 out of 4
I was initially drawn to this film through a random Facebook thread and immediately hit YouTube to see if I could find a trailer. After watching the trailer (which I must say, was very intriguing) I did a bit of research to see when the film would hit theaters. Little did I know, I had stumbled upon a movie, which was already heralded as a "cult classic" before it had even hit the big screen. Not only that, it has never and will never be advertised on your local marquee, for this little ditty was released straight-to-video.
For a while, I thought I had been had, bamboozled by random Facebook advertising. However, the more I looked into it, I discovered that the film had been in a constant struggle with unfortunate releasing delays and had ultimately been driven directly to video. One might think that keeping this film out of theaters might have had a distinctly negative impact on it, but a steadfast amount of people anticipating its release, created quite a beneficial stir via the Internet. I was all set for the release date and even made sure my NetFlix queue was set to view a copy of this film as soon as possible.
Much of "Trick r' Treat's" buzz was due to the casting of Anna Paquin and the recent success of HBO's "True Blood" series. Since she began filming "Trick r' Treat" in 2008, before "True Blood" hit the scene in 2009, Paquin's appearance in and the delay in the former film's release, grabbed the attention of many would-be viewers. Though touted as the film's star, Paquin is in the film as much as any of the main characters in each of the five stories and seems to only receive this billing due to her recent popularity. Instead, the film's main character is a child-sized, violent protectorate of Halloween known merely as "Sam." Adorned with a cinched, burlap sack over his head and a small orange jumpsuit that looks more like pajamas, the supernatural Sam (super creepy) makes sure the everyone in the small Ohio town obeys three basic rules on Halloween: (1) wear a costume, (2) give out candy, and (3) never extinguish a jack-o-lantern before Halloween is over.
With most films, I try not to buy into the initial hype, but with "Trick r' Treat," I took the bait hook, line, and sinker. I'm kind of a sucker for a good horror flick and have been greatly disappointed over the past few years with the new fad of torture films (see, or better yet, don't see "Hostile," "Saw," etc.) and lackluster remakes. The fact that the film was based on a very praised graphic novel and had an intense trailer (*see it below*) didn't lighten my interest either. RottenTomatoes.com, which I typically find very accurate, had given the film a 100% (almost unheard of) rating based on 13 reviews. With all of these factors in mind, my expectations were overflowing and I was over-hyped (maybe a little too) to see this film. My feeling of anticipation was recently personified in my taking of the NetFlix mailer immediately from my mail drop and placing the DVD directly into my player.
Though there are many horror films out there, few actually pay homage to the holiday, Halloween. While John Carpenter's famous series uses the holiday as a backdrop for the exploits of Michael Myers, his films don't quite measure up to the extent to which "Trick r' Treat" uses it. Probably the most appealing part of this film is the setting; it is beautifully shot and the atmosphere of the small town really embraces the carnival-esque environmeant of Halloween night. All of the props, especially the jack-o-lanterns, are spectacular and most of the costumes are very creative and right on target (especially the masks of the school bus massacre children, creepiest paper mache ever *kudos*). The film is very creative and also does a great job of incorporating Halloween urban legends, traditions, and even potential holiday dangers. For example, razorblade-filled candy is an essential piece of little Sam's arsenal of weaponry.
Though I found the film very creative, I had issues with the dialogue. Man was it cheesy! I realize that many horror films are campy, but few campy films can ever be taken seriously as truly great horror flicks (not a lot of silly lines in "Halloween" or the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"). What ends up happening, and what happened for me while watching "Trick r' Treat," was that the poor dialogue derailed my fear. When you chuckle or shake your head over the unbelievability of what you've just heard, it's tough to get back into the frame of mind of being afraid. Most of the suspenseful moments were predictable, and I never found myself really emotionally affected by the film. With that said, I didn't find the acting bad at all; I only felt that it was hindered in spots by bad writing. The film also has a "Pulp Fiction-like" mash-up of chronology, which I was extremely impressed by and felt worked very well.
Maybe my expectations were too high for this film going into it, I can admit that. When I am most ambitious about seeing a movie, I tend to be more critical about every detail. My enjoyment of a film can still go either way, but more times than not, I am going to be disappointed. Having said this, "Trick r' Treat" is a good film and is an enjoyable Halloween film; however, it lacks substance (only an hour and 20 minute run time) and an ability to suspend one's disbelief fully. I would say it's worth a watch and could be added as a worthy supplement to anyone's traditional Halloween viewing line-up.
3 out of 4
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Twilight (2008)
Last Saturday night, after losing a bet to my wife, I reluctantly hopped in the car to take my wife to a screening of "Twilight." I admit that I have never read the books and that my major draw back to this film is the blood curdling and eardrum shattering screams (squeals) emitted by female teenagers and tweenagers across the nation in support of this effort. Hell, I didn't even know what it was until the week it came out and I saw some of the cast on "The Today Show" (insert those ravenous squeals here). I ate my Coco Pebbles and stared at my daughter playing in the floor and pondered the shite she might be into when she grows up. Sure, I had seen some silly flair and advertisements to the right of my profile on Facebook, but never bothered, or even cared to dive into Wikipedia. On that faithful morning, while watching "The Today Show," I realized that I wasn't tuned into what the kids were listening to, but instead of panicking, I breathed a wondrous sigh of relief.
Going into a film with a negative attitude is never a good way to be fair about a film (especially when the tweenagers behind you are discussing the relevance of every scene to the book). It was clear from the onset that "Twilight" had a specific audience (as do the books), but I thought the director, Catherine Hardwicke, made an effort to keep the film entertaining for everyone. I was especially impressed with Hardwicke's attention to color--or maybe more appropriately, her lack thereof; most of the Pacific Northwest scenery and costumes were drab and earth-toned helped to capture to mood of the film and create an unsettling and apposite atmosphere. "Twilight" reminded me a lot of Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hollow" in that when bright colors were used, there was usually some significance and reasoning behind the choice. For example, Bella's red truck stands out in contrast from the other students' cars in the parking lot; at first, the truck signifies her awkwardness and standing out at her new school and later becomes the signifier of her discovery of Edward's identity.
The casting for the film wasn't bad, it seemed that characters fit well into their roles and the absence of any greatly recognizable actors/actresses gave the film a more sincere and independent appeal. Due to the film's popularity and evident upcoming sequels, there are already rumors of stars Dakota Fanning and Drew Barrymore signing on. Though these actresses are not traditionally associated with Hollywood blockbusters, pulling them in may have adverse effects on the series.
While I thought the plot of "Twilight" was decent, what I had the biggest problems with in the film were the same that my wife (who has read the book) also had. Some of the more supernatural scenes, the teleporting, tree climbing, and sparkling vampires, were a bit much and made the film seem a bit silly in places. There were also a few distinct holes in the plot, one of the more noticeable moments being the baseball game. Though I thought the scene was a bit awkward on its own, I was confused at how the tracker, James was not able to pick up on Bella's scent until he and his fellow vampires were about to leave (though he could track her scent from Washington to Arizona). Though my wife was able to offer up an explanation of how the scene was addressed in the book, this scene and others proved that there was a great lack of character development regarding the Cullen family.
Though "Twilight" was slightly out of range for my typical movie going experience, I did find the film at best interesting and well paced.
2 out of 4
Going into a film with a negative attitude is never a good way to be fair about a film (especially when the tweenagers behind you are discussing the relevance of every scene to the book). It was clear from the onset that "Twilight" had a specific audience (as do the books), but I thought the director, Catherine Hardwicke, made an effort to keep the film entertaining for everyone. I was especially impressed with Hardwicke's attention to color--or maybe more appropriately, her lack thereof; most of the Pacific Northwest scenery and costumes were drab and earth-toned helped to capture to mood of the film and create an unsettling and apposite atmosphere. "Twilight" reminded me a lot of Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hollow" in that when bright colors were used, there was usually some significance and reasoning behind the choice. For example, Bella's red truck stands out in contrast from the other students' cars in the parking lot; at first, the truck signifies her awkwardness and standing out at her new school and later becomes the signifier of her discovery of Edward's identity.
The casting for the film wasn't bad, it seemed that characters fit well into their roles and the absence of any greatly recognizable actors/actresses gave the film a more sincere and independent appeal. Due to the film's popularity and evident upcoming sequels, there are already rumors of stars Dakota Fanning and Drew Barrymore signing on. Though these actresses are not traditionally associated with Hollywood blockbusters, pulling them in may have adverse effects on the series.
While I thought the plot of "Twilight" was decent, what I had the biggest problems with in the film were the same that my wife (who has read the book) also had. Some of the more supernatural scenes, the teleporting, tree climbing, and sparkling vampires, were a bit much and made the film seem a bit silly in places. There were also a few distinct holes in the plot, one of the more noticeable moments being the baseball game. Though I thought the scene was a bit awkward on its own, I was confused at how the tracker, James was not able to pick up on Bella's scent until he and his fellow vampires were about to leave (though he could track her scent from Washington to Arizona). Though my wife was able to offer up an explanation of how the scene was addressed in the book, this scene and others proved that there was a great lack of character development regarding the Cullen family.
Though "Twilight" was slightly out of range for my typical movie going experience, I did find the film at best interesting and well paced.
2 out of 4
Monday, February 23, 2009
Doubt (2008)
As a warm-up to Oscar night, the wife and I went out to the theater to see the heavily acting nominated film, "Doubt" (Meryl Streep - Best Actress, Philip Seymour Hoffman - Best Actor in a Supporting Role, and Amy Adams and Viola Davis - Best Actress in a Supporting Role). Surprisingly, we were the only ones in the audience for the showing, and as I began watching the film, I began to wonder why.
The film revolves around a solid, yet too tightly wound plot in which Father Flynn (Hoffman), a Catholic priest is accused of showing too much attention to a young, African- American student. Sister Aloysius (Streep) is a stern and old-fashioned disciplinarian who is quick to become suspicious of Flynn's motives and presses him to confess without sufficient proof. The film teeter-totters on Flynn's pleas of innocence and Aloysius' constant pressure to seek out the truth. Sister James (Adams), whose assuredness is tested by both parties, acts as the film's fulcrum and it is her innocence and inexperience, which ultimately preys upon the audience's own indecisiveness.
Though the plot of the film is a little thin, "Doubt" is very well acted and unsuspectingly deceitful. The nominated actresses capture the true essence of each of their characters and bring out the very best in this film. Streep's extremely stern, yet loving nature, Adams' innocence and worldly ignorance, and Davis' reluctance and unconditional love, all act as catalysts, which first draw in the viewer and keep the film interesting throughout. Though nominated for an Oscar, I felt that Hoffman's performance was a bit lackluster; a nomination for "Synecdoche, New York" would have seemed much more appropriate. In all, "Doubt" was a fairly entertaining "actors film" -- worth a rent, but not the price of admission.
2.5 out of 4
The film revolves around a solid, yet too tightly wound plot in which Father Flynn (Hoffman), a Catholic priest is accused of showing too much attention to a young, African- American student. Sister Aloysius (Streep) is a stern and old-fashioned disciplinarian who is quick to become suspicious of Flynn's motives and presses him to confess without sufficient proof. The film teeter-totters on Flynn's pleas of innocence and Aloysius' constant pressure to seek out the truth. Sister James (Adams), whose assuredness is tested by both parties, acts as the film's fulcrum and it is her innocence and inexperience, which ultimately preys upon the audience's own indecisiveness.
Though the plot of the film is a little thin, "Doubt" is very well acted and unsuspectingly deceitful. The nominated actresses capture the true essence of each of their characters and bring out the very best in this film. Streep's extremely stern, yet loving nature, Adams' innocence and worldly ignorance, and Davis' reluctance and unconditional love, all act as catalysts, which first draw in the viewer and keep the film interesting throughout. Though nominated for an Oscar, I felt that Hoffman's performance was a bit lackluster; a nomination for "Synecdoche, New York" would have seemed much more appropriate. In all, "Doubt" was a fairly entertaining "actors film" -- worth a rent, but not the price of admission.
2.5 out of 4
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The Dead Zone (1983)
After my recent enjoyment of "Dead Ringers," I decided to keep trucking through the Cronenberg filmography and pick up a copy of "The Dead Zone." Though I think Stephen King is probably one of the best storytellers of our generation, I have often been unimpressed (except for "Stand By Me," based on his novella "The Body") with the film adaptations of his novels (i.e. "Sleepwalkers," "Cujo," "Carrie," "It," etc.) and have always felt that they never quite translate well onto the big screen. After reading a short summary of the film, and more importantly, discovering that Christopher Walken was the lead, I decided to give the movie a try. I have to say that I was thoroughly impressed with the film and, though Cronenberg did not write or adapt the script, it stands out as one of his best efforts.
Like most of King's stories, "The Dead Zone" takes place in upper New England around the town of Castle Rock. Christopher Walken plays the Everyman, Johnny Smith, a schoolteacher who after an unfortunate car accident, goes into a 5-year coma and discovers that he has developed psychic abilities. Able to predict the future and avert tragedy, Smith reluctantly offers to use his newfound ability for the good of others though his body negatively suffers the effects of each prediction. When he learns that a local politician will eventually have a damaging impact upon the fate of Mankind, Smith knows that he must stop him at all costs.
"The Dead Zone" is a film that not only benefits from being a successful novel and great adapted screenplay, but also tremendous acting. Christopher Walken is brilliantly cast in the film and successfully combines the strange with the everyday. Even before his accident, Johnny Smith is portrayed as an eccentric individual who seems to enjoy the strange (Poe's "The Raven") and has a preponderant attitude toward adolescence (i.e. a love of theme parks and a great connection with children). Though the accident does little to change his nature, the 5-year coma forces him to grow up and face the reality that a great portion of his life and intended livelihood has passed. Christopher Walken's flair for the strange helps to breathe Johnny Smith to life in a way that no other actor could have. Along with Walken, the supporting cast, including Brooke Adams, Herbert Lom, Tom Skerritt, and the wily Martin Sheen, help to reinforce King's claim as the master of modern suspense and make "The Dead Zone" among one of the top films of the early 1980's.
3.5 out of 4
Like most of King's stories, "The Dead Zone" takes place in upper New England around the town of Castle Rock. Christopher Walken plays the Everyman, Johnny Smith, a schoolteacher who after an unfortunate car accident, goes into a 5-year coma and discovers that he has developed psychic abilities. Able to predict the future and avert tragedy, Smith reluctantly offers to use his newfound ability for the good of others though his body negatively suffers the effects of each prediction. When he learns that a local politician will eventually have a damaging impact upon the fate of Mankind, Smith knows that he must stop him at all costs.
"The Dead Zone" is a film that not only benefits from being a successful novel and great adapted screenplay, but also tremendous acting. Christopher Walken is brilliantly cast in the film and successfully combines the strange with the everyday. Even before his accident, Johnny Smith is portrayed as an eccentric individual who seems to enjoy the strange (Poe's "The Raven") and has a preponderant attitude toward adolescence (i.e. a love of theme parks and a great connection with children). Though the accident does little to change his nature, the 5-year coma forces him to grow up and face the reality that a great portion of his life and intended livelihood has passed. Christopher Walken's flair for the strange helps to breathe Johnny Smith to life in a way that no other actor could have. Along with Walken, the supporting cast, including Brooke Adams, Herbert Lom, Tom Skerritt, and the wily Martin Sheen, help to reinforce King's claim as the master of modern suspense and make "The Dead Zone" among one of the top films of the early 1980's.
3.5 out of 4
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Be Kind Rewind (2008)
I was initially a little reluctant to see "Be Kind Rewind" after Gondry's 2006 disappointment, "The Science of Sleep." Having been a fan of Michel Gondry's work for years, "Eternal Sunshine," and several of his early music videos, I finally decided that the artistry of Gondry films typically outweighs anything negative about them. Though I felt the plot of "Science" was heavily flawed, there were moments in the film of sheer beauty and exquisite design.
Upon entering the theater, I had little idea of what to expect out of this film. I was a bit unsure about the casting of Jack Black, Mos Def, and Danny Glover, and thought that Gondry had maybe given in to a pop culture comedy as a means of "bouncing back." The trailers all seemed to genuinely creative and funny, so I decided to give the film a try.
"Be Kind Rewind" follows Jack Black and Mos Def, two young guys who work in a VHS rental store for the aging Danny Glover. When Black's character accidentally erases all of the tapes, they have to recreate the movies themselves to help the store and their aging friend survive.
I was amazed not only by the plot of "Rewind," but also the way Gondry wielded his own influence over the film. By tactically putting well-known actors in his film, Gondry was able to draw in a diverse crowd of viewers into the box office--those who enjoyed the comical antics of Jack Black and those who followed Gondry's often thought-provoking work. I think that the film worked well on both levels, while there were moments of comedy between the leads Black and Mos Def, other scenes, especially the "Sweded films" (you'll just have to see it understand this term) were funny, yet full of artistic integrity, as Gondry used urban junk to help recreate costumes and settings for the films.
The ending, which I will not give away, was very thought provoking and really had a heavy impact on me when I left the theater. It was the kind of feeling that stuck around with me for days and something inside of me would not let it go. I can't say that I have never been emotionally impacted by a film, but "Rewind" touched me in a way that no other film has to date; it's a definite must see.
3.75 out of 4
Upon entering the theater, I had little idea of what to expect out of this film. I was a bit unsure about the casting of Jack Black, Mos Def, and Danny Glover, and thought that Gondry had maybe given in to a pop culture comedy as a means of "bouncing back." The trailers all seemed to genuinely creative and funny, so I decided to give the film a try.
"Be Kind Rewind" follows Jack Black and Mos Def, two young guys who work in a VHS rental store for the aging Danny Glover. When Black's character accidentally erases all of the tapes, they have to recreate the movies themselves to help the store and their aging friend survive.
I was amazed not only by the plot of "Rewind," but also the way Gondry wielded his own influence over the film. By tactically putting well-known actors in his film, Gondry was able to draw in a diverse crowd of viewers into the box office--those who enjoyed the comical antics of Jack Black and those who followed Gondry's often thought-provoking work. I think that the film worked well on both levels, while there were moments of comedy between the leads Black and Mos Def, other scenes, especially the "Sweded films" (you'll just have to see it understand this term) were funny, yet full of artistic integrity, as Gondry used urban junk to help recreate costumes and settings for the films.
The ending, which I will not give away, was very thought provoking and really had a heavy impact on me when I left the theater. It was the kind of feeling that stuck around with me for days and something inside of me would not let it go. I can't say that I have never been emotionally impacted by a film, but "Rewind" touched me in a way that no other film has to date; it's a definite must see.
3.75 out of 4
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Friday the 13th (2009)
On Friday night, I went to a screening of the new "Friday the 13th" film on opening night. As I expected, the theater was packed with a mix of teenagers and older fans of the earlier series. When the cleaning crew came out, we jockeyed our way into position to assure that we would have adequate seats and waited several minutes for the feature to begin.
The best way to describe "Friday the 13th" and many of the horror remakes for that matter, is that it is an "it is what it is" film. With a film like this, you already know what you are getting into: your typical 80's slasher film, complete with copious amounts of gore, poor dialogue, and superfluous female nudity. If these are the things that entertain you, then yes, you'll probably agree that the new version stands true to its predecessors.
Other than the plot, I did find the camera work the most enjoyable part of the film. Though many of the scenes with the teenagers were typical conversational shots, some of the establishing shots on the lake, several underwater scenes, and the interior shots of the cabins were well done. I can only imagine the difficulty in remaking a popular cult series: being able to reproduce something satisfactory to followers, as well as making something fresh that displays your artistic design and interpretation. I think these two distinct ideologies are most notably present in the teaser and the trailer for "Friday the 13th." You'll notice that the former is better put together and has an aesthetic appeal that the trailer lacks. The trailer (which was released later) focuses more on the group of teenagers and gives the film a more popular appeal; it assures the potential viewer that the new version will follow the same plot line and archetypes of the old series.
While I thought director Marcus Dispel did a nice job of overhauling the series (after disastrous films set in New York and space...yes, space) by bringing it back to Crystal Lake, I was a bit annoyed by the lack of his producer's candor. Not only did Criterion Collection golden boy, Micheal Bay have the audacity to run his trailer for the new "Transformers" movie before the feature, but also "Friday the 13th" continued his previously gratuitous exploitation of product placement (*see "Transformers"). Though I never expected that this film would be Oscar material, I was definitely put off by certain not-so subtle attempts at subliminal advertising. Overall, there were some very "creative" slasher death sequences, but more so, the film never breaks away from convention--it ultimately is what it is.
1.5 of 4 stars
The best way to describe "Friday the 13th" and many of the horror remakes for that matter, is that it is an "it is what it is" film. With a film like this, you already know what you are getting into: your typical 80's slasher film, complete with copious amounts of gore, poor dialogue, and superfluous female nudity. If these are the things that entertain you, then yes, you'll probably agree that the new version stands true to its predecessors.
Other than the plot, I did find the camera work the most enjoyable part of the film. Though many of the scenes with the teenagers were typical conversational shots, some of the establishing shots on the lake, several underwater scenes, and the interior shots of the cabins were well done. I can only imagine the difficulty in remaking a popular cult series: being able to reproduce something satisfactory to followers, as well as making something fresh that displays your artistic design and interpretation. I think these two distinct ideologies are most notably present in the teaser and the trailer for "Friday the 13th." You'll notice that the former is better put together and has an aesthetic appeal that the trailer lacks. The trailer (which was released later) focuses more on the group of teenagers and gives the film a more popular appeal; it assures the potential viewer that the new version will follow the same plot line and archetypes of the old series.
While I thought director Marcus Dispel did a nice job of overhauling the series (after disastrous films set in New York and space...yes, space) by bringing it back to Crystal Lake, I was a bit annoyed by the lack of his producer's candor. Not only did Criterion Collection golden boy, Micheal Bay have the audacity to run his trailer for the new "Transformers" movie before the feature, but also "Friday the 13th" continued his previously gratuitous exploitation of product placement (*see "Transformers"). Though I never expected that this film would be Oscar material, I was definitely put off by certain not-so subtle attempts at subliminal advertising. Overall, there were some very "creative" slasher death sequences, but more so, the film never breaks away from convention--it ultimately is what it is.
1.5 of 4 stars
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Estranged (1993)
Released on September 17, 1991, Guns & Roses albums "Use Your Illusion I & II," were follow-ups to their highly acclaimed debut, "Appetite For Destruction." Between these two musical masterpieces, three tracks ("Don't Cry," "November Rain," and "Estranged") were selected as a part of a trilogy of videos to be directed by Andy Morahan. Though the first two songs were commercial successes, "Estranged," though still mildly successful, failed to attain prominent status among critics and fans. However, in the realm of video and short film efforts, "Estranged" is a tour de force of melancholy, allegory, and allusion. The video is cut into 3 basic parts (Axl's home, the streets of L.A., & in the middle of the ocean), all culminating in an intense Slash guitar solo. I will attempt to sort out these parts and hopefully bring about a better understanding of the whole.
The video begins on an empty children's playground, a reflection of a past carefree and beautiful. The scene then cuts to a SWAT team infiltrating the home of Axl Rose in an attempt to bring him out of hiding. Ironically, Axl is hiding in an overhead compartment of a child's room--a possible allusion to the "Diary of Anne Frank," a biography about a child forced too quickly into adulthood by uncontrollable circumstances. The scene then cuts to a less abstract Guns & Roses performance, where Axl and his band mates are voyerized and idolized by millions. During the performance, there is a cut sequence where we see Axl lie down on a couch to rest and have what appears to be an out-of-body/dream sequence, which involves him going into the shower with his clothes on. This scene parallels the wedding scene in "November Rain" (the second installment of the trilogy) in which the event is rained out, a harkening back to his now dissolved marriage. We next see Axl being led out of the house quietly by what appears to be a large authoritative figure. The clothes of all of the police officers, participants in Axl's removal, and even Axl, are all white and the decor of his home casts a stark, clean paleness early in the video. The scene is dreamlike, but we are to assume that his ejection is a reality and that his marriage has bitterly ended.
In the second third of the video, the mood drastically changes and we see that Axl has returned to the streets of L.A.--a place where he once struggled to survive (the theme of much of G&R's "Appetite for Destruction"), but now finds comfort. At this point, the almost surreal dolphin imagery begins to appear in the backdrop of televisions, storefronts, cargo planes, and in the streets. The dolphins appear to symbolize a memory of his past life, possibly childhood, in which Axl lived worry free and happy. These "memories" will later rescue him and keep him from drowning in a sea of heartache and self-estrangement. During the sequence on the streets of L.A. we get a Slash guitar solo in which he floats along the crowded sidewalk in and out of people, but is not even noticed. This scene speaks to the band's past as "no names" that left their homes and sought to make their way as musicians. Axl's return to the streets marks his frustration with the new idolization of the band and his longing for a life more ordinary.
The third installment of the video begins on a large cargo ship in the middle of the ocean. Frustrated with his broken marriage, the band's idolization and his inability to return to the life he once knew, Axl attempts to take his life by jumping off the barge and into the ocean. He refuses help from drowning/support from his band mates (life buoy, row boat) and ultimately sinks toward the bottom of the abyss. On the verge of drowning, Axl is saved by the one thing he holds onto that makes him happy, his memories ("dolphinified"). As the dolphins lead him toward the surface, the background illuminates with the color of sunrise, symbolic of Axl's new beginning. In a very Arthurian Excalibur moment, Slash rises out of the ocean for a final guitar solo to play his friend home. A helicopter of Axl's band mates descends on the ocean for his rescue; they have never stopped looking for him or offering their support. However, despite his band mate’s efforts, the notion is that to find tranquility, Axl had to reach into himself and discover it on his own. One of the final images in the video is of one of Axl's sneakers drifting to the bottom of the ocean floor. This Cinderella-esque moment suggests that a part of him has actually fallen to the bottom of the ocean and will remain there and also implies that he may return there again someday. We are left with a postscript of Axl sitting on the couch where the dream sequence began, he is wrapped in a robe alongside of the memory (dolphin) that saved him.
"Estranged" has a running time of 9:40 seconds and is truly a masterpiece, which documents the struggle and self-resurrection of one of pop culture's most well-known vocalists. In today's world of pop music reduced to 2-3 minutes for the sole purpose of air play, "Estranged" is beacon of stability and high art.
4 out of 4
The video begins on an empty children's playground, a reflection of a past carefree and beautiful. The scene then cuts to a SWAT team infiltrating the home of Axl Rose in an attempt to bring him out of hiding. Ironically, Axl is hiding in an overhead compartment of a child's room--a possible allusion to the "Diary of Anne Frank," a biography about a child forced too quickly into adulthood by uncontrollable circumstances. The scene then cuts to a less abstract Guns & Roses performance, where Axl and his band mates are voyerized and idolized by millions. During the performance, there is a cut sequence where we see Axl lie down on a couch to rest and have what appears to be an out-of-body/dream sequence, which involves him going into the shower with his clothes on. This scene parallels the wedding scene in "November Rain" (the second installment of the trilogy) in which the event is rained out, a harkening back to his now dissolved marriage. We next see Axl being led out of the house quietly by what appears to be a large authoritative figure. The clothes of all of the police officers, participants in Axl's removal, and even Axl, are all white and the decor of his home casts a stark, clean paleness early in the video. The scene is dreamlike, but we are to assume that his ejection is a reality and that his marriage has bitterly ended.
In the second third of the video, the mood drastically changes and we see that Axl has returned to the streets of L.A.--a place where he once struggled to survive (the theme of much of G&R's "Appetite for Destruction"), but now finds comfort. At this point, the almost surreal dolphin imagery begins to appear in the backdrop of televisions, storefronts, cargo planes, and in the streets. The dolphins appear to symbolize a memory of his past life, possibly childhood, in which Axl lived worry free and happy. These "memories" will later rescue him and keep him from drowning in a sea of heartache and self-estrangement. During the sequence on the streets of L.A. we get a Slash guitar solo in which he floats along the crowded sidewalk in and out of people, but is not even noticed. This scene speaks to the band's past as "no names" that left their homes and sought to make their way as musicians. Axl's return to the streets marks his frustration with the new idolization of the band and his longing for a life more ordinary.
The third installment of the video begins on a large cargo ship in the middle of the ocean. Frustrated with his broken marriage, the band's idolization and his inability to return to the life he once knew, Axl attempts to take his life by jumping off the barge and into the ocean. He refuses help from drowning/support from his band mates (life buoy, row boat) and ultimately sinks toward the bottom of the abyss. On the verge of drowning, Axl is saved by the one thing he holds onto that makes him happy, his memories ("dolphinified"). As the dolphins lead him toward the surface, the background illuminates with the color of sunrise, symbolic of Axl's new beginning. In a very Arthurian Excalibur moment, Slash rises out of the ocean for a final guitar solo to play his friend home. A helicopter of Axl's band mates descends on the ocean for his rescue; they have never stopped looking for him or offering their support. However, despite his band mate’s efforts, the notion is that to find tranquility, Axl had to reach into himself and discover it on his own. One of the final images in the video is of one of Axl's sneakers drifting to the bottom of the ocean floor. This Cinderella-esque moment suggests that a part of him has actually fallen to the bottom of the ocean and will remain there and also implies that he may return there again someday. We are left with a postscript of Axl sitting on the couch where the dream sequence began, he is wrapped in a robe alongside of the memory (dolphin) that saved him.
"Estranged" has a running time of 9:40 seconds and is truly a masterpiece, which documents the struggle and self-resurrection of one of pop culture's most well-known vocalists. In today's world of pop music reduced to 2-3 minutes for the sole purpose of air play, "Estranged" is beacon of stability and high art.
4 out of 4
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Dead Ringers (1988)
"Dead Ringers" is David Cronenberg's psychological thriller about identical twin gynecologists (both roles played by Jeremy Irons) who are renowned and accomplished physicians in their field. Always together and never "separated" since birth, the brothers live a symbiotic life in which each sibling, though physically alike, feeds off of the other's talents. When the more confident brother seduces an actress and shares her with the shyer sibling, their lives begin to unravel as the latter seeks independence--separation.
"Dead Ringers" is similar to Cronenberg's earlier efforts, "Videodrome," "Scanners," and "Dead Zone" in that the protagonist(s) share a sort of supernatural ability that exceeds normal human capacity; however, it's this ability/dissimilarity from much of the rest of humanity that ultimately leads to their undoing. If there is any film that Cronenberg draws much of his influence from, it has to be De Palma's "Sisters" (1973). The title sequence is eerily similar and also implements odd combinations of early sketches, which foreshadow the events and psychology of the film. "Ringers" alternates between what appears to be early, medieval looking surgical instruments and early depictions of the female anatomy, while "Sisters" begins with a series of early depictions of conjoined twins. Though Cronenberg's brothers are not, or never were, conjoined physically (although they are in a dream sequence), it appears that their connection, and what ultimately prevents their assimilation into humanity, is their mental symbiosis.
Although I'm not the biggest fan of the Jeremy Irons' acting gamut, I have to applaude him for his work in this film. Not only would playing two characters in the same film be difficult, but also portraying two characters that are identical in appearance makes his performance doubly challenging. What astonishes me most about Irons' effort is that the audience is able to distinguish between the two characters although they are similar. Though Cronenberg's use of wardrobe aids in distinguishing the identity the brothers, it is Irons who ultimately constructs the emotion and psychological separation.
"Ringers," like most of Cronenberg's work, is odd, supernatural, and bold, but is one of the more accessible of his efforts. It is certainly not a film for everyone, but in its own right deserves its place among other great psychological thrillers.
3 out of 4
"Dead Ringers" is similar to Cronenberg's earlier efforts, "Videodrome," "Scanners," and "Dead Zone" in that the protagonist(s) share a sort of supernatural ability that exceeds normal human capacity; however, it's this ability/dissimilarity from much of the rest of humanity that ultimately leads to their undoing. If there is any film that Cronenberg draws much of his influence from, it has to be De Palma's "Sisters" (1973). The title sequence is eerily similar and also implements odd combinations of early sketches, which foreshadow the events and psychology of the film. "Ringers" alternates between what appears to be early, medieval looking surgical instruments and early depictions of the female anatomy, while "Sisters" begins with a series of early depictions of conjoined twins. Though Cronenberg's brothers are not, or never were, conjoined physically (although they are in a dream sequence), it appears that their connection, and what ultimately prevents their assimilation into humanity, is their mental symbiosis.
Although I'm not the biggest fan of the Jeremy Irons' acting gamut, I have to applaude him for his work in this film. Not only would playing two characters in the same film be difficult, but also portraying two characters that are identical in appearance makes his performance doubly challenging. What astonishes me most about Irons' effort is that the audience is able to distinguish between the two characters although they are similar. Though Cronenberg's use of wardrobe aids in distinguishing the identity the brothers, it is Irons who ultimately constructs the emotion and psychological separation.
"Ringers," like most of Cronenberg's work, is odd, supernatural, and bold, but is one of the more accessible of his efforts. It is certainly not a film for everyone, but in its own right deserves its place among other great psychological thrillers.
3 out of 4
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Man on Wire (2008)
After three days of separate 30 minute viewings, I finally finished the documentary, "Man on Wire." I was really impressed with the story and found it an inspiring piece in a post-9/11 world. Though the tragedy of events of 9/11 are never mentioned in the documentary (and I thought this was a good choice), one can't help but to have an overwhelming feeling of emotion upon seeing these colossal structures.
"Man on Wire" documents the conquest of Frenchman, Philippe Petit to perform a tight rope walk across the Twin Towers during their construction in the early 1970's. The film intertwines personal footage of the preparation and actual feat, reenactments of the operation to secure the wire, and interviews of the individuals involved in the planning and execution. Director James Marsh does a nice job of keeping the film interesting by splicing the reenactment and personal accounts of getting and securing the wire to the tops of the Towers. This process keeps the film fluid by giving it a more exciting, illicit quality. Thought the "caper" conducted in this film is essentially illegal (but not to the extent of physically of financially damaging others), Phillipe and his cohorts, and possibly Marsh, compel the viewer to question the delicate balance between human expression and legality. One of the best pieces of footage to capture this tangling of emotion is the interview with one of the New York City police officers that is sent to the top of the Towers to bring down the Petit. You can tell in his interview that the officer struggles with his obligation to fulfill lawful duty and that at the same time, he appreciates that he has witnessed first-hand something so beautiful and immense. I think this realization is the crux of the film and is what truly makes it interesting and thought-provoking.
Though I can't speak as to the acting in this film, I will say that Marsh's character development (of Petit and his accomplices) is astonishing. By the end of the film, you feel that you have a better sense of these individuals and their motives--some self-serving, some for the sake of adventure, and some for the sake of art. Marsh does a fantastic job in "Man on Wire" of challenging his audience to evaluate Man's place in this world and the human condition.
3.25 out of 4
"Man on Wire" documents the conquest of Frenchman, Philippe Petit to perform a tight rope walk across the Twin Towers during their construction in the early 1970's. The film intertwines personal footage of the preparation and actual feat, reenactments of the operation to secure the wire, and interviews of the individuals involved in the planning and execution. Director James Marsh does a nice job of keeping the film interesting by splicing the reenactment and personal accounts of getting and securing the wire to the tops of the Towers. This process keeps the film fluid by giving it a more exciting, illicit quality. Thought the "caper" conducted in this film is essentially illegal (but not to the extent of physically of financially damaging others), Phillipe and his cohorts, and possibly Marsh, compel the viewer to question the delicate balance between human expression and legality. One of the best pieces of footage to capture this tangling of emotion is the interview with one of the New York City police officers that is sent to the top of the Towers to bring down the Petit. You can tell in his interview that the officer struggles with his obligation to fulfill lawful duty and that at the same time, he appreciates that he has witnessed first-hand something so beautiful and immense. I think this realization is the crux of the film and is what truly makes it interesting and thought-provoking.
Though I can't speak as to the acting in this film, I will say that Marsh's character development (of Petit and his accomplices) is astonishing. By the end of the film, you feel that you have a better sense of these individuals and their motives--some self-serving, some for the sake of adventure, and some for the sake of art. Marsh does a fantastic job in "Man on Wire" of challenging his audience to evaluate Man's place in this world and the human condition.
3.25 out of 4
Monday, February 2, 2009
Slumdog Millionare (2008)
I had a chance to view "Slumdog Millionare" this weekend as it arrived in town amongst the other Oscar hoopla films. The theatre was packed and the attendees ranged from teenagers to several individuals well into their 60s and 70s. I mention this because I felt that the subject matter of the film had great appeal to all age groups and the film itself was a very enjoyable experience overall. Though I am initially hesitant about films where there is an overabundance of Oscar buzz, I decided to try and go into the film with an open mind and sense of positivity.
What I found most enjoyable about the film was the direction and editing. "Slumdog" is a very beautiful film and vibrant with color. Though the subject matter of the film was very bleak and depressing, I found it nice that Boyle chose to use color as a means of portraying Indian culture in all of its alluring majesty. Even the scenes filmed in the poorer parts of town, stood out in contrast to depictions employed by other directors, who often overuse darker colors as a means to symbolize the inner and outer struggles of the lower class. Boyle's India, while similarly sad and emotionally binding, offers a glimmer of hope and prosperity in a world foreign to many of its viewers.
The camera work and editing in "Slumdog" are equally impressive and I my expectations (after viewing such films as "Millions," "28 Days Later," and "Trainspotting") were again exceeded. Boyle has a great eye for direction and captures some very impressive shots from various perspectives. The scenes, which are especially noteworthy, are the numerous chase sequences throughout the film. These scenes are cutting and quick and transition from characters running through multiple still frames to an assortment of high action tracking shots. I was also particularly impressed with Boyle's choice of film. In an age of digital clarity, Boyle chose to create a more subtle and grainier film. I thought that this was a very nice touch and have to applaud him for taking a chance on a very well done artistic decision.
The acting in "Slumdog" was very good and I thought that all three incarnations of the main actors did a very nice job of portraying their characters. I was most impressed with the characterization of the older brother, Salim. Though may the most complex of the three leads, the younger and older actors did a nice job of bringing this character to life.
Though much of my experience with "Slumdog" was very positive, I found that the plot of the film lacked in creativity. In a culture obsessed with reality television and game shows, drawing on a specific pop cultural icon (i.e. "Who Wants to Be a Millionare") is a bit too easy and trite. For such a serious film, I often found myself in disbelief that something so mechanical had been worked into a plot. During the scene where the children were in the storm pipe (approx. 15-30 minutes in), I turned to my wife and told her what the final "Millionare" question was going to be. Though I heard a few gasps when the question was revealed at the end of the film, I couldn't help but to look at my wife and sneer in disbelief. Before going to the theatre, I had seen an article, which professed "Slumdog" as the "feel good movie of the year" and I couldn't disagree more. If we are to take some sort of solace from this film, I feel that it has to be at the expense of another culture. The film is conclusively wrapped in a pretty pink bow and it's a shame that much of the struggle and plight of the characters is lost in translation on the audience. I feel that the film unintentionally mimics our culture in that it asserts that the end-all means to financial independence and removal from a bleak socioeconomic environment is through attaining fame (i.e. reality shows, game shows, sports, etc.).
Though I had some issues with the plot and message, I felt that "Slumdog Millionare" was a very enjoyable film. While I think that the Academy will ultimately choose it for "Best Motion Picture," for its accessability and wide audience appreciation. I would certainly put a few others above it.
3 out of 4
What I found most enjoyable about the film was the direction and editing. "Slumdog" is a very beautiful film and vibrant with color. Though the subject matter of the film was very bleak and depressing, I found it nice that Boyle chose to use color as a means of portraying Indian culture in all of its alluring majesty. Even the scenes filmed in the poorer parts of town, stood out in contrast to depictions employed by other directors, who often overuse darker colors as a means to symbolize the inner and outer struggles of the lower class. Boyle's India, while similarly sad and emotionally binding, offers a glimmer of hope and prosperity in a world foreign to many of its viewers.
The camera work and editing in "Slumdog" are equally impressive and I my expectations (after viewing such films as "Millions," "28 Days Later," and "Trainspotting") were again exceeded. Boyle has a great eye for direction and captures some very impressive shots from various perspectives. The scenes, which are especially noteworthy, are the numerous chase sequences throughout the film. These scenes are cutting and quick and transition from characters running through multiple still frames to an assortment of high action tracking shots. I was also particularly impressed with Boyle's choice of film. In an age of digital clarity, Boyle chose to create a more subtle and grainier film. I thought that this was a very nice touch and have to applaud him for taking a chance on a very well done artistic decision.
The acting in "Slumdog" was very good and I thought that all three incarnations of the main actors did a very nice job of portraying their characters. I was most impressed with the characterization of the older brother, Salim. Though may the most complex of the three leads, the younger and older actors did a nice job of bringing this character to life.
Though much of my experience with "Slumdog" was very positive, I found that the plot of the film lacked in creativity. In a culture obsessed with reality television and game shows, drawing on a specific pop cultural icon (i.e. "Who Wants to Be a Millionare") is a bit too easy and trite. For such a serious film, I often found myself in disbelief that something so mechanical had been worked into a plot. During the scene where the children were in the storm pipe (approx. 15-30 minutes in), I turned to my wife and told her what the final "Millionare" question was going to be. Though I heard a few gasps when the question was revealed at the end of the film, I couldn't help but to look at my wife and sneer in disbelief. Before going to the theatre, I had seen an article, which professed "Slumdog" as the "feel good movie of the year" and I couldn't disagree more. If we are to take some sort of solace from this film, I feel that it has to be at the expense of another culture. The film is conclusively wrapped in a pretty pink bow and it's a shame that much of the struggle and plight of the characters is lost in translation on the audience. I feel that the film unintentionally mimics our culture in that it asserts that the end-all means to financial independence and removal from a bleak socioeconomic environment is through attaining fame (i.e. reality shows, game shows, sports, etc.).
Though I had some issues with the plot and message, I felt that "Slumdog Millionare" was a very enjoyable film. While I think that the Academy will ultimately choose it for "Best Motion Picture," for its accessability and wide audience appreciation. I would certainly put a few others above it.
3 out of 4
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Branded to Kill (1967)
Let me start off by saying that I am not a big fan of gangster films; I've seen all of the Godfather movies, but couldn't make it through even half of "Scarface." However, I picked up a copy of "Branded to Kill" a few years ago on Criterion, and it blew me away. The movie was made in 1967 by famed director, Seijun Suzuki and starred Joe Shishido, an actor noted for his prominent work in yakuza films of the time. Yakuza films were similar to the Roger Corman films of the 60's and 70's in that they were made quickly and on low budgets in hopes that the bulk turnaround would be profitable if the films were not highly successful.
"Branded to Kill" was unlike other films of it's time, in that Suzuki put a tremendous amount of creative effort into the film to give it artistic appeal (i.e. a sniper inside of a moving billboard and the infamous sink murder scene). Though color was available in the late 60's, Branded was shot in black and white. Suzuki's mastery of shadows and transitioning of color to this medium is astounding. I have yet to see another film that uses jump cuts to the extent and perfection as does Branded. Suzuki trims down the transitions well in the film and the plot is very freeflowing, but does not take away so much as to make it awkward or disjointed.
Branded is a story about number 3 hitman (all hitmen are known by their ranks), Goro Hanada (Shishido) who is working his way up the hitman ladder. Goro's only weakness is the smell of boiling rice, for which he has an odd fetish. Hanada is gainfully employed by the yakuza, until during a mission, a butterfly lands on the barrel of his gun and he misses his intended target. Subsequently, Goro is marked for death and must fight his way through crime bosses and numbers (literally) of hitmen. Furious with his script and inability to make profitable films, the production company fired Suzuki after the completion of Branded.
Today Suzuki's films are credited as a great influence by directors: Jim Jarmusch, Quentin Tarantino, and John Woo. I have seen other Suzuki films, but stylistically, "Branded to Kill" is by far my favorite.
4 out of 4
"Branded to Kill" was unlike other films of it's time, in that Suzuki put a tremendous amount of creative effort into the film to give it artistic appeal (i.e. a sniper inside of a moving billboard and the infamous sink murder scene). Though color was available in the late 60's, Branded was shot in black and white. Suzuki's mastery of shadows and transitioning of color to this medium is astounding. I have yet to see another film that uses jump cuts to the extent and perfection as does Branded. Suzuki trims down the transitions well in the film and the plot is very freeflowing, but does not take away so much as to make it awkward or disjointed.
Branded is a story about number 3 hitman (all hitmen are known by their ranks), Goro Hanada (Shishido) who is working his way up the hitman ladder. Goro's only weakness is the smell of boiling rice, for which he has an odd fetish. Hanada is gainfully employed by the yakuza, until during a mission, a butterfly lands on the barrel of his gun and he misses his intended target. Subsequently, Goro is marked for death and must fight his way through crime bosses and numbers (literally) of hitmen. Furious with his script and inability to make profitable films, the production company fired Suzuki after the completion of Branded.
Today Suzuki's films are credited as a great influence by directors: Jim Jarmusch, Quentin Tarantino, and John Woo. I have seen other Suzuki films, but stylistically, "Branded to Kill" is by far my favorite.
4 out of 4
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Inland Empire (2006)
I actually got to see a prescreening of Inland Empire in an old theatre about a year ago and I must say I have mixed feelings about this new Lynch endevor. My feelings are so mixed in fact, that I had to take some time to digest it to put up a fair review. The stroy starts out fairly linear and intense, Laura Dern's character is up for a role in a new film and is visited by a gypsy "neighbor" who tells her prematurely that she has already gotten the part. While filming, she realizes that it is a remake of an old Polish film (named 47) that was never finished due to "horrible incidents" on the set. The film begins to mimic Dern's own life, her infedility, violence, and her background, among its themes.
The first hour is fairly solid, but the remainder soon begins to lose focus, and swirls into repetiton with undefined characters and situations. At first, I was a little angry about sitting through a 3 hour marathon and coming out of the theatre more confused than satisfied, but soon focused on the few moments of brilliance in the film. Empire takes from its predecessors, "Lost Highway" and "Mullholland Drive," in that Lynch uses dreamlike sequeces to bend reality, and juxtaposes charaters, names, and several storylines to mask what one might try to piece together into a coherant plot. I'm not opposed to this type of direction, but it seems that Lynch has gone much further than before, and as a result, really lost me in the fold.
In contrast, the cinematic techniques and the photography of Inland Empire are some of the best that I have ever seen. It is a beautiful film, from its black and white and vivid color sequences, to its overexposed and underfocused portions, Lynch really shows us the future of what filmaking should and hopefully will be. The lighting is phenominal and there are recurring characteristics of previous titles: the red theater curtains and stage and the shots which slowly reveal movement out of the darkness, which mark his earlier efforts, "Blue Velvet," "Fire Walk With Me," "Lost Highway," and "Mullholland Drive."
What Lynch does so well artistically, he gives up in substance, and as a result, I found myself leering at people who clapped at the end--feeling that in some way they had to make others think that in some way they "got" it. It seems that Lynch has reverted back to his earlier film school days, since "Inland Empire" reminds me more of "Eraserhead" (an early artistic venure) than of his later works, which melded the strange with substance and cinematic beauty. It's unfortunate that a second, third, etc. viewing will have to include a notepad so that I can somehow seperate the storylines and determine what parts/characters match, or possibly match with the others. I don't think its wrong for a film to be abstract and thought-provoking, but in my opinion, Lynch has crossed the line a bit too far. It's a film worth seeing if you're a Lynch fan, but if your new to his work, I'd suggest soething a bit more concrete.
Kudos go out to Laura Dern's exceptional performance (though with a bad Southern accent), a prostitute dance sequence using "The Locomotion," and a decent montage of action using Beck's "Black Tamborine."
2 out of 4
The first hour is fairly solid, but the remainder soon begins to lose focus, and swirls into repetiton with undefined characters and situations. At first, I was a little angry about sitting through a 3 hour marathon and coming out of the theatre more confused than satisfied, but soon focused on the few moments of brilliance in the film. Empire takes from its predecessors, "Lost Highway" and "Mullholland Drive," in that Lynch uses dreamlike sequeces to bend reality, and juxtaposes charaters, names, and several storylines to mask what one might try to piece together into a coherant plot. I'm not opposed to this type of direction, but it seems that Lynch has gone much further than before, and as a result, really lost me in the fold.
In contrast, the cinematic techniques and the photography of Inland Empire are some of the best that I have ever seen. It is a beautiful film, from its black and white and vivid color sequences, to its overexposed and underfocused portions, Lynch really shows us the future of what filmaking should and hopefully will be. The lighting is phenominal and there are recurring characteristics of previous titles: the red theater curtains and stage and the shots which slowly reveal movement out of the darkness, which mark his earlier efforts, "Blue Velvet," "Fire Walk With Me," "Lost Highway," and "Mullholland Drive."
What Lynch does so well artistically, he gives up in substance, and as a result, I found myself leering at people who clapped at the end--feeling that in some way they had to make others think that in some way they "got" it. It seems that Lynch has reverted back to his earlier film school days, since "Inland Empire" reminds me more of "Eraserhead" (an early artistic venure) than of his later works, which melded the strange with substance and cinematic beauty. It's unfortunate that a second, third, etc. viewing will have to include a notepad so that I can somehow seperate the storylines and determine what parts/characters match, or possibly match with the others. I don't think its wrong for a film to be abstract and thought-provoking, but in my opinion, Lynch has crossed the line a bit too far. It's a film worth seeing if you're a Lynch fan, but if your new to his work, I'd suggest soething a bit more concrete.
Kudos go out to Laura Dern's exceptional performance (though with a bad Southern accent), a prostitute dance sequence using "The Locomotion," and a decent montage of action using Beck's "Black Tamborine."
2 out of 4
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Wrestler (2008)
I went to see "The Wrestler" last night and was very impressed with the film. I haven't seen an Aronofsky film since my utter disappointment in "Requiem for a Dream, "which followed one of my favorite films, "Pi." I must say I was a little hesitant to go see this film, but the overall subject matter won me over. Growing up as a child near Charlotte, NC you can't deny your wrestling roots and the years of curling up on the couch in your good clothes after a midday sermon to watch some male on male brutality.
Aronofsky's direction is superb in this film and he doesn't rely on gimmicky edits as he does in some of his previous films. One particular scene, which I found very creative, was when Rourke (The Ram) had dressed for his new job in the deli and was making his way to the counter. The camera follows him down the hallways and through a maze of butchering equipment into the depths of what is his own personal hell. There is moment where his silhouette stops just in front of a shredded, industrial plastic curtain and you begin to hear the faint wresting announcement in the background just as he breaks through...a mimicry of his former life. I also thought the wresting choreography was well done, just the right amount of imperfections to make it seem "real."
Rourke's performance was by far the best acting I have seen all year and I will definitely be "in his corner" on Oscar night. I don't know that I would call it type casting, but Rourke's demeanor and physical appearance certainly parallels the years of self-inflicted abuse portrayed by his character. I can only assume that some of the script was improvised, but to me, that's where Rourke stole the show. The scenes with him behind the deli counter and in the dollar store are especially great and keep the film lighthearted and from turning too grim. Even though it's evident that Rourke is having fun with his role, he never steps out of character while improving and it really makes for some creative and endearing scenes. The more serious scenes are touching and well done and the even the wrestling is spot on. Rourke truly runs through an acting gauntlet and comes out the other side triumphant.
Rourke's love interest, Marisa Tomei (who plays the stripper, Cassidy) was stellar in the film and it's nice to see her in another career-resurrecting film following "When the Devil Knows You're Dead." I was initially put off at first by the amount of nudity in the film in terms of it's necessity (since sometimes it makes me feel uneasy for the actress and can sometimes break my suspension of disbelief), but I can sincerely say that Aronofsky’s portrayal of that seedy slice of society is dead on accurate and that Cassidy's meetings with Ram outside of that environment are more powerful and realistic as a result of this decision.
Though "The Wrester" was a very sincere and often humorous film, I found that the film's plot was a bit generic and ultimately, fairly predictable--the terminally ill father who has never been there, the reluctant reconciliation, and the tragic denouement (not really a spoiler, the trailer details it all). However, after some careful consideration, I think the film separates itself from others based on its ability to portray such a difficult and often belittled subject matter and it stands tall on its own merits (acting, editing, and directing).
4 out of 4
Aronofsky's direction is superb in this film and he doesn't rely on gimmicky edits as he does in some of his previous films. One particular scene, which I found very creative, was when Rourke (The Ram) had dressed for his new job in the deli and was making his way to the counter. The camera follows him down the hallways and through a maze of butchering equipment into the depths of what is his own personal hell. There is moment where his silhouette stops just in front of a shredded, industrial plastic curtain and you begin to hear the faint wresting announcement in the background just as he breaks through...a mimicry of his former life. I also thought the wresting choreography was well done, just the right amount of imperfections to make it seem "real."
Rourke's performance was by far the best acting I have seen all year and I will definitely be "in his corner" on Oscar night. I don't know that I would call it type casting, but Rourke's demeanor and physical appearance certainly parallels the years of self-inflicted abuse portrayed by his character. I can only assume that some of the script was improvised, but to me, that's where Rourke stole the show. The scenes with him behind the deli counter and in the dollar store are especially great and keep the film lighthearted and from turning too grim. Even though it's evident that Rourke is having fun with his role, he never steps out of character while improving and it really makes for some creative and endearing scenes. The more serious scenes are touching and well done and the even the wrestling is spot on. Rourke truly runs through an acting gauntlet and comes out the other side triumphant.
Rourke's love interest, Marisa Tomei (who plays the stripper, Cassidy) was stellar in the film and it's nice to see her in another career-resurrecting film following "When the Devil Knows You're Dead." I was initially put off at first by the amount of nudity in the film in terms of it's necessity (since sometimes it makes me feel uneasy for the actress and can sometimes break my suspension of disbelief), but I can sincerely say that Aronofsky’s portrayal of that seedy slice of society is dead on accurate and that Cassidy's meetings with Ram outside of that environment are more powerful and realistic as a result of this decision.
Though "The Wrester" was a very sincere and often humorous film, I found that the film's plot was a bit generic and ultimately, fairly predictable--the terminally ill father who has never been there, the reluctant reconciliation, and the tragic denouement (not really a spoiler, the trailer details it all). However, after some careful consideration, I think the film separates itself from others based on its ability to portray such a difficult and often belittled subject matter and it stands tall on its own merits (acting, editing, and directing).
4 out of 4
Synecdouche, New York (2008)
I went to see Synecdouche a few weeks ago and was quite impressed. I wouldn't say that I liked it better than Adaptation, the humor is definately more deadpan and witty. I was the kind of humor where you find yourself the only one laughing sometimes, where I think the obsessive and frantic nature of Cage makes Adaptation a little more accessible in regards to humor. It's a fairly straight-forward plot at first and it slowly gets more fragmented. I liked this as opposed to something like Lynch's "Inland Empire," which just immediately smashes into the weird wall and never gets any more translucent. The oddness of Synecdouche builds and is fairly easy, yet somewhat challenging to follow until around the last 10-15 minutes of the film. Even the last segment of the film is nice beacuse it allows you to leave the theatre trying to wrap your mind around what you just saw and is certainly a film that will be on my mind for days. I think a friend said it best when we got back to the car and he stated, "You know I really want to see that again," which is probably the best immediate comment you can make about a movie. It's full of layers, "literally," but it's simply brilliant. It reminds me a bit of "8 1/2," since it too is a movie about directing. By the end, you may even wonder if somehow you are in one of the many "Las Meninas-esque"/Matryoshka doll warehouses portrayed throughout the film. I am dumbfounded by the script and how Kaufman could accurately write and direct such a piece; I would have loved to have been on that set and imagine it mimics the set of the play portrayed in the actual film. Hoffman is as brilliant as ever and the cast of female characters do a phenominal job of "supporting" him.
3.5 out of 4
3.5 out of 4
Friday, January 23, 2009
Vicky Christina Barcelona (2008)
The wife and I went out last night and saw the new Woody Allen film, "Vicky Christina Barcelona." It was pretty much what I expected, the "fleetingness of love" type films that Allen tends to do. It's about these two American friends who are staying in Barcelona for two months. Vicky (played by relative newcomer, Rebecca Hall) is the engaged, dark haired, good girl who values more conservative relationship ideals and Christina (Johansson) is the more sensuous and adventurous, fair haired, girl who is never satisfied in any relationship. Though Allen reverses the physiognomy of the dark and light heroine roles, as the movie progresses, these roles begin to unravel and we begin to see glimpes of the values associated with each girl in the other. Javier Bardem is great in the film as a Spanish artist who was married and found love in fellow Spaniard, Penelope Cruz (also very good). Their artistically flourishing relationship faulters and ultimately tilts toward depression and violence, because they are "missing something" in their relationship. The lovers and fellow artists are too much alike, and it is in the two American tourists that they seek to find it. The movie is well acted and I think any accolades that any of the actors in this film receive are well-deserved. The acting is by far the strongest part of this film. However, the film lacks depth and there are moments that are so predicable. At times, I found myself wondering if I were watching some sort of avant-garde soap opera. Though Allen is ultimately trying to get us to look back on the "what ifs" of our lives and evaluate our traditional values, in the end, we are left with the notion that only we are able to decide what type of lifestyle is right and wrong for ourselves. For me, this film was the typical self-reflective Allen film--you will never find true love, it does not exist.*
2.5 out of 4.0
(*see "Annie Hall," "Manhattan," "Matchpoint," etc.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)