| As part of an effort to check out some of David Cronenberg's earlier work, I watched "Dead Ringers" last night. ( Read more... ) Definitely worth seeing. |
thoughtful – APR 15, 2008 10:52 PM | We watched Apocalypto the other day. ( Spoilers ) |
| Nicola and I saw Juno last night. She loved it; I merely enjoyed it. One sentence review: it's good-hearted, quirky, light entertainment, with characters who grow on you and great acting. Now. I have several other things to say, and there will be spoilers. ( Juno Review ) So all in all, I do feel that Juno is worth watching, and you should see it. It's similar, though not totally the same, as another movie about disenfranchised teen girls from a few years ago, "Ghost World", which is probably the superior film. But "Juno" has more mass appeal, and you'll probably enjoy it more if you want some decent catharsis :). |
 I saw a strange movie on TMN today that I had never heard of before. The movie is called Perfume: The Story of a Murderer. It is extremely weird, but also extremely good. It was starring Alan Rickman and Dustin Hoffman, so I was surprised I had never heard of it. I certainly don't remember it hitting the theaters. But I was hooked right from the start by it's incredibly lush, rich visual look. And even after I was hooked, the story kept my interest. It's about a boy named Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, who lives in 18th-century France. He is born with a peculiar ability: he has the world's greatest sense of smell. He can smell a frog underwater from a mile away. One day, he catches the scent of a young peasant girl walking in the market and he becomes obsessed. He follows her... I don't want to give anything away, but eventually he becomes an apprentice to a master perfumer. Presumeably to learn how to make perfume. But Grenouille has a secret ambition; he wants to learn how to capture the scent of human beings. The movie is very dark, very creepy, but also incredibly cool. It follows its setup right through to a surprising and awesome climax. And it's quite amazing the way you watch, fascinated as this young man, who is definitely not a good guy (in fact, the movie definitely plays with his lack of humanity) goes through his plan - you don't want him to continue, but you are also too curious to look away. I definitely wanted to know what would happen if he managed to acheive his goal. I wasn't disappointed. Definitely recommended, if you like off-beat, dark fantasy stories. ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mr_hand, I think you'd enjoy it. |
|
|||||
| [film, review] |
Elton John - Funeral for a Friend (Love Lies Bleeding) | ( Beowulf ) ( No Country For Old Men ) |
| I saw "Eragon" yesterday on TV. It's bad. Stunningly bad. And I only watched the first half hour. Hard to believe that such a terrible movie could be made, after the success of Lord of the Rings (ie: with such a high bar to shoot for). Good for the kid, for writing his book and getting it published, and then getting it made into a film and a video game. He's laughing all the way to the bank. I don't actually know whether the book is bad or not because I haven't read it, but from the first half-hour of film, I can't imagine it being good. The plot is completely recycled from every fantasy cliche you've ever heard. That alone wouldn't bother me if they could at least have made it believable or had good dialog. But no. One of the first lines of the movie is uttered by the bad guy (John Malkovich, who should NOT play this kind of role) is: "I suffer without my stone. Do not prolong my suffering." Sigh. They even had a voice over. A bad one, that added nothing. God, even Star Wars didn't try to squeeze in a voice over. I don't understand how they were able to get so many big name actors: John Malkovich, Rachel Weisz, Robert Carlyle, Djimon Hounsou. And Jeremy Irons. Yes...Jeremy Irons. He plays Obi Wan Kenobe...er..."Brom". The movie might have been a lot better if they had had a half-decent actor playing the lead. But the one they got was terrible. A mugging, mincing amateur. Luc Besson wrote "The Fifth Element" when he was a teenager. It's not what I'd call high culture, but it's fun and original. It at least proves that teenagers are capable of producing works which aren't totally derivative. But perhaps I should have watched the whole thing. Only then would I know for sure whether it is truly as bad as Dungeons and Dragons was. |
| "Knocked Up" is good ... but it's not that good. It's not what all of the critics are trying to make it into. It's a perfect example of "overpraise" syndrome: the kind of movie comedy that film critics are so relieved is good, they make it seem more than it is. When we walked out of it, the first thing Nicola said to me was: "That was written by men, wasn't it?" Yes. "I could tell." How? "Well, everything was from the Man's point of view. All of the jokes, all of the fears. The woman was basically the straight person in a comedy sketch, and her fears weren't really explored too much." I don't completely agree - I thought the female's POV was explored somewhat. But then, I'm a man. And I must admit, not as much as the male's, and comparatively speaking, she was fairly one-dimensional. Well-performed by Katherine Heigl, but one-dimensional. Sometimes I think film critics want to love a movie so much that they overanalyze it. I've seen reviews that have lauded this as the best comedy in ten years, that it encourages thoughts of roe-vs.-wade, that it is a "romantic comedy that is unfraid to face human suffering dead on". Whatever signs your check, guys. For me, things were kind of breezy and entertaining, but ultimately forgettable. The stoner jokes run out of steam pretty fast, though the running gag about a guy's beard was pretty funny. And if you've seen one funny delivery-room scene, you've seen them all. Seth Rogen is a natural though, and it was surprising how different his character is here than it was in The 40-Year-Old Virgin - a lot dimmer and sweeter. Paul Rudd is reliable for the most part (he usually is), but he and Rogen have one absolutely ridiculous scene in Vegas which was just not funny. Just because the character is on drugs doesn't make him funny. All in all, I wouldn't believe the hype. But it's an okay diversion. This is about as good as comedy gets in film these days, proving just how hard it is to sustain over a 2 hour movie. |
| Reading some movie reviews, apparently in the new "The Devil Wears Prada" film, Anne Hathaway plays a character who gets hired at a fashion magazine, but then is mocked because she is ugly, uncool and has no fashion sense. Of course, then she shows them all up by developing fashion sense and revealing that...ho!...she was beautiful all along. Now, I may be wrong that this is the plot of the movie - I haven't seen it, and that's all I've read about it. But assuming it is the case, it prompted the following thoughts: Isn't it amazing the way hollywood can continue making these movies? I say that without sarcasm. What I find amazing is the strange paradox that allows people to scoff at the idea that Anne Hathaway could be considered "ugly", while at the same time allowing it past their suspension of disbelief. There are literally hundreds of movies which feature an actress who is supposed to be considered ugly or uncool, but who in actual fact is more beautiful than most anyone on earth. Who, if she looked that way in the real world, would be mobbed by men daily, and whose personality would have developed much differently due to the way her looks cause her to be treated. So beautiful, in fact, that anyone you ask will tell you that not for one minute did they believe that she could be considered ugly by anyone, and it was ridiculous for the movie to even try. Yet they still go to, enjoy, and believe these movies. I think that somehow, when we watch a movie, our sympathy for a character is somehow disconnected from the visual package. I think our desire for stories is so strong that we're willing to put ourselves in the place of any actress, no matter what she looks like, as long as she behaves as though she thinks she's ugly. We absorb her behaviour intuitively - because behaviour matters more than appearance. At least in terms of developing sympathy for a character. The ironic thing is that physical beauty makes a character more sympathetic too - we tend to like people who are good looking. But somehow, the two concepts don't cancel each other out. A character can be both (A) a lonely, unpopular underdog and (B) incredibly beautiful, and we feel sympathy for the character, yet we don't care or mind that it's almost impossible for someone to be both (A) and (B) in the real world. It's interesting, from a character development point of view :). |
| Some thoughts on ( Crash ) |
|
||||
| [film, top ten list] |
| Nicola saw more movies than I did this year! Twenty-five more movies that I did. She likes to see a movie herself before making up her mind about it, whereas I'm much more likely to dismiss something if I think it looks bad. I've seen six of the movies on her list (2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10) and those I saw, I liked. So really, our tastes aren't so different are they? I've included the directors on films that weren't on my list: 10. The Constant Gardener 9. The Interpreter (Sidney Pollack) 8. Two for the Money (D.J. Caruso) 7. Lord of War (Andrew Niccol) 6. Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Doug Liman) 5. In Her Shoes (Curtis Hanson) 4. Cinderella Man 3. Crash (Paul Haggis) 2. Brokeback Mountain 1. Walk the Line (James Mangold) |
| The Award for Worst Movie Of The Year That I Saw goes to "Stealth", which Nicola roped me into watching one night. See my journal rant here if you want to know why I hated it so much, I can't bear to go into it here. |
|
||||
| [film, top ten list] |
| I think I can finally finalize the top ten list. I've seen all the movies I wanted to see, and prolonging it any longer would probably be like cheating. Every film critic and his brother makes a top ten list now, so most of these won't come as a surprise. Really, there's only so many good movies released each year anyway. 10. Jarhead (Sam Mendes) The first war movie I've seen since Saving Private Ryan that didn't feel like it was ripping that one off in some way. 9. Cinderella Man (Ron Howard) As Cintra Wilson wrote, Ron Howard is a completely adequate and aggressively nongenius director. His choices are deeply, unapologetically pedestrian. He possesses lots of clunkyhomegrown skill and absolutely no lightning bolts of wild inspiration. I wonder why we don't give more praise to directors who can tell a solid story, and tell it well. It's a rare skill in Hollywood. 8. Serenity (Joss Whedon) Excellent sci-fi flick, dwarfed only the by the TV-show's excellence. Good luck to you Joss in your future endeavours! I hope you return to TV one day. 7. Munich (Steven Speilberg Easily Speilberg's most "mature" film to date. Perhaps not as emotionally involving as some of his earlier outings, but absorbing nonetheless. 6. Brokeback Mountain (Ang Lee) There's something about an extremely taciturn man having his legs knocked out from under him by powerful emotions. Ang Lee is one of the masters of our generation. 5. The Constant Gardener (Fernando Meirelles) An extremely intelligent and absorbing thriller, it pulses with energy the whole way through. If Meirelles plays his cards right, he could be the next Scorsese. 4. Batman Begins (Christopher Nolan) In my mind, this was the first real batman movie. He still looks ridiculous in that suit, but this is the best adaptation of the Batman comics that I have seen yet. 3. King Kong (Peter Jackson) Though yes, it is too long, I like this one purely for its action. Just when you think nothing worse could happen ... it does. Since (and including) The Two Towers Peter Jackson is in danger of succumbing to Bloat Symdrome in his films (he needs a good editor). Nevertheless, King Kong is terrific entertainment. Buy the DVD and fast-forward through the first hour. 2. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Mike Newell) The best Harry Potter movie yet, and the first one to actually get inside the character's head. Terrific action, but without skimping on character. 1. Sin City (Robert Rodriguez) This is the best comic book movie I've ever seen. No other movie this year was so entertaining, so visually inventive, so perfectly cast. I've watched it a couple of times since, and it doesn't get old. |
| Sky Craptain and the World of Crap is on TV right now. It's even more obvious to me now, after having seen King Kong, that it's not enough to put good actors in front of a green screen and hope they know what they're doing: no matter how skilled they are, you need a real director to get good performances out of them. Watching Jude Law and Gwynneth Paltrow talk in flat monotones while zooming through the air in his plane - or watching them sort of jog casually down the street while being chased by massive robots. She cries "Look out!" to warn him of a robot that is right in front of him which he can already see. It's just utterly ridiculous. The movie is a great idea, implemented terribly. I think part of the reason why the movie was so well received by certain critics was because everyone wanted to love it so much, they wanted to overlook it's crappiness. Sure the effects are great - but they never convincingly look like they occupy the same space as the humans. And not only that, but the camera still feels boxed in. It has a sweeping vista to take in, but it never flies free of the 20x20 foot square that it's actually inside. Never breaking the conception in our minds that these actors are just standing in front of a screen. It's all so very fake looking. In King Kong, there's a sequence where the camera shows us the first-person experience of a girl being carried in King Kong's hand as he crashes through the jungle. This might have been done with a green screen ... I don't know. But it's a sequence that I've never seen before. The camera breaks free from the confines of a studio to show us something new. It's completely convincing. Peter Jackson is a very good director. I suppose it's a good thing that studios still take chances on untried directors like Kerry Conran. But it boggles my mind that they'd give so much control - writing + directing - to someone who had never made a movie before. Based on what's on screen, he should have been made head of the special effects department or something. Sky Craptain didn't make back its budget, and apparently he's been booted off the John Carter of Mars project. |
| Tonight I saw what is perhaps one of the worst movies I have seen in a very long time. It's called "Stealth". The setup: Three hotshot pilots for some sort of special military program are stunned when they get a new wingman; a plane flown by artificial intelligence named "EDI". I can't remember what that stands for, but the acronym is a lucky coincidence because it allows everyone to call it "Eddy". Which is the most memorable name in the movie; I don't even know what the other character were called. Let's just call them White Guy, Black Guy and White Girl. Then there's the grizzled commanding officer who authorizes the new plane before it can be tested. Three guesses as to his true intentions. This movie probably contained every single movie cliche you've ever thought of. There are so many cliches that the cliches began to contradict the other cliches - it's like they were in such a rush to jam in every single scene they had seen in another movie, they forgot to check to see whether or not it would make sense. The dialog is painful and almost completely expository. People actually say shit like: Black Guy: [looks at the computer case] "Wait, I've seen this. This is a 'Quantum Processor', isn't it?" White Guy: "You mean the one with fifty terabits of memory?" Black Guy: "That's the one!" I almost want to stop here - I want to halt his post and leave it up to you. Think of every cliche you possibly can. It's in this movie. You've got your computerized plane (who has a voice just like HAL 9000, of course). Do you think the plane works just as planned and remains in control of the humans? Don't make me laugh. It's beyond me why Jamie Foxx would have wanted to take the role of token black guy in this movie, after appearing in two major dramatic roles. Yes, the classic movie law stating that The Brother Always Dies sure isn't broken here. If only I could get worked up a bit more about such a thin stereotype. In one scene, after the grizzled commanding officer orders his men to study up on the new plane so theycan understand it better, we get a montage showing each pilot studying in his room. Jamie Foxx is shown reading his laptop topless, dancing to rap music and spinning a basketball on his finger. I'm not joking. Ok, he's black. We get it. Just after that scene, White Guy visits White Girl in her room. She has a clothesline there, with bras hanging off it. He stands up and a bra hits him in the face. "Pardon my C-cup", she says. Ahh, romance. Let's see, what else. Oh yeah, White Girl's plane goes down. She ejects. "Where is she" they ask, back at mission command. "North Korea", the dude sitting at the computer intones gravely. She parachutes down into a forest. She makes her way to a small korean village, filled with rustic farming peasants, doing laundry by the river (because that's what North Korea's like you know). She hides from these peasants behind a boulder with her gun drawn. A small girl walks up, sees her. She makes the "shh" motion, but the little girl screams - the way we've seen this scene played out millions of times before. The peasants hear the scream and run away in fear. Next scene: three military helicopters land in the village and soliders with guns leap out. I guess these poor peasants had an emergency "call the army" phone, even if they didn't have washing machines. Meanwhile, White Guy and Eddy are both sent to Secret Evil Military Base in Alaska ("It's not listed, but I assure you it exists"), where the soldiers there try to kill White Guy. I assume because they think he'll tell people that Eddy is out of control, although he never says so. There, they bring in the original programmer who worked on Eddy (his computer is literally a random jumble of mathematical symbols). He looks at the screen and exclaims "Eddy! You've begun to... to feel!" I could go on. I could tell you that the computerized plane likes to download songs from the internet. "How many songs?" White Guy asks. "All of them". Handy that, out of all these songs that the plane magically downloads from the internet and inexplicably listens to at random times...that the songs it listens to happen to be contemporary pop hits! Hey, now we've got a soundtrack! I could tell you that the grizzled commanding officer sends the three pilots on R+R only hours after they arrive. "But we just got here" says White Guy. "Take it when you can get it". They go to Thailand for no reason whatsoever. Completely pointless. White guy takes pictures of White girl in a bikini by a waterfall. Black Guy meets a thai girl and, presumeably has sex with her although the movie is PG-13 so of course it doesn't show this. I could tell you that the grizzled commanding officer locks himself in his office and kills himself when they come to arrest him. Wow! Shocking! Haven't seen that before! I could tell you that Eddy eventually "learns the value of human life", turns good and sacrifices itself by flying into a North Korean helicopter before the North Koreans can kill White Girl. Why it had to fly into the helicopter when it has guns, who knows. I could tell you that White Guy flies from Alaska to North Korea in fifteen minutes, to the exact spot where White Girl is running. North Korea's pretty small I'm thinking. But honestly, you've seen all those scenes before, and many others of equally mind-blowing stupidity. What you probably haven't seen before, is hundreds and hundreds of things blowin' up real good, one after the other, in only one hundred and twenty minutes. But believe me, you sure aren't missing much. |
content – NOV 29, 2005 09:56 PM| BTW - I saw the new Harry Potter on the weekend. Book 4 is my favourite Potter book, and the movie is my favourite of the four movies. It was awesome. In lieu of a full review, here's a random blab of thoughts: ( Harry Potter 4 thoughts ) |
| I enjoyed it. But I'm sorta of two minds on it. Here are some thoughts, with spoilers: ( Revenge of the Sith ) |
| I never gave my mini-review of Kingdom of Heaven, did I? Short Review: Nicola liked it, I didn't. Long Review: I'm not sure what I think of Orlando Bloom. Nicola says, give a guy in England that name and you just know he's going to be a movie star (apparently, brits usually have boring names such as Nigel Danby, etc.) I think he's a non-presence. He's very pretty, in that modern, man-waif sort of way (a la Jude Law) but he brings nothing to his roles. I never see passion, or cowardice, or selfishness, or lust, or honour, or reluctance, or fear, or bravery or ... anything, in his eyes. He lacks humanity. Maybe that's why he was good as Legolas. It's also why he's a popular casting choice for these sorts of movies, which don't call for anything from the character. He's a blank line in the screenplay ("Insert more interesting character here"). Anyway, Kingdom of Heaven is what you get when you mix the heroic epic with politically correct ambivalence. The film is very aware of our modern sensibility that the crusades were Very Bad Indeed, and as such doesn't paint one side as "good" and one side as "bad". Instead, there are evil men on both sides, each with the same characteristics: the evil men are the religious zealots and the political warmongers....the good men are the liberal moderates and the secular. Hmmm....do ya think this film was made in Hollywood? I couldn't imagine a "safer" version of The Crusades than this. That's all well and good, but it makes it impossible to get worked up about the battle sequences, of which there are many. Remember the halycon days, when we watched Braveheart and felt stirred and galvanized by the combat sequences? We called out for joy when William Wallace bashed in the head of one of those cursed british. We didn't really think the British were evil in real life, but it's a movie! Not today. Today, the hero rides into battle saying, "Meh...I guess this is a good idea. But really I'd rather be back in France." Wow....such unbridled enthusiasm. How are we expected to get involved when the character doesn't even believe in what he's fighting for? Again, like Troy, this needed screenplay work. Either make it about politics and people who didn't believe in the zealous status quo, or make it a red-blooded battle epic. You can't make it both. A perfect example here is the lazy-writing, "motivational pre-battle speech" scene (which, I'm sorry, but has become so cliche that my eyes flutter closed whenever one starts. Lord of the Rings had like ten of them...I don't need to see that scene again), but the hero motivates the troops here by saying "We're not fighting for anything greater than ourselves! We just want to try to survive! C'mon!" In the end, it just winds up being very boring. Endless battle sequences where it doesn't matter what the outcome will be. Dreary. Perfect for Orlando Bloom. |
| I have mixed feelings about Ridley Scott. He's directed a number of really good movies, but I still feel very suspicious of his films. I feel that, like many directors who came from the art side of things rather than the story side of things - his movies far too often have WAY more surface than substance. They're usually a very good surface though...but without the substance, a movie gets boring. His movies usually are over-rated because of the excellent visuals. Hannibal, for example, or Black Hawk Down. One thing I do respect him for is working easily in both Science Fiction and other "normal" genres. He always seems to get great performances out of his actors. I just find he has trouble with pacing and narrative. When I hear that Kingdom of Heaven is more thoughtful and has less action than Gladiator, I grow very wary. The big problem with Gladiator was that it had too much "thoughtfulness"...also known as long stretches of extremely boring, pompous dialog that grind the movie to a halt and contribute nothing to it. And it had far too few action sequences. When I initially reviewed it, I was swept away by its visuals, so I suppose I can't blame most of the critics who were also. But on rewatching it, I find myself squirming in my seat during the talking. I fear that Kingdom of Heaven will offer more of the same, in that. On a completely unrelated point, I don't think a movie about the Crusades can be any good whatsoever unless you make some very specific allusions to how it mirrors what is going on in the world right now. I'm sorry, but movies aren't supposed to be historical documentaries. They're supposed to be story, entertainment and art. Of course, maybe the film does make some sort of commentary, I haven't seen it.I will probably see it though. In my opinion, Ridley Scott's top five films are: 5. Thelma & Louise 4. Alien 3. Blade Runner 2. White Squall 1. Matchstick Men Not good that four of those were 10 years ago or older. And the other one had next to no "spectacle". You know how Ang Lee always works with James Schamus as his writer? And his movies always turn out to be pretty damn good ("The Hulk" notwithstanding). Ridley Scott needs to find a partner like that. Someone who can write a good script to match his style. |
| "The Interpreter" is good...but it could have been a lot better. It's one of those cases where you can see the really good movie that might have been made with the same material as the movie you're watching. I think Howard Hawks said that all you needed for a good movie was three good scenes and no bad scenes. The Interpreter has two good scenes, and one bad scene, so it doesn't quite qualify. I really liked the authentic feel of the locations, and political dialogue. But it could have been even more complex, in my mind. What I really liked...what I was expecting...was to have more of the movie focus on language. She's an interpreter, right? She speaks something like twelve languages, including several really obscure ones: "Ku", an african dialect (that's important to the plot). There are a couple of places where they hint at how being an interpreter isn't just about translating things word-for-word; there are idioms which are different in different languages. For example "The shoe is on the other foot" is what you say in english, but in portugese, it's "The house is on a different plain". Stuff like that I find really interesting. The two main characters also have a conversation about the difference between the words "dead" and "gone". Penn: "How do you feel about President Zuwanie?" Kidman: "I'd like to see him gone." Penn: "You mean dead" Kidman: "No, I mean gone." Penn: "They mean the same thing." Kidman: "No they don't. If I translated gone as dead, I'd be out of a job. If gone meant dead there'd be no U.N." Stuff like that. And then of course, that interesting language play gets used all throughout the rest of the movie. But I really had hoped that the differences in language had figured in the plot a little more. Her job as an interpreter is basically only used for the above converstation, and to kick-start the plot (she overhears a conversation about an assassination attempt in a language that only she can understand). I can envision a movie where language, and it's intricacies cause the conflicts that lead to an assassination. Aaron Sorkin could write such a movie. |
