So far, the only thing I've done on this blog is talk about movies I like (or love). What kind of a would be critic would I be if I didn't exercise the other side a little bit?
Now, I realize that The Phantom Menace is not well loved. Interestingly, I never thought it was all that bad. However, sometimes a near miss feels worse then a really bad movie. In this case, I think it springs from the fact that the first 3 Star Wars movies were so good, and all of us who grew up with them saw the new trilogy as a major event. Sadly, they did not live up to their predecessors. Why? I don't think it was just the presence of Jar Jar Binks :). I think there are 2 major reasons, but first, the basics.
The film takes place one generation before the events of Episode 4. In this film, Anakin Skywalker (who eventually will become Darth Vader) is a small boy, and Obi Wan Kenobi is a young Jedi apprentice. It follows the adventures of Kenobi and his mentor, Qui Gonn Jinn, as they find Anakin on Tatooine, and join forces with Queen Amidala of Naboo to quench a rising dark power within the Republic.
There are some things to like here. First, Ewan MacGregor and Liam Neeson are good as always. The visuals are good. Also, I love the fact that this film and the other prequels add texture to the mythology of Star Wars. With this in mind, I feel this film got a bad rap. I also think this because I know for a fact that when I show this film to my kids that they will like Jar Jar Binks. There is still the same simplicity to this film. So, what went wrong?
I think there were two major issues. First, the chemistry and realization of the characters did not match the original trilogy. This is shown in many ways. First, though my kids will like him, Jar Jar Binks is out of sync with the tone of the movie. The first trilogy certainly had comic relief, but there was no slapstick humor. Jar Jar's tone is so out of place with the rest of the movie that it's almost as if he is in his own movie. Secondly, and even more seriously, the character of Anakin (the central character of the prequel trilogy) is not well realized. The character is not sympathetic, and he needs to be in order for us to truly appreciate his redemption at the end of "Return of the Jedi." As the prequel trilogy goes on, this continues. The character is never realized well. His motivations and actions lack sense, and that is because we never have sympathy. And that leads to the other major problem with these films.
These films strip the original trilogy of mystery. That is not the director and creator George Lucas' fault. It is inevitable that when all of the secrets are told, we are left with not as much to imagine. To me, the character of Darth Vader was terribly interesting until we got to know everything about him. While Obi Wan Kenobi was well realized in the prequels, I think the lack of good realization of the central character hurt this trilogy. I could not understand what the connection was between Anakin and Padme, so it was hard to relate to that as well.
In the end, this film can be seen as a disappointment, but still a movie a Star Wars fan can enjoy. And it also goes to show just how special good movies are. They are the result of the merging of so many factors (director, script, actors, etc), that it is amazing when you see a really great movie. Lucas made three really good movies, built a wonderful world, and then gave us a serviceable parenthesis with the prequels when we wanted another paragraph.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Jane Eyre
When I get out to the movie theater, it only seems like a good idea to include that in this blog. With my parents in town, Steph and I took a night and saw Jane Eyre. Steph is a great admirer of the Brontes, and I found this story very captivating when Steph and I read it together as newlyweds some 10 years ago. Since it has been ten years, the details of the novel are somewhat sketchy in my mind, though the overall structure of the story is so memorable that it is easy to remember the big picture.
The question of books being made into movies is always a good one. What makes a good movie adaptation? If a film leaves things out, does it ruin the movie?
In some cases (The Lord of the Rings is a good example), the scope of the book is allowed to translate to film through multiple volumes, so the epic nature of those books is done very well. In other cases (like The Chronicles of Narnia films), even though the proper time is allowed for the epic nature of the saga, the films are so poorly realized that it makes a fatal flaw. In other adaptations, the scope of the book cannot be realized in the time alloted, so decisions must be made to abridge the plot. This either goes well or not. To me, what makes or breaks a film in this instance is character realization. In this adaptation of Jane Eyre, the characters are realized brilliantly, so the film works very well as a 2 hour adaptation. Also, the script doesn't ignore any major blocks of the plot, so it still is a well integrated story, even though lots of details are left out.
The film tells the story of an orphaned girl in England who is poorly treated first by her foster mother and then her school. She finds a home with a wealthy land owner where she becomes his young ward's instructor. She falls in love the the master and they are to be married, but he has a secret....
Not only are all the characters brilliantly realized, so are the visuals. Here, the haunting beauty of the Moors is on full display. (As a side note, Stephanie and I visited the place where the movie is filmed, and we actually got lost on a country road). The film also evokes the darkness of the story-lots of candles and dark passages in the mansion. I also thought the structure of the film is brilliant. It tells the story in a different order from the book, but the story is preserved in a marvelous way.
The movie works for two reasons. First, because it realizes and is true to the Bronte vision. The filmmakers know the story and the characters, and it is clear that they sought to make that a reality on screen. How many times do filmmakers fail to do that with books? Second, all the performances are first rate. The young lady who plays the title role truly captures this famous character. The actor playing Rochester also evokes the darkness and good heart of that character. And Judi Dench brings along a gravitas to the role of Mrs. Fairfax...she brings a great tone to this film. It was a good date night for Steph and I.
The question of books being made into movies is always a good one. What makes a good movie adaptation? If a film leaves things out, does it ruin the movie?
In some cases (The Lord of the Rings is a good example), the scope of the book is allowed to translate to film through multiple volumes, so the epic nature of those books is done very well. In other cases (like The Chronicles of Narnia films), even though the proper time is allowed for the epic nature of the saga, the films are so poorly realized that it makes a fatal flaw. In other adaptations, the scope of the book cannot be realized in the time alloted, so decisions must be made to abridge the plot. This either goes well or not. To me, what makes or breaks a film in this instance is character realization. In this adaptation of Jane Eyre, the characters are realized brilliantly, so the film works very well as a 2 hour adaptation. Also, the script doesn't ignore any major blocks of the plot, so it still is a well integrated story, even though lots of details are left out.
The film tells the story of an orphaned girl in England who is poorly treated first by her foster mother and then her school. She finds a home with a wealthy land owner where she becomes his young ward's instructor. She falls in love the the master and they are to be married, but he has a secret....
Not only are all the characters brilliantly realized, so are the visuals. Here, the haunting beauty of the Moors is on full display. (As a side note, Stephanie and I visited the place where the movie is filmed, and we actually got lost on a country road). The film also evokes the darkness of the story-lots of candles and dark passages in the mansion. I also thought the structure of the film is brilliant. It tells the story in a different order from the book, but the story is preserved in a marvelous way.
The movie works for two reasons. First, because it realizes and is true to the Bronte vision. The filmmakers know the story and the characters, and it is clear that they sought to make that a reality on screen. How many times do filmmakers fail to do that with books? Second, all the performances are first rate. The young lady who plays the title role truly captures this famous character. The actor playing Rochester also evokes the darkness and good heart of that character. And Judi Dench brings along a gravitas to the role of Mrs. Fairfax...she brings a great tone to this film. It was a good date night for Steph and I.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
With many of the movies I write about, I feel like a drop in the bucket. So many people have written and reflected on them that anything I have to say is superfluous. However, it still is fun to talk about some of my favorites...even when I'm just a face in the crowd.
Invoking Star Wars, for many of us, is sort of like invoking George Washington and the cherry tree. It is such a part of our consciousness that it becomes part of us and how we think. For me, it is now taking on a new dimension as my kids have begun to become immersed in this world. I want to do two things: first, I want to talk about both me and my kids and how they have grow to love these movies, and I want to share a favorite scene.
Why do these movies mean so much to me? For me, it's the simplicity of them combined with the complexity. The stories are simple, but the pacing of the films is complex. If you take a look at Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope, the action never lets up. When the film came out, the pace of the movie was new. I have heard people say that the first time they saw the film, they immediately got in line to watch it again because they were so enthralled.
A couple of weeks ago, while on vacation, I popped in the original movie and watched it (again), but with my kids. Now, Wesley is playing with Stormtrooper Legos, and my kids are role playing around the house. I love telling them that I did the exact same thing at their age with their aunt and with my friends. Then it hits me. This is why these movies mean so much. Of course they are wonderful to watch and tell a captivating story, but even more, what they do is they make us want to be a part of their world. We wish we could inhabit these peoples' roles and their world. How many movies can we truly say that about? Meanwhile, the story is simple enough that they have no problem following the story.
For a favorite scene, I have to go with Luke Skywalker gazing on the twin suns of Tatooine. Everything I love about these movies is in this scene. There is the corniness of Luke pouting by kicking the dirt as he leaves the dining room, knowing his uncle has once again squashed his dream. There is the magical way the John Williams' score evokes the yearning that Luke feels. And there is the visual...the haunting picture of this young boy who looks to the stars and dreams of something bigger. Those of us who know where he ends up going know that with the adventure comes pain and triumph. But in the end, even when we live out our dreams, they are always more complicated than we think. George Lucas was able to catch this youthful yearning in this movie and in "American Graffiti" so well that he secured his place in the American movie pantheon with these two movies.
But maybe I am letting these movies make me too cerebral. In the end I love this movie and the other movies because they are AWESOME!
Invoking Star Wars, for many of us, is sort of like invoking George Washington and the cherry tree. It is such a part of our consciousness that it becomes part of us and how we think. For me, it is now taking on a new dimension as my kids have begun to become immersed in this world. I want to do two things: first, I want to talk about both me and my kids and how they have grow to love these movies, and I want to share a favorite scene.
Why do these movies mean so much to me? For me, it's the simplicity of them combined with the complexity. The stories are simple, but the pacing of the films is complex. If you take a look at Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope, the action never lets up. When the film came out, the pace of the movie was new. I have heard people say that the first time they saw the film, they immediately got in line to watch it again because they were so enthralled.
A couple of weeks ago, while on vacation, I popped in the original movie and watched it (again), but with my kids. Now, Wesley is playing with Stormtrooper Legos, and my kids are role playing around the house. I love telling them that I did the exact same thing at their age with their aunt and with my friends. Then it hits me. This is why these movies mean so much. Of course they are wonderful to watch and tell a captivating story, but even more, what they do is they make us want to be a part of their world. We wish we could inhabit these peoples' roles and their world. How many movies can we truly say that about? Meanwhile, the story is simple enough that they have no problem following the story.
For a favorite scene, I have to go with Luke Skywalker gazing on the twin suns of Tatooine. Everything I love about these movies is in this scene. There is the corniness of Luke pouting by kicking the dirt as he leaves the dining room, knowing his uncle has once again squashed his dream. There is the magical way the John Williams' score evokes the yearning that Luke feels. And there is the visual...the haunting picture of this young boy who looks to the stars and dreams of something bigger. Those of us who know where he ends up going know that with the adventure comes pain and triumph. But in the end, even when we live out our dreams, they are always more complicated than we think. George Lucas was able to catch this youthful yearning in this movie and in "American Graffiti" so well that he secured his place in the American movie pantheon with these two movies.
But maybe I am letting these movies make me too cerebral. In the end I love this movie and the other movies because they are AWESOME!
Friday, April 8, 2011
The Lives of Others
The Lives of Others
I could not think of a better title to borrow for the name of my blog than the title of this 2006 film from Germany. The reason for that is that it is the best movie I have seen in the last ten years. I do not make it a practice to speak in absolutes when it comes to the arts...what I mean when I say best is that it has been my favorite film-it has meant more to me than any other film of which I can think. It won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film, and it is easy to see why it had such a powerful effect.
To sum it up, the film is set in East Germany in 1984. A loyal Socialist playwright (Georg) has begun to question some of the elements of the East German regime. At the same time, his girlfriend finds favor with the head of the East German police (The Stasi). The head of police decides to bug the playwright's house so he can pursue his girlfriend. They put their best surveillance man on the job (Wiesler). The movie could have become a silly voyeuristic romp. Instead, it takes a profound turn. The man listens into the life of this playwright, and realizes what he is missing in his own life. What he decides to do about it is what the film is about.
Georg's girlfriend is Christa Marie, one of the most popular stage actresses in East Germany. She is played by Martina Gedeck with such soul and sadness that one cannot help but feel her pain as we watch the movie. In the end, the socialists are crushing the creative lives in the country, including hers. She cannot bear it. As Georg plays a piece of music on the piano, he quotes a memorable quote from Lenin. Georg says that Lenin had to stop listening to Beethoven's Appasionata Sonata, because if he continued, the revolution wouldn't happen. Georg finally decides to stray from his loyalty when one of his favorite play directors commits suicide.
There are so many scenes to cherish: As Wiesler listens in on Georg's life, he observes the richness of beauty of his life, as opposed to his subject. While Georg enjoys a life of fulfilling love, Wiesler can only ask a prostitute if she can stay a while longer to keep him company. As Wiesler begins to change, he stops himself from pursuing the name of a child's father who has cast aspersions on the Stasi. The boy is innocent and is only quoting his father, and one can watch Wiesler's eyes as he hears the words of treason from the small boy, and then decides to go in a different direction. And finally, the lengths the people in this film have to pursue to simply have an honest conversation is striking.
The end of the film is sublime. It is so moving and true. I will not reveal it here of course, because it is too great a surprise to do so. For those of us old enough to remember watching the Berlin Wall fall, this film is extra poignant. It wasn't so long ago, but it seems distant. Watching the power of art, freedom and beauty change the heart of a man is a lovely sight. That is why I love this movie.
I could not think of a better title to borrow for the name of my blog than the title of this 2006 film from Germany. The reason for that is that it is the best movie I have seen in the last ten years. I do not make it a practice to speak in absolutes when it comes to the arts...what I mean when I say best is that it has been my favorite film-it has meant more to me than any other film of which I can think. It won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film, and it is easy to see why it had such a powerful effect.
To sum it up, the film is set in East Germany in 1984. A loyal Socialist playwright (Georg) has begun to question some of the elements of the East German regime. At the same time, his girlfriend finds favor with the head of the East German police (The Stasi). The head of police decides to bug the playwright's house so he can pursue his girlfriend. They put their best surveillance man on the job (Wiesler). The movie could have become a silly voyeuristic romp. Instead, it takes a profound turn. The man listens into the life of this playwright, and realizes what he is missing in his own life. What he decides to do about it is what the film is about.
Georg's girlfriend is Christa Marie, one of the most popular stage actresses in East Germany. She is played by Martina Gedeck with such soul and sadness that one cannot help but feel her pain as we watch the movie. In the end, the socialists are crushing the creative lives in the country, including hers. She cannot bear it. As Georg plays a piece of music on the piano, he quotes a memorable quote from Lenin. Georg says that Lenin had to stop listening to Beethoven's Appasionata Sonata, because if he continued, the revolution wouldn't happen. Georg finally decides to stray from his loyalty when one of his favorite play directors commits suicide.
There are so many scenes to cherish: As Wiesler listens in on Georg's life, he observes the richness of beauty of his life, as opposed to his subject. While Georg enjoys a life of fulfilling love, Wiesler can only ask a prostitute if she can stay a while longer to keep him company. As Wiesler begins to change, he stops himself from pursuing the name of a child's father who has cast aspersions on the Stasi. The boy is innocent and is only quoting his father, and one can watch Wiesler's eyes as he hears the words of treason from the small boy, and then decides to go in a different direction. And finally, the lengths the people in this film have to pursue to simply have an honest conversation is striking.
The end of the film is sublime. It is so moving and true. I will not reveal it here of course, because it is too great a surprise to do so. For those of us old enough to remember watching the Berlin Wall fall, this film is extra poignant. It wasn't so long ago, but it seems distant. Watching the power of art, freedom and beauty change the heart of a man is a lovely sight. That is why I love this movie.
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Kid
Sometimes simplicity is a mark of brilliance. Sometimes the ability of a filmmaker to connect on a level so basic that young children can follow it is noteworthy. Such is the case with this film, the first feature film Charlie Chaplin ever made.
It wasn't until I had children that I realized how perfect silent films are for them. The dialogue is spare, and the mime work is so expressive that children can follow the plot. The plot of this film is simple...Chaplin's Tramp discovers a child who is left on the street by his broke and abandoned mother. After various comical attempts to rid himself of the burden, he finds a note in the baby's blanket pleading with whoever finds the child to care for it. The Tramp takes the child in and raises him. Most of the movie is about their less than honest livelihood and what happens when the authorities begin to get involved.
The Tramp character never fails to pluck at my heart strings. He is a rascal, but a soulful one, and everything he does (even the dishonest stuff) ends up looking heartfelt. The actor who played the kid (Jackie Coogan) ended up becoming the first big child star, and his performance is also wonderful.
I could also go on about the wonderful physical comedy and rudimentary film tricks that must have seemed so modern...but I won't. Instead, see this movie for what it is...a sweet movie that gives us a glimpse into the mind of a film genius. It shows us an artist who is just beginning to see what film could do. It is only 54 minutes long. If you've seen "City Lights" or "Gold Rush", makes sure you check this one out. And if you have children, have them watch it with you. My kids could not stop laughing at some points of the movie.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Ken Burns' Baseball
With April comes the baseball season, and my favorite sport gets underway. What better time to write about a film devoted to it? Sometimes the subject of a movie is so close to my heart that I can overlook its faults. Such is the case with Ken Burns' 20+ hour ode to America's National Pastime, "Baseball."
The film traces the history of the game from its rudimentary beginnings as an ancestor of rounders and cricket to its place today as a second fiddle to the more popular national obsession of football. The film works very well because the people who made the film love the game, and the people Burns interviews love the game. In the accompanying book, the reader discovers that the film seeks to show how the national game mirrors the struggles of its country. As such, the filmmakers focus on the Boston Red Sox and Brooklyn Dodger as teams that play out that national drama. Furthermore, the Yankees receive much attention just due to their prowess.
The film also sprinkles in other names and anecdotes that are essential to the game's history. With such a grand history, Burns could not possibly cover it all. But he makes a fatal flaw by making the game so much about New York and Boston that one is unable to see the joy of those outside those cities. Two specific anecdotes come to mind. As Bill Maseroski hits his World Series winning HR in the 1960 World Series against the Yankees, we see no gleeful musings from Pirate fans, instead, we see Mickey Mantle talk about how he cried all the way home after the game(the Yanks had won 7 titles in the 50s, and would win two more in '61 and '62) and Stephen Jay Gould (the late paleontologist and Yankee fan) say how his friends must never bring up that HR in his presence. Also, in 2001, the film shows the D-Backs vanquish of the Yanks again as a tragedy for the Yanks, who had just won 3 titles in a row. In these cases, Burns fails to live up to his hypothesis that this is the national game. By not showing the winning side of the matter, he makes the game about the Northeast, and forgets how the passion of fans in Western PA, the Midwest, and the West also contribute to the drama of the game. Clearly, an attempt at an exhaustive look at the game's history would diminish the film, but the willful disregard of over 90% of the country and how it experiences this supposed national game is missing. The movie is at its best when it focuses on the Negro Leagues...it would have been nice to see similar focus on other smaller markets and their triumphs (1985 Royals, 1980 Phils, 2005 White Sox, etc.)
I love the film, but it is so flawed that it still frustrates me. I will soon cover another of Burns' films that I believe hits the right note. Until then, play ball!!
The film traces the history of the game from its rudimentary beginnings as an ancestor of rounders and cricket to its place today as a second fiddle to the more popular national obsession of football. The film works very well because the people who made the film love the game, and the people Burns interviews love the game. In the accompanying book, the reader discovers that the film seeks to show how the national game mirrors the struggles of its country. As such, the filmmakers focus on the Boston Red Sox and Brooklyn Dodger as teams that play out that national drama. Furthermore, the Yankees receive much attention just due to their prowess.
The film also sprinkles in other names and anecdotes that are essential to the game's history. With such a grand history, Burns could not possibly cover it all. But he makes a fatal flaw by making the game so much about New York and Boston that one is unable to see the joy of those outside those cities. Two specific anecdotes come to mind. As Bill Maseroski hits his World Series winning HR in the 1960 World Series against the Yankees, we see no gleeful musings from Pirate fans, instead, we see Mickey Mantle talk about how he cried all the way home after the game(the Yanks had won 7 titles in the 50s, and would win two more in '61 and '62) and Stephen Jay Gould (the late paleontologist and Yankee fan) say how his friends must never bring up that HR in his presence. Also, in 2001, the film shows the D-Backs vanquish of the Yanks again as a tragedy for the Yanks, who had just won 3 titles in a row. In these cases, Burns fails to live up to his hypothesis that this is the national game. By not showing the winning side of the matter, he makes the game about the Northeast, and forgets how the passion of fans in Western PA, the Midwest, and the West also contribute to the drama of the game. Clearly, an attempt at an exhaustive look at the game's history would diminish the film, but the willful disregard of over 90% of the country and how it experiences this supposed national game is missing. The movie is at its best when it focuses on the Negro Leagues...it would have been nice to see similar focus on other smaller markets and their triumphs (1985 Royals, 1980 Phils, 2005 White Sox, etc.)
I love the film, but it is so flawed that it still frustrates me. I will soon cover another of Burns' films that I believe hits the right note. Until then, play ball!!
Friday, April 1, 2011
Big Trouble in Little China
Some of the movies I write are moving and life changing. This movie certainly changed my life, only in very different ways :).
I had heard of this movie for years, but one of my coworkers (who had just finished quoting the movie) told me I had to see it, and he brought his dvd in for me. Right now, he is probably at home holding his new daughter, and I wanted to post this for him today. Happy fatherhood Titus.
I expected a campy, cheesy action movie and that's what I got. But, I have to say, it plays within that genre so well that it almost rises above the cheesiness and campiness. It's a classic "Where did this day go wrong?!!?" kind of story. Jack Burton (Kurt Russell who really nails this performance) is a truck driver in San Francisco who wins a card game against a desperate friend. His friend cannot afford to pay him, and suddenly, Jack finds himself up to his eyeballs in a sort of underworld beneath Chinatown in San Francisco. The rest of the movie follows Jack and company as they work to topple the ancient underworld boss (who is 2000 years old) and get things back to normal.
What I liked about the movie is it never takes itself seriously. This is mainly done through Russell's character. Everyone else is taking the whole thing seriously, but Jack never dispenses with the wise cracks, and thinks himself the sexiest man alive...any woman would be dying to have him. This character is only made possible by Kurt Russell finding the right tone.
If I start actually thinking too much, I might have to start talking about how the movie gets repetitive, but that's beside the point. John Carpenter does a good job of getting me to buy in, and from there you can enjoy a fun ride. When the movie came out, I would imagine that the visual effects were cutting edge. They look somewhat dated, but actually hold up pretty well.
The movie is sort of in the spirit of the Indiana Jones movies, but doesn't quite reach the same level in terms of bringing us into the movie's world. If you have read this far, know that most of my musings, again, are beside the point. Enjoy the ride, laugh at the cheesy dialogue, and maybe have a box of Chinese take out at hand.
I had heard of this movie for years, but one of my coworkers (who had just finished quoting the movie) told me I had to see it, and he brought his dvd in for me. Right now, he is probably at home holding his new daughter, and I wanted to post this for him today. Happy fatherhood Titus.
I expected a campy, cheesy action movie and that's what I got. But, I have to say, it plays within that genre so well that it almost rises above the cheesiness and campiness. It's a classic "Where did this day go wrong?!!?" kind of story. Jack Burton (Kurt Russell who really nails this performance) is a truck driver in San Francisco who wins a card game against a desperate friend. His friend cannot afford to pay him, and suddenly, Jack finds himself up to his eyeballs in a sort of underworld beneath Chinatown in San Francisco. The rest of the movie follows Jack and company as they work to topple the ancient underworld boss (who is 2000 years old) and get things back to normal.
What I liked about the movie is it never takes itself seriously. This is mainly done through Russell's character. Everyone else is taking the whole thing seriously, but Jack never dispenses with the wise cracks, and thinks himself the sexiest man alive...any woman would be dying to have him. This character is only made possible by Kurt Russell finding the right tone.
If I start actually thinking too much, I might have to start talking about how the movie gets repetitive, but that's beside the point. John Carpenter does a good job of getting me to buy in, and from there you can enjoy a fun ride. When the movie came out, I would imagine that the visual effects were cutting edge. They look somewhat dated, but actually hold up pretty well.
The movie is sort of in the spirit of the Indiana Jones movies, but doesn't quite reach the same level in terms of bringing us into the movie's world. If you have read this far, know that most of my musings, again, are beside the point. Enjoy the ride, laugh at the cheesy dialogue, and maybe have a box of Chinese take out at hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)