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
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
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
Monday, February 19, 2007
Monster House
'The Monster is the bed'
The year 2006 saw several high profile cg-animated films. This is not unusual since the number of releases of animated films has grown significantly since when I was a kid going to see Little Mermaid by Disney. Now there are the Fox films, the Disney films, the Disney-Pixar films, and the Zemeckis films, all of which are animated in the "cool" new style of computer graphics(CG). Out of these different production branches, Zemeckis films are perhaps the newest addition with only two titles to its name so far, Monster House and the previous Tom Hanks CG film, The Polar Express. Out of these two Robert Zemeckis has only directed the Polar Express and merely produced Monster House which was directed by first-timer Gil Kenan. And while most CG films of this nature are thought to be kids films, this one borders a bit close on the edge.
Essentially what has been created by director Gil Kenan and writers Dan Harmon and Rob Schrab is a horror tale for children on Halloween. I know that as a kid I had the option of watching silly non-scary movies such as Witches, which I admit is rather dark, or feasting my eyes on the gory spectacle of Jason, which at the age of 7-9 is not exactly a good thing. There simply isn't a film for Halloween for children of that age that kids could be afraid of because they are still too kiddie. Now maybe this is just my male I'm-not-afraid-of-anything bravado, but still, it's slim pickings on Halloween night and the kiddie stuff has to jostle for it's place next to adult horror classics like Psycho and Halloween. Monster House is one of those rare movies that is able to retain it's horror edge and still be able to be consumed by children letting it join the ranks of The Nightmare Before Christmas, except without all of the songs and creepy children. Perhaps my favorite reason for liking the film is how it is presented. It's portrayed in an old-fashioned way that I haven't seen in a while where a neighborhood is still closely knit and where friends live down the street and hang out at a moments call. It's essentially a suburban epic like Goonies or The Sandlot type setting of suburbia with one house being as old and creepy as its one inhabitant, Mr. Nebbercracker. As a movie with young boys at its heart, it deals with all sorts of fun topics about growing up and facing the world around you and what does it mean to be a grown up. The main character and his friend are both nerds, they both fight over the snotty private school girl, and the main character's voice is cracking. It is essentially a tale of coming into one's own self and surviving the scariness of early puberty wrapped into a tale of a giant eating monster house! BRILLIANT!?!?! I can't decide. Either way, the movie Monster House takes advantage of the fears of children at this age by providing truly scary moments including a section where the main character thinks he killed someone because of a heart attack. The director sticks to his guns to make a film that while not so terrifying to an adult, could easily scare a kid and the movie ends in a manner like most children movies except it is more like The Sandlot in its ending where the audience will have felt relieved by the coming-of-age tale being completed in a satisfactory manner and having dealt with some dark material.
With all of that good stuff being said, there are some very real drawbacks to the film. Now of course most of the film is aimed at children so it is usually portrayed in an amusing and light manner, when not dealing with the house or Nebbercracker. Yet, the police come off as either paranoid crazy people or as lazy and unwilling to help the kids. Plus, they get eaten due to their stupidity and we come to realize as one character says, that we cannot trust the government. Still a bit too young for such cynicism, even for me. In fact, if anything, this movie enforces the idea to little children that they are alone and can't depend on anyone else except people their own age and usually same geekiness because no one will believe and willingly take a chance on them. As a kid these films are great. Us against them! But looking back now as an adult, I am not sure of how great these films can be since they can easily support rebellion which is not always the path to enlightenment. Plus, this movie is scary, even as an adult I can connect to some of the opening scenes of fear at the monster house coming awake. Plus, the house turns out to be the soul of a previous giantess, portrayed as slightly simple and dumb, but one who has been mistreated so badly that she now will eat anyone who comes on her lawn. So of course in the end she is destroyed with dynamite by Nebbercracker who is so thankful to be rid of her. Very rarely is the audience allowed to connect with or feel sympathy for the poor misguided giantess and her unhappy rampage. It feels at some points like deformity is a curse, one which can only end in the deformed haunting a house and eating people. Not a good lesson for kids. But on the whole it is rather entertaining.
As for voice acting well, eh. The main children characters are all unrecognizable so I guess that is a good thing. Maggie Gyllenhaal gives a great performance as the rock-n-roll babysitter and even makes the character slightly human in her worry and desire to still be "cool". Steve Buscemi does his usual crazy scary voice over for Nebbercracker. Although perhaps one of the funniest and underused performances comes from Fred Willard and Catherine O'Hara who play the main character's parents. They are only seen in the beginning and end, but GOD are they funny. Besides that, it doesn't really stand out which helps because it places all of the emphasis on the story and what is happening, which when a good portion is spent watching and waiting on a house to come to life, is necessary to build suspense. So I guess it was a job well done, just nothing that stands out as mind blowing.
Conclusion:
Monster House is an enjoyable movie at any age, but especially for children hitting puberty. It also fills in that age gap with an appropriate horror film. However, some of the script's material could come across as rebellious lessons and slightly prejudiced against certain types of people which is not so cool for kids. I'd say watch it with them with supervision, or let them watch en masse. Instead of the classic slow-mo NOOOOOOO! that I remember as a kid, I bet future kids will think of the name Nebbercracker and shutter. On the whole, a good movie and possibly a generational classic.
3.5 out of 5
Wannabe
The year 2006 saw several high profile cg-animated films. This is not unusual since the number of releases of animated films has grown significantly since when I was a kid going to see Little Mermaid by Disney. Now there are the Fox films, the Disney films, the Disney-Pixar films, and the Zemeckis films, all of which are animated in the "cool" new style of computer graphics(CG). Out of these different production branches, Zemeckis films are perhaps the newest addition with only two titles to its name so far, Monster House and the previous Tom Hanks CG film, The Polar Express. Out of these two Robert Zemeckis has only directed the Polar Express and merely produced Monster House which was directed by first-timer Gil Kenan. And while most CG films of this nature are thought to be kids films, this one borders a bit close on the edge.
Essentially what has been created by director Gil Kenan and writers Dan Harmon and Rob Schrab is a horror tale for children on Halloween. I know that as a kid I had the option of watching silly non-scary movies such as Witches, which I admit is rather dark, or feasting my eyes on the gory spectacle of Jason, which at the age of 7-9 is not exactly a good thing. There simply isn't a film for Halloween for children of that age that kids could be afraid of because they are still too kiddie. Now maybe this is just my male I'm-not-afraid-of-anything bravado, but still, it's slim pickings on Halloween night and the kiddie stuff has to jostle for it's place next to adult horror classics like Psycho and Halloween. Monster House is one of those rare movies that is able to retain it's horror edge and still be able to be consumed by children letting it join the ranks of The Nightmare Before Christmas, except without all of the songs and creepy children. Perhaps my favorite reason for liking the film is how it is presented. It's portrayed in an old-fashioned way that I haven't seen in a while where a neighborhood is still closely knit and where friends live down the street and hang out at a moments call. It's essentially a suburban epic like Goonies or The Sandlot type setting of suburbia with one house being as old and creepy as its one inhabitant, Mr. Nebbercracker. As a movie with young boys at its heart, it deals with all sorts of fun topics about growing up and facing the world around you and what does it mean to be a grown up. The main character and his friend are both nerds, they both fight over the snotty private school girl, and the main character's voice is cracking. It is essentially a tale of coming into one's own self and surviving the scariness of early puberty wrapped into a tale of a giant eating monster house! BRILLIANT!?!?! I can't decide. Either way, the movie Monster House takes advantage of the fears of children at this age by providing truly scary moments including a section where the main character thinks he killed someone because of a heart attack. The director sticks to his guns to make a film that while not so terrifying to an adult, could easily scare a kid and the movie ends in a manner like most children movies except it is more like The Sandlot in its ending where the audience will have felt relieved by the coming-of-age tale being completed in a satisfactory manner and having dealt with some dark material.
With all of that good stuff being said, there are some very real drawbacks to the film. Now of course most of the film is aimed at children so it is usually portrayed in an amusing and light manner, when not dealing with the house or Nebbercracker. Yet, the police come off as either paranoid crazy people or as lazy and unwilling to help the kids. Plus, they get eaten due to their stupidity and we come to realize as one character says, that we cannot trust the government. Still a bit too young for such cynicism, even for me. In fact, if anything, this movie enforces the idea to little children that they are alone and can't depend on anyone else except people their own age and usually same geekiness because no one will believe and willingly take a chance on them. As a kid these films are great. Us against them! But looking back now as an adult, I am not sure of how great these films can be since they can easily support rebellion which is not always the path to enlightenment. Plus, this movie is scary, even as an adult I can connect to some of the opening scenes of fear at the monster house coming awake. Plus, the house turns out to be the soul of a previous giantess, portrayed as slightly simple and dumb, but one who has been mistreated so badly that she now will eat anyone who comes on her lawn. So of course in the end she is destroyed with dynamite by Nebbercracker who is so thankful to be rid of her. Very rarely is the audience allowed to connect with or feel sympathy for the poor misguided giantess and her unhappy rampage. It feels at some points like deformity is a curse, one which can only end in the deformed haunting a house and eating people. Not a good lesson for kids. But on the whole it is rather entertaining.
As for voice acting well, eh. The main children characters are all unrecognizable so I guess that is a good thing. Maggie Gyllenhaal gives a great performance as the rock-n-roll babysitter and even makes the character slightly human in her worry and desire to still be "cool". Steve Buscemi does his usual crazy scary voice over for Nebbercracker. Although perhaps one of the funniest and underused performances comes from Fred Willard and Catherine O'Hara who play the main character's parents. They are only seen in the beginning and end, but GOD are they funny. Besides that, it doesn't really stand out which helps because it places all of the emphasis on the story and what is happening, which when a good portion is spent watching and waiting on a house to come to life, is necessary to build suspense. So I guess it was a job well done, just nothing that stands out as mind blowing.
Conclusion:
Monster House is an enjoyable movie at any age, but especially for children hitting puberty. It also fills in that age gap with an appropriate horror film. However, some of the script's material could come across as rebellious lessons and slightly prejudiced against certain types of people which is not so cool for kids. I'd say watch it with them with supervision, or let them watch en masse. Instead of the classic slow-mo NOOOOOOO! that I remember as a kid, I bet future kids will think of the name Nebbercracker and shutter. On the whole, a good movie and possibly a generational classic.
3.5 out of 5
Wannabe
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Music & Lyrics
'Loving the joy of Music'
Romance films, or sometimes known as "chick flicks", have always carried a hearty following and thus many Hollywood films have repreatedly stabbed at the genre hoping to gain that niche audience that is just big enough to make a real hit stick. Sleepless in Seattle, Casablanca, and even Gone with the Wind to a certain extent fall in this category. What you don't hear about are the films hat didn't quite make it into the great category such as How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, You've Got Mail, and other generic formulaic peices of trash, especially the yearly made teen-angst romance films. The problem is that Hollywood forgot that by stabbing repeatedly, they might kill it by missing the sweet spot. And if you can't already tell, I have long thought the genre dead.
The most recent attempt at this genre pairs Drew Barrymore with British hunk-man Hugh Grant. Together they are directed by writer/director Marc Lawrence whose only other movie to his name is the lackluster Two Weeks Notice. Not a very auspicious or even arousing beginning for me personally. Now with that said, let me make this clear, this is one of the best chick flicks that I have seen in a very long time...What? Yes, I wrote it and I mean it. Mostly because the film uses the generic formula of the chick flick as a medium to convey the real meaning of the film, that of 80's pop. Although the story is fairly generic in its plot twists, yes Barrymoore sleeps with Grant no real surpise, it all centers around an aging 80's pop star played by Hugh Grant and his one last chance at being able to carry on his career and life of I'm-no-longer-a-star events. However, everything this movie lacks in fresh twists and new artistic takes on romance, it makes up for in its incredibly witty dialogue, smart acting, great chemistry, and emergence into the world of music. In fact, the main message is a thinly veiled one dealing with music and where all of the great entertainment acts have gone. I must give kudos to Marc Lawrence for addressing a problem that has been plaguing music of late in a manner that is entertaining and light-hearted. The plague that I speak of is the modern day fixation with exploiting sex in music in a frantic attempt to top the charts. Just look at today's pop stars with their blatant lyrics and sexual music videos from Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera to Justin Timberlake. Are they fun? Sure, but are they family songs? Do they really connect to people? NO. At least not the average Joe. Now Lawrence doesn't suggest that the 80's were a pinnacle of brilliance, as can be seen in the hilarious fake video "Pop Went My Heart." What he suggests in the film, is that the urge to make everything exotic and sexy and to basically exploit EVERYTHING takes away any artistic merit and turns songs that could be potentially great into merely rebellious drivel that a true great artist such as Bob Dillon would be ashamed of. This is perfectly brought out by the foil character of Cora Cormon played by Haley Bennett to Hugh Grant's character. In fact, it would seem her ridiculously mysterious persona and absurd reality is drawn lovingly from Madonna and her Kaballah mysticism. In the end, Lawrence reminds us why we as an audience enjoyed the 80's with its moody emotional songs and catchy tunes that somehow connected and why even though they weren't the high-brow art of some artists, they were much better than the brand of pop shoved down our throats today. As an unabashed enjoyer of nostalgic 80's music with its bad hair-do's and keyboard synthesizers, I agree with Lawrence entirely. I don't think that modern pop should disappear since beautiful women in skimpy outfits dancing is always fun, but I do think there is more room for more quality music.
Now the actors. Hugh Grant and Drew Barrymoore in my book are both pretty close to has-beens. Obviously they have both done their fair share of romance movies and some may even be enjoyable. but for the most part, they have both seemed very wooden and one-sided in whatever role they took. The only other acceptable Barrymoore romance I can think of is The Wedding Singer, a movie that once again centers around the old music styles...maybe she should look for more of that. The truth is that no matter how much I dislike their acting styles, in this movie they just fit perfectly. Hugh Grant has perfected the Simon Cowell cynicism and one-liners and has somehow found room to add emotions and acting ability. Together it makes for one of Grant's better acting roles. Barrymoore throws a high-strung energy into her character that brings the plant girl to life and makes their relationship completely possible. Grant becomes the washed up song star and really pulls the character through by learning how to sing to the point where he records all of his own songs for the movie. In an interview he stated that he felt he learned how to sing and dance passably, but I have to say that he did better than that. He sounds like any pop star could sound from the 80's. Well done sir. Also, it is great to watch the story of Barrymoore's character unfold and see Barrymoore go from being shy, timid, clumsy plant lady to pretty good lyricist in a matter of days. I also like the feeling of urgency Lawrence put in the script by constantly referring to the days and how many are left to complete songs, it really brought to life the hectic energy and life of the characters. The other stand out actor is Haley Bennett as Cora Corman. She plays her part so oblivious to reality except her own with a huge business sense for a little girl that is very kind of Lawrence to remind us later on that she is still human with a soft spot for romance. But she is still creepy as hell and in a world where pop stars seem to keep getting weirder and weirder, she's not too far-fetched. I mean hey, even funnyman Brad Garrett from Everybody Loves Raymond fame joins the cast for some fun lines and some good bits.
Conclusion:
Although the plot offers no new artistic or interesting takes on love that couldn't be guessed from the title and the actors, the movie is surprisingly fresh and packed with great dialogue and one-liners. The acting comes off brilliantly and the chenistry created between the characters is wonderful to watch. Not only that, but Marc Lawrence does a great job of assembling new pop type music and including it in the movie, some of which he wrote himself. Lastly, the ability for the film to comment on the music business and to reveal all of the flaws for both the modern day and the recent past reveals plenty of reasons why the 80's music is now considered nostalgic. It's the fact that America is missing the days of fun and music that connects. After all, nothing makes you happier quicker than a good song. For people who feel that modern music has been missing something or those that either love Hugh Grant or Drew Barrymoore or love romance films, go see this film. If you truly believe today's pop is ingenious and much better than the past, then please see this film and realize you are wrong or stay away and don't bother us people who want to remember better days while watching an honest and earnest film.
3.6 out of 5
Wannabe
Romance films, or sometimes known as "chick flicks", have always carried a hearty following and thus many Hollywood films have repreatedly stabbed at the genre hoping to gain that niche audience that is just big enough to make a real hit stick. Sleepless in Seattle, Casablanca, and even Gone with the Wind to a certain extent fall in this category. What you don't hear about are the films hat didn't quite make it into the great category such as How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, You've Got Mail, and other generic formulaic peices of trash, especially the yearly made teen-angst romance films. The problem is that Hollywood forgot that by stabbing repeatedly, they might kill it by missing the sweet spot. And if you can't already tell, I have long thought the genre dead.
The most recent attempt at this genre pairs Drew Barrymore with British hunk-man Hugh Grant. Together they are directed by writer/director Marc Lawrence whose only other movie to his name is the lackluster Two Weeks Notice. Not a very auspicious or even arousing beginning for me personally. Now with that said, let me make this clear, this is one of the best chick flicks that I have seen in a very long time...What? Yes, I wrote it and I mean it. Mostly because the film uses the generic formula of the chick flick as a medium to convey the real meaning of the film, that of 80's pop. Although the story is fairly generic in its plot twists, yes Barrymoore sleeps with Grant no real surpise, it all centers around an aging 80's pop star played by Hugh Grant and his one last chance at being able to carry on his career and life of I'm-no-longer-a-star events. However, everything this movie lacks in fresh twists and new artistic takes on romance, it makes up for in its incredibly witty dialogue, smart acting, great chemistry, and emergence into the world of music. In fact, the main message is a thinly veiled one dealing with music and where all of the great entertainment acts have gone. I must give kudos to Marc Lawrence for addressing a problem that has been plaguing music of late in a manner that is entertaining and light-hearted. The plague that I speak of is the modern day fixation with exploiting sex in music in a frantic attempt to top the charts. Just look at today's pop stars with their blatant lyrics and sexual music videos from Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera to Justin Timberlake. Are they fun? Sure, but are they family songs? Do they really connect to people? NO. At least not the average Joe. Now Lawrence doesn't suggest that the 80's were a pinnacle of brilliance, as can be seen in the hilarious fake video "Pop Went My Heart." What he suggests in the film, is that the urge to make everything exotic and sexy and to basically exploit EVERYTHING takes away any artistic merit and turns songs that could be potentially great into merely rebellious drivel that a true great artist such as Bob Dillon would be ashamed of. This is perfectly brought out by the foil character of Cora Cormon played by Haley Bennett to Hugh Grant's character. In fact, it would seem her ridiculously mysterious persona and absurd reality is drawn lovingly from Madonna and her Kaballah mysticism. In the end, Lawrence reminds us why we as an audience enjoyed the 80's with its moody emotional songs and catchy tunes that somehow connected and why even though they weren't the high-brow art of some artists, they were much better than the brand of pop shoved down our throats today. As an unabashed enjoyer of nostalgic 80's music with its bad hair-do's and keyboard synthesizers, I agree with Lawrence entirely. I don't think that modern pop should disappear since beautiful women in skimpy outfits dancing is always fun, but I do think there is more room for more quality music.
Now the actors. Hugh Grant and Drew Barrymoore in my book are both pretty close to has-beens. Obviously they have both done their fair share of romance movies and some may even be enjoyable. but for the most part, they have both seemed very wooden and one-sided in whatever role they took. The only other acceptable Barrymoore romance I can think of is The Wedding Singer, a movie that once again centers around the old music styles...maybe she should look for more of that. The truth is that no matter how much I dislike their acting styles, in this movie they just fit perfectly. Hugh Grant has perfected the Simon Cowell cynicism and one-liners and has somehow found room to add emotions and acting ability. Together it makes for one of Grant's better acting roles. Barrymoore throws a high-strung energy into her character that brings the plant girl to life and makes their relationship completely possible. Grant becomes the washed up song star and really pulls the character through by learning how to sing to the point where he records all of his own songs for the movie. In an interview he stated that he felt he learned how to sing and dance passably, but I have to say that he did better than that. He sounds like any pop star could sound from the 80's. Well done sir. Also, it is great to watch the story of Barrymoore's character unfold and see Barrymoore go from being shy, timid, clumsy plant lady to pretty good lyricist in a matter of days. I also like the feeling of urgency Lawrence put in the script by constantly referring to the days and how many are left to complete songs, it really brought to life the hectic energy and life of the characters. The other stand out actor is Haley Bennett as Cora Corman. She plays her part so oblivious to reality except her own with a huge business sense for a little girl that is very kind of Lawrence to remind us later on that she is still human with a soft spot for romance. But she is still creepy as hell and in a world where pop stars seem to keep getting weirder and weirder, she's not too far-fetched. I mean hey, even funnyman Brad Garrett from Everybody Loves Raymond fame joins the cast for some fun lines and some good bits.
Conclusion:
Although the plot offers no new artistic or interesting takes on love that couldn't be guessed from the title and the actors, the movie is surprisingly fresh and packed with great dialogue and one-liners. The acting comes off brilliantly and the chenistry created between the characters is wonderful to watch. Not only that, but Marc Lawrence does a great job of assembling new pop type music and including it in the movie, some of which he wrote himself. Lastly, the ability for the film to comment on the music business and to reveal all of the flaws for both the modern day and the recent past reveals plenty of reasons why the 80's music is now considered nostalgic. It's the fact that America is missing the days of fun and music that connects. After all, nothing makes you happier quicker than a good song. For people who feel that modern music has been missing something or those that either love Hugh Grant or Drew Barrymoore or love romance films, go see this film. If you truly believe today's pop is ingenious and much better than the past, then please see this film and realize you are wrong or stay away and don't bother us people who want to remember better days while watching an honest and earnest film.
3.6 out of 5
Wannabe
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The Departed
'Nothing has Departed from Scorcese'
When reading this review, know that I have never been a huge Scorcese fan. Scorcese's films have always been artistically and visually interesting, but the story or the characters have always been so despicable that I could never truly connect. I have always respected him as an artist, but if forced to choose between his earlier work or an early Paul Hogan film, well...Dundee was a childhood hero. So know that when I say that the recent film The Departed is a film that will probably be one of the top three films of this decade, I am positively sure of this. I have not seen a more perfect blend of artistic directorial talent, acting, plot, and cinematography in a long long time. On one hand, I would love for Scorcese to join the ranks of Kubrick by never winning an Academy award, but I'm afraid he's screwed. I can safely reveal that there is no way in this universe that Scorcese will not win the best director category this year at the Oscars. My only concern is that Little Miss Sunshine SAG award when it was completely inferior to the cast of this film.
First of all, the directing. Scorcese pulls out all stops on this American remake. Scorcese has always been good at highlighting gangster films, but usually Italian. In this film he tackles the Irish mob in Boston, which works perfectly. Scorcese ties the story in to the location of Boston and the whole Irish and Catholic scene so profoundly that Boston will now be forever remembered for this movie and not just for the Celtics basketball team. Howard Shore only makes the bond deeper with his incredible use of Irish jigs and drinking punk songs to tie in the action and location at all times. Scorcese uses excellent editing skills in accord with solid direction to keep the twists fresh and riveting. He also uses the editing to create a compare and contrast between Frank Costello's two "sons" played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon. The lighting is beautiful and Scorcese keeps the violence pumping and fierce without a ton of brutality. Even though there is more death in this film, the violence on screen is less brutal than the few hardcore bits found in Pan's Labryinth, a feat which is laudable and an achievement for Scorcese. The most interesting directorial pieces are the parts where he uses a circular matte in the frame to focus all of the attention on to a certain character to show how small and inconsequential either the character is or how they feel, such as feeling trapped. The opening is also well done with the old-footage of Boston's neighborhoods and Nicholson's voice over. I recommend that Michael Ballhaus (the cinematographer) and Scorcese work together forever. Especially on anything with a gritty urban feel.
In a rare turn, I would like to applaud the casting director for the film. The cast could not have been more perfect. DiCaprio has earned the right to be perhaps the best working actor in Hollywood in this film. Matt Damon flexes his muscle. Nicholson pumps his evil crazy vilain routine to the extreme. Hell, even Mark Wahlberg whom typically comes across as cold and indifferent in a lot of his films puts in an amazing performance. Martin Sheen and Vera Farmiga and Alec Baldwin round out the cast to create a perfect collaborative feel. None of the main actors steals too much time. Each character has his own motives, each and every one of them and they are all brought across vividly by the energy in herent in the language of roughneck Irish Boston. The range in accents among the actors varies wildly but the best are held down by DiCaprio and Wahlberg. The only actor who doesn't seem to fit in is Anthony Anderson, mostly due to his previously overwhelming association to comedies. Yet, he is passable for such a small part and doesn't detract from the film. I have heard talk of a possible sequel to the film and if that's true then they need Scorcese, Ballhaus, Ellen Lewis (casting director), William Monahan (screenwriter), Howard Shore (composer), and whatever surviving characters actors they decide to use.
Conclusion:
I refuse to talk about Monahan's script since I don't want to reveal any potential plot details. The jist is that the plot is amazingly transformed and molded to Boston perfectly. The Irish dialogue and the look into each character's lives and issues is perfect. Everyone is risking so much that everybody and detail matters. The directing and acting and cinematography make this film a nice shot of cocaine to film junkies. This film will surely be one of the next great films and should be one of the strongest from this decade. It's too bad that Scorcese is so old that it is unknown how many more films he has left in him. Just let him finish the two supposed sequels to this film God. If nothing else, rejoice knowing that Scorcese should definately win that long overdue Oscar come Friday.
4.9 out of 5
Wannabe
When reading this review, know that I have never been a huge Scorcese fan. Scorcese's films have always been artistically and visually interesting, but the story or the characters have always been so despicable that I could never truly connect. I have always respected him as an artist, but if forced to choose between his earlier work or an early Paul Hogan film, well...Dundee was a childhood hero. So know that when I say that the recent film The Departed is a film that will probably be one of the top three films of this decade, I am positively sure of this. I have not seen a more perfect blend of artistic directorial talent, acting, plot, and cinematography in a long long time. On one hand, I would love for Scorcese to join the ranks of Kubrick by never winning an Academy award, but I'm afraid he's screwed. I can safely reveal that there is no way in this universe that Scorcese will not win the best director category this year at the Oscars. My only concern is that Little Miss Sunshine SAG award when it was completely inferior to the cast of this film.
First of all, the directing. Scorcese pulls out all stops on this American remake. Scorcese has always been good at highlighting gangster films, but usually Italian. In this film he tackles the Irish mob in Boston, which works perfectly. Scorcese ties the story in to the location of Boston and the whole Irish and Catholic scene so profoundly that Boston will now be forever remembered for this movie and not just for the Celtics basketball team. Howard Shore only makes the bond deeper with his incredible use of Irish jigs and drinking punk songs to tie in the action and location at all times. Scorcese uses excellent editing skills in accord with solid direction to keep the twists fresh and riveting. He also uses the editing to create a compare and contrast between Frank Costello's two "sons" played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon. The lighting is beautiful and Scorcese keeps the violence pumping and fierce without a ton of brutality. Even though there is more death in this film, the violence on screen is less brutal than the few hardcore bits found in Pan's Labryinth, a feat which is laudable and an achievement for Scorcese. The most interesting directorial pieces are the parts where he uses a circular matte in the frame to focus all of the attention on to a certain character to show how small and inconsequential either the character is or how they feel, such as feeling trapped. The opening is also well done with the old-footage of Boston's neighborhoods and Nicholson's voice over. I recommend that Michael Ballhaus (the cinematographer) and Scorcese work together forever. Especially on anything with a gritty urban feel.
In a rare turn, I would like to applaud the casting director for the film. The cast could not have been more perfect. DiCaprio has earned the right to be perhaps the best working actor in Hollywood in this film. Matt Damon flexes his muscle. Nicholson pumps his evil crazy vilain routine to the extreme. Hell, even Mark Wahlberg whom typically comes across as cold and indifferent in a lot of his films puts in an amazing performance. Martin Sheen and Vera Farmiga and Alec Baldwin round out the cast to create a perfect collaborative feel. None of the main actors steals too much time. Each character has his own motives, each and every one of them and they are all brought across vividly by the energy in herent in the language of roughneck Irish Boston. The range in accents among the actors varies wildly but the best are held down by DiCaprio and Wahlberg. The only actor who doesn't seem to fit in is Anthony Anderson, mostly due to his previously overwhelming association to comedies. Yet, he is passable for such a small part and doesn't detract from the film. I have heard talk of a possible sequel to the film and if that's true then they need Scorcese, Ballhaus, Ellen Lewis (casting director), William Monahan (screenwriter), Howard Shore (composer), and whatever surviving characters actors they decide to use.
Conclusion:
I refuse to talk about Monahan's script since I don't want to reveal any potential plot details. The jist is that the plot is amazingly transformed and molded to Boston perfectly. The Irish dialogue and the look into each character's lives and issues is perfect. Everyone is risking so much that everybody and detail matters. The directing and acting and cinematography make this film a nice shot of cocaine to film junkies. This film will surely be one of the next great films and should be one of the strongest from this decade. It's too bad that Scorcese is so old that it is unknown how many more films he has left in him. Just let him finish the two supposed sequels to this film God. If nothing else, rejoice knowing that Scorcese should definately win that long overdue Oscar come Friday.
4.9 out of 5
Wannabe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
