Review: Coraline

Coraline is a movie that I have waited years to see. I read the book back in college and I couldn’t wait to see it when it was finally brought to the big screen. Based on the young adult novel of the same name by Neil Gaiman (one of my favorite authors) and brought to the screen by Nightmare Before Christmas’s director Henry Selick, Coraline is a fantasy adventure story that has an appeal for an audience of all ages.

The story opens as 11-year-old Coraline Jones moves into a pretty pink house on a hill with her workaholic parents. Coraline, not Caroline, has one big problem. She’s bored. Her parents ignore her, her neighbors are weird, and the house is full of old leaky windows, boring pictures, and unexciting doors. That is, unexciting except for one. A strange, small, old door has been locked and papered over. Why? What’s behind it? Naturally Coraline must know.

Much to her disappointment, her mother unlocks the door with the big, old key only to reveal a wall of bricks. There’s nothing else there. Or is there?

After night falls Coraline discovers that behind that door lives her Other parents and they don’t ignore her. The old actresses who live downstairs, Miss Spink and Miss Forcible are much more interesting, and Mr. Bobinsky, the man in the attic, has an Amazing Mouse Circus. And best of all, Coraline’s one friend Wybie doesn’t talk. It’s all wonderful, as long as you ignore the ghost children in the closet and the fact that everyone in this Other world has buttons for eyes.

The story of Coraline can be seen a number of different ways. An adventure story for the kids, for that door actually does lead somewhere and that somewhere is a fantastical Other world. Or a horror story for adults; that Other world is a creation of the Other Mother, a monster who feeds on the souls of children. Or for many, it’s stands somewhere in between, bringing forth a medley of emotions including fear, wonder, longing, and excitement.

And Coraline is exciting. From the story to its technical achievements, Henry Selick gives us a film that does not disappoint. Visually it’s stunning, the animation that I’m sure looks great in 2-D looks incredible in 3-D. 3-D is really the way to see this movie. Laika Entertainment has really outdone itself here. The thing about the 3-D in Coraline is not how things jump out at you, it’s not about the gimmick, it’s how the images fall away. The 3-D enhances the film. This world has a real depth and Coraline is the best example I’ve seen so far of the potential of the 3-D technology.

Don’t worry if you’ve missed the 3-D though, Coraline is still worth seeing. Beyond that, the stop-motion animation is still superb. It’s colorful and vibrant. The character’s all look as one might imagine they would while reading the book. It’s clever as well. One of my favorite bits is how, in the Other Mother’s world, the animators reveal that a theater Coraline enters is filled not with people but with little dogs. As Coraline follows the usher, also a dog, to her seat, the camera shows us the back of the chairs. And sticking out between them are dozens of little wagging tails. It’s adorable and the film is filled with many similar moments, just as striking.

The important thing about this film and all of these elements is how they come together to not just give us a faithful adaptation but also a great movie. Sure, there are plenty of changes from Neil Gaiman’s book. For one thing, Coraline’s friend Wybie did not exist in the book. However, by adding him to the movie Selick gives someone for Coraline to play off of. He helps to not only move the plot along but also to develop her character. Where in a novel you can read paragraphs of a character’s inner monologue, you can’t do that in a film. So a character like Wybie is introduced to serve the same function. And he’s a cute character! Honestly I think my only complaint on the adaptation is that the Cat didn’t have more dialogue. He really has all of the best lines in the book. Oh well, I guess we can’t have everything!

A question that a lot of parents seem to have is “Is this movie too scary for my kids?” I think the answer is that it depends on your kids. It wouldn’t have been too scary for me but by the time I was Coraline’s age X-Files was all ready my favorite show. It is rated PG and I think it’s definitely one of those movies where a little judgment on the part of parents is needed. If your kid doesn’t like scary things, don’t take them to see it. The Other Mother is a monster and she can be scary. If your kid can deal with stories of the boogeyman, you’re probably okay. If you’re not sure, there’s a book out there that’s a quick and easy read. Give Neil Gaiman’s novel a chance; it will give you a good idea of how scary the movie is going to be. They’re both on about the same level.

Of course, I say use your judgment in a world where parents take their kids to see Watchmen. If you’re going to take them to that, please, reconsider and give them something a little more age appropriate. Coraline is still in theaters after all.

I really am very pleased by this film. Until I watched it (twice) I was still ambivalent about the idea of 3-D movies. Now I’m very excited. Henry Selick and Laika have done an excellent job in bringing Neil Gaiman’s fabulous story to life. It’s great film that’s definitely worth seeing, at least once.

Coraline features the voice talents of Dakota Fanning as Coraline Jones, Teri Hatcher as Mother/Other Mother, John Hodgman as Father/Other Father, Robert Bailey Jr. as Wybie, and Keith David as Cat.

Review: Clueless

When Amy Heckerling’s brilliant teen version of Emma hit the big screens back in 1995, I was still in middle school. I remember being utterly fascinated by the vision of teenaged California beauty that was laid before me. Was that what high school was going to be like? Plaid skirts and cell phones, cool cars and parties, romance and fun? I especially liked the idea of the plaid skirts. And that really cool computer program Cher had to help her dress herself in the morning (I still wish I had something like that!). Alas, reality is not nearly as glamorous. I didn’t get a cell phone until I went to college.

Luckily for Clueless, it doesn’t need a firm base in reality to work. It’s a fantasy that is layered, nuanced, and intelligent. Based on Jane Austen’s Emma, Clueless is about Beverly Hills princess Cher and her group of upper crust friends. Cher and best friend Dionne are the two most popular girls in the school. The film follows their exploits, everything from creating romance between two cranky teachers to making over the new girl in school. There are parties, charities, classes, shopping, romance, debate… and very little homework.

Cher is a sixteen-year-old beauty queen who lives with her father in their palatial Beverly Hills mansion. After Cher and Dionne decide to try their hands at matchmaking and make-overs, Cher naturally must learn that her friends are actually all quite good as they are. Roles switch, Cher realizes she’s in love, and after attempting to make herself over, there’s a happy ending. The lesson in the end is to accept people as they are. And that possibly love is closer at hand than one may initially think.

Clueless after all is a teen comedy, there’s always a happy ending. While it occasionally brushes on touchier topics, it doesn’t try to be any more serious than that. The biggest issue it deals with is virginity and when the right time to lose it might be. Good one-liners, plenty of entertaining bits, and fun characters all come together to give us a charming and infinitely watchable movie.

The cast includes Alicia Silverstone as Cher, Stacy Dash, Brittany Murphy, Donald Faison, Breckin Meyer, Jeremy Sisto, Wallace Shawn, and Paul Rudd as Cher’s love interest (and step-brother) Josh. Everyone in the ensemble does a great job but Silverstone definitely stands out. She’s perfect as Cher, the right mix of ditz, charm, and occasional, surprising insight.

Clueless is more than just another brainless teen movie. It set the bar in the nineties and many of the teen movies that followed borrow heavily from it. Despite its Beverly Hills surface, Clueless has a script that is full of comedic wit and charm. It hits the right combination of satire and sincerity.

I’m always a fan of a story that features a likeable female protagonist. While Cher is perfectly capable of being incredibly silly, ultimately her concern for others and a desire to do good for her friends wins out.

In the years since it’s release it’s since been followed up by a string of other successful teen movies featuring female protagonists including Mean Girls and Ten Things I Hate About You (another adaptation). It’s also Heckerling’s second foray into the teen genre, her first being the favorite Fast Times At Ridgemont High.

Of course, having been released over a decade ago it’s natural to wonder how Clueless holds up. I think the nostalgia it induces works in its favor. The soundtrack is poppy, the wardrobe is very ‘90s, but the tunes and threads bring back good memories rather than feel dated. Ultimately the story is one that continues to work, no matter how much time has gone by.

Clueless is ultimately a movie for girls that the boys can still get a laugh out of. It’s a nice change of pace from the normal testosterone infused fair offered at the Cineplex. Even though I’ve long since graduated from middle school, it still remains one of my favorite teen flicks. It’s perfect for a lazy afternoon in or a girl’s night with your friends.

There are currently several DVD options available. The standard, no frills edition that is pretty bare on the special features was the first released. That's since been discontinued as a new edition (the Special Whatever! edition) was released in 2005. It includes a number of features that does the movie much more justice. Definitely worth the less than $15 price tag.

Review: Revolutionary Road

From the very beginning Revolutionary Road makes it clear that it is not going to be an easy film to watch. We’re thrown into the midst of a domestic meltdown and enveloped by an overwhelming sense of frustration and claustrophobia. Sam Mendes pulls no punches in giving us this adaptation of Richard Yates’s 1961 novel. Revolutionary Road is a depressing journey through a maze of self-pity and broken dreams.

According to everyone who knows them, Frank and April Wheeler are “special.” They move into that little house on Revolutionary Road with dreams of greatness. They are there starting their family but they are determined to stay above the boring normalcy of suburbia. They both know that they are better than those around them, one day they may even move to Paris. Of course, reality overcomes them and year after year they find themselves falling deeper into the trap they’ve set for themselves.

Set in 1950’s Connecticut, the film follows the Wheelers at the point in their lives where they realize that their dreams are slipping from their grasps. How special can Frank possibly be in his mid-level job at the same company his father made a living working for? How talented is April when she can’t even make it as an amateur performer in the community theater? If they’re not better than their neighbors, what are they?

The thing about both April and Frank is that neither one of them is very likeable. The longer the movie goes on, the more painful it becomes to watch, the more contemptible they both become. They are living in a world of self-delusion and each expects the impossible from the other. They are on a path leading to their mutual destruction and the only question becomes how many causalities will they cause along the way.

Kate Winslet and Leonardo Dicaprio unite in this Sam Mendes film (for anyone who’s forgotten, we first saw them together in James Cameron’s epic disaster Titanic). I must say that their onscreen relationship has only improved with age. While still a pretty boy, Dicaprio has proved himself a serious actor. The acclaim Winslet has received for both this film and the Reader is well deserved. Their characters may not be likeable, but they’re not supposed to be. Both actors accomplish exactly what they need to and the emotions they choke out of their roles are overwhelming.

The film itself is amazing. The cinematography is gorgeous; Roger Deakins continues to prove himself one of the best cinematographers out there. The production design, costumes, and make-up all work to not only bring to life this 1950’s suburbia, but to give weight to the sense of impending doom even as Frank and April struggle to make things “right.”

The biggest problem in this film is not that we are asked to relate to two people whom have no real redeeming qualities, it’s that Sam Mendes gives us no opportunity for emotional release. The tension builds and builds and builds but there is never a moment of catharsis. We are never allowed to let our tears go. It’s a hard film to watch and a harder film to walk away from.

Revolutionary Road is up there as one of the best films from 2008. However it’s an incredibly hard film to watch, monumentally depressing, and unless you focus solely on it’s technical achievements don’t expect to feel good in anyway after the credits roll.

Review: Watchmen

Alan Moore’s Watchmen is an interesting creature; critically acclaimed, held in high esteem by a small but hardcore group of fans, until it’s feature film debut this month it was virtually unknown by the mainstream. Not just a long form comic, it justifies the phrase “Graphic Novel.” And until now it was believed to be unfilmable.

Which begs the question; does Zach Snyder’s adaptation prove Watchmen is filmable? Obviously, it’s been filmed. How successfully is up for debate.

For those not familiar with the film or the comic, Watchmen takes place in an alternate version of 1985. We’ve won in Vietnam, Nixon has been reelected for a third term, and the Cold War is still going strong. Russia is moving into Afghanistan, the doomsday clock is set permanently to five minutes to midnight. Oh yeah, and Superheroes are real. Ozymandias, Rorschach, Comedian, Nite Owl, Silk Spectre, all ordinary citizens who happen to like fighting crime and wearing a mask. The only one amongst them all who has any real super power is Dr. Manhattan.

Watchmen is a history study of the evolution of these heroes; from the gimmicky Minutemen of the days following WWII to the Watchmen themselves. The story goes from their early glory, to the public backlash that leads to masks being outlawed, and finally to the present day and their redemption. These “Superheroes” are human and flawed. Watchmen is as much satire as it is case study. Where is the line between good and evil? Where does morality lie? What makes a hero and who is really the villain?

The complexity of Watchmen is what makes it so great. It’s not where the story goes, but how it goes about getting there. It’s this complexity that made many fans believe it could not be made into a movie. It’s also what had those same fans waiting over two decades to see if they were right while they secretly (or not so secretly) hoped they were wrong.

Early on fans heard rumors that the ending of Watchmen had been changed. “No Squid!” circled the internet. Honestly though, I think the film would have benefited from more changes. The Squid works well enough in the book (either you’ve read the book so I’m not spoiling anything or you haven’t, in which case you have no idea what I’m talking about) but I can’t imagine that working very well on screen, astronomical CGI costs aside. Losing the squid was not tragic and the ending could have potentially worked fine without it. What makes the ending of the graphic novel so effective are all of the details. It’s all the accumulation of all the small tragedies. The imagery in the film is evocative of September 11th for sure, but it doesn’t have the same human face. It’s sterilized.

I think the failure of this ending serves to highlight Zach Snyder’s failure in this film as a whole. He is able to mimic the visual style and tone from the Graphic Novel but he fails in the nuances. Snyder’s Watchmen is a high-testosterone fan boy’s wet dream. It looks great, has plenty of sex and violence, but it’s lacking the maturity to know when enough is enough. Sometimes you just need to say, “Cut!” I can agree that the action sequences look cool but really, I got the point that Comedian is losing the fight. He could have gone out the window two minutes earlier and we would have lost nothing.

Speaking of Comedian, how great is Jeffrey Dean Morgan? The casting in general is great. While I wouldn’t have minded a slightly older Laurie, Malin Ackerman surprised me. I was expecting much worse. Carla Gugino’s make-up could have been improved, Matthew Goode’s build was a little odd for Adrian, and a couple of other minor complaints but for the most part I loved everyone. Occasionally I had moments of pity for the actors, some of the scenes were just god-awful, but the actors themselves did what they could with what they were given. In some instances they were competent, in others they excelled.

The three standouts for me, and I think for most everyone, are Morgan as Comedian, Patrick Wilson as Dan Dreiberg, and Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. I don’t even know where to begin in expressing my delight with Haley. From his voice to his posture to his expressions, he’s perfect. Absolutely, spot on. He is Rorschach; it’s as simple as that. It’s a rare thing to see someone bring a character to life so completely (Dark Knight comparisons are obvious here, I think). Haley’s performance alone makes Watchmen worth it for me.

As a fan of the comic, I went into this movie expecting the worst. I’m happy to say that that’s not what we get. Watchmen, while not great, is far from horrible. It’s flawed in many ways and I think the blame for that falls completely to Zach Snyder. He’s great at preserving the visual feel of these comics, but he’s not a very good director. His character development is atrocious (a problem 300 had as well), his music selection juvenile (we’re supposed to be watching a movie, not a music video for Sound of Silence), and he just doesn’t know when, or how, to step away from the source material. The 163 minute running time is cumbersome, to say the least.

I'd just like to point out that the graphic novel is the source material, the inspiration. It's not supposed to be the storyboard. There are scenes that are almost frame for frame lifted from the comic. While cool maybe once or twice, here or there, it's just unnecessary. The direction frequently comes across as pandering to fan boy sensibilities rather than focusing on making a good film.

Despite all of this Watchmen manages to remain a decent film. The problem for fans of the comic is going to be in seeing all of the ways in which a change could have been made to make this a better Movie. For people new to the story the problem may come in trying to follow the complex narrative. However, on both sides there is plenty of room for enjoyment. In fact, I have yet to come across anyone, fan or not, who hasn’t liked the movie. Everyone has at least a small complaint but we all agree that we enjoyed it.

For all of its flaws, Watchmen is a cultural experience worth being a part of. It’s worth giving a chance.

***

One of my favorite parts of the whole damn movie is the opening credit sequence. Watch it again online.