Posts Tagged ‘fantasy’

Inkheart

Inkheart

Friday, May 21st, 2010

First of all, this definitely forms as good a double bill as expected with Bedtime Stories. Secondly, I have to say, I was watching this at very end of the night going into the early hours, so if I say I was kind of falling asleep towards the end, it is by no means solely the fault of the movie. But I will start by saying, I’m kind of astonished that of the two, this turned out to be the one that turned me off most.

On the surface Inkheart seems very similar to Bedtime Stories – the central character is a man able to make stories come into the real world just by reading them… and that man is played by Brendan Fraser, an actor known even more than Sandler for some pretty goofy and questionable comedy in the past. But really the similarities end there. This is a much darker, refined and frankly more ambitious story, and that’s kind of why I was so amazed to find it so lacking in comparison to Bedtime Stories. Also, in this one, the stories really come to life.

So how can such a movie with a supporting cast including Paul Bettany, Andy Serkis, Helen Mirren and Jim Broadbent be so much less than an Adam Sandler comedy with Keri Russell, Russell Brand, and Courtney Cox? I’m genuinely not sure. All I can say is though Inkheart has some great ideas, even beyond the basic set-up (I’m sure the book trilogy it is based on is far more engrossing), rather than run with them it seems to just plod. Not one character seems particular changed or even on the verge of changing at the end, or even particularly in need of change at the start – there are even characters, like the one from Arabian Nights, whose purpose in the story I’m at a real loss to justify. I’m afraid I really can’t think of anything else to say of it.



Bedtime Stories

Bedtime Stories

Friday, May 21st, 2010

I was worried to say the least about using this to kickstart what will hopefully be a movie-watching habit as frequent as I used to have… though I’ve loved Adam Sandler on and off in the past, it’s a very up and down affair, and when it comes to this kind of Adam Sandler movie, at least how it looked from the trailer, I was pretty sure it’d be far too samey, toned down (it’s a Disney “family movie“…) and forgettable. On top of this, I didn’t quite see how the story was supposed to work. Being from Disney, too, and following so soon after Enchanted as it does, I feared that however they dealt with the nature of kids’ bedtime stories, they’d somehow manage to sully basic tenets of innocence as they did in that 2007 movie.

For at least the movie’s entire first act, I remained horribly skeptical. This movie takes a bizarre amount of time to set itself up, and even once the strange/not-so-strange-afterall things start happening to Sandler in the real world, it takes a long time for the movie to really explain itself. Example: the gumball rain you see in the trailer. It’s a great moment that seems to be the first absolute reveal that “omg what happens in the bedtime stories happens in real life” … and all the choices made in this scene, the camera, editing, music, make it feel like a big moment – they practically do the Shawshank thing, for heaven’s sake – but then we see that it’s merely a gumball truck crashed on an overpass above Sandler’s car. The movie is kind of filled with such semi-anti-climaxes. I guess this is simply my fault for expecting something more magical from the trailer etc. Make no mistake, there’s no magic in this story, just coincidence that may or may not occur as a result of belief in magic. I can’t argue that this, however, is in its way almost more fulfilling.

What I eventually remembered here, too, was that I’ve actually really loved some of those samey old Adam Sandler movies more than I expected, and though this movie is certainly kid-_safe_ (whether they’re kid-_friendly_ I’ll say something about in a moment…) it is really in the end absolutely a member of that sub-genre Sandler has become known for. There’s a scene at the end here when his character has to deliver a presentation to his boss following a spectacular song-and-dance number by Guy Pearce, the villain, and his team. It’s to be the big summing up of the story, Sandler’s big moment, but just prior to the scene he has his tongue stung by a bee, so he’s talking gibberish (like the alien in the kids’ story that was told just the night before). His friend, played by Russell Brand, translates. It’s one of those classic Sandler scenes, like the final speech in Mr. Deeds or Billy Madison, as silly and hilarious as it is, if it catches you in the right mood, actually also just a little touching.

If there’s something wrong with the movie, it could be just that. For sure, you can feel safe enough showing your kids this movie or even letting them watch it alone, there’s nothing per se that’s inappropriate for the under 12s… but it is very much the kind of “family movie” where the “bits for kids” and “bits for adults” are well delineated and this could alienate younger viewers. This is perfectly illustrated early on when Sandler’s character tells the kids the first bedtime story, and he gives the character in the story that represents him the name “Mr. Underappreciated”, until one of the kids says, “what’s underdemeciated?” forcing him to rename the character, “Sir Fix-a-lot”. (Oh-ho-ho. Kids are dumb, right?)

I don’t like such condescending attitudes to children at all, even in small and subtle doses, especially in a movie with Walt Disney’s name on it, a man who always said you should speak to children no differently than you speak to adults* – and it doesn’t end there with this movie. Just in case they get bored at any point (like during the aforementioned quite excruciating set-up act), there’s always the enormous-eyed guinea pig, at complete odds with the otherwise “the magic’s all in your head” stance of the story, on hand to entertain. I think the movie could’ve been that bit better if they had just run with the idea that Sandler’s belief that the stories really affect reality is just a misunderstanding – like the felix felicis that helps Ron succeed at Quidditch in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, for example, even though he never took it… it’s the belief that these things are possible that makes them happen, not any real supernatural force. In short, a little confidence.

That small issue aside, it’s still not enough to ruin the overall joy I got from this movie. Once it got going I barely stopped laughing, often very out loud. It’s a typical Disney good-triumphs-over-evil story and, despite the “family-friendly” moniker, an Adam Sandler movie all the way (just in case that’s important to you). I frankly adored it in the end, and will watch it again for sure.

* “I don’t believe in talking down to children. I don’t believe in talking down to any certain segment. I like to kind of just talk in a general way to the audience.” – Walt Disney



Alice in Wonderland [1933]

Alice in Wonderland [1933]

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

It’s kinda amazing I haven’t seen this rather lavish Hollywood version of one of my favourite books yet, especially in these past few years of being particularly enamoured of all things Alice. I was reminded of its existence while watching Dreamchild again recently so I finally decided to get hold of it… sadly, it was the shorter 75 minute version, not the 90 minute cut that apparently exists elsewhere. I didn’t have particularly high expectations of it, mostly because you don’t really hear about it much at all, and almost immediately as it started, I set myself up for a difficult hour, as Alice first graces the screen looking practically in her 20s or 30s, in any case the oldest looking Alice (not counting the elderly Liddell in “Dreamchild” of course) I’ve ever seen (the actress, I’ve since learned, was 19; the character claims 12 years and 4 months lol).

But it’s incredibly hard not to love this movie in the end. Indeed, if it had only been made a few years later and done the same “fantasy world in colour” trick of The Wizard of Oz and had only one song more memorable than the few it has, I’m almost certain it would be just as beloved as the Judy Garland movie.

Notably, despite the title, it is much more based in fact on the second book “Through the Looking Glass”, which if you know the books is indication itself of the film’s surprisingly intellectual aspirations. Though it’s perfectly possible to enjoy the movie for its surface sheen (the set design is certainly up there with that of the later Oz), the actual screenplay (by Joseph Mankiewicz, who later wrote All About Eve among other Hollywood classics) retains many of that book’s more complicated nonsense exchanges. I don’t know what was cut from the longer version, but this version hops around Carroll’s world in a frankly disjointed way but so long as you’re comfortable with the nonsense at the core (which, in Wonderland, you really oughta be), it’s not too much of an issue.

Anyhoo, it’s not up there for me with the likes of my fave musical version of the story with Fiona Fullerton or Disney’s eyepoppingly aesthetic 50s version (to say nothing of Tim Burton’s more recent take, as I still haven’t seen it), but I would say at the least that it deserves to be seen and known a lot more than I feel it has been so far. There’s barely an Alice adaption not worth seeing, as there are simply so many approaches and interpretations to be made (whether you like them or not), and this was no exception.



Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

This was another incredibly pleasant (if that’s the right word) surprise. I wouldn’t say I’ve exactly gone off Quentin Tarantino as a director but my initial approach to his films has become increasingly apprehensive since Kill Bill. I thought Kill Bill was perfect in every way, but when the Grindhouse thing came along I thought at first, no that’s taking the Kill Bill “thing” too far … though, of course, Death Proof grew on me with subsequent viewings (at the very least, sitting next to Planet Terror as it does, it appears to be some kind of masterpiece …).

Inglourious Basterds seemed like it was going to have even more problems for me as a viewer. The first being – though of course Tarantino has been planning this movie for over a decade – we’ve had two of these Nazi revenge stories very recently in the form of Defiance and Valkyrie so by now the “genre” almost seems old hat. The difference with Tarantino’s version, however, is the highly fictionalised way his story of WWII turns out. That in itself, however, while others whose reviews I read seemed to revel in the delight of seeing that part of history end the way we may all wish it did, really didn’t interest me so much. Call it the first surprise, then, how “into it” I found myself as the explosive finale goes down.

Second was a similar problem to that I expected to have with Valkyrie – and I loved Valkyrie, so I should’ve have been so concerned. It’s really some of the casting that worried me here – seeing actors like Tom Cruise in Valkyrie or Brad Pitt and worse, Eli Roth, here in period costume, especially in this stylised, fictionalised version of the time, really didn’t look to me like it would work even a fraction as well as it ultimately does. There’s an almost cheeky moment in the very first scene (or “Chapter”) of Inglourious Basterds that seemed to me like a reference or jab at the way Bryan Singer segued into having all his “Germans” speak English for 95% of Valkyrie. Here, a character literally just says to another character that his knowledge of the language they are speaking (French) has been exhausted, does he mind if he switches to English? It’s a clever moment, but it’s ultimately surprising just how much of this movie’s dialogue still needs subtitles, with all dialogue being spoken in the language that makes sense for the scene, and that to me is a Good Thing. Anyway, not for one moment did I have the issues with Pitt and Roth that I expected. For Roth in particular it may in fact be his best-cast role yet. I still don’t like to see him on the screen, I’d much prefer him get behind the camera again … but for this particular character, that works. The Basterds themselves, in fact, don’t occupy as much screentime as you might expect, with as much time given over to Mélanie Laurent and Jacky Ido’s story or the brilliantly wicked Christoph Waltz as the movie’s principal villain. So even if you still find Roth and co. unpalatable, there’s plenty more in the ensemble to get excited about.

Then there’s the soundtrack. Though I’ve never had a problem with Tarantino’s use of music, it’s again an aspect of his work that I’ve worried about more with everything since Kill Bill, where it seemed to me he had pushed it as far as it would go. There was the comment he made about this movie in particular that struck me as particularly arrogant, when asked about his use of archive music, that he didn’t want another artist making a mark on his work. (“I just don’t like the idea of giving that much power to anybody on one of my movies,” LA Times) All of that said, it is hard to think about these things when the movie is in front of you and the likes of Ennio Morricone are serenading your ears. There’s little to say but that what music he uses works … even the Bowie. The only moments where I questioned the soundtrack, in fact, were two short snippets of tunes he had previously used, in Kill Bill, but they’re really too brief to mention.

This is, simply, a terrifically made movie that works almost flawlessly, and I think you’ll find that hard to deny even if you disagree with the idea of it. There are those who still think of Tarantino as some kind of manchild who makes fanboyish movies that serve no purpose than to fulfil geeky fantasies and there’s plenty in all of his recent work including this that matches that description. But there’s too much here – more than ever before in his work – that shows a real artist’s hand. It’s too technically proficient and assured to be dismissed as the B-movie wish-fulfilment it might first appear to be. To be perfectly honest, I’m almost inclined to agree with Brad Pitt’s last line which I’m sure is pretty much Tarantino speaking for himself, and he should be so proud: “This might just be my masterpiece.” On a first viewing I find it hard to disagree, for it truly blew me away.



Land of the Lost

Land of the Lost

Monday, September 7th, 2009

So, yeh, sue me but I got more out of watching this than I did watching Half-Blood Prince. I had read so many bad reviews of it shortly before watching it and they almost had me convinced, but I kept seeing Brad Silberling’s name on the director’s chair and I just couldn’t believe he could make a less than half-decent movie ‘cos he never has. I shouldn’t have doubted it for a second. Silberling has done two kinds of movies in his career so far, kind of alternating between the effects-driven kids movies like Casper, Lemony Snicket and this, and the more mature stories dealing with more mature relationships, which have steadily gone down in scale over the years from City of Angels to Moonlight Mile to his most recent 10 Items of Less. It’s interesting that the first two of the effects-driven movies, too, dealt with pretty powerful emotional stuff too, all of Silberling’s work, until 10 Items at least, always dealing heavily with loss. Needless to say, I expected none of that here, but I knew he wouldn’t just make an effects movie.

Okay, well, I’ll admit, that’s exactly what he has made here. But this guy really knows how to do that and stay interesting in my opinion. Even though surely shot on the usual Hollywood bankroll, the effects here reminded me of the fast and loose style Robert Rodriguez stumbled upon in making the first two Spy Kids movies on trademark tight budget. They’re having fun with this and it translates right onto the film, through the projector and into the audience: at least, for this audience it did. I laughed almost constantly for the duration and entirely “got” the slightly sillier aspects of the production. Anna Friel being allowed (in fact, apparently Silberling insisted) to keep her Mancunian accent is a wonderful bonus.



Spirit of the Beehive

Spirit of the Beehive

Thursday, March 5th, 2009

I don’t know what led me to believe this, but it has to be said up front that I came to this expecting another horror movie – or, at least, something more horrific than what I got. This again has a very slow start – and a very slow middle … and a very slow end … – but it kept my focus for the most part because I really couldn’t fathom what, if anything, it was about. I found the first half hour or so wonderful, the sparse life of a tiny village going on around a little hall where most of its population, including our young heroines, are gathered seeing James Whale’s Frankenstein for the first time. We see the Spanish introduction to the movie, and then we’re cut away to the beehives of the title, seemingly disjointed.

There’s an odd pace to the editing throughout here, scenes start and finish before we’re able to fully comprehend their relevance and this would be a bad thing if it weren’t for the fact that, I admit, it put me far from ease. We see the children here kind of testing their boundaries and then, from the germ of cinematic fantasy exacerbated by her elder sister’s suggestion, one of the youngest of those children taking the line between that fantasy and reality just a tad too far. Guillermo Del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth certainly owes a lot to this movie – this is almost like that movie with the visual effects taken out, in fact.

Ana meets the Monster

If it weren’t for the adorable and constant presence of the two young girls here (the youngest, Ana, would’ve made the perfect Alice in Wonderland IMHO), I admit I would’ve found this too dull and arduous a viewing. Even still it’s a movie it’ll take me a long time to watch again. But I know that if and when I do, it will probably grow on me immeasurably. What struck me most about it is how I could never have guessed when it was made if asked – I didn’t check the year before putting it on, only assuming that it was old, but the photography is so clean and the costumes etc so timeless, I really wouldn’t have known if it was made much more recently. At first look it’s at least a better Frankenstein “spinoff” than Gods and Monsters, for example, and I can only give it the benefit of the doubt. I hope I can find the time to come back to this some day.



Troll

Troll

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

I’ve had this waiting to be seen for a while now in my collection but it took a double bill with the sequel tonight on Zone Horror to finally get me watch it. I saw a little bit of it the other night that kinda piqued my interest. I’ll be honest, this gains immediate sway with me for the fact that the titular Troll’s first vessel of choice is a little blonde girl, lol. I mean who wouldn’t be that first if they could take other forms? (hehe … just me, then.)

Anyhoo … I write this in retrospect having now seen the sequel. This is notable because that movie a) slightly warped my brain to the point I can barely remember this one and b) quite simply, makes this one look like a masterpiece. But, trying my best to still be objective, I think I still found it perfectly watchable. The visuals, the make-up and effects etc, are indeed pretty rotten but they have clear ambition and are occasionally just a little creepy. And, really, as I began, any movie where a little girl goes apesh*t (trollsh*t?) in what should be a quaint familial setting is at least worth having a little drinkie to. All that said, aside from the kitsch value it will surely lack, the apparently forthcoming Ali Lohan remake can only be an improvement.



The Fall

The Fall

Monday, January 12th, 2009

Hmm. Even though I haven’t been near The Cell since first seeing it, I was astonished when I heard about this earlier last year that I hadn’t seen it yet – even before reading all the glowing reviews of it. I didn’t expect to be blown away as some, but as Roger Ebert’s review suggests, I knew at least that it’d be different: and that’s worth a lot these days in movies.

Well, different it certainly is, and it ultimately has something to it that makes me more likely to watch it again than Tarsem’s previous work. At first this seems to be no more than a lot of very pretty pictures with no real story or character worth noting beneath them. But those things absolutely emerge as the film progresses. I don’t quite know if what the movie has to say about anything in the end is delivered powerfully enough to match the imagery and everything … but it comes closer than I’d feared.

hehe. The review turned out being more vague than the movie. Put it this way: there are two reasons to watch this movie and they’re good ones and as follows: first, clearly, the visuals … if I recall it correctly I’d honestly say The Cell was marginally better in this department but there are still more marvels to behold in this movie than what you could find in a whole clutch of movies made in the past 20 years; second, the little girl Catinca Untaru … I read some reviews comparing her to Victoire Thivisol’s performance in Ponette and kinda cringed, but it’s a good comparison … you honestly can’t call either “acting” in my opinion because part of the reason they work so well is because these girls aren’t trying to convince us of anything, they’re just being little girls in all their wonder. And Untaru here is genuinely wonderful, adding a much-needed counter any time the film may feel too pretentious or anything, interjecting with her completely convincing improprieties. It’s no masterpiece by any criteria, but it’s hard not to find the highest respect for Tarsem for making movies the way he does, and there are lots of reasons to check it out at least once.