'TMNT Totally Tubular'
I must admit, thinking back on it, this movie had a LOT going against it. It is a very popular franchise that has several iterations, two cartoon shows, an old live action movie franchise and a thankfully canceled live-action tv show. Not to mention all of the comics and weird Japanese takes on the series. The fact that the newest film was in CGI didn't help to really rouse my interest as it didn't seem to be a continuation of the old movie series nor of the old cartoon show, both of which I liked a lot more than the modern cartoon show. However, after having now watched the movie, there are a lot of problems but in the end, it does capture that great feeling of the first Turtle movie and should please all fans of the series while introducing new ones and as any director who has ever tried to create a film like that can tell you, that might just be the damn hardest thing to do. Well done Kevin Munroe on your first film. Keep up the good work.
The film's story is done quite well. At first it is really hard to get into because everything has changed. Leonardo is off in the jungle? Michaelangelo is doing parties? what the hell happened? What the crap is this movie based on?!!! This is perhaps the biggest question and the answer is everything. Technically, the film is based off of the Movie franchise of old with some ties to the comics and current cartoon series in the tone and themes of the movie. For example, it mentions that Shredder is dead, which means it could be after the second turtle movie. Online, all that is known is that it is definately after the first movie and possibly after the second and third, although honestly, I will be quite happy to find out that it is a reimagining of the third since that film might just be the worst film I have ever seen. So just go ahead and consider this film the fourth film in the series. Either way, because of the wide range of ties, the changes can seem abrasive but a lot of the same old seem to be in place. The characters and their reactions and emotions are all together. The hard parts for me to get over were the premise and beginning of the movie, the new Foot leader Karai, and the fact that April is not a reporter but a antique finder/ in training for being a ninja. In fact, that bit about April might have been the most disturbing because I am so used to her being nosy but helpless, a very different take at this point. If you look online, some of it gets explained by the filmmakers such as April's new ninja skills and the weird beginning with the turtles broken up is well explained, especially the bit about Raphael as the knightrider. I loved that bit of storyline and I almost wished I had a whole movie dedicated to Raphael and his own travails. What might be the most interesting is the fact that the movie is about family and what it means to be a family. While the Turtles struggle to reunite as a family, so does Mr. Winters struggle to reunite with his former comrades. Now, I'm not saying that the screenplay is brilliant because honestly it has a lot of twists and turns that seem slightly kiddish or at least done to create the feel of a good comic. The real mastery of the movie is that it is able to maintain the feel of a great Turtle experience while tying in all the various influences of the several incarnations and still making it a film that children and adults can both see. Some have claimed that the movie is darker than the previous films and maybe it is slightly character-wise, but honestly nothing has ever beaten the dark ending of the first movie where Shredder was crushed by a friggin dumptruck. The biggest difference between this film and previous ones is its lack of talking down to people and simplification. One reviewer I read claimed the movie stunk because it had something like 16 plots happening at once and none of them tied together or made sense and made the film too diluted for her...wtf? That is what made this film great except the plots all tie together and do make sense. Could be hard for an ADD kid who grew up on japanime but it should still work fine.It also doesn't waste too much time on the cheese factor. No Vanilla Ice here, and not as much cheese as Michaelangelo puts out usually, but it has its moments and they are some good ones. I think this movie is a great reintroduction to the franchise and brings the promise of more great sequels to come. They already essentially told us their would a sequel and it would have Shredder! Hells yes!
As a director, I have to admit that I am impressed with Munroe. Not only does he stay true to the franchise feel and good things about the series, but he also creates an excellent story with new baddies and interesting twists. His best accomplishment is the realization of TMNT as a CG movie. Apparently it was necessary because the studios all felt that the franchise was dead and didn't want to devote the resources necessary for another live action film on this scale, but they would help with a CG movie that would allow for much more movement and flexibility on Munroe's part for a cheaper price. I have to admit, the CG in this film is really well detailed and looks amazing. Pixar needs to grab this guy and add him to their director roster. All of the lighting and placement of objects are well designed to create certain moods and at times I forgot I wasn't watching the old movies. I also noticed the nice camera angle/shot from the old arcade game as well and it was a nice throwback. The characters themselves move believably as the turtles did and reveal that Munroe did his homework well. The bad part about the move to CG is the whole mouth thing. It's true that the Turtles and everyone are more expressive, but the eyes and teeth of the turtles feel slightly too cartoonish for my liking. The great thing about the use of CG means the fights are much more versatile and awesome. To be completely honest, I doubt the old franchise in live-action would have worked anyway. It only worked the first two times because of the Jim Henson Muppet Shop and this film has way too many creatures for such an undertaking. Another great thing about this director is he gives you what you want. The turtles are more ninja like than in any other film before and the showdown between Leonardo and Raphael is riveting. Unfortunately none of the original cast return which is very hard to get used to since I have an iconic idea of how the turtles, April, and especially splinter should sound. Sadly, if they do another film, Splinter will have to be recast again since Mako, the actor who did his voice for the film, died shortly after recording his dialogue for it. Munroe is an excellent director and proves it with his first and hopefully not last take on this franchise.
Conclusion:
Although the film is slightly hard to place and seems jarring at first, it quickly moves beyond that to be a film about it's protagonists. Despite some grumbles about CG and the loss of the original cast and no Shredder, Munroe quickly makes up for it by including some great battle sequences that fully use the capabilities of CG. Plus the new baddies are awesomely hardcore and prove early on to be a tough challenge. I, as a Turtle fan, am proud when I say that the Turtles are back and I'm hoping they will stick around for a long time to come. Definately keep on eye on Munroe and his next project which is a movie version of Gatchaman. Also, if you have any doubts about seeing this film, I saw it in a crappy stained theater for 8.00$ which ticked me off beyond belief and yet when I left I felt very happy and satisfied for having paid that much for essentially a movie shorter than an hour and a half. A good quick time that leaves you wanting more? Definition: Great film.
3.8 out of 5
Wannabe
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Disneyfication of Broadway
I realize that my rant posts are becoming fairly common, more so than normal for me so I will promise that after this quick rant, there will be at least 4 more reviews before I decide to flap my jaw in an obtruse and asymmetrical fashion. This post came about after a recent trip to my favorite of all cities, NY, where I was scheduled to see the new Broadway play The Pirate Queen with my family because my sister is obsessed with pirates.
Here's the past behind this little ditty, the people who created the score and lyrics and play, are the same crew that brought us Les Miserables, which truth be known, I am not that great a fan of the play, but the music is quite catchy and enjoyable. The Pirate Queen is based off of the Irish pirate Grace O'Malley who enjoyed creating terror during Queen Elizabeth I's reign. The show was directed by Frank Galati with a lot of Broadway unknowns ( at least they are to me, keeping up with Broadway actors is a task within itself thanks to the abundance, cost, and turnover of Broadway). In other words, no falling tv stars or artsy film people in the show. The show actually offers several great things, one of them being the fact the Riverdance people are also a part of the show (yes, dancing pirates that do jigs, talk in decent to bad Irish accents, and occassionally revert to Stomp for inspiration with oars)and that Eugene Lee did the scene design. Lee is also the same man for all of the sets on the SNL skits and for the sets for the other Broadway musical Wicked, which are jaw-droppping. In this play, though, he seems to have gone for more of an open space approach in trying to use the most minimal sets possible to change the stage, but he occassionally had to just use drops like everyone else. Although the idea to use the tons of candles really brings a great Tudor era feel to the scenes. Anyway, enough scene design chit chat. The real deal is that the show was only so-so. Not because of the writing, the plot, the music, or even the actors. It was because of Frank Galati. I once had a director tell me that musicals sucked because they were all about crowd control. In this case, that was really all this play was. Some of the dances were great, the scenery and spectacle were fantastic, I thought the songs did a great job of seeking a higher ground than being fluff and the actors were all decent and were great singers. I wish that perhaps O'Malley and the Queen had more of a deeper manly voice, but that's okay. The problem is that the staging seems so...quick look here! No over there! wait, form a circle to focus th attention! Someone died! Cliche. The blocking of the show is one in which I got the feeling that the director didn't really care and didn't trust the great side pieces that the actors could climb. I especially hated the age old idea of making fighting on stage look like a ballet...it's f***ing Riverdance people...try being more interesting by making the fights more gritty if you can. Perhaps the real clencher was when one of the guys got stabbed, crawled onto the middle platform, raised one arm, and yelled NOOOOOOO!!! With an echo affect added in as his platform slowly descended into the ground. I felt the same disappointment and shame at watching that bit as I did in Star Wars III with the ridiculously obvious Frankenstein reference. I'm not saying don't see the show, my sister loved it and it was enjoyable. Plus it does give some very interesting insight into the relationship of admiration and growing respect between two very tough women in a time when women weren't allowed to have power. Plus it does a good job of grounding itself in that time period and the whole Irish clan feuds and things, but man is it feminist. It's cool though, it has pirates! Just be aware that when you see it, that the blocking is rarely impacting if ever and feels very uninspired which is sad considering the honors that Galati apparently has heaped on his name. I think this is all just a bigger example of the Disneyfication of Broadway.
Now, here's where I get to the point. Go google Broadway shows and see how many are Disney. I know for a fact that currently Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, and Tarzan are all running on Broadway. I am waiting because I feel quite sure that soon Little Mermaid will join it. How? No idea, but I have a hunch. Ever since Julie Taymoor's inventive staging of The Lion King, Disney has been turning its old franchises into Broadway sensations. And not only the animated ones. Mary Poppins is on Broadway and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was on it not too long ago. Newsies probably was at some point and if not will be soon. I'm not saying Disney puts out trash, they just put out shows that offer nothing new. Stories already told in some other medium to be performed in an other medium. What started out with some great imaginings has possibly lead in my mind to a huge change in audience. What does it mean to be Disney? Well, catchy tunes, spectacle, nice sensations, feel good stories, easy to define villains and good guys, and kid friendly so that even the most conservative person can enjoy. If Disney runs the market like I think it does with as many plays as it has out right now, then there must be a lot of families that want to see these works, or a lot of nostalgic people. The problem is that by attracting such huge crowds to these shows, it confirms my worst fears. Broadway is for families and kids for the most part with shows like Avenue Q and the Drowsy Chaperone being the exception. There is very little inovation or creative drive being used on Broadway to challenge America because for the most part, it is all corporate. Thus the development of the meaning Off-Broadway and Off-off Broadway. Where the creativity flows and enjoys acclaim as opposed to Broadway. Any theater person who believes theater is much more pure than film cannot ever look to Broadway to uphold that claim. The art of Broadway has been reduced to nothing more than entertainment. I don't mean for this to sound bad, entertainment is a fine and very challenging art to get right in itself, but theater, film, and any other art should shoot for entertainment as just a basic requisite while shooting for something else. This is of course my rant to Broadway execs, which will go unheeded because they know that by stickingto entertainment they can make much more money than with something artistic. So next time you go to NY, check out what's on Off-Broadway, or if you want some good laughs and a nice time out for a lot of money, try seeing the Pirate Queen.
Wannabe
Here's the past behind this little ditty, the people who created the score and lyrics and play, are the same crew that brought us Les Miserables, which truth be known, I am not that great a fan of the play, but the music is quite catchy and enjoyable. The Pirate Queen is based off of the Irish pirate Grace O'Malley who enjoyed creating terror during Queen Elizabeth I's reign. The show was directed by Frank Galati with a lot of Broadway unknowns ( at least they are to me, keeping up with Broadway actors is a task within itself thanks to the abundance, cost, and turnover of Broadway). In other words, no falling tv stars or artsy film people in the show. The show actually offers several great things, one of them being the fact the Riverdance people are also a part of the show (yes, dancing pirates that do jigs, talk in decent to bad Irish accents, and occassionally revert to Stomp for inspiration with oars)and that Eugene Lee did the scene design. Lee is also the same man for all of the sets on the SNL skits and for the sets for the other Broadway musical Wicked, which are jaw-droppping. In this play, though, he seems to have gone for more of an open space approach in trying to use the most minimal sets possible to change the stage, but he occassionally had to just use drops like everyone else. Although the idea to use the tons of candles really brings a great Tudor era feel to the scenes. Anyway, enough scene design chit chat. The real deal is that the show was only so-so. Not because of the writing, the plot, the music, or even the actors. It was because of Frank Galati. I once had a director tell me that musicals sucked because they were all about crowd control. In this case, that was really all this play was. Some of the dances were great, the scenery and spectacle were fantastic, I thought the songs did a great job of seeking a higher ground than being fluff and the actors were all decent and were great singers. I wish that perhaps O'Malley and the Queen had more of a deeper manly voice, but that's okay. The problem is that the staging seems so...quick look here! No over there! wait, form a circle to focus th attention! Someone died! Cliche. The blocking of the show is one in which I got the feeling that the director didn't really care and didn't trust the great side pieces that the actors could climb. I especially hated the age old idea of making fighting on stage look like a ballet...it's f***ing Riverdance people...try being more interesting by making the fights more gritty if you can. Perhaps the real clencher was when one of the guys got stabbed, crawled onto the middle platform, raised one arm, and yelled NOOOOOOO!!! With an echo affect added in as his platform slowly descended into the ground. I felt the same disappointment and shame at watching that bit as I did in Star Wars III with the ridiculously obvious Frankenstein reference. I'm not saying don't see the show, my sister loved it and it was enjoyable. Plus it does give some very interesting insight into the relationship of admiration and growing respect between two very tough women in a time when women weren't allowed to have power. Plus it does a good job of grounding itself in that time period and the whole Irish clan feuds and things, but man is it feminist. It's cool though, it has pirates! Just be aware that when you see it, that the blocking is rarely impacting if ever and feels very uninspired which is sad considering the honors that Galati apparently has heaped on his name. I think this is all just a bigger example of the Disneyfication of Broadway.
Now, here's where I get to the point. Go google Broadway shows and see how many are Disney. I know for a fact that currently Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, and Tarzan are all running on Broadway. I am waiting because I feel quite sure that soon Little Mermaid will join it. How? No idea, but I have a hunch. Ever since Julie Taymoor's inventive staging of The Lion King, Disney has been turning its old franchises into Broadway sensations. And not only the animated ones. Mary Poppins is on Broadway and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was on it not too long ago. Newsies probably was at some point and if not will be soon. I'm not saying Disney puts out trash, they just put out shows that offer nothing new. Stories already told in some other medium to be performed in an other medium. What started out with some great imaginings has possibly lead in my mind to a huge change in audience. What does it mean to be Disney? Well, catchy tunes, spectacle, nice sensations, feel good stories, easy to define villains and good guys, and kid friendly so that even the most conservative person can enjoy. If Disney runs the market like I think it does with as many plays as it has out right now, then there must be a lot of families that want to see these works, or a lot of nostalgic people. The problem is that by attracting such huge crowds to these shows, it confirms my worst fears. Broadway is for families and kids for the most part with shows like Avenue Q and the Drowsy Chaperone being the exception. There is very little inovation or creative drive being used on Broadway to challenge America because for the most part, it is all corporate. Thus the development of the meaning Off-Broadway and Off-off Broadway. Where the creativity flows and enjoys acclaim as opposed to Broadway. Any theater person who believes theater is much more pure than film cannot ever look to Broadway to uphold that claim. The art of Broadway has been reduced to nothing more than entertainment. I don't mean for this to sound bad, entertainment is a fine and very challenging art to get right in itself, but theater, film, and any other art should shoot for entertainment as just a basic requisite while shooting for something else. This is of course my rant to Broadway execs, which will go unheeded because they know that by stickingto entertainment they can make much more money than with something artistic. So next time you go to NY, check out what's on Off-Broadway, or if you want some good laughs and a nice time out for a lot of money, try seeing the Pirate Queen.
Wannabe
Sunday, March 18, 2007
I Think I Love My Wife
'I Think I Love My Wife...nuff said'
Chris Rock started off as a comedian doing stand up, was discovered by Eddie Murphy, did a stint on SNL for a bit, and then took off after Beverly Hills Cop II. You might remember him in CB4, or Dogma, or even in his first movie he directed, Head of State. One thing is for sure, he always likes to try and discuss interesting and relevant topics, but as time has worn on, so has his stand up as the topics he covers not only repeat but are covered so thoroughly by other comedians as well that he has faded in humor in my mind. His recent directing follow-up of I Think I Love My Wife is no exception to this trend of his and it doesn't help that the script was written by him and fellow comedian Louis CK. However, despite the broach of new topics or ideas, there is a lot that Chris Rock gets right in this film, especially in the casting.
I don't know how this came up, but Chris Rock and Louis CK decided to make their own movie inspired by the French film Chloe in the Afternoon by Eric Rohmer, which I haven't seen...it's French and I don't care! Anyhow, it is a typical tale of a man who grows bored in his marriage and flirts with the possibility of cheating on her despite the fact that he loves his kids and his wife, but dammit men are just animals that require sex right? So, there is the generic setup. The difference is that the movie shows this typical story through the lens of a suburban black family and what it means to be a healthy black family dealing with the same issues of everyone else while trying to distance themselves from 'gotta be Black' culture. Chris Rock of course plays the main leading man and for once it feels almost as if he is trying to pull a Jim Carey and act his way through a movie, which is refreshing as is the lack of the gotta be loud to be funny. In fact, there is one scene in particular that reminds me of Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm where Rock is trying to have a fight with his wife to find an excuse to go meet with another woman. Rock's character works for a firm of some sort on Wall Street. It's a very different role for him and he plays it well. The real trouble with the movie is in the script. There are several sections where Rock tries to explain that the character thinks about having affairs with other women all the time and some of the scenes used to portray the inner thoughts of the characters are ridiculously hokey and cheesy. The last scene in particular where Rock and his wife break out into song, although it fits in the context of the script, the tone shift from the more ordinary this is life type scenes to an abstraction symbolizing their love is very caustic and hard on the viewer. That is the problem in the script, the abrupt tone shifts at times, that and sometimes the character motivations don't make sense. Rock's flirtatious mistress, Nikki Tru played by Kerry Washington, while sexy and easily understandable that Rock would want to cheat on his wife with her, it makes little sense why she preys upon Rock and why she chooses to come into his life at that moment in time. She is the outside catalyst that forces him to decide if he loves his wife, but even catalysts need motivations and reasons too. On the whole though, as a white caucasian man, I find the movie to be an interesting look into an educated black family's life and I think it is refreshing and possibly an excellent movie that should be seen by wanna be gansta thug rappers. The problem is that it really offers nothing new to the majority of the world.
The casting for the film, however, is perfect. Rock's wife, Gina Torres puts in an amazing performance as a strong loving mother. When Rock acts ashamed and afraid of her, he has good reason to be. Torres proves once again why she should be earning much more than she currently does and making top line films. Kerry Washington does an excellent job of playing the typical seductress who happens to be into the club scene. Even Chris Rock does a good job of being the loving father and tormented husband. Steve Buscemi is also great as the adulterer co-worker who pops viagra pills. Rock did a great job of casting relative unknowns who would get the most out of the half-cooked script. Another excellent thing on Rock's part is the one interesting part of the cinematography where time and the images would become blurred during moments of crisis or decision by Rock's character. It helps to give a feel of what is coming without any words and helps to highlight Rock's dilemma.
Conclusion:
Rock's second outing as a director is nothing new. It's just nice to see him in a role with a good cast and with a good message directed at a crowd of people that I don't think his movies are usually aimed at with a new message. On one side, it humanizes all of the black happy families who go to work while at the same time promotes that lifestyle to black audiences. Of course, I'm sure there will be criticisms that the movie is too "white" for some black audiences and because it doesn't offer any new ideas or concepts for white people it will be called boring and unoriginal. The point is, it is an independent film made with good intentions but will be unable to deliver its message because it can't seem to target an audience. This is probably why the film is tanking in the box office so far and why we might never see a Chris Rock film again. It's sad, because for once I think he has tried to do the right thing and I'm sad to say that I think it will hurt his career for it.
3.2 out of 5
Wannabe
Chris Rock started off as a comedian doing stand up, was discovered by Eddie Murphy, did a stint on SNL for a bit, and then took off after Beverly Hills Cop II. You might remember him in CB4, or Dogma, or even in his first movie he directed, Head of State. One thing is for sure, he always likes to try and discuss interesting and relevant topics, but as time has worn on, so has his stand up as the topics he covers not only repeat but are covered so thoroughly by other comedians as well that he has faded in humor in my mind. His recent directing follow-up of I Think I Love My Wife is no exception to this trend of his and it doesn't help that the script was written by him and fellow comedian Louis CK. However, despite the broach of new topics or ideas, there is a lot that Chris Rock gets right in this film, especially in the casting.
I don't know how this came up, but Chris Rock and Louis CK decided to make their own movie inspired by the French film Chloe in the Afternoon by Eric Rohmer, which I haven't seen...it's French and I don't care! Anyhow, it is a typical tale of a man who grows bored in his marriage and flirts with the possibility of cheating on her despite the fact that he loves his kids and his wife, but dammit men are just animals that require sex right? So, there is the generic setup. The difference is that the movie shows this typical story through the lens of a suburban black family and what it means to be a healthy black family dealing with the same issues of everyone else while trying to distance themselves from 'gotta be Black' culture. Chris Rock of course plays the main leading man and for once it feels almost as if he is trying to pull a Jim Carey and act his way through a movie, which is refreshing as is the lack of the gotta be loud to be funny. In fact, there is one scene in particular that reminds me of Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm where Rock is trying to have a fight with his wife to find an excuse to go meet with another woman. Rock's character works for a firm of some sort on Wall Street. It's a very different role for him and he plays it well. The real trouble with the movie is in the script. There are several sections where Rock tries to explain that the character thinks about having affairs with other women all the time and some of the scenes used to portray the inner thoughts of the characters are ridiculously hokey and cheesy. The last scene in particular where Rock and his wife break out into song, although it fits in the context of the script, the tone shift from the more ordinary this is life type scenes to an abstraction symbolizing their love is very caustic and hard on the viewer. That is the problem in the script, the abrupt tone shifts at times, that and sometimes the character motivations don't make sense. Rock's flirtatious mistress, Nikki Tru played by Kerry Washington, while sexy and easily understandable that Rock would want to cheat on his wife with her, it makes little sense why she preys upon Rock and why she chooses to come into his life at that moment in time. She is the outside catalyst that forces him to decide if he loves his wife, but even catalysts need motivations and reasons too. On the whole though, as a white caucasian man, I find the movie to be an interesting look into an educated black family's life and I think it is refreshing and possibly an excellent movie that should be seen by wanna be gansta thug rappers. The problem is that it really offers nothing new to the majority of the world.
The casting for the film, however, is perfect. Rock's wife, Gina Torres puts in an amazing performance as a strong loving mother. When Rock acts ashamed and afraid of her, he has good reason to be. Torres proves once again why she should be earning much more than she currently does and making top line films. Kerry Washington does an excellent job of playing the typical seductress who happens to be into the club scene. Even Chris Rock does a good job of being the loving father and tormented husband. Steve Buscemi is also great as the adulterer co-worker who pops viagra pills. Rock did a great job of casting relative unknowns who would get the most out of the half-cooked script. Another excellent thing on Rock's part is the one interesting part of the cinematography where time and the images would become blurred during moments of crisis or decision by Rock's character. It helps to give a feel of what is coming without any words and helps to highlight Rock's dilemma.
Conclusion:
Rock's second outing as a director is nothing new. It's just nice to see him in a role with a good cast and with a good message directed at a crowd of people that I don't think his movies are usually aimed at with a new message. On one side, it humanizes all of the black happy families who go to work while at the same time promotes that lifestyle to black audiences. Of course, I'm sure there will be criticisms that the movie is too "white" for some black audiences and because it doesn't offer any new ideas or concepts for white people it will be called boring and unoriginal. The point is, it is an independent film made with good intentions but will be unable to deliver its message because it can't seem to target an audience. This is probably why the film is tanking in the box office so far and why we might never see a Chris Rock film again. It's sad, because for once I think he has tried to do the right thing and I'm sad to say that I think it will hurt his career for it.
3.2 out of 5
Wannabe
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Discussion of Recent Movie Trends Regarding Theaters
Well, I am a movie fanatic, but here are some things that people should know about films and the lack of funding thereof. And of course things that deal with funding include money. so here we go.
1. Theater tickets are raising their prices! Yes, and they need to in order to survive. Most people now-a-days would never invest in movies because they realize that there is no money to be hand in movies. In fact, videogames might be a better investment since it makes more money in a year than the film business does. How does that affect ticket prices? Well, to be honest, most theaters don't make any money off ticket prices...What? It's true. They make a little, but nowhere near enough to sustain itself and the qulaity of films and seating and food and other arrangements that we as theatre-goers take advantage of when we visit these places. In fact, theaters try to make their money off of the concessions so that they can keep everything running and still be able to pay employees etc. Mostly this is due to fewer turnout of viewers to theaters in the last few years. Some people point the blame at Hollywood for not making good movies, others at new media outlets such as legal and illegal downloading, the popularity of home entertainment, the decline in highpaying jobs and the surge in poor in America as the divide between rich and poor becomes more disparate and cleans out the middle class. I doubt that it is because Hollywood does not make good movies, mostly because films that are terrible like Norbit and Ghost Rider are usually the same films that make the most money at the box office. So really, Hollywood isn't willing to sacrifice its quality for greater attendance might be a better accusation. I think the turnout of theatregoers and the fractured society we live in might be better answers to the problem for movie theaters since it is ridiculously hard nowadays to make a movie that appeals to the mass public of America. Also, add in the fact that with netflix, for 15 bucks a month you can watch as many movies as you can squeeze in on DVD on your own homemade surround sound and not have to trust that the theater you watch a movie in doesn't have busted speakers, or cola-stained seats. The fact that you can ask someone to see a movie and they will look at the film and simply say, 'naw, I think I will wait to see that on DVD'. I believe this is one reason why more fantasy like epic movies are being made, because those types of films require a big screen showing to be fully appreciated and it often shows in the box-office. Not to mention that these films are usually well made like the recent Bridge to Terabithia and Chronicles of Narnia series. Simply put, less people turning out means less money for movies, especially in such a diet centered culture where that bucket of popcorn and gallon sized cola might not sound like a good idea. Perhaps if they brought in more alternative snacks they would survive longer and do better? Maybe, but because most movie theater owners are movie purists that love their first time experience, they tend to stick to the hardcore movie goer's idea of it must have popcorn and candy and drinks as it always has. Less people means raised prices on concessions and tickets which equals more grumbling and waiting for DVD and less people and more raised prices, etc until shortly thereafter the theater dies or closes. Some theaters get around this slightly better through in depth contracting talk which wouldn't interest anyone for me to discuss and by showing movies that have been out for a while already. These tend to be the dollar cinemas and the art houses that appeal to niche audiences and survive by taking a certain portion of the audience away from more mainstream theaters. I once had a professor who told me he only went to a small arthouse theater 30 minutes away because they showed indie films and let him buy a beer and sit in nice leather seats. Upon further investigation, yes that was a nice setup, but the theater is small place that really survives off of being one of the only places in that area that shows unconventional movies, everything else is simply tailored to that more elitist taste. Not only is there a smaller percentage of theatergoers than even 4 years ago, the number of movies being made for theatrical release and the # of distributors and directors make it hard for theaters to decide what to show. An example is the newly formed Weinstein Company which has released several films, all of which has not performed well. The people who own this company used to run Miramax and have a long illustrious past in the film business. So, should you bank on their film being able to sell out your theater? Well, I would at least for their release Grind House by Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez. But have you heard of Nomad? No? Too bad. See, movie theaters need to try to pick the movies they think will best appeal to their audience so that they can sell the most concessions or tickets in order to finance their operations and employees. This is why films that are deemed arthouse are typically given lower production budgets, because it is expected they will have more of a limited release and therefore make less money than say...300. So now you know why the theaters are making such little money and why whining about it won't do you any good. If you like the experience like I do of going into a theater and sitting down with fellow theater goers and sharing in an immersive 2-d experience, then you will go out more often and splurge a bit more at the film house. The whole idea that when you buy a ticket you help the director is only partially true since what the box office really does is convince other theatersto run the film. Most film companies make money off of selling the rights to display their films to the theaters, who in turn try to get the audience to help in paying off these costs. Interestingly, a recent change of events is shaping up that could make for a very different future. IMAX has been around and some films are shown on their screens but it hasn't taken off partially due to the few conversions to the IMAX screen because of the hug amount of money required for said conversions. The recent trend in Hollywood is 3D theaters, which should be all over the place by 2009 possibly. Dreamworks has even come out and said that al of its future pictures will be originated in the 3d format. Why? Because by releasing 3D films, it gives an experience that illegal downloaders and home entertainment gurus cannot match or rival...at least until someone figures out home 3D technology. A lot of Hollywood believes that 3D theater are the future for raising the box office levels again, it just leaves me with the question of what will we do with all of the old 2D theaters?
2. DVD sales are excellent! I must admit that I normally buy some cheap DVDs as much as possible because 4 for 20$ is awesome and I can usually come up with a 3-4 gems in a generally crap filled heap. Whats most amusing is that these DVD sales are really cutting in to the theater business. When DVDs first came out, they were the new advanced better picture quality videos of their day. As they progressed in technology, DVD copmanies began to figure out all of the cool stuff they could do with DVDs. For proof, watch any of the special extended cut DVDs of Lord of the Rings and notice the riduculous amounts of extras and extra footage on the DVD. Somewhere around this point, it became a collector's dream. Director's cuts of famous past films and extra footage and scenes and new commentaries made fans and collector's alike seek the best DVD of a film possible, sometimes forcing them to buy several DVD's of the same name before they receieved the Ultimate Package. Studios, seeing how easy and cost-productive it was to make these special features available and sensing a need for them on the market have started to release them like made, oversaturating the market. Want the full screen or widescreen version? The Richard Donner cut or the original? One that can play in 1070i or 1070p? etc, etc, etc. In fact, most studios release a film now as simply that, the film by itself for those who wanted to rent or buy it and the go back to work on creating a second and maybe a third edition of the DVD that will add specials, features, deleted scenes, or if you are M. Night Shyamalan, a special short film that you made as a young kid director. Several studios such as Fox and WB have reported that their theater releases took such a hit that they were surprised when they made a total profit during the year due to DVD sales. Hell, DVD sales are so powerful that two television shows have been renewed due to excellent sales, Family Guy and Futurama. Serenity, the movie, was made partially in part due to the astounding sales of the DVD of the series Firefly on which the cancelled show was based. While theaters and studios are losing business, studios are at least able to make it up usually in sales of DVDs. Also, because of the cheaper nature of DVD production, many studios are setting up direct to dvd divisions that can produce ridiculously sub-par movies to sell to the average person. Disney's animated sequel division did so and produced Cinderella III, the top selling DVD in February. Tons of bleh horror films and many niche independent films are now released direct to DVD for anyone who feels like trying to find some rare gems. I find this new market idea too sketchy for me to trust my money to these films usually, so I will let someone else take on finding direct to DVD gems since I think right now the crap to gem ratio is too high for my liking.
3. Last but not least is the recent report made to Hollywood that suggests that Hollywood should release films simultaneously in theaters and DVD and online or at least shorten the gap between the releases thereof, since it would boost the sales in all aspects. I don't know what the hell they are thinking, but there is a big push by the artists and creators in hollywood to fight this idea. Theater owners especially are opposed as they should be. While it might help the studios to do such a thing, it would effectively kill theater going as we know it. Why bother when I could download the movie on my computer and burn it and watch it the same day it is released? Then, only those movies filmed in IMAX format or are of such an epic scale would be worth seeing in theaters if I wasn't a cheap ass. And even then, I might spring for my own projection system or big screen tv and just say to hell with it. I mean, there, that's it. I have nothing else to discuss really about this topic although I'm sure I missed some things or didn't answer some questions so feel free to post and ask one and I will answer it. Just know that when George Lucas and Steven Spielberg both turn to television and claim that there is no money in film, you better believe it. (Lucas has already said that after Indiana Jones IV, there will be no big-screen films from him or LucasArts. Instead he will redirect his focus completely to creating a Star Wars Live-Action television show and a Star Wars cartoon series, each 100 hours long so that he can evenatully reveal a Star Wars channel, which will probably never show the now famous Star Wars Specials he made so long ago...hehe)
As always,
Wannabe
1. Theater tickets are raising their prices! Yes, and they need to in order to survive. Most people now-a-days would never invest in movies because they realize that there is no money to be hand in movies. In fact, videogames might be a better investment since it makes more money in a year than the film business does. How does that affect ticket prices? Well, to be honest, most theaters don't make any money off ticket prices...What? It's true. They make a little, but nowhere near enough to sustain itself and the qulaity of films and seating and food and other arrangements that we as theatre-goers take advantage of when we visit these places. In fact, theaters try to make their money off of the concessions so that they can keep everything running and still be able to pay employees etc. Mostly this is due to fewer turnout of viewers to theaters in the last few years. Some people point the blame at Hollywood for not making good movies, others at new media outlets such as legal and illegal downloading, the popularity of home entertainment, the decline in highpaying jobs and the surge in poor in America as the divide between rich and poor becomes more disparate and cleans out the middle class. I doubt that it is because Hollywood does not make good movies, mostly because films that are terrible like Norbit and Ghost Rider are usually the same films that make the most money at the box office. So really, Hollywood isn't willing to sacrifice its quality for greater attendance might be a better accusation. I think the turnout of theatregoers and the fractured society we live in might be better answers to the problem for movie theaters since it is ridiculously hard nowadays to make a movie that appeals to the mass public of America. Also, add in the fact that with netflix, for 15 bucks a month you can watch as many movies as you can squeeze in on DVD on your own homemade surround sound and not have to trust that the theater you watch a movie in doesn't have busted speakers, or cola-stained seats. The fact that you can ask someone to see a movie and they will look at the film and simply say, 'naw, I think I will wait to see that on DVD'. I believe this is one reason why more fantasy like epic movies are being made, because those types of films require a big screen showing to be fully appreciated and it often shows in the box-office. Not to mention that these films are usually well made like the recent Bridge to Terabithia and Chronicles of Narnia series. Simply put, less people turning out means less money for movies, especially in such a diet centered culture where that bucket of popcorn and gallon sized cola might not sound like a good idea. Perhaps if they brought in more alternative snacks they would survive longer and do better? Maybe, but because most movie theater owners are movie purists that love their first time experience, they tend to stick to the hardcore movie goer's idea of it must have popcorn and candy and drinks as it always has. Less people means raised prices on concessions and tickets which equals more grumbling and waiting for DVD and less people and more raised prices, etc until shortly thereafter the theater dies or closes. Some theaters get around this slightly better through in depth contracting talk which wouldn't interest anyone for me to discuss and by showing movies that have been out for a while already. These tend to be the dollar cinemas and the art houses that appeal to niche audiences and survive by taking a certain portion of the audience away from more mainstream theaters. I once had a professor who told me he only went to a small arthouse theater 30 minutes away because they showed indie films and let him buy a beer and sit in nice leather seats. Upon further investigation, yes that was a nice setup, but the theater is small place that really survives off of being one of the only places in that area that shows unconventional movies, everything else is simply tailored to that more elitist taste. Not only is there a smaller percentage of theatergoers than even 4 years ago, the number of movies being made for theatrical release and the # of distributors and directors make it hard for theaters to decide what to show. An example is the newly formed Weinstein Company which has released several films, all of which has not performed well. The people who own this company used to run Miramax and have a long illustrious past in the film business. So, should you bank on their film being able to sell out your theater? Well, I would at least for their release Grind House by Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez. But have you heard of Nomad? No? Too bad. See, movie theaters need to try to pick the movies they think will best appeal to their audience so that they can sell the most concessions or tickets in order to finance their operations and employees. This is why films that are deemed arthouse are typically given lower production budgets, because it is expected they will have more of a limited release and therefore make less money than say...300. So now you know why the theaters are making such little money and why whining about it won't do you any good. If you like the experience like I do of going into a theater and sitting down with fellow theater goers and sharing in an immersive 2-d experience, then you will go out more often and splurge a bit more at the film house. The whole idea that when you buy a ticket you help the director is only partially true since what the box office really does is convince other theatersto run the film. Most film companies make money off of selling the rights to display their films to the theaters, who in turn try to get the audience to help in paying off these costs. Interestingly, a recent change of events is shaping up that could make for a very different future. IMAX has been around and some films are shown on their screens but it hasn't taken off partially due to the few conversions to the IMAX screen because of the hug amount of money required for said conversions. The recent trend in Hollywood is 3D theaters, which should be all over the place by 2009 possibly. Dreamworks has even come out and said that al of its future pictures will be originated in the 3d format. Why? Because by releasing 3D films, it gives an experience that illegal downloaders and home entertainment gurus cannot match or rival...at least until someone figures out home 3D technology. A lot of Hollywood believes that 3D theater are the future for raising the box office levels again, it just leaves me with the question of what will we do with all of the old 2D theaters?
2. DVD sales are excellent! I must admit that I normally buy some cheap DVDs as much as possible because 4 for 20$ is awesome and I can usually come up with a 3-4 gems in a generally crap filled heap. Whats most amusing is that these DVD sales are really cutting in to the theater business. When DVDs first came out, they were the new advanced better picture quality videos of their day. As they progressed in technology, DVD copmanies began to figure out all of the cool stuff they could do with DVDs. For proof, watch any of the special extended cut DVDs of Lord of the Rings and notice the riduculous amounts of extras and extra footage on the DVD. Somewhere around this point, it became a collector's dream. Director's cuts of famous past films and extra footage and scenes and new commentaries made fans and collector's alike seek the best DVD of a film possible, sometimes forcing them to buy several DVD's of the same name before they receieved the Ultimate Package. Studios, seeing how easy and cost-productive it was to make these special features available and sensing a need for them on the market have started to release them like made, oversaturating the market. Want the full screen or widescreen version? The Richard Donner cut or the original? One that can play in 1070i or 1070p? etc, etc, etc. In fact, most studios release a film now as simply that, the film by itself for those who wanted to rent or buy it and the go back to work on creating a second and maybe a third edition of the DVD that will add specials, features, deleted scenes, or if you are M. Night Shyamalan, a special short film that you made as a young kid director. Several studios such as Fox and WB have reported that their theater releases took such a hit that they were surprised when they made a total profit during the year due to DVD sales. Hell, DVD sales are so powerful that two television shows have been renewed due to excellent sales, Family Guy and Futurama. Serenity, the movie, was made partially in part due to the astounding sales of the DVD of the series Firefly on which the cancelled show was based. While theaters and studios are losing business, studios are at least able to make it up usually in sales of DVDs. Also, because of the cheaper nature of DVD production, many studios are setting up direct to dvd divisions that can produce ridiculously sub-par movies to sell to the average person. Disney's animated sequel division did so and produced Cinderella III, the top selling DVD in February. Tons of bleh horror films and many niche independent films are now released direct to DVD for anyone who feels like trying to find some rare gems. I find this new market idea too sketchy for me to trust my money to these films usually, so I will let someone else take on finding direct to DVD gems since I think right now the crap to gem ratio is too high for my liking.
3. Last but not least is the recent report made to Hollywood that suggests that Hollywood should release films simultaneously in theaters and DVD and online or at least shorten the gap between the releases thereof, since it would boost the sales in all aspects. I don't know what the hell they are thinking, but there is a big push by the artists and creators in hollywood to fight this idea. Theater owners especially are opposed as they should be. While it might help the studios to do such a thing, it would effectively kill theater going as we know it. Why bother when I could download the movie on my computer and burn it and watch it the same day it is released? Then, only those movies filmed in IMAX format or are of such an epic scale would be worth seeing in theaters if I wasn't a cheap ass. And even then, I might spring for my own projection system or big screen tv and just say to hell with it. I mean, there, that's it. I have nothing else to discuss really about this topic although I'm sure I missed some things or didn't answer some questions so feel free to post and ask one and I will answer it. Just know that when George Lucas and Steven Spielberg both turn to television and claim that there is no money in film, you better believe it. (Lucas has already said that after Indiana Jones IV, there will be no big-screen films from him or LucasArts. Instead he will redirect his focus completely to creating a Star Wars Live-Action television show and a Star Wars cartoon series, each 100 hours long so that he can evenatully reveal a Star Wars channel, which will probably never show the now famous Star Wars Specials he made so long ago...hehe)
As always,
Wannabe
Bambi
'Bambi gets better with age'
Disney has a long lineage of excellent 2D animated films that have all become essentially classics for the more modern generations. Thus it was sad when during Eisner's run of disney he announced the closing of Disney's animated 2-D theatrical studios in favor of going 3-D only. Then they lost Pixar temporarily, Chicken Little was released with very little likability, Eisner was fired but before leaving started a whole campaign of terrible sequels to prevous classics, Pixar was rehired to Disney, and now there is hope of Lasseter convincing Disney to reopen it's 2-D studios once again. It has already been announced that he has convinced them to start doing opening shorts for theatrical releases again. Unfortunately, the sequel campaign is still in effect churning out mediocre to terrible sequels for great films like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. With a sequel for Bambi to be released soon, I felt the time was right for reviewing this classic I hadn't seen since I was 6.
My best memories of Bambi include the well-known plot points of a mother's death, a stern father, sharp and at times dark animation style and something about a furry rabbit named Thumper. After having gone out and bought the recently released 2 disc version by Disney before it went back to 'The Vault', I would have to say that there are many things about this film that are highly original, inventive, and interesting in today's light of japanime inspired animation. Upon watching the film I discovered that what I had remembered as a dark animation style was really due to an inventive way of filming the animation. The film was released in 1942 and it takes a lot of influence from real-life filming techniques. They would set up cut outs of the trees a certain distance apart and light them dimly so that the focus would be on the background where Bambi might be with his mother. Next, they would slide the camera to give the impression of walking sideways through the forest and giving the forest a depth that would be incredibly hard to capture in a traditionally all animated sequence. in this manner they were able to give depth, focus, and a sense of living to the storytelling of the camera that creates an amazing voyeuresque feel of Bambi's life. In reality the film is not that dark at all with the animated characters having very little in the way of animated shadows. All of the animated characters and open meadows scenes are well-lit and contain very cherub like animals that are cute and capture even the most stalwart warriors attention. Another odd thing about this film is in the broad range and openended feel fo the story. The story is not a traditional storyin that there seems to be very little beginning and ending to it. It takes place over three sections of Bambi's life, his birth, his teen years, and then as an adult at the very end. The point is to primarily show slices of life in a possible deer's life. Yes, the film has ridiculously overt tones of save the animals, forest, deer, etc thrown into it. But what is perhaps the most interesting and controversial part of the film is the inclusion of a male metrosexual skunk. Now, metrosexual is still a fairly new term and here is how I define it, a male that exhibits traits or characteristics in behavior that are typically attributed to homosexuals but is not a homosexual. In case you were wondering, the skunk's name is Flower and has big pretty eyes. When Flower first appeared onscreen, I couldn't believe that Disney would show a homosexual in a cartoon film in 1942. It was later rectified by Flower being the first of the three young teen trio to trot away after a girl, thus keeping to the conventional guidelines and being a point of hope for all homophobic parents afraid that their kids enjoy smelling flowers too much too often. The other most impressive part of the film is the excellent music and score by Edward H. Plumb and how well the music is perfectly timed with the animation onscreen. This is even more impressive given the limited equipment and capabilities of the time in which the film was made. The lack of a traditional plot centered around one thing makes the movie a moving opus in honor of the animals of the forest for kids and adults to enjoy at the same time. The only problem is without that traditional easy to follow storyline, the film requires a greater attention span than I had at times, much less kids today raised on the terrible likeness of Dragon Ball Z or Yu-Gi-Oh.
Conclusion:
The film is a marked contrast and seems very different in a refreshing sense to modern day animation. The simple production techniques created for the film add a certain depth and awe to the film that is hard to obtain in todays more mainstream slick market. The characters are all lovable and the growth in the characters throughout the three stages of life are wonderful. The sound and music of the film work perfectly in time wih the animation and there are even entire sequences added that could be short music videos. The topics and ideas covered either overtly or invertly are much more broad and interesting than most Disney films following this one and really surprising given its age. My only concern is the amount of attention necessary to watch the film due its wandering and epic storyline of forest creatures. That and the fact that it was the last real animated feature by the great director David Hand who died in 1986. I don't know why he didn't make any other animated films, but the loss of more of his work is beyond sad since this film holds up so well after all the years. In case you were wondering, he also made Snow White.
4.5 out of 5
Wannabe
Disney has a long lineage of excellent 2D animated films that have all become essentially classics for the more modern generations. Thus it was sad when during Eisner's run of disney he announced the closing of Disney's animated 2-D theatrical studios in favor of going 3-D only. Then they lost Pixar temporarily, Chicken Little was released with very little likability, Eisner was fired but before leaving started a whole campaign of terrible sequels to prevous classics, Pixar was rehired to Disney, and now there is hope of Lasseter convincing Disney to reopen it's 2-D studios once again. It has already been announced that he has convinced them to start doing opening shorts for theatrical releases again. Unfortunately, the sequel campaign is still in effect churning out mediocre to terrible sequels for great films like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. With a sequel for Bambi to be released soon, I felt the time was right for reviewing this classic I hadn't seen since I was 6.
My best memories of Bambi include the well-known plot points of a mother's death, a stern father, sharp and at times dark animation style and something about a furry rabbit named Thumper. After having gone out and bought the recently released 2 disc version by Disney before it went back to 'The Vault', I would have to say that there are many things about this film that are highly original, inventive, and interesting in today's light of japanime inspired animation. Upon watching the film I discovered that what I had remembered as a dark animation style was really due to an inventive way of filming the animation. The film was released in 1942 and it takes a lot of influence from real-life filming techniques. They would set up cut outs of the trees a certain distance apart and light them dimly so that the focus would be on the background where Bambi might be with his mother. Next, they would slide the camera to give the impression of walking sideways through the forest and giving the forest a depth that would be incredibly hard to capture in a traditionally all animated sequence. in this manner they were able to give depth, focus, and a sense of living to the storytelling of the camera that creates an amazing voyeuresque feel of Bambi's life. In reality the film is not that dark at all with the animated characters having very little in the way of animated shadows. All of the animated characters and open meadows scenes are well-lit and contain very cherub like animals that are cute and capture even the most stalwart warriors attention. Another odd thing about this film is in the broad range and openended feel fo the story. The story is not a traditional storyin that there seems to be very little beginning and ending to it. It takes place over three sections of Bambi's life, his birth, his teen years, and then as an adult at the very end. The point is to primarily show slices of life in a possible deer's life. Yes, the film has ridiculously overt tones of save the animals, forest, deer, etc thrown into it. But what is perhaps the most interesting and controversial part of the film is the inclusion of a male metrosexual skunk. Now, metrosexual is still a fairly new term and here is how I define it, a male that exhibits traits or characteristics in behavior that are typically attributed to homosexuals but is not a homosexual. In case you were wondering, the skunk's name is Flower and has big pretty eyes. When Flower first appeared onscreen, I couldn't believe that Disney would show a homosexual in a cartoon film in 1942. It was later rectified by Flower being the first of the three young teen trio to trot away after a girl, thus keeping to the conventional guidelines and being a point of hope for all homophobic parents afraid that their kids enjoy smelling flowers too much too often. The other most impressive part of the film is the excellent music and score by Edward H. Plumb and how well the music is perfectly timed with the animation onscreen. This is even more impressive given the limited equipment and capabilities of the time in which the film was made. The lack of a traditional plot centered around one thing makes the movie a moving opus in honor of the animals of the forest for kids and adults to enjoy at the same time. The only problem is without that traditional easy to follow storyline, the film requires a greater attention span than I had at times, much less kids today raised on the terrible likeness of Dragon Ball Z or Yu-Gi-Oh.
Conclusion:
The film is a marked contrast and seems very different in a refreshing sense to modern day animation. The simple production techniques created for the film add a certain depth and awe to the film that is hard to obtain in todays more mainstream slick market. The characters are all lovable and the growth in the characters throughout the three stages of life are wonderful. The sound and music of the film work perfectly in time wih the animation and there are even entire sequences added that could be short music videos. The topics and ideas covered either overtly or invertly are much more broad and interesting than most Disney films following this one and really surprising given its age. My only concern is the amount of attention necessary to watch the film due its wandering and epic storyline of forest creatures. That and the fact that it was the last real animated feature by the great director David Hand who died in 1986. I don't know why he didn't make any other animated films, but the loss of more of his work is beyond sad since this film holds up so well after all the years. In case you were wondering, he also made Snow White.
4.5 out of 5
Wannabe
Monday, March 12, 2007
Desk Set
CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT!
Maybe you've heard of it and maybe you haven't, but either way it features two classic actors in a splendid comedy. Desk Set is a comedy by director Walter Lang starring Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. And although the film is nothing amazing, it is lots of fun to watch and reflect upon the novelty that the film must have had upon its release.
So here's the story, Katharine Hepburn plays the manager of a reference department for broadcast studio, a job that I have a hard time believing exists anymore. She has been dating a man for seven years who everyone else thinks is playing her but in fact is merely trying to get a raise so as to marry her. Enter Spencer Tracy's character, a method engineer aka efficiency specialist who has been sent to analyze whether his new computer machine could improve the efficiency of the references department. He is therefore forced to watch the department very closely and while doing so happens to gains the affections of a very frustrated getting older Hepburn who might or might not lose her job thanks to him. The story is a typical romanc story except that it goes to great lengths to show the importance of little things in life and how essential the human element is to a work space. OF course the film was made in the very early days of computers and it is obvious that the screenwriters had no idea how a machine actually processes data, which make it even more hilarious. The misunderstandings and dramatic irony drive the humor in this film alongside some nice bits of acting. Katherine Hepburn astounds us by rattling off tongue-tripping facts at lightning speed and looking strong and brilliant while doing it. Spencer Tracy on the other hand does a good job of playing bumbling and the archetypal crazy inventor-ish type. It's made even more amusing by placing everything in a context where Tracy can never tell Hepburn his real purpose. Unfortunately for Tracy he comes across as very wooden and the believability of his character through a modern lens is not nearly as strong as I would like. Yet the film is worth it if for nothing else to experience the fear, awe, and uncertainty of the technological revolution, especially with the size of the ridiculous computer. For a film with a simple romance basis at heart, it chronicles some interesting moments in history that in an advanced technological society we are liable to easily forget or not really care enough about to conceptualize. Thank you director Walter Lang for making this movie and The King and I before it. The film is fun and offers a nostalgic look back in time at two great actors, an interesting time period, and some themes that are still eerily present in the modern world. The direction is old school with sometimes long takes of people walking down hallways just so that the audience would know that they had walked down that hallway. Sometimes the edits last a bit long and some of the posturing and posing come off as silly. The most disconcerting thing for me though, was probably watching it and picking up on all of the sexual references that could never be spoken due to strict censorship. I guess I grew up just expecting that older films contained any sexual references because I had seen many but never noticed them until the more modern blatant references introduced m to puberty. It was very disconcerting for Katherine Hepburn to insinuated to enjoy having sex with man...I wonder if I come from Puritan stock? Anyhow, in the end the film is well put together, holds together over time well and is still highly entertaining.
3.4 out of 5
Wannabe
Maybe you've heard of it and maybe you haven't, but either way it features two classic actors in a splendid comedy. Desk Set is a comedy by director Walter Lang starring Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. And although the film is nothing amazing, it is lots of fun to watch and reflect upon the novelty that the film must have had upon its release.
So here's the story, Katharine Hepburn plays the manager of a reference department for broadcast studio, a job that I have a hard time believing exists anymore. She has been dating a man for seven years who everyone else thinks is playing her but in fact is merely trying to get a raise so as to marry her. Enter Spencer Tracy's character, a method engineer aka efficiency specialist who has been sent to analyze whether his new computer machine could improve the efficiency of the references department. He is therefore forced to watch the department very closely and while doing so happens to gains the affections of a very frustrated getting older Hepburn who might or might not lose her job thanks to him. The story is a typical romanc story except that it goes to great lengths to show the importance of little things in life and how essential the human element is to a work space. OF course the film was made in the very early days of computers and it is obvious that the screenwriters had no idea how a machine actually processes data, which make it even more hilarious. The misunderstandings and dramatic irony drive the humor in this film alongside some nice bits of acting. Katherine Hepburn astounds us by rattling off tongue-tripping facts at lightning speed and looking strong and brilliant while doing it. Spencer Tracy on the other hand does a good job of playing bumbling and the archetypal crazy inventor-ish type. It's made even more amusing by placing everything in a context where Tracy can never tell Hepburn his real purpose. Unfortunately for Tracy he comes across as very wooden and the believability of his character through a modern lens is not nearly as strong as I would like. Yet the film is worth it if for nothing else to experience the fear, awe, and uncertainty of the technological revolution, especially with the size of the ridiculous computer. For a film with a simple romance basis at heart, it chronicles some interesting moments in history that in an advanced technological society we are liable to easily forget or not really care enough about to conceptualize. Thank you director Walter Lang for making this movie and The King and I before it. The film is fun and offers a nostalgic look back in time at two great actors, an interesting time period, and some themes that are still eerily present in the modern world. The direction is old school with sometimes long takes of people walking down hallways just so that the audience would know that they had walked down that hallway. Sometimes the edits last a bit long and some of the posturing and posing come off as silly. The most disconcerting thing for me though, was probably watching it and picking up on all of the sexual references that could never be spoken due to strict censorship. I guess I grew up just expecting that older films contained any sexual references because I had seen many but never noticed them until the more modern blatant references introduced m to puberty. It was very disconcerting for Katherine Hepburn to insinuated to enjoy having sex with man...I wonder if I come from Puritan stock? Anyhow, in the end the film is well put together, holds together over time well and is still highly entertaining.
3.4 out of 5
Wannabe
Sunday, March 11, 2007
The Science of Sleep
'Science can be sleepy'
No one can ever say now that Michel Gondry has no imagination. This man brought us Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Human Nature, both of which were written by Charlie Kaufman. He has directed numerous music videos and commercials and shorts and has pioneered a lot of techniques along the way. His latest outing, The Science of Sleep deals with dreams and the imagination as much of his previous work has, but the biggest difference is that this time, he's the writer.
The Science of Sleep is fairly hard to decipher what is going on, but it is essentially a story of romance and one man and one woman trying to figure the other out while falling in love. All of this of course while the main male character seems to be slowly going crazy and having an especially hard time differentiating his dreams from reality. Also embroiled into the whole mess is Michel Gondry's explanation of sleep and dreams. Quite a heady topic? Similar to the great Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Gondry is not afraid to turn his scenes into dream sequences that intermix with the reality of the film in interesting and mind bending ways. The problem is that unlike the aforementioned film, the story of The Science of Sleep is not grounded enough in a stable reality to allow most people to piece the story back together in any sort of accuracy. Character decisions and changes in mood are dictated in the dreams and sometimes vice versa until the dream world becomes reality and indistinguishable, which in a society used to reality or absurdity, to mix the two makes the story incredibly hard to follow. Of course, it does make the entire film feel like an incredibly long dream. The problem is that with any film in which the story is hard to follow, the film feels infinitely longer which translates to boring. People tend to go to movies to see stories unfold in front of their eyes and unlike most of Europe and other countries, America does not have a rich history of succesful experimental films. I don't want to call the movie boring because it shouldn't be due to the incredible blending of animation and illusions and reality. But I did find myself surfing the internet at times and not really giving a crap about the characters for the most part. Michel Gondry wrote the film based on his own dreams and it is nice to see how the dreams and reality influence each other and how he was able to craft a dream aesthetic and structure for the film, the problem is that it feels like the story rambles and in doing so can easily lose the viewer. Besides that flaw, the film is magnificent with interesting visuals and symbols on screen throughout. The actors do a terrific job and the story itself is amusing to those who can keep up with it. I think as a freshman feature writing effort on Michel Gondry's part, not bad. And I look forward to his next big thing.
The two main actors are Gael Garcia Bernal as Stephane Miroux, a childish young man trying to find a job that lets him use and manipulate his imagination to his hearts content, and Charlotte Gainsbourg as Stephanie, which the names should tell you something. Garcia Bernal proves himself again in such a scatterbrained movie by navigating skillfully through all of the twists and turns to create a movie that can be followed if watched closely enough. It is also very amusing how his ability to speak French is mocked in fun and so a lot of times the movie changes between Spanish, French, and English. Charlotte Gainsbourg does an excllent job of coming off as the elite french woman who is interested in more of the punk scene. The sentiments of both characters are very odd and unrelatable to me, but I know several people like them all of whom are artists. Although perhaps the most amusing cast members are the ones who work with Stephane at his boring calendar job. Their little quips and interactions with Stephane and each other are hilarious and keep absurd and awkward scenes alive and laughable. Excellent job by the cast at conveying characters and figments in such a manner as to be amusing no matter which realm they are in.
Conclusion:
The film has a wonderful child-like aesthetic and joy inherent in the making of it that rejoices in the simplicity of making something. It pokes fun at itself and it is highly enjoyable. The problem as already mentioned is the story and how it is hard to find a basis for it when the basis is constantly changing in a blurrd world of absurdity and non-fiction. The cast is great and the editing and animation are top notch for such an interesting experimental piece that only a French man could have concocted. If you feel yourself get sleepy after all of the crazy imagery seems to blast by in a whirl, do what I did, grab a coke, pause, rewind, and try to understand and if not that, enjoy.
4.1 out of 5
Wannabe
No one can ever say now that Michel Gondry has no imagination. This man brought us Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Human Nature, both of which were written by Charlie Kaufman. He has directed numerous music videos and commercials and shorts and has pioneered a lot of techniques along the way. His latest outing, The Science of Sleep deals with dreams and the imagination as much of his previous work has, but the biggest difference is that this time, he's the writer.
The Science of Sleep is fairly hard to decipher what is going on, but it is essentially a story of romance and one man and one woman trying to figure the other out while falling in love. All of this of course while the main male character seems to be slowly going crazy and having an especially hard time differentiating his dreams from reality. Also embroiled into the whole mess is Michel Gondry's explanation of sleep and dreams. Quite a heady topic? Similar to the great Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Gondry is not afraid to turn his scenes into dream sequences that intermix with the reality of the film in interesting and mind bending ways. The problem is that unlike the aforementioned film, the story of The Science of Sleep is not grounded enough in a stable reality to allow most people to piece the story back together in any sort of accuracy. Character decisions and changes in mood are dictated in the dreams and sometimes vice versa until the dream world becomes reality and indistinguishable, which in a society used to reality or absurdity, to mix the two makes the story incredibly hard to follow. Of course, it does make the entire film feel like an incredibly long dream. The problem is that with any film in which the story is hard to follow, the film feels infinitely longer which translates to boring. People tend to go to movies to see stories unfold in front of their eyes and unlike most of Europe and other countries, America does not have a rich history of succesful experimental films. I don't want to call the movie boring because it shouldn't be due to the incredible blending of animation and illusions and reality. But I did find myself surfing the internet at times and not really giving a crap about the characters for the most part. Michel Gondry wrote the film based on his own dreams and it is nice to see how the dreams and reality influence each other and how he was able to craft a dream aesthetic and structure for the film, the problem is that it feels like the story rambles and in doing so can easily lose the viewer. Besides that flaw, the film is magnificent with interesting visuals and symbols on screen throughout. The actors do a terrific job and the story itself is amusing to those who can keep up with it. I think as a freshman feature writing effort on Michel Gondry's part, not bad. And I look forward to his next big thing.
The two main actors are Gael Garcia Bernal as Stephane Miroux, a childish young man trying to find a job that lets him use and manipulate his imagination to his hearts content, and Charlotte Gainsbourg as Stephanie, which the names should tell you something. Garcia Bernal proves himself again in such a scatterbrained movie by navigating skillfully through all of the twists and turns to create a movie that can be followed if watched closely enough. It is also very amusing how his ability to speak French is mocked in fun and so a lot of times the movie changes between Spanish, French, and English. Charlotte Gainsbourg does an excllent job of coming off as the elite french woman who is interested in more of the punk scene. The sentiments of both characters are very odd and unrelatable to me, but I know several people like them all of whom are artists. Although perhaps the most amusing cast members are the ones who work with Stephane at his boring calendar job. Their little quips and interactions with Stephane and each other are hilarious and keep absurd and awkward scenes alive and laughable. Excellent job by the cast at conveying characters and figments in such a manner as to be amusing no matter which realm they are in.
Conclusion:
The film has a wonderful child-like aesthetic and joy inherent in the making of it that rejoices in the simplicity of making something. It pokes fun at itself and it is highly enjoyable. The problem as already mentioned is the story and how it is hard to find a basis for it when the basis is constantly changing in a blurrd world of absurdity and non-fiction. The cast is great and the editing and animation are top notch for such an interesting experimental piece that only a French man could have concocted. If you feel yourself get sleepy after all of the crazy imagery seems to blast by in a whirl, do what I did, grab a coke, pause, rewind, and try to understand and if not that, enjoy.
4.1 out of 5
Wannabe
Bridge to Terabithia
'Bridge the gap between child and adulthood'
Where the Red Fern Grows, I Hear the Owl Call My Name, and even The Indian in the Cupboard were all required reading for me as a kid. I was lucky enough to have an avid reading apetite so as to pick up Bridge to Terabithia on my own dime. As my wife puts it, in a world so full of adaptations of classic literature from every genre, some books should simply remain books. This, of course, was her premise as to why she didn't want to see Bridge to Terabithia, a movie based on a book about how important imagination is to people and how it can satiate and satisfy someone who would otherwise possibly be another casualty to the system of bullying. A fairly common theme among children literature, but what is most forgotten about the book is in how the imagination can be used to join families and siblings and bond tightly together even after something as tragic as death. I remember being a little kid and bawling while reading the book in the park. I know, it sounds ideal right? Fake? But it wasn't, I had a park near my house growing up as a child and sometimes I had to get out of my yard, so hah!
Anyhow, the novel held a special place in my heart as a young middle schooler, until I got older and forgot all about the book until this movie was released. Although my wife fought tooth and nail from having to see it, democracy is a wonderful thing in that it forces you to do things sometimes that you don't want to do. Needless to say, after the film I can attest that it is a remarkable and wonderful film, but it still can't outdo the book.
The most amazing thing about this movie is perhaps the astounding performances given by the young cast. Josh Hutcherson does an excellent job as the poor farmer boy artist who lives in a house full of girls and a dad who doesn't pay him any attention. Josh earns the audience over to the point where when he believes in the world created by him and Leslie, the audience believes and begins to see the creatures as well. Also, the actress who plays Leslie, AnnaSophia Robb, is very talented and pretty cute for a young actress. Together they play off of each other and the fact that they look like middle-schoolers and they deal with lots of the same middle school B.S. makes them all the more likable. Normally child actors are notoriously hard for getting good workable performances. This film seems to be shilling them out, perhaps due to director Gabor Csupo's past experience in working with children. Don't get me wrong, the children are no young De Niros, but they will break and mend your heart.
Director Gabor Csupo has an interesting history. He has worked primarily in animation on things like the Simpsons as a writer. But perhaps his most notable and helpful preparation for this film is his work as the creator and writer of the incredibly popular Nickelodeon kid's show, Rugrats. Rugrats has always been a show about children's interactions with each other and how they use their imagination in the everyday. This plays directly into what Bridge to Terabithia needed, and Csupo delivers. He shows in great detail how a dumpy old forest with a torn down club house is turned into a magical kingdom of the imagination with diving vulture and shadowy figures. Then, he shows how this new world stems from the real world interactions of the children and the inspiration of the characters. Csupo does it so brilliantly that it reminds me of when I was a kid fighting hordes of rattlesnakes in my front yard with a sword made from the shiniest bone of an eagle, aka a stick and a pack of noodles.
Conclusion:
Director Gabor Csupo treats the source material reverently and uses everything he has learned from the past to bring out some great performances from two unknown child actors and to open the world of Terabithia up for everyone, adults and children alike. The movie is no slouch and pulls no punches on death or any of the other mature topics caught up in this coming of age story and in the part imagination plays. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the novel, no movie will ever be better than it, even if this is an excellent attempt. IF you have a child entering those awkward years of middle school, I highly recommend the book followd by the movie. It helps to straighten out some of the harder parts of the story. I would have also liked it if the movie had been longer and let us get to know the main characters and their relationship to each other better, or at least have delved more deeply into the world of Terabithia, but alas, the movie does not. However, it is still a gem for even the hardest of heart to watch and weep over.
3.95 out of 5
Wannabe
Where the Red Fern Grows, I Hear the Owl Call My Name, and even The Indian in the Cupboard were all required reading for me as a kid. I was lucky enough to have an avid reading apetite so as to pick up Bridge to Terabithia on my own dime. As my wife puts it, in a world so full of adaptations of classic literature from every genre, some books should simply remain books. This, of course, was her premise as to why she didn't want to see Bridge to Terabithia, a movie based on a book about how important imagination is to people and how it can satiate and satisfy someone who would otherwise possibly be another casualty to the system of bullying. A fairly common theme among children literature, but what is most forgotten about the book is in how the imagination can be used to join families and siblings and bond tightly together even after something as tragic as death. I remember being a little kid and bawling while reading the book in the park. I know, it sounds ideal right? Fake? But it wasn't, I had a park near my house growing up as a child and sometimes I had to get out of my yard, so hah!
Anyhow, the novel held a special place in my heart as a young middle schooler, until I got older and forgot all about the book until this movie was released. Although my wife fought tooth and nail from having to see it, democracy is a wonderful thing in that it forces you to do things sometimes that you don't want to do. Needless to say, after the film I can attest that it is a remarkable and wonderful film, but it still can't outdo the book.
The most amazing thing about this movie is perhaps the astounding performances given by the young cast. Josh Hutcherson does an excellent job as the poor farmer boy artist who lives in a house full of girls and a dad who doesn't pay him any attention. Josh earns the audience over to the point where when he believes in the world created by him and Leslie, the audience believes and begins to see the creatures as well. Also, the actress who plays Leslie, AnnaSophia Robb, is very talented and pretty cute for a young actress. Together they play off of each other and the fact that they look like middle-schoolers and they deal with lots of the same middle school B.S. makes them all the more likable. Normally child actors are notoriously hard for getting good workable performances. This film seems to be shilling them out, perhaps due to director Gabor Csupo's past experience in working with children. Don't get me wrong, the children are no young De Niros, but they will break and mend your heart.
Director Gabor Csupo has an interesting history. He has worked primarily in animation on things like the Simpsons as a writer. But perhaps his most notable and helpful preparation for this film is his work as the creator and writer of the incredibly popular Nickelodeon kid's show, Rugrats. Rugrats has always been a show about children's interactions with each other and how they use their imagination in the everyday. This plays directly into what Bridge to Terabithia needed, and Csupo delivers. He shows in great detail how a dumpy old forest with a torn down club house is turned into a magical kingdom of the imagination with diving vulture and shadowy figures. Then, he shows how this new world stems from the real world interactions of the children and the inspiration of the characters. Csupo does it so brilliantly that it reminds me of when I was a kid fighting hordes of rattlesnakes in my front yard with a sword made from the shiniest bone of an eagle, aka a stick and a pack of noodles.
Conclusion:
Director Gabor Csupo treats the source material reverently and uses everything he has learned from the past to bring out some great performances from two unknown child actors and to open the world of Terabithia up for everyone, adults and children alike. The movie is no slouch and pulls no punches on death or any of the other mature topics caught up in this coming of age story and in the part imagination plays. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the novel, no movie will ever be better than it, even if this is an excellent attempt. IF you have a child entering those awkward years of middle school, I highly recommend the book followd by the movie. It helps to straighten out some of the harder parts of the story. I would have also liked it if the movie had been longer and let us get to know the main characters and their relationship to each other better, or at least have delved more deeply into the world of Terabithia, but alas, the movie does not. However, it is still a gem for even the hardest of heart to watch and weep over.
3.95 out of 5
Wannabe
300
'300 falls short of 301'
For quite some time now I have been anxiously awaiting a movie brimming with tough machismo take no shit men. It seems I finally got it and man what a movie it is. Before going any further with this review, let me state the supposed history of the movie as I understand it. The Persians were invading Greece, the Greeks sent 1,000 of their men to meet these, I beleive, 10,000 Persians at a narrow pass. Most of the Greeks upon seeing the Persians flipped out and ran except 300 Spartans who were considered the elite marines of their day since they were trained from the age of 5 to be battle warriors. The Spartans held off the entire Persian army for three days and inspired the rest of the Greeks to return to fight, thus defeating the Persians and saving Greece. That's the history upon which the tale of the recent movie 300 directed by Zack Snyder is based. Now for the history of the movie and some of the unfortunate ties.
The movie 300 is a shot-for-shot adaptation, a la Sin City, of Frank Miller's graphic novel 300 which was published in 1999. Frank Miller's graphic novel won 3 Eisner awards and it was inspired by the movie The 300 Spartans which Frank Miller had seen as a kid. It features all of Frank Miller's favorite themes such as strong women and men that seem slightly mad. Also, lots of gore and an interesting style. Now, the thing to remember is that the graphic novel was published before September 11 and before George Bush was elected. The reason I point this out is because if you watch the movie there will be temptations to point out the multitude of ties and links between George Bush and what he has come to represent and the various ideals and practices of both King Leonidas and Xerxes. Although Frank Miller is not to blame, one can't but help wonder if these ties were intentional on the part of the filmmakers for deciding to make this film shot for shot instead of editing these sections out. Although they may not have been looking for the controversy, I think they welcome it. I will not talk about this though since there is so much more to discuss and the link is so weak that it is really not worth discussing. Although I'm sure many people will at great length and discuss the evil of Hollywood.
Now, story points. Well, the history pretty much says it all. The difference between the history and the creative re-imagining of the film is in its beautiful presentation and storytelling. The Spartans come across knowing there purpose is to fight and they seem to actively seek death at the hands a capable warrior. Sounds like a bunch of crazy trained psycho killers? Well, they are. The film also shows that they love however and the price stoicism and bravery can have in battle when those you love die. The movie has several sub plots and a background for the philosophy of the Spartans which was, get it done doing whatever necessary. While Leonidas is off at war, his wife is back home trying to care for her child and fend off a political opponent looking to keep from sending help to Leonidas. Despite the great stories, everything essentially revolves around the battle scenes and the struggle between Xerxes and Leonidas. This is where the film delivers. Each battle scene shows in excellent detail and cinematography the various fighting and battle techniqus of two clashing cultures. I noticed that the Immortals would jump kick the shields to knock the Spartans off balance while the Spartans would join together as a phalanx to create and impenetrable shield and then push and jab to kill wave after wave of attacker. Sometimes the fights are a little outrageous, but that has more to do with a philosophy of the story that I think is probably more of a detriment. The fight scenes are beautifully done by changing back and forth between slo-mo and regular speed in such a manner as to burn each image in your head as if it were a moving graphic novel. What a beautiful movie and if you ever need to feel macho, this is your chance to feel it. Blood, tits, defiance against the odds, it doesn't get any better.
The acting in this film is excellent. Gerard Butler is great as a screaming half-mad King Leonidas. His look is perhaps the most Greek look of the men in the film. Everyone else's hair looks almost too nice and modern actor to be period reliable. Also, I must give props to every actor in this movie for their ability to freak me out at how incredibly cut they are. If Spartans really looked like these men, it's no wonder they held off 10,000 for 3 days. The rest of the Spartans all do an excellent job. Dominic West as Theron the corrupt politician does a great job of being creepy, menacing, mean, and just plain evil. He does and excellent job and because of that he makes Lena Headey's Queen look that much stronger. If nothing else, Lena Headey is the best performance on the screen. Her character is strong in the face of all and very impressive indeed. She is a terrifying Spartan woman and it made for an excellent death scene later. I look forward to seeing her upcoming television series, The Sarah Connor Chronicles based on the Terminator films in which she will play Sarah Connor. Then there is Xerxes. Ridiculously tall, androgynous, egotastic Xerxes. Rodrigo Santoro does a great job with Xerxes by turning him into a huge mysterious man full of piercings and "otherness". The best part ever though is at the end, when he bleeds. Santoro's face when he realizes he is capable of being killed is astounding. Good acting with a couple of break out performances is my final answer for this film.
Now comes directing. This film is Zack Snyder's sophomoric effort after having come off the generally well-received remake of Dawn of the Dead. Snyder does an excellent job of drawing forth performances from essentially no-namers in a green-screen environment that melds with the lighting and background. This guy has done his homework and knows how to get the most out of his shots and he perfectly mimics Miller's graphic style and verve in his adaptation of his work. Excellent job by Snyder and he shows that he can stay true to the source material of whatever he adapts, something that few in Hollywood have ever been able to do. It is a skill he will need to put to good use for his next film, The Watchmen which is an adaptation of the graphic novel by Alan Moore, perhaps the hardest graphic novel ever to adapt. What works in his favor and doesn't work in his favor is how closely he stays true to the source material. This is the flaw of the film.
In 300 you will be hard pressed to find anything close to an idea of openness and tolerance. As Leonidas says, if those Athenian philosophers and boy-lovers turn down Xerxes offer, then the Spartans can't accept it. The only black men in the film work for Xerxes. Xerxes army is full of "otherness." Deformed monstrosities, scary asian and indian fighters, and Xerxes himself gives off a homosexual tension in his scenes. Hell, the whole reason why the Spartans fall is because of one deformed man who is turned down from joining the phalanx by Leonidas and decides to get revenge by changing sides. The world of the Spartans is not inclusive at all seeing as how the week and sickly at birth are tossed out to die. Spartans are only the strongest and best at surviving and they will not include the multitude of other cultures to enter their midst. I understand that 300 is an ode to the strong man. Where have all of the men who stand up for what is right no matter what the cost gone? Well, they can't stay together anymore because we live in too fractured and niche of a society. There is nothing harder in America than getting a majority of people to come vote for you or to tune in and join a cause. In Spartan times they received the full support of their soldiers and cities and worked as one to do whatever necessary. I understand this, but the extent of the exclusion from the brave and idolized heroes of Sparta comes across as bordering racism and prejudiced. The Nazi's could have made this movie if the Greeks had all blond hair and blue eyes. This is something that I blame partially on Miller for his story and partially on Snyder for not fixing and it is highly noticeable and very problematic for what is otherwise such a strong movie.
Conclusion:
300 does an interesting thing by using history and Miller's story to create an epic and original tale of the death of the old gritty hero. Miller's influence can be felt throughout the film in so small part thanks to Snyder's excellent direction. The cast is superb, especially Lena Headey. Unfortunately the film gives off a very exclusive feel that can easily create the wrong message for the weak minded. Sadly I'm sure that racist groups around the world will make this an annual showing for their members now. Still, it is an excellent macho movie, just try to look past some of the flaws and you'll find the true gem it is.
3.89 out of 5
Wannabe
For quite some time now I have been anxiously awaiting a movie brimming with tough machismo take no shit men. It seems I finally got it and man what a movie it is. Before going any further with this review, let me state the supposed history of the movie as I understand it. The Persians were invading Greece, the Greeks sent 1,000 of their men to meet these, I beleive, 10,000 Persians at a narrow pass. Most of the Greeks upon seeing the Persians flipped out and ran except 300 Spartans who were considered the elite marines of their day since they were trained from the age of 5 to be battle warriors. The Spartans held off the entire Persian army for three days and inspired the rest of the Greeks to return to fight, thus defeating the Persians and saving Greece. That's the history upon which the tale of the recent movie 300 directed by Zack Snyder is based. Now for the history of the movie and some of the unfortunate ties.
The movie 300 is a shot-for-shot adaptation, a la Sin City, of Frank Miller's graphic novel 300 which was published in 1999. Frank Miller's graphic novel won 3 Eisner awards and it was inspired by the movie The 300 Spartans which Frank Miller had seen as a kid. It features all of Frank Miller's favorite themes such as strong women and men that seem slightly mad. Also, lots of gore and an interesting style. Now, the thing to remember is that the graphic novel was published before September 11 and before George Bush was elected. The reason I point this out is because if you watch the movie there will be temptations to point out the multitude of ties and links between George Bush and what he has come to represent and the various ideals and practices of both King Leonidas and Xerxes. Although Frank Miller is not to blame, one can't but help wonder if these ties were intentional on the part of the filmmakers for deciding to make this film shot for shot instead of editing these sections out. Although they may not have been looking for the controversy, I think they welcome it. I will not talk about this though since there is so much more to discuss and the link is so weak that it is really not worth discussing. Although I'm sure many people will at great length and discuss the evil of Hollywood.
Now, story points. Well, the history pretty much says it all. The difference between the history and the creative re-imagining of the film is in its beautiful presentation and storytelling. The Spartans come across knowing there purpose is to fight and they seem to actively seek death at the hands a capable warrior. Sounds like a bunch of crazy trained psycho killers? Well, they are. The film also shows that they love however and the price stoicism and bravery can have in battle when those you love die. The movie has several sub plots and a background for the philosophy of the Spartans which was, get it done doing whatever necessary. While Leonidas is off at war, his wife is back home trying to care for her child and fend off a political opponent looking to keep from sending help to Leonidas. Despite the great stories, everything essentially revolves around the battle scenes and the struggle between Xerxes and Leonidas. This is where the film delivers. Each battle scene shows in excellent detail and cinematography the various fighting and battle techniqus of two clashing cultures. I noticed that the Immortals would jump kick the shields to knock the Spartans off balance while the Spartans would join together as a phalanx to create and impenetrable shield and then push and jab to kill wave after wave of attacker. Sometimes the fights are a little outrageous, but that has more to do with a philosophy of the story that I think is probably more of a detriment. The fight scenes are beautifully done by changing back and forth between slo-mo and regular speed in such a manner as to burn each image in your head as if it were a moving graphic novel. What a beautiful movie and if you ever need to feel macho, this is your chance to feel it. Blood, tits, defiance against the odds, it doesn't get any better.
The acting in this film is excellent. Gerard Butler is great as a screaming half-mad King Leonidas. His look is perhaps the most Greek look of the men in the film. Everyone else's hair looks almost too nice and modern actor to be period reliable. Also, I must give props to every actor in this movie for their ability to freak me out at how incredibly cut they are. If Spartans really looked like these men, it's no wonder they held off 10,000 for 3 days. The rest of the Spartans all do an excellent job. Dominic West as Theron the corrupt politician does a great job of being creepy, menacing, mean, and just plain evil. He does and excellent job and because of that he makes Lena Headey's Queen look that much stronger. If nothing else, Lena Headey is the best performance on the screen. Her character is strong in the face of all and very impressive indeed. She is a terrifying Spartan woman and it made for an excellent death scene later. I look forward to seeing her upcoming television series, The Sarah Connor Chronicles based on the Terminator films in which she will play Sarah Connor. Then there is Xerxes. Ridiculously tall, androgynous, egotastic Xerxes. Rodrigo Santoro does a great job with Xerxes by turning him into a huge mysterious man full of piercings and "otherness". The best part ever though is at the end, when he bleeds. Santoro's face when he realizes he is capable of being killed is astounding. Good acting with a couple of break out performances is my final answer for this film.
Now comes directing. This film is Zack Snyder's sophomoric effort after having come off the generally well-received remake of Dawn of the Dead. Snyder does an excellent job of drawing forth performances from essentially no-namers in a green-screen environment that melds with the lighting and background. This guy has done his homework and knows how to get the most out of his shots and he perfectly mimics Miller's graphic style and verve in his adaptation of his work. Excellent job by Snyder and he shows that he can stay true to the source material of whatever he adapts, something that few in Hollywood have ever been able to do. It is a skill he will need to put to good use for his next film, The Watchmen which is an adaptation of the graphic novel by Alan Moore, perhaps the hardest graphic novel ever to adapt. What works in his favor and doesn't work in his favor is how closely he stays true to the source material. This is the flaw of the film.
In 300 you will be hard pressed to find anything close to an idea of openness and tolerance. As Leonidas says, if those Athenian philosophers and boy-lovers turn down Xerxes offer, then the Spartans can't accept it. The only black men in the film work for Xerxes. Xerxes army is full of "otherness." Deformed monstrosities, scary asian and indian fighters, and Xerxes himself gives off a homosexual tension in his scenes. Hell, the whole reason why the Spartans fall is because of one deformed man who is turned down from joining the phalanx by Leonidas and decides to get revenge by changing sides. The world of the Spartans is not inclusive at all seeing as how the week and sickly at birth are tossed out to die. Spartans are only the strongest and best at surviving and they will not include the multitude of other cultures to enter their midst. I understand that 300 is an ode to the strong man. Where have all of the men who stand up for what is right no matter what the cost gone? Well, they can't stay together anymore because we live in too fractured and niche of a society. There is nothing harder in America than getting a majority of people to come vote for you or to tune in and join a cause. In Spartan times they received the full support of their soldiers and cities and worked as one to do whatever necessary. I understand this, but the extent of the exclusion from the brave and idolized heroes of Sparta comes across as bordering racism and prejudiced. The Nazi's could have made this movie if the Greeks had all blond hair and blue eyes. This is something that I blame partially on Miller for his story and partially on Snyder for not fixing and it is highly noticeable and very problematic for what is otherwise such a strong movie.
Conclusion:
300 does an interesting thing by using history and Miller's story to create an epic and original tale of the death of the old gritty hero. Miller's influence can be felt throughout the film in so small part thanks to Snyder's excellent direction. The cast is superb, especially Lena Headey. Unfortunately the film gives off a very exclusive feel that can easily create the wrong message for the weak minded. Sadly I'm sure that racist groups around the world will make this an annual showing for their members now. Still, it is an excellent macho movie, just try to look past some of the flaws and you'll find the true gem it is.
3.89 out of 5
Wannabe
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Akeelah and the Bee
'Akeelah and the communi-Bee'
Holy crap, what a lame subtitle. Anyway, despite the terribly created subtitle, Akeelah is infinitely better. Akeelah was released back in 2006 to much aplomb and acclaim. It won many awards and critics loved the film. The problem was that it came across as a potentially typical overcoming the odds story of a young black girl with an older mentor, similar to Finding Forrester. And although this movie is a movie of overcoming the odds, it is not done in a typical manner. This film is a great film for many reasons and a mediocre one for others, either way it should have been nominated for more awards, especially at the Oscars where it was a no show for reasons unknown to me.
The story is written and directed by Doug Atchison. A white man writing and directing what on the outside appears to be an African American targeted film as being of the trouble brand, one where I would probably disagree with the majority of critics. However, on the inside the story works as a cross cultural healer. The movie is about a young awkward middle school black girl(Keke Palmer) who doesn't feel like she fits in with her classmates in the slummier and less intellectual sections of Southern California. Her principal forces her into the spelling bee knowing her innate intelligence where she goes on eventually to the state competition with the help from a mentor(Lawrence Fishburne). Although the film centers itself squarely around the young girl's shoulders, it takes on more substance as her actions and the prestige of the Bee come into more play not only for her but for all the people around her. Along the way she not only becomes a ridiculous speller but also a great human being. The brilliance of this movie relies mostly on the script and the subtexts involved as well as the acting. The bee becomes a way to bring prestige and a sense of a tightly bound community to Akeelah's school, family, friends, and neighborhood. The original question that was probably asked by Atchison before writing the script was, how would an event help to revitalize a community? The subtext of the "500 tutors" is a strong one as the community grows in faith and pride in its new prodigy child of Akeelah. Also, the film deals with a lot of the hostile attitudes an event might cause among a community of people who have lost hope in the more intellectual pursuits. Another asset of the script/film is the multicultural casting at the bee. There were a lot of white students, but the last three were all minorities and somehow Atchison does an excellent job of avoiding stereotype as much as possible. Instead of a film about struggling on your own against all the odds, it becomes a film about struggling together to accomplish more than is possible by one's self. Every character is humanized and no character can be hated by the time the movie rolls credits. In the end, Atchison creates a screenplay with great themes, messages, and a positive outlook for a brighter future in a world where the darker movie reigns supreme for being more down-to-earth so to speak. Not on ly is the intellectual and compositional interesting, but Atchison gives a core to his movie by making the movie personal to Akeelah and the relationship with her family and especially her dad and mentor. The relationships and the moments shared and the dialogue help create one of the best feel good movies in a long time. Although the few drawbacks of the script are also some of its strengths. At times the changes in characters are so sudden and the dialogue so brisk that the change doesn't feel believable, but you can still intellectually understand what is happening.
As for the acting, well, Angela Bassett who plays Akeelah's mother is amazing as always. I'm sure she has heard this before but she is one of the strongest black female actresses ever. Also Lawrence Fishburne does an excellent job in the film, although he really needs to play a character that is more sloppy and crazy right now. Too many of his roles are beginning to blur into one giant Morpheous. Interestingly, Fishburne also helped produce this small independent movie. The real breakthrough actors though ar the children. Most directors think and I might have to agree, that directing and getting good performances out of children is next to impossible. Although I have seen better performances by children before, not one single child in the entire film does a bad job with their part. Each role becomes more engrossing as the story touches on it and each actor brings it to life, especially little Keke Palmer. It's very obvious that if she keeps this up she will one day be a leading actress. She's not perfect but the sheer childness and spunk she brings to her role makes her completely recognizable as a middle schooler trying to figure out the larger world. Not only that, but damn can she spell. I have never heard of some of the words in the film and even though she might have memorized just a word, it is still a very large and impressive word. She and Abigail Breslin should have a fight for cutest young actress and see who wins. My bets on Keke since I think she is older.
As for the directing, Atchison does very well drawing the characters out of each scene and showing them in front of the camera. The real problem comes with the cinematagrapher. He really loves lens flares and on screen lighting sources to the point of drawing away my attention so much that it is annoying. Besides that and the occassional character change/klunky dialogue, this movie is well on track. It's too bad it was never nominated for an Oscar, it shouldn't have received one, but it certainly deserved one. By the end of the movie, even though it might feel slightly cliched storywise, you'll still be unable to help but fall in love and root for Akeelah. Thank you Atchison for showing us how words, simple words can in fact change the world we live in for the better and the importance these words can have when strung together in our everyday relationships. Don't be like me and sit around 6 weeks staring at this title. Watch it, be amazed, and feel better than you have in a very long time.
4.4 out of 5
Wannabe
Holy crap, what a lame subtitle. Anyway, despite the terribly created subtitle, Akeelah is infinitely better. Akeelah was released back in 2006 to much aplomb and acclaim. It won many awards and critics loved the film. The problem was that it came across as a potentially typical overcoming the odds story of a young black girl with an older mentor, similar to Finding Forrester. And although this movie is a movie of overcoming the odds, it is not done in a typical manner. This film is a great film for many reasons and a mediocre one for others, either way it should have been nominated for more awards, especially at the Oscars where it was a no show for reasons unknown to me.
The story is written and directed by Doug Atchison. A white man writing and directing what on the outside appears to be an African American targeted film as being of the trouble brand, one where I would probably disagree with the majority of critics. However, on the inside the story works as a cross cultural healer. The movie is about a young awkward middle school black girl(Keke Palmer) who doesn't feel like she fits in with her classmates in the slummier and less intellectual sections of Southern California. Her principal forces her into the spelling bee knowing her innate intelligence where she goes on eventually to the state competition with the help from a mentor(Lawrence Fishburne). Although the film centers itself squarely around the young girl's shoulders, it takes on more substance as her actions and the prestige of the Bee come into more play not only for her but for all the people around her. Along the way she not only becomes a ridiculous speller but also a great human being. The brilliance of this movie relies mostly on the script and the subtexts involved as well as the acting. The bee becomes a way to bring prestige and a sense of a tightly bound community to Akeelah's school, family, friends, and neighborhood. The original question that was probably asked by Atchison before writing the script was, how would an event help to revitalize a community? The subtext of the "500 tutors" is a strong one as the community grows in faith and pride in its new prodigy child of Akeelah. Also, the film deals with a lot of the hostile attitudes an event might cause among a community of people who have lost hope in the more intellectual pursuits. Another asset of the script/film is the multicultural casting at the bee. There were a lot of white students, but the last three were all minorities and somehow Atchison does an excellent job of avoiding stereotype as much as possible. Instead of a film about struggling on your own against all the odds, it becomes a film about struggling together to accomplish more than is possible by one's self. Every character is humanized and no character can be hated by the time the movie rolls credits. In the end, Atchison creates a screenplay with great themes, messages, and a positive outlook for a brighter future in a world where the darker movie reigns supreme for being more down-to-earth so to speak. Not on ly is the intellectual and compositional interesting, but Atchison gives a core to his movie by making the movie personal to Akeelah and the relationship with her family and especially her dad and mentor. The relationships and the moments shared and the dialogue help create one of the best feel good movies in a long time. Although the few drawbacks of the script are also some of its strengths. At times the changes in characters are so sudden and the dialogue so brisk that the change doesn't feel believable, but you can still intellectually understand what is happening.
As for the acting, well, Angela Bassett who plays Akeelah's mother is amazing as always. I'm sure she has heard this before but she is one of the strongest black female actresses ever. Also Lawrence Fishburne does an excellent job in the film, although he really needs to play a character that is more sloppy and crazy right now. Too many of his roles are beginning to blur into one giant Morpheous. Interestingly, Fishburne also helped produce this small independent movie. The real breakthrough actors though ar the children. Most directors think and I might have to agree, that directing and getting good performances out of children is next to impossible. Although I have seen better performances by children before, not one single child in the entire film does a bad job with their part. Each role becomes more engrossing as the story touches on it and each actor brings it to life, especially little Keke Palmer. It's very obvious that if she keeps this up she will one day be a leading actress. She's not perfect but the sheer childness and spunk she brings to her role makes her completely recognizable as a middle schooler trying to figure out the larger world. Not only that, but damn can she spell. I have never heard of some of the words in the film and even though she might have memorized just a word, it is still a very large and impressive word. She and Abigail Breslin should have a fight for cutest young actress and see who wins. My bets on Keke since I think she is older.
As for the directing, Atchison does very well drawing the characters out of each scene and showing them in front of the camera. The real problem comes with the cinematagrapher. He really loves lens flares and on screen lighting sources to the point of drawing away my attention so much that it is annoying. Besides that and the occassional character change/klunky dialogue, this movie is well on track. It's too bad it was never nominated for an Oscar, it shouldn't have received one, but it certainly deserved one. By the end of the movie, even though it might feel slightly cliched storywise, you'll still be unable to help but fall in love and root for Akeelah. Thank you Atchison for showing us how words, simple words can in fact change the world we live in for the better and the importance these words can have when strung together in our everyday relationships. Don't be like me and sit around 6 weeks staring at this title. Watch it, be amazed, and feel better than you have in a very long time.
4.4 out of 5
Wannabe
Monday, March 5, 2007
The Quick and the Dead
'The Quirky Dead'
I love bargains. I tend to be suckered into them usually. Case in point, I was in a Shop Rite recently when I came across an old childhood favorite in the 2 for 10$ bin. I had trouble choosing a companion piece to this film, so I perused the few other films in the bin and eventually ran across a movie that looked like a decent Western, which I haven't seen in a while. Upon further investigation, I found out that the film was a remake that starred Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, and a young Leonardo Di Caprio and early career work of Russell Crowe. It became even stranger when browsing the back of the case I found out the movie had been directed by the esteemed Sam Raimi of Evil Dead and Spider Man fame. So, having found this weird rare movie, possibly a gem, I settled and walked out buying The Quick and the Dead and The Adventures of Milo and Otis...don't you dare laugh...stop it...stop! *draws gun and fires two rounds*
There, now anyway, The Quick and the Dead is one of the bigger early works of Raimi and is based on a script by John Sayles. Apparently it was more of an indie flick which makes sense that was co-produced by Sharon Stone who personally paid for Leonardo Di Caprio and who insisted and got Russell Crowe his first main role in an American film. The movie is based on another movie by the same name made in 1963 and itself looks pretty promising, which was based on a famous Western novel by the great Western genre creator Louis L'Amour. I have no idea is actually based on or pays homage to previous versions of the film, but I hope it is the story because it is a damn good one.
The premise of the movie is a familiar one of revenge, except the person seeking it is a female. Add to it that she comes into town right when the town is beginning to host a shootout tournament. What makes this film great is that every character has a definite personality and calling card, giving each duel a sense of fun, as if watching a great wrestling match between two pros, except they both have guns and gold teeth. Unfortunately, the duels become fairly hum drum too quickly as it is incredibly easy to see who will win and who will lose on the way to the climax. There is a good twist, but it can be predicted as well. The other problem with the story is either the actors cast of the ridiculous dialogue. Sometimes, the actors shine as in Hackman and Crowe's character, at other times you want to groan from the stereotypical lines and old styled delivery. Also, the whole thing is so sad because it shows such great potential, especially in creativity, but then it collapses for a more generic plot. Also, and this could be partially due to the commercialized aspects of Sharon Stone producing or Sam Raimi's uneven directing, but the beginning and end of the movie are clunky and don't hold up as much as they should. Seriously, the town explodes and no one gets upset or questions the hero's about this? Yay dictator dead and who cares about where we live? Whatever. If only they remade this movie to be a giant tournament showdown with a more ensemble approach so anyone could die at any moment, really adding a sense of What if? before and after each fight. Ah well, sie la vie.
As for the acting, as mentioned before it is very uneven. Russell Crowe as the former criminal turned reverend/being forced to fight for his life, does a really good job. Not as good as his other future Academy award roles, but a great turn nonetheless. If anyone wants to know his secret, its his eyes. His eyes can be more penetrating, soft, or whatever is necessary than anyone else's I've ever seen. That and he also does a really good job of preparing himself for roles. Hackman, the workaholic actor that he is also puts in a brilliant turn as the sadistic villain governor oppressor. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Sharon Stone. For some reason the film feels like a giant look at a pissy Sharon Stone in hot stylish western clothes. It is sad because there are moments where she becomes believable as her character, but those quickly vanish like dust in the noon day sun. The other smaller roles are interesting usually and sometimes painful, but there is a couple of good turns such as the one by Keith David or the one by Gary Sinise. Overall, I would say the acting is decent for most of the movie, its just a shame that most of it should fall on the shoulders of Sharon Stone who quickly becomes the weakest link in the movie.
As for directing, well, Sam Raimi is a venerated director who has openly discussed his obsession and love of Hitchcock. In this film he does several great things and several really silly things that seem to balance each other out. For one thing, he takes a page from the chapter of High Noon and does an excellent job of making the town clock a character in the film in its own right. It is never left out of any fight. It oppresses the characters and reminds them of the game they are forced into playing, so it is only fitting it be destroyed later. Another thing that Raimi does quite well is he manages to make each duel fresh and interesting despite knowing the outcome. He rarely repeats shots from the duel sequences and uses reveals in such a way that would easily make the audience question the outcome if only the script wasn't as predictable. Lastly, he does a great job of capturing the poor, down and dirty feel of the movie. This is completely necessary since the film is really a symbol of the depravity of man and the possibility of forgiveness and restoration to grace. The problem of Raimi directing this film is I think he enjoys the cheese. Several really cheesy one-liners and lots of cheesy scenes put together in an awkwardly edited way detract from the intensity and caring of the characters. This seems to be a general thing among his films and it always annoys me except in Army of Darkness in which the entire script is based around this sense of humor. His other problem is that he likes to film everything too bright and he enjoys using some really cheap special effects when possible. I admire that, a man on a small budget using his trade effectively, but he does it in every film usually. The film is too bright which is a mistake on his part because it makes it harder to take the depravity of man seriously. I would have to say, that even though I like him, his best films to date are A Simple Plan and Army of Darkness because they get the mood and dialogue just right in combination with the cinematography and actors.
Conclusion:
The film is interesting if approached from a Brechtian angle and its well worth seeing some first timers going up on screen against some seasoned pros. The movie is also very entertaining and Raimi always has a great sense of excitement and fun in his camera work. Unfortunately Sharon Stone is a real drawback and the story comes across with Raimi's direction at times being too hokey and ridiculous. If you like Westerns or just want to see an interesting film, then definately check it out. If you are only interested in seeing the great films in the world, then feel free to pass it by and pick up, say, The Adventures of Milo and Otis? That's it! *Draws gun, fires through reader into glasses at the bar behind him and slowly walks out the corral. His boots clinking with each step as his stirrups hit the floor. He stops and stares back at the slowly sinking reader, grasping at his chest and rocking back and forth in a mock attempt at breath* I told you not to laugh. *With that, he's gone and disappeared into the hazy bright background from which he came, leaving a small playing card behind on which is scribbled*
3.4 out of 5
Wannabe
I love bargains. I tend to be suckered into them usually. Case in point, I was in a Shop Rite recently when I came across an old childhood favorite in the 2 for 10$ bin. I had trouble choosing a companion piece to this film, so I perused the few other films in the bin and eventually ran across a movie that looked like a decent Western, which I haven't seen in a while. Upon further investigation, I found out that the film was a remake that starred Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, and a young Leonardo Di Caprio and early career work of Russell Crowe. It became even stranger when browsing the back of the case I found out the movie had been directed by the esteemed Sam Raimi of Evil Dead and Spider Man fame. So, having found this weird rare movie, possibly a gem, I settled and walked out buying The Quick and the Dead and The Adventures of Milo and Otis...don't you dare laugh...stop it...stop! *draws gun and fires two rounds*
There, now anyway, The Quick and the Dead is one of the bigger early works of Raimi and is based on a script by John Sayles. Apparently it was more of an indie flick which makes sense that was co-produced by Sharon Stone who personally paid for Leonardo Di Caprio and who insisted and got Russell Crowe his first main role in an American film. The movie is based on another movie by the same name made in 1963 and itself looks pretty promising, which was based on a famous Western novel by the great Western genre creator Louis L'Amour. I have no idea is actually based on or pays homage to previous versions of the film, but I hope it is the story because it is a damn good one.
The premise of the movie is a familiar one of revenge, except the person seeking it is a female. Add to it that she comes into town right when the town is beginning to host a shootout tournament. What makes this film great is that every character has a definite personality and calling card, giving each duel a sense of fun, as if watching a great wrestling match between two pros, except they both have guns and gold teeth. Unfortunately, the duels become fairly hum drum too quickly as it is incredibly easy to see who will win and who will lose on the way to the climax. There is a good twist, but it can be predicted as well. The other problem with the story is either the actors cast of the ridiculous dialogue. Sometimes, the actors shine as in Hackman and Crowe's character, at other times you want to groan from the stereotypical lines and old styled delivery. Also, the whole thing is so sad because it shows such great potential, especially in creativity, but then it collapses for a more generic plot. Also, and this could be partially due to the commercialized aspects of Sharon Stone producing or Sam Raimi's uneven directing, but the beginning and end of the movie are clunky and don't hold up as much as they should. Seriously, the town explodes and no one gets upset or questions the hero's about this? Yay dictator dead and who cares about where we live? Whatever. If only they remade this movie to be a giant tournament showdown with a more ensemble approach so anyone could die at any moment, really adding a sense of What if? before and after each fight. Ah well, sie la vie.
As for the acting, as mentioned before it is very uneven. Russell Crowe as the former criminal turned reverend/being forced to fight for his life, does a really good job. Not as good as his other future Academy award roles, but a great turn nonetheless. If anyone wants to know his secret, its his eyes. His eyes can be more penetrating, soft, or whatever is necessary than anyone else's I've ever seen. That and he also does a really good job of preparing himself for roles. Hackman, the workaholic actor that he is also puts in a brilliant turn as the sadistic villain governor oppressor. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Sharon Stone. For some reason the film feels like a giant look at a pissy Sharon Stone in hot stylish western clothes. It is sad because there are moments where she becomes believable as her character, but those quickly vanish like dust in the noon day sun. The other smaller roles are interesting usually and sometimes painful, but there is a couple of good turns such as the one by Keith David or the one by Gary Sinise. Overall, I would say the acting is decent for most of the movie, its just a shame that most of it should fall on the shoulders of Sharon Stone who quickly becomes the weakest link in the movie.
As for directing, well, Sam Raimi is a venerated director who has openly discussed his obsession and love of Hitchcock. In this film he does several great things and several really silly things that seem to balance each other out. For one thing, he takes a page from the chapter of High Noon and does an excellent job of making the town clock a character in the film in its own right. It is never left out of any fight. It oppresses the characters and reminds them of the game they are forced into playing, so it is only fitting it be destroyed later. Another thing that Raimi does quite well is he manages to make each duel fresh and interesting despite knowing the outcome. He rarely repeats shots from the duel sequences and uses reveals in such a way that would easily make the audience question the outcome if only the script wasn't as predictable. Lastly, he does a great job of capturing the poor, down and dirty feel of the movie. This is completely necessary since the film is really a symbol of the depravity of man and the possibility of forgiveness and restoration to grace. The problem of Raimi directing this film is I think he enjoys the cheese. Several really cheesy one-liners and lots of cheesy scenes put together in an awkwardly edited way detract from the intensity and caring of the characters. This seems to be a general thing among his films and it always annoys me except in Army of Darkness in which the entire script is based around this sense of humor. His other problem is that he likes to film everything too bright and he enjoys using some really cheap special effects when possible. I admire that, a man on a small budget using his trade effectively, but he does it in every film usually. The film is too bright which is a mistake on his part because it makes it harder to take the depravity of man seriously. I would have to say, that even though I like him, his best films to date are A Simple Plan and Army of Darkness because they get the mood and dialogue just right in combination with the cinematography and actors.
Conclusion:
The film is interesting if approached from a Brechtian angle and its well worth seeing some first timers going up on screen against some seasoned pros. The movie is also very entertaining and Raimi always has a great sense of excitement and fun in his camera work. Unfortunately Sharon Stone is a real drawback and the story comes across with Raimi's direction at times being too hokey and ridiculous. If you like Westerns or just want to see an interesting film, then definately check it out. If you are only interested in seeing the great films in the world, then feel free to pass it by and pick up, say, The Adventures of Milo and Otis? That's it! *Draws gun, fires through reader into glasses at the bar behind him and slowly walks out the corral. His boots clinking with each step as his stirrups hit the floor. He stops and stares back at the slowly sinking reader, grasping at his chest and rocking back and forth in a mock attempt at breath* I told you not to laugh. *With that, he's gone and disappeared into the hazy bright background from which he came, leaving a small playing card behind on which is scribbled*
3.4 out of 5
Wannabe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
