'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
Sunday, March 11, 2007
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
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Musings on TNMT the Original Series
Does anyone remember their childhood? Mine was full of great saturday and early weekday mornings tuning in to watch some cool cartoons. Anyone else remember James Bond Jr.? Well on an impulse, I went ahead and rediscovered one of these old cartoon favorites, otherwise known as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. After having reviewed the first two seasons, I can say that the show is still surprisingly good. For one thing, the show maintains a great sense of continuity in each episode and the writers make use of each new small change to the best of their ability. Unfortunately the turtles themselves are more annoying than cool now at my age and Shredder comes off as whiney. Bebop and Rocksteady are morons that never pose a threat, but besides all of this there is a genius behind the episodes. Not only does the show have the turtles eating pizza and kicking ninja butt, it also contains a bunch of lessons on taking care of the environment and makes constant reference to previous pop culture. Out of the two seasons I saw direct correlations in the series to Frankenstein and other old horror films. In fact, I didn't remember this, but apparently the turtles love watching old horror movies as well and chowin down on a great pie. The show is different from the recent series and the comics which have a darker and more dangerous feel in that it is very bright and lighthearted. The best part of the series is rediscovering Kranggs relationship with Shredder and how he completely humiliates him. Since the show was heavily censored due to it being for kids and all, the bad guys are always either robots or mutants, which since they aren't human made it okay to make the fights more violent. It's also enjoyable to figure out the environmental take of the series which constantly re-enforces the idea that technology itself is neither good nor bad, it depends on how you use it. This is best exemplified in the evil of Shredder/krangg. They constantly build evil machines to try and takeover people or kill things and fail. Whereas other technology is put to better use such as Donatello's various and myriad inventions. The best episode of the first two episodes that details this struggle is the episode about REX-1 the robocop knockoff where entire robocop type terminators are made by shredder and the one good cop model takes them on as best as it can. The constant references to geeky pop culture is made not only in passing dialogue, but also in various art designs that I find really surprising because I never recognized any of these things as a kid but looking back on it I am given a new depth to explore with the series. I truly believe that this series is one of the few true great cartoon series since it means and conveys different things to different generations of people. Therefore people, please comment back and discuss the series and things you noticed. Your child hood memories and even some of your favorite quotes. So far here are two of my favorite quotes;
"Being a 7 foot tall robot means never having to say your sorry."-REX-1
"A Micro-rocket. Brilliant!" - Dregg
Also, hit me up with your favorite characters from the series and why. Here's mine.
5. Baxtor-yea he sucked as a human but he invented mowsers and then became an awesome Fly mutant which significantly increased his shooting aim. Too bad he was kicked out of the universe forever by the end of the second season.
4. Krangg - hell yea a giant talking brain with a warble of one of the three stooges. Who also happens to own a technological palace the size of three football stadiums and who resides in his technologically advanced metallic body that can mutate matter and stuff.
3.Bebop - it's true that Bebop and Rocksteady are terrible thugs who always foul up, but Bebop carries grenades and a giant bone necklace around his neck. Plus he has those great purple 80's glasses/visors. Also, he is a better fighter than Rocksteady, he is harder than Rocksteady in the old-school videogame and in the episode where they attack the turtles in the sewers, Bebop is the only one who gets a couple of good knocks on the turtles.
2. Splinter-I'm sorry, but what's not cool about this guy? He can "sense" things in the future and distance related. He is a former ninja master. He's a giant mutant rat who has four easy to train and fairly straight forward turtle ninjas to do hi bidding. His only drawback is that sometimes, his "enigmnatic sayings" are either not very enigmatic or really don't make a damn lick of sense because they are restating themselves. But oh well, he is a rat and he has to have one flaw.
1. April O'Neal - I never realized it, but I guess I owe my appreciation of the female body to the always yellow clad April. She's a struggling reporter who fights with turtles and protects them from a hateful public. Yea, okay, Spiderman knock off, why care? JUST LOOK AT HER CHEST! Wow! I had forgotten how much I enjoyed watching the show as a child. Also, she does the whole Catwoman thing in one of her episodes as well. She was my original archetype for the hot woman and for that there will always be a place in my dvd library for her.
If you want to know why Shredder isn't included, its because in the cartoon series he is really whiney and completely not dangerous. In the old movies, heck yea! He ruled with his sharp suited self. Easy shave and all. Anyhow, I look forward to reading your thoughts and favorites. peace!
Wannabe
"Being a 7 foot tall robot means never having to say your sorry."-REX-1
"A Micro-rocket. Brilliant!" - Dregg
Also, hit me up with your favorite characters from the series and why. Here's mine.
5. Baxtor-yea he sucked as a human but he invented mowsers and then became an awesome Fly mutant which significantly increased his shooting aim. Too bad he was kicked out of the universe forever by the end of the second season.
4. Krangg - hell yea a giant talking brain with a warble of one of the three stooges. Who also happens to own a technological palace the size of three football stadiums and who resides in his technologically advanced metallic body that can mutate matter and stuff.
3.Bebop - it's true that Bebop and Rocksteady are terrible thugs who always foul up, but Bebop carries grenades and a giant bone necklace around his neck. Plus he has those great purple 80's glasses/visors. Also, he is a better fighter than Rocksteady, he is harder than Rocksteady in the old-school videogame and in the episode where they attack the turtles in the sewers, Bebop is the only one who gets a couple of good knocks on the turtles.
2. Splinter-I'm sorry, but what's not cool about this guy? He can "sense" things in the future and distance related. He is a former ninja master. He's a giant mutant rat who has four easy to train and fairly straight forward turtle ninjas to do hi bidding. His only drawback is that sometimes, his "enigmnatic sayings" are either not very enigmatic or really don't make a damn lick of sense because they are restating themselves. But oh well, he is a rat and he has to have one flaw.
1. April O'Neal - I never realized it, but I guess I owe my appreciation of the female body to the always yellow clad April. She's a struggling reporter who fights with turtles and protects them from a hateful public. Yea, okay, Spiderman knock off, why care? JUST LOOK AT HER CHEST! Wow! I had forgotten how much I enjoyed watching the show as a child. Also, she does the whole Catwoman thing in one of her episodes as well. She was my original archetype for the hot woman and for that there will always be a place in my dvd library for her.
If you want to know why Shredder isn't included, its because in the cartoon series he is really whiney and completely not dangerous. In the old movies, heck yea! He ruled with his sharp suited self. Easy shave and all. Anyhow, I look forward to reading your thoughts and favorites. peace!
Wannabe
Monday, February 26, 2007
The Oscars
Well, I was quite surprised. Normally the Oscars are hosted by someone attempting to be funny by telling a bunch of really bad jokes and things and generally mucking it up. Ellen Degeneres did an excellent job though of moving the show along and not being annoying. In fact, she was surprisingly pc about everything and her good slightly quirky nature made this years show a lot of fun to watch. PLus they had some really cool performances and alternatative fringe groups such as a sound effects choir. This year's show was great to watch. Degeneres added that required effect of class back to the Academy Awards which helped make it the prestigious award it is, good job Ellen! As for the awards itself, well, there were a few shockers but nothing that wasn't too hard to figure out. So here we go.
One of the biggest surprises was Pan's Labryinth which won 3 awards for best cinematography, art direction, and makeup but lost in the category of best foreign film to the recently released powerhouse, The Lives of Others. I'm not saying that this was a bad choice, just odd considering how much praise and how many awards Labryinth garnered. In the sound department these awards were used to comfort those who lost out on the bigger race of movie picture. Best Sound Editing = Letters From Iwo Jima which was certainly deserved; Best Sound Mixing = Dreamgirls; Best Score = Babel; and Best Song = the song from An Inconvenient Truth? Honestly, this was probably the most insulting since I don't remember being impressed with that movie and its music whereas I'm positive the same cannot be said for Dreamgirls. Also, An Inconvenient Truth won best documentary which is really overkill, yes its good education material but Jesus Camp that I reviewed earlier might be a better documentary in terms of helping us to try to see each other or understand our neighbors. Another surprise of the night was the loss of Eddie Murphy for best supporting actor to Alan Arkin who honestly doesn't deserve it. He was good, just not around long enough. So yes, Eddie has been robbed of his one chance for Oscar gold, now go put on a fat suit and sell out for more money.
Then of course there were those that were supposedly guarenteed wins that became guaranteed. Jennifer Hudson of Dreamgirls for Best Supporting Actress, Forest Whitaker for Best Actor, Helen Mirren for Best Actress, oh yea and Marty finally got it. Martin Scorcese got his Best Directing and Best Motion Picture all in one night. He was the favored one, but there was a lot of speculation leading up to it that he could have lost yet again. Now Scorcese fans, you can relax, the man has his one required Oscar. The Departed also won for Best Film Editing, which is surprising since Babel was the favorite on that category and I don't really remember the editing being particularly amazing, although looking back at the well-crafted story it was, maybe it was worth nominating but I still think Babel was better in that category. And then of course the real shocker, Happy Feet beat Cars for Best Animated Feature! John (Lasseter)! Say it ain't so John!
Other awards included the best costume design by Marie Antoinette, a rather same old but with a rock glam flair. Then William Monahan for his screenplay The Departed for best Adapted Screenplay. Also Michael Arndt for best original screenplay on Little Miss Sunshine, which completely didn't deserve to be at the Oscars this year. I am so bitter about that damn movie. Best Visual Effects (aka movie that sold out story for cgi) Pirates of the Caribbean: The Further Adventures of Johnny Depp. And then the shorts which I will have to pick up later, The Danish Poet for Best Animated Short; West Bank Story, which looked hilarious from the clip they showed, for Best Live Action Short; and The Blood of Yingzhou District for Best Documentary Short.
My surprise consists of how little awards favorites such as Dreamgirls, Babel, and The Queen raked in. Letters From Iwo Jima, despite being good has been on life support ever since the crippling Flags of Our Fathers came out. Besides The Departed had earned the most money of all the nominees and everyone knew it was time for Marty to get something. But the lack of awards for the other three is very surprising since they were so heavily nominated. The other huge surprise is how well Little Miss Sunshine did at the awards, besides being only a mediocre movie and its own genre as a dark comedy and the usual dislike of comedies at the Oscars. At least they recognized a lot of what made Pan's Labryinth great if nothing else. Maybe next year will be a better year for Bill Condon, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, John Lasseter, Stephen Frears, and Guillermo Del Toro, except now I don't feel as bad for del Toro.
Wannabe
P.S. The whole thing about Letters From Iwo Jima and being on life support is the fact that Clint Eastwood angered a lot of people by overhyping Flags of Our Fathers which failed miserably in box office and critical praise. After that he released Letters From Iwo Jima which not many people were inclined to want to watch and potentially like another war movie of his having just seen his last one.
One of the biggest surprises was Pan's Labryinth which won 3 awards for best cinematography, art direction, and makeup but lost in the category of best foreign film to the recently released powerhouse, The Lives of Others. I'm not saying that this was a bad choice, just odd considering how much praise and how many awards Labryinth garnered. In the sound department these awards were used to comfort those who lost out on the bigger race of movie picture. Best Sound Editing = Letters From Iwo Jima which was certainly deserved; Best Sound Mixing = Dreamgirls; Best Score = Babel; and Best Song = the song from An Inconvenient Truth? Honestly, this was probably the most insulting since I don't remember being impressed with that movie and its music whereas I'm positive the same cannot be said for Dreamgirls. Also, An Inconvenient Truth won best documentary which is really overkill, yes its good education material but Jesus Camp that I reviewed earlier might be a better documentary in terms of helping us to try to see each other or understand our neighbors. Another surprise of the night was the loss of Eddie Murphy for best supporting actor to Alan Arkin who honestly doesn't deserve it. He was good, just not around long enough. So yes, Eddie has been robbed of his one chance for Oscar gold, now go put on a fat suit and sell out for more money.
Then of course there were those that were supposedly guarenteed wins that became guaranteed. Jennifer Hudson of Dreamgirls for Best Supporting Actress, Forest Whitaker for Best Actor, Helen Mirren for Best Actress, oh yea and Marty finally got it. Martin Scorcese got his Best Directing and Best Motion Picture all in one night. He was the favored one, but there was a lot of speculation leading up to it that he could have lost yet again. Now Scorcese fans, you can relax, the man has his one required Oscar. The Departed also won for Best Film Editing, which is surprising since Babel was the favorite on that category and I don't really remember the editing being particularly amazing, although looking back at the well-crafted story it was, maybe it was worth nominating but I still think Babel was better in that category. And then of course the real shocker, Happy Feet beat Cars for Best Animated Feature! John (Lasseter)! Say it ain't so John!
Other awards included the best costume design by Marie Antoinette, a rather same old but with a rock glam flair. Then William Monahan for his screenplay The Departed for best Adapted Screenplay. Also Michael Arndt for best original screenplay on Little Miss Sunshine, which completely didn't deserve to be at the Oscars this year. I am so bitter about that damn movie. Best Visual Effects (aka movie that sold out story for cgi) Pirates of the Caribbean: The Further Adventures of Johnny Depp. And then the shorts which I will have to pick up later, The Danish Poet for Best Animated Short; West Bank Story, which looked hilarious from the clip they showed, for Best Live Action Short; and The Blood of Yingzhou District for Best Documentary Short.
My surprise consists of how little awards favorites such as Dreamgirls, Babel, and The Queen raked in. Letters From Iwo Jima, despite being good has been on life support ever since the crippling Flags of Our Fathers came out. Besides The Departed had earned the most money of all the nominees and everyone knew it was time for Marty to get something. But the lack of awards for the other three is very surprising since they were so heavily nominated. The other huge surprise is how well Little Miss Sunshine did at the awards, besides being only a mediocre movie and its own genre as a dark comedy and the usual dislike of comedies at the Oscars. At least they recognized a lot of what made Pan's Labryinth great if nothing else. Maybe next year will be a better year for Bill Condon, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, John Lasseter, Stephen Frears, and Guillermo Del Toro, except now I don't feel as bad for del Toro.
Wannabe
P.S. The whole thing about Letters From Iwo Jima and being on life support is the fact that Clint Eastwood angered a lot of people by overhyping Flags of Our Fathers which failed miserably in box office and critical praise. After that he released Letters From Iwo Jima which not many people were inclined to want to watch and potentially like another war movie of his having just seen his last one.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Letters From Iwo Jima
'Letters should be sent to every soldier'
When I first started this blog, one of the original reviews was for the widely hyped and yet disappointing Clint Eastwood flick Flags of Our Fathers concerned with the American side of World War II and in particular the bloody battle on the small island known as Iwo Jima. It was known at the time that he had filmed a second movie as a companion piece to that film and Letters from Iwo Jima is it. Except for one difference, it's damn good.
The first film came out and flopped. It fell under its own anti-war anti-media spin self and died in a heap somewhere holding a small miniature flag that is usually reserved for drinks at a martini bar. Letters, instead of going for a very flashy experience, is much better written, better acted, and about ten times as interesting in what it portrays and in what it has to say concerning war. Eastwood is known for discussing what it means to be a hero and this film explores the acts of a hero in much more depth in a manner that is well done. At moments it seems preachy, but it is well executed. When this movie was released in a rush after the flop of Flags of Our Fathers, I was skeptical. When it got nominated for an Oscar, I was pissed because I have honestly never seen a film of Eastwood's that I felt was deserving of the amount of accolades it received. Now, I have to agree. It earned that nomination for Best Picture.
Letters From Iwo Jima was plotted out by Paul Haggis and his apprentice Iris Yamashita with Yamashita actually writing the screenplay. At one point this would have been gleefully welcomed, but after seeing two bleh movies Haggis has worked on, this became the scariest point. The good news is that Yamashita scripts a better structure and screenplay for Clint this time out than Haggis did for Flags. The movie is all in subtitles and does not demote itself to dubbing thankfully. The film is nowhere as flashy as Flags which had a lot of flashbacks and scenes that seemed out of order and jumbled requiring the audience to put the pieces together but often times being unable to do so. Letters still uses flashbacks, except it provides a better context for them such as when a soldier is reading a letter and it drifts back to his memories. Or when they are writing a leter or talking to someone about it. These contexts are essential and provide necessary information about the characters that humanize the japanese side of the war. The other great thing about the script is it goes out of its way to make itself understood by a more modern audience. Japan at the time had a fanatical alliance with the Emperor of Japan hence the popularity of kamikaze bombers and the like. The film's main character is a Japanese baker who is recently married, sent off, and told to die for his country. A man who doesn't really care about the Emperor while surrounded by those that follow blindly. Although there is some anti-government rebellion inherent in this, Yamashita and Eastwood don't emphasize it nearly as much as Flags did and it pays off. Yamashita redirects the story to focus not on questioning government, but more to how to behave ones self in the middle of a hellish battle. All the characters have to balance their senses of honor, skepticism, and humanity in the terrible battle for Iwo Jima. The best way to characterize this idea is the one presented by the Japanese blind captain, "Do what is right because it is the right thing to do." Yamashita balances each character well and by focusing on only a couple of characters and by giving the main one an epic journey over the small island of Iwo Jima, the audience becomes familiar with all of the aspects of that war, including the gruesome scenes of mass suicide by grenade. It is a beautiful and well-made script with great character arcs for actors to enjoy, which they certainly do.
When it comes to acting, the only person in the film most western audiences might recognize is Ken Watanabe whose previous credits include The Last Samurai, Memoirs of a Geisha, and Batman Begins. Watanabe plays the new general in charge of defending the island Iwo Jima from oncoming American forces, but his troops don't trust him because he supposedly went to America and might be a friend of America. Watanabe has always seemed a fairly wooden actor to me with a great smile. I'm sure he'll make a great grandad one day, but he has never grabbed and held my attention. He performs his job well and his character comes to life, but it still seems...distant somehow. He'd make a great wise man character as terrible as that is of me to say. Thankfully, he is not the only main actor in this film. In fact, he is the second most with the first being Kazunari Ninomiya as Saigo. Where the hell has this kid been? He's amazing! Every suggestion for each battle and every line he delivers is great. He goes from being the clutzy screwup soldier that everyone knows will die to a true war hero. Ninomiya's performance is not only eye-catching but it grabs the heart of the audience and forces you to care and empathize with the Japanese and their plight of their own draft. Other actors that fill out the parts include Ryo Kase as Shimizu, Tsuyoshi Ihara as Baron Nishi, and Shido Nakamura as Lieutenant Ito. All of these last three performances are done splendidly, especially Nakamura's character. His character and his journey was a very pleasant surprise that didn't end the way I thought it would and is a great credit to Nakamura and Yamashita and Eastwood. I don't know why, but Eastwood is able to bring out much better acting from these Japanese actors than from English speaking ones.
Now for directing. Well, Clint is up to his old tricks. By graying the living hell out of Iwo Jima the movie becomes about as close as you can get to black and white without actually being black and white, but then gets mixed with flashbacks to better days and events in color that offset the dreary and depressing conditions of the moment. This is all well and good and is not orginal in any way since it was done before on Flags and before that on Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List. The real interesting moment of the film is the rocks. Yes, the rocks. Supposedly Eastwood came up with the idea for both films and what they would be after visiting Iwo Jima and seeing the kind of hellish conditions the Japanese lived in to fight their enemeies. We are talking about self dug interlocking caverns that could collapse at any second and where dysentery and other fun diseases ran rampant. All of these things are shown in the movie, even the grenade suicide scenes. The lack of daylight once the Americans attack and the feeling of being cramped into a small space from which to stand your ground and fight is accented beautifully and really gets into the mindset of the spectator. Also, I was really impressed with the fighting sequences. I mean, I know its Eastwood and Spielberg, so I shouldn't be too surprised, but there are some really well done and well timed explosion sequences from plane gunfire that brought that scenario to life more than I have ever seen. Maybe it has just been a while. Also, this time out for whatever reason, Eastwood's directing style works significantly better than his last attempt with the actors. The real problem comes in how the film is presented. The film is shown in subtitles giving it an art house feel. The problem is that the subtitles are all white which in a film that is close to black and white, a lot of the subtitles get lost in the cinematagraphy and there are literally whole phrases which I could not read. I know some people don't like subtitles, but this is the first time I have seen a film where I hated the subtitles themselves in how they are presented! The other big problem is sometimes the cinematagraphy is too simple. When a couple of character come out of a cave into a bigger cave, the camera is occassionally only showing the wall behind them which is so simple it becomes slightly boring despite the amazing performances and great action sequences. Now this is only in a couple of shots mind you, but it is still noticeable and will keep this film from garnering any cinematagraphy awards.
Conclusion:
Now for the subtitle I created earlier. I feel this movie might be the most important movie for American soldiers to see. We as a country ask a lot of the soldiers at war, especially considering the conditions. The truth is, that we enjoy criticizing and critiquing their behavior so much that we don't ever think to offer an alternative. Instead of being merely a film concerned with critiquing soldiers and their sometimes inhumane actions, it gives an alternative for soldiers to lead by example. When on a battlefield, no matter how much you hate the other side, when someone gives up or is shot, you try to help them and capture them. The difference between the portrayal of Americans by Japan and what they really are is done quite well. Why is this necessary? Because in a war like in Iraq there needs to be a humanizing of both sides for the people to understand why to act humanely. If we just assume that all Muslims are evil and not to be tolerated, then they will assume the same about Christians. The war in Iraq is not supposed to be a holy war, it is a govermental war in which as soldiers they are expected to put aside their differences of religion and prejudices and act professional. With the fun of Abu Ghraib being one of our sad public misdemeanors, there are many other small injustices going on in Iraq. Now while the Iraqis no longer have a government and we are merely fighting rebels and Al Qaeda operatives, they are still human no matter how much dehumanizing we attribute. Perhaps if we make ourselves seem more human in Iraq and Afghanistan and treat them as a people better and more fairly, then we can call ourselves honorable after this entire torid affair is done. It is sad that I am sure almost none of America and few soldiers will ever see this film simply because it does humanize the enemy and has traces of anti-government propaganda idealism, plus it has a very low box office draw. So if you get the chance, go see this remarkable film with its interesting characters and take a good look at the other side. You'll be surprised to see yourself there.
4.3 out of 5
Wannabe
When I first started this blog, one of the original reviews was for the widely hyped and yet disappointing Clint Eastwood flick Flags of Our Fathers concerned with the American side of World War II and in particular the bloody battle on the small island known as Iwo Jima. It was known at the time that he had filmed a second movie as a companion piece to that film and Letters from Iwo Jima is it. Except for one difference, it's damn good.
The first film came out and flopped. It fell under its own anti-war anti-media spin self and died in a heap somewhere holding a small miniature flag that is usually reserved for drinks at a martini bar. Letters, instead of going for a very flashy experience, is much better written, better acted, and about ten times as interesting in what it portrays and in what it has to say concerning war. Eastwood is known for discussing what it means to be a hero and this film explores the acts of a hero in much more depth in a manner that is well done. At moments it seems preachy, but it is well executed. When this movie was released in a rush after the flop of Flags of Our Fathers, I was skeptical. When it got nominated for an Oscar, I was pissed because I have honestly never seen a film of Eastwood's that I felt was deserving of the amount of accolades it received. Now, I have to agree. It earned that nomination for Best Picture.
Letters From Iwo Jima was plotted out by Paul Haggis and his apprentice Iris Yamashita with Yamashita actually writing the screenplay. At one point this would have been gleefully welcomed, but after seeing two bleh movies Haggis has worked on, this became the scariest point. The good news is that Yamashita scripts a better structure and screenplay for Clint this time out than Haggis did for Flags. The movie is all in subtitles and does not demote itself to dubbing thankfully. The film is nowhere as flashy as Flags which had a lot of flashbacks and scenes that seemed out of order and jumbled requiring the audience to put the pieces together but often times being unable to do so. Letters still uses flashbacks, except it provides a better context for them such as when a soldier is reading a letter and it drifts back to his memories. Or when they are writing a leter or talking to someone about it. These contexts are essential and provide necessary information about the characters that humanize the japanese side of the war. The other great thing about the script is it goes out of its way to make itself understood by a more modern audience. Japan at the time had a fanatical alliance with the Emperor of Japan hence the popularity of kamikaze bombers and the like. The film's main character is a Japanese baker who is recently married, sent off, and told to die for his country. A man who doesn't really care about the Emperor while surrounded by those that follow blindly. Although there is some anti-government rebellion inherent in this, Yamashita and Eastwood don't emphasize it nearly as much as Flags did and it pays off. Yamashita redirects the story to focus not on questioning government, but more to how to behave ones self in the middle of a hellish battle. All the characters have to balance their senses of honor, skepticism, and humanity in the terrible battle for Iwo Jima. The best way to characterize this idea is the one presented by the Japanese blind captain, "Do what is right because it is the right thing to do." Yamashita balances each character well and by focusing on only a couple of characters and by giving the main one an epic journey over the small island of Iwo Jima, the audience becomes familiar with all of the aspects of that war, including the gruesome scenes of mass suicide by grenade. It is a beautiful and well-made script with great character arcs for actors to enjoy, which they certainly do.
When it comes to acting, the only person in the film most western audiences might recognize is Ken Watanabe whose previous credits include The Last Samurai, Memoirs of a Geisha, and Batman Begins. Watanabe plays the new general in charge of defending the island Iwo Jima from oncoming American forces, but his troops don't trust him because he supposedly went to America and might be a friend of America. Watanabe has always seemed a fairly wooden actor to me with a great smile. I'm sure he'll make a great grandad one day, but he has never grabbed and held my attention. He performs his job well and his character comes to life, but it still seems...distant somehow. He'd make a great wise man character as terrible as that is of me to say. Thankfully, he is not the only main actor in this film. In fact, he is the second most with the first being Kazunari Ninomiya as Saigo. Where the hell has this kid been? He's amazing! Every suggestion for each battle and every line he delivers is great. He goes from being the clutzy screwup soldier that everyone knows will die to a true war hero. Ninomiya's performance is not only eye-catching but it grabs the heart of the audience and forces you to care and empathize with the Japanese and their plight of their own draft. Other actors that fill out the parts include Ryo Kase as Shimizu, Tsuyoshi Ihara as Baron Nishi, and Shido Nakamura as Lieutenant Ito. All of these last three performances are done splendidly, especially Nakamura's character. His character and his journey was a very pleasant surprise that didn't end the way I thought it would and is a great credit to Nakamura and Yamashita and Eastwood. I don't know why, but Eastwood is able to bring out much better acting from these Japanese actors than from English speaking ones.
Now for directing. Well, Clint is up to his old tricks. By graying the living hell out of Iwo Jima the movie becomes about as close as you can get to black and white without actually being black and white, but then gets mixed with flashbacks to better days and events in color that offset the dreary and depressing conditions of the moment. This is all well and good and is not orginal in any way since it was done before on Flags and before that on Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List. The real interesting moment of the film is the rocks. Yes, the rocks. Supposedly Eastwood came up with the idea for both films and what they would be after visiting Iwo Jima and seeing the kind of hellish conditions the Japanese lived in to fight their enemeies. We are talking about self dug interlocking caverns that could collapse at any second and where dysentery and other fun diseases ran rampant. All of these things are shown in the movie, even the grenade suicide scenes. The lack of daylight once the Americans attack and the feeling of being cramped into a small space from which to stand your ground and fight is accented beautifully and really gets into the mindset of the spectator. Also, I was really impressed with the fighting sequences. I mean, I know its Eastwood and Spielberg, so I shouldn't be too surprised, but there are some really well done and well timed explosion sequences from plane gunfire that brought that scenario to life more than I have ever seen. Maybe it has just been a while. Also, this time out for whatever reason, Eastwood's directing style works significantly better than his last attempt with the actors. The real problem comes in how the film is presented. The film is shown in subtitles giving it an art house feel. The problem is that the subtitles are all white which in a film that is close to black and white, a lot of the subtitles get lost in the cinematagraphy and there are literally whole phrases which I could not read. I know some people don't like subtitles, but this is the first time I have seen a film where I hated the subtitles themselves in how they are presented! The other big problem is sometimes the cinematagraphy is too simple. When a couple of character come out of a cave into a bigger cave, the camera is occassionally only showing the wall behind them which is so simple it becomes slightly boring despite the amazing performances and great action sequences. Now this is only in a couple of shots mind you, but it is still noticeable and will keep this film from garnering any cinematagraphy awards.
Conclusion:
Now for the subtitle I created earlier. I feel this movie might be the most important movie for American soldiers to see. We as a country ask a lot of the soldiers at war, especially considering the conditions. The truth is, that we enjoy criticizing and critiquing their behavior so much that we don't ever think to offer an alternative. Instead of being merely a film concerned with critiquing soldiers and their sometimes inhumane actions, it gives an alternative for soldiers to lead by example. When on a battlefield, no matter how much you hate the other side, when someone gives up or is shot, you try to help them and capture them. The difference between the portrayal of Americans by Japan and what they really are is done quite well. Why is this necessary? Because in a war like in Iraq there needs to be a humanizing of both sides for the people to understand why to act humanely. If we just assume that all Muslims are evil and not to be tolerated, then they will assume the same about Christians. The war in Iraq is not supposed to be a holy war, it is a govermental war in which as soldiers they are expected to put aside their differences of religion and prejudices and act professional. With the fun of Abu Ghraib being one of our sad public misdemeanors, there are many other small injustices going on in Iraq. Now while the Iraqis no longer have a government and we are merely fighting rebels and Al Qaeda operatives, they are still human no matter how much dehumanizing we attribute. Perhaps if we make ourselves seem more human in Iraq and Afghanistan and treat them as a people better and more fairly, then we can call ourselves honorable after this entire torid affair is done. It is sad that I am sure almost none of America and few soldiers will ever see this film simply because it does humanize the enemy and has traces of anti-government propaganda idealism, plus it has a very low box office draw. So if you get the chance, go see this remarkable film with its interesting characters and take a good look at the other side. You'll be surprised to see yourself there.
4.3 out of 5
Wannabe
Friday, February 23, 2007
Serenity
'Serenity Now!'
If you don't know Joss Whedon, I can at least guarantee you've probably heard of his work. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and you might have even heard of a little show a while back called Firefly. Well, in 2005, Whedon released his first blockbuster type film based off of his small television show Firefly called Serenity. When it came out the movie was critically lauded as an excellent action film, one of the best of that year supposedly. So, to say I have been looking forward to this film is no joke. And here is how it breaks down. First the history.
For those of you that don't know, Firefly was a space opera, in other words an epic space show that combined a lot elements of classic westerns into itself. The show was well-recieved critically, but overlooked by most audiences. It was canceled after 1 season due to the network not being able to understand or see how to market the show. Fans of the show, like Buffy and Angel before it, are intense and whole sites of fan-fiction exists. There is even a site dedicated to writing fan scripts to create the next few seasons called stillflying.net. It turns out that Joss was a big fan of the show too and somehow got Universal to bank on the idea of a Firefly movie. Before the movie came out to the delight of browncoats(fans) everywhere, Whedon released a small miniseries of comics that helped to prepare audiences for the differences between the series and the film called Those Left Behind. Then the film came out with all of the original cast intact and good word of mouth and critical praise, but the box office was not as good as to be expected, preventing Joss from being able to follow up on doing the sequels he had hoped for. The last possibility is really seeing how well the show does on DVD. But my question is, is it worth it? As someone who has read the miniseries and seen all of the episodes with director's commentary and then seen the movie, I will be approaching this review from the point of view of a fan and I will try and talk about what it would be like to not be familiar with the history of the series.
Honestly, my answer for if the film is worth it is pretty close to no. It's a decent action film for sure and a lot of the acting is well done, but Whedon makes many mistakes, especially in how he tries to take something that is a cult hit and expand that feel to a mainstream audience. It simply doesn't work right and in the process he makes a less decent film than I feel the series deserves. From the fans point of view, the film's focus on action leads to some great scenes for Summer Glau, Nathan Fillion, and the villain; but this detracts from what made the television show so great and what made the show so endearing. Joss talks about the fact that when making a film you have to bow to the God Momentum and make everything bigger and more action-oriented. Well...in doing so he sacrifices relationships and character moments. I understand that an action film, especially now a days, has to be really fast and furious but every great film has slow moments. I think that if Joss had stuck to his guns and added in some more character relationship moments and slowed things down a little at times, he could have created a truly memorable movie. As it is, I would be surprised if someone not familiar with the show knew that Kaylee and Simon liked each ther before the huge showdown scene near the end. The investment in the characters by non-fans of the series is so minimal that it forces Joss to kill off two of the main characters from the show, when he only needed to kill one of them if he had included more relationship scenes. As much as I hated to see Wash go, I agree with Whedon in the commentary that Wash had to die to make it believable that the others could die too. But Shepherd Book had no reason to die. I'm sure there was idea of making the bad guy look badder, which works a little when you think about how badass the shepherd was at fighting in the television series, but honestly I think Whedon killed him off because he never knew how to write him. Even during the television series Book never sounded like a holy man. He always came across as someone playing at being a holy man to hide from his militant past or something like that. Its an interesting back-story, one that is never explained and makes me even more agitated that he killed him, but there are moments in the television show where you see Book truly doubting and wondering about his path showing that he does care about being a holy man. The problem is that you never see him doing anything holy besides reading a book and occasionally trying to tell someone something and having them spit it back at them. I think Joss wasn't sure of how to write the character because he has stated before that he desn't believe in God or anything and this fact would keep him from being able to understand and sympathize with a character who is compassionate about God. The one transitional thing he did well was to cut out a lot of the cheese. Whedon is an admitted fan of cheesey one-liners and things as evident from the show. On the small screen, these well done cheese lines are funny and not too annoying. In a film dealing with such dark and interesting material, it detracts and really takes the audience out of the experience, which creates some problems since the main leader, played by Nathan Fillian was concieved as a Han Solo'ish type whom of course made good use of the one-liners in the Star Wars films. Since the cheese is natural to the show and necessary, Joss does a good job by including it only scantily in the movie and instead letting the movie follow the more serious path to mimic the darkness of the plot. It's also nice in the end when Simon and Kaylee finally get to make out like mad. Whedon, who also scripted the movie, performs perhaps the biggest and most unforgivable flaw though in the script.
I have to say, this factor right here would be what would turn me off the most as a fan and as a non-fan. The story essentially involves three people. Now, if you have seen the show then you know that the cast is much bigger than that and that they are all in the film, which is exactly the problem. The other characters tend to serve as merely background spectators and events to the three main storyplots. The main storyplot revolves around River and Simon Tam and their relationship and the fact that they are being hunted down so that River can be recaptured/killed. Which makes little to no sense because in the series it was always they were after her to re-capture and bring back for more experiments. Anyhow, it focuses on illuminating more of their story and on what the experiments did to River. The other main point is in showing captain Mal's slow ascent from the dark drudgery to which he had descended back to being a hero for what is right. All the other characters serve to merely make the action scenes cooler. Some aren't even able to do that. Honestly, Adam Baldwin's character would never have followed Mal out past the Reavers and on a suicide mission. He would have tried to kill everyone and take over first because he might be dumb but all he wants is to live, kill things, be funny, and get paid. It took a lot for him to do the right thing in one episode called Jaynestown. But in the movie, he puts up a little verbal tiff and its over. Wash and Zoe's love is briefly touched upon just like all of the other romances and we rarely hear from either of them. I hold that Gina Torres is possibly the only woman who has looked truly deadly in a fight scene. Kaylee is the mechanic who runs around fixing things. And then there is Inara. Inara and Mal's relationship is such a strong point of the television series that its a shame it gets almost no mention in this film. In fact, the film feels like it brings everyone back together simply to have them together, which is not worth ever doing in a film. Inara has one story point that could have been easily rewritten to not include her and their are moments where you catch a glimpse of her in the film and wonder what she is still doing there. She is essentially useless in the story and is the only character whom we don't see injured in the final showdown for whatever reason. She is essentially a ghost who just randomly appears at times creating no discernable care for her character. Instead of fulfilling the role of the Leiah to Solo role as she starts off to do in her introduction into the movie, Joss just kind of drops her character and she never becomes anything more than that girl Mal visited and saved. Nothing about her interesting past and history as a companion is ever shown or revealed and there is one deleted scene on the DVD that I am sad Joss decided to cut since it would have made Inara much more interesting and fleshed out.
Conclusion:
The television series is great, the stories are always interesting, but Joss's decision to make the movie more action oriented and to cut out a lot of the relationship scenes creates two-dimensional characters and drowns out a lot of the magic of the original television series. Also, by creating a storyline focusing on only three of the main characters, the rest of the cast becomes potential fodder and leads to him killing off two great characters instead of one if he had designed it more so that each character was NECESSARY to the plot. A lot of the things in the series that gave Firefly and the cast its charm was the universe and backgrounds of the characters and how they all overlapped, most of which is lost in the movie in favor of action scenes. The good news is that despite these problems of the script, their are some truly well done artistic directorial choices involving camerawork and lighting on Whedon's part. Also, he transfers just enough to of the fun of the series in the cheese factor over to make the crew recognizable as the same Firefly crew and to imbue the film with funny moments. I'm sad that the film so far hasn't made enough money to make sequels but I don't know if I want sequels if Whedon isn't going to make all of the cast necessary. If you get the chance, buy the television series and then if you decide you like it more than that, consider buying the film. I want more of the idea and cast and Whedon banter, but the television show is much better.
2.75 out of 5
Wannabe
If you don't know Joss Whedon, I can at least guarantee you've probably heard of his work. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and you might have even heard of a little show a while back called Firefly. Well, in 2005, Whedon released his first blockbuster type film based off of his small television show Firefly called Serenity. When it came out the movie was critically lauded as an excellent action film, one of the best of that year supposedly. So, to say I have been looking forward to this film is no joke. And here is how it breaks down. First the history.
For those of you that don't know, Firefly was a space opera, in other words an epic space show that combined a lot elements of classic westerns into itself. The show was well-recieved critically, but overlooked by most audiences. It was canceled after 1 season due to the network not being able to understand or see how to market the show. Fans of the show, like Buffy and Angel before it, are intense and whole sites of fan-fiction exists. There is even a site dedicated to writing fan scripts to create the next few seasons called stillflying.net. It turns out that Joss was a big fan of the show too and somehow got Universal to bank on the idea of a Firefly movie. Before the movie came out to the delight of browncoats(fans) everywhere, Whedon released a small miniseries of comics that helped to prepare audiences for the differences between the series and the film called Those Left Behind. Then the film came out with all of the original cast intact and good word of mouth and critical praise, but the box office was not as good as to be expected, preventing Joss from being able to follow up on doing the sequels he had hoped for. The last possibility is really seeing how well the show does on DVD. But my question is, is it worth it? As someone who has read the miniseries and seen all of the episodes with director's commentary and then seen the movie, I will be approaching this review from the point of view of a fan and I will try and talk about what it would be like to not be familiar with the history of the series.
Honestly, my answer for if the film is worth it is pretty close to no. It's a decent action film for sure and a lot of the acting is well done, but Whedon makes many mistakes, especially in how he tries to take something that is a cult hit and expand that feel to a mainstream audience. It simply doesn't work right and in the process he makes a less decent film than I feel the series deserves. From the fans point of view, the film's focus on action leads to some great scenes for Summer Glau, Nathan Fillion, and the villain; but this detracts from what made the television show so great and what made the show so endearing. Joss talks about the fact that when making a film you have to bow to the God Momentum and make everything bigger and more action-oriented. Well...in doing so he sacrifices relationships and character moments. I understand that an action film, especially now a days, has to be really fast and furious but every great film has slow moments. I think that if Joss had stuck to his guns and added in some more character relationship moments and slowed things down a little at times, he could have created a truly memorable movie. As it is, I would be surprised if someone not familiar with the show knew that Kaylee and Simon liked each ther before the huge showdown scene near the end. The investment in the characters by non-fans of the series is so minimal that it forces Joss to kill off two of the main characters from the show, when he only needed to kill one of them if he had included more relationship scenes. As much as I hated to see Wash go, I agree with Whedon in the commentary that Wash had to die to make it believable that the others could die too. But Shepherd Book had no reason to die. I'm sure there was idea of making the bad guy look badder, which works a little when you think about how badass the shepherd was at fighting in the television series, but honestly I think Whedon killed him off because he never knew how to write him. Even during the television series Book never sounded like a holy man. He always came across as someone playing at being a holy man to hide from his militant past or something like that. Its an interesting back-story, one that is never explained and makes me even more agitated that he killed him, but there are moments in the television show where you see Book truly doubting and wondering about his path showing that he does care about being a holy man. The problem is that you never see him doing anything holy besides reading a book and occasionally trying to tell someone something and having them spit it back at them. I think Joss wasn't sure of how to write the character because he has stated before that he desn't believe in God or anything and this fact would keep him from being able to understand and sympathize with a character who is compassionate about God. The one transitional thing he did well was to cut out a lot of the cheese. Whedon is an admitted fan of cheesey one-liners and things as evident from the show. On the small screen, these well done cheese lines are funny and not too annoying. In a film dealing with such dark and interesting material, it detracts and really takes the audience out of the experience, which creates some problems since the main leader, played by Nathan Fillian was concieved as a Han Solo'ish type whom of course made good use of the one-liners in the Star Wars films. Since the cheese is natural to the show and necessary, Joss does a good job by including it only scantily in the movie and instead letting the movie follow the more serious path to mimic the darkness of the plot. It's also nice in the end when Simon and Kaylee finally get to make out like mad. Whedon, who also scripted the movie, performs perhaps the biggest and most unforgivable flaw though in the script.
I have to say, this factor right here would be what would turn me off the most as a fan and as a non-fan. The story essentially involves three people. Now, if you have seen the show then you know that the cast is much bigger than that and that they are all in the film, which is exactly the problem. The other characters tend to serve as merely background spectators and events to the three main storyplots. The main storyplot revolves around River and Simon Tam and their relationship and the fact that they are being hunted down so that River can be recaptured/killed. Which makes little to no sense because in the series it was always they were after her to re-capture and bring back for more experiments. Anyhow, it focuses on illuminating more of their story and on what the experiments did to River. The other main point is in showing captain Mal's slow ascent from the dark drudgery to which he had descended back to being a hero for what is right. All the other characters serve to merely make the action scenes cooler. Some aren't even able to do that. Honestly, Adam Baldwin's character would never have followed Mal out past the Reavers and on a suicide mission. He would have tried to kill everyone and take over first because he might be dumb but all he wants is to live, kill things, be funny, and get paid. It took a lot for him to do the right thing in one episode called Jaynestown. But in the movie, he puts up a little verbal tiff and its over. Wash and Zoe's love is briefly touched upon just like all of the other romances and we rarely hear from either of them. I hold that Gina Torres is possibly the only woman who has looked truly deadly in a fight scene. Kaylee is the mechanic who runs around fixing things. And then there is Inara. Inara and Mal's relationship is such a strong point of the television series that its a shame it gets almost no mention in this film. In fact, the film feels like it brings everyone back together simply to have them together, which is not worth ever doing in a film. Inara has one story point that could have been easily rewritten to not include her and their are moments where you catch a glimpse of her in the film and wonder what she is still doing there. She is essentially useless in the story and is the only character whom we don't see injured in the final showdown for whatever reason. She is essentially a ghost who just randomly appears at times creating no discernable care for her character. Instead of fulfilling the role of the Leiah to Solo role as she starts off to do in her introduction into the movie, Joss just kind of drops her character and she never becomes anything more than that girl Mal visited and saved. Nothing about her interesting past and history as a companion is ever shown or revealed and there is one deleted scene on the DVD that I am sad Joss decided to cut since it would have made Inara much more interesting and fleshed out.
Conclusion:
The television series is great, the stories are always interesting, but Joss's decision to make the movie more action oriented and to cut out a lot of the relationship scenes creates two-dimensional characters and drowns out a lot of the magic of the original television series. Also, by creating a storyline focusing on only three of the main characters, the rest of the cast becomes potential fodder and leads to him killing off two great characters instead of one if he had designed it more so that each character was NECESSARY to the plot. A lot of the things in the series that gave Firefly and the cast its charm was the universe and backgrounds of the characters and how they all overlapped, most of which is lost in the movie in favor of action scenes. The good news is that despite these problems of the script, their are some truly well done artistic directorial choices involving camerawork and lighting on Whedon's part. Also, he transfers just enough to of the fun of the series in the cheese factor over to make the crew recognizable as the same Firefly crew and to imbue the film with funny moments. I'm sad that the film so far hasn't made enough money to make sequels but I don't know if I want sequels if Whedon isn't going to make all of the cast necessary. If you get the chance, buy the television series and then if you decide you like it more than that, consider buying the film. I want more of the idea and cast and Whedon banter, but the television show is much better.
2.75 out of 5
Wannabe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
