The IT Crowd - Season 1 (2006)
The IT Crowd ('it', not I.T.) is a half hour sitcom that was shown on Channel 4 in the UK last year. The unique aspect of this show, as the title suggests, is that it focuses on the type of people that rarely get much accurate exposure in the media - geeks.
Set in a fictitious company, the show revolves around the IT Team that is relegated to the building's dingy basement while everyone else 'works' from their luxurious offices. In the first episode, Jen (Katherine Parkinson) is assigned to lead the IT Team by the company Director Mr. Reynholm (Chris Morris) because she stated on her CV that she was good with computers. In actual fact Jen knows next to nothing about computers. In the basement she meets Roy (Chris O'Dowd) and Moss (Richard Ayoade), the under-appreciated geeky techies, who immediately realize she's not suitable for IT. Despite an abrasive start, the three eventually get along and suffer the pitfalls associated with being the least liked and respected team in the building.
The six episodes of the first (and currently, only) series are actually quite varied in terms of storylines. The thing that stays the same is, of course, the characters - that's always a formula for good storytelling. The geeky personalities of Roy and Moss and their social ineptitude naturally lend themselves to good situational comedy, with Jen getting haplessly drawn in or getting into troubles of her own. Most of the humour is straightforward sitcom style with absurd situations, but sometimes bizarre imagery is used (in much the same way that Scrubs uses bizarre imagery, only much less frequently). The performances are quite good from all four of the stars, although they lean heavily towards caricature (not necessarily the actors' faults). It's easy to empathize with them despite their quirks (although being a geek myself, maybe I'm not the best judge), which just goes to show that GEEKS ARE PEOPLE TOO! REALLY!
The show's really funny with some incredibly hilarious moments, although there are a few misses littered around as well. I think the show is accurate in its depiction of geeky traits and corporate attitudes towards techies. My only complaint is that in order to make these guys relatable to the average Joe, they are somewhat watered down. They're not hardcore geeks. Which is fair enough, because watching people trade movie quote quips or make references to Linux and Microsoft and open source software is not particularly entertaining to those who aren't in on it. Nonetheless, there's much on offer for geeks to appreciate - from the opening credit sequence to Roy's t-shirts to the posters in the basement, the show is littered with geek references.
The IT Crowd's first season is short but entertaining, and while not stylistically much different from a lot of modern comedies it has a lot of trappings that make it a unique experience that no geek should miss. It's funny enough that even regular boring people (I kid, I kid) ought to enjoy it.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Inside Man (2006)
Inside Man (2006)
The trailer for Inside Man intrigued me - it had the look of a slick and stylish heist thriller with substance, it had a very impressive cast, and in Spike Lee it had a director of some renown making an unconventionally mainstream looking film. Now that I've finally watched it, I'm happy to say my initial impression was correct. The only thing I got wrong was that I underestimated how good it would be.
Inside Man begins with a man named Dalton Russell (Clive Owen) telling us about an ingenious bank heist that he carried out. We are then shown the bank heist being pulled off by masked individuals in a New York City bank, with Dalton being the ringleader. The robbers are calm and controlled, and have a very clear plan in mind. They take hostages and hole up in the bank, and they waste no time in getting rid of the hostages' cellphones and subduing them. Meanwhile on the outside, Detective Keith Frazier (Denzel Washington) is being investigated for some money that's gone missing; he's given a break when he and his partner Bill Mitchell (Chiwetel Ejiofor) are assigned to the bank robbery. The owner of the bank being robbed, Arthur Case (Christopher Plummer), becomes agitated when he hears about the situation and enlists the services of Madeline White (Jodie Foster), a 'problem solver' with connections, to ensure that an item of his stored in the bank vault remains safe.
What ensues is the proverbial game of cat and mouse. Dalton makes demands in creative ways and confuses the cops, while occasionally releasing a hostage. Frazier tries to get a grip on the situation and out-think Russell while also contending with the abrasive police officer in charge (Willem Dafoe) who has it in for him. Madeline White's arrival on the scene adds some drama when she tries to take control of the situation and barter with Dalton. All the while there's a sense of mystery surrounding Arthur Case's secret item in the bank and the final outcome of Dalton's plan. Adding to the mystery is the fact that the film occasionally jumps forward in time to interviews between the two detectives and the hostages, where it is clear that the detectives are unsure whether the hostages were involved with the heist in some way.
Inside Man adheres to the conventions of its genre in most ways. It has an improbable but well thought out plot - in this case, one that holds together fairly well. It has standoffs between its protagonists, and battles of wits. It has twists and turns and puzzles that are not realistic but make the film that much more entertaining. But what Inside Man also has is a great script with lots of humour. It's slick and stylishly shot and has some tense and thrilling moments. It's also unique in that it captures the texture and character of a cosmopolitan city with the idiosyncrasies of different peoples and the tensions that exist between them. There are a lot of digressions that have little to do with the plot but are simply amusing and insightful exchanges between people. On the downside, one could argue that the main characters don't have much depth - they're characterized in broad strokes - but there's enough to go on, and the performances are good enough to make them seem believable.
Speaking of performances, the marquee names earn their paychecks in this one. The always good Jodie Foster in a relatively minor role as the somewhat mysterious Madeline White is icy and manipulative and exudes authority. Denzel Washington plays Detective Frazier as a smart tough cop struggling to juggle various different interests while ensuring that nobody gets hurt. The most memorable performance is Clive Owen's - despite being hidden behind a mask for most of the film, he conveys a lot of character through just his voice and body language. Dalton is smart, assured, unflinching and occasionally very funny - he's one of those cool 'villains' that you end up rooting for. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Willem Dafoe are also memorable in their respective supporting roles. Only Christopher Plummer is left with little to do in a minor role.
Inside Man is a slightly unconventional conventional thriller that's a lot of fun without being dumb. It's improbable and cool like it's genre brethren, but it also has some thematic elements related to violence and culture clashes that leave some food for thought. It's well worth watching.
The trailer for Inside Man intrigued me - it had the look of a slick and stylish heist thriller with substance, it had a very impressive cast, and in Spike Lee it had a director of some renown making an unconventionally mainstream looking film. Now that I've finally watched it, I'm happy to say my initial impression was correct. The only thing I got wrong was that I underestimated how good it would be.
Inside Man begins with a man named Dalton Russell (Clive Owen) telling us about an ingenious bank heist that he carried out. We are then shown the bank heist being pulled off by masked individuals in a New York City bank, with Dalton being the ringleader. The robbers are calm and controlled, and have a very clear plan in mind. They take hostages and hole up in the bank, and they waste no time in getting rid of the hostages' cellphones and subduing them. Meanwhile on the outside, Detective Keith Frazier (Denzel Washington) is being investigated for some money that's gone missing; he's given a break when he and his partner Bill Mitchell (Chiwetel Ejiofor) are assigned to the bank robbery. The owner of the bank being robbed, Arthur Case (Christopher Plummer), becomes agitated when he hears about the situation and enlists the services of Madeline White (Jodie Foster), a 'problem solver' with connections, to ensure that an item of his stored in the bank vault remains safe.
What ensues is the proverbial game of cat and mouse. Dalton makes demands in creative ways and confuses the cops, while occasionally releasing a hostage. Frazier tries to get a grip on the situation and out-think Russell while also contending with the abrasive police officer in charge (Willem Dafoe) who has it in for him. Madeline White's arrival on the scene adds some drama when she tries to take control of the situation and barter with Dalton. All the while there's a sense of mystery surrounding Arthur Case's secret item in the bank and the final outcome of Dalton's plan. Adding to the mystery is the fact that the film occasionally jumps forward in time to interviews between the two detectives and the hostages, where it is clear that the detectives are unsure whether the hostages were involved with the heist in some way.
Inside Man adheres to the conventions of its genre in most ways. It has an improbable but well thought out plot - in this case, one that holds together fairly well. It has standoffs between its protagonists, and battles of wits. It has twists and turns and puzzles that are not realistic but make the film that much more entertaining. But what Inside Man also has is a great script with lots of humour. It's slick and stylishly shot and has some tense and thrilling moments. It's also unique in that it captures the texture and character of a cosmopolitan city with the idiosyncrasies of different peoples and the tensions that exist between them. There are a lot of digressions that have little to do with the plot but are simply amusing and insightful exchanges between people. On the downside, one could argue that the main characters don't have much depth - they're characterized in broad strokes - but there's enough to go on, and the performances are good enough to make them seem believable.
Speaking of performances, the marquee names earn their paychecks in this one. The always good Jodie Foster in a relatively minor role as the somewhat mysterious Madeline White is icy and manipulative and exudes authority. Denzel Washington plays Detective Frazier as a smart tough cop struggling to juggle various different interests while ensuring that nobody gets hurt. The most memorable performance is Clive Owen's - despite being hidden behind a mask for most of the film, he conveys a lot of character through just his voice and body language. Dalton is smart, assured, unflinching and occasionally very funny - he's one of those cool 'villains' that you end up rooting for. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Willem Dafoe are also memorable in their respective supporting roles. Only Christopher Plummer is left with little to do in a minor role.
Inside Man is a slightly unconventional conventional thriller that's a lot of fun without being dumb. It's improbable and cool like it's genre brethren, but it also has some thematic elements related to violence and culture clashes that leave some food for thought. It's well worth watching.
Tru Calling - Seasons 1 & 2 (2003-2005)
Tru Calling - Seasons 1 & 2 (2003-2005)
Tru Calling is one of those teen / early twenties oriented supernatural dramas. Like a lot of shows I've mentioned on this blog, it was unceremoniously cancelled. Unfortunately, unlike many of those shows, this never manages to elevate itself beyond the status of 'OK'.
Tru Calling is about a young woman, Tru Davies (Eliza Dushku), who takes up a medical internship at a morgue. On her first day, she discovers that dead people can 'ask' for her help, at which point her day rewinds to the moment she last woke up, only with all her memories of that day intact (ala Groundhog Day). She then attempts to use whatever information she has about the soon to be deceased to try and prevent them from dying. This usually involves her lying her way to get close to them, finding out things about them, and predicting what's going to cause their deaths. Tru is assisted by her boss, Davis (Zach Galifianakis), and her brother Harrison (Shawn Reaves). She also has a rich lawyer drug addict older sister, Meredith, and a devoted best friend , Lindsay. Later on in the show, the cast is joined by the enigmatic Jack Harper (Jason Priestly) who apparently has some dark secrets.
It should be readily apparent that the premise lends itself to formulaic episodes, and the writers unfortunately succumb to temptation. During the day, certain tangential events happen that you just know Tru will fix while also trying to prevent the death - these are usually related to friends and family. There's usually a red herring and Tru initially gets it wrong before she has an epiphany and rushes to save the day. The biggest complaint I have is how patently absurd some of the plots are, with ridiculous murder schemes and poorly sketched characters who have unbelievable motivations. There are always little gags as well - like Tru stopping someone from eating a bad sandwich, or catching some item that fell during the first day - but these are telegraphed well in advance and are only mildly amusing. There are ongoing story arcs, and these are the most interesting elements - the mystery surrounding Tru's mother who was murdered when Tru was a child, her father's shady dealings, her figuring out the rules behind what she can do. Tru also has the obligatory superhero problem of not being able to tell her secret to those close to her, including a frustrated boyfriend.
The Wikipedia entry for the show implies that there was more to the 'mythology' they were creating that they never got to explore because of its premature demise. Admittedly, it does improve during the second season by making things a bit less rote, but they could have tried breaking the formula a little earlier. You'd think that with such an amazing power there'd be at least a little introspection and musing on the meaning of it all, a little experimentation to see what can be done. But no, the plot of the day is always the focus, and Tru's too much of a goody goody to muck around, being incredibly earnest and righteous. The most entertaining characters are Tru's geeky boss Davis and her undisciplined brother Harrison; the show is always better when they're around. The self assured and mysterious Jack Harper character is the real scene stealer towards the end of the show, and truth be told I'd much rather have watched a show about him - at least he has some edginess and depth to him.
Production wise, Tru Calling is fairly generic. There's nothing about the direction or photography or design that sets it apart from its ilk. The cast are solid. Dushku is easy to get behind initially but isn't all that compelling in the long run - she's always either running around looking worried or is depressed about how her life is being mucked up. Her boyfriend, best friend, and older sister are also solid but unremarkable. This may partly be because of the writing though, because the more interestingly written characters are tied to the best performances - Zach Galifianakis, Shawn Reaves, and Jason Priestly as Davis, Harrison, and Jack respectively. The guest stars are usually forgettable, although Alec Newman (Muad'dib from the Dune mini!) makes a memorable appearance during one of the show's best and most interesting episodes.
All in all, a decent if predictable series that may have become better over time, but not by much. The formulaic nature doesn't lend itself to DVD, where watching many episodes at a stretch makes the formula stand out that much more. It's fairly entertaining but is probably not worth watching unless one is a fan of the genre.
Tru Calling is one of those teen / early twenties oriented supernatural dramas. Like a lot of shows I've mentioned on this blog, it was unceremoniously cancelled. Unfortunately, unlike many of those shows, this never manages to elevate itself beyond the status of 'OK'.
Tru Calling is about a young woman, Tru Davies (Eliza Dushku), who takes up a medical internship at a morgue. On her first day, she discovers that dead people can 'ask' for her help, at which point her day rewinds to the moment she last woke up, only with all her memories of that day intact (ala Groundhog Day). She then attempts to use whatever information she has about the soon to be deceased to try and prevent them from dying. This usually involves her lying her way to get close to them, finding out things about them, and predicting what's going to cause their deaths. Tru is assisted by her boss, Davis (Zach Galifianakis), and her brother Harrison (Shawn Reaves). She also has a rich lawyer drug addict older sister, Meredith, and a devoted best friend , Lindsay. Later on in the show, the cast is joined by the enigmatic Jack Harper (Jason Priestly) who apparently has some dark secrets.
It should be readily apparent that the premise lends itself to formulaic episodes, and the writers unfortunately succumb to temptation. During the day, certain tangential events happen that you just know Tru will fix while also trying to prevent the death - these are usually related to friends and family. There's usually a red herring and Tru initially gets it wrong before she has an epiphany and rushes to save the day. The biggest complaint I have is how patently absurd some of the plots are, with ridiculous murder schemes and poorly sketched characters who have unbelievable motivations. There are always little gags as well - like Tru stopping someone from eating a bad sandwich, or catching some item that fell during the first day - but these are telegraphed well in advance and are only mildly amusing. There are ongoing story arcs, and these are the most interesting elements - the mystery surrounding Tru's mother who was murdered when Tru was a child, her father's shady dealings, her figuring out the rules behind what she can do. Tru also has the obligatory superhero problem of not being able to tell her secret to those close to her, including a frustrated boyfriend.
The Wikipedia entry for the show implies that there was more to the 'mythology' they were creating that they never got to explore because of its premature demise. Admittedly, it does improve during the second season by making things a bit less rote, but they could have tried breaking the formula a little earlier. You'd think that with such an amazing power there'd be at least a little introspection and musing on the meaning of it all, a little experimentation to see what can be done. But no, the plot of the day is always the focus, and Tru's too much of a goody goody to muck around, being incredibly earnest and righteous. The most entertaining characters are Tru's geeky boss Davis and her undisciplined brother Harrison; the show is always better when they're around. The self assured and mysterious Jack Harper character is the real scene stealer towards the end of the show, and truth be told I'd much rather have watched a show about him - at least he has some edginess and depth to him.
Production wise, Tru Calling is fairly generic. There's nothing about the direction or photography or design that sets it apart from its ilk. The cast are solid. Dushku is easy to get behind initially but isn't all that compelling in the long run - she's always either running around looking worried or is depressed about how her life is being mucked up. Her boyfriend, best friend, and older sister are also solid but unremarkable. This may partly be because of the writing though, because the more interestingly written characters are tied to the best performances - Zach Galifianakis, Shawn Reaves, and Jason Priestly as Davis, Harrison, and Jack respectively. The guest stars are usually forgettable, although Alec Newman (Muad'dib from the Dune mini!) makes a memorable appearance during one of the show's best and most interesting episodes.
All in all, a decent if predictable series that may have become better over time, but not by much. The formulaic nature doesn't lend itself to DVD, where watching many episodes at a stretch makes the formula stand out that much more. It's fairly entertaining but is probably not worth watching unless one is a fan of the genre.
Monday, January 29, 2007
The Producers (2005)
The Producers (2005)
The IMDB trivia page informs me that this version of The Producers is "...a movie about a play based on a play about a play based on a movie about a play." Which is interesting. The original 1968 film, written and directed by Mel Brooks, was made into a Broadway musical in 2001, and this film is an adaptation of the musical that features most of the cast from the Broadway show, with the only major newcomers being Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman.
The film starts with the latest musical by producer Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane) flopping spectacularly. When a neurotic and timid accountant named Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick) arrives to work on the books for the failed musical, he makes an offhand observation that if they were to oversell a failure to investors, they could make a lot of money. This inspires the driven but down on his luck Bialystock, who asks Bloom to help him with a scheme to make the worst musical ever, with the intention of walking away with the investors' money once it fails. After some coaxing, Bloom, who harbours a dream to become a Broadway producer, quits his boring accounting job and agrees to join Bialystock. They get the rights to the worst play they've ever seen, 'Springtime for Hitler', from a crazy Neo Nazi named Franz Liebkind (Will Ferrell). They convince the worst director available, Roger DeBris (Gary Beach), to helm the production. Bialystock and Bloom both fall for a beautiful Swedish actress, Ula (Uma Thurman), during an impromptu audition and hire her as a secretary and actress. With all the players in place, the two producers put their plan in motion. Naturally, things don't quite go to plan.
I don't know anything about the Broadway musical, and haven't seen the original film. I believe the plot is pretty much the same in all of them. This seems to me to be a recreation of the musical as a film, and not really an adaptation. It's much like watching a stage play on screen. As such, I don't know how it holds up to the stage version. All I can say is, as someone who's not usually a fan of musicals (the only one I care for is Moulin Rouge, which is actually one of my favourite films), I had a great time watching this. It's manic and fun, with catchy songs and lively routines. It's got wacky characters and the story is consistently amusing. The performances are great across the board - I'm not normally a Mathew Broderick fan, but he's really good in this. Nathan Lane is hilarious, as is Will Farrell. My favourite performance though was Uma Thurman's - she's gone from playing a sword wielding warrior in the Kill Bill films to a ditzy temptress, and somehow it works perfectly.
My only real complaint with this film is the overuse of gay gags, which get repetitive after a while. Other than that, it's a fun film that only the staunchest of musical haters will fail to enjoy. Although, looking at the IMDB rating for it, I could be wrong.
The IMDB trivia page informs me that this version of The Producers is "...a movie about a play based on a play about a play based on a movie about a play." Which is interesting. The original 1968 film, written and directed by Mel Brooks, was made into a Broadway musical in 2001, and this film is an adaptation of the musical that features most of the cast from the Broadway show, with the only major newcomers being Will Ferrell and Uma Thurman.
The film starts with the latest musical by producer Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane) flopping spectacularly. When a neurotic and timid accountant named Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick) arrives to work on the books for the failed musical, he makes an offhand observation that if they were to oversell a failure to investors, they could make a lot of money. This inspires the driven but down on his luck Bialystock, who asks Bloom to help him with a scheme to make the worst musical ever, with the intention of walking away with the investors' money once it fails. After some coaxing, Bloom, who harbours a dream to become a Broadway producer, quits his boring accounting job and agrees to join Bialystock. They get the rights to the worst play they've ever seen, 'Springtime for Hitler', from a crazy Neo Nazi named Franz Liebkind (Will Ferrell). They convince the worst director available, Roger DeBris (Gary Beach), to helm the production. Bialystock and Bloom both fall for a beautiful Swedish actress, Ula (Uma Thurman), during an impromptu audition and hire her as a secretary and actress. With all the players in place, the two producers put their plan in motion. Naturally, things don't quite go to plan.
I don't know anything about the Broadway musical, and haven't seen the original film. I believe the plot is pretty much the same in all of them. This seems to me to be a recreation of the musical as a film, and not really an adaptation. It's much like watching a stage play on screen. As such, I don't know how it holds up to the stage version. All I can say is, as someone who's not usually a fan of musicals (the only one I care for is Moulin Rouge, which is actually one of my favourite films), I had a great time watching this. It's manic and fun, with catchy songs and lively routines. It's got wacky characters and the story is consistently amusing. The performances are great across the board - I'm not normally a Mathew Broderick fan, but he's really good in this. Nathan Lane is hilarious, as is Will Farrell. My favourite performance though was Uma Thurman's - she's gone from playing a sword wielding warrior in the Kill Bill films to a ditzy temptress, and somehow it works perfectly.
My only real complaint with this film is the overuse of gay gags, which get repetitive after a while. Other than that, it's a fun film that only the staunchest of musical haters will fail to enjoy. Although, looking at the IMDB rating for it, I could be wrong.
Friday, January 26, 2007
The Iron Giant (1999)
The Iron Giant (1999)
Wow... I'd forgotten how good this film is, having not seen it in around 5 years. Directed by Brad (The Incredibles) Bird, The Iron Giant is an animated classic (yeah, maybe it's too soon to call it that, sue me) that was largely ignored when it was first released, but has lived on and grown in stature over the years.
Based on a book called The Iron Man, The Iron Giant tells the story of a young boy, Hogarth Hughes, who befriends an amnesiac giant metal robot from space that lands near his town in the 1950s. Hogarth's mother is a single parent who works late, so he has ample opportunity to hang out with his new friend. The Giant is initially a blank slate, and Hogarth teaches him the basics of the world and of language and has a lot of fun doing so. Hogarth hides the metal eating Giant at a scrapyard belonging to a wannabe artist named Dean. Trouble brews, however, when an over-enthusiastic government agent comes to town to investigate reports about a giant monster and makes a connection between the events and Hogarth. Worse still, the Giant's memory begins to return and he realizes that he was constructed to be a weapon.
From the opening moments, you can tell this is something special - it depicts an object (the Giant) heading towards the Earth, and the animation and set up are tunning. You can see a storm taking place down on the planet - these sorts of little details occur throughout and really help separate the film from more generic fare. There's an immediacy to the opening scene that continues throughout, but it never feels rushed. The characters and setting are established economically but not superficially. There's a light hearted feel to events and plenty of humour. Hogarth's interaction and friendship with the Giant is built up with lots of gags but its still affecting. Hogarth's interactions with the annoying and dangerous Agent Mansley also make for some hilarious moments. Despite the generally light tone, the film doesn't shy away from being serious, as when it deals with themes like rabid paranoia and free will. It is quite moving at times as well, especially towards the end, but it never feels manipulative.
The animation is fantastic. There's a retro look to the designs that suit the time in which events take place. There's a lot of character in the animation - the Giant in particular is a fantastically designed and emotive creation. Michael Kamen's score feels appropriate to the era and has some rousing moments. The biggest names in the voice cast are Jennifer Aniston and Vin Diesel (pre-fame) as Hogarth's mom and the Giant respectively. Aniston is good, as is Harry Connick Jr as Dean, but the best of the humans are Christopher McDonald as Agent Mansley and Eli Marienthal as Hogarth. It's hard to say how much of Vin Diesel is in the voice of the Giant; his voice is gravelly, but not THAT gravelly. In any case, the Giant's voice is impressive in that it's mechanical but manages to convey emotion at the same time.
The Iron Giant is a terrific film. I loved Brad Bird's The Incredibles, but I think this is his best work. Every aspect of it is near flawless. It all gels together to become one of the best animated films of recent times, and while it's not as rich and textured as the work of Miyazaki, I still hold it in as high a regard.
Wow... I'd forgotten how good this film is, having not seen it in around 5 years. Directed by Brad (The Incredibles) Bird, The Iron Giant is an animated classic (yeah, maybe it's too soon to call it that, sue me) that was largely ignored when it was first released, but has lived on and grown in stature over the years.
Based on a book called The Iron Man, The Iron Giant tells the story of a young boy, Hogarth Hughes, who befriends an amnesiac giant metal robot from space that lands near his town in the 1950s. Hogarth's mother is a single parent who works late, so he has ample opportunity to hang out with his new friend. The Giant is initially a blank slate, and Hogarth teaches him the basics of the world and of language and has a lot of fun doing so. Hogarth hides the metal eating Giant at a scrapyard belonging to a wannabe artist named Dean. Trouble brews, however, when an over-enthusiastic government agent comes to town to investigate reports about a giant monster and makes a connection between the events and Hogarth. Worse still, the Giant's memory begins to return and he realizes that he was constructed to be a weapon.
From the opening moments, you can tell this is something special - it depicts an object (the Giant) heading towards the Earth, and the animation and set up are tunning. You can see a storm taking place down on the planet - these sorts of little details occur throughout and really help separate the film from more generic fare. There's an immediacy to the opening scene that continues throughout, but it never feels rushed. The characters and setting are established economically but not superficially. There's a light hearted feel to events and plenty of humour. Hogarth's interaction and friendship with the Giant is built up with lots of gags but its still affecting. Hogarth's interactions with the annoying and dangerous Agent Mansley also make for some hilarious moments. Despite the generally light tone, the film doesn't shy away from being serious, as when it deals with themes like rabid paranoia and free will. It is quite moving at times as well, especially towards the end, but it never feels manipulative.
The animation is fantastic. There's a retro look to the designs that suit the time in which events take place. There's a lot of character in the animation - the Giant in particular is a fantastically designed and emotive creation. Michael Kamen's score feels appropriate to the era and has some rousing moments. The biggest names in the voice cast are Jennifer Aniston and Vin Diesel (pre-fame) as Hogarth's mom and the Giant respectively. Aniston is good, as is Harry Connick Jr as Dean, but the best of the humans are Christopher McDonald as Agent Mansley and Eli Marienthal as Hogarth. It's hard to say how much of Vin Diesel is in the voice of the Giant; his voice is gravelly, but not THAT gravelly. In any case, the Giant's voice is impressive in that it's mechanical but manages to convey emotion at the same time.
The Iron Giant is a terrific film. I loved Brad Bird's The Incredibles, but I think this is his best work. Every aspect of it is near flawless. It all gels together to become one of the best animated films of recent times, and while it's not as rich and textured as the work of Miyazaki, I still hold it in as high a regard.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Howl's Moving Castle (2004)
Howl's Moving Castle (2004)
Hayao Miyazaki's latest feature length film, Howl's Moving Castle, is loosely based on a book of the same name by Diana Wynne Jones. Miyazaki is probably the most consistent filmmaker out there - I can't think of a film directed by him that is anything if not good. Howl's is unmistakably a Miyazaki film, and it bears many of the signature elements that feature in most of his work.
Howl's Moving Castle is a fantasy adventure film with a dash of romance set in a fictional pseudo 19th century European Kingdom on the brink of war. The protagonist is Sophie, a shy young woman who works as a hatter and is resigned to remain one her whole life. Until, that is, she meets the famous Howl, a charming if vain young wizard with a reputation for stealing women's hearts. Her encounter with Howl enrages the jealous Witch of the Waste, who casts a spell on Sophie that causes her to turn into an old woman; part of the curse prevents her from telling anyone about it. The aged Sophie leaves her home and goes into the countryside to find Howl, who lives in a giant moving 'castle' that walks on mechanical legs, hoping that he'll be able to lift the curse.
Sophie finds the castle and winds up becoming Howl's cleaning lady (the place was an absolute mess). She makes some strange friends - besides Howl, the castle is occupied by Howl's assistant, a young boy named Markl, and a little fire spirit that 'powers' the house name Calcifer, who has a history with Howl and is bound to him. Oh, and a 'living' scarecrow that hops around on a pole tags along with the castle. Howl, who bears a secret that may eventually destroy him, is in a bit of a fix because he has been summoned to fight in the war (the details of which are sketchy), but he does not wish to on a matter of principal. Sophie and her friends try and help Howl out of his dilemma.
The story is character-centric and follows the personal journeys of Howl and Sophie as well as many of the supporting characters. The characters and the relationships between them evolve as the story progresses (sometimes quite amusingly), and friendships and unlikely alliances form. Despite not having a complex plot, a lot of things actually happen in the film - a trait common to Miyazaki's films. One element of the story that isn't dwelt on much is the war that takes place and infringes upon the lives of the protagonists. I suppose it's a testament to the fact that war is war regardless of the players and their causes, but the resolution provided at the end of the film was a bit too simplistic for my taste.
As one can gather from what I've already described, there are plenty of magical and fantastical elements in the film, like strange flying craft, beastly henchmen, magic portals, and magical transformations. These are all imaginatively realized on screen, especially Howl's castle, which is marvelously detailed and animated. In fact, the overall animation is (as always) stunning, with beautiful images varying from lush landscapes to cluttered houses to cities on fire. The inclusion of small human details (like characters straightening out their clothes for example) lends the film a sense of charm absent in lesser animated films. Frequent Miyazaki collaborator Joe Hisaishi once again provides a wonderful score that perfectly matches the visuals and tone of the film.
Howl's Moving Castle doesn't quite reach the heights of Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke. There's something lacking, possibly the fact that it feels more unfocused and random, and seemingly drifts from one event to the next. The characters' impact on and interaction with the outside world doesn't seem as significant as in those films. It's not a major complaint however - just because it falls short of the brilliance of its predecessors doesn't mean it isn't a great film in its own right.
Hayao Miyazaki's latest feature length film, Howl's Moving Castle, is loosely based on a book of the same name by Diana Wynne Jones. Miyazaki is probably the most consistent filmmaker out there - I can't think of a film directed by him that is anything if not good. Howl's is unmistakably a Miyazaki film, and it bears many of the signature elements that feature in most of his work.
Howl's Moving Castle is a fantasy adventure film with a dash of romance set in a fictional pseudo 19th century European Kingdom on the brink of war. The protagonist is Sophie, a shy young woman who works as a hatter and is resigned to remain one her whole life. Until, that is, she meets the famous Howl, a charming if vain young wizard with a reputation for stealing women's hearts. Her encounter with Howl enrages the jealous Witch of the Waste, who casts a spell on Sophie that causes her to turn into an old woman; part of the curse prevents her from telling anyone about it. The aged Sophie leaves her home and goes into the countryside to find Howl, who lives in a giant moving 'castle' that walks on mechanical legs, hoping that he'll be able to lift the curse.
Sophie finds the castle and winds up becoming Howl's cleaning lady (the place was an absolute mess). She makes some strange friends - besides Howl, the castle is occupied by Howl's assistant, a young boy named Markl, and a little fire spirit that 'powers' the house name Calcifer, who has a history with Howl and is bound to him. Oh, and a 'living' scarecrow that hops around on a pole tags along with the castle. Howl, who bears a secret that may eventually destroy him, is in a bit of a fix because he has been summoned to fight in the war (the details of which are sketchy), but he does not wish to on a matter of principal. Sophie and her friends try and help Howl out of his dilemma.
The story is character-centric and follows the personal journeys of Howl and Sophie as well as many of the supporting characters. The characters and the relationships between them evolve as the story progresses (sometimes quite amusingly), and friendships and unlikely alliances form. Despite not having a complex plot, a lot of things actually happen in the film - a trait common to Miyazaki's films. One element of the story that isn't dwelt on much is the war that takes place and infringes upon the lives of the protagonists. I suppose it's a testament to the fact that war is war regardless of the players and their causes, but the resolution provided at the end of the film was a bit too simplistic for my taste.
As one can gather from what I've already described, there are plenty of magical and fantastical elements in the film, like strange flying craft, beastly henchmen, magic portals, and magical transformations. These are all imaginatively realized on screen, especially Howl's castle, which is marvelously detailed and animated. In fact, the overall animation is (as always) stunning, with beautiful images varying from lush landscapes to cluttered houses to cities on fire. The inclusion of small human details (like characters straightening out their clothes for example) lends the film a sense of charm absent in lesser animated films. Frequent Miyazaki collaborator Joe Hisaishi once again provides a wonderful score that perfectly matches the visuals and tone of the film.
Howl's Moving Castle doesn't quite reach the heights of Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke. There's something lacking, possibly the fact that it feels more unfocused and random, and seemingly drifts from one event to the next. The characters' impact on and interaction with the outside world doesn't seem as significant as in those films. It's not a major complaint however - just because it falls short of the brilliance of its predecessors doesn't mean it isn't a great film in its own right.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
24 Season 1 is sillier than I remember
I've been re-watching the first season of 24, which I first saw years ago. The second time around is not as entertaining, sadly. I will always maintain that 24 is one of the best made shows on TV - it's got great acting, directing, visuals, and production values and is easily the most tense and thrilling show I've seen. It's a shame that the plots are so utterly nonsensical. I loved watching all the seasons thus far on their initial run, but even the first time around it was clear that there were holes that make the big one in the ozone look insignificant.
Watching Season 1 a second time with the foreknowledge of what is to come is a somewhat painful experience, because the contradictions and the lack of what I like to call logic are laid bare. I get the feeling I'll be sticking to brand new 24 from now on, once I finish Season 1 (my thoughts on that at a later date). For now, some of my issues so far (major spoilers ahead):
Watching Season 1 a second time with the foreknowledge of what is to come is a somewhat painful experience, because the contradictions and the lack of what I like to call logic are laid bare. I get the feeling I'll be sticking to brand new 24 from now on, once I finish Season 1 (my thoughts on that at a later date). For now, some of my issues so far (major spoilers ahead):
- Why is the kidnap plan to grab Bauer's wife and daughter so incredibly convoluted? Couldn't they have just busted into the place and chloroformed them? Luring them out of the house with theatrics and then spending hours driving around in circles, and for what? And why did Gaines hire two inept kids to do his dirty work for him, when he seems like such a professional?
- The Alan York character who accompanies Teri Bauer is so obviously not a bad guy until he mysteriously turns into one half way. Seriously, not only is the guy over-earnest to the extreme, he does things no competent bad guy would do. He almost gets arrested after arguing with a cop - he's later depicted as a cool and competent bad guy, so why would he have risked blowing his cover like that? He asks to speak to his 'daughter' on the phone when Kim calls Terri, an unnecessary and risky proposition. He goes to the hospital where his 'daughter' is, with no idea what condition she's in beforehand - if she had been conscious, wouldn't she have pointed out to people that he wasn't her father? And why the hell does he drive around with Terri for so long, couldn't he have just conked her on the head?
- Does stealing a key card from a photographer really warrant paying a shit load of money and blowing up a jet airliner? Seriously? Couldn't they have grabbed him after he landed and taken it? And why on earth was the key card shipped to the guy in Europe, when he could only use it in the US - surely they would be more likely to issue it to him after he arrives, especially since it's so valuable? Is it really that hard to fake one of these? Gaines gets some of his people into the secure complex in any case, like the guy who intervenes when Jack tries to pass off a message to someone, how'd he manage that? How many planes did he blow up to get them access? In season 5, a key card is obtained by mugging someone in a parking lot. In season 1, they do it by BLOWING UP A PLANE! Doing this also attracted the attention of CTU. How come Palmer's assistant didn't realize that the photographer should have been dead? She spoke to him while he was on the plane, and the explosion of the plane was big news, wouldn't she have noticed that the guys flight had been prematurely cancelled?
- Nina Myers is meant to be an insider, yet time and time again we see her doing her absolute best, above and beyond the call of duty, to help Bauer. What kind of mole does that? Hmm, maybe she wasn't a mole till the writers decided to maker her one at the end.
- CTU is a phony organization. I mean, in terms of being a realistic depiction of an organization. Why is it filled with so many moles and petty, small minded people? Doesn't this high security, specialist group screen the people they hire? And how come they always have time for petty bickering and politics in the middle of a crisis? From my personal experience, people in a team tend to pull together in crisis situations, especially if they're familiar with each other as CTU people surely must be. But no, these asshats screw around when lives are at stake.
- Why does Tony Almeida have so much time to NOT WORK? Seriously, in the middle of a crisis he seems to have an inordinate amount of time to spy on Nina while pretending to read something out of a file.
Big Brother is Watching Racist?
There's been a bit of a brouhaha over the goings on in the Celebrity version of the Big Brother TV show over the last week or so. The details are well documented on the Wikipedia page. Basically, Indian actress Shilpa Shetty and some of her British housemates didn't get along very well, resulting in some verbal sparring that led thousands of people to complain to a media watchdog about racism on the show. One contestant in particular, Jade Goody, was singled out as the prime culprit and drew the ire of the media and the viewing public - she was subsequently 'voted off' the show by viewers.
I haven't actually seen the show, but I've read most of the controversial comments that have been made. Do I think they're racist? Yes - they're certainly derogatory comments that allude to the fact that Shetty is Indian. But I still find it to be a bit of a murky issue - did the comments come about purely because of her being an Indian, or was it because there was friction between her and the others that led to them using racial taunts to attack her? I've read accounts where people have accused Shetty of being arrogant and perhaps manipulative. I guess my point is, people will say things that they perceive to be hurtful towards others when they're angry, regardless of whether they actually believe in what they're saying or subscribe to that point of view. That doesn't excuse what was said, but one has to consider the possibility that the comments weren't necessarily motivated by race.
It's strange to look at the scale of the reactions, particularly against Goody who seems to have been singled out despite not being the only culprit. Still, it's hard to work up any sympathy for someone whose livelihood is based on public image and nothing more (seriously, she's a reality TV celebrity!). I think the media has milked this for all its worth and sensationalised it, both in England and in India. And I can't also help but wonder if Channel 4 didn't secretly encourage the furore as well by denying racism on the show - it sure did help their ratings, although it ultimately cost them sponsors and a lot of good will.
After Goody's eviction, media focus seems to have shifted to Channel 4, and on why they didn't stop the show or intervene. I'm not sure why this is, and I don't agree with it. Surely the whole point of the show is to see a bunch of people interacting in an enclosed place (like in The Thing, only without the violence and death), and to observe the friction that results? It's not a scripted show, it's one where people are essentially competing against each other, and as far as I'm aware Channel 4 doesn't have any control over what they do. I would have thought this sought of thing is about the only interesting aspect of Big Brother - heck, I can't think of anything more compelling coming out of the show. Isn't this what the show's supposed to be about? It's probably the best Big Brother has ever been.
The subject that is being addressed now is the wrong one, in my humble opinion. Focusing on the fate of Channel 4 and Big Brother seems pointless. The controversy that erupted was a good thing, and it raised some interesting questions which are being obscured by all the hoopla surrounding how Goody and Channel 4 should atone for their sins. The events that took place ought to have been an opportunity to debate racism - what it is and in what form it exists today, and why is it still here?
Is racism still prevalent in Western society, and what defines it? There seems to be an element of surprise in some quarters, almost as if this sort of thing is unheard of. It seems to me to be the exposure of something that is very real but doesn't often get aired in public broadcasts. Are people truly not aware of it, or is there a racist underbelly that people are just choosing to ignore? I don't know if Goody's words were racially motivated or not, but surely the use of those words in a racist manner didn't come out of thin air - their use as insulting ammunition was probably inculcated into her by society. Such insults may even be common enough to not be considered particularly offensive or truly racist.
Goody's defenders have claimed that it's not a case of racism because Goody is clearly ignorant and unaware of the racial connotations of what she said. Is that really a reasonable excuse? Isn't racism inherently a form of ignorance? I'd like to see people considering why such ignorance persists, why such racist attitudes prevail, and what should be done to address it. The stuff that happened on the show was trivial, there are far worse instances of racism taking place in the world. On the bright side, I don't believe racism to be an endemic problem - the actions of a few ignorant people aren't representative, and the thousands of complaints and the consequences for those involved are an indication of that.
Despite the misguided media focus right now, it appears that the notion of racism still being a relevant issue has entered the public consciousness. That alone may be a good first step in fighting it. Until, of course, the next big hot topic comes along and enraptures everyone, leaving this one as just another hazy memory. And with that, I bring this rambling post to an end.
I haven't actually seen the show, but I've read most of the controversial comments that have been made. Do I think they're racist? Yes - they're certainly derogatory comments that allude to the fact that Shetty is Indian. But I still find it to be a bit of a murky issue - did the comments come about purely because of her being an Indian, or was it because there was friction between her and the others that led to them using racial taunts to attack her? I've read accounts where people have accused Shetty of being arrogant and perhaps manipulative. I guess my point is, people will say things that they perceive to be hurtful towards others when they're angry, regardless of whether they actually believe in what they're saying or subscribe to that point of view. That doesn't excuse what was said, but one has to consider the possibility that the comments weren't necessarily motivated by race.
It's strange to look at the scale of the reactions, particularly against Goody who seems to have been singled out despite not being the only culprit. Still, it's hard to work up any sympathy for someone whose livelihood is based on public image and nothing more (seriously, she's a reality TV celebrity!). I think the media has milked this for all its worth and sensationalised it, both in England and in India. And I can't also help but wonder if Channel 4 didn't secretly encourage the furore as well by denying racism on the show - it sure did help their ratings, although it ultimately cost them sponsors and a lot of good will.
After Goody's eviction, media focus seems to have shifted to Channel 4, and on why they didn't stop the show or intervene. I'm not sure why this is, and I don't agree with it. Surely the whole point of the show is to see a bunch of people interacting in an enclosed place (like in The Thing, only without the violence and death), and to observe the friction that results? It's not a scripted show, it's one where people are essentially competing against each other, and as far as I'm aware Channel 4 doesn't have any control over what they do. I would have thought this sought of thing is about the only interesting aspect of Big Brother - heck, I can't think of anything more compelling coming out of the show. Isn't this what the show's supposed to be about? It's probably the best Big Brother has ever been.
The subject that is being addressed now is the wrong one, in my humble opinion. Focusing on the fate of Channel 4 and Big Brother seems pointless. The controversy that erupted was a good thing, and it raised some interesting questions which are being obscured by all the hoopla surrounding how Goody and Channel 4 should atone for their sins. The events that took place ought to have been an opportunity to debate racism - what it is and in what form it exists today, and why is it still here?
Is racism still prevalent in Western society, and what defines it? There seems to be an element of surprise in some quarters, almost as if this sort of thing is unheard of. It seems to me to be the exposure of something that is very real but doesn't often get aired in public broadcasts. Are people truly not aware of it, or is there a racist underbelly that people are just choosing to ignore? I don't know if Goody's words were racially motivated or not, but surely the use of those words in a racist manner didn't come out of thin air - their use as insulting ammunition was probably inculcated into her by society. Such insults may even be common enough to not be considered particularly offensive or truly racist.
Goody's defenders have claimed that it's not a case of racism because Goody is clearly ignorant and unaware of the racial connotations of what she said. Is that really a reasonable excuse? Isn't racism inherently a form of ignorance? I'd like to see people considering why such ignorance persists, why such racist attitudes prevail, and what should be done to address it. The stuff that happened on the show was trivial, there are far worse instances of racism taking place in the world. On the bright side, I don't believe racism to be an endemic problem - the actions of a few ignorant people aren't representative, and the thousands of complaints and the consequences for those involved are an indication of that.
Despite the misguided media focus right now, it appears that the notion of racism still being a relevant issue has entered the public consciousness. That alone may be a good first step in fighting it. Until, of course, the next big hot topic comes along and enraptures everyone, leaving this one as just another hazy memory. And with that, I bring this rambling post to an end.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
United 93 (2006)
United 93 (2006)
There was a bit of controversy surrounding this film around the time of its release, which is a shame, because it overshadowed the question of whether the film was actually any good. Well, it is. Away from all the hoopla it's clear that United 93 is an excellent and unique work from writer / director Paul Greengrass.
There's not much to tell about the story that people who haven't been hibernating in a cave for the last few years don't already know. It's about the plane that didn't reach its target on September 11. It covers events on the day leading up to the plane's crash in a field in Pennsylvania, cutting back and forth between the passengers, the flight crew, air traffic controllers, the FAA, NORAD, and of course the terrorists. As the days events unfold, we see officials going from amused indifference to disbelief to panic, and we see the conflict on board flight 93 as the terrorists take over and the passengers are forced to deal with the situation.
What makes this film work is, in a word, verisimilitude. Everything that happens is reconstructed as far as possible from the facts that were available, with everything that's made up being done so through extrapolation from those facts. The obviously made up bits, such as conversations between passengers, never ring false. Greengrass made the film in a documentary style, with natural looking visuals and hand-held cameras following people around in real environments. The dialogue is completely realistic and feels unrehearsed - there are no 'big' speeches or quotable lines. The soundtrack is populated with ambient sound effects and the music is understated, used only to enhance mood. There are no 'name' actors - in fact, a few people are actually portrayed by their real life counterparts - and the film is better for it because making everyone on screen nondescript adds to the believability of what is depicted.
The pacing is admittedly a bit off in the mid section of the film - there are too many jumps to air traffic controllers and NORAD personnel, and some of the time their jargon filled dialogue is not entirely clear. That caveat aside, the film is a tense experience that builds up to the key events on the plane, and even though there are no surprises it still manages to be nerve racking. The final third of the film focuses entirely on the events on board the plane, and is the strongest and most harrowing segment.
Ultimately the film manages to be dramatic despite not having dramatic moments - it is unsentimental and nonjudgemental and simply plays out the events as they might have happened. Having read a few reviews of the film after watching it, I've come to agree with Moriarty's take at AICN, in that the film's essentially apolitical* and that differing views can be mapped onto it. Greengrass merely presents the facts in as real a way as possible, and by doing that I believe he also accurately recreates the mood and feelings that would have accompanied those events, which is what elevates United 93 above a run of the mill docudrama.
It's hard to say how will the film hold up. I think it's a fair criticism that it presents minimal context for the days events, but I feel that it presents enough to stand on its own regardless of the viewer's level of knowledge. At the least, it works as a compelling dramatic thriller. More likely it'll stand the test of time as an encapsulation of certain key events from a significant day in history. Either way it'll certainly be looked back on as a fine piece of filmmaking.
* One thing I should point out is the depiction of a German passenger on the plane as being cowardly, as noted here. I confess that I didn't notice that the man counseling negotiation was also the only non-American on board, and also have to admit that it's easy to read something into that.
There was a bit of controversy surrounding this film around the time of its release, which is a shame, because it overshadowed the question of whether the film was actually any good. Well, it is. Away from all the hoopla it's clear that United 93 is an excellent and unique work from writer / director Paul Greengrass.
There's not much to tell about the story that people who haven't been hibernating in a cave for the last few years don't already know. It's about the plane that didn't reach its target on September 11. It covers events on the day leading up to the plane's crash in a field in Pennsylvania, cutting back and forth between the passengers, the flight crew, air traffic controllers, the FAA, NORAD, and of course the terrorists. As the days events unfold, we see officials going from amused indifference to disbelief to panic, and we see the conflict on board flight 93 as the terrorists take over and the passengers are forced to deal with the situation.
What makes this film work is, in a word, verisimilitude. Everything that happens is reconstructed as far as possible from the facts that were available, with everything that's made up being done so through extrapolation from those facts. The obviously made up bits, such as conversations between passengers, never ring false. Greengrass made the film in a documentary style, with natural looking visuals and hand-held cameras following people around in real environments. The dialogue is completely realistic and feels unrehearsed - there are no 'big' speeches or quotable lines. The soundtrack is populated with ambient sound effects and the music is understated, used only to enhance mood. There are no 'name' actors - in fact, a few people are actually portrayed by their real life counterparts - and the film is better for it because making everyone on screen nondescript adds to the believability of what is depicted.
The pacing is admittedly a bit off in the mid section of the film - there are too many jumps to air traffic controllers and NORAD personnel, and some of the time their jargon filled dialogue is not entirely clear. That caveat aside, the film is a tense experience that builds up to the key events on the plane, and even though there are no surprises it still manages to be nerve racking. The final third of the film focuses entirely on the events on board the plane, and is the strongest and most harrowing segment.
Ultimately the film manages to be dramatic despite not having dramatic moments - it is unsentimental and nonjudgemental and simply plays out the events as they might have happened. Having read a few reviews of the film after watching it, I've come to agree with Moriarty's take at AICN, in that the film's essentially apolitical* and that differing views can be mapped onto it. Greengrass merely presents the facts in as real a way as possible, and by doing that I believe he also accurately recreates the mood and feelings that would have accompanied those events, which is what elevates United 93 above a run of the mill docudrama.
It's hard to say how will the film hold up. I think it's a fair criticism that it presents minimal context for the days events, but I feel that it presents enough to stand on its own regardless of the viewer's level of knowledge. At the least, it works as a compelling dramatic thriller. More likely it'll stand the test of time as an encapsulation of certain key events from a significant day in history. Either way it'll certainly be looked back on as a fine piece of filmmaking.
* One thing I should point out is the depiction of a German passenger on the plane as being cowardly, as noted here. I confess that I didn't notice that the man counseling negotiation was also the only non-American on board, and also have to admit that it's easy to read something into that.
Monday, January 22, 2007
The Colour of Magic (1983) by Terry Pratchett
The Colour of Magic (1983) by Terry Pratchett
Confession: This is the first Terry Pratchett Book I've read. (I really shouldn't put these confession things in here, because I'll be confessing to not having read / watched a load of 'holy' geek properties) For a long time, I knew nothing of Pratchett's works except for the fact that they were fantasy based and sported funky eye-catching cover art. I later discovered that they were comedy fantasy stories with a fairly large fan following - five of his books were in the top 100 of the BBC's Big Read survey, a feat only matched by one Charles Dickens. I determined to give the books a try straight away. Years later, I finally have.
The Colour of Magic (the title refers to the eighth colour of the Discworld, the magical colour Octarin), as with all of the Discworld books, takes place in the fantasy universe of the Discworld (presumably, I can't say for sure since I haven't read any others), a disc shaped world that rests on the backs of four elephants, which in turn stand on the back of a giant turtle that's hurtling through space. That little piece of information is presented right at the start, and you know what you're in for from there on in - outrageous comedy. The 'heroes' of the tale are Rincewind, a greedy, cowardly magician who only knows one spell, Twoflower, a naive, happy-go-lucky tourist from an isolated country, and the Luggage, Twoflower's magical chest with legs.
There is no plot to this tale - it's essentially one long road trip featuring the trio wandering and stumbling from one adventure to the next. They flee a burning city, escape from the clutches of an ancient evil monster, get embroiled in the politics of an upside down mountain state populated by a large number of imaginary dragons, and skirt dangerously close to the edge of the world. Rincewind tries desperately to avoid danger, while Twoflower runs into it headlong because, being a silly tourist, he's ignorant of the danger and wants to experience as much as possible.
The book is written in simple and accessible prose, and the absurdist situational humour and hilarious dialogue come at you thick and fast. The book parodies fantasy clichés and specific fantasy universes, as well as real world concepts like tourism and insurance. It also lampoons technology and science to some extent, by presenting familiar technology that's actually driven by magic and not the laws of the physical world! Another running gag throughout the book is the notion that these characters are pieces in a game that is being played by the gods, their fates determined by the roll of some divine being's dice.
It's a light read, and is a refreshing break from reading more 'serious' books. I've said before that I've found comedy in books to be more miss than hit (that's probably indicative of how little I've read, truth be told), but Pratchett's first Discworld novel definitely works for me. I can see the appeal, and from what I can tell he's set this book up as an introduction to a whole Universe full of comedic potential. I look forward to reading more from this series.
Confession: This is the first Terry Pratchett Book I've read. (I really shouldn't put these confession things in here, because I'll be confessing to not having read / watched a load of 'holy' geek properties) For a long time, I knew nothing of Pratchett's works except for the fact that they were fantasy based and sported funky eye-catching cover art. I later discovered that they were comedy fantasy stories with a fairly large fan following - five of his books were in the top 100 of the BBC's Big Read survey, a feat only matched by one Charles Dickens. I determined to give the books a try straight away. Years later, I finally have.
The Colour of Magic (the title refers to the eighth colour of the Discworld, the magical colour Octarin), as with all of the Discworld books, takes place in the fantasy universe of the Discworld (presumably, I can't say for sure since I haven't read any others), a disc shaped world that rests on the backs of four elephants, which in turn stand on the back of a giant turtle that's hurtling through space. That little piece of information is presented right at the start, and you know what you're in for from there on in - outrageous comedy. The 'heroes' of the tale are Rincewind, a greedy, cowardly magician who only knows one spell, Twoflower, a naive, happy-go-lucky tourist from an isolated country, and the Luggage, Twoflower's magical chest with legs.
There is no plot to this tale - it's essentially one long road trip featuring the trio wandering and stumbling from one adventure to the next. They flee a burning city, escape from the clutches of an ancient evil monster, get embroiled in the politics of an upside down mountain state populated by a large number of imaginary dragons, and skirt dangerously close to the edge of the world. Rincewind tries desperately to avoid danger, while Twoflower runs into it headlong because, being a silly tourist, he's ignorant of the danger and wants to experience as much as possible.
The book is written in simple and accessible prose, and the absurdist situational humour and hilarious dialogue come at you thick and fast. The book parodies fantasy clichés and specific fantasy universes, as well as real world concepts like tourism and insurance. It also lampoons technology and science to some extent, by presenting familiar technology that's actually driven by magic and not the laws of the physical world! Another running gag throughout the book is the notion that these characters are pieces in a game that is being played by the gods, their fates determined by the roll of some divine being's dice.
It's a light read, and is a refreshing break from reading more 'serious' books. I've said before that I've found comedy in books to be more miss than hit (that's probably indicative of how little I've read, truth be told), but Pratchett's first Discworld novel definitely works for me. I can see the appeal, and from what I can tell he's set this book up as an introduction to a whole Universe full of comedic potential. I look forward to reading more from this series.
T-shirt of Terror!
That's quite interesting. Apparently, the t-shirt was a security threat. I'm quite curious as to how they arrived at that conclusion. Is the t-shirt going to subliminally trigger some kind of impulse in other passengers, turn them into zombies, and cause them to rip apart the plane?
How did they arrive at the conclusion that it would cause offence to other passengers? How many passengers have to be offended for something to be deemed offensive? Did anyone complain? If he had worn a similar t-shirt with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's picture emblazoned on it instead, would he have been barred from boarding the plane? If so, good for them, at least then they'd deserve kudos for consistency when applying stupid policies.
As far as can be gathered from the article, no law has been broken by Mr. Jasson. In fact, he is threatening to take legal action. Here's hoping he succeeds. After all, freedom of speech isn't supposed to arbitrarily stop when you say something people don't like to hear. Right?
Chinatown (1974)
Chinatown (1974)
Chinatown was one of those famous movies that I kept hearing about but knew next to nothing about, except for the fact that it starred Jack Nicholson and was directed by Roman Polanski. I finally got around to seeing it and found that it's reputation as a classic is well earned.
The film is a mystery / thriller centering around a Los Angeles private detective named Jake Gittes (Nicholson). Gittes is hired by a woman named Mrs. Mulwray to prove that her husband, Hollis Mulwray, is having an affair. Infidelity cases are Gittes' bread and butter, and he and his assistants set to work following Mulwray around. They observe peculiar behaviour on the part of Mulwray, but eventually catch him with another woman. The pictures make the headlines, following which another woman (Faye Dunaway) shows up at Gittes' office and serves him with a lawsuit - it turns out that she's the real Mrs. Mulwray. Stung by this, Gittes sets out to find out why he was set up to harm Mr. Mulwray's reputation - his investigation is immediately confounded when Mr. Mulwray winds up dead. Gittes then offers to work for Mrs. Mulwray to find out who killed her husband, intimating that his death may have been related to his position as chief engineer for the city's Water Department.
Gittes' investigation leads him to many discoveries about the corrupt underbelly of the city. He begins to unearth a conspiracy to manipulate the city's water supply that may involve a wealthy businessman named Noah Cross (John Huston), who used to be Mulwray's partner at the Water Department. As the story progresses, Gittes' relationship with Mrs. Mulwray develops and he discovers dark secrets from her past. The plot is actually fairly complex, and what I've written thus far barely scratches the surface. It gradually builds up in layers till it reaches a tragic finale in Chinatown.
Every element of the film is well done. It's written and directed as a moody noir, with bleak visuals and desolate imagery. The late great Jerry Goldsmith's music complements the film well. Everything is evocative of the time and place in which the film is set. The story constantly unfolds and no scene is wasted - I particularly liked the way the plot was meted out in pieces that were coherent and easy to connect with what had come before whilst not being dumbed down (for instance, Mr. Mulwray's strange behaviour as observed by Gittes makes sense later on). The audience is made to know everything that Gittes knows, and we can easily understand the conclusions that he draws and the actions that he subsequently takes. There's a sense of believability to the manner in which Gittes carries out his investigation, right down to the little details. The same applies to the way the characters are written - they are complex and ambiguous, with their own personal histories and secrets.
When it comes to performances, only one needs to be singled out, and that's Nicholson's, who's in (I believe) every scene in the film. Watching this, I realized that I keep underestimating how good he is - some of his over the top performances (like the Joker in Batman) are stuck in my head to such an extent that it overshadows his great ones - like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, As Good as it Gets, and now Chinatown. Here he's perfectly cast as the intelligent, haunted detective with a quick, sardonic wit. He's charming when he needs to be, often smoothly talking his way into places, but also explosive and vitriolic when brought to anger. It's a terrific performance. The other performance of note is John Huston, who's great as the greedy and powerful Noah Cross. Faye Dunaway is very good but not exceptional as Mrs. Mulwray. The rest of the cast is also very good, and I was amused to see John Hillerman aka Higgins from Magnum P.I.!
In conclusion, Chinatown is an exceptionally well made, atmospheric film with an intelligent, unpredictable plot that is carried by a brilliant central performance. Yep, it's definitely a must see.
As an aside, I've realized that I've been incredibly positive about a whole bunch of films lately. This is not because I'm losing my cynicism; I've just been fortunate in that I've watched a bunch of very good films over the last few weeks. This has the unintended side effect of making mediocre films (like Underworld: Unintelligently Designed) that much harder to endure. I find myself almost unwilling to watch stuff that might be bad. Almost. I'm still a sucker for sci-fi / fantasy stuff, and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's a good thing there are so many (meant to be) great films that I still haven't seen, plus all the great films that I can rewatch, to wash away that bitter taste of a stinker.
Chinatown was one of those famous movies that I kept hearing about but knew next to nothing about, except for the fact that it starred Jack Nicholson and was directed by Roman Polanski. I finally got around to seeing it and found that it's reputation as a classic is well earned.
The film is a mystery / thriller centering around a Los Angeles private detective named Jake Gittes (Nicholson). Gittes is hired by a woman named Mrs. Mulwray to prove that her husband, Hollis Mulwray, is having an affair. Infidelity cases are Gittes' bread and butter, and he and his assistants set to work following Mulwray around. They observe peculiar behaviour on the part of Mulwray, but eventually catch him with another woman. The pictures make the headlines, following which another woman (Faye Dunaway) shows up at Gittes' office and serves him with a lawsuit - it turns out that she's the real Mrs. Mulwray. Stung by this, Gittes sets out to find out why he was set up to harm Mr. Mulwray's reputation - his investigation is immediately confounded when Mr. Mulwray winds up dead. Gittes then offers to work for Mrs. Mulwray to find out who killed her husband, intimating that his death may have been related to his position as chief engineer for the city's Water Department.
Gittes' investigation leads him to many discoveries about the corrupt underbelly of the city. He begins to unearth a conspiracy to manipulate the city's water supply that may involve a wealthy businessman named Noah Cross (John Huston), who used to be Mulwray's partner at the Water Department. As the story progresses, Gittes' relationship with Mrs. Mulwray develops and he discovers dark secrets from her past. The plot is actually fairly complex, and what I've written thus far barely scratches the surface. It gradually builds up in layers till it reaches a tragic finale in Chinatown.
Every element of the film is well done. It's written and directed as a moody noir, with bleak visuals and desolate imagery. The late great Jerry Goldsmith's music complements the film well. Everything is evocative of the time and place in which the film is set. The story constantly unfolds and no scene is wasted - I particularly liked the way the plot was meted out in pieces that were coherent and easy to connect with what had come before whilst not being dumbed down (for instance, Mr. Mulwray's strange behaviour as observed by Gittes makes sense later on). The audience is made to know everything that Gittes knows, and we can easily understand the conclusions that he draws and the actions that he subsequently takes. There's a sense of believability to the manner in which Gittes carries out his investigation, right down to the little details. The same applies to the way the characters are written - they are complex and ambiguous, with their own personal histories and secrets.
When it comes to performances, only one needs to be singled out, and that's Nicholson's, who's in (I believe) every scene in the film. Watching this, I realized that I keep underestimating how good he is - some of his over the top performances (like the Joker in Batman) are stuck in my head to such an extent that it overshadows his great ones - like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, As Good as it Gets, and now Chinatown. Here he's perfectly cast as the intelligent, haunted detective with a quick, sardonic wit. He's charming when he needs to be, often smoothly talking his way into places, but also explosive and vitriolic when brought to anger. It's a terrific performance. The other performance of note is John Huston, who's great as the greedy and powerful Noah Cross. Faye Dunaway is very good but not exceptional as Mrs. Mulwray. The rest of the cast is also very good, and I was amused to see John Hillerman aka Higgins from Magnum P.I.!
In conclusion, Chinatown is an exceptionally well made, atmospheric film with an intelligent, unpredictable plot that is carried by a brilliant central performance. Yep, it's definitely a must see.
As an aside, I've realized that I've been incredibly positive about a whole bunch of films lately. This is not because I'm losing my cynicism; I've just been fortunate in that I've watched a bunch of very good films over the last few weeks. This has the unintended side effect of making mediocre films (like Underworld: Unintelligently Designed) that much harder to endure. I find myself almost unwilling to watch stuff that might be bad. Almost. I'm still a sucker for sci-fi / fantasy stuff, and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's a good thing there are so many (meant to be) great films that I still haven't seen, plus all the great films that I can rewatch, to wash away that bitter taste of a stinker.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Carrie (1976)
Carrie (1976)
Based upon the first published novel by horror maestro Stephen King, the horror drama Carrie was also the first major success for director Brian De Palma. A modest low budget production, there's a lot to be admired in this film, which is regarded as a classic of the horror genre.
The film tells the story of Carrie White (Sissy Spacek), a shy, awkward teenage girl who is a social outcast at her school. It begins with a harrowing incident in a locker room, where Carrie is bullied and humiliated by her fellow students. Shortly afterwards it's revealed that Carrie has (or is developing) telekinetic powers, demonstrated by her destroying and knocking things over. The only person who appears to have any sympathy for Carrie is her gym teacher Miss Collins (Betty Buckley). Her home life is equally bad - her mother (Piper Laurie) is a cruel religious fundamentalist who believes that just about everything is a sin, and who sees Carrie's powers as witchcraft. Two of Carrie's classmates take an interest in her - Chris (Nancy Allen) wants to hurt her, and Sue (Amy Irving) seemingly takes pity on her. Sue convinces her boyfriend to take an understandably suspicious Carrie to the prom. The buildup to the prom and the event itself comprise the bulk of the film, and it is where the film's unforgettable climactic scenes play out and where Carrie's telekinetic powers are fully unleashed.
The story is actually fairly basic - my summary above covers it quite well, I think. The film's more character-driven than plot-driven, and as such it works very well. There's no 'horror' in the conventional sense; the horror comes in a more realistic form - the horror of cruelty. Most of the supporting characters are sketchily drawn and two dimensional, but believable enough to drive the story forward. It's the main characters, Carrie and her mother (and in particular the conflict between them), that are the heart of the story. Carrie is sympathetic and real, and her plight is one most people can relate to - not fitting in, but desperately wanting to. It's easy to root for her and share in her joy when things seem to finally be going well, which is what makes the final events so gut-wrenching.
The screenplay and De Palma's direction work hand in hand in laying the plot and character groundwork to set up the final 40 or so minutes. There's a great buildup of tension as the final act arrives, and while it's predictable, it never felt contrived and I never felt cheated by it - the film truly earns its tragic and shocking payoff. Despite what she ends up doing, Carrie remains a sympathetic figure who was molded into what she was by those around her, and it's easy to understand her actions. As with many of De Palma's films, there's a signature scene featuring slow motion and editing between characters and actions that sticks in your mind long after the film's over. It also features some striking imagery and great camerawork. The only element that really fails completely is De Palma's use of the famous violin motif from Psycho - it's unintentionally funny when it's meant to be scary.
Everything else that work's in the film would be for nought were it not for two great performances. One is Piper Laurie as Carrie's mother. Her performance is so over the top that it ought to be ridiculous, but it ends up being kind of scary. People doing horrible things in the misguided belief that they're doing the right thing is the scariest kind of villainy, and it's easy to believe that Laurie's character believes in all the bullshit that she spouts. The actor whose shoulders the film rests on most is Sissy Spacek, who does a wonderful job as the eponymous protagonist. Despite being quite attractive, she's still convincingly awkward and out of place. Her character goes through the gamut of emotions and Spacek always feels genuine and never drops the ball. The rest of the cast are alright, but no one really stands out. Except John Travolta, who's (I think unintentionally, but I'm not sure) really funny as Chris's (the villainous girl) boyfriend.
In short, Carrie's a compelling horror drama that's let down a bit by some silly 'scares', sketchily written supporting characters, and a ho-hum supporting cast. It's a flawed classic that's definitely worth checking out.
Based upon the first published novel by horror maestro Stephen King, the horror drama Carrie was also the first major success for director Brian De Palma. A modest low budget production, there's a lot to be admired in this film, which is regarded as a classic of the horror genre.
The film tells the story of Carrie White (Sissy Spacek), a shy, awkward teenage girl who is a social outcast at her school. It begins with a harrowing incident in a locker room, where Carrie is bullied and humiliated by her fellow students. Shortly afterwards it's revealed that Carrie has (or is developing) telekinetic powers, demonstrated by her destroying and knocking things over. The only person who appears to have any sympathy for Carrie is her gym teacher Miss Collins (Betty Buckley). Her home life is equally bad - her mother (Piper Laurie) is a cruel religious fundamentalist who believes that just about everything is a sin, and who sees Carrie's powers as witchcraft. Two of Carrie's classmates take an interest in her - Chris (Nancy Allen) wants to hurt her, and Sue (Amy Irving) seemingly takes pity on her. Sue convinces her boyfriend to take an understandably suspicious Carrie to the prom. The buildup to the prom and the event itself comprise the bulk of the film, and it is where the film's unforgettable climactic scenes play out and where Carrie's telekinetic powers are fully unleashed.
The story is actually fairly basic - my summary above covers it quite well, I think. The film's more character-driven than plot-driven, and as such it works very well. There's no 'horror' in the conventional sense; the horror comes in a more realistic form - the horror of cruelty. Most of the supporting characters are sketchily drawn and two dimensional, but believable enough to drive the story forward. It's the main characters, Carrie and her mother (and in particular the conflict between them), that are the heart of the story. Carrie is sympathetic and real, and her plight is one most people can relate to - not fitting in, but desperately wanting to. It's easy to root for her and share in her joy when things seem to finally be going well, which is what makes the final events so gut-wrenching.
The screenplay and De Palma's direction work hand in hand in laying the plot and character groundwork to set up the final 40 or so minutes. There's a great buildup of tension as the final act arrives, and while it's predictable, it never felt contrived and I never felt cheated by it - the film truly earns its tragic and shocking payoff. Despite what she ends up doing, Carrie remains a sympathetic figure who was molded into what she was by those around her, and it's easy to understand her actions. As with many of De Palma's films, there's a signature scene featuring slow motion and editing between characters and actions that sticks in your mind long after the film's over. It also features some striking imagery and great camerawork. The only element that really fails completely is De Palma's use of the famous violin motif from Psycho - it's unintentionally funny when it's meant to be scary.
Everything else that work's in the film would be for nought were it not for two great performances. One is Piper Laurie as Carrie's mother. Her performance is so over the top that it ought to be ridiculous, but it ends up being kind of scary. People doing horrible things in the misguided belief that they're doing the right thing is the scariest kind of villainy, and it's easy to believe that Laurie's character believes in all the bullshit that she spouts. The actor whose shoulders the film rests on most is Sissy Spacek, who does a wonderful job as the eponymous protagonist. Despite being quite attractive, she's still convincingly awkward and out of place. Her character goes through the gamut of emotions and Spacek always feels genuine and never drops the ball. The rest of the cast are alright, but no one really stands out. Except John Travolta, who's (I think unintentionally, but I'm not sure) really funny as Chris's (the villainous girl) boyfriend.
In short, Carrie's a compelling horror drama that's let down a bit by some silly 'scares', sketchily written supporting characters, and a ho-hum supporting cast. It's a flawed classic that's definitely worth checking out.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Underworld: Evolution (2006)
Underworld: Evolution (2006)
The sequel to 2003's Underworld is a worthy follow up. By worthy I mean it lives up to the original, which was a good looking, somewhat entertaining, hollow and mostly forgettable piece of entertainment with delusions of mythical grandeur. Spoilers for both films follow.
In the first film, a centuries old war between vampires and lycans (werewolves) was approaching a turning point with the creation of a vampire-lycan hybrid named Michael (Scott Speedman). A vampire 'death dealer' (person who kills lycans) named Selene (Kate Beckinsale) learns a dark secret about the history of vampire-lycan relations (chuckle) and ends up killing one of the vampire leaders before fleeing with Michael. The sequel picks up from this point. It starts with a little prelude segment about the first vampire and lycan, from whom all others descended. It then cuts back to the present, where Selene and Michael attempt to awaken the last remaining 'elder' vampire, Marcus (Tony Curran), and tell him what's been happening. Unfortunately, the guy's already woken up and gone a little nuts - he promptly deprives the main villain from the last film of his life and starts hunting Selene and Michael because of some information that's encoded in Selene's blood (no, really!) that will help him to release his brother, the first ever Lycan, who was imprisoned by... aww fuck it, I can't go on.
The film's actually dumber than I've made it sound. It attempts to create a rich 'mythology' for this world of vamps and werewolves, but fails. It's convoluted, contrived, and just plain pretentious. There are lapses of logic in this plot - how did they hide the location of the secret prison from Marcus for so long if blood memories are transferred with every awakening? Why is every location seemingly a short drive or chopper ride from every other location - I thought only Jack Bauer had that power? Why is Michael able to fight the big bad lycan so easily, when he doesn't appear to be that much better than regular lycans? In fact, what is so great about this hybrid loser? The inconsistency in main characters' abilities is irritating, and when the fight scenes are the only thing worth watching in the movie, that's a pretty big negative.
The whole story is one big chase where each location is thinly connected to the other with cheesy exposition. Character development is non existent, and the characters are one-note ciphers who have somber expressions permanently carved onto their faces. Perhaps vampires and lycans don't smile - the biggest flaw is how seriously the film takes itself. It's pompous to the extreme. The acting is dire, but I can't really fully blame the cast given the writing and directing. But I can single out Scott Speedman, who must be the blandest leading man to appear in a motion picture in a long time. Oh, and I must mention the 'romance' between the leads, which amounts to one seemingly random sex scene. Which takes place mere moments after our heroes escape a near unstoppable beast - might he track them down? Don't know, so let's have S-E-X! Woo hoo! Seriously, a more hollow romance I cannot recall.
So what's good about Underworld: Evolution? Well, the action scenes, while being nothing special, offer some entertainment. Kate Beckinsale sure is pretty. Cor, there's a lot of blood and some nudity, so it's really 'adult'. It's moderately pleasing visually, although there's just too much of a blue tint to every scene. There are decent sets, costumes etc... decent mind you, not good. To cite those elements as strengths is like saying that the best parts of a book are the cover, the binding, and the typeface. The film is an OK way to kill time if you're a fan of action / werewolves / vampires / tight leather. Discerning film fans ought to give it a pass, unless they need a reminder of what mediocre film-making is all about.
The sequel to 2003's Underworld is a worthy follow up. By worthy I mean it lives up to the original, which was a good looking, somewhat entertaining, hollow and mostly forgettable piece of entertainment with delusions of mythical grandeur. Spoilers for both films follow.
In the first film, a centuries old war between vampires and lycans (werewolves) was approaching a turning point with the creation of a vampire-lycan hybrid named Michael (Scott Speedman). A vampire 'death dealer' (person who kills lycans) named Selene (Kate Beckinsale) learns a dark secret about the history of vampire-lycan relations (chuckle) and ends up killing one of the vampire leaders before fleeing with Michael. The sequel picks up from this point. It starts with a little prelude segment about the first vampire and lycan, from whom all others descended. It then cuts back to the present, where Selene and Michael attempt to awaken the last remaining 'elder' vampire, Marcus (Tony Curran), and tell him what's been happening. Unfortunately, the guy's already woken up and gone a little nuts - he promptly deprives the main villain from the last film of his life and starts hunting Selene and Michael because of some information that's encoded in Selene's blood (no, really!) that will help him to release his brother, the first ever Lycan, who was imprisoned by... aww fuck it, I can't go on.
The film's actually dumber than I've made it sound. It attempts to create a rich 'mythology' for this world of vamps and werewolves, but fails. It's convoluted, contrived, and just plain pretentious. There are lapses of logic in this plot - how did they hide the location of the secret prison from Marcus for so long if blood memories are transferred with every awakening? Why is every location seemingly a short drive or chopper ride from every other location - I thought only Jack Bauer had that power? Why is Michael able to fight the big bad lycan so easily, when he doesn't appear to be that much better than regular lycans? In fact, what is so great about this hybrid loser? The inconsistency in main characters' abilities is irritating, and when the fight scenes are the only thing worth watching in the movie, that's a pretty big negative.
The whole story is one big chase where each location is thinly connected to the other with cheesy exposition. Character development is non existent, and the characters are one-note ciphers who have somber expressions permanently carved onto their faces. Perhaps vampires and lycans don't smile - the biggest flaw is how seriously the film takes itself. It's pompous to the extreme. The acting is dire, but I can't really fully blame the cast given the writing and directing. But I can single out Scott Speedman, who must be the blandest leading man to appear in a motion picture in a long time. Oh, and I must mention the 'romance' between the leads, which amounts to one seemingly random sex scene. Which takes place mere moments after our heroes escape a near unstoppable beast - might he track them down? Don't know, so let's have S-E-X! Woo hoo! Seriously, a more hollow romance I cannot recall.
So what's good about Underworld: Evolution? Well, the action scenes, while being nothing special, offer some entertainment. Kate Beckinsale sure is pretty. Cor, there's a lot of blood and some nudity, so it's really 'adult'. It's moderately pleasing visually, although there's just too much of a blue tint to every scene. There are decent sets, costumes etc... decent mind you, not good. To cite those elements as strengths is like saying that the best parts of a book are the cover, the binding, and the typeface. The film is an OK way to kill time if you're a fan of action / werewolves / vampires / tight leather. Discerning film fans ought to give it a pass, unless they need a reminder of what mediocre film-making is all about.
American Gothic (1995 - 1996)
American Gothic (1995 - 1996)
American Gothic is a supernatural drama that was cancelled after just one 22 episode season. Its cancellation was a shame, because it's a darned good show that had potential.
The show is set in a small Louisiana town called Trinity, which is controlled by the local Sheriff, Lucas Buck (Gary Cole), who happens to be a sort of demon or evil spirit. It begins with Buck killing the sister and father of a young boy, Caleb (Lucas Black). Turns out Caleb is Lucas's illegitimate child, and he now wants to take care of the boy, presumably to raise him as a successor. Caleb's cousin Gail (Paige Turco) shows up from out of town to take care of Caleb and keep him away from Lucas. She also attempts to investigate the death of her parents, whom she believes were killed by Lucas years earlier. A doctor at the local hospital, Matt Crower (Jake Weber), is suspicious about the deaths of Caleb's family members and tries to keep Lucas away from Caleb. Caleb's dead sister Merlyn (Sarah Paulson) appears as a ghost who attempts to guide him and steer him clear of Lucas's influence. Other main characters include Selena (Brenda Bakke), the seductive schoolteacher and ally / girlfriend of Lucas Buck, and the weak willed Deputy Ben Healy (Nick Searcy), who's constantly torn between doing the right thing and not getting in the Sheriff's way.
You'll note that the word Lucas pops up a lot in the last paragraph. The guy is the show in many ways - virtually everything that happens ends up with him getting involved or being the cause. He works with subtlety, using his supernatural powers to be at the right place at the right time, and to manipulate people to do his work for him. He helps people out in exchange for help from them in the future. In many ways, he's like the supernatural Godfather of Trinity. The typical episode features characters that Lucas manipulates, or who come to Lucas for help. He exploits the situation to maximize his own benefit. Caleb usually struggles with growing up, and is presented with situations and people that he can deal with in different ways. His ghostly sister usually tries to set him on the right path, and Lucas tries to tempt him to the dark side - and surprisingly, he doesn't always "do the right thing". Dr. Crower, Gail, Selena and Deputy Healy get involved in some way or the other, and are occasionally central to the episode.
Sounds formulaic, but it actually isn't. The basic concept is simple, but it's played out in many different ways, particularly with respect to Lucas's manipulations. There's a story arc that plays out slowly over the course of the season - the continuity is good when the show is watched in the correct order, and not the stupid order that the DVDs are released in. There are some jarring changes made along the way, at least one of which felt forced and was to the show's detriment (the replacement of a major character with another). The writing is a good mixture of horror, drama, and comedy, all of which is executed really well on screen. The show is also surprisingly dark and edgy, dealing with horror and subject matter that was rare at the time. It also features a lot of witty innuendo. Characters are developed well throughout the season - they have past histories and motivations, and as one character points out in an episode, they've all suffered and are haunted by their pasts. It ain't cheerful - like I said, it's a fairly dark show.
Production values are good - there are no weak links, and what special effects there are, are good for the time. The show is very atmospheric - the town itself feels like an oppressive place with dark secrets hidden beneath its pleasant exterior. Some of the horror bits are genuinely creepy, and given that this is a Sam Raimi production, there's some crazy slapstick like whip-pan camera horror on display. Raimi regulars Bruce Cambell and Ted Raimi make memorable guest appearances as well. The moody music and lighting adds to the atmosphere.
The performances are quite strong from the entire cast - no one comes across as one dimensional. I'll get to Gary Cole in a minute, because he deserves a special mention. Out of everyone else, Lucas Black as Caleb manages to be conflicted and childlike without being annoyingly cute and kiddy. Jake Weber as Dr. Crower exudes a sense of decency and integrity while being haunted and weary at the same time - Matt Crower was one of my favourite characters on the show. Nick Searcy as Deputy Ben is great and provides a lot of the comic relief, but also deals with some interesting dilemmas. Paige Turco plays Gail as tenacious and strong willed, but becomes vulnerable as the series progresses. Brenda Bakke's Selena is gorgeous and incredibly seductive, almost comically so at times, but she's also afforded the opportunity to exhibit some emotional depth. The weakest of the cast is probably Sarah Paulson as the angelic ghost Merlyn - she's played a little too sweetly for my taste, although the writing is admittedly also at fault.
Which brings me to Gary Cole. The man is incredible - despite being the bad guy, you can't help but root for him, especially when many of the people he exploits are despicable in their own way. Lucas Buck is incredibly charismatic and charming - Cole's comic timing and delivery is exceptional. He also routinely switches from being really funny to really menacing in the blink of an eye. Sure, the character doesn't have a wide emotional range, but what's there is golden. It's a great character that's written well, but the lines need to be delivered well for them to work, and Gary Cole never misses a beat.
American Gothic is not without its flaws - the occasionally inconsistent characters seem to behave capriciously and illogically at times. Also, there are lapses in logic that stretch credulity to their limits - like the way supernatural occurrences aren't dwelt upon by the characters. The other problem is pacing - in terms of each episode and the series as a whole, it takes its own sweet time, and occasionally I felt it was just a little too slow. These flaws are sometimes glaring, but don't detract too much from a very strong first (and sadly, only) season, which ends in a way that is fairly satisfying as an end to the entire series. Viewers can leave to their imaginations the events that follow the climactic final scene.
American Gothic is a dark and entertaining ride that's well worth taking, if only to watch Gary Cole play the coolest demonic entity you've ever seen.
American Gothic is a supernatural drama that was cancelled after just one 22 episode season. Its cancellation was a shame, because it's a darned good show that had potential.
The show is set in a small Louisiana town called Trinity, which is controlled by the local Sheriff, Lucas Buck (Gary Cole), who happens to be a sort of demon or evil spirit. It begins with Buck killing the sister and father of a young boy, Caleb (Lucas Black). Turns out Caleb is Lucas's illegitimate child, and he now wants to take care of the boy, presumably to raise him as a successor. Caleb's cousin Gail (Paige Turco) shows up from out of town to take care of Caleb and keep him away from Lucas. She also attempts to investigate the death of her parents, whom she believes were killed by Lucas years earlier. A doctor at the local hospital, Matt Crower (Jake Weber), is suspicious about the deaths of Caleb's family members and tries to keep Lucas away from Caleb. Caleb's dead sister Merlyn (Sarah Paulson) appears as a ghost who attempts to guide him and steer him clear of Lucas's influence. Other main characters include Selena (Brenda Bakke), the seductive schoolteacher and ally / girlfriend of Lucas Buck, and the weak willed Deputy Ben Healy (Nick Searcy), who's constantly torn between doing the right thing and not getting in the Sheriff's way.
You'll note that the word Lucas pops up a lot in the last paragraph. The guy is the show in many ways - virtually everything that happens ends up with him getting involved or being the cause. He works with subtlety, using his supernatural powers to be at the right place at the right time, and to manipulate people to do his work for him. He helps people out in exchange for help from them in the future. In many ways, he's like the supernatural Godfather of Trinity. The typical episode features characters that Lucas manipulates, or who come to Lucas for help. He exploits the situation to maximize his own benefit. Caleb usually struggles with growing up, and is presented with situations and people that he can deal with in different ways. His ghostly sister usually tries to set him on the right path, and Lucas tries to tempt him to the dark side - and surprisingly, he doesn't always "do the right thing". Dr. Crower, Gail, Selena and Deputy Healy get involved in some way or the other, and are occasionally central to the episode.
Sounds formulaic, but it actually isn't. The basic concept is simple, but it's played out in many different ways, particularly with respect to Lucas's manipulations. There's a story arc that plays out slowly over the course of the season - the continuity is good when the show is watched in the correct order, and not the stupid order that the DVDs are released in. There are some jarring changes made along the way, at least one of which felt forced and was to the show's detriment (the replacement of a major character with another). The writing is a good mixture of horror, drama, and comedy, all of which is executed really well on screen. The show is also surprisingly dark and edgy, dealing with horror and subject matter that was rare at the time. It also features a lot of witty innuendo. Characters are developed well throughout the season - they have past histories and motivations, and as one character points out in an episode, they've all suffered and are haunted by their pasts. It ain't cheerful - like I said, it's a fairly dark show.
Production values are good - there are no weak links, and what special effects there are, are good for the time. The show is very atmospheric - the town itself feels like an oppressive place with dark secrets hidden beneath its pleasant exterior. Some of the horror bits are genuinely creepy, and given that this is a Sam Raimi production, there's some crazy slapstick like whip-pan camera horror on display. Raimi regulars Bruce Cambell and Ted Raimi make memorable guest appearances as well. The moody music and lighting adds to the atmosphere.
The performances are quite strong from the entire cast - no one comes across as one dimensional. I'll get to Gary Cole in a minute, because he deserves a special mention. Out of everyone else, Lucas Black as Caleb manages to be conflicted and childlike without being annoyingly cute and kiddy. Jake Weber as Dr. Crower exudes a sense of decency and integrity while being haunted and weary at the same time - Matt Crower was one of my favourite characters on the show. Nick Searcy as Deputy Ben is great and provides a lot of the comic relief, but also deals with some interesting dilemmas. Paige Turco plays Gail as tenacious and strong willed, but becomes vulnerable as the series progresses. Brenda Bakke's Selena is gorgeous and incredibly seductive, almost comically so at times, but she's also afforded the opportunity to exhibit some emotional depth. The weakest of the cast is probably Sarah Paulson as the angelic ghost Merlyn - she's played a little too sweetly for my taste, although the writing is admittedly also at fault.
Which brings me to Gary Cole. The man is incredible - despite being the bad guy, you can't help but root for him, especially when many of the people he exploits are despicable in their own way. Lucas Buck is incredibly charismatic and charming - Cole's comic timing and delivery is exceptional. He also routinely switches from being really funny to really menacing in the blink of an eye. Sure, the character doesn't have a wide emotional range, but what's there is golden. It's a great character that's written well, but the lines need to be delivered well for them to work, and Gary Cole never misses a beat.
American Gothic is not without its flaws - the occasionally inconsistent characters seem to behave capriciously and illogically at times. Also, there are lapses in logic that stretch credulity to their limits - like the way supernatural occurrences aren't dwelt upon by the characters. The other problem is pacing - in terms of each episode and the series as a whole, it takes its own sweet time, and occasionally I felt it was just a little too slow. These flaws are sometimes glaring, but don't detract too much from a very strong first (and sadly, only) season, which ends in a way that is fairly satisfying as an end to the entire series. Viewers can leave to their imaginations the events that follow the climactic final scene.
American Gothic is a dark and entertaining ride that's well worth taking, if only to watch Gary Cole play the coolest demonic entity you've ever seen.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Munich (2005)
Munich (2005)
I was expecting this to be good going in, but it wound up exceeding expectations. Part of the reason I thought it wouldn't be exceptional was that Steven Spielberg's 'serious' films have always been very good but fail in some aspect or the other - usually by being schmaltzy or manipulative. Munich isn't perfect, but I reckon it's Spielberg's best serious film (and by serious I mean in terms of weighty subject matter, although I have to admit I hate that use of the word - to me, serious means serious in tone).
Munich begins with a recreation of the hostage taking of the Israeli Olympic Team during the 1972 Munich Olympics by a terrorist group called Black September (apparently this recreation is fairly accurate). This incident ended with a firefight at an airport that resulted in all of the hostages being killed. The full depiction of these events are doled out in segments as the film progresses, and are quite realistic and harrowing. In the aftermath, Israeli leaders decide that they need to strike back against Black September to deter future attacks. They bring in a man named Avner (Eric Bana) to head a team in Europe to assassinate several people responsible for the Munich massacre. From this point on the film deals with the operations of the team, and many of the events depicted are considered mostly speculative in terms of historical accuracy.
Avner's team comprises several specialists - a driver (Daniel Craig), a cleanup man (Ciarán Hinds), a bomb maker (Matthieu Kassovitz), and a forger (Hanns Zischler). After the team assembles, the film kicks into thriller mode, as Avner and his team hook up with a French intelligence trader (to locate their targets) and begin carrying out their assassinations across Europe. As their mission progresses, they begin to question whether the people on their list were actually responsible for Munich, and whether their missions achieve anything since each target is eventually replaced by someone else. Things eventually descend into paranoia when Avner and his team are targeted in reprisal.
Spielberg and his writers have created a fairly even handed film. While it dabbles with details of the larger conflict it doesn't really take sides or examine the conflict in depth (though it does present arguments from both sides); its focus is more on the effectiveness of the methods used and how they perpetuate a cycle of violence, and the effect these methods have on the people that have to implement them. Avner and his team start off with conviction, but as their work takes its toll they begin to think about what they are achieving and the people they are killing. The characters' transition from idealistic but inexperienced, nervous killers into hardened, unflinching assassins and then into doubting, paranoid wrecks is gradual and believable. The characters are conflicted, with each team member having his own views - none of them feel like mere ciphers. Even the men who are being assassinated, despite being involved in terrorism, are shown as human beings - a reality that many in today's world seem unwilling to accept (let's face it, terrorists don't hatch out of pods like Uruk Hai, ready to do evil).
There's a sense of realism that permeates the film - it's restrained and doesn't go for overblown theatrics. Despite that, the assassinations are tense and exciting affairs, as we watch along with the team to see if the bomb-maker's devices will finally work properly! Watching the film, I was drawn into the dangerous world of intelligence and counter intelligence; to use a cheesy clichè, it's a deadly game of cat and mouse. The somewhat muted colours and John Williams' moody music add to the sombre atmosphere (although the use of the "wailing Gladiator woman" voice irked me just a little).
When it comes to performances, Eric Bana is superb as Avner, a complex and conflicted man who has to bear the weight of responsibility for the mission. Bana gets to exhibit many facets of the character, who appears in most of the film and interacts with all the major characters, including his family. Also making a strong impression is James Bond aka Daniel Craig, who's all steely eyed and no nonsense as the hard-liner. Ciarán Hinds plays the Devil's advocate and voice of reason and is the key speaker in the team's moral debates - he's excellent in the role. Geoffrey Rush is memorable and funny in his small role as Avner's 'handler' within the Israeli intelligence agency. Matthieu Kassovitz and Hanns Zischler are solid in their roles as the bomb maker and forger respectively, although the latter is given very little to do.
All in all, it's a terrific film that deals with complex issues without dumbing them down. If there are any criticisms to be made, the film could perhaps stand to be a little shorter, and occasionally the dialogue is a bit too grand and speech-like; but these are only minor complaints. Munich is thoughtful, horrifying, tense, and exciting in equal measure, and is well worth seeing.
I was expecting this to be good going in, but it wound up exceeding expectations. Part of the reason I thought it wouldn't be exceptional was that Steven Spielberg's 'serious' films have always been very good but fail in some aspect or the other - usually by being schmaltzy or manipulative. Munich isn't perfect, but I reckon it's Spielberg's best serious film (and by serious I mean in terms of weighty subject matter, although I have to admit I hate that use of the word - to me, serious means serious in tone).
Munich begins with a recreation of the hostage taking of the Israeli Olympic Team during the 1972 Munich Olympics by a terrorist group called Black September (apparently this recreation is fairly accurate). This incident ended with a firefight at an airport that resulted in all of the hostages being killed. The full depiction of these events are doled out in segments as the film progresses, and are quite realistic and harrowing. In the aftermath, Israeli leaders decide that they need to strike back against Black September to deter future attacks. They bring in a man named Avner (Eric Bana) to head a team in Europe to assassinate several people responsible for the Munich massacre. From this point on the film deals with the operations of the team, and many of the events depicted are considered mostly speculative in terms of historical accuracy.
Avner's team comprises several specialists - a driver (Daniel Craig), a cleanup man (Ciarán Hinds), a bomb maker (Matthieu Kassovitz), and a forger (Hanns Zischler). After the team assembles, the film kicks into thriller mode, as Avner and his team hook up with a French intelligence trader (to locate their targets) and begin carrying out their assassinations across Europe. As their mission progresses, they begin to question whether the people on their list were actually responsible for Munich, and whether their missions achieve anything since each target is eventually replaced by someone else. Things eventually descend into paranoia when Avner and his team are targeted in reprisal.
Spielberg and his writers have created a fairly even handed film. While it dabbles with details of the larger conflict it doesn't really take sides or examine the conflict in depth (though it does present arguments from both sides); its focus is more on the effectiveness of the methods used and how they perpetuate a cycle of violence, and the effect these methods have on the people that have to implement them. Avner and his team start off with conviction, but as their work takes its toll they begin to think about what they are achieving and the people they are killing. The characters' transition from idealistic but inexperienced, nervous killers into hardened, unflinching assassins and then into doubting, paranoid wrecks is gradual and believable. The characters are conflicted, with each team member having his own views - none of them feel like mere ciphers. Even the men who are being assassinated, despite being involved in terrorism, are shown as human beings - a reality that many in today's world seem unwilling to accept (let's face it, terrorists don't hatch out of pods like Uruk Hai, ready to do evil).
There's a sense of realism that permeates the film - it's restrained and doesn't go for overblown theatrics. Despite that, the assassinations are tense and exciting affairs, as we watch along with the team to see if the bomb-maker's devices will finally work properly! Watching the film, I was drawn into the dangerous world of intelligence and counter intelligence; to use a cheesy clichè, it's a deadly game of cat and mouse. The somewhat muted colours and John Williams' moody music add to the sombre atmosphere (although the use of the "wailing Gladiator woman" voice irked me just a little).
When it comes to performances, Eric Bana is superb as Avner, a complex and conflicted man who has to bear the weight of responsibility for the mission. Bana gets to exhibit many facets of the character, who appears in most of the film and interacts with all the major characters, including his family. Also making a strong impression is James Bond aka Daniel Craig, who's all steely eyed and no nonsense as the hard-liner. Ciarán Hinds plays the Devil's advocate and voice of reason and is the key speaker in the team's moral debates - he's excellent in the role. Geoffrey Rush is memorable and funny in his small role as Avner's 'handler' within the Israeli intelligence agency. Matthieu Kassovitz and Hanns Zischler are solid in their roles as the bomb maker and forger respectively, although the latter is given very little to do.
All in all, it's a terrific film that deals with complex issues without dumbing them down. If there are any criticisms to be made, the film could perhaps stand to be a little shorter, and occasionally the dialogue is a bit too grand and speech-like; but these are only minor complaints. Munich is thoughtful, horrifying, tense, and exciting in equal measure, and is well worth seeing.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Slither (2006)
Slither (2006)
This is one of those love it or hate it films in a love it or hate it genre - comedy horror. I love comedy horror, and am unabashedly a fan of Tremors, The Evil Dead series, Shaun of the Dead, and Lake Placid. Slither is a worthy entry into the genre, and can proudly sit alongside the films I've mentioned.
Slither is from writer/director James Gunn, and it's his first major film as a director. He was responsible for writing the fantastic The Specials (in which he also appeared as Minute Man) and the excellent Dawn of the Dead remake. Gunn doesn't waste any time with this film, jumping right into the core of the story almost from the get go. A meteor (or something) crashes in a small town, and a man (Grant Grant, the town's rich businessman played by Michael Rooker) gets 'infected' by a creature from the meteorite. He begins to transform into a fleshy, tentacled beast with a craving for meat. Grant's wife, Starla (Elizabeth Banks), notices the changes (who wouldn't?). Grant runs off and begins to terrorize the town, and Sheriff Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillion), who has a thing for Starla, is forced to hunt Grant down. Unfortunately, things take a turn for the worse when Grant unleashes a wave of slug like creatures that burrow into their victims' brains and turn them into zombies that carry out Grant's will!
It sounds clichéd, and it is - a small group of people up against a beast and a horde of its undead servants. As always though, it's the execution that matters. Gunn infuses the film with plenty of humour, both visual and verbal, but also deals out gore and scares just as effectively. He also manages to subvert expectations at times - I'm thinking specifically about a gag involving a grenade that is absolutely hilarious. Gunn works in several references to other horror films, many of which admittedly flew over my head - I suck at noticing these things. The characters are thin at best but are still memorable, each with their own quirks. The creature effects are absolutely disgusting - in other words, excellent and believable. There's not really a wasted scene in the film, which is fast paced throughout most of its 95 minute running time.
Which brings me to the cast - I think these films sink or swim based on the cast. These sort of performances are rarely considered noteworthy, and that's a shame, because mixing straight-faced seriousness with great comedic timing is something not every actor can pull off. One actor who can, though, is Nathan Fillion, a man who deserves more high profile work. He's simply fantastic in this - charming and funny in every scene. Also great is his verbal sparring partner Gregg Henry, who plays the obnoxious town Mayor. Michael Rooker is strangely sympathetic as the beast, and Elizabeth Banks exhibits just the right level of earnestness and hysteria to match the tone of the film.
For people who are fans of the genre, this is a great, fun film. For those who aren't, the title gives away what kind of film it is well in advance...
This is one of those love it or hate it films in a love it or hate it genre - comedy horror. I love comedy horror, and am unabashedly a fan of Tremors, The Evil Dead series, Shaun of the Dead, and Lake Placid. Slither is a worthy entry into the genre, and can proudly sit alongside the films I've mentioned.
Slither is from writer/director James Gunn, and it's his first major film as a director. He was responsible for writing the fantastic The Specials (in which he also appeared as Minute Man) and the excellent Dawn of the Dead remake. Gunn doesn't waste any time with this film, jumping right into the core of the story almost from the get go. A meteor (or something) crashes in a small town, and a man (Grant Grant, the town's rich businessman played by Michael Rooker) gets 'infected' by a creature from the meteorite. He begins to transform into a fleshy, tentacled beast with a craving for meat. Grant's wife, Starla (Elizabeth Banks), notices the changes (who wouldn't?). Grant runs off and begins to terrorize the town, and Sheriff Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillion), who has a thing for Starla, is forced to hunt Grant down. Unfortunately, things take a turn for the worse when Grant unleashes a wave of slug like creatures that burrow into their victims' brains and turn them into zombies that carry out Grant's will!
It sounds clichéd, and it is - a small group of people up against a beast and a horde of its undead servants. As always though, it's the execution that matters. Gunn infuses the film with plenty of humour, both visual and verbal, but also deals out gore and scares just as effectively. He also manages to subvert expectations at times - I'm thinking specifically about a gag involving a grenade that is absolutely hilarious. Gunn works in several references to other horror films, many of which admittedly flew over my head - I suck at noticing these things. The characters are thin at best but are still memorable, each with their own quirks. The creature effects are absolutely disgusting - in other words, excellent and believable. There's not really a wasted scene in the film, which is fast paced throughout most of its 95 minute running time.
Which brings me to the cast - I think these films sink or swim based on the cast. These sort of performances are rarely considered noteworthy, and that's a shame, because mixing straight-faced seriousness with great comedic timing is something not every actor can pull off. One actor who can, though, is Nathan Fillion, a man who deserves more high profile work. He's simply fantastic in this - charming and funny in every scene. Also great is his verbal sparring partner Gregg Henry, who plays the obnoxious town Mayor. Michael Rooker is strangely sympathetic as the beast, and Elizabeth Banks exhibits just the right level of earnestness and hysteria to match the tone of the film.
For people who are fans of the genre, this is a great, fun film. For those who aren't, the title gives away what kind of film it is well in advance...
$100 laptop might be yours... for $200
You may have heard of the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) Project, which intends to provide a cheap ($100) laptop that would make a suitable learning tool for children, particularly those in less developed countries. It's been in the design stages for some years now, and is still not 100% complete. The cost has also not been brought down to the target of $100, but it's still due to be released this year, and will be purchased by various governments for distribution to children.
Features of the device include a sturdy build, low cost optimal components, very low power consumption, an LCD screen designed to be suitable for reading e-books (even in sunlight), a cut down Linux operating system, and an external 'crank' mechanism of some sort (although it seems to be a 'yo-yo' mechanism now - interestingly, there's talk of making this charging mechanism available separately as a consumer product, possible to charge devices like cell phones) that can be used to charge the battery manually. It also supports wireless networking that will allow the laptops to easily connect to each other. The OLPC association are also claiming a new type of software interface, which is available for anyone to try out. More details on the laptop can be found here.
There's been quite a bit of criticism of this project, although some of it has come from companies like Microsoft and Intel, who may feel threatened by the fact that rival products are being used in the laptop (think Linux and AMD), which may eventually be widely disseminated amongst the next generation of consumers. The main criticism has been that money shouldn't be spent on this sort of project when there are still people who are bereft of the bare essentials needed to survive.
I share the sentiment that has been expressed by many supporters of the project - the laptop is meant for people who have the essentials but who don't have the educational opportunities and the skills needed to improve their lives and break out of a cycle of poverty. The laptop for them would be a tool for education and skill acquisition. Not all poor people are living in absolute poverty, and not all schemes to alleviate poverty need focus on one particular group of people. My major doubt about this project is corruption - will these laptops actually get to the intended recipients?
Initially it was stated that the laptop would not be sold as a consumer device, but this article at the BBC would seem to indicate a possible change of heart. The OLPC association are considering selling it in a manner where you have to buy one for the price of two - the second laptop effectively being donated to charity. Personally, I'd rather see a scheme where it can somehow be made available at a price where there is a large profit margin that goes towards an OLPC fund, instead of having to pay twice for one product. Say, a 50% markup instead of 100%. I would definitely be interested in a hardy, low power laptop that sells for around 150$ and can be used for Open Office (perhaps) and email / web browsing. As long as they change the design for the consumer version so that it doesn't look like a kiddie toy (an intentional design choice intended to prevent unauthorized resale of the product).
Features of the device include a sturdy build, low cost optimal components, very low power consumption, an LCD screen designed to be suitable for reading e-books (even in sunlight), a cut down Linux operating system, and an external 'crank' mechanism of some sort (although it seems to be a 'yo-yo' mechanism now - interestingly, there's talk of making this charging mechanism available separately as a consumer product, possible to charge devices like cell phones) that can be used to charge the battery manually. It also supports wireless networking that will allow the laptops to easily connect to each other. The OLPC association are also claiming a new type of software interface, which is available for anyone to try out. More details on the laptop can be found here.
There's been quite a bit of criticism of this project, although some of it has come from companies like Microsoft and Intel, who may feel threatened by the fact that rival products are being used in the laptop (think Linux and AMD), which may eventually be widely disseminated amongst the next generation of consumers. The main criticism has been that money shouldn't be spent on this sort of project when there are still people who are bereft of the bare essentials needed to survive.
I share the sentiment that has been expressed by many supporters of the project - the laptop is meant for people who have the essentials but who don't have the educational opportunities and the skills needed to improve their lives and break out of a cycle of poverty. The laptop for them would be a tool for education and skill acquisition. Not all poor people are living in absolute poverty, and not all schemes to alleviate poverty need focus on one particular group of people. My major doubt about this project is corruption - will these laptops actually get to the intended recipients?
Initially it was stated that the laptop would not be sold as a consumer device, but this article at the BBC would seem to indicate a possible change of heart. The OLPC association are considering selling it in a manner where you have to buy one for the price of two - the second laptop effectively being donated to charity. Personally, I'd rather see a scheme where it can somehow be made available at a price where there is a large profit margin that goes towards an OLPC fund, instead of having to pay twice for one product. Say, a 50% markup instead of 100%. I would definitely be interested in a hardy, low power laptop that sells for around 150$ and can be used for Open Office (perhaps) and email / web browsing. As long as they change the design for the consumer version so that it doesn't look like a kiddie toy (an intentional design choice intended to prevent unauthorized resale of the product).
Thursday, January 11, 2007
MASH (1970)
MASH (1970)
I've seen quite a bit of the TV series MASH, but it's only now that I've gotten around to seeing the film that preceded it. Surprisingly, just before watching this I realized I've never seen a Robert Altman film before, despite him having been one of the most acclaimed of American directors with a large body of work (some of which is, apparently, shite). The second surprise I had was discovering that the wonderful theme music from the TV show is actually a song, Suicide is Painless.
Getting things back on track, MASH is a black comedy set in a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital (or... MASH!) during the Korean War. It revolves primarily around three clownish new surgeons who arrive at the MASH unit, Hawkeye (Donald Sutherland), Trapper (Elliott Gould), and Duke (Tom Skerritt). There's a large ensemble cast, and the film is essentially about the interactions of all the characters and the various things that happen at the hospital - there's no conventional narrative. Despite being shot and presented in a serious and realistic manner, the film is unquestionably a comedy in pretty much every scene, even in the somewhat graphic surgery scenes, where the surgeons continue to crack wise while cutting and chopping.
I've read that the film is anti-war, but I didn't get a strong anti war vibe while watching it. It's certainly full of anti-establishment humour, and the frequent sight of bloody soldiers leaves the viewer in no doubt as to the horrific nature of war, but certainly no overt message was present. Perhaps it's so subtle that it went over my head (which wouldn't surprise me).
I wasn't blown away by the film, but I was impressed, and will definitely be checking out more of Altman's films. The often overlapping dialogue is smart, funny, and fast paced, and was apparently largely improvised. The cast list features some big names and some more obscure actors, all of whom are good to great. Sutherland, Gould, and Robert Duvall were the standouts for me. As a brief aside, Sutherland on more than one occasion was reminiscent of a tall Jack Bauer, which I found amusing. I half expected him to start yelling "TELL ME WHERE THE BOMB IS", something the good natured fellow that is Hawkeye would never do! Also, is it just my imagination or does Rene Auberjonois always look roughly the same age on screen, no matter the era of the film he appears in?
I wouldn't call it brilliant, but it's definitely worth watching, especially for someone like me who enjoyed watching the TV series. I don't fully get what all the fuss is about, but it's hailed as a classic, so what do I know? It is very funny, and is certainly entertaining...
I've seen quite a bit of the TV series MASH, but it's only now that I've gotten around to seeing the film that preceded it. Surprisingly, just before watching this I realized I've never seen a Robert Altman film before, despite him having been one of the most acclaimed of American directors with a large body of work (some of which is, apparently, shite). The second surprise I had was discovering that the wonderful theme music from the TV show is actually a song, Suicide is Painless.
Getting things back on track, MASH is a black comedy set in a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital (or... MASH!) during the Korean War. It revolves primarily around three clownish new surgeons who arrive at the MASH unit, Hawkeye (Donald Sutherland), Trapper (Elliott Gould), and Duke (Tom Skerritt). There's a large ensemble cast, and the film is essentially about the interactions of all the characters and the various things that happen at the hospital - there's no conventional narrative. Despite being shot and presented in a serious and realistic manner, the film is unquestionably a comedy in pretty much every scene, even in the somewhat graphic surgery scenes, where the surgeons continue to crack wise while cutting and chopping.
I've read that the film is anti-war, but I didn't get a strong anti war vibe while watching it. It's certainly full of anti-establishment humour, and the frequent sight of bloody soldiers leaves the viewer in no doubt as to the horrific nature of war, but certainly no overt message was present. Perhaps it's so subtle that it went over my head (which wouldn't surprise me).
I wasn't blown away by the film, but I was impressed, and will definitely be checking out more of Altman's films. The often overlapping dialogue is smart, funny, and fast paced, and was apparently largely improvised. The cast list features some big names and some more obscure actors, all of whom are good to great. Sutherland, Gould, and Robert Duvall were the standouts for me. As a brief aside, Sutherland on more than one occasion was reminiscent of a tall Jack Bauer, which I found amusing. I half expected him to start yelling "TELL ME WHERE THE BOMB IS", something the good natured fellow that is Hawkeye would never do! Also, is it just my imagination or does Rene Auberjonois always look roughly the same age on screen, no matter the era of the film he appears in?
I wouldn't call it brilliant, but it's definitely worth watching, especially for someone like me who enjoyed watching the TV series. I don't fully get what all the fuss is about, but it's hailed as a classic, so what do I know? It is very funny, and is certainly entertaining...
Weeds - Season 1 (2005)
Weeds - Season 1
Weeds is a 30 minute episodic drama / comedy (or dramedy) series that started on Showtime in 2005. I've just finished watching the first season - the show is very, very good, but no matter how adorable Mary Louise Parker is (especially when she swears), I didn't find myself loving it.
Nancy Botwin (Parker), a resident of the 'idyllic' suburb of Agrestic, has recently lost her husband and turns to dealing cannabis to support her two children (Silas and Shane) and their suburban lifestyle. Nancy's best friend is Celia, a bitchy woman who has issues with her husband and daughter (actually, daughters, but she ships one of them off to boarding school after the pilot episode). Nancy's troublesome brother-in-law Andy moves in with the family after the first few episodes and adds to her problems. The other major characters are Heylia and Conrad, Nancy's suppliers, and Doug, her accountant and customer.
The show revolves primarily around Nancy, but usually features multiple characters and storylines. Nancy has to deal with her supply, her distribution methods, the competition, managing her domestic finances, and taking care of her family. Her kids are having problems dealing with the death of their father, and Andy gets involved in disastrous schemes and with various women. Celia has her various domestic problems and her fellow (bitchy) PTA members to contend with. And, most amusingly, Nancy's dealers have to contend with Nancy's lack of experience.
The writing is terrific, both as a drama and as a comedy. For the most part, the show is grounded in reality with only the occasional outrageous event taking place. It features a lot of swearing and sex, sometimes to its detriment - it often feels like they're flaunting the fact that they can, just because they can, and it feels excessive and unnecessary. The acting is excellent across the board, particularly Mary Louise Parker and Justin Kirk, who plays Andy (and who gets some of the funniest moments and lines). Despite all of these positives, however, I just don't care much for these characters, which is the main reason I'm not a huge fan.
Personal feelings aside, the show really is very good and is often laugh out loud funny, and I highly recommend it. It doesn't click for me, but it obviously does for a lot of other people. I can't end this post without mentioning my fondness for the the song used in the opening credits - 'Little Boxes' as performed by Malvina Reynolds.
Weeds is a 30 minute episodic drama / comedy (or dramedy) series that started on Showtime in 2005. I've just finished watching the first season - the show is very, very good, but no matter how adorable Mary Louise Parker is (especially when she swears), I didn't find myself loving it.
Nancy Botwin (Parker), a resident of the 'idyllic' suburb of Agrestic, has recently lost her husband and turns to dealing cannabis to support her two children (Silas and Shane) and their suburban lifestyle. Nancy's best friend is Celia, a bitchy woman who has issues with her husband and daughter (actually, daughters, but she ships one of them off to boarding school after the pilot episode). Nancy's troublesome brother-in-law Andy moves in with the family after the first few episodes and adds to her problems. The other major characters are Heylia and Conrad, Nancy's suppliers, and Doug, her accountant and customer.
The show revolves primarily around Nancy, but usually features multiple characters and storylines. Nancy has to deal with her supply, her distribution methods, the competition, managing her domestic finances, and taking care of her family. Her kids are having problems dealing with the death of their father, and Andy gets involved in disastrous schemes and with various women. Celia has her various domestic problems and her fellow (bitchy) PTA members to contend with. And, most amusingly, Nancy's dealers have to contend with Nancy's lack of experience.
The writing is terrific, both as a drama and as a comedy. For the most part, the show is grounded in reality with only the occasional outrageous event taking place. It features a lot of swearing and sex, sometimes to its detriment - it often feels like they're flaunting the fact that they can, just because they can, and it feels excessive and unnecessary. The acting is excellent across the board, particularly Mary Louise Parker and Justin Kirk, who plays Andy (and who gets some of the funniest moments and lines). Despite all of these positives, however, I just don't care much for these characters, which is the main reason I'm not a huge fan.
Personal feelings aside, the show really is very good and is often laugh out loud funny, and I highly recommend it. It doesn't click for me, but it obviously does for a lot of other people. I can't end this post without mentioning my fondness for the the song used in the opening credits - 'Little Boxes' as performed by Malvina Reynolds.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Avatar to hit in 2009
The big news for film geeks yesterday was the long awaited announcement of James Cameron's official return to movie making (after having made a few ocean based documentaries). Cameron's Avatar is scheduled to come out in the summer of 2009 (!), and Cameron claims it's going to be revolutionary. Using cameras that he helped design, the film is to be shot in 3D for exhibition in new digital 3D theatres (I'm guessing there'll be a 2D version for the rest of them). The film also promises to offer revolutionary CG characters that will be beyond the likes of Gollum and Davey Jones, together with detailed CG worlds. Most promising is the fact that Peter Jackson's Weta Digital, a group who have been on the cutting edge for the last few years, will be working on the effects.
Hyperbole aside, the prospect of a 3D, mostly CG sci-fi action film from the director of the Terminator films (parts The Terminator and Terminator 2 - Judgment Day), Aliens, and The Abyss is a mouth watering prospect. Cameron has apparently been nurturing this idea for nigh on a decade, and it apparently revolves around a war between humans and aliens on the aliens' homeworld hundreds of years in the future. His dialogue may be clunky at times, but the man knows how to write and direct a good sci-fi yarn. Although, he did also create Dark Angel. Ok, he also made Titanic, which isn't great but which I reckon is unfairly maligned because of its success. Plus, Titanic wasn't sci-fi or action, but it still had some amazing sequences in it (once you get past the first couple of hours).
Motion capture filming has already been in progress for a few months, relatively unknown leads have been cast, and there'll apparently be around 18 months of post production. Which means it'll be a long while before we see anything of the film - the first still from the film isn't expected for at least another year. Regardless, I haven't had this much early anticipation for a film since Lord of the Rings; it's going to be a long wait.
Hyperbole aside, the prospect of a 3D, mostly CG sci-fi action film from the director of the Terminator films (parts The Terminator and Terminator 2 - Judgment Day), Aliens, and The Abyss is a mouth watering prospect. Cameron has apparently been nurturing this idea for nigh on a decade, and it apparently revolves around a war between humans and aliens on the aliens' homeworld hundreds of years in the future. His dialogue may be clunky at times, but the man knows how to write and direct a good sci-fi yarn. Although, he did also create Dark Angel. Ok, he also made Titanic, which isn't great but which I reckon is unfairly maligned because of its success. Plus, Titanic wasn't sci-fi or action, but it still had some amazing sequences in it (once you get past the first couple of hours).
Motion capture filming has already been in progress for a few months, relatively unknown leads have been cast, and there'll apparently be around 18 months of post production. Which means it'll be a long while before we see anything of the film - the first still from the film isn't expected for at least another year. Regardless, I haven't had this much early anticipation for a film since Lord of the Rings; it's going to be a long wait.
iPhone Announced!
The big news of the day (and probably the biggest technology story of the year) is the announcement of the long rumoured iPhone, Apple's foray into the mobile phone market, at Macworld Expo. The BBC's story can be found here, and details from Apple's site are here. Engadget has a detailed report on the keynote presentation by Steve Jobs. It's being marketed as an iPod, mobile phone, and portable Internet device all rolled into one. All I can say is, shiny... we wantsss it.
The key features are Apple's trademark sleek design and form factor, a large and sharp display, the absence of buttons, the use of a modified OSX operating system, and a supposedly revolutionary touch screen based interface. I'm intrigued by this interface - in the same way the Nintendo Wii interface was a new paradigm for video game interaction, could Apple's innovative interface be an easier way to interact with portable devices? Time will tell...
The downsides thus far are the price and the fact that it's tied down to one mobile service provider. These things will probably become less critical in time once prices fall and Apple spreads the product into different markets.
Despite all the expectations, they've still managed to surprise everyone. Colour me impressed...
The key features are Apple's trademark sleek design and form factor, a large and sharp display, the absence of buttons, the use of a modified OSX operating system, and a supposedly revolutionary touch screen based interface. I'm intrigued by this interface - in the same way the Nintendo Wii interface was a new paradigm for video game interaction, could Apple's innovative interface be an easier way to interact with portable devices? Time will tell...
The downsides thus far are the price and the fact that it's tied down to one mobile service provider. These things will probably become less critical in time once prices fall and Apple spreads the product into different markets.
Despite all the expectations, they've still managed to surprise everyone. Colour me impressed...
Wicker Man Funny
This has to be one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. The best bits of the Wicker Man (2006 remake). Although these scenes are taken out of context, by most accounts the actual film really is this ridiculous! Watch Nicolas Cage steal a bicycle, punch and kick women, run around in a bear costume, and get tortured by bees. And apparently, it's all because of their damned honey!
"How'd it get burned?!? How'd it get burned?? HOW'D IT GET BURNED?!?". Seriously, this clip had me in fits of laughter.
I first heard about this at CHUD
"How'd it get burned?!? How'd it get burned?? HOW'D IT GET BURNED?!?". Seriously, this clip had me in fits of laughter.
I first heard about this at CHUD
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
True Romance (1993)
True Romance (1993)
If the Scott brothers were the Hardy Boys, Ridley Scott would be Frank and Tony Scott would be Joe. Frank was thoughtful and more restrained, Joe was more physical and impulsive, and the films of Ridley and Tony are kind of the same. I'm not saying one is better than the other (both have made some great films), just that both filmmakers have consistent stylistic differences.
True Romance is a Tony Scott film written by non other than Quentin Tarantino (his first screenplay). If that makes you think it's a frenetic crime thriller with bizarre situations, quirky characters, and sharp dialog... you'd be correct. True Romance is the story of Clarence (Christian Slater) and Alabama (Patricia Arquette) who hit it off after an encounter at a Sonny Chiba triple feature and promptly get married. Alabama abandons her life as a call girl, but Clarence is not satisfied until he confronts her pimp (Gary Oldman). Violence ensues, and Clarence winds up with a suitcase full of cocaine. Seeing this as an opportunity, he and his new wife flee across the country to Hollywood to hook up with an old friend (Michael Rapaport) with the intention of selling off the drugs and starting new lives. Unfortunately, the drug dealers get on their trail; the police and a movie mogul (Saul Rubinek) and his assistant (Bronson Pinchot) also get involved as the film heads inexorably towards it's bloody climax.
I'm not the biggest fan of the crime genre, but this one is really good and I enjoyed it immensely. The best thing it has going for it is undoubtedly the script, which is sharp and funny and full of improbable and over the top scenes populated by likable (albeit violent) characters. The dialogue heavy nature of the film means Tony Scott is relatively restrained; he successfully manages an impressive ensemble cast - besides those already mentioned, there's also Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, Tom Sizemore, James Gandolfini, Brad Pitt, and also Samuel L. Jackson and Val Kilmer in brief cameos. Slater and Arquette and their strange romance are the heart of the movie though, and I don't think the two of them have ever been better. Bronson Pinchot was the only distraction - he's hilarious, but I kept thinking of Balki from Mypos... One final note on the music by Hans Zimmer, which is excellent - in particular, the cheerful main theme which is somehow both appropriate and out of place at the same time.
So, to bookend my irrelevant opening paragraph, I'll finish by saying that it's a Tony Scott film, so it's stylish, good looking, and frenzied. It's also very much a Quentin Tarantino film. People who find either filmmaker's work appealing will definitely enjoy this, and people who don't ought to consider checking it out if they're not averse to violent crime capers.
If the Scott brothers were the Hardy Boys, Ridley Scott would be Frank and Tony Scott would be Joe. Frank was thoughtful and more restrained, Joe was more physical and impulsive, and the films of Ridley and Tony are kind of the same. I'm not saying one is better than the other (both have made some great films), just that both filmmakers have consistent stylistic differences.
True Romance is a Tony Scott film written by non other than Quentin Tarantino (his first screenplay). If that makes you think it's a frenetic crime thriller with bizarre situations, quirky characters, and sharp dialog... you'd be correct. True Romance is the story of Clarence (Christian Slater) and Alabama (Patricia Arquette) who hit it off after an encounter at a Sonny Chiba triple feature and promptly get married. Alabama abandons her life as a call girl, but Clarence is not satisfied until he confronts her pimp (Gary Oldman). Violence ensues, and Clarence winds up with a suitcase full of cocaine. Seeing this as an opportunity, he and his new wife flee across the country to Hollywood to hook up with an old friend (Michael Rapaport) with the intention of selling off the drugs and starting new lives. Unfortunately, the drug dealers get on their trail; the police and a movie mogul (Saul Rubinek) and his assistant (Bronson Pinchot) also get involved as the film heads inexorably towards it's bloody climax.
I'm not the biggest fan of the crime genre, but this one is really good and I enjoyed it immensely. The best thing it has going for it is undoubtedly the script, which is sharp and funny and full of improbable and over the top scenes populated by likable (albeit violent) characters. The dialogue heavy nature of the film means Tony Scott is relatively restrained; he successfully manages an impressive ensemble cast - besides those already mentioned, there's also Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, Tom Sizemore, James Gandolfini, Brad Pitt, and also Samuel L. Jackson and Val Kilmer in brief cameos. Slater and Arquette and their strange romance are the heart of the movie though, and I don't think the two of them have ever been better. Bronson Pinchot was the only distraction - he's hilarious, but I kept thinking of Balki from Mypos... One final note on the music by Hans Zimmer, which is excellent - in particular, the cheerful main theme which is somehow both appropriate and out of place at the same time.
So, to bookend my irrelevant opening paragraph, I'll finish by saying that it's a Tony Scott film, so it's stylish, good looking, and frenzied. It's also very much a Quentin Tarantino film. People who find either filmmaker's work appealing will definitely enjoy this, and people who don't ought to consider checking it out if they're not averse to violent crime capers.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)
Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)
Apart from a few notable missteps (Batman and Robin, anyone?), most of the films George Clooney's been involved with have been interesting. And this, his sophomore directorial effort, is more than just interesting. It's exceptional.
Shot in mood enhancing black and white and running a lean 90 minutes, Good Night, and Good Luck tells the story of the conflict between CBS TV journalist Edward Murrow (David Strathairn) and anti-Communist Senator Joseph McCarthy (himself, from archive footage). When the film begins, McCarthy is in the middle of a witch hunt to weed out so called Communists using questionable methods and little to no evidence. Murrow and his colleague Fred Friendly (George Clooney) decide not to remain silent on the issue and launch scathing attacks on McCarthy and his unjustified methods via their TV programme "See It Now". As a result they are forced to deal with internal pressure from CBS management against airing such controversial programmes.
The film is set almost entirely within the offices of CBS and focuses on the team working on the "See It Now" programme. It frequently splices in archive footage from the era which further establishes the setting and enhances the atmosphere. The focus of the script is on how Murrow and Friendly set out to attack McCarthy, and on the consequences of their actions. Most memorable are the recreations of Murrow's broadcasts using his powerful and persuasive words. There's not much focus on character development as such, but then that's not what the film is about. We're given enough information on the people involved for the story being told. Another notable stylistic choice in the film is the lack of background music (there are a few musical interlude-like sequences however) - the ambient sounds of the studio are instead used to immerse the viewer in the setting.
In addition to the primary theme of people standing up and speaking out against wrongdoing even when doing so may entail unpleasant consequences, the film also touches on the responsibility of television broadcasting. It is bookended by a ceremony honouring Murrow's work, where he cautions that television is slipping into a realm of pure entertainment and is in danger of not being used effectively as a tool for informing.
There are also two subplots in the film, one relating to a married couple working on the show who have to keep their marriage secret because of company policy, and another about an anchorman who has difficulty dealing with criticism from a newspaper writer. These are only mildly interesting and the only thing I would cite as flaws, but they do add a human element to a story that focuses mostly on ideals.
The film is well written and directed - it gets straight to the point and is tense and rousing. The sense of time and place is perfect, and the performances from the impressive cast are all stellar. David Strathairn in particular is fantastic as Murrow; he imbues the character with intelligence, stoicism, and wit. His work on the broadcast scenes in particular are incredibly compelling (I have no idea how close they are to the actual broadcasts).
There has apparently been some criticism of the film (according to Wikipedia at any rate) regarding the extent of the pressure Murrow and Friendly faced against airing the controversial shows, and regarding the impact the shows had in McCarthy's eventual downfall. Even if that is true, I'm more than happy to let it slide as artistic license, because as a call to speak out against injustice and fear mongering, and as a reminder that the TV media can use their considerable power to inform and educate as well as to entertain, Good Night, and Good Luck is an unmitigated success.
I'll wrap this up with some choice words from Murrow's most famous broadcast, which are representative of the ideals of the film:
Apart from a few notable missteps (Batman and Robin, anyone?), most of the films George Clooney's been involved with have been interesting. And this, his sophomore directorial effort, is more than just interesting. It's exceptional.
Shot in mood enhancing black and white and running a lean 90 minutes, Good Night, and Good Luck tells the story of the conflict between CBS TV journalist Edward Murrow (David Strathairn) and anti-Communist Senator Joseph McCarthy (himself, from archive footage). When the film begins, McCarthy is in the middle of a witch hunt to weed out so called Communists using questionable methods and little to no evidence. Murrow and his colleague Fred Friendly (George Clooney) decide not to remain silent on the issue and launch scathing attacks on McCarthy and his unjustified methods via their TV programme "See It Now". As a result they are forced to deal with internal pressure from CBS management against airing such controversial programmes.
The film is set almost entirely within the offices of CBS and focuses on the team working on the "See It Now" programme. It frequently splices in archive footage from the era which further establishes the setting and enhances the atmosphere. The focus of the script is on how Murrow and Friendly set out to attack McCarthy, and on the consequences of their actions. Most memorable are the recreations of Murrow's broadcasts using his powerful and persuasive words. There's not much focus on character development as such, but then that's not what the film is about. We're given enough information on the people involved for the story being told. Another notable stylistic choice in the film is the lack of background music (there are a few musical interlude-like sequences however) - the ambient sounds of the studio are instead used to immerse the viewer in the setting.
In addition to the primary theme of people standing up and speaking out against wrongdoing even when doing so may entail unpleasant consequences, the film also touches on the responsibility of television broadcasting. It is bookended by a ceremony honouring Murrow's work, where he cautions that television is slipping into a realm of pure entertainment and is in danger of not being used effectively as a tool for informing.
There are also two subplots in the film, one relating to a married couple working on the show who have to keep their marriage secret because of company policy, and another about an anchorman who has difficulty dealing with criticism from a newspaper writer. These are only mildly interesting and the only thing I would cite as flaws, but they do add a human element to a story that focuses mostly on ideals.
The film is well written and directed - it gets straight to the point and is tense and rousing. The sense of time and place is perfect, and the performances from the impressive cast are all stellar. David Strathairn in particular is fantastic as Murrow; he imbues the character with intelligence, stoicism, and wit. His work on the broadcast scenes in particular are incredibly compelling (I have no idea how close they are to the actual broadcasts).
There has apparently been some criticism of the film (according to Wikipedia at any rate) regarding the extent of the pressure Murrow and Friendly faced against airing the controversial shows, and regarding the impact the shows had in McCarthy's eventual downfall. Even if that is true, I'm more than happy to let it slide as artistic license, because as a call to speak out against injustice and fear mongering, and as a reminder that the TV media can use their considerable power to inform and educate as well as to entertain, Good Night, and Good Luck is an unmitigated success.
I'll wrap this up with some choice words from Murrow's most famous broadcast, which are representative of the ideals of the film:
His [McCarthy's] primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
The Island (2005)
The Island (2005)
My last few posts have been bloated, so it's time to redress the balance. I don't really have much to say about The Island in any case (Warning! There be spoilers below).
Directed by Michael (The Rock, Bad Boys) Bay, The Island is a mediocre sci-fi film populated by the frenetic action sequences for which Bay is renowned. Drawing from films like THX 1138 and Logan's Run, the story is about Lincoln Six Echo (Ewan McGregor) and Jordan Two Delta (Scarlett Johansson), two individuals from a dystopian society who discover that they are actually clones created by a company as spare parts for rich people. They are held within an artificial environment and fed a story (to keep them docile and oblivious to reality) about how they are the last survivors of a deadly disease that wiped out most of the planet's population. Lincoln and Jordan escape and attempt to track down and confront their 'owners' - i.e. the people from whom they were cloned.
If you can swallow the basic premise - it's as outrageous as the Matrix, but they don't sell it nearly as well as in that film - this is a passable action film with a few simplistic ideas bolted on about the ethics of... I'm not sure what, since no one has ever seriously proposed cloning entire people, and the crux of this story is that these are real people and not mere body parts. I suppose it's also a critique of totalitarianism, but again it's all superficial. The Island is a essentially an action / chase movie with lots of explosions and shootouts as our heroes are pursued by a mercenary (Djimon Hounsou) at the behest of the company director (Sean Bean). The acting is fine, but the writing is sketchy. McGregor is a charismatic fellow, and Johansson is easy on the eyes (are those lips for real?). The action sequences are fairly forgettable, but as with most Bay movies, the film is well shot and looks good. One final complaint, there's quite a bit of product placement in the film that is incongruous to the point of distraction.
So basically, it's mediocre and forgettable but is entertaining enough to be inoffensive. It's not as thoughtful as THX 1138, and not as fun and whimsical as Logan's Run, and I would recommend either of those films over this. Having said that, I'm still looking forward to Michael Bay's next film - Transformers - which plays to his strengths and looks like it could be fun.
*Edited to say the post isn't much shorter than usual! Hmm, but I don't think it's too long either.
My last few posts have been bloated, so it's time to redress the balance. I don't really have much to say about The Island in any case (Warning! There be spoilers below).
Directed by Michael (The Rock, Bad Boys) Bay, The Island is a mediocre sci-fi film populated by the frenetic action sequences for which Bay is renowned. Drawing from films like THX 1138 and Logan's Run, the story is about Lincoln Six Echo (Ewan McGregor) and Jordan Two Delta (Scarlett Johansson), two individuals from a dystopian society who discover that they are actually clones created by a company as spare parts for rich people. They are held within an artificial environment and fed a story (to keep them docile and oblivious to reality) about how they are the last survivors of a deadly disease that wiped out most of the planet's population. Lincoln and Jordan escape and attempt to track down and confront their 'owners' - i.e. the people from whom they were cloned.
If you can swallow the basic premise - it's as outrageous as the Matrix, but they don't sell it nearly as well as in that film - this is a passable action film with a few simplistic ideas bolted on about the ethics of... I'm not sure what, since no one has ever seriously proposed cloning entire people, and the crux of this story is that these are real people and not mere body parts. I suppose it's also a critique of totalitarianism, but again it's all superficial. The Island is a essentially an action / chase movie with lots of explosions and shootouts as our heroes are pursued by a mercenary (Djimon Hounsou) at the behest of the company director (Sean Bean). The acting is fine, but the writing is sketchy. McGregor is a charismatic fellow, and Johansson is easy on the eyes (are those lips for real?). The action sequences are fairly forgettable, but as with most Bay movies, the film is well shot and looks good. One final complaint, there's quite a bit of product placement in the film that is incongruous to the point of distraction.
So basically, it's mediocre and forgettable but is entertaining enough to be inoffensive. It's not as thoughtful as THX 1138, and not as fun and whimsical as Logan's Run, and I would recommend either of those films over this. Having said that, I'm still looking forward to Michael Bay's next film - Transformers - which plays to his strengths and looks like it could be fun.
*Edited to say the post isn't much shorter than usual! Hmm, but I don't think it's too long either.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Hustle and Flow (2005)
Hustle and Flow (2005)
I haven't seen Walk the Line or Capote, so I don't know how good Joaquin Phoenix and Phillip Seymour Hoffman were in their roles, but the three Best Actor Oscar nominated performances (from last year) I have seen are all phenomenal - Heath Ledger (Brokeback Mountain), David Strathairn (Good Night, and Good Luck), and Terrence Howard (Hustle and Flow). Out of those three, if I had to pick a winner, it'd have to be Howard. He simply owns this film.
Hustle and Flow tells the story of Djay (Howard), a Memphis pimp who fears that his life will never amount to anything more. Inspired by the success of local boy turned rap star Skinny Black, Djay sets out to become a successful rapper. He has a lot to say and he has the skills required; all he needs is the opportunity to let his voice be heard. He enlists the help of an old school friend, Key, and his associate Shelby; they have the skills necessary to record music.
Djay's whores (well, what else can I call em?), Nola and Shug, help him finance his endeavour and also provide support in their own ways, although the film makes it clear that Djay's line of work is essentially to exploit these women. Working from a 'studio' room set up in Djay's house, they set about recording tracks with the intention of getting them played on the radio by passing the recordings on to Skinny Black (the aforementioned successful rapper). In pursuing his dream, Djay indirectly inspires those around him as they share in it.
Taken at face value, Hustle & Flow is your typical 'protagonist overcomes obstacles to achieve his dream' story. And in many ways, it is just that. There are no real surprises here in terms of narrative (except perhaps the shootout that occurs at one point). Where Hustle & Flow excels, though, is in its execution. There are several things that raise this film well above its peers:
I haven't seen Walk the Line or Capote, so I don't know how good Joaquin Phoenix and Phillip Seymour Hoffman were in their roles, but the three Best Actor Oscar nominated performances (from last year) I have seen are all phenomenal - Heath Ledger (Brokeback Mountain), David Strathairn (Good Night, and Good Luck), and Terrence Howard (Hustle and Flow). Out of those three, if I had to pick a winner, it'd have to be Howard. He simply owns this film.
Hustle and Flow tells the story of Djay (Howard), a Memphis pimp who fears that his life will never amount to anything more. Inspired by the success of local boy turned rap star Skinny Black, Djay sets out to become a successful rapper. He has a lot to say and he has the skills required; all he needs is the opportunity to let his voice be heard. He enlists the help of an old school friend, Key, and his associate Shelby; they have the skills necessary to record music.
Djay's whores (well, what else can I call em?), Nola and Shug, help him finance his endeavour and also provide support in their own ways, although the film makes it clear that Djay's line of work is essentially to exploit these women. Working from a 'studio' room set up in Djay's house, they set about recording tracks with the intention of getting them played on the radio by passing the recordings on to Skinny Black (the aforementioned successful rapper). In pursuing his dream, Djay indirectly inspires those around him as they share in it.
Taken at face value, Hustle & Flow is your typical 'protagonist overcomes obstacles to achieve his dream' story. And in many ways, it is just that. There are no real surprises here in terms of narrative (except perhaps the shootout that occurs at one point). Where Hustle & Flow excels, though, is in its execution. There are several things that raise this film well above its peers:
- Terence Howard - I said he was phenomenal in this, and he is. Seriously. Despite playing a fundamentally unlikable character, he manages to be human and relatable, and it's very easy to root for him. Djay is charismatic and driven, and Howard sells the character completely - including the rap scenes.
- Setting & Atmosphere - To say that this film is gritty and grungy is an understatement. The heroes of films like this usually come from poor neighborhoods, but rarely does it feel as genuine as this. It's a unique setting. It's also a unique set of characters - it's daring to tell a story like this when the protagonist is a pimp and some of the main characters are prostitutes!
- Strong writing - Despite embracing a few cliches, the writing manages to make the situations honest. The supporting characters feel like real people, and not plot devices used to drive the story forward. They have their own lives, even those characters who are ostensibly comic relief. A lot of the credit should also go to the actors, who are uniformly excellent.
- Verisimilitude - I guess this point is sort of the end result of the above - the film feels real, and doesn't have any element of Hollywood phoniness.
- Music - Last but not least, the music is terrific. I don't think anyone has made a film like this centering on rap music, and it was fascinating to watch the process these guys follow putting tracks together.
Silent Hill (2006)
Silent Hill (2006)
The film adaptation of Konami's successful 'survival horror' videogame franchise continues the long running tradition of videogame based films sucking.
The story goes something like this - a woman (Rose) takes her adopted daughter (Sharon) to a creepy town called Silent Hill, because the girl has been walking in her sleep and uttering the words 'Silent Hill'. When they get there, they enter some sort of alternate reality and Sharon promptly disappears - why, we'll never know. Rose ends up teaming up with a policewoman (Cybil) who followed them into town. The town turns out to be some kind of messed up nightmare full of bizarre, grotesque creatures. At certain points, a siren goes off and the place turns even more hellish, with... even more grotesque creatures! Meanwhile, in the 'real world' Silent Hill (which is a ghost town), Rose's husband Christopher (Sean Bean, sporting a hilarious accent) takes part in a superfluous subplot as he searches for his wife and daughter.
The thing about the Silent Hill film is that it's not really a film. It's a loose collection of scenes that are tied together by a cheap plot device. Rose glimpses her daughter running away, runs after her, and encounters something new and horrible. Wash, rinse, repeat. There's a story about the town's dark past and a bunch of religious fanatics, but it's handled in as stupid a manner as you can imagine, and only really comes into play towards the film's conclusion. The script is... perfunctory at best. The acting... forgettable. There's a truly ridiculous scene towards the end where Rose tries to appeal to the fanatical mob; this is followed by (hilarious) cries of "she's a witch! burn her!". These scenes are so over the top that they're pretty much parody-proof!
The only things this film has going for it are its atmosphere and production design. The town of Silent Hill is creepy, the monsters look truly revolting, from the weird 'nurses' with scalpels to the pyramid head man / thing with the giant sword. But these elements are all lifted straight from the game, so the only credit the filmmakers deserve is in implementing them cinematically. Given how cinematic the games themselves are, it couldn't have been that tough. Kudos for not over-relying on CGI however. The whole film feels like bits of the game cobbled together. The only thing is, when you play the game, you're playing the game. Watching a bunch of cutscenes isn't that much fun. Plus, from what I've seen of them, the games appear to have better narratives.
The only other 'memorable' thing from this movie is stuff you'll want to forget. And that's the truly gratuitous violence towards the end, which is both absurd and disgusting. It's there for shock value alone, plain and simple, and it brings nothing new to the table; if anything, it manages betray the more restrained creepiness that was established during most of the film. These scenes of Grand Guignol will make you laugh and feel queasy at the same time.
It's a shame the film's so poor. I expected more from Christophe Gans, whose stylish and entertaining Brotherhood of the Wolf was orders of magnitude better than this. And word is, he's planning on making a sequel. That, like this, will probably be one to avoid.
The film adaptation of Konami's successful 'survival horror' videogame franchise continues the long running tradition of videogame based films sucking.
The story goes something like this - a woman (Rose) takes her adopted daughter (Sharon) to a creepy town called Silent Hill, because the girl has been walking in her sleep and uttering the words 'Silent Hill'. When they get there, they enter some sort of alternate reality and Sharon promptly disappears - why, we'll never know. Rose ends up teaming up with a policewoman (Cybil) who followed them into town. The town turns out to be some kind of messed up nightmare full of bizarre, grotesque creatures. At certain points, a siren goes off and the place turns even more hellish, with... even more grotesque creatures! Meanwhile, in the 'real world' Silent Hill (which is a ghost town), Rose's husband Christopher (Sean Bean, sporting a hilarious accent) takes part in a superfluous subplot as he searches for his wife and daughter.
The thing about the Silent Hill film is that it's not really a film. It's a loose collection of scenes that are tied together by a cheap plot device. Rose glimpses her daughter running away, runs after her, and encounters something new and horrible. Wash, rinse, repeat. There's a story about the town's dark past and a bunch of religious fanatics, but it's handled in as stupid a manner as you can imagine, and only really comes into play towards the film's conclusion. The script is... perfunctory at best. The acting... forgettable. There's a truly ridiculous scene towards the end where Rose tries to appeal to the fanatical mob; this is followed by (hilarious) cries of "she's a witch! burn her!". These scenes are so over the top that they're pretty much parody-proof!
The only things this film has going for it are its atmosphere and production design. The town of Silent Hill is creepy, the monsters look truly revolting, from the weird 'nurses' with scalpels to the pyramid head man / thing with the giant sword. But these elements are all lifted straight from the game, so the only credit the filmmakers deserve is in implementing them cinematically. Given how cinematic the games themselves are, it couldn't have been that tough. Kudos for not over-relying on CGI however. The whole film feels like bits of the game cobbled together. The only thing is, when you play the game, you're playing the game. Watching a bunch of cutscenes isn't that much fun. Plus, from what I've seen of them, the games appear to have better narratives.
The only other 'memorable' thing from this movie is stuff you'll want to forget. And that's the truly gratuitous violence towards the end, which is both absurd and disgusting. It's there for shock value alone, plain and simple, and it brings nothing new to the table; if anything, it manages betray the more restrained creepiness that was established during most of the film. These scenes of Grand Guignol will make you laugh and feel queasy at the same time.
It's a shame the film's so poor. I expected more from Christophe Gans, whose stylish and entertaining Brotherhood of the Wolf was orders of magnitude better than this. And word is, he's planning on making a sequel. That, like this, will probably be one to avoid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)