When: 2002, 25th film
Age/Genre: Yeah, we skipped a lot; however, once we reviewed Little Women, we'd tackled almost every genre that Bale went on to explore between the ages of 20 and 28—family, drama, book-related, Shakespeare, musicals (we're saving voice-animation for Howl’s Moving Castle). At this point, #25, Bale’s portfolio becomes more and more action-oriented. Equilibrium is, in fact, Bale's second straight action flick.
Kate says in the world of not-so-strange-coincidence, I’ve written a story, that hopefully will come out this summer, which is the exact mirror of this movie: in my story, future society is all about the over-expression of emotion; people get good grades, jobs, contracts, etc. by crying and shouting and otherwise acting hysterically. My heroine’s problem: the over-emotionalizing “programming” didn’t take.
Which proves (1) that there are only so many ideas out there; (2) I have a proclivity for this type of sci-fi.
I’ve always enjoyed “What if?” sci-fi that asks improbable questions: What if people had no emotion? What if people had too much emotion? What if people could only say the word “if”?
The problem with this type of sci-fi is that it is easy (and fun) to start but incredibly difficult to end. Star Trek: TNG and Star Trek: Voyager would just say, “Oh, our hour is up” which, actually, isn’t the worst way to end this type of narrative.
Which is all to say: the beginning of Equilibrium is fantastic, the middle is “eh” and the ending is, well, um, huh?
Talk about deus ex machinas! (Spoilers follow.) The leader of the underground just happens to be a Messianic figure living right next door? Preston, who has EVERY reason to put the woman first over vague revolutionary ideals, DOESN’T put her first? (I’m not usually in favor of characters betraying their countries for l-u-v but in this case, it totally would have made sense.) The kids suddenly turn out not to be taking the emotionless juice?
The last point bothered me more than the rest. All in all, plot-wise, this is a tidy film (and I’ll get to my absolute favorite part in just a moment). But I really think Preston should have had more investment in those kids. If he is going to start a revolution, what’s he doing it for? So he can feel isn’t enough—he can feel on his own without involving anyone else.
What makes Preston altruistic, what makes Preston willing to slaughter literally hundreds of people? I thought the irony of connecting Preston’s choices to his feelings was clever (and sold the theme that emotion is worth the price), but it isn't enough to explain the enormity of what he does.
Preston does what he is does for a PRINCIPLE—and, well, that’s a whole other problem and a whole other movie.
Anyway, even from a writing point of view, the kids’ behavior needed to be set up more.
My absolute favorite part: how feeling is connected to little things. I love the scene when Preston wakes after not taking his meds and sees the sunlight. I love his humorous response to the dog’s yapping (love that dog!). I love the snow globe. (Beethoven is great, but I really love the globe.) I love Partridge's worn copy of Yeats. I love the “sex scene” with Mary that involves touching fingers. I love Preston rearranging his desk—these minor, beautiful moments are touching and real and sell much (if not all) of the movie's point.
The movie is worth watching. In fact, it is one of the few movies that I’ve seen where I thought, “You know, this would make a really awesome book” (rather than the other way around). It would be fascinating to read Preston’s process of thought/what he is thinking as he changes.
As for the cast: Bale is all grown up and acting fierce. Though the movie is not as good as The Matrix (despite the blurb on the DVD I borrowed), Bale is definitely a better actor than Reeves (not that Reeves isn’t good at doing his thing). The scene where Bale watches his wife getting ready for work is a great example of Bale's ability to transmit emotion without under or overacting: without saying anything, Bale betrays Preston’s longing for his wife, even though at the time the character doesn't understand his own behavior.
And Bale does completely sell the idea that Preston is changing internally. (Not an easy thing to do in a role where the character hardly discusses anything with anyone.)
The rest of the cast is notable. I mean, any movie with Sean Bean . . . Taye Briggs is thoroughly stunning although his character, Brandt, is wretchedly under-utilized. (Agent Smith is paid-off much better.) Emily Watson is my favorite kind of heroine—she doesn’t do much, but everything she does has depth. And I have to give a shout-out to Sean Pertwee (the “face” of Father). I first encountered Pertwee when watching the Brother Cadfael mysteries (he plays Hugh in the first series). As Father, he really sells the intellectual ideas behind the culture.
Unfortunately, Angus MacFayden as Dupont is thoroughly dull; Fichtner would have made a better nut-job with delusions of grandeur; wait, he kind of does!
But, again, Bale is astonishing. After watching him sleep-walk (in a good way) through Little Women, I have to say, action movies really are his forte.
Although next week will change our focus yet again!
Mike says I know the plot has holes. I know that a society such as the one presented in the film would also be problematic and is difficult to represent accurately with actors who CAN feel emotion. The truth is the film is far from perfect, and yet I still enjoy it immensely.
As opposed to your run of the mill small release, Equilibrium tries very hard to be a thinking man’s action flick, making a philosophical argument a little more enjoyable with bad-ass martial arts. Whether or not the film succeeds in this is really up to the viewer
Bale’s performance is strong, moving, and genuine. For me, he really sold his transformation. The film is also a definitive move back to the physical roles he seems to prefer. The only problem with Bale’s performance is that he conveys his emotional discoveries so well that it’s hard to imagine no one picked up on his offense sooner. Fortunately, this is worked into the story itself, with just about everyone knowing what is going on, but each letting Preston get away with it in order to meet their own agendas.
The film really is a fusion between action flick and dystopian drama . . . and the action definitely feels a little shoe-horned in, but it plays enough of a role in the story that it does work. That the action is spectacular helps to hide the odd pairing. While the idea of a martial art based around guns sounds a bit silly at first, it does make a sort of sense: Martial arts are often based around a simple weapon that is easy to get a hold of. In the right society, it would make sense for such a thing to develop.
Between the action and the plot, the success of the entire movie really comes down to Bale. Despite some admittedly significant flaws in the script, Bale’s phenomenal handling of both elevates the entire film.
Bale’s moving portrayal of his emotional journey is masterful, but my favorite scene in the film uses both action and acting. Finally accepted into the sanctuary of Father, Bale is subjected to a polygraph that will reveal him as a sense offender. While hooked to the machine, the main villain’s entire plan, including the manipulation of Preston’s own emotions, is revealed and victory is declared as the villains claim they tricked the hero into surrendering “without incident.”
Preston is overwhelmed with rage, despair, and sadness to the point of exploding. Instead, the polygraph, which has been recording severe emotion, suddenly deadlines to the horror of the doctors. “No. Not without incident.” And, of course, gratuitous violence ensues.
I really do love this film, despite its flaws. And, to be honest, I desperately needed something to cleanse my pallet of Little Women. Thank goodness for action flicks!
Showing posts with label Action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Action. Show all posts
Friday, June 22, 2012
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Superman (1978) and Superman Returns
Superhero & universe: Superman, DC Comics
Mike says I love both of these films deeply and for varying reasons. But because of my feelings, I don’t know how balanced or fairly I can review them. At the same time, while reviewing them, comparing them, and analyzing them, I think I could write a lengthy document on the meaning, the symbolism, and the importance of Superman. In trying to keep my comments somewhat brief, it is fair to say that rather than interpreting and popularizing the titular hero, much like Iron Man did for its character, the Superman films have impacted and defined the Superman mythos just as much as it translated it.
Kate says the thing I like most about these two movies is how seriously the writers/directors/producers take the Superman mythology. Both movies have a strong level of camp, the first more than the second although the second deserves major kudos in the comedy area just for Parker Posey.
But Superman himself is treated with gentle, heart-felt seriousness. And Superman Returns is a loving tribute not only to the superhero but to the 1978 movie and Christopher Reeve.
In both movies, Superman is the focus rather than Clark Kent—that is, Clark is the disguise while Superman is the real personality. This is quite different from Lois & Clark where Superman is Clark’s disguise, and he actually bemoans the fact that Lois seems so enamored of his other self. (“I was worried about this,” says his mom. “You’re beginning to talk about yourself in the third person.”)
I confess I relate to Lois & Clark’s Superman best. Dean Cain is Mr. Congeniality, the guy who just wants to fit in. For a television show, I think this was a wise characterization.
Reeve’s Superman, on the other hand, is so godlike, he comes off as unapproachable while Routh plays his Superman as intense and isolated; since he gives Clark some of the same attributes, these seem more like general personality traits than superhero traits, but they still make relating to him difficult.
However, for movies, Reeve and Routh’s interpretations work. The movies are about Clark discovering his divinity—rather than Clark accessing his humanity. The movies contain far more religious iconography and references than the show.
In terms of plot, the movies are quite similar. Lex Luthor, real-estate hog, is a great villain. Superman Returns does end far better than Superman (1978). I really don’t know what the writers were thinking with the latter. First of all, why would time have anything to do with the rotation of the earth? Assuming that changing the rotation of the earth wouldn’t cause the earth to explode or fry or whatever, if it did happen, wouldn’t all the astronomers just go, “Hey, this is weird. All the stars’ positions have been totally different for several days now.”
Setting aside the physics, Superman using time travel to solve his problems completely undermines the value of his choices. Every time he has to make a rough choice, he can just back up the planet! Superman has so few issues (magic and Kryptonite are pretty much it), removing the little personal angst he occasionally suffers really hurts the character. (I personally think too little is made of Superman’s choices in all the movies. I love the episode in Lois & Clark when Lois becomes Superwoman and feels anguish at how little she can do in face of all the problems she wants to fix. Even Superman can’t be everywhere at once—oh, yeah, unless he time travels!)
The end of Superman Returns is far more astounding and heart-warming. The feat that Superman performs is extraordinary but not improbable by Superman standards. He also suffers for his choice. The event that revives him is outside the usual Superman myth but a big relief for those of us who worry about the big guy’s sanity after Lois dies.
Both movies are worth viewing though both are long. In fact, do what I did, and watch the movies, then episodes from the show! Even when flawed, there’s no such thing as too much Superman.
Is it based on a comic? Superman first appeared in Action Comics in 1938. The success of the character launched both DC Comics and the superhero genre.
Haven't they already made that? Superman has appeared in five modern theatrical film s, several television series, as well as old film serials, cartoon series, and radio shows. Superman's origin will be the focus of the upcoming 2013 film, Man of Steel.
What the heck does this have to do with Avengers? Superman not only launched the superhero genre of comics but was also one of the first featured in theaters. The success of the 1978 film led to several sequels, as well as the first spin-off, Super-Girl. The film Superman Returns was finally the green-light for the resurgence of superhero films in the early 2000's. Without either Superman movie, or the lessons learned from the franchise, Avengers wouldn't be happening.
Mike says I love both of these films deeply and for varying reasons. But because of my feelings, I don’t know how balanced or fairly I can review them. At the same time, while reviewing them, comparing them, and analyzing them, I think I could write a lengthy document on the meaning, the symbolism, and the importance of Superman. In trying to keep my comments somewhat brief, it is fair to say that rather than interpreting and popularizing the titular hero, much like Iron Man did for its character, the Superman films have impacted and defined the Superman mythos just as much as it translated it.
Superman is a defining film for our generation, and had a lasting effect on movies, effects, and pop culture. But the film also changed how the world saw Superman, and shaped how he would be presented in the years and decades following the film’s release.
Much of the visual shorthand used in the film was adapted into comics and following adaptations, with the crystalline fortress, the theme, and characterizations all lasting long after the film series ended. The film shaped the Superman mythos into what it is today. It’s not often that the adaptation of a work is able to influence and lead the source material.
Perhaps the only down side to the lasting impact of the film is that the Superman presented is a relic of a bygone age of comics (specifically the Silver Age), and has long since evolved into a more complex, human, and relatable character. Sure, the influence of the film is still there, but no longer is Superman an alien hiding in the guise of humanity; rather he is a human being (at heart!) who uses his natural talents to make the world a better place. In modern comics, the true man lies somewhere between Clark and Superman.
The most damaging consequence of this dated interpretation of Superman is the general difficulty in believing and relating to the character. A God-like being with an undefined power limit and a sham personal life is hard for an audience to love.
Where Superman defined the character, Superman Returns explores, examines and renews the character, bringing him into the current era with heart and skill. While the film stays very true to the original in tone, plot, structure, and characterizations, it streamlines some things and evolves others. The Silver Age Superman is still featured, with the god-like power limit and the aura of non-approachability. Yet we see past that image to the soul of the character, and the world he inhabits.
The thing I love most about Superman Returns is the exploration of the character’s importance in the world today. The film is as much about Superman’s return to our world and culture as it is to that of the film. Many of the questions asked by his critics are voiced by real life critics in the real world. And the film addresses them. Has the world moved on? Have we outgrown Superman? The answer of the film is a resounding no.
The film establishes that Superman is just as vital now as he was then, as a symbol of hope, compassion and strength in a world where those attributes are becoming harder and harder to recognize. His place in the world has never been fully filled, even though others have stepped in and filled the role as best they could.
Those that loved Superman were sad and angry to see him go, and though we were overjoyed to see him return, our hearts were filled with questions: Is there still a place for Superman? Absolutely. There is always room for hope and strength in this world, and some things never grow old or tired.
In dealing with this issue, the film truly does capture how the world sees Superman- with quiet awe and shock. I love the scenes that show the citizens looking up to the skies, knowing that Superman is fighting, and perhaps, dying for them.
While Superman has had his high and low points over the years (Smallville has examples of both), these two films remain the highest. To this day I feel giddy and excited when I hear the Superman March, and I look forward to the day when I can watch it with my children and see that same excitement in their eyes.
Kate says the thing I like most about these two movies is how seriously the writers/directors/producers take the Superman mythology. Both movies have a strong level of camp, the first more than the second although the second deserves major kudos in the comedy area just for Parker Posey.
But Superman himself is treated with gentle, heart-felt seriousness. And Superman Returns is a loving tribute not only to the superhero but to the 1978 movie and Christopher Reeve.
In both movies, Superman is the focus rather than Clark Kent—that is, Clark is the disguise while Superman is the real personality. This is quite different from Lois & Clark where Superman is Clark’s disguise, and he actually bemoans the fact that Lois seems so enamored of his other self. (“I was worried about this,” says his mom. “You’re beginning to talk about yourself in the third person.”)
I confess I relate to Lois & Clark’s Superman best. Dean Cain is Mr. Congeniality, the guy who just wants to fit in. For a television show, I think this was a wise characterization.
Reeve’s Superman, on the other hand, is so godlike, he comes off as unapproachable while Routh plays his Superman as intense and isolated; since he gives Clark some of the same attributes, these seem more like general personality traits than superhero traits, but they still make relating to him difficult.
However, for movies, Reeve and Routh’s interpretations work. The movies are about Clark discovering his divinity—rather than Clark accessing his humanity. The movies contain far more religious iconography and references than the show.
In terms of plot, the movies are quite similar. Lex Luthor, real-estate hog, is a great villain. Superman Returns does end far better than Superman (1978). I really don’t know what the writers were thinking with the latter. First of all, why would time have anything to do with the rotation of the earth? Assuming that changing the rotation of the earth wouldn’t cause the earth to explode or fry or whatever, if it did happen, wouldn’t all the astronomers just go, “Hey, this is weird. All the stars’ positions have been totally different for several days now.”
Setting aside the physics, Superman using time travel to solve his problems completely undermines the value of his choices. Every time he has to make a rough choice, he can just back up the planet! Superman has so few issues (magic and Kryptonite are pretty much it), removing the little personal angst he occasionally suffers really hurts the character. (I personally think too little is made of Superman’s choices in all the movies. I love the episode in Lois & Clark when Lois becomes Superwoman and feels anguish at how little she can do in face of all the problems she wants to fix. Even Superman can’t be everywhere at once—oh, yeah, unless he time travels!)
The end of Superman Returns is far more astounding and heart-warming. The feat that Superman performs is extraordinary but not improbable by Superman standards. He also suffers for his choice. The event that revives him is outside the usual Superman myth but a big relief for those of us who worry about the big guy’s sanity after Lois dies.
Both movies are worth viewing though both are long. In fact, do what I did, and watch the movies, then episodes from the show! Even when flawed, there’s no such thing as too much Superman.
Labels:
Action,
List 9,
Superheroes
Friday, February 24, 2012
Highlander
Release Date: March 8, 1986
Time Kate wanted to see it: This wasn't so much an "I want to see" as an "I guess I should." Highlander seems to be one of those films--one of those cult films that I had to see to fully appreciate my media culture.
Reason Kate procrastinated: Is this a guy flick or what!?
Category: Film, Fantasy, Cult Classic
Kate says I'd heard a great deal about Highlander over the years, but I'd never seen the movie, and I think I'd seen exactly one half of one episode of the television series. I think my lack of interest always came down to one thing:
Isn't this a guy flick?
I don't think a female friend has ever mentioned Highlander to me. Female friends have mentioned Star Trek and Star Wars and even Lord of the Rings. But never Highlander.
However, the real reason I never got around to seeing this movie may be that it is too surreal to be believed; it starts off with Sean Connery's voice, Queen, and professional wrestling, and then . . .
It gets freakier.
This has to be one of the most random movies I've ever seen. It's Batman meets The Terminator meets Star Wars meets 80's rock video.
There are moments that stand out. The Scotland 1500s scenes are surprisingly sharp and believable, and I was impressed by MacLeod staying with Heather until the end of her life. I also loved the "duel" on Boston Commons. I agree with Mike that the shift between present and past makes the film far more engaging than if the story was told chronologically. Many times, the "we won't tell you the secret until the end" gambit back-fires (especially when the secret is pretty tame). But here, it works.
As for the characters: I thought the cops were underused (as always). I considered Brenda Wyatt rather pointless--not all that endearing, and she and MacLeod gave me zero reason to believe in their relationship long-term.
I found Kurgan seriously disturbing. One of the best scenes in the movie is between MacLeod and Kurgan--in the church. The scene delivers real meat. Back on the streets, however, Kurgan is just a Joker-like character: random badness is uncomfortable to watch and, really, who cares?
I did like MacLeod although his modern personality is lightly skimmed over. And I really liked that the swords are wielded as truly heavy weapons. It makes the final scene much more exciting.
That all said, now that I've seen it . . . I can't say whether I like the movie or not. The entire viewing experience was similar to undergoing a freak of nature. Does one hate thunderstorms? Actually, I love thunderstorms. Uh, does one hate solar flares? Well, yes, if one is stuck in one, but they are just there, ya know. What more can one say?
Though I may check out the series.
(I should mention that the excellent James Cosmo shows up for two seconds and immediately becomes the best actor in the film. I adore actors like James Cosmo who have long, steady, working careers--that is real success!)
Mike says Highlander is one of those must see movies that every Geek has to see at least once. But woe be unto the Geek who watches it twice, for he shall see something like unto an acid trip set to 80's rock ballads. To say that Highlander is bizarre is akin to saying that Richard Simmons seems a little effeminate.
What makes it even weirder is the franchise it spawned: 5 sequels (more if you count every version of Highlander II) and two TV series. Pretty impressive, if not inconsistent, for a film that pretty conclusively brings its premise to a complete end. It appears that there can be only one immortal, until you need to cash in on a sequel, then a few more will randomly crop up.
As Kate says, the movie starts weird, and just keeps going from there. When I first saw the film, I was pretty blown away by it. I don't know if it was youth, being a few years closer to the 80's, or a combination of the two. Watching it now, the film really does come across as the quintessential "Cult Favorite," that being a film the broad public avoids but a enthusiastic few adore beyond all reason. It's with some shock that I now find myself categorized with the broad public.
The film is disturbing, odd, and creative in alternating states, making it a definite mixed experiance when it comes to watching . . . the movie wavers between amazing and horrendous, almost as if sections of it were filmed by different directors.
There were many things I liked, however. Lambert is just odd enough an actor to take this role in stride, with his enigmatic accent and unexpected humor making him believable as McLeod. The sword fights and imagery of Gods fighting on Big City streets is also very cool, and I think the film really caught this sense of there being an hidden layer under everyday life, where strange and amazing things happen.
I also love the pace and structure of the movie--I think the flashbacks are well done, often outshining the modern scenes. Jumping back and forth, gradually filling us in on who and what McLeod is as he goes about his business is fascinating.
On the other hand, there was plenty I didn't like. I agree with Kate on the romance; it was obviously thrown in to meet the standards of 80's movies: Nudity, Gore, and random violent acts by psychotic punk rockers. The Kurgen just makes me plain uncomfortable (though I did like how he is savvy to the current era). And despite the abssolute awesomeness of the concept of the movie, there are holes in the story and plot wide enough to drive a truck through (can someone explain why Sean Connery is so willing to help McLeod?). I think the second movie was an attempt to fill in some of these holes . . . and ended up making them worse.
The 80's rock imagery just took it over the top, making some scenes nightmarish and painful to watch. The Kurgen's neck safety pins alone are enough to inspire nausea.
Despite this, it is easy to see why it was hard for filmmakers and fans to let the concept go, as there are some pretty cool ideas and intriguing phrases peppered throughout the movie. Terms like "The Gathering," "The Quickening," really inspire interest and give a sense of myth to the idea of the film. And with a catchphrase like "There Can Be Only One," producers are probably still salivating at the idea of cashing in on these ideas.
Now, I have had a chance to see some of the series (though not much), and it's pretty entertaining; once you get over the fact that none of it should exist. As for the sequels . . . well, I think the filmmakers should have followed the advice given in the catchphrase.
I can't help thinking the film might have worked a little bit better like this:
Time Kate wanted to see it: This wasn't so much an "I want to see" as an "I guess I should." Highlander seems to be one of those films--one of those cult films that I had to see to fully appreciate my media culture.
Reason Kate procrastinated: Is this a guy flick or what!?
Category: Film, Fantasy, Cult Classic
Kate says I'd heard a great deal about Highlander over the years, but I'd never seen the movie, and I think I'd seen exactly one half of one episode of the television series. I think my lack of interest always came down to one thing:
Isn't this a guy flick?
I don't think a female friend has ever mentioned Highlander to me. Female friends have mentioned Star Trek and Star Wars and even Lord of the Rings. But never Highlander.
However, the real reason I never got around to seeing this movie may be that it is too surreal to be believed; it starts off with Sean Connery's voice, Queen, and professional wrestling, and then . . .
It gets freakier.
This has to be one of the most random movies I've ever seen. It's Batman meets The Terminator meets Star Wars meets 80's rock video.
There are moments that stand out. The Scotland 1500s scenes are surprisingly sharp and believable, and I was impressed by MacLeod staying with Heather until the end of her life. I also loved the "duel" on Boston Commons. I agree with Mike that the shift between present and past makes the film far more engaging than if the story was told chronologically. Many times, the "we won't tell you the secret until the end" gambit back-fires (especially when the secret is pretty tame). But here, it works.
As for the characters: I thought the cops were underused (as always). I considered Brenda Wyatt rather pointless--not all that endearing, and she and MacLeod gave me zero reason to believe in their relationship long-term.
I found Kurgan seriously disturbing. One of the best scenes in the movie is between MacLeod and Kurgan--in the church. The scene delivers real meat. Back on the streets, however, Kurgan is just a Joker-like character: random badness is uncomfortable to watch and, really, who cares?
I did like MacLeod although his modern personality is lightly skimmed over. And I really liked that the swords are wielded as truly heavy weapons. It makes the final scene much more exciting.
That all said, now that I've seen it . . . I can't say whether I like the movie or not. The entire viewing experience was similar to undergoing a freak of nature. Does one hate thunderstorms? Actually, I love thunderstorms. Uh, does one hate solar flares? Well, yes, if one is stuck in one, but they are just there, ya know. What more can one say?
Though I may check out the series.
(I should mention that the excellent James Cosmo shows up for two seconds and immediately becomes the best actor in the film. I adore actors like James Cosmo who have long, steady, working careers--that is real success!)
Mike says Highlander is one of those must see movies that every Geek has to see at least once. But woe be unto the Geek who watches it twice, for he shall see something like unto an acid trip set to 80's rock ballads. To say that Highlander is bizarre is akin to saying that Richard Simmons seems a little effeminate.
What makes it even weirder is the franchise it spawned: 5 sequels (more if you count every version of Highlander II) and two TV series. Pretty impressive, if not inconsistent, for a film that pretty conclusively brings its premise to a complete end. It appears that there can be only one immortal, until you need to cash in on a sequel, then a few more will randomly crop up.
As Kate says, the movie starts weird, and just keeps going from there. When I first saw the film, I was pretty blown away by it. I don't know if it was youth, being a few years closer to the 80's, or a combination of the two. Watching it now, the film really does come across as the quintessential "Cult Favorite," that being a film the broad public avoids but a enthusiastic few adore beyond all reason. It's with some shock that I now find myself categorized with the broad public.
The film is disturbing, odd, and creative in alternating states, making it a definite mixed experiance when it comes to watching . . . the movie wavers between amazing and horrendous, almost as if sections of it were filmed by different directors.
There were many things I liked, however. Lambert is just odd enough an actor to take this role in stride, with his enigmatic accent and unexpected humor making him believable as McLeod. The sword fights and imagery of Gods fighting on Big City streets is also very cool, and I think the film really caught this sense of there being an hidden layer under everyday life, where strange and amazing things happen.
I also love the pace and structure of the movie--I think the flashbacks are well done, often outshining the modern scenes. Jumping back and forth, gradually filling us in on who and what McLeod is as he goes about his business is fascinating.
On the other hand, there was plenty I didn't like. I agree with Kate on the romance; it was obviously thrown in to meet the standards of 80's movies: Nudity, Gore, and random violent acts by psychotic punk rockers. The Kurgen just makes me plain uncomfortable (though I did like how he is savvy to the current era). And despite the abssolute awesomeness of the concept of the movie, there are holes in the story and plot wide enough to drive a truck through (can someone explain why Sean Connery is so willing to help McLeod?). I think the second movie was an attempt to fill in some of these holes . . . and ended up making them worse.
The 80's rock imagery just took it over the top, making some scenes nightmarish and painful to watch. The Kurgen's neck safety pins alone are enough to inspire nausea.
Despite this, it is easy to see why it was hard for filmmakers and fans to let the concept go, as there are some pretty cool ideas and intriguing phrases peppered throughout the movie. Terms like "The Gathering," "The Quickening," really inspire interest and give a sense of myth to the idea of the film. And with a catchphrase like "There Can Be Only One," producers are probably still salivating at the idea of cashing in on these ideas.
Now, I have had a chance to see some of the series (though not much), and it's pretty entertaining; once you get over the fact that none of it should exist. As for the sequels . . . well, I think the filmmakers should have followed the advice given in the catchphrase.
I can't help thinking the film might have worked a little bit better like this:
Friday, February 17, 2012
Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief
Release Date: February 12, 2010
Time Mike wanted to see it: I was vaguely interested since I saw the preview, about 3-4 months before the release date. And, coincidentally, I finally watched it on Sunday, February 12th (2012), exactly 2 years from release!
Reason Mike procrastinated: I meant to see it in the theater; I might have even made plans that fell through. But I somehow missed it, and I think I was meaning to read the book first... anyway, somehow it fell off my radar until recently.
Category: Children's Fantasy Novel Series Adaptation
Mike says I still haven't read the novel. I've been meaning too, but somehow I haven't. But I thought, "Meh, there's no rule that says I have to read it before I watch the movie . . ." And so I did.
If it wasn't for this list, I'm not so sure I would have ever gotten around to watching this, and finding it for sale for 5 bucks didn't help matters. Even when I saw the preview, I knew that the movie was a bid for the Harry Potter crown, and after already seeing The Golden Compass come and go away in failure, I didn't really expect much from this movie.
Like I said, I knew this was a Harry Potter bid, but I had somehow missed the fact that it shared a director with the Potter franchise: Chris Columbus, the man who started it all.
And so, having already mentioned it twice, I should go ahead and say it upfront: yes, Percy Jackson is a Harry Potter clone. There's no real point in denying it. The movie follows many of the same story beats as the first Potter film, and even shares some of the same mythological creatures.
Despite Columbus obviously trying to duplicate his Potter success, Percy does largely maintain its own identity, having a unique atmosphere and tone. The film also quickly breaks the "candy coating" of the first 2 Potter films, delivering several decapitations, sword wounds, and even one near disembowelment.
Percy also strays from the clean and and tidy feel of the Potter films, name dropping terms like ADHD and Dyslexia, almost in a blatant attempt to communicate that the fantasy learning environment of Hogwarts won't be appearing in this film. As if to underscore this, when Camp Half-Blood, the learning place of the demi-gods, is finally shown, there are no images of scholarly learning, only exciting action scenes and a surprising amount of violence.
Despite the familiar elements (or those obvious attempts to avoid the familiar), Percy is actually pretty entertaining. The cast assembled for some of the supporting roles is impressive, with Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan lending their credibility to this American fantasy (much as those British actors did in that OTHER series I keep mentioning).
The main cast does a fine job, though they are far from amazing. The story is fun, though, with some pretty clever amalgamations of Greek mythology with American culture. I found the idea of Olympus being at the top of the Empire State Building very cool, yet kinda familiar . . . then I remembered an unpublished novel I read years ago by a very talented writer . . . But maybe I'll let her talk about it (nudge nudge, Kate!).
Columbus did seem to avoid the page per page approach he took with the Potter films. In the last couple days I've started reading the novel, and the movie definitely takes some liberties, changing the identity of the thief, the fate of a few characters, and even the purpose of the quest (to a point). Several adventures and random happenings from the book are actually tied into the main story really well for the movie, giving the story a more organized, driven feel.
The film also gives some characters the freedom to act as they really would, instead of tying them to the outcome of the book (which seemed a little out of character in some instances). Essentially though, if one were to combine Harry Potter (yeah, I said it again, sorry) with Clash of the Titans, Percy Jackson is pretty much the film you would get.
That said, I did enjoy it, and overall found it a pretty entertaining film and found myself really impressed with the visuals. I'm also pretty entranced by the mythology the movie presents. I want to know more about this modern magical world and its history. Though, in the end, I couldn't help but think the film was missing one obvious line:
"Release the Kraken!" oh well..... maybe next time.
Kate says I started the book (by Rick Riordan) awhile back. It's not bad, but it didn't engage me.
The movie engaged me more. If I remember correctly, I think the main character is slightly older than in the book for which I personally was grateful. Harry Potter used up a lifetime of interest in little kiddies having magical powers. (More about this later--as Mike mentions, it is hard to avoid comparing the two franchises.)
I was extremely pleased to see Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan's names pop up. What a treat, especially Sean Bean! Unfortunately, he isn't in the movie all that much. I realize the movie is about and for kids, but there are a number of truly awesome actors playing minor parts in this film, and it's hard not to be a tad disappointed when they make no more than token appearances (Joe Pantoliano always makes me laugh). I did get a kick out of all the crisp British accents. Such authority!
Several things about the movie are very cool. It's hard to get excited about settings these days, knowing how easy it is for filmmakers to create fantastical environments for cheap, but I liked the use of modern sites to reach Olympian sites. And the movie opens with a STUNNING image.
In terms of plot, I always appreciate action movies that give me the problem right away. Plus, I've always been a fan of Greek mythology (yeah, Mike, I thought of my Greek mythology novel, too; problem is, if I published it now, everyone would say I was borrowing from Riordan!), so I was highly amused by the "updated" version of many of the gods. Luke as Hermes' son, for example, is quite believable (especially in his love for high technology). The rock 'n roll dysfunctional Hades and Persephone are downright amusing.
In fact, I have few complaints about the movie. The mother's "death" is rather casually dealt with, and, like so many action movies these days, the movie is too long. The quest is interesting--the Lotus Casino with "Poker Face" playing is especially clever--but each scene could have been considerably shorter. Whatever happened to the good old 90-minute movie?
And there is the whole over-done kid-with-instant-powers stuff. I'm not opposed to the motif: it has a long and noble pedigree. But it's been done to death. Percy is slightly more believable than Harry Potter here in that his "flaws" (dyslexia, ADHD) turn out to be strengths, i.e. he has been learning how to handle his "powers" all his life. But I found myself far more invested in the emotional problem (his separation from his father) than in his heroic abilities. Consequently, the absence of those aforementioned awesome British actors became more and more bothersome as the movie progresses. (I did find Grover quite amusing.)
Like Mike, I remarked the director linkage between Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. In all honesty, this was initially a bit of a turn-off. I consider the first Harry Potter movie a boring slide-show that tries so hard to be the book, it fails to BE a movie.
I think Percy Jackson avoids this. The movie really moves (as Mike mentions, there is a surprising degree of adult content and some lines I'm amazed got in). Which makes me wonder how far Rowlings and the fans hampered the initial Harry Potter movie's "success" ("success" here being entirely relative since Rowlings certainly shouldn't complain).
But it also makes me wonder how die-hard fans of Percy Jackson feel about this movie. With only two chapters of the first book under my belt, I never felt lost or confused. I also never felt bitter (ah, they left out the best part!). But die-hard fans may feel differently.
All said, the movie is worth renting, and I'm a tad surprised that it didn't get more press. Percy has more going for him than Harry, including age, a mild sense of irony, and toughness. Perhaps things will take off with the second movie.
Time Mike wanted to see it: I was vaguely interested since I saw the preview, about 3-4 months before the release date. And, coincidentally, I finally watched it on Sunday, February 12th (2012), exactly 2 years from release!
Reason Mike procrastinated: I meant to see it in the theater; I might have even made plans that fell through. But I somehow missed it, and I think I was meaning to read the book first... anyway, somehow it fell off my radar until recently.
Category: Children's Fantasy Novel Series Adaptation
Mike says I still haven't read the novel. I've been meaning too, but somehow I haven't. But I thought, "Meh, there's no rule that says I have to read it before I watch the movie . . ." And so I did.
If it wasn't for this list, I'm not so sure I would have ever gotten around to watching this, and finding it for sale for 5 bucks didn't help matters. Even when I saw the preview, I knew that the movie was a bid for the Harry Potter crown, and after already seeing The Golden Compass come and go away in failure, I didn't really expect much from this movie.
Like I said, I knew this was a Harry Potter bid, but I had somehow missed the fact that it shared a director with the Potter franchise: Chris Columbus, the man who started it all.
And so, having already mentioned it twice, I should go ahead and say it upfront: yes, Percy Jackson is a Harry Potter clone. There's no real point in denying it. The movie follows many of the same story beats as the first Potter film, and even shares some of the same mythological creatures.
Despite Columbus obviously trying to duplicate his Potter success, Percy does largely maintain its own identity, having a unique atmosphere and tone. The film also quickly breaks the "candy coating" of the first 2 Potter films, delivering several decapitations, sword wounds, and even one near disembowelment.
Percy also strays from the clean and and tidy feel of the Potter films, name dropping terms like ADHD and Dyslexia, almost in a blatant attempt to communicate that the fantasy learning environment of Hogwarts won't be appearing in this film. As if to underscore this, when Camp Half-Blood, the learning place of the demi-gods, is finally shown, there are no images of scholarly learning, only exciting action scenes and a surprising amount of violence.
Despite the familiar elements (or those obvious attempts to avoid the familiar), Percy is actually pretty entertaining. The cast assembled for some of the supporting roles is impressive, with Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan lending their credibility to this American fantasy (much as those British actors did in that OTHER series I keep mentioning).
The main cast does a fine job, though they are far from amazing. The story is fun, though, with some pretty clever amalgamations of Greek mythology with American culture. I found the idea of Olympus being at the top of the Empire State Building very cool, yet kinda familiar . . . then I remembered an unpublished novel I read years ago by a very talented writer . . . But maybe I'll let her talk about it (nudge nudge, Kate!).
Columbus did seem to avoid the page per page approach he took with the Potter films. In the last couple days I've started reading the novel, and the movie definitely takes some liberties, changing the identity of the thief, the fate of a few characters, and even the purpose of the quest (to a point). Several adventures and random happenings from the book are actually tied into the main story really well for the movie, giving the story a more organized, driven feel.
The film also gives some characters the freedom to act as they really would, instead of tying them to the outcome of the book (which seemed a little out of character in some instances). Essentially though, if one were to combine Harry Potter (yeah, I said it again, sorry) with Clash of the Titans, Percy Jackson is pretty much the film you would get.
That said, I did enjoy it, and overall found it a pretty entertaining film and found myself really impressed with the visuals. I'm also pretty entranced by the mythology the movie presents. I want to know more about this modern magical world and its history. Though, in the end, I couldn't help but think the film was missing one obvious line:
"Release the Kraken!" oh well..... maybe next time.
Kate says I started the book (by Rick Riordan) awhile back. It's not bad, but it didn't engage me.
The movie engaged me more. If I remember correctly, I think the main character is slightly older than in the book for which I personally was grateful. Harry Potter used up a lifetime of interest in little kiddies having magical powers. (More about this later--as Mike mentions, it is hard to avoid comparing the two franchises.)
I was extremely pleased to see Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan's names pop up. What a treat, especially Sean Bean! Unfortunately, he isn't in the movie all that much. I realize the movie is about and for kids, but there are a number of truly awesome actors playing minor parts in this film, and it's hard not to be a tad disappointed when they make no more than token appearances (Joe Pantoliano always makes me laugh). I did get a kick out of all the crisp British accents. Such authority!
Several things about the movie are very cool. It's hard to get excited about settings these days, knowing how easy it is for filmmakers to create fantastical environments for cheap, but I liked the use of modern sites to reach Olympian sites. And the movie opens with a STUNNING image.
In terms of plot, I always appreciate action movies that give me the problem right away. Plus, I've always been a fan of Greek mythology (yeah, Mike, I thought of my Greek mythology novel, too; problem is, if I published it now, everyone would say I was borrowing from Riordan!), so I was highly amused by the "updated" version of many of the gods. Luke as Hermes' son, for example, is quite believable (especially in his love for high technology). The rock 'n roll dysfunctional Hades and Persephone are downright amusing.
In fact, I have few complaints about the movie. The mother's "death" is rather casually dealt with, and, like so many action movies these days, the movie is too long. The quest is interesting--the Lotus Casino with "Poker Face" playing is especially clever--but each scene could have been considerably shorter. Whatever happened to the good old 90-minute movie?
And there is the whole over-done kid-with-instant-powers stuff. I'm not opposed to the motif: it has a long and noble pedigree. But it's been done to death. Percy is slightly more believable than Harry Potter here in that his "flaws" (dyslexia, ADHD) turn out to be strengths, i.e. he has been learning how to handle his "powers" all his life. But I found myself far more invested in the emotional problem (his separation from his father) than in his heroic abilities. Consequently, the absence of those aforementioned awesome British actors became more and more bothersome as the movie progresses. (I did find Grover quite amusing.)
Like Mike, I remarked the director linkage between Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. In all honesty, this was initially a bit of a turn-off. I consider the first Harry Potter movie a boring slide-show that tries so hard to be the book, it fails to BE a movie.
I think Percy Jackson avoids this. The movie really moves (as Mike mentions, there is a surprising degree of adult content and some lines I'm amazed got in). Which makes me wonder how far Rowlings and the fans hampered the initial Harry Potter movie's "success" ("success" here being entirely relative since Rowlings certainly shouldn't complain).
But it also makes me wonder how die-hard fans of Percy Jackson feel about this movie. With only two chapters of the first book under my belt, I never felt lost or confused. I also never felt bitter (ah, they left out the best part!). But die-hard fans may feel differently.
All said, the movie is worth renting, and I'm a tad surprised that it didn't get more press. Percy has more going for him than Harry, including age, a mild sense of irony, and toughness. Perhaps things will take off with the second movie.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Inception
Aired Date: July 16, 2010
Time Kate wanted to see it: I believe when Mike recommended it, sometime after it came out on DVD.
Reason Kate procrastinated: Actually, for me, this isn't procrastinating! It came out less than 2 years ago!
Category: Film, Sci-fi
Kate says BE WARNED! I will be giving away the ending.
To begin with, I love Hans Zimmer's scores.
Second, what an awesome cast! I referring specifically to Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the cool, gentleman Bourne, Tom Hardy as wry Eames, the excellent Ken Watanabe as Saito, Ellen Page as the lecturing team member who doesn't come across as too lecturing, Marion Cotillard as a rather complex manifestation of Cobb. Not to mention Lukas Haas showing up as Nash (man, that guy gets around!) and Cillian Murphy acting non-crazy while looking younger than he did in Batman Begins!
And Leonardo DiCaprio. I actually don't mind Leonardo too much despite Titanic. He isn't like Tom Cruise whom I have trouble watching in just about anything. It isn't Tom Cruise's personal life that bothers me; it's that every character he plays is a type of put-upon victim (chased by women he has to kill; persecuted by authorities he has to destroy), and I can't help but think it is a projection of Cruise's personality.
But DiCaprio deliberately, and interestingly, goes off-grid for movies, and he actually has the ability to do it.
Music and actors aside, I loved the milieu ("setting" sounds so drab for what Nolan has pulled off). Like in Batman Begins, the city-scapes feel authentic while also being fantastic and elaborate. They remind me of Miyazaki's animated city-scapes in movies like Howl's Moving Castle.
So what about the plot?
I was incredibly pleased that the ending didn't entail a dream-within-a-dream solution (I am aware that perhaps we are meant to think that; more on this later). The Leverage-type con was enough to hold my interest, but I would have been terribly disappointed if the whole thing had just been all-in-the-mind. Matrix did it, people. Can we move on now?
However, the major problem with the ending NOT being a dream-within-a-dream is that not all the "real" bits of the movie feel "real." The whole sequence in Morocco or wherever doesn't feel real at all--yet it is supposed to be. Additionally, some things are just off--like the kids haven't aged, which is weird. And why would Saito want to join the team? (It is possible that all along he really just wanted to have the layered dream experience, but this is NOT made clear.)
I do realize that questioning the nature of reality might be Nolan's point--for instance, the choice isn't Dom giving up limbo for reality but Dom giving up limbo for the better dream (with his children and intact team rather than with a faded projection of an angry woman). But it's the sort of thing that confuses the film's intentions; it also doesn't make me go, "Wow, how profound! That totally makes me, like, consider the nature of reality." It just makes me think the script-writers are lazy.
So I would have enjoyed the ending as much as the rest of the film (man, that elevator sequence is cool!) if the ending had been clearer in its conclusion (and been set up for better).
That said, the movie is definitely worth watching, and Nolan does seem far more concerned with having fun with sets than with making a big point (in fact, I think he may have forgotten the film's point)--which is rather refreshing! In fact, Nolan has the following to say (obtained from Wikipedia):
Mike says I'm still a little mad at Leonardo DiCaprio for The Aviator. That's not very fair of me, but it's true. To be honest, I was a little bugged by everything I had seen DiCaprio in through the years leading up to Inception. And by bugged, I meant I hated them. Fiercely. And even though I knew this had more to do with the director of those movies (wow, I really dislike Martin Scorsese), it was with some hesitation that I saw Inception.
The only thing that kept my hopes up was the thought "It's Nolan. He won't let me down."
And the cool thing is, he didn't. I loved the movie utterly and completely, groaning aloud at the end and still loving that Nolan wouldn't give me an easy way out; no, just like the rest of the movie, the ending gave me something to think about.
I was so blown away, I saw it again. The SAME DAY.
The great thing about the film, in general, is that this is hard core, deep concept sci-fi with almost no props, no obviously fantastical setting (yes, a dream is fantastic, but it doesn't LOOK fantastic, unless you look at just the right time), and explanations that rely on things most people experience everyday.
The uninformed passerby would assume that Inception is some sort of chase movie, or drama, and wouldn't pick up on the nature of the film until the later half, which, admittedly, does feature a man running up a wall and a massive city scape that could never exist in reality. That the film also works as a heist film only adds to the experience.
The actors are dead on in their performances, and every scene, line, and expression is a delight. I love that even though Cobb is the protagonist of the film, he's not really the hero. That honor goes to the suave and, ok, even I have to admit it, dead sexy Joseph Gordan-Levitt (though it pains me, and my wife is laughing at me over my shoulder, I can't deny the truth). As Arthur, Levitt fights the bad guys, saves the team and even kisses the girl.
And DiCaprio does a great job as Cobb, bringing just the right level of depth and guilt to the humbled genius.
Above all, the film looks amazingly. Each shot is beautiful, and the editing creates a smoothly disjointed dreamlike quality. While Kate is right that this does keep many parts of the film from feeling real, it does help punch in the dreamlike feel of the movie.
I love this type of movie--let's call it "build-free sci-fi"--where amazing things happen in completely familiar and believable environments. Even the "dream machine" is very simple and instantly understandable. Connect everyone and press the big button, and Presto! Shared dreaming. Wait, why is he floating? Oh, it's a dream? cool, I get it.
Now, I'm not claiming this film is simple or accessible to everyone, because that is in no way true. The film really does make you work to enjoy it. But I like that Nolan seems to avoid making it more complicated than he has to. Sure, these are deep concepts (Wait, a dream, within a dream, within a dream, and then they explore the subconscious? really?).
But this is a great, original film that truly delivers. Now if only my actual dreams were that cool!
Time Kate wanted to see it: I believe when Mike recommended it, sometime after it came out on DVD.
Reason Kate procrastinated: Actually, for me, this isn't procrastinating! It came out less than 2 years ago!
Category: Film, Sci-fi
Kate says BE WARNED! I will be giving away the ending.
To begin with, I love Hans Zimmer's scores.
Second, what an awesome cast! I referring specifically to Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the cool, gentleman Bourne, Tom Hardy as wry Eames, the excellent Ken Watanabe as Saito, Ellen Page as the lecturing team member who doesn't come across as too lecturing, Marion Cotillard as a rather complex manifestation of Cobb. Not to mention Lukas Haas showing up as Nash (man, that guy gets around!) and Cillian Murphy acting non-crazy while looking younger than he did in Batman Begins!
And Leonardo DiCaprio. I actually don't mind Leonardo too much despite Titanic. He isn't like Tom Cruise whom I have trouble watching in just about anything. It isn't Tom Cruise's personal life that bothers me; it's that every character he plays is a type of put-upon victim (chased by women he has to kill; persecuted by authorities he has to destroy), and I can't help but think it is a projection of Cruise's personality.
But DiCaprio deliberately, and interestingly, goes off-grid for movies, and he actually has the ability to do it.
Music and actors aside, I loved the milieu ("setting" sounds so drab for what Nolan has pulled off). Like in Batman Begins, the city-scapes feel authentic while also being fantastic and elaborate. They remind me of Miyazaki's animated city-scapes in movies like Howl's Moving Castle.
So what about the plot?
I was incredibly pleased that the ending didn't entail a dream-within-a-dream solution (I am aware that perhaps we are meant to think that; more on this later). The Leverage-type con was enough to hold my interest, but I would have been terribly disappointed if the whole thing had just been all-in-the-mind. Matrix did it, people. Can we move on now?
However, the major problem with the ending NOT being a dream-within-a-dream is that not all the "real" bits of the movie feel "real." The whole sequence in Morocco or wherever doesn't feel real at all--yet it is supposed to be. Additionally, some things are just off--like the kids haven't aged, which is weird. And why would Saito want to join the team? (It is possible that all along he really just wanted to have the layered dream experience, but this is NOT made clear.)
I do realize that questioning the nature of reality might be Nolan's point--for instance, the choice isn't Dom giving up limbo for reality but Dom giving up limbo for the better dream (with his children and intact team rather than with a faded projection of an angry woman). But it's the sort of thing that confuses the film's intentions; it also doesn't make me go, "Wow, how profound! That totally makes me, like, consider the nature of reality." It just makes me think the script-writers are lazy.
So I would have enjoyed the ending as much as the rest of the film (man, that elevator sequence is cool!) if the ending had been clearer in its conclusion (and been set up for better).
That said, the movie is definitely worth watching, and Nolan does seem far more concerned with having fun with sets than with making a big point (in fact, I think he may have forgotten the film's point)--which is rather refreshing! In fact, Nolan has the following to say (obtained from Wikipedia):
I choose to believe that Cobb gets back to his kids, because I have young kids. People who have kids definitely read it differently than those who don't . . . I've read plenty of very off-the-wall interpretations . . . The most important emotional thing about the top spinning at the end is that Cobb is not looking at it. He doesn't care.Mucho thanks to Mike for sending me the above quote!
Mike says I'm still a little mad at Leonardo DiCaprio for The Aviator. That's not very fair of me, but it's true. To be honest, I was a little bugged by everything I had seen DiCaprio in through the years leading up to Inception. And by bugged, I meant I hated them. Fiercely. And even though I knew this had more to do with the director of those movies (wow, I really dislike Martin Scorsese), it was with some hesitation that I saw Inception.
The only thing that kept my hopes up was the thought "It's Nolan. He won't let me down."
And the cool thing is, he didn't. I loved the movie utterly and completely, groaning aloud at the end and still loving that Nolan wouldn't give me an easy way out; no, just like the rest of the movie, the ending gave me something to think about.
I was so blown away, I saw it again. The SAME DAY.
The great thing about the film, in general, is that this is hard core, deep concept sci-fi with almost no props, no obviously fantastical setting (yes, a dream is fantastic, but it doesn't LOOK fantastic, unless you look at just the right time), and explanations that rely on things most people experience everyday.
The uninformed passerby would assume that Inception is some sort of chase movie, or drama, and wouldn't pick up on the nature of the film until the later half, which, admittedly, does feature a man running up a wall and a massive city scape that could never exist in reality. That the film also works as a heist film only adds to the experience.
The actors are dead on in their performances, and every scene, line, and expression is a delight. I love that even though Cobb is the protagonist of the film, he's not really the hero. That honor goes to the suave and, ok, even I have to admit it, dead sexy Joseph Gordan-Levitt (though it pains me, and my wife is laughing at me over my shoulder, I can't deny the truth). As Arthur, Levitt fights the bad guys, saves the team and even kisses the girl.
And DiCaprio does a great job as Cobb, bringing just the right level of depth and guilt to the humbled genius.
Above all, the film looks amazingly. Each shot is beautiful, and the editing creates a smoothly disjointed dreamlike quality. While Kate is right that this does keep many parts of the film from feeling real, it does help punch in the dreamlike feel of the movie.
I love this type of movie--let's call it "build-free sci-fi"--where amazing things happen in completely familiar and believable environments. Even the "dream machine" is very simple and instantly understandable. Connect everyone and press the big button, and Presto! Shared dreaming. Wait, why is he floating? Oh, it's a dream? cool, I get it.
Now, I'm not claiming this film is simple or accessible to everyone, because that is in no way true. The film really does make you work to enjoy it. But I like that Nolan seems to avoid making it more complicated than he has to. Sure, these are deep concepts (Wait, a dream, within a dream, within a dream, and then they explore the subconscious? really?).
But this is a great, original film that truly delivers. Now if only my actual dreams were that cool!
Friday, January 27, 2012
Red
Release Date: October 15, 2010
Time Kate wanted to see it: When people began to recommend it to me--about the time it came out on DVD.
Reason Kate procrastinated: So many DVDs . . . so much daily living that gets in the way! And when it comes to checking DVDs off my list, I am more likely to go for television shows first, then movies--even though the movie experience can often be more satisfying. I have Mike to thank for pushing me to expand my horizons!
Category: Action-Comedy/Comic Book Adaptation (really!)
Kate says so I knew about Willis and Freeman and Malkovich and Mirren. But Karl Urban too! What a treat!!
This is a fun movie. I was already prepared to be impressed (which worried me a bit; don't want to get those hopes too high!). I wasn't prepared to be so amused and to be so amused in such an off-beat way. The humor isn't subtle so much as sideways--like Frank's house suddenly having Christmas decorations, the CIA documents with EVERYTHING blacked out, the whole meaning behind "RED."
John Malkovich.
I thought it was wise giving Willis the character-arc. Willis has a remarkable ability to down-play his own mythos. Frank is, yet isn't, McClane. He is a gentler, softer-spoken version of that particular action hero: "gooey on the inside."
And boy, Willis is aging well! I liked the May-ah, September relationship between Frank and Sarah (the actors' age difference is 9 years, not as much as I initially thought). I loved Sarah's, and Victoria's, sheer exuberance. I enjoyed the quick repartee and the fact that while Sarah is the girlfriend-who-stays-in-the-car, she isn't the whiny girlfriend-who-stays-in-the-car. She also isn't simply the means to an end. (My problem with True Lies, for instance, is that Jamie Lee Curtis, as Helen Tasker, is used to put the problem in motion, i.e. Arnold Schwarzenegger; by the end of the movie, she's more or less disappeared from the main action. Willis, on the other hand, is consistently paired with female characters who remain assets throughout the movie--even when taken hostage!)
Back to Urban: I think I was supposed to see Urban/Cooper as Frank's double which didn't really work for me. However, Urban as the ambiguous Cooper absolutely worked for me. Urban plays a good straight man, and he has that slight edge that makes his choices (good, bad, and odd) believable. This isn't The Fugitive where we really get inside Girard's head. Urban has to sell Cooper's fundamental personality in very brief shots. I think he pulls it off. (Then again, Urban could probably convince me that he was, oh, a futuristic ship's doctor. Wait, he already did that!)
Like so many of these types of movies, including The Fugitive, the ending is weaker than the premise. It IS clever but not particularly remarkable. The show isn't about the quest, however, but about the friendship, and that I completely enjoyed. There is a particular incident (which I won't give away--my reasons for not watching Serenity, basically) which upset me, but it is handled extremely well and is not entirely unexpected. And it isn't done to prove some kind of point about life or to manipulate the audience's emotions; it is done as the natural conclusion to the character's choices and personality.
Okay, sorry for being cryptic. Before I conclude, I should mention that I like the camera work for Red. I am far more aware, and more critical, of camera work in movies than in television (although I like the way NCIS scenes are cut). Action movies, especially, can so easily start to drag, yet there's this uneasy line between quick cuts and overly clever/nauseous cuts (Bourne Supremacy resides right on that line; I find it easier to watch Bourne 2 on my television than in a theater). Red is just about perfect. I rarely felt that the scenes were dragging, but at the same time, I didn't feel like an excess of coolness was being forced down my throat. And sometimes the camera work IS the joke, which is fun.
In conclusion, this movie is a tribute to Cold War classics and the larger-than-life personas that those classics spawned. It absolutely comes through!
Mike says Red was a complete surprise for me when I saw it in the theater. I didn't know what to expect, and I was deliriously happy with the outcome.
As Kate mentions, this is a FUN movie, first and foremost. Almost anything you might want to see you get. 'Why doesn't Frank just go beat the crap out of the agent?" Oh wait, that's what he's doing! Moment after moment in the movie is a sheer delight. Sarah talking with the duct tape, the underground lair in the trunk of the car. The grenade launcher in the Pig. And yes, I'm chuckling as I write this!
The chemistry of the characters is great, and the sheer amount of veteran well-known actors is astounding. This is a movie that you can tell a bunch of seasoned actors got together and said, "Let's have fun." And that's exactly what they did.
The introduction of each character is brilliant, and their respective send- offs are just as fun. As Kate mentions, however, the big reveal of the secret conspiracy is a little disappointing... and by disappointing, I mean I still don't fully get it. But, the bad guys get theirs, and the good guys get away. It's really all I needed, if not wanted.
Perhaps the most impressive thing about the movie is the way it handles its true to life balance between humor and drama. Just because we're having fun here doesn't mean that the characters can be hollow joke dispensers. Instead, they are real, believable, and complex people that see the humor of life while still fighting for what they feel is right. It's impressive feat that could have only been pulled off by the caliber of actors represented.
Red is Fun, action-packed, funny, and romantic enough to convince your wife to watch it with you (a bonus for me!). But beware, you might look at stuffed animals a little differently once you've watched it.
Time Kate wanted to see it: When people began to recommend it to me--about the time it came out on DVD.
Reason Kate procrastinated: So many DVDs . . . so much daily living that gets in the way! And when it comes to checking DVDs off my list, I am more likely to go for television shows first, then movies--even though the movie experience can often be more satisfying. I have Mike to thank for pushing me to expand my horizons!
Category: Action-Comedy/Comic Book Adaptation (really!)
Kate says so I knew about Willis and Freeman and Malkovich and Mirren. But Karl Urban too! What a treat!!
This is a fun movie. I was already prepared to be impressed (which worried me a bit; don't want to get those hopes too high!). I wasn't prepared to be so amused and to be so amused in such an off-beat way. The humor isn't subtle so much as sideways--like Frank's house suddenly having Christmas decorations, the CIA documents with EVERYTHING blacked out, the whole meaning behind "RED."
John Malkovich.
I thought it was wise giving Willis the character-arc. Willis has a remarkable ability to down-play his own mythos. Frank is, yet isn't, McClane. He is a gentler, softer-spoken version of that particular action hero: "gooey on the inside."
And boy, Willis is aging well! I liked the May-ah, September relationship between Frank and Sarah (the actors' age difference is 9 years, not as much as I initially thought). I loved Sarah's, and Victoria's, sheer exuberance. I enjoyed the quick repartee and the fact that while Sarah is the girlfriend-who-stays-in-the-car, she isn't the whiny girlfriend-who-stays-in-the-car. She also isn't simply the means to an end. (My problem with True Lies, for instance, is that Jamie Lee Curtis, as Helen Tasker, is used to put the problem in motion, i.e. Arnold Schwarzenegger; by the end of the movie, she's more or less disappeared from the main action. Willis, on the other hand, is consistently paired with female characters who remain assets throughout the movie--even when taken hostage!)
Back to Urban: I think I was supposed to see Urban/Cooper as Frank's double which didn't really work for me. However, Urban as the ambiguous Cooper absolutely worked for me. Urban plays a good straight man, and he has that slight edge that makes his choices (good, bad, and odd) believable. This isn't The Fugitive where we really get inside Girard's head. Urban has to sell Cooper's fundamental personality in very brief shots. I think he pulls it off. (Then again, Urban could probably convince me that he was, oh, a futuristic ship's doctor. Wait, he already did that!)
Like so many of these types of movies, including The Fugitive, the ending is weaker than the premise. It IS clever but not particularly remarkable. The show isn't about the quest, however, but about the friendship, and that I completely enjoyed. There is a particular incident (which I won't give away--my reasons for not watching Serenity, basically) which upset me, but it is handled extremely well and is not entirely unexpected. And it isn't done to prove some kind of point about life or to manipulate the audience's emotions; it is done as the natural conclusion to the character's choices and personality.
Okay, sorry for being cryptic. Before I conclude, I should mention that I like the camera work for Red. I am far more aware, and more critical, of camera work in movies than in television (although I like the way NCIS scenes are cut). Action movies, especially, can so easily start to drag, yet there's this uneasy line between quick cuts and overly clever/nauseous cuts (Bourne Supremacy resides right on that line; I find it easier to watch Bourne 2 on my television than in a theater). Red is just about perfect. I rarely felt that the scenes were dragging, but at the same time, I didn't feel like an excess of coolness was being forced down my throat. And sometimes the camera work IS the joke, which is fun.
In conclusion, this movie is a tribute to Cold War classics and the larger-than-life personas that those classics spawned. It absolutely comes through!
Mike says Red was a complete surprise for me when I saw it in the theater. I didn't know what to expect, and I was deliriously happy with the outcome.
As Kate mentions, this is a FUN movie, first and foremost. Almost anything you might want to see you get. 'Why doesn't Frank just go beat the crap out of the agent?" Oh wait, that's what he's doing! Moment after moment in the movie is a sheer delight. Sarah talking with the duct tape, the underground lair in the trunk of the car. The grenade launcher in the Pig. And yes, I'm chuckling as I write this!
The chemistry of the characters is great, and the sheer amount of veteran well-known actors is astounding. This is a movie that you can tell a bunch of seasoned actors got together and said, "Let's have fun." And that's exactly what they did.
The introduction of each character is brilliant, and their respective send- offs are just as fun. As Kate mentions, however, the big reveal of the secret conspiracy is a little disappointing... and by disappointing, I mean I still don't fully get it. But, the bad guys get theirs, and the good guys get away. It's really all I needed, if not wanted.
Perhaps the most impressive thing about the movie is the way it handles its true to life balance between humor and drama. Just because we're having fun here doesn't mean that the characters can be hollow joke dispensers. Instead, they are real, believable, and complex people that see the humor of life while still fighting for what they feel is right. It's impressive feat that could have only been pulled off by the caliber of actors represented.
Red is Fun, action-packed, funny, and romantic enough to convince your wife to watch it with you (a bonus for me!). But beware, you might look at stuffed animals a little differently once you've watched it.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Release Date: May 20, 2011
Time Mike wanted to see it: That's the problem... I never really wanted to see it. But, for approximately 8 months.
Reason Mike procrastinated: Well, I expected to see it in the theater, but... I didn't. Then I expected to rent it.... and I didn't. I think I realized that Disney was going for the extra buck, and with no "normal" characters to relate to, I expected to endure the movie rather than enjoy it.
Category: Sequel
Mike says that after Disney's Haunted Mansion with Eddie Murphy, I really didn't expect much from the first Pirates movie, Curse of the Black Pearl. Which may be one of the reasons I was so blown away by it. The first movie is absolutely enjoyable, on several levels. The following movies, well... let's say At World's End makes a compelling argument for Pirate-themed fantasy epics, if not fully succeeding, and leave it at that.
Regardless, I was at the midnight premieres of both 2 and 3, so when On Stranger Tides (which, I just have to say, sounds totally like a dirty movie) was announced, with only the pirate characters returning, I was skeptical but still expected to see it. But I didn't.
As stated above, I just knew what was coming, and didn't have the heart to prove myself right. Thanks to this list, I've now done that. Sadly, the movie was pretty much what I suspected. There are good points, however, so I'll cover those first, and then, well, we'll cover the rest soon.
Depp as Jack Sparrow is always entertaining, and after a trilogy of seeing him be a roguish hero, it's nice that he hasn't descended into Jim Carey territory and basically become a parody of himself (Ace Ventura 2: When Nature Calls, I mean you). The other returning cast is equally fun and entertaining, although there seems to only be the three altogether.
Some of the action sequences are very nice, and my Blu-ray copy looked beautiful. There are some funny jokes, fun music (as Kate points out) and some cool fantasy ideas (ships in a bottle, Blackbeard controlling his ship). And, well, that's about it.
The story is blessedly direct, if surprisingly long, with far too many convenient plot twists with no prior set up (Kate mentions a couple of these below). We know where we're going, and we know what's probably gonna happen when we get there, and who exactly is going to make it.
Another thing that really bothers me is when certain payoffs/outcomes are unclear or undeserved. Jack saves his girlfriend, and she hates him for it, and he doesn't really care... even though he spends the entire movie obsessing about her.
The missionary saves the mermaid, and in turn she "saves" him... by sucking him down to the bottom of the ocean exactly like what the more evil mermaids did... presumably to mate with him, drown him, and eat him.
The Spaniards show up, create a little bit of suspense, and then disappear again into the night.
In the end, it's just sloppy writing that really should have been resolved before the movie began filming. Thankfully, we have action scene after action scene to break up one kind of tedium for another. The actions scenes are fun, but, well, predictable.
Perhaps the biggest flaw the movie suffers from is in trying to make the film work with the pirates alone. Unfortunately, pirates out-pirating other pirates isn't really all that interesting, especially when there's no character with a likable goal. There is no "Audience Surrogate," like Will and Elizabeth, for the pirates to argue with, shock and disgust, or threaten.
Really, aside for the very small sub-plot of the missionary and the mermaid (which ends pretty horrifically, as far as I can tell), there is not one character really worth caring about or worrying about in the entire movie. Even Jack was more of the "odd thing we're dealing with" in the previous flicks. The promotion to lead protagonist just doesn't suit him, committing him to pushing the story forward despite having a very weak reason to do so. We need a Jack free to dance between the subplots, bend the rules, and be free to make a surprising choice. By making him the key hero, he's too important to be truly entertaining.
Now, I should clarify: I didn't hate this movie. But I was right about one thing: it was more a practice in endurance rather than entertainment. I'm sure that there are several people who loved this movie to pieces. Me? I'd rather watch Black Pearl again.
Kate says I saw the first movie of this franchise and really enjoyed it. In fact, I've seen it multiple times.
I then tried to watch the second movie and got so bored, I gave up. I actually removed the movie from the DVD player before I finished! This NEVER happens since I can always go do something else and then come back to catch a few minutes here or there.
But the second movie just seemed a collection of silly events: oh, look, Jack Sparrow gets caught by cannibals; oh, look . . .
Nope, that's all I remember.
On Stranger Tides is far more watchable; I quite enjoyed it although it could have been 1/2 hour shorter (more on this later). It has, for one thing, a clear quest: find the Fountain of Youth. For another, it has some clever subplots; I especially liked the Cary Elwes look-a-like cleric and his mermaid girlfriend. I missed the dry-as-bones Norrington (Jack Davenport), but Sam Claflin (Philip the Cleric) is a good replacement, and the movie could actually have used more of him and Sparrow together (the dialog between them is very funny although, hey, don't you remember the days when Disney was so afraid of innuendo, they created Touchstone Pictures?)
The flaw is what I will here call the "Disney Syndrome" although it applies to all studios everywhere: Disney makes a film; the film is a hit; the writers/producers/etc. say, "That was great! Let's do it again, only MORE!"
So instead of one duel, there are six. Instead of one quest having three parts and one subplot, there is one quest having twelves parts and four subplots.
Ugh.
The downside of all the MORE is that way too many things have to be paid off at the end. In On Stranger Tides, the Spaniards are used in an interesting way, but do they really need to be there? And why have them kill off Groves who, just standing around, is far more interesting than the Spaniards?
And what does Jack Sparrow actually do for the mermaid for her to bring him the chalices? He isn't around her long enough for them to establish a relationship because he's off, you know, doing one of the twelve parts/four subplots.
The mermaid and her boyfriend subplot is nicely paid-off but far too quickly. I think this subplot may have pushed its way more to forefront than the writers anticipated or wanted; they had Depp and Rush and McShane to worry about, not a relatively unknown Englishman. I regret this decision but understand it; if you pay people tons of money, I suppose you should write lines for them.
I did absolutely adore the Judi Dench cameo.
Still it's a pity the writers didn't try harder. Often with movies like this, I just shrug and say, "Eh, sequel," but On Stranger Tides isn't Die Hard 2 which fails because it isn't, well, Die Hard. This is a movie that could have been a respectable, tight story but instead is a . . . shaggy dog story with some good bits.
I do love the music!
Time Mike wanted to see it: That's the problem... I never really wanted to see it. But, for approximately 8 months.
Reason Mike procrastinated: Well, I expected to see it in the theater, but... I didn't. Then I expected to rent it.... and I didn't. I think I realized that Disney was going for the extra buck, and with no "normal" characters to relate to, I expected to endure the movie rather than enjoy it.
Category: Sequel
Mike says that after Disney's Haunted Mansion with Eddie Murphy, I really didn't expect much from the first Pirates movie, Curse of the Black Pearl. Which may be one of the reasons I was so blown away by it. The first movie is absolutely enjoyable, on several levels. The following movies, well... let's say At World's End makes a compelling argument for Pirate-themed fantasy epics, if not fully succeeding, and leave it at that.
Regardless, I was at the midnight premieres of both 2 and 3, so when On Stranger Tides (which, I just have to say, sounds totally like a dirty movie) was announced, with only the pirate characters returning, I was skeptical but still expected to see it. But I didn't.
As stated above, I just knew what was coming, and didn't have the heart to prove myself right. Thanks to this list, I've now done that. Sadly, the movie was pretty much what I suspected. There are good points, however, so I'll cover those first, and then, well, we'll cover the rest soon.
Depp as Jack Sparrow is always entertaining, and after a trilogy of seeing him be a roguish hero, it's nice that he hasn't descended into Jim Carey territory and basically become a parody of himself (Ace Ventura 2: When Nature Calls, I mean you). The other returning cast is equally fun and entertaining, although there seems to only be the three altogether.
Some of the action sequences are very nice, and my Blu-ray copy looked beautiful. There are some funny jokes, fun music (as Kate points out) and some cool fantasy ideas (ships in a bottle, Blackbeard controlling his ship). And, well, that's about it.
The story is blessedly direct, if surprisingly long, with far too many convenient plot twists with no prior set up (Kate mentions a couple of these below). We know where we're going, and we know what's probably gonna happen when we get there, and who exactly is going to make it.
Another thing that really bothers me is when certain payoffs/outcomes are unclear or undeserved. Jack saves his girlfriend, and she hates him for it, and he doesn't really care... even though he spends the entire movie obsessing about her.
The missionary saves the mermaid, and in turn she "saves" him... by sucking him down to the bottom of the ocean exactly like what the more evil mermaids did... presumably to mate with him, drown him, and eat him.
The Spaniards show up, create a little bit of suspense, and then disappear again into the night.
In the end, it's just sloppy writing that really should have been resolved before the movie began filming. Thankfully, we have action scene after action scene to break up one kind of tedium for another. The actions scenes are fun, but, well, predictable.
Perhaps the biggest flaw the movie suffers from is in trying to make the film work with the pirates alone. Unfortunately, pirates out-pirating other pirates isn't really all that interesting, especially when there's no character with a likable goal. There is no "Audience Surrogate," like Will and Elizabeth, for the pirates to argue with, shock and disgust, or threaten.
Really, aside for the very small sub-plot of the missionary and the mermaid (which ends pretty horrifically, as far as I can tell), there is not one character really worth caring about or worrying about in the entire movie. Even Jack was more of the "odd thing we're dealing with" in the previous flicks. The promotion to lead protagonist just doesn't suit him, committing him to pushing the story forward despite having a very weak reason to do so. We need a Jack free to dance between the subplots, bend the rules, and be free to make a surprising choice. By making him the key hero, he's too important to be truly entertaining.
Now, I should clarify: I didn't hate this movie. But I was right about one thing: it was more a practice in endurance rather than entertainment. I'm sure that there are several people who loved this movie to pieces. Me? I'd rather watch Black Pearl again.
Kate says I saw the first movie of this franchise and really enjoyed it. In fact, I've seen it multiple times.
I then tried to watch the second movie and got so bored, I gave up. I actually removed the movie from the DVD player before I finished! This NEVER happens since I can always go do something else and then come back to catch a few minutes here or there.
But the second movie just seemed a collection of silly events: oh, look, Jack Sparrow gets caught by cannibals; oh, look . . .
Nope, that's all I remember.
On Stranger Tides is far more watchable; I quite enjoyed it although it could have been 1/2 hour shorter (more on this later). It has, for one thing, a clear quest: find the Fountain of Youth. For another, it has some clever subplots; I especially liked the Cary Elwes look-a-like cleric and his mermaid girlfriend. I missed the dry-as-bones Norrington (Jack Davenport), but Sam Claflin (Philip the Cleric) is a good replacement, and the movie could actually have used more of him and Sparrow together (the dialog between them is very funny although, hey, don't you remember the days when Disney was so afraid of innuendo, they created Touchstone Pictures?)
The flaw is what I will here call the "Disney Syndrome" although it applies to all studios everywhere: Disney makes a film; the film is a hit; the writers/producers/etc. say, "That was great! Let's do it again, only MORE!"
So instead of one duel, there are six. Instead of one quest having three parts and one subplot, there is one quest having twelves parts and four subplots.
Ugh.
The downside of all the MORE is that way too many things have to be paid off at the end. In On Stranger Tides, the Spaniards are used in an interesting way, but do they really need to be there? And why have them kill off Groves who, just standing around, is far more interesting than the Spaniards?
And what does Jack Sparrow actually do for the mermaid for her to bring him the chalices? He isn't around her long enough for them to establish a relationship because he's off, you know, doing one of the twelve parts/four subplots.
The mermaid and her boyfriend subplot is nicely paid-off but far too quickly. I think this subplot may have pushed its way more to forefront than the writers anticipated or wanted; they had Depp and Rush and McShane to worry about, not a relatively unknown Englishman. I regret this decision but understand it; if you pay people tons of money, I suppose you should write lines for them.
I did absolutely adore the Judi Dench cameo.
Still it's a pity the writers didn't try harder. Often with movies like this, I just shrug and say, "Eh, sequel," but On Stranger Tides isn't Die Hard 2 which fails because it isn't, well, Die Hard. This is a movie that could have been a respectable, tight story but instead is a . . . shaggy dog story with some good bits.
I do love the music!
Friday, October 14, 2011
Goonies 1985
Mike says that a few years ago, I started a phase where I began watching and collecting all the films of my youth (and no, the phase hasn't ended yet). I was excited to rewatch Goonies during this time, because I had so loved it as a kid. The truffle shuffle was a standard method of punishment in my house, and Data was one of my idols.
I think the reason I wanted to rewatch it so much is that I had scattered memories of all the best scenes: peeing in the cave, pulling the pipes, the bone organ, freeing the ship, "Hey You Guys!," big brother on the kiddie bike going off the cliff . . . you know, all the cool scenes that stood out amidst the filler stuff.
And when I finally rewatched it, well, I realized why those were the only scenes I remembered--because those scenes, those hilarious, stand out scenes, make up the entire movie! While this is very cool in that the movie is a non-stop adventure ride, well . . . that's about it. There's not much "filler," and sometimes, the stuff that happens in between the big scenes is what pulls a movie together.
Goonies is a great movie, and works very well, but the adventure is all you're getting out of this. The worried parents, the investigators looking for the kids, the clean-up of the disasters they caused are all possible side plots that are completely ignored. Even the small stuff, like how the kids got from one cave chamber to another (that seem to stretch throughout their entire town) is all passed over in favor of moving from one big scene to another.
Like I said, it makes for a fun movie. But, it's also a movie that sometimes feels more like a ride in an amusement park rather than an actual film.
Despite this mature conclusion that I've reached as a now educated adult, I still absolutely love this film, and laugh and enjoy almost every minute of it whenever I watch it. Sure, maybe a part of it is nostalgia (as Kate says, Nothing was ever really as good back in the "good old days" as we want to believe), but I think the major part is that this film reaches the kid still roaming around in my head and heart somewhere and makes him want to round up the neighborhood kids for one last adventure.
Kate says this movie is SO Chris Columbus.
It's fun with a total Disney-ride feel to it. And it doesn't pretend to be anything other than it is, but every now and again the difference between what it could be (nostalgic adventure a la Sandlot) and what it is (cutsy/smaltzy slapstick) is a little disconcerting. There's only so many crotch jokes a movie can provide before I start rolling my eyes.
Actually, the first false note for me was the appearance of the Asian kid. Not that I dislike Data, but it was so "token gesturish," I just shook my head. The monster brother, Sloth, also seemed totally over the top.
On the other hand, the movie's beginning does have that Sandlot feel. The kids form a believable group with natural family/friend interactions. The brothers' combination of teasing and affection is very real.
And every group has a Mouth.
The hunt for the treasure also starts naturally. The kids treat it as half-real, half-made-up, the way kids do play. Their blithe decision to investigate the wet Oregon countryside reminds me of my own childhood when my friends, siblings, and I would investigate the nearby woods.
But then . . . .well . . . there's lots of screaming. And more screaming. And silly bad guys. And the chubby kid saves the day.
I did find Chunk (Jeff Cohen) extremely amusing, especially all the stories he tells that nobody believes. Martha Pimpton, however, is easily the best actor out of the bunch with the strongest comedic timing ("This is ridiculous. It's crazy. I feel like I'm babysitting, except I'm not getting paid.")
The pirate ship floating past Cauldron Point is very cool. The most touching moment is still (I remembered it clearly) when Mikey "meets" One-Eyed Willie: "You know something, Willie? You're the first Goonie."
Complete side-note: I was CONVINCED that Elijah Wood was in this film with Sean Astin (before they worked together on LOTR). Actually, there is a 10 year difference in age which means Elijah Wood was 4 when Goonies was made. Who knew?!
I think the reason I wanted to rewatch it so much is that I had scattered memories of all the best scenes: peeing in the cave, pulling the pipes, the bone organ, freeing the ship, "Hey You Guys!," big brother on the kiddie bike going off the cliff . . . you know, all the cool scenes that stood out amidst the filler stuff.
And when I finally rewatched it, well, I realized why those were the only scenes I remembered--because those scenes, those hilarious, stand out scenes, make up the entire movie! While this is very cool in that the movie is a non-stop adventure ride, well . . . that's about it. There's not much "filler," and sometimes, the stuff that happens in between the big scenes is what pulls a movie together.
Goonies is a great movie, and works very well, but the adventure is all you're getting out of this. The worried parents, the investigators looking for the kids, the clean-up of the disasters they caused are all possible side plots that are completely ignored. Even the small stuff, like how the kids got from one cave chamber to another (that seem to stretch throughout their entire town) is all passed over in favor of moving from one big scene to another.
Like I said, it makes for a fun movie. But, it's also a movie that sometimes feels more like a ride in an amusement park rather than an actual film.
Despite this mature conclusion that I've reached as a now educated adult, I still absolutely love this film, and laugh and enjoy almost every minute of it whenever I watch it. Sure, maybe a part of it is nostalgia (as Kate says, Nothing was ever really as good back in the "good old days" as we want to believe), but I think the major part is that this film reaches the kid still roaming around in my head and heart somewhere and makes him want to round up the neighborhood kids for one last adventure.
Kate says this movie is SO Chris Columbus.
It's fun with a total Disney-ride feel to it. And it doesn't pretend to be anything other than it is, but every now and again the difference between what it could be (nostalgic adventure a la Sandlot) and what it is (cutsy/smaltzy slapstick) is a little disconcerting. There's only so many crotch jokes a movie can provide before I start rolling my eyes.
Actually, the first false note for me was the appearance of the Asian kid. Not that I dislike Data, but it was so "token gesturish," I just shook my head. The monster brother, Sloth, also seemed totally over the top.
On the other hand, the movie's beginning does have that Sandlot feel. The kids form a believable group with natural family/friend interactions. The brothers' combination of teasing and affection is very real.
And every group has a Mouth.
The hunt for the treasure also starts naturally. The kids treat it as half-real, half-made-up, the way kids do play. Their blithe decision to investigate the wet Oregon countryside reminds me of my own childhood when my friends, siblings, and I would investigate the nearby woods.
But then . . . .well . . . there's lots of screaming. And more screaming. And silly bad guys. And the chubby kid saves the day.
I did find Chunk (Jeff Cohen) extremely amusing, especially all the stories he tells that nobody believes. Martha Pimpton, however, is easily the best actor out of the bunch with the strongest comedic timing ("This is ridiculous. It's crazy. I feel like I'm babysitting, except I'm not getting paid.")
The pirate ship floating past Cauldron Point is very cool. The most touching moment is still (I remembered it clearly) when Mikey "meets" One-Eyed Willie: "You know something, Willie? You're the first Goonie."
Complete side-note: I was CONVINCED that Elijah Wood was in this film with Sean Astin (before they worked together on LOTR). Actually, there is a 10 year difference in age which means Elijah Wood was 4 when Goonies was made. Who knew?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)