The first time I saw this movie in the fall, I didn’t really know what to expect. But, a movie that casts two actors whose breakout roles are both comic book characters, but isn’t actually a comic book movie, has GOT to be interesting. The fact that David Bowie was also on the marquee helped a bit as well. Seriously.
The movie is good. It follows a pair of magicians who keep trying to top one another, as the stakes increase all the way to life and death. The movie weaves several story threads between time frames to increase the confusion but to logically control the intensity and eventual climax of the movie. The movie is also extremely twisted, especially by the end. And I still find myself unsure of which magician was the protagonist, but perhaps there doesn’t need to be one…
A splendid cast lends this movie some credibility, as well as some insights into the world of illusion.
Note: this movie is not to be confused with The Illusionist, which was in theaters at nearly the same time and shared many of the same plot elements. I also saw that movie recently, but forgot to review it. Ed Norton was pretty good, as usual, and I really have nothing bad to say about the movie.
The title is a syntactical disaster, and the second you leave the theater you feel guilty for watching it, but I’ll be damned if I wasn’t laughing my ass off almost the entire length of the movie.
I can’t believe they blew up a beached whale.
I first read Perfume, a somewhat obscure book, in college. It was an odd story full of rich detail and containing ridiculous ending that reminds me now of a Nikoli Gogol story. I never really imagined that it would become a movie. Neither did many that read it, as nearly every review I’ve seen of it has mentioned its previous status as “one of the most unfilmable books ever written.” I was encouraged and excited when I saw previews for it, however.
The movie uses rapid cuts, vivid details, narration that reminds a bit of the whimsical nature of Amélie. As best as I can remember, the movie stays true to the book and, on a more selfish note, finally establishes the correct pronunciation of the main characters name, Grenouille (Grin-wii). The beginning of the movie starts with a montage of a Parisian fish market- vile scenes that do more than hint at what it might smell like. Contrastingly, the penultimate scene of the movie (I don’t want to spoil it for you) is so… delectable you almost wish you were there (or maybe not if it that isn’t your sort of thing).
If you get the opportunity to watch this movie or read the book, please do.
Spike Lee’s joint is as fun to watch again as it was the first time. Where Ocean’s 11 and 12 are classy, clever, and fun, this movie is classy, clever and poignant. Clive Owen continues to impress, and the dialog throughout the movie is thought provoking, as long as you are paying attention and not getting distracted by the whole bank robbery thing. The film ends up taking an interesting position: while it is true that “all evil deeds stink,” it is also true that the evil deeds aren’t always done by the ones that make the news, but also by those who facilitate.
In spite of the ultra violence, Sin City is one of the most well-crafted, and perfectly executed movies I have ever seen. Flipping through the pages of Frank Miller’s graphic novels reveals how painstakingly their frames were translated into shots in the movie. The characters -acted well by Clive Owen, Bruce Willis, Micky Rourke, amongst many others- give the stories a life and character all their own, however, and the movie stands as a stunning example of what digital movie making can be all about.
I can’t wait for 300
I hope I don’t make this a habit, but I am going quickly recap the movies I’ve seen since January 2nd.
Pitch Black and The Chronicles of Riddick
Vin Disel is not only tough, but he is a fun actor to watch. Pitch Black makes a very interesting use of color, which I think gets overlooked because most people see it as a strictly sci-fi action movie, but the color affects the mood of the movie and the performances are underrated. The series continues to get overlooked in Chronicles, but it is such a wonderfully crafted movie- great characters, cool effects, imaginative settings- wrapped with an interesting story.
A classic 80s movie. Classic.
The Mummy and The Mummy Returns
Chunky, hilarious, fun. And perhaps a commentary on violence?
Hero
This movie is simply gorgeous. Clearly, a lot of time went into crafting a movie that was not only visually appealing, but that visually reflected the complexity and subtlety of the story it tells. A few events serve as plot anchors around which different angles of the story rotate- with each angle having a different color associated with it. It ends up being quite difficult to get to the truth of any single part of the story, but you struggle along with Nameless and the King of Qin as the story unfolds. At the end of it all, you are not quite sure of what really happens, which may serve as commentary on historic events in general.
Or maybe the movie just looks pretty.
There is a lot to be said about the original Die Hard, but this one remains my favorite out of the trilogy (though, I almost like Live Free or Die Hard the most just on principle). The cast is better, the acting is better, the plot is better, the execution is better, and it breaks out of the “locked-in” scope of 1 and 2 while keeping the same Die Hard feel.
Here’s the thing, though. This is an interesting movie to watch post-9/11. After the first two bombs go off and the heist actually begins, I am thinking to myself, “there is no way they would let anyone off the island,” but the day continues on as if hardly anything was happening. In fact, there is a scene where people are eating popcorn while overlooking the rubble of the second explosion. We really were that ignorant, weren’t we?
After reading nothing but good reviews about this movie, I had a suspicion that I might end up being slightly disappointed- even The New Yorker had good things to say about it. I was prepared to see a visually stunning movie with a suspect plot carried by Clive Owen. What I got was an upsetting look at how off-base humanity has become made all the more upsetting by a believable set of actors and shot in a style that subtly and inexorably locks you in to watching.
I need to see it again to speak more about it.
What is there to say about an eighty-minute movie that doesn’t give a damn about feasibility and simply wants to rock your socks from start to finish? Aside from it succeeding in those ways and looking good while doing it, not much.
There are so many reasons why I enjoy this movie. First of all, it is a lot of fun to watch. Alex Proyas‘ work is really interesting and this is no exception. He mixes CG with live action very well and it allowed him to free up the camera quite a bit to make the movie visually interesting. He also uses color in a subtle way to control the mood of the film. Second, I can’t really say enough about Will Smith as an actor. He delivers varied and professional performances, brings with him an emotional depth that a lot of actors just can’t pull off, and can kick some ass without seeming out of place. That’s a trifecta (think about Chris Tucker). Third, the geek factor. The Geek is Strong with this one, but it isn’t over-bearing, which would make it inaccessible. Rather, Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics are presented in a way that people can grasp and immediately process and put into context. Fantastic.
I also watched Brick a couple of times since last reviewing it… such a cool movie.
I very clearly remember the first time I watched this movie. I was in Lawrence, KS and was extremely excited becasue I liked The Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore so much. Though, I still didn’t really know what to expect from it. What happened is I watched the movie and giggled, along with my viewing partner (who, incidentally, probably doesn’t even remember watching the movie), for the duration (except for the one really sad scene). Overall, the movie is not outrageously funny, but there are little things in nearly every scene that, well, make me giggle. Still.
Perhaps the best example of this is Cody. Cody is a three legged dog who belongs to the Philippine pirates, and whose real name likely is not Cody. Another example would be Pelé, who serves as half of the sound track by doing David Bowie songs in Portuguese. Zissou himself is funny, and he is surrounded by a cast of ridiculous characters, likely headed by Klaus whose effectiveness is heavily attributed to the fact that this intensely goofy character is acted by Willem Dafoe- Gill was more intense.
Some people don’t like Wes Anderson’s style, but We approve.
One of the reasons that I re-watch movies I’ve already seen is because rarely is the experience the same from viewing to viewing. People tend to change a lot, and their perceptions are no exception. It is with this in mind, that I became suddenly determined to see this movie again- a holdout from a time in my life where I stubbornly excluded and dismissed many things- after a friend of mine mentioned they had seen it. Something in my brain fired and put me on a crash course with Amélie of Montmarte.
This movie is well-crafted, witty, beautiful, and irresistible. I identify not only with the movie, but also directly with Amélie, and I feel as though I understand her motives and actions more than I ever could dream of when I first viewed the movie. Audrey Tautou’s character has, for her entire life, been figuring things out on her own- including how to live. She follows her natural impulses even if it happens to be askew from the norm, and she is quite happy with that- in fact, the only times she is unhappy in the movie is when she slips back into the norm of things.
The movie is often seemingly tangential, but subtle in the way it drives the plot and ties things together. It is also one of the few examples of French Film that I enjoy (see: Luc Besson and District B-13). If you haven’t seen it, see it. If you have seen it, see it again.
Yet another formative movie from my childhood, and like Explorers, this movie manages to bring some interesting questions to the table. For instance, what does it mean to be alive? Seemingly, for Number Five, all it took was knowledge that he could die and the willingness to keep himself alive. That, and a sense of humor, which is to say, I think he would have passed the Turing Test. The movie serves as a sort of precursor to I, Robot (in terms of academics) and Stealth (in terms of plot), though I think that the former does a better job with the material, and the latter is too concerned with the cool factor that it can’t be bothered to satisfactorily deal with the moral implications.
Wow. I just critically analyzed Short Circuit and directly referenced the Turing Test… such. a. nerd.
Explorers is a movie I remember fondly from my childhood. It is for me, at once, sentimental, formative, and extremely 80s. Plus, you know, Ethan Hawke and River Pheonix… when they were 15. The movie is about dreams, exploration, and friendships, but it is a reflection of a time that seems to be gone. Boys were boys, they dreamed, they settled things by yelling, they stole bottles of beer from their dad’s fridge and consumed with prejudice. It also manages to talk about the negative impact of television, violence, and has a cute little love story built in.
Ahh… to be a child in the 80s; or just to be a child.
“If this is all a dream, what happens when we wake up?”
“I don’t know, but I can’t wait to find out…”
