Seen at: AMC Promenade in Westminster, Sunday evening.
I was delighted to accept my sister's invitation to see this with her daughters while I was staying down in Westminster at their house over Christmas.
Neither of us was looking forward to it that much as a movie. The trailer had looked atrocious. But thankfully, like so many trailers, it misrepresented the nature of the story.
Alice---of course I thought of you, not just because of the particular angular letter in the name of the main character, or because it's about a young woman held prisoner for eighteen years (seriously, really?), or because of her huge emerald eyes that remind me of a pair of contacts you once owned. It was all of those things, and more. Perhaps I just see you everywhere lately.
The story is more of a family reunion (girl reunited with parents) than a love story, and thus it was a bit deficiency. The romantic hero didn't really win her at the end. He wasn't put through enough trials. For example, there is no scene in the movie in which the hero thinks he has lost her entirely. It is in that black moment that we learn that he will do anything to get her back. That is how true love is tested.
In any case, it worked on enough levels to not be offensive. On the way home in the van, with the girls zonked out in their car seats, I told my sister about the movie. We both liked it better than we thought. We both agreed that the horse stole the show (second movie in a row for me). The idea that hero and horse are at odds with each other through much of this story says a lot about our culture. Horses are physical manifestations of human virtues. In this case the horse embodies the dogged unswerving tenacity that the hero lacks. For the hero to be a true hero, one who wins the heroine fully as his true love, the hero and horse have to be united. He must be as tenacious as the horse was, in this movie.
I also told my sister that I loved the idea that a man's hand can be healed by touching the hair of his true love. That's very romantic. But her true healing power doesn't come from her hair. That's not enough to bring him back to life. Instead it's her tears of mercy that do it, even if her hair has turned brown---or any other color for that matter.
Showing posts with label quick reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label quick reviews. Show all posts
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
Secretariat
Seen at: Cinema Saver 6, last night.
Alice---thought of you while seeing this movie, for obvious reasons, if you ever see it.
The movie unfortunately is rather dreadful---an amateur screenplay and textbook clumsy direction. You can really see the cast straining at the lines they are having to say. It's rather reactionary and cloying in the not-good sort of way, while simultaneously endorsing the worst of postmodernism.
The most interesting scenes were the close-ups of the horses themselves. They should have done more of that, I think---made the whole movie from the horse's point of view.
Nevertheless, I rooted for this movie. I remember the headline from the Triple Crown horse race that summer in banner type on the front page of the Des Moines Register. And that photo of that one horse, all alone, gallopping across the finish line to victory. Thirty one lengths---The number always stuck in my mind.
That's the way I thought of the world back then, that I was living in a perfect time, when the greatest of everything was happening, and that the wildest kinds of magic were possible, and that there was no reason I couldn't be a part of it too.
And the epilogue---that was freaking hilarious---snow angel hilarious.
Alice---thought of you while seeing this movie, for obvious reasons, if you ever see it.
The movie unfortunately is rather dreadful---an amateur screenplay and textbook clumsy direction. You can really see the cast straining at the lines they are having to say. It's rather reactionary and cloying in the not-good sort of way, while simultaneously endorsing the worst of postmodernism.
The most interesting scenes were the close-ups of the horses themselves. They should have done more of that, I think---made the whole movie from the horse's point of view.
Nevertheless, I rooted for this movie. I remember the headline from the Triple Crown horse race that summer in banner type on the front page of the Des Moines Register. And that photo of that one horse, all alone, gallopping across the finish line to victory. Thirty one lengths---The number always stuck in my mind.
That's the way I thought of the world back then, that I was living in a perfect time, when the greatest of everything was happening, and that the wildest kinds of magic were possible, and that there was no reason I couldn't be a part of it too.
And the epilogue---that was freaking hilarious---snow angel hilarious.
Despicable Me
seen at: Cinema Saver 6, about seven weeks ago, I think...
Smitty---has it really been less than two months since we saw this together? Then you went and did what?
So glad you had a great visit out to Coop and Betty's. Too bad about the cell phone. But you saw what mine looked like. I took your cosmic hint and got a new one too.
We both liked Despicable Me, as I remember. Wasn't that a good movie? Suprisingly so. I thought the trailers were dreadful, but it turned out they highlighted the worst part of the movie. The rest was almost charming.
Definite surprise of the year for me.
So glad you're back in town. What do you want to see next?
Smitty---has it really been less than two months since we saw this together? Then you went and did what?
So glad you had a great visit out to Coop and Betty's. Too bad about the cell phone. But you saw what mine looked like. I took your cosmic hint and got a new one too.
We both liked Despicable Me, as I remember. Wasn't that a good movie? Suprisingly so. I thought the trailers were dreadful, but it turned out they highlighted the worst part of the movie. The rest was almost charming.
Definite surprise of the year for me.
So glad you're back in town. What do you want to see next?
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Metropolis (restored version)
Seen at: Lyric Cinema Cafe, last month.
When I mentioned that this was coming to the Lyric, my dad said he really wanted to go. So for the second time in a year, I found myself going to a movie with him. I even got to introduce him to Ben, who was working the counter that night.
On the way there, my dad mentioned that the restored version was considered to have a very strong Nazi message. I had seen the old American recut version on TCM a few years back and thought it was a masterpiece. I wondered just how a re-editing could make it a Nazi movie.
After the movie was over, on the way home, we both agreed that there was no question what made this a Nazi movie.
The key to understanding it is to realize that we have essentially been fed a load of malarkey about what Nazism was about. We've been conned into thinking it was all about anti-Semitism, which in fact was a side issue in the main philosophy of the Third Reich.
Metropolis had to be lost and destroyed in its original version, I think, because it shows what the real philosophy of Nazism was about, especially in regard to the bloodline-based hierarchical and authoritative organization of society. It is the part of Nazism that survived the war intact, and was proffered to us as the New International Order after World War II. In order words, this movie shows how even though Germany lost the war, the Nazis triumphed.
But other than that, it's a brilliant movie. One of the greatest masterpieces of all time. It was a pleasure to watch every scene. My father thought it was "overly theatrical" like an old movie. I had to tell him that was part of German Expressionism at the time---the exaggerated sets and gestures, as well as the lingering camera shots.
I'd see it again and again, even if I get cold chills seeing the older Federson and his henchmen, who provided the textbook lesson in how to act like a Nazi for many members in the audience. The reason this is not an American movie is simple---the bad guys suffer no downfall. There's no revolution at the end. It turns out they were the good guys after all. They just needed to realize that it takes an upper-class scion of a powerful family to save us all. Gee, where have I heard that before?
When I mentioned that this was coming to the Lyric, my dad said he really wanted to go. So for the second time in a year, I found myself going to a movie with him. I even got to introduce him to Ben, who was working the counter that night.
On the way there, my dad mentioned that the restored version was considered to have a very strong Nazi message. I had seen the old American recut version on TCM a few years back and thought it was a masterpiece. I wondered just how a re-editing could make it a Nazi movie.
After the movie was over, on the way home, we both agreed that there was no question what made this a Nazi movie.
The key to understanding it is to realize that we have essentially been fed a load of malarkey about what Nazism was about. We've been conned into thinking it was all about anti-Semitism, which in fact was a side issue in the main philosophy of the Third Reich.
Metropolis had to be lost and destroyed in its original version, I think, because it shows what the real philosophy of Nazism was about, especially in regard to the bloodline-based hierarchical and authoritative organization of society. It is the part of Nazism that survived the war intact, and was proffered to us as the New International Order after World War II. In order words, this movie shows how even though Germany lost the war, the Nazis triumphed.
But other than that, it's a brilliant movie. One of the greatest masterpieces of all time. It was a pleasure to watch every scene. My father thought it was "overly theatrical" like an old movie. I had to tell him that was part of German Expressionism at the time---the exaggerated sets and gestures, as well as the lingering camera shots.
I'd see it again and again, even if I get cold chills seeing the older Federson and his henchmen, who provided the textbook lesson in how to act like a Nazi for many members in the audience. The reason this is not an American movie is simple---the bad guys suffer no downfall. There's no revolution at the end. It turns out they were the good guys after all. They just needed to realize that it takes an upper-class scion of a powerful family to save us all. Gee, where have I heard that before?
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Twilight Saga: Eclipse
Seen at Cinema Saver 6, about six weeks ago (on its last possible showing before it left town).
Pretty much had to see this installment, because I'd seen the first two as part of my "see everything" project.
I was not offended by the first two movies. They were empty of any real substance, but the first one took advantage of the spookiness of the Pacific Northwest in a unique way (at least, since First Blood (1981)). The second one had a similar romantic sheen because of the scenes set in Tuscany.
This one made me understand just how awful the books of this series must be. I could barely stomach listening to much of the early dialogue, and had to curl up and not look at the screen at times, it was so wretchedly juvenile. It was on par with the corniest short melodramas that came out Edison's studio a hundred years ago. Has Hollywood really lost that much of its storytelling ability?
The direction and editing is as clumsy as the worst of recent Hollywood films, quite surprisingly so, given the marquee status of the franchise. Yet the cinematography ironically is superior to the first two films, and we get some gorgeous shots of Kristin Stewart trying out her hand at advanced eye-acting in close ups.
The last half hour of the film perked up my interest a tad. It was a novel-enough take on a battle royale between super vampires and a team of other such vampires aided by werewolves. You've got my attention, at least, and I was far more entertained than I was in the dreadful collapse at the end of Inception. It almost made sitting through the dialog of the first ninety minutes worth it.
Pretty much had to see this installment, because I'd seen the first two as part of my "see everything" project.
I was not offended by the first two movies. They were empty of any real substance, but the first one took advantage of the spookiness of the Pacific Northwest in a unique way (at least, since First Blood (1981)). The second one had a similar romantic sheen because of the scenes set in Tuscany.
This one made me understand just how awful the books of this series must be. I could barely stomach listening to much of the early dialogue, and had to curl up and not look at the screen at times, it was so wretchedly juvenile. It was on par with the corniest short melodramas that came out Edison's studio a hundred years ago. Has Hollywood really lost that much of its storytelling ability?
The direction and editing is as clumsy as the worst of recent Hollywood films, quite surprisingly so, given the marquee status of the franchise. Yet the cinematography ironically is superior to the first two films, and we get some gorgeous shots of Kristin Stewart trying out her hand at advanced eye-acting in close ups.
The last half hour of the film perked up my interest a tad. It was a novel-enough take on a battle royale between super vampires and a team of other such vampires aided by werewolves. You've got my attention, at least, and I was far more entertained than I was in the dreadful collapse at the end of Inception. It almost made sitting through the dialog of the first ninety minutes worth it.
Friday, September 10, 2010
The Expendables
Seen August 29, afternoon at the Fox 5 in downtown Sterling, Colorado.
A strange way to break a month's fast. A spontaneous three-day road trip last month took me out onto the Eastern Plains---one of my favorite places to drive for hours on end without seeing anyone.
After two days of that, little Sterling seems like an oasis of civilization, a space colony in the midst of a void---cleans motels, a lovely museum well kept up, about the Rural Electrification Project.
The downtown multiplex is a coverted single screen establishment off the main boulevard. I arrived just in time to catch this movie, which I call the It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World of 2010.
Stanley Kramer's 1963 madcap epic was the end of a era, a last hoorah for an entire generation of the cast in many ways. The world was about to change in big ways.
Now, among other things, the action star as we know it is fading into history. There is a sadness among the old men in this movie that there is not a next generation. Cinema has moved on.
But it's much more than that. The mercenaries in the movie somehow know something went really, really wrong with America, and they identify it as stemming from the Serbian War. Very intriguing idea.
It's camp and pretensious on every level, and the action scenes rather bored me at times, but I still liked it for the reasons I've just described.
The finest scene in the film is a short performance by Mickey Roarke, as a hip Austin motorcycle tatoo artist and retried mercenary. He delivers a soliloquy in a close-up while bent into purple light as he concentrates on one of his designs. "We used to stand for something," he says.
I think of his character here as essentially the ghost of his character from The Wrestler, speaking form beyond the grave, mourning the death of the America we all knew and loved, and for which Stallone thought he was fighting, in his own Postmodern way.
I hear ya, brother. I hear ya.
A strange way to break a month's fast. A spontaneous three-day road trip last month took me out onto the Eastern Plains---one of my favorite places to drive for hours on end without seeing anyone.
After two days of that, little Sterling seems like an oasis of civilization, a space colony in the midst of a void---cleans motels, a lovely museum well kept up, about the Rural Electrification Project.
The downtown multiplex is a coverted single screen establishment off the main boulevard. I arrived just in time to catch this movie, which I call the It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World of 2010.
Stanley Kramer's 1963 madcap epic was the end of a era, a last hoorah for an entire generation of the cast in many ways. The world was about to change in big ways.
Now, among other things, the action star as we know it is fading into history. There is a sadness among the old men in this movie that there is not a next generation. Cinema has moved on.
But it's much more than that. The mercenaries in the movie somehow know something went really, really wrong with America, and they identify it as stemming from the Serbian War. Very intriguing idea.
It's camp and pretensious on every level, and the action scenes rather bored me at times, but I still liked it for the reasons I've just described.
The finest scene in the film is a short performance by Mickey Roarke, as a hip Austin motorcycle tatoo artist and retried mercenary. He delivers a soliloquy in a close-up while bent into purple light as he concentrates on one of his designs. "We used to stand for something," he says.
I think of his character here as essentially the ghost of his character from The Wrestler, speaking form beyond the grave, mourning the death of the America we all knew and loved, and for which Stallone thought he was fighting, in his own Postmodern way.
I hear ya, brother. I hear ya.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Letters to Juliet
Seen at: Carmike 10, two weeks ago
It's almost cruel---over the past three months we have gotten three incredible performances by Amanda Seyfried, my favorite 20-something actress. What a year so far for her.
The cruel part? I felt it strongly while watching Letters from Juliet, a lighthearted and fairly straightforward romantic comedy set in Tuscany, in which Seyfried stars (and holds her own against Vanessa Redgrave). The story is fun and predictable, but earnest and quite watchable within its genre. And yes, Taylor Swift makes an appearance in the soundtrack in Act Three.
Watching Seyfried cross the screen in the echoing streets of Verona and Sienna, or sitting on a Tuscan hillside in the sun, or under a starry sky, was for me, in that moment, to feel the majesty of film to capture the beauty of creation on screen, and to ache in my soul to know that such beauty exists. It is not a longing for possession of the actress herself, or even desire for her, but something more transcendental that springs from the power of art itself. It is cruel in how fleeting it is. It is the tragedy and triumph of cinema, as it reflects life, when something is so beautiful that it hurts in your soul, pleasantly so.
One of my favorites of the year so far. If Amanda didn't appear in anything else for 2010, she'd already be on the shortlist of my Actress of the Year.
It's almost cruel---over the past three months we have gotten three incredible performances by Amanda Seyfried, my favorite 20-something actress. What a year so far for her.
The cruel part? I felt it strongly while watching Letters from Juliet, a lighthearted and fairly straightforward romantic comedy set in Tuscany, in which Seyfried stars (and holds her own against Vanessa Redgrave). The story is fun and predictable, but earnest and quite watchable within its genre. And yes, Taylor Swift makes an appearance in the soundtrack in Act Three.
Watching Seyfried cross the screen in the echoing streets of Verona and Sienna, or sitting on a Tuscan hillside in the sun, or under a starry sky, was for me, in that moment, to feel the majesty of film to capture the beauty of creation on screen, and to ache in my soul to know that such beauty exists. It is not a longing for possession of the actress herself, or even desire for her, but something more transcendental that springs from the power of art itself. It is cruel in how fleeting it is. It is the tragedy and triumph of cinema, as it reflects life, when something is so beautiful that it hurts in your soul, pleasantly so.
One of my favorites of the year so far. If Amanda didn't appear in anything else for 2010, she'd already be on the shortlist of my Actress of the Year.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
The White Ribbon (Das weisse Band)
Seen at: Lyric Cinema Cafe, a couple months back
This was an Oscar nominee that was playing at the Lyric during Oscar week. I didn't wind up seeing up before the Awards, but saw it a few days later. It didn't win in Best Foreign Language Film.
Interesting characters and setting in early 1910s Austria that really do recall life in a rural European village, including quietness of no television, etc., and the shift in social relations that entails. Emphasis on class distinctions that have analogues in American towns of late 19th Century. The power of the story is in the ending, which is unexpected but speaks to the difference between narrative and real history.
"That's pretty typical Michael Haneke," said Ben, in the lobby of the Lyric after the show. "His movies all have that kind of twist somehow."
This was an Oscar nominee that was playing at the Lyric during Oscar week. I didn't wind up seeing up before the Awards, but saw it a few days later. It didn't win in Best Foreign Language Film.
Interesting characters and setting in early 1910s Austria that really do recall life in a rural European village, including quietness of no television, etc., and the shift in social relations that entails. Emphasis on class distinctions that have analogues in American towns of late 19th Century. The power of the story is in the ending, which is unexpected but speaks to the difference between narrative and real history.
"That's pretty typical Michael Haneke," said Ben, in the lobby of the Lyric after the show. "His movies all have that kind of twist somehow."
Friday, May 28, 2010
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Seen at: Lyric Cinema Cafe, last night
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo out of Sweden was one of those movies people have been talking about all spring. I'd put off seeing it during its lengthy run at the Lyric because it was two hours and thirty minutes long: anything over 2:05 begins to seem like a long movie to me. Ben, the Lyric owner, had seen it and proclaimed that it was a half hour too long. After the movie I agreed with him.
It was an interesting mystery story for much of the movie--a Swedish newspaper reporter is asked to solve a decades-old mystery of a missing young movie---pure Raymond Chandler type stuff.
There is a horrible sexual assault scene---one that the made the teenage girl in front of me cover her eyes. Then there follows, fifteen minutes later, a second much more brutal sexual assault scene with the same characters. Really? I needed to see two in a rows?
The solution to the mystery devolves into a rather trite "racist misogynist madman" theme. I couldn't help thinking that it was really (again) the same movie as Antichrist, but without the ironic twists and artistic sensibilities that make us question our assumptions. No room for that here. The heroine is stone-faced, because she has to be. The patriarchy made her so.
It's all very, very serious. By the end of the film, I figured the entire screenplay could have been written by a Women's Studies Symposium at a northeastern liberal arts college circa 1993, with Scandanavian self-righteousness thrown in for good measure.
It all would have made better sense if I'd only known the Swedish title in advance: it translates to "Men Who Hate Women."
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo out of Sweden was one of those movies people have been talking about all spring. I'd put off seeing it during its lengthy run at the Lyric because it was two hours and thirty minutes long: anything over 2:05 begins to seem like a long movie to me. Ben, the Lyric owner, had seen it and proclaimed that it was a half hour too long. After the movie I agreed with him.
It was an interesting mystery story for much of the movie--a Swedish newspaper reporter is asked to solve a decades-old mystery of a missing young movie---pure Raymond Chandler type stuff.
There is a horrible sexual assault scene---one that the made the teenage girl in front of me cover her eyes. Then there follows, fifteen minutes later, a second much more brutal sexual assault scene with the same characters. Really? I needed to see two in a rows?
The solution to the mystery devolves into a rather trite "racist misogynist madman" theme. I couldn't help thinking that it was really (again) the same movie as Antichrist, but without the ironic twists and artistic sensibilities that make us question our assumptions. No room for that here. The heroine is stone-faced, because she has to be. The patriarchy made her so.
It's all very, very serious. By the end of the film, I figured the entire screenplay could have been written by a Women's Studies Symposium at a northeastern liberal arts college circa 1993, with Scandanavian self-righteousness thrown in for good measure.
It all would have made better sense if I'd only known the Swedish title in advance: it translates to "Men Who Hate Women."
Monday, May 17, 2010
Ghost Writer
Seen at: Lyric Cinema Cafe, about five weeks ago.
This film---the latest from Roman Polansky---is certainly the best film I've seen over the last few months. Without giving any endorsement to any of Polansky's actions outside of being a movie director, let me just state that this a superb thriller, and a near perfect suspense story about high level corruption, at least until the last half of the third act, where the resolution of the story is not quite what I'd hoped for.
Nevertheless it scores very high on my Condor Index---a 1-10 rating system I invented for movies that expose high-level corruption and real conspiracies among the elite, with Three Days of the Condor (1975) being at the top of the scale as the best one could legitimately expect from Hollywood. Of course, 1975 was the year of the Church Committee hearings on the domestic intelligence operations. We've never matched that level of public awareness since, and started backsliding immediately afterwards (when you-know-you was appointed head of the CIA).
Ghost Writer, despite its less than impressive conclusion, still scores, oh, about a 9 on my Condor Index, the highest such ranking I've given over the last couple years of moviegoing. It legitimately raises the issue of whether or not certain foreign leaders are actually in the pay of the CIA, all the while mostly avoiding the X Files-type Hollywood trap of predictive programming, i.e., falsely "exposing" a legitimate issue in order to debunk it to the public: "oh, silly, you saw that in a movie."
I cannot speak of the truth of the rumor that this movie so angered Polansky's powerful globalist friends that they almost allowed Switzerland to deport him back to the U.S. recently, just to put the fear of "God" (i.e. the Bilderbergers) back into him. In any case, score one for him, and for us.
And yes, there's Pierce Brosnan again, the man who can do everything, back in his natural element as a British leader, instead of attempting a Brooklyn accent.
This film---the latest from Roman Polansky---is certainly the best film I've seen over the last few months. Without giving any endorsement to any of Polansky's actions outside of being a movie director, let me just state that this a superb thriller, and a near perfect suspense story about high level corruption, at least until the last half of the third act, where the resolution of the story is not quite what I'd hoped for.
Nevertheless it scores very high on my Condor Index---a 1-10 rating system I invented for movies that expose high-level corruption and real conspiracies among the elite, with Three Days of the Condor (1975) being at the top of the scale as the best one could legitimately expect from Hollywood. Of course, 1975 was the year of the Church Committee hearings on the domestic intelligence operations. We've never matched that level of public awareness since, and started backsliding immediately afterwards (when you-know-you was appointed head of the CIA).
Ghost Writer, despite its less than impressive conclusion, still scores, oh, about a 9 on my Condor Index, the highest such ranking I've given over the last couple years of moviegoing. It legitimately raises the issue of whether or not certain foreign leaders are actually in the pay of the CIA, all the while mostly avoiding the X Files-type Hollywood trap of predictive programming, i.e., falsely "exposing" a legitimate issue in order to debunk it to the public: "oh, silly, you saw that in a movie."
I cannot speak of the truth of the rumor that this movie so angered Polansky's powerful globalist friends that they almost allowed Switzerland to deport him back to the U.S. recently, just to put the fear of "God" (i.e. the Bilderbergers) back into him. In any case, score one for him, and for us.
And yes, there's Pierce Brosnan again, the man who can do everything, back in his natural element as a British leader, instead of attempting a Brooklyn accent.
Friday, May 14, 2010
How to Train Your Dragon
Seen at: Carmike 10, about six weeks ago.
This is a movie I did see in 3-d, because it was meant to be in 3-d, and everyone was talking about how good the 3-d was, by the time I saw it. I guess so. But honestly, when I started this review, I thought: "now did I see this 3-d or not...let me scour my memory."
This turned out to be the sleeper hit of the Spring. This is not surprising to me, since it is a kid's movie, which always have good legs if they are not heinous or stupid, which this movie is not. But it didn't blow me away either.
I was bored much of the time because it has what is now the standard Hollywood love story:
1. Nerdy boy-man is stuck in adolescent state.
2. Boy meets girl-warrior, who kicks his ass with her prowess in fighting. He falls in love with her.
3. Boy overcomes his nerdiness and becomes a kick-ass warrior too, and earns respect/love of the girl who originally kicked his ass.
Notice the use of the phrase "kick-ass" in there. It's not an accident.
Hollywood sees contemporary men as so enfeebled that they must be shamed by women into any mature solidity of character. Women, immune from the types of egotism that keep men in childlike states, must hold together society and civilization, not only through traditional female roles (which are devalued---only lesser women confine themselves to such activities) but also the traditionally male ones, in particular war and combat. Women are better men than men.
OK, now I'm straying from the movie of Dragon a bit. It's not a bad movie at all, but on some level I could never take this movie seriously because of its embrace of the standard love story above. I'm so tired of it. It's no longer fresh. But we've backed ourselves into a corner culturally. If women stop being the sword-wielding warriors in movies, does that mean it's back to domestic enslavement and traditional roles? Hollywood has no answer for that yet, so in the meantime we all get to go around chopping off heads of flying reptiles. It's the sexy thing to do.
This is a movie I did see in 3-d, because it was meant to be in 3-d, and everyone was talking about how good the 3-d was, by the time I saw it. I guess so. But honestly, when I started this review, I thought: "now did I see this 3-d or not...let me scour my memory."
This turned out to be the sleeper hit of the Spring. This is not surprising to me, since it is a kid's movie, which always have good legs if they are not heinous or stupid, which this movie is not. But it didn't blow me away either.
I was bored much of the time because it has what is now the standard Hollywood love story:
1. Nerdy boy-man is stuck in adolescent state.
2. Boy meets girl-warrior, who kicks his ass with her prowess in fighting. He falls in love with her.
3. Boy overcomes his nerdiness and becomes a kick-ass warrior too, and earns respect/love of the girl who originally kicked his ass.
Notice the use of the phrase "kick-ass" in there. It's not an accident.
Hollywood sees contemporary men as so enfeebled that they must be shamed by women into any mature solidity of character. Women, immune from the types of egotism that keep men in childlike states, must hold together society and civilization, not only through traditional female roles (which are devalued---only lesser women confine themselves to such activities) but also the traditionally male ones, in particular war and combat. Women are better men than men.
OK, now I'm straying from the movie of Dragon a bit. It's not a bad movie at all, but on some level I could never take this movie seriously because of its embrace of the standard love story above. I'm so tired of it. It's no longer fresh. But we've backed ourselves into a corner culturally. If women stop being the sword-wielding warriors in movies, does that mean it's back to domestic enslavement and traditional roles? Hollywood has no answer for that yet, so in the meantime we all get to go around chopping off heads of flying reptiles. It's the sexy thing to do.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Nordwand (North Face)
Seen at: Lyric Cinema Cafe, Thursday afternoon
This German production is one of the most brutal and intense outdoor movies I've ever seen. I saw just after coming down from a hike up to Arthur's Rock, where, if you read my FB posts, I got "swooped" by a turkey vulture. I was proud of myself after that hike, but after seeing this movie I realized that I'm the most amateur of amateurs, and always will be.
(Spoiler)
When I walked into the theater, I was under the impression this was a period piece, set in the 1930s, about the first successful attempt to climb the north face of the Eiger, "the last unsolved problem in the alps." Thus the ending ot the story caught me off guard. Like I said, very brutal.
This German production is one of the most brutal and intense outdoor movies I've ever seen. I saw just after coming down from a hike up to Arthur's Rock, where, if you read my FB posts, I got "swooped" by a turkey vulture. I was proud of myself after that hike, but after seeing this movie I realized that I'm the most amateur of amateurs, and always will be.
(Spoiler)
When I walked into the theater, I was under the impression this was a period piece, set in the 1930s, about the first successful attempt to climb the north face of the Eiger, "the last unsolved problem in the alps." Thus the ending ot the story caught me off guard. Like I said, very brutal.
Creation
Seen at: Lyric Cinema Cafe, about a month ago.
I knew little about this movie---a biopic on Charles Darwin during his writing of Origin of Species---until I walked in to see. When I noticed it was one of the BBC Films production financed by the UK National Lottery, I knew what kind of movie to expect, namely a fairly well-made, tight script that plays to the middle of the culture road, thoroughly exploring a certain range of sentiment without going too far in one direction.
That's pretty much what I got here. As I told Ben, the Lyric owner, as I left the theater, it was about "the trials of historical figure to complete or continue their work while facing a personal problem that threatens to derail his/her entire legacy." In a way, it's very Classical, albeit safe in tone, as all Classical movies are lately.
The story strove to give a balance between science and religion, and succeeded fairly well I thought. Jennifer Connelly gets to play her usual role as the wife-who-doesn't-really-go-along-with-her-husbands-plans, and she spends most of the movie with her skeptical pose. By the end of the movie she actually has some interesting scenes where she gets to emote, and show any sort of vulnerability.
Worth seeing for everyone, for historical reasons above all else, but also a well-told story.
I knew little about this movie---a biopic on Charles Darwin during his writing of Origin of Species---until I walked in to see. When I noticed it was one of the BBC Films production financed by the UK National Lottery, I knew what kind of movie to expect, namely a fairly well-made, tight script that plays to the middle of the culture road, thoroughly exploring a certain range of sentiment without going too far in one direction.
That's pretty much what I got here. As I told Ben, the Lyric owner, as I left the theater, it was about "the trials of historical figure to complete or continue their work while facing a personal problem that threatens to derail his/her entire legacy." In a way, it's very Classical, albeit safe in tone, as all Classical movies are lately.
The story strove to give a balance between science and religion, and succeeded fairly well I thought. Jennifer Connelly gets to play her usual role as the wife-who-doesn't-really-go-along-with-her-husbands-plans, and she spends most of the movie with her skeptical pose. By the end of the movie she actually has some interesting scenes where she gets to emote, and show any sort of vulnerability.
Worth seeing for everyone, for historical reasons above all else, but also a well-told story.
Edge of Darkness
Seen at: Cinemark 16, Ft. Collins, at 12:40 pm at Feb. 28
This Mel Gibson was suprisingly among the best of the spy-oriented thrillers I've seen recently, which surprised me. For once I wasn't disgusted by a movie that appears to implicate high-level governmnt officials in malfeasance, and then brushes it off by the simple interpretation of being due to a few "bad apples." I enjoyed the CGI effects to create a secret defense installation on the Connecticut River in Massachusetts. All in all much better and more enjoyable than the trailer indicated.
This Mel Gibson was suprisingly among the best of the spy-oriented thrillers I've seen recently, which surprised me. For once I wasn't disgusted by a movie that appears to implicate high-level governmnt officials in malfeasance, and then brushes it off by the simple interpretation of being due to a few "bad apples." I enjoyed the CGI effects to create a secret defense installation on the Connecticut River in Massachusetts. All in all much better and more enjoyable than the trailer indicated.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Diary of a Wimpy Kid
Seen at: Carmike 10, 4::05 pm today
Where did this movie come from? It just showed up a few weeks ago at the Carmike. I thought it was one of those obscure Christian movies, perhaps, but it actually beat out Jennifer Aniston's new movie the weekend it released.
It's a somewhat cute story of a scrawny preteen boy, following him from the first day of middle school until the end of the first year. His quest is to be popular, and everything that he does makes him more miserable, and more of an outcast.
He's selfish---but that's ok because he's a child. Yet we can still judge his actions when he screws over his friends and acquaintences, thinking that they are less valuable than he is. His best friend, originally an outcast with him, winds up becoming popular in the way he wishes for.
The setting is fairly Postmodern---we accept without reservation that a typical American public middle school is an utter cesspool hell of torment. The mission of the boy's older brother is simply to make the protagonist's life as miserable as possible. Moreover the adults, including the boy's parents, are clueless to help him navigate the shoals of this transition to his teenage years.
The story mixes both live action and animation---in the form of moving stick-figure drawings supposedly drawn by the protagonist himself. I found myself wishing for more of this animation, and less of the live action.
But I was rooting for boy, enough to make it enjoyable to sit this through without wandering around the auditorium in boredom too much (I was the only person for the matinee). The sceenplay earned my respect early on, in a scene at the kitchen table during breakfast before school. The boy is forced to sit next to his much younger brother, who is astride a child's potty while eating at the table. It was a disgusting image, the kind of visual cue that sums up how I feel about much of contemporary culture and cinema at times. The boy objects to the presence of the toilet at the table. Amen, little brother!
Where did this movie come from? It just showed up a few weeks ago at the Carmike. I thought it was one of those obscure Christian movies, perhaps, but it actually beat out Jennifer Aniston's new movie the weekend it released.
It's a somewhat cute story of a scrawny preteen boy, following him from the first day of middle school until the end of the first year. His quest is to be popular, and everything that he does makes him more miserable, and more of an outcast.
He's selfish---but that's ok because he's a child. Yet we can still judge his actions when he screws over his friends and acquaintences, thinking that they are less valuable than he is. His best friend, originally an outcast with him, winds up becoming popular in the way he wishes for.
The setting is fairly Postmodern---we accept without reservation that a typical American public middle school is an utter cesspool hell of torment. The mission of the boy's older brother is simply to make the protagonist's life as miserable as possible. Moreover the adults, including the boy's parents, are clueless to help him navigate the shoals of this transition to his teenage years.
The story mixes both live action and animation---in the form of moving stick-figure drawings supposedly drawn by the protagonist himself. I found myself wishing for more of this animation, and less of the live action.
But I was rooting for boy, enough to make it enjoyable to sit this through without wandering around the auditorium in boredom too much (I was the only person for the matinee). The sceenplay earned my respect early on, in a scene at the kitchen table during breakfast before school. The boy is forced to sit next to his much younger brother, who is astride a child's potty while eating at the table. It was a disgusting image, the kind of visual cue that sums up how I feel about much of contemporary culture and cinema at times. The boy objects to the presence of the toilet at the table. Amen, little brother!
Monday, April 5, 2010
To Save a Life
Seen at: Cinemark 16 in Ft. Collins, late January
This one---a Christian movie that came through town early in the year---has been sitting in my pile of ticket stubs for a while, waiting to be written up. Since this was Easter, I figured it was time.
The story is about a teenage boy who struggles with his conscience when a former childhood friend, whom he blew off when they both entered high school, commits suicide. He eventually finds guidance through Christian faith.
What made the movie interesting was that the writer acknowledged that Christianity is not really very cool to a lot of young people, and moreover than many Christians, including pastors and their families, are blatant hypocrites about their values and faith. This self-consciousness of the narrative made it interesting to follow.
Of course this had the feeling of an after-school special at times, but I've come to appreciate that these movies have a place in the ecology of American cinema. To judge by the few I've seen, Christian movies are usually not about social issues in a judgmental way, but more about family and social bonds. There's very little preaching and dogma to be found. In a way, they are old Classical themes and stories recycled with a dash of Jesus.
I saw it on a school day, however. There were moms with kids in the audience. Were they ditching? Tsk, tsk. Silly me, these were homeschoolers of course.
This one---a Christian movie that came through town early in the year---has been sitting in my pile of ticket stubs for a while, waiting to be written up. Since this was Easter, I figured it was time.
The story is about a teenage boy who struggles with his conscience when a former childhood friend, whom he blew off when they both entered high school, commits suicide. He eventually finds guidance through Christian faith.
What made the movie interesting was that the writer acknowledged that Christianity is not really very cool to a lot of young people, and moreover than many Christians, including pastors and their families, are blatant hypocrites about their values and faith. This self-consciousness of the narrative made it interesting to follow.
Of course this had the feeling of an after-school special at times, but I've come to appreciate that these movies have a place in the ecology of American cinema. To judge by the few I've seen, Christian movies are usually not about social issues in a judgmental way, but more about family and social bonds. There's very little preaching and dogma to be found. In a way, they are old Classical themes and stories recycled with a dash of Jesus.
I saw it on a school day, however. There were moms with kids in the audience. Were they ditching? Tsk, tsk. Silly me, these were homeschoolers of course.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Valentine's Day
Seen at: Carmike 10, about 3 weeks ago
Last month my sister emailed me about this movie. She'd gone to see it with some friends on a girl's night out. They liked it; she hated it, and couldn't understand why anyone would like it. What did I think of it?
I wasn't particularly offended by this movie. It was pretty much exactly what I expected, with a few twists. The movies I truly dislike, especially among Postmodern romantic comedies, are the ones that take me to a new level of disgust, which this one thankfully didn't.
The story is based on a gag premise: imagine contemporary Los Angeles, and its dating workplace scenes and married couples with issues, etc., but set in an alternative universe.
The alternative universe is one in which Postmodern Weak Men (PWM) still exist (because who could conceive of it being otherwise, right?) but in which attractive single women actually crave the saccharine displays of "i wuv you" affection with which PWM attempt to find mates.
Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh on the male characters in this movie, but maybe you get my point. This movie uses Valentine's Day as the pretense for juggling the emotional rules of the courtship game to actual give guys a fighting chance to impress women.
If you can stomach seeing a half dozen mini stories like this for two hours, then you can make it through this movie. I think the only reason it held my attention was because it didn't try to inflate any one of these mini stories into a full-fledged plot.
The funniest twist of the movie for me was the unexpected reinforcement of the new Hollywood rules for categorizing Postmodern men into three basic types: (1) charming but weak and clueless; (2) strong vibrant complete assholes; and (3) gay.
Actually there is a fourth type, played here by George Lopez, namely the long-suffering family man who has achieved a zen-like detachment from it all, who no longer expects intimacy with his wife or any concessions to his manhood, but knows his place in the universe. He's the PWM who has achieved enlightened wisdom. Thus Lopez's character is essentially the axle around which the rest of the movie revolves.
As far as category 3, this is somethings I've noticed strongly over the last few years. According to Hollywood, the most emotionally mature and balanced men are not interested in women at all. On the surface that statement is extremely classical. But in the classical era, it meant that the hero was not really interested in any woman who did not deeply strike him as exceptional, and who was not really his true love.
In the Postmodern era, it means something different obviously. Nowadays we simply do not understand how men could be this way, that a man could turn down sex when offered to him by a woman (something every classical hero was expected to do). According to current reasoning, He must be gay.
Thus the two real male "catches" of this movie both turn out to be gay, and moreover in love with each other. We don't realize this until the end of the movie, when their two respective miniplots merge with a homosexual kiss when they finally meet. It was the iconic moment of the movie to me.
So what's not to like here, sis? It's a nice little Whitman's Sampler box of everything that Hollywood wants us to know about relationships right now. Since we live in such a vibrant, emotionally healthy society, this is only a good thing, right?
Well actually I feel a bit nauseated afterwards. Probably took too many chocolates from that Sampler box.
Last month my sister emailed me about this movie. She'd gone to see it with some friends on a girl's night out. They liked it; she hated it, and couldn't understand why anyone would like it. What did I think of it?
I wasn't particularly offended by this movie. It was pretty much exactly what I expected, with a few twists. The movies I truly dislike, especially among Postmodern romantic comedies, are the ones that take me to a new level of disgust, which this one thankfully didn't.
The story is based on a gag premise: imagine contemporary Los Angeles, and its dating workplace scenes and married couples with issues, etc., but set in an alternative universe.
The alternative universe is one in which Postmodern Weak Men (PWM) still exist (because who could conceive of it being otherwise, right?) but in which attractive single women actually crave the saccharine displays of "i wuv you" affection with which PWM attempt to find mates.
Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh on the male characters in this movie, but maybe you get my point. This movie uses Valentine's Day as the pretense for juggling the emotional rules of the courtship game to actual give guys a fighting chance to impress women.
If you can stomach seeing a half dozen mini stories like this for two hours, then you can make it through this movie. I think the only reason it held my attention was because it didn't try to inflate any one of these mini stories into a full-fledged plot.
The funniest twist of the movie for me was the unexpected reinforcement of the new Hollywood rules for categorizing Postmodern men into three basic types: (1) charming but weak and clueless; (2) strong vibrant complete assholes; and (3) gay.
Actually there is a fourth type, played here by George Lopez, namely the long-suffering family man who has achieved a zen-like detachment from it all, who no longer expects intimacy with his wife or any concessions to his manhood, but knows his place in the universe. He's the PWM who has achieved enlightened wisdom. Thus Lopez's character is essentially the axle around which the rest of the movie revolves.
As far as category 3, this is somethings I've noticed strongly over the last few years. According to Hollywood, the most emotionally mature and balanced men are not interested in women at all. On the surface that statement is extremely classical. But in the classical era, it meant that the hero was not really interested in any woman who did not deeply strike him as exceptional, and who was not really his true love.
In the Postmodern era, it means something different obviously. Nowadays we simply do not understand how men could be this way, that a man could turn down sex when offered to him by a woman (something every classical hero was expected to do). According to current reasoning, He must be gay.
Thus the two real male "catches" of this movie both turn out to be gay, and moreover in love with each other. We don't realize this until the end of the movie, when their two respective miniplots merge with a homosexual kiss when they finally meet. It was the iconic moment of the movie to me.
So what's not to like here, sis? It's a nice little Whitman's Sampler box of everything that Hollywood wants us to know about relationships right now. Since we live in such a vibrant, emotionally healthy society, this is only a good thing, right?
Well actually I feel a bit nauseated afterwards. Probably took too many chocolates from that Sampler box.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Green Zone
Seen at: Carmike 10, this afternoon
Holy mackerel! This is the way to make a movie about the Iraq War.
Greg Kinnear is awesome in a supporting role as the villain. The "conspiracy" revealed in the story is that the Bush Administration actually knew in advance that there were no WMD in Iraq, but pushed the invasion anyway.
It took seven years, but Hollywood is finally opening its eyes just a crack. Director Greenglass shows the way. It makes me want to man up and finally watch his United 93 (2006).
Holy mackerel! This is the way to make a movie about the Iraq War.
Greg Kinnear is awesome in a supporting role as the villain. The "conspiracy" revealed in the story is that the Bush Administration actually knew in advance that there were no WMD in Iraq, but pushed the invasion anyway.
It took seven years, but Hollywood is finally opening its eyes just a crack. Director Greenglass shows the way. It makes me want to man up and finally watch his United 93 (2006).
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Leap Year
Seen at: Cinema Saver 6, Feb. 16 at 3:15pm
Here is a plot that is right out of the 1930s. A little-too-stuck-on-herself modern American young woman washes ashore (literally) in Ireland, where she meets the love of her life in the form of a rough-hewn but kind and honorable towering Irish leading man. He tames her, and she helps elevate him out of the prison of his own past. They start a new life together, and live happily ever after.
In this sense, Leap Year is another movie that simply treads water, at least in the narrative sense. Yet it was one of my favorite movies I've seen recently. Why?
First of, it executed this 1930s plot flawlessly, exactly the way you should do it, while following the old narrative rules, while mixing contemporary culture and attitudes about men and women, and a strong subplot that was very Postmodern (as a mans of comparison to the main plot, which was very classical). This made for a light, fun, and enjoyable little romantic comedy.
What made it special, then? Certainly it was some plain old directorial artistry, and awesome camera work from the DP (including some impressive second unit work of the cliffs of Moher). But really the reason it was so enjoyable was because all this camerawork was focused on a particular person---the Promised One, who has arrived.
As I'm watching her on screen in this movie, at one point I'm thinking, this could be Ginger Rogers, the way she tilts her face and the way her hair lights up on camera with a way that warms her eyes.
But it's not Ginger Rogers. It's the actress of today, who has arrived in full to save Hollywood movies, at this critical moment in history when all seems lost, by being able to embody at once in turn all the great leading actresses of the 1930s and 1940s.
It's as if everything that seemed dead is still alive, in her---or at least a big chunk of it. How did Amy Adams pull this off? Who knows? It is absolute genius at work.
We saw her dance just a little in Enchanted. How about a biopic of Ginger one day? Can she sing?
Here is a plot that is right out of the 1930s. A little-too-stuck-on-herself modern American young woman washes ashore (literally) in Ireland, where she meets the love of her life in the form of a rough-hewn but kind and honorable towering Irish leading man. He tames her, and she helps elevate him out of the prison of his own past. They start a new life together, and live happily ever after.
In this sense, Leap Year is another movie that simply treads water, at least in the narrative sense. Yet it was one of my favorite movies I've seen recently. Why?
First of, it executed this 1930s plot flawlessly, exactly the way you should do it, while following the old narrative rules, while mixing contemporary culture and attitudes about men and women, and a strong subplot that was very Postmodern (as a mans of comparison to the main plot, which was very classical). This made for a light, fun, and enjoyable little romantic comedy.
What made it special, then? Certainly it was some plain old directorial artistry, and awesome camera work from the DP (including some impressive second unit work of the cliffs of Moher). But really the reason it was so enjoyable was because all this camerawork was focused on a particular person---the Promised One, who has arrived.
As I'm watching her on screen in this movie, at one point I'm thinking, this could be Ginger Rogers, the way she tilts her face and the way her hair lights up on camera with a way that warms her eyes.
But it's not Ginger Rogers. It's the actress of today, who has arrived in full to save Hollywood movies, at this critical moment in history when all seems lost, by being able to embody at once in turn all the great leading actresses of the 1930s and 1940s.
It's as if everything that seemed dead is still alive, in her---or at least a big chunk of it. How did Amy Adams pull this off? Who knows? It is absolute genius at work.
We saw her dance just a little in Enchanted. How about a biopic of Ginger one day? Can she sing?
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Cop Out
Seen at: Cinemark, Ft. Collins, March 1 at 1:20 pm
I saw this early in the afternoon, on a day on which I would see three different screenings. As the first course of three, tt was light and fun, especially for a police drama. It was a good way to kick off a day of moviegoing.
The plot is completely out of the 1980s buddy cop movies. Kevin Smith basically made a homage movie to the genre, one in which Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan do their respective schticks, which they do to perfection, as Brooklyn cops (two movies in one month with that theme).
There is a enough fresh post-millennial material in it to make the story worth following. As such it did not advance the art of moviemaking forward much, but, well, so what. Sometimes movies that tread water artistically are the most fun to watch.
The thing I took most from the film is how much the portrayal of Brooklyn has changed over the last four decades in movies, with a huge run lately---The Wackness, Notorious, Two Lovers, Precious, and Brooklyn's Finest among them. Throw in Tyson as documentary as well.
I saw this early in the afternoon, on a day on which I would see three different screenings. As the first course of three, tt was light and fun, especially for a police drama. It was a good way to kick off a day of moviegoing.
The plot is completely out of the 1980s buddy cop movies. Kevin Smith basically made a homage movie to the genre, one in which Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan do their respective schticks, which they do to perfection, as Brooklyn cops (two movies in one month with that theme).
There is a enough fresh post-millennial material in it to make the story worth following. As such it did not advance the art of moviemaking forward much, but, well, so what. Sometimes movies that tread water artistically are the most fun to watch.
The thing I took most from the film is how much the portrayal of Brooklyn has changed over the last four decades in movies, with a huge run lately---The Wackness, Notorious, Two Lovers, Precious, and Brooklyn's Finest among them. Throw in Tyson as documentary as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)