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

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

There Will Be Blood

Paul Thomas Anderson, USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

I’m beginning to wonder if I have overly specific expectations for films about historical problems. You probably wouldn’t expect me to draw parallels with Sweeney Todd and my reception of it, but once again I found myself a little miffed, at least when the film was over and I reflected on it, that a filmmaker had almost threatened to make a film about something like the social impact of the early 20th century oil boom on a small town, but had instead decided to focus on how crazy this one guy is.

The parallels are limited, admittedly. I thought this was a much stronger film, partly because I didn’t really notice the missed opportunities until after. Just as all the critics said, Day-Lewis is a captivating presence, although there is a valid question as to whether he is believable as a fully-realized character, rather than as a human phenomenon.

And maybe I’m being too literal in my approach to the film. You see, there is a scene where the main character, Daniel Plainview, makes copious promises for economic and infrastructural development to the aforementioned small town. We are probably supposed to gather that he is lying, but you never even get enough of a glimpse of the world outside Plainview himself to really ascertain the truth of his statement. His story of demented, solitary obsession is compelling, but particularly considering the length of the film, it’s remarkable that it is depicted in isolation to such a pronounced degree. Maybe his character progression (if you can call it that) is supposed to represent the social trends, and maybe his rivalry with a young churchman played by Paul Danno is supposed to serve the same purpose, but the approach ultimately led, for me at least, to a sort of decontextualized feeling, the feeling of “what’s the point?”

I actually still did get something out of this film and you very likely will too. I don’t quite think the critics and the Oscar voters are wrong; I just think they are conditioned to value, perhaps even overvalue, certain things, and this movie is to some extent designed with those things in mind. A familiar story, of course.

Source: Paramount 35mm print
12 February, 2:50 PM

Persepolis

Marjane Satrapi & Vincent Paronnaud, France / USA, 2007
3.5 out of 4 stars

Ah, it’s nice to see a good movie again. It’s certainly not perfect. I’ve read the first volume as published in the US, and I definitely felt that the second half of the film, adapting the second half, was not as strong. The first half deals with Satrapi’s childhood in Iran and has some really interesting things to say about how children struggle with and process the complex, yet inane, political changes around them in times of extreme strife, such as the Iranian Revolution. We are not robbed of a sophisticated treatment through this perspective, rather we gain new insight on something that most of us probably didn’t have much insight into in the first place!

The second part of the film, meanwhile, is on her high school experiences as a lone member of the diaspora in Vienna – still strong, but more familiar – and her college years back in Iran, which is a bit stronger. None of this, however, reduced my positive feeling towards the movie too much. The animation, while stylized, is very expressive. Little Marjane is cute but not overly so, and the imaginative universe (in which she talks with God) is effectively juxtaposed against the dark reality of political purges without missing a beat. There are a few awkward transitions between various short episodes, paradoxically moreso in the mostly-stronger first half, but this is mitigated by the surprisingly-high level of humor (when appropriate, that is).

It’s something new, different, and worthwhile as animation is concerned, and as far as “third world memoir” is concerned; there are flaws but they are quite easily overlooked. Go see it, when you can!

Source: Sony subtitled 35mm print
5 Jan, 1:30 PM

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Tim Burton, USA / UK, 2007
2.5 out of 4 stars

The sad thing is, I enjoyed most of this movie, particularly its atmosphere (sure it’s the same as the other Burton films, at least aside from the blood, but Burton still does a good job at pulling you in as always) with two major reservations. The first of these was, of course, that the performances of Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter were definitely not good enough to justify their casting in light of their insufficient vocal talents. It’s slightly unfair to lump them together, as Carter, as much as I like her, is significantly worse than Depp. Either way, it’s a shame, as the songs were really awesome and the orchestration in particular does its best to prop up these singers, allowing you to overlook their faults as much as possible.

My second problem with the film was that it seemed to be dragging on a bit, and this was only compounded when it took a turn that I had trouble following. You see, the title character undergoes a pretty complete shift in modus operandi something like three-quarters of the way through the film. I don’t know if this worked better in the musical, but in the film, I really felt like the transition was just unsatisfying and incoherent, and from there on out, I had a lot more trouble “relating” to the action, as it were. Although I might not like the musical any better, I suspect that I’m just not impressed with Burton’s psychology or his social conscience, as he usually operates on the surface and this work asks for a greater insight into Todd’s mentality than Burton can ultimately provide us. Or maybe the premise just doesn’t work for me in the first place.

Source: Paramount 35mm print
3 Jan, 1:50 PM

The Great Debaters

Denzel Washington, USA, 2007
2.5 out of 4 stars

There are a lot of unflattering things I could say about this movie, and believe me, I will say them. Much of it seems over-familiar, such as the love triangle, the pubescent fantasies, and even the general whiff of what some critics call “underdog uplift.” It’s definitely weighed down too heavily with conventionality, something my compatriots and I were quick to blame on the fact that it comes out of Oprah Winfrey’s production company.

So, it’s not entirely a good film, but nonetheless, I found that as it went on, my reservations about the often ham-handed execution were increasingly overridden by my interest in the story itself, because if aspects of it are too familiar, there’s something about the overall thrust that seems worth telling in a sociopolitical sense. That is to say, this movie should have been better, but it still may indeed be good for you, or at least for someone, and it doesn’t entirely lack complexity either.

The subject here is a debate team at a black college in 1930s Texas, coached by a leftist agitator type played by the director. One can’t help but feel that one is being patronized a bit by how their debates transpire – we are given to understand that they do not get to choose the position they will take on an issue, but, mysteriously, they are nonetheless always depicted as taking positions consistent with civil rights and leftist thoughts in general, while their black (at least initially) opponents always sound like Clarence Thomas or worse.

Clearly, the filmmakers aren’t really comfortable with the idea of “debating.” I would assume that if the position is not chosen by the debaters, they must occasionally have had to defend unpalatable positions, but that’s apparently too complex for this film. That said, I couldn’t help but feel after a while that there was something, dare I say it, uplifting about seeing these young people triumphing through showing their verbal prowess and speaking truth-to-power, and of course, uplift is the more important goal for the filmmakers.

Aside from that, I felt that there was some real insight in some of the formulations the film puts across regarding racial injustice at the time, specifically considering the sometimes-contradictory intersections between poverty and race. It also doesn’t shy away from the horrific nature of phenomena such as lynching, something that is in itself valuable for any historically-illiterate young person (this being almost a redundant statement). Finally, I really appreciated how the relationships were put across, as there seemed to be some interesting things being said about black masculinity, specifically regarding how relationships are strained by the pressures of racism, but ultimately preserved out of mutual understanding and the not-uncritical support of women.

Source: MGM 35mm print
2 Jan, 3:40 PM

The Golden Compass

Chris Weitz, USA / UK, 2007
2.5 out of 4 stars

I was disappointed when the bad reviews started coming in for this would-be blockbuster adaptation of one of my teenage self's favorite fantasy books, so I steeled myself for a sub-par product well before I finally went to see it with my folks (who also once enjoyed the book). The result was that I enjoyed it enough, but I was consistently looking for imperfections, to the extent that I may have noticed faults that would have escaped my attention if I hadn't been preconditioned to expect them.

That said, this movie certainly reminded me how difficult it is to set up an entire fantasy world and an exciting adventure story all at once in a feature-length film, and while Peter Jackson certainly figured out how to do it, comedy director Chris Weitz is no Peter Jackson, to say the least. It's no surprise to say he lacks vision, and that both he and the studio that hired him (and once hired Jackson) should have known better. Nor is there any of the loose interpretative genius evidenced by, say, Alfonso Cuarón. Particularly during the first half or so of the film, there are far too many awkwardly paced sequences of short, abrupt scenes in which the exact amount of information necessary to keep things going is dispensed in a stilted manner. The actors are for the most part good; Nicole Kidman does vamp it up a bit too much as the villain, but that is pretty much the character. Meanwhile, child protagonist Dakota Blue Richards acts at times as if she doesn't believe she's in peril, she is never overly cute and displays the right degree of sass at all times.

And in fact, once we get through most of the setup, the movie gains some focus as it narrows down to the journey of Lyra, Richards's character, as she tries to fulfill a promise while chasing half-understood magical-scientific revelations from her "uncle." The big fight scene is a bit murky but still feels triumphant. The ending, though, is only a revelation in that they seem to have kept the actual ending for the opening of the next film, if there will be one. Fans of the book will be left wondering how much of this controversial scene will be changed when and if it is adapted for the screen. Speaking of the next one, I can only hope they get a more talented director, because if Weitz faltered here, he's going to crash and burn when adapting the somewhat sparse and dreary events of book two (of which I'm no longer assured of its quality after all these years).

Source: New Line 35mm print
21 Dec, 1:05 PM

Across the Universe

Julie Taymor, USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

So, you all know that this is the musical based entirely upon songs by The Beatles, right? Plot-wise, there's not that much to tell. I feel like I saw this movie already in that network minseries from a few years back entitled The 60s, and in any case, the attempt to "tell the story of the 60s" in some impossibly all-encompassing manner seems pretty well-worn by now, so really all the film has going for it is the high concept. The characters are trite, the politics are verging upon the irresponsible, and the film really starts wobbling around the halfway mark when it tries to get serious.

I stand by all these objections, but for the most part, they occurred to me after the film was over. Maybe it's because I grew up watch musicals and MTV, and therefore have a tendency to imagine myself, while walking to or around campus, in some kind of music video, but I really felt captivated from this movie from the beginning. I don't really know how this movie rates against the best musicals, but it represents my idea of what a musical should be in that it does not shy away from including singing in real, lived-in spaces, as did, for instance, Chicago with its lame cut-aways to imaginary stage sets. To me, all the charm of the musical form is summed up right in that scene where people dance and sing in the bowling alley. It wasn't even one of my favorite numbers, but it looks like something I probably have, at least once, imagined myself.

So, I think one of the good aspects of the high concept is that it enabled the filmmakers to make (what I consider) a real musical. Another bonus is that they seem to feel the need to treat the Beatles songs well and give us, across the board, actors with strong vocal chops who deliver often beautiful renditions (I particularly enjoyed the songs by female lead Evan Rachel Wood and soul singer/guitarist Martin Luther McCoy, whom I've seen in concert with The Roots). I'm sure that not including any vocally-impaired stars helped contribute to the dismal box office, but it's probably the only way we can get a movie musical that actually sounds good (dismal reports are already coming in about the quality of the A-list cast's singing in Sweeney Todd). The only real objection I have here is that Jim Sturgess, while also a good singer, delivers vocal performances that, perhaps deliberately so, are too similar to that of originals (albeit with an obvious musical-theater flavoring). Such mimicry defeats the purpose of a reinvention, in my opinion.

Finally we come to the visual styling of Julie Taymor, which I found, here, to be more distracting and less essential than they were in the superior, if certainly less fun to watch, Titus. Taymor seems to know that her love story is, to put it lightly, far from original, but she tries to punch it up with awkwardly abstract set pieces that ultimately don't belong in the film.

If you weigh the pros and cons, the faults probably outnumber the virtues, but anyone who can't stop themselves from humming a tune here and there will probably appreciate this film at least on a visceral level.

Source: Sony 35mm print
16 Oct, 7 PM

3:10 to Yuma

James Mangold, USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

As we all know, the Western used to be one of a few dominant genres, until people starting losing their nostalgia for the wild west (actually I don't know why the western declined, or even precisely when) and the western went all but extinct. Then in the 70s, various filmmakers started making occasional "deconstructionist" Western films, and this trend has continued, off and on, to this day. Of course, we can go years without a major western and then end up with two in the same month. I tend to assume that this is a genre I enjoy, but while I enjoyed this film, I'm not sure that it leaves me wanting to spend another three hours with people in cowboy hats within the next few weeks. I am, it seems, a postmodern consumer of westerns, someone who appreciates them because they haven't been dominant in a long time.

That said, I also bring up the "deconstructionist" thing because it's not entirely clear that this is that kind of film. One brings these assumptions to the table, particularly considering the respectable acting talent (Christian Bale and Russell Crowe) and the lack of attempt to convert the thing into a modern action film, but whereas the film has certain unnerving things to say about heroism, order, law, and masculinity, I'm not sure that, ultimately, any of these things really subverts the western genre.

This may well be because it's a remake of a film from exactly 50 years prior, and I wonder if my opinion of it wouldn't be lower if I'd seen the original. While not a long film, the 2007 version is about 30 minutes longer than the original, and you can imagine that almost the entire extra half-hour is plugged in there at the beginning. I say this because the film is very meandering for about that length of time, until the villain (Crowe) is apprehended. You can't even really say that there is any buildup going on during this time, as the plot is not even apparent yet. Instead, the filmmakers seem to be, quite leisurely, setting the scene, but they also don't seem to be saying that much during this time.

Instead, all the meaning and most of the characterization comes when the journey to take Crowe's character to Yuma begins. Whereas up to this point I figured I would just gently tolerate this film, I found myself really enjoying the characters, the portrayal of the characters by the actors, and the conflict of wills and ideas. It is the kind of film where you can correctly speculate about three of the four things that are going to happen, and it's also the kind of film where the teenager is just really annoying even as you understand that you're supposed to be witnessing his journey or some rot. Nonetheless, it is, at least without seeing the film it's based on, a very solid, enjoyable western, with, yes, some good action to boot.

Source: Lionsgate 35mm print
29 Sep, 9:30 PM

Stardust

Matthew Vaughn, UK / USA, 2007
3.5 out of 4 stars

In a recent interview, Neil Gaiman wonders aloud whether this new film adaptation of his illustrated fantasy novella can really make a go of it, explaining that it is "the thing itself" whereas something established in popularity such as Shrek is "a comedy... that's making fun of the thing." After seeing it, I was tempted to disagree with him, as this film does not, by any means, play things as straightforward as the two major fantasy franchises of our day. That said, Shrek is probably the closest cousin in terms of subject matter (the faux medieval, rather than the pre-medieval or modern) and, furthermore, the film's gross is singularly unimpressive, particularly considering how in vogue fantasy is today.

That's a shame, because this was a film that I thought really struck the perfect balance between mocking and embracing the conventions inherent in the "fairy tale" genre (if there is such a thing anymore). Admittedly, you could very easily make the critique that this film is just a parade of zany and whimsical characters with a quest that barely even qualifies as a quest tying them together. All this is somewhat true, but there is a real charm to the proceedings, and a real love of fantasy is apparent, but the filmmakers also show that they are not blind to the absurdities of it. The platitudes that it espouses, about people being free to understand and appreciate their uniqueness, are familiar, yet appreciated, and the chemistry between the two leads is strong. Definitely a strong effort.

Source: Paramount 35mm print
17 Aug, 1 PM

The Bourne Ultimatum

Paul Greengrass, USA, 2007
3.5 out of 4 stars

First off, I should mention that there's this theater in the Ontario Mills mall, not far from where my uncle lives, that has three mega-sized screens, and after going to see stuff there for years when we visited, my mother and I finally managed to see something in the largest of the three screens. The movie thus fully consumed my field of vision, and the sound was also booming.

I mention all this because I can't help but suspect that it was probably in a factor in my deciding that this is easily the best film in the Bourne series. To be honest, I was somewhat surprised that the first one was so well-regarded, as it seemed like typical fare to me. The second one made a more favorable impression, but I did wonder, after watching it, if Paul Greengrass' jerky, pseudo-documentary camera technique wasn't better suited for pieces like United 93 than for action films (Greengrass did not direct the first film, by the way).

Indeed, I had the same questions as this film opened; actually, I was initially worried that I was going to get some combination of nausea and whiplash from seeing this kind of camerawork on this size of screen. Instead, I felt particularly engaged in the action, in a way that I haven't felt in a while. I do suspect that the only thing that's really changed between this film in the last is the medium I saw it in, hence my disclaimer above.

That said, i did find the storyline to be a lot less impenetrable this time. Some might point out that shortcuts were taken, or perhaps claim that the story was more sophisticated in the last film. However, I felt that I really appreciated the clarity with with the conflict was drawn. The primary villain, played by David Strathairn, is a CIA man whose methods will not be unfamiliar to anyone who has been paying attention to the news about renditions, secret prisons, and so on, giving this film a much-needed jolt of relevance. Bourne's attitudes towards the goings-on aren't always clear, but a strong supporting cast anchored by Joan Allen and Julia Stiles facilitates a strong, compelling conflict centered around these issues. It might be cheating to tie in Bourne's brainwashing campaign to the recent news of CIA misbehavior, but it felt like it was well-earned to me. I strongly recommend this film!

Source: Universal 35mm print
6 Aug, 2:15 PM

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

David Yates, UK / USA, 2007
3 out of 4 stars

I’m sure anyone that’s talked to me is tired of hearing me say how much better The Prisoner of Azkaban is than any of the other films, not to mention me going on about how it’s probably better because it’s possibly the most unfaithful adaptation. To be honest, I’m mostly going off of what other people say, as I usually don’t remember the book to well by the time the movie version comes out, although as the gap between the two shortens, that’s gradually changing.

Well, I wasn’t too thrilled with The Goblet of Fire, but this film, the fifth installment, does seem to be an improvement, even if, from what I read, the changes that were made were fairly superficial; this, as I explained to my friends, who were generally less impressed with it, probably prevents the film from being better than it is, as we should be able to recognize that film as a medium has different story requirements than a novel (to put it mildly).

What bothered me about The Goblet of Fire was that it seemed to be a clip show, a “greatest hits” of the book, and that there was no real attempt to lend coherency to the narrative, as there had been in the third film. I don’t know if it’s the new director, the screenwriter learning from his mistakes, or just a more adaptable narrative in the novel itself, but this film definitely achieves thematic unity. To my friends, this mean that it was less action packed, but to me, Imelda Staunton’s bone-chilling portrayal of super-evil Stepford bureaucrat Delores Umbridge will stick in my head much longer than the dimly-remembered CGI hodgepodge of the last film. (Not to mention that Staunton was over-the-top in a more suitable fashion than most of her scenery-chewing predecessors). The same can be said for the final confrontation, which, while somewhat unsatisfying in terms of narrative, at least hit the right geek chord (I’ll be vague here, just in case).

What’s funny, I suppose, is that I figured that the fourth film would lack appeal for those who hadn’t read the film due to its disconnected nature, while the unity of the fifth film would be more appealing to them. My friends, however, have not read the books, and reacted in the opposite manner, as detailed above. It seems that it’s actually quite hard to guess what interpretative choices would be better for someone who’s coming to the material from a different place.

Source: Warner 35mm print
20 July, 7:30 PM

Ratatouille

Brad Bird, USA, 2007
4 out of 4 stars

In the first segment, I really wasn’t sure about this film. “Where is this going?” I wondered. Later on, I realized how nice it was not to know where everything was going, as almost everything that happened, even most of the major characters, came as a complete surprise. I don’t know how much the trailers have been giving away, but I guess it helps that I haven’t seen a movie in theaters since Spider-Man 3 and that I no longer have cable.

As for the film itself, well, it’s “heartwarming” in the good way, without the schmaltzy or annoying connotations that word usually has. Having skipped Cars, it’s a real joy to see both Pixar and director Brad Bird delivering a perfect follow-up to The Incredibles, providing a populist balance to the previous film’s vaguely elitist philosophy, as well as effectively achieving the elusive balance between the depiction of the human world and the anthropomorphized rat world (so much so that I objected, verbally, to the portrayal of a different kind of interaction in the trailer for Bee Movie that I saw later, as if Ratatouille should in fact be the last word on that). Finally, it portrays the French in a very-endearing warts-and-all manner that speaks fairly effectively to some real issues in their culture, certainly a better depiction than you might expect from the guy who brought us Bomb Voyage in his last film.

Source: Buena Vista 35mm print
6 July, 7:40 PM