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.

Review: Hancock

I have to be honest. I was very not sure about Hancock. I was never able to get fully excited about this summer’s Will Smith action vehicle. On the one hand, I like Will Smith. On the other, the trailers were lackluster at best. On the one hand, the story concept was intriguing. On the other, the original premier was canceled only a month before for reshoots (never a good sign).

In the end my deciding factor was that a friend of mine worked on it last summer and if nothing else, it’s cool to see your friend’s names in the credits. And he did get a pretty good credit so I at least wasn’t disappointed in that.

After everything my expectations for Hancock were fairly low. I like a lot of the talent that was involved, on both sides of the camera, but the scattered marketing campaign and rumors of numerous changes to the original script and story kept the excitement level from building too high. I think that was probably for the best as Hancock turned out to be an entertaining but not great summer flick.

Will Smith plays John Hancock, an alcoholic super hero the world would rather see go away. His antics often cost more than the good they necessarily serve. For example, Hancock saves the life of a man stuck in front of a chain but manages to cause a massive train wreck in the process. The man he saves is Ray Embry (Jason Bateman), a down on his luck PR agent with dreams of saving the world through marketing. Ray brings Hancock home to meet the family, son Aaron (Jae Head) and wife Mary (Charlize Theron). It’s obvious from the start the Hancock makes Mary uncomfortable and it’s this dynamic that plays a major part of the film’s second half.

The buzz for the film is right in that Hancock gives us something nice and original, especially for the first half. It’s also right in that the transition to the second half is awkward a good bit of the film’s originality degenerates into the standard super hero fighting with an unexceptional twist.

Not to say that Hancock isn’t enjoyable. If nothing else Will Smith is his usual charming self and if you’re a fan of his you’ll more than likely be very happy with what you get. Will Smith is one of those actors I will watch in almost anything (except for Hitch apparently…) and I like his treatment of Hancock’s many ups and downs. I think he brings the character respectably to life and I have no complaints there. Jason Bateman is also great as Ray. He makes Ray into an incredibly likable and sympathetic guy. Ray’s character could have easily turned into a sap you pity but instead Bateman makes him someone who believably holds his own in extreme circumstances. The dynamic between the two men, how they come together and how they ultimately need each other is one of my favorite parts of the film. It adds a nice human element to all of the action and highway destruction.

Charlize Theron is also fine as Mary. I don’t even mind all that much what they end up doing with her character. She too has good chemistry with Will Smith and while I agree that the second half of the film is lacking I don’t think she’s to blame.

For me, the problem is in how the film is ultimately indecisive. Someone somewhere couldn’t decide what to do with this movie. Do we keep it a dark, adult super hero story and risk the R rating? Or do make it nicer, advertise it in front of family flicks like Prince Caspian, and risk less at the box office. The people at the top went so far and then got cold feet. And the film suffers for it. In just the narrative structure alone, the momentum of the story if killed before it ever really gets going. I think one of the reasons there is so much talk about the first half and the second if is because the halves are so noticeable. There is no smooth arc easing one into the second, there is just the build up and then the twist. After the twist the only thing left is the standard super hero movie action. The action’s not bad, it’s just nothing amazing either.

Hancock goes both ways. There’s the good: the actors are likable and the dialogue is solid. And the bad: the story is uneven and Peter Berg is occasionally self indulgent with his editing.

Where does that leave us, the audience? Hancock is a fun movie that some will love, some will hate, and most will probably forget. Either way, it’s going to make a killing at the box office.

Review: The Happening

Do you ever look around at the world and feel like we’re at the tipping point? That we are precariously balanced, about to fall into disaster. The media is full of talk of global warming, the looming energy crisis, the extinction of different species, pollution, food shortages; the list goes on. We can tune it out but it’s hard to ignore completely. There’s a tension, a waiting for the other shoe to drop.

The Happening begins on this perch and slides into the disaster.

I feel like I’m one of the few people who actually enjoyed M. Night Shyamalan’s newest film. Maybe it’s because I’m a fan; the only movie of his I can say that I straight up do not like is Signs. Maybe it’s because I had no expectations going into it. Either way, while I can’t necessarily argue that it’s a good film, I will say that it is enjoyable and I feel like it gets it right in the places where it really counts.

The story is an exercise in end of the world paranoia. There has been a mysterious attack in Central Park. The population of New York has been exposed to some toxin. It begins with disorientation and incoherent speech. Its ending is fatal. We watch the event spread from the park to the city’s rooftops. And then we are spirited away to Philadelphia. We reach Elliot Moore’s classroom moments before the word of the attack does. And then we see the confusion spread faster than the toxin itself.

Is it terrorists? Is it our government? Is it something natural? Through the increasing panic one thing becomes clear: it is spreading to smaller and smaller populations and nowhere is safe.

We follow Elliot (Mark Wahlberg), his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel), Elliot’s friend and fellow teacher Julian (John Leguizamo), and Julian’s young daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez). They flee Philadelphia only to find themselves stranded in a small town that lies in the center of the Northeast states being attacked. From there it becomes a race to safety and a fight for survival.

Unlike M. Night’s previous films there is no “twist” at the end. There is no magical solution. Whether or not our characters survive is taken out of their hands. The plot is laid out for us step by step, as is the film’s message. It’s all made very simple. The way the story is told can be a turn off; it can come across as preachy and overly moralizing. At the same time though it lets us focus not on figuring out some convoluted story, we can focus instead on what these characters are going through, what they are feeling, it gives us time to connect.

Unfortunately, we don’t necessarily have something solid to connect to. It’s hard to be engaged with characters when you can see the actors struggling with the material. I like Mark Wahlberg a lot and I think he has the potential to do great things, especially when he’s paired with a strong director, however he also has the potential to be wooden and unconvincing. In The Happening I feel like that is the case. His performance feels stiff and forced. The delivery on some of his lines is just downright painful to watch.

It’s a problem of script and direction. I didn’t particularly care for a lot of the dialogue and the actors frequently seemed to not quite know what to do with it. Zooey Deschanel had more or less one expression that she kept plastered on her face for most of the film. While the argument could be made that Alma is in shock and is having a difficult time adjusting to the circumstances, the result is a character who’s emotions fall flat. John Leguizamo also tried really hard to deliver a strong performance. He’s really good but again he just doesn’t have enough good material. You can see him struggling with it.

Stylistically I feel like The Happening has fallen behind M. Night’s previous films. Where you may not like The Village, you could probably at least agree that it looks good. The same with Lady in The Water and even Signs, no matter what they look good. The Happening looks ok. It just doesn’t live up to the bar that M. Night seems to have set for himself. Of course, when he works with cinematographers like Roger Deakins and Chris Doyle you’re pretty much guaranteed a beautiful looking film. That aside the cinematography in The Happening is very much like the script. For the most part unremarkable, at times distractingly bad.

Wait, did I not say that I enjoyed The Happening? With all of these flaws, what is there to possibly like?

While technically the film fails, emotionally it surprisingly manages to work. Despite everything I found myself time after time reacting to what I was seeing happen. I cared. Even where the performances don’t work, the chemistry between the actors does. At the same time I was cringing over Wahlberg’s delivery of a line, I was completely buying the relationship between Elliot and Alma. Their interactions with each other made me smile. There is genuine warmth. The same is true in their relationship with Jess. I believed Alma’s protective, maternal instinct where the little girl was concerned.

The film is as much about the love these characters feel for each other and their struggles to fully acknowledge and express it as it is about the mysterious toxin killing people. It’s about their struggle to overcome the problems that are of their own making.

In the end, M. Night somehow manages to overcome himself and deliver a film that hits all of the right emotional notes. It’s by no means brilliant, it’s even an odd choice for a summer release (the season of blockbusters), but personally I think it’s ultimately an enjoyable story to see told. Especially if you’re a fan of M. Night. Otherwise, there’s plenty in the film to dislike and you may want to give something else a try instead.

Review: Sex In The City: The Movie

Before I get into this review I’m just going to come out and say it. I hated the movie. Completely, flat out, hated it. Looking around at other reviews I can see that while I’m not alone I am in the minority. I guess my point is that while I hated it, you may very well love it. So read on or don’t, enjoy it or don’t, maybe I just didn’t get it.

It’s not that I’m not a fan of the show (if you've read this blog, you know otherwise). I’ll admit that I haven’t seen every episode but I do watch it on a regular basis, have watched it for years, and I enjoy it. Yes I think it’s silly and shallow and I really never have understood SJP’s wardrobe. But it’s fun escapist television about women having sex in a city that I love. I can turn my brain off for a while and go with it.

It’s also not that my expectations were too high. Honestly, they were pretty low. All I was looking for was a fun movie about characters that I like and know.

That’s not what I feel like I got. I feel cheated.

Almost immediately I was thrown for a loop. The lights went down, the picture came up, the familiar music started to play… and then… Fergie? Uh. Huh? Where is the rest of our theme song? Where is Carrie in her tutu?

Granted, it is four years later. A lot can change in four years. Carrie and Big are still together! And they’re happy! Miranda is a workaholic, Steve is trying his best, and Brady is still adorable. Charlotte and Harry have adopted their beautiful Lily and are living their fairytale life. Samantha and Smith are out in LA (Really? Samantha left NYC? The sex really must be good!).

That’s our status quo. I don’t really want to say much more than that because I don’t want to spoil anything for those of you who have been kind enough to keep reading. So with that in mind I won’t say anything more about the plot points and I’ll instead tell you what this movie did (or didn’t do) to earn my absolute loathing.

First of all, spoilers aside, the plot is awful. Rather than any reasonably developing progression where point A follows point B, where we see a cause and effect, instead I feel like we are given a scenario where This happens and then This happens and so on and so forth. Nothing feels motivated by what precedes it in the film, let alone the six years of television history. There is the occasional reference to something we remember happening, the occasional name-dropping (remember that guy Aidan?), That’s pretty much as far as it goes.

In fairness to the story, they do try to give us something for everyone. Each of the girls is featured at some point.

Honestly though, I hate what they do with Carrie. She is so passive for the entire film. I feel like her character is completely lost, she has no voice. I’ve always thought Carrie was silly but she was silly in her own special way. In the movie she isn’t just depressed; she is silenced.

As for everyone else… Miranda is an uber- (word that is censored). She is beyond the tough lawyer I occasionally roll my eyes at but like in general. She is uncompromising and unlikable. It is her character taken to a simplified extreme that loses any of the minimal complexity she was originally given. What made her an interesting, empowered female character in the series is completely taken away and instead we’re given an insulting version of what is in store for any female who decides to attempt a challenging career in addition to a family.

Charlotte… poor Charlotte. She isn’t so much a human being as she is a shrieking doll. Did Charlotte do anything other than screech? In a rare self-aware moment, Miranda is given a line commenting on Charlotte’s screeching. That doesn’t excuse it! Then that whole thing with Charlotte in Mexico? Really? Give me a break.

As for Samantha. Meh, I honestly don’t have much to say about the roll she and Smith are given. It’s more like our lovely writer said “Hey, here’s who they were in the series, let’s just do the same thing with them we’ve done a million times before. And Samantha can adopt a puppy. No one will notice that we completely throw away these characters if there is a cute humping puppy involved!” The puppy humps more than Samantha does. I’m not kidding.

The one new character Louis (played by Jennifer Hudson) is an improvement and welcome break from everyone else but that is saying next to nothing.

I could go on at this point about Steve and Big and the gay boys and others. I think you get my point though. Yes, we see almost everyone we cared about. Yes, they are doing the same wacky things. That’s it though; there is no depth. There is nothing to them. They never come alive. The fault may be with the actors but based on David Eigenberg’s and even Chris Noth’s performances, my opinion is just that the script and the direction failed. Completely.

Where is the wittiness? Where are the clever lines? Comebacks? Commentary? A cute line or two that we've all ready seen in the trailers. A joke about Vogue airbrushing and a surprising reference to Diane Arbus. A vulnerable moment with Charlotte, an actually convincing moment with Steve. Occasionally the heart of Sex in the City shows through. Unfortunately these moments are rare and the film is bogged down with clichés, bad jokes, gross out humor, and a plot that is never developed but instead thrown at us.

Sometimes a movie adapted from a television show runs the risk of seeming like an overly long episode. For Sex in the City, that scenario would have been a welcome improvement.

When it comes down to it, this movie is insulting. Samantha has to call Miranda out on an overgrowth of a certain type of hair? Everyone has to call Samantha out on gaining, what, five pounds? The only things that matter are weddings, babies, and expensive accessories? Is that really all we’re supposed to care about?

Say what you will about the show, but I never felt as angry or insulted watching it as I did almost every minute of this movie. I wanted to like it. I really, really did. I knew it wasn’t going to be great but I would have been happy with fun. Instead, the only thing that made me want to cry was the fact that I spent over ten dollars ton the ticket price.

I really hope for your sake that you avoid this absolute mess of storytelling and waste of time. Or that if you must go see it, and I can understand if that might be the case, that you get more enjoyment out of it than I did.

As it is, I will never willingly watch this movie again and it’s going to be a very long time before I’ll be able to stomach any more Sex in the City. If everything else wasn’t enough to make me angry, that right there is.

Goodbye Sex and the City. It was fun while it lasted but, alas, it was apparently never meant to be. Thank you Michael Patrick King. You’ve effectively ruined a decade of pop culture entertainment in two hours and twenty-five minutes. If that was your goal, couldn’t you have at least spared me that last half hour? For a few minutes I thought about giving you two stars. And then I remembered that last half hour. I’m taking a star back.

Sex in the City: The Movie. One very generous star. I’m not convinced you deserve even that.

Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

All right. Go ahead. Say it. I'm too young to REALLY understand Indiana Jones. I wasn't born when Raiders of the Lost Ark was released. I was an infant when Temple of Doom came out. I was only six when we got The Last Crusade. I didn't really grow up with Indiana. I just can't appreciate it at the same level you older folks can, those of you around to watch each successive movie unroll in the theaters.

I say nonsense! Sure, my experience with the trilogy is different. I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark for the first time on HBO. I had to sneak over to friend's house to watch Temple of Doom because my mom was worried it would be too scary for me (she was probably right considering I wasn't even 7 yet). I had to beg my mom to buy me a VHS copy of Last Crusade one afternoon at the grocery store. You're right; I missed them on the big screen. But can I even remember a time when there was no Indy? He was as much a part of my childhood as he was a part of your adolescence.

And now, this chance to FINALLY see Dr. Jones on the big screen, to finally see the adventure in its full and total glory, while the nostalgia may be different for me I promise you it means just as much. When that Paramount logo came up on the screen, the music queued, the lights dimmed, you can bet I was quivering with barely contained excitement and slight trepidation.

What was going to happen? Was Kingdom of The Crystal Skull going to be all that I love about Indiana Jones? Or was it going to be another Episode I? Did I keep myself awake, drag myself to another midnight screening, only to be bitterly disappointed as I was when Lucas murdered Star Wars? (After Episode I I’ve only gone to one other midnight screening, Harry Potter and the Order of The Phoenix, because I was so upset by how awful Star Wars turned out to be).

I blinked as a blinding desert sun filled the screen. A group of kids speeds down the highway. They weave in and out of convoy of military vehicles. As they pull to the front car, daring the driver to race, one of the kids shouts, "Hey, what do you got in there?"

What indeed? Oh I knew. I bet you can guess.

The year is 1957. War World II is over but the Cold War is in full swing. Nazis are now out of the picture but that's okay. We've got the commies instead. We find Indiana kidnapped by the Russians, searching a military warehouse for a mysterious crate, escaping them only to come under suspicion by the FBI in an atmosphere filled with McCarthyism's paranoia. Of course Dr. Jones is going to say forget this, I'm leaving town. But as the train is about to pull out of the station a reckless young man demands his attention and drags Dr. Jones into a search for a missing friend, the boys mother (guess who that is and where that plot line is going), and the mysterious "Crystal Skull". The KGB is not far behind and we soon find ourselves neck deep in the Amazon searching for a lost city of gold.

The hardest thing about a movie featuring such an iconic character coming so long after the original installments is that so much has changed over the last twenty years. I'm no longer a kid pretending there's lava under my swing set, Harrison Ford is passing his prime, George Lucas has proved himself a hack and Stephen Spielberg has moved from the immense creativity of Jaws to the nonsense of War of the Worlds. The technology has changes, the techniques have changed, the world itself has changed. There was so much room for so much to go so wrong.

Instead, they manage to make it go right. Unlike the first three movies, which contain elements of the mystical but still stay relatively grounded in a feeling of realism, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull establishes a level of ridiculousness and absurd energy from the very beginning. This complete departure to fantasy works because the energy is maintained for the entire duration. Sure it requires suspension of disbelief, more than even the originals, but once I suspended it I could keep it suspended. A world is established, we are given rules for that world, and those rules are respected. That in and of itself I appreciate.

Don't get me wrong, Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal skull is completely gooftacular. Shia LeBeouf's character is named "Mutt". He swings through tress like Tarzan. Indiana, Mutt, and Marion get sucked down not one, not two, but three waterfalls. There are aliens!!!

The thing is, like I said, we're told from the very beginning what it is that we're getting into. The goofiness becomes the fun. It is part of this movies charm. The plot is silly but the silliness had me smiling and laughing and thoroughly enjoying myself.

I think the only possible way that an Indiana Jones movie this long after The Last Crusade was released in 1989 would work is if Spielberg and Lucas embraced the elements the elements of fantasy from the originals. Which is exactly what they did. They ran with it and it looks like they had a lot of fun in the process. If seriousness won't work, then take it over the top. Run with it.

At the same time the story went over the top, Spielberg returned to his roots. He and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski were very careful to stay faithful to the tone and style of the original movies. The result is one good-looking movie. Beyond just looking good though, it's actually just plain well crafted.

There is a moment when Mutt and Indy are crawling through a dark tomb, their fingers tracing along artifacts, the light from torches flickering on the walls. I thought to myself "Okay, this is where the movie starts to feel long. This is where I wish they would cut out fifteen minutes." Only... that never happened. The moment in the tomb lasts for just the right amount of time and then it's over. We move on. The craft of filmmaking is something that Spielberg knows and in his return to a younger version of himself he remembers everything he used to do so right. Yes we're seeing a young story through an old lens but trust me. Just like Mutt has a lot to learn from that "Old Man" Henry "Indiana" Jones, all of these new action filmmakers could stand to learn a thing or two from this old man Spielberg. He respects the integrity of form, he knows when to cut a scene, when to have a longer take, how to follow the rules of filmmaking. You need to understand the rules before you can properly break them. Our current crop of directors needs to learn the longer is not necessarily better.

And all of those fun haters out there can just get over it. It's hot outside. Our economy sucks. This movie is escapist fantasy pure and simple. I love Harrison Ford coming back as Indiana Jones, an older and stiffer Indiana for sure but one who can still pack a punch. I like Shia LeBeouf as the young sidekick probably thrown in just to attract that younger audience. I'm so happy to see Karen Allen come back that I could have cried (Marion and Indy are one of my favorite movie couples ever). I even like Cate Blanchett in a role that could have been simply a cookie cutter villain. She manages to make it more.

Age is the theme for this Indiana Jones. Older filmmakers, an older hero, an old love story. None of this is a bad thing. No one should be worried about whether or not this will appeal to a younger audience. I can't deny that it's a film made for the fans but it's a film that's made well and with love. Anyway, who out there isn't a fan of Indiana Jones? Don't expect the serious; just enjoy the ride.

Review: Iron Man

And Summer 2008 at the movies has officially begun.

What can I say about this season’s opener, Iron Man? A few things, some good, some not so good. The one thing that matters though: if this is just the beginning of what we’ll be getting over the next few months, then it’s going to be one hell of a summer.

In this latest of the comic book adaptations we’ve gotten over the last few years, we meet Tony Stark. He’s a billionaire playboy at the head of a weapons manufacturing dynasty. A genius (and possibly borderline sociopath) Tony takes life for granted and gets off more when he blows something up than when he, ah, lays someone down.

The story of Iron Man is simple. This carefree lothario is ambushed in the desert, taken prisoner by Middle Eastern terrorists, and has a revelation that yes, his weapons are in fact hurting the world. He builds a ridiculous “iron” suit, escapes, learns how to fly; there’s a bad guy, a cute girl, and lots of explosions.

That, my friends, is that.

But let’s face it, we don’t go to see a movie like Iron Man for its in-depth plot, complicated characters, or social commentary. We go for the explosions, the shiny lights, and the other absurd effects. So the question then is, does Iron Man deliver?

On the surface it does. By it’s nature, to a certain extent, that’s all that matters. The effects are spot on. The score is appropriately rock & roll and adrenaline pumping. The cinematography is actually quite good (thank you Mr. Libatique!). The acting is… certainly it’s not bad. Okay, the acting is fine. Continuing with the theme of shallow, there just isn’t a lot for these actors to do.

Actually, I was surprised when I first learned of this film’s cast. Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges. You really don’t need that kind of talent in a film of this caliber. But then again maybe that’s the difference between something like this and, say, Fantastic Four. Or Daredevil. Perhaps those movies would have reached the level of Watchablity if they had been filled with more talented casts. As I’ve said in the past, Jessica Alba may be pretty to look at but pretty is about all that girl’s got going for her. So by casting someone like Downey as Tony Stark, someone who’s charm is so easy and natural it’s nearly impossible to temper, John Favreau astutely made the decisions that elevated what would have otherwise been another depressing waste of celluloid into something at the very least entertaining.

That is what Iron Man has going for it. Where does it fall short?

Iron Man is missing the key factor that makes other comic book adaptation successes like the first two Spiderman movies, X-Men, and Batman Begins. Yes, those are good, occasionally even great, films and Iron Man is not on their level for many reasons. But there is one thing above all others that keeps it from crossing that threshold into the realm of greatness. Those other movies are able to go beyond their stories of super heroes and evil villains. They have more to them than just the age-old story of Good vs. Evil. They take their archetypes and they make them Human. They are able to appeal to an audience wider than the fan boys and comic book lovers and special effects freaks. Iron Man fails to move beyond explosions into humanity.

One prime example of this failure, and the thing that bothered me most, is its treatment of the terrorists or insurgents or warlords or whoever they were supposed to be. The men who initially take Stark captive are simple caricatures of the people in the Middle East who we are currently at war with. And yes, I know there’s a long history of dehumanizing the enemy in cinema. We’re about to see another entry into another franchise that is built on this very practice (“I hate Nazis” anyone? You know who I’m talking about). However, I feel like Iron Man takes this simplification too far. Our involvement in the Middle East is complicated and it made me uncomfortable to watch such a crude portrayal of our “enemy”. I can give the film credit and say that it at least moves past this by the end, after we’ve been introduced to the real villain, but I still think that it could have been handled better.

All in all though, Iron Man gives us what it promised it would: the flashy explosions, the badass (and gorgeous and sexy) hero, the epic final battle, and plenty of fan service. It is what it is. A simple action movie. A comic book adaptation. Fodder for sequels and spin offs. And it is wildly entertaining. It made me smile more than it made me cringe and sometimes that’s enough.

If you only see one movie this summer, this is certainly NOT the movie to see. But it looks great on the big screen and tastes good with some popcorn and soda. For a fun start to the summer season, check it out.

If nothing else, you get a few amazing trailers to go along with it.

Thoughts: A Critical Ending

There has been a lot of talk lately about the "death of the critic" and speculation as to its cause. I have thoughts and opinions on the subject but before I get into it I want to share a couple of these articles.

Anne Thompson talks about the changing times and provides a few good links that I think set up the discussion well. Links Here.

One article she links to is Patrick Goldstein's The End of The Critic? I think he also covers several key points.

Briefly, some of my thoughts.

I look for a couple of things in film criticism.

One, simply, I want to know if a movie is supposed to be any good. I don't get to see many films in the theater. There are some that I will see no matter what, even if the critics hate it. And then there are others that I may be on the fence about. It's these films that I look for other opinions. Should I rush to see it? Can I wait for it to make it to the second run theater that has the cheaper tickets? Or should I just wait for video? When I'm all ready missing films like Ang Lee's Lust, Caution I don't really want to waste my movie going time on something like Drillbit Taylor which will probably be just as good (or bad) off of Netflix.

A second thing I read critics for is to find new films. Even if a film may never play in a venue I can get to, I like to know what's going on in the film world. I like to know what's new, what people are getting excited about. When I can't get to Sundance or Cannes myself, I can read about the films from others who were there. Or when a museum is hosting a retrospective on a filmmaker whose work isn't always readily available, I can find a new name to at least look for.

There's so much film out there that if you look to just the mainstream you'll miss most of it. Film critics can be a great source for finding the new, they can bridge the gap between the blockbuster and the obscure art film. A wonderful thing.

The third reason I look to critics, and the area where I find myself being most frustrated, is to find critical discussion, discourse, debate. I want to see what other people who love film, who are educated in film theory and history, have to say about something like No Country For Old Men for example. Is it really as great as everyone likes to think it is? I can watch No Country and see for myself that the cinematography is great. What I'm looking for is something beyond the obvious. I want an artistic context.

Instead, most of what I find is this: "It looks great. The Coen brothers are great. Javier Bardem is great (despite his funny haircut)."

Well, really? I could tell you that. In fact, I did tell you that. I don't want to read the things that I can come up with on my own. I want something beyond that.

So are we seeing the end of criticism? I don't know. The nature of criticism is certainly changing. Like most of the articles you'll find behind the links say, the internet is democratizing criticism. And not just for film. For everything. Anyone can start a blog on any topic they care about. Anyone can post a review. I think that's a great thing. There is a value in that.

But there are elements that you are just not going to find in Joe Everyman's review. Because us bloggers, we're just the laymen. I like to think of myself as being competently educated in film but I don't have the knowledge or skill to contextualize the way I would like to see films contextualized.

What I would like the future of criticism to be is a mix between the highbrow and the low. Between the experts and the fans. A beautiful balance that will create a community of film lovers. A utopia of sorts. Community. And we're starting to get it. You can find it in the obvious places like Rotten Tomatoes. My hope is that we can have the new, this democracy of opinion, without completely losing the old.

I think it's something that is certainly possible. And I think a shake up in the world of print criticism is not a bad thing at all. Clear away some of the nonsense, bring critics in touch with what is going on in the world. Create debate.

What I love so much about reading older critics like Pauline Kael is that they not only discuss a film and whether or not it's good. They argue with each other. They argue with their audience. There is a discourse. And their reviews end up revealing just as much about the state of the film world as whether or not a movie is good. Through their writing we can see a reflection of our culture as a whole.

Film is more than just entertainment for me. It is an integral part of my life. I want to find the critics who I can relate to. I don't need another hack. I need people like Jonathan Rosenbaum. I may not always agree with him but when I read about how film has shaped his life, when I read about why he likes or dislikes certain films, I know I have found a kindred spirit. Another lover of film.

I look to the critics for opinions, for advice, but mostly for their love. If this shake up can knock out a few of the hacks... then by all means, shake away!

The establishment always gets nervous when they see the world changing. But that's just how the world works. It changes. The new becomes old. The old is retired. Sometimes the change is for the best, sometimes it's not. It is, however, always inevitable. The only way to survive it is to roll with it. Ebert has figured that out. If others want to as well, then I recommend they start blogs of their own. If they're any good, the audience will find them.

Review: The Other Boleyn Girl

There is something seductive about the idea of two of cinema’s most striking leading ladies being featured in a sensuous, lush historical drama. The idea becomes even more enticing when you place a gentleman with dark, searching eyes between them. And just as different opinions on religion flow in out of fashion in the Tudor court, the historical drama itself has thrust itself into the forefront of our movie going conscience; the season is ripe for films like Focus Features’ The Other Boleyn Girl.

In this adaptation of Phillipa Gregory’s excellent novel, the forces of Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman are combined. They are cast as the Boleyn sisters, Johansson as the innocent, light Mary and Portman as the dark, dangerous Anne. Gregory’s story is one filled with seduction, greed, lust, betrayal, obedience, and, most significantly, ambition. She weaves together fact and fiction to tell a famous story from the outsider’s eyes. The eyes of the other Boleyn girl, the eyes of Mary.

While it’s true that Gregory does use a bit of literary license in her novel, she stays to true the overarching facts of history. She creates a story that is both entertaining and intriguing. A story that challenges the reader to take sides, to dare to judge the people involved, and then shows in the end how we are all merely, simply human.

Where the novel succeeds in it’s richness of detail, bringing to life the court of King Henry VIII, the film unfortunately fails. I mention the novel’s strengths to offer a counterpoint to the film’s weaknesses. Where Gregory plays with facts to enhance the story, the filmmakers change facts completely for a purpose that I could not fathom. Where Gregory gives us rich details that add depths and bring the reader’s imagination to life, the film is overblown, silly, and pretentious. Where Anne, Mary, and George Boleyn of Gregory’s imagination are siblings whose complicated relationships are at once believable and sympathetic, the film’s Boleyn’s are dense and unremarkable.

The film’s director Justin Chadwick and cinematographer Kieran McGuigan are able to paint a pretty picture but there is nothing of substance beyond it. Which in itself seems to miss the point of the story they are attempting to tell. I found the stylistic decisions to often be distracting. When your production design is as gorgeous as this film’s, I want to see it, I don’t want half of my frame obscured by some random foreground object, the other half out of focus.

However, I think the biggest fault is in the writing. I don’t understand the choice to open the film as they did, with King Henry visiting the Boleyn estate and having Anne thrown at him. It is one of many departures from both the novel and history and serves only to offer us a drawn out and completely unengaging representation of events. The entire first act is slow moving, fails to develop any of the characters, and left me not caring one bit about anyone.

The development of Anne and Mary gradually improves as the plot unfolds but this has more to do with the strength of the performances than anything else. At least by the end of the film I had a sense of who these two women were supposed to be, if nothing else.

What I really do fail to understand though is the reasoning behind all of the changes that are made. Having read Gregory’s novel I know that while long it is certainly an adaptable story. The film’s greatest flaw is its failure as this adaptation. Rather than focusing on one element, one protagonist (which sensibly should have been Mary since that’s whose story the novel tells) the film cannot make up its mind and as a result it is no one’s story. It becomes a string of plot points. A boring history lesson in which the history you’re learning is not even a history you can trust.

Which I suppose brings up questions such as what is a version of history that can be trusted? Since the storyteller easily manipulates truths, events come to mean whatever those relating them want them to mean, etc. And if I thought something like was what the filmmakers were trying to give us then, well, that could have been thought provoking at least. But I don’t think that is what they were trying to do and their point had about as much presence as Eric Bana’s King Henry (that is to say, not a lot).

The Other Boleyn Girl is another pretty face with absolutely nothing behind it. It loses its charms after first glance and never gives the viewer anything worthy of a second look. If historical drama is the fashion you crave, the novel is available in any major bookstore.

Review: The Messengers

It looked promising: A creepy old house, an unsuspecting family, something disturbing in the walls. There were whispers of real life phenomena, there was speculation about what a small child is able to perceive.

And then… there was mediocrity.

The marketing campaign for The Messengers had me. I have to admit it. I love ghost stories, I love being creeped out, and when I heard that the Pang brother’s were directing a new film set in a dilapidated farmhouse in the middle of America’s heartland, I was a little excited. I loved, still love, their enormously effective The Eye (the unfortunate remake starring Jessica Alba is currently in theaters). The Eye is great; it’s well directed, well acted, and genuinely scary. Beyond all that though, it has a good story. A good story in a ghost flick? Go figure.

The website and trailer for The Messengers had me going and when it was released, I saw it in the theater, by myself. I was completely prepared to be freaked out. Was I? Well, I guess a little bit at moments but for the most part, not really.

The Messengers is about Roy and Denise and their two children Jess and Ben. After an act of rebellion has nearly fatal consequences for Jess and her little brother, Roy decides to move the family away from urban life. The idea is to take Jess away from the bad influences and to give their family a fresh start. This fresh start is to happen on a run down farm in the middle of South Dakota.

Bright yellow sunflowers clash with dark rotting wood. Peace is interrupted by mayhem. There is something not right in the old house. Jess is the first to suspect but it’s the story of the boy who cried wolf. After everything that’s happened, Jess has no credibility and her parent’s think she is merely seeking attention.

Take a dysfunctional family and throw a couple of mysterious strangers, a few ghosts, and some pissed off crows into the mix… and you get a bit of a mess.

The characters aren’t bad, the acting is okay, the movie looks good, there are a few suspenseful moments, but things just never come together. The cast is not bad with Kristen Stewart, Dylan McDermott, and John Corbett all featured. William B. Davis (The Cigarette Smoking Man in The X-Files) even has a cameo.

I do wonder what it is about Asian horror that just does not work in American films. I hate the idea of remakes but after watching so many of them I’ve come to the conclusion that the remake part is not what makes them bad. I think it’s possibly cultural but I certainly don’t know enough to draw any more conclusions than that.

Whatever the reason is, aesthetics that work so well in The Eye fail to enthrall in The Messengers. What we get in the end is a mediocre ghost story with a couple of scares, mildly likeable characters, and an overly complex ending that really does not work. It’s disappointing but hey, at least it wasn’t another remake. At least the Pang brothers attempted to do something original. They should get credit for trying.

Review: The Mist

Originally posted at Epinions

There's this thing that happens when a Stephen King story is adapted into a film. It doesn't always, always happen. But it usually does. What is it? It's that Stephen King's stories, tales of horror, terror, survival, and human nature, stories that read so well on the page, become, well, bad. Almost every single story to be adapted into a film fails to translate onto the screen. Most Stephen King films look like cheap made for TV crap (which, granted, many of them are).

There are of course the notable exceptions. Among them are Brian De Palma's Carrie, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, Rob Reiner's Stand By Me and Frank Darabont's The Shawshank Redemption. Not only is Shawshank Redemption a great adaptation, it is a great film frequently listed at the top of Best Of... lists. In addition to Shawshank, Darabont has also given us The Green Mile. While not topping Shawshank it to is a great adaptation. So when Darabont decided to give us yet another Stephen King story, The Mist, I'll admit it. I was a little excited.

The Mist is an adaptation of the novella by the same name that appeared first in Dark Forces and then again in the short story collection Skeleton Crew. It's the story of David Drayton and what happens when a mysterious mist envelops his hometown in Main. A violent storm rips through Main, wreaking havoc and destroying property. The following day, as the people take stock of the damage, a strange mist descends upon them from the hills to north. Hills that are home to a military base and the mysterious Arrowhead Project.

David, his young son Billy, and their neighbor Brent Norton make a trip to the supermarket where many others have come to stock up on supplies. While in the market, the mist rolls in. As the outside world disappears from view, the earth shakes and everything seems to stop. In the silence a single man runs through the white. "There's something in the mist!" he screams. Blood pours from his nose. Frightened, the people in the market shut the glass doors against the acrid smelling mist, against whatever else is lurking in it.

What follows is a survival story that has Stephen King's fingerprints all over it. We are introduced to a cast of characters including David, an artist known for his movie posters, Norton, a slick talking lawyer from New York, Ollie Weeks, an unassuming employee of the market, Amanda Dunfrey, the new teacher in town, Irene, Dan Miller, Bud Brown, and finally, Mrs. Carmody.

Played by Thomas Jane (The Punisher), David is the classic King hero. A regular guy, a family guy, a strong guy with a head on his shoulders who manages to stay cool in an extreme circumstance. Amanda (Laurie Holden) is the classic King heroine. She's hot, she's sexual, she doesn't need a man and therefore she's a woman who every man wants. While The Mist is definitely Thomas Jane's movie, Marcia Gay Harden comes within a hair's distance of stealing it from him. As the doom saying, sacrifice preaching Mrs. Carmody, Harden is as frightening as she is passionate. While, again, this is Jane's movie, Harden's performance is close to being the best part of it.

The Mist is different kind of King story than Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. While Stephen King is known for his horror, his supernatural stories, there are variations. Some stories are more tails of humanity that happen to contain a couple of elements of horror. Some stories however are meant to scare. They are stories of monsters, death, of things that go bump in the night, they are tails about things that would make most of us lose our sanity before we could even fully comprehend what we are facing. Shawshank Redemption is story of human nature; The Mist is a story of survival, a story of terror. The thing I was most interested to see was how Darabont would handle this different kind of Stephen King story.

For the most part, he handles it very, very well. The actors, the characters they play, how Darabont goes about shooting a film that spends most of its time in one interior location. All of these things work. What also works are the small details. A character decides to leave the store, to make a run for his truck. David asks him to tie a clothesline around his waist, so they can see how far he gets. At first the rope plays out as it should. Then, it stops. The people in the store wait tensely, their breaths held. Finally, the rope moves again. There is a sigh of relief followed quickly by a cry of terror. The rope flies through David's hands, burning his palms. And then, it not only pulls out faster than any human could pull it, it starts to slide upward. Up and up until it hits the top of the door. It pulls taught and finally, it stops again, falling harmlessly to floor. What that bit shows is not only that something has gotten the man outside, it shows quietly, visually, exactly how unimaginably large whatever the thing hiding in the mist actually is.

Little bits like this work very well. Unfortunately there are other bits that don't reach the same successful level. I think the biggest problem Darabont has in his adaptation is, well, his adaptation. While he has made changes, he has his additions, there is so much that he has taken almost word for word from the story. What works so well on the page does not always work on the screen. There are scenes that seem written by a fan boy, scenes almost comical in how literally they take King's story. I'm all about fidelity in an adaptation but there is a line before it becomes too much. Darabont regrettably crosses that line several times.

In spite of this one fallback, for the most part Darabont succeeds in giving us a gripping story of horror and humanity. And, as in the story, the key to survival becomes a question of where the greatest danger exists. Is it outside with the monsters in the mist? Or is it inside with monsters in our hearts? What I find most interesting about Darabont's adaptation is that where it stays so close to the story for so much of it, in the end it moves so far away. One thing that King is best at is giving us the ambiguous ending. He takes the story so far and then he leaves us. And while in some ways we may want to know if our heroes live or die, in another his endings are very satisfying because they always leave us at just the right moment. They give us enough and what we are left with are ambiguities in our characters' fates that compliment whatever story King is trying to tell.

Darabont takes The Mist one step farther than King does. We see our characters' fates. As a result, I feel like the ambiguity still exists but it serves a different purpose. Where in King's story Mrs. Carmody and her fanaticism are an absolute evil, in Darabont's film I'm not as sure as to what it is the message is supposed to be. The ending Darabont gives us at first was a complete shock and I kind of liked it. Rather than hold back, he punches his audience in the gut, hard. However, after more thought I'm not sure how I feel about it because it colors the rest of the movie. What is Darabont trying to say about David and the others? I know how I want to feel, how I want to interpret things, but the ending of the film doesn't let me go completely the direction I want to go. So in this moment I think I have to say that I prefer King's ending. It's not that it's uncomplicated or easy, it's just that I think it's more successful in having a stance and getting a point across. I don't feel like Darabont ever gets there. I don't feel like he has a clear stance, I don't feel like his message is decided.

Really though, just taking The Mist for what it is, a horror story set in a supermarket with various people fighting for survival, it's a really good time. It kept me entertained, I liked the people I was watching, and overall I really enjoyed it. And there it is. Not the best Stephen King adaptation ever made but still. The Mist is a competent, well done film with a good story. It's a Stephen King movie actually worth your time.

Review: Into The Wild

Originally posted at Epinions

Every once in a long while I see a film that really touches a nerve. A film that tells a story I can relate to, a story that is in some way my own. Into The Wild tells a story that is not only mine, it is a story that a million others share with me. There are films that dive into our psyche, explore themes, feelings, and ideas that we all, at one time or another, have experienced. Into The Wild is one of those films.

For me, I think it’s the fact that the story is about 23-year-old Chris McCandless, a college graduate disillusioned with the life set before him. He takes off across country, leaves everything behind, cuts off all ties. He experiences a freedom most of us can only dream of.

In terms of my life, where I’m at: I’m a 24-year-old college graduate who only recently decided to stop driving around the country, pick a place to live, and attempt to settle into a somewhat normal (and I mean that in the loosest sense) lifestyle. It’s a change that is hard at the best of times and watching Into The Wild I longed to be back behind the wheel of my car, driving to some new place I’ve yet to see.

Of course, in all of my travels I never cut up my credit cards, burned my money, and my parents always knew where I was. So watching Chris I was even a bit envious. Because I always saw those turn-offs on the highway, I always wondered where they would leave me, but I only ever made the turn once or twice. And I always ended up at my planned destination.

That’s where Into The Wild hits for me. It also hits through the people that Chris meets. In a sense, the film romanticizes Chris’s journey but in another way it shows so completely how his foolish decisions affected those he touched. The story expresses change in people so very, very well. Whether it’s Chris’s family (Marcia Gay Harden, William Hurt, Jena Malone), the hippies Rainy and Jan (Brian Dierker and Catherine Keener), the farmer who’s business practices aren’t completely straight (Vince Vaughn), a lonely old man (Hal Holbrook), an innocent young girl (Kristen Stewart), or Chris himself (Emile Hirsch), the film shows subtly who they are and who they become. In each case, it’s about love. Love is the idea at the heart of Into The Wild. What it takes to find it, what we need to feel it, that we all deserve it.

Into The Wild is by far one of the best films of 2007. Sean Penn does a remarkable job in bringing Jon Krakauer’s book about Chris to life. Every actor becomes the person they are portraying. Penn tells the story with sensitivity while at the same time showing us Chris’s flaws. It’s not about Chris’s fate; it’s about the journey he takes. So yes, there is a bit of romanticizing going on, but the film isn’t telling us to necessarily follow in Chris’s footsteps. Because ultimately his path is as foolish as it is hurtful to those in his life. It’s a tragedy that it took so much for Chris to find what he was searching for.

The film shows how lonely and lost we can all be. It understands that we are all searching for something. What are we searching for? I have no idea. I guess it’s something different for everyone, I certainly haven’t found my something yet. And maybe that’s why I can relate to Chris’s story so well.
Not only is the story well told, the film is just very well done. As much of the story is told visually as it is told through dialogue, narration, and music. Oh yes, I can’t forget to mention the music. It seems so appropriate that Eddie Vedder has put together this soundtrack. The soundtrack compliments the film so perfectly that I’m not really sure what more I can say about it. Beyond that it’s perfect.

Into The Wild is one of those rare films where I actually agree with all the hype, where I think the attention is actually deserved. It’s a film that I just can’t recommend enough.

Review: Atonement

Originally posted at Epinions

Two figures stand by a fountain. A little girl watches from a window. What the girl thinks she sees only marginally corresponds with what actually occurs between the man and woman below. A little girl’s perception, a little girl’s imagination, a confusion, occasionally deliberate, of truth. This is what lies at the heart of Joe Wright’s Atonement.

Atonement is the second feature by director Joe Wright, his 2005 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice being his first. An adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel, Atonement tells the story of writer Bryony Tallis, her sister Cecilia, and their gardener Robbie Turner. It’s a story of love, hurt, passion, and forgiveness: what the characters involved want, need, and ultimately fail to find.

The story begins in England on the cusp of World War I. Over the course of an evening lives are torn apart by a crime of lust and young Bryony’s purposely false accusation of guilt. As a result Robbie Turner is torn from his lover Cecilia. The story continues through the war four years later, telling the story of Cecilia and Robbie’s attempt to reclaim the life that was stolen from them and of Bryony’s attempt to make things right.

The narrative meanders throughout the course of the film, the story being told out of sequence and from different points of view. We see glimpses of the private lives of Robbie, Cecilia, and Bryony. But what is true and what is imagined? What version of events can we trust? How much is Bryony’s invention?

As a result of how the story is told you do have to pay attention. There are enough cues that I never found it so disorienting as to take me out of the film. In the end everything makes sense and any questions I was left with seem to be left unanswered for a reason. The idea is that if it’s not our story we can only know as much as we are told. If our narrator is unreliable then we can trust what they give us only so far. The idea of trust and ambiguity in a narrative is one that I find fascinating and films that explore that generally appeal to me. I enjoy being allowed to think and question, I like being challenged. Atonement succeeds in this sense.

Of course, while there are questions raised, enough is given that if you are more inclined to see a movie that is straightforward Atonement can still be perfectly enjoyable. While not completely linear, its narrative is not confusing. The visuals are lush and the acting is strong. Keira Knightly continues to impress and James McAvoy makes Robbie Turner such an incredibly sympathetic character that it is near impossible to not ache for him.

Saoirse Ronan is Bryony at 13 while Romola Garai comes in for the older 18-year-old Bryony. I personally prefer Garai’s older Bryony but Ronan is still solid. I think for me it may be more that Bryony is more complex character at 18 and therefore more sympathetic. Vanessa Redgrave also has a few minutes as Bryony at the end of her life and, interestingly, I found this elderly Bryony to be the least sympathetic of all. Where the child acts out of hurt and the young woman seeks to repair, the old woman has fallen back on the sins she committed at 13 and seems to have failed to grasp the lessons she should have learned.

Balancing the different view points expressed in Atonement is tricky at times and as a result the pacing is a bit off. It slows down in the middle which is unfortunate considering the slowest portion had the potential to be the most affecting. Where it could have added substantially to the emotional impact of the film, the problems with pacing instead detract from it. So while I felt sad as I watched the credits roll, my eyes remained dry.

I love Wright’s use of long, moving shots, how he deals with the passage of time, as well as his use of sound (most notably the use of the sound of a type writer in Atonement). I’m incredibly interested to see what Wright does with his next film, The Soloist.

Atonement is a good, almost excellent film. There are flaws for sure but it’s strengths make up for them. A beauty to watch, characters to care for, Atonement is a film definitely worth seeing.

Review: Entrails of a Beautiful Woman

Originally posted at Epinions



If you’ve read some of my earlier reviews (like my horror movie top ten list or my Zombie movie list) then you may know that I’m huge fan of horror and gore and the ridiculous. This usually leads me to titles like the ones you’ll find on those lists, a variety of films from all different countries, all falling under the category of Horror. Gore, blood, violence, death and mayhem. I love it.

Of course, on my search for more gore, on my quest to find that perfect fountain of blood, I’ve unfortunately encountered films that are little too much even for me. For example, I do not like the rape/revenge sub-genre. While I can enjoy something like Takashi Miike’s Ichi the Killer or Visitor Q, I’m completely turned off by Wes Craven’s Last House on the Left.

Which leads me to director Gaira. My first encounter with him came about in a little video store in Atlanta, GA. A friend and I were perusing the foreign horror section, this store had an absurdly impressive selection, and we came across this bizarre looking VHS titled Entrails of a Virgin. Well. Knowing absolutely nothing about Gaira (yes, he goes by one name. His full name is something like Kazuo Komizu) my friend and I decided that Entrails of a Virgin combined with a bottle of Riesling were just what the evening needed.

Not so much. We ended up hitting the fast forward button a lot…

So Entrails of a Virgin was a bit of a bust for us. There were some all right parts but mostly, a little too much with the soft-core porn for our tastes.

Why then did I decide to add Entrails of a Beautiful Woman to my Netflix queue? I have no idea. I guess I never learn.

Entrails of a Beautiful Woman is a sort of sequel to Entrails of a Virgin. There are actually three movies in the series; I believe the third is called Naked Blood (that one I WON’T be watching). The plot doesn’t really follow the plot of the first movie at all. Really they have nothing to do with each other beyond the titles. And the director. And weird monsters who like to do horrible, perverse things to people. And have really disturbing bits of anatomy.

Beautiful Woman begins in a factory where a Yakuza gang is holding a young girl captive. After being gang raped and drugged up, the girl escapes and finds her way to a female doctor. The girl tells the doctor who has attacked her and then swan dives off of the roof. The doctor tracks down the Yakuza members, there’s a bit of revenge, more rape, drugs, and then… a giant gooey monster? And possibly the most disturbing Alien reference I’ve ever seen.

Beautiful Woman is advertised as being about this monster. It’s not really. The monster shows up maybe fifteen minutes before the end of the movie. Up until that happens Beautiful Woman actually does have a real plot. That plot just happens to be an excuse to make a soft-core snuff film.

Why did I forget to hit the fast forward button??

There’s really nothing redeeming about Entrails of a Beautiful Woman. If you like this particular sub-genre you might want to check it out. Or if you’re hugely curious about the gooey entrails monster. Did I mention the monster is also a transforming transvestite? Don’t ask me how that one comes about. It’s really silly.

Beyond that though. I don’t even recommend watching it for the sake of completion. Mostly it’s just long and boring with a mediocre plot and soft-core sex. I know, talking about sex is probably just going to encourage a lot people. Geez, just download some porn. You don’t need to watch this movie.

There’s not even a point in talking about the direction or acting or anything else. That’s not what this movie is about. It’s about putting beautiful women in demeaning situations designed to excite the audience and then throwing in a few gross out moments to make people go “Ew.”

I just have to note here, that when I say go “Ew,” what I mean is this: it had me squeeing rather loudly. Saying things like “Holy S***”, “What the F*…”, “They are not…”, “EEEEEEEWWW”. My roommate and her boyfriend, who were in the other room with the door closed, were very amused.

Those “Ew” moments are effective, I’m forced to admit, but not worth the time it takes to get to them. So if you’re really curious and I can’t discourage you, hit it up on Netflix and keep your remote in hand. I recommend the x8 button at least.

The DVD actually does include an interview with Gaira, which was interesting for about five minutes before I got really bored by his self-congratulatory pretentious monologue. That had nothing to with Entrails of a Beautiful Woman.

At least at that point I had the presence of mind to hit stop.

Bijo no harawata
Entrails of a Beautiful Woman
1986
68 min
Japanese with English Subtitles

Review: Eastern Promises

Cross posted at Epinions.
On the surface Eastern Promises is a story about Midwife Anna (Naomi Watts), the dead Russian girl Tatiana (Sarah-Jeanne Labrosse, voice over by Tatiana Maslany), Russian mobster Kirill (Vincent Cassel), and his mysterious driver Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen). Tatiana is brought to Anna’s ward hemorrhaging, her baby in distress. Anna look’s into the girl’s purse to find identification and instead finds a small diary. As the infant Christine is gently brought to life, Tatiana slips away from it. In an effort to locate Tatiana’s family, Anna takes the diary to her Russian uncle for translation. She also ventures into a Russian restaurant whose business card was tucked away in the diary.

Sometimes the secrets of the dead are best buried with them.

Through Anna’s efforts to translate Tatiana’s diary, two worlds that were never meant to meet collide. Middle class, normal, London is exposed to the dark corruption of the Russian mob, the Vory V Zekone.

Anna who was never meant to meet Nikolai, never meant to know what secrets are hidden behind some doors, is exposed to a dangerous desire. Exactly what it is that Anna desires however is not a simple thing. This is not a simple answer of lust. Is it a desire for Nikolai, a man who exudes sexuality impossible for any woman to ignore (including the ones sitting in the theater)? Is it a maternal desire to protect the baby Christine?

It is a desire for all of the things Anna has longed for, the things that have remained just out of reach, the things that have slipped painfully through her fingers. Anna’s wide green eyes betray all of her thoughts, she is vulnerable yet strong, passionate, and every feeling she has is there in her eyes for Nikolai to see.

By contrast, who is Nikolai? Where has he come from? What is he trying to accomplish? Whose side is he on? Some of those questions are answered, some never are. While Anna keeps no secrets, secrets are all Nikolai has. The plot may not hold many surprises, there are many developments that are easy to see coming, but the story is layered and thick. While we are given one answer, supplied certain information, there are other more subtle points that remain ambiguous. We may eventually learn what exactly Nikolai’s goal is, but he still keeps his soul hidden from us. We are let in only so much.

Eastern Promises is on the surface a violent crime thriller about the Russian mob in London. However, like the currents of the Thames, Eastern Promises reveals secrets that were never meant to stay hidden. Nikolai hides a body in the river; David Cronenberg hides more behind the blood.

This is a film for adults. There is violence, there is blood, there is sex, there are drugs. These things are not there to exploit, they are not there to titillate. David Cronenberg has created a film for a mature audience who can watch a violent fight between three men in a bathhouse and see that there is a point for the inclusion Mortenson’s naked body. Cronenberg has never been afraid of the elements that offend, has never shied away from the things that make us uncomfortable. He instead embraces them. If something creates such a passionate response in an audience, if an exposed breast or a slit throat catches people’s notice, then their use can have a powerful effect.

Cronenberg has often explored the relationship between the media and sex and violence. Until recently, he has existed on the fringes of the mainstream. He was more of a cult figure. With the success of A History of Violence and his collaboration with Viggo Mortenson, Cronenberg has come fully into the mainstream of filmmaking. Whether the mainstream is ready to fully accept him… that I cannot tell you. I’m personally pleased to see films that are created for the intelligent, thinking, adult audience.

Why is Eastern Promises such a great film? It is because of the violence. It is because of the depth. It is also because of David Cronenberg’s complete awareness of his medium and the talent that he works with. Cronenberg's direction and Viggo Mortensen and Naomi Watts's performances are combined with Steve Knight's script, Peter Suschitzky's cinematography, and Howard Shore's score. From the story telling to the cinematography to the score, every element of Eastern Promises relates to the others. They all compliment when they need to compliment and contrast when contrast is needed. Light is juxtaposed with dark, quiet with noise, passion with passion, love with duty. Eastern Promises is about family, it is about destruction and rebirth, it is about the violence of death and how that violence can give way to new life.

Eastern Promises is a film that, if we want, we can sit back and process as we would any other movie. We can watch the images, see the surface, and go home satisfied. Eastern Promises is also a film that we can read. We can actually see what is on the screen in front of us; actually hear what the characters are saying. Cronenberg gives us a film that means something and invites us to discover what that meaning is.

There is an idea. There is passion. There is art.