|
| This is simply a collection of notes about 3 movies I have seen recently.
X-Men: The Last Stand - In my last post (and linked review), I said everything I wanted to say, but in a roundabout way. So here's the distilled version: This movie was disappointing. Its central issue and action were a few notches below that of the first two. Director Brett Ratner tried to pull off an overly dramatized* plot by making some sloppy, dubious changes to characters and a storyline in which we had a vested interest. The result is (more often than not) murky, off-key, and somewhat inane. But there's enough substance to, combined with the surprisingly successful action sequences, give it a passing grade.
* Some telltale stuff:
- Noticeably reocurring lines: "Do you know who I am / who you're talking to?"
- The overdone (remember the first two movies?) and sloppily made exchange - Father: It's what we all want! // Son: No, it's what you want.
- The hinted ressurections, both of which absolutely fall under the category of deus ex machina (in terms of making another film possible).
Sleepless in Seattle - Sweet, silly, and likeable. Innocent entertainment. What else is there to say? (And in case you were wondering, no, I hadn't seen this movie before.)
The Proposition - A brief review in the newspaper apropriately described it as "A gritty, gut-check Western that empties all its barrels." Those who know me know that I often have to stop in conversation and think for a few seconds of the word I'm looking for (if I come up with it at all). But here, the perfect word just came to mind as I was watching this gory Western-like film set in 1800s Australia: gut-wrenching. This film is absolutely gut-wrenching in many senses of the word. It's beautiful, intense, and unforgiving. I loved it, but it's not for everyone. In particular, it's not a film that just screams out, "I rock!" It has a unique style that I happened to accept and enjoy.
And to Harold, my apologies for seeing it without you. The situation just presented itself and there was no time. Most reviews said it had no comparison among Westerns, but that the closest one is Unforgiven.
| | |
| The title says it all. So instead of writing something about X-Men: Last Stand,
I look around to find an article written by someone whose opinion is
essentially the same as mine and hand out the link. On that note, here you go. And it's pretty well written, too.
Summer routine is still as follows: Watch movies and read books until the end! Ah, what a silly summer...
As for myself, well I can't seem to stop thinking about this line from Dante's Whatever*: What grievous pain a little fault doth give thee!
* Not the actual title.
| | |
|  | Currently Watching
Sin City
By Jessica Alba, Devon Aoki, Alexis Bledel, Powers Boothe, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro, Michael Clarke Duncan, Carla Gugino, Josh Hartnett, Rutger Hauer, Jaime King, Michael Madsen, Brittany Murphy, Clive Owen, Mickey Rourke, Nick Stahl, Bruce Willis
see related |
I happened across this definition on dictionary.com today:
caloric OR calorique (n.)
A hypothetically indestructible, uncreatable, highly elastic,
self-repellent, all-pervading fluid formerly thought responsible for
the production, possession, and transfer of
heat.
Now go watch something funny:
Tiny Plaid Ninjas or Jokes with Einstein or The Daily Show meets Conan O'Brien | | |
| There is something that I always forget when I'm writing. And I think I have good reason to, but we'll just see about that. So, here's a question for everyone. No cheating, now!
Which TWO of the following are misspellings?
everywhere anywhere somewhere
everything anything something
everytime anytime sometime
everyday anyday someday
everyone anyone someone
P.S. Actually, only one of the two trips me up, but it does so all the time. I just threw in the second one because it's more fun that way!
| | |
| I meant to write this entry a few weeks ago. Better late than never, right?
Subject: The film The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I saw it in theaters before Christmas, and when it was over I felt... empty. There was a gap between what I expected the movie to be (I had reread the book last summer) and what it was, and yet I couldn't put my finger on it. It wasn't an event - it wasn't as though there was a chunk of the movie that was not there that I thought should have been there. It was in the smaller changes that the book had undergone in its transformation into a screenplay.
In an effort to figure out what it was, I scanned through about 20 user reviews of the movie on IMDb.com. I eventually came upon a review that made me realize what it was. It doesn't address my overarching problem with the movie, but I do strongly agree with it. Here it is:
-----
Adapting a book that so many audience members have read and cherish is surely a daunting task, but I believe it is also a great responsibility. Recently, Peter Jackson set the bar pretty high in this regard with the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Unfortunately, Adamson's "Narnia" wasn't quite up to snuff.
I count myself among those who cherish "The Chronicles of Narnia," having read them as a child and having re-read "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" in eager anticipation of the film. In my opinion, this film adaptation not only falls short, but does a disservice to the audience by cheating us of much of the impact and wonder of the original books.
Here are the general categories (including some specific examples) where I felt the film didn't deliver:
Screen Adaptation - Some important scenes that illustrated character dynamic were cut short making later behavior and motivation seem exaggerated or cliché. Example: The scene where Edmund meets Jadis was rushed and awkward. (It wasn't even demonstrated that the Turkish Delight was enchanted in order to manipulate Edmund - we were left to assume that his allegiance to Jadiswas due solely to avarice!) Also, in the book, the mere mention of the name "Aslan" for the first time was an event that had an important impact on the children. In the movie this impact was all but lost, as these subtler points were sacrificed to save screen time for the type of gruesome battle scenes that you would expect from a "fantasy" movie but in this case didn't serve to advance the story. Another pulled punch: in the book, the scene with Father Christmas was a brilliant omen of the turning of the tides but here the scene seemed out of place and just downright weird. (They might as well have run into the Easter Bunny.)
A couple of outright inventions served only to distract us from the magic and mystery of the real story: The waterfall scene - who came up with that idea? The cricket ball through the window - not as effective as the original story.
Casting - The elder siblings were mediocre, and I can't tell if Tilda Swinton was just awfully directed or totally miscast. (In the book Jadis was a noble and grand enchantress, albeit with dastardly aims; in the movie she was shallow, petty and despicable.) Oh, and Liam Neeson as the voice of Aslan the Lion was not nearly powerful enough--this is one of the most important roles in the film. Was James Earl Jones not available?
Direction of Actors' Performances - This ties in with my comments about casting, above. Performances in individual scenes seemed disjointed from overall character motivations and some character interpretations (such as Jadis and Edmund) were shallow and unsympathetic. Where was the charisma that would have made Jadis's character believable, let alone have enabled her to amass an army of supporters?
Hair/Make-up - Jadis sports blonde distractingly annoying dreadlocks despite her otherwise un-Irie nature. The professor's hair and beard looked about as realistic as department store Santa, and the main Centaur's make-up also stood out as distractingly awful.
Wardrobe - Jadis has one outfit in particular that looks like it came right off the runway of a bad 80's fashion show. Another includes an atrocious hat shaped like a giant icicle--Mr. Freeze from Batman & Robin would have had hearts in his eyes.
Special Effects - Overall special effects were not nearly as cleanly integrated as WETA's work on LOTR, and cohesion was lacking. For example, the cuts between live action and CGI wolves were painful at best. Also, the teeming masses of bad-guys all looked as though they could have been extras in the Orc armies of LOTR. Mr. Tumnus was an example of the fact that Jadis's supporters were comprised of otherwise beneficent creatures that she'd charmed, threatened and bullied into joining her. Here they were unimaginatively portrayed as one-dimensional twisted, evil fiends.
Cinematography - Boring; All the visual texture and lighting of a made-for-TV movie.
Due to my disappointment in Adamson's interpretation of this work, and in the execution of the movie that resulted, I rate this film a 5 out of 10. It is not completely devoid of entertainment value but fails to uphold the responsibility that a filmmaker shoulders when adapting so well-known and well-loved a story.
-----
As I said, this didn't quite cover the main issue I had with the film. The thing that bothered me the most is that they really turned it into a kid's movie. That is, the adults (or adult animals) don't speak and act as they would. In the book, when Jadis learns that the other three Pevensies are at the Dam, she doesn't just send out a search party. It's much more thoughtful and realistic. She gets ready to pursue them herself, considering the geography and a possible targets of the Beavers' flight, and sends out the wolves in the off-chance that they haven't left yet.
This little thing about sums up the movie for me. All the actions and/or thoughts that came from good, clear thinking/reasoning were replaced by much simpler, more spontaneous, and more whimsical events.
So overall, I think that the film is only okay. It isn't bad, but it has much room for improvement.
P.S. It's Friday the 13th! All you Da Vinci Coders know the history of that one!
| | |
|
