It may be easy to oversimplify what Christopher Johnson McCandless did in his life. Perhaps even he oversimplified what he viewed as the world. Coming from wealthy parents (played by Marcia Gay Harden and William Hurt) who didn't realize who he was until he left for good, Chris's journey across America into Alaska seemed to be inevitable. He was, in a way, running away from what he had known to pursue a life of simplicity. If you asked him whether he would choose living the way he had or dying the way he wanted, I'm sure you know his decision. What legacy Chris left behind is something he didn't entirely intend upon; he touched people when they needed someone in their lives like him. They may or may not have known it, but the impact he made has changed several lives for good.
Chris McCandless, after graduating college, withdrew his college fund and donated it to charity, drove his aged car (he wouldn't like it if I said 'crappy car') well away from home, abandoned it, burned the cash he had along with his social security card and bank cards, and left on foot for Alaska. He hitchhikes along the way, and the characters he meets initially view him as a stupid kid- that he'll live in the forest for a couple days and then go home. He doesn't, but instead, he moves for over 100 days in a journey of self-reflection.
For those who are unaware, "Into the Wild" is a true story. The characters were real people despite some names being changed, and the story was told as it had happened (absolutely exceptional work by author/reporter John Krakauer). When I finished the book a couple years ago, I was touched by the image of this guy around my age pursuing a dream that he desired. I did, however, have my doubts about Chris. Maybe he was just a well-dressed goth kid. Maybe his motivation was the bad kind of selfish. Maybe he wanted to take the journey and publish his book so he could become famous. These doubts may raise in your mind, and you may view Chris as a dumb fool, but there are many who met him that didn't.
He encounters two older hippies who were having troubles in their relationship (Catherine Keener and Brian Dierker). The exact problems are never revealed, but the fact that there were problems is enough for our purposes. They pick Chris up and hear his story over a campfire after dinner. As one of the first characters he meets in his journey, Chris seems to carry an air of superiority over most people. He doesn't feel superior to them, but his immaturity is still present. He revisits them later, and they couldn't be happier to see him alive. His position in their lives seems to occupy that of a young friend. After he leaves them, their troubles seem to have vanished.
Chris works as a wheat farmer for Wayne Westerberg (Vince Vaughn). They drink at a bar and reminisce about life and living, and the very happy Wayne doesn't seem to need any help with his existence. This seems to be almost like a vacation for both as they seem to hit it off immediately. The chemistry is enough to believe that they had been around each other for a long time. Chris leaves him, and Wayne promises him a job if he ever needs it.
What many believe to be the most significant stop is when he meets Ron Franz (Hal Holbrook). Ron is an elderly man who works with leather in his garage. Chris shows him his camp in "Oh-My-God Hotsprings," and Ron convinces him to stay at his home. Ron later reveals that early in his marriage, his wife and son were killed by a drunk driver, and his parents and grandparents only had one child, so after he passes, his bloodline will have vanished. He wishes for Chris to remain in his life, but dramatic irony shows us that he will outlive Chris. In the book, Ron later takes his own journey of self-discovery.
If you think I've revealed too much, then you don't realize that this isn't a film about the final stop but about the pit stops along the way. The story, for the most part, is revealed on the back cover of the book, and it is fairly common knowledge. There is no way that I can put into words the exchanges made between Chris and his new friends. The acting is that perfect. The writing and direction (both by Sean Penn) transcend anything traditional and instead work to simply tell a story. It would have been tempting to arthouse up the dialogue and everything, but that would diminish the point.
No, the point is not that everyone should sell and destroy their possessions and go live in the wilderness. The point is that we all have an unashamed passion, something we wish to pursue in life. When we get caught up in the game of living, we forget exactly why we're here. It's not to make an indentation in the world like a kid around fresh cement; it's to live, really live the way we wish. That is a legacy worth keeping.
In the end credits, a picture of the real Chris McCandless is shown for a length of time. At first, I did what I usually do when movies based on true stories do this- I looked at how much Emile Hirsch looked like the real guy. Yes, that was interesting, but after a second, I looked into his eyes. I truly felt like I had known a Chris McCandless in my walk, but I haven't. I couldn't shake this recognition, and I tried to think about some people I've know; still nothing. It was at that point that I realized that it wasn't the character or the actions I had known, it was the fact that he was genuinely happy at that moment. He was doing what he wanted to do, and nothing or no one was standing in his way. I often wish I had his courage, but it's never too late. There is always time in your life to fulfill your dream.
Rated R for language and some nudity.
Buy it here.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Happy-Go-Lucky **** out of ****
After seeing this fantastic film, I checked some user reactions on IMDb. It turns out that most people in the world view a character that is optimistic and seldom without a smile on their face as someone who has serious mental problems. There seems to be a desire to live life as seriously as possible, and that's what Mike Leigh addresses in his latest film.
Poppy (Sally Hawkins- where was her Oscar nomination?) is a 35 year-old grade school teacher in England who goes through life with a smile on her face. She isn't stupid, on medications, or trying to get a rise out of people, she just thinks it to be the right thing to do. She has very good friends, but there are some people in the world that feel that it is their obligation to not like her. One of these people is her driving instructor, Scott (Eddie Marsan, playing a great role). Scott believes it to be his obligation in life to take everything seriously and to attempt to kill Poppy's spirit. He isn't a villain- he's much too normal for that. He's not even an antagonist, all things considered. He's just a very sad man.
There isn't a single scene in the movie that can describe the character because she's an extremely complicated one. No, it's not that hard to understand her, but the complications come from her being outside of the norm. There is a key scene early on in the film: Poppy discovers that her bike was stolen. Her reaction is never anger but disappointment ("I didn't even get a chance to say 'goodbye.'"). She then walks to her destination, still smiling.
Films like these rarely come along. I hate to call it a feel-good movie because it's so much deeper than that. Take the flamenco instructor for example (Karina Fernandez). She's spicier than my jambalaya, but she is not a female repeat of Scott. She doesn't try to destroy her spirit nor does she try to use its energy for flamenco. Instead, she ignores it and criticizes her based on her work in the class. In this case, ignoring it is worse than using it to attack her because if she was an effective teacher, she could have allowed her outlook on life to let her express herself in a new way.
I mentioned before that the driving instructor wasn't the antagonist. Here's the question: Who is, then? This film does have a strong antagonist, and my answer is that it's just about everybody. It doesn't have the same "fuck you" that Caryl Churchill's 'Vinegar Tom' has, but the indictment is clearly there. See it for yourself, and remember that you deserve to be happy.
Rated R for language.
Buy it here.
Poppy (Sally Hawkins- where was her Oscar nomination?) is a 35 year-old grade school teacher in England who goes through life with a smile on her face. She isn't stupid, on medications, or trying to get a rise out of people, she just thinks it to be the right thing to do. She has very good friends, but there are some people in the world that feel that it is their obligation to not like her. One of these people is her driving instructor, Scott (Eddie Marsan, playing a great role). Scott believes it to be his obligation in life to take everything seriously and to attempt to kill Poppy's spirit. He isn't a villain- he's much too normal for that. He's not even an antagonist, all things considered. He's just a very sad man.
There isn't a single scene in the movie that can describe the character because she's an extremely complicated one. No, it's not that hard to understand her, but the complications come from her being outside of the norm. There is a key scene early on in the film: Poppy discovers that her bike was stolen. Her reaction is never anger but disappointment ("I didn't even get a chance to say 'goodbye.'"). She then walks to her destination, still smiling.
Films like these rarely come along. I hate to call it a feel-good movie because it's so much deeper than that. Take the flamenco instructor for example (Karina Fernandez). She's spicier than my jambalaya, but she is not a female repeat of Scott. She doesn't try to destroy her spirit nor does she try to use its energy for flamenco. Instead, she ignores it and criticizes her based on her work in the class. In this case, ignoring it is worse than using it to attack her because if she was an effective teacher, she could have allowed her outlook on life to let her express herself in a new way.
I mentioned before that the driving instructor wasn't the antagonist. Here's the question: Who is, then? This film does have a strong antagonist, and my answer is that it's just about everybody. It doesn't have the same "fuck you" that Caryl Churchill's 'Vinegar Tom' has, but the indictment is clearly there. See it for yourself, and remember that you deserve to be happy.
Rated R for language.
Buy it here.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
I Am Legend - ** out of ****
Survival horror is a genre that almost writes itself. You have the main character, you present the creatures/zombies/insects, you have some suspense where the main character must go into an area where s/he shouldn't be, you kill off some of the most lovable characters, and you have stupid choices. We automatically connect with the main character because s/he's the only one we can rely on, and it's very easy to present a motif of divine intervention/judgment/something spiritual. You create the enemy first, then make some scary scenes, decide on an ending, and at that point you craft the characters.
"I Am Legend" has every single element in the formula and doesn't take an extra step with them. It relies solely on Will Smith's performance, and it's one that is actually very good for the genre. We believe him, and we truly feel for his deteriorating mental state. There are a few too many lapses in logic, some small (Why does he bother wearing an apron while cooking if he thinks he's the only person alive?), and some considerably larger (you know the rules, so why would you just happen to violate those rules at the same exact time as when you must rescue another human? I believe that's a Roger Ebert movie rule...).
The scene I liked best was when Will Smith (I don't remember the character's name, and for the first half of the movie, it's really not important; he is the only human) finally reconnects with humans. I won't reveal how, but you might be able to guess the circumstances. He has spent virtually the entire first half of the movie only interacting with his Dog (Sam...yes, I remembered his name. Will Smith calls it several times) and mannequins (don't remember their names), so by logic, we have to assume that he's gonna go crazy. In most other survival horror films, the main character interacts with people as if nothing had ever happened, but here, the script finds an extra scene of suspense. It works so much better than Will going through a dark hallway with only a flashlight until RAAAHHHRRRR! Something must jump out and start screaming!
I'm probably being a bully here, but I can't help myself. "The Descent" was 1/3 of a survival horror film, but every second of it worked in my eyes. It worked because the actors playing the creatures were, well, actors. Here, they're computer-generated creations. They look fake, and because of that, they're immediately less scary. Another inevitable cliche is something found in James Bond movies. Despite how close something is to the guy with the automatic weapon, not a single shot will hit its target. In the words of Mystery Science Theater 3000, "Oh no, they set their phazers to 'miss'!"
"The Descent" also had characters we cared about and was bold enough to explore three levels of horror instead of just one. The isolation is pretty much just a character trait, and I never felt that he was a man trapped in a large city. He should have looked like the sole ant on a road.
I wish the script would have given Will Smith more room to improvise. He's such a gifted actor and can think on his feet, but unfortunately, here he's constricted to the script. There was a lot of room present for this, but if there was improvisation present, I didn't notice it. Maybe that was the point, but it just gives me ammunition to tear the movie apart.
I hate picking on movies, but these were just some of the areas where I thought "I Am Legend" failed. Too many (bad) special effects, too much formula, and too little originality. However, I guess that if you saw the previews and were interested, then this is something you'd find enjoyable. For those of us who want more bang for our buck, check out "The Descent."
Rated PG-13 for Intense Sequences of Sci-Fi Action and Violence.
Buy it here.
"I Am Legend" has every single element in the formula and doesn't take an extra step with them. It relies solely on Will Smith's performance, and it's one that is actually very good for the genre. We believe him, and we truly feel for his deteriorating mental state. There are a few too many lapses in logic, some small (Why does he bother wearing an apron while cooking if he thinks he's the only person alive?), and some considerably larger (you know the rules, so why would you just happen to violate those rules at the same exact time as when you must rescue another human? I believe that's a Roger Ebert movie rule...).
The scene I liked best was when Will Smith (I don't remember the character's name, and for the first half of the movie, it's really not important; he is the only human) finally reconnects with humans. I won't reveal how, but you might be able to guess the circumstances. He has spent virtually the entire first half of the movie only interacting with his Dog (Sam...yes, I remembered his name. Will Smith calls it several times) and mannequins (don't remember their names), so by logic, we have to assume that he's gonna go crazy. In most other survival horror films, the main character interacts with people as if nothing had ever happened, but here, the script finds an extra scene of suspense. It works so much better than Will going through a dark hallway with only a flashlight until RAAAHHHRRRR! Something must jump out and start screaming!
I'm probably being a bully here, but I can't help myself. "The Descent" was 1/3 of a survival horror film, but every second of it worked in my eyes. It worked because the actors playing the creatures were, well, actors. Here, they're computer-generated creations. They look fake, and because of that, they're immediately less scary. Another inevitable cliche is something found in James Bond movies. Despite how close something is to the guy with the automatic weapon, not a single shot will hit its target. In the words of Mystery Science Theater 3000, "Oh no, they set their phazers to 'miss'!"
"The Descent" also had characters we cared about and was bold enough to explore three levels of horror instead of just one. The isolation is pretty much just a character trait, and I never felt that he was a man trapped in a large city. He should have looked like the sole ant on a road.
I wish the script would have given Will Smith more room to improvise. He's such a gifted actor and can think on his feet, but unfortunately, here he's constricted to the script. There was a lot of room present for this, but if there was improvisation present, I didn't notice it. Maybe that was the point, but it just gives me ammunition to tear the movie apart.
I hate picking on movies, but these were just some of the areas where I thought "I Am Legend" failed. Too many (bad) special effects, too much formula, and too little originality. However, I guess that if you saw the previews and were interested, then this is something you'd find enjoyable. For those of us who want more bang for our buck, check out "The Descent."
Rated PG-13 for Intense Sequences of Sci-Fi Action and Violence.
Buy it here.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Hollywoodland - **** out of ****
"Hollywoodland" is a mystery film that is based on fact but doesn't become a recreation of Oliver Stone's "JFK." It's smart enough to show us the smoking gun but not foolish enough to show who's holding it. When all is said and done, we aren't left with an easy answer, an accusing finger pointing at someone. Instead, we're left to analyze what we've been told, but where the film ultimately succeeds is that it's bold enough to ask, "Why?". "Why does this matter?" "Why is it significant?" Certainly some amount of justice would be satisfying, but on www.IMDb.com, George Reeves is still shown to have died from a suicide.
The evidence shows that there were two holes in the ground in Reeves' bedroom where the body was found, there are no powder burns on Reeves' head, and the gun (a Nazi pistol) was wiped clean of fingerprints. A private investigator (Adrian Brody, reliably awesome) goes after the trail and begins to feel the strain of his other obligations tightening like a rubber band. This could have easily gone into melodrama territory, but it feels very real and genuine, not like an afterthought. In the mystery, nothing completely fits, but the theories include Reeves' fiance (Robin Tunney, showing great skills here), the woman who mostly created him into TV's Superman (Diane Lane- I could have sworn I felt her fire), her pissed-off husband (Bob Hoskins, doing a 180 from his hilarious part in "Mrs. Henderson Presents"), or was it Reeves himself (Ben Affleck- I'll tell you about him later)?
This period piece never feels like it's being shoved in our faces or that it's phony. The colors keep us in a dark state of mind, and the lighting helps to show public isolation, or isolation of the brain among characters. This motif carries nicely and is handled in a way that keeps us absorbed rather than feeling like everything's twice as long as it is.
There are some suspense-filled scenes, and I can't tell you about my favorite ones because that would be unfair. It would ruin some suspense, and as far as I'm concerned, the less you know about the movie, the better. Showing us the actor that plays Superman after "The Adventures of Sir Galahad" ("I defended Camelot with a wooden sword") and before the Oscar-winning "From Here to Eternity" allows us to analyze the actor and not the idol.
Now onto Ben Affleck. I haven't really been a fan up until now. He always struck me as one-note, and despite occasionally excelling, I never pictures him as seriously award-worthy. Maybe "Armageddon," "Pearl Harbor," Gigli," "Surviving Christmas," "He's Just Not That Into You," and "Smokin' Aces" caused me to not consider "Good Will Hunting," "Shakespeare in Love," "Dogma," "Changing Lanes," "The Sum of All Fears," and "State of Play." I'm not sure exactly, but let's get back to "Hollywoodland." He embodies George Reeves and makes it look like the role he was born to play. He excels because of some very smart choices such as allowing us to see his conflicts. He's right at home in a mystery, and I couldn't have been more thrilled. He received a Golden Globe nod, but no Oscar love. Actually, only two out of five of the actors in the supporting category went on to receive Academy Award noms (excluded from the Globes but taking home the big guy was Alan Arkin). Food for thought.
I found it ironic that his own personal career seems to parallel Reeves'. They both worked in something extraordinary (Reeves- "Gone With the Wind," Affleck- "Good Will Hunting," where he won his Oscar for writing), but after those works, they seemed to fizzle out. Perhaps they didn't pick their scripts carefully enough, but that's beside the point. Later, they each performed in something truly memorable (Reeves- "Adventures of Superman," Affleck in this). I'm not sure what significance that has, but it's an observation worth considering. I hope Affleck continues to do work of this caliber.
I've gotten off-subject here, and I can feel this review including more trivia than being a true review of the movie, but after seeing this great movie, I can't stop thinking. My excuse is that in this mystery, the fewer plot developments I reveal, the better. Considering everything that was presented throughout the film and seeing the high-wire act the entire film danced upon, I'd like to just recommend the movie and leave you to watch it. When the final credits rolled, I just sat there in silence. I was moved and engaged in thought. I hope you will be, too.
Rated R for Language, Some Violence and Sexual Content.
Buy it here.
The evidence shows that there were two holes in the ground in Reeves' bedroom where the body was found, there are no powder burns on Reeves' head, and the gun (a Nazi pistol) was wiped clean of fingerprints. A private investigator (Adrian Brody, reliably awesome) goes after the trail and begins to feel the strain of his other obligations tightening like a rubber band. This could have easily gone into melodrama territory, but it feels very real and genuine, not like an afterthought. In the mystery, nothing completely fits, but the theories include Reeves' fiance (Robin Tunney, showing great skills here), the woman who mostly created him into TV's Superman (Diane Lane- I could have sworn I felt her fire), her pissed-off husband (Bob Hoskins, doing a 180 from his hilarious part in "Mrs. Henderson Presents"), or was it Reeves himself (Ben Affleck- I'll tell you about him later)?
This period piece never feels like it's being shoved in our faces or that it's phony. The colors keep us in a dark state of mind, and the lighting helps to show public isolation, or isolation of the brain among characters. This motif carries nicely and is handled in a way that keeps us absorbed rather than feeling like everything's twice as long as it is.
There are some suspense-filled scenes, and I can't tell you about my favorite ones because that would be unfair. It would ruin some suspense, and as far as I'm concerned, the less you know about the movie, the better. Showing us the actor that plays Superman after "The Adventures of Sir Galahad" ("I defended Camelot with a wooden sword") and before the Oscar-winning "From Here to Eternity" allows us to analyze the actor and not the idol.
Now onto Ben Affleck. I haven't really been a fan up until now. He always struck me as one-note, and despite occasionally excelling, I never pictures him as seriously award-worthy. Maybe "Armageddon," "Pearl Harbor," Gigli," "Surviving Christmas," "He's Just Not That Into You," and "Smokin' Aces" caused me to not consider "Good Will Hunting," "Shakespeare in Love," "Dogma," "Changing Lanes," "The Sum of All Fears," and "State of Play." I'm not sure exactly, but let's get back to "Hollywoodland." He embodies George Reeves and makes it look like the role he was born to play. He excels because of some very smart choices such as allowing us to see his conflicts. He's right at home in a mystery, and I couldn't have been more thrilled. He received a Golden Globe nod, but no Oscar love. Actually, only two out of five of the actors in the supporting category went on to receive Academy Award noms (excluded from the Globes but taking home the big guy was Alan Arkin). Food for thought.
I found it ironic that his own personal career seems to parallel Reeves'. They both worked in something extraordinary (Reeves- "Gone With the Wind," Affleck- "Good Will Hunting," where he won his Oscar for writing), but after those works, they seemed to fizzle out. Perhaps they didn't pick their scripts carefully enough, but that's beside the point. Later, they each performed in something truly memorable (Reeves- "Adventures of Superman," Affleck in this). I'm not sure what significance that has, but it's an observation worth considering. I hope Affleck continues to do work of this caliber.
I've gotten off-subject here, and I can feel this review including more trivia than being a true review of the movie, but after seeing this great movie, I can't stop thinking. My excuse is that in this mystery, the fewer plot developments I reveal, the better. Considering everything that was presented throughout the film and seeing the high-wire act the entire film danced upon, I'd like to just recommend the movie and leave you to watch it. When the final credits rolled, I just sat there in silence. I was moved and engaged in thought. I hope you will be, too.
Rated R for Language, Some Violence and Sexual Content.
Buy it here.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
An Education - **** out of ****
After I finally watched this film, I was overtaken by the characters most of all. Every single actor owns their role and becomes something that should be re-watched and studied years from now. An up-and-coming actress, Carey Mulligan, carries the show, causing emotional depth and crafting a specific character through no cut-corners or easy solutions. This is the best acting I've witnessed since Helen Mirren's work in "The Queen." Every other character is supporting, but each actor shows that they are up to the extraordinary task of running their own show.
The script is one of the finest of the year. Adapted from Lynn Barber's memoirs, the drama follows Jenny (Mulligan), a 16 year-old schoolgirl who becomes seduced by a 30-something rich man, David (Peter Sarsgaard). She is in her final year of school and is looking at going to Oxford, but the sudden wrench thrown in her plans seems to become the only solution. She doesn't quite love the man (she never says those words throughout the movie), but what he can provide for her is beyond what she believes an education can provide.
I'll say absolutely no more about the plot- discover it for yourself. Carey Mulligan is quite possibly the finest newcomer, showing us a girl becoming a woman that is conflicted, intelligent, and above all in a struggle against the times. She seems to be a character from today crafted in the 1960's. This could have been the cause of a straight-out comedy, but the way it's handled is that of grace and sophistication, showing her as forward-thinking yet naive. This character of contradictions is never questioned and is a site to behold.
Peter Sarsgaard is an actor that I unfairly believed was beyond depths of characterization, but he makes the role of David one of seduction and mystery. I saw his work in "Flightplan," "The Cell," and "The Skeleton Key," but I failed to consider what he accomplished in "Jarhead." In this role, he goes above and beyond the call of duty and creates such an interesting character that I would be willing to read his own memoirs. Finding out about how he gets the money he has could have transformed this drama into a one-note thriller, and what keeps us in the dramatic territory is his genuine approach to the part. I haven't watched all the nominees, but methinks he was robbed for a Supporting Oscar nomination.
The script is brilliant, and I'm not just saying that because of its status in 2007 in Variety magazine as one of the best unpublished screenplays. The dialogue is captivating, the characters are written in a manner that are specific yet give room for the actors to add their own depths, and every plot element is believable. This screenplay, from the writer of "About a Boy," "High Fidelity," and "Fever Pitch" seems to be something put in his drawer until producers were bold enough to make it into a film. There was not a second that was wasted yet the movie didn't move too quickly. It dances the line between uncomfortable tension and drama with the element of comedy so well that upon a second viewing when watching it from a writing angle, you feel like it was a highwire act, much like the excellent "Lars and the Real Girl."
The tension we feel as Americans between a 16 year-old girl and a much older man is beyond the word 'pedophile.' We understand the circumstances, and we understand the risks taken in both situation and in writing. I simply can't praise this bold film enough. It's an absolute masterwork fueled by brilliant performances, writing, and direction. This is not only one of the finest films of the year but one of the finest films of the decade. If only I'd have watched it before I wrote my "30 Best" list...
Rated PG-13 for mature thematic content involving sexual content, and for smoking.
But it here.
The script is one of the finest of the year. Adapted from Lynn Barber's memoirs, the drama follows Jenny (Mulligan), a 16 year-old schoolgirl who becomes seduced by a 30-something rich man, David (Peter Sarsgaard). She is in her final year of school and is looking at going to Oxford, but the sudden wrench thrown in her plans seems to become the only solution. She doesn't quite love the man (she never says those words throughout the movie), but what he can provide for her is beyond what she believes an education can provide.
I'll say absolutely no more about the plot- discover it for yourself. Carey Mulligan is quite possibly the finest newcomer, showing us a girl becoming a woman that is conflicted, intelligent, and above all in a struggle against the times. She seems to be a character from today crafted in the 1960's. This could have been the cause of a straight-out comedy, but the way it's handled is that of grace and sophistication, showing her as forward-thinking yet naive. This character of contradictions is never questioned and is a site to behold.
Peter Sarsgaard is an actor that I unfairly believed was beyond depths of characterization, but he makes the role of David one of seduction and mystery. I saw his work in "Flightplan," "The Cell," and "The Skeleton Key," but I failed to consider what he accomplished in "Jarhead." In this role, he goes above and beyond the call of duty and creates such an interesting character that I would be willing to read his own memoirs. Finding out about how he gets the money he has could have transformed this drama into a one-note thriller, and what keeps us in the dramatic territory is his genuine approach to the part. I haven't watched all the nominees, but methinks he was robbed for a Supporting Oscar nomination.
The script is brilliant, and I'm not just saying that because of its status in 2007 in Variety magazine as one of the best unpublished screenplays. The dialogue is captivating, the characters are written in a manner that are specific yet give room for the actors to add their own depths, and every plot element is believable. This screenplay, from the writer of "About a Boy," "High Fidelity," and "Fever Pitch" seems to be something put in his drawer until producers were bold enough to make it into a film. There was not a second that was wasted yet the movie didn't move too quickly. It dances the line between uncomfortable tension and drama with the element of comedy so well that upon a second viewing when watching it from a writing angle, you feel like it was a highwire act, much like the excellent "Lars and the Real Girl."
The tension we feel as Americans between a 16 year-old girl and a much older man is beyond the word 'pedophile.' We understand the circumstances, and we understand the risks taken in both situation and in writing. I simply can't praise this bold film enough. It's an absolute masterwork fueled by brilliant performances, writing, and direction. This is not only one of the finest films of the year but one of the finest films of the decade. If only I'd have watched it before I wrote my "30 Best" list...
Rated PG-13 for mature thematic content involving sexual content, and for smoking.
But it here.
Educating Rita - **+ out of ****
"Educating Rita" is a good film that should have been groundbreaking. It has two excellent actors in the main roles, a screenplay with great dialogue, ideas, and scenes, and a director that is perfectly capable of this material (despite doing three Bond films with two different actors in the title role). However, I left feeling somewhat disappointed and wanting more in the bad sense.
The film follows Rita White (a deliciously saucy Julie Walters), an older British hairstylist who wishes to finish her education in the field of English. Dr. Frank Bryant (Michael Caine performing another role that seems to be written for him) is the instructor in which she's assigned, but he's bitter, an alcoholic, and sardonic as hell. Rita faces struggles at home with her husband (Malcolm Douglass, playing the line between comic idiocy and crafting an uneducated character) who isn't necessarily crazy about the idea of her going back to school. This is handled well, beginning comically and reaching the boiling point at a part that makes sense. She also worries about what her fellow students think of her since she fears being viewed as an idiot. Dr. Bryant helps her to overcome these problems through literature and getting her to say brilliant things in response to these works.
This is a movie that is meant for an adult, literary-conscious audience, but that in itself may be its major flaw. For instance, my favorite line is the following:
Frank: "In reply to the question, 'Explain how you would resolve the many staging difficulties inherent in a production of Ibsen's "Peer Gynt,"' you wrote, "Do it on the radio.""
For those of us that have studied "Peer Gynt," the joke is fabulous, but for those that don't, you probably feel like someone who walked in on the punchline but missed the set-up. It helps to know that Henrick Ibsen's "Peer Gynt" is quite literally a novel written in play format because Ibsen could convey his thoughts and ideas the best through plays. His 'play' was never meant to be performed because some scenes are ultimately impossible to stage (in one sequence, Peer Gynt is chased up and down a mountain, pursued by creatures that are very small and undergoes a physical transformation into their form). The play is also extremely long, running five acts, so a simple performance would probably take around 5-6 hours. Although it could be made into a movie today (perhaps a quite effective one, if some problems were resolved, but that's another essay), what remains static is that Ibsen never intended for it to be performed on-stage. The joke is that the question asked how you would solve said staging problems, and Rita responds in the most logical way. It's not a lazy answer, but it is one that Ibsen would approve of.
I could go with every joke presented in a similar fashion, but you get the point. In order to grasp everything, you have to know these works, and if you don't, you're simply going to be out of the loop because they never explain them. That's left for you to reflect upon after reading.
This is definitely the film's major flaw, so if you're a well-read movie-goer, you'll love their discussions. While they only talk about the books and plays a few times, they are very good scenes for those of us that understand what they're saying. There were a couple other flaws present in the film overall, but by now you should know if this is your kind of movie or not. I can safely say that I had to fight for a while to settle on a star rating because of what I've mentioned, but the thing that transcends the film's problems is the charm of the actors. These are wonderful roles that go far and beyond the "Odd Couple" motif, leaving you feeling like you've studied under a Dr. Bryant before or that you've noticed someone like Rita on campus.
This is a very intelligent film, and I recommend it to those of you that are up for a charmingly smart comedy. The Academy recognized Michael Caine, Julie Walters, and Willy Russell's adapted screenplay from his play of the same name, and although these nominations were criticized, I was glad that this movie was watched by more people by getting said nominations. After spending much of my academic career studying quite a few of the works they discuss, having a critic like Rita respond is quite refreshing. I remember writing a long essay on how Jean Genet's prison time influenced his writing for "The Balcony," and I keep wondering how Rita would respond to the work or my little essay.
Rated PG in 1983. Contains some strong language, a drunk Michael Caine, and a disturbing scene.
Buy it here.
The film follows Rita White (a deliciously saucy Julie Walters), an older British hairstylist who wishes to finish her education in the field of English. Dr. Frank Bryant (Michael Caine performing another role that seems to be written for him) is the instructor in which she's assigned, but he's bitter, an alcoholic, and sardonic as hell. Rita faces struggles at home with her husband (Malcolm Douglass, playing the line between comic idiocy and crafting an uneducated character) who isn't necessarily crazy about the idea of her going back to school. This is handled well, beginning comically and reaching the boiling point at a part that makes sense. She also worries about what her fellow students think of her since she fears being viewed as an idiot. Dr. Bryant helps her to overcome these problems through literature and getting her to say brilliant things in response to these works.
This is a movie that is meant for an adult, literary-conscious audience, but that in itself may be its major flaw. For instance, my favorite line is the following:
Frank: "In reply to the question, 'Explain how you would resolve the many staging difficulties inherent in a production of Ibsen's "Peer Gynt,"' you wrote, "Do it on the radio.""
For those of us that have studied "Peer Gynt," the joke is fabulous, but for those that don't, you probably feel like someone who walked in on the punchline but missed the set-up. It helps to know that Henrick Ibsen's "Peer Gynt" is quite literally a novel written in play format because Ibsen could convey his thoughts and ideas the best through plays. His 'play' was never meant to be performed because some scenes are ultimately impossible to stage (in one sequence, Peer Gynt is chased up and down a mountain, pursued by creatures that are very small and undergoes a physical transformation into their form). The play is also extremely long, running five acts, so a simple performance would probably take around 5-6 hours. Although it could be made into a movie today (perhaps a quite effective one, if some problems were resolved, but that's another essay), what remains static is that Ibsen never intended for it to be performed on-stage. The joke is that the question asked how you would solve said staging problems, and Rita responds in the most logical way. It's not a lazy answer, but it is one that Ibsen would approve of.
I could go with every joke presented in a similar fashion, but you get the point. In order to grasp everything, you have to know these works, and if you don't, you're simply going to be out of the loop because they never explain them. That's left for you to reflect upon after reading.
This is definitely the film's major flaw, so if you're a well-read movie-goer, you'll love their discussions. While they only talk about the books and plays a few times, they are very good scenes for those of us that understand what they're saying. There were a couple other flaws present in the film overall, but by now you should know if this is your kind of movie or not. I can safely say that I had to fight for a while to settle on a star rating because of what I've mentioned, but the thing that transcends the film's problems is the charm of the actors. These are wonderful roles that go far and beyond the "Odd Couple" motif, leaving you feeling like you've studied under a Dr. Bryant before or that you've noticed someone like Rita on campus.
This is a very intelligent film, and I recommend it to those of you that are up for a charmingly smart comedy. The Academy recognized Michael Caine, Julie Walters, and Willy Russell's adapted screenplay from his play of the same name, and although these nominations were criticized, I was glad that this movie was watched by more people by getting said nominations. After spending much of my academic career studying quite a few of the works they discuss, having a critic like Rita respond is quite refreshing. I remember writing a long essay on how Jean Genet's prison time influenced his writing for "The Balcony," and I keep wondering how Rita would respond to the work or my little essay.
Rated PG in 1983. Contains some strong language, a drunk Michael Caine, and a disturbing scene.
Buy it here.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The Gift - ***+ out of ****
Here is a thriller with an interesting concept that never loses focus or sells out. This is a whodunit with a murder victim, and ultimately, a murderer, and I'd like for you to think about that statement for a second. So many mysteries seem to have everything riding on a twist in the end that may or may not make sense (i.e. "We're dead the entire time," "The murder victim/murderer is the main character," "It was all a dream"), but this film creates a plot, adds mystery and suspense as well as genuine thrills, and gives you a payoff that may or may not be what you guessed.
In a very Southern small town, Annie Wilson (Cate Blanchett, jaw-droppingly perfect as always) is a woman with a psychic gift to see into people as well as some events. Her husband died in an explosion before the movie starts (and no, there are no heart-wrenching flashbacks), so she's left to raise three young boys by herself. Social Security helps, but when she does readings, her clients often leave donations. Her clients include a haunted mechanic named Buddy Cole (Giovanni Ribisi, showing he can match with Goddess Blanchett), Valerie, the wife of an abusive husband (Hilary Swank, very effectively used), and others from the town who bear no significance to the plot. Wilson advises Valerie to leave her husband Donnie (What the hell? Keanu Reeves, not asking for an ounce of sympathy and doing genuinely good acting) which pisses him off. Annie receives threats and vandalism, but what the movie centers around is that she has a dream where she sees where the body of one of the characters is located, wrapped in chains. Does she see the location (without the murderer there, of course) because that's where the murder took place, is the dream symbolic, or is she just insane? I'll give you a hint- it's not the last option. Come on, it's a Sam Raimi movie with a supernatural concept! He doesn't do stupid twists.
We meet several other characters, but the most important is the engaged couple of Wayne Collins and Jessica King (Greg Kinnear and Katie Holmes, both so very good). There is a murder that takes place, and the most likely suspect couldn't be the killer. I mean, seriously, where would be the fun in that? This isn't a heartfelt, Southern drama- it's a supernatural mystery.
While reviews, trailers, and the back of the DVD cover seem keen on revealing a great plot development, I was one of the fortunate ones who saw the movie without knowing who was killed until it happened. This was the way to view the film because the exposition didn't feel like wasted time- we met the characters, there were some great thrills, and by the time the murder happened, I began guessing. I will admit this right now; I guessed incorrectly. Maybe my idea of the murderer would have been more fun, but that's not what the screenwriters (Billy Bob Thornton, basing the character of Annie on his own mother's gift and Tom Epperson) wanted us to see. Surely the possibility of anyone in the town being a murderer was interesting, but the way the pieces fit together is very satisfying and actually makes sense. The ending didn't quite have the punch I wanted, but five minutes isn't enough to ruin it for me.
Sam Raimi directs, and I'm here to tell you, the man can operate a thriller. There are chills, a couple jumps, Hitchcockian tension, great characters, and a movie that doesn't feel over-directed. This was a very fun journey for me, and by simply letting the story be told, the final product is worthy. There are traces of his work in the "Spider-Man" series as well as the "Evil Dead" films, but this isn't a rip-off or imitation. It is its own movie and can stand alone as a 'Film by Sam Raimi.'
"The Gift" didn't receive any major nominations, but I feel that Giovanni Ribisi is an extraordinary actor, and here he performs some major feats and makes it look easy. When I think about the actor, I think about his range. He played the husband to Scarlet Johannson in the beautiful "Lost in Translation," an hilarious half cameo half supporting role in the TV series "My Name Is Earl," and now this. He has acted in many, many films (some fine, others not), but what remains static is that he is a very talented actor. Perhaps he could have replaced Willem Dafoe ("Shadow of the Vampire") or Joaquin Phoenix ("Gladiator") for the supporting category in the Oscars of 2000. Maybe I'm too keen on this actor, but this felt like the breakthrough role some new actors would kill over.
The characters are all great and well-written, but some can't shake that they are basically greatly crafted stereotypes. Of course, the argument could be made that the vast majority of great characters could have been stereotypes, but let's analyze for a second. It's a southern town, and there's the kind-hearted widow, a wife beater, his wife who doesn't want to leave him, a youngish guy who's afraid he might do something, the very attractive village bicycle, the sweet principal of the elementary, the corrupt public official, and the town sheriff who doesn't believe in any of this psychic hocus-pocus. You know what? I don't care if they could be seen as stock characters on the surface. The acting and writing depths don't let laziness fly. I mean, we never meet the boozer or town pastor nor do we see alligators in a foggy swamp.
I wish I could give the film four stars, but the ending felt a little too sudden instead of allowing some time in the final revelation. Whatever. Regardless, there are enough genuine thrills and scary moments not involving the supernatural to keep you pinned throughout the ride. The only moment for me where there was a logic gap was in the trial scene. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney object at some moments where the other is out of line. That may work for "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit," but this is a movie grounded in realism with only one supernatural concept.
I will end by saying that it shows something excellent that in a story that could have made a bad movie, the only thing that some may find unrealistic would be the presence of the psychic abilities in Annie. If that's the case, suspend your beliefs and just accept it for a couple hours. It's a fictional thriller for the love of God!
Rated R for violence, language, and sexuality/nudity.
Buy it here.
In a very Southern small town, Annie Wilson (Cate Blanchett, jaw-droppingly perfect as always) is a woman with a psychic gift to see into people as well as some events. Her husband died in an explosion before the movie starts (and no, there are no heart-wrenching flashbacks), so she's left to raise three young boys by herself. Social Security helps, but when she does readings, her clients often leave donations. Her clients include a haunted mechanic named Buddy Cole (Giovanni Ribisi, showing he can match with Goddess Blanchett), Valerie, the wife of an abusive husband (Hilary Swank, very effectively used), and others from the town who bear no significance to the plot. Wilson advises Valerie to leave her husband Donnie (What the hell? Keanu Reeves, not asking for an ounce of sympathy and doing genuinely good acting) which pisses him off. Annie receives threats and vandalism, but what the movie centers around is that she has a dream where she sees where the body of one of the characters is located, wrapped in chains. Does she see the location (without the murderer there, of course) because that's where the murder took place, is the dream symbolic, or is she just insane? I'll give you a hint- it's not the last option. Come on, it's a Sam Raimi movie with a supernatural concept! He doesn't do stupid twists.
We meet several other characters, but the most important is the engaged couple of Wayne Collins and Jessica King (Greg Kinnear and Katie Holmes, both so very good). There is a murder that takes place, and the most likely suspect couldn't be the killer. I mean, seriously, where would be the fun in that? This isn't a heartfelt, Southern drama- it's a supernatural mystery.
While reviews, trailers, and the back of the DVD cover seem keen on revealing a great plot development, I was one of the fortunate ones who saw the movie without knowing who was killed until it happened. This was the way to view the film because the exposition didn't feel like wasted time- we met the characters, there were some great thrills, and by the time the murder happened, I began guessing. I will admit this right now; I guessed incorrectly. Maybe my idea of the murderer would have been more fun, but that's not what the screenwriters (Billy Bob Thornton, basing the character of Annie on his own mother's gift and Tom Epperson) wanted us to see. Surely the possibility of anyone in the town being a murderer was interesting, but the way the pieces fit together is very satisfying and actually makes sense. The ending didn't quite have the punch I wanted, but five minutes isn't enough to ruin it for me.
Sam Raimi directs, and I'm here to tell you, the man can operate a thriller. There are chills, a couple jumps, Hitchcockian tension, great characters, and a movie that doesn't feel over-directed. This was a very fun journey for me, and by simply letting the story be told, the final product is worthy. There are traces of his work in the "Spider-Man" series as well as the "Evil Dead" films, but this isn't a rip-off or imitation. It is its own movie and can stand alone as a 'Film by Sam Raimi.'
"The Gift" didn't receive any major nominations, but I feel that Giovanni Ribisi is an extraordinary actor, and here he performs some major feats and makes it look easy. When I think about the actor, I think about his range. He played the husband to Scarlet Johannson in the beautiful "Lost in Translation," an hilarious half cameo half supporting role in the TV series "My Name Is Earl," and now this. He has acted in many, many films (some fine, others not), but what remains static is that he is a very talented actor. Perhaps he could have replaced Willem Dafoe ("Shadow of the Vampire") or Joaquin Phoenix ("Gladiator") for the supporting category in the Oscars of 2000. Maybe I'm too keen on this actor, but this felt like the breakthrough role some new actors would kill over.
The characters are all great and well-written, but some can't shake that they are basically greatly crafted stereotypes. Of course, the argument could be made that the vast majority of great characters could have been stereotypes, but let's analyze for a second. It's a southern town, and there's the kind-hearted widow, a wife beater, his wife who doesn't want to leave him, a youngish guy who's afraid he might do something, the very attractive village bicycle, the sweet principal of the elementary, the corrupt public official, and the town sheriff who doesn't believe in any of this psychic hocus-pocus. You know what? I don't care if they could be seen as stock characters on the surface. The acting and writing depths don't let laziness fly. I mean, we never meet the boozer or town pastor nor do we see alligators in a foggy swamp.
I wish I could give the film four stars, but the ending felt a little too sudden instead of allowing some time in the final revelation. Whatever. Regardless, there are enough genuine thrills and scary moments not involving the supernatural to keep you pinned throughout the ride. The only moment for me where there was a logic gap was in the trial scene. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney object at some moments where the other is out of line. That may work for "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit," but this is a movie grounded in realism with only one supernatural concept.
I will end by saying that it shows something excellent that in a story that could have made a bad movie, the only thing that some may find unrealistic would be the presence of the psychic abilities in Annie. If that's the case, suspend your beliefs and just accept it for a couple hours. It's a fictional thriller for the love of God!
Rated R for violence, language, and sexuality/nudity.
Buy it here.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Iron Man 2 - ***+ out of ****
"Iron Man 2" isn't as good as the original, but when you compare it to the norm of its genre, it's pretty damn impressive. The CGI is Oscar-worthy, the two villains are comical and scary (Sam Rockwell as the comical making a very nice transition from the mind-bending "Moon," Mickey Rourke coming off of "The Wrestler" with an acting professionalism), we get a great sidekick out of Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson channeling some of her brilliant character in the masterpiece that is "Lost in Translation"), and perhaps most importantly, we get more Robert Downey, Jr. The post-rehab star is consistent in his focus on a wonderful character with comedic timing that caused fireworks with Tina Fey at this year's Oscars. I can't possibly get enough of this guy- "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang," "Zodiac," "Good Night and Good Luck," "Tropic Thunder," "Iron Man," and of course his earlier roles such as playing Charlie Chapman in "Chapman" and as the sniveling weasel in the hilarious "Soapdish."
Now that I'm through name and film-dropping, I can sort of tell you about the plot. Tony Stark is even more of a celebrity (after appearing before Congress), but Ivan Vanko (Rourke) gets super-pissed because he believes Stark stole his father's idea, so he goes after him later with the help of Justin Hammer, a very nice comedic villain (delusions of grandeur mixed with some stupidity). Pepper Potts (Gweneth Paltrow, underused but still matching wits with Downey) receives an unprecedented promotion but one that seems necessary because...well, this is a summer blockbuster. Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johansson (Nick Fury and Natalie Rushman/Black Widow) make brief appearances, but some viewers after were confused as to why exactly they were there. I figured it out after I started caring (after the movie). For the most part, I was just entertained.
Why exactly did I give this movie a higher than just 'great' review? I found everything to be thought out well, the movie to be entertaining, and I didn't feel talked down to or stupid after. Also, I absolutely love this particular cast and found fireworks brewing everywhere. Sure, the pacing was a little wacky and there wasn't the thrill of discovery present in the first "Iron Man," but you know exactly what you're getting into after seeing the first film. Sure, it's not as good as the original, but why split hairs? I had serious fun and would see it again and again.
Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi and action and violence, and for language.
Check your local theater for showtimes...it's probably playing everywhere.
Now that I'm through name and film-dropping, I can sort of tell you about the plot. Tony Stark is even more of a celebrity (after appearing before Congress), but Ivan Vanko (Rourke) gets super-pissed because he believes Stark stole his father's idea, so he goes after him later with the help of Justin Hammer, a very nice comedic villain (delusions of grandeur mixed with some stupidity). Pepper Potts (Gweneth Paltrow, underused but still matching wits with Downey) receives an unprecedented promotion but one that seems necessary because...well, this is a summer blockbuster. Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johansson (Nick Fury and Natalie Rushman/Black Widow) make brief appearances, but some viewers after were confused as to why exactly they were there. I figured it out after I started caring (after the movie). For the most part, I was just entertained.
Why exactly did I give this movie a higher than just 'great' review? I found everything to be thought out well, the movie to be entertaining, and I didn't feel talked down to or stupid after. Also, I absolutely love this particular cast and found fireworks brewing everywhere. Sure, the pacing was a little wacky and there wasn't the thrill of discovery present in the first "Iron Man," but you know exactly what you're getting into after seeing the first film. Sure, it's not as good as the original, but why split hairs? I had serious fun and would see it again and again.
Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi and action and violence, and for language.
Check your local theater for showtimes...it's probably playing everywhere.
Friday, May 7, 2010
The Human Centipede (First Sequence) - No Stars
Here is a movie that is almost impossible to give a star rating to because depending on whether you're someone who goes to movies to be entertained and touched or are a 13 year-old goth kid, your take on this movie will be very different. I will say this right now- any amount of social satire or parody thought about in this movie is simply what the viewer assigns and is not what the writer/director intended. I know this because this is a movie that keeps its focus on the rebelliously disgusting premise without any other focus whatsoever. It is a horror/thriller that is designed to make you feel nauseated, nothing more. I give the movie no stars because I can't possibly recommend a movie that is not entertaining or enlightening. As I said in my first blog entry, critics serve the role of stating what is and isn't art, and I'm saying this right now: "The Human Centipede" is not art.
This isn't really a spoiler since everything I say is revealed in the trailer, but I will not reveal what happens in the final half hour. The movie is about a mad scientist who spent his career separating conjoined twins and decides, now that he's crazy, to join three people into a human centipede, connected mouth to anus. The back two cannot eat since their mouths are surgically attached to the ass of the person in front of them, so all of their nutrients will be taken when they eat said person in front's excrement. This is all the movie is about.
Now that I've said what the movie is, I'd like to take most of the rest of my review to say what it is not, based on claims many people have made.
It is not a parody of pornography because the focus is simply on the surgery (with several shots showing such images as the doctor ripping out teeth of the back two parts of the centipede since they don't need them to consume their new diet) and not on sex at all. As a matter of fact, I believe the only nudity shown would be the one in the middle's breasts every now and then, although I wasn't watching the movie with attention to nudity. I never felt sexual tension, and, quite frankly, sex was the last thing on my mind during the movie. As a matter of fact, "The Human Centipede" isn't a parody of any kind. It has no comedic edge of its genre like "Scream" or "Drag Me to Hell" had.
It's not a dark comedy. Although there are comedic moments early on, the general focus is much too grisly for us to get a laugh out of gore or situation. Even in my favorite film, "Fargo," the Coens knew that there were parts that should not be viewed in a comedic lens for the necessity of storytelling, so the violent parts were not meant to be funny. Dark comedy can take many mediums, but if the writer/director intended a dark comedy, he failed miserably. Because of that, I do not believe that that is the kind of movie that was intended. Surely a writer/director knows when a moment is meant to be funny, and this movie had none of those after the initial capture. Furthermore, there is no possible way that many of the scenes could be viewed as funny. If you laughed, it was out of an uncomfortableness and not because of intended humor.
It is not enlightening. There is a part in the end where we're supposed to think that the people in the centipede didn't value their bodies enough to deserve having them to themselves, but that simply isn't true. What a person is born with is what every human being deserves at the very least, and to say that some don't deserve their skin is ridiculous. Not a single human being has ever committed a crime so horrible (not even the villain of this film) that they don't deserve their body. I also would like to say that the last sentence is not an indictment of the death penalty. If you have philosophical objections, then rephrase the statement in a way that you find most pleasing.
It is not believable. The three characters all make unbelievably stupid decisions (or lack thereof) that seem to transcend logic to such an extreme that it goes into the fact that none of the characters could possibly be portrayed by any actor as they were in the film. The villain is also one-note, and it seemed that Dr. Heiter (yes, I'm aware that it sounds like "hater" and is almost "Hitler") is basically just a crazy sociopath. Obviously, you aren't meant to know why he wanted to create a human centipede, but there is no possible motivation. Crazy people have reasons for their actions. Also, It felt like his character was written to shadow Buffalo Bill from "The Silence of the Lambs," never recognizing his victims as humans, but there was nothing else there. I always use the following though when I'm questioning characters' dimensionality- What would he/she do in a context that is not within the film? For instance, what would Dr. Heiter do if he was pulled over for speeding? I don't know, and neither does anyone else.
The movie is not logical. Its tagline is '100% medically accurate,' but that's not the point. I'm not a medical student, and I haven't asked one if this is possible. To be completely honest, I truly don't care- I'm not that curious. What I'm talking about is the fact that as I mentioned before, the three victims make illogically stupid choices, and the characters couldn't be played by anyone. They are two-dimensional, and no matter how stupid they are, they simply aren't believable. I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but that's a point that I simply can't let slip by. I could pick apart the rest of the movie with simple logic, there's no point. Every single character is incredibly stupidly written.
The movie is nothing deeper than what you find in most horror films. I read a response that compared the movie to a Shakespearean tragedy, and I'm here to say that Shakespeare had character depth, dialogue that made sense, and endings where you not only feel for the circumstances but also for the characters. To compare "The Human Centipede" to anything by Shakespeare is to compare "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" to "Casablanca." It just can't be done. *SPOILER* Also remember that Shakespeare didn't invent the tragedy, so if a movie has a tragic ending that is left to be open-ended, then comparing it to Shakespeare is no better than comparing anyone who kills someone to Hannibal Lecter. *NO SPOILER*
Reader, here is what we are left with: the writer/director thought about the concept of a human centipede then made it into something of a surgical torture-porn film by having it performed by a crazy surgeon. Satire would come from some amount of subtlety and make us aware of its exterior focus through imagery or other references. "The Human Centipede" has none of these qualities and instead shows us graphic surgery as well as images that are supposed to hit on the "what you don't see disgusts you more than what you do" motif when the guy in front responds to a call of nature. We don't see the excrement, but based on the reaction of the middle girl, we know what's happening underneath those bandages.
I choose to not throw in my personal morals into this review for two reasons. The first reason is that this movie was designed to isolate its audience and seems to thrive on deplorable/genius reviews about its morals. The second reason is because my morals aren't yours, and I have no reason to force them on you. I watched this movie because a friend recommended it, and I can tell you that I was not enlightened, entertained, intrigued, or even effectively grossed out like I felt at the end of "A Clockwork Orange." I have watched a lot of movie gore, and I have effectively desensitized myself from it (not exactly something I am proud of), and the surgical gore didn't phase me. Yes, I felt disgusted at times, but it didn't last. On my list of fears, being placed in a human centipede or forced to eat feces aren't exactly high up, but what "The Human Centipede" tries to exploit is most everyone's fear of not being able to effectively control your own body.
Every single published review of this movie is either glowing or mad as hell. I didn't feel either feeling because as far as I'm concerned, I just watched a sophomoric exploitation film that tries to be an indie/art-house masterpiece. I think the movie could have possibly been decent if it didn't try to be something it's not. If it stuck with simply being a horror/thriller, it could have been quite a disturbing one. If it wanted to be a satire, parody, or grisly dark comedy, it could have been something to consider. There is nothing in this movie to admire in any way, and my advice is to stay clear of this black hole. I'd wish it to be considered for a Razzie Award, but I'm afraid that that would give it some amount of publicity.
No MPAA Rating. This movie is intended only for those above 18 as it would have most likely received an NC-17 rating.
Indie release- most likely only at indie theaters and independent film festivals.
This isn't really a spoiler since everything I say is revealed in the trailer, but I will not reveal what happens in the final half hour. The movie is about a mad scientist who spent his career separating conjoined twins and decides, now that he's crazy, to join three people into a human centipede, connected mouth to anus. The back two cannot eat since their mouths are surgically attached to the ass of the person in front of them, so all of their nutrients will be taken when they eat said person in front's excrement. This is all the movie is about.
Now that I've said what the movie is, I'd like to take most of the rest of my review to say what it is not, based on claims many people have made.
It is not a parody of pornography because the focus is simply on the surgery (with several shots showing such images as the doctor ripping out teeth of the back two parts of the centipede since they don't need them to consume their new diet) and not on sex at all. As a matter of fact, I believe the only nudity shown would be the one in the middle's breasts every now and then, although I wasn't watching the movie with attention to nudity. I never felt sexual tension, and, quite frankly, sex was the last thing on my mind during the movie. As a matter of fact, "The Human Centipede" isn't a parody of any kind. It has no comedic edge of its genre like "Scream" or "Drag Me to Hell" had.
It's not a dark comedy. Although there are comedic moments early on, the general focus is much too grisly for us to get a laugh out of gore or situation. Even in my favorite film, "Fargo," the Coens knew that there were parts that should not be viewed in a comedic lens for the necessity of storytelling, so the violent parts were not meant to be funny. Dark comedy can take many mediums, but if the writer/director intended a dark comedy, he failed miserably. Because of that, I do not believe that that is the kind of movie that was intended. Surely a writer/director knows when a moment is meant to be funny, and this movie had none of those after the initial capture. Furthermore, there is no possible way that many of the scenes could be viewed as funny. If you laughed, it was out of an uncomfortableness and not because of intended humor.
It is not enlightening. There is a part in the end where we're supposed to think that the people in the centipede didn't value their bodies enough to deserve having them to themselves, but that simply isn't true. What a person is born with is what every human being deserves at the very least, and to say that some don't deserve their skin is ridiculous. Not a single human being has ever committed a crime so horrible (not even the villain of this film) that they don't deserve their body. I also would like to say that the last sentence is not an indictment of the death penalty. If you have philosophical objections, then rephrase the statement in a way that you find most pleasing.
It is not believable. The three characters all make unbelievably stupid decisions (or lack thereof) that seem to transcend logic to such an extreme that it goes into the fact that none of the characters could possibly be portrayed by any actor as they were in the film. The villain is also one-note, and it seemed that Dr. Heiter (yes, I'm aware that it sounds like "hater" and is almost "Hitler") is basically just a crazy sociopath. Obviously, you aren't meant to know why he wanted to create a human centipede, but there is no possible motivation. Crazy people have reasons for their actions. Also, It felt like his character was written to shadow Buffalo Bill from "The Silence of the Lambs," never recognizing his victims as humans, but there was nothing else there. I always use the following though when I'm questioning characters' dimensionality- What would he/she do in a context that is not within the film? For instance, what would Dr. Heiter do if he was pulled over for speeding? I don't know, and neither does anyone else.
The movie is not logical. Its tagline is '100% medically accurate,' but that's not the point. I'm not a medical student, and I haven't asked one if this is possible. To be completely honest, I truly don't care- I'm not that curious. What I'm talking about is the fact that as I mentioned before, the three victims make illogically stupid choices, and the characters couldn't be played by anyone. They are two-dimensional, and no matter how stupid they are, they simply aren't believable. I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but that's a point that I simply can't let slip by. I could pick apart the rest of the movie with simple logic, there's no point. Every single character is incredibly stupidly written.
The movie is nothing deeper than what you find in most horror films. I read a response that compared the movie to a Shakespearean tragedy, and I'm here to say that Shakespeare had character depth, dialogue that made sense, and endings where you not only feel for the circumstances but also for the characters. To compare "The Human Centipede" to anything by Shakespeare is to compare "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" to "Casablanca." It just can't be done. *SPOILER* Also remember that Shakespeare didn't invent the tragedy, so if a movie has a tragic ending that is left to be open-ended, then comparing it to Shakespeare is no better than comparing anyone who kills someone to Hannibal Lecter. *NO SPOILER*
Reader, here is what we are left with: the writer/director thought about the concept of a human centipede then made it into something of a surgical torture-porn film by having it performed by a crazy surgeon. Satire would come from some amount of subtlety and make us aware of its exterior focus through imagery or other references. "The Human Centipede" has none of these qualities and instead shows us graphic surgery as well as images that are supposed to hit on the "what you don't see disgusts you more than what you do" motif when the guy in front responds to a call of nature. We don't see the excrement, but based on the reaction of the middle girl, we know what's happening underneath those bandages.
I choose to not throw in my personal morals into this review for two reasons. The first reason is that this movie was designed to isolate its audience and seems to thrive on deplorable/genius reviews about its morals. The second reason is because my morals aren't yours, and I have no reason to force them on you. I watched this movie because a friend recommended it, and I can tell you that I was not enlightened, entertained, intrigued, or even effectively grossed out like I felt at the end of "A Clockwork Orange." I have watched a lot of movie gore, and I have effectively desensitized myself from it (not exactly something I am proud of), and the surgical gore didn't phase me. Yes, I felt disgusted at times, but it didn't last. On my list of fears, being placed in a human centipede or forced to eat feces aren't exactly high up, but what "The Human Centipede" tries to exploit is most everyone's fear of not being able to effectively control your own body.
Every single published review of this movie is either glowing or mad as hell. I didn't feel either feeling because as far as I'm concerned, I just watched a sophomoric exploitation film that tries to be an indie/art-house masterpiece. I think the movie could have possibly been decent if it didn't try to be something it's not. If it stuck with simply being a horror/thriller, it could have been quite a disturbing one. If it wanted to be a satire, parody, or grisly dark comedy, it could have been something to consider. There is nothing in this movie to admire in any way, and my advice is to stay clear of this black hole. I'd wish it to be considered for a Razzie Award, but I'm afraid that that would give it some amount of publicity.
No MPAA Rating. This movie is intended only for those above 18 as it would have most likely received an NC-17 rating.
Indie release- most likely only at indie theaters and independent film festivals.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Drag Me to Hell - **** out of ****
Alright, I will admit it right now- when I saw the posters for "Drag Me to Hell," upon knowing nothing about it, mind you, I rolled my eyes and thought that this would be a horror film that came and went without much knowledge. What brought me to the theater was the fact that it was by Sam Raimi, the mind behind the "Evil Dead" trilogy as well as the new "Spider Man" trilogy. What "Drag Me to Hell" entails is a horror movie that supplies as many laughs as it does general thrills. I loved this movie.
The plot follows a young, hopeful bank loan officer named Cristine Brown who becomes so consumed with the idea of getting a promotion to the Assistant Manager's position that she makes the tragic mistake of denying a mortgage extension to an old gypsy named Sylvia Ganush. Mrs. Ganush gets so super-pissed off that after a golden parking lot showdown (a wonderful homage to the slasher genre) that she takes a button and places the Curse of the Lamia on her. The curse means that hell's worst demon will torment her for three days and then drag her into his homeworld if the curse is not broken.
What follows is quite possibly the most satisfying, gruesome (PG-13 rating stretched for more than it was worth) journey into what Peter Travers of Rolling Stone perfectly called, "horror movie heaven." When the Lamia torments her, it's thrilling, but when Mrs. Ganush unleashes her wrath, it is hilarious, plain and simple. Feel free to laugh whenever you feel so inclined- Raimi would love that.
After I first saw the film in theaters, three nights later, one scene stuck in my mind while trying to sleep; the Lamia comes into her house when it begins to show its figure, and she is confined to her bedroom. The scene is perfectly paced and horribly entertaining because we truly fear the Lamia and root for Cristine to overcome the curse, despite what some may think of her. Her actions may isolate some viewers, but we become consumed with her attempt to fight this abnormal curse.
I have to recommend this film highly, as it is a perfect horror/comedy. Is it the best film of the year or deserve nominations? Perhaps a Golden Globe for Allison Lohman as our heroine or Lorna Raver as the best comical villain I've ever watched. Maybe even Dileep Rao as Rham Jas, the seer into Cristine's fate (just watch the 'Making Of' feature to see the depth and excellence he brings to his performance). Everyone brings their a-game here, and the final result is greatly satisfying for those who know that this film is within their genre.
I could go on and throw around the plot and characters, but by now you know if this is your movie or not. If you can handle what the film has to offer, you should have already checked it out. If not, you know what to do.
Rated PG-13 for sequences of horror violence, terror, disturbing images, and language. Unrated DVD available.
Buy it here.
The plot follows a young, hopeful bank loan officer named Cristine Brown who becomes so consumed with the idea of getting a promotion to the Assistant Manager's position that she makes the tragic mistake of denying a mortgage extension to an old gypsy named Sylvia Ganush. Mrs. Ganush gets so super-pissed off that after a golden parking lot showdown (a wonderful homage to the slasher genre) that she takes a button and places the Curse of the Lamia on her. The curse means that hell's worst demon will torment her for three days and then drag her into his homeworld if the curse is not broken.
What follows is quite possibly the most satisfying, gruesome (PG-13 rating stretched for more than it was worth) journey into what Peter Travers of Rolling Stone perfectly called, "horror movie heaven." When the Lamia torments her, it's thrilling, but when Mrs. Ganush unleashes her wrath, it is hilarious, plain and simple. Feel free to laugh whenever you feel so inclined- Raimi would love that.
After I first saw the film in theaters, three nights later, one scene stuck in my mind while trying to sleep; the Lamia comes into her house when it begins to show its figure, and she is confined to her bedroom. The scene is perfectly paced and horribly entertaining because we truly fear the Lamia and root for Cristine to overcome the curse, despite what some may think of her. Her actions may isolate some viewers, but we become consumed with her attempt to fight this abnormal curse.
I have to recommend this film highly, as it is a perfect horror/comedy. Is it the best film of the year or deserve nominations? Perhaps a Golden Globe for Allison Lohman as our heroine or Lorna Raver as the best comical villain I've ever watched. Maybe even Dileep Rao as Rham Jas, the seer into Cristine's fate (just watch the 'Making Of' feature to see the depth and excellence he brings to his performance). Everyone brings their a-game here, and the final result is greatly satisfying for those who know that this film is within their genre.
I could go on and throw around the plot and characters, but by now you know if this is your movie or not. If you can handle what the film has to offer, you should have already checked it out. If not, you know what to do.
Rated PG-13 for sequences of horror violence, terror, disturbing images, and language. Unrated DVD available.
Buy it here.
Crazy Heart - ***+ out of ****
"Crazy Heart" is a biographical film about Bad Blake, a man who only exists within the film and the accompanying novel by Thomas Cobb. This is quite a fascinating concept surrounding the idea that most music icons tend to live similar lives. Drugs, alcohol, sneaking out after one-night stands, the one that believed in them enough to change them- these are all overly familiar origins within the genre. What separates movies like "Crazy Heart" and last year's "The Wrestler" from mediocrity would be the brilliant performances present.
Jeff Bridges won his Oscar for this film, and his win was within very good reason indeed. When we meet Bad Blake, he's already a washed-up country singer doing gigs at a bowling alley. He's not suicidal, but his love of whiskey seems to dull the pain. While he's drunk and seems to never show up to rehearsals, despite how much it may mean to his impromptu band, he famously never misses a performance. He still has some amount of joy out of pleasing his audience and is never intentionally rude to them, but as it must, his alcoholism comes into play.
Blake meets up with a young reporter, Jane Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal, Oscar-nominated here), and begins to develop a friendship with she and her young son, Buddy. Gyllenhaal, like her brother, is one of today's best actors. Her role may not be quite on par with the three front-runners in her category (winner Mo'Nique for "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire" and nominees Anna Kendrick and Vera Farmiga both for "Up in the Air"), but this performance has passion, depth, and strong roots in a living, breathing character. I can't wait for what she has for us in the future.
Colin Farrell is probably one of the most unlikely of actors for his role as a new, hot country singer, Tommy Sweet. He performs the golden song, 'The Weary Kind' with a kind of unique charm that only the man behind "In Bruges" could emote. The song reminded me of my favorite Original Song winner, 'Falling Slowly' from "Once," with simplicity in its arrangement but an incredibly touching depth to the performance. I was very happy to see this wonderful song win its due.
I have only said positive things about the movie, but the film falls slightly short of excellence. I can't quite put my finger on what stops it from achieving that status, but what I can say is that I highly recommend the film, and I don't even like country music. When it's done badly (and God knows that happens more often than not), it sounds like a twangy, mind-numbingly bad exploitation of people who think that the exaggerated Southern accents are truthful.
Check this one out- it may not be something that is studied or even watched years from now, but it is an enlightening journey with epic performances.
Rated R for language and brief sexuality.
Buy it here.
Jeff Bridges won his Oscar for this film, and his win was within very good reason indeed. When we meet Bad Blake, he's already a washed-up country singer doing gigs at a bowling alley. He's not suicidal, but his love of whiskey seems to dull the pain. While he's drunk and seems to never show up to rehearsals, despite how much it may mean to his impromptu band, he famously never misses a performance. He still has some amount of joy out of pleasing his audience and is never intentionally rude to them, but as it must, his alcoholism comes into play.
Blake meets up with a young reporter, Jane Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal, Oscar-nominated here), and begins to develop a friendship with she and her young son, Buddy. Gyllenhaal, like her brother, is one of today's best actors. Her role may not be quite on par with the three front-runners in her category (winner Mo'Nique for "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire" and nominees Anna Kendrick and Vera Farmiga both for "Up in the Air"), but this performance has passion, depth, and strong roots in a living, breathing character. I can't wait for what she has for us in the future.
Colin Farrell is probably one of the most unlikely of actors for his role as a new, hot country singer, Tommy Sweet. He performs the golden song, 'The Weary Kind' with a kind of unique charm that only the man behind "In Bruges" could emote. The song reminded me of my favorite Original Song winner, 'Falling Slowly' from "Once," with simplicity in its arrangement but an incredibly touching depth to the performance. I was very happy to see this wonderful song win its due.
I have only said positive things about the movie, but the film falls slightly short of excellence. I can't quite put my finger on what stops it from achieving that status, but what I can say is that I highly recommend the film, and I don't even like country music. When it's done badly (and God knows that happens more often than not), it sounds like a twangy, mind-numbingly bad exploitation of people who think that the exaggerated Southern accents are truthful.
Check this one out- it may not be something that is studied or even watched years from now, but it is an enlightening journey with epic performances.
Rated R for language and brief sexuality.
Buy it here.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Nine - ** out of ****
It gives me absolutely no pleasure to type the following two words; "Nine" sucks. The biggest flop of the year ($20 million domestic, $32 million international on an $80 million budget) didn't deserve said status, but one would expect much more from the writers of "The English Patient" and "The Player" (individual writers for each film) and the director behind the brilliant "Chicago."
The film follows an Italian director named Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) who is making a new movie about Italy but has no ideas whatsoever, but he knows it will star famous actress Claudia (Nicole Kidman). He cheats on his wife (Marion Cotillard) with his mistress (Penelope Cruz, Oscar-nominated for this). He is sexually tempted by a writer for Vogue Magazine (Kate Hudson), and in the meanwhile, memories of his past with his (now) deceased mother (Sophia Loren) and a hussy (Stacy Ferguson) who taught him to 'Be Italian.' In the current day, he receives advice and cigarettes from his costume designer (Judi Dench) pertaining to...well, I'm not really sure what. The film, his marriage, his style...take your pick, but the advice never goes anywhere.
As a matter of fact, that was the movie's big, dominating flaw; it never goes anywhere. The musical numbers, although well performed (excellent choreography by John DeLuca), seem to just be distractions, almost sideplots that don't fuel the story or add much of anything to the film. It's like reading a recipe while your best friend loudly crunches potato chips.
The cast and crew were a godsend for a movie. Academy Award winners Daniel Day-Lewis, Nicole Kidman, Marion Cotillard, Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz, Sophia Loren, writer Anthony Minghella, director Rob Marshall, Art Decorator John Myhre, Set Decorator Gordon Sim, and Costume Designer Coleen Atwood combine with Oscar nominees Kate Hudson and songwriter Maury Yeston (nominated here for 'Take it All'), but even this golden cast and crew can't save a musical with no story. They're throwing everything they have at us, but energy is no good without something in which to fuel the energy into.
Nicole Kidman's part was originally to be played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, but Jones wished for the part to be expanded, it was refused, and she left the project. Kate Hudson once again plays a two-dimensional character, but this time it's only a supporting role rather than a leading role. Penelope Cruz is unbelievably sexy in her numbers, but my Oscar-nomination would have gone to Marion Cotillard, displaying a range of emotion that comes to a scream in the excellent number, 'Take it All.' Stacy Ferguson lights up the screen in the best number, 'Be Italian.' The rest of the cast does about as well as it could be expected.
The movie, as aforementioned, flopped horribly, but I say that it didn't deserve that fate. Sure, a script with no focus, a good number that belongs in another movie ("Cinema Italiano" feels like a Madonna song forced into another context), and a final result that feels twice as long as it actually is doesn't deserve blockbuster status, but let's be honest here: With all the talent present in the film, surely the heads had a coherent story in place. What I saw upon finishing the film was a musical version of the idea behind "Adaptaion." that had 1/8 of its wit. I spent most of the movie wondering why I was so bored.
Rated PG-13 for sexual content and smoking.
Buy it here.
The film follows an Italian director named Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) who is making a new movie about Italy but has no ideas whatsoever, but he knows it will star famous actress Claudia (Nicole Kidman). He cheats on his wife (Marion Cotillard) with his mistress (Penelope Cruz, Oscar-nominated for this). He is sexually tempted by a writer for Vogue Magazine (Kate Hudson), and in the meanwhile, memories of his past with his (now) deceased mother (Sophia Loren) and a hussy (Stacy Ferguson) who taught him to 'Be Italian.' In the current day, he receives advice and cigarettes from his costume designer (Judi Dench) pertaining to...well, I'm not really sure what. The film, his marriage, his style...take your pick, but the advice never goes anywhere.
As a matter of fact, that was the movie's big, dominating flaw; it never goes anywhere. The musical numbers, although well performed (excellent choreography by John DeLuca), seem to just be distractions, almost sideplots that don't fuel the story or add much of anything to the film. It's like reading a recipe while your best friend loudly crunches potato chips.
The cast and crew were a godsend for a movie. Academy Award winners Daniel Day-Lewis, Nicole Kidman, Marion Cotillard, Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz, Sophia Loren, writer Anthony Minghella, director Rob Marshall, Art Decorator John Myhre, Set Decorator Gordon Sim, and Costume Designer Coleen Atwood combine with Oscar nominees Kate Hudson and songwriter Maury Yeston (nominated here for 'Take it All'), but even this golden cast and crew can't save a musical with no story. They're throwing everything they have at us, but energy is no good without something in which to fuel the energy into.
Nicole Kidman's part was originally to be played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, but Jones wished for the part to be expanded, it was refused, and she left the project. Kate Hudson once again plays a two-dimensional character, but this time it's only a supporting role rather than a leading role. Penelope Cruz is unbelievably sexy in her numbers, but my Oscar-nomination would have gone to Marion Cotillard, displaying a range of emotion that comes to a scream in the excellent number, 'Take it All.' Stacy Ferguson lights up the screen in the best number, 'Be Italian.' The rest of the cast does about as well as it could be expected.
The movie, as aforementioned, flopped horribly, but I say that it didn't deserve that fate. Sure, a script with no focus, a good number that belongs in another movie ("Cinema Italiano" feels like a Madonna song forced into another context), and a final result that feels twice as long as it actually is doesn't deserve blockbuster status, but let's be honest here: With all the talent present in the film, surely the heads had a coherent story in place. What I saw upon finishing the film was a musical version of the idea behind "Adaptaion." that had 1/8 of its wit. I spent most of the movie wondering why I was so bored.
Rated PG-13 for sexual content and smoking.
Buy it here.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
How to Train Your Dragon - *** out of ****
"How to Train Your Dragon" follows an overly familiar storyline, but where it works is in its dramatic depths. A young wuss in an old Viking community, Hiccup, feels destined to slay the unobtainable dragon, and as we open, he's in the perfect opportunity to do so- dragons are attacking the village, and he's left alone to try out his master plan (sort of...it felt half-assed to me). After meeting some characters a bit too quickly, Hiccup fires a cannon-catcher thingy toward said unobtainable dragon, and manages to take him down. No one believes that he took him down, so he goes by himself to find the dragon and realizes that the dragon (Toothless) is way too cute and vulnerable to kill. Since the dragon is too injured to fly, Hiccup seizes the opportunity to train him in secret, as the townspeople will kill him.
That's all you need to know for the plot, and for all intents and purposes, my review could stop right here. However, there is more to say. When Hiccup looks his new friend, Toothless, in the eyes when he has the perfect opportunity to slay him, you see a helpless creature ready to accept his fate. For a few minutes, I forgot that everything in front of me was artificially created and that the voices weren't even coming from those I'm watching talk. This is what animation is all about.
I was also reminded of my dog, Tanner, through Toothless' actions onscreen. His begging eyes, the tactics he uses for attention, and his protectiveness when he or I are even mildly threatened (or so he thinks) are exact. Sure, the dragon seemed to have the characteristics of a dog/cat hybrid, but I truly saw a lot of Tanner in the film. I feel that if the movie challenges others to look deeply into their pets' eyes, then it is a step above the rest.
The music by John Powell is particularly good. Lots of flute licks, percussion work, and some great general orchestral scoring help undertone the film without forcing you to feel something. The music helps you stay at place just like the animation helps you see how this story should be told.
I don't really have much else to say; I mean, it was fun, but it's not on par with the best animated films (most recently "Up" and "WALL-E"). The voicing was great, and I actually thought that Craig Ferguson's voice belonged to Simon Pegg. I didn't check the credits before I walked into the theater, and I really only saw the movie because I wanted to take my half-brother, Nick, with me, but I was very surprised that every young kid in the audience seemed to be loving everything onscreen. No screams, no crying, just good fun. And yes, Nick loved the movie, too.
Rated PG for sequences of intense action and some scary images, and brief mild language.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
That's all you need to know for the plot, and for all intents and purposes, my review could stop right here. However, there is more to say. When Hiccup looks his new friend, Toothless, in the eyes when he has the perfect opportunity to slay him, you see a helpless creature ready to accept his fate. For a few minutes, I forgot that everything in front of me was artificially created and that the voices weren't even coming from those I'm watching talk. This is what animation is all about.
I was also reminded of my dog, Tanner, through Toothless' actions onscreen. His begging eyes, the tactics he uses for attention, and his protectiveness when he or I are even mildly threatened (or so he thinks) are exact. Sure, the dragon seemed to have the characteristics of a dog/cat hybrid, but I truly saw a lot of Tanner in the film. I feel that if the movie challenges others to look deeply into their pets' eyes, then it is a step above the rest.
The music by John Powell is particularly good. Lots of flute licks, percussion work, and some great general orchestral scoring help undertone the film without forcing you to feel something. The music helps you stay at place just like the animation helps you see how this story should be told.
I don't really have much else to say; I mean, it was fun, but it's not on par with the best animated films (most recently "Up" and "WALL-E"). The voicing was great, and I actually thought that Craig Ferguson's voice belonged to Simon Pegg. I didn't check the credits before I walked into the theater, and I really only saw the movie because I wanted to take my half-brother, Nick, with me, but I was very surprised that every young kid in the audience seemed to be loving everything onscreen. No screams, no crying, just good fun. And yes, Nick loved the movie, too.
Rated PG for sequences of intense action and some scary images, and brief mild language.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
