tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-166733792024-03-14T18:19:08.994-07:00The Walker Film ReviewCarl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.comBlogger206125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-80289087122621122902008-09-11T01:52:00.000-07:002008-09-11T01:54:04.802-07:00Goodfellas<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/goodfellas.jpg align=left>Martin Scorsese, USA, 1990<br>3.5 out of 4 stars<p>Okay, I have to admit it; all these gangster movies really blur together after a while. Whereas I usually have a strong preference for forming my own opinion <i>before</i> reading any other reviews, I’ve found that films from this genre only really become legible for me after I find and read <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE6DE163FF935A2575AC0A966958260">a piece</a> that puts the innovations of that film into focus for me. To take just a trivial example, it’s hard to even think of this film as particularly violent, even 18 years later, yet the article reminds us how it was viewed at the time.<p>All this is not to say I didn’t enjoy it. I felt like the youth scenes were particularly well done, setting the tone quite effectively and avoiding sentimentality. The narration really holds the film together (why does every film I see recently have it?), and the addition of narration by the female lead, Lorraine Bracco, is a particularly nice touch, as it injects some hint of female agency (as uninspiring as her character actually is) into the hyper-macho proceedings.<p>Unfortunately, Bracco’s narration seems to disappear about halfway through the film, right when we most want to know what she was thinking. That’s not the only problem I had with the picture. In particular, I’m not quite convinced by Ray Liotta, however; is he supposed to sound like a psycho when he laughs (Joe Pesci seems to have that role taken) or is he just supposed to seem like someone who’s trying too hard (or is that the actor, not the character?). Pesci and Robert De Niro also largely content themselves with hamming it up and revisiting their personas, which only pushes me towards my blasphemous suspicion that De Niro doesn’t quite merit the hallowed tones with which people usually speak of him.<p>That said, there’s a lot of style here and I think it all works. There’s also a good helping of social critique, although I was a bit oblivious to it while watching it. I feel like the glorification of gangster mythology (particularly in gangsta rap, with which I am ultimately more familiar than the films that inspired it) has really obscured the meaningful (if not unproblematic) things that the filmmakers were trying to say, even in a film that tries to demystify everything. I also feel like I will probably be taking a break from this genre for the time being!<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Warner DVD<br>9 Sep, 9:55 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-57531660474453285832008-09-08T00:25:00.000-07:002008-09-08T00:27:48.498-07:00The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/assassin.jpg align=left>Andrew Dominik, USA, 2007<br>3.5 out of 4 stars<p>I’m sure there are exceptions, but most of the films I’ve seen lately that run 2.5 hours or longer seem to have had fairly obvious sections that could have been removed. It’s to the credit of Andrew Dominik that, in the exhilarating closing sequence of the film, he made me forget these relatively-extraneous scenes, but sitting down to write this “review,” they are slowly coming back to mind. I still have to conclude that they don’t mar the film to any great degree, but they do raise questions about editing as well as the sometimes-lazy assumption that a film can instantly achieve “prestige” with a longer-than-average running time.<p>That said, Dominik and his crew have otherwise done a technical job that is unimpeachable. The visuals are crisp and engrossing, the shot composition is inventive but unobtrusive, and the narration is delivered effectively, especially in comparison to Woody Allen’s more recent effort. Thematically, the film is what you’d expect from the title; it deals with the ambivalent and unpleasant aspects of celebrity worship, addressing itself to what seem to be postmodern problems while simultaneously reminding us that some cultural diseases reach back into supposedly more idyllic times.<p>The only question is whether the plot is focused enough, as Dominik sometimes makes long detours to follow Jesse James (Brad Pitt) to his meetings with ex-underlings. The overall thrust of the picture suggests that Bob Ford (Casey Afflect) is the subject of the piece, and Jesse’s dealings with others do provide context to Bob’s trials, but overall I felt as if, at least in retrospect, the meandering was a bit self-indulgent and unnecessary. <br /><p align=right><font size="1">Source: Warner DVD<br>5 Sep, 10:29 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-10823125484743341892008-09-06T01:57:00.000-07:002008-09-06T02:13:46.491-07:00Hamlet 2<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/hamlet2.jpg align=left>Andrew Fleming, USA, 2008<br>3.5 out of 4 stars<p>I really loved this film, even if it made me cringe at times, but I definitely think there’s a possibility that I’m giving the filmmakers too much credit for sophistication. It doesn’t help that, when I heard about the concept, I immediately wanted it to be great or at least good, as it just seemed like something too good to squander. It was this that caused me to overlook the mixed reviews and go see the thing in theaters.<p>It’s indisputable that some level of “meta” is going on in <i>Hamlet 2</i>, as it opens with Dana Marschz, a drama teacher played by Steve Coogan, mouthing the words to a staging of his own “adaptation” of <i>Erin Brockovich</i> (which, in itself, shows how easy it is to take the piss out of "earnest" films just by repeating them with less conviction and skill). Yes, his eventual decision to create the play after which the entire film is named is actually a step forward in originality for this guy, and when he is confronted with an influx of “troubled” (or are they?) Latino students in his drama class, he reaches into that same category for reference to “classics” of middlebrow underdog uplift, especially <i>Dangerous Minds</i>. His students, of course, initially waver between disinterest and mockery.<p>Most of the film, then, consists of Coogan acting pathetic in almost every way possible, but Dana is not exactly deluded, which is what I’m used to in this “zany” sad sack portrayals. The most important part, for me, is that Coogan and the filmmakers make the effort to actually extract jokes from this patheticness, rather than just merely reveling his lameness and trolling for unearned laughs, as so many “lowbrow” comedies do nowadays.<p>Where the film gets more complicated, and where I start to become more uncertain about what’s really going on, is when the inevitable staging of the “sequel” play occurs. It’s certainly entertaining in a perverse way, but it finally concludes with a brief sequence almost devoid of laughter; I have my theories as to why it happened, but it’s here that I may have especially been over-interpreting. The way I see it, either they were making a very clever move near the end there, or they eventually got lazy (or went soft) with their subject matter. Honestly, I’m not even sure if it’s a satire. I guess you can see why it got mixed reviews, right? It may be worth a look for you, but it’s probably a better bet for DVD, where I’m sure most will see it as it becomes a cult classic.<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Universal 35mm print<br>9 Sep, 1:00 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-11417376930895202872008-09-02T23:25:00.000-07:002009-06-26T21:39:17.380-07:00Memories of Murder<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/memories.jpg align=left><i>(Salinui chueok)</i><br>Bong Joon-ho, South Korea, 2003<br>3 out of 4 stars<p>This film takes us to a rural Korean village in 1986, where a uniformly incompetent and undertrained police force is fumbling about, attempting to find a serial murderer. Korean film is somewhat famous for its unlikely mix of comedy and melodrama, but <i>Memories of Murder</i> manages to combine these elements very organically (moreso perhaps than Bong Joon-ho’s follow-up film, <a href="http://walkerfilm.blogspot.com/2008/04/host.html"><i>The Host</i></a>, although I think ultimately that film is more rewarding). Much of this film’s effectiveness comes from setting up the usual oppositions, in this case between the oafish, out-of-shape local policeman and the suave, professional detective from Seoul, and then gradually undermining our expectations as things progress. Meanwhile, characters who initially seem indistinguishable gradually distinguish themselves in often-shocking ways.<p>Indeed, the filmmakers have clearly set out to shine a light on the incompetence of these rural cops, but the film clearly shows that it was not so much a failure of will, but rather more of a structural problem. The abuse of power that the police frequently engage in is subtly put into a larger political context by occasional scenes of military force and pointed comments, one of which is particularly devastating and therefore best left unspoiled (it might help to know that South Korea was still under a dictatorship during this period, but I think even if you were ignorant of this fact, you would be able to gather it from the scenes I’m referring to). Once again, I thought that the political barbs were a bit subtler than in Bong’s later film.<p>You might still be wondering where the humor comes from, and how it can possibly be appropriate. I think it works because of the gap between what the police want to accomplish and what they are actually capable of accomplishing, considering the significant structural limitations they are operating under. I certainly found this picture to be much more valuable than my the "typical" serial killer film, at least as I understand it (I rarely watch films about this subject), as it addresses much larger issues than the usual cat-and-mouse game. That said, <a href="http://walkerfilm.blogspot.com/2007/03/zodaic.html"><i>Zodiac</a></i> is certainly an even-better attempt at broadening the genre, and it is made with greater technical and creative flourish. <i>Memories of Murder</i> is well-done, but it didn’t always hold my interest, although it’s hard to say exactly why.<p align=right><font size="1">Source: UMVD DVD<br>31 Aug, 11:45 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-84032822293741945872008-08-25T01:09:00.000-07:002008-08-25T01:19:47.695-07:00Vicky Cristina Barcelona<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/vicky.jpg align=left>Woody Allen, USA / Spain, 2008<br>3 out of 4 stars<p>I’m not sure what to make of this movie. A <a href="http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?id=3802">spoiler-heavy review</a> that I read after I’d decided not to see this movie (a decision I obviously reversed) indicated that it was just another example of Allen’s simplistic, misogynist depictions of women, which possibly primed me to react unfavorably when the two titular protagonists were introduced via a condescending, brutally reductive monologue, delivered by an unseen, apparently omniscient male narrator. These women are clearly presented as types; one is free-spirited, the other is straight-laced, and while they may not do what you (on the most superficial level) might expect them to do at all times, they largely stay true to their characterizations.<p>So is this misogyny, or merely a kind of (im)morality play, with the characters representing life paths rather than real people, and the narration constituting a judicious use of what Bertolt Brecht called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_effect">alienation effect</a> (with which, I must confess, I have only a passing familiarity)? As the film progressed, with the narration continuing but becoming more infrequent, I found myself more accommodating of the latter hypothesis, and later, my female friend did point out that the men are easily more loathsome or pathetic (usually not at once) than the women, hands down. I’m not sure that debunking the misogyny accusation is as simple as merely pointing that out, but there’s something to it.<p>Overall, then, it’s an entertaining film with some dubious values (I don’t know just how laughable I should regard the depiction of “European men,” for one thing, as the one presented here seems more like a cinematic cliché than anything). I laughed quite a bit throughout, although I wasn’t always sure if I was supposed to be laughing (which, I suppose, is better than being sure that you’re <i>not</i> supposed to be laughing). I don’t quite recommend it, largely because there does seem to be a certain emptiness of purpose here, but it’s not that bad either.<p align=right><font size="1">Source: MGM 35mm print<br>22 Aug, 9:30 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-65396593245967662752008-08-17T20:48:00.001-07:002008-08-17T20:48:53.605-07:00A Moment of Romance<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/moment.jpg align=left><i>(Tian ruo you qing)</i><br>Benny Chan, Hong Kong, 1990<br>2 out of 4 stars<p>A jewelry heist leads to a getaway, which leads to a hostage situation, which leads the most carelessly-run police lineup I’ve seen in a film (who knows if the Hong Kong police were or still are that careless), which to an unlikely, and somewhat poorly-motivated, love between a triad (Andy Lau) and a well-off, sheltered young woman (Wu Shien-lien. The English title is perhaps misleading in that the majority of the “moments” in the film are devoted to “romance.” The gangster plot, while crowded with violent but ill-defined feuding bigshots whose machinations are difficult to follow, is mostly relegated to the backdrop.<p>Despite all this, <i>A Moment of Romance</i> is a particularly unfocused film even in its brief 90 or so minutes. Characterization is all but nonexistent; instead all the principles, including a “sidekick” who hints at being developmentally challenged, are just one-dimensional stock characters, which is perhaps unsurprising considering that the plot is also quite clichéd; there are a couple flirtations with moral ambiguity, but even those seem to be rote in the context of the overall film. Furthermore, nothing about how the film unfolded encouraged me to relate to the characters or to be concerned about their fates; the closest I came to that was a highly-detached, mild curiosity about which of the several conventional paths the filmmakers would take as the ending loomed (and it’s not all that hard to guess, either).<p>Of course, style can sometimes make up for these failings, but despite some promising flourishes in the early car chase sequence, there is little about the film that is stylistically compelling either. As is typical of even the better Hong Kong films from this era, the music is uninformly horrible, either baroque or repetitive, and at least three interminable Cantopop song montages caused me to decrease the volume. Honestly, it wasn’t an entirely painful experience, but I’m at a loss as to why this was recommended on various websites (I forget which, exactly). Perhaps it was more a product of its time than anything, or perhaps I just don’t appreciate the style.<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Tai Seng DVD<br>17 Aug, 11:06 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-54562653175734423032008-08-10T11:18:00.000-07:002008-08-10T11:43:40.841-07:00The Godfather<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/godfather.jpg align=left>Francis Ford Coppola, USA, 1972<br>3.5 out of 4 stars<p>The key question here is, was the enjoyment I got from actually, finally watching <i>The Godfather</i> greater than the entertainment value I got from all the times people asked me, dumbfoundedly, “you’ve never watched <i>The Godfather</i>?!” As much as I would like to be a perverse contrarian (I admit it), <i>yes</i>, it was worth the trade-off.<p>There is, however, something of a profound miscalculation involved in watching a film like this when one is already 27 years old, which is to say that almost nothing in film could seem as familiar as this. I’m usually not that good at anticipating things, but this time I was able to see almost every murder or atrocity coming. Recognizing the origin not only of well-worn but sometimes-amusing catchphrases, not to mention the entire gangster genre as we know it today, with its tortured attitude towards glamorization of the practice, is fun in a way, but also invariably distancing.<p>The fact is, some seminal, watershed films were not as heavily imitated (because people didn’t “get it” at the time) and still have amazing power even now, while some were a bit too successful and as such can be robbed of their power by the legion of imitators that one may have had the misfortune to have seen first. Let me just say that the story is compelling, but moreso in the beginning, that the characters are interesting, but not especially complex, that the depiction of and attitude towards women could have been worse, but is still pretty pitiful (so what is the point of Michael’s first marriage, exactly?), and that (and this is perhaps the most regrettable) expectations for hyper-violence and confrontation have been inordinately escalated to the point where this film seems, dare I say it, quaint in some aspects. That we, the bloodthirsty mail viewers, don’t entirely get what we want (even if, at the time, we might not have known that we wanted it), constitutes one of the few suggestions that we should actually not admire and envy the mafia; of course, the glamour is there in enough quantity that that is not the overall message most young men got from the film (in particular, an entire generation of “gangsta rappers” who made names like Corleone even more familiar for me).<p>I am a bit curious about seeing the next one, as I could readily imagine how it might indeed be better. I will probably wait a while, though.<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Paramount DVD<br>8 Aug, 8:08 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-77251655472895193982008-08-05T20:56:00.000-07:002008-08-05T21:01:07.681-07:00Hellboy II: The Golden Army<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/hellboy2.jpg align=left>Guillermo del Toro, USA / Germany, 2008<br>3.5 out of 4 stars<p>I was greatly relieved to see that this film actually was a tremendous improvement upon <a href="http://walkerfilm.blogspot.com/2008/07/hellboy.html">its predecessor</a>; the potential was clearly there in the firs tone, and it was finally lived up to here! I would go so far as to say that if you haven’t seen either film, you could go ahead and just see this one, as I don’t think that the sequence is particularly crucial here (a prologue sequence primarily sets up the plot but also gets viewers up to speed on the premise).<p>Just as I had read, there were in fact many more monsters in this film, part of an overall improvement in visual effects and all-out imaginativeness. The fight scenes are filmed more dynamically, and have more variety in how they are carried out. The pacing is worlds better than it was before; whereas before I was frequently bored by the languid scenes of character interactions, here I was laughing quite frequently, and I was otherwise invested in what happened to the characters. The plot is much more interesting, but also much less convoluted, and the villain, while still not portrayed by the most compelling actor, at least has a stronger motivation and a more interesting and even poignant scheme.<p>Finally, to only is Rupert Evans’ putrid “regular guy” character gone, but there is no attempt to create another character to take his place. Instead, Jeffrey Tambor is given more screen time in his often-hilarious role as the hapless, incompetent human handler of the “weirdos,” and in his case, I thought they did a good job of building upon his relationship with Hellboy as it stood at the end of the last one.<p>That does however lead to the one complaint I had, which is that the principle characters’ attitudes regarding regular human agents of the BPRD (Hellboy’s bureau), already somewhat callous before, has become starker, particularly in the beginning of the film, and whereas Hellboy at least was chastised for it then, it goes completely unremarked upon here. While I understand that his character is supposed to have some sort of “edge,” it doesn’t quite work with his colleagues. It might be peevish to object to the time-honored use of canon fodder, and I’m not doing so on grounds of “realism” (the female lead should have been killed within the first 10 minutes, but it’s not as if I actually want to see that), but more on moral grounds, as the idea that the non-special people are expendable is one that, in fact, I do find objectionable.<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Universal 35mm print<br>4 Aug, 8 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-78068604599956974512008-08-01T21:20:00.000-07:002008-08-01T21:44:55.597-07:00Get Carter<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/get.jpg align=left>Mike Hodges, UK, 1971<br>2 out of 4 stars<p>At first, I felt sheepish about not getting into this more, as the plot (gangster Jack Carter leaves London for Newcastle because something about his brother’s death seems suspicious to him) isn’t even clear without reading the Netflix sleeve (for once I was glad that I did), at least not until about 15 minutes into the film, and because everything moves really slowly. Because this is a gangster film, you know that you will eventually get some carnage, but (and perhaps there is something to be said for this) it’s far some satisfying when you do (although I did let out some grim chuckles here and there). It was around the time that Jack started doling out comeuppance that I realized that I was, surprise, under no obligation to consider this a good film.<p>I actually tend to think of myself as someone who’s fairly fond of antiheroes, but Jack Carter makes me realize just how warm and fuzzy most contemporary antiheroes really are. The only thing that keeps you on his side is that he is trying to avenge a clear wrong; it’s equally clear that no one would ever root for him in any other situation. That’s another way of saying that crime itself is not even remotely glamorized here, which I suppose is also commendable.<p>Yes, Jack lacks flair for the most part, and he mostly lacks humor (and unquestionably lacks romance). I’m sure that it’s still possible to make an engrossing movie centered around an entirely despicable, joyless character with no redeeming or endearing qualities, but this doesn’t quite seem to be it. I respect what Caine and the filmmakers were trying to do, and the more I think about it, the more I do consider it to be “responsible” in a perverse sort of way, but I can’t consider it entertaining. The film itself does contain a few interesting shots, but is overall similarly lacking in flair. And I suppose it goes without saying that the sexual politics of this film are quite heinous. I can’t say it’s <i>bad</i> er se, but I can’t say that it’s recommended either.<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Warner DVD<br>31 Jul, 8:42 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-13372226370709112222008-07-30T12:40:00.000-07:002008-08-01T21:45:15.363-07:00Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/nausicaa.jpg align=left><i>(Kaze no tani no Naushika)</i><br>Miyazaki Hayao, Japan, 1984<br>3 out of 4 stars<p>I think my opinion of this film was jinxed due to a very brief, somewhat dismissive review that I scanned shortly before reading this, but perhaps I would have inevitably regarded this as something of a dry run for, or rough draft of, Miyazaki’s later masterpiece, <i>Princess Mononoke</i>. In fact, it’s easy to summarize the plotline so that it sounds exactly the same: diabolical empires hubristically reignite ancient ecological problems in the face of dire warnings from wiser characters (alright, perhaps slightly different).<p>One thing this film does have going for it is the main character, Nausicaä, who is I suppose the first of Miyazaki’s strong female heroes (so common his work and so rare in other works). Miyazaki strikes a good balance with his depiction of her character, although the peoples’ obsessive devotion to their princess is a bit unnerving and is never suitably interrogated (although we get some brief glimpses into the strain it puts on Nausicaä herself).<p>It might seem strange to focus on the political aspects of the film, but as previously mentioned, a critique of militarism and an advocacy of ecology are key elements throughout. Perhaps Minyazaki ultimately takes the Dickens route in this film, suggesting that we just need better leaders in order to minimize the problems we’ve encountered so far; I think that the views expressed in <i>Mononoke</i> do suggest some sort of philosophical development, in that case.<p>Concerning the plot and the overall structure, <i>Nausicaä</i> ultimately comes off as too complex and too simple at the same time. Each sequence in the film seems to introduce yet another piece of mythology or another plot by an abruptly introduced nation, inspiring both excitement and confusion in the viewer; yet when the film ends, we feel as if everything was resolved relatively easily despite all the complications (and we wonder if, were we to think about the plot more carefully, if everything that had been brought up truly <i>was</i> resolved). The simplicy also derives from the relatively narrow focus on the one principle character (as I said, everything revolves around her). To return to the comparison one last time, <i>Mononoke</i> seems to reverse this phenomenon by providing us with a story that seems both richer and more streamlined.<p>All that said, this is certainly a beautiful, imaginative and worthwhile film. If you haven’t seen Miyazaki’s later works, there might even be something to be said for watching this first!<p align="right"><font size="1">Source: Buena Vista DVD<br>29 Jul, 10:17 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-67328613969235336732008-07-26T23:43:00.000-07:002008-07-31T11:22:22.197-07:00The X-Files: I Want to Believe<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/xfiles2.jpg align=left>Chris Carter, USA, 2008<br>1.5 out of 4 stars<p>I knew it wasn't going to be that good, but I just wanted to see Mulder and Scully again. Having seen it, I realize that this is what I get for making fun of all those people who unthinkingly ran out to see Harrison Ford crack the whip for one last time. Hopefully I've learned my lesson, and next time something comes out that interests me purely as a nostalgia piece, I'll wait for the rental!<p>The first problem is that Mulder and Scully aren't anywhere near as fun or as interesting as they should be. This is, frankly, inexcusable. David Duchovny tries his best and his character is written to be as appealing as possible, but he just looks old and worn out for most of the film. Gillian Anderson, meanwhile, has aged quite well, but Chris Carter heinously saddles her with a newfound commitment to hospital work, which leads her to deliver lines more suitable to the tiresome "nagging wife" stock character that we see in so many movies about any form of heroism. Scully may even be justified, in the "real world," in voicing these sentiments, but in a film like this, the viewer just feels resentful towards her for being a stick-in-the-mud... and later, resentful at Carter for doing that to his once-great female hero character. In fact, there are other things in the film that struck me as misogynist, not to mention aspects of xenophobia and homophobia. It made me wonder if this was always in the show, or if Carter has just gotten worse, politically speaking.<p>As for the plot, it's uninteresting, and without question insufficiently paranormal. As you have no doubt heard, the film is in line, structurally speaking, with the "monster of the week" format the show engaged in roughly more than half of the time (as opposed to the "mythology" episodes that advanced the conspiracy plot), but the phrase is misleading in this case, as the villains are shockingly mundane. There is also a possibly psychic, child-molesting ex-priest, but I'm sure that this wouldn't have been enough paranormality to fuel an episode of the show.<p>To sum up, I really don't know what Carter (or anyone who worked with him) was thinking, as there's nothing here that even has the potential to be good. Forget waiting for the rental on this one; I should have just rented some of the best episodes of the show from Netflix!<p align="right"><font size="1">Source: Fox 35mm print<br>25 Jul, 5:40 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-34547014229161406602008-07-22T19:20:00.000-07:002008-07-22T19:44:38.136-07:00The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/many.jpg align=left>Wofgang Reitherman & John Lounsbery, USA, 1977<br>3.5 out of 4 stars<p>First, some background information. <i>Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree</i> was released as a half-hour theatrical short (aired before some forgotten film) in 1966. It was followed by <i>And the Blustery Day</i> in 1968, with <i>And Tigger Too!</i> released in 1974. Apparently a bit short on material in 1977, Disney packaged all three together in this feature presentation, which features very minor new transitions, and a surprisingly moving ending sequence. The latter was, however, somewhat undermined by the eventual release of <i>And a Day for Eeyore</i> in 1983, which is included as a bonus feature on the DVD.<p>As a child, I had the latter two shorts on videotape, and I occasionally had access to the first two, but I’d never seen the feature version until now. If the same could be said for you, I would say that the aforementioned ending is alone worth renting this version. If on the other hand you’ve simply never seen the adventures of (sometimes) British youngster Christopher Robin and his menagerie of talking stuffed animals, you should certainly remedy that now.<p>There’s no question that this series of eminently British children’s tales has been Disneyfied and Americanized to a certain extent; it’s more that, in the context of other Disneyfications, the treatment that Pooh-bear underwent seems comparatively minor. I would say about half of the songs are good, and the others are inoffensive, and the comedic attempts, slapstick and all are surprisingly effective even for a jaded graduate student such as myself.<p>Of course it would not surprise you to learn that the “film” is very episodic, and not just because it wasn’t originally a feature; each short comprises roughly two stories usually connected only by vague, thematic concerns, and this feeling of disunity is perhaps the only weakness of the Pooh tales, which probably would be better viewed separately when it comes right down to it. What makes this work at all is the use of the Narrator character, through which the filmmakers introduce a degree of ‘meta” that is still fresh and surprising even when, 21 years later, we live in an age increasingly familiar with such fictional self-referentiality. The Narrator manipulates the book and firmly locates the characters within its confines. It’s one of my fondest memories of the Pooh cartoons, alongside the nostalgic pleasure of Pooh himself, once more.<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Buena Vista DVD<br>20 Jun, 9:08 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-6661031789266316102008-07-20T01:27:00.000-07:002008-08-05T20:58:57.486-07:00Hellboy<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/hellboy.jpg align=left>Guillermo del Toro, USA, 2004<br>2.5 out of 4 stars<p>I decided to watch del Toro’s first adaptation of Mike Mignola’s comic book almost entirely because, probably owing to the success of <a href="http://walkerfilm.blogspot.com/2007/01/pans-labyrinth.html"><i>Pan’s Labyrinth</i></a>, he had been able to release another one. I figured that, if possible, I should try to avoid seeing the sequel first, and I would also try to see if I’d really be interested in paying $5-$10 for it. Well, I’ve read a few of the early issues of Mignola’s series, focused around a demon raised by humans who work for the government, along with his other paranormal colleagues, and I like the idea although I’ve never been blown away enough by it to seek out the whole series. One thing you notice in del Toro’s version is that there is basically no attempt to emulate the shadowy, impressionistic quality of Mignola’s art (perhaps this just wasn’t possible). Hellboy himself is after all bright red, and there was no willingness to alter his appearance into something more film-friendly or shadow-friendly (as they did in, say, the X-Men films, with the black uniforms replacing the bright costumes of the comics). Fidelity seems to be the bywords here, and it seems to have unfortunately been a limiting factor in the film’s success. The scenes added back in for the director’s cut may well have been worthwhile, but the augmentation probably should have been accompanied by some reduction.<p>Another hindrance seems to have been a disregard for pacing and an unwillingness to excise or trim languid, less-than-engrossing scenes. The “Nazi mysticism” opening is actually quite interesting, albeit campy, but the film starts to stumble as soon as del Toro moves us to the present day, and continues to kind of amble along after that. The fight scenes, when we get to them, are fun to watch and involving, but hindered here by the lack of variety, as Hellboy fights the exact same monster on at least three different locations.<p>Hellboy himself, as played by Ron Perlman, has a strong if overly laconic presence. Doug Jones complements him well as Abe Sapien, but most of the time Perlman is playing against his neophyte handler, John Meyers. Rupert Evans plays the ultimately pointless, but unduly-emphasized role of the would-be audience identification character with almost no spine or wit, and not that much intelligence either. I’m not sure if the studio forced del Toro to include a “regular guy” figure (for the first part of the film, he almost seems to be the main character!) but even if they did, they still could have done better than this (and there is at least one more interesting “regular guy” character present here). I should also mention that the archvillain, Rasputin (yes, that Rasputin) gets more and more ridiculous as his scenes get longer and you have to actually listen to him.<p>All that said, this very imperfect attempt made me want to see del Toro take another shot at doing it right this time, particularly in light, of course, of <i>Pan’s Labyrinth</i>. I am heartened by reports I have read indicating that there are many more monsters in the sequel, as I am by indications on IMDB that Evans is not returning (and in fact seems not to have made it in Hollywood at all). I do suspect, though, that seeing this film first may not actually have been necessary, as I’m sure the sequel was made with full knowledge that the original was not a great success.<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Sony director's cut DVD<br>18 Jul, 12:00 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-42166644953312743622008-07-19T13:25:00.000-07:002008-07-31T11:23:21.430-07:00The Dark Knight<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/darkknight.jpg align=left>Christopher Nolan, USA, 2008<br>4 out of 4 stars<p>Let me just say that I’m glad we got to have <a href="http://walkerfilm.blogspot.com/2008/05/iron-man.html"><i>Iron Man</i></a>, and to a lesser degree, <a href="http://walkerfilm.blogspot.com/2008/07/hancock.html"><i>Hancock</i></a> before we got this film, so we could have some optimistic superhero films to gently lead us into easily the grimmest summer blockbuster I can recall in the last several years. I imagine this feeling is only heightened if you spend the film ruminating upon the tragic end of Heath Ledger, an actor who did indeed seem to be improving more and more with every film. In fact, I barely thought about Ledger’s fate or even Ledger himself while watching, which in and of itself I take as a testament to the spectacular job that he did here.<p>I disagree strongly with the friends I saw it with, who felt that Ledger’s performance was the only standout element of the picture. It is true that Ledger outshines Christian Bale here, but that only stands out as much as it does because <a href="http://walkerfilm.blogspot.com/2006/01/batman-begins.html"><i>Batman Begins</i></a> focused more on the backstory and development of Bruce Wayne than almost any other Batman screen adaptation that I can recall. Christopher Nolan, however, continues to eschew the traditional focus on the villain’s origin. Instead, we get an amazing, unrelenting confrontation between Batman and The Joker, which builds organically out of another, much more benign rivalry between Batman/Bruce and Harvey Dent, played excellently by Aaron Eckhart. Depending on your level of Bat-expertise, you may or may not know what awaits Harvey, but either way, they are some surprises in store.<p>Overall, the environment of Gotham City is fully fleshed out (a detour to Hong Kong is interesting but perhaps extraneous), but most importantly, the film has a very foreboding, almost oppressive atmosphere, especially in the second half, although even in the first half, there’s hardly anything like humor or romance to distract the viewer. In this case, the strategy works: <i>The Dark Knight</i> is the most focused, artistically coherent superhero film that I can recall seeing. Although Nolan eventually throws a crumb to mainstream sensibilities near the end (it isn’t <i>quite</i> pandering, as it works more-or-less organically), overall he avoids the something-for-everything approach to blockbusters that so often makes them feel more like a two-hour theme park tour than a wholly-realized motion picture. I don’t really want to spoil anything for you, so you should just go check this out… and you should probably also watch something really goofy the next day!<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Warner 35mm print<br>18 Jul, 12:00 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-84573663979085864112008-07-13T08:29:00.000-07:002008-07-31T11:26:04.482-07:00Hancock<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/hancock.jpg align=left>Peter Berg, USA, 2008<br>3 out of 4 stars<p>It's not that the second half of the film is bad, it's just that it is not as good as the first half, and that it probably would have been better as a second film; the two halves just don't fit together. This is especially interesting hot on the heels of <i>Wall-E</i> another film with a two-part structure that seemingly holds an even greater break between the halves but nonetheless manages to hold them together much more effectively.<p>The first half concerns what you saw in the preview; Will Smith as Hancock, a misbehaving, alcoholic superhero, correctly perceived by the media as a negligent destroyer of property. I can't recall seeing Smith as a full-on bum, and it's interesting as it provides some variety for him from his appealing-but-familiar "cocky" persona; he seems to capture the right-level of self-loathing. He is however outdone to some degree by Jason Bateman, who unlike Smith is fully operating within his <i>Arrested Development</i> persona, that hilariously-cheesy but genuinely well-meaning regular guy who tries his hardest to bring stability and respectability to a spectacular screw-up. Bateman's PR agent comes up with a plan to rehabilitate Hancock's image, and the scenes between the two of them are terrific; I found myself laughing at almost every silly thing that Bateman says.<p>The thing is that we seem to have already reached a resolution (albeit an imperfect one) when the entire plot shifts with a "twist," and while the reveal doesn't immediately imply that the plot will suffer, the relegation of Bateman to the sidelines goes along with an increasingly jarring shift in subject matter. It's not that there weren't hints that something was up, it's just that they were more fun as hints.<p>The "wayward superhero" concept seems much less "new and shocking" to a comic book fan as it might viewers familiar with the cinematic adaptions of Marvel and DC series, but it is still fun to see it on the big screen. The second half is, even with its somewhat-daring overreach, actually more familiar for the cinema. It's not quite a success on 's own terms, but it's an interesting concoction.<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Sony 35mm print<br>8 Jul, 1:45 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-91864609033033889362008-07-09T13:53:00.000-07:002008-08-10T19:42:53.298-07:00Wall-E<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/walle.jpg align=left>Andrew Stanton, USA, 2008<br>4 out of 4 stars<p>It's not perfect, I have to admit. At times, I found the title character to be just a little too pathetic, and some of his behavior is frankly disturbing if you look at it a certain way, even if the director clearly tries to spin it in a later scene. I enjoyed the ending, but I'm not sure if it's justified by the film. Although it's endearing enough, one has to scratch one's head just a little bit at the imposition of entirely recognizable and familiar heterosexuality (or any sexuality, I suppose) onto robots. And I'm not sure if the two disparate halves of the film are wedded together in the most effective manner.<p>With that out of the way, let me make it clear that I absolutely loved this film. The message (critiquing consumerism) is delivered in a way that would be positively shocking in any film, and I believe is not significantly undermined when you "consider the source" (this actually just makes it more shocking my view). While I recognize that there is pandering going on (the ending), overall I am really impressed with how much the filmmakers decided to challenge the viewers, yet if the kid in the row behind me is any indication, effectively reach them at the same time.<p>There are also any number of scenes of incredible wonder, visual magnificence, and subtle humor. There are mistakes and there are conditional mistakes, but overall this is a film that reaches high and succeeds most of the time.<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Disney 35mm print<br>6 Jul, 7:20 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-54892293214973079042008-07-08T23:38:00.000-07:002008-07-31T11:26:58.675-07:00Vantage Point<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/vantage.jpg align=left>Pete Travis, USA, 2008<br>2 out of 4 stars<p>After some perfunctory exposition, the president is assassinated, while introducing an anti-terror conference in Spain! Then a building is blow up! And yet, soon, we are asking, why should we care?<p>More precisely, we're asking what exactly we're supposed to care about, or even <i>how</i>. In fact, I think the spectacular terribleness of the incident was one of the only things that kept my interest in the first place.<p>Having shown us this tragedy, the film rewinds back to show it (and some preliminary goings-on) from another perspective, and does so again two or three more times until finally reaching a conclusion. Of course there is some repetition, although this is kept to a minimum, it still wore on my patience to see much of any material repeated in what is only a 90 minute film.<p>So we soon come to the problem of what character to focus on, and the answer seems to be none of them (although this answer seems to change again in the ending scene). Although many have commendable qualities (in one case, to an improbable and annoying degree), the film mostly seems to be about displaying a certain imagined cleverness as far as the "how'd it happen?" question goes. If anything, this just served to alienate me from the film. As usual, it didn't help that the most potentially interesting "twist" was spoiled in the trailers, which I saw a few months ago.<p>Politically, <i>Vantage Point</i> is all over the place, and not even in a particularly interesting manner. On the one hand, the president, when we finally meet him, seems to be some kind of liberal fantasy, showing an restraint in military matters that only the deluded could truly expect from, say, a President Obama. On the other hand, the filmmakers seem to enjoy showing the degradation of a reporter who intentionally bucks the corporate line on air and rails against censorship to her boss; what's strange is they seem to be agreeing with her at that point, so did they just fail to realize that it would seem as if they were delivering her her comeuppance afterward? It's quite hard to say.<p>As usual, the ending is also quite objectionable, as you don't realize until the film has concluded that the goalposts, so to speak, have been shifted in a way that raises uncomfortable questions about our nation's priorities (in contrast, once again, to the more internationalist ideology that the film sporadically promotes).<p align=right><font size="1">Source: United uncut pan-and-scan airplane video<br>30 Jun, 1:20 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-46163204449573184172008-07-06T13:58:00.000-07:002008-07-31T11:27:20.517-07:00Kung Fu Panda<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/kungfup.jpg align=left>Mark Osborne & John Stevenson, USA, 2008<br>3 out of 4 stars<p>The title, as well as the studio (DreamWorks) was enough to tell me that this was a must-avoid, but an invitation from friends led me to notice a <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kung_fu_panda/">surprisingly-high rating on Rotten Tomatoes</a>, so I went ahead and checked it out. The first thing that hit me, not having seen any trailers in advance, was that this film is clearly operating on a entirely different visual level from almost all previous DreamWorks efforts (if you can call them that). Colors are lush, movement is dynamic and kinetic, and backgrounds are beautiful and detailed (character designs are less impressive, perhaps, but still solid). I might even venture the slightly blasphemous opinion that <i>Kung Fu Panda</i> is prettier than some Pixar films!<p>Of course, when it comes to plot, this falls behind probably all Pixar films, but it's still surprisingly workable, if a bit rambling and, let's say, uncluttered. Although the film has its usual voice actor roster overcrowded with stars (many of them almost unrecognizable due to their marginal personalities and small roles), the film is dominated by Jack Black, who plays Po with minimal crudeness (there were for instance far less fart jokes, perhaps almost none, it's hard to recall, then you would expect for a character primarily known for his size and propensity to eat). Po is very clearly a fanboy, seemingly unsuited for a destiny as a fighter, but nonetheless intimately familiar with their history, and while this is a familiar cartoon plot, it was nonetheless endearingly done by Black. The other interesting character choice is Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of Shifu, Po's reluctant, diminutive master; as far as I can tell, his vocal performance is a pastiche of the English dubbing voices used on kung fu films of the 70s.<p>If anything, I was tempted to overvalue this picture while watching it, but in the end it is not at all transcendent, just a surprisingly solid example of pop, mainstream filmmaking with a lot of appeal and a minimum of idiocy or nastiness. It should also be added that despite being an American film about China, there is almost nothing offensive in the picture (although I'm sure you could get some mileage out of looking at which characters actually read as "Chinese" and which don't).<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Paramount 35mm print<br>7 Jun, 3:40 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-17356050167307431342008-06-12T16:31:00.001-07:002008-08-15T13:56:00.808-07:00Children of Men<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/children.jpg align=left>Alfonso Cuarón, UK / USA, 2006<br>4 out of 4 stars<p>Luckily, this film is just as strong on a repeat viewing, although I suppose it didn’t hurt that I had forgotten many of the major plot points (this is the upside to not watching your favorite films too often). One thing that really struck me was how directly Cuarón chose to visually quote from the Abu Gharib photos when the heroes enter the detention center. Of course, the parallel would have been obvious in any case. I tried to point this out to my students, but of course they didn’t even know what Abu Gharib was! I suppose they were around 13 years old at the time, but I still find that unacceptable. It makes me wonder if there is any real need for the pervasive propagandizing that this film portrays; even when the press openly and extensively reports on a heinous offense, the average person still remains blissfully ignorant of it.<p>The other interesting element is that Cuarón is combining the “terrorist detention” crisis with the “illegal immigration” crisis. Perhaps I’m being naïve to even view them as separate “issues,” but in any case, I do find the conflation of the two problems (and by problem, of course, I am referring to how the West and particularly the US has dealt with things) somewhat illuminating, as if Cuarón is sketching out for us the whole continuum of heinous treatment of the other, and perhaps reminding those of us who may be only, or more, concerned with one problem than the other, that these things can bleed into each other after a while.<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Universal DVD<br>30 May, 2:28 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-9812816398883690482008-06-08T19:29:00.000-07:002008-06-08T19:34:04.839-07:00A Mighty Heart<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/mighty.jpg align=left>Michael Winterbottom, USA / UK, 2007<br>3.5 out of 4 stars<p>I was a bit surprised by some of the less-than-charitable reviews that I saw of this film after watching it, but upon further reflection, I think that the disparity of opinions can be readily explained by its somewhat-divided nature.<p>On the one hand, we have scenes of Marianne Pearl (Angelina Jolie) working alongside people from various agencies to find her husband, Danny, who has been kidnapped (and if you read the news, you know how this ends, but the film doesn’t inform you at the beginning if you aren’t already aware of it). Jolie pulls off a fairly competent attempt at mimicry, made a bit politically dubious in that they seem to have darkened her face ever so slightly in order to make her look more like the French-Afro-Cuban Mrs. Pearl (I also felt that, in her biggest “acting” moment near the end, Jolie embarrassed herself a bit, although I am not sure whose fault that is or if my reaction is even fair). I found Archie Panjabi and Irfan Khan to be particularly likeable, the former as a colleague and roommate (who unfortunately, due in part to the somewhat-elliptical storyline, comes off as an assistant at first), the latter as the main Pakistani investigator.<p>As I later learned, all these scenes involving Jolie in the Pearl house were actually shot in India for security reasons, and many of the actors playing Pakistani characters, such as Khan, are from Bollywood (Panjabi is British). And while these scenes are fairly strong, some of the most interesting stuff happens in the scenes that were actually shot in Pakistan, where the actual investigation gets underway (leaving behind the ostensible main character for large periods of time, more and more as the film continues) Because there is a bit more of a story in the conventional sense, the film was able to keep my attention a little more thoroughly than Michael Winterbottom’s earlier films that used this as a setting, namely <i>In This World</i> and, to a lesser extent, <i><a href=http://walkerfilm.blogspot.com/2007/01/road-to-guantnamo.html>The Road to Guantánamo</a></i>.<p>I only watched the first minute of the DVD’s “making of” featurette, but I was interested by Winterbottom’s explanation that he found something in Pearl’s memoir (by the same name) that resonated with his own experiences in Pakistan, making those earlier films. What he didn’t say, I imagine, was that by making use of the cachet from both the star system and the cult of the “true story” (not that this isn’t an important true story), he could try to convey what he’s seen about this area to the mainstream audience who has missed his previous work. He does so with some of the best filmmaking I’ve seen from him, using very short scenes and abrupt, yet seamless transitions in order to get plenty of information and sensation across without indulging himself or boring the viewer. I don’t know if this film is actually better than his other “political” films or if I am still just mainstream enough that I need something conventional to latch on to, but I do think that it’s an effective combination, if a little uneven when you really think about it.<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Paramount DVD<br>29 May, 9:11 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-67585482676274070302008-06-07T19:39:00.000-07:002008-08-15T13:54:21.084-07:00Raise the Red Lantern<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/raise.jpg align=left><i>(Da hong deng long gao gao gua)</i><br>Zhang Yimou, China / Hong Kong / Taiwan, 1991<br>3.5 out of 4 stars<p>I have become an admirer of Zhang Yimou's work (you may be noticing a pattern here, as I seem to be drifting towards some kind of partial adherence to the "auteur theory"), starting with his most successful film (at least here), <i>Hero</i>, and I frequently saw this film mentioned in reviews of his later work. Up until last year, however, there was no decent DVD version, meaning that I saw his less-well-regarded but more recent films first.<p>Having finally made it back to this one, widely regarded as a classic, I almost felt as if I had failed some kind of test, because while I certainly liked it, I think I got more out of films like <a href="http://walkerfilm.blogspot.com/2006/07/not-one-less.html"><i>Not One Less</i></a> or <a href="http://walkerfilm.blogspot.com/2007/03/riding-alone-for-thousands-of-miles.html"><i>Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles</i></a>, both of with are more in the neo-realist mode with the usual cast of nonactors.<p>This one has some of the same sense of languidness, as it follows Songlian (Gong Li) character through four seasons as the fourth wife of a polygamous nobleman in 1920s China. At least for me, it was hard to be sure of the time period until I looked it up afterwards (perhaps this would not be the case for a Chinese audience). The palace, if it can be called that, is expansive but decaying, and the outside world is never shown after Songlian arrives. This creates a very striking feeling of isolation, as you might imagine.<p>On top of that, the family has its own elaborate customs which seem explicitly concocted with the aim of heightening the already-inevitable tension and conflict between the four wives. Althoug she is the heroine, Songlian certainly doesn't take the high road, as she tries her best to play the game and win advantage for herself. While she seems to have an advantage due to her youth and beauty, we soon start to wonder if her late introduction is too much of a disadvantage. The maneuvering that go on are subtly depicted, and Gong does a good job of depicting the anguish that exists just below the surface of her crumbling, icy facade (to mix some metaphors). Certainly not a fun time, and the very end seems slightly half-baked or at least forced, but interesting, undoubtedly. <p align=right><font size="1">Source: Fox DVD<br>28 May, 7:38 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-54879470344941073632008-05-20T19:32:00.000-07:002008-05-20T19:47:20.593-07:00Helvetica<img src="http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/helvetica.jpg" align="left">Gary Hustwit, UK, 2007<br>2 out of 4 stars<p>On certain occasions, I can be somewhat susceptible to persuasion when someone makes an off-the-wall film recommendation, particularly in the classroom for some reason, and this is a perfect example of it; a feature documentary on a font, for gosh sakes, that a guest lecturer in my “history of the book” seminar enthusiastically recommended.</p><p>I actually respect it as a valiant effort, but of course it turns out to be largely boring to someone who doesn’t already care about fonts or design. Helvetica consists of two kinds of scenes; talking-head interviews with designers and typographers, and series of brief shots of Helevtica use, mostly in various street signs. I’m slightly more interested in fonts than most people, and I was surprised to realize, for instance, how many major logos are all in this same font, which honestly in its large street-style is almost unrecognizable from its computer version. I found the London sequence to have some particularly interesting visual touches, but overall these sequences are quite repetitive.</p><p>As for the interviews, I felt that relatively few of the people with whom the director spoke with were either interesting or insightful (much less both). The young designers come off as pompous art-school twits with almost nothing to say, while the experts who tried to explain its historical origins nearly bored me into a stupor. A few people make some interesting points about Helvetica’s cultural and economic significance, and at times I almost felt like the film was worth it. Overall, it’s not; this could have been an interesting article but for the unconverted it cannot be an interesting film.</p><p align="right"><span style="font-size:78%;">Source: Red Envelope DVD<br />19 May, 9:05 PM</span><br /></p>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-57033378708873329072008-05-19T20:47:00.000-07:002008-05-19T20:49:21.568-07:00Iron Man<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/iron.jpg align=left><br>Jon Favreau, USA, 2008<br>3.5 out of 4 stars<p>When the script and the actors suck, a superhero action movie, with minimal action and maximum buildup and exposition can be one of the most painful things to suffer through. The best recent example of this is the excreable <i>Fantastic Four</i>, which doesn't even feature a battle sequence until the last 15 minutes of the film, rather spending most of its running time as the lifeless cast blandly ruminates over powers that only took them a minute to obtain. Thankfully, <i>Iron Man</i> is more in the vein of <a href="http://walkerfilm.blogspot.com/2006/01/batman-begins.html"><i>Batman Begins</i></a>, another film in which a man with no inherent superpowers accumulates both the skills and the experiences necessary to ultimately inhabit his role as superhero.<p>Yet although I've given them the same rating, I should be clear that <i>Batman Begins</i> was definitely a deeper, more complex and more thought-out film. <i>Iron Man</i> would probably be significantly worse without the presence of Robert Downey, Jr., who seems to be gradually making up for last time, even as he cleverly trades off of his own unfortunate public persona in his role as the dissolute-but-brilliant Tony Stark. Unlike Bruce Wayne, Tony is not traumatized, he's just in a stage of arrested development that has prevented him from considering the consequences of his actions as a weapons designer/merchant. It takes an origin story centered in Afghanistan to reorient his thinking and kick off some gradual, but worthwhile, character development.<p>Interestingly, the original Iron Man was born of the Vietnam War, and that story's attitude towards said war was much less complicated, to put it lightly. The comics have already updated both the setting and the politics, so I'm not sure how this stacks up to more recent incarnations (I only really started recognizing Marvel injokes during the very last scene), but I think Jon Favreau's film walks a fine line regarding the depiction of terrorists and ultimately succeeds in avoiding the main pitfalls. Overall the attitude is one of sophistication, although some things are nonetheless overlooked out of necessity.<p>As for the action, well, as I said there's not exactly <i>tons</i> of action in this film, but the story and acting are such good quality that the action feels even more earned. Watching Iron Man fly around is in itself exciting, which is somewhat surprising considering that <a href="http://walkerfilm.blogspot.com/2006/03/superman.html">"you'll believe a man can fly"</a> was the original superhero movie tagline, even before I was born. Above all, it did leave me looking forward to the sequel (and I wouldn't mind if there was a <i>bit</i> more action that time).<p>By the way, if you go see it, make sure to stay until after the credits.<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Paramount 35mm print<br>16 May, 8:00 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-74641378717854553872008-05-09T23:31:00.000-07:002008-05-09T23:34:29.616-07:00Solaris<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/solaris.jpg align=left><br>Stephen Soderbergh, USA, 2002<br>3 out of 4 stars<p>Something, not quite explained, is going wrong at the end (or at least it feels like it) of space, but despite the somewhat-goofy spacesuits, the significance of the events is much more focused on the interpersonal. Sent to investigate this phenomena (even the message apparently doesn't mean what it seems to mean), Chris Kelvin (George Clooney) is soon visited by someone who could not actually be there, specifically his wife Rheya (Natascha McElhone). Flashbacks ensue (not for the last time, either) in which we get a surprising level of detail about their relationship, from beginning to end.<p>All this unfolds at a fairly deliberate pace, despite the short running time, and it can be quite captivating at times; there is a certain visual appeal to the shot composition (really starting to wish I had the language to describe this stuff better) and the performances are often compelling. Overall, though, I couldn't quite get involved enough in the thing, even though I felt like I cared about the characters, and was at least interested in what was going on without being <i>too</i> removed from it. The spaceship sets don't look particularly good on a mid-sized television (I'm gonna assume that they look much better on a movie screen), which is a bit of a problem considering how long we end up staring at them when not that much is going on. The ending is interesting, but I wish I knew what it meant, although I suspect that I'm being needlessly obtuse here (it was probably the best part of the film). I consider this a good film, overall, but I'm not sure that I would recommend it; it's just too hard to get a handle on.<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Fox DVD<br>9 May, 8:56 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16673379.post-15785463957561932512008-05-07T21:07:00.000-07:002008-05-07T21:14:13.235-07:00Sólo con tu pareja<img src=http://student.ucr.edu/~cwalk003/solo.jpg align=left><br>Alfonso Cuarón, Mexico, 1991<br>4 out of 4 stars<p>I have <a href="http://walkerfilm.blogspot.com/2006/01/great-expectations.html">been</a> <a href="http://walkerfilm.blogspot.com/2007/01/children-of-men.html">working</a> my way through Cuarón's filmography ever since, believe it or not, I saw <i>Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban</i>, and I was just as pleased with this film, his feature debut, as I had been with his others. It's basically an absurdist sex comedy, at times solidly in the realm of farce, while other times it verges into even stranger or darker territory. Despite the more limited resources and the seemingly less-conducive subject matter, the film looks great and has the same sense of visual inventiveness that one sees in his later films<p>The protagonist is the usual lothario type, who we meet in the process of fooling around with both his boss and the nurse that works for his amiable neighbor, a good bourgeois doctor who is content to live vicariously through tales of his sexual exploits (although even this leads to problems for both characters on more than one occasion). We also learn that the hero is not particularly concerned about protection, which also becomes an issue.<p>I definitely wouldn't try to claim that the film is entirely original; it seems fresh enough to me, but some aspects of the story are more familiar than others. What I like is that there is nonetheless a good balance of optimism and cynicism which allows the viewer to forgive some of the lapses. More importantly, the film just gets more and more hilarious, particularly the darker it gets. It's definitely worth looking into.<p align=right><font size="1">Source: Image DVD<br>3 May, 9:57 PM</font>Carl Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10844566112033689884noreply@blogger.com0