I'd love to meet the guy on this gig who had Final Cut. EVERYthing about this movie sucks. Except the luminous actor at its heart. Jason Momoa carries this film past the Finish Line. Everything here (except Jason, as noted) is over-wroght.
Reviews
34 Reviews
First Man
(2018)
We've Seen This All Before
14 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Mining tje same.seam that The Rigjt Stuff, From The Earth To The Moon, amd, yes, Apollo 13, First Man is, at ot' arrjythmic jeart, tje story of the unravelling of a marraige. Acting kudos may be extended to Clair Foy for jer portrayal of tje first Mrs. Armstrong. Not so.Ryan.Gosling, who is forced to follow Damien Chizelle's direction to be an emotionally repressed (to the point of PTSD) person, dealong with death and near-death for the entire film, not even reaching catharsis wjen he tosses his dead daughter's bracelet into a lunar crater (which.I.don't remember readimg in a book. Chazele's choice to only focus on the astronaut's-eye-view of the technology that permits these emotional reactions to work stress only limit tje.scope of the narrative at play. We've seen it all before, and it reduces this film to nothimg more than a series of cliched vignettes with only the repetition of grief as the centre of the story. Only towards tje end of tje film, with.the war in Vietnam making Americans question the huge expenditure of Apollo, merely to change one's perspective. By '69, many astronauts had sufferred marital breakdowns necaise.of.tje massive amount.of trainimg involved, including publicity events with the press, and goodwill trips to contractors putting all the equipmemt together.
Before Armstrong.signed up to be an astronaut, nefore je was.even test piloting tje X-15 rocket pane imto.sub-orbital.space, Armstrong was a fighter pilot during the Korean.War. Early 1950's. Je !arried his wife after the war, whilst a student in university. What motivated her to marry Armstrong is anyone's guess..She knew he was.a pilot. She knew he was a war veteran, and she kmew as a test pilot, that Amstrong was in a dangerous profession. Amd yet, tje film portrays Armstrong as an emotional pressire cooker, only able to cope with the stress through stoicism, and inyense focus on the job.
By tje time Apolo 11 launched, tjere were 40-odd astros.training for Apollo, amd post Apoo (SkyLab) missions. All of them were qualified to fly Armstrong's mission. Many did with Apollos 12 through 17. Neil Armstrong, BION, was not special.or.different than the otjer guys. Deke Slayton, Chief Astronaut, assigned crewz based on a rotation. If Apoo 11 couldn't do it, Pete Comrad on.Apo
o 12 would have been First Man, with.tje same.150,000 worlers back on.Earth supporting the mission. Ryan Gosling is not portraying a hero; just a very talented man.who.had the right education, and stayed alive long enough to.het a historic flight. But as the laumch abort.of Soyuz MS-10 tje day nefore First Man's wide release demonstrates, being 'first' in tje space business is hardly an achievement. Apollo 11 was quite literally a national.achievement. The guy who made it first, no different than a thousand other guys. The Flight of Apollo 11 has yet to be told.
In Zach Snyder I Trust!
9 August 2016
With this one, don't pay any attention to the critics. They don't understand the graphic novel complexity, and have done little research in the absolutely layered and nuanced film Mr. Snyder has created. every shot is precise, beautifully crafted by Snyder and Team. Now, I watched the "Ultimate Edition" Blu-Ray. I did not see this film in theatres, so have no idea what was cut out of the theatrical release.
At three hours plus, B v S, with its restored footage, soars above so-called "super hero" films, and ensconces itself into the ranks of science fiction, just as Snyder's previous work, Man of Steel, did. Snyder seems to be most in his element when he is leading a team of shared vision. Some of the sequences rival the original Matrix in their breath-taking originality.
I cannot recommend this film enough. Regardless of the critics who will no doubt pan the upcoming Wonder Woman, and showpiece Justice League, Snyder has unified a vision across a multitude of films. That vision is realism, but with the eye of a Renaissance master painter.
At three hours plus, B v S, with its restored footage, soars above so-called "super hero" films, and ensconces itself into the ranks of science fiction, just as Snyder's previous work, Man of Steel, did. Snyder seems to be most in his element when he is leading a team of shared vision. Some of the sequences rival the original Matrix in their breath-taking originality.
I cannot recommend this film enough. Regardless of the critics who will no doubt pan the upcoming Wonder Woman, and showpiece Justice League, Snyder has unified a vision across a multitude of films. That vision is realism, but with the eye of a Renaissance master painter.
Star Trek Into Darkness
(2013)
From TOS to POS, Part Duh.... OR.... "I AM Your Daddy, and This Isn't Trek''
21 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
You get three stars for the fine production values, and Chris Pine's acting, and that's it!
So, JJ Abrahms was on 'The Daily Show' on 13 May. He made a number of comments that brought back to me why his first Trek directorial effort was so infuriating for me. And why, thank god, I had no intention of giving Paramount Pictures any money for any more of Abrahms' drek. Seems ole JJ didn't like Trek when he was younger. He couldn't get into it. Too many ideas, it would seem. It was 'too static' because 'they didn't have the money to do anything'. But, 'we have a little bit more money to do things.' He did go on to say that he later watched all the episodes and 'got into it', whatever that means. Probably the paycheque from Paramount, and their publicity department's talking points helped.
It should be said that this film is a much better movie than the 2009 film. It is more kinetic, with finer performances from the principle cast. Chris Pine is a fantastic actor, but he is only working with a very few characteristics of Shatner's richer portrayal. But this is still not a Trek film. It is a thin pastiche of vignettes from TWOK with just a sprinkling of references from the TOS episode "Space Seed" to ground it in continuity. Lack of continuity with the almost 1000 filmed episodes of Trek that preceded it continues to be its downfall.
It would appear that Mr. Abrahms and his writers never read Gene Roddenberry's "Making of Star Trek". There, they would have found that the Enterprise was built in orbit, with component parts being built in San Francisco, not in Iowa. It never lands (let alone submerges). Spock mates every 7 years, and was betrothed at birth to T'Pring- the Spock- Uhura relationship is preposterous. Spock served on the Enterprise for 13 years under Christopher Pike before Kirk took command of the ship. And Starfleet is an almost pure exploratory body, not the paramilitary galactic force that Abrahms envisages. The current batch of uniforms, complete with high-brimmed hats, are straight out of NAZI Germany. Star Trek never introduced any hats as parts of their uniforms. Only ST:E had baseball caps to make them more contemporary with current NASA wear.
Thanks to one episode of ST:E, we also know that the 23rd Century Klingons whom Kirk and Co. lock horns with, have been genetically altered to look more human. Oooops.
The entire alternate timeline that Abrahms uses to retell an already familiar story is blown completely out of the water by the TAS episode "Yesteryear" as well as the already established Temporal Police from the Federation's distant future.
This is not a Star Trek film. While a finely crafted, fast-moving film that races over its plot-holes (artificial gravity going wonky due to power fluctuations? Just turn it off!), the film works more as Abrahms audition for the role of Star Wars director than any capturing of the "spirit of Trek" that Abrahms declares as his creative intention. Don't look for JJ to helm a third Trek- he passed the Lucas audition and has got the gig he really wanted. How about bringing in Ron Moore, J. Michael Strazinski, or Joss Weadon for any future film?
Paramount's Publicity Department was in overdrive for the two weeks prior to the film's release, and the week after or so. All the principle cast members, as well as Abrahms himself have been blitzing the American late-night infomercials (er, talk shows). They even managed an infomercial on their own on both the Canadian and American History Channels. A two-hour long infomercial, where Abrahms stated that he deliberately set out to not make a film for Trek lovers, but a film for movie lovers. Its all about bums in seats, you see.
This is he end of Part One of this reiew. Apparently, I can only use 1000 words. Sorry, IMDb, I have too much to say....MTC!!!!
So, JJ Abrahms was on 'The Daily Show' on 13 May. He made a number of comments that brought back to me why his first Trek directorial effort was so infuriating for me. And why, thank god, I had no intention of giving Paramount Pictures any money for any more of Abrahms' drek. Seems ole JJ didn't like Trek when he was younger. He couldn't get into it. Too many ideas, it would seem. It was 'too static' because 'they didn't have the money to do anything'. But, 'we have a little bit more money to do things.' He did go on to say that he later watched all the episodes and 'got into it', whatever that means. Probably the paycheque from Paramount, and their publicity department's talking points helped.
It should be said that this film is a much better movie than the 2009 film. It is more kinetic, with finer performances from the principle cast. Chris Pine is a fantastic actor, but he is only working with a very few characteristics of Shatner's richer portrayal. But this is still not a Trek film. It is a thin pastiche of vignettes from TWOK with just a sprinkling of references from the TOS episode "Space Seed" to ground it in continuity. Lack of continuity with the almost 1000 filmed episodes of Trek that preceded it continues to be its downfall.
It would appear that Mr. Abrahms and his writers never read Gene Roddenberry's "Making of Star Trek". There, they would have found that the Enterprise was built in orbit, with component parts being built in San Francisco, not in Iowa. It never lands (let alone submerges). Spock mates every 7 years, and was betrothed at birth to T'Pring- the Spock- Uhura relationship is preposterous. Spock served on the Enterprise for 13 years under Christopher Pike before Kirk took command of the ship. And Starfleet is an almost pure exploratory body, not the paramilitary galactic force that Abrahms envisages. The current batch of uniforms, complete with high-brimmed hats, are straight out of NAZI Germany. Star Trek never introduced any hats as parts of their uniforms. Only ST:E had baseball caps to make them more contemporary with current NASA wear.
Thanks to one episode of ST:E, we also know that the 23rd Century Klingons whom Kirk and Co. lock horns with, have been genetically altered to look more human. Oooops.
The entire alternate timeline that Abrahms uses to retell an already familiar story is blown completely out of the water by the TAS episode "Yesteryear" as well as the already established Temporal Police from the Federation's distant future.
This is not a Star Trek film. While a finely crafted, fast-moving film that races over its plot-holes (artificial gravity going wonky due to power fluctuations? Just turn it off!), the film works more as Abrahms audition for the role of Star Wars director than any capturing of the "spirit of Trek" that Abrahms declares as his creative intention. Don't look for JJ to helm a third Trek- he passed the Lucas audition and has got the gig he really wanted. How about bringing in Ron Moore, J. Michael Strazinski, or Joss Weadon for any future film?
Paramount's Publicity Department was in overdrive for the two weeks prior to the film's release, and the week after or so. All the principle cast members, as well as Abrahms himself have been blitzing the American late-night infomercials (er, talk shows). They even managed an infomercial on their own on both the Canadian and American History Channels. A two-hour long infomercial, where Abrahms stated that he deliberately set out to not make a film for Trek lovers, but a film for movie lovers. Its all about bums in seats, you see.
This is he end of Part One of this reiew. Apparently, I can only use 1000 words. Sorry, IMDb, I have too much to say....MTC!!!!
War Witch
(2012)
A Too-Short Look At Child Soldiers
25 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Kim Ngyen's "Rebelle" is everything that a Canadian film should be: a confident, non-American, distinctly Canadian look at the world around us. Ngyen's film succeeds in presenting vignettes of what a "war child" is presumed to go through: the indoctrination through brutalization, clinging to an immature version of humanity whilst expected to do very adult things, and ultimately trying to exit the soldier's life and find a life of normalcy.
The magnificent Rachel Mwanza is the absolute centre of the film, richly deserving her Canadian Film Award as best actress, delivering far more depth of performance through her expressive face than delivering any of Nguyen's dialogue. It is incredible that a young woman of 13 can portray all of the experiences her character undergoes, including the rigours of childbirth. I hope that she is allowed to appear in more films- a major world talent.
The film was made in the Democratic Republic of Congo, for a reputed $3.5 million. The actors are local, though the film never indicates what country it is set in (so as to better represent the African whole, I expect).
While not the film's fault, it is disheartening to see yet another film about Africa that presents the continent and its people as wholly dysfunctional. Yes, there are conflicts, bad governments, poverty, blood diamonds and child soldiers, BUT, there is also everyday life, beautiful cultures, and struggles of 'people just like us'...just trying to get by day to day.
Where the film falters, I think, is in trying to have, or at least imply, a happy ending for Mwanza's protagonist. After undergoing what she goes through, it is difficult to believe that she has the inner resilience to return to a normal 'teenage'life, let alone one of motherhood. PTSD has a way of rendering impossible functional relationships. Also, as noted in my review title, the film is much too short. I was reminded of Apocalypse Now in the themes that Nguyen deaves into, and I think REBELLE needed Apocalypse's length. Maybe we will eventually get 'Rebelle' REDUX.
Note to the Producers: the film is a Canadian film, not a product of the Nation of Quebec. So, do not put Quebec as the country of origin on the DVD case. You took Canadian tax dollars to make the film, and submitted it to the American Academy of Film Arts as the official Canadian entry. I am proud that Rebelle is a Canadian film, IN French, one of our two official languages.
The magnificent Rachel Mwanza is the absolute centre of the film, richly deserving her Canadian Film Award as best actress, delivering far more depth of performance through her expressive face than delivering any of Nguyen's dialogue. It is incredible that a young woman of 13 can portray all of the experiences her character undergoes, including the rigours of childbirth. I hope that she is allowed to appear in more films- a major world talent.
The film was made in the Democratic Republic of Congo, for a reputed $3.5 million. The actors are local, though the film never indicates what country it is set in (so as to better represent the African whole, I expect).
While not the film's fault, it is disheartening to see yet another film about Africa that presents the continent and its people as wholly dysfunctional. Yes, there are conflicts, bad governments, poverty, blood diamonds and child soldiers, BUT, there is also everyday life, beautiful cultures, and struggles of 'people just like us'...just trying to get by day to day.
Where the film falters, I think, is in trying to have, or at least imply, a happy ending for Mwanza's protagonist. After undergoing what she goes through, it is difficult to believe that she has the inner resilience to return to a normal 'teenage'life, let alone one of motherhood. PTSD has a way of rendering impossible functional relationships. Also, as noted in my review title, the film is much too short. I was reminded of Apocalypse Now in the themes that Nguyen deaves into, and I think REBELLE needed Apocalypse's length. Maybe we will eventually get 'Rebelle' REDUX.
Note to the Producers: the film is a Canadian film, not a product of the Nation of Quebec. So, do not put Quebec as the country of origin on the DVD case. You took Canadian tax dollars to make the film, and submitted it to the American Academy of Film Arts as the official Canadian entry. I am proud that Rebelle is a Canadian film, IN French, one of our two official languages.
Zero Dark Thirty
(2012)
New Cinema Verite
14 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
If not for Jessica Chastain's character "Maya", this film could easily qualify as a documentary. Chastain's character, reportedly an amalgam of a number of individuals who worked the Bin Laden file at the CIA over the 10 years since the 11 September 2001 attacks, provides the narrative focus for the film. She is the eyes through which we see Bush's "enhanced interrogation techniques" and the dubious manner in which they supply information to the Forces of Light. We see one interrogator's tenuous ties with humanity, which finally wins out (though his monkeys, no less). We see the chronology of al Quada's attacks on the west and the way in which they affect Maya and the CIA (and remind us of the effects on US!).
Much has been made of the torture depicted in this film. People should see it dramatized realistically, as this "enhanced interrogation" were the techniques employed by Americans' own government, with complicit help from many Western countries, including my Canada (Google Mayar Ahrar). This is our 'moral' legacy of 10 (now 12) years of war against the 'evil doers'. It is also testament to what Obama changed when he came to the White House, and the change of focus and methodology that the CIA ultimately brought to bear to finally locate Bin Laden.
Indeed, many documentary films and TV programmes utilize re-enacted vignettes to dramatize the history they proport to tell. Kathryn Bigelow reshot the ending to this film after Bin Laden's death at the hands of SEAL Team 6 on 1 May 2011. I wonder what the original ending looks like? Unlike many so-called 'dramas', which are nothing more the overacted 'gun plays' (the new name for a genre?), this is history as it should be dramatized: believable characters believably acted, real events, and an absolutely wonderful recreation of the Abottabad raid.
While the climax raid is graphic, it is remarkably sanitized compared to something like "Django Unchained". Consequently, "Zero Dark Thirty" reminds us of what real violence, in any form looks like, and the terror it invokes upon the givers and receivers of such violence. It is worth remembering the number if women and children who were present in Bin Laden's compound when the raid took place. It was nice to see the degree of care the SEALs took to ensure minimal "collateral damage" during the raid.
It is also nice to see the maturity and growth that Katheryn Bigelow has experienced since her years between directing "Point Break", "Strange Days", and this film. The only other comparator that comes to my mind is Spielberg's "Munich"- Bigelow is the superior director in the historical realism stakes, as she knows that in portraying real people, "less" is certainly more......
I can't recommend this film enough.
Much has been made of the torture depicted in this film. People should see it dramatized realistically, as this "enhanced interrogation" were the techniques employed by Americans' own government, with complicit help from many Western countries, including my Canada (Google Mayar Ahrar). This is our 'moral' legacy of 10 (now 12) years of war against the 'evil doers'. It is also testament to what Obama changed when he came to the White House, and the change of focus and methodology that the CIA ultimately brought to bear to finally locate Bin Laden.
Indeed, many documentary films and TV programmes utilize re-enacted vignettes to dramatize the history they proport to tell. Kathryn Bigelow reshot the ending to this film after Bin Laden's death at the hands of SEAL Team 6 on 1 May 2011. I wonder what the original ending looks like? Unlike many so-called 'dramas', which are nothing more the overacted 'gun plays' (the new name for a genre?), this is history as it should be dramatized: believable characters believably acted, real events, and an absolutely wonderful recreation of the Abottabad raid.
While the climax raid is graphic, it is remarkably sanitized compared to something like "Django Unchained". Consequently, "Zero Dark Thirty" reminds us of what real violence, in any form looks like, and the terror it invokes upon the givers and receivers of such violence. It is worth remembering the number if women and children who were present in Bin Laden's compound when the raid took place. It was nice to see the degree of care the SEALs took to ensure minimal "collateral damage" during the raid.
It is also nice to see the maturity and growth that Katheryn Bigelow has experienced since her years between directing "Point Break", "Strange Days", and this film. The only other comparator that comes to my mind is Spielberg's "Munich"- Bigelow is the superior director in the historical realism stakes, as she knows that in portraying real people, "less" is certainly more......
I can't recommend this film enough.
Django Unchained
(2012)
Tarrantino's Tour of American Slavery
2 January 2013
Last week, Charlie Rose, on his PBS interview programme, spent one wonderful hour with Tarrantino discussing "Django Unchained" as well as giving a master class on cinema history. Well worth checking out, if it is on "YouTube" or Charlie Rose's website.
Prior to the film commencing, there were four rushes of upcoming films, all drenched in gunplay and violence. In a post Newtown world, I felt very uncomfortable watching these previews, and slightly guilty at the bloodbath that "Django" promised to be. On the other hand, the entire show, including "Django", presented something of an overview of what the gun represents in American society: The Instrument of Vengeance/Justice, symbol of manhood, authority, individual freedom, the State, institutional power, and just plain fun. Very disturbing.........
"Django Unchained", which I saw on Sunday 30 December 2012, is somewhat more serious than other Tarranatino films. Oh, there is the trademark humour, if a little underplayed than in the past, as well as the B-movie sensibilities. Tarrantino himself acknowledges that the film has more of a linear narrative than his past work. More than anything, though, this film seriously presents Tarrantino's understanding of the experience of American slavery, as well as his own revulsion of the institution. As such, "Django" presents as archetypes the slave as the central character, the rage that he feels towards the enslavers, the white liberal stand-in for himself (Christof Waltz), the dichotomy and conflict between the plantation slaves and the house slaves,the slave owners themselves (Don Johnson and a superb Leo DiCaprio), and a very Inglorious Basterds' fantasy of what visceral vengeance could look like, all dressed up in a spaghetti western sensibility. Not to be missed.
Prior to the film commencing, there were four rushes of upcoming films, all drenched in gunplay and violence. In a post Newtown world, I felt very uncomfortable watching these previews, and slightly guilty at the bloodbath that "Django" promised to be. On the other hand, the entire show, including "Django", presented something of an overview of what the gun represents in American society: The Instrument of Vengeance/Justice, symbol of manhood, authority, individual freedom, the State, institutional power, and just plain fun. Very disturbing.........
"Django Unchained", which I saw on Sunday 30 December 2012, is somewhat more serious than other Tarranatino films. Oh, there is the trademark humour, if a little underplayed than in the past, as well as the B-movie sensibilities. Tarrantino himself acknowledges that the film has more of a linear narrative than his past work. More than anything, though, this film seriously presents Tarrantino's understanding of the experience of American slavery, as well as his own revulsion of the institution. As such, "Django" presents as archetypes the slave as the central character, the rage that he feels towards the enslavers, the white liberal stand-in for himself (Christof Waltz), the dichotomy and conflict between the plantation slaves and the house slaves,the slave owners themselves (Don Johnson and a superb Leo DiCaprio), and a very Inglorious Basterds' fantasy of what visceral vengeance could look like, all dressed up in a spaghetti western sensibility. Not to be missed.
Skyfall
(2012)
Good Film, But NOT Best Craig Outing
19 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I'm probably being too harsh with the 7 out of 10 rating. I've given much lesser films the same score. I love Daniel Craig's take on Bond, and the new direction of the Brocolli "franchise". Skyfall is beautifully shot, directed, with many strong moments.
I literally cringe when watching any non-Craig film. The camp, and the tongue-in-cheek unbelievability prevent me from watching more than a few minutes' worth. Sorry, MGM, but you've spoiled me: I shan't be purchasing any boxed sets, at least not until Craig does as many as Roger Moore and they are available separately.
But warning note to the Brocolli-Wilson braintrust and MGM in toto- the injection into this film of "Q", Moneypenny (as played by Naomie Harris) and Ralph Fiennes' "M" (replete with Bernard Lee's office), as well as a villain who is too much of a mustache-twirling cad, signals a possible return to the camp of the past. That is why this film gets a "7-10".
If they had have used a nuanced antagonist (note the words) for Bond, the film could have topped "Casino Royale". Le Chiffre was wonderful. Anton Chigre was not. Save your casting money, MGM- you need it. Use you writers to come up with believable stories and antagonists for Craig's character. We can always turn to Jason Bourne if you insist on creating a cartoon for Craig-Bond 4. And for God's sake, don't keep Naomie Harris behind a desk........
I literally cringe when watching any non-Craig film. The camp, and the tongue-in-cheek unbelievability prevent me from watching more than a few minutes' worth. Sorry, MGM, but you've spoiled me: I shan't be purchasing any boxed sets, at least not until Craig does as many as Roger Moore and they are available separately.
But warning note to the Brocolli-Wilson braintrust and MGM in toto- the injection into this film of "Q", Moneypenny (as played by Naomie Harris) and Ralph Fiennes' "M" (replete with Bernard Lee's office), as well as a villain who is too much of a mustache-twirling cad, signals a possible return to the camp of the past. That is why this film gets a "7-10".
If they had have used a nuanced antagonist (note the words) for Bond, the film could have topped "Casino Royale". Le Chiffre was wonderful. Anton Chigre was not. Save your casting money, MGM- you need it. Use you writers to come up with believable stories and antagonists for Craig's character. We can always turn to Jason Bourne if you insist on creating a cartoon for Craig-Bond 4. And for God's sake, don't keep Naomie Harris behind a desk........
Prometheus
(I) (2012)
A Good Performance of a Familiar Piece
10 June 2012
Ridley Scott's film promotion for "Prometheus" would have you believe that the film is a not-quite-prequel to his 1979 "Alien". Forget it- it is a straight prequel, with snazzier (but look how the effects of the '79 flick stand up!) special effects.
The new film simultaneously impresses and disappoints (at least this viewer). A Ridley Scott film always has the production design and photography share top billing with the actors and screenwriter. A director in the American mode- he directs and produces, but never writes- Scott is as much aware that he is creating product as any semblance of art. Yet, his actors love him, and reward him with often wonderful performances. Susan Sarandon, Sigourney Weaver, Russell Crowe, and now Michael Fassbender. It is the actors' performances, even if they are acting fearful, that bring the audience in as much as the visuals do.
Pet peeve: with all the actors sporting exotic accents, why is Idris Elba's lovely English one subsumed by an American accent? Answer: Scott always has his fingers on the pulse of his perceived market, or sub- market in this case, complete with the cliché of boffing uber-blonde Charlisse Theron's character.
There are many plot elements from the original "Alien" in this film. There are also plot elements from "Alien Vs. Predator", a film that the Scott publicity machine would have you believe cheapens the franchise. 20th Century Fox owns that franchise, of course, and as much as Scott is the original architect of the restaurant, food has been served in other designs as well, and Fox wants patrons to visit all venues. So, just as in "AVP", we have a Weyland escorting a mismatched group of experts and adventurers on a quest for immortality- historic or otherwise. I'm not complaining- I happen to think that AVP actually exceeds expectations, especially with the luminous Sanaa Lathan.
Like almost all films today, "Prometheus" is edited to within a hairbreadth of incoherence. Since I have no intention of seeing the film a second time in theatres, I will say that at some points it is incoherent. I will have to wait for the inevitable "director's cut" and subtitles to see if I can make sense out of what at first glance seems unintelligible. Perhaps you, my reader, will have better luck!
I went to see a "3-D" presentation of "Prometheus". I have tried to avoid 3-D like the plague since "The Last Airbender" (which I saw on a date- it was her fault!)- most films are 'converted' into 3-D after principle photography is completed with standard cameras. It isn't quite stereoscopic; the images are manipulated to bring 2-D aspects to the forefront, and other aspects manipulated to the background, giving only the illusion of stereoscopy. In "Prometheus" case, Scott and his DP employed "stereoscopic" cameras for every aspect of the shoot, and the results are there to behold on the screen. I can't tell you whether the same system was used on "Avatar", but this is the way 3-D should be employed.
There is nothing original in this film, with even major plot points to be found in several "Star Trek" episodes, with nods to Erich von Danniken and that uber-marketer Steven Spielberg. With most SF, though, visual or otherwise, like classical music, it is the performances of the players that are to be appreciated, not just the audience's familiarity with the piece. "Prometheus" is a good performance of a familiar piece.
The new film simultaneously impresses and disappoints (at least this viewer). A Ridley Scott film always has the production design and photography share top billing with the actors and screenwriter. A director in the American mode- he directs and produces, but never writes- Scott is as much aware that he is creating product as any semblance of art. Yet, his actors love him, and reward him with often wonderful performances. Susan Sarandon, Sigourney Weaver, Russell Crowe, and now Michael Fassbender. It is the actors' performances, even if they are acting fearful, that bring the audience in as much as the visuals do.
Pet peeve: with all the actors sporting exotic accents, why is Idris Elba's lovely English one subsumed by an American accent? Answer: Scott always has his fingers on the pulse of his perceived market, or sub- market in this case, complete with the cliché of boffing uber-blonde Charlisse Theron's character.
There are many plot elements from the original "Alien" in this film. There are also plot elements from "Alien Vs. Predator", a film that the Scott publicity machine would have you believe cheapens the franchise. 20th Century Fox owns that franchise, of course, and as much as Scott is the original architect of the restaurant, food has been served in other designs as well, and Fox wants patrons to visit all venues. So, just as in "AVP", we have a Weyland escorting a mismatched group of experts and adventurers on a quest for immortality- historic or otherwise. I'm not complaining- I happen to think that AVP actually exceeds expectations, especially with the luminous Sanaa Lathan.
Like almost all films today, "Prometheus" is edited to within a hairbreadth of incoherence. Since I have no intention of seeing the film a second time in theatres, I will say that at some points it is incoherent. I will have to wait for the inevitable "director's cut" and subtitles to see if I can make sense out of what at first glance seems unintelligible. Perhaps you, my reader, will have better luck!
I went to see a "3-D" presentation of "Prometheus". I have tried to avoid 3-D like the plague since "The Last Airbender" (which I saw on a date- it was her fault!)- most films are 'converted' into 3-D after principle photography is completed with standard cameras. It isn't quite stereoscopic; the images are manipulated to bring 2-D aspects to the forefront, and other aspects manipulated to the background, giving only the illusion of stereoscopy. In "Prometheus" case, Scott and his DP employed "stereoscopic" cameras for every aspect of the shoot, and the results are there to behold on the screen. I can't tell you whether the same system was used on "Avatar", but this is the way 3-D should be employed.
There is nothing original in this film, with even major plot points to be found in several "Star Trek" episodes, with nods to Erich von Danniken and that uber-marketer Steven Spielberg. With most SF, though, visual or otherwise, like classical music, it is the performances of the players that are to be appreciated, not just the audience's familiarity with the piece. "Prometheus" is a good performance of a familiar piece.
Red Tails
(2012)
Not Quite Episode Seven, But B- For Effort
22 January 2012
George Lucas was on "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart two weeks ago. The way he presented "Red Tails", one would have thought that he was the director, but, no, just the exec Producer. Given that the film is a Lucasfilm production, whoever directed the film (I know, but, telling you detracts from my point)Lucas effectively controls what is on the screen. He told Stewart that he had been trying to get the film made for about 20 years.
Kudos for effort to Mr. Lucas. Photorealistic air combat and aircraft scenes (I searched the credits for the plane pilots, but only saw helicopters...so everything on the screen is CGI!). Wow!
The plot follows the historical facts of the Tuskeegee Airmen quite well. The stories of the individual characters are, as one Toronto critic accurately described- melodramatic. Still, the actors are endearing. It reminds me of the James Franco WW1 air film from a few years ago- lots of heart, but not an actors film.
Lucas told Mr. Stewart that he wanted to show his characters as heroes and not victims (segregation was still US Armed Forces policy until Harry Truman integrated the Forces after the War- perhaps the most important Civil Rights victory in history, as the US Armed Forces is a major socializing agent in American society).
Terrence Howard and Cuba Gooding are wasted in supporting roles- the story has yet to be told of the political; machinations that saw the creation of the Tuskeegee Air Squadron).
Note to Mr. Lucas: I appreciate why you would dress this film in the US flag- BUT, given that the film is shown in countries other than the US, the blatant jingoism does not bode well for the international box office. I saw this film on opening day in a theatre just outside Toronto. Its capacity had to be several hundred people- there were less than 20 at a 7 pm show- none black in a community with a large black population. The 9 pm show had no tickets sold- I checked. Its fantastic to see a film that doesn't portray people of colour as impoverished or ghettoized- to fly in the US Army Airforce, you had to be an officer- still do in the USAF. Perhaps it is telling that some North American communities will only accept portrayals of nonwhites in this manner. Not Mr. Lucas' problem.....ENJOY and go see this important film.......
Kudos for effort to Mr. Lucas. Photorealistic air combat and aircraft scenes (I searched the credits for the plane pilots, but only saw helicopters...so everything on the screen is CGI!). Wow!
The plot follows the historical facts of the Tuskeegee Airmen quite well. The stories of the individual characters are, as one Toronto critic accurately described- melodramatic. Still, the actors are endearing. It reminds me of the James Franco WW1 air film from a few years ago- lots of heart, but not an actors film.
Lucas told Mr. Stewart that he wanted to show his characters as heroes and not victims (segregation was still US Armed Forces policy until Harry Truman integrated the Forces after the War- perhaps the most important Civil Rights victory in history, as the US Armed Forces is a major socializing agent in American society).
Terrence Howard and Cuba Gooding are wasted in supporting roles- the story has yet to be told of the political; machinations that saw the creation of the Tuskeegee Air Squadron).
Note to Mr. Lucas: I appreciate why you would dress this film in the US flag- BUT, given that the film is shown in countries other than the US, the blatant jingoism does not bode well for the international box office. I saw this film on opening day in a theatre just outside Toronto. Its capacity had to be several hundred people- there were less than 20 at a 7 pm show- none black in a community with a large black population. The 9 pm show had no tickets sold- I checked. Its fantastic to see a film that doesn't portray people of colour as impoverished or ghettoized- to fly in the US Army Airforce, you had to be an officer- still do in the USAF. Perhaps it is telling that some North American communities will only accept portrayals of nonwhites in this manner. Not Mr. Lucas' problem.....ENJOY and go see this important film.......
Colombiana
(2011)
Original Action Sequences and A New Action Hero
4 September 2011
I'm glad some of the other reviewers on this site have acknowledged that Columbiana is a French film. Having the dialogue in English, pandering to the English speaking market does not detract from the freshness of what is on the screen. Rather than a Hollywood paint-by-numbers exercise in boredom, we are given a wonderfully empathetic lead character played by Zoe Saldana with complete believability. Olivier Megaton directs the Luc Besson script with an eye to original twists to clichéd action sequences. I went in expecting less than what I got, and came out wanting to buy the DVD when it is released, hoping for a sequel. Far better than most American made summer fare. Congrats to all.
In Bruges
(2008)
Atonement and Existentialism In Bruges
10 February 2008
A European film through and through, showing its deep theatrical roots, "In Bruges" works on may levels, and is a fine night at the cinema.
The film follows the denouement of a "job" gone bad for two Irish hit men, who are forced to hole up in Bruges, Belgium, and really can't stand the inactivity. The forced waiting, a symbolic purgatory in both assassins' struggle for absolution, gives Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell a chance to act through some marvelous comic dialogue.
The film itself looks like it was filmed in an area of the old city of Bruges that is no more than a 500 square metre radius. It doesn't matter, because the film is a character study more than anything, and like all good theatre, the character interplay allows the audience to forget the confined spaces.
Ralph Fiennes comes into the film late basically stealing Ben Kingsley's character from "Sexy Beast". This has to be an absolutely deliberate choice, so can't really be criticized. The writing is so good that Fiennes can have real fun with it. All the actors do, as a matter of fact.
I have been deeply suspicious of Colin Farrell's ability to read a script in the past. His choices of projects in the past has been spotty. Not this time: his acting ability is brought to the fore by director and screenwriter Martin McDonagh. Farrell gives a very strong performance as a morally challenged hit-man.
Brendan Gleeson has been around forever, and is a renowned character actor. You may remember him from "Braveheart" as Hamish Campbell, Mel Gibson's loyal adjutant. He is able to completely bury himself in this part. Colin Farrell has the capacity to reach these heights as well, and in fact, in this film, shows many of the mannerisms and intensity of Russell Crowe (whom I consider to be the best actor on the planet).
I appreciated the comedy and satire working hand in hand with the moral complexity of the characters' inner struggles. It makes for a very satisfying film, one that is much more than entertainment. When you consider what the budget was in comparison to many Hollywood films, "In Bruges" serves as a reminder that it is the script and the quality of the direction that makes a film. Why Hollywood thinks they can just throw money into a project and expect people to come to the cinema is beyond me.
The film follows the denouement of a "job" gone bad for two Irish hit men, who are forced to hole up in Bruges, Belgium, and really can't stand the inactivity. The forced waiting, a symbolic purgatory in both assassins' struggle for absolution, gives Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell a chance to act through some marvelous comic dialogue.
The film itself looks like it was filmed in an area of the old city of Bruges that is no more than a 500 square metre radius. It doesn't matter, because the film is a character study more than anything, and like all good theatre, the character interplay allows the audience to forget the confined spaces.
Ralph Fiennes comes into the film late basically stealing Ben Kingsley's character from "Sexy Beast". This has to be an absolutely deliberate choice, so can't really be criticized. The writing is so good that Fiennes can have real fun with it. All the actors do, as a matter of fact.
I have been deeply suspicious of Colin Farrell's ability to read a script in the past. His choices of projects in the past has been spotty. Not this time: his acting ability is brought to the fore by director and screenwriter Martin McDonagh. Farrell gives a very strong performance as a morally challenged hit-man.
Brendan Gleeson has been around forever, and is a renowned character actor. You may remember him from "Braveheart" as Hamish Campbell, Mel Gibson's loyal adjutant. He is able to completely bury himself in this part. Colin Farrell has the capacity to reach these heights as well, and in fact, in this film, shows many of the mannerisms and intensity of Russell Crowe (whom I consider to be the best actor on the planet).
I appreciated the comedy and satire working hand in hand with the moral complexity of the characters' inner struggles. It makes for a very satisfying film, one that is much more than entertainment. When you consider what the budget was in comparison to many Hollywood films, "In Bruges" serves as a reminder that it is the script and the quality of the direction that makes a film. Why Hollywood thinks they can just throw money into a project and expect people to come to the cinema is beyond me.
The Illusionist
(2006)
Quite a Chess Game or How Is It Done?
7 February 2008
I'm trying something different with this one: writing my impressions of this film whilst watching it on DVD for the first time. You know, I figured out the "surprise" of the Sixth Sense about 10 minutes into the film. With this one, the plot twist was a complete surprise right up until the end of the film. In the final summation, the magician is the director, and the audience being sold the illusion is the one in the movie theatre.
The writing drips with meaning with every phrase and glance and gesture. But, is information, or disinformation? Edward Norton, like Russel Crowe, knows how to read a script and work with a director. Norton is a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for a good time at the movies, even though, in this one, his acting ain't that great, particularly the accent. But it doesn't matter.
It is Paul Giamatti who actually anchors the film. He represents the audience, and is the most rounded character in this piece. Like so many of us today, he is a moral man, trapped in a corporatist institution that uses his talents and corrupts his soul. But is that soul beyond redemption? Are ours? This film deals with multiple themes: love, morals, objections to rash power, use and abuse of power. This film is a compelling portrayal of totalitarianism and a police state's attempts to control and silence the truth.
I can quibble: Vienna depicted as way too clean for a turn-of-the-20th Century period piece, where the primary means of heating in bad weather was coal, but I imagine that this was deliberate to the production design and the mood that was trying to be created. The DP, production designer and director are able to use a very interesting use of colour, even if it is too clean! Lastly, the music is majestic and evocative of the European music of the past.
A wonderful film.
The writing drips with meaning with every phrase and glance and gesture. But, is information, or disinformation? Edward Norton, like Russel Crowe, knows how to read a script and work with a director. Norton is a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for a good time at the movies, even though, in this one, his acting ain't that great, particularly the accent. But it doesn't matter.
It is Paul Giamatti who actually anchors the film. He represents the audience, and is the most rounded character in this piece. Like so many of us today, he is a moral man, trapped in a corporatist institution that uses his talents and corrupts his soul. But is that soul beyond redemption? Are ours? This film deals with multiple themes: love, morals, objections to rash power, use and abuse of power. This film is a compelling portrayal of totalitarianism and a police state's attempts to control and silence the truth.
I can quibble: Vienna depicted as way too clean for a turn-of-the-20th Century period piece, where the primary means of heating in bad weather was coal, but I imagine that this was deliberate to the production design and the mood that was trying to be created. The DP, production designer and director are able to use a very interesting use of colour, even if it is too clean! Lastly, the music is majestic and evocative of the European music of the past.
A wonderful film.
Honeydripper
(2007)
A Welome Return by America's Great Independent Working Class Film Maker
2 February 2008
This is not a great movie by any stretch, but it is a very GOOD one. My rating should be 7.8. IMDb, invest in some higher technology! John Sayles proves yet again what can be done when there is unity of vision on a film, and when everyone involved passionately believes in what they are doing. Any limitations this film has must surely be due to the budget (was there one?) rather than any creative lapses on Sayles' part.
In fact, the only problems I have with "Honeydripper" are technical: some of the shots are out of focus, some of the scenes drag, and there is not a lot of dramatic tension to carry the piece along. It is enough, though, for those of us who can handle something more relaxed than the kinetics of Michael Bey or Steven ("I'll do anything for an Oscar!") Spielberg.
"Honeydripper" is really a small character study of a working class man, surrounded by good people, who is trying do do right by them and himself. It is a romance for the nostalgia of the Deep South in 1950, a period where Jim Crow was on the cusp of yielding to John Kennedy.
It is also a romance for music, where Gospel and Blues was about to fuse and metamorphise into Rock 'n Roll. Sayles loves everything he is doing; you can feel the writer/director's respect and integrity through the camera and the screen.
Unusual for a Sayles film, Danny Glover anchors the piece as its central character, the axis upon which the story and all the characters revolve. All the characters are complete human beings, with only a few drawn as caricatures. I don't mind.
This would be a good film to show as a double bill with "The Great Debators". Several themes overlap, but "Honeydrippers" is the more mature film. Here, a man's biggest grievance is not being able to live in dignity as a man who pays his way. Sayles' characteristic character arcs provide us with many dignified men and women who achieve that dignity by finding ways to honestly pay their way. They do it with joy, love and creativity.
Another fine Working Class film from Cinema's Working Class Hero.
In fact, the only problems I have with "Honeydripper" are technical: some of the shots are out of focus, some of the scenes drag, and there is not a lot of dramatic tension to carry the piece along. It is enough, though, for those of us who can handle something more relaxed than the kinetics of Michael Bey or Steven ("I'll do anything for an Oscar!") Spielberg.
"Honeydripper" is really a small character study of a working class man, surrounded by good people, who is trying do do right by them and himself. It is a romance for the nostalgia of the Deep South in 1950, a period where Jim Crow was on the cusp of yielding to John Kennedy.
It is also a romance for music, where Gospel and Blues was about to fuse and metamorphise into Rock 'n Roll. Sayles loves everything he is doing; you can feel the writer/director's respect and integrity through the camera and the screen.
Unusual for a Sayles film, Danny Glover anchors the piece as its central character, the axis upon which the story and all the characters revolve. All the characters are complete human beings, with only a few drawn as caricatures. I don't mind.
This would be a good film to show as a double bill with "The Great Debators". Several themes overlap, but "Honeydrippers" is the more mature film. Here, a man's biggest grievance is not being able to live in dignity as a man who pays his way. Sayles' characteristic character arcs provide us with many dignified men and women who achieve that dignity by finding ways to honestly pay their way. They do it with joy, love and creativity.
Another fine Working Class film from Cinema's Working Class Hero.
Mission: Impossible III
(2006)
JJ Abrams, You Are No Orson Welles......... Or Brian dePalma
27 January 2008
This film is cynical American product right up there with that other "3", Jurrasic Park Troi.....when Spielberg won't do it, bring in the second-stringer.....
I saw this film in the DVD version, and it was because I got petrified at the thought of Abrams directing the new incarnation of Star Trek. Listening to the "Director's Commentary", my fears have been confirmed.
Mr. Abrams is a Hollywood Player of the highest order. He schmoozes with the best, and has the best kiss his bum. Listen to Tom Cruise and JJ perform verbal fellatio with each other on the Director's Commentary, and you get an idea of how little clothing this Emperor is wearing.
This is Mr. Abrams first directorial outing. And I'm not sure that he is really directing......Tom Cruise has as much, if not more, creative control over this "property" as JJ does. The Bad Robots have previsualized this film to such a degree that it is virtually (pun intended) made before any of the live action stand-ins for the pixels go before the camera.
Abrams is highly influenced by Japanese Manga. The "process" is much easier if the storyboards are framed in such a way that the live action crew just have to recreate what the storyboard artists have already "previsualized". Yet, JJ talks about this film as if he is making Citizen Kane! JJ, you've just made a remake of a tawdry '60's TV show, highlighting the clichés that made people tune in week-after-week, and then added an extra layer of Brian dePalma's chops! The character interaction is calculated, the story designed to tie the set pieces together- it's a popcorn movie. Slick to be sure (6.0 for slickness), but as tasty and empty as saccharine (and about as good for you).
Watch the palette of colours through this film. Pure manga, as are the camera moves, and the hyper-expressiveness of the characters. Eating a brownie would have the dramatic import of Hamlet's Solliloquey here.
I actually posted a "review" of the new Star Trek film on IMDb a few weeks ago, but IMDb chose not to post it, as that film hasn't been completed, and won't be released until 10 months from now. So, this review will have to serve as a cautionary tale.
Mr. Abrams is a very superficial film-maker. Nothing in MI-III has any real soul. The clichés of the original series are served up as nostalgia gags, with a little high tech thrown in to attract a younger audience. Star Trek seems to be following the same formula.
And the last thing Star Trek needs right now is more "formula".
JJ, if you are going to perform sycophantic fellatio on anyone, please find Ron Moore. He won't swing your way, but if he did, I'm sure you would "absorb" some integrity and respect for the art behind the appearance. It may not be there with the Mission Impossible franchise, as that always was confection.
But, once upon a time, Star Trek elevated itself into art, transcended its clichés, and delivered something of cultural import to the masses. Ask Robert Wise, and look at what he delivered. You're not Robert Wise; you're not even Joe Johnston! JJ, spend some time with European film-makers. Attend a few plays. Hang out with John Malkovich, or the Coen Brother. Have John Sayles' baby! Movies are about money, to be sure, but they can be art as well. This only happens when the Director has a sort of sclerosis, and can divorce himself entirely from the business-end of things whilst the art is being made.
To work with both side of the brain, you need a whole brain, not the half-brained sort of movie that MI-III is and this thing called "Star Trek" is destined to be. I, at least, know that you are prancing around Hollywood without any cinematic clothes.
Dear readers, spread the word!
I saw this film in the DVD version, and it was because I got petrified at the thought of Abrams directing the new incarnation of Star Trek. Listening to the "Director's Commentary", my fears have been confirmed.
Mr. Abrams is a Hollywood Player of the highest order. He schmoozes with the best, and has the best kiss his bum. Listen to Tom Cruise and JJ perform verbal fellatio with each other on the Director's Commentary, and you get an idea of how little clothing this Emperor is wearing.
This is Mr. Abrams first directorial outing. And I'm not sure that he is really directing......Tom Cruise has as much, if not more, creative control over this "property" as JJ does. The Bad Robots have previsualized this film to such a degree that it is virtually (pun intended) made before any of the live action stand-ins for the pixels go before the camera.
Abrams is highly influenced by Japanese Manga. The "process" is much easier if the storyboards are framed in such a way that the live action crew just have to recreate what the storyboard artists have already "previsualized". Yet, JJ talks about this film as if he is making Citizen Kane! JJ, you've just made a remake of a tawdry '60's TV show, highlighting the clichés that made people tune in week-after-week, and then added an extra layer of Brian dePalma's chops! The character interaction is calculated, the story designed to tie the set pieces together- it's a popcorn movie. Slick to be sure (6.0 for slickness), but as tasty and empty as saccharine (and about as good for you).
Watch the palette of colours through this film. Pure manga, as are the camera moves, and the hyper-expressiveness of the characters. Eating a brownie would have the dramatic import of Hamlet's Solliloquey here.
I actually posted a "review" of the new Star Trek film on IMDb a few weeks ago, but IMDb chose not to post it, as that film hasn't been completed, and won't be released until 10 months from now. So, this review will have to serve as a cautionary tale.
Mr. Abrams is a very superficial film-maker. Nothing in MI-III has any real soul. The clichés of the original series are served up as nostalgia gags, with a little high tech thrown in to attract a younger audience. Star Trek seems to be following the same formula.
And the last thing Star Trek needs right now is more "formula".
JJ, if you are going to perform sycophantic fellatio on anyone, please find Ron Moore. He won't swing your way, but if he did, I'm sure you would "absorb" some integrity and respect for the art behind the appearance. It may not be there with the Mission Impossible franchise, as that always was confection.
But, once upon a time, Star Trek elevated itself into art, transcended its clichés, and delivered something of cultural import to the masses. Ask Robert Wise, and look at what he delivered. You're not Robert Wise; you're not even Joe Johnston! JJ, spend some time with European film-makers. Attend a few plays. Hang out with John Malkovich, or the Coen Brother. Have John Sayles' baby! Movies are about money, to be sure, but they can be art as well. This only happens when the Director has a sort of sclerosis, and can divorce himself entirely from the business-end of things whilst the art is being made.
To work with both side of the brain, you need a whole brain, not the half-brained sort of movie that MI-III is and this thing called "Star Trek" is destined to be. I, at least, know that you are prancing around Hollywood without any cinematic clothes.
Dear readers, spread the word!
How She Move
(2007)
Your Entertainment- MY Tax Dollars at Work!
26 January 2008
This film represents every aspiring Canadian performance artist's dream- the chance to be noticed in the United States. To facilitate this ambition, all levels of Canadian Government funnel huge amounts of money to Canadian talent so that they can create vehicles to hock their wares south of the border. Nevermind that the work itself seldom represents the land or the people it comes from.
"How She Move" is a curious creature, a Canadian film that actually doesn't try to be set in America, or be about Americans. Notice my choice of words, though- it is an absence of a negative, not an outright positive. Even though Brooklin and Baltimore are mentioned directly by name, and a large section of the film is set (though not filmed) in Detroit, the only references to Canada are oblique: "T-Dot" "Scarborough" and "Jane Street Junta". Too bad the average American film-goer has no idea what those terms mean.
Even the one shot of Canadian money is the backside of our $20.00 bill, the one Canadian banknote that is the same colour as the US Greenback.
The settings are generic North American urban ghetto, with the high irony of the actual Jane-Finch corridor exterior shots not being gritty enough to pretend they have street cred, so the film crew travels to Hamilton Ontario to ramp up the film's "ghettoness". Not one exterior establishing shot to proudly proclaim "This is Canada".
At least the interior shots of the characters homes are authentic and ring true to some tenements in the Jane-Finch area.
The film even downplays the Caribbean origins of most of the characters, but not to any degree that it downplays its Canadian-ness. But, "downplay" is not "ignore" and there are many subtle references that only someone familiar with the Caribbean colony in Toronto would understand. And I use the phrase "Caribbean Colony" with deliberate purpose.
The story itself is generic to many American films of the same ilk. It is still a valid story, in a sense, since various methods of uplift have always been aspirations of marginalized communities. It is as true in Toronto as any other city in North America.
And the story is told with uncommon passion and integrity, from the characters' and actors' levels.
What really shines in this film is the showcase of Toronto talent. To be sure, all this talent would love to kiss Canada goodbye for a lucrative career in the U.S., but they grew up here, and here is where they are currently shining! That too is part of Canadian culture, but no American would understand that.
To my American friends, I mean no slight- I personally think you are big enough to embrace a true Canadian story if it has the production values that you are used to in your cinema. The mavens in Hollywood are so conservative though that you continue to get spoon-fed pap, and only rarely are you served true art with a degree of risk attached. When films have to make back a $150 Million budget, the owners of that money tend to be risk adverse! This film is getting a wide release in the United States. MTV Films has had a hand in it's financing or distribution, hence the reason why its Canadian-ness is being downplayed. But, in 2008, this is the best Canada can do in bringing its stories to you...by making them seem like YOUR stories.
What a timid little country Canada is! Couldn't any of my tax money put one Canadian flag in a scene? A real TTC bus? A shot of CW Jefferies Collegiate? A Jane Street or Driftwood Avenue street sign? How much risk is there in that?
"How She Move" is a curious creature, a Canadian film that actually doesn't try to be set in America, or be about Americans. Notice my choice of words, though- it is an absence of a negative, not an outright positive. Even though Brooklin and Baltimore are mentioned directly by name, and a large section of the film is set (though not filmed) in Detroit, the only references to Canada are oblique: "T-Dot" "Scarborough" and "Jane Street Junta". Too bad the average American film-goer has no idea what those terms mean.
Even the one shot of Canadian money is the backside of our $20.00 bill, the one Canadian banknote that is the same colour as the US Greenback.
The settings are generic North American urban ghetto, with the high irony of the actual Jane-Finch corridor exterior shots not being gritty enough to pretend they have street cred, so the film crew travels to Hamilton Ontario to ramp up the film's "ghettoness". Not one exterior establishing shot to proudly proclaim "This is Canada".
At least the interior shots of the characters homes are authentic and ring true to some tenements in the Jane-Finch area.
The film even downplays the Caribbean origins of most of the characters, but not to any degree that it downplays its Canadian-ness. But, "downplay" is not "ignore" and there are many subtle references that only someone familiar with the Caribbean colony in Toronto would understand. And I use the phrase "Caribbean Colony" with deliberate purpose.
The story itself is generic to many American films of the same ilk. It is still a valid story, in a sense, since various methods of uplift have always been aspirations of marginalized communities. It is as true in Toronto as any other city in North America.
And the story is told with uncommon passion and integrity, from the characters' and actors' levels.
What really shines in this film is the showcase of Toronto talent. To be sure, all this talent would love to kiss Canada goodbye for a lucrative career in the U.S., but they grew up here, and here is where they are currently shining! That too is part of Canadian culture, but no American would understand that.
To my American friends, I mean no slight- I personally think you are big enough to embrace a true Canadian story if it has the production values that you are used to in your cinema. The mavens in Hollywood are so conservative though that you continue to get spoon-fed pap, and only rarely are you served true art with a degree of risk attached. When films have to make back a $150 Million budget, the owners of that money tend to be risk adverse! This film is getting a wide release in the United States. MTV Films has had a hand in it's financing or distribution, hence the reason why its Canadian-ness is being downplayed. But, in 2008, this is the best Canada can do in bringing its stories to you...by making them seem like YOUR stories.
What a timid little country Canada is! Couldn't any of my tax money put one Canadian flag in a scene? A real TTC bus? A shot of CW Jefferies Collegiate? A Jane Street or Driftwood Avenue street sign? How much risk is there in that?
The Great Debaters
(2007)
Pulitzer-Prize Winning Screenwriter, Academy Award Winning Director, Academy Award Winning Actors and Editor, Made-For-TV Movie
4 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The Votometre doesn't show decimals, but really my number rating is 6.9. Today, anyway....I may change my mind tomorrow.
Knights of the South Bronx, Akeelah and the Bee, Glory Road- we've seen this movie before, and we've seen the same themes before. A feel-good underdog story with the typical American cinema's portrayal of Blacks centred one-dimensionally on how they are forced to relate to the issue of "race" in a racist and classist society.
At least the characters in this film get to display their full humanity and are not reduced to one-note caricatures, centred on their "race". These characters are not stereotypes, but fully realized human beings who have decided that not only education, but intellectualism, is as much their birthright as any American.
There are major problems with the script and/or the editing of this film that will hopefully be rectified in the DVD edition. There are several character arcs that have no logical building, just a juxtaposition of problem and solution later in the narrative. Forest Whittaker's humiliation during the pig incident, and his subsequent redemption in his son's eyes when dealing with Denzel in jail- there's dramatic stuff missing in the middle that makes me think that this is a three-hour film. Ophrah has been known to do those, so why not here?
We all know Ophrah Winfrey is full of good intentions. But as a film-maker, whether in front of the camera, or behind it, she has a very limited repertoire of themes that inspire her. We all know that the poor lady practices counter-transference in everything she does, but funding a $30 Million psychotherapy session should not be one area of her practice.
By fictionalizing a true story (not Harvard), you rob the narrative of its one true virtue- it really happened. And by fictionalizing it, you make it merely product to stand with the other films of identical theme. I don't buy the film-makers claim that by altering the venue from USC to Harvard they are able to show the magnitude of the Wiley team's achievement. Some careful exposition through the film could have easily made USC do quite nicely.
No, Harvard is the symbol of the white eastern intellectual elite, of white class and privilege, and that is why the film-makers chose Harvard. I am not sure that this is a legitimate reason for me to complain, though. As the Harvard Chancellor says in introducing the Debaters, Harvard is the school of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and numerous other US Presidents. Harvard IS America: the Debators are knocking at America's door and saying "we coming in 'cause we live here, this is our home".
The characters in the film certainly are enamoured with the possibility of being associated with Harvard. The device of the black butler at Harvard is not fully explored, but the choice to include him accentuates the viewers' perceptions of Harvard as a racist institution, and a locus for racial oppression.
Part of the problem in North American education (in Canada and the U.S.) is alienation of certain groups by not telling their stories, rendering them 'invisable' to themselves and the wider society. When you fictionalize an important human story, you are essentially saying to everyone that the real history isn't good enough. And it IS! It seems to me that that can be potentially damaging, because you are saying that the real story isn't worth being told. And it IS!
Note to Denzel- take the training wheels off, you did "Antoine Fischer", you didn't have to film it twice, and please don't do it a third time. Antoine was a much more self-assured and cinematic work.
This film would have worked far better as a stage-play- not surprising since it was written by a Pulitzer-prize winning playwright. The actors do their best to "elevate the material" and are actually the reason why the film is worthwhile to watch and engaging: the actors are uniformly charming and charismatic. It is their feelings and common humanity that I empathize with on screen.
This film is set in the Great Depression. This is of little consequence to the main characters of the film. But, Denzel's Communism seems to be a throw-away theme, as are the plight of labourers and share-croppers themselves. "Of Mice and Men", or John Sayles' "Matewan", or even the Coen Brothers' "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" are films that explore these themes with much more authenticity.
Social injustice is portrayed in this film as racism, not as the poverty that creates an underclass, regardless of skin colour. In the climatic debating scene, political reaction to racism is the theme, provided by the debaters own experience of witnessing a lynching.
Yet, racism has its roots in classism, and economic oppression that could have equally been cited in this movie. It seems to me that Denzel's communist character could have made better use of this avenue of social commentary. But perhaps, being an American film, nobody wants to hold capitalism itself responsible for racial oppression, and therefore, the larger issue.
The central characters are middle class, even in a racist society. And it is worth remembering that even in the Depression, the employment rate was 70%.
Does civil disobedience have a place in today's society? Or, is that theme used in this film as a precursor to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's? With Barack Obama less than 12 months away from his Inauguration, Stephanie Wilson sitting on Harvard's Board of Governors, and Ophrah the richest woman on the planet, memory of injustice should be memory of fact, and anger at injustice directed towards the present, and focused on eliminating that injustice.
Knights of the South Bronx, Akeelah and the Bee, Glory Road- we've seen this movie before, and we've seen the same themes before. A feel-good underdog story with the typical American cinema's portrayal of Blacks centred one-dimensionally on how they are forced to relate to the issue of "race" in a racist and classist society.
At least the characters in this film get to display their full humanity and are not reduced to one-note caricatures, centred on their "race". These characters are not stereotypes, but fully realized human beings who have decided that not only education, but intellectualism, is as much their birthright as any American.
There are major problems with the script and/or the editing of this film that will hopefully be rectified in the DVD edition. There are several character arcs that have no logical building, just a juxtaposition of problem and solution later in the narrative. Forest Whittaker's humiliation during the pig incident, and his subsequent redemption in his son's eyes when dealing with Denzel in jail- there's dramatic stuff missing in the middle that makes me think that this is a three-hour film. Ophrah has been known to do those, so why not here?
We all know Ophrah Winfrey is full of good intentions. But as a film-maker, whether in front of the camera, or behind it, she has a very limited repertoire of themes that inspire her. We all know that the poor lady practices counter-transference in everything she does, but funding a $30 Million psychotherapy session should not be one area of her practice.
By fictionalizing a true story (not Harvard), you rob the narrative of its one true virtue- it really happened. And by fictionalizing it, you make it merely product to stand with the other films of identical theme. I don't buy the film-makers claim that by altering the venue from USC to Harvard they are able to show the magnitude of the Wiley team's achievement. Some careful exposition through the film could have easily made USC do quite nicely.
No, Harvard is the symbol of the white eastern intellectual elite, of white class and privilege, and that is why the film-makers chose Harvard. I am not sure that this is a legitimate reason for me to complain, though. As the Harvard Chancellor says in introducing the Debaters, Harvard is the school of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and numerous other US Presidents. Harvard IS America: the Debators are knocking at America's door and saying "we coming in 'cause we live here, this is our home".
The characters in the film certainly are enamoured with the possibility of being associated with Harvard. The device of the black butler at Harvard is not fully explored, but the choice to include him accentuates the viewers' perceptions of Harvard as a racist institution, and a locus for racial oppression.
Part of the problem in North American education (in Canada and the U.S.) is alienation of certain groups by not telling their stories, rendering them 'invisable' to themselves and the wider society. When you fictionalize an important human story, you are essentially saying to everyone that the real history isn't good enough. And it IS! It seems to me that that can be potentially damaging, because you are saying that the real story isn't worth being told. And it IS!
Note to Denzel- take the training wheels off, you did "Antoine Fischer", you didn't have to film it twice, and please don't do it a third time. Antoine was a much more self-assured and cinematic work.
This film would have worked far better as a stage-play- not surprising since it was written by a Pulitzer-prize winning playwright. The actors do their best to "elevate the material" and are actually the reason why the film is worthwhile to watch and engaging: the actors are uniformly charming and charismatic. It is their feelings and common humanity that I empathize with on screen.
This film is set in the Great Depression. This is of little consequence to the main characters of the film. But, Denzel's Communism seems to be a throw-away theme, as are the plight of labourers and share-croppers themselves. "Of Mice and Men", or John Sayles' "Matewan", or even the Coen Brothers' "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" are films that explore these themes with much more authenticity.
Social injustice is portrayed in this film as racism, not as the poverty that creates an underclass, regardless of skin colour. In the climatic debating scene, political reaction to racism is the theme, provided by the debaters own experience of witnessing a lynching.
Yet, racism has its roots in classism, and economic oppression that could have equally been cited in this movie. It seems to me that Denzel's communist character could have made better use of this avenue of social commentary. But perhaps, being an American film, nobody wants to hold capitalism itself responsible for racial oppression, and therefore, the larger issue.
The central characters are middle class, even in a racist society. And it is worth remembering that even in the Depression, the employment rate was 70%.
Does civil disobedience have a place in today's society? Or, is that theme used in this film as a precursor to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's? With Barack Obama less than 12 months away from his Inauguration, Stephanie Wilson sitting on Harvard's Board of Governors, and Ophrah the richest woman on the planet, memory of injustice should be memory of fact, and anger at injustice directed towards the present, and focused on eliminating that injustice.
Fun and Charm Returns
3 January 2008
This is the second time that I've reviewed this film. IMDb, you lost my first one, so I am having to write this from memory. Fortunately, my opinion of the film hasn't changed.
As a non-American, I am constantly amazed at that country's ability to mythologize and almost deify its history and iconic figures. American nationalism has a streak of idolatry about it that enables films like NTBOS to be created. Americans know that they live in a Great Power, and are able to create stories to celebrate it, even something as lighthearted as this.
NTBOS is essentially a video game with a narrative follow-though. It is Indiana Jones set in the modern day, but reducing the world to that contained within American boarders, something that many Americans find deeply comforting.
A central theme in this film (and the authors have the decency to give some depth to the proceedings) is the place in history of ones actions, and the connection to the past through one's relatives, and the bequeathing of moral responsibility from one generation to the next.
This film is a quest myth, and like all good quests, what is sought is potentially ennobling to the questors. And all the characters, even the putative villain portrayed by Ed Harris, seek merely to make a positive contribution, and to be remembered well, achieving immortality in the process.
The acting isn't great in this film, and it doesn't have to be: the actors merely have to look like they are having fun whilst Jon Turtletaub puts them through their paces and pays them a lot of money whilst doing it. I don't think they are acting though. Since Nick Cage can't act, what we are left with is genuine enthusiasm and enjoyment that is readily transferred to the paying audience. A fine entertainment!
As a non-American, I am constantly amazed at that country's ability to mythologize and almost deify its history and iconic figures. American nationalism has a streak of idolatry about it that enables films like NTBOS to be created. Americans know that they live in a Great Power, and are able to create stories to celebrate it, even something as lighthearted as this.
NTBOS is essentially a video game with a narrative follow-though. It is Indiana Jones set in the modern day, but reducing the world to that contained within American boarders, something that many Americans find deeply comforting.
A central theme in this film (and the authors have the decency to give some depth to the proceedings) is the place in history of ones actions, and the connection to the past through one's relatives, and the bequeathing of moral responsibility from one generation to the next.
This film is a quest myth, and like all good quests, what is sought is potentially ennobling to the questors. And all the characters, even the putative villain portrayed by Ed Harris, seek merely to make a positive contribution, and to be remembered well, achieving immortality in the process.
The acting isn't great in this film, and it doesn't have to be: the actors merely have to look like they are having fun whilst Jon Turtletaub puts them through their paces and pays them a lot of money whilst doing it. I don't think they are acting though. Since Nick Cage can't act, what we are left with is genuine enthusiasm and enjoyment that is readily transferred to the paying audience. A fine entertainment!
No Country for Old Men
(2007)
Is It Art? Absolutely! Did I Like It? Depends......
2 January 2008
I'm giving this film 9 out of 10 stars, because all the knowledgeable critics say this is a masterpiece, and I am an amateur reviewer with too much time on my hands, so what do I know? I may even post a second review once the dust in my brain settles......
I'm going to give one of my patented impressionistic reviews, random thoughts strung together by the sole coincidence of having sprouted from one individual brain! This film should have been a Western, rather than one set in c1980. I guess I'd have to ask Cormac McCarthy why he set the film in that era rather than something more suitable for the archetypes on display. It didn't have to be Mexican heroin, could have easily been some other contraband...but those were the choices made....
This is the first film that I have seen in a long while where certain audience members who actually come to movies to be entertained let off a chorus of "boos" as the film concluded with Tommy Lee Jones' somewhat droll and inconclusive narration. Life doesn't give us neat conclusions, so why should art be expected to? Too bad most high school lit classes teach us that good fiction has to have a beginning, middle and denouement that is satisfying to the reader/viewer! The Coens certainly do a great job of creating mood through their frame compositions, actors' direction, and quirky dialogue. And I do get Mr. Chigurh being a metaphor for unstoppable fate, and actually didn't have to read other reviews to understand this.
Bardem delivers a performance and character on par with Hannibal Lector.
Even though the Coens are playing with Western archetypes, they do leave room for the truly original. The set piece pitbull chase through the Rio Grande is well done, not scary to the audience mind you, though the audience can feel Mr. Brolin's fear as the beast approaches.
The selling of clothes is another metaphor that crops up repeatedly in this movie, through a number of characters. An assumption of identity, a reaching out for intimacy or caring? I'm not sure, but then art is supposed to push one's mind and leave room for ambiguity and multiple interpretations, rather than something that is paint-by-numbers and predictable.
Whatever the time setting, the Coens have succeeded in re-creating a mythical story with spiritual overtones, and a setting that is very disturbing, occasionally original, but hardly a crowd-pleaser. I look forward to the day when the Coens elevate their art further by telling an original story, not one written by another novelist. But this is an American film, where directors are interpreters of other people's 'material' rather than original storytellers...but I think Joel and Ethan Coen have it in them. Practice makes perfect!
I'm going to give one of my patented impressionistic reviews, random thoughts strung together by the sole coincidence of having sprouted from one individual brain! This film should have been a Western, rather than one set in c1980. I guess I'd have to ask Cormac McCarthy why he set the film in that era rather than something more suitable for the archetypes on display. It didn't have to be Mexican heroin, could have easily been some other contraband...but those were the choices made....
This is the first film that I have seen in a long while where certain audience members who actually come to movies to be entertained let off a chorus of "boos" as the film concluded with Tommy Lee Jones' somewhat droll and inconclusive narration. Life doesn't give us neat conclusions, so why should art be expected to? Too bad most high school lit classes teach us that good fiction has to have a beginning, middle and denouement that is satisfying to the reader/viewer! The Coens certainly do a great job of creating mood through their frame compositions, actors' direction, and quirky dialogue. And I do get Mr. Chigurh being a metaphor for unstoppable fate, and actually didn't have to read other reviews to understand this.
Bardem delivers a performance and character on par with Hannibal Lector.
Even though the Coens are playing with Western archetypes, they do leave room for the truly original. The set piece pitbull chase through the Rio Grande is well done, not scary to the audience mind you, though the audience can feel Mr. Brolin's fear as the beast approaches.
The selling of clothes is another metaphor that crops up repeatedly in this movie, through a number of characters. An assumption of identity, a reaching out for intimacy or caring? I'm not sure, but then art is supposed to push one's mind and leave room for ambiguity and multiple interpretations, rather than something that is paint-by-numbers and predictable.
Whatever the time setting, the Coens have succeeded in re-creating a mythical story with spiritual overtones, and a setting that is very disturbing, occasionally original, but hardly a crowd-pleaser. I look forward to the day when the Coens elevate their art further by telling an original story, not one written by another novelist. But this is an American film, where directors are interpreters of other people's 'material' rather than original storytellers...but I think Joel and Ethan Coen have it in them. Practice makes perfect!
Charlie Wilson's War
(2007)
A Sly, Sophisticated Piece of Film-making
26 December 2007
I like Tom Hanks, and he is one of few actors who will draw me into the theatre regardless of any misgivings I may have concerning the film. I worried about Mr. Hanks return to "light comedy" as this is the arena where he made the transition from TV to film- remember "Big"? Well, "Charlie Wilson's War" is not light comedy. It is political satire, and extremely well-written political satire at that. The script is the star of this film, and the word-smithing by Aaron Sorkin is some of the best on offer this year.
Mike Nicols holds the entire escapade together, delivering a film that zips along in a very quick 90 minutes (timing is everything in comedy, and nothing is ever funny if it drags). Nicols' choice in sets and lighting are also very reminiscent of '70's and '80's TV, a move used deliberately to root the piece in period.
The return to the use of model work and stock photography over digital special effects also enhances the retro look and believability. Note to the production designers in your choice of stock footage: I know the difference between an F-16 and a MiG, and a Bell and a Hind. But that may have been part of the joke, too.
I saw this film in Philadelphia. It was interesting to watch and listen to the audience NOT get the historical references to their own history. History tends to repeat because the recidivists have forgotten what happened the first time around.
Kudos to both Mr. Hanks and that chameleon Phillip Seymore Hoffman. Sorkin's script is brought to life by these actors, and the entire production team is on the top of their game.
Heartily recommended.
Mike Nicols holds the entire escapade together, delivering a film that zips along in a very quick 90 minutes (timing is everything in comedy, and nothing is ever funny if it drags). Nicols' choice in sets and lighting are also very reminiscent of '70's and '80's TV, a move used deliberately to root the piece in period.
The return to the use of model work and stock photography over digital special effects also enhances the retro look and believability. Note to the production designers in your choice of stock footage: I know the difference between an F-16 and a MiG, and a Bell and a Hind. But that may have been part of the joke, too.
I saw this film in Philadelphia. It was interesting to watch and listen to the audience NOT get the historical references to their own history. History tends to repeat because the recidivists have forgotten what happened the first time around.
Kudos to both Mr. Hanks and that chameleon Phillip Seymore Hoffman. Sorkin's script is brought to life by these actors, and the entire production team is on the top of their game.
Heartily recommended.
I Am Legend
(2007)
Dramatically Powerful
25 December 2007
Pardon the pun, but I usually avoid remakes like the Plague.They always seem so cynically predictable: every 20 or 30 years (or less) a studio decides to milk a cash cow again. Never mind that the original was perfectly good, and stands up to the test of time.
"The Omega Man" way back in 1971 was a perfectly good take on Richard Matheson's novel. Indeed, this film is partially based on both the book, and the Omega Man screenplay. But, scriptwriter Akiva Goldsman ("A Beautiful Mind") elevates the material, as it were, and delivers a screenplay to Will Smith and director Francis Lawrence of searing dramatic intensity and believability.
This is Will Smith's finest work to date. He brings an emotional range to his acting that I thought only Russel Crowe could deliver. And Will carries this movie for a full three quarters with only a dog and CG animation to react against. An astounding performance, but one that likely won't get recognized, because this is nominally "science fiction".
As Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica has shown us, SF can deliver the best drama there is, and "Legend" joins that elite club.
I also want to comment on the ending, the finale, the point where most films, especially American films, fail to deliver. Not "Legend": the climax is satisfying and dramatically appropriate.
Directors like Steven Spielberg, who's "War of the Worlds" was just the sort of mindless, paint by numbers film that I abhor, should look at this film and see how important it is for the creators to care about what they are doing, rather than cynically engaging in cinema as market survey.
"I Am Legend" is one of the best films of the year.
"The Omega Man" way back in 1971 was a perfectly good take on Richard Matheson's novel. Indeed, this film is partially based on both the book, and the Omega Man screenplay. But, scriptwriter Akiva Goldsman ("A Beautiful Mind") elevates the material, as it were, and delivers a screenplay to Will Smith and director Francis Lawrence of searing dramatic intensity and believability.
This is Will Smith's finest work to date. He brings an emotional range to his acting that I thought only Russel Crowe could deliver. And Will carries this movie for a full three quarters with only a dog and CG animation to react against. An astounding performance, but one that likely won't get recognized, because this is nominally "science fiction".
As Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica has shown us, SF can deliver the best drama there is, and "Legend" joins that elite club.
I also want to comment on the ending, the finale, the point where most films, especially American films, fail to deliver. Not "Legend": the climax is satisfying and dramatically appropriate.
Directors like Steven Spielberg, who's "War of the Worlds" was just the sort of mindless, paint by numbers film that I abhor, should look at this film and see how important it is for the creators to care about what they are doing, rather than cynically engaging in cinema as market survey.
"I Am Legend" is one of the best films of the year.
Battlestar Galactica: Razor
(2007 TV Movie)
Ron Moore is Gene Roddenberry Reincarnate
9 December 2007
This is a review of the extended DVD version.....
After looking at the way Beowulf offered thin plot,acting and character development to give an excuse to watch eye candy, we have this: a made-for-TV movie costing 1% of what Beowulf did, and giving us an entirely new, in-depth look at the BSG universe, providing richer texture, logical backstory, and scintilating drama.
In Kendra Shaw, Ron Moore has delivered yet another tortured soul, but one who can hold her own against established characters Cain, Thrace, #6, and the Adamas. An incredible achievement.
BSG's effects have always served plot and character, but the free-fall scene between Adama and the Cylon highlights the superiority of this series to all other filmed SF and fantasy, on either TV or the Big Screen.
I am looking forward to the end of the series, which this film sets up. Not because I want to see it end, but because it will produce through its end what Star Trek never delivered, and Star Wars usatisfactorily did: a perfectly organic conclusion to the greatest piece of filmed science fiction ever made.
Ron, David, cast and crew: thank you from the bottom of my heart!
After looking at the way Beowulf offered thin plot,acting and character development to give an excuse to watch eye candy, we have this: a made-for-TV movie costing 1% of what Beowulf did, and giving us an entirely new, in-depth look at the BSG universe, providing richer texture, logical backstory, and scintilating drama.
In Kendra Shaw, Ron Moore has delivered yet another tortured soul, but one who can hold her own against established characters Cain, Thrace, #6, and the Adamas. An incredible achievement.
BSG's effects have always served plot and character, but the free-fall scene between Adama and the Cylon highlights the superiority of this series to all other filmed SF and fantasy, on either TV or the Big Screen.
I am looking forward to the end of the series, which this film sets up. Not because I want to see it end, but because it will produce through its end what Star Trek never delivered, and Star Wars usatisfactorily did: a perfectly organic conclusion to the greatest piece of filmed science fiction ever made.
Ron, David, cast and crew: thank you from the bottom of my heart!
Beowulf
(2007)
What's the Point of Motion Capture?
7 December 2007
.....and I'm not sure about the 6-10...perhaps it's for the 3-D, which is really quite a spectacular achievement...being able to essentially move your head around in an environment and look this way and that, choosing to focus on what you will.....
But, the computer animation is nothing more than an all-inclusive production design, which is fine- all films have to have a unifying production design. But to paint over real actors, when they are already being used seems a terrible waste, when the technology still can't render the human form believable. They're coming closer, but the actor's main tool, his face and mouth, still have yet to be fully realized.
Motion capture gets the broad strokes of body movement, giving the body a sense of mass on-screen, which is why this technique looks so much better than the digital avatar that stands in for Toby McGuire in the Spiderman films. Spidy has no sense of mass when it isn't McGuire. But all the actors in Beowulf do not have realistically expressive faces, and consequently the film falls apart. Given that the plot is thin gruel, not worthy of a two-hour plus film, Zemeckis would have been better off to use the techniques employed in "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" and let the real actors play around in a digital environment. The photorealism would be intact, and the actors would be allowed to bring all their chops to bear.
To be sure, motion capture is fine when the actors are covered in digital make-up a la Gollum, and I'm sure Ray Winstone appreciates the fitness programme that he did not have to embark on to get himself ripped for this role, but that's it! So what's the point? Filmgoers have been willingly suspending their disbelief for the sake of buying the fantasy since the original King Kong, and Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Ray Harryhausen was delivering the goods way before digital technology came about.
This film works only as a technological exercise. Someday they will be able to replicate an actor's facial features exactly, mimicking the skin and muscle contractions that make the human face such a magnificent tool for the performer. But until then, why not use the real thing? And none of this substitutes for telling a good story. Beowulf is a sad commentary on American films that make technique king over substance. That's why Andy Warhol isn't Rembrandt.
But, the computer animation is nothing more than an all-inclusive production design, which is fine- all films have to have a unifying production design. But to paint over real actors, when they are already being used seems a terrible waste, when the technology still can't render the human form believable. They're coming closer, but the actor's main tool, his face and mouth, still have yet to be fully realized.
Motion capture gets the broad strokes of body movement, giving the body a sense of mass on-screen, which is why this technique looks so much better than the digital avatar that stands in for Toby McGuire in the Spiderman films. Spidy has no sense of mass when it isn't McGuire. But all the actors in Beowulf do not have realistically expressive faces, and consequently the film falls apart. Given that the plot is thin gruel, not worthy of a two-hour plus film, Zemeckis would have been better off to use the techniques employed in "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" and let the real actors play around in a digital environment. The photorealism would be intact, and the actors would be allowed to bring all their chops to bear.
To be sure, motion capture is fine when the actors are covered in digital make-up a la Gollum, and I'm sure Ray Winstone appreciates the fitness programme that he did not have to embark on to get himself ripped for this role, but that's it! So what's the point? Filmgoers have been willingly suspending their disbelief for the sake of buying the fantasy since the original King Kong, and Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Ray Harryhausen was delivering the goods way before digital technology came about.
This film works only as a technological exercise. Someday they will be able to replicate an actor's facial features exactly, mimicking the skin and muscle contractions that make the human face such a magnificent tool for the performer. But until then, why not use the real thing? And none of this substitutes for telling a good story. Beowulf is a sad commentary on American films that make technique king over substance. That's why Andy Warhol isn't Rembrandt.
American Gangster
(2007)
Russel Crowe Can Do No Wrong
9 November 2007
I just came back from a Friday screening of this film. Despite the large Canadian audience's propensity to just sit there and not react to anything that was on the screen, what kept going through my mind were comparisons to "The French Connection" and "Heat"- as good as the former, and way better than the latter.
I then began to think about how the script and direction dance around the developing, but separate, lives of the two protagonists. Yes, Denzel's character is a protagonist in this film. Both he and Crowe inhabit different worlds with a high degree of relative moral integrity suitable for each.
When the two characters finally meet up in the end, it is a much more satisfying series of scenes than what Michael Mann did with Pachino and DeNiro. Both appear to have a grudging admiration for each other, as they work together to bring down a common nemesis.
Because Crowe has to share equal billing with Washington, his character is much more 'everyman' than others he has played. I'm not sure I like the understatement, because at times he comes across, believe it or not, as somewhat bland. But a bland Crowe is still better than any other actor on the planet, including Denzel.
I was again impressed with Scott's direction, even though I think he is over-rated as a director: imitative and derivative (think 'Connection' again, especially with the gritty scenes of NYC and Jersey, and the muted, grey palette of colours). Assuming Ridley had 'final cut', he has put together a well-paced, eminently watchable film.
But for Crowe fans, "Yuma" is the better of his two films this year. But thanks for the Xmas present anyway Rus- I'll see anything you put out! I appreciate the humility in sharing the screen with Denzel, but I much prefer you as the focus of the piece, but that's just me.
I then began to think about how the script and direction dance around the developing, but separate, lives of the two protagonists. Yes, Denzel's character is a protagonist in this film. Both he and Crowe inhabit different worlds with a high degree of relative moral integrity suitable for each.
When the two characters finally meet up in the end, it is a much more satisfying series of scenes than what Michael Mann did with Pachino and DeNiro. Both appear to have a grudging admiration for each other, as they work together to bring down a common nemesis.
Because Crowe has to share equal billing with Washington, his character is much more 'everyman' than others he has played. I'm not sure I like the understatement, because at times he comes across, believe it or not, as somewhat bland. But a bland Crowe is still better than any other actor on the planet, including Denzel.
I was again impressed with Scott's direction, even though I think he is over-rated as a director: imitative and derivative (think 'Connection' again, especially with the gritty scenes of NYC and Jersey, and the muted, grey palette of colours). Assuming Ridley had 'final cut', he has put together a well-paced, eminently watchable film.
But for Crowe fans, "Yuma" is the better of his two films this year. But thanks for the Xmas present anyway Rus- I'll see anything you put out! I appreciate the humility in sharing the screen with Denzel, but I much prefer you as the focus of the piece, but that's just me.
The Hunting Party
(2007)
A Positive(ly Cynical) Film
14 September 2007
This film belongs as much, if not more, to Terrence Howard, than Mr. Gere. It also belongs to the writer/director,Richard Shepard, who brings a unity of creativity to the project.
It is a pleasure to see Mr. Howard play against (stereo)type. Unusual for an American film, "The Hunting Party" does not use as a character device the (non)issue of Mr. Howard's "race". The only references to ethnicity are the quite appropriate expositions of the Muslim/Christian dichotomy that culminated in the "ethnic cleansing"(read genocide) during the war.
It is also refreshing to see an American film that portrays Muslims as something other than terrorists.
Mr. Howard is the central character in the film, not Gere. The film is told from Howard's point of view, though Gere remains the conscience of the piece. Both play media types in one of the most (over)used film devices: the Western reporter whom the intended audience is supposed to empathise with, and therefore, vicariously, with the moral stance of the film. Minor quibble; I'm sure we'll see it again.
Similar in tone to "The Lord of War", this film seeks to remind viewers of some recent history: the war in the former Yugoslavia and the on-going involvement of the international community. Using satire to soften the didactics of the script, the film never shies away from the horrors of, and the fog, of war.
Adding authenticity to the film are the location shoots in Boznia and Croatia.
The film also draws upon Michael Winterbottom's 1997 film "Welcome to Sarajevo", which is a little more hard-hitting, but looks at a somewhat different aspect of the war.
Those of you who feel that this film has a "liberal" bias should rethink this perspective. This film casts a cynical eye towards all ideologies, except those of simple people who just want to raise their families in peace, and people who understand the difference between right and wrong, rather than relativistic shades of grey.
It is a pleasure to see Mr. Howard play against (stereo)type. Unusual for an American film, "The Hunting Party" does not use as a character device the (non)issue of Mr. Howard's "race". The only references to ethnicity are the quite appropriate expositions of the Muslim/Christian dichotomy that culminated in the "ethnic cleansing"(read genocide) during the war.
It is also refreshing to see an American film that portrays Muslims as something other than terrorists.
Mr. Howard is the central character in the film, not Gere. The film is told from Howard's point of view, though Gere remains the conscience of the piece. Both play media types in one of the most (over)used film devices: the Western reporter whom the intended audience is supposed to empathise with, and therefore, vicariously, with the moral stance of the film. Minor quibble; I'm sure we'll see it again.
Similar in tone to "The Lord of War", this film seeks to remind viewers of some recent history: the war in the former Yugoslavia and the on-going involvement of the international community. Using satire to soften the didactics of the script, the film never shies away from the horrors of, and the fog, of war.
Adding authenticity to the film are the location shoots in Boznia and Croatia.
The film also draws upon Michael Winterbottom's 1997 film "Welcome to Sarajevo", which is a little more hard-hitting, but looks at a somewhat different aspect of the war.
Those of you who feel that this film has a "liberal" bias should rethink this perspective. This film casts a cynical eye towards all ideologies, except those of simple people who just want to raise their families in peace, and people who understand the difference between right and wrong, rather than relativistic shades of grey.
Tell Your Friends