Change Your Image
zmarc
Reviews
The Tale of Despereaux (2008)
Bizarre, incomprehensible mishmash
I was looking forward to this and expected to like it, but I was crushingly disappointed. I think I could go so far as to say I hated it, which shocks me. How could one go wrong with the story of a funny little mouse who's a hero? I don't know, but somehow this film does it.
First of all, the story is way overdone: it's got too many things happening and jumps from plot to plot with no transition at all that it's confusing and breaks your chain of thought. For example, the basic story seems to be that of a brave mouse who saves a princess. But mixed in with that is the story of a rat who's somewhat similar and who helps the mouse. That is further complicated with the story a girl who's a "princess" serving as a maid in the King's castle. All of these stories sound generically familiar, but they purposely resolve differently than we expect; I suppose that's to make things more interesting, but I just found it annoying, since the whole movie you are confused as what is happening. Is the Desperaux the mouse the main character? Then why is so much time spent on the rat's story? And which princess are we to root for: both, neither? It's all bewildering.
Another fatal flaw is the animation. At times it's breathtakingly beautiful, with fantastic attention to detail. I loved the way Despereaux's nose glistened with faint wetness, for instance. Amazing. But the animation is inconsistent, with humans looking awkward and dorky, and very often the movement of characters defying real-world physics. Like in one scene Despereaux is bouncing on the end of a rope and he bounces as though the rope is elastic -- it just did not feel natural. In many scenes the editing is so choppy and the camera angles so poorly chosen it's difficult to tell what is happening. You get a vague impression and you're probably right, but it's not clear. Another problem is that the film's humor is odd: there are many scenes where the mice discuss Despereaux's problem in that he's not afraid and hasn't "learned to cower like a proper mouse." I guess that's supposed to be funny and it is the first time, but it's hammered over and over, with parent-teacher conferences with Despereaux's parents, etc., and in the end it just starts to get repetitive and puzzling. There's also bizarreness associated with the supernatural. While there's an aspect of the film that feels like it should be "magical" (fantasy), we're not really shown that anything is actually magic -- except for a strange talking vegetable man. This being assembles itself from a collection of vegetables (i.e. different vegetables for the mouth, nose, eyes, etc.) and he talks. We're given no history of him, no explanation of what he's doing there, how he can talk, what he is, or what happens to him in the end. (Does he die when he fell down the stairs or was he just forgotten on the cutting room floor?) I wanted to see a world with a lot more magic, or key magic used at just the right moment to save the day, or none at all. This bit of random magic for no good reason was just bizarre and weird and pointless.
There are a few moments of brilliance: Despereaux himself is very good (though he's not on screen enough), the narration has some good lines, and some of the scenes are interesting. But mostly this is just a mishmash of styles, stories, characters, and confusion. I really disliked it and found myself contemplating leaving the theatre on many occasions (something I've never actually done). Though it's not long, it felt endless. I am extremely disappointed.
Paparazzi (2004)
You get what you expect
This isn't a terrible movie. It gives you exactly what you'd expect given the trailer and plot. A new celebrity struggles with really evil paparazzi (who are unbelievably insensitive). Eventually they cause a car accident and nearly kill his wife and son. Then, one by one, the four photographers involved die... the actor is killing them off. Kind of a revenge flick, in a way. Everything's so-so (script, acting, directing), but there are some decent moments. Some of the deaths are pretty cool, there are a couple twists and small surprises, and it ends happily. Meaningless but mildly satisfying, like popcorn. Fun if you're in the right mood.
Lost and Delirious (2001)
Surprisingly deep with impressive performances
This is a coming of age film set in a private girls school. Our narrator is the shy Mouse (real name Mary), arriving at the school for her first time away from home, still struggling to recover from her mother's death three years earlier. Her two roommates, Victoria and Paulie, are wild and crazy, the opposite of her, and she finds them fascinating. But when romance goes awry, the lonely Paulie goes crazy: she's lost the only love of her life. The film tries a little too hard to be shocking and wild, but it's got a great intellectual core. It's at its best in the simpler scenes between mouse and the gardener (the terrific Graham Greene), where they talk in riddles and jokes about Serious Things. Like when they first meet and Mouse asks if she can help him garden -- she used to help her mother and enjoyed it -- and when he asks her name she replies, "It's in transition," a brilliant way to express that she's migrating away from her Mouse nickname to something better. That's one of the best scenes I've ever seen on film. It's astonishing. Simple words, simple facial expressions, loads of meaning. Great stuff. If the rest of the film was up to that standard, this would be a masterpiece. Granted the cast is fantastic. All relatively unknown, Canadian actresses (the film is Canadian), but beautiful and amazingly good. Mouse is played by Mischa Barton, who looks like a smaller version of Sarah Michelle Geller. Jessica Pare and Piper Perabo are her roommates. Excellent.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Missing a message of hope
This film is a brutal experience, a two-hour onslaught of torture and pain. If you are a Christian, it's a worthy experience as you understand the background and the meaning behind Christ's death. Unfortunately Mel doesn't show the way lives were changed because of Jesus' death. I would have liked to have it end with shots of various characters we meet in the film -- Malchus (the servant who's ear was cut off by Peter), Simon (the man who carried Jesus' cross), Pilot (the Roman govenor), etc. -- praying and being with family, showing us their lives have changed and will never be the same. That would have given some meaning to the death. As it is, all we see the is the brutal death, dramatically portrayed, without any of the positive consequences. It's sad instead of hopeful. It's still an amazing and moving film, but it could have been a masterpiece.
Bulletproof Monk (2003)
Good fun
Seann William Scott and Chow Yun Fat have surprisingly good chemistry, and that's what holds up the film. Forget the silly story which is told with a little too much seriousness, and just sit back and enjoy the ride. The action aspect is light but still engaging, but it's the quirky relationship between the mysterious Monk (Chow) and the pickpocket (Scott) that drives the movie.
Ice Age (2002)
Predictable and Annoyingly Stupid; Pixar Wannabe
After all the stuff I'd heard about this film being above average, I was disappointed. The jokes are lame and puerile, the story predictable, the characters annoying, and the animation is surprisingly poor quality. It's not terrible, but it's not great. It's obviously trying to be as smart as a Pixar film and it fails miserably. If you haven't seen it, you haven't missed much.
Irréversible (2002)
Tough to watch but successful film experiment
This is the controversial French film some critics are calling "unwatchable" because of the extreme violence and sex. It's definitely an experimental film, but it worked for me. The story is a simple one: a girl is raped and her boyfriend kills the rapist. But Noe tells the story in reverse, which makes the entire movie far more complicated. We watch as this guy tracks down another in a gay sex nightclub. When he finds him, he smashes his head with a fire extinguisher again and again until it's flattened into a bloody mess. The camera does not break away from this violent scene and it's quite brutal, though not that long. Then we jump back in time to see how the guy found out about the nightclub, then how he found out about the rape (he sees his girlfriend being dragged away on a stretcher, her face covered in blood, and he's told she's in a coma). Then we see the rape itself -- an amazingly frank piece of cinema. It's long, ten or fifteen minutes, and the camera doesn't move. It just goes on and on, and when it's finally over, the guy totally beats the girl's face into a bloody pulpy mess. This is definitely not an enjoyable film up to this point. As the "narrative" continues, we move to the party where the girlfriend and boyfriend are before she leaves early, and then before that on the way to the party. The final scene is the two alone at home, in bed, showing the playful and loving sides of their relationships, and making sex seem delightfully innocent.
As I said, a simple tale, but told in reverse. Here's the effect of that reversal, however. First, when we see the guy seeking revenge against the rapist, we have no idea what he is doing or why. He seems like an insane person. Later, of course, we understand, but by showing his revenge first, we're far more shocked and horrified by his violence than we would be otherwise. Second, when we experience the rape (and I do mean experience), we haven't yet met the girl. She's faceless at that point (emphasized by Noe by not showing us her face until later). This has the effect of both dehumanizing her (she's faceless) and making her an everywoman (she could be anyone). Those are important because we don't form judgements about her. Later, when we "meet" her for the first time, our perceptions of her change. We get to know her after the rape instead of before, and while you might think that knowing her first would make the rape more powerful, it works even better in reverse, since we have no opinion of her at all before the rape. That enhances the trauma of the rape, making it seem even more barbaric and unfair. For example, once we meet the girl we might see how provocatively she dresses and judge her, saying she asked for the rape. But Noe avoids us thinking that way by having the movie in reverse.
The other thing about the reverse gimmick that makes it so powerful is that we go from brutal, cruel, and ugly images to beautiful and innocent images (the reverse of real life which tends toward destruction not creation). The final shots of laughing children running through a lawn sprinkler is all the more heart-breaking because we know that that innocence is already (or will be) lost. The tragedy of lost innocence is expressed far more powerfully in this technique. The whole film is an exercise to show us this, as Noe emphasizes with two techniques: color and camera movement. The first fifteen minutes of the film is positively headache inducing as the camera is never still and never at any normal angle. It's as though they mounted the camera on the back of a dog chasing his tail: the image spins and whirls and rarely do we see anything recognizable (which, while they're in the gay nightclub, is a good thing ;-). But gradually, as the film continues, the camera becomes more and more passive, leading to total stillness during the rape. The colors at the beginning of the film (the end of the story) are all dark, bleak, and there's a lot of red. By the time we get to the end (the beginning) there's brightness, sunlight, happiness, and wonderfully green grass. While this makes the beginning of the film tougher to endure (wild camera and dark, ugly images), it makes sense storywise. As the boyfriend seeks revenge, he gets more and more angry and agitated, and so does the camera. Logically, the landscape gets bleaker as well.
Noe's script uses what we might call reverse foreshadowing: in the normal direction there are hints of the dire future so that when it comes it subconsciously feels expected. But foreshadowing is such a subtle thing that few notice it. In reverse, however, foreshadowing is far more powerful. For instance, after we've seen the rape, we hear (before that) someone say, "Be safe" to the girl, and that takes on a terrible irony since we know she won't be. In another scene, the girl talks about a book she's reading where people dream of their future, and later (at the end of the film) we see that happen to her. Since we already know her future, her premonition is even more dramatic and there's no suspense of "Is she crazy or do we believe her?" We know she's right and that's scary. The reverse technique is fascinating when used properly.
As many have said, this film is tough to watch. The violence is brutal and shown in an unflinching fashion. While difficult, that's real life. I personally prefer this kind of realistic violence than Hollywoodized versions that glorify it. This absolutely does not glorify violence or rape at all: it presents it in horrible reality. Other films have tried to show realistic violence, especially rape (think Jodie Foster in The Accused), but this film, by getting rid of camera tricks and just showing us the brutal reality straight on without blinking, does a more credible job of expressing the horror and obscenity of such acts. Some critics have said that this film is obscene itself, but that's not true: the rape and violence it shows is obscene, but not the film itself. The film is the messenger, not the message; the vehicle, not the passenger. The film makes an incredibly powerful statement about destiny, reality, violence, and sex, and provokes us to think about our attitudes toward those things. If you can bear it, it's worth seeing.
The Hunted (2003)
Pointless and illogical
Like <i>Willard</i>, which I also saw today, this is another empty film. There's just no real point to anything. Worse, the plot's full of contradictions. Basically we've got two loner characters: our hero, Tommy Lee Jones, plays a tracker who was formerly a military consultant, who now works in so-very-PC job of protecting wildlife; his foil is a former student turned renegade played by Benicio Del Toro. Benicio was taught to kill by Tommy, and after missions in Bosnia, he is haunted by what he has done. So he assuages his "guilt" by stalking and killing hunters in the forests of the Northwest! Despite that not making any sense at all, the film shoves that down our throat early on (we see Benicio waking up at night in a cold sweat after dreaming of Bosnia), and it's then dropped and never mentioned again the rest of the movie! Come on, either that's an important part of his character or it's not. Of course the main thing in this film is the prospect of Tommy hunting down Benicio. But then the film does a number of strange things. First, at the crime scene in the of the forests in Silver Falls, Oregon, hundreds of FBI agents and cops haven't found anything. Tommy Lee arrives and in minutes finds Benicio. They fight (pretty good fight), but Benicio is ambushed by an FBI agent and is caught. Film over, right? No. Benicio escapes. Ah, now we've got a chase, right? No. Benicio goes to his girlfriend's house and of course Tommy finds him there. Now the film's over, right? No, he escapes <i>again</i>, and now he's in the city and Tommy must track him through downtown Portland. Tommy's tracking skills in the woods make sense, but in the city it's just dumb. The camera pans around, Tommy looks thoughtful, and suddenly he darts off in the direction we know Benicio went. How did Tommy know that? Perhaps he saw the dailies, I have no idea. Worse, after like fifteen minutes of tracking the elusive Benicio with only a few glimpses of him, the two end up on a light rail train (Portland's public transportation system). Benicio's inside, Tommy's climbed onto the roof. Now here's the really dumb part: the FBI and cops are on the scene and they stop the train on a bridge, trapping Benicio. So what the hell was the point of Tommy tracking Benicio throughout town if the cops and FBI were going to be at his end location anyway??? (Tommy did not alert the cops.) Tommy could have saved his breath and waited until the cops had Benicio surrounded. But of course at this point Benicio escapes yet again, this time by diving into the river, and this leads to more absurdities. Benicio loves knives and during a flashback we saw how Tommy had shown him how to make his own. So when he crawls out of the river he finds a rusted iron bar, builds a fire, a forges his own knife! Besides the fact that a tiny fire of a few dozen sticks wouldn't be hot enough to melt lead let alone iron, wouldn't this take a lot of TIME? And even more significant, what's the point? Does Benicio, this super soldier, not know how to fight without a knife? Is having a knife more important than getting away from the police dragnet? The answer is that Benicio needs the knife so he and Tommy can fight (Tommy has carved himself a stone knife and it's a very bloody fight), and in the end, of course, Tommy can kill Benicio with his own knife. This is "drama," folks, because in another mishmash of illogic, we've been told earlier that though Tommy has trained hundreds of soldiers how to kill, he has never killed himself (absurd). Until now, of course. Then the movie ends. Just bizarre. What was the point of all that? It's basically a chase, target is acquired, movie ends. But the producers throw in all sorts of red herrings and distractions and artificial complications to make the story interesting, it's just dumb. I would have liked this far better if the original search by Tommy in the woods would have lasted much longer, and forget all the nonsense in the city. Oh dear, there was just so much about this film that made no sense. Like Benicio's justification for killing the hunters was they were using high-powered rifles and scopes and it was unfair competition. You'd think that argument would have some weight with Tommy's character (whom we see rescuing a wolf from a trap at the beginning of the film), but Tommy isn't even sympathetic. We're never really given any other reason for Benicio's behavior, which is weak. The whole movie just feels artificially cobbled together, as though some producers sat around a dreamed up what elements they wanted in an exciting action flick and them put them together without any thought of how they actually connected. Despite all the flaws, there is some decent action (though Tommy Lee looks pretty old for a lot of the stunts he does). The film has some style in direction. It's not unpleasant, but it's frustrating. What a waste of acting talent and budget. Why couldn't this have been done right? It wouldn't have been that hard to fix these obvious flaws. If you're from the Northwest, you'll get a kick from seeing the Oregon scenes and shots in Portland. That's probably the best reason to see it.
The Baby (1973)
Low budget but effectively creepy
This is a low budget thriller about a bizarre family: a woman and her two grown daughters who are raising ?Baby,? a fully grown man in diapers. Supposedly he's mentally retarded, but a social worker who visits has her doubts. She starts to investigate the family. The film delivers some surprisingly good performances: the looks exchanged between the mom and her daughters and the social worker are terrific, and reveal a lot of creepy subtext. You begin to wonder about the motivations of everyone involved. The ending is a nice little twist that's unexpected and worth the wait. This not high caliber art, but it is fun, and delightfully twisted.
The Pianist (2002)
Is it possible to make a bad Holocaust film?
Is it possible to make a bad Holocaust film? With such drama and history, it seems difficult. This one is certainly moving, and even shocking: you'd think we'd have seen everything by now, but some of what the Nazi's did is beyond comprehension. The story is the true story of Szpilman, Poland's greatest pianist. The Germans take over Poland, put him and his family into the newly established "Jewish Sector," and eventually kill his family. It's a miracle he survived. What I liked about this film is the way it's so understated. Our protagonist isn't a hero: he just a guy. I compare him to a rat. I don't mean that in a negative sense, just that he's a rat scrounging for survival, and every time you think he's down, up he pops again. But it's not really a survival story either: mostly the guy survives via luck and friends. He doesn't particularly want to survive in some ways, he just does. It's like he's so overwhelmed by his circumstance he doesn't know how to do anything else. Adrian Brody gives a terrific performance as Szpilman, especially toward the end when things get desperate. Polanski is smart in his handling of the film: he just gets out of the way and lets the story tell itself. I didn't notice one superfluous camera movement or transition: you just forget you're watching a film and get wrapped up in the time period. It is a long film (over 2.5 hours) but every frame is important. One intriguing aspect that I felt was brilliant in retrospect (a bit of spoiler here) is that we don't get to really see Szpilman play the piano until late in the film. Sure there's a brief scene at the beginning, and a couple in the middle, but he's not really playing. That's wonderful, because part of Szpilman's pain is that throughout the war he has no piano to play, and we, the audience, glimpse that pain through the subtle absence of his playing during most of the film. When he does play at the end, it's a catharsis for both of us -- we've both been aching for that moment. We're overjoyed at his joy at being able to play again. Superb. All that said, where does this film rank in cinema history? That's difficult to say: it's tough to criticize a Holocaust film without coming across as a brute. This is an excellent film, and I liked that it tells a different story of the war and shows us new images and a new perspective, but ultimately it can't escape what it is: a Holocaust film. That tag carries a lot of baggage, and frankly, once you've seen once Holocaust film you've seen portion of all others. There's some new material here but it's definitely not as original as Life is Beautiful, a film I liked far more simply because it dared to be daring (a comedy about the Holocaust). This is a great film in the sense that it's well-done, emotionally moving, and has historical significance, but while I wouldn't have a problem watching Life is Beautiful over and over again, I can't say the same thing about The Pianist. I'm very glad I saw it, and I might watch it again on DVD, but like Schindler's List this is not a movie you want to watch over and over again. That diminishes it slightly in my book (for instance, it wouldn't be in my top ten favorite films).
Joe Somebody (2001)
Surprisingly Well-Written
***SLIGHT SPOILERS*** I recently saw this promoted on another DVD and was puzzled that I'd never
heard of it: you'd think a film with Tim Allen would have been promoted. I figured it was a dog but rented it anyway.
To my surprise, this was an excellent film. Don't judge it by the trailer (which is misleading) or Tim's reputation. This is NOT a slapstick comedy goof-off, but a mildly comedic serious story about an average Joe trying to figure out who he is.
Tim plays Joe, a longtime cubicle worker for a huge corporation who's a decent but invisible guy. He's struggling through a divorce, but loves his daughter. On "Take Your Daughter to Work Day" the last parking spot gets taken by a jerk
who cuts him off. Worse, this parking lot is reserved for employees who've
worked at the company for at least ten years and Joe knows the guy's only been there for seven. He confronts the guy and the guy (who's big), slaps him down. Twice. In front of his daughter. Humiliated, Joe begins to wonder what went
wrong with his life.
Inspired by a co-worker (the stunning Julie Bowen), he decides that what he
wants is to beat the jerk up. He publicly announces he's going to fight the guy in three weeks, and then sets out on a rigorous training regime. Suddenly
everyone at the office knows Joe, likes Joe, and is rooting for him to beat the jerk.
Gradually the popularity and overconfidence goes to Joe's head as he's
alienated from his potential girlfriend (Bowen) and his daughter, who don't like the new cocky Joe. In the end, Joe must decide if beating up a co-worker will make him a man, or if he's already a man.
This is a film about character: the plot's predictable but that's not why you watch this kind of movie. Tim Allen does an excellent job, but this is not the laugh-out- loud comedy you'd expect from him. I think that's why it failed. People didn't get what they expected. Watch this as a drama and you'll find the humor amusing
and the love story attractive. It's well-written with some remarkably good
dialogue, especially in the romance, which in comedic films often comes across as silly.
For instance, one of my favorite scenes occurs after Tim witnesses Julie Bowen playing basketball with some girls and doing a silly and embarrassing victory dance. Later, while walking and talking, she asks how long he was standing
there watching. When he admits he saw her dance, she embarrassed and says,
"Oh no, no. Please, say something right now to make me feel less like throwing myself down these steps." Tim pauses, then says, "I'll be flat out amazed if I can think of anything else for a least a week." Very simple, but honest and effective. She's flattered and that's the beginning of their falling in love. Cool scene.