Succinct Film Reviews: Star Trek Edition

The new Star Trek, fun if you aren't a Trekker, with plenty of 'fan service' for those that are, highly satisfying.

Now the longer review which won't avoid spoilers, so don't read it if you care about that sort of thing.



I mean it, avert your eyes now.




This is the last warning, don't blame me if you find out something you didn't want to know.




Star Trek feels like a proper relaunch of an old franchise, one built not just to cash in on a name, but to explore a legend from a new perspective, while maintaining a respectful fealty to the original text. The introduction of time travel not only serves as a plot point, but it also serves another possibly more important service. Star Trek fans are known for being a bit too wrapped up in the 'history' of their franchise and worrying about every minute detail of this future history. So by establishing early on that from the events in this film and forward, you are experiencing an 'alternate' future, one that won't have to adhere to any previously stated facts that fans of the previous versions know by heart. Wiping out Vulcan, and essentially wiping out (or at least severely altering their place within the galaxy) the Vulcan people, changes all that happens afterwards in a massive way. This gives the producers complete freedom with where they take the future of this franchise, should this film prove popular enough to be the beginning of a new set of films.

This is a marriage of the usual JJ Abrams obsessions (did anyone say 'Daddy Issues'?, OK, how 'bout a polar bear analog chasing down young Kirk? only thing missing, Uhura going all Sydney Bristow, but maybe in a later film...) with the feel of the original Star Trek series. How long that marriage can hold up remains to be seen, but for this one film it's a successful mating.

Things to enjoy if you are new to the franchise, the action, the characters, the brisk pace of the film.

Things to enjoy if you know these characters from their previous portrayals, seeing Kirk beat the Kobayashi Maru exercise, seeing Sulu fence, seeing sexy green alien chicks, seeing Scottie 'invent' transwarp teleportation in the same way Scottie helped 'invent' transparent aluminium, Pike in a wheelchair, the required townie v cadet bar fight (seriously, is that some sort of Star Fleet requirement, beat on, or get beat upon by a local?).

The only major WTF moment was, Tyler Perry as the head of Star Fleet?!? He should have done it in full Madea drag.

Succinct Film Reviews, Iron Man Edition

It's the return of Succinct Film Reviews (and the return of the 'Summer movie season').

Iron Man's first up,

Wait, so you are telling me you're going to get Robert Downey, Jr. to play a talented, brilliant, substance-abusing, womanizing, jerk, who nevertheless is incredibly charming and has horrible impulse control? Wow, what a stretch (and bloody fantastic). . .

Downey sinks his teeth into the role, and then some, plus unlike most of the current crop of comic book superheroes turned movie franchises, Downey's Tony Stark embraces the role of superhero with gusto, ego, and charm. I don't know why all superheroes have to be whiny little [whiners] (insert stronger language in brackets, I'll leave it up to you, the reader, to decide the level of language with which to describe the depths of pussyfooting and whininess as portrayed by the Eric Banas, and Hugh Jackmans, and Tobey Maguires, and Christian Bales in their various 'tortured' superhero guises).

It's a fun film in all its aspects, from the origins of Iron Man, to his pursuit of a better suit, to the choice of main bad guy. It also largely eschews the usual liberal twaddle that could have easily scuttled a film like this. It's not all gung ho about military hardware, but they don't say that military hardware is bad, it's just bad when it falls into irresponsible and evil hands (and when corporations are willing to sell to the bad guys, which I know is needed for the plot, but none of our most advanced hardware has ever ended up in the hands of the kind of people they show Stark Industries equipment being used by, so while for the plot to work they did this, even though these events have never happened in real life, and never will, it gives the Hollywood execs a way to point to this film as not being a totally and unequivocally pro-US military picture, cause afterall, who would want to see that?).

All that said, there will be people on both sides of the political spectrum (and even those in the middle) who may not be comfortable with one aspect or another of the plot, but mostly this film is just a lot of fun, with solid (but not overused) effects, a great actor in the center of it (plus a strong supporting role by Jeff Bridges), and passable performances from the others in the cast (Gwyneth Paltrow doesn't completely suck the life out of her scenes, though she tries, and Terrence Howard as the love interest is OK as well), make this a winner.

Plus sit through the credits, you'll be rewarded.

(and I lied a bit about Howard playing the love interest, that would have been a little 'too' interesting, but his character definitely has a massive, and probably requited, mancrush on Tony Stark)

(and why does unrequited get so much more play then, requited, I guess when something is requited we tend to use 'mutual' instead, but I say requited makes sense to use in the positive if unrequited is used in the negative)

(OK, I think I'm done with parentheticals in the post now)

(I lied, one more, is it really all that surprising that Downey nailed the Stark role? I mean I pretty much laid it out in the red lettered blockquote above, right? I'm surprised that people are surprised, frankly)

UPDATE: Spoiler-filled (in the comment section), YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!!

OK, first part of the update, Instapundit points to this Pajamas Media Review by Kyle Smith of the film that takes issue with the latter half of the picture, I can understand how the reviewer chose to see things the way he did, but I think he's just looking for a fight and found what he was looking for.

Now to the spoiler part, read the comment, I'll post my thoughts on that (spoiler-laced) review in the comments, so if you don't want to have the plot spoiled (not that there's all that much plot, really, and not that you don't see the developments a mile away, but still, some people like to go into a film unspoilt, so I'll go through the motions of keeping things that way for you), don't read the comment section to this post, but know that I can easily recommend this film, enjoyed watching it, look forward to the next installment in the series, and think that this film series could end up being the most fun of the current crop of comics turned films.

Succinct Movie Reviews: Cloverfield, Plus a Special Bonus --- My Very Own Version of "Cloverfield"

Godzilla, from the tiny model's POV.

That's praise, not criticism, imagine redoing Godzilla, not from the omniscient narrator perspective more common, but instead from the 'bugs eye view' of the tiny little fake cars, tanks and people that the big rubber monster goes about crushing.

Do that, and you have Cloverfield. It's a visceral picture, moves quickly, and doesn't shy away from the thick and obvious 9/11 parallels. There's enough character development to care about these people, and somewhat buy their stupid choices, but mostly it's just a bunch of shakycam footage of things that go bump in the night.

I'm sure there are plenty of folks who will want to over analyze this picture as to its choice to destroy Manhattan, and its choice to make the existential threat dooming thousands if not millions of New Yorkers a fantastical monster and its spawn/minions rather than the real monsters that want to destroy places like Manhattan.

I'm sure there are plenty other people who will complain that the entire cast is made up of attractive young people, but they all played their (somewhat thin) roles credibly, so I have no problem that they happen to be easy on the eyes.

If you are susceptible to shakycam induced motion sickness then avoid this picture, or at least sit in the back of the theater, the less of your field of vision the screen occupies, the less intense the queasy factor will be.

That all brings me to a criticism of the criticism. A lot of the negative reviews mention the queasy factor, but anybody going into this picture knows it was shot handheld in its entirety, so don't send a reviewer who will get physically ill trying to watch this film, there's no way they can give this a fair appraisal.

Speaking of things that make you queasy, here's an excerpt from Manohla Dargis' review:

For a brief, hopeful moment, I thought the filmmakers might be making a point about how the contemporary compulsion to record the world has dulled us to actual lived experience, including the suffering of others — you know, something about the simulacrum syndrome in the post-Godzilla age at the intersection of the camera eye with the narcissistic “I.”

I'd rate that sentence (that's all one sentence?!?) a 1250 on the millidargis scale, but the overall review a mere 600 millidargis.

Waiting for YouTube to finish processing the "Cloverfield" video I made, I'll embed it below when it's available. It's Cloverfield in its entirety, and for the Cloverfied/Cloverfield connection, this Defamer post serves as good as any. Good thing JJ Abrams didn't used to have an office on Gen. Thaddeus Kosciuszko Way, I think if they called this picture "Gen. Thaddeus Kosciuszko", people would have been really confused (not that a biopic about the actual Thaddeus Kosciuszko would be such a bad idea).

UPDATE:

Here's the video, by the way, how's the weather where you are at? Sunny and in the 60s here, suckers.

Why Did I, Someone Who Dislikes Bob Dylan's Music, Hates His Voice, Despises Hippies and 60s Boomer Nostalgia-ism, Choose to See "Im Not There"?

Reason: cause I love Todd Haynes as a director.

Do you want a review? You don't have to want one to get one, that's the wonder of the internets.

Here goes my review, on the Millidargis scale of review uselessness and pretentiousness, I'd probably rate my own review that follows a 1500 or so, it's pretty useless as far as reviews go, but this kind of movie can only be discussed in obtuse and tangential ways. I'd rate AO Scott's review of the film a mere 650 millidargis, he actually writes a pretty straightforward piece on the picture (I so wanted to rip apart another pretentious Dargis review regarding this difficult but rewarding picture, but alas, she didn't pen one).

It's a worthwhile picture, it's a difficult picture, and it's a beautiful picture. One measure of the quality of a film is how many people walk out on it. That may seem like an odd measure of a film's worth, but I find the truly unusual, daring, and challenging films often cause walk outs. This film managed to cause 3 of the 16 people who chose to spend a late morning/early afternoon on a blustery but sunny Saturday on the glorious Westside of Los Angeles to walk out well before the final credits. In some ways they didn't miss much, in other ways they just didn't get it, and it's their loss.

Using 6 different actors (from a young black boy, to an amazing Cate Blanchett) to represent different aspects of Dylan's persona, his relationship to his music, and his relationship to his fame was a stroke of genius. Either that or it's a showy, 'auteur' trick that is designed to frustrate the 'squares' and excite the psuedo-intellectuals. I fall on the side of calling it genius, but I sympathize with those that read the film as being arty for art's sake to little effect.

I hate biopics, normally, but thankfully this was the most abnormal biopic ever made. This film is the template from which all future artists bios should be created. People familiar with Dylan's life will recognize moments (which being a non-fan, I only know tangentially), others may be perplexed, but the film works because of its disjointedness rather than despite of it. Rather than the usual narrative driven exploration of an artist's life (like Ray, or Walk the Line), this film digs behind the masks, behind the music (sorry VH1), and behind the culture from which the artist sprang.

Todd Haynes is a masterful director who has made some of the most interesting pictures out there of the past decade or so. This film plays like a 2hr15min music video that doesn't have a lot of music, or a series of six separate and very different shorts interleaved together despite lacking any strong throughline between one piece to the next.

The performances are strong, especially Cate Blanchett, who has received attention mainly for the gender-bender-iness of her performance, but the strength of her performance is in the acting, not in the fact that she's playing somebody who happens to have a penis. Oddly, her performance is the most imitative of Dylan, yet it's an imitation with an edge, she doesn't occupy his cadences and mannerisms circa 1965 for the usual reasons (in biopics, the actor's portrayal usually seems to be built from the surface inward, believing that if you capture the surface similarities between an actor and their subject, the inner truth will follow), instead she seems to be working from the inside out. By being like him from an emotional standpoint she represents his surfaces also. It's hard to explain, but it's there, you can see it on the screen if you choose to look for it.

This film is worthing catching on a good screen, it's filmed gorgeously, and unfolds slowly, it would be tempting while watching at home on DVD to pause, or backtrack, or break it up in to more digestable bits, but I think you'd get the most out of this pic by watching it the way Haynes put it together.

It's a shame nobody seems to want to see this picture, difficult and box office (even the lower standards of 'indie box office hit' standards) don't mix.

Shaky Cam Must Die!!!

Saw Transformers, was impressed with the impressive bits, bored with the boring bits, and somewhat humored by the humorous bits. There's plenty of stupid to go around in this movie, but it's stupid in a good natured way, and that's important. It's two tales intertwined, a very simple old fashioned boy meets girl story, and a very simple bad guys versus good guys tale. Both tales are told less artfully than they should be, but you don't buy a ticket to this ride expecting a whole lot of plot.

Shia Labeouf is an unlikely action hero, but all we get nowadays are unlikely action heroes, the likely ones aren't ironic enough, or something.

Ed Driscoll points to this piece at Libertas praising the film, and mentioning the core pro-military, and pro-American message in the film.

This movie will still do fine in foreign lands, though. Even with the pro-American message (presumably a bad thing nowadays), the America haters will be happy to see large portions of Downtown Los Angeles torn to pieces.

Why don't aliens ever pick on Tehran, Beijing, or Caracas? Funny how they always end up in either DC, LA, or NYC.

The effects are the most seamlessly intergrated CGI with live action effects, ever. Despite the over the top nature of the destruction, you never get the sense that the actors are just reacting to a tennis ball in a green screened soundstage. The Autobots and Decepticons occupy real physical space, and interact in that space convincingly. Think of the recent War of the Worlds and King Kong remakes, this was the opposite. Both of those films had big set pieces with the heroes running from unimaginable destruction, yet you never got the sense of physical danger you should have.

But back to the shaky cam. Michael Bay uses it way too much in this, and it makes it impossible to follow the action in some of the sequences. Plus once you've seen one impossibly articulated and speedy robot, you've seen them all, so despite an attempt to give character to each robot, they have a tendency to blend in action.

It's a deeply flawed film, would have been the tightest, most visually stunning popcorn film, ever made at 90 minutes with a better script. Instead it was a meandering 144 minute film that has a few too many lulls. They don't need to lose the entire boy meets girl plot, but it should have been a lot tightened up, plus the whole hacker and "section 7" subplots were superfluous.

GM probably will get their money's worth, especially when the new Camaro comes out 1Q 2009 (maybe GM will encourage Paramount to rush a sequel that summer to give sales an extra boost, they always leave room for sequels in these pictures, could make it a Bumblebee solo pic, no Shia, no other Autobots, just the sweet, sweet Bumblebee and his bitchin' Camaro self). All the good guy robots are GM branded, but it never feels like a commercial. Selling the new Camaro in any color other than bumblebee gold, might be tough, though, it looks awesome in that color. In the film, turns out it's a reskinned Pontiac GTO in Camaro drag, but I won't tell if you don't.

But mainly, try and see this film in the loudest theater in your area, this is a film that sounds best turned up to 11.

I haven't made fun of Manohla Dargis in awhile, but luckily, the NYT made the mistake of assigning her this film (or she gladly volunteered to see a film she knew before seeing she'd hate).

The opening paragraph sets the tone

Boys and their toys are in full formation in “Transformers,” a movie of epically assaultive noise and nonsense. Originating with the shape-shifting toys — created in Japan, rebranded in America — that transform from robots into stuff like cars and planes, then back again, the movie has been designed as the ultimate in shock-and-awe entertainment. The result is part car commercial, part military recruitment ad, a bumper-to-bumper pileup of big cars, big guns and, as befits its recently weaned target demographic, big breasts.

She says it as if those are bad things, "epically assaultive noise and nonsense", sounds good to me. Just in case that didn't prove Manohla's disdain for this film, and for its jingoism, she uncorks this bit

The movie waves the flag equally for Detroit and the military, if to no coherent end. Last year the director of General Motors brand-marketing and advertising clarified how the company’s cars were integral to the movie: “It’s a story of good versus evil. Our cars are the good guys.” And sure enough, most of the Autobots take the shape of GM vehicles, including Ratchet (a Hummer H2) and Ironhide (a TopKick pickup truck).

But, remember kiddies, Brand America is the only real evil in this world, and this movie didn't have the decency to even poke proper fun at our current president

Shape-shifters of another kind, Hollywood action movies bend this way and that politically in a bid to please as many viewers as possible, but they almost always play out exactly the same, as entertaining violence leads to heroic individualism leads to the restoration of order. “Transformers” is no different, even if it does offer chewy distraction for the bored viewer: the would-be suicide bomber, American soldiers tearing it up in the Middle East while American cars keep up the fight at home, along with plugs for Burger King, Lockheed Martin, Mountain Dew and the Department of Defense. Why there’s even a president who asks for a Ding Dong. He’s wearing red socks like a big old clown, but no one really laughs.

What an ass. On the Dargis scale I give this review only 500 millidargis (a reminder of what the dargis unit is, here) as at least it's clear what she thought about the film and the reasons for her dislikes. The review is still mostly useless as a review of the film given that she spends most of the word count accusing all men of being infantile and Americans being war happy and our corporations being greedy, but at least she sort of mentions some specifics about the film while venting her spleen.

Succinct Film Reviews: 300 Edition

300, a bloody mess, but a fun, entertaining, manly bloody mess.

300 is a film unlike most films today, that doesn't pussyfoot around when it comes to moral issues. It is painted in comic book colors, with comic book emotions, and states its comic book ethos with conviction and clarity.

This troubled many of the reviewers, leading to insinuations of homophobia, fascism, and racism from various folks (just follow the rotten reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, you can see for yourself).

That can be found if you want, yet the opposite was the intent. This film isn't a great film, yet it is memorable.

It is a shockingly moral film, despite the nudity, blood, and mayhem. At its core it is a call for free people to stand and fight against tyranny, regardless of the odds. It is also a recognition that when free people willingly die for freedom, that often, their example can serve to reverse any defeat in a single battle.

Many reviewers claim there is no bigger political message in this film, but they're wrong, what they mean to say is that they didn't get the political message they wanted from this film.

The concept of steadfastness in the face of human losses isn't popular in some corners of our culture. The concept that warriors who choose the warrior life, do so because they welcome the possibility of a meaningful death in hopes of sparing those at home hardship, is also anathema.

Victor David Hanson does a great job of putting this film in context, his words do so better than I can.

Frank Miller believes in freedom, believes in fighting, and believes that in certain cases, the world of comic books is indeed the world in which we live.

I'm surprised this film is doing as well as it is. It seems on track to do huge numbers this weekend for a non-sequel, non-big name actor picture. People aren't just responding to the visual style, as I'm sure will be claimed in the aftermath of the big grosses. Sin City did this better on a visual and storytelling basis, but that film didn't do huge business. Of the live action + blue screen movies, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow was the best looking, but it was a horrid mess of a script.

300 I suspect will be this generations Red Dawn. That film was dismissed as a terrible film (which it is), stupid beyond belief, yet for folks of a certain mindset, it fired the imagination and became an aspirational cultural touchstone.

300 will be consumed in a similar fashion I believe. The lack of ambiguities, the clear disdain it has for 'realist' who wish to capitulate to tyranny, and the good old fashion homosocial (and homoerotic) bonding depicted is enough to give most young men a bit of a chubby (thankfully they mix in enough nude and semi-nude women so the guys won't feel too sexually confused at their tumescence).

It will be interesting to see if the film continues to do big business, or was it just a big weekend followed by diminishing returns. I suspect that the film is far too pro-war and pro-military for 'coastal' types who would otherwise enjoy the spectacle, and it might be a bit too homoerotic and bizarre for 'fly-over country'.

This tension might help the film in the long run. There's something to please most audiences (at least violence and mayhem loving audiences), so if you are willing to engage the film as spectacle, you won't be disappointed no matter the perspective you bring with you to the theatre.

Succinct Film Reviews: Zodiac Edition

75 minutes of a good movie (too bad it ran for 163 minutes).

Longer film review, Zodiac, David Fincher's latest doesn't know what it wants to be, and that damages the film overall.

Does it want to be a fetishistically exact play by play of the original Zodiac's crimes?
Partly, but that could have been covered in 30 minutes.

Does it want to be a incompetent cops 'out-thunk' by a motivated outsider movie?
Partially, but it doesn't quite go far enough in that direction, mostly it just blames bureaucratic intransigence and due process for keeping the cops from catching Zodiac.

Does it want to be a fun little period drama evoking the place and time that was late 60s and early 70s San Francisco?
Some, but again, the other elements fight against this, plus it doesn't feel particular authentic. It's rare for a period piece not to exhibit clues as to the time the film was actually made. This was clearly a mid 2000s picture about the 1970s. That fact hampers this film's ability to transport you out of this time and get you to sufficiently suspend your disbelief to watch the story unfold.

Also, another quibble is that this film had way too many actors in it.

Don't all films have actors in them?

Yes, but every damn role isn't played by a known face. This cast has the likes of Brian Cox, Donal Logue, Elias Koteas, James LeGros, Dermot Mulroney, Chloe Sevigny, Anthony Edwards, John Mahoney, Ione Skye (uncredited), Mark Ruffalo, Philip Baker Hall, Clea Duvall, Adam Goldberg, and Roger Rabbit. Lesser known character actors filling all those roles would have been just as effective and less distracting.

And speaking of Roger Rabbit, why doesn't he work more often? His 'creepy guy' in this is the best part of the picture. Charles Fleischer is a pretty damn good actor, yet his non-voice over credits of late seem rather slim.

Also, Jake Gyllenhaal just doesn't sell the nebbishy, obsessive, socially inept ex-Eagle scout well. He's miscast in this and it damages the whole picture.

Robert Downey, Jr., as Robert Downey, Jr., does a decent job of playing Robert Downey, Jr. (you mean he wasn't playing himself, oh, well, you could have fooled me).

The ads before the film were pretty awful as well. One crappy suspense/horror film after another was trotted out. In summary

Rednecks making snuff films starring upscale couples=Vacancy

Saw/Grudge/The Ring/Magic*100 with ventriloquist dummies=Dead Silence

High school Rear Window=Disturbia

High school DOA (with a supernatural twist)=The Invisible

Patsy framed for attempt on President, fights back=Shooter

God is back, He's out for blood, and this time, It's Personal=The Reaping

A Condescending Look at Trailer Park Paranoia/AIDS Parable Masquerading as Horror Film=Bug

All I can say is, this was a lousy movie to start my 2007 film viewing (no other film released in 2007 got me interested enough to sample). Hopefully next week's 300 will be better.

UPDATE (04 MAR 07; 11:00am) Just remembered one more film that was previewed (7 previews, is probably about 4 too many), Bug, and added to the list. It's William Friedkin's latest, but he's always advertised as "from the director of The Exorcist", judging from the imdb profile on the film, and the fact that it's based off of an off-Broadway play, the ad campaign is highly deceptive. But, on the plus side, Ashley Judd plays 'trailer' really well, and looks kind of hot doing it. Also gleaned from imdb, this play and screenplay was written by Counterguy from the classic Seinfeld episode that gave us Festivus.

Succinct Film Reviews: The Flushed Away Edition

Flushed Away, the most fun you'll have in sewage all year!

Longer take:

It's an excellent family film, fun for most of the family (very young children may get bored, though the film isn't boring, just not jangly enough for the wee ones who lack attention spans). It's veddy, veddy English (and I do mean English, and not British, it's set in the sewers of London, afterall).

The Aardmanized computer animation is charming (sorry, there's no other word, I know it's a cliche term for this stuff, but it really is charming). If they completely abandon the agonizing complexity of stop motion animation in favor of the CGI stuff, that would be sad, but understandable. They maintain their visual style, while opening up new possibilities in angles, lighting and scope.

Also, this film continues Hugh Jackman Month (from Oct 20th to Nov 22nd he's in 4 major films, The Prestige, Flushed Away, Happy Feet, The Fountain, and that doesn't count the other films he was in this year (X-Men 3, Scoop).

And another thing, they make fun of the French (in this case, actual Frogs). Yes, surrender jokes and mime jokes never get old.

Sir Ian McKellen does a very good Charles Laughton impression as the film's main baddy. The character design is definitely based on Mr. Laughton, and there are certain colorations in Sir Ian's delivery that suggest he took it in that direction on purpose. Or at least that's what I heard. I could be full of it.

Kate Winslet is sufficiently plucky as the love interest, and the singing slugs are a nice touch.

It's an all around good film, even if you don't have children to drag with you to a screening.

Plus, this is a message to all parents, if you haven't instilled in your child that shutting up in theatres is the polite and necessary thing to do, then your child isn't ready to see films in theatres, stick to the DVDs if you can't be bothered to have well behaved children. That is all.

(When seeing opening weekend kiddie films, I guess I'll stick to the 10pm showings from now on)

I Finally Saw Volver

Just got back from seeing Volver.

It's a well crafted, well acted, very melodramatic picture.

To call it a 'women's picture' wouldn't be an insult, and shouldn't scare any men away from seeing it.

Penelope Cruz is a fantastic actress in Spanish, in English . . . not so much.

She deserves serious consideration for her performance come awards time, as does Carmen Maura in a pitch perfect supporting role.

You are unlikely to see better performances this year from any other actors in any other language.

Not to slight all the other actresses who enliven this tale, they're all excellent, but Carmen and Penelope really stand out.

Pedro Almodovar is one of the best directors around, and he's in his prime, even if he seems to return to the same themes over and over again.

As far as the picture, there's really nothing I can say beyond all the positive reviews (shockingly, at least to me, this film has an even better percentage of good reviews) that would convince you to see this if you weren't already convinced, so I won't try.

But, one thing that puzzles me, this film deserves a wider release. In the United States we have a plethora of native Spanish speakers, and their first generation offspring, who would eat this stuff up with a spoon if it was sold to them the right way. The Spanish speaking community in the United States is large enough, wealthy enough, and diverse enough to support a few quality "art house" movies each year. That companies like Sony Picture Classics don't figure out a way to sell these kinds of pictures to those kinds of folks is incomprehensible to me.

Possibly they are doing the NYC/LA thing until they get their expected nominations, then they'll give it a wider release hoping the awards buzz will expand the market.

If it seems at all intriguing to you, then go see it when it hits your town, and even if it looks like the kind of soapy mush you can't stand, don't let that stop you, this film transcends the genre that gave it birth.

Succinct Film Reviews: The Prestige Edition

The Prestige, ponderous, but good, Chris Nolan doing his best M. Night Shyamalan impression.

That was the short version, now the longer (completely spoiler free) . . .

I liked this film, I wanted to like it more, though. Everyone in it is great, but it still lacks something. It either should have been more serious, or more frivilous. It hangs uncomfortably between, it's not thought-provoking enough for a serious film, yet it's also not spritely enough for a popcorn picture.

The many misdirections and tricks used in the filmmaking have been done better elsewhere, but that doesn't mean that this film screws them up completely, but it all just carries a hint of tricks for tricks' sake, which can get annoying.

What to like; the cinematography, the acting, David Bowie as Nikolai Tesla, Scarlett Johansson in turn of the century attire (if any modern actress was meant to be trussed up and spilling out of corsets, she's the one).

What not to like; the central conceit, the pacing, Hugh Jackman's teeth (distractingly good for someone of that period, he needed some snaggle-toothed falsies to fit the period better).

This film requires patience to enjoy, and your patience won't be entirely rewarded in a satisfactory manner, yet it's still a film that is commendable, watchable, and entertaining enough to recommend.

Could have been better though.

For a far better use of the competing "secret" diaries plot device I recommend reading Tanazaki's The Key. A brilliant and disturbing book.

(An Americanized Southern Gothic version set somewhere back in the 30s or 40s would be brilliant. There have been two film versions of The Key in Japan, the first one in 1959 was a Golden Globe winner, but has never been released on DVD, and I don't know if it's any good, the second one was directed by someone whose other films are crappy exploitation pictures so it probably focuses on the sensational aspects of the work and not the amazing psychological interplay between the three main characters)

Succinct Film Reviews: Departed Edition

The Departed is trashy fun, but too long, watchably entertaining, nevertheless.

Longer review.

Seriously, nobody edits a Martin Scorsese film. I know there is a credit for an editor, but she clearly never says no. Nobody says no to Marty and that damages his films. He hasn't released a picture since Goodfellas that couldn't have stood to be trimmed by at least 30 minutes. The longstanding working relationship between Scorsese and his editor, Thelma Schoonmaker, would argue against maintaining that kind of working relationship too long. Most directors need editors who can say no to them once in awhile and don't share exactly the same vision. There are lenghty self indulgent passages in every Scorcese picture that make what could be truly mind blowing art into only very good pictures.

This tale is essentially a small exploitation picture that has an uneven tone, too much or too little violence (depending on your tastes), and great or hammy performances (depending on your tolerance for scene chewing). See it, unless you have no stomach for violence, you'll enjoy it, but it's still way too long for the trifle that it really is.

And I know Howard Shore has won his share of accolades, but he seriously over does the score to this picture.

Also, not Claire Forlani 'aka' Vera Farmiga (go ahead, click on the two links, and look at their photos and then come back and tell me with confidence that these are two different people. Just as I thought, you couldn't do it, could you?) wasn't sufficiently womanly or ballsy to balance all the cockfighting dominating this picture. Also, she seemed out of place, her whole subplot either needed to be more or less, how it is in the picture, is flat and unneeded.

Succinct Film Reviews

Saw The Last King of Scotland today.

My review (imagine it being recited by Billy Connolly)

It's a strange way to be entertained, but entertaining it bloody well is.

That's the short version. But, sometimes that's not enough to get folks to consider seeking out a smart semi-independent film like this, so here's a bit more.

Forest Whitaker is fantastic as Idi Amin, but this isn't his picture alone.

Not-Noah Wyle 'aka' James McAvoy is the star of the film (I call him not-noah wyle because, first he looks like him, second he plays a doctor, 'nuff said). His role is a meaty one. The swirl of events the film depicts, the tale of temptation it weaves moves along well. It doesn't fall into the trap of sappiness and sentimentality that most films that use a white protagonist to tell a non-white story fall into. There's some scenes of tremendous brutality, played to maximize their impact. This is no easy little popcorn munching bit of entertainment.

That's what I mean by this being a strange way to be entertained. But film can also inform, inspire and instruct. This film doesn't try to do all of that, and that's a good thing. An excess of earnestness would have weighed this thing down and ruined it. Serious stuff happens, but it's presented artfully and with flashes of humor.

I recommend this film, but be warned that it's not an entirely easy experience.

And when I posted earlier that Carina Chocano was pulling her anti-colonial nonsense straight out of her ass, I wasn't far wrong. The lessons she grabbed from this film, are far simpler than what the film really conveys. There are some hints as to British complicity in the problems suffered by Uganda, but this film doesn't diminish the domestic causes for their suffering.

It's still a great mystery why there are no Singapores in Africa. The local tribalism or the legacy of colonialism or the spread of Islam can't explain the suffering. So many of these countries seem to have created an awful amalgamation of the worst characteristics of these three main cultural sources.

It's sad to see all this unfold as it does in this film, yet strangely entertaining.

Root Causes: An Obsession

Why the obsessive need to find 'root causes' for every non-western maniac who darkens this earthly realm?

From Carina Chocano's review of The Last King of Scotland

Whitaker plunges deep into the psychology of the role, portraying Amin as an erratic personality whose charisma and sociability — first-rate survival mechanisms — mask a deep-seated insecurity, searing resentment of foreigners and a galloping paranoia. Amin's bizarre personality was in many ways the product of an impoverished childhood in an occupied nation. Abandoned by his father, he eventually went to work for the British army, where he cleaned, cooked and joined the rugby team. It was there his fondness for Scotland bloomed, though the Scots he so admired allegedly got him riled up for matches by hitting him on the head with a hammer.

Idi Amin was an insane megalomaniac (yet still considered a good enough Muslim to be offered residence and protection by the Saudis while in his lengthy exile). Looking for 'root causes' for his madness is absurd. Finding 'root causes' that manage to blame the United Kingdom's colonial presence in Uganda is even more absurd.

I'm not going to hold the reviewer's idiocy against this film. Forest Whitaker is one of the best actors working, and this seems like a role that he can inhabit with abandon. This looks like a must see film. That interlude from the review that I highlight seems to be completely pulled from Ms. Chocano's ass, and her obsessive need to find a way to blame eeeevil western hegemony for the ills of a place like Uganda.