I said I'd come back to Tiny Furniture when I'd seen more bad movies and I have and I am. Besides Tiny Furniture, I saw Rocket Science and Mission to Mars. I'll give the run-down and then talk a little bit about TV.
Tiny Furniture was a pretty big bust for me. I gave it a cross, that is,
movies that, based on the trailer and various other items, I am excited to see. Watching the trailer, my cross was premature. As is all too often the case, every funny joke in the whole film is in the trailer. Our protagonist is the most wretched of women and she has almost nothing to teach us. One moment of clarity, very near the climax, maybe the climax itself, is when her college friend finally arrives and tries to talk to her and is unable to get through. This actress, Merritt Wever, is the only bright spot in the movie in fact. This is also the only member of the cast that I recognized from anything else. She had small parts in Signs, Michael Clayton, and Greenberg. This movie, in fact, reminds me of why I didn't like Greenberg. The filmmaker doesn't seem to want us to like our protagonist, but doesn't feel its his/her place to actually say it. This is, to me, a huge mistake. The point of all media is to be just what the name means, a way, a means of communication. If you don't want to say anything, don't make art.
The second film, Rocket Science, was hilarious and really worth watching, but I didn't like its conclusion. Anna Kendrick, who made me a fan with Up in the Air and kept me hooked after 50/50 and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, was in this in 2007, only her third career item as an actress on IMDb. She, Reece Thompson, and Vincent Piazza do great work here, especially these two guys as brothers. Throw in Denis O'Hare and Aaron Yoo, the latter of which reminds me very much of a great Chinese kid I grew up with, and you have a pretty great movie, minus a good message. This movie is only here instead of in its own review because the conclusion is totally outside my group of acceptable messages.
I also watched Mission to Mars, a love-letter to extraterrestrial intelligent design theory and I can assure you there is little here. The characters are just well enough fleshed out that you feel for them, but the music is overpowering and the ending is corny, even silly. I wouldn't suggest it, but you might try to find the scene where the alien explains how they created humanity on YouTube. It is a simple and clear explanation of that hypothesis, even believable for someone without better history.
I often fail to write here because I am watching TV instead of movies and I think I'll briefly go over what I am watching from time to time, just so I'm saying something when I get stuck.
I have been watching The Mentalist quite a bit recently. There has been a series of marathons that I expect span the first three seasons in a row. I have watched a lot and would suggest it to anyone who watches or reads detective stories. It is at least near that perfect balance that I have hypothesized is the key for a good detective story.
First focus is always the case. Within this is a modicum of personal stuff. Importantly, the majority of character development focuses on our eponymous mentalist. There are peaks at other characters and how that personal stuff affects their work, but most of it is left out altogether. This balance is best achieved in greats like Monk or Psych or even Burn Notice. Law and Order: Criminal Intent does a passable job as well. Other acceptable alternatives are Law and Order's entire focus on solving the case. Law and Order: Special Victims Unit fails at this totally. It spends too much time working through its twenty principals' personal junk.
I should also mention that Simon Baker is fantastic, spellbinding even. He makes me believe that he might be that smart and talented at reading people, even if he isn't.
I have also been watching a BBC program on Netflix called Being Human. I was skeptical when I was told that this show about a vampire, a werewolf, and a ghost living together was good, but I watched it eventually as the suggestion came from a trusted source and I was not disappointed. This show is really quite good and deserves a watch. It's on Netflix Instant now and its really pretty funny and the characters are more interesting than simple stereotypes. They are just people under extreme circumstances and their reactions are really interesting stuff.
Well, that's me. I do expect to watch The Other Guys and get something up on it soon. Thanks to all who read this.
I almost forgot, but I would like to thank who or whatever made me such a hit in Russia. 40 hits from Russia, 5 in Germany, 2 each in the UK and South Korea and 1 each in Ireland and Malaysia. I don't think I've never seen a Russia movie, but I will try to find one.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
The Dark Knight Rises* (2012) 10, 10, 10, 30
I know I said I would be doing The Other Guys next, but with my niece and nephews here yesterday, I had no time. That said, I did go to The Dark Knight Rises midnight showing last night and have been dreaming of it since I got home.
I will again be doing this out of order. I have been struggling about wit for a half hour and cannot decide yet, so I'll tell you first about what I am more confident about.
If it gives you any sense how carefully I thought about this rating, I began by comparing it with The Dark Knight, which was all 9.5's. I then compared it to (500) Days of Summer, another one that received all 9.5's. I then compared it individually with every film that has ever received a 10 on anything. It is as wise as Robin Hood (1973) and Battle: Los Angeles. It was as wonderful as 2001: A Space Odyssey and Sin City, and it was as witty as Annie Hall and The Royal Tenenbaums.
I gave it a 10 for wisdom. There is a single insinuated sex scene and it is fornication. This is my only fault for the film in its wisdom, but extenuating circumstances made it less than a .2 knock-off. I rounded up. This act is, in the end, a pretty strangely huge mistake for one party, which you might as well know is Batman/Bruce Wayne. Beyond this, sexual mores are straight-laced and the overall message is perfect. Examples:
1. It is suggested, by my interpretation, that both money greedy faux capitalism and power grubbing faux populism are untenable. As someone somewhere said, "The truth will out."
2. That same statement, as applied to the Batman's solution at the end of The Dark Knight, is played for great force, not least in Joseph Gordon Levitt's character's response.
3. Bruce's response to being broken by Bane is uber-hero, Jesus level self-sacrifice with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control thrown in. Some will object to my comparison between Jesus and Batman. This will not stop me. Also, I insert Perelandra by C. S. Lewis and its violent conclusion as my collateral. Sometimes, violence is the answer.
4. Alfred's attempts to save Bruce from slipping into a miserable, self-depressive coma coupled with Nolan's immensely brave ending are simply the most life-affirming message ever written.
There's probably more, but who could say it all "if all the forests' trees were pens and all the oceans ink." Excuse me if I wax poetic, but this film brought it out.
As for wonder, I gave another 10. Here's why: the Bat, Hans Zimmer, plane ripped from the sky, scale. I'll explain each of these.
The Bat is the name for the Batplane in this film and it is awesome. I use that word too often, but I mean that it inspires awe. It truly is a thing of beauty. This is also short-hand for every cool gadget made for this series, including but not limited to the Tumbler, the escape pod/motorcycle, the cape/glider, etc.
Hans Zimmer is possibly the greatest composer in the history of film, if not, he is second only to John Williams. It really is a foot race with no clear winner. His music may well be the reason I think this film is so darn good in the first place.
The opening scene is breath taking in its devastating, how-did-they-do-that manner.
Scale may also be the key to the film. Before the film, I watched one of those preview shows at home from Reelz Channel. Chris Nolan mentioned that he tried to take from old silent films that epic feel. They used thousands of extras in some scenes. They staged a full scale battle. They also travelled around the world for great locations and built Gotham in a building.
I could go on about the subtleties of makeup on characters that need to be 8 years older suddenly and costume design, but I will cut that short.
Wit was for me the hardest to decide. I compared and compared. It lacks something that is often essential to me granting a 10. It is not particularly funny. I have never given a 10 for wit to a true drama before, but this film truly earned it.
I think, even as a purist fanboy of the highest degree, that Christopher and Jonathan Nolan did nothing wrong. They kept me in suspense from beginning to end, even though I knew certain things beforehand, they made me doubt. Every line is crafted to perfection. No one says anything out of character or corny or over-simplified. There are no gaps and no filler. Every scene is on cue.
There is little to complain about in terms of acting. Again with Batman's voice, there is a tension, in which it sounds silly. This is again a <.2 offense and I rounded up. Beyond that, Bale does not disappoint. His discipline and strength of will show through, his virtues make the screen virtues more real.
Tom Hardy deserves an Oscar nod at least, but unless he dies I have no expectations. He embodies a character of consummate evil without being a madman a la Heath Ledger's Joker. He moves with consistent and uncharacteristic mannerisms that show he has prepared himself adequately for the role and he play the populist terrorist with conviction without making it seem false when his true motives are revealed.
I'll lump Joseph Gordon Levitt and Gary Oldman in with Matthew Modine and all the cop extras. Joseph and Gary are stellar performances that never stray too far from simple normal men, but play with power and ferocity when need be. There performance doesn't sound strange or do anything fancy, but when Joseph's character is threatened and he steps forward anyway, the tension in his eyes makes it believable. When Gary lies in a hospital bed delivering lines or throws himself into a sewer pipe, we believe in his character and who he claims to be, even if it's mundane next to psychopaths and vigilantes. Matthew Modine is alternately despicable and inspiring depending on the scene, but he does it all with that air of confidence that suspends disbelief.
Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Liam Neeson do much the same as we expect of them, which it's easy to forget almost no one else can do.
I cannot forget Marion Cotillard, who shocked and enthralled me every minute she was onscreen, which was far too little, though again perfect for the story.
I am loath to leave anyone out and there are so many, though it never seems crowded, which speaks to scale done right. I can only speak to the attention to detail on the part of every extra and crew member.
It was worth it. This is my first perfect 30 ever and when I inevitably watch it again...and again, I may not leave all 3 10's intact, but I cannot recommend this movie enough. I can only hope you get as much out as I did.
I will again be doing this out of order. I have been struggling about wit for a half hour and cannot decide yet, so I'll tell you first about what I am more confident about.
If it gives you any sense how carefully I thought about this rating, I began by comparing it with The Dark Knight, which was all 9.5's. I then compared it to (500) Days of Summer, another one that received all 9.5's. I then compared it individually with every film that has ever received a 10 on anything. It is as wise as Robin Hood (1973) and Battle: Los Angeles. It was as wonderful as 2001: A Space Odyssey and Sin City, and it was as witty as Annie Hall and The Royal Tenenbaums.
I gave it a 10 for wisdom. There is a single insinuated sex scene and it is fornication. This is my only fault for the film in its wisdom, but extenuating circumstances made it less than a .2 knock-off. I rounded up. This act is, in the end, a pretty strangely huge mistake for one party, which you might as well know is Batman/Bruce Wayne. Beyond this, sexual mores are straight-laced and the overall message is perfect. Examples:
1. It is suggested, by my interpretation, that both money greedy faux capitalism and power grubbing faux populism are untenable. As someone somewhere said, "The truth will out."
2. That same statement, as applied to the Batman's solution at the end of The Dark Knight, is played for great force, not least in Joseph Gordon Levitt's character's response.
3. Bruce's response to being broken by Bane is uber-hero, Jesus level self-sacrifice with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control thrown in. Some will object to my comparison between Jesus and Batman. This will not stop me. Also, I insert Perelandra by C. S. Lewis and its violent conclusion as my collateral. Sometimes, violence is the answer.
4. Alfred's attempts to save Bruce from slipping into a miserable, self-depressive coma coupled with Nolan's immensely brave ending are simply the most life-affirming message ever written.
There's probably more, but who could say it all "if all the forests' trees were pens and all the oceans ink." Excuse me if I wax poetic, but this film brought it out.
As for wonder, I gave another 10. Here's why: the Bat, Hans Zimmer, plane ripped from the sky, scale. I'll explain each of these.
The Bat is the name for the Batplane in this film and it is awesome. I use that word too often, but I mean that it inspires awe. It truly is a thing of beauty. This is also short-hand for every cool gadget made for this series, including but not limited to the Tumbler, the escape pod/motorcycle, the cape/glider, etc.
Hans Zimmer is possibly the greatest composer in the history of film, if not, he is second only to John Williams. It really is a foot race with no clear winner. His music may well be the reason I think this film is so darn good in the first place.
The opening scene is breath taking in its devastating, how-did-they-do-that manner.
Scale may also be the key to the film. Before the film, I watched one of those preview shows at home from Reelz Channel. Chris Nolan mentioned that he tried to take from old silent films that epic feel. They used thousands of extras in some scenes. They staged a full scale battle. They also travelled around the world for great locations and built Gotham in a building.
I could go on about the subtleties of makeup on characters that need to be 8 years older suddenly and costume design, but I will cut that short.
Wit was for me the hardest to decide. I compared and compared. It lacks something that is often essential to me granting a 10. It is not particularly funny. I have never given a 10 for wit to a true drama before, but this film truly earned it.
I think, even as a purist fanboy of the highest degree, that Christopher and Jonathan Nolan did nothing wrong. They kept me in suspense from beginning to end, even though I knew certain things beforehand, they made me doubt. Every line is crafted to perfection. No one says anything out of character or corny or over-simplified. There are no gaps and no filler. Every scene is on cue.
There is little to complain about in terms of acting. Again with Batman's voice, there is a tension, in which it sounds silly. This is again a <.2 offense and I rounded up. Beyond that, Bale does not disappoint. His discipline and strength of will show through, his virtues make the screen virtues more real.
Tom Hardy deserves an Oscar nod at least, but unless he dies I have no expectations. He embodies a character of consummate evil without being a madman a la Heath Ledger's Joker. He moves with consistent and uncharacteristic mannerisms that show he has prepared himself adequately for the role and he play the populist terrorist with conviction without making it seem false when his true motives are revealed.
I'll lump Joseph Gordon Levitt and Gary Oldman in with Matthew Modine and all the cop extras. Joseph and Gary are stellar performances that never stray too far from simple normal men, but play with power and ferocity when need be. There performance doesn't sound strange or do anything fancy, but when Joseph's character is threatened and he steps forward anyway, the tension in his eyes makes it believable. When Gary lies in a hospital bed delivering lines or throws himself into a sewer pipe, we believe in his character and who he claims to be, even if it's mundane next to psychopaths and vigilantes. Matthew Modine is alternately despicable and inspiring depending on the scene, but he does it all with that air of confidence that suspends disbelief.
Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Liam Neeson do much the same as we expect of them, which it's easy to forget almost no one else can do.
I cannot forget Marion Cotillard, who shocked and enthralled me every minute she was onscreen, which was far too little, though again perfect for the story.
I am loath to leave anyone out and there are so many, though it never seems crowded, which speaks to scale done right. I can only speak to the attention to detail on the part of every extra and crew member.
It was worth it. This is my first perfect 30 ever and when I inevitably watch it again...and again, I may not leave all 3 10's intact, but I cannot recommend this movie enough. I can only hope you get as much out as I did.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
The Gold Rush* (1925) 9.5, 9.5, 9.5, 28.5
For anyone wondering, Tiny Furniture was a bit of a bust. I'll explain more in a forthcoming interlude, but it wasn't that funny and overall disappointed.
This review is however for the next film I said I'd do, The Gold Rush, written, directed, and starring Charlie Chaplin.
This is, by far, the oldest film I've done and it is a silent film. It follows a lone prospector with no name that is essentially the same tramp character that Charlie spent most of his silent years as. His hijinks lead him to a cabin inhabited by a wanted outlaw, through a life-or-death struggle against hunger, heartbreak at the hands of a beautiful and sometimes cruel woman, and an adventure with a fellow prospector that ends in him finding his fortune. I hope no one finds any of this description to be distasteful spoiling, but this film is not the most original plot. Its strength is in the particulars.
I gave a 9.5 for wit based upon both acting and writing. This is based heavily on comparison with other Chaplin films, like City Lights, which also got a 9.5. They are of very similar quality, though lacking that which might give it a 10. Great dialogue, witty lines, etc. are not to be found in this film, but the acting is superb. The chief worker in all this is Chaplin. His physical comedy is rivaled only by his fellow silent film star, Buster Keaton. Charlie plays every comedy spectacle, from being blown through a house by high winds to doing a little dance routine with brown bread on forks, with ease and simplicity, the prime qualities of his ever smiling and ever heroic Tramp. When he dresses up like a chicken and is chased around a room by a miner driven mad by starvation, his willingness to take a dive and do the ridiculous for the sake of comedy is admirable. He also plays falling in love and having his heart broken. He could bring you to tears of joy and heartsickness in less than a minute, even at the same time. For a hopeful of a professional intellectual obsessed with language I find the silent medium hard. Letting go of the desire for that one-liner or involved pun is hard for me and letting myself laugh as Charlie shovels the snow in front of one business in front of another and succeeds in getting paid by three people to do so or when he and Big Jim McKay wake up in a house on the edge of a cliff and walk around trying to figure out what the problem is as the house tips back and forth doesn't come automatically, but if you allow yourself, Charlie will reward your patience.
For wisdom I gave another 9.5. This is because, though I love nearly everything this film says, including true love winning out, evil getting its due, good men standing up for women and bad men treating them badly, but the scene when the villain falls to his death off an iceberg and it is suggested in an interstitial that Nature has its own justice. I find it frustrating that they had to lay it on so thick. This feels like the Motion Picture Production Code's forced ending to The Bad Seed in which the guilty party is punished by Nature. It is simply too convenient, though not totally unlike theories that I harbor myself. It is simply too heavy-handed.
Wonder is a 9.5 as well. The house falling off a cliff, the snowstorm, and the bear are impressive spectacles for the period. I'll admit that the black-and-white and silent nature preclude many of the things I normally give wonder for. That said, I think that the film does great things, even amazing things for the period and is simply directed well.
I will not suggest that this be anyone's first Chaplin film. Ease into him with The Great Dictator, a brillliant, non-silent satire, made all the more impressive if you consider he was mocking Hitler while Time was still calling him Man of the Year. My personal favorite is City Lights, if you're willing to dive into silent films. It and Modern Times really showcase the depth of his humor. I hope that this catches some of you guys' attention. Tiny Furniture mini-review is forthcoming and my next film will be nearly the opposite of The Gold Rush. I got The Other Guys from the Bookmobile. I want to write this review as I recommend this movie to everyone I meet. I hope you guys are all doing well.
This is, by far, the oldest film I've done and it is a silent film. It follows a lone prospector with no name that is essentially the same tramp character that Charlie spent most of his silent years as. His hijinks lead him to a cabin inhabited by a wanted outlaw, through a life-or-death struggle against hunger, heartbreak at the hands of a beautiful and sometimes cruel woman, and an adventure with a fellow prospector that ends in him finding his fortune. I hope no one finds any of this description to be distasteful spoiling, but this film is not the most original plot. Its strength is in the particulars.
I gave a 9.5 for wit based upon both acting and writing. This is based heavily on comparison with other Chaplin films, like City Lights, which also got a 9.5. They are of very similar quality, though lacking that which might give it a 10. Great dialogue, witty lines, etc. are not to be found in this film, but the acting is superb. The chief worker in all this is Chaplin. His physical comedy is rivaled only by his fellow silent film star, Buster Keaton. Charlie plays every comedy spectacle, from being blown through a house by high winds to doing a little dance routine with brown bread on forks, with ease and simplicity, the prime qualities of his ever smiling and ever heroic Tramp. When he dresses up like a chicken and is chased around a room by a miner driven mad by starvation, his willingness to take a dive and do the ridiculous for the sake of comedy is admirable. He also plays falling in love and having his heart broken. He could bring you to tears of joy and heartsickness in less than a minute, even at the same time. For a hopeful of a professional intellectual obsessed with language I find the silent medium hard. Letting go of the desire for that one-liner or involved pun is hard for me and letting myself laugh as Charlie shovels the snow in front of one business in front of another and succeeds in getting paid by three people to do so or when he and Big Jim McKay wake up in a house on the edge of a cliff and walk around trying to figure out what the problem is as the house tips back and forth doesn't come automatically, but if you allow yourself, Charlie will reward your patience.
For wisdom I gave another 9.5. This is because, though I love nearly everything this film says, including true love winning out, evil getting its due, good men standing up for women and bad men treating them badly, but the scene when the villain falls to his death off an iceberg and it is suggested in an interstitial that Nature has its own justice. I find it frustrating that they had to lay it on so thick. This feels like the Motion Picture Production Code's forced ending to The Bad Seed in which the guilty party is punished by Nature. It is simply too convenient, though not totally unlike theories that I harbor myself. It is simply too heavy-handed.
Wonder is a 9.5 as well. The house falling off a cliff, the snowstorm, and the bear are impressive spectacles for the period. I'll admit that the black-and-white and silent nature preclude many of the things I normally give wonder for. That said, I think that the film does great things, even amazing things for the period and is simply directed well.
I will not suggest that this be anyone's first Chaplin film. Ease into him with The Great Dictator, a brillliant, non-silent satire, made all the more impressive if you consider he was mocking Hitler while Time was still calling him Man of the Year. My personal favorite is City Lights, if you're willing to dive into silent films. It and Modern Times really showcase the depth of his humor. I hope that this catches some of you guys' attention. Tiny Furniture mini-review is forthcoming and my next film will be nearly the opposite of The Gold Rush. I got The Other Guys from the Bookmobile. I want to write this review as I recommend this movie to everyone I meet. I hope you guys are all doing well.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Sin City** (2005) 9.5, 7.5, 10, 27
This film was one of the first I did in the old rewatching project and I still remember the first time I saw it, in Topeka, at the old Westridge 8. I think I was just barely 17 and I went to this one only mildly aware of what it would hold. I was mesmerized. I went to the last showing and when I got out the city was dead and my imagination wild. I almost couldn't go home because my nerves were aflame. I'll explain my rating in a different order, according to what I noticed first and what the films strengths are. I watched this film for the millionth time on 11 July, 2012, recorded from IFC, which left nothing out.
The story of this film is really three stories. We begin with the retiring cop, Hartigan. On his last day, he is hunting down a serial child rapist/murderer who happens to be the son of a Senator. He's betrayed by his partner as he manages to save 11-year-old Nancy Callahan. We switch over to the story of Marv, an ex-con thug that is approached by a beautiful young woman who "gives him the night of his life." She is then murdered and he "kills his way to the truth." It is genuinely hard to paraphrase Sin City without quoting it. We then make our way to Dwight, who encounters a rough-neck and his posse of thugs on a drunken tear through the town and attempts to help avoid bloodshed, to no avail. We then end with Hartigan's further story of being framed for the child rapes/murders that he had been investigating and we see his attempt to finish the job he started.
The most important part of this movie is the beauty of the images. Every frame is meticulously put together. This is due in part to the fact that it is one of the only films ever made entirely in front of a green screen. Many of the actors were heavily made-up, not least Mickey Rourke, who is unrecognizable as Marv. The use of black-and-white with the insertion of color from time to time for emphasis is eye-catching and really helps to sell the noir feel of a movie made in the 21st century. Everything from CGI to props to costume and make-up to set design is picture perfect. That is why it is one of very few films to receive a 10 for wonder. And on further inspection of current 10's given out, I am skeptical that they all deserved it in comparison with Sin City.
I gave it a 9.5 for wit, which is up from 9 before this viewing. One might be confused by the noir atmosphere, obviously not the most original idea, but every word and every performance is new. Cliches are kept to a minimum and when they are used, they are given new life, often ironically. In fact, the lines that give me the most problem morally are often the most heart-wrenchingly perfect. I could quote the whole movie, maybe not as usefully as I could The Godfather, but I've lived a life far from violence.
Some performances deserve special praise. Mickey Rourke was absolutely perfect from beginning to end. His acting is so physical and vocal, in part because his face is so obscured with the make-up job. He is forced to rely on his voice and his hands and legs to get his point across, but never looks dead in the face, which must have been hard.
Bruce Willis restarted his career here as well. He proves as able to be the conflicted hero as ever. He delivers lines that would sound stale coming from nearly anyone's mouth with wit and something bordering on charm. He plays the kind-hearted and the brutally vicious with equal ease and they never seem like separate characters but all play as a cohesive whole.
The late Brittany Murphy is witty and charming as well as seductive and frightening. She also surprised me with how well she makes a line like, "You're a fool, Dwight. You're a damn fool," sound. This is not cliche in her mouth and it is when I type it.
Elijah Wood never says a word and steals scenes from Mickey Rourke. Also, I just noticed Nick Offerman from Parks and Recreation plays Shlubb, the companion of Klump, played by Rick Gomez, who together provide one of my favorite parts of the film, the low-life thugs who speak Shakespearean English. Rosario Dawson and Benicio del Toro also light up the screen as the prostitute queen and aforementioned rough-neck.
Here we come to the crux of the matter, wisdom. This film has some wonderful things to say and some seriously un-Christian ideas of revenge. I'll begin with its high points, which too many people will fail to notice. Hartigan is a cop who employs tactics both before and after losing his badge that are questionable, but his conviction to sacrifice his own life that a young girl might live is beautiful. Both he and Marv resist giving false confessions despite brutal beatings, a thing in my mind akin to a martyr refusing to slander Christ. The Torah holds as extremely sacred all judicial process and especially witness testimony. Hartigan shows a great deal of compassion to his wife who remarries while he is inside, wishing her well. Marv is rough and tumble, violent to the point of routinely torturing people, but he has a passion for the truth and justice for the one who showed him kindness. We might bristle when he retorts that a women "Worth killing for and worth going to Hell for," but the sentiment that the truth is worth dying for cannot be lauded enough. Dwight's desire to avoid bloodshed is admirable and his sense of Old Testament justice may be out of place in a post-Christ world, but it is biblical. In fact, killing someone who murdered your family was seen as a right in the Torah. I don't know if that justifies its inclusion here, but it's a start. If this were all, I'd have a hard time denying it a 9.5, but there is more.
Sex is portrayed too vividly for my taste, as a thing best hinted at. The attitude that prostitution would be better if it could get rid of the violence of pimps and organized crime is nearly disgusting. There is a great deal of unholy joy in killing, to the point that one prostitute is described as "The Valkyrie at my side...shouting and laughing with the pure, hateful, bloodthirsty joy of the slaughter." There is quite a bit to find ugly and violent and crude. My dad would suggest I "not go searching for gold in the trash dump," but I think there is something nearly essential or at least unique in this portrayal of men standing out against oppression and violence against the innocent, or comparatively so, against corrupt power in all its forms. One of the villains, if you will, of the piece says, "Power don't come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big, and gettin' the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain't true, you've got 'em by the balls." Compare that with this life-affirming scene:
Well that is my review. I intend my next watch to be an indie comedy from 2010 called Tiny Furniture. If that doesn't inspire another review from me I'll probably proceed to the 1925 Charlie Chaplin film Gold Rush, but I'll try to keep you posted.
The story of this film is really three stories. We begin with the retiring cop, Hartigan. On his last day, he is hunting down a serial child rapist/murderer who happens to be the son of a Senator. He's betrayed by his partner as he manages to save 11-year-old Nancy Callahan. We switch over to the story of Marv, an ex-con thug that is approached by a beautiful young woman who "gives him the night of his life." She is then murdered and he "kills his way to the truth." It is genuinely hard to paraphrase Sin City without quoting it. We then make our way to Dwight, who encounters a rough-neck and his posse of thugs on a drunken tear through the town and attempts to help avoid bloodshed, to no avail. We then end with Hartigan's further story of being framed for the child rapes/murders that he had been investigating and we see his attempt to finish the job he started.
The most important part of this movie is the beauty of the images. Every frame is meticulously put together. This is due in part to the fact that it is one of the only films ever made entirely in front of a green screen. Many of the actors were heavily made-up, not least Mickey Rourke, who is unrecognizable as Marv. The use of black-and-white with the insertion of color from time to time for emphasis is eye-catching and really helps to sell the noir feel of a movie made in the 21st century. Everything from CGI to props to costume and make-up to set design is picture perfect. That is why it is one of very few films to receive a 10 for wonder. And on further inspection of current 10's given out, I am skeptical that they all deserved it in comparison with Sin City.
I gave it a 9.5 for wit, which is up from 9 before this viewing. One might be confused by the noir atmosphere, obviously not the most original idea, but every word and every performance is new. Cliches are kept to a minimum and when they are used, they are given new life, often ironically. In fact, the lines that give me the most problem morally are often the most heart-wrenchingly perfect. I could quote the whole movie, maybe not as usefully as I could The Godfather, but I've lived a life far from violence.
Some performances deserve special praise. Mickey Rourke was absolutely perfect from beginning to end. His acting is so physical and vocal, in part because his face is so obscured with the make-up job. He is forced to rely on his voice and his hands and legs to get his point across, but never looks dead in the face, which must have been hard.
Bruce Willis restarted his career here as well. He proves as able to be the conflicted hero as ever. He delivers lines that would sound stale coming from nearly anyone's mouth with wit and something bordering on charm. He plays the kind-hearted and the brutally vicious with equal ease and they never seem like separate characters but all play as a cohesive whole.
The late Brittany Murphy is witty and charming as well as seductive and frightening. She also surprised me with how well she makes a line like, "You're a fool, Dwight. You're a damn fool," sound. This is not cliche in her mouth and it is when I type it.
Elijah Wood never says a word and steals scenes from Mickey Rourke. Also, I just noticed Nick Offerman from Parks and Recreation plays Shlubb, the companion of Klump, played by Rick Gomez, who together provide one of my favorite parts of the film, the low-life thugs who speak Shakespearean English. Rosario Dawson and Benicio del Toro also light up the screen as the prostitute queen and aforementioned rough-neck.
Here we come to the crux of the matter, wisdom. This film has some wonderful things to say and some seriously un-Christian ideas of revenge. I'll begin with its high points, which too many people will fail to notice. Hartigan is a cop who employs tactics both before and after losing his badge that are questionable, but his conviction to sacrifice his own life that a young girl might live is beautiful. Both he and Marv resist giving false confessions despite brutal beatings, a thing in my mind akin to a martyr refusing to slander Christ. The Torah holds as extremely sacred all judicial process and especially witness testimony. Hartigan shows a great deal of compassion to his wife who remarries while he is inside, wishing her well. Marv is rough and tumble, violent to the point of routinely torturing people, but he has a passion for the truth and justice for the one who showed him kindness. We might bristle when he retorts that a women "Worth killing for and worth going to Hell for," but the sentiment that the truth is worth dying for cannot be lauded enough. Dwight's desire to avoid bloodshed is admirable and his sense of Old Testament justice may be out of place in a post-Christ world, but it is biblical. In fact, killing someone who murdered your family was seen as a right in the Torah. I don't know if that justifies its inclusion here, but it's a start. If this were all, I'd have a hard time denying it a 9.5, but there is more.
Sex is portrayed too vividly for my taste, as a thing best hinted at. The attitude that prostitution would be better if it could get rid of the violence of pimps and organized crime is nearly disgusting. There is a great deal of unholy joy in killing, to the point that one prostitute is described as "The Valkyrie at my side...shouting and laughing with the pure, hateful, bloodthirsty joy of the slaughter." There is quite a bit to find ugly and violent and crude. My dad would suggest I "not go searching for gold in the trash dump," but I think there is something nearly essential or at least unique in this portrayal of men standing out against oppression and violence against the innocent, or comparatively so, against corrupt power in all its forms. One of the villains, if you will, of the piece says, "Power don't come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big, and gettin' the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain't true, you've got 'em by the balls." Compare that with this life-affirming scene:
Lucille: Prison was hell for you Marv, it's gonna be life this time. Marv: Hell's waking up every goddamn day and not even knowing why you're here. But I'm out now. It took someone who was kind to me getting killed to do it. But I'm out. And I know exactly what I'm gonna do.I think these solidify for me a moral sense in this piece that is lacking entirely in more "family friendly" films. I would rather see a more compass a few degrees off than no moral compass at all.
Well that is my review. I intend my next watch to be an indie comedy from 2010 called Tiny Furniture. If that doesn't inspire another review from me I'll probably proceed to the 1925 Charlie Chaplin film Gold Rush, but I'll try to keep you posted.
Interlude
As a short interlude, in case anyone wondered, I have been watching films since my last review, but have not found any others worth 5 stars since.
G. I. Joe: Rise of Cobra was too cornily written. I could get behind some of the ideas and the cast was all-star, but there was nearly nothing for them to act.
The Iron Lady was headed by Meryl Streep and Jim Broadbent, who both perform hard parts with perfect ease and simplicity, but the film has no direction or message. It meanders heavily out of sequence through her life and never goes anywhere.
Glorious 39 is the biggest disappointment for me, as I really had high hopes. It succeeds on being my least favorite type of film, the great film with a disappointing ending. It really reels you in with a great setup, but it never manages to land on its feet as it simply grows weirder, until it falls apart. It really is too bad.
The last film I saw, before the one I'm reviewing now, was Die Hard 2. If you've been following here, I rated Live Free or Die Hard with a 28 and I mentioned liking Die Hard quite a lot, but the sequel lacked the brilliant supporting cast and the message the others had. Another shame in terms of a series not being consistent.
I am working on a review of an old favorite, Sin City, that should be up tonight. I hope you enjoy it.
G. I. Joe: Rise of Cobra was too cornily written. I could get behind some of the ideas and the cast was all-star, but there was nearly nothing for them to act.
The Iron Lady was headed by Meryl Streep and Jim Broadbent, who both perform hard parts with perfect ease and simplicity, but the film has no direction or message. It meanders heavily out of sequence through her life and never goes anywhere.
Glorious 39 is the biggest disappointment for me, as I really had high hopes. It succeeds on being my least favorite type of film, the great film with a disappointing ending. It really reels you in with a great setup, but it never manages to land on its feet as it simply grows weirder, until it falls apart. It really is too bad.
The last film I saw, before the one I'm reviewing now, was Die Hard 2. If you've been following here, I rated Live Free or Die Hard with a 28 and I mentioned liking Die Hard quite a lot, but the sequel lacked the brilliant supporting cast and the message the others had. Another shame in terms of a series not being consistent.
I am working on a review of an old favorite, Sin City, that should be up tonight. I hope you enjoy it.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
The Amazing Spider-Man* (2012) 9, 9.5, 9, 27.5
This is the first film I've been able to review within a week of its coming out. I actually watched it late on the 3rd, but with the 4th I was unable to get a review up. I imagine I will not need to explain the gist of the story here, so I will be brief. Peter Parker is bitten by a spider and turned into Spider-Man.
I'm going to be honest and admit that I read comic books. I'll admit that I have read more than 100 issues of The Amazing Spider-Man comic book and I have always been something of a purist about these sort of things so my rating here may not reflect how you'll feel.
I gave it a 9 for wit. It was really pretty well written and acted. I compared this movie mainly with (500) Days of Summer and Another Earth, which are both 9.5, 9.5, 9.5, 28.5. I felt this movie fell short in a small way of these other films. Acting was very good in nearly every way. Rhys Ifans was outstanding as Curtis Connors and played the transformation in mind and body well. Andrew Garfield really played the part well also. Tobey Maguire's interpretation was too somber, too geeky. Andrew plays Peter less reserved, more of a smart mouth. He is brave in defense of the weak before his powers and is truly hilarious under the mask. The scene where he mocks the carjacker who draws a knife on him is priceless, classic Parker. Emma Stone plays Gwen Stacy very well and plays her as the beautiful arch-geek that fits with Peter. This part really is perfect for her. Denis Leary, Embeth Davidtz, and Campbell Scott do well, if not magically. Two people I'm normally less than thrilled with that surprised me were Martin Sheen and Sally Fields. They played Ben and May really well. Martin made Ben the earthy, kindly, and morally genius adoptive parent for Peter with depth as well as breadth. Sally was perfectly gentle and stern. No big mistakes came out for me from a faithfulness-to-story standpoint. Overall, I was quite happy if not thrilled with its wit.
Wisdom came to 9.5. I think "With great power comes great responsibility," which is paraphrased by Uncle Ben(Marty), is still one of the best messages that I can think of. There was one message near the end that I wasn't sure about, but I'll keep from ruining that point, though I think it will be obvious what it is. The whisper shared between Peter and Gwen at the end. I was a little off-put by that moment as it seemed unnecessary. It could have been avoided. That said, it is the only blemish and I think that the film has a great sense of its message and its says it with clarity. The scene of the New Yorker, played by C. Thomas Howell, backing up Spidey in his attempt to make it to Oscorp tower was a great opportunity to highlight a great theme of Spider-Man comics, Spidey's relationship with New York.
Wonder is a 9 as well and this should go without explanation. Casting is an absolute A+. I have no issues with a single decision here. The film is beautiful from beginning to end. The 9 is because that extra thing is missing, that thing that separates it from others. That and the lizard looked kind of silly. Why can't he just have the face of a lizard, with the snout? Just a silly difference. That is the only complaint I have from a fanboy standpoint.
This is the best film of Spider-Man by far and it really brings out a great deal of what I loved about Spidey in the first place. Go and see this movie if you haven't already.
I'm going to be honest and admit that I read comic books. I'll admit that I have read more than 100 issues of The Amazing Spider-Man comic book and I have always been something of a purist about these sort of things so my rating here may not reflect how you'll feel.
I gave it a 9 for wit. It was really pretty well written and acted. I compared this movie mainly with (500) Days of Summer and Another Earth, which are both 9.5, 9.5, 9.5, 28.5. I felt this movie fell short in a small way of these other films. Acting was very good in nearly every way. Rhys Ifans was outstanding as Curtis Connors and played the transformation in mind and body well. Andrew Garfield really played the part well also. Tobey Maguire's interpretation was too somber, too geeky. Andrew plays Peter less reserved, more of a smart mouth. He is brave in defense of the weak before his powers and is truly hilarious under the mask. The scene where he mocks the carjacker who draws a knife on him is priceless, classic Parker. Emma Stone plays Gwen Stacy very well and plays her as the beautiful arch-geek that fits with Peter. This part really is perfect for her. Denis Leary, Embeth Davidtz, and Campbell Scott do well, if not magically. Two people I'm normally less than thrilled with that surprised me were Martin Sheen and Sally Fields. They played Ben and May really well. Martin made Ben the earthy, kindly, and morally genius adoptive parent for Peter with depth as well as breadth. Sally was perfectly gentle and stern. No big mistakes came out for me from a faithfulness-to-story standpoint. Overall, I was quite happy if not thrilled with its wit.
Wisdom came to 9.5. I think "With great power comes great responsibility," which is paraphrased by Uncle Ben(Marty), is still one of the best messages that I can think of. There was one message near the end that I wasn't sure about, but I'll keep from ruining that point, though I think it will be obvious what it is. The whisper shared between Peter and Gwen at the end. I was a little off-put by that moment as it seemed unnecessary. It could have been avoided. That said, it is the only blemish and I think that the film has a great sense of its message and its says it with clarity. The scene of the New Yorker, played by C. Thomas Howell, backing up Spidey in his attempt to make it to Oscorp tower was a great opportunity to highlight a great theme of Spider-Man comics, Spidey's relationship with New York.
Wonder is a 9 as well and this should go without explanation. Casting is an absolute A+. I have no issues with a single decision here. The film is beautiful from beginning to end. The 9 is because that extra thing is missing, that thing that separates it from others. That and the lizard looked kind of silly. Why can't he just have the face of a lizard, with the snout? Just a silly difference. That is the only complaint I have from a fanboy standpoint.
This is the best film of Spider-Man by far and it really brings out a great deal of what I loved about Spidey in the first place. Go and see this movie if you haven't already.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Munyurangabo* (2007) 9, 9.5, 9, 27.5
So for my second foreign film I decided to up the stakes. A while ago, I decided to split the world into regions and try to watch films from vastly different regions than I was used to. Due to natural proclivities and exposure, I have watched far more films from Japan, Germany, and France than from other countries. Flame & Citron fulfilled my less common Scandinavia category, but the most hard to find and unique region is Africa.
Netflix selection for African movies is only two pages long and contains a number of movies involving Hollywood types in Africa. I chose what seemed best to me, which is unusual as almost all of my foreign film watching is following paths through actors or directors or advice from trusted sources, such as the Oscar nominations.
I jumped into this film with virtually nothing and I can say I've rarely seen something that felt so foreign. That said this film was completely worth watching for me. It centers on two friends from Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, Sangwe and Ngabo, the titular Munyurangabo. At the beginning, they leave the city of Kigali on an unknown errand, holding each other as they walk as close as brothers. They visit Sangwe's family on the way and things become complicated by the age-old racial divide between the Hutus and the Tutsis. This film takes place after the famous genocide in Rwanda perpetrated by the Hutu majority government against Tutsis and moderate Hutus, so poignantly portrayed in Hotel Rwanda.
I gave it a 9 for wit. I think it has solid dialogue, even if it is in Kinyarwanda, the native language of Rwanda. This complicates my interpretation of the writing, but from the English and the way it plays this writing is incisive and reflects understanding of the types of characters involved. When racists spout off about the wickedness of Tutsis and when the two friends square off over their objective, it feels real. The acting is understated, but effectual. No wide, broad movements are made and everyone stands and sits reservedly as they discuss the gamut, but this adds to when someone appears drunk or really blows up. Their reactions are stronger for their relative size. This reminds me of the effect of Jack's silence in an episode of Pillars of the Earth that I watched today. His character seems nearly mute for more than a whole episode, but when he yells, "Stop," as another character is about to kill a thief they met on the road, it has a huge effect. In this film, everybody has extremely reserved body language unless in full attack mode. This lends so much gravity when people express their emotions. After his father speaks roughly to him, Sangwe raises his hand to his face as if he's been slapped. This small motion is huge because of the relativity of distance. To my mind, this reminded me a lot of Monsters, a quality sci-fi independent that was heavier on writing and lighter on acting. The same for Margot at the Wedding, previously reviewed on this very blog.
I gave it a 9.5 for wisdom. This is heavily based upon the ending, which I have no desire to divulge, but the truth of how freedom is achieved and how violence affects people is dealt with through clear and simple means, including, which makes me happier, through scripture quotation. The portrayal of family is also not simplistic or one-sided. This was very much the qualities I found in Munich, the Spielberg drama about a people after great violence and the toll of revenge.
Wonder received a 9. Despite video quality less than standard for Hollywood, the film looked pretty good. It is shot almost entirely outside and probably required no lighting. One decision stood out to me. There is a young man who recites to Ngabo a ten minute poem about Rwanda. This decision seemed somewhat bold to me. This may not sound great, but the way it plays and the in-story reasoning for it really make it impressive. That made it a 9 for me. This is in the same league as older films like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or Nosferatu, which I give credit on different film quality because of time as I give it to Munyurangabo because of place. They also display clearly great choices that separate them from things below 9.
I won't guarantee anyone will like it, but it is a solid family drama with the addition of dealing with genocide and heavy personal tragedy. It gives a good intro to a very different culture and tells a great story too.
Netflix selection for African movies is only two pages long and contains a number of movies involving Hollywood types in Africa. I chose what seemed best to me, which is unusual as almost all of my foreign film watching is following paths through actors or directors or advice from trusted sources, such as the Oscar nominations.
I jumped into this film with virtually nothing and I can say I've rarely seen something that felt so foreign. That said this film was completely worth watching for me. It centers on two friends from Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, Sangwe and Ngabo, the titular Munyurangabo. At the beginning, they leave the city of Kigali on an unknown errand, holding each other as they walk as close as brothers. They visit Sangwe's family on the way and things become complicated by the age-old racial divide between the Hutus and the Tutsis. This film takes place after the famous genocide in Rwanda perpetrated by the Hutu majority government against Tutsis and moderate Hutus, so poignantly portrayed in Hotel Rwanda.
I gave it a 9 for wit. I think it has solid dialogue, even if it is in Kinyarwanda, the native language of Rwanda. This complicates my interpretation of the writing, but from the English and the way it plays this writing is incisive and reflects understanding of the types of characters involved. When racists spout off about the wickedness of Tutsis and when the two friends square off over their objective, it feels real. The acting is understated, but effectual. No wide, broad movements are made and everyone stands and sits reservedly as they discuss the gamut, but this adds to when someone appears drunk or really blows up. Their reactions are stronger for their relative size. This reminds me of the effect of Jack's silence in an episode of Pillars of the Earth that I watched today. His character seems nearly mute for more than a whole episode, but when he yells, "Stop," as another character is about to kill a thief they met on the road, it has a huge effect. In this film, everybody has extremely reserved body language unless in full attack mode. This lends so much gravity when people express their emotions. After his father speaks roughly to him, Sangwe raises his hand to his face as if he's been slapped. This small motion is huge because of the relativity of distance. To my mind, this reminded me a lot of Monsters, a quality sci-fi independent that was heavier on writing and lighter on acting. The same for Margot at the Wedding, previously reviewed on this very blog.
I gave it a 9.5 for wisdom. This is heavily based upon the ending, which I have no desire to divulge, but the truth of how freedom is achieved and how violence affects people is dealt with through clear and simple means, including, which makes me happier, through scripture quotation. The portrayal of family is also not simplistic or one-sided. This was very much the qualities I found in Munich, the Spielberg drama about a people after great violence and the toll of revenge.
Wonder received a 9. Despite video quality less than standard for Hollywood, the film looked pretty good. It is shot almost entirely outside and probably required no lighting. One decision stood out to me. There is a young man who recites to Ngabo a ten minute poem about Rwanda. This decision seemed somewhat bold to me. This may not sound great, but the way it plays and the in-story reasoning for it really make it impressive. That made it a 9 for me. This is in the same league as older films like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or Nosferatu, which I give credit on different film quality because of time as I give it to Munyurangabo because of place. They also display clearly great choices that separate them from things below 9.
I won't guarantee anyone will like it, but it is a solid family drama with the addition of dealing with genocide and heavy personal tragedy. It gives a good intro to a very different culture and tells a great story too.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Big** (1988) 9.5, 9.5, 9, 28
I watched this film on DVD from Topeka Shawnee County Public Library. This is one of those films I've seen a million times and either lost my rating in the years since I started it in various digital moves or never bothered to rate it. It is also the first movie I've rated here from the 20th century. I do intend to share some of my favorite older films eventually and hopefully a new film or two, but this is a good start as this one came out exactly one month after I did.
The story is, for those who don't know, about a 13-year-old boy who is changed into a 30-year-old after wishing to be 'big' on a carnival machine called Zoltar Speaks. He runs away from home and gets hired at a toy company. He begins to date, in his way, a female co-worker with very grown-up notions.
This is an absolutely classic film, which can make it hard to rate objectively. I chose a 9.5 for its wit based upon writing in part, but acting is real key to this one. This compared to The Big Lebowski and Black Dynamite, that is, it had incredibly witty dialogue played with absolute honesty and no attempt to under or overplay it. Great scenes like Tom Hanks, the main character, and his boss playing on the giant piano at FAO Schwartz are ingeniously plotted and placed in the movie's structure. The lines are crafted with precision to leave no streaks of unreality, but ring true despite the ridiculous premise.
This could have been just a silly, over-the-top comedy except for the acting here. Tom Hanks is obvious, but I need to praise him. His portrayal of a child despite his physique, his ability to look like a kid trying to fit in gives the whole story a gripping reality and some of the funniest moments in film.
Wisdom is a 9.5 as well. It might be compared to Ben-Hur or Bella, stories of great and full values with small objects of genuine objectionable content. Some might disagree with my interpretation, but I think this works as a great allegory for being 'as a little child.' Tom's character, Josh, is much of what an adult ought to be. He seeks to show kindness to everybody, hates cheating, and treats women with respect. He treats people simply. He doesn't look for malice, but knows a cheat when he sees one. He doesn't think to take advantage of a woman, but knows how to appreciate one. He is certainly too naive to live in the big, bad world and becomes corrupted without his friend to keep him grounded.
There are two minor problems: '80s sexual mores were frankly awful (for instance, allowing a 13-year-old, body shifted or not, to have sex with this very much adult woman). Second is the strange way that how his parents take it is semi-ignored. These continuity issues are off, but I've never noticed them before now, so they can't be too big can they?
Wonder is 9. This comes down to a couple of things. The use of music to build expectations that get crushed is hilarious. In the instance when she is in the bottom of a bunk bed, the music pumps up leading to romance, but he jumps on the top bunk and the mood dissipates. I originally considered this to be a 9.5, but I decided against it based on comparison with Beginners and Be Kind Rewind. These movies do something audacious in terms of playing reality in a strange way that makes it more than reality. They have great actors, but they do more things. Maybe I'm too in love with avant-garde filmmaking, but I need something more than dialogue to make the perfect film.
If you've never seen this film, watch it. If you have, watch ity again.
The story is, for those who don't know, about a 13-year-old boy who is changed into a 30-year-old after wishing to be 'big' on a carnival machine called Zoltar Speaks. He runs away from home and gets hired at a toy company. He begins to date, in his way, a female co-worker with very grown-up notions.
This is an absolutely classic film, which can make it hard to rate objectively. I chose a 9.5 for its wit based upon writing in part, but acting is real key to this one. This compared to The Big Lebowski and Black Dynamite, that is, it had incredibly witty dialogue played with absolute honesty and no attempt to under or overplay it. Great scenes like Tom Hanks, the main character, and his boss playing on the giant piano at FAO Schwartz are ingeniously plotted and placed in the movie's structure. The lines are crafted with precision to leave no streaks of unreality, but ring true despite the ridiculous premise.
This could have been just a silly, over-the-top comedy except for the acting here. Tom Hanks is obvious, but I need to praise him. His portrayal of a child despite his physique, his ability to look like a kid trying to fit in gives the whole story a gripping reality and some of the funniest moments in film.
Wisdom is a 9.5 as well. It might be compared to Ben-Hur or Bella, stories of great and full values with small objects of genuine objectionable content. Some might disagree with my interpretation, but I think this works as a great allegory for being 'as a little child.' Tom's character, Josh, is much of what an adult ought to be. He seeks to show kindness to everybody, hates cheating, and treats women with respect. He treats people simply. He doesn't look for malice, but knows a cheat when he sees one. He doesn't think to take advantage of a woman, but knows how to appreciate one. He is certainly too naive to live in the big, bad world and becomes corrupted without his friend to keep him grounded.
There are two minor problems: '80s sexual mores were frankly awful (for instance, allowing a 13-year-old, body shifted or not, to have sex with this very much adult woman). Second is the strange way that how his parents take it is semi-ignored. These continuity issues are off, but I've never noticed them before now, so they can't be too big can they?
Wonder is 9. This comes down to a couple of things. The use of music to build expectations that get crushed is hilarious. In the instance when she is in the bottom of a bunk bed, the music pumps up leading to romance, but he jumps on the top bunk and the mood dissipates. I originally considered this to be a 9.5, but I decided against it based on comparison with Beginners and Be Kind Rewind. These movies do something audacious in terms of playing reality in a strange way that makes it more than reality. They have great actors, but they do more things. Maybe I'm too in love with avant-garde filmmaking, but I need something more than dialogue to make the perfect film.
If you've never seen this film, watch it. If you have, watch ity again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)