j1stoner Reviews

Moonage Daydream (2022)

Creative, but no Documentary

[8/10 · 1 October 2022]

An original, director's take on Bowie's career. There is no voice-over; all the words are from interviews with Bowie himself over the years, or a few selected recordings of Bowie speaking about himself.

There is a little problem with this: Bowie is not the most reliable observer of himself and where he is, psychically, over the decades. Some of it is a little too self-serving; other comments about himself prove to be inaccurate, though they may have been honest comments at the time.

In terms of visuals, I was impressed by the selection, from many concert performances, and other video from his extensive travels, supplemented by a variety of light-show type spacey creations and bits taken from popular culture and some of his acting performances. (Though nothing from "The Man Who Fell to Earth", to me his most relevant one. Perhaps his estate did not want too much of the obvious Bowie-as-Spaceboy meme.)

In terms of the musical selections, mostly OK, though each of us may have had songs they would have liked to see included. For me, those would be "Five Years" and "Outside", both of which I think would have fit. But that's a case of too much richness for one movie, which was already some 150 minutes long. Maybe too long.

Respect (2021)

Decent biopic

[7/10 · 17 August 2021]

Jennifer Hudson was a good choice to play Aretha, maybe the only possible one.

I learned a lot about her earlier life, before superstardom, that I did not know. But I felt like all the time exposing her husband's abuse and her fight for independence was not that edifying. I've seen it all before in other movies.

I would have liked more upbeat music that she performed, that in my view fit her voice better.

News of the World (2020)

A Western with a Difference

[8/10 · 27 March 2021]

Like many other Westerns,a principal theme here is the importance of morality in bringing sanity to human life in the absence of stable authority. There is more, though: the possibility of redemption through empathy, though it is a difficult and sometimes painful path.

Examples of empathy, or the lack of it, and the results thereof, abound in the story.. (Story itself is a key motif, as a key to empathy.) An unusual diversity of viewpoints is modeled, from unredeemed racism, to traumatized victims of war and oppression, to the desperate efforts of Native Americans to preserve their traditional ways of life.

I will leave aside Tom Hanks' penchant for starring in roles as a messianic hero cracking wise, except to say he does it well, always a little differently each time..

Special mention for the young girl playing the other leading character in a very challenging role, and for the elaborate sets depicting the wild North Texas country during Reconstruction, a critical, rarely-portrayed period of US history with clear relevance for our era.

Chaos Walking (2021)

I Fear Many Have Misunderstood

[8/10 · 6 March 2021]

There is more to the film than just the varied and exciting scenery (Quebec), the overwrought sets of ruined spaceships, the river thrill ride and accompanying music. As sci-fi, it's a rather tired theme, the reversion to savagery in colonizers isolated from the warm embrace of earth. I may be overambitious, but I saw homage to "The Revenant", "Cloud Atlas", "Avatar", and "Alien". It looks as though it will have a much worse financial return than any of those, but that's the risk they took.

There is a parable in the story, a central question in human relations: what if the thoughts of men were known? How would our society survive? The writers of this parable also pushed forward a distinction between that ugly thought mess which men have and women's thoughts do not, those (as revealed solely through actions and spoken words) being much more straightforward, uncomplicated, and yes, beautiful. It is no accident that the rating by women here is a full point higher than those of men.

One additional point: The "noise" conceit of the original novel gives it all a stream-of-consciousness vibe that I haven't seen for awhile. I for one was glad to watch it, with all its somewhat corny virtues.

The Tree of Life (2011)

When 10 is not Enough

[10/10 · 15 June 2020]

A film that is almost both too pleasurable and too painful to watch.

The scope is too large to be contained; all of life and death and beyond (it includes lava flows, undersea shots, and an eclipse of the sun). Figurative language abounds, and I can't say I could comprehend it all, but it includes a literal tree featuring in the main character's life, and a vision of the afterlife (crowded beach and shallows at the shore of a great sea) that is indelible.

The cinematography, under the supervision of the godly Emmanuel 'Chivo' Lubezki, is exquisite, luminous and evocative. The musical soundtrack adds to the emotional drama.

The acting is of a peculiar kind. There is very little dialogue, ever; there are whispered clues, and solo outbursts and comments, but rarely if ever is one person speaking in response to another's speech. The main character, Jack, as a young boy, and his mother, played by Jessica Chastain, shine despite these constraints.

Watching the film could easily be a bad experience, if one is not in the mood for such a chaotic, but disciplined, presentation. As in, boring in the extreme. As, in falling asleep until the credits. I could understand that, but try not to give up--think empathy, think memory that just can't wait.

If I had to give a single overriding theme, it is about guilt and its cure, forgiveness. It is a movie of surpassing goodness. I have tried to watch director Terrence Malick's work whenever I can find it; some of the films are like this, but inferior, and some are more conventional. This, I find to be his masterpiece.

Late Night (2019)

More than meets the eye

[8/10 · 8 August 2019]

Emma Thompson is rightly praised for her acting in this film; she turns in her usual professional performance, subsuming her own personality in the interests of fulfilling the demands of the role. The real star of the movie, though, is its writer, the co-lead actor, Mindy Kaling.

I laughed and I cried, I marveled at much of the snappy dialogue, I admired the complex characters she created--not least that of Walter, the husband of Thompson's character, played by John Lithgow, and that of Brad, the head monologue writer, played by Reid Scott (of "Veep").

There is a lot about workplace abuse, harassment, feminism, and the often misogynistic and misanthropic nature of much of our comedy. I liked the real-world shots in New York, which subtly brought out the gross inequality present in the lives of New Yorkers.

The one thing I did not like about the movie was its distribution strategy. "limited release" and Amazon video don't add up to a strategy to promote this movie to its fullest. That's history now, though; I saw the film in a proper auditorium as part of a film society. Much more effective for the viewer, and it made me appreciate its qualities.much more than I would have done if I'd just watched it on my laptop.

Il santo patrono (1972)

Cute Comedy after Little Rascals

[8/10 · 20 June 2019]

Filming is typical of the 1970's European style. A charming little Italian town in the countryside is the scene of various capers, including a group of big-city thieves looking to steal a rare piece of antiquity, a gang of youngsters who steal and hide it first, and a young priest--played by none other than the 1970's pop star Lucio Dalla--with his rubber-faced loyal assistant, who provides slapstick comedy.

I don't know if it was ever translated or dubbed into English. Finding it on TV in Italy provided a nice surprise.

Allied (2016)

Better than I Expected

[8/10 · 27 November 2016]

You may have seen the preview for this movie; I would say that that does not fully prepare you for the actual movie. It is a movie that will appeal to adults, both men and women, and it includes romance, sacrifice, and plenty of action and spy hi jinks.

A very good script, with some great plot turns, and superior acting from both Marion Cotillard and Brad Pitt in complex, challenging roles. My favorite bit: when they make love in a car in the Moroccan desert with a sandstorm going on all around them. It is a good metaphor for their love story in the midst of the great chaos of World War II. And it has a realistic feel, for the most part--for the sets in Casablanca (some good homage to the Bogart film, I would say also some Brando homage in parts of Pitt's performance), and the time back in the UK (second favorite bit is during a party in London). One does get the sense of the all-out effort demanded to win the war, something we do well to commemorate in these days when the last veterans of that most epic event in history are at death's door.

It is a Zemeckis film, from the school of film-making of Steven Spielberg, and that means your emotions are subject to the whim and whimsy of the director's manipulation. Sometimes you are aware of that, but oftentimes you are not, and that makes it better (than, say, Forrest Gump).

I will take the movie as a whole and suggest Oscar nominations for original screenplay and both leading roles.

The Lobster (2015)

Maximum Weirdness

[4/10 · 4 June 2016]

It's very dark comedy, a combination of great beauty (the scenery, the animals) and great ugliness. The actors tried very hard--though they were limited by being forced to recite most of their lines in a monotone--and there were certainly some interesting characters, surprising plot twists, powerful music, and some pointed satire referring to some of the strangeness about our own society's mating rituals.

I will give the authors credit for staying true to their artistic vision--but it is a sick one, in my humble opinion. Because of the undoubted merits I mention above, I cannot give it the lowest rating, but I really do not recommend it. It was about two hours long, but it felt like five, and the ending didn't justify the wait.

Youth (I) (2015)

Good follow-up to "La Grande Bellezza"

[9/10 · 2 June 2015]

A lot should be expected of Paolo Sorrentino after "La Grande Bellezza", and there is a lot here. In particular, I should mention first the scenery and cinematography, and the music, all of which are sublime.

The dialogue is provocative, full of memorable lines and strong emotions, so kudos to the writers. The subject matter was heavy, but there is a fair share of lighter moments, and, in particular, irony.

I would not think that the acting was at all improvised, with the possible exception of some of the riffing the "screenwriters" working with Harvey Keitel's character were doing. Still, strong performances in particular from Keitel, Jane Fonda in a small role, the young actress who plays the masseuse, and a dignified Michael Caine.

Sorrentino continues to give homage to Fellini, which I love, while his central characters (Caine in this one, Toni Servillo in LGB) work through the kind of existential issues which Fellini tackled and which Sorrentino, though he is not an old man, seems to be anticipating. Nostalgia, regret, the sweetness and the bitterness that comes from the awareness of the limitations of our short lives.

The one thing that struck me as useless to the story--maybe I just didn't get it--was the turn Paul Dano's character made for a couple of scenes as...well, I shouldn't spoil it. It struck everyone in the scenes as inappropriate, and I guess that was the point, but really, why? For me, that takes it down to a 9 rating--still, a top-notch effort.

Runaway Jury (2003)

Watching this movie now is quite revealing

[7/10 · 9 February 2015]

I have just now seen this 12-year old movie for the first time, and it seems incredibly dated. I liked the acting of the first-string cast-- among others, Gene Hackman as the totally amoral jury fixer, John Cusack and the adorable Rachel Weisz as the couple scheming secretly on several levels (along with lesser performances by future "Entourage" star Jeremy Piven and Dustin Hoffman adopting a sweet lil' Nawlins accent)--and it is a moderately compelling courtroom drama (not nearly as emotionally compelling as "The Verdict", though).

The whole notion of the movie today seems incredibly idealistic today, though. The idea of this movie is that gun manufacturers (in this case, of a semi-automatic rifle) can be held responsible in a civil suit for the crimes committed by a purchaser of the gun.

I have seen the case made that there is a product liability case to be made against manufacturers. They are selling a product which causes harm to others due to the nature of the product's manufacture--like tobacco, say, which has had to pay out mega-billions for making a product that is inherently unsafe. Unfortunately, this argument tends to fall short because, in fact, guns (and I am speaking of semi- automatics, and handguns, not hunting rifles) do exactly what they were made to do: maim and kill people. This is not an unintended side effect of the product, as the medical harm from tobacco and alcohol could be argued to be. This is an argument that is made in the movie, and from a legal standpoint, it is hard to say that the product itself was shown to be defective in any way, though its marketing was certainly deplorable.

Instead--and you will find this in the comments about this movie on this website--the argument is no longer about the inherent value or dysfunction of widespread gun ownership (not in any way related to hunting, or to belonging to any kind of legal militia, as the Second Amendment qualifies the right it specifies); it has buried itself into the question of whether as a society we can control who buys guns and whether we can control the actions of those who sell those guns.

Obviously, the fact is that we cannot. We see the truth--in terms of unhinged gun-crazed nuts killing multiple people--dozens of times a year. Most of the arguments for handgun/semi-automatic gun ownership (except for the dubious premise of their being "for sport only", in which case they wouldn't really need to own them, as they could leave them under lock and key at a gun range or borrow ones there, as one would do at an archery range) ultimately rely upon an alleged need for self-defense, which simply proves the point at the beginning of this paragraph, as in a civilized society we would be able to rely on the forces of order to keep us safe. Many countries do that successfully, but we cannot.

So, I have to end up by dismissing the good intentions of this film as sentimental idealism with no basis in today's society.

Interstellar (2014)

Well-Realized Fantasy

[10/10 · 7 December 2014]

I had the good fortune to find "Interstellar" in a cinema here in Milano yesterday evening in the original language, with subtitles. That's pretty rare here: the dubbing industry remains very strong, with skilled practitioners, and most Italians prefer to watch most films in Italian. I did find that having the original dialogue helped a lot with this movie, as it was not so much that the dialogue was complex, but that it retained the emotional content and inflections of the original actors. The titles (in Italian, of course) actually helped to keep from losing those parts which were "mumbled", an issue I see increasingly in American films. I guess it's realistic treatment to portray speaking roles in the way people actually speak--in the opposite direction from the hearer, asides barely heard--as opposed to declaiming theatrically.

Anyway, the movie made a deep impression and gave me a lot to think about. I am actually doing two reviews of it--this one, of a more general nature, and one which will go into more depth about some of the issues brought up in the climactic final hour. That one, which necessarily has some spoilers about some of the surprising turns toward the end of the movie, will go into a time capsule here and be released in a few months, when the first run (and anticipated post- Oscar continuation of that run) are over, and everyone has had the opportunity and time to see it. I feel that is very appropriate treatment for this movie.

I make a distinction between the old-style science fiction and the genre which has largely displaced it in recent decades, fantasy fiction. The main difference between the two is that science fiction should seek to place its narratives in a world we can see as a possible one (past, present, or future). Recognition, or explanation, of scientific understanding helps guide key aspects of the story in directions outside our normal experience, but still possible. Fantasy is not limited by the conventions of possible reality: instead its authors are allowed to consider worlds that may not be possible, beings that may never exist, and scenarios that could never realistically occur.

All fiction requires the suspension of disbelief--we need to believe, in the case of historical fiction for example, that the dialogues and events not historically recorded are real. Fantasy differs in that we need to accept, temporarily, an alternate reality. I would argue that "Interstellar" is fantasy--a well-presented one--but one that is contrary to what could ever be possible.

To recap the premise of the story of the movie, something that has been widely disclosed (so no spoiler here), a near-future plague is destroying all of the world's food crops. Only corn remains, and its continued viability is at risk. The population is already decimated and is in the process of dying out. A possible way to continue the species appears in the form of interstellar travel, through the fortuitous appearance of a space-time wormhole near Saturn, to some distant galaxies which may be able to support human life.

One little problem: interstellar travel is way beyond the capability of the human race, now and for the foreseeable future. Of course, in a movie titled "Interstellar", set just a few decades in the future, this is actually a fundamental problem. Director Christopher Nolan, who with his brother wrote the story, goes to great lengths to provide scientific underpinning for his fantastic construct. Some of it has validity, while some I could recognize, even with my freshman physics knowledge, was impossible, though mostly subtly so. I give him credit for trying to make the workings of interstellar travel believable, something that others--I think of "Avatar", the "Aliens" series, "Star Trek"--don't even attempt.

This effort does contribute to the value of the entertainment, though. What we see in "Interstellar" is a variety of people, people not unlike us, in a highly-stressful situation and their human reactions and behavior. There is emotional content, there are characters who develop through the story, there is some study of how decisions are made under stress, there is even philosophy. It is a human story, and a humane one. Violence is present, but in the proper measure; love is a primary factor. As a fantasy, it is quite a satisfying one: complex in its presentation, plenty of food for thought during and after, and the audio-visual aspect is all we should expect. (I might like to see it in Imax.)

I would say it sets a new standard in the genre of space fantasy for its depth and attempt at lucidity. In that sense, it exceeds movies like "Gravity"--which was not fantasy but similar in its drama and some key aspects--or "Avatar". I would compare it most directly to "2001: A Space Odyssey" (to which it's certainly better in the lucidity aspect, though maybe not the artistic ones) and to "Contact" (the Jodie Foster movie from some 20 years ago, based on a story by Carl Sagan). Both share with "Interstellar" a philosophy that man's destiny is in the stars, but "Interstellar" puts a different twist on it. "Interstellar" has a great cast, with several big stars playing their characters (not just themselves-- even Matthew McConnaughy, though he does bring a bit more redneck to the role than I thought was needed)--I was particularly tickled to see Wes Bentley (of "American Beauty") and Jeff Hephner (of "Boss"). Finally, I see some parallels with another, supposedly earth-bound, fantasy: "The Wizard of Oz" (however, no singing, though the musical score was excellent).

Even as a fantasy, "Interstellar" is hardly perfect, but to go into the errors--in concept, and in details--would require giving away too much. Check the time capsule in a few months.

My guess for Oscar: about 8-9 nominations, including sound, music, sets, a couple for acting, original screenplay, director, Best Picture, and 3-4 wins.

The Taming of the Scoundrel (1980)

Taming of the Shrewd

[8/10 · 19 April 2014]

OK, maybe a 8 is a bit too high (depends on your standards), but it was much better than I had a right to expect. First, unlike the other reviewers, I care not at all for Adriano Celentano, his music or his popular persona. So, what I like about the role he plays is that he makes fun of himself. At least I hope, for his sake, that he was making fun of himself and not playing himself in any way.

The title, in Italian, is the masculine equivalent of "The Taming of the Shrew", and the story is more or less turning that play on its head. Maybe a little less, in that both the man and the woman play the object of the humor at various points, but the point being that the unconquerable (man) is, in the end, brought down by love.

And Ornella Muti is, at this time, at the top of her game in every way. I couldn't help noticing that mole right in the middle of the bridge of her nose, though. Was it just for this film?

The dialogue is great in Italian, and Celentano's deadpan delivery hits it just right, as does Muti's as a rich, spoiled Milanese man eater--I hope it translates OK.

I have to say that the ending, with the very unrealistic basketball game, was cartoonish, and somewhat ruined the structured comedy, charming but rude, which preceded it.

Django Unchained (2012)

Not very funny; violence more than sufficient

[6/10 · 30 December 2012]

It's not that there is no humor; I laughed out loud maybe twice. Very early on, though, it becomes clear that we are supposed to be enthralled (amused? impressed?) by unrealistic gun play and explosive red blots, and that theme continues throughout.

Christoph Waltz clearly enjoyed his role and performs it with relish and a twinkle in his eye. Every time he opened his mouth, I thought "Richard Dreyfuss"--I don't say that is either good nor bad, but to me, it was Waltz playing Dreyfuss playing this role.

Jamie Foxx seemed to take his role too seriously, as the movie does not deserve it, or maybe he just doesn't do comedy well anymore (I seem to remember some funny bits on "In Living Color", but that was long ago.) Samuel Jackson played his role as "house Negro" well, but he didn't do himself much honor by taking it. There were some good cameos, particularly Don Johnson as a slaveowner in Tennessee, and Franco Nero as an Italian owner of a Mandingo fighter in Mississippi. Quentin Tarantino's cameo was ridiculously bad acting; he should refrain from putting himself in future movies.

Leonardo DiCaprio's role as a degenerate slaveowner was generally well portrayed, from a stylistic point of view. I would say his character's dialogue was not particularly well written, but he has no particular cause for complaint, as bad dialogue prevails throughout, except for some ill-fitting attempts at intellectual discourse, which I saw as showy and superficial in such a mindlessly violent exercise. (I suppose the bad dialogue could be said to be intentional, but it earns Tarantino no credit.)

What else? I don't object to the excessive use of the 'n' word, as it probably is realistic for the period. Unlike, say, "Huckleberry Finn", its use doesn't have anything profound to say about slavery except that some slaves would really have liked to kill every white person in sight (not too surprising, probably). The closest to something meaningful was when DiCaprio's character asks the interesting question: "Why do the slaves not kill their masters?" and doesn't answer it. Clearly many of the bad guys deserved what they got, but not all of them, and the script shows little discrimination (so to speak). The plot was tediously predictable, though I do admit I knew the outlines of it before I went in to see it.

Tarantino's use of old-fashioned spaghetti Western titles, Nero, and the song performed in Italian (could get a nomination, if the field is weak enough) was probably his most interesting directorial motif, but it was neither surprising, funny, nor profound.

Groundhog Day (1993)

Funny and deep

[9/10 · 8 January 2012]

I saw this again after 10 years or more had passed since my last viewing, and my appreciation of it--particularly the writing--grew enormously. I had given it 7 stars back then, but I've upped it to 9.

This time around, I see the movie as being about two things: 1) how hard it can be to get laid properly; and 2) the eternal recurrence (see Nietzsche--"Thus Spake Zarathustra," and elsewhere). The idea is, we should live our life as though it will be repeated, again and again, forever. If that were true, and we knew it, we would strive to make the day perfect in every way. Then, how much better all our lives would be!

Why not 10 of 10, then? What the movie lacks is any self-reflection at all. The ideas are there, but because they are presented in the context of a silly idea, and because Bill Murray's excellent performance--the very essence of character development--proceeds only through crude trial, error, and more trial and error, then it takes us repeated viewings to get the point.

Another qualm, somewhat minor, is that the piano teacher whom Bill Murray takes on late in the story somehow takes credit for his miraculous development as a jazz pianist: if she is like all the other characters in the story (except Murray), she has only known him for one day and could hardly think that she had taken him from rank beginner to polished professional performer in a single day. I think that by this point in the story, the writers and audience were both getting a bit weary of painstaking plot and character development and were asked to take on sudden change without question.

Miral (2010)

Compelling Memoir of an Israeli Palestinian Woman

[8/10 · 13 April 2011]

On a recent visit to New York about two weeks ago, I happened upon the opportunity to watch the movie "Miral", followed by a Q&A session with director Julian Schnabel ("Diving Bell and the Butterfly", one of my top 10 movies of the last decade), and with the writer of the screenplay and the memoir upon which the movie was based, Israeli Palestinian Rula Jebreal.

Jebreal's book is also named "Miral"; the movie and the book are the story of her youthful experiences growing up a Palestinian in Jerusalem, as well as stories about her mother and about a remarkable woman--named Hind Hussein--who started an orphanage and school there in the aftermath of the chaos around the creation of the Israeli state in 1947. Rula Jebreal was "Miral", a character named after a flower that grows by the side of the road in that region, and she grew up in the orphanage, attending the school, after the suicide of her mother (I believe it was the early '70's).

Filmed in a variety of great locations in Israel and the West Bank, the movie shows the misery and strife of military occupation from the point of view of Palestinians. Rula/Miral has the status of being an Israeli citizen, as her ancestors never left, and finds her identity as a Palestinian as a teenager. Miss Hind, the towering figure of the orphanage/school for some 40 years from the time she founded it, provides hope for the young girls there and does her best to protect them from the dangers of the intifada (uprising). At the story's end, she arranges for Miral to go to Italy to attend university, then dies, a local hero.

Rula's experiences include an infatuation with a young intifada leader who first supports the Al Fatah (PLO) position, then runs afoul of them and is killed as an accused traitor; she is taken by the Israeli authorities, interrogated, then blindfolded, bound, and beaten; her Israeli citizenship saved her from more prolonged imprisonment. Still, her experiences are not nearly as harsh as those the film recounts of her mother, who was abused and degraded, falsely imprisoned by the Israelis, and afterwards could not live with herself. Miral's "father" (the parentage was shown not to be biological) is one of the few positive male characters, a complicated character who was a devout Muslim, loyal to Miral's mother despite her infidelity, and a loving father, yet one who gives up custody of his daughter to the orphanage.

Beyond the range of the movie's story, Rula Jebreal became a journalist in Italy (as she said, "the first 'black' TV presenter there"). She spoke passionately at the Q&A session of her desire to raise awareness in the world of the plight of the Palestinians, though affirming her love of the area and acknowledging that she loves Israel as well. One thing she does not accept, and of which her life is testimony, is the Zionist notion that Israel is a Jewish state; though she came to have Jewish friends and appreciate their culture (some of which is shown in the movie), she wants a unitary state for all who live there.

The film is deeply affecting, though perhaps not as much as Schnabel's "Diving Bell". Frieda Pinto, the (South Asian) female lead of the smash hit 2008 movie "Slumdog Millionaire", is a bit of a controversial choice for the difficult role of Miral, but I will say that she brings to it something like the beauty which I witnessed that evening from Rula herself. Her father was played by an actor, Alexander Siddig, who seemed very familiar but I could not place: turns out he was a regular, Dr. Bashir, on "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (not a great recommendation, I know, but his performance here was sympathetic and dignified). The other two key roles, both very challenging to portray, were those of Hind Hussein and of Miral's mother Nadia, played by Palestinian actresses, Hiam Abbass and Yasmine El Masri, respectively. Willem Dafoe and Vanessa Redgrave both lent their presence to the movie, though their roles are relatively small and peripheral to the story.

Schnabel spoke of the difficulty in getting official permissions to film in many locations, but also of the cooperation and passionate support for his effort that he sometimes found, and of the beauty of the region. He is known primarily as a painter, and is the son of prominent Jewish leaders, but has taken a courageous, independent political stance with this effort. He has run into some resistance from the Hollywood community, not too surprising considering the subject matter; he didn't need their help to make the film, but he will need it (and will not get it) to get broad enough distribution for him and Rula to accomplish their aim of raising political awareness. They may have to settle for the satisfaction of telling a compelling story beautifully, as both their political aims and commercial success will no doubt lie beyond their capability.

Robin Hood (2010)

Making It Real

[8/10 · 15 May 2010]

I see Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" as continuing the project he started with "Kingdom of Heaven" in 2005; the attempt to de-mystify the legends of the medieval age, putting the naked brutality, injustice, and cruelty of period in clear view.

Film allows total fancy and whimsy (for example the classic Errol Flynn version of "Robin Hood"), but it can also make things concrete. Scott makes every effort to put us into that bygone world and see what it was like. It was ugly and savage, but it was also a world in which people had aspirations for justice and liberty. Scott places Robin Hood into a historical context which, if not factually accurate, at least gives a picture of the political realities of the times. So, it's serious, but also (much more than "Kingdom of Heaven") entertainment, with some good dialogue and more than a fair share of action.

Some of the casting was very good, I think, especially Max von Sydow as Lady Marian's old, blind father, Danny Huston as King Richard the Lion-Hearted, and Kevin Durand as a very different kind of Little John, the warrior. Also, writer Brian Helgeland invented some good anecdotes of Robin's early associations with those who became his Merry Men, and came up with some straight-outta-modern dialogue between Robin and his lady as they initially battle, court (but not in the old-fashioned style), and love.

As for the leads, Cate Blanchett's portrayal reminds me of many other feisty, down-to-earth Englishwomen, and I think it will be very popular. Russell Crowe's Robin is not going to be such a crowd-pleaser, but I think he produced the performance that Scott wanted.

Avatar (2009)

Great movie but flawed 8/10 (light spoilage)

[8/10 · 19 December 2009]

James Cameron's Avatar is a landmark film, a fully-realized and brilliantly-executed vision of complexity and passion. It promises to be a runaway hit, a strong contender for the Best Picture Oscar, and a point of reference for movies of its genre--special effects-driven sci- fi epic thrillers--for decades to come.

Avatar is a story set in the future (the date shown is 2154, a point to which I'll return). At any rate, it's close enough to the present that people are more or less the same in their motivations and ways of thinking and acting, but they have greater technological capability, including suspended hibernation and interstellar travel. Our hero is a Marine veteran named Jake Sully who's lost use of his legs, but is recruited nevertheless to accompany a "scientific" expedition on an alien planet, populated by 10-foot tall blue humanoids, who live in a forest world (called "Pandora") which the human invaders covet. Human society's imminent collapse due to overpopulation and environmental degradation has sent our descendants on a mission of colonization and exploitation.

I am no technical expert and am certainly not qualified to explain how the movie was filmed. Certainly computer-generated imagery is central to the many scenes set in Pandora, but that doesn't begin to describe the various effects, or how it affects us. I will say that the use of 3D is better, and more meaningful, than I have ever seen.

The key leap of faith for our story is the development of a hybrid of human and "Ni'va" (the Pandorans), which the human can mentally inhabit through some sort of sleep in a chamber. Our hero accidentally ends up with the locals, becomes accepted by them, and ultimately is brought into their society as a full member--just in time for the onslaught by the human invaders who want their land. Between sessions, Jake Sully comes out of his dream state and reports on what he is learning.

The beauty of the film is in the sequences in which Jake, in his "avatar" persona among the Ni'va, experiences their world and learns their customs. Their world is unsettling and dangerous to us, but once Jake gets used to his new, blue body and its powers, we get used to the idea that he isn't going to fall to his death. He comes to love his adopted Pandorans (and one in particular), to the point that when the crunch comes, he finds a way to stand with them and help rally them in their defense.

This movie is unique in its execution (the best effect is probably the 3D computer screens used for Jake's latter-day YouTube video logs), but the story has several identifiable antecedents. In the depiction of human aggression and ruthlessness, of course one thinks of the history with Native Americans, our extermination of many species, and even perhaps our involvement with exotic earthbound populations like the Vietnamese or Afghans. There are definite parallels with Cameron's own "Aliens", like the immoral businessman who sells his soul for a buck-- and the casting coup of Sigourney Weaver in the role of a linguist/scientist who tried to understand and help the Ni'va. I saw elements of "Dune" in the transformation of our hero into a near-deity, and the strong culture of the natives (and saw at the film's end that the production company is called "Dune Entertainment"). A bit more obscure, but even closer parallel, is to a classic sci-fi novella from the '70's by Ursula LeGuin called "The Word for World is Forest", which I suggest for some closer study. I wonder whether Cameron himself knows the story and acknowledges the many similarities...

So why do I rate this movie an 8 out of 10, if I acknowledge its extraordinary quality for a movie of its type? My objections are three: 1) There is a fundamental flaw around the date of the story; it is necessary to make it soon, in order to make the existential dilemma of this human society believable, but it is impossible to believe that we can achieve interstellar travel and some of the other technological marvels so soon. One could suggest that the people could travel in suspended animation for hundreds of years to get to another solar system, and that they could have continuity in their way of thought to then, but not that the social dilemma could be so protracted that the voyage would have immediate value (nor the short-term profit motives that are cited). 2) The love story between Jake/Avatar and the Ni'va woman is not really necessary for the plot, nor is it totally believable. I see it as being a way to make the movie more palatable for women, a very successful device he used in "Titanic" to great commercial effect. 3) The view of humanity is so unredeemably negative that it leaves a bad taste. Another reference one cannot avoid is to "The Lord of the Rings" (large-scale special effect fantasy epic), but here we are the Dark Lord, the agents of Mordor. Let's just hope that dystopian visions like this one will inform humanity when we finally go a-calling into the universe.

The ending, I'll just say, is satisfying--if we buy into the story--and "eye-opening".

Walking with Prehistoric Beasts (2001)

Really one million years B.C.!

[8/10 · 7 October 2002]

Even has some humans in it, but none resembling Raquel Welch, nor the phony language.

It's a live-action documentary in six parts, ranging from the meteor that extirpated the dinosaurs up to the Ice Ages. The Cenozoic Era, largely overlooked, but most important in shaping today's fauna (including us!)--much more relevant than The Big Show that was the dinosaur period.

The most interesting sequences are on the giant animals of South America, the development of whales, and the battles for control of land between the survivors of the apocalypse at the end of the Cretaceous period (parts 5, 2, and 1, if I remember correctly).

This was produced by the BBC, following its big success with Walking with Dinosaurs. It's got the same mix of imagined local filmed drama, a la Wild Kingdom, with some basic paleontological exposition. The live action stuff is mostly realistic and there seems to have been considerable research on the backdrop. Each part is based on the fossil records of a particular location. I doubt this sequel was such a big hit, but for the reasons I've suggested above (and the general unfamiliarity of what you'll see), probably more valuable and educational.

The President's Analyst (1967)

Dated, but what a date!

[10/10 · 7 October 2002]

This used to be the one I named as my all-time favorite film, back in the '70's and '80's. I have since yielded to the timelessness of Dr. Strangelove now (since it too has dropped off the radar screen of all but the serious film aficionados), but the '60's are coming back into style and this captures the wackiness and originality of the period better than almost anything can. So this recommendation is directed to you youngsters!

Why is this film significant? Well, in order to understand this one has to appreciate the beauty and importance of satire. This art form has a long history and reached a pinnacle in the desperate days of the peak of the Cold War. The impossible contradictions and absurdities of those days (think that our safety relied upon Mutually Assured Destruction, and the recognition of it by an enemy we generally considered insanely evil) revealed themselves best through caricature. Though today's art doesn't seem to have much recognition for the genre, preferring either literal-mindedness or the totally bonkered (think Being John Malkovich), the "all forms of power are corrupt" mentality will still resonate.

I love the fact that the greatest villains of all (way beyond the misdeeds of the national spy services, which were mostly just deluded) were The Phone Company. Those who were born after the breakup of AT&T might not quite get it, but here was a monolithic power with respect for nothing, and nothing beyond its control (think Microsoft). Bell Telephone had an artful PR campaign developing movies mixing science fact and cartoons for classroom education (and indoctrination), which is mercilessly skewered in a critical scene--I have to admit that it reduced me to helpless hysterics the first dozen or so times that I saw it, so powerful the memories it brought up. And the nefarious scheme to plant personal communications devices inside us, so we need only think to make a call--I will never believe that it isn't on the drawing boards of the geek shops out there somewhere. Remember, this was before the era of handphones.

What was so hip (and is so dated) about the movie (along with the '60's haircuts, gear, music) is the paranoid theory of history that lies behind it. Society has moved from naivety, to drowning in conspiracy theories, and then beyond to agnostic ignorance. Today, we have to live life normally depite the fact that agents with evil purposes are out there always. And the movie goes through the same sequence.

It's intensely funny at times, hopeless sentimental at others, but ultimately possessing sound production values and some good acting (Coburn, of course, but also a remarkable performance from Godfrey McCambridge as a just-folks CIA man), a complex but well-designed plot, and some serious insight which still works (Cold War or no). Yes, you should see it in some state which permits some relaxation of your usual disbelief and skepticism.

The shots of the downtown NY scene in the '60's are priceless (Cafe Wha?)!