We're 10 minutes outside Lima. I spent the flight awake and watching Iron Man. It was quite fun, but I felt it could have been done better. More....
No, never mind. I was good stuff for a superhero movie. I would have made the foreshadowing less blatantly obvious, but that would likely make it fly over people's heads.
Showing posts with label film review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film review. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Jersey Girl
Hopefully it's long enough after Jersey Girl's release date to talk about this film. As a piece of really good art, this was not really close. As another (albeit very well told) story of a man's late coming-of-age when he realizes what was so plainly right in front of his very eyes: family. It doesn't hurt that it has several very popular screen names making cameo appearances (speaking to the greatness of Kevin Smith's role as a director), nor that the female roles are played by very competent and attractive actresses - Raquel Castro as the daughter, and Liv Tyler as the love interest. (It doesn't hurt that it has the late, great George Carlin,either.)
True, the broad-brush course of the film is easily discerned once Ollie Trinke's (Ben Affleck) wife (JLo) dies giving birth to their daughter. Of course, it becomes painfully clear as to how the film is slated to end (spoiler: it's a Hollywood-ending) once Maya (Liv Tyler) enters the scene. True, too, Smith throws the viewer several variations to the plot - Maya is a sexually liberated grad student who offers to sleep with Ollie once she learns (as she interviews him as one of her subjects-of-study) that he hasn't had sex for seven years - while also making fun of films of the genre - having all the parent-student performances be a rendition of the song Memories from Cats - and throwing in a few curveballs (that turn out not to be too difficult to hit).
In all, I think that this film is one of my more favorite of the genre. It blows It's a Wonderful Life out of the water (and I'm not just saying that because I see it so often), as well as both versions of The Parent Trap, or Maid in New York. Would I see it again? Likely not, but I'm also unlikely to put up a whole lot of protest to watching it again.
True, the broad-brush course of the film is easily discerned once Ollie Trinke's (Ben Affleck) wife (JLo) dies giving birth to their daughter. Of course, it becomes painfully clear as to how the film is slated to end (spoiler: it's a Hollywood-ending) once Maya (Liv Tyler) enters the scene. True, too, Smith throws the viewer several variations to the plot - Maya is a sexually liberated grad student who offers to sleep with Ollie once she learns (as she interviews him as one of her subjects-of-study) that he hasn't had sex for seven years - while also making fun of films of the genre - having all the parent-student performances be a rendition of the song Memories from Cats - and throwing in a few curveballs (that turn out not to be too difficult to hit).
In all, I think that this film is one of my more favorite of the genre. It blows It's a Wonderful Life out of the water (and I'm not just saying that because I see it so often), as well as both versions of The Parent Trap, or Maid in New York. Would I see it again? Likely not, but I'm also unlikely to put up a whole lot of protest to watching it again.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Saw Wall-E
Yesterday, I went to see Wall-E with Kitchen Empress. I really liked it, and know that I will be purchasing it when it comes out on DVD. It did many things very well, including bringing the robots to life, creating a believable storyline, continuing with the marvelous tradition of Pixar animation, and just being really fun.It had some elements of Short Circuit in it (and the little Wall-E unit even looks a little bit like Johnny-5). However, the storyline for Wall-E is (imho) much better, and the little 'droid is even more likable than the admittedly quite affable J-5. (Truth be told, I really felt that the flesh-and-blood actors didn't really help sell those two films...)
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Beowulf (in 3D)
I just watched the new film Beowulf (in 3D). The film was quite a good one - creating an easy means to access the much more difficult to read translated book. However, to people who haven't read the book, this film is not (surprise, surprise) a faithful translation of the original Old English "classic" epic poem. (For example, in the book, Grendel's mother wasn't a gold-tinged Angelina Jolie look-alike with - strangely - high heels and tail.)
The major drawback (in my opinion) was the diminution of the role of the hero in epic poetry and ancient societies. Having watched Troy in recent days, the parallels between the heroic characters Achilles and Beowulf become clear. Having recently watched Troy has also shown me how apparently shallow the hero theme (fighting for glory and immortality) was explored in Beowulf (yes, they talk about being sung for eternity, but it wasn't pressed to the same extent as in Troy). I feel this theme was altered slightly to try and show Beowulf as a human being with his own failings culminating in a desire to (in the last act) redeem himself by righting the wrongs he helped create as a young man. True, in the original Beowulf, the character (to my recollection) wasn't really trying to redeem himself of any wrong, but ended trying to die a glorious death in combat. The women in his life were mentioned only secondarily in the text (again, if I recall correctly). Although this type of character is alien to the modern viewer, I don't feel that the way to mainstream the film is to alter (some might say "explore") the character, but be explicit that it is set in a context of heroism and (like in Troy) possibly show the dichotomy of the heroic and the politic.
If you want to watch an action film, then this isn't the film for you. The action sequences (although bloody and hair-raising) are only quick blasts of action spritzed sparingly in the rest of the film.
No, the plot changes and plot twists that aren't in the original text (at least in the copy I recall reading) weren't really a bad thing, in my opinion. In fact, they possibly lent more continuity to the storyline. Of course, how the director decided to show this new script did have a negative outcome on the role of the hero (see above), however, since I feel that the plot changes did not force the diminution mentioned above, I'm not going to say the changes were all bad.
The film is very enjoyable in 3D, and if it wasn't for watching it in that format, I would say that the whole thing might not really be worth it... The fight scenes are all well choreographed, and when Beowulf strips down completely, the animators took great pains to make sure his (erm) penis wasn't showing. (Still, a little beefcake for those interested in that sort of thing.) However, for being a "bear of a man," Beowulf wasn't really rendered as being really "bear-like" (not hirsute or brawny enough to really be called "bear").
The cinematography was well drawn and directed. The characters were still somewhat plasticky in their look - many of them were (while being well rendered) were not realistic looking (interestingly, Beowulf was significantly more real-looking than any other character in the film). However, the inorganic items (the pebble beach, the flames, the castles, the cliffs, etc) were really great.
One last gripe and I'll be done: the thing is a period piece - taking place sometime after the fall of Rome, but not too much - and as such, one would like to see some realism along that vein, but in some interesting respects Beowulf falls down on this. Hrothgar's castle keep (while never entered in the film) is a major tower built along a scale that would never be seen until the Crusades. At the end of the film, the keep has expanded to massive tower proportions, and the stoutness of the castle walls would have made the castle builders of the 16th century envious. Additionally, Beowulf is seen wearing what looks to be plate armor. Where did he get it? That technology wasn't going to be around for another few centuries. (One might argue that it was colored leather, but it seemed to me to be rather shiny for leather.)
See the film (if you can see it, in 3D). It makes a good part of a collection alongside 300 and Troy.
The major drawback (in my opinion) was the diminution of the role of the hero in epic poetry and ancient societies. Having watched Troy in recent days, the parallels between the heroic characters Achilles and Beowulf become clear. Having recently watched Troy has also shown me how apparently shallow the hero theme (fighting for glory and immortality) was explored in Beowulf (yes, they talk about being sung for eternity, but it wasn't pressed to the same extent as in Troy). I feel this theme was altered slightly to try and show Beowulf as a human being with his own failings culminating in a desire to (in the last act) redeem himself by righting the wrongs he helped create as a young man. True, in the original Beowulf, the character (to my recollection) wasn't really trying to redeem himself of any wrong, but ended trying to die a glorious death in combat. The women in his life were mentioned only secondarily in the text (again, if I recall correctly). Although this type of character is alien to the modern viewer, I don't feel that the way to mainstream the film is to alter (some might say "explore") the character, but be explicit that it is set in a context of heroism and (like in Troy) possibly show the dichotomy of the heroic and the politic.
If you want to watch an action film, then this isn't the film for you. The action sequences (although bloody and hair-raising) are only quick blasts of action spritzed sparingly in the rest of the film.
No, the plot changes and plot twists that aren't in the original text (at least in the copy I recall reading) weren't really a bad thing, in my opinion. In fact, they possibly lent more continuity to the storyline. Of course, how the director decided to show this new script did have a negative outcome on the role of the hero (see above), however, since I feel that the plot changes did not force the diminution mentioned above, I'm not going to say the changes were all bad.
The film is very enjoyable in 3D, and if it wasn't for watching it in that format, I would say that the whole thing might not really be worth it... The fight scenes are all well choreographed, and when Beowulf strips down completely, the animators took great pains to make sure his (erm) penis wasn't showing. (Still, a little beefcake for those interested in that sort of thing.) However, for being a "bear of a man," Beowulf wasn't really rendered as being really "bear-like" (not hirsute or brawny enough to really be called "bear").
The cinematography was well drawn and directed. The characters were still somewhat plasticky in their look - many of them were (while being well rendered) were not realistic looking (interestingly, Beowulf was significantly more real-looking than any other character in the film). However, the inorganic items (the pebble beach, the flames, the castles, the cliffs, etc) were really great.
One last gripe and I'll be done: the thing is a period piece - taking place sometime after the fall of Rome, but not too much - and as such, one would like to see some realism along that vein, but in some interesting respects Beowulf falls down on this. Hrothgar's castle keep (while never entered in the film) is a major tower built along a scale that would never be seen until the Crusades. At the end of the film, the keep has expanded to massive tower proportions, and the stoutness of the castle walls would have made the castle builders of the 16th century envious. Additionally, Beowulf is seen wearing what looks to be plate armor. Where did he get it? That technology wasn't going to be around for another few centuries. (One might argue that it was colored leather, but it seemed to me to be rather shiny for leather.)
See the film (if you can see it, in 3D). It makes a good part of a collection alongside 300 and Troy.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
No End in Sight
I went and saw No End in Sight last night. As a documentary, it did a good job of showing the very fast lead-up to the war in Iraq, the miscommunication (or lack of communication) between the people initially sent to Iraq and the administration at home. It also did a good job of showing the frustration that true Iraq experts had in working with those running the war in the Bush Administration.
In my opinion, one of the best things that was (tacitly) held up for the audience to judge was the inability to understand/apathy of the people in the White House to the sensitivities of how the situation in Iraq would play out. Starting with the looting, moving to de-Ba'athification, and on to the disbanding of the Iraqi military. It's as if we hadn't learned anything from history (from WWII through the war in Kosovo). Leaders apparently tried to paint the actions in Iraq as a completely new phenomenon. However, after watching the film, I think that many of the decisions were made in a vacuum, with the Americans getting hole up in the Green Zone, or staying in DC. The film focused primarily on the actions in 2003 and early 2004.
In my opinion, one of the best things that was (tacitly) held up for the audience to judge was the inability to understand/apathy of the people in the White House to the sensitivities of how the situation in Iraq would play out. Starting with the looting, moving to de-Ba'athification, and on to the disbanding of the Iraqi military. It's as if we hadn't learned anything from history (from WWII through the war in Kosovo). Leaders apparently tried to paint the actions in Iraq as a completely new phenomenon. However, after watching the film, I think that many of the decisions were made in a vacuum, with the Americans getting hole up in the Green Zone, or staying in DC. The film focused primarily on the actions in 2003 and early 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)