Pan's Labyrinth-like visuals - del Toro creepiness + Lee Pace x 2 storylines = a glorious mess
I wanted to see this movie since I saw the trailer on Apple.com trailers months ago. Then it gets a very select release, which did not include Austin or Houston. Then it comes to the indie-theater in Austin and promptly gets slammed in the paper. Then, no one will go see it with me. So I went by myself. I liked the movie, but it is deeply, almost superbly flawed.
In fact, I feel like I need to see the movie again to try to understand it. I'm already looking forward to the DVD (but I will have to wait...some more...until Sept.) so that I can hear what the director has to say for himself. I've heard interesting rumors, like he piggy-backed filming this one on the backs of other, higher budget pictures, and that he allowed the 5 year-old star ad lib a lot. Those two facts kind of explain the dis-jointedness of the plot(s). I don't always have to understand what is going on (ex: Stay, a pretty stinky movie, but worth seeing once, for free. However, I do not understand what is so great about Mulholland Dr.) and the storytelling doesn't always have to be linear (ex: Pulp Fiction is a classic), and I can handle two plotlines simultaneously (I read Robert Jordan), but this topped all of that with a generous dollop of confusion. It is Tarsem's pet project; the one he sweated over for years. For his sake, I wish that this movie was slated for more box-office success, but sadly it doesn't live up to the promise of the intriguing trailer.
I will admit that it was pretty charming to have the story be re-written on the screen as it went--this happens in storytelling. Also as with real life, the inaccuracy of the teller is revealed (men from India don't have "squaws") and I like the movie a little bit more for that, even if it is tough to overlook at first.
All in all, it was a gorgeous exercise in cinema. The visuals in the film were stunning and are worth going for. I adore watching Lee Pace, with eye-liner and a mask or without, so I showed up for that reason. The movie was pretty much free for me, so I had nothing but time to lose, and I think it was well-spent for all of the movie's flaws. I would not suggest that other people spend the money to see it in the theater (unless they'd like to support said indie theater, because we need to have them around to cleanse our palates after gorging on huge mainstream movies); best to wait for video on this one, folks. I don't think most people would like the movie, but if you can be patient enough to let the story unfold, it is a rough-cut gem of a film. The biggest plus (in my opinion) was that it was not as dark and plain yucky as Pan's Labyrinth; that is a movie that was a waste of time. Storytelling movies like P's L and Big Fish were let-downs for me, while The Fall and Secondhand Lions were not.
One of these days, the perfect yarn of a movie will come along, but this is not it.
June 30, 2008
June 27, 2008
Kung Fu Panda
Skadoosh!
Gosh, that word covers so much, and it's hilarious (I couldn't resist). It'll probably be worn out by the end of the summer, but I think that it would be a good thing for kids to run around playing games about unlikely heroes.
Speaking of 'unlikely', I was not very optimistic about my chances of liking the movie when I went into the theater. I went more to accompany someone who is into martial arts (and to have another Angelina Jolie movie stub to add to my peg-board), but I was surprised to find myself enjoying it. I even giggled a few times, and I did not expect that either (It's not that it's hard to amuse me, but if something can make me laugh out loud, it's a good thing).
Instead of a movie that was over-stereotypical to even the untutored (that would be me), I thought it jumped through the usual hoops of "believing in oneself", 'teamwork', 'perseverance' and even 'the importance of paying attention to your teachers, even if they are telling you what you don't want to hear' with more agility than usual.
I found the fight scenes pretty astounding, for an animated film. The fun thing about animation is that a character can do just about anything (I am envious of the outrageous hang-time the characters managed), but animators don't always make sure that the motions are believable, particularly for kids' movies. Like I said before, I don't know much about martial arts, but I really bought the fight sequences (provided a dash of suspending disbelief to allow bouncing, for instance). If you have a more educated eye, please feel free to comment.
The whole movie was well-made (as one could only hope), neither wasting too much time on exposition or denouement, nor rushing the storyline. I particularly liked the various styles for the opening sequence, the main plot and the end credits. I was warned to stay until the end of them, but I don't think I've ever had so much fun watching them go by. The background art was intriguing and kind of educational. It did bug me, however, that I could not clearly see the symbols for each animal; I actually pay attention to that stuff and try to learn them. The scenes painted for background were cute and lasted the entire time; not even the Toy Story movies have bothered to do the same.
I think I could even stand to have this movie playing on the continuous loop that all kids adore, and that's saying quite a bit. (The same could not be said for the trailer--you know, that one that has been playing for the better part of a year?!)
Gosh, that word covers so much, and it's hilarious (I couldn't resist). It'll probably be worn out by the end of the summer, but I think that it would be a good thing for kids to run around playing games about unlikely heroes.
Speaking of 'unlikely', I was not very optimistic about my chances of liking the movie when I went into the theater. I went more to accompany someone who is into martial arts (and to have another Angelina Jolie movie stub to add to my peg-board), but I was surprised to find myself enjoying it. I even giggled a few times, and I did not expect that either (It's not that it's hard to amuse me, but if something can make me laugh out loud, it's a good thing).
Instead of a movie that was over-stereotypical to even the untutored (that would be me), I thought it jumped through the usual hoops of "believing in oneself", 'teamwork', 'perseverance' and even 'the importance of paying attention to your teachers, even if they are telling you what you don't want to hear' with more agility than usual.
I found the fight scenes pretty astounding, for an animated film. The fun thing about animation is that a character can do just about anything (I am envious of the outrageous hang-time the characters managed), but animators don't always make sure that the motions are believable, particularly for kids' movies. Like I said before, I don't know much about martial arts, but I really bought the fight sequences (provided a dash of suspending disbelief to allow bouncing, for instance). If you have a more educated eye, please feel free to comment.
The whole movie was well-made (as one could only hope), neither wasting too much time on exposition or denouement, nor rushing the storyline. I particularly liked the various styles for the opening sequence, the main plot and the end credits. I was warned to stay until the end of them, but I don't think I've ever had so much fun watching them go by. The background art was intriguing and kind of educational. It did bug me, however, that I could not clearly see the symbols for each animal; I actually pay attention to that stuff and try to learn them. The scenes painted for background were cute and lasted the entire time; not even the Toy Story movies have bothered to do the same.
I think I could even stand to have this movie playing on the continuous loop that all kids adore, and that's saying quite a bit. (The same could not be said for the trailer--you know, that one that has been playing for the better part of a year?!)
June 26, 2008
Sex and the City
Favorite characters + decent plot = fun Girls Night Out
Yes, I am one of those women who went in a group of more than three to see this movie, and I looked forward to doing so for weeks. It was a great experience.
The movie itself lived up to my expectations, and may have even edged into surpassing them. I think what most 'critics' didn't like about the movie is that it was more grown-up, which makes it "real", and therefore less entrancing than the fizzy antics of the TV show. But let's face it; did we really want to see The Girls toss aside more men? I didn't; they have to grow up some time (!). I was satisfied that the "happy-enough" endings for each of the characters on the show seemed probable while leaving more story to tell for the film. No one really explores what happens after "The End" but the movie braved that territory and conquered it thoroughly. A professor of mine recently pointed out that we (as a culture) are thrilled with weddings, but we don't get excited by marriages. She's right; watching that on a screen would be too much like "real life" (and I love my escapism as much as the next person). The reaction to the movie kind of proves that point. Miranda's plotline dealt directly with this, but she was always the most down-to-earth of all of them.
So no, the movie was not going to be as fabulously carefree as the show, but I think it required greater craft; it's really hard to make an outstanding small- to big-screen transition. Can you think of any? (Spin-offs & updates/remakes like Wayne's World and Mission Impossible are not to be considered, and I am thinking of adding "animated" to the list because that seems like cheating since one doesn't have to deal with aging of the characters.) I can't come up with any besides Firefly--> Serenity (I luv you, Joss Whedon!), but feel free to discuss. (RottenTomatoes.com has a really fun list compiled that does include the above types of shows/movies: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/best_tv_adaptations/) I look forward to one day adding Veronica Mars to that list, however.
Seeing the movie was like a reunion with girlfriends; joyful and comforting. Do men turn out for movies in groups? I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on that...(yep, I'm a nerd) Does it have something to do with expectations of machoism? How often does is phrase "lone wolf" applied to a woman? Points to ponder, or comment upon, if you wish.
Who doesn't dream of getting married at the NY Public Library? Oops, I think my "geek" is showing again...
Yes, I am one of those women who went in a group of more than three to see this movie, and I looked forward to doing so for weeks. It was a great experience.
The movie itself lived up to my expectations, and may have even edged into surpassing them. I think what most 'critics' didn't like about the movie is that it was more grown-up, which makes it "real", and therefore less entrancing than the fizzy antics of the TV show. But let's face it; did we really want to see The Girls toss aside more men? I didn't; they have to grow up some time (!). I was satisfied that the "happy-enough" endings for each of the characters on the show seemed probable while leaving more story to tell for the film. No one really explores what happens after "The End" but the movie braved that territory and conquered it thoroughly. A professor of mine recently pointed out that we (as a culture) are thrilled with weddings, but we don't get excited by marriages. She's right; watching that on a screen would be too much like "real life" (and I love my escapism as much as the next person). The reaction to the movie kind of proves that point. Miranda's plotline dealt directly with this, but she was always the most down-to-earth of all of them.
So no, the movie was not going to be as fabulously carefree as the show, but I think it required greater craft; it's really hard to make an outstanding small- to big-screen transition. Can you think of any? (Spin-offs & updates/remakes like Wayne's World and Mission Impossible are not to be considered, and I am thinking of adding "animated" to the list because that seems like cheating since one doesn't have to deal with aging of the characters.) I can't come up with any besides Firefly--> Serenity (I luv you, Joss Whedon!), but feel free to discuss. (RottenTomatoes.com has a really fun list compiled that does include the above types of shows/movies: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/best_tv_adaptations/) I look forward to one day adding Veronica Mars to that list, however.
Seeing the movie was like a reunion with girlfriends; joyful and comforting. Do men turn out for movies in groups? I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on that...(yep, I'm a nerd) Does it have something to do with expectations of machoism? How often does is phrase "lone wolf" applied to a woman? Points to ponder, or comment upon, if you wish.
Who doesn't dream of getting married at the NY Public Library? Oops, I think my "geek" is showing again...
June 17, 2008
The Happening
Dippy characters + ecological terror + true suspense = mixed bag of tricks better left until video
I like Shyamalan's movies; they are a good, clever thrill. I'm not one of those people who will claim to "see it coming"--he 'gets me' every time and I like him better for it. I'd also like to give the guy credit for being brave enough to make an ecological thriller--how many other people could pitch a plot like that successfully?
I'm glad that I was there to see the movie opening weekend, before someone ruined the plot twist for me. The problem was that the "twist" was more of a "swerve" and that we had all heard about it before we entered the theater. I'm not sure what I was expecting, other than to be thrilled by the suspense, but I didn't leave feeling satisfied. Yup, there were some very stressful moments in that movie that had me cringing in my seat (in a that delightfully tense way that has you worrying about the characters in peril), but I don't really feel like that was enough to satisfy even the vaguest of expectations.
Undoubtedly Lunanshee will expound on our shared opinion that there was too much gore in the movie. Part of what makes Shyamalan so good is that he leaves us to imagine the boogeyman; he doesn't show it (think The Village). Showing the horror is cheap, but leaving it up to our imaginations is the higher art (thank you, Hitchcock).
Zooey Deschanel is fabulously zany (think 2nd season of Weeds) and lovely in a remote and ethereal way (Almost Famous), but none of that really worked here. Her character didn't deserve that much sympathy, in my opinion. She did grow throughout the narrative, but the pitch of things was slightly off, particularly any time her character and John Leguizamo's interacted. I did expect a better performance than she gave.
Mark Wahlburg did a great job of being an Everyman who thinks through the problem to find a solution. Sometimes characters are just too smart to be believable (I love you Harry Potter, but you are guilty of this, even if you are emotionally stunted), but his science teacher was just right, I think.
My favorite character was Frank Collison's Nursury Owner; a little "out there", but a likable guy reacting as best he could to an unthinkable situation. I think his exit came too soon, but that I was more affected by it because I liked his character.
My prediction is that word-of-mouth will kill this movie, kind of like Lady in the Water. I expect that the box office for this movie in its second and subsequent weeks will taper off really quickly. Having said that, I will most likely be in the theater for Shyamalan's next outing, even though I didn't care for this one.
I like Shyamalan's movies; they are a good, clever thrill. I'm not one of those people who will claim to "see it coming"--he 'gets me' every time and I like him better for it. I'd also like to give the guy credit for being brave enough to make an ecological thriller--how many other people could pitch a plot like that successfully?
I'm glad that I was there to see the movie opening weekend, before someone ruined the plot twist for me. The problem was that the "twist" was more of a "swerve" and that we had all heard about it before we entered the theater. I'm not sure what I was expecting, other than to be thrilled by the suspense, but I didn't leave feeling satisfied. Yup, there were some very stressful moments in that movie that had me cringing in my seat (in a that delightfully tense way that has you worrying about the characters in peril), but I don't really feel like that was enough to satisfy even the vaguest of expectations.
Undoubtedly Lunanshee will expound on our shared opinion that there was too much gore in the movie. Part of what makes Shyamalan so good is that he leaves us to imagine the boogeyman; he doesn't show it (think The Village). Showing the horror is cheap, but leaving it up to our imaginations is the higher art (thank you, Hitchcock).
Zooey Deschanel is fabulously zany (think 2nd season of Weeds) and lovely in a remote and ethereal way (Almost Famous), but none of that really worked here. Her character didn't deserve that much sympathy, in my opinion. She did grow throughout the narrative, but the pitch of things was slightly off, particularly any time her character and John Leguizamo's interacted. I did expect a better performance than she gave.
Mark Wahlburg did a great job of being an Everyman who thinks through the problem to find a solution. Sometimes characters are just too smart to be believable (I love you Harry Potter, but you are guilty of this, even if you are emotionally stunted), but his science teacher was just right, I think.
My favorite character was Frank Collison's Nursury Owner; a little "out there", but a likable guy reacting as best he could to an unthinkable situation. I think his exit came too soon, but that I was more affected by it because I liked his character.
My prediction is that word-of-mouth will kill this movie, kind of like Lady in the Water. I expect that the box office for this movie in its second and subsequent weeks will taper off really quickly. Having said that, I will most likely be in the theater for Shyamalan's next outing, even though I didn't care for this one.
The Hulk (2.0)
Better actors + better direction + less complex plot = successful series re-boot
Yup, I am one of those people who is going to bash Ang Lee's The Hulk (2003); I hated it. Lunanshee and I both hate Eric Bana in the first place, so that was one strike against the film already. Shame on Lee for trying to make the audience think too much (something I am accused of all the time). It was a summer popcorn flick--we weren't there to navel-gaze; we were there to watch the Hulk do his signature thing (smashing, of course). I haven't seen the movie since the theater, but the disgust that I felt still burns after 5 years.
The thing that is hardest for me to believe is that Leterrier's version (2008) is more believable than Lee's (2003). How could the guy who blew The Transporter 2 out of believability deliver when a 'serious director' like Lee could not? I was pretty shocked with the second movie--I really liked it.
So I was cautious when I went on opening weekend. Edward Norton is totally worthy, but the problem is that he is a little too worthy for this film; it's almost as if he is slumming it. All in all, I think he did just fine at being an unassuming scientist. He certainly comes across as smart enough and he is much more believable than that other (alleged) beefcake-looking guy. Even Live Tyler, who is barely worthy (according to me) surprised me with how much the two characters were able to convince me they cared for each other (a chemistry that even the talented Jennifer Connelly, who we adore, was not able to fake). I do wish, however, that she had cleared her throat of that unbearable whispery voice to speak up. Betty Ross should not be a sex-kitten--she is a scientist and is intelligent in her own right. I've never read the comics, however, so maybe my expectations are a little too 'modern'. Heck, I can barely even remember the TV show...
Perhaps the most credit should be laid at the feet of the supporting actors. I feel that William Hurt, Tim Roth, and Tim Blake Nelson (even though he was way too over-the-top) all played their parts perfectly; they were just 'big' enough to keep the scene afloat without stealing it. Ultimately, their excellence in the acting craft is what made the picture work and what sold the action. I hate to use the words "team players", but that is the best way to describe how each actor's contribution melded with the others' to the best effect.
--See 'Comments' for more review--
Yup, I am one of those people who is going to bash Ang Lee's The Hulk (2003); I hated it. Lunanshee and I both hate Eric Bana in the first place, so that was one strike against the film already. Shame on Lee for trying to make the audience think too much (something I am accused of all the time). It was a summer popcorn flick--we weren't there to navel-gaze; we were there to watch the Hulk do his signature thing (smashing, of course). I haven't seen the movie since the theater, but the disgust that I felt still burns after 5 years.
The thing that is hardest for me to believe is that Leterrier's version (2008) is more believable than Lee's (2003). How could the guy who blew The Transporter 2 out of believability deliver when a 'serious director' like Lee could not? I was pretty shocked with the second movie--I really liked it.
So I was cautious when I went on opening weekend. Edward Norton is totally worthy, but the problem is that he is a little too worthy for this film; it's almost as if he is slumming it. All in all, I think he did just fine at being an unassuming scientist. He certainly comes across as smart enough and he is much more believable than that other (alleged) beefcake-looking guy. Even Live Tyler, who is barely worthy (according to me) surprised me with how much the two characters were able to convince me they cared for each other (a chemistry that even the talented Jennifer Connelly, who we adore, was not able to fake). I do wish, however, that she had cleared her throat of that unbearable whispery voice to speak up. Betty Ross should not be a sex-kitten--she is a scientist and is intelligent in her own right. I've never read the comics, however, so maybe my expectations are a little too 'modern'. Heck, I can barely even remember the TV show...
Perhaps the most credit should be laid at the feet of the supporting actors. I feel that William Hurt, Tim Roth, and Tim Blake Nelson (even though he was way too over-the-top) all played their parts perfectly; they were just 'big' enough to keep the scene afloat without stealing it. Ultimately, their excellence in the acting craft is what made the picture work and what sold the action. I hate to use the words "team players", but that is the best way to describe how each actor's contribution melded with the others' to the best effect.
--See 'Comments' for more review--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)