films in brief

Some quick reviews:

The Namesake -

This drama caught attention earlier in the year when people were surprised by how good a movie based around Kumar could be. He's not bad, but the parents (both veterans of Indian cinema) are very good in this tale of immigrants adjusting to America. It's a solid drama, and the only problem is that they perhaps tried to jam too much into one movie (from the book) and may have worked better as a mini-series. Still, Mira Nair is a great director, and this is a fine piece of work on its own.

The Family Stone -

Finally saw this indie comedy from two years ago. I don't know why it took this long, because it's a likable cast... except for the two main lovers, which I'm still curious about. If my family had Diane Keaton, Craig T. Nelson, Rachel McAdams, Luke Wilson, and a lovable gay and deaf man, would I even give a darn about Dermot Mulroney? I say no. But they like him, and when he brings home Sarah Jessica Parker as his date, she doesn't fit in, and hilarity ensues.

This was genuinely funny and a solid Christmas / family relationship movie. Luke is on his game, relaxed, but I couldn't feel a moment of sympathy for Parker, and wasn't that the point? And then Claire Danes shows up and Dermot suddenly has a change of heart? Weird plot, but an enjoyable treat.

Urban Legends: Bloody Mary

Did you know that the 1998 semi-successful horror film that featured deaths based on popular urban legends and a young Jared Leto (and Josh Jackson) is still spawning sequels? Did you know that Kate Mara stars in this, even though she already had a breakthrough in Brokeback Mountain and comes from an uber-rich family? Did you know that it was written by the same guys who did X Men 2 and Superman Returns? Did you know that Utah is now considered an acceptable place to shoot a horror film that revolves around murder and date rape? Ah, the things you learn while watching late night cable.

Rescue Dawn -

Really wanted to see this, but it was in and out so quickly. Werner Herzog, one of the most famous German directors, takes a Vietnam movie and focuses on just the escape of one man. That man is Christian Bale, and he went through all sorts of trouble to film this. He and Steve Zahn are toughing it out in a POW camp with Jeremy Davies, when Bale decides to escape. This is shot beautifully and acted well, especially concerning the physical side. It remains a simple, but intense, story of survival. How does Patrick Bateman (I still can't call him Batman) keep doing this crazy stuff?

Two popcorn flicks in brief (Die Hard 4, Transformers)

Live Free or Die Hard -

what's the point of Crank or The Transporter when even the standard action franchises aren't even trying anymore? This is... ridiculous. Fun, but really, really ridiculous. Timothy Olyphant got some money this year, and I'm okay with that, but he and everyone in this should be kinda ashamed of themselves... especially The Bruce, who made John McClane so popular as a normal guy who made it through a tough situation, but is now steering trucks while a jet shoots him with missiles, and sending cars into helicopters. Gawd.

Speaking of mindless action....

Transformers -

Yeah, I couldn't resist. I was ready to give this a shot for one of my childhood treats, and, well, it gave us what we wanted. You could say that least Michael Bay is winking at how impossible this is and adding a little humor, but then, of course, he goes too far. Shia LeBeouf is for real, though. He's genuinely good comic relief while others are flailing.

But what is it about these action movies that boils all conflicts down to a few random people in a room? I call it the Independence Day Effect (which, by the way, is ripped off here repeatedly). What if I told you that the fate of the world was in some room in the Hoover Dam, and the only people in that room were Anthony Anderson, Jon Voigt, some British too-hot-to-be-a-nerd girl, and a possibly drunk John Turturro? Why not?

Ratatouille

Well, as bizarre as the voice roles can be (Patton is the lead of a Disney family movie? Jeanane Garafolo and Brad Garret playing French? Ian Holm is the bad guy?), this is actually a pretty classic Disney tale: outcast clashes with family, gets separated and finds new friend, but discovers he needs family after all and gets them to help in climactic scene. I was wondering if Fievel would show up at some point (is that even Disney? You know what I mean...) Every voice does well here, and Brad Bird knows how to use the new animation style to dazzle but not distract. Still, it's surprisingly old school and not too funny, but cute. You can watch it with kids and not kill yourself, which is getting hard these days.

Retro: Spiderman (the first)

With Spiderman 3 coming out soon, I thought I'd post this review from my old blog on the very first one. Memories are good.

After years of speculation, Spider-Man has finally arrived on the big screen. This release, which should be a huge success with young audiences, follows the story of one of the most popular super-heroes in the history of Marvel Comics.
The unlikely tale begins when Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), the stereotypical nerd of his high school, gets bitten by a radioactive spider during a field trip. He gains new and strange powers from this bite: he can climb walls, shoot a sticky substance from his wrists, and easily pummel any bully. He wants to impress Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), his attractive neighbor, but she doesn’t notice him. His odd friend, Harry Osborne (James Franco), also wants to impress her. Peter is confused about what to do with his newfound abilities.


The story shifts to focus on Harry’s dad, Norman (Willem Dafoe), the head of a defense technology company. Norman has a special drug that will make soldiers into supermen, but it has caused some insanity in animal testing, and is ruled unsafe. Government leaders are considering to stop funding his projects when he uses the formula on himself. This drives him to develop another personality as the Green Goblin, an insane criminal. This alter ego takes revenge on the people who stand in Norman’s way to success.
Peter continues to think about ways to use his powers. His struggles are special, but the film compares them with the average teenage angst felt by high schoolers. Peter lives with his Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) and Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson), and they attribute his behavior to this normal angst. Ben tries to talk to him, but Peter is too agitated. After seeing his uncle killed in a crime that Peter unknowingly had been able to stop, he decides that he should help people with his powers. Spider-Man is born.
Naturally, since Spider-Man is the hero and the Green Goblin is the villain, they become adversaries. This creates an interesting situation between Peter, Harry, and Norman. When Peter learns that Harry is going out with Mary Jane, the two buddies then are also entangled in an awkward love triangle. Norman/The Green Goblin realizes this and uses it to plot Peter/Spider-Man’s doom. The stage is set for classic battles.
This movie is not for everyone. Audiences looking for something serious will be disappointed. The corny dialogue seems lifted right out of the old comic books and includes many clichés. The comic book setting of an older New York also doesn’t match the movie, which takes place in the present. The screaming-damsel-in-distress is out of place in today’s equal-opportunity environment. The plot follows a predictable pattern and includes many scenes that are powerful, but unoriginal.
The producers chose two different generations for the cast, which includes strong up-and-coming stars (Maguire, Dunst, and Franco) mixed with established veterans like Dafoe and Robertson. These actors are too good to deliver these cheesy lines, but they will profit from this film. The characters in this film certainly come from the comic book characters, which means that they’re not overly developed. When Spider-Man faces the Green Goblin, it’s pure good and pure evil squaring off.
Despite its predictability, the film has a lot to like. The special effects are dazzling, and the fluid camera shots follow Spider-Man’s dizzying journeys through the city. Director Sam Raimi, known more for horror and noir films, delivers a quality action-hero flick. It is a safe bet for family audiences, although it may be too intense for very young kids. Spider-Man, as expected, provides comic book action and cheap laughs for solid entertainment value.

Lost in La Mancha

Hollywood has had its shares of “The Making Of” specials in the past few years. Most major box office smashes have follow-up videos about how they were made. Lost in La Mancha was supposed to be another one of these promotional specials, but ended up being an interesting documentary on the complete failure of a film.
Filmmakers Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe follow the making of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, Terry Gilliam’s pet project. Gilliam, known for directing unconventional, mind-bending films such as Brazil, Twelve Monkeys, and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, wants badly to create the tale of the famous Spanish character. He enlists French actor Jean Rochefort to play the main role, and Johnny Depp as a variation on sidekick Sancho Panza.
The filmmakers track Gilliam as he oversees the pre-production of the film. Gilliam’s delight with the film is obvious as he looks at costumes, storyboards the action, and finds actors to portray ogres. His project runs smoothly, even though he and his producers admit that they are on a tight budget. This documentary shows that films shot outside the Hollywood system have to be careful about their expenses. It is a prime lesson of the film.
When the actual shooting of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote begins, all sorts of problems pop up. Rochefort develops a kidney stone that will not allow him to be on a horse, which is crucial for many of his scenes. This delay hurts the film’s progress, and Gilliam and his assistant struggle to reorganize their schedule.
More problems occur during the shooting when heavy rain changes the scenic desert into a mud pit. Not only that, but Gilliam must deal with planes flying overhead more often than had been planned. All of these problems, plus more, ultimately lead up to the film being called off.
Fulton and Pepe do a masterful job of capturing the emotions and opinions of everyone involved. Gilliam’s disappointment at the end is so obvious, as is that of his producers and crew. This is in stunning contrast to their idealistic, excited mood in the beginning. The filmmakers take us behind the scenes to see the various conflicts that go on between production members. There is also a short segment that explains Gilliam’s history and the characteristics of his films.
This film shows all the things that can go wrong with filmmaking. Some of the problems could be due to a lack of planning, but many of them are stranger acts of circumstance. A sufficient blow comes when one of Gilliam’s producers admits that he does not have all the money he said he had.
It is fortunate to the filmmakers that everyone responds with such honesty and insight. Gilliam happily lets them into his working world, even when the film is going to hell. Jeff Bridges, who worked with Gilliam in The Fisher King, ably narrates the documentary with an even tone.
In the end, this film shows a whimsical project that could have been- and possibly still might be. Gilliam, ever the idealist (another main point of the film), discloses in a late segment that he plans to buy back the rights to this film and finish it someday.
This documentary gives a real look to filmmaking, not like those aforementioned “Making Of” promos. The lessons learned in the filming of Gilliam’s project are sad, but helpful to any potential filmmaker.

College classics: A Clockwork Orange

A lot of people have been asking me for recommendations on films to watch in preparation for college. Some of them are interested in film school, while others just want to be cool and know the classics that all teachers and students will bring up. This is an excellent question. I am going to review several films that I believe are important for anyone entering college to watch - for fun, for knowing pop culture, for class discussions, or for late night viewings with a cold brew. The first one is a film that shocked audiences and still causes trouble in classrooms today.




A Clockwork Orange debuted in America in 1971, even though the copyright in the film is officially 1969. It was directed by Stanley Kubrick, who had just finished 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick adapted the screenplay from Anthony Burgess’s novel of the same name. This film was made in Britain with mostly British actors, and distributed by Warner Brothers. It was nominated for Best Picture, Best Direction, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Film Editing at the 1971 Academy Awards, but won nothing.
The film follows the feats of Alexander De Large (played by Malcolm McDowell), a criminal youth in futuristic Britain. The teenaged Alex is the leader of a gang that enjoys rape, drugs, and causing various other kinds of mischief. Alex’s parents are weak and do not know how to control him, and his guidance counselor/ probation officer, Deltoid (Aubrey Morris), is not much of a force, either. After Alex breaks into a house and murders a woman, his gang turns on him and lets him be captured by the police. He is sent to prison, where he tries to be nice to the Chaplain (Godfrey Quigley) so as to get favorable treatment. He signs up for a new procedure that the government is backing. This procedure tortures him with mandatory films of violence and destruction while a harsh drug makes him extremely ill. The product of this treatment is that Alex cannot use violence without becoming sick, making him harmless. After he enters back into society, all of the people he has hurt get their revenge on him, and, being unable to fight back, he suffers extreme pain.
The film has an interesting chronological feel to it. It was made in the thick of the cultural revolution in the Sixties, and its depiction of a crumbling society reflects how many people saw the world then. Druggie youths causing problems were a major fear to older people at this time. It takes place in the future, though, so it also applies to any destructive time period. The film uses lots of classical music such as Beethoven, which is Alex’s favorite, but it also synthesizes some of these classical pieces for a futuristic effect. The result is a mix of old standards and futuristic ideas. The set designs achieve this effect as well, with shiny, futuristic shopping malls in one scene and a castle-like prison in another.
The movie is historically important for many reasons. It is perhaps the greatest work of Stanley Kubrick’s career, which is remarkable given Kubrick’s place in history. It is widely praised by critics as a masterpiece and a true cinematic classic. Controversy, however, followed this film’s release. Its stark depictions of sex and violence upset many viewers. It was banned in Britain for a few years after some youths admitted to copying violent acts in the film. It was originally rated “X” in the United States when that rating was used, but today it has been lowered to ‘R.” The language in the film can also be frustrating, because Burgess created a new version of slang in his novel by mixing Russian and English words that sound alike.
Critics hail the film as groundbreaking for many of its philosophical and political qualities. The main theme comes from Alex’s new condition at the end of the film. The prison’s chaplain believes that Alex has no freedom if he cannot choose to do good or bad. The minister (Anthony Sharp) focuses on how it will prevent him from doing harm. This is an important ethical issue to the film. The minister also has to deal with accusations that he has used Alex as a pawn to get votes. The film thus makes a statement about government tactics in new programs and elections. The film also mocks the police in various ways.
Kubrick included an ambiguous ending, even though Burgess originally ended the novel happily, with Alex maturing. Kubrick’s denial of this reinforces the cynical feeling of the film, and perfectly demonstrates why it is both loved and hated by so many.

Snakes on a Plane (it had to happen)

Even I was drawn into the marketing blitz that was Snakes on a Plane. How can you ignore that title?

I'll be honest, though - I was almost bored by all the hype. When my friend Steve told me about it months ago I went into a fit of laughing in disbelief, especially when Samuel L. Jackson signed up for it. On many parts of the internet, I had been tracking it delightfully. I saw all the blogs, sites, trailers, and fan videos, and I was proud that fans had actually played a huge part in making movie history.

Then, it took too long to come out. If they released it early on, I might have been more excited. I know they wanted to build up the mystery, but for me, once it became a part of mainstream culture and not an inside joke with my slacker pals, it started to loose its taste for me. Others undoubtedly were more excited, but I knew it couldn't survive the hype. I also knew that I couldn't see it with the guys, which disappoints me. This is what I get for moving cross-country.

I was considering not going, unless my lady friend wanted to. Of course, she's great, and I love her for loving movies where people die in them (who else has a girlfriend that digs action and gruesome horror flicks more than you?). We went and enjoyed it in relative silence. I would've liked to have my pals to liven things up, but we were excited, and that's enough.

As for the film itself? It somewhat lived up to the hype. Not totally, but good enough. I think it made me laugh more than almost any film this year, maybe not Little Miss Sunshine, but more than most comedies. There were, I have to say, some down moments. It took itself too seriously, which is of course the point to it being terribly enjoyable, but that meant scenes of people trying to act, which is no good for any fun crapper.

In fact, I was struggling to sit through the first half hour or so, begging them to please just put one snake on screen. As expected, some of the acting is terrible - the FBI agent in LA and the main kid should never, ever work again - but they also took too much time trying to explain the plot for some odd reason. Come on! Just admit that there's no real explanation for the premise and move on. Get to the blood, which everyone is waiting for. Later on, they had awkward regrouping scenes. It could have been better, and by better, I mean WORSE.

This was redeemed, though, because when the craziness did begin, was it fun. I can't believe they ever considered NOT pushing the envelope (and NOT going for an R rating). That would have sucked, and in a bad way. SNAKE VISION?!?!?!?! Yes! It certainly had a lot of stuff jumping out at you, which I always hate, but it was deliberate bad filmmaking, so I let it go more than I usually would.

I think they also copied off two Simpsons episodes with things that would be spoilers to give away. Let's just say that I was hoping for them to cut to James Taylor in mission control as he snuck away, worried.

The final redeeming point was the last scene, with the final ending shot. That saved it. I don't think I laughed at an ending like that before, not even the impromptu Age of Aquarius video.

This isn't a campy, Troll 2 level B classic quite yet. It needs to age some, become dated, and it has a lot of down time. It's bad enough. If I made a list of enjoyably bad movies, I think it would fight for a top ten spot. I couldn't help comparing this in my mind to Roadhouse, the golden standard, and it just doesn't hold up. It was almost worth the wait, but I'd encourage you to get more excited for stuff you'll like on a normal level coming out soon.

Also... this is why Julianna Marguilles quit ER, right?