After Jake Sully completes his tests and becomes a man in the Omicataya tribe, he visits the trees of the ancestors with Netiriyi.
She tells him that now that he has become a man of "The People," he has the right to choose any tree from which to make his bow. Also, he may have his choice of any woman in the village.
Netiriyi, obviously suffering a heavy heart, names some of possible candidates that Jake might consider claiming as his mate.
After some playful jibing, Jake says, "I've already chosen, but she also needs to choose me."
Just as holds true on our own planet, no culture is perfect. No culture is rock solid noble and wise. The Na'vi may have been keyed into their planet, into their mother Eywa. But when it came to this practice of the Na'vi culture, it was obvious that women were considered secondary to men.
No one should be considered property that another can claim. This was perhaps the greatest lesson that the Na'vi could learn from Jake Sully.
Showing posts with label movie reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie reviews. Show all posts
09 February 2010
08 February 2010
Does James Cameron Hold No Hope for Humanity?
Before I begin, I have to state that I thoroughly enjoyed James Cameron's "Avatar." Still there were some things about the movie that bothered me. I recently posted my thoughts on the 2D version versus the 3D version that you can read here.
Nothing's Changed in 300 Years?
I, for one, would like to believe that we would have come much farther than how Cameron depicts us in his film. The year is 2154, but the corporation that is mining for unobtainium on Pandora acts pretty much like those who built the railroad or mined or staked claims on land long since occupied by Native Americans.
Today, such abhorrent activity would be staunchly opposed and blocked by activists. I see this as us evolving our cultural ethics as a whole. If in 150 years we've regressed to acting like our ancestors who lived 150 years ago, our future looks truly bleak.
In 2154, I highly doubt that we would behave in the manner in which Cameron depicts. And don't even get me started on the Marine mentality that is portrayed in this movie.
Nothing's Changed in 150 Years?
Something I disliked even more was how Cameron's team spent not one ounce of energy in updating or "futurizing" the products of our culture, aside from some of the technologies:
One of the largest criticisms of sci-fi movies is how producers tend to don their characters in "futuristic" attire. The clothes come off as hoakey to most and often keep people from engaging the story.
The recently revisited "Battlestar Galactica" television series changed this long-running paradigm. At first, the way that so much of the attire and technologies matched those I could find in my own world held me back from appreciating the story. But, that's because I'm a major sci-fi fan who has come to expect producers to be more creative than that.
Over time, the lack of creativity on the BSG wardrobe department stopped bothering me, as the story drew me in. It also drew in many fans that wouldn't have existed, including a council of the United Nations. The lack of overly sci-fi elements like wardrobe, allowed the usually non-sci-fi set to more readily accept and appreciate the story.
Perhaps, James Cameron took a queue from the producers of BSG.
Nothing's Changed in 300 Years?
I, for one, would like to believe that we would have come much farther than how Cameron depicts us in his film. The year is 2154, but the corporation that is mining for unobtainium on Pandora acts pretty much like those who built the railroad or mined or staked claims on land long since occupied by Native Americans.
Today, such abhorrent activity would be staunchly opposed and blocked by activists. I see this as us evolving our cultural ethics as a whole. If in 150 years we've regressed to acting like our ancestors who lived 150 years ago, our future looks truly bleak.
In 2154, I highly doubt that we would behave in the manner in which Cameron depicts. And don't even get me started on the Marine mentality that is portrayed in this movie.
Nothing's Changed in 150 Years?
Something I disliked even more was how Cameron's team spent not one ounce of energy in updating or "futurizing" the products of our culture, aside from some of the technologies:
- Clothes - Every item of clothing that the humans wear on Pandora is taken directly from our present day.
- Hair styles - Every haircut is typical of the characters they belong to as they exist today.
- Lingo - The military speak flat out ate at my every nerve. The lingo each generation of soldier uses changes. Any one of the lines that the marines in this movie spewed could be stripped out of any number of current military-based films.
- Attitudes - From the golfball-putting corporate lack of concern to the scientists berating the mercenaries' lack of intelligence, the same divisiveness that exists between these sectors is firmly in place in "Avatar."
- Technology - I'm not completely up-to-date on current military technologies, but most of the gear that the mercenaries don is taken straight out of our current military attire.
One of the largest criticisms of sci-fi movies is how producers tend to don their characters in "futuristic" attire. The clothes come off as hoakey to most and often keep people from engaging the story.
The recently revisited "Battlestar Galactica" television series changed this long-running paradigm. At first, the way that so much of the attire and technologies matched those I could find in my own world held me back from appreciating the story. But, that's because I'm a major sci-fi fan who has come to expect producers to be more creative than that.
Over time, the lack of creativity on the BSG wardrobe department stopped bothering me, as the story drew me in. It also drew in many fans that wouldn't have existed, including a council of the United Nations. The lack of overly sci-fi elements like wardrobe, allowed the usually non-sci-fi set to more readily accept and appreciate the story.
Perhaps, James Cameron took a queue from the producers of BSG.
07 February 2010
Avatar – 2D vs. 3D
Yesterday (6 February 2010), I finally broke down and spent the extra dollars and time to travel 3 towns over to watch the Real 3D version of James Cameron's "Avatar."
I thought that after two months in theaters that choosing to attend an 11:55 AM viewing would afford a relatively empty theater. Whenever a new hit movie comes out, I purposely avoid watching the film for a few weeks. Packed movie houses are no fun for me.
My sons and I arrived a full ½ hour early, only to step up to a long ticket line. After buying our tickets shortly before the show sold out, I surveyed the audience. Most of those in line and the audience did not look like the typical sci-fi going set.
I considered that the recently announced Oscar nominations were directly responsible for this resurgence in attendance. The confused look and desperate scrambling of the staff seemed to verify my suspicions.
As we walked into the theater, I was immediately discouraged to see that the only available seats were near the bottom. I considered asking for a refund and waiting another month but decided to tough it out.
With our Real 3D glasses in place, we were ready to see if the technology lived up to the hype.
Before I begin my review of the technology, two things:
If I included the 3D movie trailers, this subheading should read "The First Fifteen Minutes." As I donned my glasses, my eyes went buggy. Instead of a clearly focused 3D experience, I felt immediate strain on my eyes and the images were in double vision around the periphery. It took about ten minutes into the movie before the double vision went away, but the eye strain remained.
Space Scenes Weren't Any More Impressive
As Jake Sully emerges from stasis, a few drops of condensation coalesce before my eyes. The stasis chamber was quite a 3D extravaganza (but my eyes still hadn't fully acclimated to the glasses).
The camera then pans out to reveal the ship on which Jake is traveling and Pandora with all its accompanying planets and moons. This was my first moment of feeling letdown by the hype. The entire space scene lacked any extra depth. It looked exactly the same as the 2D version.
Errors Were More Obvious in 3D
There were several incidences when I noticed glaring errors in the 3D version that I hadn't noticed in the 2D version. Most obvious is when a character's hand will move straight through another object, like the floating seed pods or plants.
Also a bit too obvious was the absence of movement of some plant life when others moved. For example, as Jake and Netiriyi are talking while walking on one of those mammoth tree limbs, the leaves are blowing in the breeze. The ferns and other vegetation near their feet, however, stand still.
The Loss of Scale
When the Omiticayan shaman fails to successfully transfer Grace's soul into her avatar, Jake's avatar holds the deceased doctor's hand. The Na'vi are a giant people, so Grace's hand looks like a toddler's when Jake holds it. Later in the movie, Netiriyi holds Jake's human body and he reaches up to touch her face. The difference between their hand sizes reduces greatly, his hand looking only slightly smaller than hers.
The Errors Were Forgivable
The thing that makes Cameron's attempt at improving the 3D experience is that the technicians put much more effort into how much detail they provided. Unlike the 3D experience of yesteryear that favored obvious objects (like traveling bullets and pointing fingers), Cameron's team gave most all objects the 3D treatment.
The amount of effort involved to pull this off is intense and costly, so I can forgive Cameron for the minor technical errors.
The Little Things Were the Most Impressive
I had anticipated much more focus on the objects used in the battle scenes. On that front, I was mildly unimpressed. The little things, though, were the best. In particular, rain drops, ash from fires and the floating seed pods were by far the most realistic, the most 3D. Several times, I wanted to brush away the ash cinders.
Real 3D Is Just One Step Closer to True 3D
Overall, the Real 3D technology is an improvement to the red-and-blue 3D that preceded it. However, it still missed the mark for me.
The strain on my eyes was even more pronounced than when I watch a red-and-blue format. In fact, one day later, my eyes are still sore. My sons didn't report any such strain, though, so it might just be me.
When it comes down to it, I don't think I'll ever truly be impressed by 3D technology until it no longer requires the use of special lenses. Only when holographic technologies have been perfected will 3D movies come to fully satisfy me. Although Real 3D is a cool experience, it is merely one more step toward a True 3D experience.
Overall, I feel that the 3D version of "Avatar" is more of a ticket price-raising gimmick. I do not feel the same as all my friends who stated that something must be lost in the 2D version. When it comes down to it, a movie's story must drive you, not the technology used to present it.
Would I recommend the 3D version over the 2D version? Sure, why not? It will only be in theaters for so long, so why not check it out and see if it lives up to the hype for yourself?
I thought that after two months in theaters that choosing to attend an 11:55 AM viewing would afford a relatively empty theater. Whenever a new hit movie comes out, I purposely avoid watching the film for a few weeks. Packed movie houses are no fun for me.
My sons and I arrived a full ½ hour early, only to step up to a long ticket line. After buying our tickets shortly before the show sold out, I surveyed the audience. Most of those in line and the audience did not look like the typical sci-fi going set.
I considered that the recently announced Oscar nominations were directly responsible for this resurgence in attendance. The confused look and desperate scrambling of the staff seemed to verify my suspicions.
As we walked into the theater, I was immediately discouraged to see that the only available seats were near the bottom. I considered asking for a refund and waiting another month but decided to tough it out.
With our Real 3D glasses in place, we were ready to see if the technology lived up to the hype.
Before I begin my review of the technology, two things:
- I already viewed the 2D version when it first came out. Although I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, I didn't find it really offered anything unique or revolutionary to the sci-fi genre. Overall, I thought the dialogue was downright cliché and that world and creatures of Pandora still looked too animated for me to completely suspend disbelief.
- I strongly believe that "Avatar" would have been all but ignored by the Academy had it not been produced by one of their darlings - James Cameron.
If I included the 3D movie trailers, this subheading should read "The First Fifteen Minutes." As I donned my glasses, my eyes went buggy. Instead of a clearly focused 3D experience, I felt immediate strain on my eyes and the images were in double vision around the periphery. It took about ten minutes into the movie before the double vision went away, but the eye strain remained.
Space Scenes Weren't Any More Impressive
As Jake Sully emerges from stasis, a few drops of condensation coalesce before my eyes. The stasis chamber was quite a 3D extravaganza (but my eyes still hadn't fully acclimated to the glasses).
The camera then pans out to reveal the ship on which Jake is traveling and Pandora with all its accompanying planets and moons. This was my first moment of feeling letdown by the hype. The entire space scene lacked any extra depth. It looked exactly the same as the 2D version.
Errors Were More Obvious in 3D
There were several incidences when I noticed glaring errors in the 3D version that I hadn't noticed in the 2D version. Most obvious is when a character's hand will move straight through another object, like the floating seed pods or plants.
Also a bit too obvious was the absence of movement of some plant life when others moved. For example, as Jake and Netiriyi are talking while walking on one of those mammoth tree limbs, the leaves are blowing in the breeze. The ferns and other vegetation near their feet, however, stand still.
The Loss of Scale
When the Omiticayan shaman fails to successfully transfer Grace's soul into her avatar, Jake's avatar holds the deceased doctor's hand. The Na'vi are a giant people, so Grace's hand looks like a toddler's when Jake holds it. Later in the movie, Netiriyi holds Jake's human body and he reaches up to touch her face. The difference between their hand sizes reduces greatly, his hand looking only slightly smaller than hers.
The Errors Were Forgivable
The thing that makes Cameron's attempt at improving the 3D experience is that the technicians put much more effort into how much detail they provided. Unlike the 3D experience of yesteryear that favored obvious objects (like traveling bullets and pointing fingers), Cameron's team gave most all objects the 3D treatment.
The amount of effort involved to pull this off is intense and costly, so I can forgive Cameron for the minor technical errors.
The Little Things Were the Most Impressive
I had anticipated much more focus on the objects used in the battle scenes. On that front, I was mildly unimpressed. The little things, though, were the best. In particular, rain drops, ash from fires and the floating seed pods were by far the most realistic, the most 3D. Several times, I wanted to brush away the ash cinders.
Real 3D Is Just One Step Closer to True 3D
Overall, the Real 3D technology is an improvement to the red-and-blue 3D that preceded it. However, it still missed the mark for me.
The strain on my eyes was even more pronounced than when I watch a red-and-blue format. In fact, one day later, my eyes are still sore. My sons didn't report any such strain, though, so it might just be me.
When it comes down to it, I don't think I'll ever truly be impressed by 3D technology until it no longer requires the use of special lenses. Only when holographic technologies have been perfected will 3D movies come to fully satisfy me. Although Real 3D is a cool experience, it is merely one more step toward a True 3D experience.
Overall, I feel that the 3D version of "Avatar" is more of a ticket price-raising gimmick. I do not feel the same as all my friends who stated that something must be lost in the 2D version. When it comes down to it, a movie's story must drive you, not the technology used to present it.
Would I recommend the 3D version over the 2D version? Sure, why not? It will only be in theaters for so long, so why not check it out and see if it lives up to the hype for yourself?
26 July 2009
Before YouTube, There Was "Hardware Wars"
YouTube abounds in amateur spoof film endeavors. That's no secret. A group of people think up some humorous but cliche jokes revolving around some pop phenomenon, from movies to television shows to Top 40 tunes. Then they do their utmost best to script and digitally re-create their farcical vision.That is now, but this is then...
With the tagline "May the Farce be with you," Hardware Wars stars Fluke Starbucker, a gee-golly kid bent on saving the universe.
With the help of Auggie "Ben" Doggie the red-eye knight, Princess Anne-Droid with her matching braided challa breads on either side of her head, and Ham Salad the wry if somewhat morose pilot and his sidekick who is a wookie monster, Fluke sets out on an adventure all-too reminiscent of the original Star Wars.
I remember watching Hardware Wars as a kid. My memory of this farce, however, didn't match my adult re-watching of the movie. In actuality, Hardware Wars plays as an exceptionally lengthy trailer.
The jokes are lame, but still good in their own universal way. The special effects are purposely poor. The makers of the short film did nothing to hide the strings that served to move around the irons and toasters that serve as the movie's ships. (Hence, "Hardware" wars.)Perhaps the most humorous part of the film is Darph Nader, a guy in a welding mask who sounds just like Darth Vader except for the fact that you can't understand a single word the guy's muttering.
Other cheap special effects include the light saber that is nothing more than a flashlight. Fluke actually has to stand in a fog cloud to create the semi-effect of a light saber. Auggie "Ben" Doggie breaks the fourth wall to let us know that the film's producers are all too aware of the cheapness, as he shoots us a "how lame is that" look.
Let's not forget about the classic toaster shot. Taking aim at Ham Salad's iron-ship, two pieces of toast fall from the toaster, only to suddenly be flying along a straight course immediately following the cutaway.
Oh, this short film was way ahead of its time. Who knew that one day, thousands of amateurs would join the ranks of Fosselius and Wiese in creating their own farcical short films? Who knew that YouTube would appear en force to help all these amateur spoof film producers share their visions with the world... again and again and again.
Guess What?
Michael Wiese posted Hardware Wars on YouTube! Want to watch?
Hardware Wars Pt 1 — YouTube
Hardware Wars Pt 2 — YouTube
10 October 2008
Queen Latifah to Star in Movie about Ella Fitzgerald
Twentieth Century Fox announced the cast of "Bewitched, Bothered & Bewildered," a movie based on the life of Jazz icon Ella Fitzgerald. Slated to play the starring role? None other than Queen Latifah.
"Ella's always been a huge inspiration to me," said Latifah. "She's the reason I've switched from Hip-hop to Jazz."
Production of "Bewitched, Bothered & Bewildered" is set to begin November 2008.
This post is false, but wouldn't Queen Latifah make the perfect Ella?
"Ella's always been a huge inspiration to me," said Latifah. "She's the reason I've switched from Hip-hop to Jazz."
Production of "Bewitched, Bothered & Bewildered" is set to begin November 2008.
This post is false, but wouldn't Queen Latifah make the perfect Ella?
26 August 2008
No Country for Old Men (R)
Last night, after much fanfare, I sat down and watched "No Country for Old Men." What a disappointment.
I love the Cohen brothers, but they really should stick to what they do best — writing their own stories. The movie has many of the same elements we've come to expect from a Cohen Bros flick. From creative ways of killing people to gritty characters that you can't seem to stop watching.
In "No Country for Old Men," the antagonist, Anton Chigurh played by Javier Bardem, gets under my skin in a way I'm not sure if I welcome or shun. Chigurh is definitely the most compelling character, sort of creepy and boyish all at the same time.
"Barton Fink," "Big Lebowski," "Hudsucker Proxy," "Fargo"...
All movies written by Joel and Ethan Cohen, and all rich with deep storytelling. "No Country for Old Men," however, was a screenplay they wrote based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy. Their attempt at turning this bloody book into a compelling movie was a disaster fit to keep you sunk down in a pit of despair.
Here's the synopsis:
The 2 1/2 hour runtime could easily have been reduced to 1 1/2 hours. Most of the movie seems to rely on the long drawn-out sequences of people staring or walking. If you watch many foreign films, you know the technique. Sometimes the long draw works beautifully, but not in "No Country for Old Men." This movie focuses on bloodshed. The long draw only makes it look as though the Cohen bros are feebly trying to make art out of violence.
I know the tagline for "No Country for Old Men" is "There Are No Clean Getaways," but this movie was a sheer disappointment. Why? SPOILER ALERT AHEAD!!!
Some of the best characters, like Woody Harrelson's Carson Wells, are never quite allowed to live up to their potential. Chigurh kills him off quickly, with no fight, just a simple click of the trigger.
Then there's the protagonist, Llewelyn Moss played by Josh Brolin. For most of the movie, we focus on his escape, his outrage, his attempt at revenge. Then, after watching him in intensely violent scene after violent scene. He's just dead and floating in a hotel pool. It was a bit like watching a movie about the shootout at the OK corral, watching the build up to the famous showdown only to have the camera pan away then return after the fight is over.
With the protagonist dead, you would think the movie's over, right? Nope. Llewelyn's wife, Carla Jean played by Kelly Macdonald, talks to Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, played by the fabulous Tommy Lee Jones, after her husband's death. She says one line that sums up my sentiments toward the remainder of the movie: "When will it be over?" Then she is killed by Chigurh.
Slowly, Chigurh makes his way out to a car, drives away down a quiet neighborhood street, is T-boned by another car, pays a kid for his shirt to use as a sling, then waddles off down the road.
Cut away to a retired Sheriff Bell, sitting bored at his table and asking his wife if she wants any help with her horses. End movie. WTF!
So, this movie shows no character development, no resolution, no payoff - just a bored retired sheriff who doesn't know what to do with his time and a psychopath wandering free.
Now, I could blame the Cohen bros for poor storytelling, but I know they can do better. I could blame Cormac McCarthy, but I haven't read the novel so I'm not sure if the lame storytelling is his fault or not.
For all the fanfare "No Country for Old Men" received, it is a nearly complete pile of s$%#! If long drawn out scenes and gratuitous violence bother you, don't waste your time on "No Country for Old Men."
My Rating for "No Country for Old Men": 2 out of 5 stars
(Extra points for including the little extra touches in the movie, like naming an auto shop after one of the producers.)
Don't fret, Cohen Bros fans. Joel and Ethan have completed their latest story: "Burn After Reading." It looks like a much better story.
I love the Cohen brothers, but they really should stick to what they do best — writing their own stories. The movie has many of the same elements we've come to expect from a Cohen Bros flick. From creative ways of killing people to gritty characters that you can't seem to stop watching.
In "No Country for Old Men," the antagonist, Anton Chigurh played by Javier Bardem, gets under my skin in a way I'm not sure if I welcome or shun. Chigurh is definitely the most compelling character, sort of creepy and boyish all at the same time.
"Barton Fink," "Big Lebowski," "Hudsucker Proxy," "Fargo"...
All movies written by Joel and Ethan Cohen, and all rich with deep storytelling. "No Country for Old Men," however, was a screenplay they wrote based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy. Their attempt at turning this bloody book into a compelling movie was a disaster fit to keep you sunk down in a pit of despair.
Here's the synopsis:
- Man runs across the site of a drug deal gone awry.
- Man takes the money left behind by the dealers and runs.
- Man returns to the site to help one guy who was barely alive only to discover he's dead.
- Man is spotted by the dealers' henchman and ends up running across South Texas from a psychopathic killer who wants the money back.
The 2 1/2 hour runtime could easily have been reduced to 1 1/2 hours. Most of the movie seems to rely on the long drawn-out sequences of people staring or walking. If you watch many foreign films, you know the technique. Sometimes the long draw works beautifully, but not in "No Country for Old Men." This movie focuses on bloodshed. The long draw only makes it look as though the Cohen bros are feebly trying to make art out of violence.
I know the tagline for "No Country for Old Men" is "There Are No Clean Getaways," but this movie was a sheer disappointment. Why? SPOILER ALERT AHEAD!!!
Some of the best characters, like Woody Harrelson's Carson Wells, are never quite allowed to live up to their potential. Chigurh kills him off quickly, with no fight, just a simple click of the trigger.
Then there's the protagonist, Llewelyn Moss played by Josh Brolin. For most of the movie, we focus on his escape, his outrage, his attempt at revenge. Then, after watching him in intensely violent scene after violent scene. He's just dead and floating in a hotel pool. It was a bit like watching a movie about the shootout at the OK corral, watching the build up to the famous showdown only to have the camera pan away then return after the fight is over.
With the protagonist dead, you would think the movie's over, right? Nope. Llewelyn's wife, Carla Jean played by Kelly Macdonald, talks to Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, played by the fabulous Tommy Lee Jones, after her husband's death. She says one line that sums up my sentiments toward the remainder of the movie: "When will it be over?" Then she is killed by Chigurh.
Slowly, Chigurh makes his way out to a car, drives away down a quiet neighborhood street, is T-boned by another car, pays a kid for his shirt to use as a sling, then waddles off down the road.
Cut away to a retired Sheriff Bell, sitting bored at his table and asking his wife if she wants any help with her horses. End movie. WTF!
So, this movie shows no character development, no resolution, no payoff - just a bored retired sheriff who doesn't know what to do with his time and a psychopath wandering free.
Now, I could blame the Cohen bros for poor storytelling, but I know they can do better. I could blame Cormac McCarthy, but I haven't read the novel so I'm not sure if the lame storytelling is his fault or not.
For all the fanfare "No Country for Old Men" received, it is a nearly complete pile of s$%#! If long drawn out scenes and gratuitous violence bother you, don't waste your time on "No Country for Old Men."
My Rating for "No Country for Old Men": 2 out of 5 stars
(Extra points for including the little extra touches in the movie, like naming an auto shop after one of the producers.)
Don't fret, Cohen Bros fans. Joel and Ethan have completed their latest story: "Burn After Reading." It looks like a much better story.
11 May 2008
Blades of Glory (PG13)
After getting kicked out of the professional skating scene for brawling on the awards podium, ladies man Chazz Michael Michaels (Will Ferrell) winds up the drunk star of a children’s ice show and germ-phobic golden child Jimmy MacElroy (Jon Heder) is stuck selling skates to other spoiled children. Each seem destined to live out the rest of life in a state of mediocrity until Jimmy’s stalker fan, Hector (Nick Swardson), discovers the secret to his comeback: join forces with archrival Chazz as the first ever male-male pair skaters.
Recruiting the help of gun-shy former skating coach (Craig T. Nelson), Chazz and Jimmy set off to get the gold. You can imagine the hilarities that ensue during their training, two enemies trying to come together in a style that requires an intense intimacy and trust. Then add to the fact that the producers have put Ferrell and Heder together, and you have a virtual gut buster of a film. When you watch these two rather tall men taking to the ice and flipping each other around, you’d actually be surprised at how NOT gangly they look together.
Bringing together two rivals is one thing. Getting them to beef up their routine to beat the win-anyway-you-can reigning champion duo of Stranz (Will Arnett) and Fairchild (Amy Poehler) presents an even greater challenge. Novelty alone won’t win the competition. They need a secret weapon, some maneuver that only two men can pull off. Coach has just such the move, but the last pair he trained to do it lost their head, literally. Can Chazz and Jimmy find their groove and wow the skating world? You’re going to have to watch the movie to find out.
Recruiting the help of gun-shy former skating coach (Craig T. Nelson), Chazz and Jimmy set off to get the gold. You can imagine the hilarities that ensue during their training, two enemies trying to come together in a style that requires an intense intimacy and trust. Then add to the fact that the producers have put Ferrell and Heder together, and you have a virtual gut buster of a film. When you watch these two rather tall men taking to the ice and flipping each other around, you’d actually be surprised at how NOT gangly they look together.
Bringing together two rivals is one thing. Getting them to beef up their routine to beat the win-anyway-you-can reigning champion duo of Stranz (Will Arnett) and Fairchild (Amy Poehler) presents an even greater challenge. Novelty alone won’t win the competition. They need a secret weapon, some maneuver that only two men can pull off. Coach has just such the move, but the last pair he trained to do it lost their head, literally. Can Chazz and Jimmy find their groove and wow the skating world? You’re going to have to watch the movie to find out.
10 May 2008
The Golden Compass (PG13)
Anyone who’s paid attention to the news over the last couple months is aware of how many Christian groups have seethed over New Line Cinema’s film adaptation of the first in Phillip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy: The Golden Compass.
The setting of the story takes place in a parallel Earth, where all humans have their own animal counterpart that represents their souls. Referred to as “daemons,” these animal souls talk and help their humans, and whatever pains or pleasure one experiences so does the other.
It’s no secret that Pullman’s trilogy is offered as the antithesis to the overt Christian propaganda so strongly present in C.S. Lewis’ beloved Chronicles of Narnia. Although the books have been referred to as “atheism for kids,” the movie itself carries no obvious subversion of the Christian church. Pullman states that he finds Lewis to be “blatantly racist” and "monumentally disparaging of women." The Golden Compass certainly shows his stark contrast to Lewis.
Most notable is the story’s protagonist, young Lyra Belacqua. This precocious girl of 12 rarely flinches throughout the movie, boldly approaching obviously dangerous authority figures with disdain and standing defiant in front of giant polar bear kings. Her quick thinking saves herself and others on multiple occasions, and when she could conceivably let others perform her tasks for her, she takes them on herself.
Further contrasts include those who befriend and assist Lyra along her journey. From the Gyptians who are obviously derived from our own world’s oft marginalized gypsies to the witches who watch over and protect Lyra, those typically viewed by the Church in our world as evil and treacherous are the heroes of the story.
Those who shape the sterling society based on strict rules and order, on the other hand, are the sinister figures. Marissa Coulter (an Ann Coulter knock-off?) secretly heads the Gobblers. This force of undercover adults kidnaps prepubescent children to be taken to Bolvangar, an “experiment” station that researches the Dust, a mysterious substance that few are willing to discuss openly.
The Magisterium for whom Miss Coulter works is the controlling oppressor in the story. They represent unyielding order, but all done under the guise of protecting the people from themselves. They, as it turns out, are the ones responsible for the kidnapping Gobblers. It is their hope to perform successful “intercisions” upon the children before their daemons settle. This is the process of cutting ones daemon from them, in essence, cutting away their very soul.
When Lyra’s friend Roger is kidnapped, she unknowingly sets off to rescue him from Bolvangar. Traveling as Miss Coulter’s assistant, Lyra quickly realizes the supposedly wonderful woman’s nasty underbelly and barely escapes. What she discovers is that many people are watching her and standing at the ready to help her. She soon gains the protection of Iorek Byrnison, a massive armored polar bear, and the assistance of the Gyptians and a Texan aeronaut named Lee Scoresby.
The movie takes many twists and turns, and anyone who enjoys steampunk style movies will surely enjoy the presentation and effects used in this movie. From grand zeppelins to spy flies, this movie offers a spectacle for the eyes.
It also offers harsh honesty. The producers held no punches in regards to violence, with explicit scenes of death teeming from the silver screen. The one-on-one fight scene between the once-fallen Iorek and the current bear king Ragnar Sturlusson is almost as explicit as that scene from Pulp Fiction with the adrenaline shot. Although this movie is billed for kids, especially protective parents will want to censor their little ones from this one until they’re much older.
Oh, and one more warning about this exciting action-fantasy film: it’s the first part in a series. If the end of the first two Lord of the Rings movies ticked you off, you might want to wait until they produce all the films in this series before you sit down to watch them.
The setting of the story takes place in a parallel Earth, where all humans have their own animal counterpart that represents their souls. Referred to as “daemons,” these animal souls talk and help their humans, and whatever pains or pleasure one experiences so does the other.
It’s no secret that Pullman’s trilogy is offered as the antithesis to the overt Christian propaganda so strongly present in C.S. Lewis’ beloved Chronicles of Narnia. Although the books have been referred to as “atheism for kids,” the movie itself carries no obvious subversion of the Christian church. Pullman states that he finds Lewis to be “blatantly racist” and "monumentally disparaging of women." The Golden Compass certainly shows his stark contrast to Lewis.
Most notable is the story’s protagonist, young Lyra Belacqua. This precocious girl of 12 rarely flinches throughout the movie, boldly approaching obviously dangerous authority figures with disdain and standing defiant in front of giant polar bear kings. Her quick thinking saves herself and others on multiple occasions, and when she could conceivably let others perform her tasks for her, she takes them on herself.
Further contrasts include those who befriend and assist Lyra along her journey. From the Gyptians who are obviously derived from our own world’s oft marginalized gypsies to the witches who watch over and protect Lyra, those typically viewed by the Church in our world as evil and treacherous are the heroes of the story.
Those who shape the sterling society based on strict rules and order, on the other hand, are the sinister figures. Marissa Coulter (an Ann Coulter knock-off?) secretly heads the Gobblers. This force of undercover adults kidnaps prepubescent children to be taken to Bolvangar, an “experiment” station that researches the Dust, a mysterious substance that few are willing to discuss openly.
The Magisterium for whom Miss Coulter works is the controlling oppressor in the story. They represent unyielding order, but all done under the guise of protecting the people from themselves. They, as it turns out, are the ones responsible for the kidnapping Gobblers. It is their hope to perform successful “intercisions” upon the children before their daemons settle. This is the process of cutting ones daemon from them, in essence, cutting away their very soul.
When Lyra’s friend Roger is kidnapped, she unknowingly sets off to rescue him from Bolvangar. Traveling as Miss Coulter’s assistant, Lyra quickly realizes the supposedly wonderful woman’s nasty underbelly and barely escapes. What she discovers is that many people are watching her and standing at the ready to help her. She soon gains the protection of Iorek Byrnison, a massive armored polar bear, and the assistance of the Gyptians and a Texan aeronaut named Lee Scoresby.
The movie takes many twists and turns, and anyone who enjoys steampunk style movies will surely enjoy the presentation and effects used in this movie. From grand zeppelins to spy flies, this movie offers a spectacle for the eyes.
It also offers harsh honesty. The producers held no punches in regards to violence, with explicit scenes of death teeming from the silver screen. The one-on-one fight scene between the once-fallen Iorek and the current bear king Ragnar Sturlusson is almost as explicit as that scene from Pulp Fiction with the adrenaline shot. Although this movie is billed for kids, especially protective parents will want to censor their little ones from this one until they’re much older.
Oh, and one more warning about this exciting action-fantasy film: it’s the first part in a series. If the end of the first two Lord of the Rings movies ticked you off, you might want to wait until they produce all the films in this series before you sit down to watch them.
09 May 2008
Full Metal Alchemist: The Conqueror of Shamballa (TVPG)
Like Anime? Then you have to check out the Full Metal Alchemist: The Conqueror of Shamballa. This is the full movie that caps off the popular animated series of the Elric brothers, Edward and Alphonse, alchemists who journey in search of the Philosopher’s Stone. Having passed through the Gateway into mid-1920s Germany, Edward witnesses the rise of the NAZI party. It’s difficult for Ed to watch his brother’s double help develop weapons of war for the NAZIs, but it is exactly his involvement that helps Ed find the portal and reconnect with the true brother he feared dead.
Full Metal Alchemist weaves two worlds into one, twisting rich subplots that might confuse one unfamiliar with the series. The payoff is worth it, though. As Alphonse makes a great sacrifice and returns to NAZI Germany, Ed asks why. It is what Alphonse says that made the movie for me (and made me think of my own two sons):
“I want to be at your side, brother, no matter what. I want to see the same things and learn what you learn, and keep on journeying together.”
With its prevalent Gypsy music soundtrack and moments of visual verisimilitude, Full Metal Alchemist: The Conqueror of Shamballa is destined to go down as the Akira of our time.
Note: This movie is not for the squeamish. As with any mature anime, there are many graphic scenes. Winner for Best Animated Film at the Fantasia International Film Festival
Full Metal Alchemist weaves two worlds into one, twisting rich subplots that might confuse one unfamiliar with the series. The payoff is worth it, though. As Alphonse makes a great sacrifice and returns to NAZI Germany, Ed asks why. It is what Alphonse says that made the movie for me (and made me think of my own two sons):
“I want to be at your side, brother, no matter what. I want to see the same things and learn what you learn, and keep on journeying together.”
With its prevalent Gypsy music soundtrack and moments of visual verisimilitude, Full Metal Alchemist: The Conqueror of Shamballa is destined to go down as the Akira of our time.
Note: This movie is not for the squeamish. As with any mature anime, there are many graphic scenes. Winner for Best Animated Film at the Fantasia International Film Festival
08 May 2008
Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? (PG-13)
What do Jackson Pollock and a 73-year-old former truck driver have in common? Attitude.
Teri Horton went to Dot’s Spot Thrift Store with one intention: Get something cheap to cheer up her depressed friend. After rummaging through so much junk, this dumpster-diving grandma found the perfect gift. Five dollars later, she cruised to her friend’s trailer with an “ugly” painting that put an uncertain smile on her friend’s face. Unable to fit their future dartboard through her friend’s trailer door, they tried to sell it at a yard sale instead.
Now, a less scrupulous person could have taken advantage of Teri’s ignorance of art. But when she tried to sell it to a local art teacher for a ten spot, he stopped her and said, “I’m no expert, but I think you have a Jackson Pollock.” Expert or not, Teri followed up on his suggestion and discovered that she did indeed have what looked like a Pollock. Now, she just needed someone from the art community to give her the $50 million she was asking.
No one bit, but plenty shot insults her way for even considering that she could have purchased a Pollock at a thrift store. Not to mention, she had no provenance (the painting’s written history) to back it up aside from a receipt from Dot now dead and gone. Rejected over and over again by art critics as a poor forgery, Teri started to tell a wild story about how she got it from a well-known Hollywood bar owner, who had received the painting from Pollock directly. The story didn’t work, but then science shined upon her and presented her with Peter Paul Biro. An art forensics specialist, Biro specializes in figuring out “who committed the art” (vs. the murder).
It didn’t take Biro long to find the evidence he needed: a finger print and paint that matched that found in Pollock’s studio. But to the art experts, that didn’t matter. “Science is interesting, but they’re not the experts.” Determined to get her price and realizing that her brusque nature kept her at bay from the world of the art elite, she hired convicted confidence man Tod Volpe to move her Pollock. Volpe already had the connections and knew how to move through the haughty society that gobbles up hot works of art. Not even he could sell Teri’s Pollock…well, not for the price she wanted anyway.
While Volpe tried without provenance to convince buyers that they had the chance of a lifetime, Biro continued to find more proof of the painting’s authenticity to include several matching fingerprints and the other half of the painting. Yet, literally talking down their noses, the snooty “experts” refused to relent. They are the experts and without their approval, Teri’s Pollock would remain a poor knock-off. Despite the lack of provenance or the art experts’ approval, Teri received offers of up to $9 million.
Did she take it? Nope. Just like Pollock, she refused to take less than she what the painting is worth…experts be damned!
*The name of the art “experts” have been withheld to protect further embarrassment.
Teri Horton went to Dot’s Spot Thrift Store with one intention: Get something cheap to cheer up her depressed friend. After rummaging through so much junk, this dumpster-diving grandma found the perfect gift. Five dollars later, she cruised to her friend’s trailer with an “ugly” painting that put an uncertain smile on her friend’s face. Unable to fit their future dartboard through her friend’s trailer door, they tried to sell it at a yard sale instead.
Now, a less scrupulous person could have taken advantage of Teri’s ignorance of art. But when she tried to sell it to a local art teacher for a ten spot, he stopped her and said, “I’m no expert, but I think you have a Jackson Pollock.” Expert or not, Teri followed up on his suggestion and discovered that she did indeed have what looked like a Pollock. Now, she just needed someone from the art community to give her the $50 million she was asking.
No one bit, but plenty shot insults her way for even considering that she could have purchased a Pollock at a thrift store. Not to mention, she had no provenance (the painting’s written history) to back it up aside from a receipt from Dot now dead and gone. Rejected over and over again by art critics as a poor forgery, Teri started to tell a wild story about how she got it from a well-known Hollywood bar owner, who had received the painting from Pollock directly. The story didn’t work, but then science shined upon her and presented her with Peter Paul Biro. An art forensics specialist, Biro specializes in figuring out “who committed the art” (vs. the murder).
It didn’t take Biro long to find the evidence he needed: a finger print and paint that matched that found in Pollock’s studio. But to the art experts, that didn’t matter. “Science is interesting, but they’re not the experts.” Determined to get her price and realizing that her brusque nature kept her at bay from the world of the art elite, she hired convicted confidence man Tod Volpe to move her Pollock. Volpe already had the connections and knew how to move through the haughty society that gobbles up hot works of art. Not even he could sell Teri’s Pollock…well, not for the price she wanted anyway.
While Volpe tried without provenance to convince buyers that they had the chance of a lifetime, Biro continued to find more proof of the painting’s authenticity to include several matching fingerprints and the other half of the painting. Yet, literally talking down their noses, the snooty “experts” refused to relent. They are the experts and without their approval, Teri’s Pollock would remain a poor knock-off. Despite the lack of provenance or the art experts’ approval, Teri received offers of up to $9 million.
Did she take it? Nope. Just like Pollock, she refused to take less than she what the painting is worth…experts be damned!
*The name of the art “experts” have been withheld to protect further embarrassment.
07 May 2008
Color Me Kubrick: A True...ish Story (NR)
I’m Stanley Kubrick. No, John Malkovich is Stanley Kubrick, or rather he portrays Alan Conway who pretends to be Stanley Kubrick. Successful as a confidence man, he convinces scores of people that he is indeed the director of such classic films as Dr. Strangelove and 2001: A Space Odyssey. The humor lies in his blatant ignorance in regards to Kubrick’s filmography. Even still, people buy his claim on Kubrick’s identity. Although he mostly uses Kubrick’s fame to find men to bring home, he eventually sets his sights on greater scams.
In one pivotal scene, “Stanley” sits down with a banker and the owner of his favorite wine bar to discuss the lending of funds to open additional bars around Western Europe. The banker says he had reviewed the case, looked into “Stanley’s” sterling credentials and decided to approve the loan…”with Mr. Kubrick’s backing, of course.”
The string of incredulous scenes rife with gullibility lasts just long enough. Right as you begin to wonder if all of London is full of saps, Conway is found out. After entering a bar and bragging about “Hollywood stuff,” one of the guys in the bar strikes up a film conversation and quickly reveals that “Stanley” is not the real deal. Humiliated for getting his “Stanley’s in a twist,” Conway flees the bar. Not one to take set backs lightly, Conway moves on to con the British equivalent of Tom Jones, Lee Pratt, into pursuing a career in Vegas. “Stanley” acts as Lee’s overseas agent, flying between London and Las Vegas…all courtesy of Lee, of course. I’m sure you can figure out where the movie goes from here.
The movie’s a good one in an artistic, witty, humorous kind of way, but it’s definitely adult oriented. For being so over the top, Malkovich’s performance was a delight. Casting him was the perfect choice, as he looks nothing like Kubrick and does a stellar job not getting US accents right. The highlight of the movie was when “Stanley” claims that he’s cast John Malkovich as the lead, even if he “isn’t the strongest actor to play the role.”
According to imdb.com, the actor who plays the conned Lee Pratt, Jim Davidson, actually had dinner once with Alan Conway while he still lived.
In one pivotal scene, “Stanley” sits down with a banker and the owner of his favorite wine bar to discuss the lending of funds to open additional bars around Western Europe. The banker says he had reviewed the case, looked into “Stanley’s” sterling credentials and decided to approve the loan…”with Mr. Kubrick’s backing, of course.”
The string of incredulous scenes rife with gullibility lasts just long enough. Right as you begin to wonder if all of London is full of saps, Conway is found out. After entering a bar and bragging about “Hollywood stuff,” one of the guys in the bar strikes up a film conversation and quickly reveals that “Stanley” is not the real deal. Humiliated for getting his “Stanley’s in a twist,” Conway flees the bar. Not one to take set backs lightly, Conway moves on to con the British equivalent of Tom Jones, Lee Pratt, into pursuing a career in Vegas. “Stanley” acts as Lee’s overseas agent, flying between London and Las Vegas…all courtesy of Lee, of course. I’m sure you can figure out where the movie goes from here.
The movie’s a good one in an artistic, witty, humorous kind of way, but it’s definitely adult oriented. For being so over the top, Malkovich’s performance was a delight. Casting him was the perfect choice, as he looks nothing like Kubrick and does a stellar job not getting US accents right. The highlight of the movie was when “Stanley” claims that he’s cast John Malkovich as the lead, even if he “isn’t the strongest actor to play the role.”
According to imdb.com, the actor who plays the conned Lee Pratt, Jim Davidson, actually had dinner once with Alan Conway while he still lived.
06 May 2008
Stranger Than Fiction (PG13)
What if you heard someone narrating your life, but no one else could? And, what if that voice spoke of your imminent doom? What would you do? That’s the subject of the existential comedy, Stranger Than Fiction.
Will Ferrell stars as Harold Crick, an IRS auditor whose life is pure routine: 36 strokes per tooth during the morning, the same amount minutes late for the bus on the way to work, and the same standard operating procedure throughout the work day. In essence, Harold’s life is already written for him. It isn’t until his watch goes haywire at the bus stop that he realizes his life is not his own. His life is controlled by the narrator in his mind. Or is it?
After consulting Literature Professor Jules Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman), Harold discovers that he’s not exactly nuts. The voice he’s hearing is actually the voice of Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson), an author notorious for killing off her main characters in unusual ways. Everything she writes, he does. Luckily for Harold, she’s suffering writer’s block. Following Prof. Hilbert’s advice, Harold tries to turn his story from the tragedy Karen’s writing to a comedy by pursuing his love interest Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal), a radical anarchist type he’s auditing. But can Harold rewrite his own story? And if he can’t, will he be able to reach the elusive author and convince her not to kill him?
This story is highly worth the watch, and should delight your internal freewill vs. predetermined conflict. Are our lives already written by the stars, as Octavio Paz puts it? Or, can we shape our own destinies?
Will Ferrell stars as Harold Crick, an IRS auditor whose life is pure routine: 36 strokes per tooth during the morning, the same amount minutes late for the bus on the way to work, and the same standard operating procedure throughout the work day. In essence, Harold’s life is already written for him. It isn’t until his watch goes haywire at the bus stop that he realizes his life is not his own. His life is controlled by the narrator in his mind. Or is it?
After consulting Literature Professor Jules Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman), Harold discovers that he’s not exactly nuts. The voice he’s hearing is actually the voice of Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson), an author notorious for killing off her main characters in unusual ways. Everything she writes, he does. Luckily for Harold, she’s suffering writer’s block. Following Prof. Hilbert’s advice, Harold tries to turn his story from the tragedy Karen’s writing to a comedy by pursuing his love interest Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal), a radical anarchist type he’s auditing. But can Harold rewrite his own story? And if he can’t, will he be able to reach the elusive author and convince her not to kill him?
This story is highly worth the watch, and should delight your internal freewill vs. predetermined conflict. Are our lives already written by the stars, as Octavio Paz puts it? Or, can we shape our own destinies?
05 May 2008
The Secret (NR)
Whenever I wax philosophical with someone, they tell me I need to watch “The Secret.” Often compared to “What the Bleep Do You Know?,” this movie reveals the profound secret retained and used by history’s most notable figures, such as Plato, Shakespeare, and Einstein. All the “greats” knew the secret, and in the early half of the twentieth century, they tried to hide it from the world. But, they failed. With the launch of this movie, the entire world is privy to this profound wisdom that guarantees anyone their deepest desires.
So, what’s the secret? I know you’re dying to find out. The secret is the law of attraction; what you manifest in your mind becomes your reality. You create your own universe through your thoughts, so make them good ones. It’s that simple. As James Arthur Ray puts it, the universe is Aladdin’s Genie; it doesn’t distinguish between wants and don’t wants, it only says, “Your wish is my command.” Ask for what you want, believe it’s already yours, and receive it when it comes into being.
As I watched the movie, I wondered how oppressed persons would take the teeming optimism of this film. No sooner had I pondered this idea, than the speakers noted their tumultuous pasts. They had risen from tremendous strife to achieve great success, all due to a shift in their thinking, all due to the secret. If you’re looking for that life-changing, inspirational movie of the year, you need to watch “The Secret.”
If your local video store doesn't carry any copies of "The Secret," you can wahtch it online at www.thesecret.tv.
So, what’s the secret? I know you’re dying to find out. The secret is the law of attraction; what you manifest in your mind becomes your reality. You create your own universe through your thoughts, so make them good ones. It’s that simple. As James Arthur Ray puts it, the universe is Aladdin’s Genie; it doesn’t distinguish between wants and don’t wants, it only says, “Your wish is my command.” Ask for what you want, believe it’s already yours, and receive it when it comes into being.
As I watched the movie, I wondered how oppressed persons would take the teeming optimism of this film. No sooner had I pondered this idea, than the speakers noted their tumultuous pasts. They had risen from tremendous strife to achieve great success, all due to a shift in their thinking, all due to the secret. If you’re looking for that life-changing, inspirational movie of the year, you need to watch “The Secret.”
If your local video store doesn't carry any copies of "The Secret," you can wahtch it online at www.thesecret.tv.
04 May 2008
The DaVinci Code (PG13)
I must admit the movie adaptation of “The Da Vinci Code” left me flat.
The story begins when police call on cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) to the scene of a murder. She arrives to find that the victim is her grandfather, a pentacle carved into his chest. She calls Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), a notable symbologist, for help interpreting the meaning of the peculiar slaying. Thus begins the search for the murderer, which eventually turns into something much, much bigger. Eventually, they discover the secret of the Holy Grail and the secret orders that grew around it. I won’t say anymore than that, but warn that it may conflict with some folk’s view of the history of Christ.
Personally, I’d have cast anyone else over Tom Hanks. He took otherwise contrived dialogue and made it even more so. He did, however, shine in the action scenes. Audrey Tautou was fine in her role, but it was Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing who stole the show for me. Even with your eyes closed, he’s a pleasure to watch.
Where the dialogue lacks, the presentation exceeds. “The Da Vinci Code” weaves plot with history, eventually merging the two. Entire centuries roll before your eyes, all through a filter that seems to set the scene in stone. The camera angles, too, were reminiscent of film noir. The effects blended with controversial history make this movie a must-see for all conspiracists, Templar fans and mystery movie buffs.
The story begins when police call on cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) to the scene of a murder. She arrives to find that the victim is her grandfather, a pentacle carved into his chest. She calls Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), a notable symbologist, for help interpreting the meaning of the peculiar slaying. Thus begins the search for the murderer, which eventually turns into something much, much bigger. Eventually, they discover the secret of the Holy Grail and the secret orders that grew around it. I won’t say anymore than that, but warn that it may conflict with some folk’s view of the history of Christ.
Personally, I’d have cast anyone else over Tom Hanks. He took otherwise contrived dialogue and made it even more so. He did, however, shine in the action scenes. Audrey Tautou was fine in her role, but it was Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing who stole the show for me. Even with your eyes closed, he’s a pleasure to watch.
Where the dialogue lacks, the presentation exceeds. “The Da Vinci Code” weaves plot with history, eventually merging the two. Entire centuries roll before your eyes, all through a filter that seems to set the scene in stone. The camera angles, too, were reminiscent of film noir. The effects blended with controversial history make this movie a must-see for all conspiracists, Templar fans and mystery movie buffs.
Movie Review Week
For the next eight days, I will bring you movie reviews I wrote in the past. Most of the movies have already experienced their big hoorah, but I thought to archive them here on my personal blog for prosperity.
Here's the lineup:
Sunday - The DaVinci Code (PG13)
Monday - The Secret (NR)
Tuesday - Stranger Than Fiction (PG13)
Wednesday - Color Me Kubrick: A True...ish Story (NR)
Thursday - Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? (PG-13)
Friday - Full Metal Alchemist: The Conqueror of Shamballa (TVPG)
Saturday - Blades of Glory (PG13)
Sunday - The Golden Compass (PG13)
Here's the lineup:
Sunday - The DaVinci Code (PG13)
Monday - The Secret (NR)
Tuesday - Stranger Than Fiction (PG13)
Wednesday - Color Me Kubrick: A True...ish Story (NR)
Thursday - Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? (PG-13)
Friday - Full Metal Alchemist: The Conqueror of Shamballa (TVPG)
Saturday - Blades of Glory (PG13)
Sunday - The Golden Compass (PG13)
12 January 2008
Six Sick Romantic Movies
Valentine's Day is the day for love, and our culture abounds with sickeningly sweet movies where two lovers overcome the obstacles to their love and live happily ever after. If you adore such romantic movies as Ghost, Love Story or The Notebook, you're probably NOT going to be into these six twisted love stories that you may have forgotten about or missed.
Dirty Filthy Love (2004)
Starring Michael Sheen and Shirley Henderson (Moaning Myrtle of Harry Potter fame), this movie is about a love that develops between two people with severe Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD).
À la folie... pas du tout (2002)
(He Loves Me...He Loves Me Not)
Audrey Tautou and Samuel Le Bihan star in this French "she said / he said" flick. Don't feel too sympathetic for Angelique, though. She's not the victim she makes out to be.
Harold and Maude (1971)
With the current "cougar" trend, don't be surprised if this classic movie about the love between a 70-year-old woman and a teenaged boy finds new popularity. Stars Ruth Gordon and Bud Cort.
¡Átame! (1990)
(Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down)
One of Pedro Almodóvar's first, this movie stars a young Antonio Banderas as a recently released mental patience who makes kidnapping a superstar, played by Victoria Abril, his sole mission. A terrific Stockholm Syndrome flick.
Boxing Helena (1993)
Starring Julian Sands and Sherilyn Fenn, this movie is definitely not for the faint of heart. Obsessed with a woman he knows he can never truly "possess," Doctor Nick Cavanaugh uses his surgical skills to "box Helena."
Orgazmo (1997)
Before South Park made its controversial debut, Trey Parker and Matt Stone brought us Orgazmo. This movie is about how one bad-ass Mormon on mission goes to any lengths to pay for his wedding, even reluctantly taking the lead role in a superhero porn series.
What would you add to this list?
Dirty Filthy Love (2004)
Starring Michael Sheen and Shirley Henderson (Moaning Myrtle of Harry Potter fame), this movie is about a love that develops between two people with severe Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD).
À la folie... pas du tout (2002)
(He Loves Me...He Loves Me Not)
Audrey Tautou and Samuel Le Bihan star in this French "she said / he said" flick. Don't feel too sympathetic for Angelique, though. She's not the victim she makes out to be.
Harold and Maude (1971)
With the current "cougar" trend, don't be surprised if this classic movie about the love between a 70-year-old woman and a teenaged boy finds new popularity. Stars Ruth Gordon and Bud Cort.
¡Átame! (1990)
(Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down)
One of Pedro Almodóvar's first, this movie stars a young Antonio Banderas as a recently released mental patience who makes kidnapping a superstar, played by Victoria Abril, his sole mission. A terrific Stockholm Syndrome flick.
Boxing Helena (1993)
Starring Julian Sands and Sherilyn Fenn, this movie is definitely not for the faint of heart. Obsessed with a woman he knows he can never truly "possess," Doctor Nick Cavanaugh uses his surgical skills to "box Helena."
Orgazmo (1997)
Before South Park made its controversial debut, Trey Parker and Matt Stone brought us Orgazmo. This movie is about how one bad-ass Mormon on mission goes to any lengths to pay for his wedding, even reluctantly taking the lead role in a superhero porn series.
What would you add to this list?
06 October 2007
Do you like movies? Don’t know what to write for a review, but you know you really want to share your enthusiasm about it? Here are some quick tips for writing a movie review.
- Explain the basic plot. Was it a movie about dragons taking over NYC? Or did it dig deep into the human condition?
- What did you like about the movie: the awesome special effects, incredible acting, the riveting storyline, the haunting soundtrack? This is putting the finger on the pulse of what got you excited about the movie.
- For an extra touch, stretch and draw cultural comparisons. Explain how the movie seems to coincidentally mirror the such-and-other that is happening in the world today.
- Throw in some trivia, talking about the past history of either the remakes, movie versions of books, directors, producers and actors filmographies.
20 October 2005
Palindromes - Not That Simple
If you want a movie rife with ethical dilemmas, watch Palindromes. This is the tale of a pubescent girl with low self-esteem who wants to be a mother. After her cousin helps her get pregnant, Aviva’s mother cajoles her into having an abortion. The mother, played by Ellen Barkin, tells Aviva a story about Henry, the brother who could have been, that didn’t border on spooky; it set up camp in the heart of creepsville.I would say you could compare this story with Nabokov’s Lolita, only the young girl is the protagonist in this movie. She’s not manipulated by some older man; she just wants a baby. This movie tops some scales of allowed obscenity and general risqué behavior. Many who watch it may think the move completely indecent. This movie is harsh. It asks some really tough questions, and hits you with grit.
On the surface, Palindromes is a fall from innocence or coming of age story, but it’s also a biting look into abortion. Neither side, pro-life nor pro-choice, wins in this movie. Some will side with Aviva’s mother, thinking an abortion the wisest choice for an unwed, barely teen mother. Some will side with the Sunshines, believing abortion is murder and collecting fetuses from the dump in order to give them a proper Christian burial.
Nothing is black and white in this film. Aviva’s mother violates the inherent rule of the pro-choice movement by not allowing her daughter the opportunity to decide for herself. Of course, Aviva wouldn’t have chosen to abort, as she sought out boys and men to help her make a baby. Aviva loved her baby before it was conceived, but she gave it up anyway – because her mom told her to. So much for choice.
On the other hand, the wholesome Christian family that takes in the runaway Aviva doesn’t live up to their professed philosophy either. One night while watching an animated movie about the miracles of Christ, Aviva grows bored and wanders downstairs where she discovers the secret she knew was hiding under the skin of this family’s overly sweet veneer. The patriarch of the house, the family doctor, and a born-again (former?) pedophile plan the assassination of a doctor known for performing abortions, the same doctor who operated on Aviva. So much for life.
Of course, this movie is laudable for something other than its controversial subject matter (abortion and pedophilia); this movie uses multiple actors to portray Aviva. Two of the actors are actually far older than thirteen. After Aviva returns home from her adventures, she is portrayed by Jennifer Jason Leigh as a way of signifying that she has become a girl who has matured well beyond her years.
In addition to using various actors to portray one character, they predominately use full-figured girls, girls who would have difficulty finding work anywhere else in Hollywood. In fact, the folks who made the movie call themselves “Extra Large Productions.” Aviva is a large girl played by large actors, except for a couple occasions when the actors are rail thin for some symbolic reason. The film relies on its sweet, small voiced Avivas to tell us this girl’s story and doesn’t, like so many independent films these days, rely on shaky camera angles to portray the turmoil in her world. The grit is real and brings us to further question our own morals.
Let me leave you with two questions:
1. If you are pro-choice, is it alright for a parent to demand their very young daughter get an abortion?
2. If you are pro-life, is it alright to kill a doctor who performs abortions?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
