Too much Harry Potter so I'm mixing it up again with another recent addition that I think is another reflection of my unhealthy man crush for James Cameron.
Prior to The Terminator, Cameron's directorial resume included Xenogensis and Piranha Part II. Needless to say I have ever seen either film and I doubt you have either. But, I can see why The Terminator was considered a sleeper hit back in 1984 even though the character of the Terminator has sense become a part of pop-culture.
The film itself is a cross between '80's slasher film in which a soul-less killer lays waste to everyone in his path in pursuit of one woman who doesn't understand why they are connected and sci-fi film. I wonder if people originally heard the premise for this film and simply let out a collective grown.
Now, according to wikipedia, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." Not bad for a sci-fi film with a budget below $7 million dollars.
The film centers around Sarah Connor (played by Linda Hamilton), a bad waitress with bad '80's hair who is just trying to have some fun when her life is put in jeopardy by a time traveling robot from the year 2029. Her savior also comes from the year 2029 and despite the acting of Michael Biehn, I can assure you the character of Kyle Reese is human. Both time travelers head straight for the phone book and The Terminator begins to systematically eliminate everyone named Sarah Connor. Thankfully our heroine is the last one listed and the first one Reese finds. There is a shoot out in a night club and a chase scene and from that point on the film goes back and forth between chase scenes and shoot outs as Reese tries to explain to Sarah how there is a nuclear war in the near future and the surviving humans are at war with machines for survival. He also must explain to her that the her son will be the one to lead the human resistance against the machines which is why the terminator is after her.
While this film doesn't feel like Cameron's own in the same way that films like Avatar, Aliens and T2 do, it does show him establishing a knack for constructing huge action sequences that are there for more than just the noise. The film also made Schwarzenegger a bigger star and cemented him as the top action star of the '80's. For Linda Hamilton, she plays the role well but it's strange watching her play Sarah Connor as so weak when you contrast that with her performance in T2. Of the 4 Cameron films I own this is my least favorite, but that is more of a credit to the other 3 than a knock on this one. When you factor in the time for which it was made, the budget and the experience Cameron brought to the film it's amazing to think that it was able to reach and maintain it's status in pop culture for so many years. I still enjoy watching this, but ultimately it only makes me want to watch T2 even more as I believe that one completely blows this one out of the water.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Robin Hood
I remember hearing the premise for the film Hancock and thinking 'WOW, that sounds like it'll be a lot of fun.' Then I remember hearing about all the rewrites the film went through and re-edits in order to get a PG-13 ratings and it's no wonder that when I finally rented I was only able to make through 45 minutes before turning it off and sending it back.
Which brings me to Robin Hood, the Ridley Scott directed film starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett that aims to give Robin Hood a proper origin story. Great idea especially for me sense I grew up a huge fan of the Kevin Costner Robin Hood and let's be honest, Russell Crowe should easily be a better Robin Hood.
Sadly, all I can say about this Robin Hood is coulda shoulda woulda. The main problem the film seems to run into is that in creating an origin story for Robin Hood the filmmakers try and over load the story by creating a war between France and England and disparaging virtually everyone who has achieved anything above the standing of commoner along the way.
It should be mentioned that this film is not completely without it's merit. Kevin Durand (Keamy from Lost) is great fun to watch and in truth the performance's of Crowe, Blanchett, John Hurt, Mark Strong and the rest of the cast are all top-notch. Likewise, Scott's visual style particularly in the battle scenes is also top notch. My problem remains the fact that in creating an origin story for Robin Hood, the film makers here have tried to do too much. I'm still not sure why Crowe is not playing Robin of Locksley and when he returns from the crusades to Nottingham there is something creepy about who easily Robin of Locksley's father and wife take in the new Robin even when they know it's not him. There is also side stories of how Robin had blocked out memories of his father who was martyred when Robin was a boy for fighting for universal rights for all people.
The film spends much of the first hour and a half juggling all of it's various story lines and then hastily tries to tie everything together in order to come in with a run time under 2 and a half hours. I tried hard while watching this not to compare it the Kevin Costner version of I grew up with but in truth there are some major difference's between the films that I could not ignore. For one, the Costner Robin Hood is a man seeking redemption from a child hood of immaturity. Another difference comes in the character of Marian. In both films she is strong, but in the Scott version they take it to the level in which she might as well be Joan of Arc. And while I love Cate Blanchett as an actress she never has a chance to grow in this character to a point where I could believe the Crowe's Robin Hood could fall in love with her as easily as he does. A final note worthy comparison comes in the fact that while all the 'bad characters' are portrayed well none of them standout as thee bad guy. In the Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood Alan Rickman is tremendous as the evil sheriff. There is no point in this in which any character is seemingly Robin Hoods arch nemesis until the very end when the film begins to set up for a continuation of the Robin Hood story. Perhaps with an opportunity to tell a more focused story a sequel would be able to breath some life into the Robin Hood story. This one however just feels like a missed opportunity.
Which brings me to Robin Hood, the Ridley Scott directed film starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett that aims to give Robin Hood a proper origin story. Great idea especially for me sense I grew up a huge fan of the Kevin Costner Robin Hood and let's be honest, Russell Crowe should easily be a better Robin Hood.
Sadly, all I can say about this Robin Hood is coulda shoulda woulda. The main problem the film seems to run into is that in creating an origin story for Robin Hood the filmmakers try and over load the story by creating a war between France and England and disparaging virtually everyone who has achieved anything above the standing of commoner along the way.
It should be mentioned that this film is not completely without it's merit. Kevin Durand (Keamy from Lost) is great fun to watch and in truth the performance's of Crowe, Blanchett, John Hurt, Mark Strong and the rest of the cast are all top-notch. Likewise, Scott's visual style particularly in the battle scenes is also top notch. My problem remains the fact that in creating an origin story for Robin Hood, the film makers here have tried to do too much. I'm still not sure why Crowe is not playing Robin of Locksley and when he returns from the crusades to Nottingham there is something creepy about who easily Robin of Locksley's father and wife take in the new Robin even when they know it's not him. There is also side stories of how Robin had blocked out memories of his father who was martyred when Robin was a boy for fighting for universal rights for all people.
The film spends much of the first hour and a half juggling all of it's various story lines and then hastily tries to tie everything together in order to come in with a run time under 2 and a half hours. I tried hard while watching this not to compare it the Kevin Costner version of I grew up with but in truth there are some major difference's between the films that I could not ignore. For one, the Costner Robin Hood is a man seeking redemption from a child hood of immaturity. Another difference comes in the character of Marian. In both films she is strong, but in the Scott version they take it to the level in which she might as well be Joan of Arc. And while I love Cate Blanchett as an actress she never has a chance to grow in this character to a point where I could believe the Crowe's Robin Hood could fall in love with her as easily as he does. A final note worthy comparison comes in the fact that while all the 'bad characters' are portrayed well none of them standout as thee bad guy. In the Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood Alan Rickman is tremendous as the evil sheriff. There is no point in this in which any character is seemingly Robin Hoods arch nemesis until the very end when the film begins to set up for a continuation of the Robin Hood story. Perhaps with an opportunity to tell a more focused story a sequel would be able to breath some life into the Robin Hood story. This one however just feels like a missed opportunity.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Thank you Mike Newell ... for handing over the directing reigns after your one turn as director. Thank you because while there are good moments here you were able to take my favorite of the Harry Potter books and turn it into my least favorite of the films.
Now I don't want to beat this to death because I know it's obnoxious to see someone push their glasses up on their noses and stuffily assert "the book is better than the movie!" To this point I have tried avoiding that with the Potter films for two reasons. First, it essentially goes with out saying. Second, because the films for the most part are still very watchable.
So, perhaps it's the fact that this one is my favorite and I believe it's ending is the best of the book, but seeing the entire thing including the ending butchered in order to keep the run time down is very disappointing. The book is 250+ pages longer than Azkaban and even after Azakban was released there was some hope the Newell and Warner Bros. would divide the book into two films. No such like though. Instead we get 18 minutes of Yule Ball materiall and less than 5 minutes inside the maze near the end. We also drop the Dursleys, delete an entire character and on a positive note Dobby and the entire house elf sub plot is dropped.
Of all the things to complain about though I think my biggest complaint surrounds the character of Dumbledore. Between the 2nd and 3rd film the role of Dumbledore had to be recast as the original Dumbledore actor, Richard Harris, had passed away. I think most Potter fans prefer Harris's Dumbledore versus the Michael Gambon portrayal. In my opinion, I feel like Harris portrayed Dumbledore like a loving and wise grandfather while Gambon brings a stronger presence to the Dumbledore character. However, as director, it's my opinion that Mike Newell has little to no sense of the character of Dumbledore. In Goblet of Fire we see Dumbledore as foreboding and even somewhat maniacal. Sure the Tri-wizard tournament has grave elements to it and should be taken seriously, but Gambon's performance here would lead me to believe that Dumbledore is looking forward to seeing someone get hurt. Furthermore, there is a scene right after the school champions are announced that has Dumbledore grabbing and pushing Harry in an aggresive fashion. No where in the books or films is Dumbledore scene as such a cold individual and watching it again I just kept thinking to myself this is bordering on being ridiculous.
So, Newell moved on and will hopefully focus on making romantic comedies which is what made him famous and avoid big adventure films. Of course, with Prince of Persia being released to underwhelming reviews it seems that perhaps Mr. Newell needed one more reminder that this genre is not for him.
Now I don't want to beat this to death because I know it's obnoxious to see someone push their glasses up on their noses and stuffily assert "the book is better than the movie!" To this point I have tried avoiding that with the Potter films for two reasons. First, it essentially goes with out saying. Second, because the films for the most part are still very watchable.
So, perhaps it's the fact that this one is my favorite and I believe it's ending is the best of the book, but seeing the entire thing including the ending butchered in order to keep the run time down is very disappointing. The book is 250+ pages longer than Azkaban and even after Azakban was released there was some hope the Newell and Warner Bros. would divide the book into two films. No such like though. Instead we get 18 minutes of Yule Ball materiall and less than 5 minutes inside the maze near the end. We also drop the Dursleys, delete an entire character and on a positive note Dobby and the entire house elf sub plot is dropped.
Of all the things to complain about though I think my biggest complaint surrounds the character of Dumbledore. Between the 2nd and 3rd film the role of Dumbledore had to be recast as the original Dumbledore actor, Richard Harris, had passed away. I think most Potter fans prefer Harris's Dumbledore versus the Michael Gambon portrayal. In my opinion, I feel like Harris portrayed Dumbledore like a loving and wise grandfather while Gambon brings a stronger presence to the Dumbledore character. However, as director, it's my opinion that Mike Newell has little to no sense of the character of Dumbledore. In Goblet of Fire we see Dumbledore as foreboding and even somewhat maniacal. Sure the Tri-wizard tournament has grave elements to it and should be taken seriously, but Gambon's performance here would lead me to believe that Dumbledore is looking forward to seeing someone get hurt. Furthermore, there is a scene right after the school champions are announced that has Dumbledore grabbing and pushing Harry in an aggresive fashion. No where in the books or films is Dumbledore scene as such a cold individual and watching it again I just kept thinking to myself this is bordering on being ridiculous.
So, Newell moved on and will hopefully focus on making romantic comedies which is what made him famous and avoid big adventure films. Of course, with Prince of Persia being released to underwhelming reviews it seems that perhaps Mr. Newell needed one more reminder that this genre is not for him.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
This is perhaps my favorite of the Harry Potter films to date. Directed by Alfonso Cuaron, the film immediately sheds much of the child like charm the first two films had in favor of giving the characters a 21st century feel and there is no question that the overall quality of the film benefits from Cuaron's visual style.
It is also considered to be somewhat controversial in the Harry Potter uni-nerd-verse. I remember speaking with fellow Potter fans when this film was released. Most of our time was spent running through all the details and events that the film leaves out. The films run time is comparable to the first two despite the fact that the source material was roughly 150 pages longer than the previous two so it was no surprise that there were tons of things left out.
The film itself centers around the escape of Sirius Black from Azkaban prison. Since no one had ever escaped before the entire wizarding world is shocked by the news that this deranged murder managed to do it. It also doesn't help that he is regarded as one of Lord Voldemort's most loyal supports.
Azkaban is a huge turning point in the Potter series. No longer is Harry wandering around wondering to himself "what's going on" only to find out it's another scheme by Voldemort to get him. Instead, we begin to see the unraveling of the greater story that is taking place outside of Hogwarts. There is a sense of intrigue throughout the book and film that the previous entries had not established and the sequence in the shrieking shack (particularly the book version) is jaw dropping.
It's been several years since I read the 3rd instalment in the Harry Potter series and the fact of the matter is that subsequent films have done far more damage while butchering their source material. The question that will forever linger of this film among Potter fans is whether or not it opened the door for remaining films to essentially provide cliff notes versions of the books. I don't have an answer to that but I can say that at this point it is worth watching on the merits of some slick film making and the growth of the main characters. Despite the fact that we may never get the full adaptation of the books we may want, I can still appreciate this entry as an example of great film making.
It is also considered to be somewhat controversial in the Harry Potter uni-nerd-verse. I remember speaking with fellow Potter fans when this film was released. Most of our time was spent running through all the details and events that the film leaves out. The films run time is comparable to the first two despite the fact that the source material was roughly 150 pages longer than the previous two so it was no surprise that there were tons of things left out.
The film itself centers around the escape of Sirius Black from Azkaban prison. Since no one had ever escaped before the entire wizarding world is shocked by the news that this deranged murder managed to do it. It also doesn't help that he is regarded as one of Lord Voldemort's most loyal supports.
Azkaban is a huge turning point in the Potter series. No longer is Harry wandering around wondering to himself "what's going on" only to find out it's another scheme by Voldemort to get him. Instead, we begin to see the unraveling of the greater story that is taking place outside of Hogwarts. There is a sense of intrigue throughout the book and film that the previous entries had not established and the sequence in the shrieking shack (particularly the book version) is jaw dropping.
It's been several years since I read the 3rd instalment in the Harry Potter series and the fact of the matter is that subsequent films have done far more damage while butchering their source material. The question that will forever linger of this film among Potter fans is whether or not it opened the door for remaining films to essentially provide cliff notes versions of the books. I don't have an answer to that but I can say that at this point it is worth watching on the merits of some slick film making and the growth of the main characters. Despite the fact that we may never get the full adaptation of the books we may want, I can still appreciate this entry as an example of great film making.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Kill Bill Vol. 1
I've hit a rough spot in the movie collection. As it stands right now I have skipped Hardball until I can watch that one with my wife (why should I suffer alone), I've completed 2 Potter films and have 4 to go and when the Potter films are done I have The Holiday and Hope Floats waiting for me. So, in order to survive I am going to jump around a bit and watch some films that I have purchased since starting this. I think it's for the best.
Which leads me to Kill Bill Vol. 1. There's not a whole lot that I can say about this film that isn't conveyed in the title. It's an ultra violent revenge film that ultimately does not see anyone (knowingly) named Bill get killed since it is only Vol. 1.
What I love about this film though is that Quentin Tarantino is such a master of this medium that the film rarely ever feels like it's being ultra violent. Instead, it flows at such a brisk pace that the audience becomes engulfed in Tarantino's homage to Japanese samurai revenge films and immune to the carnage.
The story itself centers around 'the bride' a survivor of a horrific assassination attempt in which eight others were killed and the then pregenant bride is left in a 4 and a half year coma. The bride eventually awakens and is filled with a singular purpose of hunting down the people who destroyed her life. To this end, she will allow no one to stand in her way.
Told in a typical Tarantino disjointed fashion, Vol. 1 covers 5 chapters of the Brides story as we see her take revenge on Vernita Green and O-Ren Ishii. Along with paying tribute to those who have made this genre great in Japan, Tarantino brings his typical punch-out power to the films dialogue. It's hard to put into words how effective Tarantino's dialogue is because it is so much better than everyone else's out there and as director he knows how to get his characters to deliver it to perfection. The best I could offer for a comparrison is something that stands as the direct opposite to Tarantino and that would be remembering George Costanza frustration with not being able to have a snappy come back. Hours later after he felt like a store clerk had been rude to him he comes up with "YEAH, well the JERK store called and their running out of YOU!" That's funny and pathetic all at once and fits the character of George perfectly. With Tarantino his character's are able to deliver lines like "Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids" with more power and punch than this page can ever adequately describe.
While the dialogue softens the ultra violent acts taking place on screen the film also succeeds by creating amazing set pieces. In particular the showdown at the house of blue leaves is breath taking in all of it's gruesome wonder. Ultimately, I feel I still feel like Vol.2 is more of the masterpiece and Vol.1 is Tarantino paying homage to a style of filmmaking that is unique to Japan and is typically done poorly in American films. Still, don't let it sound like I am selling this film short as it's the kind of film that you watch without blinking the enter time and by the end you just find yourself saying "WOW." At least, that was my experience.
Which leads me to Kill Bill Vol. 1. There's not a whole lot that I can say about this film that isn't conveyed in the title. It's an ultra violent revenge film that ultimately does not see anyone (knowingly) named Bill get killed since it is only Vol. 1.
What I love about this film though is that Quentin Tarantino is such a master of this medium that the film rarely ever feels like it's being ultra violent. Instead, it flows at such a brisk pace that the audience becomes engulfed in Tarantino's homage to Japanese samurai revenge films and immune to the carnage.
The story itself centers around 'the bride' a survivor of a horrific assassination attempt in which eight others were killed and the then pregenant bride is left in a 4 and a half year coma. The bride eventually awakens and is filled with a singular purpose of hunting down the people who destroyed her life. To this end, she will allow no one to stand in her way.
Told in a typical Tarantino disjointed fashion, Vol. 1 covers 5 chapters of the Brides story as we see her take revenge on Vernita Green and O-Ren Ishii. Along with paying tribute to those who have made this genre great in Japan, Tarantino brings his typical punch-out power to the films dialogue. It's hard to put into words how effective Tarantino's dialogue is because it is so much better than everyone else's out there and as director he knows how to get his characters to deliver it to perfection. The best I could offer for a comparrison is something that stands as the direct opposite to Tarantino and that would be remembering George Costanza frustration with not being able to have a snappy come back. Hours later after he felt like a store clerk had been rude to him he comes up with "YEAH, well the JERK store called and their running out of YOU!" That's funny and pathetic all at once and fits the character of George perfectly. With Tarantino his character's are able to deliver lines like "Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids" with more power and punch than this page can ever adequately describe.
While the dialogue softens the ultra violent acts taking place on screen the film also succeeds by creating amazing set pieces. In particular the showdown at the house of blue leaves is breath taking in all of it's gruesome wonder. Ultimately, I feel I still feel like Vol.2 is more of the masterpiece and Vol.1 is Tarantino paying homage to a style of filmmaking that is unique to Japan and is typically done poorly in American films. Still, don't let it sound like I am selling this film short as it's the kind of film that you watch without blinking the enter time and by the end you just find yourself saying "WOW." At least, that was my experience.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Let the great debate begin! Who is the worst CGI character in film history; JarJar or Dobby? In JarJar we see a character created for the singular purpose of being an idiot in a failed attempt to inject humor into the greatest Sci-Fi series of all time. With Dobby we have a masochistic elf/slave who is not so much funny but just creepy and unsettling. Sadly, there is no winner here because the films these characters exist in are most see for fans of the genre.
That's right, Chamber of Secrets may be my least favorite of the Harry Potter books (and second least favorite of the films), but it remains required viewing/reading for anyone looking to dive into the world of Harry Potter.
I suppose what bothers me most in Chamber of Secrets is that in both mediums it seems to follow much of the formula involved in the Sorcerer's Stone. Harry sees even more of the wizarding world but with less sense of wide eyed wonder. We also see Harry face similar problems as, along with Ron and Hermoine, he sets out to solve another "whodunit." All in all, whether it's the book or the film, Chamber of Secrets carries with it an overwhelming feeling of "haven't we done this before?"
With that being said I should point out that the film has several redeeming qualities. Kenneth Branagh is terrific as Professor Lockhart, the dueling scene with Harry and Draco is great fun, the introduction of Draco's father Lucius Malfoy is effective and the scene's at the Weasley home are also great. Outside of that though this film gives us much of the same and often the scenes that are supposed to provide a big pay off (the whomping willow, the car/train chase and the spiders) actually provide surprisingly little excitement. A final criticism of the film centers around the horribly misguided choice of not re shooting any of the scenes in which Ron's voice is cracking. We all get that these kids are going through puberty but it's death for the audience to have to listen to it and when it undermines any sense of tension that's been created when it happens.
Ultimately this film provides little more than material for debating the worst characters in movie history. In the case of Dobby, he was meet with such disdain in the film version of Chamber of Secrets that he was left out of other the other films. That's a strong vote against him, but for my money no character in film history is more regrettable than JarJar. Still, we all lose sense both the Star Wars and Harry Potter films should be viewed in their entirety.
That's right, Chamber of Secrets may be my least favorite of the Harry Potter books (and second least favorite of the films), but it remains required viewing/reading for anyone looking to dive into the world of Harry Potter.
I suppose what bothers me most in Chamber of Secrets is that in both mediums it seems to follow much of the formula involved in the Sorcerer's Stone. Harry sees even more of the wizarding world but with less sense of wide eyed wonder. We also see Harry face similar problems as, along with Ron and Hermoine, he sets out to solve another "whodunit." All in all, whether it's the book or the film, Chamber of Secrets carries with it an overwhelming feeling of "haven't we done this before?"
With that being said I should point out that the film has several redeeming qualities. Kenneth Branagh is terrific as Professor Lockhart, the dueling scene with Harry and Draco is great fun, the introduction of Draco's father Lucius Malfoy is effective and the scene's at the Weasley home are also great. Outside of that though this film gives us much of the same and often the scenes that are supposed to provide a big pay off (the whomping willow, the car/train chase and the spiders) actually provide surprisingly little excitement. A final criticism of the film centers around the horribly misguided choice of not re shooting any of the scenes in which Ron's voice is cracking. We all get that these kids are going through puberty but it's death for the audience to have to listen to it and when it undermines any sense of tension that's been created when it happens.
Ultimately this film provides little more than material for debating the worst characters in movie history. In the case of Dobby, he was meet with such disdain in the film version of Chamber of Secrets that he was left out of other the other films. That's a strong vote against him, but for my money no character in film history is more regrettable than JarJar. Still, we all lose sense both the Star Wars and Harry Potter films should be viewed in their entirety.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Harry Potter and The Sorcerers Stone
I own all six Harry Potter films so forgive me if the Harry Potter related entries seem short in comparison to past entries. While I do enjoy the Potter films (the books of course are infinitely better) I am at a point were I believe my reason for owning them is to one day be able to watch them with my children as opposed to pulling off the shelf and watching for my own entertainment.
Of course, I didn't always feel that way. In fact, when the Sorcerers Stone was released in theaters I saw it 5 times and subsequently upon it's release on DVD I watched several more times. But since reading the seventh book my passion for the Harry Potter world has dimmed as there are no more mysteries to solve.
This first film is the truest representation of the books in film format. Not everything is included but the little bit that is left out is seemingly inconsequential to the story or future films. It also is the most magical of the films and the most innocent. It carries the unique quality of being able to introduce the wizarding world to Harry at the same time this world is being introduced to the audience.
I can't say that The Sorcerers Stone is the best of the Harry Potter films since it is ham stringed by the fact that there is only so much the film can cover. The book and film serve as introductions to the wizarding world and fail to tie in the overarching intrigue that surrounds the wizarding world at this time. Still, I think this may be my favorite of the films. There is a sense of joy represented in here for the wizarding world and the character of Harry Potter. I still choke up when the film reaches it's end and it's time for Harry to return home to the Dursleys. There is very little in this film that hints at the troubles to come. Instead, it just focuses on an 11 year old boy who is finally given a chance to understand who he is and what potential he holds.
Of course, I didn't always feel that way. In fact, when the Sorcerers Stone was released in theaters I saw it 5 times and subsequently upon it's release on DVD I watched several more times. But since reading the seventh book my passion for the Harry Potter world has dimmed as there are no more mysteries to solve.
This first film is the truest representation of the books in film format. Not everything is included but the little bit that is left out is seemingly inconsequential to the story or future films. It also is the most magical of the films and the most innocent. It carries the unique quality of being able to introduce the wizarding world to Harry at the same time this world is being introduced to the audience.
I can't say that The Sorcerers Stone is the best of the Harry Potter films since it is ham stringed by the fact that there is only so much the film can cover. The book and film serve as introductions to the wizarding world and fail to tie in the overarching intrigue that surrounds the wizarding world at this time. Still, I think this may be my favorite of the films. There is a sense of joy represented in here for the wizarding world and the character of Harry Potter. I still choke up when the film reaches it's end and it's time for Harry to return home to the Dursleys. There is very little in this film that hints at the troubles to come. Instead, it just focuses on an 11 year old boy who is finally given a chance to understand who he is and what potential he holds.
Friday, May 21, 2010
The Godfather Saga
Guess who has two thumbs and is phoning this post in? That's right, this guy. I have spent the last week rewatching the Godfather saga in all of it's glory and I have decided that this post will be dedicated to all three instead of doing individual posts for each one. Why? Because if you need my opinion on the Godfather Saga to determine whether or not your interested in watching it then your probably better off not watching it.
What I do intend to do with each one is attempt to briefly give my opinions about each after watching them again and how they work together. The first film in the saga in my opinion is the masterpiece. It is cemented in my list of five desert island films and honestly it is in my opinion the greatest film I have ever seen. It is presently ranked second on the American Film Institutes list of greatest films that was compiled back in 2007. It has been referenced and parodied in so many ways over the years that if you haven't seen it you would recognize huge chunks of this film from the way it's been represented in various media over the past 30 years. From the films opening scene to it's bitter end every scene and character breathes with a life that is rarely scene on film. We meet the Corleone family on the day of daughter Connie's wedding and we see the families matriarch Vito meeting with various people in his home office while the reception continues on the families estate. From the moment we meet Vito he is a calm yet imposing figure. His son Santino (Sunny) and adopted son Tom are in with him and are seemingly taking notes so that when Don Vito retires Sunny can take over.
We meet other family members too including Michael, the one son who is not being groomed to aid in the family business. Michael arrives with Kay and assures her that he is not like his family. However, weeks later when the Don is nearly murdered Michael finds his love for his father and family thrusting him into a situation in which he is forced to help in the family business.
The compelling elements of the first Godfather are Vito's unflinching ability to run his business without emotional influence and Michael's assimilation to that business along the resulting corruption of character that Michael succumbs too. I can remember taking the Godfather over to a friends house once and starting it at midnight thinking we would watch half that night and the next night we would finish. In the back of my head I think I knew we would be up until 3 am because that's the kind of film the Godfather is. Once it begins it is virtually impossible to look a way.
Which brings us to The Godfather Part 2. I have seen many times were critics will refer to the second one as being the greatest sequel of all time and there are those who would argue that it is better than the original. I would not. It's worth noting that part 2 is presently ranked 32nd on AFI's top one hundred list and is the only sequel on the list (I am not counting Star Wars Episode IV because when it was released it was not presented as a sequel).
The films takes the two central characters from the original and breaks the film into 2 stories. The first is an origin story that follows Vito from Sicily to New York and his rise to underworld power as a young man struggling to take care of his family. The second story follows Michael seven years after the first film ended as he continues to rule over the Corleone family and it's interests. By the end of the first film I believe director Francis Ford Coppola laid out the depths to which Michael had sunk by splicing together a sequence in which he stood Godfather to his nephew while hits that he ordered were being carried out across New York and Las Vegas. By the time the second film opens Michael seems to be wallowing in his inability to control the monster he has created. He has set a goal to move his family into a legitimate business world and yet the closer he gets to that the further he gets. His singular motivation appears to be the protection of his family but he is so blinded by his own immorality that he can't see how his actions are destroying his marriage and family. He still manages to be slick enough to avoid inquisition from a senate panel and the film also includes a compelling sequence in Cuba as Michael looks to move his business there but is indirectly stopped by the revolution in 1960. This is the darkest content area of the saga and by it's end we see Michael a shell of the man he was when he arrived at his sisters wedding seemingly taking out his anger on those he feels are responsible for the failure of his marriage without ever looking at his own errors. Had this been the film only focus it would have been very difficult to get through.
Of course, the film also includes Vito's origin story as I mentioned and that is a thoroughly compelling and entertaining tale. Told mostly in Italian and lacking the vulgarity of Goodfellas it manages to make Vito a sympathetic character who is willing to work hard to take care of his family in an unjust world. We see why Vito was tragically forced to leave Sicily and how some chance encounters lead to him being in a position to go from taking orders to delivering them. It's this part of the film that is most entertaining and exhibits some of the best film making of the series. Without the Vito origin story I think this film ultimately would not have lived up to the expectations set by it's predecessor, but with it The Godfather Part 2 is a great film.
The Godfather Part 3 however, not so much. This film has been much maligned over the 20 years since it's release as not being worthy of the first two films and I must admit that I have long been an apologist for the third film. After all, it was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar in 1990 and it's hard to live up to the standards the first two had built.
Watching it again though I can still sight a few good things including Michael giving his confessions to a priest and his pursuit of Kay's forgiveness. The confession scene in particular I find to be compelling as we see a man come face to face with the horrible things he has done and break down because of it.
But, other than that the film plays too much like a tribute to the first two by consistently throwing in reminders of them through out. There is also a sense that the film most over compensate for how evil Michael had become by setting itself nearly twenty years after the second had ended and showing Michael as an extraordinarily charitable man still seeking a way out of the family business.
Yet the film is brought down by a sense of obligation to follow the same formulas the first two films established and while the first one seemingly gave these characters life this one seems to being trying to choke the life out of it's characters. Kay has been reduced to quips about Michael's past while Michael is played boorishly by Al Pacino in the same way that he has been over acting almost every role he has had for the past twenty years. I should also point out the unfortunate casting of Sophia Coppola as Michael's daughter, but considering she left acting after this to be a director I would suggest that even she was smart enough to realize acting was not for her. Also, I guess the film makers did not get the memo regarding how audiences are still not comfortable with cousin love stories (are you listening George Michael?).
The third film does give the saga proper closure. There is no happy ending when one lives this life. Vito was never happy that Michael had taken over the family business and Michael was never able to have the family he wanted. The saga at it's best represents the very best that film making can be and despite the flaws of the third film the saga should be viewed by everyone at least once. Unless of course you consider all the references you have seen through the Simpsons as enough.
What I do intend to do with each one is attempt to briefly give my opinions about each after watching them again and how they work together. The first film in the saga in my opinion is the masterpiece. It is cemented in my list of five desert island films and honestly it is in my opinion the greatest film I have ever seen. It is presently ranked second on the American Film Institutes list of greatest films that was compiled back in 2007. It has been referenced and parodied in so many ways over the years that if you haven't seen it you would recognize huge chunks of this film from the way it's been represented in various media over the past 30 years. From the films opening scene to it's bitter end every scene and character breathes with a life that is rarely scene on film. We meet the Corleone family on the day of daughter Connie's wedding and we see the families matriarch Vito meeting with various people in his home office while the reception continues on the families estate. From the moment we meet Vito he is a calm yet imposing figure. His son Santino (Sunny) and adopted son Tom are in with him and are seemingly taking notes so that when Don Vito retires Sunny can take over.
We meet other family members too including Michael, the one son who is not being groomed to aid in the family business. Michael arrives with Kay and assures her that he is not like his family. However, weeks later when the Don is nearly murdered Michael finds his love for his father and family thrusting him into a situation in which he is forced to help in the family business.
The compelling elements of the first Godfather are Vito's unflinching ability to run his business without emotional influence and Michael's assimilation to that business along the resulting corruption of character that Michael succumbs too. I can remember taking the Godfather over to a friends house once and starting it at midnight thinking we would watch half that night and the next night we would finish. In the back of my head I think I knew we would be up until 3 am because that's the kind of film the Godfather is. Once it begins it is virtually impossible to look a way.
Which brings us to The Godfather Part 2. I have seen many times were critics will refer to the second one as being the greatest sequel of all time and there are those who would argue that it is better than the original. I would not. It's worth noting that part 2 is presently ranked 32nd on AFI's top one hundred list and is the only sequel on the list (I am not counting Star Wars Episode IV because when it was released it was not presented as a sequel).
The films takes the two central characters from the original and breaks the film into 2 stories. The first is an origin story that follows Vito from Sicily to New York and his rise to underworld power as a young man struggling to take care of his family. The second story follows Michael seven years after the first film ended as he continues to rule over the Corleone family and it's interests. By the end of the first film I believe director Francis Ford Coppola laid out the depths to which Michael had sunk by splicing together a sequence in which he stood Godfather to his nephew while hits that he ordered were being carried out across New York and Las Vegas. By the time the second film opens Michael seems to be wallowing in his inability to control the monster he has created. He has set a goal to move his family into a legitimate business world and yet the closer he gets to that the further he gets. His singular motivation appears to be the protection of his family but he is so blinded by his own immorality that he can't see how his actions are destroying his marriage and family. He still manages to be slick enough to avoid inquisition from a senate panel and the film also includes a compelling sequence in Cuba as Michael looks to move his business there but is indirectly stopped by the revolution in 1960. This is the darkest content area of the saga and by it's end we see Michael a shell of the man he was when he arrived at his sisters wedding seemingly taking out his anger on those he feels are responsible for the failure of his marriage without ever looking at his own errors. Had this been the film only focus it would have been very difficult to get through.
Of course, the film also includes Vito's origin story as I mentioned and that is a thoroughly compelling and entertaining tale. Told mostly in Italian and lacking the vulgarity of Goodfellas it manages to make Vito a sympathetic character who is willing to work hard to take care of his family in an unjust world. We see why Vito was tragically forced to leave Sicily and how some chance encounters lead to him being in a position to go from taking orders to delivering them. It's this part of the film that is most entertaining and exhibits some of the best film making of the series. Without the Vito origin story I think this film ultimately would not have lived up to the expectations set by it's predecessor, but with it The Godfather Part 2 is a great film.
The Godfather Part 3 however, not so much. This film has been much maligned over the 20 years since it's release as not being worthy of the first two films and I must admit that I have long been an apologist for the third film. After all, it was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar in 1990 and it's hard to live up to the standards the first two had built.
Watching it again though I can still sight a few good things including Michael giving his confessions to a priest and his pursuit of Kay's forgiveness. The confession scene in particular I find to be compelling as we see a man come face to face with the horrible things he has done and break down because of it.
But, other than that the film plays too much like a tribute to the first two by consistently throwing in reminders of them through out. There is also a sense that the film most over compensate for how evil Michael had become by setting itself nearly twenty years after the second had ended and showing Michael as an extraordinarily charitable man still seeking a way out of the family business.
Yet the film is brought down by a sense of obligation to follow the same formulas the first two films established and while the first one seemingly gave these characters life this one seems to being trying to choke the life out of it's characters. Kay has been reduced to quips about Michael's past while Michael is played boorishly by Al Pacino in the same way that he has been over acting almost every role he has had for the past twenty years. I should also point out the unfortunate casting of Sophia Coppola as Michael's daughter, but considering she left acting after this to be a director I would suggest that even she was smart enough to realize acting was not for her. Also, I guess the film makers did not get the memo regarding how audiences are still not comfortable with cousin love stories (are you listening George Michael?).
The third film does give the saga proper closure. There is no happy ending when one lives this life. Vito was never happy that Michael had taken over the family business and Michael was never able to have the family he wanted. The saga at it's best represents the very best that film making can be and despite the flaws of the third film the saga should be viewed by everyone at least once. Unless of course you consider all the references you have seen through the Simpsons as enough.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Ghostbusters
I have found that there are some movies that stay great over time like the Princess Bride and others that you watch again years later and wonder how did I ever enjoy this film in the first place (Top Gun comes to mind). Then there is a film like Ghostbusters. When I was 8 I remember watching this and thinking that it was a little scary and really exciting. Twenty years later I still enjoy watching this film even though it's not nearly as scary or exciting for me now.
Instead Ghostbusters has become one of my favorite comedies of all time. There is a dry sarcastic sense of humor that is carried out throughout the film and is done with the exceptional talents of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis.
I hope there is little need for to explain the premise here, but in short the three stars are scientist pursuing supernatural activity in New York City when their grants are revoked and they are forced to enter the private sector. They begin advertising and slowly build up a client base as well as media attention. Eventually they hire Ernie Hudson, get arrested and are asked by the mayor to save the city. Sigourney Weaver provides a love interest for Bill Murray and everyone is in top comedic form. This film deserves more attention but all I can think of adding is just my favorite quotes. On the small chance that you are reading this and haven't seen Ghostbusters I strongly recommend placing it at the top of your Netflix list. I love this film but I should also confess that my motivation for writing is diminished by the fact that I am trying to watch the Godfather right now. Sorry.
Instead Ghostbusters has become one of my favorite comedies of all time. There is a dry sarcastic sense of humor that is carried out throughout the film and is done with the exceptional talents of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis.
I hope there is little need for to explain the premise here, but in short the three stars are scientist pursuing supernatural activity in New York City when their grants are revoked and they are forced to enter the private sector. They begin advertising and slowly build up a client base as well as media attention. Eventually they hire Ernie Hudson, get arrested and are asked by the mayor to save the city. Sigourney Weaver provides a love interest for Bill Murray and everyone is in top comedic form. This film deserves more attention but all I can think of adding is just my favorite quotes. On the small chance that you are reading this and haven't seen Ghostbusters I strongly recommend placing it at the top of your Netflix list. I love this film but I should also confess that my motivation for writing is diminished by the fact that I am trying to watch the Godfather right now. Sorry.
The Fugitive
On the DVD for season 2 of The Office of the special features is various cast members doing fake public service announcements ranging in topics from what to do if your attacked by a bear to not calling a bride on the day of the wedding to ask for directions. One of the fake PSA's provided by Jim was regarding the film The Fugitive and how it is a really good movie. I mean really really good.
Essentially that is exactly how I feel about this film. It is really really good. I am not a fan of the police procedural genre, but this film stands out because of it's unique premise and strong cast. At the center of the story is Harrison Ford's character Dr. Richard Kimble. From the beginning of the film we see Dr. Kimble convicted of the murder of his wife and in transit on his way to prison when he becomes part of escape attempt orchestrated by the other prison. The prison bus crashes is hit by a train in a sequence that remember seeing as kid and being completely blown away by. To this day I still consider one of the better action sequences I have seen in my life.
In comes Wyatt Earp, I mean Samuel Gerard played by Tommy Lee Jones. He has been placed in charge of apprehending the escaped felons including Dr. Kimble. Jones won an Oscar for his role here as the leader of his team and plays the role with an unflinching sense that his character's one goal is to do what's right by the law and by his team. Because of this he manages to avoid becoming the villain as he pursues Dr. Kimble.
His pursuit of Dr. Kimble is made easier by the fact that the good doctor is determined to prove he is innocent. You see it was the one armed man that did it and Kimble is filling to masquerade as a janitor at the local hospital and visit a prisoner locked up in the police station in his pursuit of the truth. Those are big risks given the fact that every police officer in Chicago is looking for him.
There are parts of the film that have become ripe for parody over time which is only natural. The film was directed by Andrew Davis whose previous work had included Steven Segal films (I do think Under Siege was pretty good) and his best work since was arguably Holes. Not exactly a stellar resume and yet this film has very few real flaws. The supporting cast provides an appropriate level of humor as they trade barbs with Jones and Ford handles being able to juggle feelings of dread as he slips past police officers with determination for clearing his name. It's not Indiana Jones or Han Solo, but he still plays the hero very well and in this case very sympathetically. Overall, I think Jim was right, this is a really really good film.
Essentially that is exactly how I feel about this film. It is really really good. I am not a fan of the police procedural genre, but this film stands out because of it's unique premise and strong cast. At the center of the story is Harrison Ford's character Dr. Richard Kimble. From the beginning of the film we see Dr. Kimble convicted of the murder of his wife and in transit on his way to prison when he becomes part of escape attempt orchestrated by the other prison. The prison bus crashes is hit by a train in a sequence that remember seeing as kid and being completely blown away by. To this day I still consider one of the better action sequences I have seen in my life.
In comes Wyatt Earp, I mean Samuel Gerard played by Tommy Lee Jones. He has been placed in charge of apprehending the escaped felons including Dr. Kimble. Jones won an Oscar for his role here as the leader of his team and plays the role with an unflinching sense that his character's one goal is to do what's right by the law and by his team. Because of this he manages to avoid becoming the villain as he pursues Dr. Kimble.
His pursuit of Dr. Kimble is made easier by the fact that the good doctor is determined to prove he is innocent. You see it was the one armed man that did it and Kimble is filling to masquerade as a janitor at the local hospital and visit a prisoner locked up in the police station in his pursuit of the truth. Those are big risks given the fact that every police officer in Chicago is looking for him.
There are parts of the film that have become ripe for parody over time which is only natural. The film was directed by Andrew Davis whose previous work had included Steven Segal films (I do think Under Siege was pretty good) and his best work since was arguably Holes. Not exactly a stellar resume and yet this film has very few real flaws. The supporting cast provides an appropriate level of humor as they trade barbs with Jones and Ford handles being able to juggle feelings of dread as he slips past police officers with determination for clearing his name. It's not Indiana Jones or Han Solo, but he still plays the hero very well and in this case very sympathetically. Overall, I think Jim was right, this is a really really good film.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Frost/Nixon
There are some directors out there, such as James Cameron, Cameron Crowe or Christopher Nolan, that I will line up to see their latest films. There are others like Michael Bay for which I believe the 'negative review' was invented for and then there are the critically acclaimed directors whose work in my opinion is incredibly over-rated (I'm looking at you Mr. Eastwood on this one, Million Dollar Baby my butt!). A man who is typically present in the same category as Mr. Eastwood is Ron Howard. Like Clint, Ron Howard makes good films, but my beef is that in both cases the directors make poor choices in the direction there films take and the pacing of their films leaving me thinking that the only reason there any good is because they are surrounded by talent. In the case of Clint I would say that one exception to this is Letters From Iwo Jima and for Ron Howard the exception to this is Frost/Nixon which I believe to be a nearly flawless film.
I feel so strongly about Frost/Nixon that several months ago I placed it in my top ten films of the past decade despite the fact that I had only seen it one time (it was the only film in my top 10 that had only seen once). Watching it in the theater I remember being glued to me seat watching every word in this film delivered with such power that I felt like I was watching a boxing match. Nixon is portrayed as the bruising heavyweight champ and Frost as the slick youngster who may not have all the tools but he knows how to win.
For those unfamiliar with the topic, the film is a dramatization of the real life interviews English talk show host David Frost held with Richard Nixon in 1977. It was the first formal sit down interview Nixon had after resigning from office and there was a sense in the country that in order to provide closure to Watergate the country needed to hear Nixon address the issues directly.
In his approach to the subject Ron Howard elects to use a documentary format allowing the supporting characters to provide insight into the behind the scenes of each camp. This technique in my opinion is what takes the film from being very good to being exceptional. Of course it also helps that the supporting cast getting the face time was Sam Rockwell, Oliver Platt, Rebecca Hall, Matthew Macfayden and Kevin Bacon. Sam Rockwell provides some of the best moments as the ultra liberal author looking to take Nixon down who succumbs to the power of the President when they meet in person and shake hands.
The film is a tour de force drama that looks into the nature of the presidency, asks the question of what impact Watergate had on Americans perspective on the presidency and looks at the nature of television and it's role in dealing with such subject matter. The performances are outstanding and the film cares without a balance of humor and seriousness that makes it watchable for everyone and not just the history buffs out there. There are films that Ron Howard has made in which I felt like the praise they received was undeserved. With Frost/Nixon no amount of praise is too much.
I feel so strongly about Frost/Nixon that several months ago I placed it in my top ten films of the past decade despite the fact that I had only seen it one time (it was the only film in my top 10 that had only seen once). Watching it in the theater I remember being glued to me seat watching every word in this film delivered with such power that I felt like I was watching a boxing match. Nixon is portrayed as the bruising heavyweight champ and Frost as the slick youngster who may not have all the tools but he knows how to win.
For those unfamiliar with the topic, the film is a dramatization of the real life interviews English talk show host David Frost held with Richard Nixon in 1977. It was the first formal sit down interview Nixon had after resigning from office and there was a sense in the country that in order to provide closure to Watergate the country needed to hear Nixon address the issues directly.
In his approach to the subject Ron Howard elects to use a documentary format allowing the supporting characters to provide insight into the behind the scenes of each camp. This technique in my opinion is what takes the film from being very good to being exceptional. Of course it also helps that the supporting cast getting the face time was Sam Rockwell, Oliver Platt, Rebecca Hall, Matthew Macfayden and Kevin Bacon. Sam Rockwell provides some of the best moments as the ultra liberal author looking to take Nixon down who succumbs to the power of the President when they meet in person and shake hands.
The film is a tour de force drama that looks into the nature of the presidency, asks the question of what impact Watergate had on Americans perspective on the presidency and looks at the nature of television and it's role in dealing with such subject matter. The performances are outstanding and the film cares without a balance of humor and seriousness that makes it watchable for everyone and not just the history buffs out there. There are films that Ron Howard has made in which I felt like the praise they received was undeserved. With Frost/Nixon no amount of praise is too much.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Finding Neverland
I remember seeing this film at Celebration Cinema's in Lansing, MI with my then fiance Heidi and my good friend Todd Gray. For those of you who have not had the pleasure of meeting Todd Gray he is the movie expert turned AMC General Manager who I look up to and strive to be like each and every day. To simply refer to him as buddy in any post would be unjust.
Anyway, what I remember about that day is leaving the theater filled with a sense of joy for life that is not commonly felt in late November when there is a foot of snow on the ground. I also remember getting a great picture of me and Todd with me lifting him up in the air in bear hug. I mention all of this for two reasons: the first is that it's a good memory and second because I still feel that sense of joy for life when I still watch this film.
The film stars Johnny Depp in what may be his most subtle and perhaps best performance in a career that is filled with memorable performances. He plays J.M. Barrie, a playwright whose most recent play has received harsh reviews. While searching for his next idea for a play Barrie has a chance encounter with the Davies family. Barrie is learning to deal with the emotional difficulty of receiving poor reviews while Sylvia (played by Kate Winslett) and her boy's are learning to live the pain of losing their father. Together, Barrie and Davies clan find a way to help each other.
What follows a an a front to the limitations of life and death. The Davies clan provides Barrie with an inspiration to create a world unlike one that anyone has ever seen. That world is Neverland and at it's center is Peter Pan. In return for the inspiration the Davies provide Barrie he helps to renew the boys imagination and love for life.
The film is a dramatization of the creation of Peter Pan. It does not sugar coat the problems Barrie has with his wife Mary or the troubles facing Sylvia Llewelyn Davies both socially or physically. Because of that it is not always a happy or pleasant film. But the magic of the film is that it manages to bring to life the spirit of the Peter Pan story more successfully than any other film version I have ever seen. Director Marc Foster shows us Neverland with a visual style that is fantastic and watching this film again I can understand what it means to J.M. Barrie to live forever. Foster is able to seamlessly mix tragedy with joy in a way that reminds that even death is just another beginning. For me, it's a reminder that no matter what hardships we face there is no reason to stop living.
Anyway, what I remember about that day is leaving the theater filled with a sense of joy for life that is not commonly felt in late November when there is a foot of snow on the ground. I also remember getting a great picture of me and Todd with me lifting him up in the air in bear hug. I mention all of this for two reasons: the first is that it's a good memory and second because I still feel that sense of joy for life when I still watch this film.
The film stars Johnny Depp in what may be his most subtle and perhaps best performance in a career that is filled with memorable performances. He plays J.M. Barrie, a playwright whose most recent play has received harsh reviews. While searching for his next idea for a play Barrie has a chance encounter with the Davies family. Barrie is learning to deal with the emotional difficulty of receiving poor reviews while Sylvia (played by Kate Winslett) and her boy's are learning to live the pain of losing their father. Together, Barrie and Davies clan find a way to help each other.
What follows a an a front to the limitations of life and death. The Davies clan provides Barrie with an inspiration to create a world unlike one that anyone has ever seen. That world is Neverland and at it's center is Peter Pan. In return for the inspiration the Davies provide Barrie he helps to renew the boys imagination and love for life.
The film is a dramatization of the creation of Peter Pan. It does not sugar coat the problems Barrie has with his wife Mary or the troubles facing Sylvia Llewelyn Davies both socially or physically. Because of that it is not always a happy or pleasant film. But the magic of the film is that it manages to bring to life the spirit of the Peter Pan story more successfully than any other film version I have ever seen. Director Marc Foster shows us Neverland with a visual style that is fantastic and watching this film again I can understand what it means to J.M. Barrie to live forever. Foster is able to seamlessly mix tragedy with joy in a way that reminds that even death is just another beginning. For me, it's a reminder that no matter what hardships we face there is no reason to stop living.
Field of Dreams
I have to admit this is a hard one. As baseball films go I'm not sure this one cracks my top five and yet I always get chocked up with when Kevin Costner asks his dad if he wants to have a catch.
At the center of my ambiguous feelings towards this film is it's star Kevin Costner. It's hard to believe now that there was a time when Costner was one of, if not the biggest star going. From the Untouchables to Avatar's prequel (Dance's with Wolves) to Robin Hood and even JFK it seemed like Costner's films were event films that people talked about long after seeing them. Of course over the last 15 years Costner's work has been spotty at best (I do think Tin Cup is a guilty pleasure movie) and his acting ability has become subject to ridicule.
That leads me to ask the following question, how does Field of Dreams hold up over time? In truth I don't think it holds up very well. There is still a spirit and a love for baseball that resonates throughout the film but something is lost in the pro-hippy vibe and supernatural hijinks's that prompt an Iowa farmer to do one illogical thing after another.
If your not familiar with the film I am sure you have heard the line "if you build it he will come." It is a baseball field and he is Shoeless Joe Jackson. To build the field Roy (Costner) most plow over his crops to make space. What leads to Roy doing this, he doesn't want to grow old like his father did. That act of spontanity leads to Roy being the butt of several jokes as his home and land face foreclosure. With mounting money problems Roy hears the voice again and this time it sends him to Boston to seek out his favorite author. With James Earl Jones in toe Roy heads to Minnesota were he is now able to travel back in time in order to meet a town doctor whose dream is to face a big league pitcher just one time. He brings him back to Iowa with Jones still tagging along and finds his brother-in-law there begging him to sell the land before the bank forecloses the next morning.
Before I go any further I should comment about how old age and cynicism have set in for me and perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on this film. There is a magic here that begs it audience to believe that we all deserve an opportunity to relive a moment in life that we thought we had lost. For Roy that moment is having a catch with his dad. I do look forward to watching this film with my son when he is older to see if it's love for baseball makes the same impression on him as it did for me when I first saw and I hope that afterwords we can go out side and have a catch. And I don't think this is a terrible movie and I admire those who still love it and find it's message endearing. However, I do not look forward to my son being old enough and cynical enough to think the film is ultimately a bit silly which is what I felt when I was watching it again.
At the center of my ambiguous feelings towards this film is it's star Kevin Costner. It's hard to believe now that there was a time when Costner was one of, if not the biggest star going. From the Untouchables to Avatar's prequel (Dance's with Wolves) to Robin Hood and even JFK it seemed like Costner's films were event films that people talked about long after seeing them. Of course over the last 15 years Costner's work has been spotty at best (I do think Tin Cup is a guilty pleasure movie) and his acting ability has become subject to ridicule.
That leads me to ask the following question, how does Field of Dreams hold up over time? In truth I don't think it holds up very well. There is still a spirit and a love for baseball that resonates throughout the film but something is lost in the pro-hippy vibe and supernatural hijinks's that prompt an Iowa farmer to do one illogical thing after another.
If your not familiar with the film I am sure you have heard the line "if you build it he will come." It is a baseball field and he is Shoeless Joe Jackson. To build the field Roy (Costner) most plow over his crops to make space. What leads to Roy doing this, he doesn't want to grow old like his father did. That act of spontanity leads to Roy being the butt of several jokes as his home and land face foreclosure. With mounting money problems Roy hears the voice again and this time it sends him to Boston to seek out his favorite author. With James Earl Jones in toe Roy heads to Minnesota were he is now able to travel back in time in order to meet a town doctor whose dream is to face a big league pitcher just one time. He brings him back to Iowa with Jones still tagging along and finds his brother-in-law there begging him to sell the land before the bank forecloses the next morning.
Before I go any further I should comment about how old age and cynicism have set in for me and perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on this film. There is a magic here that begs it audience to believe that we all deserve an opportunity to relive a moment in life that we thought we had lost. For Roy that moment is having a catch with his dad. I do look forward to watching this film with my son when he is older to see if it's love for baseball makes the same impression on him as it did for me when I first saw and I hope that afterwords we can go out side and have a catch. And I don't think this is a terrible movie and I admire those who still love it and find it's message endearing. However, I do not look forward to my son being old enough and cynical enough to think the film is ultimately a bit silly which is what I felt when I was watching it again.
Iron Man 2
I left the theater wondering to myself if perhaps this film was better than it's predecessor much I like I remember leaving Ocean's 12 feeling the same way. But unlike Ocean's 12 which required repeat viewings for me to realize the superiority of the original (in this case the original Clooney version), this one merely required thirty minutes of conversation with a good buddy to acknowledge it's inferiority.
Now let me be clear about one thing, I did enjoy the film. I was in a theater full of nearly 500 people and I can assure you that the majority of the patrons seated were laughing along with every joke the film threw at them. And I was right there with them laughing along. In fact the film even received a round of applause from the majority in attendance prompting me to wonder if someone from the cast or crew was in attendance (otherwise there is no point in applauding in a movie theater, ever!).
So I called my buddy afterwords to discuss the film and his response view of the film was considerably lower. Among his primary beefs were the fact that he had to watch Sam Jackson play the same character he has played for 15 years, the jokes were more grown worthy when watching it in theater of a dozen or so people and that future plots were sacrificed for the sake of making a safe film.
Those weren't his only faults he found but those were the major ones I can recall. In regards to Sam, I am still a sucker for his characters and I have no personal expectation for how Nick Furry should be portrayed so no harm done. Regarding the jokes, I make it a point to avoid sitcoms with laugh tracks because I find the laugh track often distracts from how not funny they are and the same could be said here that perhaps it was only funny because several hundred others were laughing too. I will be interested to see if I find it funny on DVD.
My friends third point though carries the most weight. In the wake of the Dark Knight I was curious to see how the film makers would approach this film. We have already seen pathetic studio executives pull the plug on Spiderman in favor of a darker reboot, so I wondered if this one would favor a darker approach too.
It didn't, in fact it was decidedly lighter. While the first one dealt with terrorism and gun trades this one was completely void of any overarching real-to-life subplots. Instead the film gives us a ridiculous scenario's about Tony Stark "dieing" and having daddy issues. In my opinion these are very lazy story telling techniques as there never really is a sense of either being true.
Now it's worth noting that none of this is a surprise to me. After the first Iron Man was a hit I remember reading about director Jon Favreau wanted a release date of May 2011 for the sequel and how Marvel pushed it up to May 2010 in order to get all of their ducks in a row for an eventual Avengers film. From that moment on I think I always knew that Iron Man 2 would be a play it safe sequel.
Now it should be noted that the film does carry a tremendous supporting cast with it. Everyone is great here from Downey Jr. on down with Scarlett Johanson perhaps providing the most scene stealing moments and Sam Rockwell having fun as Tony Stark's industrial rival Justin Hammer. Mickey Rourke is great as whiplash although he is sadly under used and Don Cheadle steps in seamlessly as Rhodey. You can add Paltrow, Favreau, Clark Gregg and Gary Shandling to the list of actors who provide performances that focus on their strengths and are all entertaining in their own right.
At the end of the day the question is what how do you feel about a play it safe sequel that doesn't take the same risks the original did? For some I have no doubt that there will be a sense of disappointment. But for me thinking about Iron Man 2 I feel the same way I do about Ocean's 12. It may fall considerably short of it's predecessor, but I can still enjoy watching it if for no other reason than the fact that I can tell that these people were having fun making it and I had fun watching it.
Now let me be clear about one thing, I did enjoy the film. I was in a theater full of nearly 500 people and I can assure you that the majority of the patrons seated were laughing along with every joke the film threw at them. And I was right there with them laughing along. In fact the film even received a round of applause from the majority in attendance prompting me to wonder if someone from the cast or crew was in attendance (otherwise there is no point in applauding in a movie theater, ever!).
So I called my buddy afterwords to discuss the film and his response view of the film was considerably lower. Among his primary beefs were the fact that he had to watch Sam Jackson play the same character he has played for 15 years, the jokes were more grown worthy when watching it in theater of a dozen or so people and that future plots were sacrificed for the sake of making a safe film.
Those weren't his only faults he found but those were the major ones I can recall. In regards to Sam, I am still a sucker for his characters and I have no personal expectation for how Nick Furry should be portrayed so no harm done. Regarding the jokes, I make it a point to avoid sitcoms with laugh tracks because I find the laugh track often distracts from how not funny they are and the same could be said here that perhaps it was only funny because several hundred others were laughing too. I will be interested to see if I find it funny on DVD.
My friends third point though carries the most weight. In the wake of the Dark Knight I was curious to see how the film makers would approach this film. We have already seen pathetic studio executives pull the plug on Spiderman in favor of a darker reboot, so I wondered if this one would favor a darker approach too.
It didn't, in fact it was decidedly lighter. While the first one dealt with terrorism and gun trades this one was completely void of any overarching real-to-life subplots. Instead the film gives us a ridiculous scenario's about Tony Stark "dieing" and having daddy issues. In my opinion these are very lazy story telling techniques as there never really is a sense of either being true.
Now it's worth noting that none of this is a surprise to me. After the first Iron Man was a hit I remember reading about director Jon Favreau wanted a release date of May 2011 for the sequel and how Marvel pushed it up to May 2010 in order to get all of their ducks in a row for an eventual Avengers film. From that moment on I think I always knew that Iron Man 2 would be a play it safe sequel.
Now it should be noted that the film does carry a tremendous supporting cast with it. Everyone is great here from Downey Jr. on down with Scarlett Johanson perhaps providing the most scene stealing moments and Sam Rockwell having fun as Tony Stark's industrial rival Justin Hammer. Mickey Rourke is great as whiplash although he is sadly under used and Don Cheadle steps in seamlessly as Rhodey. You can add Paltrow, Favreau, Clark Gregg and Gary Shandling to the list of actors who provide performances that focus on their strengths and are all entertaining in their own right.
At the end of the day the question is what how do you feel about a play it safe sequel that doesn't take the same risks the original did? For some I have no doubt that there will be a sense of disappointment. But for me thinking about Iron Man 2 I feel the same way I do about Ocean's 12. It may fall considerably short of it's predecessor, but I can still enjoy watching it if for no other reason than the fact that I can tell that these people were having fun making it and I had fun watching it.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Iron Man
I always feel I little bit awkward talking about my love for comic book movies when in fact I feel like I am comic book illiterate. I don't have anything against the medium mind you, I just never grew up with much interest in comic books. I do have faint memories of being at the Meijer in Okemos and hanging out in the comic book aisle but I never read anything that made an indeliable impact.
But over the past twenty years some of my favorite movies have been comic book movies. Whether it was the Batman films, X-men or Spiderman I have been a big fan. I even remember enjoying lesser known or lesser quality comic films like Daredevil, Dick Tracy, Darkman, The Phantom and The fantastic Four. Of all these however, I believe Iron Man was perhaps the most surprising when you consider how little I knew before the film began and how quickly I feel in love with the character.
In truth though it should be no surprise that I loved this film. How couldn't I when you consider it's director Jon Favreau's previous films included Zathura and Elf, it's title character was played by Robert Downey Jr. whose previos action roles included U.S. Marshalls and Air America and the remaining characters were played by actors who had seen less time in action films than Downey had.
Of course that's the genius of it really and one of the main reason's I love this films is that it serves as a reminder that films are at their best when those involved in making them are more committed to the story and character development than noise and explosions. With Iron Man the audience gets treated with respect while being treated to a every fun and entertaining film.
The film itself also provides Hollywood with a nearly perfect framework for handling an origins story of a comic book character. I say that not knowing the actual comic book origins of Iron Man but believing that this film does exactly what is needed to connect an audience to a super hero character it otherwise may know little about. Downey plays Tony Stark as if he were a rock star without ever being too pretentious. He is like Bruce Wayan from the standpoint that his super hero work is possible because his endless bank account, but he also has a charisma to him that makes him more likable than Bruce Wayan. The film is Robert Downey Jr. making us like him and to that end he does an extraordinary job.
The rest of the cast does there part as well. Gwenyth Paltrow provides great banter as Stark's assistant, Jeff Bridges bad guy turn is tremendous, and I'm still trying to figure out why Terrence Howard was replaced in the second film. As for the story, it seamlessly mixes the fun of a comic book film with real to life issues such as the manufacturing of weapons and the power wielded by terrorist organizations.
There are parts of the film that could be nit picked but I don't recommend doing that. This movie does not require you to shut your brain off and still manages to be more fun than most of the tripe that gets made and does require you to shut your brain off. I guess that's what happens so many titans of the action film makers universe converge to make a comic book film.
But over the past twenty years some of my favorite movies have been comic book movies. Whether it was the Batman films, X-men or Spiderman I have been a big fan. I even remember enjoying lesser known or lesser quality comic films like Daredevil, Dick Tracy, Darkman, The Phantom and The fantastic Four. Of all these however, I believe Iron Man was perhaps the most surprising when you consider how little I knew before the film began and how quickly I feel in love with the character.
In truth though it should be no surprise that I loved this film. How couldn't I when you consider it's director Jon Favreau's previous films included Zathura and Elf, it's title character was played by Robert Downey Jr. whose previos action roles included U.S. Marshalls and Air America and the remaining characters were played by actors who had seen less time in action films than Downey had.
Of course that's the genius of it really and one of the main reason's I love this films is that it serves as a reminder that films are at their best when those involved in making them are more committed to the story and character development than noise and explosions. With Iron Man the audience gets treated with respect while being treated to a every fun and entertaining film.
The film itself also provides Hollywood with a nearly perfect framework for handling an origins story of a comic book character. I say that not knowing the actual comic book origins of Iron Man but believing that this film does exactly what is needed to connect an audience to a super hero character it otherwise may know little about. Downey plays Tony Stark as if he were a rock star without ever being too pretentious. He is like Bruce Wayan from the standpoint that his super hero work is possible because his endless bank account, but he also has a charisma to him that makes him more likable than Bruce Wayan. The film is Robert Downey Jr. making us like him and to that end he does an extraordinary job.
The rest of the cast does there part as well. Gwenyth Paltrow provides great banter as Stark's assistant, Jeff Bridges bad guy turn is tremendous, and I'm still trying to figure out why Terrence Howard was replaced in the second film. As for the story, it seamlessly mixes the fun of a comic book film with real to life issues such as the manufacturing of weapons and the power wielded by terrorist organizations.
There are parts of the film that could be nit picked but I don't recommend doing that. This movie does not require you to shut your brain off and still manages to be more fun than most of the tripe that gets made and does require you to shut your brain off. I guess that's what happens so many titans of the action film makers universe converge to make a comic book film.
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
There are films that are said to define a generation and there are films that play as though they would like to define a generation but probably shouldn't. The question I have today is which one is Ferris Bueller's Day Off?
Hopefully I don't have to explain too much about this film. If you haven't seen it then you are likely under the age of 15 and your opinion doesn't matter anyway (take that Justin Bieber!). In fact, the makers of the film have worked so hard to make sure that the film remains recognizable that they have taken steps to ensure that Matthew Broderick will forever look exactly like the films title character.
I should confess that prior to re watching this film my prevailing thought was that this movie has become increasingly over rated as time goes by. What once was just another John Hughes film teen comedy has seemingly come to provide people with a hope for what adolescence should be. Watching it again I must say that I hope not.
Before you boo and hiss at me let me say a few things. First of all, Ferris Bueller is charming, impulsive and likable. He just isn't believable. Secondly, the film is filled with quotable lines. The problem for me is that quotable lines and a charming lead character do not make a great film.
What bothers me with this film is the lazy way in which John Hughes approaches all of the characters not named Ferris Bueller. The adults are all idiots, his sister is spiteful and cold and Ferris's peers are gullible and dead eyed. Bueller's two cohorts, his best friend Cameron and his girlfriend the hot chick, are simply there to tag along with Bueller and act impressed every time one of his schemes works out. Even when the film tries to have a meaningful moment with Cameron's character it cuts that short so we can watch Bueller 'comically' race home before his parents can discover that he was faking being sick.
None of the real issues this film paws get resolved in any sort of meaningful way. Bueller's relationship with his girlfriend achieves a level of meaningless following around as Bueller laments graduating and leaving her behind in one of his many moments spent talking directly to the camera. As for his 'best friend,' he seems to have genuine problems that could use a sympathetic ear but instead Bueller's friendship is there merely to provide Cameron with a distraction to his problems while Bueller himself feeds his own ego.
All of that being said, there is nothing wrong with liking this film because in truth all it wants to do is be likable. It's a great film for shutting your brain off or finding on USA at 2 pm on a Saturday. But it should not be consider as a defining film for a generation as it ultimately is just superficial pop entertainment. Unless of course you feel that is an apt description for a generation.
Hopefully I don't have to explain too much about this film. If you haven't seen it then you are likely under the age of 15 and your opinion doesn't matter anyway (take that Justin Bieber!). In fact, the makers of the film have worked so hard to make sure that the film remains recognizable that they have taken steps to ensure that Matthew Broderick will forever look exactly like the films title character.
I should confess that prior to re watching this film my prevailing thought was that this movie has become increasingly over rated as time goes by. What once was just another John Hughes film teen comedy has seemingly come to provide people with a hope for what adolescence should be. Watching it again I must say that I hope not.
Before you boo and hiss at me let me say a few things. First of all, Ferris Bueller is charming, impulsive and likable. He just isn't believable. Secondly, the film is filled with quotable lines. The problem for me is that quotable lines and a charming lead character do not make a great film.
What bothers me with this film is the lazy way in which John Hughes approaches all of the characters not named Ferris Bueller. The adults are all idiots, his sister is spiteful and cold and Ferris's peers are gullible and dead eyed. Bueller's two cohorts, his best friend Cameron and his girlfriend the hot chick, are simply there to tag along with Bueller and act impressed every time one of his schemes works out. Even when the film tries to have a meaningful moment with Cameron's character it cuts that short so we can watch Bueller 'comically' race home before his parents can discover that he was faking being sick.
None of the real issues this film paws get resolved in any sort of meaningful way. Bueller's relationship with his girlfriend achieves a level of meaningless following around as Bueller laments graduating and leaving her behind in one of his many moments spent talking directly to the camera. As for his 'best friend,' he seems to have genuine problems that could use a sympathetic ear but instead Bueller's friendship is there merely to provide Cameron with a distraction to his problems while Bueller himself feeds his own ego.
All of that being said, there is nothing wrong with liking this film because in truth all it wants to do is be likable. It's a great film for shutting your brain off or finding on USA at 2 pm on a Saturday. But it should not be consider as a defining film for a generation as it ultimately is just superficial pop entertainment. Unless of course you feel that is an apt description for a generation.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Fargo
Being stubborn means lots of things. One is that I will never stop being a Lions fan regardless of what happens. Another is that if a film wins the Academy Award for best picture by beating out a film that I feel is so good that there is no conceivable way that the winning film could have been better than I will refuse to watch the winning film. To this day I have never seen The English Patient and I never plan to.
Fargo is the kind of film you watch and you walk away from thinking "WOW." It takes us in to the life of Jerry Lundegaard, a well intentioned but fatally desperate man whose financial struggles have lead him to concoct a scheme that involves having his wife kidnapped and getting his wealthy father in-law to pay the ransom. What could possibly go wrong with that?
In lesser hands this might just be an average film, but in the hands of the Coen brothers the films manages to routinely move in back and forth between genres as it is equal parts Shakespearean tragedy, brutal crime drama, and small town America oddity. The characters are all blessed with their own unique voice with Frances McDormand stealing the show as the pregnant police officer Marge Gunderson.
We start with Jerry arriving in Fargo North Dakota to deliver a new car to the 2 men he has hired to kidnap his wife. The 2 men make for a Jekyll and Hyde team as one is the ultra-violent quite type while the other is a loud mouth looking to avoid violence whenever possible. Steve Buscemi plays the talkative one who is painfully unaware of how ineffective his verbal skills are. Buscemi is brilliant here and this role has also provided me personally with one of my favorite lines when several Minnesota locals refer to Buscemi as being funny looking without being able to provide any other descriptors.
After Jerry sets the deal up in Fargo he returns home to his job as a failing car salesman working for his father in-law who clearly does not respect him. He is scene trying to get funding for a land deal while holding off auditors at the dealership who are inquiring about loan money and missing cars. Throughout all of this Jerry tries to move forward by ignoring his problems and putting on a happy face. He has a dogged determination about himself that says life should be easy and I'm going to work as hard as I can to make my life easy. Tragically, he seems to be too prideful to admit his mistakes.
Following the kidnapping we see our criminals being pulled over for a minor traffic violation. Buscemi's mouth digs the men into a deeper hole and then without warning the film turns violent as the arresting cop and two witnesses are murdered by Buscemi's partner leaving even Buscemi shocked and horrified.
This brings McDormand's character into the film as the police chief investigating the murders. It is within this character that the film creates it's delicate balancing act between small town kookiness and crime drama. At no point is the film making fun of McDormand as the pregnant investigator and yet there is almost an innocent sense of joy in watching her preform her work. Keep in mind we are dealing with events that would leave any normal individual emotionally scarred and yet she performs her duties professionally and admirably. In a lesser film there most certainly would have been some jokes set up at the expense of the small town chief but here she is celebrated. I might also add that in making her pregnant the Coen's create a character who is a constant source for optimism and provides a unique commentary on how no matter what the circumstances are that you face there is always hope in new life.
The film's journey is one filled with misstep after misstep. Jerry's plan unravels as his father in-law seeks control of the situation. There is more blood and more death as Chief Gunderson gets closer to the truth and eventually catches the surviving criminal. In the patrol car Chief Gunderson appears dumbfounded as she laments on why so many people had to die over "a little bit of money." This questions feels appropriately directed at the criminal in the back seat, but I believe the Coens are asking the question to Jerry. In life we all make mistakes, in Jerry's case he refused to deal with them and because of that he brought tragedy to his family and strangers. All because of a little bit of money.
Fargo is the kind of film you watch and you walk away from thinking "WOW." It takes us in to the life of Jerry Lundegaard, a well intentioned but fatally desperate man whose financial struggles have lead him to concoct a scheme that involves having his wife kidnapped and getting his wealthy father in-law to pay the ransom. What could possibly go wrong with that?
In lesser hands this might just be an average film, but in the hands of the Coen brothers the films manages to routinely move in back and forth between genres as it is equal parts Shakespearean tragedy, brutal crime drama, and small town America oddity. The characters are all blessed with their own unique voice with Frances McDormand stealing the show as the pregnant police officer Marge Gunderson.
We start with Jerry arriving in Fargo North Dakota to deliver a new car to the 2 men he has hired to kidnap his wife. The 2 men make for a Jekyll and Hyde team as one is the ultra-violent quite type while the other is a loud mouth looking to avoid violence whenever possible. Steve Buscemi plays the talkative one who is painfully unaware of how ineffective his verbal skills are. Buscemi is brilliant here and this role has also provided me personally with one of my favorite lines when several Minnesota locals refer to Buscemi as being funny looking without being able to provide any other descriptors.
After Jerry sets the deal up in Fargo he returns home to his job as a failing car salesman working for his father in-law who clearly does not respect him. He is scene trying to get funding for a land deal while holding off auditors at the dealership who are inquiring about loan money and missing cars. Throughout all of this Jerry tries to move forward by ignoring his problems and putting on a happy face. He has a dogged determination about himself that says life should be easy and I'm going to work as hard as I can to make my life easy. Tragically, he seems to be too prideful to admit his mistakes.
Following the kidnapping we see our criminals being pulled over for a minor traffic violation. Buscemi's mouth digs the men into a deeper hole and then without warning the film turns violent as the arresting cop and two witnesses are murdered by Buscemi's partner leaving even Buscemi shocked and horrified.
This brings McDormand's character into the film as the police chief investigating the murders. It is within this character that the film creates it's delicate balancing act between small town kookiness and crime drama. At no point is the film making fun of McDormand as the pregnant investigator and yet there is almost an innocent sense of joy in watching her preform her work. Keep in mind we are dealing with events that would leave any normal individual emotionally scarred and yet she performs her duties professionally and admirably. In a lesser film there most certainly would have been some jokes set up at the expense of the small town chief but here she is celebrated. I might also add that in making her pregnant the Coen's create a character who is a constant source for optimism and provides a unique commentary on how no matter what the circumstances are that you face there is always hope in new life.
The film's journey is one filled with misstep after misstep. Jerry's plan unravels as his father in-law seeks control of the situation. There is more blood and more death as Chief Gunderson gets closer to the truth and eventually catches the surviving criminal. In the patrol car Chief Gunderson appears dumbfounded as she laments on why so many people had to die over "a little bit of money." This questions feels appropriately directed at the criminal in the back seat, but I believe the Coens are asking the question to Jerry. In life we all make mistakes, in Jerry's case he refused to deal with them and because of that he brought tragedy to his family and strangers. All because of a little bit of money.
Aliens
I took some time off from this to finish up what was a busy semester at school. Now I'm back and I'm already breaking rules on this thing. First of all, I am considering offering my wife the chance to pick any remaining film we have left each time we get a chance to watch a film together. That way we can watch things of interest together without trying to plan a night around a particular film. Also, I have decided that instead of having to wait to watch movies I buy that I have passed alphabetically I can just watch the new movie when I get a chance. These are the thoughts that keep me up at night.
This brings me to Aliens, I film I had previously only watched on VHS and now have on DVD for the first time. Believe it or not my wife was not interested in watching this one with me. And when I was done watching it I was actually a little sad about that.
Now keep in mind that my wife does not like scary movies and the few times that we have tried to watch a scary movie together the night ended quickly. I bring all of this up not to make fun of her because in truth I admire her sensibility when it comes to things like not wanting to watch something designed to provoke a negative emotion. Instead, the reason that I wanted to be watching this film with her is because I believe it is so much more than a scary movie.
It is a sequel of course to the Ridley Scott film Alien in which Scott placed a group of blue collar workers out in the middle of space and created a film that was 50% Hitchcock style thriller and 50% sci-fi terror. It's been over thirty years since that films was released and it remains as one of the best films ever made in it's genre.
And James Cameron's Aliens complete blows the original out of the water. Comparing the two is almost unfair, but doing so shows exactly why it is one of the greatest sequels of all time and one of the few that you can definitively state that it improved on the original.
The film itself picks up with the discovery of the first films lone survivor floating through space. A few decades have passed and Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) has survived in a cryogenic state. She is picked up and returned to the company she had worked for to face interrogation for the events of the first film. As she tells her story she also finds a company man by the of Burke (Paul Reiser) trying to help her out. Burke manages to get Ripley's flight status re-instated if she is willing to return to the site she abandoned in the first film with a team of marines to check on a colony the company had a established there and recently lost contact with.
After some arm twisting Ripley agrees to go along as a consultant for the marines who are colorful and confident in there ability to take on anything that comes there way. They arrive on the colony and eventually they get their chance to show their mettle.
I think at some point I may start writing poetry about my feelings for James Cameron, but for this entry let me just say that for a man making his 3rd feature length film to choose a project like this is an incredible risk that paid off bigger than anyone could have ever imagined. By the mid 1980's Alien had already cemented it's place in film lore and the fact of the matter is that sequels typically only exist to show how great the original was.
Aliens trumps that notion in every way imaginable and Cameron finds a voice in film making that he has continued to use successfully ever since. To film itself takes it's time introducing the characters and letting them breathe awhile before the chaos starts. Even the one dimensional marine characters are given a life that one would not expect in a lesser film and we find ourselves enjoying getting to these characters. We also pick up a survivor from the colony who is a young girl that has seen the same things Ripley has seen.
Cameron takes his time with the story because he trusts his own abilities to create a pay off that is worth the price of admission (and perhaps more than that). It's a full hour into the film before we see the Aliens but once we do the film grabs you and never lets go. The tension and excitement is virtually incomparable in films and Cameron shows has his trademark sense of scale in creating an Alien who is larger than the rest while providing Ripley with a means for doing combat with that Alien.
When I finished watching it I went on Wikipedia and looked up Aliens. It turns out I am not alone in my love of this film. I knew that Sigourney Weaver had earned an Oscar nomination for her role which is incredibly rare for the genre. The film one countless awards outside of the Academy Awards and it's praise amongst critics has been universal ever sense. Even Weaver is quoted as saying that she believed this film makes the original look like a "cucumber sandwich."
There is a part of me that just loves talking about films and I suppose that's why I which I could watch this with my wife and talk to her about it. This is a one of a kind film experience that is not for the faint of heart, but does not require a bloodthirsty nature to enjoy. It creates a sense of constant lurking terror in a way that is almost unimaginable and yet when the film ends I wanted to start it over and watch again. I doubt I will ever watch this film with my wife and that's okay. She is already great enough, there is no need for her to be perfect ;-)
This brings me to Aliens, I film I had previously only watched on VHS and now have on DVD for the first time. Believe it or not my wife was not interested in watching this one with me. And when I was done watching it I was actually a little sad about that.
Now keep in mind that my wife does not like scary movies and the few times that we have tried to watch a scary movie together the night ended quickly. I bring all of this up not to make fun of her because in truth I admire her sensibility when it comes to things like not wanting to watch something designed to provoke a negative emotion. Instead, the reason that I wanted to be watching this film with her is because I believe it is so much more than a scary movie.
It is a sequel of course to the Ridley Scott film Alien in which Scott placed a group of blue collar workers out in the middle of space and created a film that was 50% Hitchcock style thriller and 50% sci-fi terror. It's been over thirty years since that films was released and it remains as one of the best films ever made in it's genre.
And James Cameron's Aliens complete blows the original out of the water. Comparing the two is almost unfair, but doing so shows exactly why it is one of the greatest sequels of all time and one of the few that you can definitively state that it improved on the original.
The film itself picks up with the discovery of the first films lone survivor floating through space. A few decades have passed and Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) has survived in a cryogenic state. She is picked up and returned to the company she had worked for to face interrogation for the events of the first film. As she tells her story she also finds a company man by the of Burke (Paul Reiser) trying to help her out. Burke manages to get Ripley's flight status re-instated if she is willing to return to the site she abandoned in the first film with a team of marines to check on a colony the company had a established there and recently lost contact with.
After some arm twisting Ripley agrees to go along as a consultant for the marines who are colorful and confident in there ability to take on anything that comes there way. They arrive on the colony and eventually they get their chance to show their mettle.
I think at some point I may start writing poetry about my feelings for James Cameron, but for this entry let me just say that for a man making his 3rd feature length film to choose a project like this is an incredible risk that paid off bigger than anyone could have ever imagined. By the mid 1980's Alien had already cemented it's place in film lore and the fact of the matter is that sequels typically only exist to show how great the original was.
Aliens trumps that notion in every way imaginable and Cameron finds a voice in film making that he has continued to use successfully ever since. To film itself takes it's time introducing the characters and letting them breathe awhile before the chaos starts. Even the one dimensional marine characters are given a life that one would not expect in a lesser film and we find ourselves enjoying getting to these characters. We also pick up a survivor from the colony who is a young girl that has seen the same things Ripley has seen.
Cameron takes his time with the story because he trusts his own abilities to create a pay off that is worth the price of admission (and perhaps more than that). It's a full hour into the film before we see the Aliens but once we do the film grabs you and never lets go. The tension and excitement is virtually incomparable in films and Cameron shows has his trademark sense of scale in creating an Alien who is larger than the rest while providing Ripley with a means for doing combat with that Alien.
When I finished watching it I went on Wikipedia and looked up Aliens. It turns out I am not alone in my love of this film. I knew that Sigourney Weaver had earned an Oscar nomination for her role which is incredibly rare for the genre. The film one countless awards outside of the Academy Awards and it's praise amongst critics has been universal ever sense. Even Weaver is quoted as saying that she believed this film makes the original look like a "cucumber sandwich."
There is a part of me that just loves talking about films and I suppose that's why I which I could watch this with my wife and talk to her about it. This is a one of a kind film experience that is not for the faint of heart, but does not require a bloodthirsty nature to enjoy. It creates a sense of constant lurking terror in a way that is almost unimaginable and yet when the film ends I wanted to start it over and watch again. I doubt I will ever watch this film with my wife and that's okay. She is already great enough, there is no need for her to be perfect ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
