First, the website for the novel seems cool (I haven't looked at much of it, though): http://www.aleksandarhemon.com/
This book is supposed to be two intertwined narratives. The first is the story of Lazarus Averbuch, a Jewish immigrant who was shot by the Chief of Police upon entering the Chief's home with some sort of letter or document (we never find out what that paper is). The story, however, begins with the day of the shooting and focuses mainly on the aftermath through his sister, Olga. The second narrative is that of Vladimir Brik a Bosnian immigrant and a newspaper columnist who decides to research and write a book about Lazarus. The narratives take alternating chapters with some information about Lazarus showing up in Brik's chapters.
My first concern with the book was the tone and language. The narrator of the Lazarus sections takes what could be a tongue-in-check tone by calling Lazarus an anarchist every few sentences or so. But then this is dropped without any explanation or conclusion so I'm not sure if the tone was, in fact, tongue-in-check or if it was heavy handed moralizing. Some of the language of the book was a little contrived. At one point Brik wants waffles for lunch, can't have them, and then "waffles" over the burger he ordered for lunch. That's a little much. The author is not a native English speaker but he has published in English before and he won an MacArthur genius grant which should indicate he knows the language he's writing.
My second concern was the length of the chapters as they relate to each narrative. Brik takes up most of the page count but I wanted more information about the murder--which is the topic of his book-to-be.
Then there are a few concerns rolled up in one--and this is where some plot details will be divulged so stop here if you don't want spoilers. The murder is never resolved but, more importantly than that, the accusations of anarchy are never resolved, we're never offered even a hint of a resolution, we never know why Lazarus went to the Chief's house . . . . All we know is the ordeal Olga had with the police and that she grieved Lazarus but went on with her life. Brik's life is also never really resolved. He is having imaginary trouble with his wife--as in he often imagines her leaving but we're given nothing to indicate that she might leave--and then decides at the end of the book to stay in Bosnia (which he was visiting as his homeland and as research because it was Lazarus's homeland) instead of returning to her. These two unresolved narratives attempt to answer each other in a forced manner. Brik gets to return "home" in a way Lazarus never could (in body or spirit because of a botched burial). A life-long friend of Brik's (who travels with him to Bosnia) is shot seven times--the same number of shots that killed Lazarus. Both the friend and Lazarus are raised from the dead by stories and art--the former told wild tales about his life and took photos and the latter wanted to be a novelist and was the subject of a novel (presumably, we never know if Brik actually writes the book). There is a mother-figure woman in all three of their lives (Lazarus, Brik, and the friend--sister, wife, sister). And these are just the points I can remember right now.
All in all, the book was a disappointment. It was a clever idea but the attempts to connect the contemporary and past narratives proved too much for the basic structure to handle. The book starts off well and is interesting but then gets too interested in its own games and tricks to sustain itself or be profound the way it could have been.
The book is interspersed with photos that are sometimes connected and interesting and sometimes not so much.
I'm not sure why you'd read this. If you're particularly interested in Bosnian Americans, need to read every example of Emma Goldman showing up in literature, or are especially concerned with retellings of murders . . . . maybe. But know that while it's not completely terrible it's not the best book ever.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Wanted (2008)
This is a visually stunning movie. The special effects are wonderful, the cinematography is interesting, and Angelina Jolie is her usual hot self. That's about the extent of the positive.
I'll admit that I was entertained. I liked watching the film. But, you can't ask any questions about it because once you pull on one thread, the whole damned thing comes unraveled.
The premise is interesting. A young man is swept out of his boring job and into a life of an assassin. He's inherited a super-strength of sight and the ability to curve a bullet (the latter may be something that can be taught but it's not clear). He's brought in, supposedly, to avenge the death of his father but--stop reading here if you don't want any spoilers--surprise, surprise, that man was actually not his father. Instead, the head of the fraternity of assassins who have taken him in have sent him to kill not the man who killed his father but his father. This is not surprising. What is also not surprising is that the head of the fraternity (Morgan Freeman) is not a good guy. He manipulates the "loom of fate" (that's right, the loom of fate--I can't make that up) so that the people assassinated are those he needs out of the way for one reason or another--but we're never given any of those reasons. Soooooooo, Mr. new assassin decides to eliminate the head of the fraternity, getting revenge for his father's death, and bringing the fraternity back around to morality (as much as a frat of assassins can be moral). This backfires (sort-of) when the head of the frat tells Mr new guy and a group of the assassins (including Jolie and Common) that all of their names came up on the loom of fate. Mr new guy's explanation that the head has manipulated the loom does not stop Jolie from shooting a bullet around the circle, hitting all of the assassins including herself but leaving the new guy alive. That doesn't so much make sense because 1. Jolie doesn't know whether she's actually obeying or defying the loom, and thus fate, by killing all of them, 2. she doesn't kill the head which means he can train some new thugs, 3. she doesn't kill the new guy which means she hasn't carried out her last assignment of killing him and, thus, defies the loom and fate.
That's just the major problem with the end. The whole of the movie is riddled with holes. The morality of the movie is questionable--the morality it wants to have, not one I'm trying to impose. The philosophical aspects are skewed to the point of no return. The timeline seems questionable. One man at the beginning has some sort of superhuman jumping ability but we never get an explanation nor do we see that sort of ability--or any other save the sight--again in the film. And that's all if you can suspend belief that you can curve a bullet, that you can have super sight that allows you to slow down what you're looking at, that cars can actually do what they do in the film without some sort of apparatus, that there can exist a super elixir that heals broken bones and bullet holes and bruises etc, that James McAvoy could actually be as assassin much less achieve the physique he does in six months . . . . . .
See it because the special effects are cool, because you like Jolie or Morgan Freeman, just don't ask any questions of it and you'll be ok.
I'll admit that I was entertained. I liked watching the film. But, you can't ask any questions about it because once you pull on one thread, the whole damned thing comes unraveled.
The premise is interesting. A young man is swept out of his boring job and into a life of an assassin. He's inherited a super-strength of sight and the ability to curve a bullet (the latter may be something that can be taught but it's not clear). He's brought in, supposedly, to avenge the death of his father but--stop reading here if you don't want any spoilers--surprise, surprise, that man was actually not his father. Instead, the head of the fraternity of assassins who have taken him in have sent him to kill not the man who killed his father but his father. This is not surprising. What is also not surprising is that the head of the fraternity (Morgan Freeman) is not a good guy. He manipulates the "loom of fate" (that's right, the loom of fate--I can't make that up) so that the people assassinated are those he needs out of the way for one reason or another--but we're never given any of those reasons. Soooooooo, Mr. new assassin decides to eliminate the head of the fraternity, getting revenge for his father's death, and bringing the fraternity back around to morality (as much as a frat of assassins can be moral). This backfires (sort-of) when the head of the frat tells Mr new guy and a group of the assassins (including Jolie and Common) that all of their names came up on the loom of fate. Mr new guy's explanation that the head has manipulated the loom does not stop Jolie from shooting a bullet around the circle, hitting all of the assassins including herself but leaving the new guy alive. That doesn't so much make sense because 1. Jolie doesn't know whether she's actually obeying or defying the loom, and thus fate, by killing all of them, 2. she doesn't kill the head which means he can train some new thugs, 3. she doesn't kill the new guy which means she hasn't carried out her last assignment of killing him and, thus, defies the loom and fate.
That's just the major problem with the end. The whole of the movie is riddled with holes. The morality of the movie is questionable--the morality it wants to have, not one I'm trying to impose. The philosophical aspects are skewed to the point of no return. The timeline seems questionable. One man at the beginning has some sort of superhuman jumping ability but we never get an explanation nor do we see that sort of ability--or any other save the sight--again in the film. And that's all if you can suspend belief that you can curve a bullet, that you can have super sight that allows you to slow down what you're looking at, that cars can actually do what they do in the film without some sort of apparatus, that there can exist a super elixir that heals broken bones and bullet holes and bruises etc, that James McAvoy could actually be as assassin much less achieve the physique he does in six months . . . . . .
See it because the special effects are cool, because you like Jolie or Morgan Freeman, just don't ask any questions of it and you'll be ok.
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
I don't know how I missed this one. I like the people in it. I like the premise. I've owned the soundtrack since the movie came out. But somehow I didn't see it until now.
I liked it very much. I caught bits and pieces of the Odyssey narrative but would like to re-read (or at least review the plot) of the Homer and then re-watch the film.
But, even without the Odyssey template, the movie is fun if maybe a tad predictable (especially concerning the treasure). That predictability doesn't make it any less enjoyable--if anything you can enjoy the movie more because you're not constantly trying to figure out what's going on and what might happen next. And, regardless of any of that, the film is a clever retelling of the Odyssey.
Anyway, I liked it a lot and will re-watch it soon (maybe even teach it if I get the chance) and I'll dig up the soundtrack if I can figure out which box it's in at the moment.
I liked it very much. I caught bits and pieces of the Odyssey narrative but would like to re-read (or at least review the plot) of the Homer and then re-watch the film.
But, even without the Odyssey template, the movie is fun if maybe a tad predictable (especially concerning the treasure). That predictability doesn't make it any less enjoyable--if anything you can enjoy the movie more because you're not constantly trying to figure out what's going on and what might happen next. And, regardless of any of that, the film is a clever retelling of the Odyssey.
Anyway, I liked it a lot and will re-watch it soon (maybe even teach it if I get the chance) and I'll dig up the soundtrack if I can figure out which box it's in at the moment.
Get Smart (2008)
I'm not sure why half of the critics thinks this movie is bad. It's absolutely not. Yes, it has a simple plot but, given the problems of movies with more complicated plots, it seems admirable that a simple plot can be entertaining and sustain the length. The acting is fun and well done. The film even acknowledges the absurdity of having Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway as age-mismatched love interests. It makes fun of itself while having fun.
The only small complaint I have is two instance of continuity screw-ups with Hathaway's shoes. But that's it. It's a wonderful movie.
The only small complaint I have is two instance of continuity screw-ups with Hathaway's shoes. But that's it. It's a wonderful movie.
Monday, June 16, 2008
The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
The Greatest Show on Earth feels like four circuses piled up on each other, back to back performance of the most random acts (but not most interesting) ever. The film could have easily been about an hour long had they cut out the three times they show and tell us about how the actual physical components (tent, etc) are assembled and disassembled and transported, had they cut out the loooooooooooooong "parade" sequences (each of which contained at least one full song but normally more) in which all of the circus performers dress up in themed costumes as circle the inside of the circus tent, had they cut out the acts that we didn't need to see to further the plot or theme . . . . .
The basic plot is that Brad Braden (Charlton Heston) runs the Barnum & Bailey Circus and is in love with Holly (Betty Hutton) but, because he runs the circus like a business, is not so quick to woo her because she is a trapeze artist and, therefore, part of his business. Holly has finally earned the center ring and, of course, chalks this up to Brad's love as much as her talent. Meanwhile, he gets The Great Sebastian (Cornel Wilde) to play the show in order to save it from having to cut it's run short. The Great Sebastian, however, only plays the center ring. So, Holly gets mad at Brad, Sebastian uses this as a wooing point to try to get Holly, Brad dislikes Sebastian, and Holly uses it as a competition to earn the center ring back from Sebastian. Meanwhile, Angel and the Klaus, the elephant trainer, are in a perpetual back and forth about Klaus loving her and trying to own her while she likes Brad and has a history with Sebastian (as do, apparently, half of the women in the world). So when Holly goes for Sebastian, Angel moves in on Brad, and Klaus gets angry and hooks up with the crooks who have been trying to invade and take over the circus midway. Then Holly and Sebastian's competition results in Sebastian being stupid, taking a risk, and injuring his hand beyond repair (maybe). Holly feels guilty and pledges herself to Sebastian. The circus train crashes thanks to Klaus and the hoodlum trying to rob it, the circus materials are wrecked, some people are dead or hurt, and Brad is seriously injured, Sebastian is the only one with the same blood type. Holly takes over and organizes the circus where is crashed and gets the town to come to it--it's a success, she realizes her love for Brad and then Sebastian and Angel decide to get married. Oh right, and Jimmy Stewart is a clown, Buttons, on the lam from authorities after having killed his wife (in some never explained he was a surgeon, she was dying, you kill the one you love thing). He is outed when he has to save Brad and there is a cop on board looking for him--he has thus far avoided trouble by always wearing his clown make-up, even out of costume and while the other clowns are not in make-up. No one ever explains why this isn't questioned.
The plot isn't terrible. It's just fine, actually. What makes all of this so very tedious at over two and a half hours is all of the circus footage. It's just not needed and doesn't do anything for the plot. I wouldn't watch it again.
One funny moment: Bob Hope shows up in the crowd as a spectator.
The basic plot is that Brad Braden (Charlton Heston) runs the Barnum & Bailey Circus and is in love with Holly (Betty Hutton) but, because he runs the circus like a business, is not so quick to woo her because she is a trapeze artist and, therefore, part of his business. Holly has finally earned the center ring and, of course, chalks this up to Brad's love as much as her talent. Meanwhile, he gets The Great Sebastian (Cornel Wilde) to play the show in order to save it from having to cut it's run short. The Great Sebastian, however, only plays the center ring. So, Holly gets mad at Brad, Sebastian uses this as a wooing point to try to get Holly, Brad dislikes Sebastian, and Holly uses it as a competition to earn the center ring back from Sebastian. Meanwhile, Angel and the Klaus, the elephant trainer, are in a perpetual back and forth about Klaus loving her and trying to own her while she likes Brad and has a history with Sebastian (as do, apparently, half of the women in the world). So when Holly goes for Sebastian, Angel moves in on Brad, and Klaus gets angry and hooks up with the crooks who have been trying to invade and take over the circus midway. Then Holly and Sebastian's competition results in Sebastian being stupid, taking a risk, and injuring his hand beyond repair (maybe). Holly feels guilty and pledges herself to Sebastian. The circus train crashes thanks to Klaus and the hoodlum trying to rob it, the circus materials are wrecked, some people are dead or hurt, and Brad is seriously injured, Sebastian is the only one with the same blood type. Holly takes over and organizes the circus where is crashed and gets the town to come to it--it's a success, she realizes her love for Brad and then Sebastian and Angel decide to get married. Oh right, and Jimmy Stewart is a clown, Buttons, on the lam from authorities after having killed his wife (in some never explained he was a surgeon, she was dying, you kill the one you love thing). He is outed when he has to save Brad and there is a cop on board looking for him--he has thus far avoided trouble by always wearing his clown make-up, even out of costume and while the other clowns are not in make-up. No one ever explains why this isn't questioned.
The plot isn't terrible. It's just fine, actually. What makes all of this so very tedious at over two and a half hours is all of the circus footage. It's just not needed and doesn't do anything for the plot. I wouldn't watch it again.
One funny moment: Bob Hope shows up in the crowd as a spectator.
Mongol (2007)
Not the best movie I've ever seen but this one is very good. It's supposedly the "untold story of Genghis Khan" (implying his military history) but I think it actually ends up being more of a love story between Khan and his wife, Borte.
The movie is gorgeous. It showcases the steppes of Russia and Kazakhstan, the movie does the whole Lord of the Rings sweeping shots of the landscape but for less time and to greater effect. The actors and costuming is beautiful as well.
The acting seemed well-done to me. Being in a foreign language and about a foreign culture, it's sometimes hard to tell but I believed what they were saying/I was reading.
The basic storyline is that Temudjin is off to choose his wife, at age nine, from a distant tribe from which his father stole his mother (she was already betrothed at least, if not married). To make amends, Temudjin has to chose his wife from that tribe. The child, however, is entranced by a girl of ten who belongs to another tribe . . . everything falls into motion from there. I can't tell too much because it would give away specific plot points that are important as well as the motion of the plot. The movie did a fantastic job of showing how one thing leads to another. His whole life is laid out in morally complicated and ambiguous causes and effects. My favorite moment comes toward the end of the movie: Borte's response (and then, even better, Khan's response to her)to Khan's saying to his son, about the importance of choosing a good wife, "Didn't I choose your mother well?" A very sweet moment that I think wraps up the movie in a wonderful way.
I don't know enough about Khan to know if much of this is accurate in terms of history but it made a compelling film. It is a tad slow in moments and it runs just over 2 hours but I think it was well worth it.
The movie is gorgeous. It showcases the steppes of Russia and Kazakhstan, the movie does the whole Lord of the Rings sweeping shots of the landscape but for less time and to greater effect. The actors and costuming is beautiful as well.
The acting seemed well-done to me. Being in a foreign language and about a foreign culture, it's sometimes hard to tell but I believed what they were saying/I was reading.
The basic storyline is that Temudjin is off to choose his wife, at age nine, from a distant tribe from which his father stole his mother (she was already betrothed at least, if not married). To make amends, Temudjin has to chose his wife from that tribe. The child, however, is entranced by a girl of ten who belongs to another tribe . . . everything falls into motion from there. I can't tell too much because it would give away specific plot points that are important as well as the motion of the plot. The movie did a fantastic job of showing how one thing leads to another. His whole life is laid out in morally complicated and ambiguous causes and effects. My favorite moment comes toward the end of the movie: Borte's response (and then, even better, Khan's response to her)to Khan's saying to his son, about the importance of choosing a good wife, "Didn't I choose your mother well?" A very sweet moment that I think wraps up the movie in a wonderful way.
I don't know enough about Khan to know if much of this is accurate in terms of history but it made a compelling film. It is a tad slow in moments and it runs just over 2 hours but I think it was well worth it.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
The Incredible Hulk (2008)
I'm not sure why this movie is getting such mixed reviews--right now it has a 65% on RottenTomatoes. That's just not true. The movie is much much MUCH better than 65%. It's actually up there with Iron Man in my opinion right now. It's just a different sort of movie. This one is an action monster movie--but that's hard to get around when the main character turns into a big green monster who tosses cars around when he gets angry. I think you just have to own the monster movie aspect if that's the character you have. And, apparently to the critics dismay, that's what this movie does. It has great CGI and big explosive action sequences.
But, the acting is also good and the characters interesting, again despite what the critics say. I'll admit to being a big Ed Norton fan (despite some of his choices in films) but I am not a huge Liv Tyler fan and have no real affinity for William Hurt or Tim Roth. But they're all superb and very well cast. I didn't see the Eric Bana Hulk but I think Norton a better choice for Banner. The whole point of the Hulk story is to have this quiet, smart, unassuming, calm man burst into a huge violent alter ego when the least bit angry. That only works if the actor playing Banner isn't built and doesn't look sort of cocky (I like Bana just fine but he's better suited for Troy). Tyler does a good job of being simultaneously weepy and strong and understanding. You really think these two love each other and got the seriously short end of the stick in terms of their relationship. And the bad guys are wonderful as are the few morally ambiguous smaller characters.
The only teeny tiny complaint I had about the whole movie involves the CGI. It seems like Hulk is different sizes at different points in the film--specifically noticeably when he's in the cave with Betty and then when he and Betty are on the roof in the final battle sequence. I would have liked some explanation in the story rather than having to assume that the CGI is sloppy . . . .
But, super exciting, won't it be fun to have Hulk and Iron Man in a movie together?!
And, I LOVE the preview for Tropic Thunder with Robert Downey Jr. as a faux black man and the preview for the newest Mummy movie.
But, the acting is also good and the characters interesting, again despite what the critics say. I'll admit to being a big Ed Norton fan (despite some of his choices in films) but I am not a huge Liv Tyler fan and have no real affinity for William Hurt or Tim Roth. But they're all superb and very well cast. I didn't see the Eric Bana Hulk but I think Norton a better choice for Banner. The whole point of the Hulk story is to have this quiet, smart, unassuming, calm man burst into a huge violent alter ego when the least bit angry. That only works if the actor playing Banner isn't built and doesn't look sort of cocky (I like Bana just fine but he's better suited for Troy). Tyler does a good job of being simultaneously weepy and strong and understanding. You really think these two love each other and got the seriously short end of the stick in terms of their relationship. And the bad guys are wonderful as are the few morally ambiguous smaller characters.
The only teeny tiny complaint I had about the whole movie involves the CGI. It seems like Hulk is different sizes at different points in the film--specifically noticeably when he's in the cave with Betty and then when he and Betty are on the roof in the final battle sequence. I would have liked some explanation in the story rather than having to assume that the CGI is sloppy . . . .
But, super exciting, won't it be fun to have Hulk and Iron Man in a movie together?!
And, I LOVE the preview for Tropic Thunder with Robert Downey Jr. as a faux black man and the preview for the newest Mummy movie.
Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)
I'll admit to only halfway watching this one. I was a little weary of the old sci-fi movies--J, however, is on a roll watching all of these. So I sort of kind of watched while doing other things. This one isn't as bad--at least not when I'm half occupied doing other things which may have made all the difference.
Anyway, it's about a team of scientists who journey to the Amazon find a creature (yep, one from the black lagoon). Several people die at the hands of the creature whom they proceed to chase, capture, lose, shoot, and, in general, annoy. But this one, in contrast to the others I've seen this week, has an actual suspenseful plot that functions to keep the viewer interested.
It's fine. If you like monster movies or old sci-fi it's worth a watch.
Anyway, it's about a team of scientists who journey to the Amazon find a creature (yep, one from the black lagoon). Several people die at the hands of the creature whom they proceed to chase, capture, lose, shoot, and, in general, annoy. But this one, in contrast to the others I've seen this week, has an actual suspenseful plot that functions to keep the viewer interested.
It's fine. If you like monster movies or old sci-fi it's worth a watch.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The Mummy (1932)
Oh dear. It's been a bad movie week here. This one wasn't so very terrible but it's just absurd.
It's really just Frankenstein, Dracula, whatever else Boris Karloff has been in. Guy gets killed in ancient Egypt for trying to resurrect his dead girlfriend, years later guy is awakened from his mummified slumber by archaeological moron who reads incantation, newly awake mummy guy spends years looking for dead girl, finds her and has new archaeological morons dig her up, mummy guy tries to resurrect dead girl but her spirit has been reincarnated in a half English half Egyptian girl who archaeological moron #2 is in love with (after ten seconds of seeing her, of course), half E half E girl is entranced by mummy guy and almost killed, and almost rescued by archaeological moron #2 and advisor but girl saves herself by accessing her ancient priestess soul and has the goddess she served kill mummy guy, girl and moron #2 are in love. The end.
Add in some pretty dry acting and heavy make-up and there you have it. It's fine but not super.
It's really just Frankenstein, Dracula, whatever else Boris Karloff has been in. Guy gets killed in ancient Egypt for trying to resurrect his dead girlfriend, years later guy is awakened from his mummified slumber by archaeological moron who reads incantation, newly awake mummy guy spends years looking for dead girl, finds her and has new archaeological morons dig her up, mummy guy tries to resurrect dead girl but her spirit has been reincarnated in a half English half Egyptian girl who archaeological moron #2 is in love with (after ten seconds of seeing her, of course), half E half E girl is entranced by mummy guy and almost killed, and almost rescued by archaeological moron #2 and advisor but girl saves herself by accessing her ancient priestess soul and has the goddess she served kill mummy guy, girl and moron #2 are in love. The end.
Add in some pretty dry acting and heavy make-up and there you have it. It's fine but not super.
Metroplis (1927)
I don't fall asleep during movies. I have a strange relationship with sleep. So much so that, even if absolutely exhausted, I can stay up if anything on TV has caught my attention even a little bit. I fell asleep after about a half hour of Metropolis.
I'm not a fan of silent movies. Not only are they silent and therefore lacking in important dialogue and attention captivating sound, they are normally overly drawn out. Supposedly for dramatic effect, I find the lingering shots of faces with too much contrasting make-up boring. They also seem to take a fairly simple story and draw it out to the point of absurdity. I don't need five minutes of a woman's face looking terrified because she is being slooooooooooooooooowly stalked by a guy who is going to turn her into a robot.
This one, not good.
I'm not a fan of silent movies. Not only are they silent and therefore lacking in important dialogue and attention captivating sound, they are normally overly drawn out. Supposedly for dramatic effect, I find the lingering shots of faces with too much contrasting make-up boring. They also seem to take a fairly simple story and draw it out to the point of absurdity. I don't need five minutes of a woman's face looking terrified because she is being slooooooooooooooooowly stalked by a guy who is going to turn her into a robot.
This one, not good.
What Time Is It There? (2001)
This one seemed sweet: the description said the movie was to be about a 20-something man who is a street vendor specializing in watches meets a 20-something girl who then goes away (from Taiwan) to Paris; he's heartbroken and starts setting all of the clocks in Taiwan to Parisian time. Not so much.
So the guy is disturbed because his father has just died and his mother is slowly slipping into insanity as a result of the death and the Buddhist practices which encourages communication with the spirits, etc. The guy barely meets this girl who insists on buying the watch off of the guy's wrist instead of the bazillion he is selling. Literally they are only in the same place for minutes and exchange no words other than the perfunctory ones needed to purchase something. Yet the guy starts changing the clocks and watching French movies. But he also refuses to leave his bedroom to go pee so we see him peeing in a plastic bag (once) and a plastic bottle (once and then we see him "watering" a plant with the contents so he can re-use it). There are also simultaneous odd sexual encounters, the mother having a romantic dinner with the supposed spirit of her dead husband and then masturbating with something that seems to be of cultural import although I'm not sure what it was, the guy having sex with a prostitute in his car (after having drunk a whole bottle of French wine) after which they both go to sleep and she steals all of his watches, and the girl in Paris has a strange maybe almost lesbian experience with a woman she has just met (while vomiting in the restroom of a coffee shop) but has nevertheless moves her belongings from her hotel to this woman's hotel.
Soooooo. The movie isn't all that great. It tries to hard to be enigmatic when there isn't anything to be enigmatic about. The mother is grieving. The son is grieving. The girl is lost in a foreign country. Not ground breaking. I do think the movie missed the real story within itself. The only part that actually got any sort of emotional response from me is the mother's attempts to keep her dead husband's spirit within the house by blocking out all of the light. Her descent into madness is interesting yet underplayed in the film.
I wouldn't watch it unless you're being silly and OCD about a movie list . . . .
So the guy is disturbed because his father has just died and his mother is slowly slipping into insanity as a result of the death and the Buddhist practices which encourages communication with the spirits, etc. The guy barely meets this girl who insists on buying the watch off of the guy's wrist instead of the bazillion he is selling. Literally they are only in the same place for minutes and exchange no words other than the perfunctory ones needed to purchase something. Yet the guy starts changing the clocks and watching French movies. But he also refuses to leave his bedroom to go pee so we see him peeing in a plastic bag (once) and a plastic bottle (once and then we see him "watering" a plant with the contents so he can re-use it). There are also simultaneous odd sexual encounters, the mother having a romantic dinner with the supposed spirit of her dead husband and then masturbating with something that seems to be of cultural import although I'm not sure what it was, the guy having sex with a prostitute in his car (after having drunk a whole bottle of French wine) after which they both go to sleep and she steals all of his watches, and the girl in Paris has a strange maybe almost lesbian experience with a woman she has just met (while vomiting in the restroom of a coffee shop) but has nevertheless moves her belongings from her hotel to this woman's hotel.
Soooooo. The movie isn't all that great. It tries to hard to be enigmatic when there isn't anything to be enigmatic about. The mother is grieving. The son is grieving. The girl is lost in a foreign country. Not ground breaking. I do think the movie missed the real story within itself. The only part that actually got any sort of emotional response from me is the mother's attempts to keep her dead husband's spirit within the house by blocking out all of the light. Her descent into madness is interesting yet underplayed in the film.
I wouldn't watch it unless you're being silly and OCD about a movie list . . . .
Monday, June 9, 2008
Kaidan (1964)
This promised to be Japanese ghost stories (it was a very Asian weekend with Kung Fu Panda, J's akido test, As You Like It, and this). It's actually four stories, not really related except they are Japanese and include a "ghost": "Black Hair," "The Woman in the Snow," "Hoichi the Earless," and "In a Cup of Tea."
"Black Hair" was very predictable. A samurai divorces his first wife in Kyoto and leaves her in poverty to marry the daughter of a wealthy, socially prominent family which gains him a better appointment as a samurai. He is haunted by the memory of his wife, who is, by all accounts, better than the second. He sends the second back to her family and waits out his ten year appointment. He then returns to his wife and has a wonderful reunion night only to wake to find her a corpse whose hair is still lovely.
"The Woman in the Snow" is also predictable. Two woodcutters, one old and one young, get caught in a snowstorm. The older one is killed by the Snow Woman but she spares the younger because he is beautiful--but on the condition that he never tell anyone about that night or she'll kill him. Well, we all know what's going to happen there. She comes to him as a mortal and they get married and have three kids. She, meanwhile, doesn't seem to age and they have the perfect marriage until one night, in the right light, she looks like the Snow Women. Well the man then tells her all about it, forgetting (of course) that he was sworn to tell no one. She reminds him of this fact while revealing that she is the Snow Woman. She then abandons him--leaving him alive to care for the children but promising to kill him if they ever speak ill of him.
"Hoichi the Earless" was my favorite and probably could have just been the whole movie. The beginning of this part tells the story of the ancient battle between the Genji and the Heike clans in Japan. Then we fast forward to find Hoichi, who is blind, living in a temple which was built in an attempt to calm the restless spirits killed on the site during the battle. Hoichi is left alone in the temple one night and is visited by a man who requests that he come chant the story of the battle for his master--the child emperor. Hoichi goes and is sworn to tell no one. He tells no one even when directly questioned about it. He continues to go to play every night and begins looking like he is deathly ill. One night the priest of the temple sends two men to follow Hoichi to see where he is going. They find him chanting and playing in the middle of a cemetery. They drag him back and the priest explains that he has been visited by ghosts and they will rip him to shreds if he visits one more time. The priest and his assistant then cover Hoichi in religious texts from head to toe--this is very intricate and very pretty. They instruct him to sit outside and wait for the ghost but that, when the ghost comes, he is not to move or speak no matter what happened. The ghost comes and cannot see Hoichi because he is covered in the religious text but the assistant missed Hoichi's ears. The ghost sees only the ears and decides to take them back to his master to prove he tried to bring Hoichi. The ghost rips off Hoichi's ears but Hoichi does not speak. Hoichi recovers, sans ears, and becomes famous as the earless chanter. Nobles, maybe ghosts, visit from far and wide and he plays for them at the temple, making him a rich man.
The last one, "In a Cup of Tea," was less interesting than Hoichi but sort of intriguing. It starts out being about unfinished stories and speculating about why they may have been unfinished. It then says, here's a story that's unfinished and we know why. So, the story begins: a man sees a face in his cup of tea, repeatedly--even after tossing out the tea and refilling, and even after smashing the cup on the ground--finally he gets over it and drinks the tea. He then returns home where is he is a guard in a large house. The man he saw in the cup of tea appears out of nowhere. He fights and injures the ghost man and the ghost disappears. The man calls the other guards who search the house and find no one. The next night three men appear to tell the man that he has injured their master and the master has gone to a hot springs to recover but will return to avenge his injury the next month. The guard fights the three men and seems to go mad. The story ends there and we cut back to the frame where the published has come to visit the author (who was writing the ghost story). The writer seems to not be at home but the woman who lets the publisher in screams and runs away, then the publisher does the same, after looking in the barrel. We then see that the author is trapped in the water in the barrel. The writer's story had left off with a line about what might happen if you consume another man's soul.
These are interesting--maybe worth using the Hoichi or Tea one in teaching--but the whole thing is almost intolerably long at 2 hours 5 minutes. It's a little slow and the segmenting makes it seem longer to me. Maybe watching one at a time over the course of several days would be better. Who knows. But I did like the Hoichi one very much.
"Black Hair" was very predictable. A samurai divorces his first wife in Kyoto and leaves her in poverty to marry the daughter of a wealthy, socially prominent family which gains him a better appointment as a samurai. He is haunted by the memory of his wife, who is, by all accounts, better than the second. He sends the second back to her family and waits out his ten year appointment. He then returns to his wife and has a wonderful reunion night only to wake to find her a corpse whose hair is still lovely.
"The Woman in the Snow" is also predictable. Two woodcutters, one old and one young, get caught in a snowstorm. The older one is killed by the Snow Woman but she spares the younger because he is beautiful--but on the condition that he never tell anyone about that night or she'll kill him. Well, we all know what's going to happen there. She comes to him as a mortal and they get married and have three kids. She, meanwhile, doesn't seem to age and they have the perfect marriage until one night, in the right light, she looks like the Snow Women. Well the man then tells her all about it, forgetting (of course) that he was sworn to tell no one. She reminds him of this fact while revealing that she is the Snow Woman. She then abandons him--leaving him alive to care for the children but promising to kill him if they ever speak ill of him.
"Hoichi the Earless" was my favorite and probably could have just been the whole movie. The beginning of this part tells the story of the ancient battle between the Genji and the Heike clans in Japan. Then we fast forward to find Hoichi, who is blind, living in a temple which was built in an attempt to calm the restless spirits killed on the site during the battle. Hoichi is left alone in the temple one night and is visited by a man who requests that he come chant the story of the battle for his master--the child emperor. Hoichi goes and is sworn to tell no one. He tells no one even when directly questioned about it. He continues to go to play every night and begins looking like he is deathly ill. One night the priest of the temple sends two men to follow Hoichi to see where he is going. They find him chanting and playing in the middle of a cemetery. They drag him back and the priest explains that he has been visited by ghosts and they will rip him to shreds if he visits one more time. The priest and his assistant then cover Hoichi in religious texts from head to toe--this is very intricate and very pretty. They instruct him to sit outside and wait for the ghost but that, when the ghost comes, he is not to move or speak no matter what happened. The ghost comes and cannot see Hoichi because he is covered in the religious text but the assistant missed Hoichi's ears. The ghost sees only the ears and decides to take them back to his master to prove he tried to bring Hoichi. The ghost rips off Hoichi's ears but Hoichi does not speak. Hoichi recovers, sans ears, and becomes famous as the earless chanter. Nobles, maybe ghosts, visit from far and wide and he plays for them at the temple, making him a rich man.
The last one, "In a Cup of Tea," was less interesting than Hoichi but sort of intriguing. It starts out being about unfinished stories and speculating about why they may have been unfinished. It then says, here's a story that's unfinished and we know why. So, the story begins: a man sees a face in his cup of tea, repeatedly--even after tossing out the tea and refilling, and even after smashing the cup on the ground--finally he gets over it and drinks the tea. He then returns home where is he is a guard in a large house. The man he saw in the cup of tea appears out of nowhere. He fights and injures the ghost man and the ghost disappears. The man calls the other guards who search the house and find no one. The next night three men appear to tell the man that he has injured their master and the master has gone to a hot springs to recover but will return to avenge his injury the next month. The guard fights the three men and seems to go mad. The story ends there and we cut back to the frame where the published has come to visit the author (who was writing the ghost story). The writer seems to not be at home but the woman who lets the publisher in screams and runs away, then the publisher does the same, after looking in the barrel. We then see that the author is trapped in the water in the barrel. The writer's story had left off with a line about what might happen if you consume another man's soul.
These are interesting--maybe worth using the Hoichi or Tea one in teaching--but the whole thing is almost intolerably long at 2 hours 5 minutes. It's a little slow and the segmenting makes it seem longer to me. Maybe watching one at a time over the course of several days would be better. Who knows. But I did like the Hoichi one very much.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
As You Like It (2006)
This is the film I meant to get when I put Twelfth Night on the Netflix queue. I have something of a weakness for Kenneth Branagh Shakespeare movies. They're always wonderful and pretty and have superb actors.
Branagh picked up As You Like It from wherever it was originally set (this is one I have not read) and put it down in the middle of Japan, which made for pretty sets and very beautiful kimono costuming (or your average late 19th C dress with pretty kimono fabric and origami inspired folds as accents). Very pretty. Anyway, I'm not going to go into the details of the plot because Branagh always uses the original language and follows the plot almost exactly and, since I haven't read this one, I don't know if, how, or why he deviated. All of the actors are wonderful: Bryce Dallas Howard as Rosalind, Kevin Kline as Jacques, and Alfred Molina as Touchstone were my favorites. It was a tad slow and the epilogue is a bit odd but overall worth watching.
Branagh picked up As You Like It from wherever it was originally set (this is one I have not read) and put it down in the middle of Japan, which made for pretty sets and very beautiful kimono costuming (or your average late 19th C dress with pretty kimono fabric and origami inspired folds as accents). Very pretty. Anyway, I'm not going to go into the details of the plot because Branagh always uses the original language and follows the plot almost exactly and, since I haven't read this one, I don't know if, how, or why he deviated. All of the actors are wonderful: Bryce Dallas Howard as Rosalind, Kevin Kline as Jacques, and Alfred Molina as Touchstone were my favorites. It was a tad slow and the epilogue is a bit odd but overall worth watching.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Kung Fu Panda (2008)
We all know I have a thing for animated animals dancing. It's a strange ticklish spot for me the way Tina is for t. Anyway, animated animals doing kung fu, almost as good. Animated animals doing kung fu poorly while screaming "waaaaaaaaaaa!," hilarious.
So, Po the Panda (Jack Black) dreams (literally) of being a kung fu warrior. The problem is that he's a panda, a fat panda. Well, he gets his chance when the uber bad guy, Tai Lung, breaks out of prison and a dragon warrior has to be chosen by the ancient turtle kung fu master. The assumption is that the dragon warrior will be chosen from one of the five kung fu warriors under the tutelage of Shifu (Dustin Hoffman): Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (Lucy Liu), or Crane (David Cross). Well, that doesn't go as planned and Po is proclaimed the dragon warrior to be. That's slightly problematic, of course, because he's a panda, a fat panda. Kung Fu and hilarity ensues and, of course, the day is saved and bad guy vanquished.
Yes, it's formulaic. But I'm a little tired of critics using that as a reason a movie is supposedly bad. Do we want the panda to fail? No. Would we like the cartoon movie if the panda failed? No. So why is it bad when the panda doesn't fail? It's not. The movie is for kids. Despite having watched a bazillion movies with the same storyline since the beginning of time, kids will still be surprised when the less talented good wins out over the more talented bad. And, yes, it has a bit of an obvious moral. Again, it's for children. If this were a movie with real people and meant for adults with bloody battle sequences and actual weapons, a moral would be a huge mistake but this isn't that movie.
My one tiny complaint is that I think the Tigress needed to look a little more feminine--she looked like a boy, a boy that talks like Angelina Jolie.
Meanwhile, the movie is funny, well-animated, well-timed, and not boring. I liked it quite a bit--plus there was a preview for Madagascar Escape 2 Africa that included the dancing lemurs! What more could a girl want from animation?
So, Po the Panda (Jack Black) dreams (literally) of being a kung fu warrior. The problem is that he's a panda, a fat panda. Well, he gets his chance when the uber bad guy, Tai Lung, breaks out of prison and a dragon warrior has to be chosen by the ancient turtle kung fu master. The assumption is that the dragon warrior will be chosen from one of the five kung fu warriors under the tutelage of Shifu (Dustin Hoffman): Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (Lucy Liu), or Crane (David Cross). Well, that doesn't go as planned and Po is proclaimed the dragon warrior to be. That's slightly problematic, of course, because he's a panda, a fat panda. Kung Fu and hilarity ensues and, of course, the day is saved and bad guy vanquished.
Yes, it's formulaic. But I'm a little tired of critics using that as a reason a movie is supposedly bad. Do we want the panda to fail? No. Would we like the cartoon movie if the panda failed? No. So why is it bad when the panda doesn't fail? It's not. The movie is for kids. Despite having watched a bazillion movies with the same storyline since the beginning of time, kids will still be surprised when the less talented good wins out over the more talented bad. And, yes, it has a bit of an obvious moral. Again, it's for children. If this were a movie with real people and meant for adults with bloody battle sequences and actual weapons, a moral would be a huge mistake but this isn't that movie.
My one tiny complaint is that I think the Tigress needed to look a little more feminine--she looked like a boy, a boy that talks like Angelina Jolie.
Meanwhile, the movie is funny, well-animated, well-timed, and not boring. I liked it quite a bit--plus there was a preview for Madagascar Escape 2 Africa that included the dancing lemurs! What more could a girl want from animation?
Stardom (2000)
I'm going to stop allowing the Time Warner Cable tv guide thingamajig tell me what it thinks good movies are. This one had three stars (of 4 I assume because I've never seen one with 5). The same amount as Little Miss Sunshine--which I think is brilliant. This movie, not brilliant. Not even close. No shimmer of goodness about it.
It's supposed to be a mockumentary about a young Canadian girl who is plucked from obscurity (and a wealth of daddy issues) to become the next big super model (and referred to as American for the rest of the movie) who then has men line up to take advantage of her in various ways. It's not a mockumentary. That's just all there is to it. It does not fit the genre. It's also not funny. Or interesting really. Not even in a bad way. It's actually pretty boring and it's only 100 minutes long.
Give it a skip.
It's supposed to be a mockumentary about a young Canadian girl who is plucked from obscurity (and a wealth of daddy issues) to become the next big super model (and referred to as American for the rest of the movie) who then has men line up to take advantage of her in various ways. It's not a mockumentary. That's just all there is to it. It does not fit the genre. It's also not funny. Or interesting really. Not even in a bad way. It's actually pretty boring and it's only 100 minutes long.
Give it a skip.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Lady Windermere's Fan: A Play about a Good Woman by Oscar Wilde (1893)
I read this out of curiosity after watching the film A Good Woman (see post on Feb 24 2008). I thought the play might be better than the film. Eh. They're on about equal footing. Scarlett Johanssen's poor acting makes the latter not so great but the film is fairly faithful to the play.
It takes place in less than 24 hours, but overnight. It begins with Lady Windermere preparing for her birthday celebration--the birthday which brings her "of age" (since she's been married for 2 years and it's almost the 20th century, I'm guessing 21 but I could be wrong). Anyway, Lord Darlington hints at her husband's supposed unfaithfulness before another Lady enters and pretty much lays it out on the table. Lady Windermere, being young, naive, and highly morally black and white, doesn't believe the rumors until she rips into her husband's check book and finds he's been giving money to one Mrs. Erlynne. Lord Windermere then arrives home, catches her in the act of spying, tells her nothing is amiss, and orders her to invite Mrs. Erlynne. The Lady says no, the Lord invites her anyway, and the Lady claims she will hit the Mrs. with her fan. And then the supposed hilarity, mistaken identity, and etc ensues.
The play is slightly more subtle than the movie, only giving away Mrs. Erlynne's identity at the end and, of course, we are to question who the "good woman" of the title is (the starkly moral Lady Windermere or Mrs. Erlynne who is a tad amoral but who sacrifices a lot for another woman).
If you have a reason to read Wilde, it's fine and will take about half an hour to complete, but I don't see any real reason to seek it out.
It takes place in less than 24 hours, but overnight. It begins with Lady Windermere preparing for her birthday celebration--the birthday which brings her "of age" (since she's been married for 2 years and it's almost the 20th century, I'm guessing 21 but I could be wrong). Anyway, Lord Darlington hints at her husband's supposed unfaithfulness before another Lady enters and pretty much lays it out on the table. Lady Windermere, being young, naive, and highly morally black and white, doesn't believe the rumors until she rips into her husband's check book and finds he's been giving money to one Mrs. Erlynne. Lord Windermere then arrives home, catches her in the act of spying, tells her nothing is amiss, and orders her to invite Mrs. Erlynne. The Lady says no, the Lord invites her anyway, and the Lady claims she will hit the Mrs. with her fan. And then the supposed hilarity, mistaken identity, and etc ensues.
The play is slightly more subtle than the movie, only giving away Mrs. Erlynne's identity at the end and, of course, we are to question who the "good woman" of the title is (the starkly moral Lady Windermere or Mrs. Erlynne who is a tad amoral but who sacrifices a lot for another woman).
If you have a reason to read Wilde, it's fine and will take about half an hour to complete, but I don't see any real reason to seek it out.
Red Road (2006)
It was a strange international night on Sundance. After Sheitan (French), Red Road (Scottish) came on. It's better than the former, but still not good.
This one is about a woman whose family has apparently been killed: her husband and he young daughter. She hasn't allowed their ashes to be scattered or buried or memorialized, causing strife with her in-laws. She monitors surveillance cameras (of which Scotland seems to have a lot) as a job and one day sees the man who killed her family. She's upset because his jail sentence was apparently reduced for good behavior. She proceeds to stalk him, talk to him at a party she infiltrated, and then have a sexual relationship with him. After having sex with him, she beats herself up and cries rape. She then drops the charges because she, still spying on him at her work, sees his daughter try to find him at his apartment (on Red Road). She then confronts him about telling her exactly what happened when he killed her family. Turns out it was a drunk driving accident. That's it. No cold-blooded murder. No drug deal gone wrong. No husband dealing with bad guys behind her back. An accident. I know it must be traumatizing to lose a husband and a young daughter but, really, it's a movie, make a more interesting choice. She then decides that her in-laws can memorialize their son and granddaughter. The end.
This one is no good at all and there isn't an interesting reason to watch it.
This one is about a woman whose family has apparently been killed: her husband and he young daughter. She hasn't allowed their ashes to be scattered or buried or memorialized, causing strife with her in-laws. She monitors surveillance cameras (of which Scotland seems to have a lot) as a job and one day sees the man who killed her family. She's upset because his jail sentence was apparently reduced for good behavior. She proceeds to stalk him, talk to him at a party she infiltrated, and then have a sexual relationship with him. After having sex with him, she beats herself up and cries rape. She then drops the charges because she, still spying on him at her work, sees his daughter try to find him at his apartment (on Red Road). She then confronts him about telling her exactly what happened when he killed her family. Turns out it was a drunk driving accident. That's it. No cold-blooded murder. No drug deal gone wrong. No husband dealing with bad guys behind her back. An accident. I know it must be traumatizing to lose a husband and a young daughter but, really, it's a movie, make a more interesting choice. She then decides that her in-laws can memorialize their son and granddaughter. The end.
This one is no good at all and there isn't an interesting reason to watch it.
Sheitan (2006)
After we watched Dan in Real Life, we watched this movie like it was a train wreck in our living room. It's bad. Really really bad.
It's about a group of remarkably racially diverse French kids (a white guy, a black Muslim guy, a Mid-Eastern Muslim girl, and an Asian guy) who somehow run into a girl who takes them to her house in the middle of nowhere (have to move sheep in the road to get to the house) where her "housekeeper" Vincent Cassel is super creepy. Apparently, Cassel was possessed by the devil or some nonsense and impregnated his sister (who is, uber creepy, Vincent Cassel in a wig). For whatever reason, Cassel has to get things from these kids--clothes, eyeballs--in order to make a doll for the baby his sister is carrying. It seems as if this is a repeating thing because the town is also filled with strange and creepy malformed people. Meanwhile, all of the kids are attempting to hook up with one another--yep, there is a shortage of girls in that situation so two guys make-out with the one at once.
It's not a good movie. Only watch it if you have a strong desire to see Vincent Cassel at his creepiest.
It's about a group of remarkably racially diverse French kids (a white guy, a black Muslim guy, a Mid-Eastern Muslim girl, and an Asian guy) who somehow run into a girl who takes them to her house in the middle of nowhere (have to move sheep in the road to get to the house) where her "housekeeper" Vincent Cassel is super creepy. Apparently, Cassel was possessed by the devil or some nonsense and impregnated his sister (who is, uber creepy, Vincent Cassel in a wig). For whatever reason, Cassel has to get things from these kids--clothes, eyeballs--in order to make a doll for the baby his sister is carrying. It seems as if this is a repeating thing because the town is also filled with strange and creepy malformed people. Meanwhile, all of the kids are attempting to hook up with one another--yep, there is a shortage of girls in that situation so two guys make-out with the one at once.
It's not a good movie. Only watch it if you have a strong desire to see Vincent Cassel at his creepiest.
Dan in Real Life (2007)
I liked this one quite a bit. I thought it smart, funny, and genuine. And, of course, I love anything that has Steve Carell and especially love anything in which he dances.
This one is about Dan (Carell) who writes a family advice column for the local paper. He has three daughters, two old enough to cause trouble, and is widowed. He's poured all of his effort into his daughters and work that he hasn't really considered his love life. That is until he takes his daughters on their usual trip to the family's house (we're talking a LOT of family) and he randomly meets a woman in a book store. He likes her, really likes her. But, of course, there's a slight problem: she's the new girlfriend of his younger brother. So that's a problem. It turns into a hilarious avoidance story (I especially liked the shower scene) and then into a love story with sweet moments.
Very much worth watching.
This one is about Dan (Carell) who writes a family advice column for the local paper. He has three daughters, two old enough to cause trouble, and is widowed. He's poured all of his effort into his daughters and work that he hasn't really considered his love life. That is until he takes his daughters on their usual trip to the family's house (we're talking a LOT of family) and he randomly meets a woman in a book store. He likes her, really likes her. But, of course, there's a slight problem: she's the new girlfriend of his younger brother. So that's a problem. It turns into a hilarious avoidance story (I especially liked the shower scene) and then into a love story with sweet moments.
Very much worth watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)