Hamlet 2

Andrew Fleming, USA, 2008
3.5 out of 4 stars

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.

It’s indisputable that some level of “meta” is going on in Hamlet 2, as it opens with Dana Marschz, a drama teacher played by Steve Coogan, mouthing the words to a staging of his own “adaptation” of Erin Brockovich (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 Dangerous Minds. His students, of course, initially waver between disinterest and mockery.

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.

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.

Source: Universal 35mm print
9 Sep, 1:00 PM

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Woody Allen, USA / Spain, 2008
3 out of 4 stars

I’m not sure what to make of this movie. A spoiler-heavy review 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.

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 alienation effect (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.

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 not 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.

Source: MGM 35mm print
22 Aug, 9:30 PM

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Guillermo del Toro, USA / Germany, 2008
3.5 out of 4 stars

I was greatly relieved to see that this film actually was a tremendous improvement upon its predecessor; 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).

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.

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.

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.

Source: Universal 35mm print
4 Aug, 8 PM

The X-Files: I Want to Believe

Chris Carter, USA, 2008
1.5 out of 4 stars

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!

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.

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.

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!

Source: Fox 35mm print
25 Jul, 5:40 PM

The Dark Knight

Christopher Nolan, USA, 2008
4 out of 4 stars

Let me just say that I’m glad we got to have Iron Man, and to a lesser degree, Hancock 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.

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 Batman Begins 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.

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: The Dark Knight 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 quite 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!

Source: Warner 35mm print
18 Jul, 12:00 PM

Hancock

Peter Berg, USA, 2008
3 out of 4 stars

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 Wall-E 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.

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 Arrested Development 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.

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.

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.

Source: Sony 35mm print
8 Jul, 1:45 PM

Wall-E

Andrew Stanton, USA, 2008
4 out of 4 stars

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.

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.

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.

Source: Disney 35mm print
6 Jul, 7:20 PM

Vantage Point

Pete Travis, USA, 2008
2 out of 4 stars

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?

More precisely, we're asking what exactly we're supposed to care about, or even how. In fact, I think the spectacular terribleness of the incident was one of the only things that kept my interest in the first place.

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.

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.

Politically, Vantage Point 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.

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).

Source: United uncut pan-and-scan airplane video
30 Jun, 1:20 PM

Kung Fu Panda

Mark Osborne & John Stevenson, USA, 2008
3 out of 4 stars

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 surprisingly-high rating on Rotten Tomatoes, 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 Kung Fu Panda is prettier than some Pixar films!

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.

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).

Source: Paramount 35mm print
7 Jun, 3:40 PM

Iron Man

Jon Favreau, USA, 2008
3.5 out of 4 stars

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 Fantastic Four, 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, Iron Man is more in the vein of Batman Begins, 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.

Yet although I've given them the same rating, I should be clear that Batman Begins was definitely a deeper, more complex and more thought-out film. Iron Man 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.

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.

As for the action, well, as I said there's not exactly tons 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 "you'll believe a man can fly" 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 bit more action that time).

By the way, if you go see it, make sure to stay until after the credits.

Source: Paramount 35mm print
16 May, 8:00 PM