Let's have some fun! These are 15 last lines from some of my favorite movies...get your answers to me via comments or face book. Whoever gets the most right wins a prize I will later reveal. I am trusting my readers to not cheat by looking on the internet for answers-I knew all these by heart, though on one or two I did look them up to get them exactly right....have fun!! And, if I got one or two words wrong, please, have mercy :)
1. "Let's see what else is on...yeah, where's the TV Guide?"
2. "She wouldn't hurt a fly"
3. "He's my brother"
4. "Son of a b***h, he stole my line."
5. "Louie, this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
6. "Two more months..."
7. "No, it's for me."
8. "How much does it pay?"
9. "Maybe it was Utah..."
10. "As you wish."
11. "Yes...I can see now."
12. "You're a swine."
13. "That'll Do..."
14. "That's The Dumbest Thing I've ever heard."
15. "I'll be right here."
Friday, August 5, 2011
Monday, August 1, 2011
The Lord Of the Rings
We were home from Chicago for Christmas in 2001. It was 3 months after the World Trade Center had been destroyed, and Stephanie and I had made our way to LA to see our family. We had been awaiting the opening of "Lord of the Rings" with great interest, and we decided to watch the new movie with our families. As a venue, we chose a new annex to Hollywood's classic Chinese Theater. As we made our way into that theater, we left Hollywood and were transported elsewhere.
Awhile back, I wrote an entry about "Jane Eyre," and I began to talk a little bit about how one can rate a film that is based on a book. Coming to "The Lord of the Rings", this question obviously pops up again. What I found fascinating as I watched the three parts and then read the novel again was how well these movies did justice to the novel, even though they actually made some significant plot changes. I think that speaks volumes about how well Peter Jackson and company nailed the spirit of the characters first and foremost. The elements of the plot of any story are relatively easy to capture, since they are already written down for the filmmaker. But anytime you have to capture the spirit of a character on film, that is where the great test lies for the filmmaker attempting to translate a book into a movie.
The other thing these movies allowed me to do was have a new appreciation for JRR Tolkien's work. I am not a passionate fan of the verbose work of Tolkien, and the first time I read The Lord of the Rings, I found it difficult to follow the plot due to the overwhelming detail with which I was coming into contact. In a way, the films gave me the skeleton of the plot, so I understood it. Therefore, the next time I sat down to read the novel, I was thoroughly engrossed in the work, as I should have been the first time.
This epic tale has so much to say about what can go right with film making. First, the director found a distributor who was willing to pay up front for all three parts to be made at once, which turns out to be over 10 hours of movie. That kind of production is a huge risk, but it paid off. There are no cast changes, no changes in the writing or directing. Instead, you have one epic vision of this great novel. Second, the director clearly loves the material. We can all argue about certain elements that did not get their due in the film (I for one would have loved to see more of the restful elements of the novel to counteract the intensity), but one cannot argue that Peter Jackson and company cared deeply about the material with which they were working. Third, though the cast is made up of fine actors, there is not a superstar among them. This film is not a star vehicle, and the movie was cast as such. Because of that, each actor can more fully inhabit their character, and what we see on screen is an incarnation of the the spirit of the novel. Finally, and most importantly, it is amazing just how well each character was cast and realized. Take the character of Aragorn/Strider. In order for this character to work, the filmmaker has to find an actor who can portray a man who is at once good and mysterious, an outcast yet destined to be king. Somehow, Viggo Mortenson personifies this character so fully that we never doubt that we are watching Aragorn on screen. These four elements are just part of why this movie works so well.
And despite the unconventional nature of the film's production, it is classic Hollywood storytelling. It has an enormous canvas, and the movie reminds us of great epics like "Ben Hur" or "Lawerence of Arabia". These are movies that are works of imagination, yet also works that are realized by using exquisite locations in our world. In "Lawerence", David Lean used the desert. In this movie, Peter Jackson uses his home country of New Zealad to such a great effect that one almost doubts that we are looking at a real place. These settings seem so much like Middle Earth that it is hard to remember that they exist on our planet.
The film also is a tribute to vision and hard work. The set designs are amazing, and every detail of makeup and special effects help tell the story. The sets and effects don't become the point, but they lend veracity to the whole story.
So as we left the Chinese theater some 10 years ago, we all felt tired. We had just been through an ordeal, and we knew that the action only got more intense with the next 2 parts. Seldom have I left a theater so overwhelmed by the vision and excitement of one film. I felt that I had seen something truly groundbreaking in scope and imagination. I had.
Awhile back, I wrote an entry about "Jane Eyre," and I began to talk a little bit about how one can rate a film that is based on a book. Coming to "The Lord of the Rings", this question obviously pops up again. What I found fascinating as I watched the three parts and then read the novel again was how well these movies did justice to the novel, even though they actually made some significant plot changes. I think that speaks volumes about how well Peter Jackson and company nailed the spirit of the characters first and foremost. The elements of the plot of any story are relatively easy to capture, since they are already written down for the filmmaker. But anytime you have to capture the spirit of a character on film, that is where the great test lies for the filmmaker attempting to translate a book into a movie.
The other thing these movies allowed me to do was have a new appreciation for JRR Tolkien's work. I am not a passionate fan of the verbose work of Tolkien, and the first time I read The Lord of the Rings, I found it difficult to follow the plot due to the overwhelming detail with which I was coming into contact. In a way, the films gave me the skeleton of the plot, so I understood it. Therefore, the next time I sat down to read the novel, I was thoroughly engrossed in the work, as I should have been the first time.
This epic tale has so much to say about what can go right with film making. First, the director found a distributor who was willing to pay up front for all three parts to be made at once, which turns out to be over 10 hours of movie. That kind of production is a huge risk, but it paid off. There are no cast changes, no changes in the writing or directing. Instead, you have one epic vision of this great novel. Second, the director clearly loves the material. We can all argue about certain elements that did not get their due in the film (I for one would have loved to see more of the restful elements of the novel to counteract the intensity), but one cannot argue that Peter Jackson and company cared deeply about the material with which they were working. Third, though the cast is made up of fine actors, there is not a superstar among them. This film is not a star vehicle, and the movie was cast as such. Because of that, each actor can more fully inhabit their character, and what we see on screen is an incarnation of the the spirit of the novel. Finally, and most importantly, it is amazing just how well each character was cast and realized. Take the character of Aragorn/Strider. In order for this character to work, the filmmaker has to find an actor who can portray a man who is at once good and mysterious, an outcast yet destined to be king. Somehow, Viggo Mortenson personifies this character so fully that we never doubt that we are watching Aragorn on screen. These four elements are just part of why this movie works so well.
And despite the unconventional nature of the film's production, it is classic Hollywood storytelling. It has an enormous canvas, and the movie reminds us of great epics like "Ben Hur" or "Lawerence of Arabia". These are movies that are works of imagination, yet also works that are realized by using exquisite locations in our world. In "Lawerence", David Lean used the desert. In this movie, Peter Jackson uses his home country of New Zealad to such a great effect that one almost doubts that we are looking at a real place. These settings seem so much like Middle Earth that it is hard to remember that they exist on our planet.
The film also is a tribute to vision and hard work. The set designs are amazing, and every detail of makeup and special effects help tell the story. The sets and effects don't become the point, but they lend veracity to the whole story.
So as we left the Chinese theater some 10 years ago, we all felt tired. We had just been through an ordeal, and we knew that the action only got more intense with the next 2 parts. Seldom have I left a theater so overwhelmed by the vision and excitement of one film. I felt that I had seen something truly groundbreaking in scope and imagination. I had.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2
The Harry Potter film saga comes to a close at long last. If you are interested, here's my blog entry in July of '07 when I read the last book in the series:
http://the-salad-days.blogspot.com/2007/07/long-journey.html
Today, after Steph and I went to the movie, my daughter asked if she could start reading the books. So this afternoon, I saw her trying to pronounce Dumbledore's name for the first time, and I smiled as I realized how much fun and adventure she has in store.
What I have always loved about these stories/movies is their ability to tell a classic story. Here, in the 8th film, we finally see the resolution to the epic story. As a film, it is very effective. Watching the images on the screen were more of a walk down memory lane, since the events were already known to me. But, to see them realized on screen was special. Even more, to see key parts of the book realized so well was very satisfying.
The three principal actors have done an amazing job of inhabiting their roles. They have created convincing characters. They have been supported by a legendary cast of British acting royalty. Read this list: Richard Harris, Micheal Gambon, Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, Emma Thompson, Immelda Staunton, Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, Rhys Ifans, John Cleese, Ralph Fiennes, Kenneth Branagh, Helena Bonham Carter, Cirian Hinds, Kelly MacDonald, Bill Nighy, and more (this is just what I can call up from memory-I am not intentionally leaving anyone out). The gravitas that these actors have brought to the production has helped the already legendary stories, and have made for solid narrative entertainment.
This final chapter sees the final showdown between Harry Potter and the evil Lord Voldemort. It also sees the final destiny of all of its remaining character, and finally reveals important secrets involving its most important characters. It is a great conclusion.
Did these films break new cinematic ground? Hardly. However, not all work needs to, and the best way to measure these films is how confident all of them have been in the narrative, and an utter consistency in tone and production. This made it possible for all 8 films to run together very well. I cannot give my favorite scenes without giving anything away. I will simply say that I thought casting Alan Rickman as Snape seemed perfect 10 years ago, and it has proven to be perfect. The scenes in which this mysterious character are illuminated are truly special, and one cannot help but think that having the right actor in place truly sold it.
The stories will live on. We will watch them again, and we will introduce them to our children as they grow older. They will always be a testament to the simply power of storytelling and imagination. JK Rowling has given to the world a gift: she has created and nurtured a literary world, and then patiently overseen it's translation to the big screen. I have a lot of admiration for all of it.
http://the-salad-days.blogspot.com/2007/07/long-journey.html
Today, after Steph and I went to the movie, my daughter asked if she could start reading the books. So this afternoon, I saw her trying to pronounce Dumbledore's name for the first time, and I smiled as I realized how much fun and adventure she has in store.
What I have always loved about these stories/movies is their ability to tell a classic story. Here, in the 8th film, we finally see the resolution to the epic story. As a film, it is very effective. Watching the images on the screen were more of a walk down memory lane, since the events were already known to me. But, to see them realized on screen was special. Even more, to see key parts of the book realized so well was very satisfying.
The three principal actors have done an amazing job of inhabiting their roles. They have created convincing characters. They have been supported by a legendary cast of British acting royalty. Read this list: Richard Harris, Micheal Gambon, Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, Emma Thompson, Immelda Staunton, Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, Rhys Ifans, John Cleese, Ralph Fiennes, Kenneth Branagh, Helena Bonham Carter, Cirian Hinds, Kelly MacDonald, Bill Nighy, and more (this is just what I can call up from memory-I am not intentionally leaving anyone out). The gravitas that these actors have brought to the production has helped the already legendary stories, and have made for solid narrative entertainment.
This final chapter sees the final showdown between Harry Potter and the evil Lord Voldemort. It also sees the final destiny of all of its remaining character, and finally reveals important secrets involving its most important characters. It is a great conclusion.
Did these films break new cinematic ground? Hardly. However, not all work needs to, and the best way to measure these films is how confident all of them have been in the narrative, and an utter consistency in tone and production. This made it possible for all 8 films to run together very well. I cannot give my favorite scenes without giving anything away. I will simply say that I thought casting Alan Rickman as Snape seemed perfect 10 years ago, and it has proven to be perfect. The scenes in which this mysterious character are illuminated are truly special, and one cannot help but think that having the right actor in place truly sold it.
The stories will live on. We will watch them again, and we will introduce them to our children as they grow older. They will always be a testament to the simply power of storytelling and imagination. JK Rowling has given to the world a gift: she has created and nurtured a literary world, and then patiently overseen it's translation to the big screen. I have a lot of admiration for all of it.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Winnie the Pooh
"Some day you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again"
-CS Lewis, to his Goddaughter, in the dedication of "The Lion the Witch and the
Wardrobe."
Sometimes movies are about a feeling. When I was 6 or 7 years old, I had the flu pretty bad, and my mother decided to take me to the video store to rent some movies to help me through being sick. One of the movies we rented was "The Many Adventures of WInnie the Pooh", and I loved it. Many years later, as I watched that same movie with my children, it evoked a nostalgia in me that is rare. So as I went to see "Winnie the Pooh" with my wife and kids, it had an unusual effect on me. This was the first time all 5 of us have gone to a movie in a theater, and it is fun to see it through their eyes.
As the same old theme song played (sung by a different artist), I was right back to my childhood, though I had my 8 year old sitting next to me. What this movie does very well is evoke the feeling I had as a kid, and it is gentle and sweet enough that no child would find anything troubling in it. In this way, it is a throw back. This is a hand drawn film, and it differs in almost every way from the Pixar films. There are no A-list movie stars providing voices, no too-cool-for school double entendres, and no bells, whistles, or loud explosions. No, this is a film that shows that simple, sweet story telling still can have a place in the arts. Furthermore, when it is done well, it has an effect on adults that it could never have an kids. This is part of what CS Lewis was saying, I think, in the quote above. Once one reaches a certain age (especially when one has children) all of the stories of one's childhood come back, and they return with more power than ever.
This movie pieces together parts from AA Milne's books. The one strength I thought the first film has was the way it told 3 different stories. This movie pieces many plots together to form one story, and I think the narrative suffers a bit, but the story itself is cute and innocent, so it doesn't suffer much. The main plot arc involves Eeyore losing his tail, and Christopher Robin and his friends trying to find him a new one. As the story moves on, one thing I will say is that this film shows the animals being totally lost without Christopher Robin, which shows a sweetness to their world that the original film didn't have.
My world is immersed in Winnie the Pooh right now. The children are devouring the audio books and audio dramas, and they are in love with this world. I'm glad. The children need simple and imaginative fables just like they need grand drama and adventures in their lives. The sight of little Christopher Robin in his school uniform evokes something. It invokes the fleeting nature of childhood, and the stuffed animals signify that as well. School signifies an end to Christopher Robin's endless world of play and doing nothing. That time will end for my children soon enough. Until then, I'm glad I have stories like this to share with them.
-CS Lewis, to his Goddaughter, in the dedication of "The Lion the Witch and the
Wardrobe."
Sometimes movies are about a feeling. When I was 6 or 7 years old, I had the flu pretty bad, and my mother decided to take me to the video store to rent some movies to help me through being sick. One of the movies we rented was "The Many Adventures of WInnie the Pooh", and I loved it. Many years later, as I watched that same movie with my children, it evoked a nostalgia in me that is rare. So as I went to see "Winnie the Pooh" with my wife and kids, it had an unusual effect on me. This was the first time all 5 of us have gone to a movie in a theater, and it is fun to see it through their eyes.
As the same old theme song played (sung by a different artist), I was right back to my childhood, though I had my 8 year old sitting next to me. What this movie does very well is evoke the feeling I had as a kid, and it is gentle and sweet enough that no child would find anything troubling in it. In this way, it is a throw back. This is a hand drawn film, and it differs in almost every way from the Pixar films. There are no A-list movie stars providing voices, no too-cool-for school double entendres, and no bells, whistles, or loud explosions. No, this is a film that shows that simple, sweet story telling still can have a place in the arts. Furthermore, when it is done well, it has an effect on adults that it could never have an kids. This is part of what CS Lewis was saying, I think, in the quote above. Once one reaches a certain age (especially when one has children) all of the stories of one's childhood come back, and they return with more power than ever.
This movie pieces together parts from AA Milne's books. The one strength I thought the first film has was the way it told 3 different stories. This movie pieces many plots together to form one story, and I think the narrative suffers a bit, but the story itself is cute and innocent, so it doesn't suffer much. The main plot arc involves Eeyore losing his tail, and Christopher Robin and his friends trying to find him a new one. As the story moves on, one thing I will say is that this film shows the animals being totally lost without Christopher Robin, which shows a sweetness to their world that the original film didn't have.
My world is immersed in Winnie the Pooh right now. The children are devouring the audio books and audio dramas, and they are in love with this world. I'm glad. The children need simple and imaginative fables just like they need grand drama and adventures in their lives. The sight of little Christopher Robin in his school uniform evokes something. It invokes the fleeting nature of childhood, and the stuffed animals signify that as well. School signifies an end to Christopher Robin's endless world of play and doing nothing. That time will end for my children soon enough. Until then, I'm glad I have stories like this to share with them.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Unstoppable
The grizzled veteran, the untested rookie, the feisty person in the trenches, the rich suits who make the calls but don't know anything, the pushy press corp, the brainiac with amazingly convenient knowledge and the big problem no one can solve. Almost every action movie has these parts, but only a few end up being greater than the sum of their parts. "Unstoppable" is such an action movie.
For me, as I watched this one a few weeks ago, I came to a realization. A lot of action movies try to bring in human elements, but spend so much time on the human stories that the pace of the action is lost or the stories are inane (one type of Michael Bay movie). Some action movies have no human element, so in the midst of all the chases and explosions, it can be difficult to care about the characters (the other type of Michael Bay movie). This movie gives us enough of a glimpse into the character's lives to care, but manages to juggle that within the context of the action of the movie.
The movie deals with a train that has accidentally been throttled and left unmanned. As it careens through Pennsylvania, the folks back at the station have to figure out a way to stop the train. They must stop the train before it reaches a particular town which has such a sharp turn on the track that there is no way the train will make the turn at full speed without derailing. Also, the train is carrying copious amounts of harmful chemicals, so any crash would result in mass destruction. On the other side of the state, Frank and Will (a classic duo played by Denzel Washington and Chris Pine) are heading straight for the runaway train, and for reasons I won't go into, they are unable to get out of the way.
Sometimes, bad material is made better by good actors. In this movie, good material is made great by good acting. Denzel Washington has been given all the appropriate accolades over the course of his career, but this movie has his wonderful skill and charisma on display yet again. Chris Pine is also quite good, and the two of them are able to take some cliched dialogue ("I've been driving trains for 28 years...what do you know?") and make it very believable. Rosario Dawson plays Connie at the control center, and her performance reminds me of Ed Harris in "Apollo 13". She knows when to take over, and when to delegate. And Chris Dunn plays the ultimate stuffed shirt. He is Connie's supervisor, and he makes all the wrong calls, while the less paid peons come up with all the right ideas. The viewer even gets the satisfying scenes of watching Connie, Will and Frank all tell off their supervisor, something about which most of us have dreamed at one time or another. All of this is overseen by Tony Scott, who brings it all together with great skill.
So here it is, proof that the big studios can make wonderful entertainment. Pop some corn, grab a friend and put this one in...and then get ready for a great ride.
For me, as I watched this one a few weeks ago, I came to a realization. A lot of action movies try to bring in human elements, but spend so much time on the human stories that the pace of the action is lost or the stories are inane (one type of Michael Bay movie). Some action movies have no human element, so in the midst of all the chases and explosions, it can be difficult to care about the characters (the other type of Michael Bay movie). This movie gives us enough of a glimpse into the character's lives to care, but manages to juggle that within the context of the action of the movie.
The movie deals with a train that has accidentally been throttled and left unmanned. As it careens through Pennsylvania, the folks back at the station have to figure out a way to stop the train. They must stop the train before it reaches a particular town which has such a sharp turn on the track that there is no way the train will make the turn at full speed without derailing. Also, the train is carrying copious amounts of harmful chemicals, so any crash would result in mass destruction. On the other side of the state, Frank and Will (a classic duo played by Denzel Washington and Chris Pine) are heading straight for the runaway train, and for reasons I won't go into, they are unable to get out of the way.
Sometimes, bad material is made better by good actors. In this movie, good material is made great by good acting. Denzel Washington has been given all the appropriate accolades over the course of his career, but this movie has his wonderful skill and charisma on display yet again. Chris Pine is also quite good, and the two of them are able to take some cliched dialogue ("I've been driving trains for 28 years...what do you know?") and make it very believable. Rosario Dawson plays Connie at the control center, and her performance reminds me of Ed Harris in "Apollo 13". She knows when to take over, and when to delegate. And Chris Dunn plays the ultimate stuffed shirt. He is Connie's supervisor, and he makes all the wrong calls, while the less paid peons come up with all the right ideas. The viewer even gets the satisfying scenes of watching Connie, Will and Frank all tell off their supervisor, something about which most of us have dreamed at one time or another. All of this is overseen by Tony Scott, who brings it all together with great skill.
So here it is, proof that the big studios can make wonderful entertainment. Pop some corn, grab a friend and put this one in...and then get ready for a great ride.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Cars 2
I have a feeling that the conception of this movie revolved around how many more toys Disney would be able to sell. This movie plays like an amazing looking two hour toy commercial. It was entertaining, to be sure, but it lacked much of the heart of the original, and continues to illustrate what can fall short at time in Pixar films. Now, before everyone comes screaming at me with knives for saying that every Pixar film is nothing but total genius, I want to say I like Pixar movies. I have begun to like them even more now that I have kids, and I can see them through their eyes. But here also lies the problem...kids cannot possibly comprehend the Pixar movies totally, since they are riddled with inside jokes and double entendres. The innocence of other Disney movies can be lost in that. That doesn't mean these films don't work well for what they are, but it does mean that some of them fall short of classic story telling. "Finding Nemo" succeeded, "Wall-E" showed a Chaplinesque brilliance, and "Toy Story 3" worked well for adults, since it is mainly about a child growing up. But "Cars 2" is simply ordinary. That's hard to do, because the animation here is amazing, and the visual imagination continues to impress me. But the story is flat. My kids had almost no interaction with the movie (Corrie wept when she first saw "Nemo", and I heard nothing from her during this one).
Such as it is, this movie's plot revolves around Lightning McQueen taking part in an international Grand Prix, and how Tow-Mater gets caught up in a James Bondesque international intrigue. There is the obligatory shot at big oil, and then we are off on an international spy caper. McQueen shows little sensitivity to Mater, and somehow they have to patch up their friendship. All this gives the animators the chance to showcase some truly brilliant visuals of Tokyo, the Italian Riviera, Paris, and London.
What the Pixar movies sometimes do very well is evoke emotion and heart ("Up" did this very well). The original "Cars" also did this effectively by showing us the bygone era of Route 66 and making it universal by making its audience remember places in all of our hearts that have gone away. This movie does not try to evoke much emotion. In so doing, it loses the texture of storytelling. Also, as a parent, one of the things that always is slightly off putting with Pixar films is just how geared toward grownups these films really are. Before "Cars 2", we saw a trailer for the new "Winnie the Pooh" film, and both Steph and I saw a movie we know our kids will love. That trailer elicited more of a response in minutes from the kids than "Cars 2" did in hours. The Pooh movies are able to entertain adults by chiefly appealing to the inner child in adults rather than to them as adults. Steph and I aren't as interested in all the bells and whistles as much as we are interested in simple storytelling for our kids. Having said that, our kids have seen nearly all of the Pixar movies, and we will continue to watch them. Further, some of the films do indeed have traits of classic storytelling. This movie lacks childlike storytelling, but has all the bells and whistles to keep the kids entertained. The hatred of the critics that I have seen directed toward this movie sort of baffles me. Since Pixar films are such darlings of the critics, this one is getting roasted since it doesn't measure up. Folks, this is a fun movie with very little depth that is amazing to look at. If you're up for an entertaining, somewhat forgettable 2 hours, see the movie. If you want a deeper emotional experience as well, I suggest you rent "Finding Nemo".
Such as it is, this movie's plot revolves around Lightning McQueen taking part in an international Grand Prix, and how Tow-Mater gets caught up in a James Bondesque international intrigue. There is the obligatory shot at big oil, and then we are off on an international spy caper. McQueen shows little sensitivity to Mater, and somehow they have to patch up their friendship. All this gives the animators the chance to showcase some truly brilliant visuals of Tokyo, the Italian Riviera, Paris, and London.
What the Pixar movies sometimes do very well is evoke emotion and heart ("Up" did this very well). The original "Cars" also did this effectively by showing us the bygone era of Route 66 and making it universal by making its audience remember places in all of our hearts that have gone away. This movie does not try to evoke much emotion. In so doing, it loses the texture of storytelling. Also, as a parent, one of the things that always is slightly off putting with Pixar films is just how geared toward grownups these films really are. Before "Cars 2", we saw a trailer for the new "Winnie the Pooh" film, and both Steph and I saw a movie we know our kids will love. That trailer elicited more of a response in minutes from the kids than "Cars 2" did in hours. The Pooh movies are able to entertain adults by chiefly appealing to the inner child in adults rather than to them as adults. Steph and I aren't as interested in all the bells and whistles as much as we are interested in simple storytelling for our kids. Having said that, our kids have seen nearly all of the Pixar movies, and we will continue to watch them. Further, some of the films do indeed have traits of classic storytelling. This movie lacks childlike storytelling, but has all the bells and whistles to keep the kids entertained. The hatred of the critics that I have seen directed toward this movie sort of baffles me. Since Pixar films are such darlings of the critics, this one is getting roasted since it doesn't measure up. Folks, this is a fun movie with very little depth that is amazing to look at. If you're up for an entertaining, somewhat forgettable 2 hours, see the movie. If you want a deeper emotional experience as well, I suggest you rent "Finding Nemo".
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Super 8
What a great summer movie! It reminds me so much of ET, but stands on its own as well for all that it brings. JJ Abrams, this film's director, has become a favorite of mine because he loves making movies. His movies have that sense to them. He is in love with movie making, and he loves making movies for the audience. I was a big fan of his version of "Star Trek", and this movie is another entertaining entry from him.
When I first saw ET when I was 7, the thing I loved about it was that the kids in the movie had enormous power. How did those kids on bikes elude the entire police department? "Super 8" is at its best when it evokes that same sense. When the kids making their super 8 movie and when it concentrates on the elements of being their age, the movie shines. The kids are old enough to start to be aware of the opposite sex, but young enough to be clumsy and full of wonder. The movie stumbles a bit with a somewhat run of the mill sci-fi plot, but the scenes of the kids and the human interest story more than carry the day.
The plot is relatively simple. Joe has lost his mother. He is reeling from the loss. Months later, his friend Charles includes him in the making of his zombie movie. Joe's dad is a local deputy who doesn't know how to relate to his son. The movie crew heads to the train station to film a climactic scene. As the scene is being shot, an actual train goes by, and a car runs onto the tracks and derails the train. As the young film crew seeks cover, the super 8 camera still runs, and it picks something up on film that is truly remarkable.
The movie is also at its best when the mystery regarding what is on the train still remains. Once that mystery is revealed, the film becomes more pedestrian. However, it still is great because the characters have given us buy in, and we care about them and love seeing their ups and downs. These are the scenes that remind me of classic Spielberg films. Steven Spielberg produced this film, and JJ Abrams seems to be a worthy protege for his kind of filmmaking. Here, we have an engaging story delightfully realized and told. We also have a movie with a heart. We care very much about how Joe and his father will get along, and we also care about what will happen between Joe and the girl. I am so happy that Abrams is making movies like this. We need some solid escapist entertainment at times, and Abrams is serving it up so well. The closing credits only solidify what we already knew-JJ Abrams makes wonderfully entertaining movies.
When I first saw ET when I was 7, the thing I loved about it was that the kids in the movie had enormous power. How did those kids on bikes elude the entire police department? "Super 8" is at its best when it evokes that same sense. When the kids making their super 8 movie and when it concentrates on the elements of being their age, the movie shines. The kids are old enough to start to be aware of the opposite sex, but young enough to be clumsy and full of wonder. The movie stumbles a bit with a somewhat run of the mill sci-fi plot, but the scenes of the kids and the human interest story more than carry the day.
The plot is relatively simple. Joe has lost his mother. He is reeling from the loss. Months later, his friend Charles includes him in the making of his zombie movie. Joe's dad is a local deputy who doesn't know how to relate to his son. The movie crew heads to the train station to film a climactic scene. As the scene is being shot, an actual train goes by, and a car runs onto the tracks and derails the train. As the young film crew seeks cover, the super 8 camera still runs, and it picks something up on film that is truly remarkable.
The movie is also at its best when the mystery regarding what is on the train still remains. Once that mystery is revealed, the film becomes more pedestrian. However, it still is great because the characters have given us buy in, and we care about them and love seeing their ups and downs. These are the scenes that remind me of classic Spielberg films. Steven Spielberg produced this film, and JJ Abrams seems to be a worthy protege for his kind of filmmaking. Here, we have an engaging story delightfully realized and told. We also have a movie with a heart. We care very much about how Joe and his father will get along, and we also care about what will happen between Joe and the girl. I am so happy that Abrams is making movies like this. We need some solid escapist entertainment at times, and Abrams is serving it up so well. The closing credits only solidify what we already knew-JJ Abrams makes wonderfully entertaining movies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)