So I've finally gone back to watching all these James Bond DVDs. I had started with the Bonds I knew from when I was a kid: Dalton, Brosnan, and now Craig. Then decided to go back to the original incarnation.
Note that I've never read any of the books, so I only know Bond as a film icon.
While Dalton's Bond was the first I ever saw in the cinema, I actually knew Connery's Bond first because my mother is a big Sean Connery fan. (Mom's family is Scottish.) So I do remember seeing all these movies when they would show on Sunday afternoons on television. I never really understood what was going on in them, though. I knew Bond was the good guy, and that he would win because there were a lot of movies with him in it, so clearly he didn't ever die. And I think I would sit and watch a bit to try and see if I could understand why my parents liked these movies so much, but then I would eventually wander off because I couldn't understand it and it's boring to watch nonsense.
Fast forward to now, and it was sort of like having weird flashbacks whenever I'd see a scene that I remembered seeing as a kid. "Oh, wait, I remember this!" The films made a bit more sense, too, but only a bit. A lot of it is still really over the top, but that's something Bond has always been, in any form.
What surprised me is that I like Connery as Bond. Craig is still my favorite, but Connery is very cool. I like his attitude in these films. He's smooth when he needs to be and rough when the situation requires. And his dry humor is spot on.
And then there was that little insert of Lazenby. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is maybe one of my favorites as far as plot goes, and I think Lazenby does a fair job. But I don't like his chin. Is that weird? (I don't like Dalton's chin, either.) And it's so clear he's a model first and an actor second. There seems to be a lot of mugging and posing.
Anyway, I'm glad I revisited these. And now I'm two in with Roger Moore, so I'll update you as soon as I get through them all. But as a preview: I don't love Moore's Bond. But I can't decide if it's the scripts or the acting I'm having a problem with. We'll see how it goes.
Showing posts with label movies on DVD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies on DVD. Show all posts
3.18.2014
Movies: Frozen
The nanny took the kids to see this one at the cinema, and of course they won't (my daughter in particular) shut up about it. I finally watched it on Blu-Ray last night.
The first 15 to 20 minutes were kind of awful. The setup for the story just took too long. And there was a lot more singing than I typically enjoy. I like musicals—the kind where there is a song now and then—but I'm not into opera. Not everything needs to be a song (IMHO).
What I'm really trying to wrap my brain around is why my daughter and all her little friends identify so strongly with Elsa when Anna is (a) more prominently featured, and (b) a lot more fun. But clearly little girls go for the wounded woman thing? Maybe it's to do with herd nature, and the desire to bring Elsa "in from the cold" and add her to their social collective. Anna has friends and thus does not need the viewers; Elsa, on the other hand, is alone and must be included. Just from a sociological standpoint, I find it fascinating.
Still, from a story standpoint, there were just a lot of problems. The trolls, for one. They either needed more story or to be excised entirely; as they stand their function as a simple expositive device is ick. And the "true love" thing. Wouldn't Kristoff bringing Anna back to the castle count as "an act of true love"? Or are we going with the "blood is thicker" argument? Much as I appreciate sisters doing it for themselves and all, the logic is deeply flawed. Someone needed to introduce and/or explain the hierarchy of valid types of love in order for this to work.
Really, what I walked away feeling was the stuff they compressed was the stuff they should have expanded, and the stuff they went on about was the stuff they should have compressed.
But I'll admit a juvenile amusement with Olaf and Sven, and with the way Kristoff would speak for Sven. I did laugh out loud several times, in that way when you feel you shouldn't be laughing because it's so dumb and childish, but you can't help it. That's really what saved the movie for me, that and Anna's winning personality. I didn't love the story or the music, but the characters were solid. And the animation was beautifully done.
It's possible that, after all the hype, Frozen wasn't going to be able to live up to expectations no matter how good it was (or is). On the whole, though, I was disappointed.
The first 15 to 20 minutes were kind of awful. The setup for the story just took too long. And there was a lot more singing than I typically enjoy. I like musicals—the kind where there is a song now and then—but I'm not into opera. Not everything needs to be a song (IMHO).
What I'm really trying to wrap my brain around is why my daughter and all her little friends identify so strongly with Elsa when Anna is (a) more prominently featured, and (b) a lot more fun. But clearly little girls go for the wounded woman thing? Maybe it's to do with herd nature, and the desire to bring Elsa "in from the cold" and add her to their social collective. Anna has friends and thus does not need the viewers; Elsa, on the other hand, is alone and must be included. Just from a sociological standpoint, I find it fascinating.
Still, from a story standpoint, there were just a lot of problems. The trolls, for one. They either needed more story or to be excised entirely; as they stand their function as a simple expositive device is ick. And the "true love" thing. Wouldn't Kristoff bringing Anna back to the castle count as "an act of true love"? Or are we going with the "blood is thicker" argument? Much as I appreciate sisters doing it for themselves and all, the logic is deeply flawed. Someone needed to introduce and/or explain the hierarchy of valid types of love in order for this to work.
Really, what I walked away feeling was the stuff they compressed was the stuff they should have expanded, and the stuff they went on about was the stuff they should have compressed.
But I'll admit a juvenile amusement with Olaf and Sven, and with the way Kristoff would speak for Sven. I did laugh out loud several times, in that way when you feel you shouldn't be laughing because it's so dumb and childish, but you can't help it. That's really what saved the movie for me, that and Anna's winning personality. I didn't love the story or the music, but the characters were solid. And the animation was beautifully done.
It's possible that, after all the hype, Frozen wasn't going to be able to live up to expectations no matter how good it was (or is). On the whole, though, I was disappointed.
3.16.2014
Movies: Inside Llewyn Davis
If someone were to put the question to me flat out: "Did you like Inside Llewyn Davis?" I'd probably have to answer, "Not really."
There are things about the movie to like. It's beautifully shot. The music is, of course, quite good. The acting too. But the characters and the story . . . Those I liked less.
It's a small movie. More a character study than plot driven. But since Llewyn isn't terribly likable, I found it tough to sit through a movie about him. I also have a bit of an issue with "suffering" movies—that is, movies that focus on people's hard times and such. It's not my idea of entertainment, watching people walk around freezing without winter coats. I'm sure it's supposed to be edifying or something, watching a movie like this, but eating liver is also supposed to be edifying and I don't do that either; I get my iron from other sources, ones I enjoy more.
Inside Llewyn Davis is a kind of snapshot of folk musician Llewyn's life, and it's a mess of his own making. He had been part of what I suppose was a relatively popular duo, but then his partner committed suicide and Llewyn has been trying to make it as a solo act. But his records don't sell and his manager is lousy. Llewyn gets by on occasional Greenwich Village gigs and couch surfing, constantly taking advantage of others' generosity (even when it's clear he isn't welcome).
And yet this seems to be his ideal. He berates other musicians who are (as he calls them) "careerist." Those who aspire to actually make money at the craft. Well, I suppose it's easy to condemn what you know you can't have—and Llewyn travels to Chicago to try and get a foot in the door there only to be told he should really be part of a duo or group act because he'll never make it solo.
Messed up hypocrite that he is, Llewyn is still somewhat better than Jean (Carey Mulligan), who is shrill and awful as another folk singer who slept with Llewyn and got pregnant and now doesn't know if the baby is Llewyn's or her . . . long-term partner's? husband's? (played by Justin Timberlake, their relationship is not defined) Deciding she'd rather not risk the child being Llewyn's she demands he pay for her to have an abortion. Which is worse: Jean's drive or Llewyn's unwillingness to pull himself together? He has opportunities but always takes the easy way out of things; at one point, with a little paperwork he could get royalties on a record he sings on but would rather just take a one-time check. Sure, he needs the money, but what if the record ends up a hit? (And then again, what if it doesn't? 'Tis the risk creatives must take.)
By the end, the movie had become something of a drag. There was no up side, no hopefulness in it. Things only got worse as the seconds ticked by. I wouldn't have wanted false optimism, but . . . I just don't know what I'm supposed to have taken away from this film. An impression of the 60s Greenwich Village scene? ::shrug::
I'm thinking the cat—you saw it in the trailers, of course you did—probably had a more interesting story.
There are things about the movie to like. It's beautifully shot. The music is, of course, quite good. The acting too. But the characters and the story . . . Those I liked less.
It's a small movie. More a character study than plot driven. But since Llewyn isn't terribly likable, I found it tough to sit through a movie about him. I also have a bit of an issue with "suffering" movies—that is, movies that focus on people's hard times and such. It's not my idea of entertainment, watching people walk around freezing without winter coats. I'm sure it's supposed to be edifying or something, watching a movie like this, but eating liver is also supposed to be edifying and I don't do that either; I get my iron from other sources, ones I enjoy more.
Inside Llewyn Davis is a kind of snapshot of folk musician Llewyn's life, and it's a mess of his own making. He had been part of what I suppose was a relatively popular duo, but then his partner committed suicide and Llewyn has been trying to make it as a solo act. But his records don't sell and his manager is lousy. Llewyn gets by on occasional Greenwich Village gigs and couch surfing, constantly taking advantage of others' generosity (even when it's clear he isn't welcome).
And yet this seems to be his ideal. He berates other musicians who are (as he calls them) "careerist." Those who aspire to actually make money at the craft. Well, I suppose it's easy to condemn what you know you can't have—and Llewyn travels to Chicago to try and get a foot in the door there only to be told he should really be part of a duo or group act because he'll never make it solo.
Messed up hypocrite that he is, Llewyn is still somewhat better than Jean (Carey Mulligan), who is shrill and awful as another folk singer who slept with Llewyn and got pregnant and now doesn't know if the baby is Llewyn's or her . . . long-term partner's? husband's? (played by Justin Timberlake, their relationship is not defined) Deciding she'd rather not risk the child being Llewyn's she demands he pay for her to have an abortion. Which is worse: Jean's drive or Llewyn's unwillingness to pull himself together? He has opportunities but always takes the easy way out of things; at one point, with a little paperwork he could get royalties on a record he sings on but would rather just take a one-time check. Sure, he needs the money, but what if the record ends up a hit? (And then again, what if it doesn't? 'Tis the risk creatives must take.)
By the end, the movie had become something of a drag. There was no up side, no hopefulness in it. Things only got worse as the seconds ticked by. I wouldn't have wanted false optimism, but . . . I just don't know what I'm supposed to have taken away from this film. An impression of the 60s Greenwich Village scene? ::shrug::
I'm thinking the cat—you saw it in the trailers, of course you did—probably had a more interesting story.
3.09.2014
Movies: About Time
A tad saccharine for my movie tastebuds, I did mostly enjoy this film; in terms of production value and overall tone, it felt similar to my script for 20 August (though that is far less romantic and slightly more brooding).
Just after turning 21, Tim is told by his father that the men in the family are able to travel in time. Well, only within their own lifetimes, and only backward, never into the future. Unless it's the future that has already been experienced, apparently, because instead of having to live again from whatever point he travels back to, he can move forward to the last point he lived? I think?
Time travel movies offer a host of problems, but this isn't a science fiction film and so it isn't trying to be particularly methodical about the ways and means.
In any case, Tim finds this ability handy for fixing little fuck-ups in his life. And for meeting Mary and wooing her, etc.
The wrinkles in time begin when the babies arrive . . . If you want to keep the very child you have, you cannot go back before their lifetime, else you may end up with an entirely different family(?) . . . Again, I think that was how it worked.
And then there were the usual other dramatic moments: Sister in a car accident, Dad's cancer. (And apparently you can take Sister with you when you travel, if you hold her hand. Why only the men in the family anyway? Was the screenwriter sexist? Ah, whatever.)
The bottom line is that, even if one can go back and do things over, what does that mean? And is it always worth it?
It was a cute, sweet film that might could have done with a few more laughs (I think more of Harry's hyperbolizing would have been fantastic; he should have his own movie) and maybe should not have been so . . . predestined . . . with its twists and turns.
Just after turning 21, Tim is told by his father that the men in the family are able to travel in time. Well, only within their own lifetimes, and only backward, never into the future. Unless it's the future that has already been experienced, apparently, because instead of having to live again from whatever point he travels back to, he can move forward to the last point he lived? I think?
Time travel movies offer a host of problems, but this isn't a science fiction film and so it isn't trying to be particularly methodical about the ways and means.
In any case, Tim finds this ability handy for fixing little fuck-ups in his life. And for meeting Mary and wooing her, etc.
The wrinkles in time begin when the babies arrive . . . If you want to keep the very child you have, you cannot go back before their lifetime, else you may end up with an entirely different family(?) . . . Again, I think that was how it worked.
And then there were the usual other dramatic moments: Sister in a car accident, Dad's cancer. (And apparently you can take Sister with you when you travel, if you hold her hand. Why only the men in the family anyway? Was the screenwriter sexist? Ah, whatever.)
The bottom line is that, even if one can go back and do things over, what does that mean? And is it always worth it?
It was a cute, sweet film that might could have done with a few more laughs (I think more of Harry's hyperbolizing would have been fantastic; he should have his own movie) and maybe should not have been so . . . predestined . . . with its twists and turns.
3.08.2014
Movies: Ender's Game
No, I haven't read the book. But the up side of that is being able to answer the question of whether it's a good movie for those who don't have the book as background.
And the answer? Eh, it was okay.
Ender's Game is the story of Ender Wiggin, a young genius who gets tapped for Battle School and then Command School. See, 50 years ago the Earth was attacked by big, insect-like aliens called Formics (though in the book I understand they're simply known as Buggers), and ever since then there has been a focus on training young recruits to fight. But while people of Earth generally believe the training is a just-in-case measure, the truth is the military is headed for the Formic home world to end things once and for all. Kind of a "the best defense is a good offense" argument.
Anyway, Harrison Ford plays Colonel Graff, a man who is convinced Ender is the key to winning the war. And the movie is mostly about Ender's training, and his psychological development as he rises through the ranks, pushed along by Graff. It's probably not giving anything away to say [but SPOILER ALERT if you don't want to know!] that Ender does, in fact, succeed in winning against the Formics.
I get the feeling Ender's bonds with the fellow trainees who become his core crew are probably way more interesting and detailed in the book. But then again, books can afford to be more detailed; they don't have to keep to a short enough running time. Still, the whole thing felt like a kind of gloss in terms of action: tested, recruited, some fights, some training, some more fights and training, Ender wants to quit but they won't let him, he "graduates" and goes down in history. We see time and again how clever and innovative Ender is. How he thinks differently, how he's a good strategist. We see the ways in which he's able to get his crew to trust and respect him. But while the movie pretends to delve, it doesn't really. It's more an illusion of depth.
I will say Asa Butterfield did a remarkable job. He does so much more with his expressions than most actors do with their entire bodies. I hope he gets many more chances for solid roles; he shines in this one. Also Nonso Anozie as Sargent Dap—I can picture him as Gamby in St. Peter in Chains actually. Really liked him.
On the whole, not a bad movie but nothing amazing. Ender may be innovative, but Ender's Game is not.
And the answer? Eh, it was okay.
Ender's Game is the story of Ender Wiggin, a young genius who gets tapped for Battle School and then Command School. See, 50 years ago the Earth was attacked by big, insect-like aliens called Formics (though in the book I understand they're simply known as Buggers), and ever since then there has been a focus on training young recruits to fight. But while people of Earth generally believe the training is a just-in-case measure, the truth is the military is headed for the Formic home world to end things once and for all. Kind of a "the best defense is a good offense" argument.
Anyway, Harrison Ford plays Colonel Graff, a man who is convinced Ender is the key to winning the war. And the movie is mostly about Ender's training, and his psychological development as he rises through the ranks, pushed along by Graff. It's probably not giving anything away to say [but SPOILER ALERT if you don't want to know!] that Ender does, in fact, succeed in winning against the Formics.
I get the feeling Ender's bonds with the fellow trainees who become his core crew are probably way more interesting and detailed in the book. But then again, books can afford to be more detailed; they don't have to keep to a short enough running time. Still, the whole thing felt like a kind of gloss in terms of action: tested, recruited, some fights, some training, some more fights and training, Ender wants to quit but they won't let him, he "graduates" and goes down in history. We see time and again how clever and innovative Ender is. How he thinks differently, how he's a good strategist. We see the ways in which he's able to get his crew to trust and respect him. But while the movie pretends to delve, it doesn't really. It's more an illusion of depth.
I will say Asa Butterfield did a remarkable job. He does so much more with his expressions than most actors do with their entire bodies. I hope he gets many more chances for solid roles; he shines in this one. Also Nonso Anozie as Sargent Dap—I can picture him as Gamby in St. Peter in Chains actually. Really liked him.
On the whole, not a bad movie but nothing amazing. Ender may be innovative, but Ender's Game is not.
1.11.2014
Movies: The Wolverine
I'm going to blog as I watch. I'm also drinking a piña colada, so you know . . .
- We start with the WWII bombing of Nagasaki. Our hero (that's Wolverine if you're wondering) saves a Japanese soldier. And impressively regenerates.
- But then he wakes up next to Jean Grey. Except that's a dream too? Ugh, I hate this kind of thing.
- Wait, now he's Grizzly Adams. 'Bout to trounce some asshole hunters for hurting his bear friend.
- So now we've shown that Logan/Wolverine is noble and a badass. This is what we call "establishing character."
- Why must they always give Asian girls weird hair colors?
- She has come to take Wolverine to dying Yashida, the man he saved in Nagasaki. But first we need the obligatory bath-and-shaving scene. (Hey, I'll take on the task of bathing Hugh Jackman any time. Yes, even if he's flailing like a beast. Especially if he's flailing like a beast.)
- Turns out Yashida doesn't really plan to die. He just wants to offer Logan the opportunity to "live as a normal human." Oh, and also ask him to protect his granddaughter.
- So is that considered a really good kiss or a really bad one? I'm going to go with bad.
- Oh, and Yashida is dead. So much that plan of his to live and all. Yukio is sad because she has precognitive sight but failed to see Yashida's passing.
- People on rooftops. Can't have a superhero movie without people on rooftops.
- When I die, I hope they play "Getting Late" by Rob Thomas. (As opposed to this chanting and gong thing.)
- Also, I hope no one starts shooting at my funeral. Because I would be totally sorry to miss out on that. Especially if there were arrows. I love arrows. Would hate to miss arrows.
- Really long action sequence. I am clearly not the target audience for this movie. Really long action sequences bore me.
- I do love those Japanese arcades, though.
- Did they give the one girl bright red hair so we'd be able to tell them apart? And is that racist? Kind of?
- Kaiju! I call my kids that all the time.
- More fighting. This time on a train. How long before someone ends up on top of the train? (Answer: Not long.)
- Obligatory awkward forcing together of two people (here, they must share a room in a love hotel) in order to create false sexual tension.
- Wait, what? A goat? I hate goats. Ah, I see; a veteranerian is helping take the bullets out of Logan and stitch him up. So the question is: Why isn't Logan regenerating? And the answer is: Bad kissing.
- Now we're back outside Nagasaki. Chopping wood is harder than it used to be.
- Flashback: Yashida tries to give Logan a sword, but Logan tells him to keep it safe and he'll come back to claim it later.
- More awkward tension as Mariko ties Logan's kimono for him. (Is it a yukata?)
- Kissing. Less bad than with the other lady but still painful to watch.
- Maybe he should just always sleep in a separate bed. I feel like that would solve a lot of these problems. (No spooning for you!)
- The flashes of Jean are really obnoxious and dumb.
- Oh, wait, Yukio is having a precognitive dream of Logan's death. And Mariko is being kidnapped.
- So Yashida was bankrupting his company in attempt to turn himself into the next Wolverine (that is, he was stockpiling adamantium and working to prolong his life so he could be ageless and self-healing like Logan).
- This Viper chick isn't a very interesting or formidable villain. -Ess. Villainess.
- Time for Logan to make Yukio's nightmare come true by pulling his own heart out.
- More fighting. And now Logan is back to being Logan.
- The score for this movie is pretty over the top.
- Time for the big finish. Wolverine has had some of his claws cut off by some robotic samurai thing with a hot sword. (And no, that's not a euphemism.)
- And Viper has shed her skin, though I don't know why. Just to show off maybe.
- Oh, wait, am I supposed to believe Yashida is in that armor? I'm confused. I should have paid better attention. Except I wasn't interested enough to pay that much attention. And really, I don't feel like I missed anything.
- Yup, there's Yashida. Turns out he's a villain too. And he's . . . Draining Wolverine's life force? Or something?
- Oh look, he got younger. And then Mariko stabbed him. In the throat.
- Wolverine finishes the job.
- The "sayonara" was tacky, though.
- I think Logan needs another bath . . .
- And apparently we've got a bad rom-com in the making: Yukio as Wolverine's bodyguard.
- Yay! Magneto! Professor X! Best moment of the whole movie, and you have to wait partly through the credits to see it. Pfffttt.
- There was not enough piña colada for this.
12.21.2013
Movies: Elysium
An over-plotted entry in the sci-fi-as-social-commentary niche in which all rich people are assholes simply because they live well. Or something like that.
In this version of the future all of Earth has become, I dunno, Mexico or something (they speak Spanish and English anyway) and the rich people have moved off world to the fabricated Elysium, which is like some mix of Beverly Hills and upper crust Europe (they speak really nasal, clipped English and French). In Elysium everyone has mansions and people have beds that can heal things like leukemia. Being a citizen of Elysium means you are automatically an asshole because you have all these nice things and won't share them with the people stuck back on Earth. Or that's the gist I got from the movie.
The worst of the people in Elysium is Delacourt, head of defense, played by a very blonde Jodie Foster. I get the feeling they made her so white for a reason . . . She is willing to go around, under, and through the law in order to "protect" the citizens of Elysium from the riffraff that is constantly attempting to breach its borders. (You know, like the U.S. and Mexico.) The movie isn't at all subtle; it would rather beat viewers over the head with its agenda.
Look, I have issues with our system and am invested in the idea that those who have should help those who don't. But this is a very one-sided story. Not explained: Whether Elysium has any citizenship process. Do you have to meet a certain income level to even visit? Can you petition for health care or other forms of aid? Who even paid to have it built? WTF?
I'd also like to see more than just a glimpse of how people live on Elysium. There was a party with robot servants. Um . . . Is that what everyone does? Every day? Does everyone on Elysium believe they are entitled to the lifestyle they lead, or are some working to enlighten their fellow citizens about the plight of Earth and the people still there? You see what I mean—I would have liked more balance.
But Elysium is an agenda- and plot-driven film, so balance would not have served the story. The movie centers on Max (Matt Damon), a rehabilitated criminal trying to hold down a factory job until the day the job does him wrong by first forcing him into a dangerous work situation then sending him off to die when he's exposed to a lethal dose of radiation. As we learn in so many films like this one, a person with nothing to lose is the best fighter in the world. Max is determined to get to Elysium so he can be healed, but to do so he must go back to the underworld kingpin for whom he used to work. The story goes on and on, and somewhere around 1 hour and 20 minutes I literally shouted, "This movie is ridiculous!" Because it really just piles on every narrative cliché and twist, all while continuing to drive its precious point home. Which in the end is [spoiler alert, though not really]: We are all citizens. We all matter. We all belong.
Since this is not something I did not already know and believe, Elysium is only preaching to the choir here. (And I doubt many conservatives either bothered to watch or, if they did, got the point, so . . .) One could argue President Patel was more moderate, though compared to Foster's Delacourt that's pretty much a given. Elysium's alternate title might have been Fifty Shades of Entitlement, but whatever. By the time it was coming to the final fights and utterly predictable dénouement, I was saying, "I just want to get this over with already." Which is a bad sign for any movie. Because entertainment comes first, or should. When you make your message the priority, your movie becomes a lecture. And popcorn and lectures don't mix.
In this version of the future all of Earth has become, I dunno, Mexico or something (they speak Spanish and English anyway) and the rich people have moved off world to the fabricated Elysium, which is like some mix of Beverly Hills and upper crust Europe (they speak really nasal, clipped English and French). In Elysium everyone has mansions and people have beds that can heal things like leukemia. Being a citizen of Elysium means you are automatically an asshole because you have all these nice things and won't share them with the people stuck back on Earth. Or that's the gist I got from the movie.
The worst of the people in Elysium is Delacourt, head of defense, played by a very blonde Jodie Foster. I get the feeling they made her so white for a reason . . . She is willing to go around, under, and through the law in order to "protect" the citizens of Elysium from the riffraff that is constantly attempting to breach its borders. (You know, like the U.S. and Mexico.) The movie isn't at all subtle; it would rather beat viewers over the head with its agenda.
Look, I have issues with our system and am invested in the idea that those who have should help those who don't. But this is a very one-sided story. Not explained: Whether Elysium has any citizenship process. Do you have to meet a certain income level to even visit? Can you petition for health care or other forms of aid? Who even paid to have it built? WTF?
I'd also like to see more than just a glimpse of how people live on Elysium. There was a party with robot servants. Um . . . Is that what everyone does? Every day? Does everyone on Elysium believe they are entitled to the lifestyle they lead, or are some working to enlighten their fellow citizens about the plight of Earth and the people still there? You see what I mean—I would have liked more balance.
But Elysium is an agenda- and plot-driven film, so balance would not have served the story. The movie centers on Max (Matt Damon), a rehabilitated criminal trying to hold down a factory job until the day the job does him wrong by first forcing him into a dangerous work situation then sending him off to die when he's exposed to a lethal dose of radiation. As we learn in so many films like this one, a person with nothing to lose is the best fighter in the world. Max is determined to get to Elysium so he can be healed, but to do so he must go back to the underworld kingpin for whom he used to work. The story goes on and on, and somewhere around 1 hour and 20 minutes I literally shouted, "This movie is ridiculous!" Because it really just piles on every narrative cliché and twist, all while continuing to drive its precious point home. Which in the end is [spoiler alert, though not really]: We are all citizens. We all matter. We all belong.
Since this is not something I did not already know and believe, Elysium is only preaching to the choir here. (And I doubt many conservatives either bothered to watch or, if they did, got the point, so . . .) One could argue President Patel was more moderate, though compared to Foster's Delacourt that's pretty much a given. Elysium's alternate title might have been Fifty Shades of Entitlement, but whatever. By the time it was coming to the final fights and utterly predictable dénouement, I was saying, "I just want to get this over with already." Which is a bad sign for any movie. Because entertainment comes first, or should. When you make your message the priority, your movie becomes a lecture. And popcorn and lectures don't mix.
12.05.2013
Movies: Thomas: King of the Railway
I can't actually review this DVD movie in full because I haven't sat down to watch it. But I can report on at least one 4-year-old enthusiast's reaction:
There you have it.
"Mom, this is a powerful movie."
There you have it.
9.20.2013
Movies: World War Z
I don't watch gory, mindless horror flicks. Which means I'm largely uninitiated in the zombie/vampire/werewolf genre of movie. Still, I've been known to make exceptions. Things with just a touch of horror, a suggestion of the horrific . . . Also, I've seen a lot of Brad Pitt movies. Some of those have been kind of horrible in another kind of way.
Anyway, I decided I'd give World War Z a try. Haven't read the book, though as I understand it, that's more of a collection of stories about this epidemic from various places and points of view, while the film version took one character (Gerry, a UN worker played by Pitt) and extended him into other plotlines from the book. The result is somewhat choppy as the script was forced to create a through line wherein Gerry is sent in search of a way to create some kind of vaccine or antidote or whatever for this terrible virus that's turning people into rabid corpses.
The globe-hopping tale see-saws between moments of what I presume are akin to many horror movies (people being chased, attacked, bitten by zombies; bloody battles against the undead; lots of gross makeup) and a kind of medical drama as Gerry hunts for a cure. There is cursory deductive reasoning involved, I suppose, but nothing very riveting or clever.
At the end of the day, I found myself only mildly interested in what was going on onscreen. Part of that is surely because I don't stomach the icky stuff so well, but just as much of my disinterest was based in the lack of pacing. With the big, scary zombie moments intercut with long, dramatic ones, World War Z is uneven. And even the triumphant moment failed to make my heart swell. (Note I was watching the unrated DVD cut, not the theatrical version.)
I did have to wonder, though, how difficult it was for some of those actors to play zombies. That's some hard work right there. Very physical roles. I'm thinking in particular of those who had more screen time and longer interactions than the hordes who zipped by and were hardly seen.
By the end of World War Z, I was simply relieved. Not that they'd made inroads in defeating the plague, but that the movie was over. And not because of the gross parts—they weren't so bad—but because I found the film exhausting. In an overlong car ride, are-we-done-yet? kind of way.
Anyway, I decided I'd give World War Z a try. Haven't read the book, though as I understand it, that's more of a collection of stories about this epidemic from various places and points of view, while the film version took one character (Gerry, a UN worker played by Pitt) and extended him into other plotlines from the book. The result is somewhat choppy as the script was forced to create a through line wherein Gerry is sent in search of a way to create some kind of vaccine or antidote or whatever for this terrible virus that's turning people into rabid corpses.
The globe-hopping tale see-saws between moments of what I presume are akin to many horror movies (people being chased, attacked, bitten by zombies; bloody battles against the undead; lots of gross makeup) and a kind of medical drama as Gerry hunts for a cure. There is cursory deductive reasoning involved, I suppose, but nothing very riveting or clever.
At the end of the day, I found myself only mildly interested in what was going on onscreen. Part of that is surely because I don't stomach the icky stuff so well, but just as much of my disinterest was based in the lack of pacing. With the big, scary zombie moments intercut with long, dramatic ones, World War Z is uneven. And even the triumphant moment failed to make my heart swell. (Note I was watching the unrated DVD cut, not the theatrical version.)
I did have to wonder, though, how difficult it was for some of those actors to play zombies. That's some hard work right there. Very physical roles. I'm thinking in particular of those who had more screen time and longer interactions than the hordes who zipped by and were hardly seen.
By the end of World War Z, I was simply relieved. Not that they'd made inroads in defeating the plague, but that the movie was over. And not because of the gross parts—they weren't so bad—but because I found the film exhausting. In an overlong car ride, are-we-done-yet? kind of way.
9.13.2013
Movies: The Descendants
I read this book back when it first came out, picked it up on the New Releases shelf at the library after having recognized the title as one that many critics were lauding. And I remember liking the book, though I do not recall all the details of the story. Still, based on my recollection, the film adheres pretty well to the novel.
The Descendants is the story of Matt King (George Clooney), a lawyer in Oahu whose wife Elizabeth is in a coma after a boating accident. Matt has always been too busy for his family, and now he finds himself saddled with sole care of his daughters Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) and Scotty (utterly adorable and somewhat underutilized Amara Miller). Meanwhile, Matt is also in the midst of a complicated legal arrangement in that he and his cousins must sell a large parcel of land and are trying to determine which developer's bid to accept.
As if all that weren't enough, Matt discovers Elizabeth has been having an affair.
I know from experience it is difficult to take a thoughtful story and turn it into a movie. Something like The Descendants features many conversations and not a lot of action, aside from (in this case) having George Clooney run around a lot. Still, it is a good film, and a touching one. And wardrobe did a fine job of making sure there were lots of Hawai'ian shirts to enjoy.
Still, I had to wonder if Patricia Hastie (as Elizabeth) is one of those actresses hired on crime shows to play corpses. How does one stay so still while people act around them? (I once had to play Polonius in Hamlet, and when I was killed and fell out from behind the curtain, it was the most difficult acting moment of my life to just lie there and then also remain dead weight when Hamlet pulled me off stage.)
Also, nice turn by Nick Krause as Sid, the comic relief. (And yes, I have to say that because he is from Georgetown, Texas, where I was raised.)
There isn't much to say about The Descendants. Maybe it's meant to make people think about the different ways people deal with grief. And whether one kind of grief trumps another. Is the death of a spouse worse than discovering they've had an affair? Maybe those are two kinds of deaths. If so, what happens when they coincide? Does one fail to matter in the light of the other?
It's interesting, maybe, what does and doesn't matter when faced with such a situation. What you say, and to whom . . . And the things you keep to yourself . . . Private versus public sorrow . . .
These are all things that occurred to me while watching. But I was probably putting a little too much thought into it. Problem was, I needed to think about something because the film itself didn't quite require all my attention. So on the one hand, it might be good that the film made me think. But on the other hand, I'm not sure a movie that allows your attention to wander so far is actually all that good. ::shrug::
Some movies are designed to be conversation pieces, made to bring up topics for you to think and talk about. I'm not sure that was the point of The Descendants. But that's where I landed. Because otherwise, as nice a film as it is, it would have been boring.
The Descendants is the story of Matt King (George Clooney), a lawyer in Oahu whose wife Elizabeth is in a coma after a boating accident. Matt has always been too busy for his family, and now he finds himself saddled with sole care of his daughters Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) and Scotty (utterly adorable and somewhat underutilized Amara Miller). Meanwhile, Matt is also in the midst of a complicated legal arrangement in that he and his cousins must sell a large parcel of land and are trying to determine which developer's bid to accept.
As if all that weren't enough, Matt discovers Elizabeth has been having an affair.
I know from experience it is difficult to take a thoughtful story and turn it into a movie. Something like The Descendants features many conversations and not a lot of action, aside from (in this case) having George Clooney run around a lot. Still, it is a good film, and a touching one. And wardrobe did a fine job of making sure there were lots of Hawai'ian shirts to enjoy.
Still, I had to wonder if Patricia Hastie (as Elizabeth) is one of those actresses hired on crime shows to play corpses. How does one stay so still while people act around them? (I once had to play Polonius in Hamlet, and when I was killed and fell out from behind the curtain, it was the most difficult acting moment of my life to just lie there and then also remain dead weight when Hamlet pulled me off stage.)
Also, nice turn by Nick Krause as Sid, the comic relief. (And yes, I have to say that because he is from Georgetown, Texas, where I was raised.)
There isn't much to say about The Descendants. Maybe it's meant to make people think about the different ways people deal with grief. And whether one kind of grief trumps another. Is the death of a spouse worse than discovering they've had an affair? Maybe those are two kinds of deaths. If so, what happens when they coincide? Does one fail to matter in the light of the other?
It's interesting, maybe, what does and doesn't matter when faced with such a situation. What you say, and to whom . . . And the things you keep to yourself . . . Private versus public sorrow . . .
These are all things that occurred to me while watching. But I was probably putting a little too much thought into it. Problem was, I needed to think about something because the film itself didn't quite require all my attention. So on the one hand, it might be good that the film made me think. But on the other hand, I'm not sure a movie that allows your attention to wander so far is actually all that good. ::shrug::
Some movies are designed to be conversation pieces, made to bring up topics for you to think and talk about. I'm not sure that was the point of The Descendants. But that's where I landed. Because otherwise, as nice a film as it is, it would have been boring.
9.06.2013
Movies: Now You See Me
One of my all-time favorite movies is The Prestige, which I saw before ever reading the book (which is also fantastic). And I really liked The Illusionist, too. I like movies about magicians, really, and I like heist movies (think Ocean's Eleven, 2001). And so maybe I was primed to like this one as well.
I was actually prepared to dislike it, just based on the few reviews of it I'd read back when it came to cinemas in May. I was thinking it would be corny, was waiting for the plot to fall apart. Surprisingly, however, it holds together fairly well. I didn't spot the big twist until Morgan Freeman made the phone call to Mark Ruffalo. And even then, I was wondering if I was right. I was, but it didn't make the movie any less fun to watch.
The trick (har) in a movie like Now You See Me is to put in enough subtleties that the viewer is forced to question everything. Make all possible theories seem plausible for as long as you can. This keeps the viewer guessing and engaged.
The other trick is to minimize Jesse Eisenberg because he is obnoxious to watch for any length of time. I mean, totally perfect for the role, but it's a good thing he wasn't taking up most of the screen time.
The movie itself is about four magicians brought together to complete three amazing acts, the first in Vegas, the second in New Orleans, and finally NYC. If you've seen the trailer, you know the act in Vegas involves a bank robbery. This sets the FBI on the trail of these "Four Horsemen" magicians. Hilarity ensues.
Well, no, the movie isn't all that funny, though Woody Harrelson does a nice job as comic relief. But Now You See Me moves fast enough that one doesn't have time to mourn a lack of comedy. While the heists may not be quite as clever as Ocean's Eleven, there's still a lot of fun to be had in watching them and picking them apart. And in anticipating the answer at the end of the film.
In short, Now You See Me was better than I expected given the weakish reviews I'd read. And I guess it did all right at the box office despite the critics because a sequel is in the works. I have mixed feelings about that, I must say. Some things are better left alone, and it's difficult to make a second such movie as smart and clever as its sire; the audience at that point becomes wise to your ways, but if the writers learn some new tricks . . .
I was actually prepared to dislike it, just based on the few reviews of it I'd read back when it came to cinemas in May. I was thinking it would be corny, was waiting for the plot to fall apart. Surprisingly, however, it holds together fairly well. I didn't spot the big twist until Morgan Freeman made the phone call to Mark Ruffalo. And even then, I was wondering if I was right. I was, but it didn't make the movie any less fun to watch.
The trick (har) in a movie like Now You See Me is to put in enough subtleties that the viewer is forced to question everything. Make all possible theories seem plausible for as long as you can. This keeps the viewer guessing and engaged.
The other trick is to minimize Jesse Eisenberg because he is obnoxious to watch for any length of time. I mean, totally perfect for the role, but it's a good thing he wasn't taking up most of the screen time.
The movie itself is about four magicians brought together to complete three amazing acts, the first in Vegas, the second in New Orleans, and finally NYC. If you've seen the trailer, you know the act in Vegas involves a bank robbery. This sets the FBI on the trail of these "Four Horsemen" magicians. Hilarity ensues.
Well, no, the movie isn't all that funny, though Woody Harrelson does a nice job as comic relief. But Now You See Me moves fast enough that one doesn't have time to mourn a lack of comedy. While the heists may not be quite as clever as Ocean's Eleven, there's still a lot of fun to be had in watching them and picking them apart. And in anticipating the answer at the end of the film.
In short, Now You See Me was better than I expected given the weakish reviews I'd read. And I guess it did all right at the box office despite the critics because a sequel is in the works. I have mixed feelings about that, I must say. Some things are better left alone, and it's difficult to make a second such movie as smart and clever as its sire; the audience at that point becomes wise to your ways, but if the writers learn some new tricks . . .
7.19.2013
Movies: Oz the Great and Powerful
Here is Disney's take on the rise of the Wizard who rules Oz: A middling and predictable story filled with candy-colored visuals that moves toward a pre-determined ending.
Oz (James Franco) is nothing more than a circus act until, fleeing the strongman who is angry that Oz poached his girl, he hops into a hot-air balloon and flies straight into a tornado. Instead of the sudden zing! of color, however, Oz's arrival in his eponymous kingdom slowly saturates as he floats over and lands in a place that looks like something from a Dr. Seuss illustration. The cartoony effects call more attention to themselves than they should, and Oz's fakir persona becomes quickly tiresome.
He is greeted upon landing by Theodora (Mila Kunis) who informs him he's arrived in Oz. "That's my name!" Oz cries, and the viewers groan.
Turns out the people of Oz have been waiting for someone named Oz—a wizard, specifically—to arrive and bring peace to the land. Theodora and her sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz) have been keeping the throne safe for said prophesied person, having ousted the "evil" Glinda, daughter of the previous king/wizard (wizard king?) whom they framed for poisoning him. You see where this is going. Since we all know Glinda is, in fact, the good witch . . .
Throughout, Franco as Oz mugs and crinkles up his eyes; I think we're also supposed to believe the ladies find him charming, though there is no chemistry between Franco and any one of the actresses who surround him.
The story continues with Evanora sending Oz to kill Glinda, which he can do by breaking her wand. But of course Glinda wins him to her side and an uninspiring battle ensues wherein Oz uses his bag of tricks to set tinkers, farmers, and Munchkins to work like elves in Santa's workshop so they can defeat the two baddie sisters destined to become the Wicked Witches of East and West. This includes the creation of the great projector that Oz uses so famously at the end of The Wizard of Oz.
I had to wonder whether real-world Oz wasn't in some kind of [strongman-induced] coma and this was all going on in his head, but if that is the case, he never wakes from it. Which makes sense, one supposes, since he has to be there when Dorothy turns up much later. (Disney thought it would be cute, btw, to have Oz's real-world love interest choose to marry John Gale because Oz refuses to commit. Hrm.)
While The Wizard of Oz is a classic, Oz the Great and Powerful hardly merits that status. It is a predictably plotted, nigh cheerless piece of visual confectionary, a kind of illusion Oz himself might attempt to conjure and put over on his audience.
Oz (James Franco) is nothing more than a circus act until, fleeing the strongman who is angry that Oz poached his girl, he hops into a hot-air balloon and flies straight into a tornado. Instead of the sudden zing! of color, however, Oz's arrival in his eponymous kingdom slowly saturates as he floats over and lands in a place that looks like something from a Dr. Seuss illustration. The cartoony effects call more attention to themselves than they should, and Oz's fakir persona becomes quickly tiresome.
He is greeted upon landing by Theodora (Mila Kunis) who informs him he's arrived in Oz. "That's my name!" Oz cries, and the viewers groan.
Turns out the people of Oz have been waiting for someone named Oz—a wizard, specifically—to arrive and bring peace to the land. Theodora and her sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz) have been keeping the throne safe for said prophesied person, having ousted the "evil" Glinda, daughter of the previous king/wizard (wizard king?) whom they framed for poisoning him. You see where this is going. Since we all know Glinda is, in fact, the good witch . . .
Throughout, Franco as Oz mugs and crinkles up his eyes; I think we're also supposed to believe the ladies find him charming, though there is no chemistry between Franco and any one of the actresses who surround him.
The story continues with Evanora sending Oz to kill Glinda, which he can do by breaking her wand. But of course Glinda wins him to her side and an uninspiring battle ensues wherein Oz uses his bag of tricks to set tinkers, farmers, and Munchkins to work like elves in Santa's workshop so they can defeat the two baddie sisters destined to become the Wicked Witches of East and West. This includes the creation of the great projector that Oz uses so famously at the end of The Wizard of Oz.
I had to wonder whether real-world Oz wasn't in some kind of [strongman-induced] coma and this was all going on in his head, but if that is the case, he never wakes from it. Which makes sense, one supposes, since he has to be there when Dorothy turns up much later. (Disney thought it would be cute, btw, to have Oz's real-world love interest choose to marry John Gale because Oz refuses to commit. Hrm.)
While The Wizard of Oz is a classic, Oz the Great and Powerful hardly merits that status. It is a predictably plotted, nigh cheerless piece of visual confectionary, a kind of illusion Oz himself might attempt to conjure and put over on his audience.
7.18.2013
Movies: The Perks of Being a Wallflower
I read this book way back when, but by the time I got around to the film version I only had the vaguest recollection of the story itself. The novel left more of an impressionistic memory rather than anything vivid and detailed. Which isn't to say it wasn't good; I recall liking it quite a bit at the time. But I've slept and read and done a lot of other things since then.
In short, I can't now pick apart The Perks of Being a Wallflower (film) in comparison to the book because I don't remember enough of the book to make a comparison.
What I can say is that the movie does a better-than-average job of tapping into the adolescent experience. Even though the protagonist Charlie is more awkward even than the typical teen, the whole of the movie is accessible to anyone who has lived through (or perhaps is currently living through) that terrible transition from childhood to adulthood. And Charlie is an extreme example of how some bloom later than others.
There isn't much plot in The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and in most movies that would be a serious problem. But what this one explores is Charlie's freshman year of high school. He starts as a friendless loner and stumbles into an odd group of comrades that bring new dimensions to his otherwise flat life. Viewers follow Charlie through the ups and downs of negotiating the strange world of teen interaction (and he has one good English teacher, played by Paul Rudd, to help him along). This is interesting enough to keep viewers watching.
On top of this are layers of narrative not fully formed. More like when you buy something and try to pull the price sticker off and it only comes away in tiny, sticky flakes. We discover Charlie did have a best friend, but that this friend committed suicide. That he had a beloved Aunt Helen. That he sometimes has mental episodes and blacks out.
Besides Charlie we get a solid showing of supporting players: the secretly gay guy (and his even more secretly gay jock boyfriend), the rich girl, the stoner, etc. They sound like stereotypes and caricatures but in The Perks of Being a Wallflower they are given proper depth and feeling. These are the people you knew in school, or if you're still in school, these are the people you know, or at least know of.
Truly, in terms of films, this is one of the better ones I've seen in a long time. The first 20 to 30 minutes are rocky, but maybe that just reflects Charlie's instability; once he meets Sam and Patrick, the film pulls together just as Charlie does, and from there on out it is a fine film very much worth its 102 minutes.
In short, I can't now pick apart The Perks of Being a Wallflower (film) in comparison to the book because I don't remember enough of the book to make a comparison.
What I can say is that the movie does a better-than-average job of tapping into the adolescent experience. Even though the protagonist Charlie is more awkward even than the typical teen, the whole of the movie is accessible to anyone who has lived through (or perhaps is currently living through) that terrible transition from childhood to adulthood. And Charlie is an extreme example of how some bloom later than others.
There isn't much plot in The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and in most movies that would be a serious problem. But what this one explores is Charlie's freshman year of high school. He starts as a friendless loner and stumbles into an odd group of comrades that bring new dimensions to his otherwise flat life. Viewers follow Charlie through the ups and downs of negotiating the strange world of teen interaction (and he has one good English teacher, played by Paul Rudd, to help him along). This is interesting enough to keep viewers watching.
On top of this are layers of narrative not fully formed. More like when you buy something and try to pull the price sticker off and it only comes away in tiny, sticky flakes. We discover Charlie did have a best friend, but that this friend committed suicide. That he had a beloved Aunt Helen. That he sometimes has mental episodes and blacks out.
Besides Charlie we get a solid showing of supporting players: the secretly gay guy (and his even more secretly gay jock boyfriend), the rich girl, the stoner, etc. They sound like stereotypes and caricatures but in The Perks of Being a Wallflower they are given proper depth and feeling. These are the people you knew in school, or if you're still in school, these are the people you know, or at least know of.
Truly, in terms of films, this is one of the better ones I've seen in a long time. The first 20 to 30 minutes are rocky, but maybe that just reflects Charlie's instability; once he meets Sam and Patrick, the film pulls together just as Charlie does, and from there on out it is a fine film very much worth its 102 minutes.
7.13.2013
Movies: Chronicle
[I just want to insert, again, how irritated I am with this Chrome update. If you are reading this site using the latest Chrome browser, you are probably not viewing it in all its glory, as the latest Chrome has stripped this blog of its customizations, links, archives, etc.]
Okay, so Chronicle. It's Stephen King's Tommyknockers filtered through Blair Witch. Three high school students in the Seattle metro area find some underground, unspecified "thing" and develop superpowers. And one of these kids is an abused underdog named Andrew who has taken up videoing his life. Andrew's father is a drunk living off his disability checks and his mother is terminally ill. It doesn't take much brain power to figure out where the story is headed.
But first the viewers are forced to wade through a bunch of other stuff: Andrew and his cousin Matt and their friend Steve learning to use their powers, then showing off at a school talent show, etc. Matt sees the need to put some rules in place, but rising tension in Andrew's home life eventually spurs him to break those rules. I won't go into all the details—it is more or less self-evident from my description above and sufficient to say that the final act is about Andrew deciding he is at the evolutionary apex and therefore should not feel bad about hurting others who are lower on the food chain than he is. And then he and Matt tear up Seattle as they battle out their opposing views.
Besides the plot being predictable, Andrew's dialogue gets clunkier and more cliché as the movie goes on.
In truth, it's a cool idea that needed a bit more plot behind it and better character development overall. I would have been more impressed if Chronicle had surprised me in some way. As it stands, everything had a predetermined destination, and the journey was not all that interesting either. While I can feel bad for Andrew as a bullied, friendless teen with a crap home life, those circumstances in themselves do not make a plot. They merely set the plot up for its inevitable conclusion.
Okay, so Chronicle. It's Stephen King's Tommyknockers filtered through Blair Witch. Three high school students in the Seattle metro area find some underground, unspecified "thing" and develop superpowers. And one of these kids is an abused underdog named Andrew who has taken up videoing his life. Andrew's father is a drunk living off his disability checks and his mother is terminally ill. It doesn't take much brain power to figure out where the story is headed.
But first the viewers are forced to wade through a bunch of other stuff: Andrew and his cousin Matt and their friend Steve learning to use their powers, then showing off at a school talent show, etc. Matt sees the need to put some rules in place, but rising tension in Andrew's home life eventually spurs him to break those rules. I won't go into all the details—it is more or less self-evident from my description above and sufficient to say that the final act is about Andrew deciding he is at the evolutionary apex and therefore should not feel bad about hurting others who are lower on the food chain than he is. And then he and Matt tear up Seattle as they battle out their opposing views.
Besides the plot being predictable, Andrew's dialogue gets clunkier and more cliché as the movie goes on.
In truth, it's a cool idea that needed a bit more plot behind it and better character development overall. I would have been more impressed if Chronicle had surprised me in some way. As it stands, everything had a predetermined destination, and the journey was not all that interesting either. While I can feel bad for Andrew as a bullied, friendless teen with a crap home life, those circumstances in themselves do not make a plot. They merely set the plot up for its inevitable conclusion.
7.12.2013
Movies: Salmon Fishing in the Yemen
This movie is ostensibly based on an absurdist novel, but while it had its moments, I wouldn't say the absurdity filtered through all that much. Ewan McGregor plays Dr. Alfred Jones, some kind of government expert on fish, and Emily Blunt plays Harriet, representative of a rich sheikh's interests—in this case, the interest being salmon fishing.
The sheikh has expended a great amount of money having a dam built in his home country so that he may create a body of water in which to fish. Dr. Jones gets dragged in to oversee the fishy side of things by Harriet and various others because, due to political pressures, the British government is determined to create a bit of "good news" about relations between the UK and Middle East. Even if it means stooping to help a rich sheikh get some salmon.
Sure, the plot sounds ridiculous, but in the film it is played almost too straight to be really funny. Viewers must rely on Dr. Jones's repeated protestations and avowals of how ridiculous the idea is to get any sense of absurdity. And he doth protest too much, of course; soon enough he finds himself installed in Yemen and invested in the success of the project.
There's a modest love story between Harriet and Dr. Jones that lacks any real chemistry. And the sheikh spends his time spouting analogies and talking about faith. There is one truly absurd moment in which Dr. Jones lives up to his namesake (i.e., Dr. Indiana Jones) by using a fishing rod as a kind of whip to stop a would-be assassin. And there is a last-ditch terrorism plot point that comes out of nowhere and fails to add any tension to the film.
Still and all, Salmon Fishing in the Yemen is a cute film. I didn't hate it. I just didn't love it, either. It somehow failed to live up to the sum of its parts, by which I mean despite solid actors and what could have been a really funny story (they would have needed to play up the buffoonery of the government, I think, but that would have detracted from quality star time on the screen) the movie meanders downstream, ever guided in the direction it is meant to flow, but lazy in execution.
The sheikh has expended a great amount of money having a dam built in his home country so that he may create a body of water in which to fish. Dr. Jones gets dragged in to oversee the fishy side of things by Harriet and various others because, due to political pressures, the British government is determined to create a bit of "good news" about relations between the UK and Middle East. Even if it means stooping to help a rich sheikh get some salmon.
Sure, the plot sounds ridiculous, but in the film it is played almost too straight to be really funny. Viewers must rely on Dr. Jones's repeated protestations and avowals of how ridiculous the idea is to get any sense of absurdity. And he doth protest too much, of course; soon enough he finds himself installed in Yemen and invested in the success of the project.
There's a modest love story between Harriet and Dr. Jones that lacks any real chemistry. And the sheikh spends his time spouting analogies and talking about faith. There is one truly absurd moment in which Dr. Jones lives up to his namesake (i.e., Dr. Indiana Jones) by using a fishing rod as a kind of whip to stop a would-be assassin. And there is a last-ditch terrorism plot point that comes out of nowhere and fails to add any tension to the film.
Still and all, Salmon Fishing in the Yemen is a cute film. I didn't hate it. I just didn't love it, either. It somehow failed to live up to the sum of its parts, by which I mean despite solid actors and what could have been a really funny story (they would have needed to play up the buffoonery of the government, I think, but that would have detracted from quality star time on the screen) the movie meanders downstream, ever guided in the direction it is meant to flow, but lazy in execution.
7.08.2013
Movies: Total Recall (2012)
Bladerunner meets Inception in this adaptation of Philip K. Dick's "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" by way of 1990's Schwarzenegger film of the same name.
The production design of this film is amazing, enough to make me wish I'd seen it on the big screen. But the movie itself had a slow start and, despite the high concept and mind-bending tactics, failed to fully hold my attention.
It has been ages since I read the story, just as long since I saw the Schwarzenegger movie, so I'm useless for comparison. The dialogue here is pretty awful, but movies like this one are all about show rather than tell.
In short, Colin Farrell plays mild-mannered Doug Quaid, an assembly line worker plagued by nightmares. He decides to go to Rekall to have some fun new memories implanted (because maybe then he'll sleep better?). He chooses a spy fantasy and everything goes to hell.
The question here is supposed to be: which is real? Is Quaid just an average guy on a mental adventure, or is he really a spy (named Carl Hauser) whose true memories have been sparked by his visit to Rekall? It's a cool idea, but in this incarnation the story is made heavy and dark and might have benefitted from a little levity. The clunky dialogue and rampant miscasting (Bryan Cranston? And Farrell and Jessica Biel have zero chemistry) detract and distract throughout. Total Recall truly seems to be tapping Bladerunner in terms of tone and set design but is not quite engaging enough to reach that supreme level of sci-fi achievement.
The production design of this film is amazing, enough to make me wish I'd seen it on the big screen. But the movie itself had a slow start and, despite the high concept and mind-bending tactics, failed to fully hold my attention.
It has been ages since I read the story, just as long since I saw the Schwarzenegger movie, so I'm useless for comparison. The dialogue here is pretty awful, but movies like this one are all about show rather than tell.
In short, Colin Farrell plays mild-mannered Doug Quaid, an assembly line worker plagued by nightmares. He decides to go to Rekall to have some fun new memories implanted (because maybe then he'll sleep better?). He chooses a spy fantasy and everything goes to hell.
The question here is supposed to be: which is real? Is Quaid just an average guy on a mental adventure, or is he really a spy (named Carl Hauser) whose true memories have been sparked by his visit to Rekall? It's a cool idea, but in this incarnation the story is made heavy and dark and might have benefitted from a little levity. The clunky dialogue and rampant miscasting (Bryan Cranston? And Farrell and Jessica Biel have zero chemistry) detract and distract throughout. Total Recall truly seems to be tapping Bladerunner in terms of tone and set design but is not quite engaging enough to reach that supreme level of sci-fi achievement.
6.22.2013
Movies: Dredd
I really like Karl Urban. But I would have liked this movie more if I could've seen the rest of his face.
I know that goes against the character. Though I've never read it, I'm reliably informed Dredd does a good job staying true to the tone of the comic book series on which it is based. I've also been told it's much better than the Stallone film (which I never saw, but replacing Rob Schneider with Olivia Thirlby for sidekick probably goes a long way toward making this one better than the other).
For the uninitiated, Dredd is the story of a post-apocalyptic dystopian society (here set definitively in America, though I'm led to believe the comic is less particular). Justice is maintained as best as possible by Judges, which are like cops only more empowered to, like, execute people on the spot. Urban plays the titular Judge Dredd, Thirlby a psychic rookie named Anderson out for a day offun evaluation to see if she's fit for duty as a Judge. But things go south when they respond to a triple homicide and arrest the underling of a drug lord known as Ma-Ma (played by Game of Throne's Lena Headey, doing a very similar kind of thing here in being nasty and ruthless). Ma-Ma doesn't want her guy interrogated because then he'll spill her secrets. So she locks down the highrise they're in and sets her people out to hunt down Dredd and Anderson.
What follows is the expected shootouts and violence. Nothing that really requires anyone's full attention because there's nothing much to miss. While visually gritty in a way that brings to mind Bladerunner (though Bladerunner was slicker looking, more oily in a way), the plot is pretty basic and doesn't require much brain power. Though it's nice that Anderson is not just some squeamish girly who relies on Dredd to protect and save her.
One thing I didn't much like was the guttural way Urban used of speaking throughout the movie. Again, I know that probably has more to do with interpretation of the character of Dredd, but it was too Christian Bale's Batman for my taste. Maybe he was trying to cover his accent?
All told, a so-so film that I wouldn't necessarily recommend but wouldn't warn anyone off from either. If there was meant to be a social commentary of some kind, it fell through the cracks created by all the shooting. But if one is looking for solid mindless entertainment, Dredd suits admirably.
I know that goes against the character. Though I've never read it, I'm reliably informed Dredd does a good job staying true to the tone of the comic book series on which it is based. I've also been told it's much better than the Stallone film (which I never saw, but replacing Rob Schneider with Olivia Thirlby for sidekick probably goes a long way toward making this one better than the other).
For the uninitiated, Dredd is the story of a post-apocalyptic dystopian society (here set definitively in America, though I'm led to believe the comic is less particular). Justice is maintained as best as possible by Judges, which are like cops only more empowered to, like, execute people on the spot. Urban plays the titular Judge Dredd, Thirlby a psychic rookie named Anderson out for a day of
What follows is the expected shootouts and violence. Nothing that really requires anyone's full attention because there's nothing much to miss. While visually gritty in a way that brings to mind Bladerunner (though Bladerunner was slicker looking, more oily in a way), the plot is pretty basic and doesn't require much brain power. Though it's nice that Anderson is not just some squeamish girly who relies on Dredd to protect and save her.
One thing I didn't much like was the guttural way Urban used of speaking throughout the movie. Again, I know that probably has more to do with interpretation of the character of Dredd, but it was too Christian Bale's Batman for my taste. Maybe he was trying to cover his accent?
All told, a so-so film that I wouldn't necessarily recommend but wouldn't warn anyone off from either. If there was meant to be a social commentary of some kind, it fell through the cracks created by all the shooting. But if one is looking for solid mindless entertainment, Dredd suits admirably.
6.16.2013
Movies: The Bourne Legacy
This movie bored me.
I mean, really, it starts with this long bit in Alaska . . . And never mind that I hate snow, but there just wasn't any action happening. I was literally falling asleep, had to turn on the lights to keep myself awake.
And then when we finally got to the meat of the movie, well, the core of the plot boils down to some guy trying to get his drug fix. That's not terribly exciting. That's not a hero I can really get behind, someone who saves the pretty doctor because he's hoping she can hook him up with some chemicals. Of course, then she goes one better and basically rids him of his drug dependency and ushers him through the fastest withdrawal on the planet.
Meanwhile, people are trying to kill them, of course. Because the Treadstone program was being terminated, and all its "outcomes" and support staff (read: doctors) were due to be eliminated. There was this ridiculously long motorcycle chase at the end of the movie that had zero tension and felt interminable. And then the dénouement fell utterly flat.
It didn't help that Rachel Weisz and Jeremy Renner have zero chemistry. I think by the end of the movie I was supposed to believe there was a relationship blossoming in front of my eyes, but there was just no way to find that credible. Renner is far too lackluster; he brings very little personality to the screen. And Weisz is the kind of actress who can't pull it on her own; she needs something or someone to bounce off of (like Brendan Fraser in The Mummy).
In short, I spent most of this movie preoccupied with my iPhone because there wasn't enough going on to keep my eyes riveted to the screen. But on the plus side, I'll fall asleep easily tonight; The Bourne Legacy gave me a head start on snoozing.
I mean, really, it starts with this long bit in Alaska . . . And never mind that I hate snow, but there just wasn't any action happening. I was literally falling asleep, had to turn on the lights to keep myself awake.
And then when we finally got to the meat of the movie, well, the core of the plot boils down to some guy trying to get his drug fix. That's not terribly exciting. That's not a hero I can really get behind, someone who saves the pretty doctor because he's hoping she can hook him up with some chemicals. Of course, then she goes one better and basically rids him of his drug dependency and ushers him through the fastest withdrawal on the planet.
Meanwhile, people are trying to kill them, of course. Because the Treadstone program was being terminated, and all its "outcomes" and support staff (read: doctors) were due to be eliminated. There was this ridiculously long motorcycle chase at the end of the movie that had zero tension and felt interminable. And then the dénouement fell utterly flat.
It didn't help that Rachel Weisz and Jeremy Renner have zero chemistry. I think by the end of the movie I was supposed to believe there was a relationship blossoming in front of my eyes, but there was just no way to find that credible. Renner is far too lackluster; he brings very little personality to the screen. And Weisz is the kind of actress who can't pull it on her own; she needs something or someone to bounce off of (like Brendan Fraser in The Mummy).
In short, I spent most of this movie preoccupied with my iPhone because there wasn't enough going on to keep my eyes riveted to the screen. But on the plus side, I'll fall asleep easily tonight; The Bourne Legacy gave me a head start on snoozing.
1.02.2013
Bond at 50: Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace
So after watching the Timothy Dalton films, and the Pierce Brosnan ones, we come to Daniel Craig, who has become my favorite incarnation of Bond. What I enjoy about these films is the gritty reality (yes, I know that sounds silly when talking about a super spy who uses crazy gadgets, but it's all relative). By resetting the franchise back to the start, the Craig-as-Bond films allow us to view a progression. At first, he's not actually very good at what he does. This is not the suave and debonair James Bond who knows how he likes his martini. He's rough-edged and cockier than he has reason to be. This makes him much more interesting as a character, and Craig inhabits the role well.
Too, Craig and Dench (as M) have real chemistry. It was smart of the writers/creators to see it and give Bond and M strong interactions that capitalize on that.
All I can really say is how much I look forward to whatever Bond movie comes next. Meanwhile, I'll be resetting the clock and going back to watch the Sean Connery films.
Oh, but can I just point out, in specific regards to the box set, it's kind of lame that Quantum of Solace doesn't have the same disc menu? I mean, I know why they didn't bother, but if you're going to make something this nice, go all out instead of stopping just short.
Too, Craig and Dench (as M) have real chemistry. It was smart of the writers/creators to see it and give Bond and M strong interactions that capitalize on that.
All I can really say is how much I look forward to whatever Bond movie comes next. Meanwhile, I'll be resetting the clock and going back to watch the Sean Connery films.
Oh, but can I just point out, in specific regards to the box set, it's kind of lame that Quantum of Solace doesn't have the same disc menu? I mean, I know why they didn't bother, but if you're going to make something this nice, go all out instead of stopping just short.
12.29.2012
Disney Flashback: The Great Mouse Detective (1986)
I received this Blu-ray for Christmas, a throwback to my Holmes-soaked childhood. The Great Mouse Detective came during one of those renaissances of Sherlockiana: Young Sherlock Holmes had come out the year before, and Jeremy Brett was acting in Granada Television's series. Other films capitalizing on Doyle's famed character were forthcoming, such as Without a Clue in 1988. He was having a heyday, so why wouldn't Disney join in?
I wouldn't count The Great Mouse Detective as one of Disney's greatest works, however. It was the last animated feature before the Mouse House relaunched itself with The Little Mermaid in 1989, and as such TGMD shows some hallmarks of decline and/or transition. Though I loved this movie as a child, watching it now only instills a desire to see a less bumbling take on Watson (here the mouse's name is Dawson), and more of a story—the plot in TGMD being rather thin, even for a children's movie, and most especially for a Sherlock Holmes tale. Questing minds require more meat.
What did surprise me on re-viewing this film was the violence. Though off-screen (a mouse eaten by a cat) or unrealized (villain Ratigan attempts to squash Basil and Dawson with an elaborate trap, a young girl mouse is nearly caught in the cogs of the Clock Tower), the implications are quite gruesome.
As an amusing aside, when thinking about mice living in tandem with humans . . . If one were to notice a stream of mice entering Buckingham Palace . . . And then notice they all had little hats and coats and such . . . Wouldn't you be primed to think, Holy shit they've learned to sew! or something? But maybe you wouldn't immediately assume they'd done it for themselves. Maybe you'd think, Who the hell is dressing up all these mice? It wouldn't be until you saw them in the little airship that you'd really start to worry. Isn't that cute? Kill them.
The fact that my mind was wandering in such directions during this movie probably reveals something about its inability to completely engage me. TGMD stands as a kind of testament to a time in which things were shifting—in entertainment, in sensibilities, in the world at large. It works as a kind of touchstone for that but doesn't hold up so very well on the whole. My kids found it marginally interesting, perhaps more as a relic designed to let them better understand me as their mother, but it isn't something they'll ask to watch again any time soon. And I probably won't either, until another wave of nostalgia hits me.
I wouldn't count The Great Mouse Detective as one of Disney's greatest works, however. It was the last animated feature before the Mouse House relaunched itself with The Little Mermaid in 1989, and as such TGMD shows some hallmarks of decline and/or transition. Though I loved this movie as a child, watching it now only instills a desire to see a less bumbling take on Watson (here the mouse's name is Dawson), and more of a story—the plot in TGMD being rather thin, even for a children's movie, and most especially for a Sherlock Holmes tale. Questing minds require more meat.
What did surprise me on re-viewing this film was the violence. Though off-screen (a mouse eaten by a cat) or unrealized (villain Ratigan attempts to squash Basil and Dawson with an elaborate trap, a young girl mouse is nearly caught in the cogs of the Clock Tower), the implications are quite gruesome.
As an amusing aside, when thinking about mice living in tandem with humans . . . If one were to notice a stream of mice entering Buckingham Palace . . . And then notice they all had little hats and coats and such . . . Wouldn't you be primed to think, Holy shit they've learned to sew! or something? But maybe you wouldn't immediately assume they'd done it for themselves. Maybe you'd think, Who the hell is dressing up all these mice? It wouldn't be until you saw them in the little airship that you'd really start to worry. Isn't that cute? Kill them.
The fact that my mind was wandering in such directions during this movie probably reveals something about its inability to completely engage me. TGMD stands as a kind of testament to a time in which things were shifting—in entertainment, in sensibilities, in the world at large. It works as a kind of touchstone for that but doesn't hold up so very well on the whole. My kids found it marginally interesting, perhaps more as a relic designed to let them better understand me as their mother, but it isn't something they'll ask to watch again any time soon. And I probably won't either, until another wave of nostalgia hits me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)