Review: District 9

Now this was a fantastic movie. I usually like to keep a certain level of ambiguity about my enjoyment of a film, because most often I enjoy certain parts of a movie while not enjoying other aspects. Perhaps the film is technically outstanding but fails to strike an emotional chord with the audience; or maybe the film is groundbreaking in theory or on paper but technical inadequacies don't properly communicate the director's intentions. Most films, I find, fall somewhere in between these two extremes, but occasionally there comes along a movie that strikes a perfect balance.

As has become something of a regular habit of mine, I went into District 9 as uninformed as was able. I saw two trailers for the film, which probably was one too many, for the second gave away too much of the plot but still the specifics of the story were entirely unknown to me. I love the excitement of not knowing plot details, but still having some level of assurance that it will be a quality film.

District 9 is the kind of film that sucks you in almost from the moment the first frame flashes across the screen. Director Niell Blomkamp employs a documentary style storytelling method to great success throughout, though it's particularly engrossing during the first half of the film. Some might say it emulates the hand-held film style Cloverfield pioneered, and to a degree it does, but I think what separates District 9 from the former is how it feels more like a tv broadcast while Cloverfield was meant to feel like a home video. Both styles are similar, but subtly different.

Another element of District 9 that helped create a unique atmosphere for the film was the actors and setting. The film takes place entirely in Johannesburg, South Africa and features only South African actors to my knowledge (with the exception of Jed Brophy, who makes cameos in all movies tied to Peter Jackson). I had never seen a movie set in South Africa, nor had I observed many South African actors. Their accents are peculiar, and (at least in my experience) added a very unique feel to the movie. More than their accents, however, what makes the actors' work so memorable was what I felt was a kind of raw quality. Because the acting is so good it's easy to forget that these aren't real people at all. All the elements of the storytelling fit together precisely in such a way that the film universe is seamless.

The story was very good, and not exactly typical for a sci-fi action film. Thanks to that second trailer, part of the main character's story arc was almost ruined for me but it doesn't prevent the story itself from being very solid. Part of the main character's story involves him trying to re-connect with his estranged wife, an important element that almost fades a little too far into the background during the later half of the movie but is poignantly brought back to the foreground at the close. Fortunately enough, every element of the story that I had concerns about as the movie progressed were elegantly dealt with almost as soon as it popped into mind. I don't know whether to attribute the masterful story handling to beginner's luck for Mr. Blomkamp or to Peter Jackson's more experienced hand of influence in the film but ultimately it doesn't matter because the movie benefits regardless.

I can't write the entire review without mentioning how cool the aliens and the technology look. Having Peter Jackson backing the production, of course, included the resources of world class studio Weta Digital, whose work has become something of a favorite for me. But all the words in the world can't paint a picture as vivid as the artists at Weta can do, so just rest assured the production values are outstanding.

Even in a genre as over stuffed as science fiction, District 9 manages to carve out more than enough breathing room for itself. Blomkamp's first feature length film is a resounding success and will almost certainly take its place as a sci fi action classic alongside James Cameron classics like Terminator 2 and Aliens. The door is obviously left open for a potential sequel, which I would very much look forward to, but regardless I anxiously await Mr. Blomkamp's next project.

9/10

District 9

Directed by Niell Blomkamp

Produced by Peter Jackson, Bill Block, Ken Kamins, Paul Hanson, Elliot Fernwerda

Written by Neill Blomkamp, Terri Tatchell

Starring Jason Cope, Robert Hobbs, Sharlto Copley

Rated R for bloody violence and pervasive language

Review: Moon

I am always excited when I see a film about which I haven't even the slightest clue. I love the anticipation, the not-knowing that comes along with an original film (assuming there is such a thing as an original film anymore). So far this summer, I have seen one movie that was not a sequel, reboot or re-imagining of an already established franchise (actually two, counting Pixar's delightful "Up,"). I don't mean to suggest that I'm sick of big, loud action/effects heavy sequels/reboots/re-imaginings, not at all. I just mean that I tend to feel a little more excited about original material, if for no reason other than the fact that original films are unfamiliar territory. It's not uncommon to basically anticipate every plot twist and every new character for the big budget action sequels of summer (thanks to all the hype they accumulate), but fresh original films are unknown, which is always fun for the viewer.

"Moon" marks the directorial debut of English film director Duncan Jones, and for a first time effort, the film is an overall success. Featuring only one real character, Sam Bell, (portrayed admirably by Sam Rockwell), "Moon" is a deceptively simple story about a man working on the moon. He's overseeing the harvesting process for Helium-3 - an answer to Earth's growing energy crisis. He's worked a 3 year contract (nearing the end of it) and he's worked it alone, save for the AI construct "Gerty" designed to keep him company and meet his needs. Just as his contract nears a close and his replacement should be sent from Earth, Sam begins to experience hallucinations and an unfortunate series of events leads to a life-threatening accident on the lunar surface. To give away anything more would invite plot spoilers, but there are several big twists and turns in store for viewers that significantly alter the way events unfold.

There were a couple of problems I had with "Moon" once the final credits began to roll. The first (and arguably most offensive) was the timing and manner in which the big twist was revealed. Usually saved for the end of a film (for maximum dramatic effect), these shifts in perspective often give the audience a reason to go back and watch a movie again with a more enlightened perspective. In "Moon," the twist is revealed relatively early on - before the half way point in the movie actually. The twist itself is very interesting, if a little uninspired, but the fact that it was unveiled so early on left the film feeling a little unclear. Things felt aimless throughout the middle section of the movie, as though there were no clear direction for events to move toward. The film flirts with boredom in places, but just barely manages to keep enough intrigue to hold attention. Imagine that in M. Night Shyamalan's "The Sixth Sense," Bruce Willis' character is revealed to be a ghost/dead person around 1/3 of the way into things and you might have an idea of what to expect from "Moon." The revelation left me asking, "Ok, cool twist...but what now? Where do things go from here?" Unfortunately, the middle section progresses onward without actually answering those questions.

I do think it important to mention the acting chops on Sam Rockwell. Not every actor in the world can carry a movie on their shoulders nearly single-handedly, but Rockwell manages to pull it off effectively. He's not quite Tom Hanks in "Cast Away," but he performs admirably enough. Kevin Spacey lends monotone, droll voice talent to the AI computer "Gerty," who, in a refreshing take on an over-used character in the sci-fi genre, actually turns out to be a good guy. The film draws obvious inspiration from the seminal classic 2001: A Space Odyssey, and pays tribute to other sci-fi flicks of the past(perhaps a little too closely at times) where it is due. If there is one thing that turned out to be truly disappointing about "Moon," I'd have to say it was the fact that it all felt very familiar, ironically enough. I went in to the theater expecting something fresh and unique, and found a movie that felt quite similar to many other sci-fi hits, both contemporary and classic.

"Moon" is respectable sci-fi drama, heavy on the emotional weight of characters and light on the action. It's far from perfect, but I still enjoyed it enough to recommend it to sci-fi fans who happen to be interested. I'm not sure I'd see it more than once in theaters (certainly wouldn't spend $20 on the dvd brand new), but I might pick it up if I find it one day in the $5 bin.

6/10

Moon

Directed by Duncan Jones

Produced by Stuart Fenegan, Trudie Styler

Written by Duncan Jones, Nathan Parker

Starring Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey (voice)

Rated R for language

Review: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Greetings fellow cinema fans! I apologize for the almost 2 month gap in reviews, but in my defense I have had an incredibly busy 2 months.  But of course, I know you didn't navigate the treacherous waters of the internet towards my blog-beacon of brilliance to read my excuses so I'll move on.  Summer has officially descended upon us and with it a new wave of big-budget effects film releases.  Directed by f--- the-world-I'm-gonna-do-things-my-way director Michael Bay, the first Transformers film was certainly more about style than substance and this bigger and better sequel continues in the same vein.  I've always believed that strong acting, storytelling and pacing are essential for any film, but especially for a film so heavily reliant on visual effects.  Computer generated effects have a tendency to instantly disconnect audiences from a movie, which makes the acting, story and pacing all the more important to help keep the viewer grounded.  Michael Bay it seems does not agree with these principles and prefers to keep his audiences glues to the screen by sheer force of overwhelming and incomprehensible action and intensity.  I find myself wondering exactly why Bay was chosen to helm this franchise, being a director who has a fondness for crude, shallow humor and inability to establish strong memorable characters.  Despite all the problems I have with Bay and his style of storytelling, I walked away from Transformers 2 happier with the end result than I did after the first film. 

For me, Transformers has always been about the robots.  Maybe it's juvenile, childish and immature or (heaven forbid) maybe it's engrossing storytelling but either way I'm a fan of the Transformers universe.  I love learning about the robot's home world Cybertron, the ancient race of robots that existed before the Autobots and Decepticons, the pseudo-spiritual aspects of the Transformers after-life, the Cybertronian icons like the all-spark, the Matrix of Leadership, protoforms, stasis-lock, all that geeky stuff.  That said, one problem I have with both movies is the lack of attention showed to the robots.  The first film offends more in this department than the second, but still I don't think I'll ever be able to understand why Michael Bay felt the need to include so many human characters in an already over-stuffed universe of robot characters.  I can understand the need to establish Sam, his parents and maybe the Mikaela character but any more than that an you risk forcing out robot characters, the real reason I want to see the movie.  But Bay doesn't see the line that I see, and decided to include (alongside Sam, his family and girlfriend) a roommate, hot new girl, former government agent, military general, army buddies, government intruder-guy...the list goes on - not including the dozen or so main Autobot and Decepticon characters, of course.  The unfortunate result of jamming in so many characters is that none of them are allowed breathing room, none of them manages to plant an emotional or dramatic foot in the viewers' minds and the robot characters especially feel shallow.  Being familiar with the Transformers universe, it really is a shame that Bay doesn't do these characters justice.  

Another problem I have with the film is how unlike the show it is in just about every aspect.  In the show, Autobots are defensive, only acting when the Decepticons force their hands.  Autobots are on earth to protect humans, period.  Decepticons are on earth to collect energon, which often means endangering human lives which moves the Autobots into action.  In the film, Autobots are proactive in hunting down and violently destroying Decepticons.  Indeed it is difficult to determine a real difference between Autobot and Decepticon apart from simple colors.  Both races have a brutal, visceral quality to their combat and seemingly enjoy violently dismembering their opponents.  This behavior is fitting for Decepticons, but wildly out of place for the Autobots.  The brutal fighting is a marvel to behold on a technical level, but as a Transformers fan it feels unnatural to see Autobot characters reveling in the complete destruction of fellow robots, even if they are Decepticons.  By far the worst part about the film has to be the inclusion of the "twins," Mudflap and Skids.  These characters, designed to look like caricatured apes, speak in a street slang and confess an inability to read.  One is given an oversized single gold tooth.  These two characters are repeatedly offensive and are a real embarrassment for all involved in the film.  Bay should be ashamed of himself for including this kind of stereotypical racist humor.

But despite all the negativity I've spewed out until this point, I did enjoy this sequel more than the original film.  The storyline is much more involved in the Transformers universe than the story in the first film, which is a very good thing in my opinion.  There are fewer human characters, which helps take some unnecessary weight from the shoulders of the film and frees up more space for robot characters to develop.  The story itself is more outlandish which helps it feel more like an adaptation of a cartoon show than the first film, which most people I imagine will see as a negative aspect of the story, but I feel it is more appropriate and fitting for a film based on...a cartoon show.  I've heard and read complaints that the story is incomprehensible to those unacquainted with the Transformers world, but I see no problem with that.  The Transformers universe is a complicated thing for the uninitiated, but I'm not uninitiated.  I understood the story just fine, because I am familiar with the Transformers world.  Furthermore, why make a Transformers movie if it's not for Transformers fans?  Who, besides Transformers fans really wants to see a Transformers movie?  It only makes sense to build the story for a Transformers movie around the Transformers world, and in that regard I do applaud Michael Bay. 

Overall, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a step in the right direction for the franchise, but not far enough.  I feel that Michael Bay is simply not the right director for Transformers, but I also feel that this movie is as close as he is going to get to delivering it justice on the big screen.  I'm sure there will be another film in the coming years, but hopefully it will be coming from a director with a little more good taste and proper feel for pacing.  I'm not sure the franchise can handle another movie packed to the brim with nonstop action, explosions and robot parts flying to and fro across the screen. Hopefully, the filmmakers will see the merits of a (robot) character driven story and cut the human fat from the film.  At any rate, not a terrible movie but still carrying some fundamental flaws.  

6/10

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Directed by Michael Bay

Produced by Steven Spielberg, Lorenzo di Bonaventura, Ian Bryce, Tom DeSanto, Don Murphy

Written by Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Ehren Kruger

Starring Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson and John Turturro

With the voice talents of:  Peter Cullen, Hugo Weaving, Mark Ryan, Frank Welker, Jess Harnell, Charlie Adler, Robert Foxworth, Tony Todd, Tom Kenny, Grey DeLisle, Andre Sogliuzzo

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, language, some crude and sexual material, and brief drug material. 

Star Trek Review

Hoo boy do I love this movie.  And I was totally ready to hate it too.  I grew up on Star Trek: The Next Generation and developed a huge appreciation for the series' attention to detail, believability and subtle character development. Therefore, I have been skeptical but hopeful over the past few years following the development and production of this reboot.  But as a huge fan of Star Trek, I have certain standards I expect any entry of the series to meet and this film was setting itself it up to be a disappointment for me. Having a self proclaimed "casual" Star Trek fan direct the new Star Trek movie = strike 1.  Intentionally designing the movie to cater to a general audience = strike 2.  So, for me, the movie was on thin ice and any one problem could have been the proverbial strike 3.  But, instead of returning to the bench hanging its head in shame, JJ Abrams' Star Trek launches that 0 - 2 pitch out of the ballpark and this Trek fan couldn't be happier about it.

As I said earlier, one of the things I appreciate so much about Star Trek is the attention to detail and believability.  But in general public terms, attention to detail often translates to "dull and boring."  The average movie-goer doesn't care how the quasar pulse generators impact deflector shield efficiency, but as a Star Trek fan, I expect a Star Trek movie to include details like that.  The average movie-goer doesn't care about how Klingon - Romulan politics have evolved over the last 150 years.  But as a Star Trek fan, I expect a Star Trek movie to include those little details.  But all these little details used to be so important in Star Trek movies because they were created after a TV show.  As a fan of The Next Generation, it only stands to reason that a movie would stay true to the details of the show.  But that very thing, while respectful to the fans and honoring to the show, is what prevents the general population from enjoying earlier Star Trek films. JJ Abrams and his writers brilliantly avoid that catch 22 with their new film in a way that simultaneously respects fans and the old show but remains open to the general population:  they set the movie in an alternate dimension.  

Time travel is not an unexplored concept in the Star Trek pantheon of films.  In fact, it's become almost uncommon for a Star Trek film not to include at least some element of time manipulation.  But, by having Spock and this film's baddie, Nero, not only travel back in time but also to an alternate dimension (where this universe's future has yet to be written), the new film can forge a new mythology and structure all to itself.  While this film drastically alters certain elements of the Star Trek formula, it's all perfectly ok because it happens in an alternate dimension.  Star Trek fans can't complain about the fact that the engines don't function the same way the did in the old show, because maybe the engines in this Star Trek universe function a little differently.  Fans can't complain about the fact that this new film doesn't stay true to the politics of the old series because maybe the politics of this dimension progress differently.  And casual fans don't have to worry about the film being weighed down with those "unnecessary" details.  The film forges a new identity for itself on a clean slate, but still manages to not step on the toes of the old series.  Abrams and his writers were brilliant, absolutely brilliant, for including this one small but profoundly significant detail. 

The film is sleek, sexy and bold in just about every way.  The Enterprise is designed a little more realistically than it used to be, with a noticeable design inspiration coming from your local Apple store.  The action is intense, unpredictable and gripping.  The story is, admittedly, a little thin, particularly in the area of our villian, Captain Nero, but it's not really something that hinders enjoyment of the film.  His motivations are stretched just a little bit to far for me to keep a total sense of believability.  True, his planet is destroyed in his future, but the time travel trip sends him back to a time when his home planet is still intact.  And furthermore, instead of going back home and enjoying life there, Nero waits 25 years for the character responsible to show up so he can pay for his "crimes."  I thought that was just a little too much to ask for from this fan.  And Nero's ship, a massive mining vessel, is inexplicably designed both on the inside and out.  A collection of intimidating and endlessly complex spikes, spires and spines, the ship is armed to the teeth with devastating weaponry (what are these advance torpedoes and missiles doing on a mining vessel again?) and fraught with peril on the inside as well.  Whoever designed the inside of the vessel was an idiot (from the standpoint of functionality). There are bottomless abyss-like drops, tiny little platforms for walking across and no handrails either.  It's almost like the ship was designed to make it easier for people to die inside it.  As a movie set for housing our villain, it's amazing.  As a functioning mining vessel, it's a failure.

But I admit, Star Trek rises above these nitpicking little flaws and leaves them in the dust.  The film gets everything else so right that I don't even care about how Nero's ship doesn't make sense or his motivations are a little muddy.  He provides a bad guy for our heroes to combat, and for that he serves his purpose.  I have only the utmost respect for Abrams for not only pulling this off, but doing it so incredibly well. The cast is spot on (staying true to the characters without simply imitating the original cast), the action is breathtaking, the characters are endearing, the humor is well used and the future is open to endless possibilities.  The only real disappointment I experienced is that there is no TV show to accompany the film.  Instead of waiting only a week till the next adventure, it will be years before I am reunited with the crew of the Enterprise for another (hopefully) rousing journey across the stars.  But for what this film is and all it was up against for me, I can't imagine Star Trek being any better.

9/10

Star Trek

Directed by JJ Abrams

Produced by JJ Abrams and Damon Lindelof

Written by (Screenplay) Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman; (Characters) Gene Roddenberry

Starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Eric Bana, Karl Urban, John Cho, Zoey Saldana, Anton Yelchin and Simon Pegg

Music by Michael Giacchino

Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content

The Matrix Review

Ok, here it is:  my personal take on what has become a rather controversial series in discussions among myself and friends.  Opinions vary greatly about the merits of these movies, ranging from the intensely loyal fan base who fiercely defends the trilogy as a whole against any an all who would dare speak any ill of its philosophical and pseudo-spiritual magnificence to other viewers at the other end of the spectrum who (generally) see a falloff of quality in films 2 and 3.  I tend to count myself in the second category of Matrix fans, but I'm getting ahead of myself.  

The film follows the classic pattern of character progression molded after Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, The Odyssey, Beowulf, King Arthur and countless other hero stories.  Our main character, Neo, starts out as a average, unspectacular person called into an adventure, is forged and hardened through trials and tribulations of the most difficult kind and emerges a warrior, a hero, a legend.  He has a wise mentor to guide and help develop him, a turncoat to confuse and hinder him, a love interest to anchor him and even minor jester to entertain.  Its a structure that's been used before an untold number of times, but it is a structure that works well.  One of the things I feel is most important about Neo is that he is a normal, average person at the outset.  The Matrix tells a story that requires a lot of outside-the-box thinking just to understand, and it helps the viewer immensely to have the main character be just as confused as we are about the order of things.  I feel it is vitally important that we can connect with Neo, and that the viewer progresses toward understanding alongside him.

I do not, however, believe the actual story of the Matrix is as mind-blowing as it is often perceived to be.  The idea of humans being enslaved to their own creations is not an original idea, after all. The Wachowski Brothers add enough of their own ideas to help their vision achieve a certain level of uniqueness, but the concept itself has been explored before.  What makes this movie so enjoyable to watch is the delivery.  The first third of the film, its almost like you can sense the movie laughing at your feeble attempts to understand it.  The Matrix has a secret to tell you, but it only reveals enough to keep you coming back for more.  It knows it has you hooked, but it just enjoys toying with your mind too much to spoil the secret too soon.  It drags you along till you've just about had enough of its crap, then, almost as if it becomes offended that you're not having as much fun as it is, the film gives in and smacks you across the face with the reality of things and you're left wondering what the heck just happened. One minute, Neo has the mercury-like mirror substance crawling up his arm, then he wakes up in a jelly filled life-pod, then he's flushed down the proverbial toilet, then he's whisked up into a crappy looking hovercraft.  The first time around, the Matrix is definitely a mind job, but that's exactly what makes it so appealing.  The moment where it finally clicks, when you finally understand what the Matrix is and the implications such a thing carries with it, is what makes the movie such a powerful experience.  The story is very good; it's definitely solid.  But without the expert delivery, it would be a much less satisfying experience. 

Another thing I like about the film is how well things are tied off at the end, but still enough intrigue is left for the viewer to wonder about what is to come.  All the immediate problems presented in the first film are addressed.  Neo completes a full hero cycle, the mystery of what the Matrix is is solved, Agent Smith is destroyed, Morpheus is saved, the spy/turncoat is found out and eliminated, and Neo and Trinity declare their love.  But the story is not entirely complete and the viewer still is left wondering how mankind will be freed and the machines as a whole will be eliminated.  Of course, the fact that the humans now have an all-powerful near-deity on their side makes the future seem just a little brighter than it once was.  All in all, I appreciate how the film stands on its own legs and can be enjoyed independently from its sequels, despite the fact that it is only the first installment.

The Matrix is a landmark film.  Its bold storytelling and expert delivery paved the way for other films to try creative and unique approaches to filmmaking.  For those contributions alone, I feel the Matrix earns its spot among the most influential films of all time.  An all-around incredibly satisfying experience.

10/10

The Matrix

Written, produced, and directed by Andy and Larry Wachowski

Produced by Joel Silver

Starring Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss, Laurence Fishburne, Joe Pantoliano, Hugo Weaving

Rated R for sci-fi violence and some language

Pitch Black Review

I think I first came across Pitch Black in a $5 bin at Wal-Mart several years ago.  I remembered a trailer for the film I had seen at some point, specifically the one defining scene where a dude alone in the dark does a fire-spitting trick and lights up the darkness only to find he is surrounded by fearsome alien creatures.  I always thought it was a cool shot, and I pretty much paid $5 to see the context for that scene to unfold.  Thankfully enough, the film is pretty good, even though I wouldn't recommend making purchases based on one scene because rarely are the results as all around pleasing as Pitch Black is. 

This sci-fi/horror action film follows the story of a crew that survives a crash landing on an unfamiliar world.  The stranded passengers are dropped into a survival situation where food, water and shelter become paramount.  The world they crash on is lit 24 hours a day (or however many hours are in the day of this planet) by two suns, i.e. there is no nighttime which makes for a unique challenge.  After the survival essentials are covered, the team discovers a way to escape the planet in a shuttle they find at an abandoned settlement.  They believe their main problem is the escaped convict, Riddick, who they believe will stop at nothing to kill them all and take the shuttle for himself.  To make a long story short, the planet is eventually caught in a full solar eclipse, ending the never-ending daylight and plunging the world into darkness.  The team quickly is confronted with vicious creatures that only emerge during this darkness and they ally with Riddick in an attempt to ward off the creatures and escape the planet. 

The first thing I really like about this flick is the setting and visual effects.  It's got a late 70's, early 80's dirty, real-world sci-fi feel about it, very reminiscent of the first two Alien movies.  The film does a good job of subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) paying homage to those defining genre classics but still forging enough of an identity to stand on its own.  The characters are grounded, believable and they interact with each other in realistic ways.  One character in particular annoyed the crap out of me, but not because he was poorly portrayed or written.  His personality just pissed me off, which actually could be considered commendable in a piece of art.  Emotional response is one of the key things artists should strive for in their work, after all.  The real star of this show is Vin Diesel in, what I feel, is his best movie to date.  This character fits him like a glove and it really seems like Mr. Diesel enjoys slipping into that gravelly deep voice and quietly disappearing into the darkness.  I think it also should be mentioned that Vin Diesel swears like a pro.  Swearing is an art; some people suck at it and shouldn't do it.  For others, swearing flows naturally and it enhances the character.  Vin Diesel most assuredly fits into the latter category.

There are only a few very minor things about the film I noticed.  There's a level of inconsistency with the effects which is a little distracting.  Some of the effects are poorly done (like the twin suns) and some are pretty good (the creatures).  I kind of wondered who the main character is supposed to be, because we kind of have two.  The first half of the film seems more centered on the ship's pilot, Carolyn, but the second half shifts the focus to include Riddick and the "twist" ending definitely leaves the film with the center of attention squarely on him.  But this isn't really even a minor problem, just something I noticed. 

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised with Pitch Black.  My expectations were admittedly low when I scraped this title out of the pile of bargain bin garbage, but thankfully I came out with a minor Sci-Fi/Horror classic.  I think one of the characteristics about the film I like the most is that it never thinks too much of itself.  There's no bloated, self absorbed, cliched showdown with a queen monster, no starfighter shootout over a mega death weapon gearing up to destroy a planet...just a small group of terrified survivors fighting for the lives at every turn.  It's a low-key personal story, which is the main reason I enjoyed it. 

7/10

Pitch Black

Directed by David Twohy

Written by Jim and Ken Wheat; Screenplay by Jim and Ken Wheat, and David Twohy

Starring Vin Diesel, Radha Mitchell, Cole Hauser, Keith David, Lewis Fitz-Gerald

Rated R for sci-fi violence and gore, and for language

X-Men Origins: Wolverine Review

My word...where to begin?  Well for starters, I'll say that I was a big fan of X-Men back in the day.  The first film pretty much established the modern superhero film genre and the second film still stands among the top 5 superhero films of all time in my opinion.  Then Bryan Singer left the franchise for Superman, and the series went to pot. X-Men: The Last Stand barely achieves mediocrity, but only because of what was already established by Singer and Co. in X2.  The first two films were handled gracefully and intelligently.  The third film and subsequently, this prequel film are packed with cliches, poorly directed action and an emphasis on quantity over quality.  

First off, there is simply too much happening at too quick a pace in Wolverine.  About a hundred and twenty years worth of story is glossed over in less than ten minutes and sequences that could have served for an entire movie in and of themselves are whisked along without hesitation.  The result leaves the audience without much opportunity to connect with Logan/Jimmy/Wolverine.  Life-changing events for Logan transpire in moments and are gone before any impact can be felt.  Therefore, Logan's torment and desire for revenge never connect in a believable way.  I know I sat in the theatre not really caring if Logan got his revenge or not, but still quite positive that he would achieve it anyway.  

The movie is also overstuffed with characters, unfortunately.  It is a problem that has been evident in all the movies, but it's especially unnecessary in this prequel.  After all, the movie is (or should have been) all about one character and his journey.  Instead, we get Logan, his half-brother Victor, a 7 member team of mutants, none of whom are even recognizable to anyone who isn't a diehard Marvel fanboy (and I speak as a casual Marvel fan myself), and brief cameos from a young Cyclops, Emma Frost, Silverfox, Gambit and even the good Professor himself.  I'm not even counting the rabble of random freak mutants rescued from captivity at the end of the film (some 10-15 more).  Another problem run into, especially the later you get into the X-Men universe, is the recycling of powers.  We have new characters introduced, but they have the same powers already seen in earlier characters (i.e. Kestrel, who can teleport which we've already seen more impressively with Nightcrawler).   The main difference is, of course, that no one cares about Kestrel.  It's mutant overkill, and the main quest (if it can be called that) is lost among everything else happening.  

The story itself is passable until the end.  Stryker's whole idea of pooling mutants' powers into one super villain is quite simply, stupid.  It's unnecessarily "epic" in this film, which should have been much more personal and intimate.  I was hoping for a story that helped us understand Logan's character better, a film with a much slower pace, less action and more intelligent use of supporting characters that have a significant impact on the shaping of Logan's character.  Instead we have a bloated, action saturated, cliche-filled romp that moves at light speed pacing with so many explosions, primal roars, awful sideburns and half-naked men that it makes you sick.  Another specific detail that I felt was dumb was the sheer number of "claw shots."  Those claws spend so much time on-screen, center-screen that you begin to feel the movie is more about the claws than it is about anything else.  The action sequences are planned around how to make the claws look cool.  The dramatic scenes are planned around how to make the claws look cool.  The comedic moments are planned around how to make the claws look cool.  Enough is enough! ( I won't even go into how physically impossible it is that the claws exist at all)

There is plenty of talk around about how more prequel movies could be made in the X-Men series, potentially about Magneto, Gambit and even Deadpool.  I, for one, think this series should be officially laid to rest as a film franchise.  None of those characters, I feel, is strong enough to support an entire movie based around their story, especially with these filmmakers at the helm.  X-Men is a comic book universe and it should stick to that medium, especially when the film results are this bad. 

4/10

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Directed by Gavin Hood

Written by David Benioff and Skip Woods

Starring Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, Danny Huston, William J. Adams (I refuse to refer to him as Will.i.am), Lynn Collins, Daniel Henney, Kevin Durand, Dominic Monaghan, Taylor Kitsch, Ryan Reynolds

Music by Harry Gregson-Williams

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, and some partial nudity

The Fountain Review

This is my second viewing of Darren Aronofsky’s The Fountain.  It’s been two years, perhaps more, since I saw it last, which, oddly enough, I think was good for me.  This is another kind of movie that has to be seen multiple times and needs time to be digested.  The film literally operates on multiple levels of time and space and though there are connections threaded between these levels (some obvious and others not so much), the viewer is expected to participate in the interpretation of these connections.  The film demands attention from the audience and rewards careful consideration with multiple open-ended interpretations.  The Fountain repays the viewer proportionally to the effort invested in it, which is fascinating in my opinion.

The Fountain essentially tells three very similar stories in three different time and space settings.  The Conquistador storyline is set in 16^th century Spain and Latin America.  Queen Isabel (whose life is in jeopardy at the hands of the Inquisition) sends Tomas the conquistador on a quest to find and claim the Tree of Life for his motherland thereby saving Spain.  The Scientist storyline is set in modern times and tells the tale of Tom and Izzy.  Tom is a frustrated researcher on the verge of discovering a cure for cancer, specifically the kind of cancer his wife, Izzy, suffers from.  The Astronaut storyline is set in outer space and tells the story of the titular character’s journey across the universe into a dying star.  The Astronaut is traveling in an ecosphere, encapsulated along with an enormous dying tree with which the astronaut speaks as though it were an intimate lover.

Without getting into specifics it is difficult to discuss what works and doesn’t work about the film.  I’m convinced after reading about it and seeing it again that nothing was put in here without careful consideration and planning.  There are things about it that I don’t understand, but I don’t think of it as poor filmmaking.  I think of it as something requiring thought and discussion.  This is exactly the kind of film to see with friends and debate interpretations because different people will view the movie in different ways and no one deduction is necessarily 100% correct.  I think it should be mentioned that Hugh Jackman’s performance is among the best I have seen.  The frustration, passion and emotional anguish his character experiences is entirely convincing and truly an accomplishment.  Having portrayed only Wolverine, Van Helsing and Leopold (from Kate and Leopold) up to the point when this movie was made, I feel this performance is truly where Jackman established his abilities as a dramatic actor.

Visually, the film is striking in several ways. The imagery, particularly from the Astronaut storyline is iconic.  The film’s lighting is done intelligently, frequently portraying Rachel Weisz’s characters awash in light while keeping Hugh Jackman’s characters hidden in the shadows until late in the film, when it becomes appropriate to light him more brightly.   Another subtle visual cue Aronofsky gives us is the use of simple shapes in specific time periods.  The 16^th century storyline makes use of triangular shapes; the present day story primarily utilizes rectangular shapes and the future storyline focuses on circular shapes.  Whether this has any significance beyond simply differentiating the time periods is open to interpretation, but I appreciate this kind of effort on the filmmakers’ part.

The Fountain has become one of my favorite films of all time.  I wasn’t quite sure what to make of it the first time I saw it, but after the second viewing I am almost entirely convinced it is a masterpiece.  There are bits that I need to ponder further and I’m sure that the conclusions I draw from it are at least somewhat unique to me, but I think that is the beauty of this film.  I love hearing how other people see it differently and how they reached those conclusions.  I love a film that is as open to as many different possibilities as this is, but I have to admit that it is not a film accessible to everyone.  Many people won’t enjoy this movie because its not easy to interpret, but I love it when a movie sticks with me after the credits roll.   The Fountain is one such movie.

10/10

The Fountain

Directed by Darren Aronofsky

Written by Darren Aronofsky, Ari Handel

Starring Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, Ellen Burstyn

Cinematography by Matthew Libatique

Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of violent action, some sensuality and language

Sunshine Review

I’ve been meaning to watch Sunshine for quite a while, only recently purchasing a copy of the film when the price dropped to $6 at Best Buy.  I’ve heard many great things about it, and some not-so-great things about it. 

Coming from Danny Boyle, UK director and most recent recipient of the Best Picture Academy Award (for Slumdog Millionaire), Sunshine is set about 50 years in the future from now when the Sun is in danger of extinguishing itself completely.  Mankind has already sent one expedition to re-ignite the Sun, the Icarus I, but communications are cut off as the team reaches the Sun and its status is unknown.  Icarus I is given up for lost and seven years later the Icarus II is sent to finish the mission.  The film picks up as the Icarus II enters what they call the “Dead Zone,” – an area of space around the Sun where communication with earth becomes impossible.  The film begins as the team sets about sending their final messages home.

One of the things I liked most about Sunshine was the logical progression of the story.  One event leads to the next in a thoughtful, sensible fashion and the story unfolds in an entirely believable way.  I always appreciate a film that doesn’t give their audience the proverbial nudge and wink and then say, “I know this doesn’t make sense, but just accept it because you know it’s fictional anyway.”  Every turn of the story has motivation behind it and is brought about in a way that makes sense within the context of the movie. The only plot point that is not explained is how/why the Sun’s light is being extinguished so many millions of years before scientists predict it will.  The fact that the Sun is fading is not a big deal, but the fact that it is fading and they set the film 50 years into the future kind of begs an explanation.  But every other element, to my knowledge, is explained logically even if it’s not in a way that is 100% accurate to real science. 

The story itself is a rather bleak affair, which isn’t my favorite kind of movie to watch but I appreciate the cast and crew’s dedication to effectively creating and sustaining that kind of atmosphere.  The film evokes pseudo-spiritual imagery – daunting, awe-inspiring and majestic while at the same time remarkably dangerous and hopeless.   There seems to be a constant state of equal-but-opposite contrasting relationships throughout the film.  The science team is earth’s last hope and represents the only chance earth has for a future, but they themselves have no hope of surviving and returning home.  The Sun itself is continually a reminder that it is equally a bringer of life and death, light and darkness, understanding and insanity.

There wasn’t much about the film that I didn’t like, and I find it hard to pinpoint any one thing that stood out as poor in quality.  It is a film that should be seen several times before drawing final conclusions, but off the top of my head there are a couple things I wasn’t a fan of.  The decision to turn the movie into a pseudo-slasher/horror film at the end was a little weak and unnecessary given the team’s already doomed fate.  Some of the camera and post-production work were a little confusing, if that makes sense.  One of the characters introduced late in the story is never clearly seen on screen; instead we see quick, blurry passes over his face and body from camera angles that often skew the perspective beyond recognition at all.  It’s especially unnecessary, I thought, because we know who the character is and I saw no reason to visually hide his features (unless the prosthetics were crappy and they were just hiding the sloppy make-up). 

Overall, Sunshine is a thought-provoking, multi-dimensional film that should inspire conversation among those patient enough to give it a chance.   A seamless experience, Sunshine earns a spot among the better films in sci-fi cinema.  It’s not perfect, but no film is and I recommend it to anyone looking for a rich, satisfying visual, psychological and philosophical take on science fiction.

8/10

Sunshine

Directed by Danny Boyle

Produced by Andrew Macdonald

Written by Alex Garland

Starring Cillian Murphy, Rose Byrne, Cliff Curtis, Chris Evans, Michelle Yeoh

Music by John Murphy, Underworld (a band, apparently)

Rated R for violent content and language 

Twilight Review

I am completely unfamiliar with the Twilight universe, for starters, but it seems intriguing to me.  I have never read the book, but I’ll start with what I do know going into this first viewing.  I know that Edward Cullen is a vampire living with his family clan in (or near) Forks, Washington.  I know that Bella has moved to Forks after her mother and her new stepfather basically tell her they want to live without her for a while.  I’ll try to overlook the fact that a vampire who is more than 80 years old is still in high school (he is clearly not an idiot, so we must assume he just enjoys the high school experience, or is entirely devoted to keeping up his appearances)

I’m not really sure what to make of the film, at least at this point (about an hour in).  It certainly places its focus squarely on relationships and emotions in place of action and excitement.  Mystery, intrigue and awkward semi-romantic tension are intended to drive the movie forward but it only achieves that goal in spurts and sputters.  It seems as though this is a movie that is defined by the chemistry between its two main characters, which for the first half of the movie only works in some places.  Edward is at times drawn to Bella, and at other times repelled by her which makes sense once Edward and Bella level with each other, but is quite frustrating leading up to that point.  The first meeting is especially discomforting, considering that Edward unashamedly glares at Bella like he’s utterly disgusted and even furious with the fact that she sits next to him in class.   I understand how it is explained later that he is intensely attracted to her and intrigued because he can’t read her mind, but at this point in the story we have absolutely no clue that vampires or werewolves have anything to do with the story.  So Edward’s glaring and glowering just makes him look like a freak. The more I think about it, the more I think the error lies with the source material instead of the performances, even though the performances delivered by Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson are hit and miss, sometimes delivering lines effectively and sometimes falling flat. 

All this awkwardness and tension comes to a head when Bella begins to put the pieces together about what Edward is.  Once she confronts him with the knowledge that she knows what he is and he comes clean about the burden he bears, it almost feels as though a burden is lifted from the shoulders of the film.  Bella and Edward seem much more comfortable around one another once the air clears and emotions are laid out to each other.  Particularly this is the case with Edward.  He becomes a much more likeable character once the burden of his secret is out in the open and Bella accepts (or challenges, rather) him. When Edward tells her that she shouldn’t trust him, that he isn’t sure he can control his desire for her blood, she tells him she trusts him and she knows he won’t hurt her, which is at the same time incredibly bold but potentially incredibly foolish. Only time will tell which is true.

            I think the film works best when the attention is set squarely on the relationship shared by the two main characters.  There is a story going on behind their blossoming romance, but it doesn’t really take a front seat until the baseball game.  It seems like the focus of the film is on the romance, which is unfortunate because the background story is rushed through and filled out with underdeveloped characters.  The “villain” of the film is introduced more than half way into the movie, which means we hardly know anything about him, his motivations or his goals.  He is presented simply as a “tracker vampire” who only lives for the hunt.  He gets a whiff of Bella’s scent at the baseball game which apparently means he will hunt her until he kills her.  But all this only serves as a vehicle to move Bella and Edward’s relationship forward, which just sucks because I think the whole vampire universe here could be fleshed out a lot more.  It would go a long way towards making the movie more unified, because it feels unbalanced with so much focus directed towards the romantic plot and so little placed on everything else.

Overall, the impression I walked away from the movie with was one of squandered potential.  It felt very much like the book was used as the script and the film feels chained down as a result. Books don’t naturally translate to film; they need to be adapted properly and I think Twilight would have benefited from that process.  But it is not a bad movie; in fact, I found the romantic aspect of the story very compelling.  Twilight does several things very well, but other things it does a little haphazardly.  

6/10

Twilight

Directed by Catherine Hardwicke

Written by Melissa Rosenberg; novel by Stephanie Meyer

Starring Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson

Rated PG-13 for some violence and a scene of sensuality

101 Dalmatians Review

Having viewed several Oscar-winners that I deem rather underwhelming, I have decided to quite suddenly and unexpectedly cut short the Best Picture Tour and embark upon a Classic Disney Animation Tour.  101 Dalmatians was the first one I picked up, having chosen it over The Jungle Book and Peter Pan.  I was in a British mood that day, I suppose.  One thing I always enjoy about animation is the attention to detail that is required throughout.  Animation is not cheap, so each and every scene must be planned out ahead of time.  Much care and focus is put into what each frame needs to look like and how exactly it should play out, and I appreciate that level of attention to detail.  But anyways, on with the review.

101 Dalmatians was first released in 1961, and was a first on many levels for the Disney animation crew.  It was the first picture released in the sixties, the first picture released after the huge layoff, thanks to Sleeping Beauty’s flop at the box office, the first Disney animation to feature only one main song, and the first Disney animation set in modern times.  It marked a change in direction for Disney animations, which up until this point, had largely focused on fantasy settings, romantic characters and magical elements.  101 Dalmatians was a huge departure from these Disney standards, both technologically and thematically, and apparently Mr. Disney himself was not happy about these changes. But regardless, the film was a huge success for Disney and the victory came right when they needed it, especially after the expensive disappointment in Sleeping Beauty.

Seeing 101 Dalmatians, for me, is almost like taking a vacation back to childhood.  In many ways it is literally that very thing, but even beyond the childhood memories I have of the film, there is an intrinsic innocence, purity and simplicity to many Disney animations including this one.  It’s not just a quality that makes it enjoyable for kids, but it’s also a quality that seems to sort of beckon the child out in us grown ups too.  One of the things I believe lends the film a feel of timelessness is that the focus is not on the story but on the storytelling.  The delivery of the story is what makes it compelling, not necessarily the story itself (even though the story is pretty decent).  The essential character that drives the movie on is found in Cruella De Vil.  Her flamboyant attitude and ruthless demeanor are what propel Pongo and Perdita to endlessly search for their lost puppies and what keeps the audience interested in the puppies’ fate.  She is simultaneously repulsive and attractive, which is what makes her so amusing and interesting, in my opinion. 

The animation is incredibly amazing, especially when the viewer understands how much thought and effort goes into each and every frame of animation.  Scenes that stick out in particular are the one where Roger flips his pipe during the birthing scene, one where Roly slides down Pongo’s back (the folding skin is amazing) and anytime Cruella’s car makes an appearance.  The lead animators had been working at Disney studios for 30 plus years by the time this film was in development and their experience is evident.  Emotions ring undeniably clear on each character’s face; the motion is smooth and organic; the characters are endearing and timeless. Another thing I appreciated was the change in artistic style for Disney’s animation.  101 Dalmatians’ modern art style (particularly in the backgrounds) was a radical departure for Disney movies and a risk that paid off in spades.  It must have been fresh at the time, and even today it looks edgy and funky with a little splash of European flair. 

Overall, 101 Dalmatians proved to be a thoroughly enjoyable experience on several different levels.  It’s a classic example of quality over quantity (ironic in a film titled “101 Dalmatians isn’t it?) and a film with heart instead of frills.  Quite outstanding, even 48 years after release.

9/10

101 Dalmatians

Directed by Clyde Geronimi, Hamilton Luske, Wolfgang Reitherman

Produced by Walt Disney

Written by Bill Peet (novel by Dodi Smith)

Featuring voice talents of Rod Taylor, Cate Bauer, Betty Lou Gerson, Ben Wright, Lisa Davis, Martha Wentworth

 

Best Picture? Really?

  Having begun this trek of mine to view every movie thus far that has won the Academy’s Best Picture award, it is interesting to note certain trends among the films receiving nominations for the film industry’s highest honor.  For example, it is quite rare to see animated films, musicals, action films, adventure films, fantasy films, romantic comedies, horror films, science fiction films or comic book films receive Best Picture nominations.  There are exceptions (see The Return of the King, Chicago, Beauty and the Beast, E.T., and Star Wars) but by and far it is nearly unheard of for movies with any sort of fantastical element to them to be considered for Best Picture nods.  Which, in my mind, begs the question…just what exactly is it that the Academy looking for in its considerations for Best Picture?

            Perhaps we can answer that question by looking at several of the winners.  No Country for Old Men.  Crash.  Million Dollar Baby.  A Beautiful Mind.  American Beauty.  The English Patient.  Forrest Gump.  Schindler’s List.   What do these movies have in common?  I would propose that a common element among these films is a hard to define sense of “normal-ness.”  The majority of the Best Picture winners are movies that feature characters that are very firmly planted in reality.   Some of these characters might find themselves in unique circumstances, but they react in ways that normal people would be expected to react.  In fact, many of the winners at the Oscars (not just Best Picture winners) are films either based on non-fictional stories or films based on obscure novels.  Several of the Best Actor/Actress winners in recent years have been for portrayals of real people instead of fictional characters.

            It seems to me that the members of the Academy favor films that are, quite simply, plain and ordinary.  They tend to favor (unfairly, I might add) films with stories about real people going through real struggles.  It’s almost as if the Academy feels the best sorts of movies are the movies that most realistically portray what your average everyday person goes through in his or her life.   Most people in the world make tough decisions about their future.  Most people in the world have elements from their past that they regret or would change if they could.  Most people fall in love and deal with the complications of that.  The Academy, it seems, is more appreciative of films that mimic reality instead of films that suspend reality.  Which, in my opinion is stupid.

            I have always believed, and continue still to believe, that films are most enjoyable when you are completely immersed in the fictional universe of that particular film.  I’ve always believed that the best kind of movie is the one that suspends your sense of reality and gets you, the viewer, to accept something that you know is not really happening.  A film that closely mimics the reality of life is one that is usually less enjoyable for me, because I live life every day.  I deal with real people, with real emotions, with real difficult decisions on my own and I don’t want to pay money to watch characters on a screen deal with the same things.  When I go to the movies, I want to be entertained.  I want to see and experience things that are unique and unusual, to see extraordinary characters, to experience something new and exciting.

            I think it is a downright shame and embarrassment to the film industry to go back over the years and see the exclusions in the category of Best Picture. The Disney animation renaissance of the late 80’s and early to mid 90’s passed by without a single winner in the category.  Driving Miss Daisy, Dances with Wolves, Silence of the Lambs, and Unforgiven all took home Best Picture awards in this time period without so much as a nod to the defining animation films put out by Disney at the time.  No offense is meant towards the films mentioned, but surely none of them has had nearly the same impact that Disney’s work has had nor does the general public look back so fondly on them as they do with the Disney's animations from the time.  This period inspired an entire generation of artists and animators as well as establishing revolutionary new advances in computer animation technology.  I also think it shameful that none of the Star Wars movies never won a Best Picture award, and only the original was even nominated.  The Star Wars trilogy (original) is undoubtedly one of the most celebrated series of films in history and I believe it is worth a Best Picture award in consideration of the impact it has had on the world and an entire generation of youth.  The Empire Strikes Back was the highest grossing film of 1980 and cemented Star Wars’ place among the finest science fiction stories, but when the Best Picture nominations were revealed it was nowhere in sight.  In fact, the film pulling down the Best Picture award that year was a film titled Ordinary People, ironically enough.  How appropriate. 

            Another thing I have suspicions about is in the area of budget.  I am quite aware that a film’s financial success has no effect whatsoever on its chances for nomination, but it seems (especially in recent years) that films with a low budget stand a greater chance of scoring a nomination than those with a higher budget.  Even if the higher budgeted film ends up being of a higher quality, the lower budget film seemingly has a higher probability of getting the honors.  It’s almost like a decent film that was produced on a budget of $5 million is more deserving of recognition than an excellent film produced on a budget of $100 million.  Perhaps the powers that be prefer an underdog scenario, or feel that a higher budget is an unfair advantage, but I think that films should be considered for the award regardless of the budget. 

I suppose my point to all of this, is to say that I suppose the Academy has the right to nominate and award Best Picture to any film it wants.  The award belongs to the Academy and it can do whatever it wants in that regard.  For me however, the award will henceforth be near meaningless.  I have determined that the Academy places value on the same things that I associate with mediocre cinema and therefore the Best Picture award loses much of its significance.   The End. 

I would like to thank Andrew Clark and Chris Monthie for influencing the content of this post.

The Fellowship of the Ring Review

Where to begin with such a set of movies as the Lord of the Rings?  I am at something of a loss for words in my attempt to review this first installment, the Fellowship of the Ring.  I suppose rather than explaining the story or detailing the technical elements of the film I will try to explain how this film resonates within my mind and heart.

              The film makes such a strong connection with me on a personal level in so many ways that I find it difficult to describe them all.  The friendship that the main four hobbits share is not at all unlike the friendships that I share with my friends.  We don’t bother ourselves with many female distractions; we spent some of the most significant years of our lives living and adventuring together; and we are unquestionably devoted to one another.  I know that I will move on, my friends will move on, time and distance will separate us, but the bonds that we forged in the short time we were together will never be broken.  The connection established by the four main hobbits is, for me, a reminder of what my life was like during the best of times with my closest friends.  Regardless of whatever is happening in the story, these four hobbits are all together through everything.  These hobbits share a level of camaraderie that nearly every human being has experienced before or wants to experience at some point.  The viewer is drawn to them like a magnet because everyone either has or wants friendships as close as these hobbits.  The emotional response lifted from the viewer is quite a powerful experience, whether the emotion is appreciation for the friendships established or the longing desire to reach such a level of devotion. 

            Specifically, the relationship Sam and Frodo share is one that, for me, is extraordinarily powerful.  To have a friend who is devoted to you wholeheartedly, with no regard for his own wellbeing is a concept that nearly brings me to tears.   I am not one to cry at movies, or even in general.  Not because I consider crying a sign of weakness or that I think myself too “manly” to cry…I just don’t really cry very often.  But this movie manages to pull tears from these eyes nearly every time I see it.  If my emotional response to the four hobbits’ friendship is one of appreciation for the friendships in my own life, my emotional response to Sam and Frodo’s friendship is one of yearning.  Granted, I will probably never be put into a situation like Frodo, where it is required that a friend give of himself unreservedly to my safety and wellbeing but my desire to have a friend willing to go to such astronomical lengths is brought to the surface by the honesty, the raw emotional vulnerability portrayed in Sam and Frodo’s friendship.   And perhaps even more than wanting to be the recipient of such attention, this film awakens the desire for me to be the kind of friend that Sam is to Frodo.  After all, the real hero of the film eventually turns out to be Sam, not Frodo.  Frodo gives in to the pressure eventually; he gives it his best, but at the point where he can go no further it is Sam who carries Frodo on his back the rest of the way.  The reason this film resonates so deeply in me is because of the portrayal of this friendship. 

            On a more practical level, there are few (if any) elements of this movie that I have any sort of negative view on.  This latest viewing drew my attention to Sean Bean’s performance as Boromir, the hero from Gondor.  Sean Bean manages to bring a sense of well intentioned but misguided passion for his character’s pursuing the Ring.  Where, in earlier viewings, I saw him mainly as a selfish character that pursues the Ring in order to make himself more in the eyes of his people and his father, this latest viewing I found myself seeing him more as a protector who has been driven to desperation.  His people stand on the brink of destruction (as they are the nearest geographically to Mordor) and their hope is almost gone.  It crossed my mind, what if my family, my mother and father, my brother, were in mortal peril? Would I throw away what seems to be the best chance to ensure their survival?  I see now that Boromir is doing what he believes he must do to fulfill his duties as heir to his father’s responsibilities.  The pressure lowered on his shoulders to find and bring back salvation to the battered, hopeless people of Gondor is what drove him to his desperate attempt to take the Ring from Frodo. 

            One particular facet of the DVD that I wish to draw attention to is the special features.  I don’t believe there has ever been, nor likely will be again, such an in-depth glimpse of how a movie is put together.  I appreciate so much, as both a fan of movies and a student of film, the level of detail that is outlined so clearly for us in these DVDs.  Every step, from conceptual art to post-production is explained to us in such a way that the viewer almost feels like it is experienced first-hand.  Filming techniques are explained, story and dialogue are detailed, tours of the prop workshops are conducted, sound production is covered and digital effects are explained, just to name a few.  There are overall about 5 to 6 hours of special features contained in these discs, and every second is worth viewing (for those curious and those studying film).

            I quite simply cannot say enough about this first film in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  The story is fantastic as are the effects, performances, new techniques, old techniques, but the real reason this film is of such a high caliber is the emotional resonance stirred up inside the viewer.  It is a difficult concept to put into words, and perhaps even more to intentionally evoke from your audience, and therefore all the more reason to heap praise on Peter Jackson and his team from New Zealand.  For me, I think I could perhaps imagine another film reaching the same emotional heights alongside the Fellowship of the Ring, but I daresay it won’t be topped. A masterpiece.

 

10/10

 

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

 

Directed by Peter Jackson

Produced by Peter Jackson, Barrie M. Osborne, Tim Sanders, Fran Walsh

Written by: (Novel) J.R.R. Tolkien; (Screenplay) Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson

Starring Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Liv Tyler, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Cate Blanchett, John Rhys-Davies, Billy Boyd, Dominic Monaghan, Orlando Bloom, Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving, Sean Bean, Ian Holm, Andy Serkis

Rated PG-13 for epic battle sequences and some scary images

Crash Review

I decided a couple of years ago to make it a goal of mine to view every single movie that has been awarded the “Best Picture” Academy Award.  I have seen surprisingly few of them over the years and the way I see it, if a film wins the Best Picture award it’s probably for good reason.  My first official stop on the Best Picture Tour is the 2005 winner “Crash.”  I had no idea whatsoever about the film’s content, characters or story when I purchased a copy of it for $7 at Wal-Mart, which was very exciting for me.  It’s become quite rare for me to watch a movie with absolutely no idea about what’s to come.  After viewing Crash though, I may have to be more cautious about buying a movie with no previous knowledge of it.

It turns out Crash is about the most one-dimensional film I have seen in quite some time.  Indeed, I find it hard to pinpoint any other film I have ever seen that hits one note, one issue, one controversy as wholeheartedly as Crash does.  Crash is all about racism.  There are several characters (none of whom I would consider a “main,” character) and all of them deal with racism in one way or another.  I would go into details, but I don’t believe there is a point.  This is a movie unlike any other I have encountered…it’s almost like a documentary or maybe even a new employee training video in that it is so one dimensional (providing little in the way of depth, immersion and a sense of escape).  Crash zeroes in on the issue of race, and beats the horse long after the life has expired from it. 

Don’t get me wrong, I do believe race is an incredibly important issue that needs to be discussed and argued.  But for me, the silver screen is not the place it should be discussed.  The movie theater is a place of entertainment, a place of laughing, crying, thrills and (ultimately, in my opinion) fun.  When I purchase a ticket, I expect a film to lift me out of my daily routine and tell a story that suspends my sense of reality.   This is one reason I love movies as much as I do.  In my opinion, Crash accomplishes none of these things.  Crash is a movie that seeks to chain its audience with a sense of guilt, a punch in the face if you will, over the fact that racism is still a problem in today’s society.  I came away from my viewing of Crash feeling disgusted with the world and hopeless that harmony between races can be achieved.

In addition to the general feeling of despair, I was confused and frustrated with the characters.  Many of the characters are both victims of racism and proponents of racism.  A pair of young black men complain that they received poor service at a restaurant because they believe the waitress assumed black people don’t tip well.  Of course, they didn’t tip her well destroying their argument altogether and justifying the waitress’s assumptions.  The same pair complain that a white woman walking with her husband tensed up when they passed each other, presumably because the woman assumed that young black men like the two of them are thugs.   Of course, then they rob the white couple and steal their car, again justifying the couple’s fear of the two black men.  This inconsistency in Crash’s characters is, in my opinion, the primary reason the film fails.  There are no goals presented for any characters to achieve, and therefore, a sense of progression is lacking in this film.  There is precious little in the way of personal growth or understanding from anyone in the film.

The performances are there, believable and well delivered.  The actors are fine, though none stand out to me as memorable.  The technical elements of the film again, are fine but with no particular stand out moment.  In my opinion, the film fails on a foundational level – it never makes a connection to the audience, never giving us characters we can relate to.  Maybe I just don’t understand it.  I certainly don’t understand how a film like this is awarded the industry’s highest honor.  All the same I felt altogether detached from Crash’s world, and judging from the two-faced, self-absorbed racist pigs inhabiting it, maybe that’s a good thing.

 

2/10

 

Crash

 

Directed by Paul Haggis

Produced by Paul Haggis, Don Cheadle, Bob Yari, Cathy Schulman

Written by Paul Haggis and Bobby Moresco

Starring Brendan Fraser, Sandra Bullock, Ludacris, Larenz Tate, Don Cheadle, Jennifer Esposito, Ryan Phillipe, Matt Dillon, Keith David, Terrence Howard, Thandie Newton, Michael Pena, Shawn Toub and Ashlyn Sanchez

 

Rated R for language, sexual content, and some violence