Against all my instincts and better judgment, I finally caved in and went to see the bad boy of religious thriller adaptations. Expectations were about as low as expectations can get, but holy shit- The flick still fell well beneath them. Pretentious, dull, stupid and contrived, it doesn’t even do right by the conspiracy theories that it plunders shamelessly to use in its unimaginative pastiche.
Tom Hanks stars as a scholar specializing in symbols who gets caught up in the titular code, a series of puzzles and plot contrivances that point to forbidden knowledge that theoretically could shake the foundations of organized religion. Soon he’s running for his life with a cop, (the beautiful Audrey Tatou) dodging a deranged killer albino monk (no, it’s not as good as it sounds) and a driven French police chief. Shadowy plots, unbelievable coincidences and ludicrous plot twists- plausibility is lost without a trace close to the beginning, and never even threatens with a comeback.
At least it solves the age old problem of translating an exposition-heavy book to the big screen. You have people talk about what’s happening at the slightest chance! All the time! You cut that with stupid action sequences, and then start again. (To be honest, I think that’s an inherited problem with the book, but since I haven’t read it I won’t go into that). Still, you’d think that the director of the beautifully brutal, laconic The Missing would have known that it was a bad idea. There are no characters, only exposition pieces- events don’t happen because they make sense, they serve to propel the characters to the next shitty revelation so that they can then narrate it in excruciating detail. This comes to a head in a hilariously ridiculous bad guy monologue that would put any Bond Villain to shame.
The film also shows off at every chance an undeservedly (and unnecessarily) high budget; in an attempt to make all the exposition more palatable to the audience it obviously considers only marginally more cogent than slugs, every exposition piece inevitably turns into a CGI bonanza.
All for what? Is the final revelation worth it all? Was Jesus gay? What the fuck is it that has the whole religious community in an uproar?
The revelation, when it comes, is underwhelming- least of all because if you know anything about conspiracy theories, you already know all about it (and probably more than Dan Brown). But beyond that, it’s just a different shade the official story, superstitious as the original. Not even a gesture at challenging the status quo (at least, not a significant effort by this century’s standards). Enough to get idiots who actually believe in the sanctity of these fairy tales all riled up, but frankly, it’s not even worth spoiling.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Friday, May 26, 2006
Coffee and cigarettes
A collection of shorts shot over a long period of time, Jim Jarmusch's Coffee and cigarettes explores how different people interact in any social situation where, well, coffee and cigarettes are the centerpiece of the table.
It's terribly uneven, as it might be expected; sometimes the acting is atrocious, some of the dialogs feel forced (all risks of heavy improvisation), and by the middle of the movie one's tempted to fast forward a chapter or two. But most of the shorts are at least worth watching, and all but a couple ring uncomfortably true. There are at least half a dozen absolutely brilliant segments to be found.
The way uncomfortable situations are portrayed is excellent- both funny and chilling; Iggy Pop and Tom Waits meet up, expecting to find common ground in the fact that they're both rock icons (they don't, sort of); Two friends find there might be a bit more distance than they suspected between them in the excellent "No Problem"; Steve Coogan and Alfred Molina, in possibly the best short, overturn each other's expectations. Kate Blanchett plays herself and her cousin, in which recriminations are half-uttered and go unresolved in a very realistic way. There are also some fun, silly bits- the White Stripes test a Tesla coil, Steven Wright and Roberto Benigni exchange a dentist appointment, and two members of the Wu-Tang Clan run into Bill Murray disguised as a waiter. By last third of the film, patterns have begun to emerge; snatches of conversation are repeated, and concepts are rehashed. There's no revelation, no eureka moment, but by the time two weary old men try to stretch out a smoke break and one of them begins finding something important in idle conversation, the emotional impact is deep and undeniable.
Far from flawless, Coffee and Cigarettes is still an extremely rewarding movie from one of the better directors out there.
It's terribly uneven, as it might be expected; sometimes the acting is atrocious, some of the dialogs feel forced (all risks of heavy improvisation), and by the middle of the movie one's tempted to fast forward a chapter or two. But most of the shorts are at least worth watching, and all but a couple ring uncomfortably true. There are at least half a dozen absolutely brilliant segments to be found.
The way uncomfortable situations are portrayed is excellent- both funny and chilling; Iggy Pop and Tom Waits meet up, expecting to find common ground in the fact that they're both rock icons (they don't, sort of); Two friends find there might be a bit more distance than they suspected between them in the excellent "No Problem"; Steve Coogan and Alfred Molina, in possibly the best short, overturn each other's expectations. Kate Blanchett plays herself and her cousin, in which recriminations are half-uttered and go unresolved in a very realistic way. There are also some fun, silly bits- the White Stripes test a Tesla coil, Steven Wright and Roberto Benigni exchange a dentist appointment, and two members of the Wu-Tang Clan run into Bill Murray disguised as a waiter. By last third of the film, patterns have begun to emerge; snatches of conversation are repeated, and concepts are rehashed. There's no revelation, no eureka moment, but by the time two weary old men try to stretch out a smoke break and one of them begins finding something important in idle conversation, the emotional impact is deep and undeniable.
Far from flawless, Coffee and Cigarettes is still an extremely rewarding movie from one of the better directors out there.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Gozu
If there's one thing you can count on Takashi Miike to do, it's to provide truly bizarre filmmaking. He's outdone himself with Gozu, though.
After increasingly erratic behavior (which includes a hilarious attack on a Pomeranian dog, whom he insists is really a yakuza-eating pooch), Yakuza goon Ozaki proves to be too much of a liability for his organization. The boss orders Minami, another goon who happens to be best friends with Ozaki, to take him to the city of Nagoya to be disposed of. After some comic mishaps along the way, Ozaki is accidentally killed and his body goes missing; Thus poor minami is left to search the city of Nagoya, which looks like a mixture between an abandoned strip mall and a giant truckstop (with a scrapyard thrown in to add some color). Things get weirder from there; from hyper-lactating inn keepers to soup ladles stuck in unlikely places to shitting ghosts (I kid you not... That scene is one of the funniest I've seen in ages), the bizarre factor just increases until the final, unforgettable twenty minutes or so- which are a prime example of both Miike's fondness for stretching an uncomfortable scene to almost unbearable extremes and his knack for nailing shots that are impressive both in concept and execution.
There is a lot of David Lynch in the plot, and a bit more of David Cronemberg at his most carnal (although neither of them have ever been even remotely as weird or explicit as this). The pacing is a bit slack here and there, and while a theme gradually emerges, it never even remotely makes sense. Which is just as good, as it doesn't really need to (and I suppose it was never intended to, either). Overlong at more than two hours, it's still thought provoking, engaging and a damn hoot as well.
After increasingly erratic behavior (which includes a hilarious attack on a Pomeranian dog, whom he insists is really a yakuza-eating pooch), Yakuza goon Ozaki proves to be too much of a liability for his organization. The boss orders Minami, another goon who happens to be best friends with Ozaki, to take him to the city of Nagoya to be disposed of. After some comic mishaps along the way, Ozaki is accidentally killed and his body goes missing; Thus poor minami is left to search the city of Nagoya, which looks like a mixture between an abandoned strip mall and a giant truckstop (with a scrapyard thrown in to add some color). Things get weirder from there; from hyper-lactating inn keepers to soup ladles stuck in unlikely places to shitting ghosts (I kid you not... That scene is one of the funniest I've seen in ages), the bizarre factor just increases until the final, unforgettable twenty minutes or so- which are a prime example of both Miike's fondness for stretching an uncomfortable scene to almost unbearable extremes and his knack for nailing shots that are impressive both in concept and execution.
There is a lot of David Lynch in the plot, and a bit more of David Cronemberg at his most carnal (although neither of them have ever been even remotely as weird or explicit as this). The pacing is a bit slack here and there, and while a theme gradually emerges, it never even remotely makes sense. Which is just as good, as it doesn't really need to (and I suppose it was never intended to, either). Overlong at more than two hours, it's still thought provoking, engaging and a damn hoot as well.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Blade Trinity
Note from future me:
Welp, another one to the bin. I still think Blade 3 fucking reeks, but man did I ever get angry about stuff back then. I'd leave it up if the jokes were funny as well as tasteless, but... they aren't.
Welp, another one to the bin. I still think Blade 3 fucking reeks, but man did I ever get angry about stuff back then. I'd leave it up if the jokes were funny as well as tasteless, but... they aren't.
Here's the final paragraph, only to show that I was ahead of the curve in hating David Goyer (who still sucks):
...At some point during this drivel, the Final Solution is revealed- turns out, it’s a Coma rip-off: racks and racks of human vegetables, from whom blood is harvested instead of organs. How is this a Final Solution? And how the fuck does this relate to Dracula? Well, your guess is as good as mine. And here’s my guess: it doesn’t, because David Goyer holds our intelligence in such contempt that he didn’t even bother writing a half-assed plot. I mean, for fuck’s sake! People often ask me why I get so worked up over shitty movies, but let me ask you this: this motherfucking bastard is shitting on us and laughing all the while, and all I'm supposed to do is open my mouth?
I would immediately join any religion that promised swift and painful death to these talentless hacks. And Goyer, you’re way fucking up in the list.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
V for Vendetta
That the Wachowski brothers have a strong political stance was clear from the Matrix- before it degenerated into cheap religious parable, there was a lot of mileage to be had from the deceptively shallow Gnostic premise.
But who would think they'd make a movie out of it? Ably transposing Alan Moore's classic outraged indictment of the tendencies of Thatcher's Britain to the current geopolitical climate, the film mostly follows young Evey (Natalie Portman) as she discovers just to what extent her society is fucked up. Helping her in that endeavor is a mysterious stranger wearing a Guy Fawkes mask who wages a personal war against the totalitarian government; Poor Evey is inexorably drawn into this gentleman's (known as V, whose voice is played with gusto by Hugo Weaving) conflict
Whether you'll like this movie or not first and foremost will hinge on whether you stand on either side of the republican/liberal divide. Make no mistake about it, this film is an outright attack on some of the conservative tendencies that have been gripping the US under Bush's regime. It works as a story, but the movie unsubtly, and rather heavy-handedly, pushes them to the fore at every possible opportunity. They're valid points, but earnestness doesn't always mesh with good storytelling.
So, does it work? well, surprisingly enough, it does. It helps that it's not an action flick, but rather a calm exploration of its themes, with emphasis on the characters' stories as V's war escalates and shakes the dystopia's foundations. The characters are mostly very likeable (especially Stephen Fry and Stephen Rea, both a pleasure to watch acting). And the central mysteries- Just who this guy V is, and how did things get to where they are- are compelling, if a bit underwhelming.
But... (there's always one of those, isn't there?) remember when I said it was heavy handed? Well, heavy handed it is. The film portrays V as using anarchist methods (and indeed does not implicitly approve or disapprove of them), but portrays him more as an enraged liberal. In fact, it idealizes him to a fault, while it demonizes everything and anything related to the bad guys. Couldn't some shades of grey be added in there? As always, audiences can't be trusted on to draw their own conclusions. There is no subtlety, and points are often hammered home when inference or an unbiased presentation of the facts would have been far more effective.
Not that V doesn't do morally reprehensible things during the movie, but the film's sympathies are too clearly with him; He never once shows a shred of weakness, not one negative trait. No real humanity... Until one unfortunate late scene where one of the worst cliches the movie could have comitted is gleefully perpetrated.
In fact, the movie promptly goes to hell as the final scenes start. Starting with its only extended action sequence (fun!) it promptly begins to smash everything it had carefully built up in the previous two hours. Taking a sharp turn towards the metaphorical, whereas the rest of the movie was very gritty and even had some nods to realism (Hollywood realism, at least), any complexity is dispelled; the resolution is facile and feels extremely cheap. Everything culminates in an unmasking scene that is idiotically juvenile, its cheap symbolism almost demagogic.
It'll please fourteen-year-olds in the audience to no end, I'm sure- but anyone else will probably find themselves feeling either disappointed... or insulted. A shame, to be sure; But the Wachowskies seem to have a penchant for ruining movies with supremely shitty endings.
But who would think they'd make a movie out of it? Ably transposing Alan Moore's classic outraged indictment of the tendencies of Thatcher's Britain to the current geopolitical climate, the film mostly follows young Evey (Natalie Portman) as she discovers just to what extent her society is fucked up. Helping her in that endeavor is a mysterious stranger wearing a Guy Fawkes mask who wages a personal war against the totalitarian government; Poor Evey is inexorably drawn into this gentleman's (known as V, whose voice is played with gusto by Hugo Weaving) conflict
Whether you'll like this movie or not first and foremost will hinge on whether you stand on either side of the republican/liberal divide. Make no mistake about it, this film is an outright attack on some of the conservative tendencies that have been gripping the US under Bush's regime. It works as a story, but the movie unsubtly, and rather heavy-handedly, pushes them to the fore at every possible opportunity. They're valid points, but earnestness doesn't always mesh with good storytelling.
So, does it work? well, surprisingly enough, it does. It helps that it's not an action flick, but rather a calm exploration of its themes, with emphasis on the characters' stories as V's war escalates and shakes the dystopia's foundations. The characters are mostly very likeable (especially Stephen Fry and Stephen Rea, both a pleasure to watch acting). And the central mysteries- Just who this guy V is, and how did things get to where they are- are compelling, if a bit underwhelming.
But... (there's always one of those, isn't there?) remember when I said it was heavy handed? Well, heavy handed it is. The film portrays V as using anarchist methods (and indeed does not implicitly approve or disapprove of them), but portrays him more as an enraged liberal. In fact, it idealizes him to a fault, while it demonizes everything and anything related to the bad guys. Couldn't some shades of grey be added in there? As always, audiences can't be trusted on to draw their own conclusions. There is no subtlety, and points are often hammered home when inference or an unbiased presentation of the facts would have been far more effective.
Not that V doesn't do morally reprehensible things during the movie, but the film's sympathies are too clearly with him; He never once shows a shred of weakness, not one negative trait. No real humanity... Until one unfortunate late scene where one of the worst cliches the movie could have comitted is gleefully perpetrated.
In fact, the movie promptly goes to hell as the final scenes start. Starting with its only extended action sequence (fun!) it promptly begins to smash everything it had carefully built up in the previous two hours. Taking a sharp turn towards the metaphorical, whereas the rest of the movie was very gritty and even had some nods to realism (Hollywood realism, at least), any complexity is dispelled; the resolution is facile and feels extremely cheap. Everything culminates in an unmasking scene that is idiotically juvenile, its cheap symbolism almost demagogic.
It'll please fourteen-year-olds in the audience to no end, I'm sure- but anyone else will probably find themselves feeling either disappointed... or insulted. A shame, to be sure; But the Wachowskies seem to have a penchant for ruining movies with supremely shitty endings.
The Legend of Zorro
What a godawful piece of shit. It's aimed straight at the kiddies, but even hating the little snotrags as much as I do I'd find myself incapable of inflicting this horrendous crap on them. If my uncommon attack of scruples doesn't scare you off, consider this: At one point, Zorro's little offspring uses the series' trademark kung-fu, swashbuckly style of gymnastics to put a dastardly professor in his place.
I'm still recovering from that one. At least the rugrat's acting is on the same level as the acting of Banderas and Zeta-Jones (and Rufus Sewell, who's been slumming since Dark City). Hmm, wait, that isn't a complement. At all. Ok, at least he doesn't look like he's had a botox overdose.
Not even trace amounts of originality, sense of fun, or any sort of effort can be found here. To call it derivative would be an insult to the original movie, which at the very least at least managed to be entertaining and witty.
I don't intend to go into the plot (lucky you), but let me rag on a bit to scare off anyone still willing to inflict this shit upon himself. Or rather, vent for a bit. There are several slapstick scenes that are completely out of place, inserting jarring visual gags (that fall completely flat) and aren't even followed up. Check it out, the horse is drinking! And now it's smoking! Best of all is the only moment where the movie winks knowingly at the adults enduring this crap for the children's sake- a scene where a recently divorced, drunken Banderas hammily asserts that "no one leaves his tequila worm dangling". Only in this movie that could pass off as a sly, witty double entendré.
I'm still recovering from that one. At least the rugrat's acting is on the same level as the acting of Banderas and Zeta-Jones (and Rufus Sewell, who's been slumming since Dark City). Hmm, wait, that isn't a complement. At all. Ok, at least he doesn't look like he's had a botox overdose.
Not even trace amounts of originality, sense of fun, or any sort of effort can be found here. To call it derivative would be an insult to the original movie, which at the very least at least managed to be entertaining and witty.
I don't intend to go into the plot (lucky you), but let me rag on a bit to scare off anyone still willing to inflict this shit upon himself. Or rather, vent for a bit. There are several slapstick scenes that are completely out of place, inserting jarring visual gags (that fall completely flat) and aren't even followed up. Check it out, the horse is drinking! And now it's smoking! Best of all is the only moment where the movie winks knowingly at the adults enduring this crap for the children's sake- a scene where a recently divorced, drunken Banderas hammily asserts that "no one leaves his tequila worm dangling". Only in this movie that could pass off as a sly, witty double entendré.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Silent Hill
When her daughter almost dies while on one of her frequent sleepwalking outings, Rose daSilva (Radha Mitchell) thinks of no better way to fix it than to take her to the haunted town Sharon, her adopted child, keeps mentioning in her nightmares. Oh, and she goes without even telling her husband, and also runs away from the cops without any reason at all. Bright girl, huh? you better get used to it, her common sense actually takes a dive as the movie goes on.
Soon enough Sharon dissappears in the ghost town that gives the movie its title. For the rest of the film Rose will search for her daughter in suitably spooky places, mostly with the help of the cop she ran away from earlier. But in order to find Sharon, she will need to solve the puzzle that the town itself poses.
To go into it any further would spoil what, surprisingly enough, is a fairly good plot. The script is not up to it, though, and the pacing suffers for it- there is an overlong exposition sequence in particular that not only overexplains everything you managed to work out yourself, but does it in such a way that will make your neurons commit seppuku en masse.
And that complaint, this maddening mix of good and crap, extends to cover all the other aspects of the movie. Take the visuals, for example.
The town of Silent Hill is spot on- a spooky ghost of a settlement with mist obscuring everything in white and a constant shower of ashes raining down. All the derelict interiors are also excellent- and when the Dark arrives and things get overtly supernatural, well- the effect is nothing short of breathtaking. The walls peel to reveal bizarre blood-colored rot patterns, floors become rusty grids of iron letting you catch a glimpse of hellish fires raging beneath. All's great, till the monsters show up. Usually loads of them, and they're a bit, uh, shit actually- I laughed out loud hard at some... let's try and describe one of them:
A zombie duck-like thing. Its torso is a mass of scarred tissue, except for a pulsating sphincter from which it projectile-defecates caustic diarrhea. Nothing even remotely scary. Might look like the critters in the game, but the movie would definitively be a lot better off without any of them- and the fact that they're overused doesn't help at all.
Most of the characters well defined and likeable, with some unexpected depth. There is a running subplot of Rose's husband (Sean Bean) trying to find her and running into a police officer that seems to be covering everything up; once some of the plot details become apparent, the reason for the cop's actions take on a different light- how often can you say that happens in a would be blockbuster? The female cop/sidekick is a bit two dimentional, but a strong character and likeable enough. Unfortunately we're stuck most of the time with Rose, and while she's also likeable, her only reason for existing is to move the plot forward- every fucking cliche misstep in the horror book? she'll do it happily, twice. Living proof that Darwin was wrong, wrong, wrong!
So the movie flip flops between rather good and utter crap very frequently, often within the same scene. Extremely frustrating, especially considering that the balance tends towards the shitty side of the spectrum. But then something happens- the climactic speech is laughable and didactic, but the final showdown that ensues is way cool, bloody and suitably apocalyptic (the henai reference made me chuckle). So far so good, time for the fake ending.
And when it arrives, like so many things in this movie, it comes completely out of the left field. A truly beautiful ending, understated and poignant- it easily, completely outclasses the rest of the movie, and even feels a bit undeserved. Stunning.
Soon enough Sharon dissappears in the ghost town that gives the movie its title. For the rest of the film Rose will search for her daughter in suitably spooky places, mostly with the help of the cop she ran away from earlier. But in order to find Sharon, she will need to solve the puzzle that the town itself poses.
To go into it any further would spoil what, surprisingly enough, is a fairly good plot. The script is not up to it, though, and the pacing suffers for it- there is an overlong exposition sequence in particular that not only overexplains everything you managed to work out yourself, but does it in such a way that will make your neurons commit seppuku en masse.
And that complaint, this maddening mix of good and crap, extends to cover all the other aspects of the movie. Take the visuals, for example.
The town of Silent Hill is spot on- a spooky ghost of a settlement with mist obscuring everything in white and a constant shower of ashes raining down. All the derelict interiors are also excellent- and when the Dark arrives and things get overtly supernatural, well- the effect is nothing short of breathtaking. The walls peel to reveal bizarre blood-colored rot patterns, floors become rusty grids of iron letting you catch a glimpse of hellish fires raging beneath. All's great, till the monsters show up. Usually loads of them, and they're a bit, uh, shit actually- I laughed out loud hard at some... let's try and describe one of them:
A zombie duck-like thing. Its torso is a mass of scarred tissue, except for a pulsating sphincter from which it projectile-defecates caustic diarrhea. Nothing even remotely scary. Might look like the critters in the game, but the movie would definitively be a lot better off without any of them- and the fact that they're overused doesn't help at all.
Most of the characters well defined and likeable, with some unexpected depth. There is a running subplot of Rose's husband (Sean Bean) trying to find her and running into a police officer that seems to be covering everything up; once some of the plot details become apparent, the reason for the cop's actions take on a different light- how often can you say that happens in a would be blockbuster? The female cop/sidekick is a bit two dimentional, but a strong character and likeable enough. Unfortunately we're stuck most of the time with Rose, and while she's also likeable, her only reason for existing is to move the plot forward- every fucking cliche misstep in the horror book? she'll do it happily, twice. Living proof that Darwin was wrong, wrong, wrong!
So the movie flip flops between rather good and utter crap very frequently, often within the same scene. Extremely frustrating, especially considering that the balance tends towards the shitty side of the spectrum. But then something happens- the climactic speech is laughable and didactic, but the final showdown that ensues is way cool, bloody and suitably apocalyptic (the henai reference made me chuckle). So far so good, time for the fake ending.
And when it arrives, like so many things in this movie, it comes completely out of the left field. A truly beautiful ending, understated and poignant- it easily, completely outclasses the rest of the movie, and even feels a bit undeserved. Stunning.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
King Kong
King Kong has perhaps one of the most famous tragic endings in Hollywood history. Contrary to that dapper 'Beauty killed the beast' final line, audiences these last seventy plus years since it came out knew better than to cheer the poor beleaguered beast's death.
No one, apparently, told that to Peter Jackson. He's made Kong as likeable as he can- so much so, that Naomi Watts seems to like him better than she does potential love interest Adrien Brody. Jackson also takes pains to show just what an injustice is being inflicted on the poor ape. In fact, the film feels at times to be a simian version of the Passion of the Christ. At best, it could be interpreted as a petulant 'but Kong was not a bad guy!'... despite that everyone got that the first time. At worst it's an insult to the viewer's intelligence and a crass attempt at cheap Spielberg-style manipulation.
You all should know the story by now- a scrupleless director (Jack Black, pretty much reprising his role from School of Rock) takes his crew to film in a remote, lost island in the thirties. There after some adventures the main actress is abducted by the natives and offered up to Kong as a sacrifice. The crew fights against giant insects and several species of dinosaurs to get her back, and in the process manages to capture King Kong and take him back to Mew York. There they attempt to use him in a live show from which he escapes, wrecks havoc in the city, grabs the girl, and finally dies in the Empire State Building.
And it takes over three fucking hours to get there.
Bloated is the only word that can be used to describe this movie. Each and every scene could have several minutes shaved off, and be a lot better for it. That's not the only excess in evidence: there is a tasteless overabundance of special effects in all of the island sequences, and baroque, unnecessary twists in the action. Many of the scenes are fun, but all but a few of them overstay their welcome and drag on and on and ON!. The only well-rounded character in the script is Kong; All the humans flip flop whichever way is convenient for the plot.
There are some good bits here and there. The recreation of thirties North America is extremely good, if a bit showy. The special effects are all good and look approppriately expensive. Kong animates incredibly well. Some humor and bizarre little details in the action every now and then do help move things along. And there is no denying the earnestness on display... but frankly, none of this even nearly compensates for all the crap you'll have to put up with to get to the end credits.
There is just one scene which does add to the original: while making his way to his aerie, Kong passes by a bunch of giant ape skeletons, without giving them a single glance. Melancholic and quite affecting, this scene alone shows restraint and subtlety, concepts that unfortunately don't seem to exist in the rest of the film.
No one, apparently, told that to Peter Jackson. He's made Kong as likeable as he can- so much so, that Naomi Watts seems to like him better than she does potential love interest Adrien Brody. Jackson also takes pains to show just what an injustice is being inflicted on the poor ape. In fact, the film feels at times to be a simian version of the Passion of the Christ. At best, it could be interpreted as a petulant 'but Kong was not a bad guy!'... despite that everyone got that the first time. At worst it's an insult to the viewer's intelligence and a crass attempt at cheap Spielberg-style manipulation.
You all should know the story by now- a scrupleless director (Jack Black, pretty much reprising his role from School of Rock) takes his crew to film in a remote, lost island in the thirties. There after some adventures the main actress is abducted by the natives and offered up to Kong as a sacrifice. The crew fights against giant insects and several species of dinosaurs to get her back, and in the process manages to capture King Kong and take him back to Mew York. There they attempt to use him in a live show from which he escapes, wrecks havoc in the city, grabs the girl, and finally dies in the Empire State Building.
And it takes over three fucking hours to get there.
Bloated is the only word that can be used to describe this movie. Each and every scene could have several minutes shaved off, and be a lot better for it. That's not the only excess in evidence: there is a tasteless overabundance of special effects in all of the island sequences, and baroque, unnecessary twists in the action. Many of the scenes are fun, but all but a few of them overstay their welcome and drag on and on and ON!. The only well-rounded character in the script is Kong; All the humans flip flop whichever way is convenient for the plot.
There are some good bits here and there. The recreation of thirties North America is extremely good, if a bit showy. The special effects are all good and look approppriately expensive. Kong animates incredibly well. Some humor and bizarre little details in the action every now and then do help move things along. And there is no denying the earnestness on display... but frankly, none of this even nearly compensates for all the crap you'll have to put up with to get to the end credits.
There is just one scene which does add to the original: while making his way to his aerie, Kong passes by a bunch of giant ape skeletons, without giving them a single glance. Melancholic and quite affecting, this scene alone shows restraint and subtlety, concepts that unfortunately don't seem to exist in the rest of the film.
Mirrormask
Also produced by the Jim Henson company, Dave McKean's Mirrormask follows the same trail Labyrinth forged twenty years ago, with mixed results.
Based on an original story co-written with frequent collaborator Neil Gaiman, the
story centers on Helena, a young circus juggler and aspiring artist. When her mother falls very ill (a brain tumor is implied), she is drawn into her fantasy world as expressed by her drawings- the shadowlands. And not all is well there; the precarious balance between the light and dark kingdoms has been subverted, and darkness is spreading like a disease. It soon falls to Helena to find a way to recover the Mirrormask, a charm that was stolen from the queen of light, and restore the natural balance.
And while the premise is fine, the execution is a bit of a mess. It feels slightly disjointed, a collection of individual scenes more connected by their general weirdness than a coherent narrative. The symbolism and messages- not to mention the overall plot- are muddled. The story make sense as a whole, but seems to be at odds with itself at times. All of which is a shame: there is nothing wrong with the scenes themselves. The characters are very well fleshed out and likeable, and Gaiman's gift for dialog and humor are very much in evidence throughout. And even though sometimes it feels forced, the level of imagination on display is impressive.
And that imagination is more than well served by the movie's visuals. Dave McKean has long been one of my favorite graphical artists, and his work translates to film beautifully- any shortcomings in the story are easily dismissed given that it's so often breathtakingly gorgeous to look at. And that, in the end, is Mirrormask's main strength- just let yourself be distracted by the pretty pictures, and you'll be fine.
Based on an original story co-written with frequent collaborator Neil Gaiman, the
story centers on Helena, a young circus juggler and aspiring artist. When her mother falls very ill (a brain tumor is implied), she is drawn into her fantasy world as expressed by her drawings- the shadowlands. And not all is well there; the precarious balance between the light and dark kingdoms has been subverted, and darkness is spreading like a disease. It soon falls to Helena to find a way to recover the Mirrormask, a charm that was stolen from the queen of light, and restore the natural balance.
And while the premise is fine, the execution is a bit of a mess. It feels slightly disjointed, a collection of individual scenes more connected by their general weirdness than a coherent narrative. The symbolism and messages- not to mention the overall plot- are muddled. The story make sense as a whole, but seems to be at odds with itself at times. All of which is a shame: there is nothing wrong with the scenes themselves. The characters are very well fleshed out and likeable, and Gaiman's gift for dialog and humor are very much in evidence throughout. And even though sometimes it feels forced, the level of imagination on display is impressive.
And that imagination is more than well served by the movie's visuals. Dave McKean has long been one of my favorite graphical artists, and his work translates to film beautifully- any shortcomings in the story are easily dismissed given that it's so often breathtakingly gorgeous to look at. And that, in the end, is Mirrormask's main strength- just let yourself be distracted by the pretty pictures, and you'll be fine.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
The Fantastic Four
Four words:
Fucking. Piece. Of. Shit.
If you liked this horrendous excuse for entertainment, you're part of the problem; please die as soon as possible.
Seriously, this movie was painful; formulaic, dull, unspeakably idiotic, unimaginative, you name it. One of the clearest examples of commitee moviemaking I've seen in a long time- even with my low opinion of humanity, I find it hard to imagine how an individual could invest the time and effort something like a movie requires coming up with this drivel.
To get it out of the way: 4 hotshot scientists, along with their eeeeeevil corporate employer get superpowers, learn how to use them, then (almost as an afterthought) fight each other. The acting is shit, the dialog has to be heard to be believed, no noteworthy special effects, etc etc. To give you an example of how shitty this piece of garbage is... this girl can become invisible, right? But not her clothes. At one point the group needs to get trough a crowded bridge, so they make her become invisible and strip- a gruelingly stupid scene that exists only to show Jessica Alba in a state of mild undress. So, when she makes it, she runs into... the rest of the group.
The movie is full of this shit. No, not Jessica Alba showing skin; of crappy scenes, plot holes, and an absolute disregard for any intelligence the viewer may possess. This movie, and others like it, are why internet piracy needs to exist.
Fucking. Piece. Of. Shit.
If you liked this horrendous excuse for entertainment, you're part of the problem; please die as soon as possible.
Seriously, this movie was painful; formulaic, dull, unspeakably idiotic, unimaginative, you name it. One of the clearest examples of commitee moviemaking I've seen in a long time- even with my low opinion of humanity, I find it hard to imagine how an individual could invest the time and effort something like a movie requires coming up with this drivel.
To get it out of the way: 4 hotshot scientists, along with their eeeeeevil corporate employer get superpowers, learn how to use them, then (almost as an afterthought) fight each other. The acting is shit, the dialog has to be heard to be believed, no noteworthy special effects, etc etc. To give you an example of how shitty this piece of garbage is... this girl can become invisible, right? But not her clothes. At one point the group needs to get trough a crowded bridge, so they make her become invisible and strip- a gruelingly stupid scene that exists only to show Jessica Alba in a state of mild undress. So, when she makes it, she runs into... the rest of the group.
The movie is full of this shit. No, not Jessica Alba showing skin; of crappy scenes, plot holes, and an absolute disregard for any intelligence the viewer may possess. This movie, and others like it, are why internet piracy needs to exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)