It is entirely appropriate that trailers for director Darren Aronofsky’s latest film Black Swan mention his previous films Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler. That’s because Black Swan blends together themes from both of those pre mentioned films, combining the obsessiveness and need to perform from The Wrestler with the lose of one’s grip on reality from Requiem for a Dream. The result is a perfectly sublime experience worthy of a standing ovation. While it’s a movie that will have you thinking about what you just saw long after it’s over, while actually viewing it it’s best to simply sit there and allow what you’re seeing to wash over you.
Natalie Portman stars as Nina, an overly dedicated ballet dancer who’s been performing at a NYC company for several years. The director of the company Thomas (Vincent Cassel) decides that this season he will put on a completely different take of the classic ballet Swan Lake, with a single performer playing both the role of the white swan and the role of black swan. While he casts Nina in the coveted role he has doubts she can pull it off, for while she perfectly embodies the perfect form and innocence for the white swan, she is severely lacking the sensuality needed to also play the role of the black swan. Her nerves are further shaken when a new dancer named Lily (Mila Kunis) joins the company. Unlike Nina Lily has the ability to let herself go when she dances and she begins to become a rival for Nina’s part. Paranoia sets in as Nina begins to think everyone is out to get her, from Lily and Thomas to her overbearing mother Erica (Barbara Hershly). As she throws herself more and more into the role Nina’s grip on reality starts to slip and she starts to notice strange markings and textures on her skin, to where it seems she is physically transforming into an actual black swan.
Darren Aronofsky directs with a frenzied yet restrained dreamlike style, to where the audience doesn’t know at times if what they are seeing is real or not. While at first the audience can easily figure out when Nina’s mind is altering reality it becomes harder to distinguish as time goes on. This works wonders for the film, for it becomes both a film about one’s state of mind in addition to a film about ballet.
Natalie Portman is amazing in her role, and is sure to be a contender come Oscar time. Her portrayal of desperation and paranoia is as beautiful as it is disturbing. Mila Kunis flawlessly plays the role of rival and frenemy, at times even stealing focus away from Ms. Portman. Barbara Hershly is extremely effective in having viewers wonder if her character tries to control Nina’s life out of motherly love or resentment over her own lost dreams. And Vincent Cassel does a great job in having his character be hated in nearly every scene he’s in.
While Black Swan is not in wide release yet, it’s worth it to make the extra effort to go see this movie. It’s as beautiful as it is disturbing and will keep your eyes glued to the screen until the credits roll. This is one production that is not to be missed.
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Friday, December 10, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
The Magic is Defiantly Here in this Harry Potter Outing
First let me say that I’ve always been less than thrilled with the Happy Potter movies. If I had to analyze why it’s because of how much I love the book series, and when I watch the movies all I can do is nitpick on how what I read in the book isn’t exactly represented on screen. While I’ve seen many film adaptations of books, never before have I been so critical of a film based on a book. Which is why I’m just as surprised to be saying here that I enjoyed the Happy Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1 very much so. As both a movie and a representation of the book it was very satisfying.
In this first part of the two part film Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and his Death Eaters have successfully taken over the magical world and are turning it into a fear and hate filled dictatorship. In order to stop him once and for all Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) are on the run searching for Horcruxes, which are objects a witch or wizard would store a piece of their soul in to prevent them from crossing over into the afterlife. The task proves to be exceedingly difficult as the trio have very little information on how to find them or even destroy them.
Of all the movies this one is the most chock full of scenes and moments from the book, the result of splitting the story into two films. In some ways it’s almost too full, as there are some moments that fans of just the film series will be a bit in the dark about. One example is the wedding between Bill Weasley (Domhnall Gleeson) and Fleur Delacour (Clémence Poésy). While their impending nuptials were a significant sub-plot of the sixth book it’s never addressed in the sixth movie. I don’t really see a problem with this, for if anything the added plot points are more of an incentive for people who haven’t yet read the books to read them. I just feel it should be pointed out that the movie brings so much from the source material that moments that were left out of previous movies are here in full force. There are also a couple moments that weren’t originally in the book. While in the book Hermione talks about how she magically altered her parents’ memories so they forget they have a daughter in order to protect them, here we actually get to see it happen. For the most part the added material worked well in the movie.
The performances are top notch, especially from Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. While Daniel Radcliffe is also very good there are times he’s almost overshadowed by his two co-stars. Though one of the most amazing performances in the movie is by Helena Bonham Carter as the psychopathic Death Eater Bellatrix Lestrange. She takes this completely vial character and makes you savor every moment she is on screen.
In conclusion this is a very good movie and should definably be seen. It’s full of action, romance, suspense, and comedy. It’s so good you’ll wish the second part was being released next week instead of six months from now. So go out and have a enjoyable night at the cinema by seeing Happy Potter and the Deathly Hallows part one.
In this first part of the two part film Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and his Death Eaters have successfully taken over the magical world and are turning it into a fear and hate filled dictatorship. In order to stop him once and for all Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) are on the run searching for Horcruxes, which are objects a witch or wizard would store a piece of their soul in to prevent them from crossing over into the afterlife. The task proves to be exceedingly difficult as the trio have very little information on how to find them or even destroy them.
Of all the movies this one is the most chock full of scenes and moments from the book, the result of splitting the story into two films. In some ways it’s almost too full, as there are some moments that fans of just the film series will be a bit in the dark about. One example is the wedding between Bill Weasley (Domhnall Gleeson) and Fleur Delacour (Clémence Poésy). While their impending nuptials were a significant sub-plot of the sixth book it’s never addressed in the sixth movie. I don’t really see a problem with this, for if anything the added plot points are more of an incentive for people who haven’t yet read the books to read them. I just feel it should be pointed out that the movie brings so much from the source material that moments that were left out of previous movies are here in full force. There are also a couple moments that weren’t originally in the book. While in the book Hermione talks about how she magically altered her parents’ memories so they forget they have a daughter in order to protect them, here we actually get to see it happen. For the most part the added material worked well in the movie.
The performances are top notch, especially from Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. While Daniel Radcliffe is also very good there are times he’s almost overshadowed by his two co-stars. Though one of the most amazing performances in the movie is by Helena Bonham Carter as the psychopathic Death Eater Bellatrix Lestrange. She takes this completely vial character and makes you savor every moment she is on screen.
In conclusion this is a very good movie and should definably be seen. It’s full of action, romance, suspense, and comedy. It’s so good you’ll wish the second part was being released next week instead of six months from now. So go out and have a enjoyable night at the cinema by seeing Happy Potter and the Deathly Hallows part one.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The Social Network: The Most Current Movie Out Today
What’s most astonishing about the movie The Social Network isn’t that it was created, but the speed in which its creation occurred. The subject matter of the movie, Facebook and its founders, have been in the public consciousness for a little over five years. In film time that is astonishingly fast for a movie on Facebook to come around. In some ways the movie’s existence came about almost as fast as the creation of Facebook itself.
Jesse Eisenberg, previously seen in Adventureland, Zombieland and Holy Rollers, plays Mark Zuckerberg, the elusive co-founder of Facebook. Right away we’re meant to dislike this person, as his response to his girlfriend dumping him for being an asshole is to write malicious comments about her on his blog while simultaneously creating a website that allows students to rate the attractiveness of Harvard female undergrads. But it’s not simply his actions that make this portrayal unlikable. It’s everything about Zuckerberg. Throughout the movie he carries himself with a superior air around him; as if he believes he’s better then everyone around him. To him he’s above the rules of others and can do whatever he wants to get ahead, even if it screws over others. But it would be unfair to call him a sociopath, as he clearly does care about others and what they think about him. Eisenberg was very good in his portrayal of Zuckerberg, erasing all previous images of the very likeable characters he’s played in the past.
The story of how Facebook came about is shrouded in controversy, which the film goes to great lengths to address. After Zuckerberg’s Harvard attractiveness stunt he’s approached by twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (hilariously played by Armie Hammer in both roles) about helping them set up a Harvard social network called Harvard Connection. Mark agrees to help them, then goes off and creates his own Harvard social network with his friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield). They launch their website, called TheFaceBook, and it is an immediate hit. Cameron and Tyler are furious since Mark not only stole their idea but intentionally led them on that he was working on their project so he guaranteed that his site would be launched first. The twins, along with their business partner Divya Narendra (Max Minghella) decide they will not stand for this atrocity and begin taking legal action against Zuckerberg. While this goes on the website grows to include other Northeast schools. The site catches the attention of Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), who is brought on as a consultant. As Mark and Sean grow closer Eduardo begins to slowly become shut out of the project.
Throughout the film the action shifts to two depositions involving lawsuits against Zuckerberg. The first is by the Winklevoss twins and Narendra, who are suing Zuckerberg for stealing their idea. The second is by Saverin, who is suing Zuckerberg as a result of a much deeper betrayal. I won’t reveal what it is exactly, only that by the time it comes up Garfield’s character can’t even look at Zuckerberg.
The movie runs at a brisk pace without feeling rushed or to speedy. While some have said the end of the film doesn’t offer any real closure that’s entirely the point. This isn’t the story of these character’s lives, but rather a specific time in their lives. Their stories are still being written, so they should be incomplete.
Overall this was a very enjoyable movie to see. I would recommend it to anyone, especially those why have a Facebook page. In some ways, you owe it to yourselves to see how your beloved social network came about.
Jesse Eisenberg, previously seen in Adventureland, Zombieland and Holy Rollers, plays Mark Zuckerberg, the elusive co-founder of Facebook. Right away we’re meant to dislike this person, as his response to his girlfriend dumping him for being an asshole is to write malicious comments about her on his blog while simultaneously creating a website that allows students to rate the attractiveness of Harvard female undergrads. But it’s not simply his actions that make this portrayal unlikable. It’s everything about Zuckerberg. Throughout the movie he carries himself with a superior air around him; as if he believes he’s better then everyone around him. To him he’s above the rules of others and can do whatever he wants to get ahead, even if it screws over others. But it would be unfair to call him a sociopath, as he clearly does care about others and what they think about him. Eisenberg was very good in his portrayal of Zuckerberg, erasing all previous images of the very likeable characters he’s played in the past.
The story of how Facebook came about is shrouded in controversy, which the film goes to great lengths to address. After Zuckerberg’s Harvard attractiveness stunt he’s approached by twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (hilariously played by Armie Hammer in both roles) about helping them set up a Harvard social network called Harvard Connection. Mark agrees to help them, then goes off and creates his own Harvard social network with his friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield). They launch their website, called TheFaceBook, and it is an immediate hit. Cameron and Tyler are furious since Mark not only stole their idea but intentionally led them on that he was working on their project so he guaranteed that his site would be launched first. The twins, along with their business partner Divya Narendra (Max Minghella) decide they will not stand for this atrocity and begin taking legal action against Zuckerberg. While this goes on the website grows to include other Northeast schools. The site catches the attention of Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), who is brought on as a consultant. As Mark and Sean grow closer Eduardo begins to slowly become shut out of the project.
Throughout the film the action shifts to two depositions involving lawsuits against Zuckerberg. The first is by the Winklevoss twins and Narendra, who are suing Zuckerberg for stealing their idea. The second is by Saverin, who is suing Zuckerberg as a result of a much deeper betrayal. I won’t reveal what it is exactly, only that by the time it comes up Garfield’s character can’t even look at Zuckerberg.
The movie runs at a brisk pace without feeling rushed or to speedy. While some have said the end of the film doesn’t offer any real closure that’s entirely the point. This isn’t the story of these character’s lives, but rather a specific time in their lives. Their stories are still being written, so they should be incomplete.
Overall this was a very enjoyable movie to see. I would recommend it to anyone, especially those why have a Facebook page. In some ways, you owe it to yourselves to see how your beloved social network came about.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Let Me In: A Remake Worth The Price Of Admission
In general remakes of existing films are often met with suspicion and groans. The reason being is that in some ways films that are remakes can’t catch a break. If the remake stays to close to the story and shooting style of the original people ask why a remake was needed in the first place. And if the opposite approach is taken, in which a new story is created out of the existing picture, people complain that it destroys the credibility of the original film and ruins it.
Remakes that get the most scorn however are Americanized remakes of foreign films. The reason being is that films from other countries have a certain style and flavor of their own. Often times the qualities of the original will get lost in translation when it is remade by a filmmaker from a different country. Luckily the movie Let Me In manages to pull off the impossible, in that it is able to stand on its own two feet while keeping the magic of the original film intact.
Let Me In, based on the 2008 Swedish film Let The Right One In, tells the story of young Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee), a lonely 12 year old boy living in 1980’s New Mexico. In addition to having an absentee father and an emotionally distant mother he is a frequent target of bullies, often being physically abused and taughtingly referred to as a girl. One day two new neighbors move into his building: a young girl named Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz) and her guardian (Richard Jenkins). The two develop a deep friendship, often leaning on each other for support. In the meantime a string of murders hit the town, with the dead victims found drained of their blood. This is directly connected to Abby, for in actuality she is a centauries old vampire who needs blood to survive.
While Let Me In is similar to its predecessor it’s not a shot for shot remake. Rather it is another interpretation of the original source material (the first movie was based on a novel). Some changes work quite well, like Owen realizing danger more quickly in this version and the removal of a few useless secondary characters. Other changes I found myself less thrilled with. The biggest change is how Abby’s vampirism is portrayed. In the Swedish film they were very subtle in showing her vampire nature. In this movie she physically transforms into an actual monster when she feeds. The effects and CGI are over done and take away from the sympathy of the character. It’s hard enough for the audience to root for this judicial killer. Adding a bunch of effects to further show her inhumanness makes this task all the more harder.
Like the previous film the strongest aspect of this movie are the two leads. Kodi Smit-McPhee brings sympathy and understanding to his role, even when he takes a knife and imagines threatening his enemies. Chloë Grace Moretz again plays an engaging character that is both tough and vulnerable, with more emphasis put on the vulnerability this time. But as strong as their characters are individually it is the chemistry they have together that is the real magic of the movie. The essence of the overall story is the unique friendship children form, with one of those children happening to be a vampire. And both of the young actors invoke it perfectly.
While I myself am often pessimistic about remakes, I must admit I was won over by this movie. By all means go out and rent the original. But don’t let the fact that it is as remake stop you from seeing Let Me In.
Remakes that get the most scorn however are Americanized remakes of foreign films. The reason being is that films from other countries have a certain style and flavor of their own. Often times the qualities of the original will get lost in translation when it is remade by a filmmaker from a different country. Luckily the movie Let Me In manages to pull off the impossible, in that it is able to stand on its own two feet while keeping the magic of the original film intact.
Let Me In, based on the 2008 Swedish film Let The Right One In, tells the story of young Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee), a lonely 12 year old boy living in 1980’s New Mexico. In addition to having an absentee father and an emotionally distant mother he is a frequent target of bullies, often being physically abused and taughtingly referred to as a girl. One day two new neighbors move into his building: a young girl named Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz) and her guardian (Richard Jenkins). The two develop a deep friendship, often leaning on each other for support. In the meantime a string of murders hit the town, with the dead victims found drained of their blood. This is directly connected to Abby, for in actuality she is a centauries old vampire who needs blood to survive.
While Let Me In is similar to its predecessor it’s not a shot for shot remake. Rather it is another interpretation of the original source material (the first movie was based on a novel). Some changes work quite well, like Owen realizing danger more quickly in this version and the removal of a few useless secondary characters. Other changes I found myself less thrilled with. The biggest change is how Abby’s vampirism is portrayed. In the Swedish film they were very subtle in showing her vampire nature. In this movie she physically transforms into an actual monster when she feeds. The effects and CGI are over done and take away from the sympathy of the character. It’s hard enough for the audience to root for this judicial killer. Adding a bunch of effects to further show her inhumanness makes this task all the more harder.
Like the previous film the strongest aspect of this movie are the two leads. Kodi Smit-McPhee brings sympathy and understanding to his role, even when he takes a knife and imagines threatening his enemies. Chloë Grace Moretz again plays an engaging character that is both tough and vulnerable, with more emphasis put on the vulnerability this time. But as strong as their characters are individually it is the chemistry they have together that is the real magic of the movie. The essence of the overall story is the unique friendship children form, with one of those children happening to be a vampire. And both of the young actors invoke it perfectly.
While I myself am often pessimistic about remakes, I must admit I was won over by this movie. By all means go out and rent the original. But don’t let the fact that it is as remake stop you from seeing Let Me In.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Easy A is Easily One of the Best Films of the Year.
While there have been many instances of taking a classic piece of literature and reimagining it in a modern setting (10 Things I Hate About You, Clueless, Cruel Intentions), few have the charm and wit that accompany Easy A. Rather then just a modern rehash of the novel "The Scarlet Letter" it’s a social commentary on young people’s obsession with promiscuity, told in the funniest way possible by the only harlot who’s never even had her first kiss. It’s a delightful romp with sharp dialogue and strong performances, in particular Emma Stone as the title character.
Stone starts as Olive, a whip smart high schooler who is essentially a nobody. When her best friend Rhiannon (Aly Michalka of the new series Hellcats) asks her how she spent her weekend Olive lies and says she spent the entire weekend with her non-existent college boyfriend (how she actually spent the weekend is so wonderfully lame that you instantly fall in love with her). Rhiannon thinks this means Olive lost her virginity and mere moments later the rumor has been facebooked, e-mailed and twittered to everyone at school. Soon afterwards her gay friend Brandon (Dan Byrd) asks her if he can claim the two of them had sex so he won’t be picked on by his homophobic classmates. She agrees and ends up creating a business out of it, having guys give her gift cards in exchange for them saying she slept with them. But things soon grow out of control, leaving Olive trying to figure out how she can regain her old life back.
This is the first time Emma Stone has headlined a movie, having previously played supporting roles in Zombieland and Superbad. And with this single role she’s proven she deserves the title of leading lady. She manages to completely charm the audience with her combination of awkward gusto and shark wit. In some ways she is almost too charming for her role, as one wonders how a woman like her could ever go unnoticed.
The supporting cast is also very enjoyable to watch. Some other actors of note are Amanda Bynes as the head of the school Christian group who makes it her mission to get Olive out of school, Penn Badgley as the most non-judgmental school mascot around, and Thomas Haden Church as the beloved teacher who’s teaching "The Scarlet Letter" in his class. In addition we have Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson as Olive’s free spirited parents, the only two people in the world who let their daughter do whatever she wants while at the same time raising a well adjusted studious person.
In addition to the performances the movie is filled with clever and hilarious dialogue. A couple of gems I’ll reveal to wet your appetite are “What is it with gay men and lady parts? Do you think I have a Gnome down there?” and “If the Good Lord had wanted Micah to graduate, he would have given him the right answers.”
I’ll avoid the painfully obvious way of saying this film is a winner. Simply put this is a movie you should go out and see right away. You’ll laugh, you’ll smile, you might just learn a thing or two. Go see Easy A
Stone starts as Olive, a whip smart high schooler who is essentially a nobody. When her best friend Rhiannon (Aly Michalka of the new series Hellcats) asks her how she spent her weekend Olive lies and says she spent the entire weekend with her non-existent college boyfriend (how she actually spent the weekend is so wonderfully lame that you instantly fall in love with her). Rhiannon thinks this means Olive lost her virginity and mere moments later the rumor has been facebooked, e-mailed and twittered to everyone at school. Soon afterwards her gay friend Brandon (Dan Byrd) asks her if he can claim the two of them had sex so he won’t be picked on by his homophobic classmates. She agrees and ends up creating a business out of it, having guys give her gift cards in exchange for them saying she slept with them. But things soon grow out of control, leaving Olive trying to figure out how she can regain her old life back.
This is the first time Emma Stone has headlined a movie, having previously played supporting roles in Zombieland and Superbad. And with this single role she’s proven she deserves the title of leading lady. She manages to completely charm the audience with her combination of awkward gusto and shark wit. In some ways she is almost too charming for her role, as one wonders how a woman like her could ever go unnoticed.
The supporting cast is also very enjoyable to watch. Some other actors of note are Amanda Bynes as the head of the school Christian group who makes it her mission to get Olive out of school, Penn Badgley as the most non-judgmental school mascot around, and Thomas Haden Church as the beloved teacher who’s teaching "The Scarlet Letter" in his class. In addition we have Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson as Olive’s free spirited parents, the only two people in the world who let their daughter do whatever she wants while at the same time raising a well adjusted studious person.
In addition to the performances the movie is filled with clever and hilarious dialogue. A couple of gems I’ll reveal to wet your appetite are “What is it with gay men and lady parts? Do you think I have a Gnome down there?” and “If the Good Lord had wanted Micah to graduate, he would have given him the right answers.”
I’ll avoid the painfully obvious way of saying this film is a winner. Simply put this is a movie you should go out and see right away. You’ll laugh, you’ll smile, you might just learn a thing or two. Go see Easy A
Monday, August 23, 2010
Piranha 3D: The Perfect Mindless Summer Movie
Not every movie that is made is destined be an award winning piece of high art. Some are meant to be down and dirty, using the lowest common denominators of excessive violence, gore, sex and nudity in order to bring in an audience. While many times the result is sad and exploitative, occasionally a movie has so much of these elements in it that it becomes an enjoyable outing. Your mind will not grow from seeing the movie, but you will have a fun time.
Piranha 3D might redefine the definition of a mindless summer movie. It has nothing intelligent to say to its audience. And it’s so full of plot holes one wonders if the script was written over a drunken weekend. The plot itself is as flimsy as they come: an earthquake releases thousands of prehistoric piranhas into a lake during spring break, where hundreds of horny college students have invaded a small lakeside town. Elisabeth Shue plays the town sheriff who’s trying to get everyone out of the lake, Jerry O’Connell plays the obnoxious host of a girls gone wild type series who hires the sheriff’s son (Steven R. McQueen) to find good filming locations, and Christopher Lloyd pops up as a crazed fish expert.
But none of that seems to matter. What matters is that there are many sights in this movie that have to be seen to be believed. Richard Dreyfuss singing “Show Me the Way to Go Home”. Two women performing an underwater nude ballet that lasts for three uninterrupted minutes. A man riding a jet ski and shooting at the piranha with a shotgun. A guy plowing into dozens of people as he tries to escape the carnage in a speedboat. A girl having her face ripped off by a propeller. A man’s severed penis eaten by a piranha and then spit back out (yes, this actually happens). If you think you’re being spoiled from these tidbits, don’t worry. There’s at least 50 other sights one will experience within this movie.
The movie is of course released in 3D, and the result is for the most part worth the extra admission. While no where near as strong as the 3D effects in Avatar, they aren’t fuzzy and unnecessary. Audiences will squirm all the more when flying body parts come flying out at you and the killer fish jump right in your face.
While I enjoy smart movies that make you think, I also see the value in turning your brain off and going for the ride at the cinema. And Piranha 3D is the most mindless enjoy the ride movie that’s been made in years. Go out and see it. You might hate to admit it, but you’ll have a good time.
Piranha 3D might redefine the definition of a mindless summer movie. It has nothing intelligent to say to its audience. And it’s so full of plot holes one wonders if the script was written over a drunken weekend. The plot itself is as flimsy as they come: an earthquake releases thousands of prehistoric piranhas into a lake during spring break, where hundreds of horny college students have invaded a small lakeside town. Elisabeth Shue plays the town sheriff who’s trying to get everyone out of the lake, Jerry O’Connell plays the obnoxious host of a girls gone wild type series who hires the sheriff’s son (Steven R. McQueen) to find good filming locations, and Christopher Lloyd pops up as a crazed fish expert.
But none of that seems to matter. What matters is that there are many sights in this movie that have to be seen to be believed. Richard Dreyfuss singing “Show Me the Way to Go Home”. Two women performing an underwater nude ballet that lasts for three uninterrupted minutes. A man riding a jet ski and shooting at the piranha with a shotgun. A guy plowing into dozens of people as he tries to escape the carnage in a speedboat. A girl having her face ripped off by a propeller. A man’s severed penis eaten by a piranha and then spit back out (yes, this actually happens). If you think you’re being spoiled from these tidbits, don’t worry. There’s at least 50 other sights one will experience within this movie.
The movie is of course released in 3D, and the result is for the most part worth the extra admission. While no where near as strong as the 3D effects in Avatar, they aren’t fuzzy and unnecessary. Audiences will squirm all the more when flying body parts come flying out at you and the killer fish jump right in your face.
While I enjoy smart movies that make you think, I also see the value in turning your brain off and going for the ride at the cinema. And Piranha 3D is the most mindless enjoy the ride movie that’s been made in years. Go out and see it. You might hate to admit it, but you’ll have a good time.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Take a clichéd theme and remove the clichés and you get Splice
The theme of using genetics to play God and create new life, and then have everything go terribly wrong, is hardly new to movies. From Jurassic Park to Species to Godsend to Deep Blue Sea, scientists creating and tampering with life and having everything go to hell has been done so many times before that any attempt to make a similar themed movie usually gets a “why bother” from people. The only way to have this movie theme executed successfully is if we take what we’ve seen before and offer a fresh approach to the subject. Which is what works best for the movie Splice. Everything we’ve previously seen in genetic tampering movies is taken here and used in very unexpected ways. This makes for an original and enjoyable movie.
Splice starts Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley as Clive and Elsa, two genetic scientists who’ve been creating new life forms through gene slicing in order to create new protein strains that can be used to cure diseases. After successfully creating two worm like hybrids Elsa wants to create a hybrid that has human DNA in it. When the company they work for forbids it Elsa and Clive decide to secretly do it anyway, reasoning that they will destroy the creature before it ever carries to term. But once they fuse the DNA the creature is born within hours and forms far faster then they ever dreamed it could. First it resembles an armless rodent with a stinger. But after a few days it starts to look more human, resembling a hairless girl with impossibly large eyes, backwards jointed legs and a tail with a stinger at the end. Elsa begins to bond with the creature, naming it Dren and treating it like a child. Within a month Dren grows into an intelligent and curious adult sized woman (Delphine Chanéac) and is moved to Elsa’s old family barn for her protection. As time goes on the three individuals form a sick and twisted family unit, with Clive disgusted with what they have done and yet also protective towards Dren, Elsa becoming colder and more stern towards her surrogate daughter, and Dren yearning to explore and experience the world beyond her prison.
The obvious theme of this movie is not to mess with Mother Nature, because nature is unstable and unpredictable. This is shown early on when a presentation of Clive and Elsa’s original experiment goes horrifically wrong. The theme is explored even more so in Dren and how she grows and develops, both physically and mentally. She begins to communicate her frustration at being isolated and how she wants to explore the outside world. This frustration at her limited options in life has an unexpected parallel with many young people today, for like Dren many of us are trapped within the limitations of our own lives brought on by shrinking outside advantages.
What makes this movie work so well is that it avoids most of the clichés one would expect this kind of movie would have. While Clive originally is disgusted with Dren and comes close to killing her he later begins to truly care for the wellbeing of the creature. And while audiences would expect Elsa to become a mother like figure to Dren it’s harder to predict that she will become abusive and harsh towards her. What’s even more refreshing is how the character’s changing feelings (Clive’s caring and Elsa’s coldness) leads to each of them abusing Dren in very different but equally disturbing ways.
While both Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley play their roles extremely well, the real standout of the cast would have to be Delphine Chanéac. Communicating only through chirps and having to act through prosthetics and CGI she manages to create an engaging character audiences will feel real sympathy for. As she explores her limited world she conveys such wondrous excitement at her surroundings. But as she struggles to understand herself and her building frustrations her features contort and compress to clearly show off her feelings. By using her body to express her feelings she communicates more clearly then if she could form cohesive words.
While it is a good movie it is by no means perfect. The last fifteen minutes makes sure that will never happen. While I can’t reveal what happens without spoiling everything I will say that it goes from a disturbing thoughtful thriller into an almost campy by the numbers horror clichéd mess. What makes the ending worse is that it went so out of its way to avoid clichés before it reached the end. It’s almost as if the writer and director grew tired from all their previous work and went the lazy route with the ending.
But while the end of the journey is a bust, the lead up to it is anything but. If you are looking for a thoughtful and provocative sci-fi thriller, then Splice is one summer movie to see.
Splice starts Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley as Clive and Elsa, two genetic scientists who’ve been creating new life forms through gene slicing in order to create new protein strains that can be used to cure diseases. After successfully creating two worm like hybrids Elsa wants to create a hybrid that has human DNA in it. When the company they work for forbids it Elsa and Clive decide to secretly do it anyway, reasoning that they will destroy the creature before it ever carries to term. But once they fuse the DNA the creature is born within hours and forms far faster then they ever dreamed it could. First it resembles an armless rodent with a stinger. But after a few days it starts to look more human, resembling a hairless girl with impossibly large eyes, backwards jointed legs and a tail with a stinger at the end. Elsa begins to bond with the creature, naming it Dren and treating it like a child. Within a month Dren grows into an intelligent and curious adult sized woman (Delphine Chanéac) and is moved to Elsa’s old family barn for her protection. As time goes on the three individuals form a sick and twisted family unit, with Clive disgusted with what they have done and yet also protective towards Dren, Elsa becoming colder and more stern towards her surrogate daughter, and Dren yearning to explore and experience the world beyond her prison.
The obvious theme of this movie is not to mess with Mother Nature, because nature is unstable and unpredictable. This is shown early on when a presentation of Clive and Elsa’s original experiment goes horrifically wrong. The theme is explored even more so in Dren and how she grows and develops, both physically and mentally. She begins to communicate her frustration at being isolated and how she wants to explore the outside world. This frustration at her limited options in life has an unexpected parallel with many young people today, for like Dren many of us are trapped within the limitations of our own lives brought on by shrinking outside advantages.
What makes this movie work so well is that it avoids most of the clichés one would expect this kind of movie would have. While Clive originally is disgusted with Dren and comes close to killing her he later begins to truly care for the wellbeing of the creature. And while audiences would expect Elsa to become a mother like figure to Dren it’s harder to predict that she will become abusive and harsh towards her. What’s even more refreshing is how the character’s changing feelings (Clive’s caring and Elsa’s coldness) leads to each of them abusing Dren in very different but equally disturbing ways.
While both Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley play their roles extremely well, the real standout of the cast would have to be Delphine Chanéac. Communicating only through chirps and having to act through prosthetics and CGI she manages to create an engaging character audiences will feel real sympathy for. As she explores her limited world she conveys such wondrous excitement at her surroundings. But as she struggles to understand herself and her building frustrations her features contort and compress to clearly show off her feelings. By using her body to express her feelings she communicates more clearly then if she could form cohesive words.
While it is a good movie it is by no means perfect. The last fifteen minutes makes sure that will never happen. While I can’t reveal what happens without spoiling everything I will say that it goes from a disturbing thoughtful thriller into an almost campy by the numbers horror clichéd mess. What makes the ending worse is that it went so out of its way to avoid clichés before it reached the end. It’s almost as if the writer and director grew tired from all their previous work and went the lazy route with the ending.
But while the end of the journey is a bust, the lead up to it is anything but. If you are looking for a thoughtful and provocative sci-fi thriller, then Splice is one summer movie to see.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Prince of Persia: one movie that won’t withstand the test of time
According to recent internet chatter Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is being regarded as the best movie adaptation of a video game. If that is the case then it really says much about the quality of movies based on video games. Prince of Persia was both boring and uninteresting, with wooden acting and bloated yet unconvincing special effects. In short it was a complete mess and not worth the $10 ticket price.
Here’s the plot: in ancient Persia the king adopts a street urchin named Dastan after witnessing his bravery and kind spirit. Fifteen years later the adult Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) leads a preemptive attack on the holy city of Alamut after the king’s brother and adviser Nizam (Ben Kingsley) reveals that the Alamut people are selling weapons to their enemies. During the attack Dastan subdues a palace guard and unknowingly obtains the Dagger of Time, which allows the user to travel back in time if the dagger is filled with the mystical sands of time. Thanks to Dastan’s ingenuity the Persians overtake the city and capture Tamina (Gemma Arterton), the Alamut princess. But at the victory celebration the Persian king is killed after donning a poisoned robe Dastan presented to him. Dastan and Tamina flee and learn that Nizam killed the king and plans to take the dagger to the sands of time so he can ensure he rules instead of his brother. The two form an uneasy alliance as they race to stop Nizam from releasing the sands and destroying the world.
While this sounds exciting the actual result is much less so. The movie was boring and lost my interest after about a half an hour. While the sequences where the dagger was used were done well, it only happens a couple of times in the movie. While it didn’t need to be used every second it feels like a cheat when it’s hardly used at all. In addition some of the effects, like the deadly vipers, look cheap and unconvincing. The computer effects looked like something that would be seen in 1990, not 2010. I also noticed there were way too many jerky jump cuts, making the viewing experience awkward.
While Jake Gyllenhaal can give engaging performances, such as in Donnie Darko and Brokeback Mountain, here he came off as annoying and dull. Not great when the character is suppose to be engaging. Gemma Arterton seemed to have one default emotion in this movie, anger. Otherwise she seemed to simply be eye candy instead of an interesting character. Alfred Molina, who played shady entrepreneur Sheik Amar, was painfully jokey and seemed more meant to portray people’s outcry on resent tax hikes then to be an actual character. And Ben Kingsley came off like any generic epic movie villain, which is a shame when you cast such a strong actor in the role.
I will say that the creators of the trailers for Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time deserve an award. They managed to take a mess of a movie and recut the footage to make it look like an epic. They managed to take my $10 from me. Hopefully I can save you from losing your hard earned money. Save your cash for another trip to the theater this summer by avoiding Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.
Here’s the plot: in ancient Persia the king adopts a street urchin named Dastan after witnessing his bravery and kind spirit. Fifteen years later the adult Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) leads a preemptive attack on the holy city of Alamut after the king’s brother and adviser Nizam (Ben Kingsley) reveals that the Alamut people are selling weapons to their enemies. During the attack Dastan subdues a palace guard and unknowingly obtains the Dagger of Time, which allows the user to travel back in time if the dagger is filled with the mystical sands of time. Thanks to Dastan’s ingenuity the Persians overtake the city and capture Tamina (Gemma Arterton), the Alamut princess. But at the victory celebration the Persian king is killed after donning a poisoned robe Dastan presented to him. Dastan and Tamina flee and learn that Nizam killed the king and plans to take the dagger to the sands of time so he can ensure he rules instead of his brother. The two form an uneasy alliance as they race to stop Nizam from releasing the sands and destroying the world.
While this sounds exciting the actual result is much less so. The movie was boring and lost my interest after about a half an hour. While the sequences where the dagger was used were done well, it only happens a couple of times in the movie. While it didn’t need to be used every second it feels like a cheat when it’s hardly used at all. In addition some of the effects, like the deadly vipers, look cheap and unconvincing. The computer effects looked like something that would be seen in 1990, not 2010. I also noticed there were way too many jerky jump cuts, making the viewing experience awkward.
While Jake Gyllenhaal can give engaging performances, such as in Donnie Darko and Brokeback Mountain, here he came off as annoying and dull. Not great when the character is suppose to be engaging. Gemma Arterton seemed to have one default emotion in this movie, anger. Otherwise she seemed to simply be eye candy instead of an interesting character. Alfred Molina, who played shady entrepreneur Sheik Amar, was painfully jokey and seemed more meant to portray people’s outcry on resent tax hikes then to be an actual character. And Ben Kingsley came off like any generic epic movie villain, which is a shame when you cast such a strong actor in the role.
I will say that the creators of the trailers for Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time deserve an award. They managed to take a mess of a movie and recut the footage to make it look like an epic. They managed to take my $10 from me. Hopefully I can save you from losing your hard earned money. Save your cash for another trip to the theater this summer by avoiding Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Kick-Ass: An Enjoyable Fun Ride
While it seems almost nauseating to write the following pun, I feel there’s no way around it. Kick-Ass kicked ass, pure and simple. This modern interpretation on super heroes and heroics was a delight from start to finish. It’s both over the top entertainment and an interesting look at what exactly it means to be a hero.
The film’s protagonist is high schooler Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson); a self proclaimed average guy who has a deep love for comics and super heroes and has always wondered why no one has ever become a superhero in real life. After seeing a bystander doing nothing to help him while being mugged his patience reaches the breaking point. He buys a green wet suit from EBay and christens himself the superhero Kick-Ass, despite having no powers or training.
Right away we start to understand why more people don’t become real life superheroes; it’s dangerous. On his first attempt to be a hero Dave is stabbed by a carjacker and then hit by a car. His accident gives him superpowers in a rudimentary sense (his bones are held together by medal plates and nerve damage increases his tolerance for pain) and after he is healed he goes right back out on the street. On his second venture out he manages to stop a man from being beaten by three gang members. His actions are recorded by bystanders and posted on you-tube. This causes Kick-Ass to become an on-line sensation, with thousands of people contacting the night stick wielding superhero via MySpace for help.
As it turns out Kick-Ass isn’t the only superhero who’s been fighting crime. Damon Macready (Nicolas Cage), aka Big Daddy, has been working for years to eliminate crime boss Frank D’Amico (Mark Strong) ever since Frank framed Damon for possession and caused his wife to commit suicide. Along with his 11 year old daughter Mindy (Chloë Grace Moretz), aka Hit-Girl, the two have been violently killing D’Amico’s crew and business associates along with stealing his drug money. The heroes cross paths one night after Hit-Girl and Big Daddy save Kick-Ass from being killed by rival drug dealers. They tell Kick-Ass they are on the same side and leave him instructions on how to contact them.
Meanwhile, D’Amico believes Kick-Ass is responsible for the deaths of his men and gives orders to have him hunted down and killed. But his son Chris (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), wanting to please his father and be involved in his life, proposes a different plan. He will pose as a new superhero and gain Kick-Ass’s trust, then lead him to D’Amico. Chris creates the identity Red Mist and pretends to perform acts of heroism. His plan works as Kick-Ass accepts his invitation to meet. But before Red Mist can deliver him to his father the warehouse D’Amico owns is burned down by Big Daddy, with everyone who was inside dead. This act sets off a chain of events that will change the lives of all four of our costumed fighters forever.
This movie is enjoyable from start to finish. It moves at a fast pace while giving plenty of time to develop the characters, both heroes and villains. Yes it is extremely violent, but it’s mostly done in a very over the top and sickly humorous way. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who chuckled when a drug dealer’s head explodes in the oversized microwave. Sure it was gruesome, but the way it was set up made it funny as hell.
As for the actors I really dug all of their performances. Aaron Johnson really brought out the determination of the character, making us root for him as he started his journey. Even when he pretends to be gay in order to hang out with his high school crush Katie (Lyndsy Fonseca) you don’t fault him for his actions. But later once he realizes he’s gotten way over his head he makes you feel for him as he is steeped in misery. This was especially true after he returns home after being saved by Big Daddy and Hit-Girl and lies on his bed terrified as he realizes he’s asked for more then he ever bargained for.
Nicolas Cage does a fine job at taking a possibly appalling character and making him likable. He goes around talking like a soft spoken Mr. Rogers, except what comes out of his mouth is battle tactics and fighting strategies. Although he has essentially brainwashed his daughter into become a living weapon he loves her more then anything and in his own way has raised her the best way he sees fit. Their relationship is the true emotional crutch of the picture, and a nice counterpoint to the relationship between the two D’Amicos. Both Mark Strong and Christopher Mintz-Plasse are very good as the villains of the piece. Mark Strong brings real creepiness to the role with just the right amount of increasing instability. And Mintz-Plasse nicely showcases awkward vulnerability with simmering anger in his role.
But the true standout of the cast is Chloë Grace Moretz as the ultra violent Hit-Girl. Displaying a maturity well beyond her young years she captivates you into rooting for her no matter how ghastly her actions are. While the novelty of her character is the fact that she slices bad guys to ribbing and curses like a sailor with coprolalia she really showcases a true depth of vulnerability not always seen with child actors. At the same time this is balanced with moments that remind the audience that Hit-Girl is still a child and does act like one, although in fairly unconventional ways. One moment that truly showcases this is when she gets a pair of balisong knives for her birthday and continually asks her dad to watch her use them while he is busy working. Although she is using a weapon the scene plays just like a kid asking a parent to watch them perform a dance move while they are busy on the phone.
Kick-Ass has drawn a lot of criticism for its violent content, claiming that is glorifies violence. But I didn’t get that impression. If anything it realistically shows what would happen if someone did try to become a superhero in real life. When Kick-Ass gets hurt he doesn’t just get up and shrug it off. He yells out in pain and actually bleeds blood. This is way more realistic then many superhero movies when the hero can take punishment and doesn’t react to it until well after the fight is over.
Though by far most of the criticism has been directed towards Hit-Girl, and how it is appalling that an 11 year old would be made to curse and kill people on screen. Though if you’ll notice there was far more criticism over her swearing then her violently killing people. Once again, while people will admit violence is a problem, it takes a back seat to another agenda. First of all Hit-Girl is meant to be over the top. Her character is an exaggeration on steroids. Second, the fact remains that the character Hit-Girl and the actress Chloë Grace Moretz are two separate people. As the actress has stated in interviews she doesn’t go around swearing up a storm in real life. She fully understands that this is a character she is playing, not herself. It should also be mentioned that the film does address that it is wrong to put children in these situations. In one scene an old friend of Damon’s confronts him about how he’s basically brainwashed his daughter for his own purpose of revenge, declaring “You own Mindy a childhood.” The fact that the film itself is even saying that kids should be kids shows that this isn’t real life but fantasy entertainment.
In short, Kick-Ass is a delight that should be seen. It’s a thrilling combination of on-the-top action, depthful emotion, memorable characters, and wicked humor. Don’t miss this fun fanboypalooza.
The film’s protagonist is high schooler Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson); a self proclaimed average guy who has a deep love for comics and super heroes and has always wondered why no one has ever become a superhero in real life. After seeing a bystander doing nothing to help him while being mugged his patience reaches the breaking point. He buys a green wet suit from EBay and christens himself the superhero Kick-Ass, despite having no powers or training.
Right away we start to understand why more people don’t become real life superheroes; it’s dangerous. On his first attempt to be a hero Dave is stabbed by a carjacker and then hit by a car. His accident gives him superpowers in a rudimentary sense (his bones are held together by medal plates and nerve damage increases his tolerance for pain) and after he is healed he goes right back out on the street. On his second venture out he manages to stop a man from being beaten by three gang members. His actions are recorded by bystanders and posted on you-tube. This causes Kick-Ass to become an on-line sensation, with thousands of people contacting the night stick wielding superhero via MySpace for help.
As it turns out Kick-Ass isn’t the only superhero who’s been fighting crime. Damon Macready (Nicolas Cage), aka Big Daddy, has been working for years to eliminate crime boss Frank D’Amico (Mark Strong) ever since Frank framed Damon for possession and caused his wife to commit suicide. Along with his 11 year old daughter Mindy (Chloë Grace Moretz), aka Hit-Girl, the two have been violently killing D’Amico’s crew and business associates along with stealing his drug money. The heroes cross paths one night after Hit-Girl and Big Daddy save Kick-Ass from being killed by rival drug dealers. They tell Kick-Ass they are on the same side and leave him instructions on how to contact them.
Meanwhile, D’Amico believes Kick-Ass is responsible for the deaths of his men and gives orders to have him hunted down and killed. But his son Chris (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), wanting to please his father and be involved in his life, proposes a different plan. He will pose as a new superhero and gain Kick-Ass’s trust, then lead him to D’Amico. Chris creates the identity Red Mist and pretends to perform acts of heroism. His plan works as Kick-Ass accepts his invitation to meet. But before Red Mist can deliver him to his father the warehouse D’Amico owns is burned down by Big Daddy, with everyone who was inside dead. This act sets off a chain of events that will change the lives of all four of our costumed fighters forever.
This movie is enjoyable from start to finish. It moves at a fast pace while giving plenty of time to develop the characters, both heroes and villains. Yes it is extremely violent, but it’s mostly done in a very over the top and sickly humorous way. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who chuckled when a drug dealer’s head explodes in the oversized microwave. Sure it was gruesome, but the way it was set up made it funny as hell.
As for the actors I really dug all of their performances. Aaron Johnson really brought out the determination of the character, making us root for him as he started his journey. Even when he pretends to be gay in order to hang out with his high school crush Katie (Lyndsy Fonseca) you don’t fault him for his actions. But later once he realizes he’s gotten way over his head he makes you feel for him as he is steeped in misery. This was especially true after he returns home after being saved by Big Daddy and Hit-Girl and lies on his bed terrified as he realizes he’s asked for more then he ever bargained for.
Nicolas Cage does a fine job at taking a possibly appalling character and making him likable. He goes around talking like a soft spoken Mr. Rogers, except what comes out of his mouth is battle tactics and fighting strategies. Although he has essentially brainwashed his daughter into become a living weapon he loves her more then anything and in his own way has raised her the best way he sees fit. Their relationship is the true emotional crutch of the picture, and a nice counterpoint to the relationship between the two D’Amicos. Both Mark Strong and Christopher Mintz-Plasse are very good as the villains of the piece. Mark Strong brings real creepiness to the role with just the right amount of increasing instability. And Mintz-Plasse nicely showcases awkward vulnerability with simmering anger in his role.
But the true standout of the cast is Chloë Grace Moretz as the ultra violent Hit-Girl. Displaying a maturity well beyond her young years she captivates you into rooting for her no matter how ghastly her actions are. While the novelty of her character is the fact that she slices bad guys to ribbing and curses like a sailor with coprolalia she really showcases a true depth of vulnerability not always seen with child actors. At the same time this is balanced with moments that remind the audience that Hit-Girl is still a child and does act like one, although in fairly unconventional ways. One moment that truly showcases this is when she gets a pair of balisong knives for her birthday and continually asks her dad to watch her use them while he is busy working. Although she is using a weapon the scene plays just like a kid asking a parent to watch them perform a dance move while they are busy on the phone.
Kick-Ass has drawn a lot of criticism for its violent content, claiming that is glorifies violence. But I didn’t get that impression. If anything it realistically shows what would happen if someone did try to become a superhero in real life. When Kick-Ass gets hurt he doesn’t just get up and shrug it off. He yells out in pain and actually bleeds blood. This is way more realistic then many superhero movies when the hero can take punishment and doesn’t react to it until well after the fight is over.
Though by far most of the criticism has been directed towards Hit-Girl, and how it is appalling that an 11 year old would be made to curse and kill people on screen. Though if you’ll notice there was far more criticism over her swearing then her violently killing people. Once again, while people will admit violence is a problem, it takes a back seat to another agenda. First of all Hit-Girl is meant to be over the top. Her character is an exaggeration on steroids. Second, the fact remains that the character Hit-Girl and the actress Chloë Grace Moretz are two separate people. As the actress has stated in interviews she doesn’t go around swearing up a storm in real life. She fully understands that this is a character she is playing, not herself. It should also be mentioned that the film does address that it is wrong to put children in these situations. In one scene an old friend of Damon’s confronts him about how he’s basically brainwashed his daughter for his own purpose of revenge, declaring “You own Mindy a childhood.” The fact that the film itself is even saying that kids should be kids shows that this isn’t real life but fantasy entertainment.
In short, Kick-Ass is a delight that should be seen. It’s a thrilling combination of on-the-top action, depthful emotion, memorable characters, and wicked humor. Don’t miss this fun fanboypalooza.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Why Do We Care So Much When Someone Changes Their Hair?
Like many people I am always on the lookout for a new show to watch and get into. After asking some friends for suggestions I was recommended the show V, a remake on the 1980’s serial about aliens infiltrating earth. Wanting to catch up before the show returned I started watching the first episodes on-line. As I watched the show I discovered that several actors from past sci-fi and fantasy shows were cast as regulars on the show. One nice surprise was seeing that the head alien Anna was played by Firefly cast member Morena Baccarin. Although I must admit it took me a minute to recognize her, for while on Firefly she had long wavy hair on V her hair has been cut into a short pixyish style.
After watching the first four episodes I visited various message boards to see what others had to say about the show. And interestingly most posts about Morena Baccarin focused on her hairstyle instead of her acting ability. Her performance on the show is reflected on only a little. But her choice in hairstyle causes everyone to post their opinion.
It’s not that surprising when you think about it. Our society is very fixated when it comes to hair. May it be finding the right style to maximize one’s appearance, spending tons of money on hair coloring and hair care products, or finding the right solution to regain confidence when one loses their hair. People are even going the other route and are embracing a no hair look, either by excepting their own hair lose or willing shaving their head and choosing to go bald. I’ll admit I’m not immune to this obsession with hair, as I’m bitter at already begining to lose my hair in my twenties. So it’s not surprising for people to focus so heavily on an actor’s hair.
There have been many instances on people focusing heavily on the hair style of performers. When the movie V for Vendetta came out people’s main focus wasn’t if the movie would remain true to the Alan Moore comic, but on the fact that Natalie Portman had shaved her head for her role in the movie. And when the ratings for the show Felicity fell during the second season people blamed it on lead actress Keri Russell’s change in hair style, rather then on the show’s move from Tuesday nights to Sunday nights. The second reason seems like the more realistic one, for if the show’s success hinged entirely on the hair of its lead character then it really reveals the shallowness of its audience. If an actress changing their hairstyle is a ratings disaster, then why did the ratings for Buffy the Vampire Slayer go up during the second season when Sarah Michelle Gellar started the season with a new shoulder length do?
And it’s not just women who face this hair scrutiny. It affects men also. When Daniel Craig was cast as the new James Bond people complained left and right at the thought of a blond haired Bond. When Brad Pitt shaved his head for the movie Fight Club several news stories focused on his new look. So it’s not just women performers who fall under this obsession with hair, but men also.
I’ve recently given some thought as to why people are particularly focused on the hair style of celebrates. And I have come to believe that it goes deeper then a simple preference for one hair style over another. I think it has to do with people’s initial recognition with a performer. That just as we tend to associate an actor and actress with the first role we saw them play, we also freeze them in our mind’s eye with the look they had during that initial performance. And when they take on a new role and change their look for the role we feel uncomfortable with this change since it differs with how we originally saw them. Often it takes a bit of time for us to get used to their new look. Even when we end up preferring their new look over the old one we often still remember how they looked in the first role we saw them in. Like baby ducks imprinting onto the first thing they see people seem to imprint onto the initial appearance they first see on an actor or actress. And since a performer’s hair style frequently changes from role to role we find ourselves at unease when their appearance differs from how we first saw them.
This also affects people we know in real life in addition to performers. Often when someone we know changes their hair style we find ourselves debating which look is better. And often we find we preferred the hair style they had when we first met them. Not always, but often.
Hopefully I’ve given you something to think about the next time you find yourself mulling over the hair style of others. For while hair is at the top of a person, its roots seem to run deeply throughout us.
After watching the first four episodes I visited various message boards to see what others had to say about the show. And interestingly most posts about Morena Baccarin focused on her hairstyle instead of her acting ability. Her performance on the show is reflected on only a little. But her choice in hairstyle causes everyone to post their opinion.
It’s not that surprising when you think about it. Our society is very fixated when it comes to hair. May it be finding the right style to maximize one’s appearance, spending tons of money on hair coloring and hair care products, or finding the right solution to regain confidence when one loses their hair. People are even going the other route and are embracing a no hair look, either by excepting their own hair lose or willing shaving their head and choosing to go bald. I’ll admit I’m not immune to this obsession with hair, as I’m bitter at already begining to lose my hair in my twenties. So it’s not surprising for people to focus so heavily on an actor’s hair.
There have been many instances on people focusing heavily on the hair style of performers. When the movie V for Vendetta came out people’s main focus wasn’t if the movie would remain true to the Alan Moore comic, but on the fact that Natalie Portman had shaved her head for her role in the movie. And when the ratings for the show Felicity fell during the second season people blamed it on lead actress Keri Russell’s change in hair style, rather then on the show’s move from Tuesday nights to Sunday nights. The second reason seems like the more realistic one, for if the show’s success hinged entirely on the hair of its lead character then it really reveals the shallowness of its audience. If an actress changing their hairstyle is a ratings disaster, then why did the ratings for Buffy the Vampire Slayer go up during the second season when Sarah Michelle Gellar started the season with a new shoulder length do?
And it’s not just women who face this hair scrutiny. It affects men also. When Daniel Craig was cast as the new James Bond people complained left and right at the thought of a blond haired Bond. When Brad Pitt shaved his head for the movie Fight Club several news stories focused on his new look. So it’s not just women performers who fall under this obsession with hair, but men also.
I’ve recently given some thought as to why people are particularly focused on the hair style of celebrates. And I have come to believe that it goes deeper then a simple preference for one hair style over another. I think it has to do with people’s initial recognition with a performer. That just as we tend to associate an actor and actress with the first role we saw them play, we also freeze them in our mind’s eye with the look they had during that initial performance. And when they take on a new role and change their look for the role we feel uncomfortable with this change since it differs with how we originally saw them. Often it takes a bit of time for us to get used to their new look. Even when we end up preferring their new look over the old one we often still remember how they looked in the first role we saw them in. Like baby ducks imprinting onto the first thing they see people seem to imprint onto the initial appearance they first see on an actor or actress. And since a performer’s hair style frequently changes from role to role we find ourselves at unease when their appearance differs from how we first saw them.
This also affects people we know in real life in addition to performers. Often when someone we know changes their hair style we find ourselves debating which look is better. And often we find we preferred the hair style they had when we first met them. Not always, but often.
Hopefully I’ve given you something to think about the next time you find yourself mulling over the hair style of others. For while hair is at the top of a person, its roots seem to run deeply throughout us.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Death of a Studio: The Sad Demise of Miramax
Today another loss of an entertainment venue is to be reported. However this is one of a larger scale. Miramax studios, the movie studio that brought us such films as Reservoir Dogs, The Crying Game, Clerks, Pulp Fiction, The English Patient, Chasing Amy, Good Will Hunting, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago, and No Country For Old Men, has been shut down. It was announced today by Disney, which bought the studio in 1993, that the studio is now no more. In one day eighty people have lost their jobs and the fate of six Miramax movies that are waiting distribution, such as The Debt and The Tempest, are as of now unknown.
Founded in 1979 by producers Harvey and Bob Weinstein, the studio was a haven for releasing artistic films and films that were experimentally creative. While the Weinsteins often drew criticism for rumors of bullying tactics and for re-cutting foreign films distributed in the US, it can’t be denied that the duo had a eye for finding new and creative talent, both in the people they worked with and the films they released. Filmmaker Kevin Smith has said that he owes his career to the studio, saying “I’m crushed to see it pass into history, because I owe everything I have to Miramax. Without them, I’d still be a New Jersey convenience store register jockey. In practice, not just in my head.” (The Wrap, Jan 2010)
In 1993 the studio was bought by Disney, who at first left the Weinsteins with an exceptional level of control over the studio. The Weinsteins left Miramax in 2005 over creative differences with Disney to form The Weinstein Company.
The future of Miramax has been uncertain for a while now. In October 2009 Disney announced that the number of movies released by Miramax would go from 6 to 8 films a year to 3 films per year. Then at the end of October 2009 Daniel Battsek, who took over as president of the studio after Bob and Harvey Weinstein left, resigned as head of the studio. Now the certainty of the studio is clear; it is to sadly die and go by the wayside.
While it may be no more, it will live on forever due to the amazing films it has been able to bring to the public. RIP.
Founded in 1979 by producers Harvey and Bob Weinstein, the studio was a haven for releasing artistic films and films that were experimentally creative. While the Weinsteins often drew criticism for rumors of bullying tactics and for re-cutting foreign films distributed in the US, it can’t be denied that the duo had a eye for finding new and creative talent, both in the people they worked with and the films they released. Filmmaker Kevin Smith has said that he owes his career to the studio, saying “I’m crushed to see it pass into history, because I owe everything I have to Miramax. Without them, I’d still be a New Jersey convenience store register jockey. In practice, not just in my head.” (The Wrap, Jan 2010)
In 1993 the studio was bought by Disney, who at first left the Weinsteins with an exceptional level of control over the studio. The Weinsteins left Miramax in 2005 over creative differences with Disney to form The Weinstein Company.
The future of Miramax has been uncertain for a while now. In October 2009 Disney announced that the number of movies released by Miramax would go from 6 to 8 films a year to 3 films per year. Then at the end of October 2009 Daniel Battsek, who took over as president of the studio after Bob and Harvey Weinstein left, resigned as head of the studio. Now the certainty of the studio is clear; it is to sadly die and go by the wayside.
While it may be no more, it will live on forever due to the amazing films it has been able to bring to the public. RIP.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus: A Labor of Love Through the World of Imagination
While his role as The Joker in The Dark Knight will always be thought of as Heath Ledger’s crowing achievement, it would seem that he has even deeper ties to his last film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. His involvement was instrumental in getting the Terry Gilliam movie financed in the first place. Furthermore it was his enthusiastic performance that drove the movie to be finished after his untimely death, so that his final performance would not become lost and unseen. It’s good that audiences were able to see this film, because it is a wonderful if not confusing ride.
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus tells the story of an old fashioned traveling theatre troop, led by the wizened storyteller Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer). Thousands of years ago he made a “devils deal” with the cunning Mr. Nick (Tom Waits). The deal was which of them could win over twelve souls first, Parnassus by using stories and imagination and Mr. Nick by using feeble desires and addictions. Doctor Parnassus wins and is granted immortality, but continues to age despite not being able to die. Now he and his theatre troop entertain people by having them pass through a magical mirror which leads them to a mystical realm powered by one’s own imagination, which is referred to as the Imaginarium. But in spite of winning his original wager with Mr. Nick, Doctor Parnassus still has reason to fear him. For in three days time Mr. Nick will come to collect Doctor Parnassus’s teenaged daughter Valentina (Lily Cole).
As they are traveling on the first of these three nights they save the life of Tony (Heath Ledger), a philanthropist who seems to be suffering from amnesia. The next day Mr. Nick pays Doctor Parnassus a visit and offers him a new wager; if he can win over five souls in two nights he can keep Valentina. Seeing that Doctor Parnassus is in a bad way Tony proclaims he can increase profits by modernizing the act and making it sleeker. At a show held in a mall he manages to charm several women into going into the mirror, where they are so overwhelmed by the extraordinary sights they see inside that they empty their purses and proclaim heartfelt thanks upon exiting. But just when the troop are one soul away from winning the bet a group of mobsters arrive demanding money from Troy. It soon becomes apparent that Troy is really a lying con artist who’s more devious then Mr. Nick, and Doctor Parnassus is the only one who can stop him.
Easily the most amazing visuals of the movie are the scenes in the Imaginarium world, where anything can happen if one can just imagine it. The viewer is taken into multiple worlds, featuring such sights as a riverboat surrounded by shoes and fashion to soaring in space on a sea of giant jellyfishes. It is in the Imaginarium that Troy’s appearance changes with each visit, where he is respectively portrayed by Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farell. Since Heath Ledger had filmed all of his scenes outside of the Imaginarium his appearance only changes inside of this magical world. This makes the fact that multiple actors are playing the same character simple to except. The other unexpected quality to this is it makes the change in Troy easier to realize, for each time he physically changes he grows closer to who his true self is.
It is a grand treat that this visually stunning film was able to be seen by the public. Hopefully others go out and see this eye-catching ecstatic ride. It’s an experience one should not miss.
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus tells the story of an old fashioned traveling theatre troop, led by the wizened storyteller Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer). Thousands of years ago he made a “devils deal” with the cunning Mr. Nick (Tom Waits). The deal was which of them could win over twelve souls first, Parnassus by using stories and imagination and Mr. Nick by using feeble desires and addictions. Doctor Parnassus wins and is granted immortality, but continues to age despite not being able to die. Now he and his theatre troop entertain people by having them pass through a magical mirror which leads them to a mystical realm powered by one’s own imagination, which is referred to as the Imaginarium. But in spite of winning his original wager with Mr. Nick, Doctor Parnassus still has reason to fear him. For in three days time Mr. Nick will come to collect Doctor Parnassus’s teenaged daughter Valentina (Lily Cole).
As they are traveling on the first of these three nights they save the life of Tony (Heath Ledger), a philanthropist who seems to be suffering from amnesia. The next day Mr. Nick pays Doctor Parnassus a visit and offers him a new wager; if he can win over five souls in two nights he can keep Valentina. Seeing that Doctor Parnassus is in a bad way Tony proclaims he can increase profits by modernizing the act and making it sleeker. At a show held in a mall he manages to charm several women into going into the mirror, where they are so overwhelmed by the extraordinary sights they see inside that they empty their purses and proclaim heartfelt thanks upon exiting. But just when the troop are one soul away from winning the bet a group of mobsters arrive demanding money from Troy. It soon becomes apparent that Troy is really a lying con artist who’s more devious then Mr. Nick, and Doctor Parnassus is the only one who can stop him.
Easily the most amazing visuals of the movie are the scenes in the Imaginarium world, where anything can happen if one can just imagine it. The viewer is taken into multiple worlds, featuring such sights as a riverboat surrounded by shoes and fashion to soaring in space on a sea of giant jellyfishes. It is in the Imaginarium that Troy’s appearance changes with each visit, where he is respectively portrayed by Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farell. Since Heath Ledger had filmed all of his scenes outside of the Imaginarium his appearance only changes inside of this magical world. This makes the fact that multiple actors are playing the same character simple to except. The other unexpected quality to this is it makes the change in Troy easier to realize, for each time he physically changes he grows closer to who his true self is.
It is a grand treat that this visually stunning film was able to be seen by the public. Hopefully others go out and see this eye-catching ecstatic ride. It’s an experience one should not miss.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Avatar: A Movie That Lives Up to the Hype
After months of speculation, James Cameron’s Avatar opened in theaters last Friday. To call this movie an event is an understatement, as there is talk that this movie will change filmmaking forever. While I am not sure that is the case, I have no problem in proclaiming that it is a epic adventure that raises the standards for CGI effects several notches.
With such advantages in effects, the plot has a surprisingly simplistic feeling to it. It seemed a bit like watching a futuristic cowboys and Indians adventure, but with a hefty dose of cultural acceptance and spirituality woven in. The movie takes place on a futuristic moon called Polyphemus in 2154 AD. The moon is rich in natural minerals that humans want to mine to save their own dying planet, but are unable to persuade a group indigenous Na'vi to leave their home tree, where a vast supply of the material resides. To prevent an all out war from occurring a program has been set up to create a diplomatic solution, overseen by the idealistic Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver). They have created a Human-Na'vi hybrid, referred to as an Avatar, which a person can remotely link up with and use to naturally interact with the Na’vi and possibly gain their trust. New to the program is Jake (Sam Worthington), a paralyzed formed marine who was brought on because his deceased twin brother had an Avatar created and Jake’s genetics make him compatible to inhabit it. On their first trip out into the planet Jake is separated from the group and has to fend for himself for the night. While driving off attacking animals he is rescued by Neytiri (Zoë Saldaña), a princess to the Na'vi tribe that inhabits the desired mineral site. Though wary of Jake’s recklessness she brings him to her tribe and persuades the Na’vi to have Jake learn their ways. As Jake spends more time with the deeply harmonistic Na’vi and inside his Avatar body he begins to have his doubts of the plan to strip and ravage their home world.
While the storyline is intriguing it is the visual effects that dominate this movie and make it so worthwhile to see on the big screen. Viewers are taken into a completely alien world and feel as if they are actually there. The camera swoops and soars over a lush landscape that engrosses the viewing experience. While it should be seen regardless, it’s best to see it in 3D. Rather then seeing the images simply come at you the viewer feels like they are surrounded and actually in the world they are seeing.
Even more impressive are the Na’vi and the Avatars. While we have seen computerized creatures in past film like Lord of the Rings and the new Star Wars trilogy, here they are detailed to a previously unheard of way. When we see Grace and Jake’s Avatar we can actually see a bit of the actor’s face in the computerized alien creature. This level of detail is both fascinating and even a little eerie at first.
While more hype is just that, this is one film that deserves all the praise it is getting. Treat yourself to a fine movie experience and see Avatar. It is a move you will not regret.
With such advantages in effects, the plot has a surprisingly simplistic feeling to it. It seemed a bit like watching a futuristic cowboys and Indians adventure, but with a hefty dose of cultural acceptance and spirituality woven in. The movie takes place on a futuristic moon called Polyphemus in 2154 AD. The moon is rich in natural minerals that humans want to mine to save their own dying planet, but are unable to persuade a group indigenous Na'vi to leave their home tree, where a vast supply of the material resides. To prevent an all out war from occurring a program has been set up to create a diplomatic solution, overseen by the idealistic Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver). They have created a Human-Na'vi hybrid, referred to as an Avatar, which a person can remotely link up with and use to naturally interact with the Na’vi and possibly gain their trust. New to the program is Jake (Sam Worthington), a paralyzed formed marine who was brought on because his deceased twin brother had an Avatar created and Jake’s genetics make him compatible to inhabit it. On their first trip out into the planet Jake is separated from the group and has to fend for himself for the night. While driving off attacking animals he is rescued by Neytiri (Zoë Saldaña), a princess to the Na'vi tribe that inhabits the desired mineral site. Though wary of Jake’s recklessness she brings him to her tribe and persuades the Na’vi to have Jake learn their ways. As Jake spends more time with the deeply harmonistic Na’vi and inside his Avatar body he begins to have his doubts of the plan to strip and ravage their home world.
While the storyline is intriguing it is the visual effects that dominate this movie and make it so worthwhile to see on the big screen. Viewers are taken into a completely alien world and feel as if they are actually there. The camera swoops and soars over a lush landscape that engrosses the viewing experience. While it should be seen regardless, it’s best to see it in 3D. Rather then seeing the images simply come at you the viewer feels like they are surrounded and actually in the world they are seeing.
Even more impressive are the Na’vi and the Avatars. While we have seen computerized creatures in past film like Lord of the Rings and the new Star Wars trilogy, here they are detailed to a previously unheard of way. When we see Grace and Jake’s Avatar we can actually see a bit of the actor’s face in the computerized alien creature. This level of detail is both fascinating and even a little eerie at first.
While more hype is just that, this is one film that deserves all the praise it is getting. Treat yourself to a fine movie experience and see Avatar. It is a move you will not regret.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Changing Viewpoint: A More Mature Look at Titanic
While it is not unexpected to know that our perspective of the world changes from childhood to adulthood, the memory of how our younger selves used to perceive something is often lost to time. Often when adults see something they loved as a child, such as a childhood movie, they not only think of it as horrid, but forget exactly why they liked it in the first place. There’s a bit of logic to this, for just as children find it hard to think as adults do, so do adults find it hard to think as they did when they were children. While most adults can act childish, few can truly think as they did when they were a child.
A personal example of this happening is with Ninja Turtles. When I was a child I loved everything Ninja Turtles, particularly the late 80’s cartoon show. Not to long ago I found a website that had old episodes on it and I started watching one. Shockingly I found myself becoming bored and actually thinking “I know it was better then this.” After a few minutes I stopped watching it for fear of tarnishing the childhood memory I had for my once beloved show.
An easier scenario to experience is seeing something, such as a movie or television show, that you disliked as a child and finding out that you like it as an adult. You can rationalize that the reason you disliked it the first time around was that you were not mature enough to appreciate what you were seeing. That either the subject matter you were experiencing went over your head or the way it was presented was unable to hold your attention. But once you’ve grown and experienced life you may discover that what once was not your cup of tea has become an unexpected treat.
Recently I decided to see how seeing a movie I once disliked might feel now that I am older. While there are a number of movies I could have chosen to see, I decided the movie Titanic would be the perfect one to see. I specifically chose it because I clearly remember that I did not like or appreciate it when I first saw it in theaters twelve years ago.
The first time I saw Titanic was at the age of fourteen during an 8th grade field trip. I didn’t really know much about the movie besides the basic plot, nor did I care. In truth there were only two things I had heard about the movie that interested me; the fact that the lead actress was naked at some point, and that Leonardo DiCaprio’s character died before the movie ended.
After a rowdy bus ride and waiting almost two hours for refreshments, I sat down in the theater just as the movie began. By the time it was over I can safely say that it didn’t make a huge impression on me. While it managed to keep my interest for the full three hours I wouldn’t say that I enjoyed or appreciated it. At fourteen I was more interested in seeing movies like Ace Ventura or Anaconda. A sweeping love story set against a terrible disaster was not something I would have made a huge point in seeing. In fact, I probably wouldn’t have seen it at all if not for the class trip.
Flash forward twelve years later. While I had seen it a couple of times after that first viewing, it had still been a number of years since I had last watched the movie. One night as I was watching TV I caught it during the middle. As I watched it I found myself enjoying it more then I had ever previously remembered. The next time I was at my video store I ended up renting it and watching it from beginning to end.
There is a big difference in seeing this movie when one is twenty six as apposed to fourteen. Not only can you enjoy it more but you are able to recognize many aspects that you would have missed the first time around. A perfect example is symbolism in appearance. As one learns more about visual storytelling you begin to notice that select costume choices are meant to reveal insights into characters. When young Rose is first shown on screen she is dressed in a tight black and white dress that seems to invoke the image of a straight jacket. In addition her hair is tightly pulled back and her face is partly obscured by a large hat. Everything about her physical appearance is meant to represent restriction and confinement. As the movie continues, and she spends more time with the free spirited Jack, she begins to physically become more uninhibited and free. Her hair it allowed to fall naturally and her clothing become looser and freer. After she has her portrait drawn she changes into a flowing dress that allows her no restrictions in movement, which she wears for the reminder of her time on screen. I have no problem admitting that this physical transformation was lost on me as a young teenager.
If there is one moment in the movie that I now view with different eyes, it’s the scene when Rose is drawn in the nude by Jack. When I first saw that scene it was my favorite part of the movie, because at that age seeing any female nudity on film was cause to get excited. Now that I’m a bit more mature I’m able to notice certain subtleties that were lost the first time, such as tiny things that made it seem more real. Instead of Kate’s character sliding perfectly into place she lays down and the two of them arrange her until she is in the right position. This is much more real then if she simply arranged herself at once. I also loved that once Jack starts drawing she can’t resist making faces and pointing out the blush that spreads across his face. I actually let out a giggle when he asks her to stop moving and she grins a little just before setting her face. Seeing that scene with new eyes brings a whole different interpretation to it. You realize that while Rose is physically exposed it is actually Jack, the world traveler who has seen it all, who is the more vulnerable one here.
While I enjoyed the portrait scene it is not my favorite moment in the movie. My favorite moment during this viewing is still a Kate Winslet moment, although this time it’s one in which we see very little of her physically. It’s in the scene when Rose is first given a chance to get on a life boat. Rose, after hearing her mother obliviously hope that the life boats will not be too crowded, angrily tells her that half the people on the ship will die because of the lack of enough life boats. Her fiancé Cal then muses that Jack’s drawing will be worth a lot by morning, since between his status as a third class passenger and being arrested for supposedly stealing the diamond necklace he’s guaranteed to go down with the ship. It is in this moment that Rose realizes the true depths of the evil Cal is capable of. This moment of comprehension is exceptionally compelling because the actress uses so little of her physical self to get the message across. Rather then contorting her face in disgust she keeps it a blank slate, and instead lets only her eyes show everything that she is feeling. It shows that sometimes the smallest gestures can reveal the most about a person.
As for the acting I was able to truly appreciate it more now then I did back in 98, particularly in watching Leonardo DiCaprio. I was unable to see much value in his performance back then, mainly because I couldn’t stand him. When all the guys on the trip cheered when his character died I was right up there applauding. It had nothing to do with him as a person or as an actor. My dislike of him stemmed from every teenage girl at the time being madly in love with him. I had a hard enough time competing against guys in my school for the attention of girls. Having to additionally compete with someone who was only seen in movies and magazines was a little to much to handle. This is a fairly common occurrence among teenage boys. In high school I had a teacher point out that while teenage boys now like Elvis and The Beatles, when they first appeared guys were less inclined to like them because of how crazy girls went for the musicians. I’m sure even now there are scores of teenage boys who can’t stand Zac Efron or Robert Pattinson simply because they are beloved by adoring female fans.
I recommend trying to reexperience something you once hated when you were younger. While it is entirely possible you might still hate it, there’s a greater chance you’ll see new value in what you once thought was rubbish. With new eyes, and a different perspective, anything is possible.
A personal example of this happening is with Ninja Turtles. When I was a child I loved everything Ninja Turtles, particularly the late 80’s cartoon show. Not to long ago I found a website that had old episodes on it and I started watching one. Shockingly I found myself becoming bored and actually thinking “I know it was better then this.” After a few minutes I stopped watching it for fear of tarnishing the childhood memory I had for my once beloved show.
An easier scenario to experience is seeing something, such as a movie or television show, that you disliked as a child and finding out that you like it as an adult. You can rationalize that the reason you disliked it the first time around was that you were not mature enough to appreciate what you were seeing. That either the subject matter you were experiencing went over your head or the way it was presented was unable to hold your attention. But once you’ve grown and experienced life you may discover that what once was not your cup of tea has become an unexpected treat.
Recently I decided to see how seeing a movie I once disliked might feel now that I am older. While there are a number of movies I could have chosen to see, I decided the movie Titanic would be the perfect one to see. I specifically chose it because I clearly remember that I did not like or appreciate it when I first saw it in theaters twelve years ago.
The first time I saw Titanic was at the age of fourteen during an 8th grade field trip. I didn’t really know much about the movie besides the basic plot, nor did I care. In truth there were only two things I had heard about the movie that interested me; the fact that the lead actress was naked at some point, and that Leonardo DiCaprio’s character died before the movie ended.
After a rowdy bus ride and waiting almost two hours for refreshments, I sat down in the theater just as the movie began. By the time it was over I can safely say that it didn’t make a huge impression on me. While it managed to keep my interest for the full three hours I wouldn’t say that I enjoyed or appreciated it. At fourteen I was more interested in seeing movies like Ace Ventura or Anaconda. A sweeping love story set against a terrible disaster was not something I would have made a huge point in seeing. In fact, I probably wouldn’t have seen it at all if not for the class trip.
Flash forward twelve years later. While I had seen it a couple of times after that first viewing, it had still been a number of years since I had last watched the movie. One night as I was watching TV I caught it during the middle. As I watched it I found myself enjoying it more then I had ever previously remembered. The next time I was at my video store I ended up renting it and watching it from beginning to end.
There is a big difference in seeing this movie when one is twenty six as apposed to fourteen. Not only can you enjoy it more but you are able to recognize many aspects that you would have missed the first time around. A perfect example is symbolism in appearance. As one learns more about visual storytelling you begin to notice that select costume choices are meant to reveal insights into characters. When young Rose is first shown on screen she is dressed in a tight black and white dress that seems to invoke the image of a straight jacket. In addition her hair is tightly pulled back and her face is partly obscured by a large hat. Everything about her physical appearance is meant to represent restriction and confinement. As the movie continues, and she spends more time with the free spirited Jack, she begins to physically become more uninhibited and free. Her hair it allowed to fall naturally and her clothing become looser and freer. After she has her portrait drawn she changes into a flowing dress that allows her no restrictions in movement, which she wears for the reminder of her time on screen. I have no problem admitting that this physical transformation was lost on me as a young teenager.
If there is one moment in the movie that I now view with different eyes, it’s the scene when Rose is drawn in the nude by Jack. When I first saw that scene it was my favorite part of the movie, because at that age seeing any female nudity on film was cause to get excited. Now that I’m a bit more mature I’m able to notice certain subtleties that were lost the first time, such as tiny things that made it seem more real. Instead of Kate’s character sliding perfectly into place she lays down and the two of them arrange her until she is in the right position. This is much more real then if she simply arranged herself at once. I also loved that once Jack starts drawing she can’t resist making faces and pointing out the blush that spreads across his face. I actually let out a giggle when he asks her to stop moving and she grins a little just before setting her face. Seeing that scene with new eyes brings a whole different interpretation to it. You realize that while Rose is physically exposed it is actually Jack, the world traveler who has seen it all, who is the more vulnerable one here.
While I enjoyed the portrait scene it is not my favorite moment in the movie. My favorite moment during this viewing is still a Kate Winslet moment, although this time it’s one in which we see very little of her physically. It’s in the scene when Rose is first given a chance to get on a life boat. Rose, after hearing her mother obliviously hope that the life boats will not be too crowded, angrily tells her that half the people on the ship will die because of the lack of enough life boats. Her fiancé Cal then muses that Jack’s drawing will be worth a lot by morning, since between his status as a third class passenger and being arrested for supposedly stealing the diamond necklace he’s guaranteed to go down with the ship. It is in this moment that Rose realizes the true depths of the evil Cal is capable of. This moment of comprehension is exceptionally compelling because the actress uses so little of her physical self to get the message across. Rather then contorting her face in disgust she keeps it a blank slate, and instead lets only her eyes show everything that she is feeling. It shows that sometimes the smallest gestures can reveal the most about a person.
As for the acting I was able to truly appreciate it more now then I did back in 98, particularly in watching Leonardo DiCaprio. I was unable to see much value in his performance back then, mainly because I couldn’t stand him. When all the guys on the trip cheered when his character died I was right up there applauding. It had nothing to do with him as a person or as an actor. My dislike of him stemmed from every teenage girl at the time being madly in love with him. I had a hard enough time competing against guys in my school for the attention of girls. Having to additionally compete with someone who was only seen in movies and magazines was a little to much to handle. This is a fairly common occurrence among teenage boys. In high school I had a teacher point out that while teenage boys now like Elvis and The Beatles, when they first appeared guys were less inclined to like them because of how crazy girls went for the musicians. I’m sure even now there are scores of teenage boys who can’t stand Zac Efron or Robert Pattinson simply because they are beloved by adoring female fans.
I recommend trying to reexperience something you once hated when you were younger. While it is entirely possible you might still hate it, there’s a greater chance you’ll see new value in what you once thought was rubbish. With new eyes, and a different perspective, anything is possible.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Untypical Roles Being First Viewing
While actors usually try not to become typecast in certain roles, many times it ends up happening. Either from there own volition or by the roles they are offered, actors will many times act in the same genre or play the same type of roles. Meg Ryan is usually cast in romantic comedies. Arnold Schwarzenegger usually plays fearless action heroes. Though after a while typecast actors will break out of their mold and play a role that audiences wouldn’t expect them to play.
An interesting experience is when the first thing someone sees a typecast actor or actress in is a role that is against their type. It changes one’s perspective of them since they never saw them in the roles they are known for. Recently I’ve realized that there are a number of actors and actresses I first saw in roles they were against their type. This article tells of a few of those instances.
AMY ADAMS
Known For: Playing upbeat and likable characters, such as a pregnant wife in Junebug and fairytale princess Giselle in Enchanted
First Seen In: Buffy The Vampire Slayer, playing the nasty cousin to resident witch Tara.
While many know this actress for playing extremely lovable characters, fans of her early work will see her playing a character that was anything but lovable. Amy Adams appeared in the season five episode “Family” of the brilliant show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In the episode Tara, a skilled witch and Willow’s girlfriend, was visited by her family on the eve of her 20th birthday. They informed her that she had to return home with them because she was part demon and would eventually turn evil. By the episode’s end it was revealed that the demon tale was a lie and Tara severed ties with her family.
The episode had Adams play Tara’s Cousin Beth, a nasty and manipulating woman who had successfully been brainwashed to be subservient and devoted to her family. More then the other family members she was the one who came closest to convincing Tara to leave her life in Sunnydale. Aside from being cruel she was also a malicious manipulator, similar to how a cheerleader might pretend to “help” a less popular girl.
NATHAN FILLION
Known For: Playing flawed yet at heart heroic characters, such as the Sherriff in Slither, the protagonist’s doctor in Waitress and Captain Malcolm Reynolds in the television show Firefly and subsequent movie Serenity
First Seen In: “Buffy The Vampire Slayer”, playing the evil and misogynic preacher Caleb in the final season of the show.
Despite seeing this actor play quirky heroic characters, I still have a hard time shaking away the image of the first role I saw him in. In the final season of Buffy The Vampire Slayer Fillion played a evil priest who acted as the right hand of the Big Bad of the season. In spite of only being in five episodes he had a lasting effect, killing several minor characters and permanently disfiguring one of the main characters. What made him terrifying was the fact that he acted like a cross between a serial killer and a religious fanatic, talking about how humanity was dirty and unworthy of themselves before taking someone’s life. It’s almost like seeing pastor Fred Phelps go on a killing spree.
KURT RUSSELL
Known For: Playing gruff tough guys, such as Snake Plissken in Escape from New York, helicopter pilot R.J. MacReady in John Carpenter’s The Thing, and Stuntman Mike in Death Proof.
First Seen In: Executive Decision, where he played a nerdy terrorist specialist.
In the film Executive Decision, a movie where a group of commandos attempt to stop a group of terrorist who have taken a 747 hostage, Kurt Russell plays a terrorist specialist who joined the commandos because of his knowledge on the main hijacker. His character was very nervous and timid throughout the movie. He was nervous about acting rashly and the commandos would often only listen to him because of the direness of the situation. Even when he eventually took a gun and joined in on the fighting it played out more like an average guy thrust in a dangerous situation then an action hero.
ALAN RICKMAN
Known For: Playing nasty and or villainess characters such as terrorist/thief Hans Gruber in Die Hard, the Sherriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and Professor Severus Snape in the Harry Potter film series.
First Seen In: Dogma, playing the Metatron and the voice of God.
In the 1999 film Dogma Alan Rickman played the role of the Metatron, the highest level of angels and the voice of God. Naturally the role wasn’t a villainess one at all. His character was portrayed as cranky and very British but also kind hearted. He acted as a guiding force to the characters on earth, giving well meaning advice whenever he could.
After seeing him in this role I found it interesting to see him play much more menacing characters.
KRISTIN KREUK
Known For: Playing angsty and emotionally vulnerable Lana Lang in the show Smallville
First Seen In: Eurotrip, playing the cruel and slutty ex girlfriend of the movie’s main protagonist.
Since I didn’t start watching Smallville until this summer, the first time I saw this actress was in the movie Eurotrip. The character she played was the exact opposite from the role she is most well known for. In the movie her character Fiona dumps her boyfriend Scott in front of his family, callously telling him that he is spineless and that she cheated on him a lot. Later on at a graduation party the band’s lead singer sings a song about all the time’s he slept with Fiona while she dated Scott. Not only does she grind against the singer during the song but she also joins in on the singing, knowing full well her former boyfriend is in the audience watching everything.
An interesting experience is when the first thing someone sees a typecast actor or actress in is a role that is against their type. It changes one’s perspective of them since they never saw them in the roles they are known for. Recently I’ve realized that there are a number of actors and actresses I first saw in roles they were against their type. This article tells of a few of those instances.
AMY ADAMS
Known For: Playing upbeat and likable characters, such as a pregnant wife in Junebug and fairytale princess Giselle in Enchanted
First Seen In: Buffy The Vampire Slayer, playing the nasty cousin to resident witch Tara.
While many know this actress for playing extremely lovable characters, fans of her early work will see her playing a character that was anything but lovable. Amy Adams appeared in the season five episode “Family” of the brilliant show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In the episode Tara, a skilled witch and Willow’s girlfriend, was visited by her family on the eve of her 20th birthday. They informed her that she had to return home with them because she was part demon and would eventually turn evil. By the episode’s end it was revealed that the demon tale was a lie and Tara severed ties with her family.
The episode had Adams play Tara’s Cousin Beth, a nasty and manipulating woman who had successfully been brainwashed to be subservient and devoted to her family. More then the other family members she was the one who came closest to convincing Tara to leave her life in Sunnydale. Aside from being cruel she was also a malicious manipulator, similar to how a cheerleader might pretend to “help” a less popular girl.
NATHAN FILLION
Known For: Playing flawed yet at heart heroic characters, such as the Sherriff in Slither, the protagonist’s doctor in Waitress and Captain Malcolm Reynolds in the television show Firefly and subsequent movie Serenity
First Seen In: “Buffy The Vampire Slayer”, playing the evil and misogynic preacher Caleb in the final season of the show.
Despite seeing this actor play quirky heroic characters, I still have a hard time shaking away the image of the first role I saw him in. In the final season of Buffy The Vampire Slayer Fillion played a evil priest who acted as the right hand of the Big Bad of the season. In spite of only being in five episodes he had a lasting effect, killing several minor characters and permanently disfiguring one of the main characters. What made him terrifying was the fact that he acted like a cross between a serial killer and a religious fanatic, talking about how humanity was dirty and unworthy of themselves before taking someone’s life. It’s almost like seeing pastor Fred Phelps go on a killing spree.
KURT RUSSELL
Known For: Playing gruff tough guys, such as Snake Plissken in Escape from New York, helicopter pilot R.J. MacReady in John Carpenter’s The Thing, and Stuntman Mike in Death Proof.
First Seen In: Executive Decision, where he played a nerdy terrorist specialist.
In the film Executive Decision, a movie where a group of commandos attempt to stop a group of terrorist who have taken a 747 hostage, Kurt Russell plays a terrorist specialist who joined the commandos because of his knowledge on the main hijacker. His character was very nervous and timid throughout the movie. He was nervous about acting rashly and the commandos would often only listen to him because of the direness of the situation. Even when he eventually took a gun and joined in on the fighting it played out more like an average guy thrust in a dangerous situation then an action hero.
ALAN RICKMAN
Known For: Playing nasty and or villainess characters such as terrorist/thief Hans Gruber in Die Hard, the Sherriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and Professor Severus Snape in the Harry Potter film series.
First Seen In: Dogma, playing the Metatron and the voice of God.
In the 1999 film Dogma Alan Rickman played the role of the Metatron, the highest level of angels and the voice of God. Naturally the role wasn’t a villainess one at all. His character was portrayed as cranky and very British but also kind hearted. He acted as a guiding force to the characters on earth, giving well meaning advice whenever he could.
After seeing him in this role I found it interesting to see him play much more menacing characters.
KRISTIN KREUK
Known For: Playing angsty and emotionally vulnerable Lana Lang in the show Smallville
First Seen In: Eurotrip, playing the cruel and slutty ex girlfriend of the movie’s main protagonist.
Since I didn’t start watching Smallville until this summer, the first time I saw this actress was in the movie Eurotrip. The character she played was the exact opposite from the role she is most well known for. In the movie her character Fiona dumps her boyfriend Scott in front of his family, callously telling him that he is spineless and that she cheated on him a lot. Later on at a graduation party the band’s lead singer sings a song about all the time’s he slept with Fiona while she dated Scott. Not only does she grind against the singer during the song but she also joins in on the singing, knowing full well her former boyfriend is in the audience watching everything.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
The Dark Knight: Hype that Delivers
As the end credits came up upon my viewing of The Dark Knight, something happened that I had not witnessed in a long time. That something was applause. The entire theater was clapping and yelling cries of joy. I can’t remember the last time I witnessed such a phenomenon. This phenomenon, and the fact that I was participating in it, should give an idea on just how good this movie is.
The Dark Knight is one of those few sequels that lives up to, and in many ways surpasses, its predecessor. Masterfully directed by returning director Christopher Nolan and written by Nolan, David S. Goyer, and Jonathon Nolan, The Dark Knight remains true to the comics while at the same time brings the franchise into new territory.
The movie opens roughly a year after the events of Batman Begins, with Batman/Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) and Lieutenant James Gordon (Gary Oldman) successfully bringing down the criminals within Gotham. The two men begin to work with newly appointed DA Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) in an effort to eradicate the mob from Gotham City. Unlike Batman, who is still regarded with mistrust and fear by the public, Dent is seen as a shining beacon of hope. He is so well revered that Bruce begins contemplating saying goodbye to Batman and allowing Harvey to become “The White Knight” Gotham needs. It is also his hope that if he does this he can finally be with childhood friend Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who is now involved with Dent. However everyone’s plans are thrown into chaos with the arrival of The Joker (Heath Ledger).
After a successful bank robbery, in which he kills both civilians and his own men, The Joker arrives at a meeting of the remaining mobsters and offers them a proposal; he will kill Batman in exchange for half of the mob’s entire money supply. He begins by having numerous members of the police and justice force killed and then proclaims that if Batman does not reveal his secret identity people will continue to die every day. As the film goes on it becomes clear that The Joker’s real plan is simply to create as much chaos and apathy as possible. As Bruce Wayne’s trusty butler Alfred (Michael Caine) explains, “Some men aren't looking for anything logical. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”
Each actor in the movie is brilliant and brings much to their roles. Christian Bale brings a complex depth of struggle to the character as Batman questions what his limits should and can be. Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman (as Bruce Wayne’s equipment designer Lucius Fox) all act as stable forces in Batman’s fight for justice, with each actor bringing different emotions and reactions to their roles as the lines of morality are continually redrawn during the fight. Maggie Gyllenhaal adds a lot of emotion to her role and brings both strength and vulnerability to her performance. But of everyone in the cast, the two standouts would have to be Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart.
As I mentioned in my review of the film Waitress, I was determined to review Heath Ledger’s performance as if he were alive and not offer praise simply because of his death. After seeing the movie I can safely say that all the praise people have said about his work is well earned. His performance is nothing short of phenomenal. He brings such a degree of raw intensity to the role that it’s staggering. His version of The Joker is both revolutionary and extremely true to the character. He becomes so engrossed in the character that it’s very easy to forget who the actor behind the make-up is. I’ll admit that I had my doubts when I first heard he was cast as The Joker, since his name wasn’t the first that came to mind when I envisioned actors for the role. But after seeing the movie I can definably say he was the right choice for the part.
Although Heath Ledger has received much praise for his role, I thought that Aaron Eckhart’s performance was just as strong. He plays his character as similar to Batman, but in an entirely different way. Unmasked and visibly in the spotlight, he has a power over the people that Batman does not. He delivers his lines with such conviction that one begins to believe his vision in a brighter tomorrow. While playing him with passionate righteousness one also sees the rage that bubbles just under the surface. It’s the subtleness of his duel personas that bring the true realization of the character to life. His character’s journey is one of the most tragic aspects of the film. Even if you can see where his character will go, the ramifications and end results of the character’s journey is something no one could ever have seen coming.
The Dark Knight definitely lives up to the hype. Not only is it entertaining but it also challenges our views on humanity and morality. How far should those in power be allowed to go in our quest for piece? That question is one of the biggest aspects of the film, with cases made for both those who believe in suspending personal freedom for safety and those who believe in keeping civil liberties in light of terrorism. That’s not normally something one expects to find in a summer superhero blockbuster.
The Dark Knight is one of those few sequels that lives up to, and in many ways surpasses, its predecessor. Masterfully directed by returning director Christopher Nolan and written by Nolan, David S. Goyer, and Jonathon Nolan, The Dark Knight remains true to the comics while at the same time brings the franchise into new territory.
The movie opens roughly a year after the events of Batman Begins, with Batman/Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) and Lieutenant James Gordon (Gary Oldman) successfully bringing down the criminals within Gotham. The two men begin to work with newly appointed DA Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) in an effort to eradicate the mob from Gotham City. Unlike Batman, who is still regarded with mistrust and fear by the public, Dent is seen as a shining beacon of hope. He is so well revered that Bruce begins contemplating saying goodbye to Batman and allowing Harvey to become “The White Knight” Gotham needs. It is also his hope that if he does this he can finally be with childhood friend Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who is now involved with Dent. However everyone’s plans are thrown into chaos with the arrival of The Joker (Heath Ledger).
After a successful bank robbery, in which he kills both civilians and his own men, The Joker arrives at a meeting of the remaining mobsters and offers them a proposal; he will kill Batman in exchange for half of the mob’s entire money supply. He begins by having numerous members of the police and justice force killed and then proclaims that if Batman does not reveal his secret identity people will continue to die every day. As the film goes on it becomes clear that The Joker’s real plan is simply to create as much chaos and apathy as possible. As Bruce Wayne’s trusty butler Alfred (Michael Caine) explains, “Some men aren't looking for anything logical. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”
Each actor in the movie is brilliant and brings much to their roles. Christian Bale brings a complex depth of struggle to the character as Batman questions what his limits should and can be. Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman (as Bruce Wayne’s equipment designer Lucius Fox) all act as stable forces in Batman’s fight for justice, with each actor bringing different emotions and reactions to their roles as the lines of morality are continually redrawn during the fight. Maggie Gyllenhaal adds a lot of emotion to her role and brings both strength and vulnerability to her performance. But of everyone in the cast, the two standouts would have to be Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart.
As I mentioned in my review of the film Waitress, I was determined to review Heath Ledger’s performance as if he were alive and not offer praise simply because of his death. After seeing the movie I can safely say that all the praise people have said about his work is well earned. His performance is nothing short of phenomenal. He brings such a degree of raw intensity to the role that it’s staggering. His version of The Joker is both revolutionary and extremely true to the character. He becomes so engrossed in the character that it’s very easy to forget who the actor behind the make-up is. I’ll admit that I had my doubts when I first heard he was cast as The Joker, since his name wasn’t the first that came to mind when I envisioned actors for the role. But after seeing the movie I can definably say he was the right choice for the part.
Although Heath Ledger has received much praise for his role, I thought that Aaron Eckhart’s performance was just as strong. He plays his character as similar to Batman, but in an entirely different way. Unmasked and visibly in the spotlight, he has a power over the people that Batman does not. He delivers his lines with such conviction that one begins to believe his vision in a brighter tomorrow. While playing him with passionate righteousness one also sees the rage that bubbles just under the surface. It’s the subtleness of his duel personas that bring the true realization of the character to life. His character’s journey is one of the most tragic aspects of the film. Even if you can see where his character will go, the ramifications and end results of the character’s journey is something no one could ever have seen coming.
The Dark Knight definitely lives up to the hype. Not only is it entertaining but it also challenges our views on humanity and morality. How far should those in power be allowed to go in our quest for piece? That question is one of the biggest aspects of the film, with cases made for both those who believe in suspending personal freedom for safety and those who believe in keeping civil liberties in light of terrorism. That’s not normally something one expects to find in a summer superhero blockbuster.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
That Rating Doesn't Seem Right?
With the creation of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America’s film-rating system), parents could make an informed decision on what movies they felt were inappropriate for their children to see. However this was hard to do in the beginning, as the rating system was fairly broad. The PG-13 rating was created for just this reason. It was made for movies with content that was to hard for PG, but not extreme enough for R. Before the inception of the PG-13 rating, many movies were rated PG and R that didn’t deserve those ratings. Below are examples of a PG rated movie and an R rated movie that if reviewed today would have received a PG-13 rating. The first is an obscure unknown movie about a killer shark named Jaws. The latter is a low budget horror movie named The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Jaws, as most people already know, tells the story of a man eating shark that terrorizes a small east coast beaching town. After a series of attacks a trio of men go out to sea to hunt down and kill the animal. While the movie is rated PG, there are several elements and visions throughout the picture that just aren’t seen by today’s PG rated standards. Severed limbs, dismembered corpses, foul language, and animal carcasses are some of the unseemly sights that are witnessed.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a 1970’s horror movie that involves a group of young adults who are hunted down by a family of cannibals. What’s interesting is that despite the grizzly premise and exploitative title the movie doesn’t have a great deal of carnage in it. Almost all of the violence occurs either off screen or in quick cuts. In addition to minimal violence language is also pretty tame. This was no mere accident, as the director had hoped that the movie would be released with a PG rating. Despite the care taken to minimize violence the picture still ended up being rated R.
Jaws, as most people already know, tells the story of a man eating shark that terrorizes a small east coast beaching town. After a series of attacks a trio of men go out to sea to hunt down and kill the animal. While the movie is rated PG, there are several elements and visions throughout the picture that just aren’t seen by today’s PG rated standards. Severed limbs, dismembered corpses, foul language, and animal carcasses are some of the unseemly sights that are witnessed.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a 1970’s horror movie that involves a group of young adults who are hunted down by a family of cannibals. What’s interesting is that despite the grizzly premise and exploitative title the movie doesn’t have a great deal of carnage in it. Almost all of the violence occurs either off screen or in quick cuts. In addition to minimal violence language is also pretty tame. This was no mere accident, as the director had hoped that the movie would be released with a PG rating. Despite the care taken to minimize violence the picture still ended up being rated R.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
External Factors for a Dismal Performance
When a movie doesn’t do well at the box office, it doesn’t necessarily mean it did badly because it was a bad movie. Multiple factors can contribute to a less then stellar performance. The movie could have been released at the wrong time of the year. It could have either not been promoted enough or promoted in a way that misleads audiences as to what the actual tone of the movie is. Still another factor could be having to compete with another movie released at the same time.
A perfect example of a movie bombing at the box office because of outside reasons is the dark comedy Very Bad Things. It was released during the 98 holiday season and started Christian Slater, Jon Favreau, Cameron Diaz, Daniel Stern, Jeremy Piven, and Leland Orser. The movie follows timid Kyle (Favreau) as he prepares to marry his shrewish bride Laura (Diaz). Laura is an extremely demanding woman who seems to care more about having the perfect wedding then the guy she’s actually marrying. To escape from his demanding fiancé Kyle goes to Las Vegas for a bachelor party with his four closest friends. First there’s Moore (Orser), a quiet mechanic Kyle has known since grade school. Then there is Adam (Stern), a very uptight and moral individual, and his brother Michael (Piven), who’s less moral and not as tightly wound. Rounding out the circle of friends is Boyd (Slater), the unofficial leader and least moral member of the group. What follows is a drug filled romp that culminates with a stripper giving them a wild show. Unfortunately things take an ugly turn when Michael accidently kills her while they are having sex. Things go from bad to worse when a security guard finds the body and Boyd kills him to keep their secret. With no other option the group take the bodies into the desert to be buried and swear to keep what happened a secret. As they return to their lives paranoia sets in and the body count continues to grow. By the end of the movie the remaining characters have been scared for life, in more ways then one.
This hilarious movie is as dark as it is funny, with multiple moments that bring as many cringes as they do laughs. Probably the best example of this is when the group is burying the bodies in the desert. During the middle of it Adam says that according to Jewish law the bodies must be buried united or else the souls will not find peace. This proves to be problematic as they dismembered the bodies before they set off. What follows is a perverse jigsaw puzzle with everyone trying to match up body parts to the correct bodies.
While this movie is certainly not for everyone, I don’t believe it didn’t do well in theaters because it was bad. Rather it did badly because of external factors. For one thing it was released during the holiday season. Most movies released during this time are either family films, sentimental films, or epic adventures. A comedy about people trying to cover up a murder doesn’t really fall under any of the mentioned genres. A bigger problem then the release date was the promotion. The trailer and TV spots tried to make the movie to be much more lighthearted then it really was. This meant that people who would have wanted to see a sick comedy didn’t see it because they thought it lacked the bite it really had. The promotion also tried to play off of the notoriety of Cameron Diaz, who had just stared in There’s Something About Mary a few months before the release of Very Bad Things. In previews she seems to be more of a put upon wife to be, where in the movie she is a heartless bitch who cares only about herself. When her fiancé finally confesses what happened she tells him she doesn’t care and that the wedding is happening no matter what. Those who saw the movie thinking they’d see a bubbly light hearted Cameron Diaz were in for a rude awakening. It is my belief that these factors were the reason for the movie’s abysmal performance in theaters.
Luckily with the rise of home video, and now DVD, movies that did badly in theaters can find a new life with home viewing. And Very Bad Things is one of those movies. It has become a cult classic, with people loving the sickness of the plot. If not for home viewing, this movie would have always been thought of as terrible based on how it did in theaters. So before one writes off a movie because of its theatrical performance, see it first.
A perfect example of a movie bombing at the box office because of outside reasons is the dark comedy Very Bad Things. It was released during the 98 holiday season and started Christian Slater, Jon Favreau, Cameron Diaz, Daniel Stern, Jeremy Piven, and Leland Orser. The movie follows timid Kyle (Favreau) as he prepares to marry his shrewish bride Laura (Diaz). Laura is an extremely demanding woman who seems to care more about having the perfect wedding then the guy she’s actually marrying. To escape from his demanding fiancé Kyle goes to Las Vegas for a bachelor party with his four closest friends. First there’s Moore (Orser), a quiet mechanic Kyle has known since grade school. Then there is Adam (Stern), a very uptight and moral individual, and his brother Michael (Piven), who’s less moral and not as tightly wound. Rounding out the circle of friends is Boyd (Slater), the unofficial leader and least moral member of the group. What follows is a drug filled romp that culminates with a stripper giving them a wild show. Unfortunately things take an ugly turn when Michael accidently kills her while they are having sex. Things go from bad to worse when a security guard finds the body and Boyd kills him to keep their secret. With no other option the group take the bodies into the desert to be buried and swear to keep what happened a secret. As they return to their lives paranoia sets in and the body count continues to grow. By the end of the movie the remaining characters have been scared for life, in more ways then one.
This hilarious movie is as dark as it is funny, with multiple moments that bring as many cringes as they do laughs. Probably the best example of this is when the group is burying the bodies in the desert. During the middle of it Adam says that according to Jewish law the bodies must be buried united or else the souls will not find peace. This proves to be problematic as they dismembered the bodies before they set off. What follows is a perverse jigsaw puzzle with everyone trying to match up body parts to the correct bodies.
While this movie is certainly not for everyone, I don’t believe it didn’t do well in theaters because it was bad. Rather it did badly because of external factors. For one thing it was released during the holiday season. Most movies released during this time are either family films, sentimental films, or epic adventures. A comedy about people trying to cover up a murder doesn’t really fall under any of the mentioned genres. A bigger problem then the release date was the promotion. The trailer and TV spots tried to make the movie to be much more lighthearted then it really was. This meant that people who would have wanted to see a sick comedy didn’t see it because they thought it lacked the bite it really had. The promotion also tried to play off of the notoriety of Cameron Diaz, who had just stared in There’s Something About Mary a few months before the release of Very Bad Things. In previews she seems to be more of a put upon wife to be, where in the movie she is a heartless bitch who cares only about herself. When her fiancé finally confesses what happened she tells him she doesn’t care and that the wedding is happening no matter what. Those who saw the movie thinking they’d see a bubbly light hearted Cameron Diaz were in for a rude awakening. It is my belief that these factors were the reason for the movie’s abysmal performance in theaters.
Luckily with the rise of home video, and now DVD, movies that did badly in theaters can find a new life with home viewing. And Very Bad Things is one of those movies. It has become a cult classic, with people loving the sickness of the plot. If not for home viewing, this movie would have always been thought of as terrible based on how it did in theaters. So before one writes off a movie because of its theatrical performance, see it first.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Waitress: A Flawed Yet Delightful Romp
Reviewing the work of someone who is deceased can be a difficult task. One might feel it is permissible to be overcritical of their work because they are no longer here to defend it. On the other hand the reviewer could be afraid to point out the flaws in the work since the artist is dead. Personally, I feel the best way to honor a deceased artist is to review their work as if they were alive. That way it is reviewed fairly and objectively. This is the attitude I will be taking when I write my review of The Dark Knight later this summer. It is also the same approach I’m applying to my review of the film Waitress.
Waitress is a movie about escaping one’s problems and finding out what kind of person you are at heart. It stars Keri Russell, Nathan Fillion, Jeremy Sisto and Andy Griffith and was written and directed by the late Adrienne Shelly. The plot follows a young southern waitress named Jenna (Russell) who has big problems. She’s stuck in an unhappy marriage to an abusive husband (Sisto) who controls her to the point where he won’t let her have a car so he knows that she can’t go far. She dreams of using her exceptional pie making skills to open her own restaurant and leave her husband forever. But her plans come to a screeching halt when she finds out she is pregnant. She dreads having the child, for she feels it will tie her forever to her husband. It is soon after she discovers her pregnancy that the regular town doctor is replaced by a new doctor named Jim (Fillion). Although she is put off by his nervousness the two end up having a passionate affair. Eventually her husband finds out about the baby and becomes even more dominating over her. As the months go by Jenna begins to see that motherhood isn’t the soul killing stigma she originally thought it would be. The film ends with her baby being born and Jenna being able to change her life for the better.
Before I point out what I didn’t like about the movie I’ll talk about what I did like. The film seemed to say our initial perceptions of people are often wrong. While first impressions habitually stick, they often dissolve once the person is better known. When Jenna first meets Jim she doesn’t like him and exclaims that he makes her uncomfortable. But as she gets to know him she finds he acts as a stimulant in her life. After they begin their affair he becomes a close friend in addition to being a lover. Perception shattering is additionally shown with the character of Old Joe, played by Andy Griffith. Old Joe is the owner of the diner Jenna works at and is generally a crabby old man. But in spite of his demanding nature he holds Jenna in high regard and tries to give her advice so she will not live her life unhappily.
However, I did have some real problems with other aspects of the film. The biggest problem I had was with Jenna’s husband. He had ABSOLUTLY no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He was a bastard from beginning to end, so much so that I found it impossible to understand how anyone would ever date him, much less marry him. In most abusive relationships the abuser will show tenderness after they abuse their spouse. Here he would hit her and then badger her some more. The whole time I kept waiting to see some reason why she would have first fallen for him. But it never came. He was so complete in his abuse and selfishness that he almost seemed a caricature. For me the most over the top moment is when she tells him she is pregnant and he makes her promise that she will not love the baby more then she loves him. For me to believe she would have married him I needed to see a reason she would have fallen for him, either during their time together or at the very least by having a flashback to their dating days.
I also felt that the end was very clichéd. I won’t spoil exactly how she her life at the end of the movie is changed, but it is painfully obvious how it will happen not long into the movie. It was unfortunate it ended up that way because many of the other kinds of clichés one would expect from this type of movie do not occur.
In spite of the problems, I wouldn’t write off Waitress as a failure. It had quirky dialogue and direction and the romantic leads grow on the viewer. I think with time Adrienne Shelly would have become a fine contributor to film, which makes her untimely passing all the more dreadful. Instead of being a promising up and comer, a senseless act of violence had made her another what-could-have-been Hollywood tragedy.
Waitress is a movie about escaping one’s problems and finding out what kind of person you are at heart. It stars Keri Russell, Nathan Fillion, Jeremy Sisto and Andy Griffith and was written and directed by the late Adrienne Shelly. The plot follows a young southern waitress named Jenna (Russell) who has big problems. She’s stuck in an unhappy marriage to an abusive husband (Sisto) who controls her to the point where he won’t let her have a car so he knows that she can’t go far. She dreams of using her exceptional pie making skills to open her own restaurant and leave her husband forever. But her plans come to a screeching halt when she finds out she is pregnant. She dreads having the child, for she feels it will tie her forever to her husband. It is soon after she discovers her pregnancy that the regular town doctor is replaced by a new doctor named Jim (Fillion). Although she is put off by his nervousness the two end up having a passionate affair. Eventually her husband finds out about the baby and becomes even more dominating over her. As the months go by Jenna begins to see that motherhood isn’t the soul killing stigma she originally thought it would be. The film ends with her baby being born and Jenna being able to change her life for the better.
Before I point out what I didn’t like about the movie I’ll talk about what I did like. The film seemed to say our initial perceptions of people are often wrong. While first impressions habitually stick, they often dissolve once the person is better known. When Jenna first meets Jim she doesn’t like him and exclaims that he makes her uncomfortable. But as she gets to know him she finds he acts as a stimulant in her life. After they begin their affair he becomes a close friend in addition to being a lover. Perception shattering is additionally shown with the character of Old Joe, played by Andy Griffith. Old Joe is the owner of the diner Jenna works at and is generally a crabby old man. But in spite of his demanding nature he holds Jenna in high regard and tries to give her advice so she will not live her life unhappily.
However, I did have some real problems with other aspects of the film. The biggest problem I had was with Jenna’s husband. He had ABSOLUTLY no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He was a bastard from beginning to end, so much so that I found it impossible to understand how anyone would ever date him, much less marry him. In most abusive relationships the abuser will show tenderness after they abuse their spouse. Here he would hit her and then badger her some more. The whole time I kept waiting to see some reason why she would have first fallen for him. But it never came. He was so complete in his abuse and selfishness that he almost seemed a caricature. For me the most over the top moment is when she tells him she is pregnant and he makes her promise that she will not love the baby more then she loves him. For me to believe she would have married him I needed to see a reason she would have fallen for him, either during their time together or at the very least by having a flashback to their dating days.
I also felt that the end was very clichéd. I won’t spoil exactly how she her life at the end of the movie is changed, but it is painfully obvious how it will happen not long into the movie. It was unfortunate it ended up that way because many of the other kinds of clichés one would expect from this type of movie do not occur.
In spite of the problems, I wouldn’t write off Waitress as a failure. It had quirky dialogue and direction and the romantic leads grow on the viewer. I think with time Adrienne Shelly would have become a fine contributor to film, which makes her untimely passing all the more dreadful. Instead of being a promising up and comer, a senseless act of violence had made her another what-could-have-been Hollywood tragedy.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The Movie Trailer: A Dying DVD Feature
Since the DVD came on the market, the features included with the films have become more numerous and advanced. While originally special features barely consisted of little more then the movie trailer and brief actor profiles, now most DVD’s come complete with hours of features that detail many different aspects of the movie. A movie lover can see exactly what it took to make the movie come alive, from costume design to the creation of special effects. But despite there now being more features available to view, one feature is slowly being fazed out: the movie trailer.
A movie trailer is a specifically designed preview shown in theaters before the movie begins. While older trailers usually consisted of long drawn out scenes, today’s trailers have become very condensed and fast paced. A trailer usually consists of three parts. First there is the beginning, which lays out the ground work of the story. Then there is the middle, which drives the story further and usually consists of a plot revelation or reveal. Finally there is the climax, which is designed to make the end of the trailer as emotionally gripping as possible. Usually the climax of a trailer consists of several emotional images set to a piece of music. Movie trailers are only allowed to be a maximum of two and a half minutes long, although studios are allowed to release one trailer that exceeds the allotted length per year. While trailers aren’t rated per say, they are classed into two groups: green band trailers and red band trailers. A green band trailer is a trailer that can be viewed by anyone and does not have scenes that would be inappropriate for a minor to see. Therefore a minor can watch a trailer for an R rated movie even if they can not watch the movie itself. A red band trailer is a trailer that contains images that might be inappropriate for minors to see; which includes graphic violence, foul language, nudity, sex, and drug use. These trailers can only be shown before a movie that is rated R or NC-17.
As mentioned before, trailers used to be one of the only extra features included on DVDs. But in the last few years trailers have been included less on DVDs. While they have numerous features detailing the making of the movie they don’t include the trailer, which is usually what gets people to want to see a particular movie. What is even more unusual is that many times a DVD will contain trailers for other movies, but not the trailer for the movie being viewed.
Personally, I love movie trailers. To me they are individual stories, similar to the movie being advertised but at the same time distinctly different. They can be emotionally gripping and make my heart feel like it will leap out of my chest. Or they can be hilarious and make me feel happy all day long. Many times the trailer for a movie is in fact better then the movie itself is. One example that comes to mind is Jurassic Park 3. When I first heard a third Jurassic Park movie was being made I vowed I would never see it. Then I saw the trailer. It was both thrilling and action packed, and seemed to set up an interesting story. It was good enough for me to go against my better judgment and see the movie. As I left the theater I deeply regretted having wasted $10 and an hour and a half of my life. But I still have to commend the cutters of that trailer. They managed to get me to see the movie in spite of my previous feelings.
Movie trailers are an art form, one that is harder to do then people would think. A trailer cutter not only has to let the audience know what the movie is about, but they also have to make sure they don’t give away to much information or else people will already know everything and not want to see the movie. To make sure the trailer is shown at an appropriate time before the movie is released cutters use footage from dailies, which is the raw unedited footage shot during the making of a movie. It is obviously much harder for a trailer to be made from raw footage then from edited and perfectly synced up material. But that is exactly how they are made. Cutters also have to decide how the trailer will fit into the marketing campaign of the film and be able to obtain the right music that would best suit the trailer. They work extraordinarily hard to bring their proper vision to life, and should be rewarded by having their work be easily viewed by all.
I will say that it isn’t impossible to continually view movie trailers today. One only has to go on the web to find numerous sites that feature trailers. But in spite of this on-line option I still miss popping in a disk and being able to watch a trailer right before a movie. I only hope that this trend will stop and trailers will begin to reappear on DVD menus. As much as I love a ton of special features, I would trade them all in if it meant I would have the one feature that mattered the most to me.
A movie trailer is a specifically designed preview shown in theaters before the movie begins. While older trailers usually consisted of long drawn out scenes, today’s trailers have become very condensed and fast paced. A trailer usually consists of three parts. First there is the beginning, which lays out the ground work of the story. Then there is the middle, which drives the story further and usually consists of a plot revelation or reveal. Finally there is the climax, which is designed to make the end of the trailer as emotionally gripping as possible. Usually the climax of a trailer consists of several emotional images set to a piece of music. Movie trailers are only allowed to be a maximum of two and a half minutes long, although studios are allowed to release one trailer that exceeds the allotted length per year. While trailers aren’t rated per say, they are classed into two groups: green band trailers and red band trailers. A green band trailer is a trailer that can be viewed by anyone and does not have scenes that would be inappropriate for a minor to see. Therefore a minor can watch a trailer for an R rated movie even if they can not watch the movie itself. A red band trailer is a trailer that contains images that might be inappropriate for minors to see; which includes graphic violence, foul language, nudity, sex, and drug use. These trailers can only be shown before a movie that is rated R or NC-17.
As mentioned before, trailers used to be one of the only extra features included on DVDs. But in the last few years trailers have been included less on DVDs. While they have numerous features detailing the making of the movie they don’t include the trailer, which is usually what gets people to want to see a particular movie. What is even more unusual is that many times a DVD will contain trailers for other movies, but not the trailer for the movie being viewed.
Personally, I love movie trailers. To me they are individual stories, similar to the movie being advertised but at the same time distinctly different. They can be emotionally gripping and make my heart feel like it will leap out of my chest. Or they can be hilarious and make me feel happy all day long. Many times the trailer for a movie is in fact better then the movie itself is. One example that comes to mind is Jurassic Park 3. When I first heard a third Jurassic Park movie was being made I vowed I would never see it. Then I saw the trailer. It was both thrilling and action packed, and seemed to set up an interesting story. It was good enough for me to go against my better judgment and see the movie. As I left the theater I deeply regretted having wasted $10 and an hour and a half of my life. But I still have to commend the cutters of that trailer. They managed to get me to see the movie in spite of my previous feelings.
Movie trailers are an art form, one that is harder to do then people would think. A trailer cutter not only has to let the audience know what the movie is about, but they also have to make sure they don’t give away to much information or else people will already know everything and not want to see the movie. To make sure the trailer is shown at an appropriate time before the movie is released cutters use footage from dailies, which is the raw unedited footage shot during the making of a movie. It is obviously much harder for a trailer to be made from raw footage then from edited and perfectly synced up material. But that is exactly how they are made. Cutters also have to decide how the trailer will fit into the marketing campaign of the film and be able to obtain the right music that would best suit the trailer. They work extraordinarily hard to bring their proper vision to life, and should be rewarded by having their work be easily viewed by all.
I will say that it isn’t impossible to continually view movie trailers today. One only has to go on the web to find numerous sites that feature trailers. But in spite of this on-line option I still miss popping in a disk and being able to watch a trailer right before a movie. I only hope that this trend will stop and trailers will begin to reappear on DVD menus. As much as I love a ton of special features, I would trade them all in if it meant I would have the one feature that mattered the most to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)