Archive for the 'Reviews' Category

The Dude Sees The Dark Knight Again And It Makes Him Feel Less Funny Inside But Still Makes Him Wonder If People Will Be Ultimately Disappointed With The Movie Even THough He Is Less So.

Published on August 2, 2008 in ..The Dude, Films and Reviews. 1 Comment

So I had a hot lesbian-less screening of the top grossing opening weekend film of all time. And I liked it better. Sure hot lesbians are great. But I didn’t spend my $9 to be teased by them. I spent it to see Chistopher Nolan follow up my favorite Batman movie ever. One that washed clean the dirt put onto my soul by the stupid and evil Tim Burton and his successors as well as the ego fest that was Jack Nicholson being Jack Nicholson while playing The Joker.

Mmmm hot lesbians……

I digress.

Upon a second viewing I was able to appreciate some plot points and follow the crime story angle more fully. And it worked better; for the most part. I think a lot of people are going to find this part of the film too crime procedural and if so they’re not going to love the movie or return for further viewing as I did. Lesbians or no lesbians. I’ve already heard some discontent regarding that aspect of the film. I understand it and felt some of it myself. More so the first time I saw it than the next. I can’t blame that all on the lesbians. The movie is more complex than your average superhero movie and…..

Mmm I wonder where they are now……the lesbians I mean.

Concentrate!!!

I think many people are like me in that comics and the movies they spawn have become a more satisfying mythology for a more secular age. We want gods and heroes and the old time symbols really don’t cut it anymore. For all the criticism of the last Superman I liked it because Supes had that aura of the exemplar. He still felt like he was a selfless and benevolent power who was greater than us despite his unexplainable and ongoing Lois Lane fetish. Maybe his mom was a bitchy, selfish and dismissive whore. I don’t know. Just think Superman could do better. So could Clark for that matter considering he’s the same guy except for a pair of glasses.

Digressing again.

Ok, so I think most people go to superhero movies to be wowed and for a sense of wonder. They want that uplifting Superman score of old as our hero does something we can’t do and elevates the human condition. Let’s face it, comic books are to a large extent a replacement for religious mythology. Much of that old time myth making and hero making was about creating an image of man to aspire to and to lay the groundwork towards finding the greatness in us; or at least imagine it’s in us for that time we invest in the characters or in the case of religion the church of choice and its chief tenets.

Superman can leave me feeling awed in the presence of something greater than myself. Religion doesn’t do that for me so I turn to the new myths like comics, tv and movies. Now Batman has never been that archetype of total goodness and selflessness. And The Dark Knight makes him darker and less heroic that usual. In doing so the movie didn’t have that sense of wonder. The dark side of it is ok with me. I was always attracted more to Batman than Supes growing up because of that dark and more human side. But in a movie which is a rare event you kind of want some spectacle and magic and TDK is in many ways more of a crime procedural and exploration of character.

The Dark Knight really isn’t going to offer much in the way of the kind of uplift your average audience person is expecting when they step into a hyped superhero movie. Not in an obvious heavy handed way that modern audiences seem to need to feel like they’re getting it. Besides being a crime procedural it’s also playing with some ideas regarding the nature of heroism that are a bit obtuse. It’s debatable how much value there is in this exploration since ultimately this is still based on a comic book. Despite some comparisons it’s not The Godfather II. There are limitations in the comic universe. As good as Christopher Nolan has been at grounding this series in something approaching reality you’re steal dealing with characters and basic themes forged in 2 dimensions with its origins in black and white comic book subtext.

Now I should warn Bob or anyone who has not seen this movie that the rest of this post will probably have plenty of spoilers. So stop reading now.

Modern comics have advanced a lot on the depth of storytelling though. Hell, Time called The Watchmen one of the 100 greatest novels of all time. And The Dark Knight is a modern Batman by way of the Frank Miller inspired tales that offer more depth and substance along with more darkness. But it’s still based on a guy who runs around in a bat suit chasing after a guy with clown paint and another who flips coins to decide things because his face is split in two.

Nolan does a great job in making all these characters feel as 3 dimensional and plausible as possible. But there are still times when I feel like I’m stretching my credulity a bit. Harvey Dent’s coin feels most definitely like a comic book contrivance. His transformation into a villain felt far too sudden and rushed. And the payoff with Batman’s decision to become the villain so Gotham could keep its heroic symbol just feels a bit arch and unmerited. I like the idea, I really do. I think it was a dramatic turn and that it offers nice possibilities for part 3. But to buy it as a real necessity within his world I think you have to buy into the premise that Gotham is full of fragile drones that would fall apart without a symbol, even a dead one.

I’m coolish with allowing Batman to become a truer hero by taking the fall and letting everyone think he’s a villain. That endgame is all good. But getting there and feeling good about that destination would have required a little more convincing that Gotham’s citizens are an emotionally fragile and needy bunch of pussies.

Personally I’m not one for the idea of modern major metropolitan cities being that uniformly unstable. I might buy it more if you kept the comic-y Gotham of the first movie or even the evil Tim Burton’s. But in the Gotham of Dark Knight which is actually Chicago with that sense of real City expansiveness and depth, it’s somehow harder to buy.

On the other hand it’s easier in TDK’s Chicago-Gotham to buy people not being on to Bruce Wayne as well as the Joker being impossible to find without Bruce violating civil rights. In the Burton or Batman Begins Gotham there’s sense of claustrophobia and surreality to the city that feels like it could conceptualize some fragility and cloistered myopia of its citizenry. Those Gotham’s had a more otherworldly feel and so it would be easier for me to buy into the populace having abnormal responses and dependencies like the isolated and abused wife or child that is still emotionally dependent on the abuser they live with and the methods of abuse.

But those other Gotham’s also felt small and lent themselves towards feeling like everyone, including its media and law enforcement would have to be a bit retarded to not figure out that Bruce Wayne is Batman. But in a real metropolis like NY or Chicago which is the city of TDK’s Gotham, even a billionaire can get a little lost and have room to maneuver. People would occasionally figure it out, and someone does in TDK, but it’s not the can of corn it felt like it should have been in the other Batman incarnations.

Plus with Gordon on his side the police were never going to look that hard. Until now at least.

And even if the method used by Batman to violate Gotham’s privacy seemed a bit dubious, it makes sense that he’d have to resort to it to find a madman like The Joker amongst a city of such vastness. And finding him, along with that crime procedural in which he hid himself and his intent was well done and had a legitimate mounting tension really heightened by a good score. Hopefully in time that score will become even more associated with TDK’s building crescendo of tragedy and less with a mounting interest in how far two hot lesbians are willing to go right in front of me.

Mmmm mounting lesbian tension…..

Be strong Dude.

Ledger was great if debatably a tad self-indulgent. But he definitely steals his scenes and brings a contradictory sense of chaotic purpose to the role and to the movies themes. I felt a little unresolved as far as he went. Wanting closure.

Not unlike with the lesbians.

And I think closure may have come later. With The Joker. Not the lesbians. Nolan said Burton made a mistake in killing his Joker inferring that he wasn’t going to kill him for a reason. And Ledger was supposedly signed for a third movie. So I think they were going someplace else with him. Unfortunately his storyline will never get full closure now.

And in honor of him I end this review without any either.

The Simpsons

Published on July 29, 2007 in ..The Dude and Reviews. 2 Comments

A generation finally has its film. Promised us for a good bulk of the 17 years the show has been on the air The Simpsons finally hits the big screen.

Is it worth the wait or too little too late?

Well neither exactly in my opinion. But it was a damn good little big time cartoon that certainly brings much more to the table than the show has in recent years. That may in large part be due to them bringing back some of the old heyday talent for the movie. It still has its over the top silly gags and mindless easy laughs that has come to define the latter years but for the most part there was some intelligence back in the mix with a bit of social commentary and pathos thrown in to really remind me what made this little cartoon about a strange yellow family so special at one time.

Back in the 90′s The Simpsons could not only make me laugh but could also make me cry just a tiny bit and there is a moment in the scene with the tape where that happens again. We get some nice little moments of satire as well though they don’t get too far beyond the family story here. The church/Moe’s moment is one of my favorites in a long time and has that sly insight packed into a couple of seconds the show used to do so often.

There’s alot of other nice stuff though it is true as many reviews have stated that the laughs slow a bit after 20 minutes or so and you do feel that post 90′s Simpsons vibe set in. But the look of the movie which manages to be cartoony enough to let you escape this world (which some animation doesn’t do anymore due to becoming too lifelike) has a scope to the animation that really fits the big screen and kept my interest.

The movie could have used more Burns and Smithers for sure as well as more on the post apocalyptic Lord Of The Flies element taking over Springfield that we glimpse near the end. But all in all Groening and Co came through and didn’t make me regret the decision to do a movie this late in the game. It’s actually been a long time since I heard so much audience applause at the end of a movie. That made it worth seeing it opening weekend. When a movie like this lives up to the hype, being there with a full crowd who have that collective moment is nice. It’s a safe bet Spiderpig is leaving America more satisfied than Spiderman 3 did.

Half Nelson

Published on May 19, 2007 in ..The Dude, Films and Reviews. 1 Comment

Finally got around to seeing this small independent offering that garnered its star Ryan Gossling a best actor nomination at this years Oscars. It’s a strange film that had a strange effect on me as I tried to come to terms with how I felt about these characters. On one level you’re getting a movie dabbling with the trite and cliched Hollywood great white hope as a caucasian teacher diligently tries to reach inner city black kids. On another level it’s about an incorrigible junkie who happens to be that white teacher who’s not all that diligent. And it’s a kid caught between a vaguely creepy relationship with him and the pull of the streets put on her by the far more appealing drug dealer character pulling her into the life that put her brother in prison.

Gossling is Dan Dunn, a rebellious, anti-authoritarian teacher that only briefly suggests the kind of Dead Poets Society captain of young souls before you quickly realize that some of his anti-establishment stance is the weak vestiges of his long since shipwrecked and defeated idealism. Now he’s just bitter, angry, and unable to connect with people. It’s a testimony to how good both the acting and writing is in this movie that you get a sense of these things while being given so little overtly. For instance you only see Dunn’s family once for about 5 minutes and everything from his addiction, to his anger, to his inability to open up come through from the way everyone in his family holds a wine glass constantly, the way his father looks at him and makes light of his job, and his mothers unspoken concern and barely suppressed restraint. His parents are apparently 60′s liberals and we can see in Dunn’s directionless rants about Iraq and the polls showing how people still think there are WMD’s and a connection between Iraq and Al-Quada, how that liberal ideal has become that shipwrecked anger. It’s there in between the lines which reveal the connection to his family and his own inner turmoil.

And all while spending a very short time giving us these clues or examining his behavior.

The subtle way this and more of what is happening in the main characters lives comes across is so understated I think people are going to either just completely not get it or have it really get under their skin and effect them. Count me among the latter. For the former I think they’ll find this a boring and pointless movie. For those like me in the second category this was almost dangerously revealing.

One theme stated early on through Dunn’s history class concerns opposing forces and how conflict changes things. The movie illustrates some of this through video accompanying the kids oral reports about key moments Dunn has them research as punishment for making fun of other classmates. We get a vision of the civil rights movement, gay rights, political activism inspired by union activist Mario Salvo and the U.S. role in that other 9-11 when we helped take out the democratically elected Salvador Allende in Chile to install Pinochet. Dunn has wanted to write a kids book about the dialectic process and how it changes history.

And yet in a movie with a character almost archly obsessed with opposing forces and that Socratic dialectic you’ve got a movie in which neither of the two opposing forces I mentioned pulling at the girl are quite worthy of rooting for.

At least not overtly. There are too many shades of grey here. Neither Gossling or the charismatic dealer are bad. Both are likable. Gossling is also pathetic at times. The dealer misguided and self-serving. But that’s part of the appeal of the movie. It’s partly about growing up. For both main characters, teacher and pupil. And that’s not always a clean or clear cut process. And the movie doesn’t necessarily make it clear how successful either character will be. But they are changed. They go about quietly noticing things and showing those subtle signs of maturity that could easily pass for adaptation or inner strength depending on your way of looking at things.

There’s a point in the movie, I think it’s in the scene with his family, when someone pulls out the Marlo Thomas 70′s staple of growing up, “Free To Be You And Me,” and puts it on the record player. I have vaguely fond memories of listening to that thing and in some small part being shaped by it. I know a lot of people my age do. I recognized the LP album cover as soon as it appeared. I can remember holding it my hands and looking at its now oversized vinyl album cover and studying the lyrics inside.

Maybe it was brought out here to juxtapose the less bright and sweet reality of growing up the movie suggests. Maybe it was there to show how even when you’re a bit older like Gossling in his late 20′s-early 30′s or his parents who probably discovered the feel good kids album of individuality, many of us making up a generation raised by hippies and video games, still playing them, watching Star Wars, and buying more shiny toys like CD’s and DVD players, have a much more amorphous relationship with growing up than is usually presented as normal. Perhaps a crippled one compared to previous generations before the Baby Boomer parents.

Either way i enjoyed its inclusion and how it underscored the more sullen optimism of the movie. Through contradiction that is. As in opposing forces I guess. I’ve always been a fan of that dialectic process and a big believer that it’s at the core of a true democracy. Half Nelson shows how that process isn’t always as clean and black and white as we want it to be.

Who Killed The Electric Car?

Published on April 9, 2007 in ..The Dude, Films and Reviews. 0 Comments

Just when I was beginning to think Al Gore also invented the documentary I was reminded that there are other great ones out there using the theatrical format to focus scrutiny and attention on under covered topics. And doing it in an entertaining way as well. I finally got around to seeing Who Killed The Electric Car and it made me wonder how An Inconvenient Truth won the best documentary Oscar. I liked the latter but WKTEC was an even more impressive movie and better ride (pun intended).

Part of it is that most of the stuff covered by Gore’s doc was pretty well known information to me and alot of other people. Gore somehow managed to make it simpler, more lucid and understandable. But there’s stuff in WKTEC I was surprised by. And as I was being surprised I was entertained more than AIT because I was out of the realm of power point presentations and into what felt like a real murder mystery procedural with characters I cared about even though some of them were cars.

I knew there were electric vehicles out there a few years back and like most people I fell prey to what this movie proves to me was a concerted effort by GM and others to deligitimize and undermine not only the technology but their own product. I thought of these cars as slow moving, ponderously up-kept and charged-up, boxy vestibules catering to wealthy liberal movie stars.

But Toyota, Ford and particularly GM engineered and produced a pretty effective car. GM’s was pretty cool looking and sleek as well. These cars were loved, and I mean loved, by their owners. They had 0 emissions, cool interiors, a near silent running, and they were pretty fast to boot. Yeah they had to be charged every 70-100 miles but the beginning of an infrastructure of electric filling stations was coming along and there were burgeoning advances in battery power going on. Things looked so good the California Air Resources Board pushed their 0 emissions requirement on car makers as CARB saw the practicality and technology there to back it up.

Further investigation that sometimes literally follows the trail of transport trucks trying to take electric vehicles to demolish, indicate that the oil industry and car manufacturers then started pushing an anti EV campaign. A few years ago you may remember that the present Bush administration even got involved in backing a lawsuit against California for enforcing those emission standards. The federal government getting involved in a lawsuit, much less one pushed by oil and car companies is not a very common occurrence. It actually seems quite scandalous to me though of course not to the mainstream media who underreported it at the time.

All this led CARB to negotiating a compromise that asked the car companies to at least continue manufacturing the cars to meet consumer demand. This apparently only exacerbated the negative p.r. that flowed from everywhere regarding electric vehicles. You have to see the EV commercials GM ran to believe it. Gas powered cars get shiny vistas, climbing mountain sides, pretty models etc in their adds. These EV spots were dark and ominous. They were full of the shadows of families strewn across the pavement in what seemed a post apocalyptic landscape voiced over by a narrator that sounded creepy and neither quite male or female. There were posters of bleak landscapes with the car in the background and stuff like a scarecrow-ish humanoid figure lurching towards it like some nightmarish avatar.

I mean it’s real clear watching these that the car companies used all the focusing groups and sociological and psychological experts we know they use in advertising, to come up with something that would turn people off and leave them feeling uneasy. Not the usual approach to selling product.

And we even get what i considered the smoking gun in the form of an internal memo calling for ways to alleviate positive press for EV’s and decrease demand.

Two issues I had was the movies lack of information or speculation about two things. One was why automakers started manufacturing the cars to begin with. The other is some scientific testimony regarding the cars companies assertions that the production of electricity for these cars burns just as much fossil fuel. These two questions don’t diminish the evidence and even pathos created in the films examination of the killing of the EV though. And on the extras section of the DVD we do get stats based on recent studies to do give an indication that the coal burned for electricity to power these vehicles is far less damaging than what fossil fuels powering standard internal combustion engines do. I mean it doesn’t take too much mental effort or scientific background to to grasp that cars with 0 emissions coming from their tailpipes that keep the source of their power limited to factories with capturing facilities is a better alternative than factories combined with out of control ubiquitous tailpipes all over the country.

And as for the original motive to produce I can only guess that in the early stages of environmental pressures and technological advancement companies like GM can’t ignore a new technology. They have to have every corner covered in case it takes off. But given the chance to stay with the tried and true they will do that. We didn’t get seat belts or air bags out of the goodness of manufacturers hearts. We got them due to tireless activism by Ralph Nader.

I highly recommend this movie even if some of the funeral procession stuff in California is a bit flaky. There is still a genuine feeling of loss over the main character of this movie who is snuffed out before its prime. Maybe it’s because of its symbol of better things squashed by sinister and greedy forces or innocence lost to harsh realities. But when I saw those demolished cars lined up and piled on each other, taken off the roads forcibly by manufacturers apparently to remove their memories and influence, I couldn’t help but think of mass graves. The whole thing really did play out like a oil industry backed vehicular genocide or an environmental ethnic cleansing. It’s not like real human lives haven’t and won’t be lost due to the events coordinated by the Bush administration, auto manufacturers, big oil, and CARB. The number of kids with asthma and other serious lung and breathing issues will continue to grow. The climate will continue to be altered and countless lives lost. And as sure as Bush, a CEO at Exxon-Mobil or GM ripped thier necks open with a dagger the blood is on their hands.

300

Published on March 15, 2007 in ..The Dude and Reviews. 2 Comments

[image:226:l] Ahh to crush our enemies, to see them driven before us and hear the lamentations of their women. Is not this what we all long for? Fanboys and geeks unite for in 300 you get your vicarious off and get to glory in the sometimes contradictory worlds of manhood, comics, coolness, and mostly naked buffed men.

300 is a stylized, industrialized, poeticized,and digitilized view of the Spartan battle to hold off the seething Persian hordes. It’s told through a lens of Homeric over the top storytelling mixed with Beowulf and Keats. Or Shelly. Or maybe it’s Tennyson. One of those manly poets.

Heh, heh. I said manly poets. That’s like saying thoughtful Republicans.

But though this is based on a real event, this film has much in common with Republicans in that its view of history is distorted and warped. Of course in this movie and presumably the Frank Miller comic it’s based on, this is mostly done with benign effect. It’s catharsis. It’s cool, it’s geeky, and yes it’s a little bit gay. But it also kicked a little bit of ass.

I feel a little guilty saying that since this movie not only romanticized war but does so in the name of partial truths. We get all filled up with righteous Spartan anger as the Persians threaten to take away their much rallied around freedom and democracy. Now not only does this sound allot like the kind of bullshit rhetoric propaganda we’ve heard far too much of in real life, it’s bullshit. Sparta wasn’t free. Their soldiers were so good because they had allot of free time what with all their slaves doing their work for them.

And though we see a razed village blamed on the Persians it was the Spartans noted for committing such acts. [image:229:l]

So it would be easier to love the movie if it didn’t base itself on real events and just made up some battle. A battle itself the movie fibs about.

But then it never tells us it’s based on reality and anyone one watching it who doesn’t realize they’re getting reality on steroids is just too dumb to live. I’ve heard some criticize the dialogue for being stilted or over the top. That’s just as stupid as saying that about Conan The Barbarian and the paraphrase I started this post with. This kind of heightened verbiage, hamfisted line reading, and downright corny bombast are in the service of the movies tone. It’s not a mistake. It’s a necessity in driving home the movies combination of hyper gravitas and winking absurdity.

And for the most part it worked. The movie looks great if at times a little claustrophobic. It’s a piece of art on screen but sometimes I felt trapped in its frames. Or maybe more precisely stuck in a really overcast video game. It also dragged at times since 2 hours for an essentially one note film can be a bit much. But that note does resound a bit and could be stretched enough to create quite a few memorable moments. There’s some stuff to get the fists pumping here as well as a few very funny lines that helped ground the movie and keep it from wallowing in its own triteness or taking it’s alternative history too seriously.

In a recent movie post I wondered if flicks like this are the last hope of cinema since media formats are so multitudinous and bite size now that a movie filled with 2 hours of ideas, a book, or an album, just can’t fit into our cultures need to move on the next experience without dwelling too much on the last. If so it’s not the worst thing that could happen I guess. I have to admit liking this, V For Vendetta, and Sin City, Batman Begins, and Superman Returns more than most of what I’ve seen the past few years. [image:227:l]

But then again bear in mind I’m pushing 40 and losing brain cells all the time.

Not that this movie requires no thought. It’s actually sparked quite a bit of political debate on the web. Allot of people are finding a different political p.o.v. from it. Of course it’s not supposed to be overly historical but it still draws it’s theme from real events which it seems to me it goes a bit Republican with as far as usage of propaganda both within and external to the film. Not only is there the village and slave stuff in the background of a propaganda campaign using the buzzwords of freedom and democracy. We also get anti gay comment or two directed at the Athenians.

Now bear in mind it was really the Athenians who defeated Persia and stopped their march on Greece and the world. That small band of Spartans or those that came after really had little effect. And they didn’t do democracy near as well as Plato and his boy buggering comrades teaching whatever it was they taught up in college. This whole tact seems to echo a bit the recent right-wing attack of liberals as speechmakers while they themselves go out and get the job done no matter what they have to do.

There’s also a racial angle here since all the good guys are white and the Persian hordes are darker. Here we’re getting the pre-Muslim, Muslim hordes terrorizing the poor not so innocent innocents of the West. A West judging from the abs and delts on these guys, had Boflex’s long before infomercials brought them to our attentions. [image:231:l]

Of course there’s the other angle which finds 3oo to be anti American piece since the smaller band of Spartans are more equivalent to the outnumbered Iraqis and the gigantic and apparently unstoppable, irrational juggernaut of the Persians paralleling the U.S. When the Persian leader Xerxes says he’d gladly sacrifice countless for victory I guess you can take Dick Cheney out of that or suicide bombing Shiites depending on what you want to get.

I’ve read that Frank Miller has indicated some quasi fascist attitudes in his work and or interviews. That and that he is a small man who some feel overcompensates with visions of might and manliness, which if true reminds me a bit of Neitszche in its psychological profiling. Bob could probably contribute more to that subject than i can. But 300 certainly does nothing to dissuade me to disbelieve these reports.

There’s is that naive air of the might of the righteous and how no matter the odds the side that wins will always be the good guys because they have some higher calling pervading things.
But at the same time it’s an emotional release that never gets old. The problem is for film makers to find new and fresh ways of casting it. You can’t do Rocky or Hoosiers all the time. And here Frank Snyder gives us a fresh and interesting new way to play with old ideas and recast them in a mostly exhilirating way.

I’m not sure Snyder has any political agenda here either. I’d guess that he probably does not. If he does I’d have to say it is a slightly pro right wing one. Even if it’s unconscious and a product of the source material which just blows that hypocritical Spartan attitude towards being vanguards of democracy fighting for freedom against the heathen hordes in my face a bit too much for it not to echo the neo-cons a little. Guys who have it all and yet still believe they’re underdogs fighting the good fight when all they want to really do is keep what’s theirs from becoming someone elses. So maybe if tales of Frank Miller’s neo fascist small man Napolean complex are true this is his visualization of that mentality. Of course if so he was doing it long before it became popular since the comic predates 9-11. [image:230:l]

But hey so did Neitzsche and Hitler.

But of course neo-cons don’t actually fight because they’re chickenhawk pansie-ass motherfuckers who overcompensate with hard line attitudes to cover their white withered pussy-asses.

And Spartans fight their own battles. And for that you got to love them and their codpieces. Righteous or not these guys know how to get their battle on, fight as a team, and make a wisecrack or two along the way. And I like that in a people. Fictional or not. A harmless adrenaline rush and bolt of inspiration is a good thing and this movie does sort of provide it though of course it can only be taken so far. It’s dysfunctional history and hyberbolic battles don’t exactly lend themselves towards applied lessons in most of our lives. Sure working as a team, not giving up, and all that good stuff is there. But though N.Y. State and Taconic TDDSO
can be seen as a monolithic juggernaut it’s not exactly swarming with wizards, trolls, immortal swordfighters, and various other monsters that I feel a need to take on.

In actuality this movie just made me want to slay for slayings sake. Not just anybody. But I wanted someone to do something wrong and get a little pep squad man-loving on to take down some local hooligans in a pool of their own sewer destined blood.

After taking care of business at home of course by satisfying the little lady. The Spartan leader Leonidas may sound more British than Greek but he’s a likable bastard who knows his wife needs the high hard one to tide her over before he goes to battle. And that wife even gets a nice, if improbable moment or two amongst the Spartan counsel of elders, Senate, Toga Congress or whatever they called themselves there. And I liked it god help me. I liked it.

And I liked Xerxes. This is hard for me since the actor who portrays him is currently on Lost playing Paolo the guy associated with defecating allot. I don’t like him or his girlfriend. I fear their flashback in a couple of weeks. The most enjoyable moment of last weeks episode was Sawyer’s cutting, “who the hell are you,” to the girl and refusals to take the magazine back from Paolo because he had it in the bathroom or the island equivalent of a bathroom. [image:228:l]

But Xerxes kicked ass. Again, he was way over the top, a feminized, ego blown, mechanically throated leader of monsters. But it worked for me. So what if he travels on a gold toilet hoisted by his minions. He was so good I’ve begun reconsidering my take on Paolo and his regularity issues. Perhaps his flashback will explain this. Maybe he has Chrone’s disease or dysentery. Perhaps he’s on a quest for the golden throne. I don’t know. But he spoke to me through Xerxes and he said give the toilet a chance.

Of course portraying him in the somewhat cloying, femmed up way they did does sort of play into that right-wing view of the enemies of freedom being like buggering Athenians who just want to talk or eastern-middle eastern weirdos disobeying all kinds of gods laws as well as noble mens.

But this is probably just me taking out what I expect. Many others have found political p.o.v.’s as well so at least I’m not the only one grasping if indeed we are. I think Miller may have his issues but I tend to think Snyder’s movie is meant to be a silly testosterone rush.

Actually that kind of also describes the Project For The New America Century.

But whether 300 is truly the future of film as the old standards die or just a short term trend alongside a momentary weak point in movie history time will tell. Hopefully it will tell it a bit more honestly than this movie. If you’re going to lie, lie about Middle Earth or The Matrix. I enjoyed the films semi-historical setting and can see the reason for going there but I can’t help feeling a little guilty about liking it. I don’t want to see an end to classic movies that stand the test of time in favor of You Tube and theater movies told in comic book panels. They’re fun when well done but I do think we may be seeing the next step in our fragmented and shortened attention spanned society. Maybe people will just download movies to their Ipods and watch stuff like this in short durations or movies will go this route but lop themselves down to 30 minute bites to digest in serialized form along with the musical hits of the moment, levels of Halo, and cgi renderings of art, political cartoons, editorials, and more. And maybe they’ll do so with more of that prophetic Colbert truthiness that feels so good to wallow in 300 as we eventually get too tired to her anything that makes us doubt our emotions.

And maybe I’ll be one of them after all. Because despite myself I liked 300 and only wish it were a bit shorter.

Zodiac, The Departed, And Has The Bar On Great Movies Slipped?

Published on March 13, 2007 in ..The Dude, Films and Reviews. 0 Comments

Zodiac and The Departed. Two well received films by well respected Directors. Both are movies I enjoyed. In the case of The Departed I enjoyed it quite a bit. But did I see it and say, “That’s an award winner?”

Absolutely not.

And yet it did win. Actually I’ve been finding the quality of well reviewed films has been slipping for a few years now. Not to mention Academy Awards winners. So I ask this question: Has the quality of cinema slipped so much that not only Babel and Crash look like genius to many, but movies in general have a lowered bar for quality. Babel and Crash have that choir thing going on, but the other two movies mentioned above stand as films being judged for no other reason but themselves and their entertainment value. And they’re both good. But I was underwhelmed by both and I can’t shake the feeling that both these movies would have been middle of the pack in terms of reviews at one time. But in relative terms they look great because there really aren’t great movies made anymore.

I’m a David Fincher fan and was looking forward to Zodiac even though it’s based on a true story which would seem to limit the possibility of having the kind of fun we had in Seven and Fight Club. Or even Panic Room which for all its lack of weightiness was still an amazingly exciting and intense movie about a woman and kid trapped in a house by Forrest Whitaker and Jared Leto whose face is a map of the world.

Map of the world.

Anyway, Zodiac is about 2 and a half hours long. Which seemed a really long time to give to a serial killer who really wasn’t that interesting. He was never caught though the movie points a clear finger at one of the suspects who died a few years ago. Fincher tones his stylistic extravagances down to make this more about the story of the effects hunting this guy have on mainly 3 men. One is a cop played by Mark Ruffalo, another a reporter portrayed by Robert Downey Jr, and the main guy who wrote the book the movie is mostly based on, a cartoonist for the SF Chronicle that Downey works for as well. He’s played by Jake Gyllenhall who in a scene at Downey’s place, with Downey’s character slipping into oblivion and sitting around half dressed in a robe really worried me for a moment was going to get all Brokeback Mountain on Downey’s arse.

I will give credit for this to Gyllenhall for portraying a gay cowboy so well. That and my own idiocy.

But the movie has long patches of dullness playing out the crime procedural from an investigative point of view. And though this seemed pretty realistic there didn’t seem enough meat to the Zodiac’s story to warrant all this attention. Much of the films years cover periods when the killer is completely inactive. He didn’t actually kill that many people but seemed rather more noteworthy for his communications to the paper and police, which though a hint into his need for attention were also revelatory not of a great criminal mind but rather of a boring and uninteresting loser who happened to be doing what he was at the right time and in the right place.

This just contributed to that feeling that he didn’t warrant a 2.5 hour plus movie. And since his predominant motivation for writing letters seemed to be attention I also had to wonder if that 2.5 hour movie about him was really such a good idea even if it was more about 3 guys who tried to catch him then about him.

The fact that he didn’t get caught seemed to have more to do with the interdepartmental lack of communication and the limited technology available to all parties trying to find him in his peak years. As we see in the movie even the lack of reliable fax machines everywhere at the time play a role in coordinating the investigations. I was left with the impression that this guy would have been caught pretty quick if he was killing people in the 90′s or later. That and the impression that giving over this kind of cellulose time to a guy who was kind of stupid and lucky, to show how an era and its resources can effect things wasn’t enough of a part of the move to give me an overarching idea to make this movie stand out.

Some things did stand out though. Despite being toned down Zodiac manages to still look good. Fincher creates a nice 70′s era vibe for much of the film which actually covers 4 decades. And he still manages to make nice but understated use of some visual landscapes and music to stir the senses a bit. Fincher has a clear purpose and style here made to serve the story and create a mood. The length is perhaps part of that. But I still didn’t quite get a sense of those 4 decades being covered. There were allot of reminders typed on screen telling us one scene was a month, or 4 months, or a year, or 4 years, etc after the scene that proceeded it. But I still didn’t get a sense of that time passing. The characters never looked that much older though all these scene jumps add up to quite a bit of time by the later parts of the film. I just didn’t get that sense of time passing and the years wearing on the characters that many people have mentioned as being so well done and at the crux of the movies purpose.

There’s been allot of superlatives thrown at Zodiac and though I respect the effort and didn’t feel jipped for spending my $6 I was kind of glad I went to a matinee and didn’t spend $9.

Now on to The Departed. Some spoilers follow.

I watched this for the 2nd time the other day. In some ways I liked it more than when I saw it in the theater a few months ago. The movie certainly has some energy, snappy and interesting dialogue, and an attitude. I appreciated the first half even more than the first time. But I still felt the movie lacked a point and became in the end a needless and pointless foray into violence and bloodshed for its own sake.

I’ve always been a Martin Scorcese fan but there are times he does seem to glory in gore and find a bit too much sympathy for scumbags. While this seemed fun and relatively benign in the self contained world of misdeeds of Goodfellas, ironically based in a true story, it’s hard for me to find anything redeeming or sympathetic about characters who bring their bloodlust and corruption outside of La Famaglia in this fictional tale. DeCaprio’s character Costigan does deserve a measure of sympathy since he’s playing for the good guys and is one of the few who doesn’t actually kill anyone.

But any investment in his positive attributes gets no payoff. In the end it seems the movie takes great pains to show there is little distinction between him and Matt Damon’s, Sullivan.

There are also some questionable plot holes in the latter stages. Why did Costigan leave the station if he was going to bring Damon’s character in after meeting on the rooftop anyway? The guy he trusted that he called to the building for the arrest was there at the station. He didn’t seem the type to panic but that seems the only explanation. But his identity is validated later anyway. Was that Wahlberg’s Lumigan characters doing?

How did the other crooked cop who takes out Costigan know he’d be there at the building preparing to take in Damon? How did Lumigan find out and where was he when shit was going down and why didn’t Costigan go to him instead of leaving the envelope with the therapist? Why did Damon leave the room with Costigan in from the cold to use the other computer when he wasn’t going to delete his file until after he came back and realized Costigan was on to him? Why was Jack Nicholson really playing both sides and did Martin Sheen know it? Couldn’t Costigan have just turned over his cell phone to show the connection with Sheen when he came into the station?

I don’t mind stuff left to the imagination but there were some holes here and other aspects allot of people have pointed to. I can go with the envelope going from the therapist to Lumigan who puts the pieces together, and does what he does. But they had to have knows Costigan was a cop before that because Lumigan was on his leave and the cops knew as they were giving Damon his debriefing which would have been that same day.

But as I said I can live with some of these questions. The ones that give you something to stretch for anyway. The bigger problem is the movies overall lack of meaning. It’s based on a movie called Infernal Affairs. I think it’s a Japanese film. From what I’ve read Scorcese changed much of the ending and overall point of the movie from that original. It sounds to me lack he robbed the movie of a more meaningful thematic element by doing this and bringing it back to that violence for violence sake feel. Whatever the characters similarities there was enough separating them to warrant a more meaningful delineation and separation of plot and purpose.

So though i liked this movie it certainly didn’t resound in some epic way or come off as one of the better things I’ve ever see. In fact I don’t think it did the whole undercover cop goes to jail to establish cover and than deals with submerging his identity thing as well as the show Wiseguy did in the late 80′s-early 90′s/ particularly the Sonny Steegrave arc. That storyline and format led to all the story arcing we see all over the place today and it drew its strength from the relationship between the undercover fed and the crime boss he worked beside and grew to love as a brother.

Not only did that whole vibe play out only superficially in The Departed, but combining it with the ridiculous therapist triangle and that lack of distinction between characters, I just don’t get how it adds up to a great movie.

And this is just one of many times I’ve found myself seeing well reviewed films the past few years and finding myself increasingly disappointed. Part of me thinks this is because like the album in music, maybe long form formats of any kind are dying out. We are a disposable culture fragmented into our niches and interests with so much to fill those interests that people just don’t have the time or attention spans to really give anymore.

Is it a coincidence that graphic comics are being portrayed more and more often and successfully on screen? The movie format may not be dead but I wonder if its future is in easier digestible comic panels visualized on screen. That and You Tube type stuff. That is not a criticism of either. Some of the graphic based movies are great. V For Vendetta was one of my top 5 last year. Maybe people just require more visual gratification which these movies are good at providing with that amped up comic book imagery. It’s not like their inherently vapid. V and the recent 300 which I’ll get into in a review shortly have both sparked allot of political debate. Superman Returns was all about Jesus for me. But I worry that these movies are signaling an end to heavier movies that people love for decades. Maybe it’s just a youth thing and we love what we saw at an earlier age. But if you look at most all time critics lists there’s not allot from the past few years on it. People younger and certainly allot older than me will list movies like The Godfather, 2001, Taxi Driver, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Star Wars, and many other 60′s through 80′s movies as all time greats. There’s not allot from the 90′s or aughts though.

Even indie films are packing less weight lately. I’ll see allot of these hyped up smaller flicks that are supposed to be the smarter alternative to Hollywood big studio fare and I find the past couple of years that they disappoint more and more. Again there are quite allot of good ones well worth seeing, discussing, and thinking about. But few that feel special or like they’re answering a higher calling. OR will be watched 10-20 years from now.

And that’s ultimately what I’m getting at with the disposable culture thing I guess. I come from a youth that saved stuff that was special. We were fortunate to be amongst those kids first starting to get video games, home movies in vcr format at the time, cassettes and walkmans, etc. And there was stuff you wanted to get and kept your whole life, returning to from time to time. It’s just hard to see that happening with much of the music or film of the past few years. Even amongst those that purchase and like the newer stuff I get the impression it will be just one of many short term attachments before the next page loads so to speak.

And maybe film is just running out of ideas as well? They’ve been at it a long time now. Many have questioned whether the novel will be around much longer, or books at all. Few ask the same questions about movies. But I’m starting to wonder if their future won’t be much different as they adapt to the You Tube, cable tv culture that wants more and more but in shorter durations to get its fix. And then quickly move on to another idea. This isn’t the end of the world but it could signal a growing reluctance to dig deep or think more than superficially. And a country that has allowed the Bush years to happen doesn’t need to be thinking less or wading on the surface anymore than it already has been.

Let me reiterate that the movies mentioned above are hardly empty. Just the fact that The Departed left the earlier touched on questions (not all are plot holes anyway) which have sparked allot of online discussion since the movies release is a good thing. And as I said I liked it even more on DVD. Don’t know that ever watch it again though. It’s certainly not a canon type film though it has been treated as such. Which brings me back to the original question. Is that because the bar has been lowered after years of horrid to mediocre movies? That and the lack of truly great ones?
There is allot more to to human nature than is dreamt of in either of their philosophies Horatio, and there are very few places to explore that since everyone is playing to an audience and want to be liked. How about a movie that looks at how religion has been used to keep blacks submissive since the slave era to go along with the ones where we see how it’s provided inspiration for the civil rights movement? How about an examination not of what people believe but why. Or a look at how inequalities arose out of very real practical advantages and disadvantages rather than just looking at the consequences. I’d love to see patterns of behavior explored from a real sociological and hardcore psychological point of view. Or the role of natural selection and other less attractive qualities in all these stories including all the love stories ever made.

Not that these ideas would be easy to turn into interesting movies or that no one has touched on them at least between the lines. But if Hollywood doesn’t want to give truth to the conservatives view of them it’s time to stop making both the vapid, sexually exploitative movies that draw some fair criticism and movies full of their own goon intentions. Don’t cater to the right-wing by telling the story they’d have you tell, but realize they are not completely without merit and use the ideas of realism, pragmatism to expose them at their own games. Or to expose ourselves.

Are Babel and Crash Examples Of Liberal Twaddle?

Published on March 11, 2007 in ..The Dude and Reviews. 2 Comments

Some thoughts on the state of recent good movies from different perspectives. This will be broken up into this discussion of Babel which was recently nominated for best film at the recent Academy Awards, and posts to follow shortly regarding other recent movies. And though I reviewed Crash more in depth here last year I bring it into this discussion on Babel to get at the real point of this post. Which is not so much a review of Babel, which I just saw for the first time a few days ago on DVD, but instead a small examination of the purpose of film and whether the way a certain segment of America looks at Hollywood and liberals isn’t on to something.

The other parts of this will be a discussion regarding whether film quality has slipped as I get into some thoughts about Zodiac, The Departed, and 300. Those will be up over the next couple of days.

Decided to combine the movies in part because though they are all good and worthy of their own space I think it says something about the state of movies that though they are talked about as among the best if not the best of recent months, none of them inspires me to elaborate treatises. They are all legitimate, well crafted movies. I liked all 3 more than most of what I’ve seen in recent memory. But none of them fulfilled my expectations or seem worthy of their critical excesses.

As stated Babel was a finalist nominee for Best Picture at the Oscars. Which is perhaps one of the reasons I keep comparing it to Crash. That movie won Best Picture last year. I thought it was a good movie. My review here was mostly a positive one. But it wasn’t great. To some extent I found it to be, and I hate echoing conservative buzzwords, but I thought to some extent it was liberal claptrap. It was like a grown up Afterschool Special teaching a banal, if legitimate point about prejudice and its universality and harm. I agree but portraying what amounts in this point in time to simple t.v. movie lessons on the big screen just seems a bit self absorbed to me.

Same with Babel whose ultimate lessons about communication, its lack and subsequent ties to bigger problems and those problems ways of connecting and effecting all of us across the world, is a wonderful and at least semi valid one. Overplayed but valid. But again it wasn’t anything most people who will see this movie haven’t already figured out or seen portrayed. Part of that message was even in Crash. We are all tied together and our action effect others and can pass on hate or violence.

Neither movie proves this irrefutably but they make their contentions ably and with scope in the film making. But I sometimes feel that the scope in the themes isn’t really there.

There’s allot of preaching to the choir going on as, here I go again, liberal filmmakers, seem to want to puff their chests and say, “Look how concerned and aware I am. I am worldly and sensitive. Come feel my sensitivity and celebrate it.”

This makes me think of the King Missile song “Sensitive Artist.” It’s a funny little song satirizing those who basically think their shit doesn’t stink. An artist says, “Nobody understands me because I am so deep…I am so much more intelligent and well rounded than everyone around me,” and who likes to talk about the recitals and art shows he goes to but doesn’t anymore because his hearing is too sensitive he can’t stand crowds and people bother him.

Don’t get me wrong though. I’m an advocate for getting as much of the message out there as possible. I firmly believe that art has been a huge part of the growth of humanity. You take away the contributions of cinema and T.V. the past half century or so and I don’t think we’re nearly as far along in the battles for equality, understanding, justice, tolerance, and respect.

So make these movies by all means and hope it makes a difference because Buddha knows there are certainly still allot pf pockets of ignorance out there.

But this brings me back to one of my issues with films like Babel and Crash.

Will anyone but those who are already on the same page see these movies?

Media is so fragmented now that everyone can find what they want to find. There was a point in the 60′s up until the past decade or two when if you wanted entertainment it was hard to avoid shows and movies that could make a difference and enlighten. Bigots couldn’t help seeing All In The Family in the 70′s and see how silly and stupid they were mirrored back to them in an iconic character. They couldn’t help but see the steady influx of more positive black characters. Movies like The China Syndrome or All The President’s Men stood out and educated people about how dangerous or corrupt parts of our country we rely on can be.

But now there’s such a glut of media out there, much of it bite size nuggets, that people seem to be able to gravitate to whatever they want to hear or see. Which is not necessarily what they need to hear or see. And one of the chief positives of art has often been pushing that envelope and showing people some things they weren’t prepared to see or hear and thusly raising their consciousness.

I’m not sure the trumpeted greatness of the Babel’s or Crash’s is not to an extent exaggerated by those just as eager as the filmmakers to show how broad minded they are and that they get it. Those who have already had their consciousness raised and want others to know it while they in fact have stopped raising their own because it only seems higher compared to those who don’t see Crash or Babel and get it like they do.

So are anyone but those that already get it, getting it? Maybe some reaffirmation helps. But the adoration for these movies at times seems to me to be an exercise in circle jerking.

Again, Babel and Crash are good movies. But they won’t be movies people are watching 10 years from now. They are part of a disposable culture turning out disposable entertainment. Is this entertainment now, at least subconsciously by the artists and consciously by studios, being tailored to audiences now? Let the converted get their fix and move on to the next reaffirmation of what you believe or want to hear. Not unlike the mentality of the religious. At least there’s some reality at play in these films and they’re offering a broader perspective, but I can’t help smelling a cloistered naivete that in my opinion Republicans are warranted in criticizing.

Sometimes I wish filmmakers would explore the virtues of pragmatism and hardcore reality as opposed to taking any political point of view. And though Republican pragmatism is now full of shit, really what they term realism or what has been called realpolitick since at least the 1840′s, they are in their own clumsy selfish way on to something. Allot of people don’t realize that their selfish policies, their lies and deceits and manipulations are calculated and philosophical in nature. Like most people it’s a self serving philosophy to support what best suits them. But it is a real decision to do bad things to get at what they have turned into in their minds as a higher cause or purpose.

The idiots on Faux News know they’re spouting bullshit. Tony Snow knows he’s spooning the media lies. The Armitages, Pearls, and Wolfowitzes knew Iraq had no WMD’s or connection to Al-Quada. The media in large part knew they were holding back the whole story. But all parties felt lying and sacrificing other people served a greater purpose. Some including Bush may actually believe god has something to do with this purpose. But the point is that they try and take a look at how things really are and act accordingly. To face hard realities and make hard decisions. They happen to suck at it but right now as far as artistic venues go I’d say Battlestar Galactica is one of the few places where these angles are explored. But as for those right wing supposedly realistic policies, they are in their minds, opposed to what they see as the left wing pie in the sky versions of reality.

Ironic that the guys taking that realistic approach hide behind the biggest pie in the sky delusion of them all, organized religion, to justify themselves and con others. But that shouldn’t stop us from giving the idea that a need to look hard at real human nature is necessary and reflect it artistically. And yes a movie like Crash does look at some real human tendencies to sublimate our anger and resort to hate across all colors and ethnicities. But not only is it not a new idea, one set before a too willing audience who has seen it all before, it still has at least a few roots in a vision of humanity that comes across as, if not a bit deluded, certainly a bit self-serving at times.

And while Babel resounded at least a little, its resonation was an echo rather than something I or most of its audience needed to hear or have never heard before. It’s Director, Anirrito, made 21 Grams which got a long discussion going on this site a while back, and while I actually liked Babel a bit better I still feel it offers less to talk about. At least 21 drew out thoughts on life, death and regret that could bring about reflection as a possible means towards improvement. In Babel, though as stated I appreciated its intent and execution, the only thing I think people can talk about is how they get it and are cool liberals for doing so. We all speak a peculiar language in our heads whether outwardly we speak Japanese, English, Moroccan, or sign language. But I think the ultimate motivation for the hollywood embrace of movies like this and Crash is not as a way of bridging communication gaps but in just hearing themselves think out loud.

Children Of Men

Published on January 20, 2007 in ..The Dude, Films, Reviews and The Ill-Literates. 4 Comments

[image:219:l] I finally got to see Alfonso Cuaron’s Children Of Men and I had to go 100 miles to do so. Was it worth it? Well going to Manhattan is always worth it. Plus there were hotdogs and the most wonderful coconut drink at Papaya King in the mix. And most who know me know I might just go 100 miles for a good coconut based product. But how did the movie stack up against said dietary fare? COM is all about the end of the world as we know it, about its actual literal end. A world without children. This is bigger stuff than even a Papaya King hotdog, though for me on an even par with the prospects of a coconutless world. Overall this idea played out over 2 hours didn’t stack up as well to my expectations based on reviews. I’d have to put it somewhere low down on a coconut drink rating scale to which it paled, but a solid 3 and a half chili based hot dogs out of five. For a more in depth discussion of the movie and its merits or lack thererof click below and I promise to try not to talk about hotdogs or fruit drinks anymore.

Children Of Men is a bleak movie. It looks as bleak as its subject matter. And it should. Director Alfonso Cuaron does a great job creating the look and mood of a future without the color of hope or vibrancy of children’s laughter. It’s 2027 and the world is 18 years into an infertility disease that has made all women incapable of bearing children. Cuaron creates an English landscape of burnt out buildings, constant bombings, and a color palette that reflects the drained and overcast color of the dreariest English countryside without the hope of future sunny days.

And England is supposedly the only country holding it together somewhat. This is why refugees flood to its borders and the government has inflicted draconian anti-refugee restrictions to keep them out. It seems that without the hope of children growing and giving humanity their meaning the world has been given over to chaos as all nations apparently have not handled the imminent death of humanity and their own obsolescence very well.

The movie hints at what is going on outside of England with background T.V. footage mostly from the BBC. There may have been CNN coverage in there as well. It all went to making the movie feel real. It’s almost documentary-like in it’s racing, at a remove vantage point that captures milieus and cultural changes that seemed all too possible as I watched them. The future the movie locates itself in felt all too true like a hard bitten reality show from the future. From religious groups attributing events to god’s wrath and demanding repentence as they blame the infertility on mankinds errant ways, to the blurred political factions dividing a fractioning species, to the myriad background touches such as the aforementioned T.V. coverage as well as graffitti which pass almost subliminally with messages like “Last one to die please turn out the lights,” to the terrorist bombings and the warzone scene, it all felt like history yet to be written rather than far out science fiction landscapes.

This all made for an intense experience at the movies, as well as a vivid one. What it didn’t quite do was make for an exciting or contemplative one. This is a concept movie to a large extent. There is a central conceit driving the drama and viewer interest. But with so much hinging on the concept and conceit, which are good ones, you’ve still got to have a narrative at the wheel to get it to a destination. But sometimes it feels like all there was was that concept, it’s initial idea, an idea flawlessly executed but one that was strained to provide 2 hours of entertaing viewing.

I think part of this is the screenplay’s fault. I didn’t feel a sense of an underlying motive or statement informing the movie or it’s conceit. Much like reality T.V. or news coverage in our time while it can be interesting, it’s often not really about anything. Context and theme are missing and it’s images with accompanying commentary for their own sake. Sometimes that may be indeed the only way to cover real news apart from editorializing. But in a movie I’d prefer a bit of overarching thematic content making me feel I’ve seen more than I saw on the screen.

The fact that the movie leaves alot up for interpretation is not what I’m getting at. I had no problem with some of those political intrigues or its ending. I felt no need for an explanation as far as plot points go though some were hard to follow. Though it’s hard to figure out what faction is what and what they’re fighting for, it’s not something that botheres me. That’s what repeat viewings are for to some extent. And maybe that was part of the point. Certainly the lines are blurred enough in our time so maybe in a world about to die the message is that all meaning is lost and all that matters is a reason to fight our way into oblivion. Dying for something even if no one is quite sure what that something is.

But another quality necessary to lend itself to repeat viewings for me is delving into that overarching theme or themes which I just didn’t quite get a sense were there in this movie. There still are powerful statements such as contemplating a world without childrens laughter or watching them playing. This is brought home as Clive Owen’s Theo and two other characters including the central figure of Key wait to meet someone in an abandoned school. You dont really think about it to that point, that all schools are abandoned all over the world. It makes you think about the psychological ramifications on the world of not having any kids ever going to school anymore, playing on swings, growing up to soldier on. [image:218:l]

And soldiering on is just what England’s propagandist media messages are saying they are the only country doing. And they mean this literally as the country seems overrun by soldiers protecting it from the great refugee, or fugee as the movie refers to them, threat. In addition to immigration issues COM takes place in a world with strained ciivl liberties, rampant terrorism, and of course those religious loons with their usual simplified explanation of things. All stuff we can relate to. But again I wasn’t sure the movie really had anything to say about any of it. That doesn’t make it a bad movie by any means. But if you’re like me it will deter you from complete enjoyment.

On the superlative side there are segments that are incredibly well made. Particularly a rear car chase as Owen, the Key character along with her traveling companion or handmaid or something, the head of the Fish rebel faction and Theo’s ex Julian (played by one of my favorite movie women Julian Moore), try to escape from a group whose intent and affiliation is not clear. At least not at that point. The scene is one of the more interesting and realistic chase scenes I’ve ever seen all shown from within the car with a swirling camera and myriad viewpoints inside and outside the car. It’s pretty intense. So is the stuff as Theo and Key make their way through a war-terrorist torn part of England. The pacing, the long continuous shots, the use of military hardware, the shooting and bombing, are like something you’d expect to get of Iraq except with better cinematography and more focused control of the absolute chaos. It makes you viscerally feel just how much chance is involved in surviving in such a zone.

This is interrupted temporarily. I wont get into why or how. But since the movie adds make no attempt to hide the fact I can say that they Key woman is pregnant when Theo meets her. His attempt to get her to the maybe real or maybe not hands of a group called The Human Project is the catalyst for much of the film. This makes for a bit too much of a chase movie. It felt to me like alot of possible theme and subtext that could have been played with were subverted for more chasing and escaping. But at least these chase scenes did bring alot of new elements another of which is a possible modern Nativity interpretation. Kind of Mary and Joseph on the run, Mary an illegal alien, Joseph a reluctant independent and with Bethlehem being a future warzone.

But like much of the films message a religious point if any was there was somewhat lost on me. For those like me of a secular bent don’t worry. There is no virgin birth miracle going on here. In fact Key sort of makes fun of that idea. She’s kind of the opposite of a virgin and just doesn’t know who the father is. And under such circumstances who cares. The baby could conceivably be a symbol of hope given a world shortly after the famed baby Diego is killed as an 18 year old. Diego was a worldwide celebrity. The last baby born and youngest human. His death triggers worldwide mourning at the films opening. Key’s baby, and I’m not sure I’m spelling her name right, it may have been Kee or even Kay, could be used towards many purposes. Either way he or she is a potential symbol and a hope that mankind will survive. Thus perhaps we have the child of men in the title.

It’s not hard to imagine all this becoming the makings of a 22nd century tale of insiration grown to mytho-religio proportions. But maybe something else is intended as well. The title of course has a biblical allusion making me think of children of god. But not only is Key’s baby a potential child of men in that humanity gains hope and no one father is necessary, I also felt like there might be something even more affirmative in the title, something of humanities role in the future as children of men with a realization of just how precious that is without need of mythologizing our own immortality. Like maybe it’s enough to know we leave behind a legacy. Presented with an alternative view in COM that secular bias doesn’t feel so dry and unwieldy as it may seem for most people today. And though the movie at times feels like a very cynical look at humanity, and perhaps the title is accusatory as much as hopeful as we see how badly and brutishly mankind react to their dwindling lifespan and significance, now that I ponder things further, I’m of a mind that there is that other element limning the nasty edges. [image:220:l]

So maybe there’s a bit more subtext than I originally gave it credit for. Or maybe I’m looking for things I want to see and not what was there, which may have been exactly what it seemed and nothing more. Either way a bit more narrative pushing towards a point of view and less chase would have been preferable. But This is still a good film, well crafted, and worthwhile. I’m not saying travel 100 miles for it. But if and when it’s around and especially if you like Blade Runner type dystopian future scenarios (though don’t go in looking for much in the way of FX here), it’s definitely worth a look. At some point I’d certainly like to see it again because even if the movie isn’t more than a documentary of a possible future containing no more than the sum of its parts, it does offer more than enough to warrant giving it the chance to reveal exactly what it is or is not.

Rocky Balboa

Published on January 5, 2007 in ..The Dude, Films, Reviews and The Ill-Literates. 0 Comments

[image:213:l] Who would have thought, or perhaps I should more appropriately say, thunk, that a 6th part in a movie series that started about 30 years ago, could be good. It would take quite the surprise story from quite the underdog to pull that off. So who better than the symbol of overcoming odds, the great underdog representation of my time, Rocky Balboa?

I liked this movie alot more than i could possiblty have had any right to expect. In fact I’m almost tempted to have Rocky 2-5 erased from my memory so I can live in the eternal sunshine of a spotless mind where Rocky and the 6th intallment are almost perfect stand alone films in a series set 3 decades apart.

Rocky 2-3-4 do have thier appeals though and there are some elements in them that contribute to the lore that plays into this movie. And I do get chills at moments in those movies, particularly Rocky II, which I just saw on tv for the first time in many years a couple of weeks ago. I teared up when Adrian comes out of that coma and says “Win, win” and the training montage to the Gonna Fly Now music kicks up. I mean that music makes me want to run long distances in Siberia just to build me some character. But there was a certain comic book element that started taking over as the soap opera of deaths, comas, revenge and larger than life villains took hold. Rocky 5? Well that’s best just not spoken of. Rocky’s Jersey Girl. Rob Schneider’s…well Rob Schneider’s whole career.

But Rocky Balboa is a cut above for it’s story, realism, relatability, and innocence that harken back to the original. Stallone takes alot of ribbing but in Rocky he wrote a great script with alot of real world interaction and weighty dialogue masked as unworldly simpleness. The acting and dialogue are pitch perfect. Don’t mistake the minimilism of it for emptiness as some do who immediately dismiss the Rocky ouvre completely out of hand.

In Rocky Balboa even when Rocky gets deep, importing some old guy wisdom in the new movie, as he does in a couple of speeches (one to licensing board and another to his son), it rings true and seems precisely the kind of wisdom and insight the character would have, spoken just as he should at this point in his life. Rocky has grown with experience but he’s still Rocky, and that comes across. It could have been cheesy, and some may find it so, but I didn’t think so. Maybe it was my mood. I’ve been doing alot of overnights and have been as punchy as Rocky myself. But that was my reaction.

Along with that I had the impression that the first half of this movie was almost perfect with alot of nice little touches relating to early Rocky and setting the tone and scene of current Rocky. It starts with that “Take It Back” song the street group were singing in the original, now being used over the credits as part of the soundtrack. It’s a fitting theme for what is to come and a nice homage to the past. But it’s not about Rocky taking back his title or belts. It’s about passion and finding it again. Taking back what makes you, you. And to a large, if not complete extent, this movie takes back what made Rocky special to begin with both as a character and a movie.

The new Rocky film pedals Rocky as an icon, a shining example of what it takes and the power of the will. In a time of diminished passion and lethargy for not only a widowed and punchy Rocky, but the Boxing industry, and to an extent the decayed city around Rocky, the ex champ and avatar of overcoming odds serves once again as an inspiration for those around him.

And I think that part of the movie works very well.

The movie feels like reality decades later in a town where Rocky is still remembered fondly and considered one of its own. This is despite the fact that things are moving on and the famous statue of Rocky at the top of those steps has been taken down (in real life as well I believe). But Rocky is still ever the blue collar rough gentleman who brings passion and an indomitable will back as he prepares to fight the much younger champ who’s career is lacking in these qualities. The way this was all set up rang as true as such a scenario possibly can, and in a similarly malignant and uninteresting era of Boxing (they all are to me though), it isn’t hard to imagine playing out. It’s not too far off of the George Foreman stuff a few years back. And the simulated match that brings it all on is certainly something we’ve seen alot of the past few years in all sports as great teams of the past have been pitted against those of present. Pretty much every video game comes with the option of playing out such scenarios.

I only wished they had tailored the real fight to fit to those aforementioned themes a little more. That and more Rocky music during the fight, and particularly the moment I was looking for at its end. I don’t want to give it away, though you should know the fight is meant to be somewhat anti-climactic and not at all its means to an end. But I think I can say that the champ, Dixon, isn’t the arch-villain Clubber Lang, Drago, or even the mostly likable Apollo Creed were. Some people have lamented this and chalked it up as a failure of the movie. But I think they’re missing the point. Dixon is a pretty decent, if too modern young man who fans don’t like because he and the world he inhabits are without Rocky’s kind of passion, competitive fire, inner resolve, integrity, and desire to test oneself. In Rocky, Dixon finally gets a test even though it’s billed as an exhibition. [image:214:l] He and the sports world, if not the world at large get another taste of standing toe to toe, taking a beating, and not giving up. I just would have played that part of that lesson in the ring in a different way, as well as have given the fight a bit more of an edge.

There was a somewhat different type of ending I was looking for to best express what I thought was a theme of the movie. But I could be looking for more than Stallone intended, or for something different. Not that the end is bad. Small gripe really. The fight serves as enough of a symbol of other film points quite adequately even if it didn’t give me the release I wanted.

I should detour for a moment to mention the relationship angle and the Marie woman: I have to give Sly credit here too. She’s one of those nice touches from the past that fit rather than are forced into the present. It helps flesh out Rocky’s world without resorting to hollywood formula. I didn’t want to see Rock get laid again. No romance please, I thought when she showed up. And Slallone refrained from going where so many have gone before and he could have gone here. I want to imagine the Rock moving on from Adrian and being happy and all, I dont want him to die alone, but I don’t want to play out the Adrian thing again or have to watch another Rocky romance. Stallone knew that and gives enough of a well structured hint of what might be but wisely presents it as a dim foreshadow for a guy still getting over the death of the woman 2-3 years before who was his inspiration.

As for Rocky’s inspirational qualities, they’re playing out all over the place. His son (whiny exploding boy from Heroes), the son of Marie, and I thought for Dixon and the world around him who stood to get that lesson in old school values and and how to dig deep for something extra, that something in the basement Rocky keeps mentioning to Paulie. His passing on that wellspring of guts and glory, dropping some knowledge and bringing passion back to a world that needs it from the only place it can find it, felt like a core value of the film.

I realize I sound like Harry Knowles here and I am probably overstating it a bit. It’s really not as cornball and full of itself as I make it sound. It’s more subtle than that. And that was something I wasn’t expecting and that I really appreciated. And maybe some movies that connect with our pasts like Rocky or the Star Wars films inspire a certain introspection in the review. They’re a little like that tree that Luke goes into. You take out what you bring in. Maybe I just need to be inspired.

Some might say that even if the movie covers some noble ground why explore it in a Boxing movie? Doesn’t that kind of trivialize any attempt at being more than a road to cheap thrills and being anything more than the traditional Rudy-esque underdog story? But Rocky gets into that with his son. It’s got something to do with fighting being a metaphor for standing toe to toe and taking a beating you know you’re going to get and not running from it. I’m not much of a Boxing fan, and I wouldn’t equate it with Field Of Dreams or The Natural , but Boxing does have it’s own on screen legendary lore played out artistically in movies like Raging Bull and On The Waterfront.

I’m not implying this is on the level of any of those movies but it is surprisingly one of the better movies I’ve seen this year. Surprisingly 2 of my favorites were sequels. This and Clerks II. Who would have thunk it?

[image:211:l]

The Fountain

Published on November 23, 2006 in ..The Dude, Films, Reviews and The Ill-Literates. 6 Comments

[image:202:l] Darren Aranofsky’s long labored over, much anticipated (at least among geeky film fans), movie is finally here. Many hoped it would be a modern 2001. Is it?

No.

This movie has very little in common Kubrick’s classic including the polarized passions it produces. People usually either love 2001 or hate it. I love it. But the impression I get with The Fountain is that people will either hate it or be kind of ambivalent. I’m ambivalent.

Yeah I’ve read a couple of glowing reviews to go along with the mostly tepid or lousy ones. But I think those will remain exceptions. This is going to be a hard movie for anyone to love. Ironic since love is one of it’s core elements. That and death. In fact it’s hard to know which of these Arranofsky himself is devoted to. Love or death. To some extent he’s made a sometimes turgid paean to death that in its exuberance in attempting to embrace it and help us to not fear death, seems more likely to have been fashioned out of a desperate fear of it himself.

That would be fine if it didn’t seem like one of it’s central themes is in coming to terms with death and realizing its not final. But in crafting a story that uses ancient archetypes of death avoidance like that of a tree perpetually renewing-a theme going back to fertility and agricultural worship motifs, playing right on through the Ash Tree of Nordic myth and Jesus on his cross shaped tree of wood-and the archetype of the eternally running fountain, Arranofsky certainly seems to be expressing a hopeful vision of the most feared thing in creation.

There’s even some Buddhist imagery as well as some transcendental touches in the films future vision that suggests breaking through to a greater understanding or awareness.

But none of it convinced me that Aranofsky or all those he borrowed from, are onto something.

Which isn’t necessarily his job as a filmaker. One thing this film does share with 2001 is in moving towards a sort of renewal. 2001 keeps this a bit more universal as he dehumanizes individuals, but it does suggest some sort of evolution of the spirit or mind of mankind. The movie doesn’t prove any of that. But it leaves room for interpretations that can range as far along the scale of believability or mysticism as you’re comfortable with. The Fountain certainly leaves room for interpretations too. I am not in anyway sure of what I just saw on that screen. There’s alot there up for debate and exploration upon further viewing.

I’m just not sure I want to see it again.

I’ll probably have at least one more viewing in me on DVD months from now to try and get a better grasp and see how it holds up. The movie was engrossing. At least for me. A group of people actually got up and left halfway through the movie where I saw it and another girl was in and out of the theater with her cell phone so much it was clear she was just killing time waiting for her boyfriend who seemed to want to stick it out or at least get his money’s worth. Me, I was riveted. I’m not sure why though. Was it my expectations or something there in the film that meant more to me in the sum of its parts than the full version?

I’m not sure because those parts were less than compelling while still being interesting. Maybe I need to coin a new term for this kind of film. It’s obtuse and compelling. Obtelling? Comptuse?

Solaris would be a film I’d put under that label. That too was Comptuse. It was also boring. Boring and interesting. Boresting.

Anyway, those parts consist of basically 3 milieus. 15th or 16th century Spain and the new World, somewhat modern period that’s possibly a bit in the future and that is the main ground of the film, and a far off future with Hugh Jackman travelling to a nebula in a round and transparent conveyance that looks like a dessicated snow globe.

The only part we’re sure is real is the modern area where most of the “action” takes place. One of the problems for alot of people is going to be in its non linear interspersing and shuffling of the three periods. Say what you want about how pretentious and arty you might think 2001 is but it was a straightforward story laid out in an encompassing linear progression. The Fountain is more Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind meets Donnie Darko and have a dyslexic child who does acid and likes going to the art houses of the moderately talented as a way of rebelling against its parents.

Or something.

As alluded to above there is also doubt about how real the past and far future segments really are. Jackman who plays Tommy, is married to the dying Izzy played by Arranofsky’s wife Rachael Weisz. She has apparently worked some of her death issues out working on a book which is apparently where the Jackman as Conquistador and Weisz as Queeen Isabella stuff take place. It deals with Mayan myths regarding a tree of life and has some scenes and symbols I’m not going to pretend to have figured out though they are not as complex as that makes them sound. [image:201:l]

Nor will I throw my theories on what that whole period was about and how it relates to the other segments. I’ll just mention that the Mayans apparently thought the dead went to a nebula they called Shambala and identified in the Orion cluster. One illuminated from within by a dying star. This is where future Jackman in his plastic bubble is headed.

All of this takes place under the guise of profound love and a desire to keep Izzy alive.

That’s also all I’ll say there for now as far as plot points go.

But I have to comment on the nature of this angle as well as the death and rebirth one I’ve already mentioned.

Viewing this movie as a love story between Tommy and Izzy contributes to it falling short for me. Sure love is grand and all but how many mature people who have lived and loved really think love is this everlasting ideal anymore? We go through couplings and get over it when they’re over. It’s a nice feeling to have but there is plenty of evidence it’s in large part a poetic expression of lust and genetic imperatives meant to legitimize and elevate it over other bodily functions. True some people have it more fully and deeply than others. They have my jeolousy. But Arranofsky goes a long way to aggrandize the feeling that no matter how hard he feels for Weisz now, will almost surely let him down and lead to another inevitable divorce one day.

Ok that is a bit cynical. But it’s also likely. Feelings fade and very few couples, if any, love each other in a deep and passionate way forever.

That out of my system it does have a different interpretation if one chooses to look at the film and its characters as more of an archetype. Arranofsky likes those and tries to keep his characters from becoming too personal. So maybe Tommy and Izzy are Man and Woman. In that sense the love or whatever that binds us together will go on forever. At least as long as humanity anyway. In that sense the puching back of death is our eternal struggle.

And like I said this could be viewed more as about love of death and acceptance as a timeless love that Tommy feels for Izzy.

Except that it’s possible death is conquered in the movie.

Alot of all this depends on how how you view the final future segments as well as the final bit back in our time more or less, and how that fits in with the concept of Izzy’s book and her desire for it to be finished. But between needing another viewing to figure it out and nobody having seen this yet, discussion on that topic will have to wait.

Another element that was rumored to be strong, and indeed people have commented favorably on even when in overall negative reviews are the visuals. 2001 told much of its story visually and The Fountain was supposed to do the same thing. And it may very well have attempted to do so. But it doesn’t work as well. First off the imagery isn’t all that special. When 2001 came out is was unique trippy stuff to see on the big screen. The future segments here, though being lauded by many, seemed pretty pedestrian to me. In this day and age of offhand cgi technology I just wasn’t impressed. I’ve seen visuals as good on episodes of Farscape.

I’m not saying these segments weren’t still interesting to look at. But I don’t see them being as compelling as some do. They certainly will not become as iconographic as Kubrick’s. Or Battlestar Gallactica’s for that matter.

But if you’re not the typical moviegoer this is worth a look. I’m already starting to want to see it again. I just don’t want to pay to do so. That might tell you something. For all this movies warming to death, if that is indeed what it is doing, I’m no less afraid of it and what is more to the point I feel like Arranofsky is no less afraid. I get more of an impression of a director who has suffered loss and is creating his religion in film to help deal with it. A man whistling in the dark much like Clint Eastwood’s William Munie in The Unforgiven who kept saying that he was changed and not like that anymore thanks to his dear departed, over and over, trying to make himself believe it. Right up until he shoots everyone in sight.