Archives
Categories
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
XML/RSS Feed
Sat - November 6, 2004
"The Incredibles" review
Yeah, it's been forever since I've done a movie
review ... It's been such a hectic year, I missed most of the summer movies
anyway, and the few I saw I didn't have time or energy to review. (The one I
remember off the top of my head, though:
Spiderman
2 was
awesome.)
But one movie I knew I didn't want to miss this season was Pixar's The Incredibles, directed by Brad Bird. I have a great deal of respect for Bird's work -- he directed the original Family Dog, as well as working on several early seasons of The Simpsons, before directing the vastly underrated and overlooked Iron Giant for the conflicted and vindictive Warner Brothers Feature Animation. That movie was so good, it's no wonder Pixar snapped Bird up for themselves shortly afterwards.
After seeing The Incredibles, my respect has only gone up another level. It is, in a word, incredible ... the pacing of the film from beginning to end is fairly spot-on, and there's a healthy mix of high-octane action sequences with some startlingly personal and intimate character interactions. The voice acting by Craig "Poltergeist" Nelson, Holly "Raising Arizona" Hunter, Samuel "Pulp Fiction" Jackson, and Wallace "Inconceivable!" Shawn was stellar. (And once again, Pixar proves to be one of the few studios who casts by talent and appropriateness, not star power; the actors never supercede the characterizations they are meant to represent.) The children voicing the kids did great, and I do believe I may very well just have seen Jason Lee's finest role to date. (Also, watch for the final performance together of Nine Old Men Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston in a brief cameo near the end.)
Something I've noticed in all of Brad Bird's work is that he has this great knack of making an animated movie feel like a live action movie that happens to be animated. Part of this is just because of his ability to avoid using all the obvious cliches prevalent in he sadly insular animation industry, and his willingness to let his characters act and feel like real human beings. (The scenes in which Helen explains the situation to her two children next to the campfire in the cave are almost shockingly stark and real in their execution.) But that extends also into the overal pacing and cinematography of his films as well; with The Incredibles Bird uses computer animation to its fullest potential while avoiding the tired camera angles and tricks al the other studios are using.
Speaking of which, this film takes Pixar's rendering to a whole new level. It still fits Pixar's stylized, almost hyperrealistic look of shape and color, but the details ... the sheen of the spandex on Mr. Incredible's back, the way all the character's hair moves and interacts with its environment ... are excellent. Incidentally, I think they were wise to stick with the more stylized design for the humans; it works well, and it allows you to easily slip into the film's universe. It reminded me of nothing so much as the best of the Rankin & Bass stop-motion cartoons, only infinitely smoother and more flexible. The problem I have with other studio's attempts at realistic human characters (Final Fantasy, Shrek, Polar Express) is that the fim is asking us to take a camera-closeup view of simulated versions of characters with the same surface details we see every day of our life, and the result is that the characters appear dead, like animated mannequinns.
There is also, as is Pixar's tradition, a short preceding the film, titled Boundin'. It's a bit odd, but well done, and it's definitely good to see Pixar constantly pushing itself into new directions.
So in all, definitely a treat, and nothing less than I would expect from Brad Bird. Go see it. Now.
But one movie I knew I didn't want to miss this season was Pixar's The Incredibles, directed by Brad Bird. I have a great deal of respect for Bird's work -- he directed the original Family Dog, as well as working on several early seasons of The Simpsons, before directing the vastly underrated and overlooked Iron Giant for the conflicted and vindictive Warner Brothers Feature Animation. That movie was so good, it's no wonder Pixar snapped Bird up for themselves shortly afterwards.
After seeing The Incredibles, my respect has only gone up another level. It is, in a word, incredible ... the pacing of the film from beginning to end is fairly spot-on, and there's a healthy mix of high-octane action sequences with some startlingly personal and intimate character interactions. The voice acting by Craig "Poltergeist" Nelson, Holly "Raising Arizona" Hunter, Samuel "Pulp Fiction" Jackson, and Wallace "Inconceivable!" Shawn was stellar. (And once again, Pixar proves to be one of the few studios who casts by talent and appropriateness, not star power; the actors never supercede the characterizations they are meant to represent.) The children voicing the kids did great, and I do believe I may very well just have seen Jason Lee's finest role to date. (Also, watch for the final performance together of Nine Old Men Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston in a brief cameo near the end.)
Something I've noticed in all of Brad Bird's work is that he has this great knack of making an animated movie feel like a live action movie that happens to be animated. Part of this is just because of his ability to avoid using all the obvious cliches prevalent in he sadly insular animation industry, and his willingness to let his characters act and feel like real human beings. (The scenes in which Helen explains the situation to her two children next to the campfire in the cave are almost shockingly stark and real in their execution.) But that extends also into the overal pacing and cinematography of his films as well; with The Incredibles Bird uses computer animation to its fullest potential while avoiding the tired camera angles and tricks al the other studios are using.
Speaking of which, this film takes Pixar's rendering to a whole new level. It still fits Pixar's stylized, almost hyperrealistic look of shape and color, but the details ... the sheen of the spandex on Mr. Incredible's back, the way all the character's hair moves and interacts with its environment ... are excellent. Incidentally, I think they were wise to stick with the more stylized design for the humans; it works well, and it allows you to easily slip into the film's universe. It reminded me of nothing so much as the best of the Rankin & Bass stop-motion cartoons, only infinitely smoother and more flexible. The problem I have with other studio's attempts at realistic human characters (Final Fantasy, Shrek, Polar Express) is that the fim is asking us to take a camera-closeup view of simulated versions of characters with the same surface details we see every day of our life, and the result is that the characters appear dead, like animated mannequinns.
There is also, as is Pixar's tradition, a short preceding the film, titled Boundin'. It's a bit odd, but well done, and it's definitely good to see Pixar constantly pushing itself into new directions.
So in all, definitely a treat, and nothing less than I would expect from Brad Bird. Go see it. Now.
Posted at 11:19 AM Read More
Mon - May 10, 2004
"Van Helsing" review
It's been about six months since I've updated
this blog ... partly because I've been busy and distracted. And partly because I
haven't had a chance to see many movies. I've missed a lot of the good ones I
wanted to see, and didn't have a chance to comment on the few that I did. But,
let's try to get going again.
I managed to catch Van Helsing last night. In a nutshell: I enjoyed it. I wasn't expecting anything too deep or insightful; just a fun action adventure film with lots of special effects, and the movie delivered that. The design and art direction of the film was terrific; and while the "reenvisioning" of the classic monsters may have been a bit disorienting at times, I think they did alright at making the monsters their own. (Although after The Mummy was a reasonable success, it makes me wonder if they would ever attempt to do another classic Dracula or Frankenstein movie again, and if so, if they'd be bound by the rules they set up in this film.)
Van Helsing himself was the most reworked character; he's graduated from a learned old professor who studies vampires to an apparently immortal force of nature in the service of the highest circles of the Catholic Church. It's a big pair of shoes to fill, but Hugh Jackman does the job admirably. At first glance, Kate Beckinsale seemed like she really wanted to be Rachel Weisz from The Mummy, but she did well. Dracula was good, and the Monster was a particularly poignant interpretation; and the werewolves, while still not quite perfect, were probably about some of the best I've seen in film to date.
Speaking of effects: Pretty good overall, although (and I don't mean this in reference just to Van Helsing, but in general) I really could do without all the scenes of computer-generated stunt models flying through overproduced background environments as the computer-generated camera follows them through in a wondrous flyby. Maybe the kids today like that, but for me it really tends to pull me out of the world of the film when that happens. Suspension of disbelief aside, I know the scene is computer generated at that point, and if it isn't an effect that specifically and essentially pushes the plot of the movie forward, I'd rather do without it. Honestly I'd rather watch two real actors beating the crap out of each other on flywires than suddenly cut to a highly-rendered animated cartoon.
But that aside, an enjoyable movie. Perhaps not quite as good as The Mummy films -- Brendan Frasier's charm went a long way in those -- but worthy of a summer popcorn film.
I managed to catch Van Helsing last night. In a nutshell: I enjoyed it. I wasn't expecting anything too deep or insightful; just a fun action adventure film with lots of special effects, and the movie delivered that. The design and art direction of the film was terrific; and while the "reenvisioning" of the classic monsters may have been a bit disorienting at times, I think they did alright at making the monsters their own. (Although after The Mummy was a reasonable success, it makes me wonder if they would ever attempt to do another classic Dracula or Frankenstein movie again, and if so, if they'd be bound by the rules they set up in this film.)
Van Helsing himself was the most reworked character; he's graduated from a learned old professor who studies vampires to an apparently immortal force of nature in the service of the highest circles of the Catholic Church. It's a big pair of shoes to fill, but Hugh Jackman does the job admirably. At first glance, Kate Beckinsale seemed like she really wanted to be Rachel Weisz from The Mummy, but she did well. Dracula was good, and the Monster was a particularly poignant interpretation; and the werewolves, while still not quite perfect, were probably about some of the best I've seen in film to date.
Speaking of effects: Pretty good overall, although (and I don't mean this in reference just to Van Helsing, but in general) I really could do without all the scenes of computer-generated stunt models flying through overproduced background environments as the computer-generated camera follows them through in a wondrous flyby. Maybe the kids today like that, but for me it really tends to pull me out of the world of the film when that happens. Suspension of disbelief aside, I know the scene is computer generated at that point, and if it isn't an effect that specifically and essentially pushes the plot of the movie forward, I'd rather do without it. Honestly I'd rather watch two real actors beating the crap out of each other on flywires than suddenly cut to a highly-rendered animated cartoon.
But that aside, an enjoyable movie. Perhaps not quite as good as The Mummy films -- Brendan Frasier's charm went a long way in those -- but worthy of a summer popcorn film.
Posted at 06:50 PM Read More
Wed - October 29, 2003
"Brother Bear" review
Yes, my moviegoing habits have been atrocious of
late. After seeing Matrix
Reloaded and
Bruce
Almighty in May and
Finding
Nemo in early June (reviews listed
previously), I've missed the entire run of summer movies this year. Terrible.
But last night, a friend invited me to an early screening of
Brother
Bear, which broke my five-month film
moratorium, finally.
This is a film that, for me personally, and for many others I'm sure, is loaded with a ton of extraneous baggage and mixed emotions. The state of the animation industry at large, the handling of the animation department by Disney, and the fact that this is probably the last traditional animated film of this type we'll see in a long time (even Home on the Range, which I've heard incredibly troubling things about, has had its release pushed off almost indefinitely) all make it very difficult to watch this film in a vacuum.
So let me say this, trying to be as objective as possible:
I really, really enjoyed this film.
Granted, it wasn't a perfect film; on an objective level there were things that could have been done differently. Its greatest sin is that it draws several times on images and ideas from previous films, most obviously Lion King, with sprinkles of Pocahantas, Beauty and the Beast, and others thrown in. But if you can watch the story on its own terms, these references are not as detrimental as critics would have you believe; they are woven into a story which, if not particularly groundbreaking or innovative, has at least enough originality to it to stand on its own and deliver.
This third film from Disney's Florida animation studio shows their consistancy; while perhaps not as potent as their earlier Lilo and Stitch, I'd say it was at least on par with Mulan in many respects. The backgrounds, set in the Pacific Northwest, are lush and beautiful, and the animation has a terrific blend of natural realism and cartoony goofiness. The relationships between the various characters, and the good and bad decisions characters those make, had an emotional resonance, for me at least, that holds the story together and makes me want to see it again.
Many will probably find fault with the music. That's personal taste, and personally I liked it; I plan to pick up the soundtrack when I can. And the two moose, Rutt and Tuke, while being pretty obvious comedy sidekick characters, are still funny sidekick characters, as voiced by Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas dusting off their old Bob and Doug MacKenzie routine.
At any rate, I don't think Brother Bear deserves the 31% Rotten score it's been throttled with on Rotten Tomatoes. I get the sense that many reviewers are bashing Disney the company moreso than this movie, which is perhaps understandable, but very unfortunate and very unfair.
Of course, the position this movie is in is equally unfair. Considering DisneyCo has already shut down and dissolved its animation department beyond the point of no return, it hardly seems to matter whether the film succeeds or fails; if it fails, they only seem justified in closing shop, and if it succeeds, they just get another big chunk of money with no need to share with or invest in the hundreds of artists and workers who made it possible.
But I think, as a tribute to those who worked so hard and were treated so poorly, it would be nice if, somehow, the movie breaks expectations and raspberries the critics and does at least moderately well. In any case, If you're moved by animation, I'd recommend at least giving this film a chance; and probably sooner rather than later, in case it doesn't survive the holiday blockbuster season.
This is a film that, for me personally, and for many others I'm sure, is loaded with a ton of extraneous baggage and mixed emotions. The state of the animation industry at large, the handling of the animation department by Disney, and the fact that this is probably the last traditional animated film of this type we'll see in a long time (even Home on the Range, which I've heard incredibly troubling things about, has had its release pushed off almost indefinitely) all make it very difficult to watch this film in a vacuum.
So let me say this, trying to be as objective as possible:
I really, really enjoyed this film.
Granted, it wasn't a perfect film; on an objective level there were things that could have been done differently. Its greatest sin is that it draws several times on images and ideas from previous films, most obviously Lion King, with sprinkles of Pocahantas, Beauty and the Beast, and others thrown in. But if you can watch the story on its own terms, these references are not as detrimental as critics would have you believe; they are woven into a story which, if not particularly groundbreaking or innovative, has at least enough originality to it to stand on its own and deliver.
This third film from Disney's Florida animation studio shows their consistancy; while perhaps not as potent as their earlier Lilo and Stitch, I'd say it was at least on par with Mulan in many respects. The backgrounds, set in the Pacific Northwest, are lush and beautiful, and the animation has a terrific blend of natural realism and cartoony goofiness. The relationships between the various characters, and the good and bad decisions characters those make, had an emotional resonance, for me at least, that holds the story together and makes me want to see it again.
Many will probably find fault with the music. That's personal taste, and personally I liked it; I plan to pick up the soundtrack when I can. And the two moose, Rutt and Tuke, while being pretty obvious comedy sidekick characters, are still funny sidekick characters, as voiced by Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas dusting off their old Bob and Doug MacKenzie routine.
At any rate, I don't think Brother Bear deserves the 31% Rotten score it's been throttled with on Rotten Tomatoes. I get the sense that many reviewers are bashing Disney the company moreso than this movie, which is perhaps understandable, but very unfortunate and very unfair.
Of course, the position this movie is in is equally unfair. Considering DisneyCo has already shut down and dissolved its animation department beyond the point of no return, it hardly seems to matter whether the film succeeds or fails; if it fails, they only seem justified in closing shop, and if it succeeds, they just get another big chunk of money with no need to share with or invest in the hundreds of artists and workers who made it possible.
But I think, as a tribute to those who worked so hard and were treated so poorly, it would be nice if, somehow, the movie breaks expectations and raspberries the critics and does at least moderately well. In any case, If you're moved by animation, I'd recommend at least giving this film a chance; and probably sooner rather than later, in case it doesn't survive the holiday blockbuster season.
Posted at 10:06 AM Read More
Wed - October 22, 2003
Apple announces G4 iBooks ...!
*glerk* My gosh, they did it ... they
finally did it ...
Amidst the excitement of Mac OS X 10.3 Panther being released this Friday, Apple's just announced an upgrade to their iBook line, which now use G4 processors instead of the G3 ... running between 800MHz and 1GHz depending on the model. That brings their processor speed on par with many of the Titanium Powerbooks still floating around, although they've still got enough hardware limitations to make them anathema to power users: for example, no Superdrive to burn DVDs, lower video resolution, and their maximum allowable RAM seems to top out at 640MB. But still a great, durable portable for basic users and students.
Here's my only complaint: Only the 'low-end' machine (with an 800MHz processor) comes in the 12" size; the 933MHz and 1GHz models only come in the 14" size. The kicker is, though, like the old 14" iBooks, the screen resolution is still limited to 1024x768. Same desktop area, it's just stretched a bit bigger on the bigger laptop. I'm a desktop space whore; I own a Titanium PowerBook chiefly because of its widescreen 1280x854 screen, and I LOVE the 1680x1050 resolution on my desktop's monitor. But the ONE thing that made me really take pause in buying the PowerBook was that I also love the compact, tiny, could-almost-fit-in-your-backpocket look and feel of the 12" iBook. I always viewed the 14" almost as a bastard child. With pretty much the same hardware specs as the smaller models (except a larger harddrive standard, but you can upgrade those on any model), it's just a more expensive model for people who THINK the bigger screen is better (or, like a friend of mine, folks who have poor eyesight and welcome the larger pixels.) But now, most of the models are 14", which I think is a shame.
Of course, considering the past few months, I'm nowhere NEAR thinking of buying any new computers, so it's a moot point for me. ;)
(P.S. I see they're still offering, for a limited time, 'legacy' 800MHz G3 iBooks for $899. If you just need a beater laptop and want a Mac, this could be your chance.)
Amidst the excitement of Mac OS X 10.3 Panther being released this Friday, Apple's just announced an upgrade to their iBook line, which now use G4 processors instead of the G3 ... running between 800MHz and 1GHz depending on the model. That brings their processor speed on par with many of the Titanium Powerbooks still floating around, although they've still got enough hardware limitations to make them anathema to power users: for example, no Superdrive to burn DVDs, lower video resolution, and their maximum allowable RAM seems to top out at 640MB. But still a great, durable portable for basic users and students.
Here's my only complaint: Only the 'low-end' machine (with an 800MHz processor) comes in the 12" size; the 933MHz and 1GHz models only come in the 14" size. The kicker is, though, like the old 14" iBooks, the screen resolution is still limited to 1024x768. Same desktop area, it's just stretched a bit bigger on the bigger laptop. I'm a desktop space whore; I own a Titanium PowerBook chiefly because of its widescreen 1280x854 screen, and I LOVE the 1680x1050 resolution on my desktop's monitor. But the ONE thing that made me really take pause in buying the PowerBook was that I also love the compact, tiny, could-almost-fit-in-your-backpocket look and feel of the 12" iBook. I always viewed the 14" almost as a bastard child. With pretty much the same hardware specs as the smaller models (except a larger harddrive standard, but you can upgrade those on any model), it's just a more expensive model for people who THINK the bigger screen is better (or, like a friend of mine, folks who have poor eyesight and welcome the larger pixels.) But now, most of the models are 14", which I think is a shame.
Of course, considering the past few months, I'm nowhere NEAR thinking of buying any new computers, so it's a moot point for me. ;)
(P.S. I see they're still offering, for a limited time, 'legacy' 800MHz G3 iBooks for $899. If you just need a beater laptop and want a Mac, this could be your chance.)
Posted at 09:57 AM Read More
Sun - September 28, 2003
A New Way To Blather
Yes, it's been far too long since I've updated
the Blatherings on my website. And yet, can you believe that this entire summer,
Finding
Nemo was, in fact, the last film I actually
got to see in a theater?
Anyway, a few days ago I learned that as part of Apple's .mac membership, they've given out a small third-party program called iBlog that has been tuned to upload and update a weblog directly to your iDisk. I decided, as long as it's part of the service I'm paying for already, I may as well try to use it ... and, given that it will allow me to post new entries without having to actually go in and update my website, maybe it will encourage me to post new Blatherings more frequently.
So I've just transferred all my old Blatherings over to this page, and tried to keep the original post dates intact; soon I'll be going in and tweaking my actual website to lead here instead of the old Blathering pages built into the site.
So, keep an eye out here. In the sidebar to the left, you'll see that entries can now be dropped into categories ... I've made one for Movie Reviews and one for Miscellaneous; more will be added as I need them. And I don't know much about XML/RSS feeds, but if they mean something to you, go ahead and use them.
Anyway, a few days ago I learned that as part of Apple's .mac membership, they've given out a small third-party program called iBlog that has been tuned to upload and update a weblog directly to your iDisk. I decided, as long as it's part of the service I'm paying for already, I may as well try to use it ... and, given that it will allow me to post new entries without having to actually go in and update my website, maybe it will encourage me to post new Blatherings more frequently.
So I've just transferred all my old Blatherings over to this page, and tried to keep the original post dates intact; soon I'll be going in and tweaking my actual website to lead here instead of the old Blathering pages built into the site.
So, keep an eye out here. In the sidebar to the left, you'll see that entries can now be dropped into categories ... I've made one for Movie Reviews and one for Miscellaneous; more will be added as I need them. And I don't know much about XML/RSS feeds, but if they mean something to you, go ahead and use them.
Posted at 09:43 PM Read More
Tue - June 3, 2003
"Finding Nemo" review
There are some things that never cease to amaze
me. The unlikely yet undeniable stupidity of the executive mindset, for
example.
Each time Pixar releases another animated feature, dozens of interviewers ask them what their secret is: How can one studio generate such an unbroken series of movies which are both critically and financially successful? And each time, their answers are always the same. That Pixar focuses on the strength of the story and the characters above all else. That their studio fosters an atmosphere of openness to suggest and willingness to consider any ideas, without clashing egos allowing a good idea to be buried. That their management is willing to trust their artists and directors and just let them produce the best film they can.
And that their medium of choice -- computer animation -- is really unimportant compared to those other factors.
John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, and the rest can talk themselves blue in the face; yet why is it none of the other animation studios ever take the hint? Disney is working hard at retraining what animators they have left in the use of computer animation so further projects can go that way, even though Disney's only computer animated film to date, Dinosaur, was lackluster at best.. After Sinbad, Dreamworks has only CG movies on their upcoming slate, despite Katzenberg's bold words about "not blaming the medium for the failure of a film." Warner Brothers is a joke; Fox and MGM don't even exist anymore. All of them suffer (or suffered) from topheavy management, poor executive decisions, and incessant manegerial meddling on the highest order. That, my friends, is what causes films to fail. Not lack of computer animation: If anything, my observation has been that audiences really aren't "wowed" by CG anymore; a film still relies on its story and characters to be a true success. (Look at Lilo & Stitch and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within for two opposing examples to support my theory.)
Anyway. That off my chest, Finding Nemo was a terrific move ... even better and more heartfelt than I had expected it to be. As in all Pixar films, the voice casting and performance was wonderful -- a host of celebrities lending their talents, yet none of them overshadowing the story by their mere presence. Particularly stand-out was Ellen DeGeneres; I've always sorta liked her since her stand-up days, but her turn as Dory truly went above and beyond. Props also to Albert Brooks, Willem Dafoe, and everyone else.
The movie was preceded by a trailer for Disney's Brother Bear, which is looking good. Hopefully enough people will see the promo in the coming weeks and remember to go see it this fall, and perhaps prove management wrong about the death of traditional animation.
In fact ... with their emphasis on story, character, and artistic leadership, I'd love to see Pixar hire up a few out-of-work animators and produce their own traditional movie. That would show 'em ...
Each time Pixar releases another animated feature, dozens of interviewers ask them what their secret is: How can one studio generate such an unbroken series of movies which are both critically and financially successful? And each time, their answers are always the same. That Pixar focuses on the strength of the story and the characters above all else. That their studio fosters an atmosphere of openness to suggest and willingness to consider any ideas, without clashing egos allowing a good idea to be buried. That their management is willing to trust their artists and directors and just let them produce the best film they can.
And that their medium of choice -- computer animation -- is really unimportant compared to those other factors.
John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, and the rest can talk themselves blue in the face; yet why is it none of the other animation studios ever take the hint? Disney is working hard at retraining what animators they have left in the use of computer animation so further projects can go that way, even though Disney's only computer animated film to date, Dinosaur, was lackluster at best.. After Sinbad, Dreamworks has only CG movies on their upcoming slate, despite Katzenberg's bold words about "not blaming the medium for the failure of a film." Warner Brothers is a joke; Fox and MGM don't even exist anymore. All of them suffer (or suffered) from topheavy management, poor executive decisions, and incessant manegerial meddling on the highest order. That, my friends, is what causes films to fail. Not lack of computer animation: If anything, my observation has been that audiences really aren't "wowed" by CG anymore; a film still relies on its story and characters to be a true success. (Look at Lilo & Stitch and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within for two opposing examples to support my theory.)
Anyway. That off my chest, Finding Nemo was a terrific move ... even better and more heartfelt than I had expected it to be. As in all Pixar films, the voice casting and performance was wonderful -- a host of celebrities lending their talents, yet none of them overshadowing the story by their mere presence. Particularly stand-out was Ellen DeGeneres; I've always sorta liked her since her stand-up days, but her turn as Dory truly went above and beyond. Props also to Albert Brooks, Willem Dafoe, and everyone else.
The movie was preceded by a trailer for Disney's Brother Bear, which is looking good. Hopefully enough people will see the promo in the coming weeks and remember to go see it this fall, and perhaps prove management wrong about the death of traditional animation.
In fact ... with their emphasis on story, character, and artistic leadership, I'd love to see Pixar hire up a few out-of-work animators and produce their own traditional movie. That would show 'em ...
Posted at 09:07 PM Read More
Sat - May 24, 2003
"Bruce Almighty" review
A few weeks ago, even on just a casual perusal of
some message boards online I already saw the rumblings of some self-righteous
people commenting on the trailers for
Bruce
Almighty. "Morgan Freeman as a humerous God?
Unthinkable." "Jim Carrey having God's powers? Blasphemous." "I, for one, will
NOT be seeing this movie." You know, that sort of
stuff.
It's a shame really, because they're mising a good movie. And some of them could probably benefit from some of its messages, too.
Generally, I take Jim Carrey on a film-by-film basis. Loved Liar Liar and Man on the Moon. Didn't care for The Cable Guy, and even The Truman Show left me a little cold. This was definitely a good Jim Carrey movie; there's a goodly sprinkling of his wacky humor (the Parting of the Tomato Soup scene particularly made me laugh with it's over-the-top handling), but there were enough thoughtful and sober moments to give the movie its substance, and Carrey's character just rode that line of remaining believable.
Morgan Freeman, of course, was good ... You could give him the label off a packet of crackers to read and he'd make something memorable out of it. And I always love Jennifer Aniston. She's cute and she's perky, and in this movie she really knows how to cry emotionally. Boy oh boy. Phew.
The moral and religious message to the film was nicely stated, not overplayed, and kept from slipping into brow-beating and hellfire or too much philosophical dogma. It also had some interesting comments on the nature of Free Will, and our responsibility to make the most of the talents we're given. In all, as I left the theater, I found myself thinking this film was really an Oh God! for the new millenium, presenting the simplest and most practicable tenet I've seen proposed by Christianity: Love God, and love each other. Everything else will fall into place.
It's a shame really, because they're mising a good movie. And some of them could probably benefit from some of its messages, too.
Generally, I take Jim Carrey on a film-by-film basis. Loved Liar Liar and Man on the Moon. Didn't care for The Cable Guy, and even The Truman Show left me a little cold. This was definitely a good Jim Carrey movie; there's a goodly sprinkling of his wacky humor (the Parting of the Tomato Soup scene particularly made me laugh with it's over-the-top handling), but there were enough thoughtful and sober moments to give the movie its substance, and Carrey's character just rode that line of remaining believable.
Morgan Freeman, of course, was good ... You could give him the label off a packet of crackers to read and he'd make something memorable out of it. And I always love Jennifer Aniston. She's cute and she's perky, and in this movie she really knows how to cry emotionally. Boy oh boy. Phew.
The moral and religious message to the film was nicely stated, not overplayed, and kept from slipping into brow-beating and hellfire or too much philosophical dogma. It also had some interesting comments on the nature of Free Will, and our responsibility to make the most of the talents we're given. In all, as I left the theater, I found myself thinking this film was really an Oh God! for the new millenium, presenting the simplest and most practicable tenet I've seen proposed by Christianity: Love God, and love each other. Everything else will fall into place.
Posted at 09:04 PM Read More
Fri - May 16, 2003
"Matrix Reloaded" review
Let me start off by saying, don't let my opinions
on this movie keep you from seeing
Matrix
Reloaded, or prevent you from enjoying it. In
fact, odds are that if you care enough about seeing this sequel to be even
looking at my review seriously, you're probably intent on seeing it, and will
probably enjoy it immensely. As a film meant to give fans of the original
blockbuster
Matrix
more of what they see, it's definitely worth going to
see.
In fact, I can honestly say I did enjoy this movie. It really turned out to be a lot better than I was expecting it to be.
Of course, my expectations were incredibly low. And since I am admittedly a harsh critic of movies at times, I can say that even as I was enjoying the film, there were elements that just disappointed me on some level. For example:
Keanu's acting. I'm sorry, but it's not there. In the first film, his blank, confused demeanor fit the character of a young man thrown into circumstances he could hardly comprehend. This time around, he just came off as mechanical and inhuman, much like the machines he is fighting. Even Laurence Fishburne comes across as alternately too evangelical or too bland (whatever happened to the actor we saw in Searching for Bobby Fischer?) The net result was that there was little emotional connection (in spite of a few juicy, R-rated sex scenes) and when the risk of a character's death is imminent, it becomes difficult to care.
Special effects redux. Linking together a few strands of the storyline were lengthy, over-the-top special effects shots, which is fine, since that is really what everyone was expecting from this movie. However, I found that while the effects were both more and bigger, apart from a few scenes Agent Smith to the Nth power, there was nothing really new since the last film. And yes ... we know by now that you have the use of Bullet Time. It's at least as overused and gratuitous-looking now as it was in 1999. It really doesn't add anything to have it randomly scattered through each fight sequence every twenty second or so.
Intrusive editing. I don't care for visual or editorial techniques that distract you from the story without a purpose in mind, and remind you that you're watching a movie. For example: There is a scene late in the film where they keep cutting back and forth between a group of people planning what they are going to do, and the same group of people (split into three different groups) doing what they'd planned a few hours later. Now, I don't have a problem with non-linear editing in principle; Memento was one of my favorite films of the past few years. But the editing there served a storytelling purpose; here it was merely confusing, and felt more like the producers were worried the audience would get bored sitting through three minutes of exposition before another action scene began. Which may be the case, but I would have much preferred a shorter set-up of the expositions scene, then lead into voice-over on top of actual scenes of their actions, rather than visually cutting back and forth.
Indulgent editing. People want more of a good thing, but sometimes more is too much. An early shot of two characters falling off a building in Bullet-Time stretches infinitely. A sequence of erotic dancing and revelry among the citizens of Zion may have effectively showed their primal human nature, but I found myself getting bored as it stretched into more and more minutes of screentime. And the freeway chase was an excellent piece of work -- definitely a highlight of the film -- but at 17 minutes long (if I've read correctly), there's really only so many times I need to see Morpheus almost-but-not-quite fall off the edge of a moving semi before I get the hint that he's doing something perilous.
I'd mentioned in my review of X-Men 2 that there are (usually) two kinds of non-serial sequels: Those that repeat the statement of the previous movie, or those that contradict it. I'm really somewhat torn on this issue with the Matrix Reloaded. On the one hand, I see it as the second type of sequel: The Matrix ended very clearly, the Machines evil, the humans good, and Neo now has the power to unravel everything the Machines have going for them. At the beginning of this film, other than having lots of followers and being able to fly, he doesn't seem to be nearly as enlightened as he had been.
On the other hand, it was interesting to see how they decided to unfold and develop this world: The Matrix may not be quite as controlled and ironclad an environment as the Machines would like to believe; there are individual programs lurking around, some antiquated, some gone rogue, and it's difficult to tell where some of their loyalties lie. And on that level, I did enjoy the movie, even if it was a bit more muffled and filled with philosophical mumbo-jumbo than it perhaps should have been.
And yes, many of my complaints are very quibbling, or very high-brow, or perhaps overly analytical and critical. This really is a popcorn movie for the summer season, something with special effects and wire stunts and car chases and explosions to keep people thrilled on the edge of their seat. And in that respect, the movie will certainly deliver to the majority of its audience, and there shall be much happiness in the streets outside the theater after the movie is over.
So have fun!
In fact, I can honestly say I did enjoy this movie. It really turned out to be a lot better than I was expecting it to be.
Of course, my expectations were incredibly low. And since I am admittedly a harsh critic of movies at times, I can say that even as I was enjoying the film, there were elements that just disappointed me on some level. For example:
Keanu's acting. I'm sorry, but it's not there. In the first film, his blank, confused demeanor fit the character of a young man thrown into circumstances he could hardly comprehend. This time around, he just came off as mechanical and inhuman, much like the machines he is fighting. Even Laurence Fishburne comes across as alternately too evangelical or too bland (whatever happened to the actor we saw in Searching for Bobby Fischer?) The net result was that there was little emotional connection (in spite of a few juicy, R-rated sex scenes) and when the risk of a character's death is imminent, it becomes difficult to care.
Special effects redux. Linking together a few strands of the storyline were lengthy, over-the-top special effects shots, which is fine, since that is really what everyone was expecting from this movie. However, I found that while the effects were both more and bigger, apart from a few scenes Agent Smith to the Nth power, there was nothing really new since the last film. And yes ... we know by now that you have the use of Bullet Time. It's at least as overused and gratuitous-looking now as it was in 1999. It really doesn't add anything to have it randomly scattered through each fight sequence every twenty second or so.
Intrusive editing. I don't care for visual or editorial techniques that distract you from the story without a purpose in mind, and remind you that you're watching a movie. For example: There is a scene late in the film where they keep cutting back and forth between a group of people planning what they are going to do, and the same group of people (split into three different groups) doing what they'd planned a few hours later. Now, I don't have a problem with non-linear editing in principle; Memento was one of my favorite films of the past few years. But the editing there served a storytelling purpose; here it was merely confusing, and felt more like the producers were worried the audience would get bored sitting through three minutes of exposition before another action scene began. Which may be the case, but I would have much preferred a shorter set-up of the expositions scene, then lead into voice-over on top of actual scenes of their actions, rather than visually cutting back and forth.
Indulgent editing. People want more of a good thing, but sometimes more is too much. An early shot of two characters falling off a building in Bullet-Time stretches infinitely. A sequence of erotic dancing and revelry among the citizens of Zion may have effectively showed their primal human nature, but I found myself getting bored as it stretched into more and more minutes of screentime. And the freeway chase was an excellent piece of work -- definitely a highlight of the film -- but at 17 minutes long (if I've read correctly), there's really only so many times I need to see Morpheus almost-but-not-quite fall off the edge of a moving semi before I get the hint that he's doing something perilous.
I'd mentioned in my review of X-Men 2 that there are (usually) two kinds of non-serial sequels: Those that repeat the statement of the previous movie, or those that contradict it. I'm really somewhat torn on this issue with the Matrix Reloaded. On the one hand, I see it as the second type of sequel: The Matrix ended very clearly, the Machines evil, the humans good, and Neo now has the power to unravel everything the Machines have going for them. At the beginning of this film, other than having lots of followers and being able to fly, he doesn't seem to be nearly as enlightened as he had been.
On the other hand, it was interesting to see how they decided to unfold and develop this world: The Matrix may not be quite as controlled and ironclad an environment as the Machines would like to believe; there are individual programs lurking around, some antiquated, some gone rogue, and it's difficult to tell where some of their loyalties lie. And on that level, I did enjoy the movie, even if it was a bit more muffled and filled with philosophical mumbo-jumbo than it perhaps should have been.
And yes, many of my complaints are very quibbling, or very high-brow, or perhaps overly analytical and critical. This really is a popcorn movie for the summer season, something with special effects and wire stunts and car chases and explosions to keep people thrilled on the edge of their seat. And in that respect, the movie will certainly deliver to the majority of its audience, and there shall be much happiness in the streets outside the theater after the movie is over.
So have fun!
Posted at 09:03 PM Read More
Mon - May 5, 2003
"X-Men 2" review
This was one of the few big blockbuster movies of
the summer I was actively looking forward to. After a false start on Friday
night, I finally got to see the second
X-Men
movie on Sunday afternoon. And I must say, I wasn't
disappointed.
I've noticed a lot of people have been making comments about the second movie being better than the first, or the second being not quite as good as the first. I really don't see it that way at all; I see the two films as episodes in a story, both equal and incomparable to each other. I generally don't care much for sequels in principle; a good movie makes a statement, and most clumsy attempts at sequel either merely repeat that statement, or contradict it. In the first case, the sequel comes across hollow; in the second case, annoying.
There are a few exceptions to my 'sequel rule,' though, and the X-Men movies appear to have neatly placed themselves in one of them: what I would call a franchise. I don't mean this in the general studio sense of any title or property that can be exploited with multiple media and merchandising by the owners. I mean a kind of story that, by its very nature, implies a depth that needs to be explored over as much time as is available. For example: When the prince breaks the curse and kisses the princess, the story is over: the point has been made, the conflict resolved. Similarly, when the rebel force defeats the evil empire's army ... when the earth defeats and chases off the alien force ... when the murderer is captured and killed or thrown in prison ... From a storytelling standpoint, that's the end.
But with a few kinds of stories, there is an implication that the story needs to continue. When James Bond captures the bad guy, you know that his next assignment coming up is going to be just as dangerous and world-shattering. Harry Potter, while not an endless story, will have quite a few more years of school to contend with and resolve some of the mysteries in his life. And in X-Men, we have this fantastic and worldly premise: Ongoing tension between two groups of people, mutants and non-mutants ... and a nearly endless wealth of potentially well-motivated characters begging to be developed and explored. There is no one witch who can be killed when her spell is broken; no one empire that needs to be toppled so the noble rebels can begin their golden age. Discrimination is ongoing, and even though the X-Men may stop Magneto or General Stryker, their ongoing job seems never to be finished.
Anyway. Suffice to say, as long as the writing stays good and the characters continue to develop, I have no problem with as many X-Men sequels as Bryan Singer cares to make.
A few side notes: The casting and acting are great. I love the way Rogue's character is shaping up; unsure of herself, still very vulnerable, yet able to recognize the right thing to do and find the strength to do it. I also like Mystique: A character and actress who so easily could have been relegated to being an eye-candy henchman, she shows both great motivation and great intelligence, well worthy of being Magneto's right-hand woman.
Something else I really like is the way secondary characters keep popping up in short but prominant roles: Kitty Pryde, Colossus, Syren, Jubilee, and so on. Of course, this is important for fans of the original comics to recognize and point out their favorite characters. But more importantly, I think it really helps to fill out the universe the story takes place in. Instead of a team of five or six characters who seem to do everything and always save the day, we have a real world here with people coming into and out of the picture, helping as they can.
So, in short, yes, I was very happy with this film, and look forward to the next chapter.
I just hope Beast enters into the story soon, with something more than a quick mention on a television commentary in the background!
I've noticed a lot of people have been making comments about the second movie being better than the first, or the second being not quite as good as the first. I really don't see it that way at all; I see the two films as episodes in a story, both equal and incomparable to each other. I generally don't care much for sequels in principle; a good movie makes a statement, and most clumsy attempts at sequel either merely repeat that statement, or contradict it. In the first case, the sequel comes across hollow; in the second case, annoying.
There are a few exceptions to my 'sequel rule,' though, and the X-Men movies appear to have neatly placed themselves in one of them: what I would call a franchise. I don't mean this in the general studio sense of any title or property that can be exploited with multiple media and merchandising by the owners. I mean a kind of story that, by its very nature, implies a depth that needs to be explored over as much time as is available. For example: When the prince breaks the curse and kisses the princess, the story is over: the point has been made, the conflict resolved. Similarly, when the rebel force defeats the evil empire's army ... when the earth defeats and chases off the alien force ... when the murderer is captured and killed or thrown in prison ... From a storytelling standpoint, that's the end.
But with a few kinds of stories, there is an implication that the story needs to continue. When James Bond captures the bad guy, you know that his next assignment coming up is going to be just as dangerous and world-shattering. Harry Potter, while not an endless story, will have quite a few more years of school to contend with and resolve some of the mysteries in his life. And in X-Men, we have this fantastic and worldly premise: Ongoing tension between two groups of people, mutants and non-mutants ... and a nearly endless wealth of potentially well-motivated characters begging to be developed and explored. There is no one witch who can be killed when her spell is broken; no one empire that needs to be toppled so the noble rebels can begin their golden age. Discrimination is ongoing, and even though the X-Men may stop Magneto or General Stryker, their ongoing job seems never to be finished.
Anyway. Suffice to say, as long as the writing stays good and the characters continue to develop, I have no problem with as many X-Men sequels as Bryan Singer cares to make.
A few side notes: The casting and acting are great. I love the way Rogue's character is shaping up; unsure of herself, still very vulnerable, yet able to recognize the right thing to do and find the strength to do it. I also like Mystique: A character and actress who so easily could have been relegated to being an eye-candy henchman, she shows both great motivation and great intelligence, well worthy of being Magneto's right-hand woman.
Something else I really like is the way secondary characters keep popping up in short but prominant roles: Kitty Pryde, Colossus, Syren, Jubilee, and so on. Of course, this is important for fans of the original comics to recognize and point out their favorite characters. But more importantly, I think it really helps to fill out the universe the story takes place in. Instead of a team of five or six characters who seem to do everything and always save the day, we have a real world here with people coming into and out of the picture, helping as they can.
So, in short, yes, I was very happy with this film, and look forward to the next chapter.
I just hope Beast enters into the story soon, with something more than a quick mention on a television commentary in the background!
Posted at 08:59 PM Read More
Tue - April 8, 2003
"Chicago" Review
It's been a busy couple of months, with a lot of
freelance and commission work keeping me on my toes. But last week I had a guest
in town and managed to steal away a few days of relaxation, and caught up on a
few movies I've been meaning to see, including
Chicago.
Now I'd wanted to see this one since before it won any Academy awards; even before everyone started saying how good it was, I'd been intrigued by the suite of movie posters hanging in the local AMC several months ago. And as it turns out, I wasn't disappointed.
The music was terrific ... I bought the soundtrack the afternoon after I saw it. The visuals and the dance numbers were great. The casting was wonderful. (Despite some complaints I've heard, I think Catherine Zeta-Jones and Renee Zellweger were terrifically cast and performed admirably. Queen Latifah and John C. Reilly were great, and even Richard Gere -- whom I usually don't care for -- was charming and entertaining.) The theme about corruption in both show biz and the media was relevant and darkly amusing. And the sheer energy the film presented to the audience was a joy to watch.
But I'm sure you've heard all that before!
I often enjoy films that have some slight quirk to them, an unorthodox way of handling the narrative or the visuals. I also ride a fine line when it comes to musicals as a genre: There are good musicals out there, but to make them work in a film is tremendously tricky. I felt Chicago succeeded on both these counts: The device of having part of the movie filmed in a traditional narrative way, but in parallel with musical numbers which seemed to go on only in Renee's character's mind, worked very well in my opinion. Plus, the editing between the two wasn't so avant garde that it made it difficult for mainstream viewers to follow and understand: Double-plus-good!
Anyway, long story short: I enjoyed it, and I recommend it. Well, unless you absolutely hate musicals.
Now I'd wanted to see this one since before it won any Academy awards; even before everyone started saying how good it was, I'd been intrigued by the suite of movie posters hanging in the local AMC several months ago. And as it turns out, I wasn't disappointed.
The music was terrific ... I bought the soundtrack the afternoon after I saw it. The visuals and the dance numbers were great. The casting was wonderful. (Despite some complaints I've heard, I think Catherine Zeta-Jones and Renee Zellweger were terrifically cast and performed admirably. Queen Latifah and John C. Reilly were great, and even Richard Gere -- whom I usually don't care for -- was charming and entertaining.) The theme about corruption in both show biz and the media was relevant and darkly amusing. And the sheer energy the film presented to the audience was a joy to watch.
But I'm sure you've heard all that before!
I often enjoy films that have some slight quirk to them, an unorthodox way of handling the narrative or the visuals. I also ride a fine line when it comes to musicals as a genre: There are good musicals out there, but to make them work in a film is tremendously tricky. I felt Chicago succeeded on both these counts: The device of having part of the movie filmed in a traditional narrative way, but in parallel with musical numbers which seemed to go on only in Renee's character's mind, worked very well in my opinion. Plus, the editing between the two wasn't so avant garde that it made it difficult for mainstream viewers to follow and understand: Double-plus-good!
Anyway, long story short: I enjoyed it, and I recommend it. Well, unless you absolutely hate musicals.
Posted at 08:56 PM Read More