The Film: Sherlock Holmes
The Actors: Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law, Rachel McAdams
The Dealio: OK, so, Sherlock Holmes, as seen through the prism of Guy Ritchie's lens. This is a more vital, visceral (lots of punch 'em ups, violent encounters...OK, I did say this was Guy Ritchie's interpretation, did I not?),updated (no deer-stalker hat, Dr. Watson is a babe!), eye-winking version of the more trad, placid, cerebral detective. But, I must say, as a long-time fan of Sherlock, in all his recreations, both literal and cinematic, 99.9% of the result was achieved righteously: not too much fudging, and pretty well true to the source materials.
Here's the story: Sherlock is involved in a case that, ultimately, results in a peer of the realm being brought low and, well, hanged. Except that, now, there are reports that he is reappearing and wreaking his revenge upon all who sent him to the gallows to begin with. Can Sherlock's turn be long in coming? Think you know the answer to that, but half the fun is getting there. Strong performances by a slew of supporting actors- including, oddly, Mark Strong, as the ultra-villain.
The Grading Session: 4.295 pengies out of 5. Points off for a few items: 1st, at the time, London was known as The Big Smoke, because of the wholesale smog and pollution from the factories that housed the Industrial Revolution. In this movie, the city was as pristine and sparkly-new as a starched shirt out of a bandbox. 'Supwidat? It's a small thing, I know, but this matters to me, since the city was also a character in this movie- and an important one. Another small quibble is one that frequently occurs to me (and so I was thrilled that Austin Powers highlighted it, humorously): why all these infernal Rube Goldberg devices to kill, when an ordinary everyday explosion would fill the bill? ('No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die...slowly, tortuously, over the course of 12 hours!' Pu-leez). Otherwise, cakey! Aaaand, was I the only one to scent a whiff of the 's word' (sequel)? Stay tuned, Holmes fans everywhere!
Lessons Learned: Some literary figures wear out their welcomes with the speed of sound. Sherlock Holmes- inconsiderate, drug-addled, ego-driven genius that he is- is still, more than 124 years into his life, a force to be reckoned with (which).
Showing posts with label cinema babble. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cinema babble. Show all posts
Friday, January 1, 2010
Sunday, December 20, 2009
why can't we just play rugby and all get along?
The Film: Invictus
The Actors: Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon, etc
The Dealio: Based on the book 'Playing With The Enemy', this story plays, too, somewhat fast and loose with the facts, but ultimately tells a pretty compelling story, while glossing over the 'rough patches' of the actual events. Here is the skeleton: as one of his first acts as the first black president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela becomes mesmerised by the parallels between the way the 2 disparate groups in South African society relate to their rugby team and the struggle between the white minority and the black majority. He sees that enabling the two groups to work together is the first priority in making South Africa the bright, shining example of democratic tolerance. And, for reasons unexplored in this film, focuses in on the rugby team as a vehicle to bring about this reconciliation, and enhance the ability for the two to work together towards some-any!- sort of common goal.
Although the film seems to imply that the entire process was without much more than a slight hiccup from inspiration to success, there are some truly moving moments, some wonderful portrayals of historical personages. Prendie read the book, and said that it was phenomenal, and well worth looking into (which). It also offers more details about the evolution of the team, the process and the people involved in making this happen.
The Grading Session: 4.23 pengies out of 5. A very earnest effort, some grand, hard work and we always love it when yo get to see pictures of the actual peeps portrayed in the flick. But, oddly, scant reference to why, if Invictus meant so much to the ultimate victory, there was so little of it seen as being used as an inspirational tool, by the rugby-ers.
Lessons Learned: Watching the rebirth of a country, the coming together of diametrically opposed sides and the forging of a new, solid whole from those halves, is seldom as easy a process as portrayed on big or little screen. Rather, it is more like the making of sausage or your son skateboarding down the railings of a 4 level shopping centre in Japan: there are certain things that are simply too painful to witness in the unedited versions.
The Actors: Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon, etc
The Dealio: Based on the book 'Playing With The Enemy', this story plays, too, somewhat fast and loose with the facts, but ultimately tells a pretty compelling story, while glossing over the 'rough patches' of the actual events. Here is the skeleton: as one of his first acts as the first black president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela becomes mesmerised by the parallels between the way the 2 disparate groups in South African society relate to their rugby team and the struggle between the white minority and the black majority. He sees that enabling the two groups to work together is the first priority in making South Africa the bright, shining example of democratic tolerance. And, for reasons unexplored in this film, focuses in on the rugby team as a vehicle to bring about this reconciliation, and enhance the ability for the two to work together towards some-any!- sort of common goal.
Although the film seems to imply that the entire process was without much more than a slight hiccup from inspiration to success, there are some truly moving moments, some wonderful portrayals of historical personages. Prendie read the book, and said that it was phenomenal, and well worth looking into (which). It also offers more details about the evolution of the team, the process and the people involved in making this happen.
The Grading Session: 4.23 pengies out of 5. A very earnest effort, some grand, hard work and we always love it when yo get to see pictures of the actual peeps portrayed in the flick. But, oddly, scant reference to why, if Invictus meant so much to the ultimate victory, there was so little of it seen as being used as an inspirational tool, by the rugby-ers.
Lessons Learned: Watching the rebirth of a country, the coming together of diametrically opposed sides and the forging of a new, solid whole from those halves, is seldom as easy a process as portrayed on big or little screen. Rather, it is more like the making of sausage or your son skateboarding down the railings of a 4 level shopping centre in Japan: there are certain things that are simply too painful to witness in the unedited versions.
Have You Heard About The Morgans?
The Film: Have You Heard About The Morgans?
The Suspects: Hugh Grant, Sarah Jessica Parker, Sam Eliot, Mary Steenburgen, Wilford Brimley
The Dealio: An estranged NYC couple witness a mob assassination and are put into protective custody in Wyoming. Hilarity ensues. NOT.
The Grading Session: .75 pengies out of 5.0 pengies, mostly due to the creative use of Sam, Mary and Wilford. Not a cliche goes unforce-fed. There is ZERO chem between the leads and I think we have gone to this particular well 3 times too many with the creaky fish-out-of-water-who-will-by-movie's-end-become-the-most-ardent-fans-of-the-new-locale (and beloved of the town-folks. How did they ever manage without them?). Have we heard about the Morgans? Yup, but only for about 45 minutes, which seems to be the ultimate limits of our tolerance for films we just. don't. like.
Lessons Learned: We resent being force-fed crap and pap and told it is hilarious, engaging and entertaining. I want my money and time back!
The Suspects: Hugh Grant, Sarah Jessica Parker, Sam Eliot, Mary Steenburgen, Wilford Brimley
The Dealio: An estranged NYC couple witness a mob assassination and are put into protective custody in Wyoming. Hilarity ensues. NOT.
The Grading Session: .75 pengies out of 5.0 pengies, mostly due to the creative use of Sam, Mary and Wilford. Not a cliche goes unforce-fed. There is ZERO chem between the leads and I think we have gone to this particular well 3 times too many with the creaky fish-out-of-water-who-will-by-movie's-end-become-the-most-ardent-fans-of-the-new-locale (and beloved of the town-folks. How did they ever manage without them?). Have we heard about the Morgans? Yup, but only for about 45 minutes, which seems to be the ultimate limits of our tolerance for films we just. don't. like.
Lessons Learned: We resent being force-fed crap and pap and told it is hilarious, engaging and entertaining. I want my money and time back!
Monday, November 9, 2009
A Christmas Carol
The Film: A Christmas Carol
The Usual Suspects: Jim Carrey, Jim Carrey, Jim Carrey and, well, you know. Bob Hoskins, Colin Firth and Gary Oldman.
The Dealio: Well, I think you know the story, so all that remains is to let you know what I thought about this version. First of all, surprisingly, this was rated PG-13. And for a reason: some of the scenes were intense. I've read- you, too?- something along the lines of 'if you chose Jim Carrey to star in this and made him the major focus, why did you then rein him in?' Didn't notice much reining in, ak-shully. But did notice some areas which needed a skosh more editing. I apologise, I know I harp on this with boring frequency. But, here, we had waaaaaaaayyyyyy too long a relationship with 'mini-Scrooge' and the horses chasing him through every street, alley and culvert in London Town. I get it: the animation of the horses was awesome and harkened back to Darby O'Gill and the Little People (introducing Sean Connery!), a flick that scared the sleep out of me for one solid month. But, even though it may have taken the animators months and months to create the artwork, was it really necessary to make us, the unsuspecting audience, sit through this gag in real time?
It was highly interesting to note the comments of two little boys sitting behind us. One -with a very young-sounding voice- asked his companion (brother?) 'Is it all going to be scary like this?' And his bro/compadre whispering back, 'No. It's OK, though. I'm scared, too.' So sweet, and it swept me back decades.
And of course, the message comes through loud and clear: carry the holidays in your heart...all year long.'
The Grading Session: 4 stars out of 5. I am a huge fan of the voice talent. But. What is up with those EYES!? I have watched this studio for years- every since the Polar Express freaked me out with the woogie eyes and turned what should have been a sweet, simple message into a haunting, cautionary tale. Unintentionally. After all these years, and all the tech developments...I should think they would have figured out some way to mitigate the zombie eyes.
Lessons Learned: Out of the mouths of babes: first, Tiny Tim, who saw goodness and promise in everything around him, rather than concentrating only on the bad things that threatened to hem him in. But, also, from the young lads in the theater who were so earnest in their viewing that they disappeared into the film- and kept each other brave. Now, that's a message for ya!
The Usual Suspects: Jim Carrey, Jim Carrey, Jim Carrey and, well, you know. Bob Hoskins, Colin Firth and Gary Oldman.
The Dealio: Well, I think you know the story, so all that remains is to let you know what I thought about this version. First of all, surprisingly, this was rated PG-13. And for a reason: some of the scenes were intense. I've read- you, too?- something along the lines of 'if you chose Jim Carrey to star in this and made him the major focus, why did you then rein him in?' Didn't notice much reining in, ak-shully. But did notice some areas which needed a skosh more editing. I apologise, I know I harp on this with boring frequency. But, here, we had waaaaaaaayyyyyy too long a relationship with 'mini-Scrooge' and the horses chasing him through every street, alley and culvert in London Town. I get it: the animation of the horses was awesome and harkened back to Darby O'Gill and the Little People (introducing Sean Connery!), a flick that scared the sleep out of me for one solid month. But, even though it may have taken the animators months and months to create the artwork, was it really necessary to make us, the unsuspecting audience, sit through this gag in real time?
It was highly interesting to note the comments of two little boys sitting behind us. One -with a very young-sounding voice- asked his companion (brother?) 'Is it all going to be scary like this?' And his bro/compadre whispering back, 'No. It's OK, though. I'm scared, too.' So sweet, and it swept me back decades.
And of course, the message comes through loud and clear: carry the holidays in your heart...all year long.'
The Grading Session: 4 stars out of 5. I am a huge fan of the voice talent. But. What is up with those EYES!? I have watched this studio for years- every since the Polar Express freaked me out with the woogie eyes and turned what should have been a sweet, simple message into a haunting, cautionary tale. Unintentionally. After all these years, and all the tech developments...I should think they would have figured out some way to mitigate the zombie eyes.
Lessons Learned: Out of the mouths of babes: first, Tiny Tim, who saw goodness and promise in everything around him, rather than concentrating only on the bad things that threatened to hem him in. But, also, from the young lads in the theater who were so earnest in their viewing that they disappeared into the film- and kept each other brave. Now, that's a message for ya!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
What part of rated 'R' did you not get?
The Film: Zombieland
The Talent: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin
The Dealio:So, OK, I know you all read my rantique about people bringing young'uns into age-inappropriate movies. So, you gotta know I was doing a slow boil when people began to arrive with under 4 kiddage. Quick review, folks: the movie is called Zombieland; it is rated 'R'; children, even the under 4 set, have great imaginations. What am I, talkin' to myself over here?
Whew! Much better now.
Prendie kept checking for a 'stem' at the back of my neck to see if a pod person (or, a zombie? BWAAAHAHAHAHA!) had taken over my earthly shell. I am the most chicken movie-goer ever. Granted. I'll give you that. But something about this one seemed to call out to me.So, I went to see it by myself and I loved it- especially an unforeseeable cameo (don't worry, I won't spoil the surprise for you). Is it violent? Is it gory? Well, duh! (remind me: what's the name of this film, again? Yeah). Is it smart and funny as well? You know it is! I was especially taken with some of the zombi-fied people; esp the stripper. She doesn't want your money, honey, I'll tell you that for nothing. I adored Columbus' top rules for survival in a zombie-prevalent world. Just exactly the type of thing I would do. When in doubt, start by setting up guidelines. Or am I wrong? Of course, I did get a little tired of the repeated car thefts by 1/2 of the 'team', but that's a minor thing to me. And I refuse to split hairs. Or skulls, even.
The Grading Session: 4 stars out of 5. Everyone, say this together (my mantra desu): "The difference between a good film and a great film is a wizard editor." With exactly the right amount of editing, this one would slide into immediate cult status...and may do so even without it.
Lessons Learned: 1) Never, ever imitate a zombie (if you aren't), 2) Do not underestimate the power of cardio in the post apocalyptic world, 3) Zombies do not speak...important safety tip here, 4) Twinkies actually DO have an expiration date.
The Talent: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin
The Dealio:So, OK, I know you all read my rantique about people bringing young'uns into age-inappropriate movies. So, you gotta know I was doing a slow boil when people began to arrive with under 4 kiddage. Quick review, folks: the movie is called Zombieland; it is rated 'R'; children, even the under 4 set, have great imaginations. What am I, talkin' to myself over here?
Whew! Much better now.
Prendie kept checking for a 'stem' at the back of my neck to see if a pod person (or, a zombie? BWAAAHAHAHAHA!) had taken over my earthly shell. I am the most chicken movie-goer ever. Granted. I'll give you that. But something about this one seemed to call out to me.So, I went to see it by myself and I loved it- especially an unforeseeable cameo (don't worry, I won't spoil the surprise for you). Is it violent? Is it gory? Well, duh! (remind me: what's the name of this film, again? Yeah). Is it smart and funny as well? You know it is! I was especially taken with some of the zombi-fied people; esp the stripper. She doesn't want your money, honey, I'll tell you that for nothing. I adored Columbus' top rules for survival in a zombie-prevalent world. Just exactly the type of thing I would do. When in doubt, start by setting up guidelines. Or am I wrong? Of course, I did get a little tired of the repeated car thefts by 1/2 of the 'team', but that's a minor thing to me. And I refuse to split hairs. Or skulls, even.
The Grading Session: 4 stars out of 5. Everyone, say this together (my mantra desu): "The difference between a good film and a great film is a wizard editor." With exactly the right amount of editing, this one would slide into immediate cult status...and may do so even without it.
Lessons Learned: 1) Never, ever imitate a zombie (if you aren't), 2) Do not underestimate the power of cardio in the post apocalyptic world, 3) Zombies do not speak...important safety tip here, 4) Twinkies actually DO have an expiration date.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Too many issues!
The Film: Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs
The Contributors: Jon Heder, Anna Faris, James Caan...'and a whole bunch of other people'.
The Dealio: Have to warn you: this was one of the premier book over at the HQ of the Corp P+10, lo, these many years ago. At the time, the story seemed pretty straightforward, pretty simple. Now...the film. Wow. What can I say? This film has more issues than Newsweek magazine! As I seem to recall, the story dealt with a kid with great smarts who invented a machine to produce food from the weather. Simple. Uncomplicated. Dare I say it? Fun! Now, the movie. The first 30-40 minutes streak by in a glory of 2 D splendor (yeah, yeah, yeah. I saw it in 2D. Listen, after all this summer has offered, I was 3D'd out! Soooooo-reeeeeee.). Then, all of a sudden, I became aware that something I did NOT recall from the book was creeping in. At first, I was not sure what was happening. Then, all of a sudden, I had it: there were issues: issues about greed, issues about not addressing-or even considering- global warming and the dangers of rampant messin' about with science. Obesity pandemic issues. Issues related on the inability of fathers and sons to communicate. Issues both political and non. Hey! Wait just a filigreed moment, y'all. Who-or what- just hijacked this book? Not good. Even in the theater crowd I was part of (which), I could sense an uneasiness. A desire to escape. Then I had it: the direction of the original story had been supplanted. Now, instead of a story -plain and simple- about someone discovering the really important things that make life worth living, we are delving, face-forward- into a total issue blood bath. Now we need to worry about giant, roasted chickens attacking. Now we have to rely on science to lend a helping hand- where, moments before, it was the same science, in the hands of the greedy, which started the mess in the first place. But, let's not forget, there are other issues here: nerd power, beauty discrimination, age-ism, the destructive power of absolute authority, communication breakdown and bullyism. What began life as a pretty entertaining book with lots of sweetness and fun has transformed (apologies for using that word, TJ!) go into a gigantic preach-a-thon. What's next? Mitchell is Moving as a diatribe against global warming? Pul-eez! Folks, grab the reins! Do it now.
The Grading Session: 3.82 out of 5 stars. Serious point loss for the dilution of the sense of joy and accomplishment in the original. But, suh-WEET use of voice-casting (I'm talkin' about you, Jimmy Caan, getting your bad, ol' Tony Soprano on).
Lessons Learned: It is bad to eat too much. It is bad to pigeonhole someone for the way they look. It is hard for fathers to speak to sons (well....OK, personal evidence makes me a tad unsure about this one). It is not only not true, it is absolutely evil to think that if a little is good, a lot is way better. ' Really. Who knew? Oh. Right. Pretty much everyone. Lastly: even if we don't 'get' what our kids are trying to do, if it gives them joy and doesn't result in the SWAT team permanently camped outside our house...it's all good. This is not a bad film. Only a self-aware, co-opted one.
The Contributors: Jon Heder, Anna Faris, James Caan...'and a whole bunch of other people'.
The Dealio: Have to warn you: this was one of the premier book over at the HQ of the Corp P+10, lo, these many years ago. At the time, the story seemed pretty straightforward, pretty simple. Now...the film. Wow. What can I say? This film has more issues than Newsweek magazine! As I seem to recall, the story dealt with a kid with great smarts who invented a machine to produce food from the weather. Simple. Uncomplicated. Dare I say it? Fun! Now, the movie. The first 30-40 minutes streak by in a glory of 2 D splendor (yeah, yeah, yeah. I saw it in 2D. Listen, after all this summer has offered, I was 3D'd out! Soooooo-reeeeeee.). Then, all of a sudden, I became aware that something I did NOT recall from the book was creeping in. At first, I was not sure what was happening. Then, all of a sudden, I had it: there were issues: issues about greed, issues about not addressing-or even considering- global warming and the dangers of rampant messin' about with science. Obesity pandemic issues. Issues related on the inability of fathers and sons to communicate. Issues both political and non. Hey! Wait just a filigreed moment, y'all. Who-or what- just hijacked this book? Not good. Even in the theater crowd I was part of (which), I could sense an uneasiness. A desire to escape. Then I had it: the direction of the original story had been supplanted. Now, instead of a story -plain and simple- about someone discovering the really important things that make life worth living, we are delving, face-forward- into a total issue blood bath. Now we need to worry about giant, roasted chickens attacking. Now we have to rely on science to lend a helping hand- where, moments before, it was the same science, in the hands of the greedy, which started the mess in the first place. But, let's not forget, there are other issues here: nerd power, beauty discrimination, age-ism, the destructive power of absolute authority, communication breakdown and bullyism. What began life as a pretty entertaining book with lots of sweetness and fun has transformed (apologies for using that word, TJ!) go into a gigantic preach-a-thon. What's next? Mitchell is Moving as a diatribe against global warming? Pul-eez! Folks, grab the reins! Do it now.
The Grading Session: 3.82 out of 5 stars. Serious point loss for the dilution of the sense of joy and accomplishment in the original. But, suh-WEET use of voice-casting (I'm talkin' about you, Jimmy Caan, getting your bad, ol' Tony Soprano on).
Lessons Learned: It is bad to eat too much. It is bad to pigeonhole someone for the way they look. It is hard for fathers to speak to sons (well....OK, personal evidence makes me a tad unsure about this one). It is not only not true, it is absolutely evil to think that if a little is good, a lot is way better. ' Really. Who knew? Oh. Right. Pretty much everyone. Lastly: even if we don't 'get' what our kids are trying to do, if it gives them joy and doesn't result in the SWAT team permanently camped outside our house...it's all good. This is not a bad film. Only a self-aware, co-opted one.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The Weirdness!
The Film: The Informant!
The Participants: Matt Damon and a whole lot of 'B list' actors-including the Smothers Brothers! -who act their butts off, often unrecognisably, but always to excellent effect.
The Dealio: OK, spots fans, (puttin' on my Bahstin accent, however awkwardly), think we all suspected Matt Damon ('Matt Daymin! Matt Daymin!') had a pretty good sense of humor about himself and his career. Fer sher, we knew that he was capable of chameleon-like submersion into his roles...to a point of near seamless personality assumption.
Now, here comes yet another opportunity for Damon to show his ability to change it up. In The Informant!, he effortlessly assumed a role ('based on a true story') that is a near sibling of Stephen in Shattered Glass. An idiot savant who takes on much more than he bargained for, in an effort to cover his own gadumphka, but without accepting any possibility that he might, just possibly, be... what's the phrase I am looking for? Oh, right: guilty as hell.
In nearly 30 lbs of extra avoirdupois and a ridiculous toup, Damon swaggers, self-talks and schmoozes his way through meetings with the Eff-Bee-freakin'-Eye, his superiors (in every way) at ADM, his wife and assorted overseas dignitaries. What? You have a problem with that? OK, how about, instead of coming clean... another of his implausible tales? On and on it goes, and with every game of mental chicken, our 'hero' flies just a taddy bit closer to the sun. Yet no one ever calls him on his line of bull-pucky. And, here we, the audience, sit, absorbing every fabrication, and, somehow, still believing in the man, hoping something, somehow, will break free and allow him to triumph in the end.
The Grading Session: Gotta be 3.98 stars out of 5. Sorry Steven Soderberg, but you needed a better editor. I know you've heard me say this before, but an ace editor can literally transform an OK flick into an Academy Award nom. This film, while engratiating, just outstayed it's welcome by about 15 minutes. I'm just sayin'.
Lessons Learned: Only the strong- and the really sneaky, unencumbered by any sense of honesty or basic social value- can survive a Federal probe. Also- Damon can successfully pull off pretty much any role, from that of a penner of fairy tales, to a drug-addicted soldier to a math wiz to a master thief. Also: who, exactly, says crime doesn't pay...at least for the un-faint-hearted?
The Participants: Matt Damon and a whole lot of 'B list' actors-including the Smothers Brothers! -who act their butts off, often unrecognisably, but always to excellent effect.
The Dealio: OK, spots fans, (puttin' on my Bahstin accent, however awkwardly), think we all suspected Matt Damon ('Matt Daymin! Matt Daymin!') had a pretty good sense of humor about himself and his career. Fer sher, we knew that he was capable of chameleon-like submersion into his roles...to a point of near seamless personality assumption.
Now, here comes yet another opportunity for Damon to show his ability to change it up. In The Informant!, he effortlessly assumed a role ('based on a true story') that is a near sibling of Stephen in Shattered Glass. An idiot savant who takes on much more than he bargained for, in an effort to cover his own gadumphka, but without accepting any possibility that he might, just possibly, be... what's the phrase I am looking for? Oh, right: guilty as hell.
In nearly 30 lbs of extra avoirdupois and a ridiculous toup, Damon swaggers, self-talks and schmoozes his way through meetings with the Eff-Bee-freakin'-Eye, his superiors (in every way) at ADM, his wife and assorted overseas dignitaries. What? You have a problem with that? OK, how about, instead of coming clean... another of his implausible tales? On and on it goes, and with every game of mental chicken, our 'hero' flies just a taddy bit closer to the sun. Yet no one ever calls him on his line of bull-pucky. And, here we, the audience, sit, absorbing every fabrication, and, somehow, still believing in the man, hoping something, somehow, will break free and allow him to triumph in the end.
The Grading Session: Gotta be 3.98 stars out of 5. Sorry Steven Soderberg, but you needed a better editor. I know you've heard me say this before, but an ace editor can literally transform an OK flick into an Academy Award nom. This film, while engratiating, just outstayed it's welcome by about 15 minutes. I'm just sayin'.
Lessons Learned: Only the strong- and the really sneaky, unencumbered by any sense of honesty or basic social value- can survive a Federal probe. Also- Damon can successfully pull off pretty much any role, from that of a penner of fairy tales, to a drug-addicted soldier to a math wiz to a master thief. Also: who, exactly, says crime doesn't pay...at least for the un-faint-hearted?
Sunday, August 23, 2009
But, what does it mean? Really?
The Film: District 9
The players: Sharlto Copley, and many others about whom you know nothing, or next to...
The Deal: Working largely undercover for many months, in South Africa, Peter Jackson et al, developed and filmed a hybrid: part metaphor, part sci-fi. A Statement, with a capital 'S' on both fronts.
See, many years ago, the Sig O (that would be you, Prendie) and I watched and adored a fantastic film which flew so successfully under the radar that pretty much no one ever saw it, despite a borderline A-list cast: Enemy Mine. I want to put it out there that D9 has at least a flavor of this film at its core.
But, oh! what a departure. This movie begins with a dramatic set- up: 20 years ago, an alien craft hoves into view above J'berg, South Africa. Showing incredible forbearance, the earthlings do nothing for 90 days. Then, sending multiple 'rescue teams' aboard the craft, ferry over 1 mill of the malnourished, close-to-dying aliens down to a restricted-and restrictive- zone known only as 'District 9'. It is directly beneath the shadow of the original craft, so, it is not much of a journey. And yet.
I know, I know, this is meant to symbolise many important and meaningful things. People tell me-with heartfelt conviction- that the thinly veiled reference is to everything from Abu Graib to Apartheid. I say: OK. Whatever works for you. I had thoughts of things like the concentration camps (probably d/t having seen Inglourious Basterds yesterday). But, my thought, my major thought, is this: it really doesn't matter. What matters is picking something that has meaning and relevance to YOU. That is pretty key to having this movie strike any deeper core in you. If what you see is simply 'a really bee-chong sci-fi actioner', then have at it. Aces.
Here's what I saw (please, feel free to pelt me with rocks and garbage): I felt that this was the story of a man, (our main dude, Sharlto Copley), who prides himself on being an open-minded, civilised human, who just got handed the promotion of his dreams. And, yet. I couldn't help but notice that he still calls his closest cohort- a man who stands up for him so vehemently that he winds up in trouble with his employers and the law- 'boy'. Who insists that he take the only bullet-proof vest available, while his 'buddy' will be okay without.
Throughout the length of this film, we get to see dramatic- and a bit scary- transformations. As with Enemy Mine. I am not talking merely about the changes, the very real, and frightening, changes that occur within 15 minutes of the beginning of the film. I refer you to the changes that occur when, mentally, when psychologically, our hero finds that, although he is fighting for his survival, basically everyone else is engaged in a similar battle, and their battles pale into insignificance next to his. Ones that mean more than this or that side winning, but whether society can go on without major changes taking place...and taking hold.
OK, ok, I know what you are thinking: did she like this film or not? Here's the answer: 1) 'Like' is inappropriate to this situation. Let me stew on this a bit, and I will get back to you. 2) I learned something from this film. I learned that we all face really tough decisions everyday. We just don't think they are very important until something comes along to knock us out of our rut. 3) Hey, not to be tedious, but you really need to see Enemy Mine. And, if, by the last 10 minutes, you are not weeping like a baby watching Old Yeller bite it......well, I guess you and I have a problem. The Grading Session: 4.5 stars out of 5. After extracting the meaning from this piece, it is important to recall all the celluloid spatter and gee-gaws that could have been pruned from the film without a half-penny sacrifice to the intent of the whole.
Lessons Learned: When all is said and done, we are all saps for innocent child-geniuses, no matter their species. As long as they don't actually kill us. Or wipe out the universe. Also, it is far too tempting, and self-congratulating to see ourselves as fully evolved, prejudice-free spirits...even when our daily lives do not bear this out.
The players: Sharlto Copley, and many others about whom you know nothing, or next to...
The Deal: Working largely undercover for many months, in South Africa, Peter Jackson et al, developed and filmed a hybrid: part metaphor, part sci-fi. A Statement, with a capital 'S' on both fronts.
See, many years ago, the Sig O (that would be you, Prendie) and I watched and adored a fantastic film which flew so successfully under the radar that pretty much no one ever saw it, despite a borderline A-list cast: Enemy Mine. I want to put it out there that D9 has at least a flavor of this film at its core.
But, oh! what a departure. This movie begins with a dramatic set- up: 20 years ago, an alien craft hoves into view above J'berg, South Africa. Showing incredible forbearance, the earthlings do nothing for 90 days. Then, sending multiple 'rescue teams' aboard the craft, ferry over 1 mill of the malnourished, close-to-dying aliens down to a restricted-and restrictive- zone known only as 'District 9'. It is directly beneath the shadow of the original craft, so, it is not much of a journey. And yet.
I know, I know, this is meant to symbolise many important and meaningful things. People tell me-with heartfelt conviction- that the thinly veiled reference is to everything from Abu Graib to Apartheid. I say: OK. Whatever works for you. I had thoughts of things like the concentration camps (probably d/t having seen Inglourious Basterds yesterday). But, my thought, my major thought, is this: it really doesn't matter. What matters is picking something that has meaning and relevance to YOU. That is pretty key to having this movie strike any deeper core in you. If what you see is simply 'a really bee-chong sci-fi actioner', then have at it. Aces.
Here's what I saw (please, feel free to pelt me with rocks and garbage): I felt that this was the story of a man, (our main dude, Sharlto Copley), who prides himself on being an open-minded, civilised human, who just got handed the promotion of his dreams. And, yet. I couldn't help but notice that he still calls his closest cohort- a man who stands up for him so vehemently that he winds up in trouble with his employers and the law- 'boy'. Who insists that he take the only bullet-proof vest available, while his 'buddy' will be okay without.
Throughout the length of this film, we get to see dramatic- and a bit scary- transformations. As with Enemy Mine. I am not talking merely about the changes, the very real, and frightening, changes that occur within 15 minutes of the beginning of the film. I refer you to the changes that occur when, mentally, when psychologically, our hero finds that, although he is fighting for his survival, basically everyone else is engaged in a similar battle, and their battles pale into insignificance next to his. Ones that mean more than this or that side winning, but whether society can go on without major changes taking place...and taking hold.
OK, ok, I know what you are thinking: did she like this film or not? Here's the answer: 1) 'Like' is inappropriate to this situation. Let me stew on this a bit, and I will get back to you. 2) I learned something from this film. I learned that we all face really tough decisions everyday. We just don't think they are very important until something comes along to knock us out of our rut. 3) Hey, not to be tedious, but you really need to see Enemy Mine. And, if, by the last 10 minutes, you are not weeping like a baby watching Old Yeller bite it......well, I guess you and I have a problem. The Grading Session: 4.5 stars out of 5. After extracting the meaning from this piece, it is important to recall all the celluloid spatter and gee-gaws that could have been pruned from the film without a half-penny sacrifice to the intent of the whole.
Lessons Learned: When all is said and done, we are all saps for innocent child-geniuses, no matter their species. As long as they don't actually kill us. Or wipe out the universe. Also, it is far too tempting, and self-congratulating to see ourselves as fully evolved, prejudice-free spirits...even when our daily lives do not bear this out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)