The Illusionist (2006)
'The Illusionist' is one of two 'magician' themed period films released in 2006, the other being 'The Prestige', which I wrote about here. This one is probably the lower profile and less familiar of the two; it is also, despite featuring similar subject matter, quite different from its spiritual sibling.
Edward Norton is Eisenheim the Illusionist, a dazzling performer who appears in Vienna and wows the crowds with his magic act. The film begins with Eisenhiem being arrested in the middle of his act by Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti) for subversion or threatening the Empire (the exact charges elude me at the moment). It then goes into a flashback with narration by Uhl, and we are shown Eisenheim's childhood - he comes from a poor background, and a chance encounter with a mysterious stranger prompts him to practice the art of magic. He forms a friendship with a girl from an aristocratic family, but is eventually barred from seeing her. He then leaves his village and disappears for years before appearing again in Vienna. Here he discovers that the girl he knew, Duchess Sophie (Jessica Biel), is to be married to the Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell). The two rekindle their relationship but realize that Leopold will never allow them to be together. Things take a sinister twist when Leopold finds out about them and her plans to leave him.
Watching this was disappointing after coming off the far superior 'The Prestige'. First, the magic tricks in this are all seemingly cheats, because they appear to be CGI assisted - extremely bizarre if, as I've heard, they're based on actual tricks from the era! Since from the viewer's perspective the tricks are so overblown that they can't possibly be an illusion, the credibility of the story, which attempts to walk the fence with regard to whether Eisenheim is practicing 'real' magic or simply executing incredibly convincing illusions, is undermined. Second, the plot is not even remotely surprising and ultimately doesn't make much sense, with almost the entire second half of the film being a pointless exercise that isn't justified by the characters' established motivations. Third, the characterization is sketchy for a romantic drama, with only Inspector Uhl coming across as truly well defined, possibly because he's given the most screen-time (or so it felt). In the end there's not much mystery or magic or wonder to be found (other than those of the annoyance inducing kind), and the whole thing feels leaden and the characters really hard to get behind.
On the plus side though, the film is very atmospheric with photography that has a magical 'golden tinge' look to it. The period detail is also quite lavish, with production values that are excellent overall. The cast is the film's strongest element. Norton turns in a predictably professional performance, even if there isn't that much substance to the character; he has a very enigmatic aura about him that works especially well during the magic sequences. Jessica Biel is surprisingly passable as a Duchess, though she doesn't really have much to do. Rufus Sewell, who always seems highly strung in everything I've seen him in, is in fine form as the sneering, detestable Crown Prince whose bark is far worse than his bite. The real star for me was Giamatti though, who plays the de facto central character in the story. Giamatti portrays Inspector Uhl as a man conflicted, caught between doing the right thing and doing what's best for his career; Uhl borders on the arrogant and the aristocratic, but there are moments where some decency shines through. He's also the only person fascinated and awed by the magic on display, a reaction that helps to build up Eisenheim's image as a master conjurer. It's the type of fascination with the subject matter that the film itself is lacking, actually.
'The Illusionist' is a well made film that isn't bad but at the same time doesn't excel in any way. I guess it's one of those that you can watch if you happen to catch it on TV, but isn't really worth watching of your own volition. In the battle of the period magician movies, 'The Prestige' definitely comes out on top.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Second Foundation (1953) by Isaac Asimov
Second Foundation (1953) by Isaac Asimov
At last, the trilogy is complete. The original trilogy, at any rate, since there is a second trilogy by different authors and four other books penned by Asimov himself in the Foundation Series. I read part one and part two earlier in the year, and have just concluded part three, which is an excellent and fitting conclusion to the trilogy.
The First book was about the formation of the Foundation, and it established the plan by Hari Seldon and his team of future predicting psychohistorians to ensure the re-emergence of civilization and empire in the galaxy after a millennium of barbarism. In the second book, this plan was derailed by the emergence of the Mule, a mutant with psychic powers whom the plan could not account for because of psychohistory only dealing with societies as a whole, and not individuals. At the start of this book, the Mule has taken over much of the galaxy and is consolidating his power while searching for the mysterious Second Foundation, which is believed to be a settlement of psychologists who pose the only threat to his power. The story of the Mule's search accounts for about a third of the book and serves as an introduction to the nature of the Second Foundation and the powers that they possess. Needless to say, the Mule and the Second Foundation do in fact confront each other in an encounter that leads to an interesting and unexpected outcome.
The remainder of the book is about the conflict between the two Foundations. The original Foundationers suspect that the Second Foundation is, with their psychic powers, manipulating events to ensure the continuance of Seldon's Plan; a small cabal conspires to locate and eliminate the Second Foundation and break free of the shackles of the manipulated destiny imposed upon them. Meanwhile the Second Foundation is engaging in a risky scheme of its own to set the Seldon Plan, which is tottering on the brink of failure, back on course. The particulars of how this conflict plays out is complex, fascinating, and unpredictable as plots and manipulations are revealed one after the other.
Asimov's third book in the series once again ups the ante by going in a completely new direction and consequently expanding and enriching the Foundation universe. As each book has progressed, it has changed scope from a broad view of events to a more individual level. This change has been in line with the nature of the story, with the fate of the Seldon Plan being disrupted by an individual and ironically resting on the actions of individuals to steer it back on course. The book shifts perspective between several people within the Foundation and certain enigmatic individuals from within the Second Foundation. The Foundationers are the only ones who are characters of substance, and while they are still relatively sketchy they are sufficient for the purposes of the plot.
As much as 'Foundation & Empire' was an adventure story, this one is more a story of a battle of wits, with complex plot machinations and plenty of twists and turns, people second guessing everything, suspecting everyone, and being used and manipulated in various ways. The second book had an obvious twist in it, and while some of the revelations in this can also be guessed beforehand, the story definitely throws you for a loop on several occasions until the very end, and it becomes almost impossible to accurately guess what will happen next right up until the final revelations take place.
'Second Foundation' is as different from its predecessors as they are from each other. While the style is unquestionably the same throughout, the narrative structure and story content are significantly unique to each book. The two sequels admittedly aren't as thematically rich as the first book, focusing as they do more on sci-fi elements and small scale struggles, but on the other hand they are more engaging as narratives. All three books are engrossing and thought provoking in their own right however, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading them. Taken together the Foundation Trilogy is an intelligent telling of an epic story. Despite the expectation that they probably won't be as good (and certainly not as fresh) as the originals, I still plan on reading the rest of the books in the series, at least for the sake of completeness.
At last, the trilogy is complete. The original trilogy, at any rate, since there is a second trilogy by different authors and four other books penned by Asimov himself in the Foundation Series. I read part one and part two earlier in the year, and have just concluded part three, which is an excellent and fitting conclusion to the trilogy.
The First book was about the formation of the Foundation, and it established the plan by Hari Seldon and his team of future predicting psychohistorians to ensure the re-emergence of civilization and empire in the galaxy after a millennium of barbarism. In the second book, this plan was derailed by the emergence of the Mule, a mutant with psychic powers whom the plan could not account for because of psychohistory only dealing with societies as a whole, and not individuals. At the start of this book, the Mule has taken over much of the galaxy and is consolidating his power while searching for the mysterious Second Foundation, which is believed to be a settlement of psychologists who pose the only threat to his power. The story of the Mule's search accounts for about a third of the book and serves as an introduction to the nature of the Second Foundation and the powers that they possess. Needless to say, the Mule and the Second Foundation do in fact confront each other in an encounter that leads to an interesting and unexpected outcome.
The remainder of the book is about the conflict between the two Foundations. The original Foundationers suspect that the Second Foundation is, with their psychic powers, manipulating events to ensure the continuance of Seldon's Plan; a small cabal conspires to locate and eliminate the Second Foundation and break free of the shackles of the manipulated destiny imposed upon them. Meanwhile the Second Foundation is engaging in a risky scheme of its own to set the Seldon Plan, which is tottering on the brink of failure, back on course. The particulars of how this conflict plays out is complex, fascinating, and unpredictable as plots and manipulations are revealed one after the other.
Asimov's third book in the series once again ups the ante by going in a completely new direction and consequently expanding and enriching the Foundation universe. As each book has progressed, it has changed scope from a broad view of events to a more individual level. This change has been in line with the nature of the story, with the fate of the Seldon Plan being disrupted by an individual and ironically resting on the actions of individuals to steer it back on course. The book shifts perspective between several people within the Foundation and certain enigmatic individuals from within the Second Foundation. The Foundationers are the only ones who are characters of substance, and while they are still relatively sketchy they are sufficient for the purposes of the plot.
As much as 'Foundation & Empire' was an adventure story, this one is more a story of a battle of wits, with complex plot machinations and plenty of twists and turns, people second guessing everything, suspecting everyone, and being used and manipulated in various ways. The second book had an obvious twist in it, and while some of the revelations in this can also be guessed beforehand, the story definitely throws you for a loop on several occasions until the very end, and it becomes almost impossible to accurately guess what will happen next right up until the final revelations take place.
'Second Foundation' is as different from its predecessors as they are from each other. While the style is unquestionably the same throughout, the narrative structure and story content are significantly unique to each book. The two sequels admittedly aren't as thematically rich as the first book, focusing as they do more on sci-fi elements and small scale struggles, but on the other hand they are more engaging as narratives. All three books are engrossing and thought provoking in their own right however, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading them. Taken together the Foundation Trilogy is an intelligent telling of an epic story. Despite the expectation that they probably won't be as good (and certainly not as fresh) as the originals, I still plan on reading the rest of the books in the series, at least for the sake of completeness.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Die Hard 4.0 (2007)
Die Hard 4.0 (2007)
'Die Hard 4.0'. Or 'Live Free or Die Hard', as it's otherwise known. Or, 'Die Hard meets The Terminator', as it often appears to be. The fourth entry in the venerable action franchise (no seriously, how many other series of action movies are as long lasting and as good?) has arrived with Bruce Willis once again donning the dirty vest of his most famous character (not literally though). After all these years out of the limelight, does John McClane's latest adventure pass muster, or does it pale into insignificance when compared to the venerable original?
The story is about a bunch of 'cyber-terrorists' who take over essentially all of the computer systems that control U.S. infrastructure - that is power, traffic systems, communications, etc... in a so-called 'fire sale' attack, thereby bringing the country to a standstill. This is to the best of my knowledge utterly implausible, but so are a lot of things in over-the-top movies, so I'll go with it despite the fact that the previous movies weren't quite this extreme. In the thick of things is Detective John McClane (Bruce Willis), who saves the life of young hacker Matt Farrell (Justin Long) from a bunch of highly trained killers. When other prominent hackers throughout the country are killed, McClane realizes Farrell is somehow a threat to the terrorists' plans and takes him under his protection. Aided by Farrell's technical prowess, he works to stop the terrorists led by Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) and his second Mai Lihn (Maggie Q), while also keeping his daughter Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) safe.
'Die Hard 4.0' doesn't feel like a Die Hard movie. Those movies were defined by a constrained environment in which a vulnerable 'everyman' hero fought against the odds to defy the plans of a ruthless villain. Even the third movie took place within city confines and the geography of New York was a large part of the film's character. The trappings of the location were worked into the storylines, and were often key elements. In this movie, the sense of place is completely absent, with the story jumping from one bland government facility to the next.
The hero is now John McClane in name only; gone is the brash, loud mouthed, happy-go-lucky guy fighting tooth and nail. Here, McClane is like a terminator walking from set-piece to set-piece, never in doubt about his ability to win, seemingly unstoppable and capable of surviving just about anything thrown at him. It's not the fact that he survives that sucks though; it's the fact that he seems so completely nonchalant about the whole experience, like a video game avatar walking around blithely, occasionally taking a pounding, and then continuing on his merry way. There's no humanity in the character, and Willis doesn't really seem interested in proceedings. His perfunctory quips and yelling and cheering ring false, although they are sometimes quite funny; plus, McClane's trademark profanity is absent because of the film's PG-13 / 12 rating.
The film isn't particularly well written, and the plotting is inane. The terrorists do some random things to scare everybody, including the government which appears to be beyond inept. In this film, the government doesn't even seem to be trying to do anything to stop the bad guys, and they make the incompetents that populate 24's CTU look good. Farrell, being a hacker genius, is able to figure out what Gabriel may do next and guides technophobic McClane while also being on hand to help work the gizmos where necessary. This basically allows McClane to get from one set piece to the next where he can kick some ass before moving on. Wash, rinse, repeat. The chaotic and capricious nature of the plots in the previous films is nowhere to be seen. Little sincere effort is made by our heroes to get the authorities to help out, and McClane glibly states that he's the only one who can do anything about the whole problem.
The villain is also somewhat lacking. Olyphant was really great in HBO's 'Deadwood', but his Thomas Gabriel is decidedly pedestrian, saddled with a permanent expression of vexation and lacking the authority and presence of his predecessors. His and McClane's exchanges are passable at best, never exhibiting the level of caustic energy that we saw in the first film. Only Maggie Q makes an impression from the bad guys, but that is mostly because of her stunning good looks and the fact that Len Wiseman wisely (no pun intended) chooses to linger on them.
On the plus side, DH4 is admittedly a very entertaining film. The action hardly ever stops and the set pieces are really well constructed and exciting, even when they are overblown and defy basic logic (like how McClane survives a massive drop, picks himself up, drives an SUV back up to the floor he fell from and rams someone into an elevator shaft seemingly without hurting them one bit). The best part about the action is how much of it appears to be real instead of CGI, with real stunts and real instead of virtual simulated destruction. It's refreshing in a film with action and destruction on such a grand scale to not be able to pick out any CGI doubles.
The other redeeming factor - and it goes a long way into breathing life into the film - is Justin Long's performance as Farrell. He's excellent as a guy terrified and out of his depth but still holding on to his sense of humour. Long brings some much needed life to the film, but unlike Samuel L Jackson in 'Die Hard With a Vengeance' he has no real rapport with McClane, mostly because McClane is stonily robotic. Also great is Mary Elizabeth Winstead as McClane's daughter, who is believably as scrappy and indomitable as one might expect (the real) McClane's daughter to be.
It doesn't feel like a real Die Hard movie, but on its own terms it's still a decent enough piece of entertainment that is a mixture of old school 'real' action and modern tech laden excesses. While not nearly up to 'Bourne' standards, it's still better than last year's mediocre MI:3 (I called that movie good at the time, but it's faded from memory so fast I can't attest to that with confidence right now. MI3 and DH4 are in the same disposable entertainment calibre). It's better than Wiseman's previous films, and while it is enjoyable it is also ultimately forgettable and not a worthy follow up to the earlier adventures of John McClane. I have to say, though, that the 'Yippee Kay Yay' line worked out really well despite part of it being muffled out; in fact, I reckon its the most organic use of that line since the original!
'Die Hard 4.0'. Or 'Live Free or Die Hard', as it's otherwise known. Or, 'Die Hard meets The Terminator', as it often appears to be. The fourth entry in the venerable action franchise (no seriously, how many other series of action movies are as long lasting and as good?) has arrived with Bruce Willis once again donning the dirty vest of his most famous character (not literally though). After all these years out of the limelight, does John McClane's latest adventure pass muster, or does it pale into insignificance when compared to the venerable original?
The story is about a bunch of 'cyber-terrorists' who take over essentially all of the computer systems that control U.S. infrastructure - that is power, traffic systems, communications, etc... in a so-called 'fire sale' attack, thereby bringing the country to a standstill. This is to the best of my knowledge utterly implausible, but so are a lot of things in over-the-top movies, so I'll go with it despite the fact that the previous movies weren't quite this extreme. In the thick of things is Detective John McClane (Bruce Willis), who saves the life of young hacker Matt Farrell (Justin Long) from a bunch of highly trained killers. When other prominent hackers throughout the country are killed, McClane realizes Farrell is somehow a threat to the terrorists' plans and takes him under his protection. Aided by Farrell's technical prowess, he works to stop the terrorists led by Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) and his second Mai Lihn (Maggie Q), while also keeping his daughter Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) safe.
'Die Hard 4.0' doesn't feel like a Die Hard movie. Those movies were defined by a constrained environment in which a vulnerable 'everyman' hero fought against the odds to defy the plans of a ruthless villain. Even the third movie took place within city confines and the geography of New York was a large part of the film's character. The trappings of the location were worked into the storylines, and were often key elements. In this movie, the sense of place is completely absent, with the story jumping from one bland government facility to the next.
The hero is now John McClane in name only; gone is the brash, loud mouthed, happy-go-lucky guy fighting tooth and nail. Here, McClane is like a terminator walking from set-piece to set-piece, never in doubt about his ability to win, seemingly unstoppable and capable of surviving just about anything thrown at him. It's not the fact that he survives that sucks though; it's the fact that he seems so completely nonchalant about the whole experience, like a video game avatar walking around blithely, occasionally taking a pounding, and then continuing on his merry way. There's no humanity in the character, and Willis doesn't really seem interested in proceedings. His perfunctory quips and yelling and cheering ring false, although they are sometimes quite funny; plus, McClane's trademark profanity is absent because of the film's PG-13 / 12 rating.
The film isn't particularly well written, and the plotting is inane. The terrorists do some random things to scare everybody, including the government which appears to be beyond inept. In this film, the government doesn't even seem to be trying to do anything to stop the bad guys, and they make the incompetents that populate 24's CTU look good. Farrell, being a hacker genius, is able to figure out what Gabriel may do next and guides technophobic McClane while also being on hand to help work the gizmos where necessary. This basically allows McClane to get from one set piece to the next where he can kick some ass before moving on. Wash, rinse, repeat. The chaotic and capricious nature of the plots in the previous films is nowhere to be seen. Little sincere effort is made by our heroes to get the authorities to help out, and McClane glibly states that he's the only one who can do anything about the whole problem.
The villain is also somewhat lacking. Olyphant was really great in HBO's 'Deadwood', but his Thomas Gabriel is decidedly pedestrian, saddled with a permanent expression of vexation and lacking the authority and presence of his predecessors. His and McClane's exchanges are passable at best, never exhibiting the level of caustic energy that we saw in the first film. Only Maggie Q makes an impression from the bad guys, but that is mostly because of her stunning good looks and the fact that Len Wiseman wisely (no pun intended) chooses to linger on them.
On the plus side, DH4 is admittedly a very entertaining film. The action hardly ever stops and the set pieces are really well constructed and exciting, even when they are overblown and defy basic logic (like how McClane survives a massive drop, picks himself up, drives an SUV back up to the floor he fell from and rams someone into an elevator shaft seemingly without hurting them one bit). The best part about the action is how much of it appears to be real instead of CGI, with real stunts and real instead of virtual simulated destruction. It's refreshing in a film with action and destruction on such a grand scale to not be able to pick out any CGI doubles.
The other redeeming factor - and it goes a long way into breathing life into the film - is Justin Long's performance as Farrell. He's excellent as a guy terrified and out of his depth but still holding on to his sense of humour. Long brings some much needed life to the film, but unlike Samuel L Jackson in 'Die Hard With a Vengeance' he has no real rapport with McClane, mostly because McClane is stonily robotic. Also great is Mary Elizabeth Winstead as McClane's daughter, who is believably as scrappy and indomitable as one might expect (the real) McClane's daughter to be.
It doesn't feel like a real Die Hard movie, but on its own terms it's still a decent enough piece of entertainment that is a mixture of old school 'real' action and modern tech laden excesses. While not nearly up to 'Bourne' standards, it's still better than last year's mediocre MI:3 (I called that movie good at the time, but it's faded from memory so fast I can't attest to that with confidence right now. MI3 and DH4 are in the same disposable entertainment calibre). It's better than Wiseman's previous films, and while it is enjoyable it is also ultimately forgettable and not a worthy follow up to the earlier adventures of John McClane. I have to say, though, that the 'Yippee Kay Yay' line worked out really well despite part of it being muffled out; in fact, I reckon its the most organic use of that line since the original!
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Die Hard (1988)
Die Hard (1988)
Released in the twilight of the eighties, 'Die Hard' was markedly different from other action films. It significantly raised the status quo for the genre by eschewing the well established 'invincible muscle man' convention by featuring a scrappy and resourceful yet vulnerable everyman as its protagonist. Oh, and by also having a good plot and strong performances. Nearly 20 years since its release and in the wake of the arrival of its third sequel, John McTiernan's classic shows its whippersnapper descendant how it should be done.
New York cop John McClane (Bruce Willis) is visiting his estranged wife Holly (Bonnie Bedelia) in Los Angeles. She's a senior employee at her company, and John meets her at her office in the Nakatomi Plaza building during a company Christmas party. Shortly thereafter, the building is taken over by a group of terrorists led by Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) and everyone is held hostage. Everyone, that is, except for McClane, who manages to slip away during the chaos. He proceeds to sneak around the building, gathering information on the terrorists and foiling them in any way that he can, eventually becoming... "just a fly in the ointment... The monkey in the wrench. The pain in the ass." The cops soon get involved and besiege the building, and McClane establishes contact with a Sgt. Powell (Reginald VelJohnson) via a walkie-talkie he commandeers. The terrorists, however, are very resourceful and organized, and are not exactly what they appear to be... and the arrival of the authorities doesn't phase them one bit. Which leaves just John McClane standing in their way.
That's the basic storyline. It isn't deep - this is an action movie after all - but as always it's the execution that counts, and this film executes the hell out of its story. While conceptually simple, the plotting is actually quite solid and meticulous. Its far fetched to be sure, but it still stays on the right side of believable and always seems logical and consistent - simple details like McClain making himself familiar with the layout of the building and writing down the terrorists' names add tons of credibility to the story with minimal effort. The characters aren't exactly deep either, but they are given enough depth to not feel generic, and they have loads of personality to boot. Additionally, the integration of character actions into the plot feels organic instead of contrived, which is always a big plus. Although not a comedy, the film is laced with humour throughout, humour that mostly comes from the characters; there are loads of memorable lines and exchanges that keep things from getting too leaden. Even the villains are entertaining and in some ways the orchestration of their plan is such that in another movie you could easily find yourself rooting for them!
Add to this the pretty much perfect casting of just about every role. The stars are of course Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman, playing characters who are different in just about ever way. Willis is spot on as the wise-cracking, dogged blue collar cop having a very, very bad day. You're on his side from the first scene, and his cockiness is counterbalanced with a very real sense of fear and vulnerability - he survives every encounter by the skin of his teeth and he knows it. Rickman's Hans Gruber is suave and refined and exudes an aura of ruthless intelligence and supreme confidence. The guy is undoubtedly in charge and revels in it, dealing out dry quips at every turn and only rarely letting his frustration with McClane slip through. A classic villain to oppose Willis's classic hero. The main supporting players, Bedelia and VelJohnson, are also fantastic in their respective roles as McClane's wife and his buddy on the outside. Bedelia is feisty and convincingly holds her own against the egos of Rickman and Willis (their characters, I mean). VelJohnson is, despite appearing initially comedic, quite a badass in his own way when squaring off against his superiors while also providing McClane with much needed moral support. The rest of the cast are note perfect in their minor roles as villains and inept law enforcement personnel.
Great writing and great performances are complemented by great everything else. John McTiernan's work on the character exchanges, the comedy, and the action is exceptional. The film is fast paced; after a brisk 15 minutes of initial setup it becomes relentless. The action sequences are doled out regularly and they are as tense and exciting as anything made today (actually, more so), and the action manages to be great without stretching suspension of disbelief. The constrained and claustrophobic setting only adds to the tension. Despite the laugh-out-loud humour employed, the tone is always reigned in and never veers too far into comedy territory or detracts from the core of the story. The effects and action choreography in general are great, though there are some stunt double sequences that are glaringly obvious. At least they're obvious stunt doubles and not obvious CGI 'Jello man' doubles. Topping it all off is the music, which mixes some Christmas tunes with a little Bach that together with the original score by Michael Kamen create a complementary and memorable aural experience.
'Die Hard' is one of the best action movies ever made, and an absolute classic. Thrilling and entertaining from start to finish, it shows that action films don't have to be overblown and intelligence insulting to be any good. The sequels are pretty good as well, but the progenitor towers above them all. Yippee Kay-yay (you know the rest)!
Now I have a machine gun. Ho ho ho.
Released in the twilight of the eighties, 'Die Hard' was markedly different from other action films. It significantly raised the status quo for the genre by eschewing the well established 'invincible muscle man' convention by featuring a scrappy and resourceful yet vulnerable everyman as its protagonist. Oh, and by also having a good plot and strong performances. Nearly 20 years since its release and in the wake of the arrival of its third sequel, John McTiernan's classic shows its whippersnapper descendant how it should be done.
New York cop John McClane (Bruce Willis) is visiting his estranged wife Holly (Bonnie Bedelia) in Los Angeles. She's a senior employee at her company, and John meets her at her office in the Nakatomi Plaza building during a company Christmas party. Shortly thereafter, the building is taken over by a group of terrorists led by Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) and everyone is held hostage. Everyone, that is, except for McClane, who manages to slip away during the chaos. He proceeds to sneak around the building, gathering information on the terrorists and foiling them in any way that he can, eventually becoming... "just a fly in the ointment... The monkey in the wrench. The pain in the ass." The cops soon get involved and besiege the building, and McClane establishes contact with a Sgt. Powell (Reginald VelJohnson) via a walkie-talkie he commandeers. The terrorists, however, are very resourceful and organized, and are not exactly what they appear to be... and the arrival of the authorities doesn't phase them one bit. Which leaves just John McClane standing in their way.
That's the basic storyline. It isn't deep - this is an action movie after all - but as always it's the execution that counts, and this film executes the hell out of its story. While conceptually simple, the plotting is actually quite solid and meticulous. Its far fetched to be sure, but it still stays on the right side of believable and always seems logical and consistent - simple details like McClain making himself familiar with the layout of the building and writing down the terrorists' names add tons of credibility to the story with minimal effort. The characters aren't exactly deep either, but they are given enough depth to not feel generic, and they have loads of personality to boot. Additionally, the integration of character actions into the plot feels organic instead of contrived, which is always a big plus. Although not a comedy, the film is laced with humour throughout, humour that mostly comes from the characters; there are loads of memorable lines and exchanges that keep things from getting too leaden. Even the villains are entertaining and in some ways the orchestration of their plan is such that in another movie you could easily find yourself rooting for them!
Add to this the pretty much perfect casting of just about every role. The stars are of course Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman, playing characters who are different in just about ever way. Willis is spot on as the wise-cracking, dogged blue collar cop having a very, very bad day. You're on his side from the first scene, and his cockiness is counterbalanced with a very real sense of fear and vulnerability - he survives every encounter by the skin of his teeth and he knows it. Rickman's Hans Gruber is suave and refined and exudes an aura of ruthless intelligence and supreme confidence. The guy is undoubtedly in charge and revels in it, dealing out dry quips at every turn and only rarely letting his frustration with McClane slip through. A classic villain to oppose Willis's classic hero. The main supporting players, Bedelia and VelJohnson, are also fantastic in their respective roles as McClane's wife and his buddy on the outside. Bedelia is feisty and convincingly holds her own against the egos of Rickman and Willis (their characters, I mean). VelJohnson is, despite appearing initially comedic, quite a badass in his own way when squaring off against his superiors while also providing McClane with much needed moral support. The rest of the cast are note perfect in their minor roles as villains and inept law enforcement personnel.
Great writing and great performances are complemented by great everything else. John McTiernan's work on the character exchanges, the comedy, and the action is exceptional. The film is fast paced; after a brisk 15 minutes of initial setup it becomes relentless. The action sequences are doled out regularly and they are as tense and exciting as anything made today (actually, more so), and the action manages to be great without stretching suspension of disbelief. The constrained and claustrophobic setting only adds to the tension. Despite the laugh-out-loud humour employed, the tone is always reigned in and never veers too far into comedy territory or detracts from the core of the story. The effects and action choreography in general are great, though there are some stunt double sequences that are glaringly obvious. At least they're obvious stunt doubles and not obvious CGI 'Jello man' doubles. Topping it all off is the music, which mixes some Christmas tunes with a little Bach that together with the original score by Michael Kamen create a complementary and memorable aural experience.
'Die Hard' is one of the best action movies ever made, and an absolute classic. Thrilling and entertaining from start to finish, it shows that action films don't have to be overblown and intelligence insulting to be any good. The sequels are pretty good as well, but the progenitor towers above them all. Yippee Kay-yay (you know the rest)!
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The Prestige (2006)
The Prestige (2006)
Christopher Nolan's 'The Prestige' is one of those films that should be seen twice. It's a puzzle film of sorts, one that rewards a second viewing, although how it'll hold up on further viewings is something that remains to be seen. It's a slick fantasy / period film about a pair of dueling magicians in turn of the 20th century London, based on a novel by Christopher Priest.
Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) are at the start of the tale apprentice magicians who work together. Angier is charismatic and refined, and somewhat aristocratic, while Borden is more thoughtful and focused, and decidedly working class. Angier's wife (Piper Perabo) works as the magician's assistant; during a trick involving a water tank, she drowns. Borden tied the knots which bound her for the trick, and Angier blames him for her death. This event sows the seeds for a bitter, obsessive rivalry that will consume both men.
The story is told as three narrative segments that are intercut. One segment, the primary one that accounts for most of the film, tells the story of the rise of the two magicians' careers from small scale acts to major successes. It is here that the two are directly in conflict, with each sabotaging the other's efforts during their rivalry. Borden falls in love with and marries a woman named Sarah (Rebecca Hall), but their relationship is turbulent because of his obsession with his art. Angier begins a relationship with his assistant, Olivia (Scarlett Johansson), but it too is burdened by his obsession with outdoing Borden and getting revenge, an obsession which is further fueled when Borden develops a seemingly impossible trick that wows the crowds. The trick is 'The Transported Man', in which Borden walks in through one door and appears out another one metres away almost instantaneously. Angier attempts to duplicate the trick and is aided in his all encompassing efforts by his engineer, the experienced Cutter (Michael Caine).
The second segment of the film follows Angier as he heads to the US to meet Nikola Tesla (David Bowie), whom he believes can create a machine for him that will allow him to perform 'The Transported Man' in the same way Borden did. The third, which takes place in the 'present' of the film, sees Borden incarcerated for the murder of Angier.
There are, of course, surprises in the story that I haven't mentioned. The film is presented like a magic trick, which we are told is broken into three parts - the pledge, the turn, and the prestige, with the prestige being the climax. The story is enriched by elements of foreshadowing and by symbolism throughout, some of which may not be fully appreciated on a first viewing. Saying any more would be remiss as this is one of those films best seen without too much foreknowledge. Suffice it to say that the film plays fair by the audience, and sets out enough information for everything to make sense by the end; in fact, even enough to figure out what's going on before the end. The core of the tale is about the two protagonists and their obsessions, and how those obsessions cause them to destroy both themselves and everyone around them. It's well written, with sufficient characterization for the two magicians. They are both selfish and detestable, but they are also ultimately sympathetic slaves to their natures.
As with all of Nolan's films, 'The Prestige' is immaculately made. It's slick and stylish, and the production values are excellent. There is a strong visual sense of the period and setting, but the narrative leaves the period aspect in the background to a great extent and focuses solely on the characters and events. Again as with his other films, this one also has a cold detachment from its characters, a tonal choice that works because of the focus on plot and detail; the characterization leans towards supporting the plot instead of being the core element. Also requiring a mention is the excellent editing of the different segments to create a cohesive and lucid whole, impressive given the constant jumping back and forth between timelines. And finally the music, which is subdued and appropriate while not being particularly memorable.
Bale and Jackman anchor the film with their excellent performances. Jackman's Angier is charismatic and a consummate showman, but also tortured by the loss of his wife and his need to defeat Bordon. Bale is, as always, full of intensity and is enigmatic as Borden, and while he is for the most part unemotional his few scenes with his wife and daughter convey enough humanity to make the character fully rounded. Michael Caine is in fine form as Cutter, a man with a sharp mind and a mixture of enthusiasm and weariness who tries to act as a voice of reason for Angier. Truly excellent in a minor role is Rebecca Hall as Sarah, a character whose relationship with Borden is made believable in just a few scenes and who brings a much needed element of normalcy and decency to a film populated mostly by oddballs with few scruples. David Bowie is suitably mysterious and aloof as Tesla, though he uses a fairly strange accent that is sometimes distracting. I must also mention Andy Serkis, who is excellent in playing Tesla's very animated assistant Alley. The only weak link is Scarlett Johansson, whose paper thin character is not enhanced any by her performance.
I enjoyed and was intrigued by 'The Prestige', which I think is a very well made, unique, and entertaining film that tells a compelling story and is full of little details that make for a rewarding viewing experience. It's a twist movie that focuses on setting up its twists but not at the expense of good stuff like themes, characterization, and drama. Needless to say, its worth watching.
Christopher Nolan's 'The Prestige' is one of those films that should be seen twice. It's a puzzle film of sorts, one that rewards a second viewing, although how it'll hold up on further viewings is something that remains to be seen. It's a slick fantasy / period film about a pair of dueling magicians in turn of the 20th century London, based on a novel by Christopher Priest.
Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) are at the start of the tale apprentice magicians who work together. Angier is charismatic and refined, and somewhat aristocratic, while Borden is more thoughtful and focused, and decidedly working class. Angier's wife (Piper Perabo) works as the magician's assistant; during a trick involving a water tank, she drowns. Borden tied the knots which bound her for the trick, and Angier blames him for her death. This event sows the seeds for a bitter, obsessive rivalry that will consume both men.
The story is told as three narrative segments that are intercut. One segment, the primary one that accounts for most of the film, tells the story of the rise of the two magicians' careers from small scale acts to major successes. It is here that the two are directly in conflict, with each sabotaging the other's efforts during their rivalry. Borden falls in love with and marries a woman named Sarah (Rebecca Hall), but their relationship is turbulent because of his obsession with his art. Angier begins a relationship with his assistant, Olivia (Scarlett Johansson), but it too is burdened by his obsession with outdoing Borden and getting revenge, an obsession which is further fueled when Borden develops a seemingly impossible trick that wows the crowds. The trick is 'The Transported Man', in which Borden walks in through one door and appears out another one metres away almost instantaneously. Angier attempts to duplicate the trick and is aided in his all encompassing efforts by his engineer, the experienced Cutter (Michael Caine).
The second segment of the film follows Angier as he heads to the US to meet Nikola Tesla (David Bowie), whom he believes can create a machine for him that will allow him to perform 'The Transported Man' in the same way Borden did. The third, which takes place in the 'present' of the film, sees Borden incarcerated for the murder of Angier.
There are, of course, surprises in the story that I haven't mentioned. The film is presented like a magic trick, which we are told is broken into three parts - the pledge, the turn, and the prestige, with the prestige being the climax. The story is enriched by elements of foreshadowing and by symbolism throughout, some of which may not be fully appreciated on a first viewing. Saying any more would be remiss as this is one of those films best seen without too much foreknowledge. Suffice it to say that the film plays fair by the audience, and sets out enough information for everything to make sense by the end; in fact, even enough to figure out what's going on before the end. The core of the tale is about the two protagonists and their obsessions, and how those obsessions cause them to destroy both themselves and everyone around them. It's well written, with sufficient characterization for the two magicians. They are both selfish and detestable, but they are also ultimately sympathetic slaves to their natures.
As with all of Nolan's films, 'The Prestige' is immaculately made. It's slick and stylish, and the production values are excellent. There is a strong visual sense of the period and setting, but the narrative leaves the period aspect in the background to a great extent and focuses solely on the characters and events. Again as with his other films, this one also has a cold detachment from its characters, a tonal choice that works because of the focus on plot and detail; the characterization leans towards supporting the plot instead of being the core element. Also requiring a mention is the excellent editing of the different segments to create a cohesive and lucid whole, impressive given the constant jumping back and forth between timelines. And finally the music, which is subdued and appropriate while not being particularly memorable.
Bale and Jackman anchor the film with their excellent performances. Jackman's Angier is charismatic and a consummate showman, but also tortured by the loss of his wife and his need to defeat Bordon. Bale is, as always, full of intensity and is enigmatic as Borden, and while he is for the most part unemotional his few scenes with his wife and daughter convey enough humanity to make the character fully rounded. Michael Caine is in fine form as Cutter, a man with a sharp mind and a mixture of enthusiasm and weariness who tries to act as a voice of reason for Angier. Truly excellent in a minor role is Rebecca Hall as Sarah, a character whose relationship with Borden is made believable in just a few scenes and who brings a much needed element of normalcy and decency to a film populated mostly by oddballs with few scruples. David Bowie is suitably mysterious and aloof as Tesla, though he uses a fairly strange accent that is sometimes distracting. I must also mention Andy Serkis, who is excellent in playing Tesla's very animated assistant Alley. The only weak link is Scarlett Johansson, whose paper thin character is not enhanced any by her performance.
I enjoyed and was intrigued by 'The Prestige', which I think is a very well made, unique, and entertaining film that tells a compelling story and is full of little details that make for a rewarding viewing experience. It's a twist movie that focuses on setting up its twists but not at the expense of good stuff like themes, characterization, and drama. Needless to say, its worth watching.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Heroes - Season 1 (2006-2007)
Heroes - Season 1 (2006-2007)
'Heroes' was probably the most talked about TV show to air recently; to say that there was a lot of hype surrounding it would be an understatement of epic proportions. I've just finished watching its much lauded inaugural season and I must say that while it is poor in many ways and quite overrated, I still enjoyed it immensely.
'Heroes' is a sci-fi drama that tells the story of a disparate group of people who begin to discover that they have super powers. It focuses on their personal lives, how they deal with their powers, and their role in much larger machinations taking place around them. These machinations involve a shady organization that monitors these so called 'heroes' and a powerful, reclusive and shady businessman manipulating events from behind the scenes. Also in the mix is a super-villain named Sylar (Zachary Quinto) who is going around stealing other heroes' powers, killing them in the process. The overall story told in the season (dubbed 'Volume 1') focuses on the struggle to stop Sylar and also prevent a massive explosion that will decimate New York City. While each character has his or her own story they are all linked to each other and to overall events, and their paths and storylines cross on many occasions.
The main characters (spoilerific stuff in this paragraph - the powers described are only gradually revealed in the show) include Nathan Petrelli (Adrian Pasdar), a politician running for congress who can fly; his brother Peter (Milo Ventimiglia), a nurse who has the ability to absorb and use the powers of others; Hiro Nakamura (Masi Oka), a Japanese corporate drone who has the power to manipulate space and time; Claire Bennett (Hayden Panettiere), a cheerleader who can heal herself; Isaac Mendez (Santiago Cabrera), a painter who can draw the future; Matt Parkman (Greg Grunberg), a police officer who can hear people's thoughts; D. L. Hawkins (Leonard Roberts), an ex-con who can phase through matter; Nikki Sanders (Ali Larter), a woman with super strength and a split personality (not sure if the latter is a power or not); and Micah (Noah Gray-Cabey), a kid who can manipulate electronics. Also in the mix are Claire's father Noah Bennett (Jack Coleman), who is part of the shady, unnamed organization, and Mohinder Suresh (Sendhil Ramamurthy), an Indian geneticist who is studying the 'hero' phenomenon. There are also several other powered and non powered supporting characters throughout.
This show is very much in the vein of shows like 'Smallville'. And by that I mean it isn't very well made. Like Smallville's first few seasons though, it's fairly entertaining and has enough likable characters to be watchable. There's nothing here that is imaginative or original, but the show is perhaps somewhat unique in being the first ensemble 'comic book like' TV series. Seeing as how I enjoyed the show, I'll start of with the negatives (of which there are a lot) and cap things off with the positives.
The main problem with this show is the writing, which is at times quite awful. The feeling of things being made up as they go along rarely feels more blatant than it does in 'Heroes'. There are story strands which are started, go nowhere, and then disappear without a trace (a police investigation subplot, a character's stint in prison, a mentor subplot), and arcs that are dragged out needlessly (most of Hiro's adventures, Nikki / DL / Micah). The overall structure is meandering, unfocused and random, and relies far too heavily on contrivance and coincidence and the seemingly magical ability for characters to hop from place to place and be in the right place at the right time (the coincidence aspect is aping 'Lost', but in that show 'fate vs. coincidence' is actually one if the underlying themes. In 'Heroes', it's just there for the sake of it). The discovery of powers and the way people handle them is touched on superficially at best, with the protagonists (and therefore, the writers) never really examining the deeper ramifications of such powers. The powers themselves quickly become something prosaic and fail to elicit any sense of awe or wonder.
Further evidence of poor writing comes in the form of illogical, nonsensical events and gaping plot holes that beggar belief - on more than one occasion, a character in a position to kill another character spares them for no other reason than that the writers needed the character alive for the continuance of the story. Not an episode goes by where there isn't an egregious lapse in logic on the part of the writers. The powers of the characters are another problem - while they're cool in principal, there are too many occasions when the story cops out on having them actually be used. In fact, some of these guys are just TOO powerful, and so they are conveniently made to be unable to use their powers in a satisfactory manner, or the powers are simply ignored altogether in situations where they might come in handy. To round out the list of complaints are the cheesy dialogue (the word 'hero' is used like a billion times), pretentious narration, incredibly nonsensical 'science', and an over-reliance on clunky exposition.
Apart from the writing, the production values are also surprisingly unimpressive and cheap looking, with some so-so special effects and a lot of overblown gore. The action is very limited and what little there is, is poor. Visually the whole thing looks bland and unexciting. The package is wrapped up in music that is grating and horribly repetitive - I normally like the use of vocals, but in 'Heroes' its obtrusive and annoying, and feels like its trying too hard to lend the show dramatic weight.
The characterization isn't very good to begin with, and it isn't helped by some of the weaker members of the cast, particularly Quinto as the evil Sylar, who is as badly acted as he is written. Also on the weak front are Cabrera, Roberts, Larter, and Gray-Cabey. On the mediocre front are Ventimiglia, Ramamurthy, Pasdar, and Panettiere. Fortunately, though, there are a few really good performances from Masi Oka as Hiro, Greg Grunberg as Matt Parkman, and Jack Coleman as Bennett. Oka in particular is the show's heart; he's the only one who seems to have any fun and liveliness, and given the wackiness of the story his light heartedness was an apt and welcome reprieve from the dourness of everyone else. Grunberg's Parkman is also one of the few characters who has fun with his powers and plays around with them, and is one of the few who feels real and relatable. Coleman's Bennett is initially really annoying as a mysterious figure who keeps popping up everywhere, but his character really develops over the course of the season and by the end he's one of the few that remain interesting. Additionally, there are some really good supporting characters and guest appearances throughout the season.
Despite all of my complaints, I still enjoyed this show! It's fun, feels like a comic book, and the X-Men like premise coupled with the long-form story structure had me hooked. Some of the characters are truly likable and interesting, and even when the focus is on the ones who aren't the show never gets boring. There are some very cool moments and use of powers, and some of the character drama (Hiro & Ando, Bennett & Claire, Parkman and anybody else) is actually interesting. I also have to admit to getting a kick out of seeing these characters meet and interact. A large part of the appeal is the anticipation of what's going to happen down the line; even when an episode is poor there's always the hope of more interesting things to come.
Conclusion - 'Heroes' is bad on an objective level, and I have to say I'm bemused by the critical kudos it has received. Since I liked it I'm still looking forward to the second season, despite the truly awful final episodes (ones that highlights most of the show's flaws in a nutshell). The show's really a guilty pleasure that relies on a coolness factor, one that will likely wear off pretty fast. There's always a slim chance it'll improve over time, but I'm not going to cross my fingers. As long as it can stay fun and entertain, I'll probably continue to watch. I say probably because my experience watching 24 over the years has shown me that in poorly written dumb but fun shows the bad stuff eventually begins to greatly overwhelm the entertainment value.
'Heroes' was probably the most talked about TV show to air recently; to say that there was a lot of hype surrounding it would be an understatement of epic proportions. I've just finished watching its much lauded inaugural season and I must say that while it is poor in many ways and quite overrated, I still enjoyed it immensely.
'Heroes' is a sci-fi drama that tells the story of a disparate group of people who begin to discover that they have super powers. It focuses on their personal lives, how they deal with their powers, and their role in much larger machinations taking place around them. These machinations involve a shady organization that monitors these so called 'heroes' and a powerful, reclusive and shady businessman manipulating events from behind the scenes. Also in the mix is a super-villain named Sylar (Zachary Quinto) who is going around stealing other heroes' powers, killing them in the process. The overall story told in the season (dubbed 'Volume 1') focuses on the struggle to stop Sylar and also prevent a massive explosion that will decimate New York City. While each character has his or her own story they are all linked to each other and to overall events, and their paths and storylines cross on many occasions.
The main characters (spoilerific stuff in this paragraph - the powers described are only gradually revealed in the show) include Nathan Petrelli (Adrian Pasdar), a politician running for congress who can fly; his brother Peter (Milo Ventimiglia), a nurse who has the ability to absorb and use the powers of others; Hiro Nakamura (Masi Oka), a Japanese corporate drone who has the power to manipulate space and time; Claire Bennett (Hayden Panettiere), a cheerleader who can heal herself; Isaac Mendez (Santiago Cabrera), a painter who can draw the future; Matt Parkman (Greg Grunberg), a police officer who can hear people's thoughts; D. L. Hawkins (Leonard Roberts), an ex-con who can phase through matter; Nikki Sanders (Ali Larter), a woman with super strength and a split personality (not sure if the latter is a power or not); and Micah (Noah Gray-Cabey), a kid who can manipulate electronics. Also in the mix are Claire's father Noah Bennett (Jack Coleman), who is part of the shady, unnamed organization, and Mohinder Suresh (Sendhil Ramamurthy), an Indian geneticist who is studying the 'hero' phenomenon. There are also several other powered and non powered supporting characters throughout.
This show is very much in the vein of shows like 'Smallville'. And by that I mean it isn't very well made. Like Smallville's first few seasons though, it's fairly entertaining and has enough likable characters to be watchable. There's nothing here that is imaginative or original, but the show is perhaps somewhat unique in being the first ensemble 'comic book like' TV series. Seeing as how I enjoyed the show, I'll start of with the negatives (of which there are a lot) and cap things off with the positives.
The main problem with this show is the writing, which is at times quite awful. The feeling of things being made up as they go along rarely feels more blatant than it does in 'Heroes'. There are story strands which are started, go nowhere, and then disappear without a trace (a police investigation subplot, a character's stint in prison, a mentor subplot), and arcs that are dragged out needlessly (most of Hiro's adventures, Nikki / DL / Micah). The overall structure is meandering, unfocused and random, and relies far too heavily on contrivance and coincidence and the seemingly magical ability for characters to hop from place to place and be in the right place at the right time (the coincidence aspect is aping 'Lost', but in that show 'fate vs. coincidence' is actually one if the underlying themes. In 'Heroes', it's just there for the sake of it). The discovery of powers and the way people handle them is touched on superficially at best, with the protagonists (and therefore, the writers) never really examining the deeper ramifications of such powers. The powers themselves quickly become something prosaic and fail to elicit any sense of awe or wonder.
Further evidence of poor writing comes in the form of illogical, nonsensical events and gaping plot holes that beggar belief - on more than one occasion, a character in a position to kill another character spares them for no other reason than that the writers needed the character alive for the continuance of the story. Not an episode goes by where there isn't an egregious lapse in logic on the part of the writers. The powers of the characters are another problem - while they're cool in principal, there are too many occasions when the story cops out on having them actually be used. In fact, some of these guys are just TOO powerful, and so they are conveniently made to be unable to use their powers in a satisfactory manner, or the powers are simply ignored altogether in situations where they might come in handy. To round out the list of complaints are the cheesy dialogue (the word 'hero' is used like a billion times), pretentious narration, incredibly nonsensical 'science', and an over-reliance on clunky exposition.
Apart from the writing, the production values are also surprisingly unimpressive and cheap looking, with some so-so special effects and a lot of overblown gore. The action is very limited and what little there is, is poor. Visually the whole thing looks bland and unexciting. The package is wrapped up in music that is grating and horribly repetitive - I normally like the use of vocals, but in 'Heroes' its obtrusive and annoying, and feels like its trying too hard to lend the show dramatic weight.
The characterization isn't very good to begin with, and it isn't helped by some of the weaker members of the cast, particularly Quinto as the evil Sylar, who is as badly acted as he is written. Also on the weak front are Cabrera, Roberts, Larter, and Gray-Cabey. On the mediocre front are Ventimiglia, Ramamurthy, Pasdar, and Panettiere. Fortunately, though, there are a few really good performances from Masi Oka as Hiro, Greg Grunberg as Matt Parkman, and Jack Coleman as Bennett. Oka in particular is the show's heart; he's the only one who seems to have any fun and liveliness, and given the wackiness of the story his light heartedness was an apt and welcome reprieve from the dourness of everyone else. Grunberg's Parkman is also one of the few characters who has fun with his powers and plays around with them, and is one of the few who feels real and relatable. Coleman's Bennett is initially really annoying as a mysterious figure who keeps popping up everywhere, but his character really develops over the course of the season and by the end he's one of the few that remain interesting. Additionally, there are some really good supporting characters and guest appearances throughout the season.
Despite all of my complaints, I still enjoyed this show! It's fun, feels like a comic book, and the X-Men like premise coupled with the long-form story structure had me hooked. Some of the characters are truly likable and interesting, and even when the focus is on the ones who aren't the show never gets boring. There are some very cool moments and use of powers, and some of the character drama (Hiro & Ando, Bennett & Claire, Parkman and anybody else) is actually interesting. I also have to admit to getting a kick out of seeing these characters meet and interact. A large part of the appeal is the anticipation of what's going to happen down the line; even when an episode is poor there's always the hope of more interesting things to come.
Conclusion - 'Heroes' is bad on an objective level, and I have to say I'm bemused by the critical kudos it has received. Since I liked it I'm still looking forward to the second season, despite the truly awful final episodes (ones that highlights most of the show's flaws in a nutshell). The show's really a guilty pleasure that relies on a coolness factor, one that will likely wear off pretty fast. There's always a slim chance it'll improve over time, but I'm not going to cross my fingers. As long as it can stay fun and entertain, I'll probably continue to watch. I say probably because my experience watching 24 over the years has shown me that in poorly written dumb but fun shows the bad stuff eventually begins to greatly overwhelm the entertainment value.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Sport by the book...
I play a sport on a regular basis and have done so for a few years now, but have never had any formal coaching. I've always known that playing in this manner would never lead to a high level of play, because this is rarely possible without proper technique, training, and strategies. I didn't mind this because the fun was in playing the sport and competing with people of similar skill levels while also maintaining some modicum of fitness. Besides, despite lacking coaching my game has improved in its own inelegant way over the years.
My satisfaction with the status quo recently changed, however, when I witnessed well trained players competing. I guess over time you somehow convince yourself subconsciously that you're becoming pretty good, that you've somehow 'learned' to play well on your own even though you know at an intellectual level that you haven't. This illusion was shattered when I watched skilled players in action; I saw just how far below par I actually was. This fact was reinforced in my mind when I later played against a skilled opponent and had my ass handed to me in short-order. I learned that I had even the most basic fundamentals wrong.
Now my feeling of contentment has been replaced with a feeling of immense dissatisfaction. Sure it makes no sense feeling that way when the whole point is to have a bit of fun and play as well as I can, but there's a part of me that simply can't rest knowing that I'm doing something in completely the wrong way. It's not a question of being a perfectionist either, it's that I've realized that doing something in a proper, efficient, elegant manner (regardless of how well you stack up against your peers) is immensely more satisfying than winging it, even when it comes to something trivial like playing a sport for recreation.
I've received my wakeup call, and it's time to improve!
My satisfaction with the status quo recently changed, however, when I witnessed well trained players competing. I guess over time you somehow convince yourself subconsciously that you're becoming pretty good, that you've somehow 'learned' to play well on your own even though you know at an intellectual level that you haven't. This illusion was shattered when I watched skilled players in action; I saw just how far below par I actually was. This fact was reinforced in my mind when I later played against a skilled opponent and had my ass handed to me in short-order. I learned that I had even the most basic fundamentals wrong.
Now my feeling of contentment has been replaced with a feeling of immense dissatisfaction. Sure it makes no sense feeling that way when the whole point is to have a bit of fun and play as well as I can, but there's a part of me that simply can't rest knowing that I'm doing something in completely the wrong way. It's not a question of being a perfectionist either, it's that I've realized that doing something in a proper, efficient, elegant manner (regardless of how well you stack up against your peers) is immensely more satisfying than winging it, even when it comes to something trivial like playing a sport for recreation.
I've received my wakeup call, and it's time to improve!
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Fantastic Four - Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
Fantastic Four - Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
I watched the first Fantastic Four film a few months ago and wrote about it here. My conclusion was that it was a fairly mediocre but entertaining film that seemed true to the tone of the source material. The sequel features the same cast and director, and is more of the same.
The story once again juggles its characters, their relationships, and a threat to humanity. This time, Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd) is about to marry Sue Storm (Jessica Alba) but have problems because of their super-hero lifestyles and celebrity status. Johnny Storm (Chris Evans), meanwhile, worries about ending up alone as a result of his immature and outrageous behaviour, while Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis) continues his relationship with the blind Alicia Masters (Kerry Washington). The arrival of the mysterious and seemingly unstoppable Silver Surfer (Doug Jones and the voice of Laurence Fishburne) causes chaos as he creates massive craters around the world to prepare it for his master, the planet eating Galactus. An old enemy, Doctor Doom (Julian McMahon), returns and joins the Fantastic Four to help stop Galactus, but he may have ulterior motives.
And that is the gist of it. In a nutshell. Oh, there's also a subplot about Johnny being affected by the Surfer resulting in his powers being swapped with one of the other FF whenever he touches them, an effect that is milked dry for comedic effect.
There's nothing much to really say about this sequel that differs from what I said about the first one. It's definitely much bigger in scope, but the FF action is again mostly unspectacular. The Silver Surfer sequences, however, fare better and the finale which predominantly features him is far more satisfying dramatically than that of the first one. Tonally this film is again similar, being a mix of light hearted drama and comedy although the comedy aspects aren't as funny, mostly because Ben Grimm and Johnny Storm seem to have less screen time. Nonetheless, both Chiklis and Evans still deliver performances that are on a par with part one. Ioan Gruffud is a bit better this time around, a bit more assertive and slightly more convincing as a leader. Alba and McMahon sadly don't deliver anything beyond what they brought to the table the last time. The visual effects are also once again mixed, though the Silver Surfer isn't half bad and Fishburne's somber voice works for the character despite being initially distracting.
All in all, it's unspectacular, unmoving, and will fade from memory fairly quickly, but is not bad as a light hearted piece of disposable entertainment. I'm not exactly looking forward to any more sequels from this franchise to be honest, but if one does come along, I'll probably check it out.
I watched the first Fantastic Four film a few months ago and wrote about it here. My conclusion was that it was a fairly mediocre but entertaining film that seemed true to the tone of the source material. The sequel features the same cast and director, and is more of the same.
The story once again juggles its characters, their relationships, and a threat to humanity. This time, Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd) is about to marry Sue Storm (Jessica Alba) but have problems because of their super-hero lifestyles and celebrity status. Johnny Storm (Chris Evans), meanwhile, worries about ending up alone as a result of his immature and outrageous behaviour, while Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis) continues his relationship with the blind Alicia Masters (Kerry Washington). The arrival of the mysterious and seemingly unstoppable Silver Surfer (Doug Jones and the voice of Laurence Fishburne) causes chaos as he creates massive craters around the world to prepare it for his master, the planet eating Galactus. An old enemy, Doctor Doom (Julian McMahon), returns and joins the Fantastic Four to help stop Galactus, but he may have ulterior motives.
And that is the gist of it. In a nutshell. Oh, there's also a subplot about Johnny being affected by the Surfer resulting in his powers being swapped with one of the other FF whenever he touches them, an effect that is milked dry for comedic effect.
There's nothing much to really say about this sequel that differs from what I said about the first one. It's definitely much bigger in scope, but the FF action is again mostly unspectacular. The Silver Surfer sequences, however, fare better and the finale which predominantly features him is far more satisfying dramatically than that of the first one. Tonally this film is again similar, being a mix of light hearted drama and comedy although the comedy aspects aren't as funny, mostly because Ben Grimm and Johnny Storm seem to have less screen time. Nonetheless, both Chiklis and Evans still deliver performances that are on a par with part one. Ioan Gruffud is a bit better this time around, a bit more assertive and slightly more convincing as a leader. Alba and McMahon sadly don't deliver anything beyond what they brought to the table the last time. The visual effects are also once again mixed, though the Silver Surfer isn't half bad and Fishburne's somber voice works for the character despite being initially distracting.
All in all, it's unspectacular, unmoving, and will fade from memory fairly quickly, but is not bad as a light hearted piece of disposable entertainment. I'm not exactly looking forward to any more sequels from this franchise to be honest, but if one does come along, I'll probably check it out.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Hot Fuzz (2007)
Hot Fuzz (2007)
From the creators of 'Spaced' and 'Shaun of the Dead' (which I wrote about a while back) comes another comedy homage / spoof, this time one based on buddy cop action movies. I love 'Shaun of the Dead', and director Edgar Wright (together with star / co-writer Simon Pegg & star Nick Frost) have once again hit the ball out of the park with 'Hot Fuzz', which is stylistically similar to 'Shaun' while being completely different in terms of subject matter, plot, and characters.
Sergeant Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an amazing London policeman, err police officer, a veritable super-cop who is steely, resolved, and focused absolutely on the job, and who excels in all areas of police work. He's so good that he makes his fellow officers look bad, so they transfer him out of London to the peaceful village of Sandford, where violent crime is unheard of. Angel has no choice but to comply, and he reluctantly packs his things and moves. During his very first night in Sandford, he arrests a load of people for minor transgressions before learning to his chagrin that the local Chief Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), is an avuncular and easy going man who turns a blind eye on such offenses. Worse yet, one of the people Angel arrested was a police officer, Butterman's son Danny (Nick Frost), who is assigned to be his partner. Danny is a rotund and easy going fellow who is obsessed with action movies and is therefore fascinated by the 'tough guy' Angel. Despite Angel's initially lukewarm feelings towards Danny, the pair grow to be friends. He is also received warmly by the townsfolk (everyone knows everyone else in Sandford), but is detested by some of his fellow officers because of his overzealous attitude towards law enforcement.
Angel plods through his first days dealing with crises like a missing duck and the illegal cutting of hedges. Things change when a series of unlikely deaths take place in the village and Angel suspects a local supermarket owner, Simon Skinner (Timothy Dalton), of foul play. The idea is dismissed as nonsense by everyone and Angel is ostracized by his colleagues, but he perseveres with his investigation and is backed up by Danny. Things take a hilarious and surreal turn two-thirds of the way into the film, resulting in a final act action extravaganza that just has to be seen to be believed.
Where do I start with how great this film is? The script I suppose, which features a fairly complex, eventful, and hilarious plot. No scene is wasted and pretty much everything that happens drives the plot or characters forward. It is littered with jokes and set ups for jokes that aren't randomly forced into the script but instead come through directly from the plot or characters, which makes the payoffs that much more effective. There are repeated jokes that are set up brilliantly and don't feel telegraphed at all. The characters are distinctive and clearly delineated (and also impeccably cast), and they are all excellent - funny and memorable. Nicholas Angel and Danny and their relationship (which often borders on being romantic!) are the heart of the film, and it grows throughout the film as it hits all the buddy action movie beats while still being funny and charming. Speaking of action movies, I think pretty much every action movie cliche is loving recreated in 'Hot Fuzz', especially towards the end when they're piled on thick and fast. There are plenty of references to specific films as well, including some that are directly set up by showing characters watching them.
The humour is distinctly British; it's not overt, but is instead dry and understated. The juxtaposition of outrageous gung-ho action movie elements into a rustic English countryside is the source of a great deal of it, but really its funny at just about every level, right down to the surprisingly graphic over the top violence and gore! As with 'Shaun', director Edgar Wright manages to balance the two genres perfectly - comedy and action elements co-exist seamlessly within the same scenes. Despite the madcap nature of the story and characters, everything remains perfectly clear and coherent throughout. The action scenes are excellent and manage to spoof while still being exciting, entertaining, and true to action movie conventions. The film is fast paced and features a lot of quick cut editing, including the trademark stylistic quick cut montages often featured in Wright's previous work. It may be low budget but it never feels it - sure, its small scale next to the movies its spoofing, but that's really all part of the comedy and works in context.
'Hot Fuzz' features performances that are excellent across the board - there are several great bit-parts from recognizable actors (including cameos by Peter Jackson and Cate Blanchett) that are golden, but the major players are what counts, and they deliver in spades. The entire police force deserves a mention, especially the two Andys, but Broadbent especially is memorable as the kindly Chief Inspector. Timothy Dalton is simply hilarious as the supermarket 'magnate' who talks jovially about acts of violence. The real stars of the show are Pegg and Frost, who deliver performances that are far removed from their roles in 'Shaun'. Pegg is ultra cool and bears the demeanour of a complete badass absolutely convincingly, and he even has the physicality to back it up. Frost is the surprise package though, because at first it appears he may be playing another obnoxious slob, but Danny is actually charming and completely endearing. The friendship and interplay between the two actors is also once again absolutely convincing.
I guess I don't need to reiterate that I loved 'Hot Fuzz', and that it is a terrific film that deserves to be seen by action fans, comedy fans, and all fans of film in general. It's probably more accessible than 'Shaun' because action films are more familiar to and better liked by general audiences than zombie films. I'm hard pressed to say which is better, but I have to say I enjoyed this a little bit more, and I suspect I will enjoy it even more during subsequent viewings. I can't wait to see what these guys do next!
From the creators of 'Spaced' and 'Shaun of the Dead' (which I wrote about a while back) comes another comedy homage / spoof, this time one based on buddy cop action movies. I love 'Shaun of the Dead', and director Edgar Wright (together with star / co-writer Simon Pegg & star Nick Frost) have once again hit the ball out of the park with 'Hot Fuzz', which is stylistically similar to 'Shaun' while being completely different in terms of subject matter, plot, and characters.
Sergeant Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is an amazing London policeman, err police officer, a veritable super-cop who is steely, resolved, and focused absolutely on the job, and who excels in all areas of police work. He's so good that he makes his fellow officers look bad, so they transfer him out of London to the peaceful village of Sandford, where violent crime is unheard of. Angel has no choice but to comply, and he reluctantly packs his things and moves. During his very first night in Sandford, he arrests a load of people for minor transgressions before learning to his chagrin that the local Chief Inspector, Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent), is an avuncular and easy going man who turns a blind eye on such offenses. Worse yet, one of the people Angel arrested was a police officer, Butterman's son Danny (Nick Frost), who is assigned to be his partner. Danny is a rotund and easy going fellow who is obsessed with action movies and is therefore fascinated by the 'tough guy' Angel. Despite Angel's initially lukewarm feelings towards Danny, the pair grow to be friends. He is also received warmly by the townsfolk (everyone knows everyone else in Sandford), but is detested by some of his fellow officers because of his overzealous attitude towards law enforcement.
Angel plods through his first days dealing with crises like a missing duck and the illegal cutting of hedges. Things change when a series of unlikely deaths take place in the village and Angel suspects a local supermarket owner, Simon Skinner (Timothy Dalton), of foul play. The idea is dismissed as nonsense by everyone and Angel is ostracized by his colleagues, but he perseveres with his investigation and is backed up by Danny. Things take a hilarious and surreal turn two-thirds of the way into the film, resulting in a final act action extravaganza that just has to be seen to be believed.
Where do I start with how great this film is? The script I suppose, which features a fairly complex, eventful, and hilarious plot. No scene is wasted and pretty much everything that happens drives the plot or characters forward. It is littered with jokes and set ups for jokes that aren't randomly forced into the script but instead come through directly from the plot or characters, which makes the payoffs that much more effective. There are repeated jokes that are set up brilliantly and don't feel telegraphed at all. The characters are distinctive and clearly delineated (and also impeccably cast), and they are all excellent - funny and memorable. Nicholas Angel and Danny and their relationship (which often borders on being romantic!) are the heart of the film, and it grows throughout the film as it hits all the buddy action movie beats while still being funny and charming. Speaking of action movies, I think pretty much every action movie cliche is loving recreated in 'Hot Fuzz', especially towards the end when they're piled on thick and fast. There are plenty of references to specific films as well, including some that are directly set up by showing characters watching them.
The humour is distinctly British; it's not overt, but is instead dry and understated. The juxtaposition of outrageous gung-ho action movie elements into a rustic English countryside is the source of a great deal of it, but really its funny at just about every level, right down to the surprisingly graphic over the top violence and gore! As with 'Shaun', director Edgar Wright manages to balance the two genres perfectly - comedy and action elements co-exist seamlessly within the same scenes. Despite the madcap nature of the story and characters, everything remains perfectly clear and coherent throughout. The action scenes are excellent and manage to spoof while still being exciting, entertaining, and true to action movie conventions. The film is fast paced and features a lot of quick cut editing, including the trademark stylistic quick cut montages often featured in Wright's previous work. It may be low budget but it never feels it - sure, its small scale next to the movies its spoofing, but that's really all part of the comedy and works in context.
'Hot Fuzz' features performances that are excellent across the board - there are several great bit-parts from recognizable actors (including cameos by Peter Jackson and Cate Blanchett) that are golden, but the major players are what counts, and they deliver in spades. The entire police force deserves a mention, especially the two Andys, but Broadbent especially is memorable as the kindly Chief Inspector. Timothy Dalton is simply hilarious as the supermarket 'magnate' who talks jovially about acts of violence. The real stars of the show are Pegg and Frost, who deliver performances that are far removed from their roles in 'Shaun'. Pegg is ultra cool and bears the demeanour of a complete badass absolutely convincingly, and he even has the physicality to back it up. Frost is the surprise package though, because at first it appears he may be playing another obnoxious slob, but Danny is actually charming and completely endearing. The friendship and interplay between the two actors is also once again absolutely convincing.
I guess I don't need to reiterate that I loved 'Hot Fuzz', and that it is a terrific film that deserves to be seen by action fans, comedy fans, and all fans of film in general. It's probably more accessible than 'Shaun' because action films are more familiar to and better liked by general audiences than zombie films. I'm hard pressed to say which is better, but I have to say I enjoyed this a little bit more, and I suspect I will enjoy it even more during subsequent viewings. I can't wait to see what these guys do next!
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Pride and Prejudice (2005)
Pride and Prejudice (2005)
I've never read...... hmm, yet another blog post starting off with an admission of not having read a famous or acclaimed book. In this case though, reading Jane Austen's 'Pride and Prejudice' was never that high on my 'to-read' list because it always struck me as a chick-book, but if this film adaptation is anything to go by, I was wrong. I was quite surprised by how much I enjoyed this period drama.
'Pride and Prejudice' takes place in turn of the 19th century England and tells the story of an intelligent, witty, and romantic young woman, Elizabeth Bennett (Keira Knightley), and events that take place around her that all relate to love and marriage. Elizabeth belongs to a fairly well off family that comprises her father (Donald Sutherland), mother (Brenda Blethyn), and her four sisters. The parents are intent on securing their daughters' futures by getting them married as soon as possible, in part because the family's assets will be inherited by Mr. Bennet's nephew Mr. Collins (Tom Hollander) and not by any of the girls. When a wealthy young man, Charles Bingley (Simon Woods), moves in to a nearby estate the Bennett's attempt to arrange for their eldest daughter Jane (Rosamund Pike) to marry him. During the course of various social events and visits, Elizabeth meets Mr. Bingley's very wealthy but sullen and unfriendly friend Mr. Darcy (Matthew Macfayden); the two are initially directly at odds, but it is evident from the outset that each also finds the other fascinating. Events subsequently occur that upset the delicate balance of Elizabeth's family and social circles, and that cause her to both loathe and be drawn to Darcy.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out where this story leads, but as they say its the journey that makes it worthwhile. Given the period setting and cultural norms of the time, this doesn't play out like a contemporary romantic comedy, and it hasn't been in any way modernized. The 'courtships', such as they are, take place in a very stiff and formal manner, with much of the interaction between Elizabeth and Darcy being limited to sharp, witty exchanges and a few subtle but intense moments. In some ways their relationship develops when the two of them aren't together, by way of events occurring off-screen and conversations with other characters. I found the whole thing to be a fascinating window into a time when the whole marriage dance was performed in such a ritualistic and contrived manner (in the Western world, that is. It's still done that way in plenty of other places). The film is full of formal and often verbose dialogue that again befits the setting (or at least, the perception of the setting), and this combined with the production design, lovely English countryside visuals, and music all create a believable period atmosphere.
Keira Knightley, being at the centre of the story, needed to deliver in order to really sell the film. I've always thought she was a good actress but I haven't particularly liked her in any of her films. So colour me surprised, I was impressed by her performance and really enjoyed her work in this; she channels her vivaciousness perfectly while also managing to convey her affections for Darcy and her conflicted feelings with subtlety. Matthew Macfayden isn't particularly great as Darcy, but his scenes with Knightley are, so overall he acquits himself well. Judi Dench appears as Lady Catherine, and once again demonstrates that she's really good at playing pompous, arrogant, and bitchy women in positions of power (that's not a criticism, it's true!). The rest of the cast are quite good, with Brenda Blethyn and Tom Hollander being great in the comic relief (ish) roles of Mrs. Bennett and Mr. Collins respectively.
'Pride and Prejudice' is a wonderful film; it's very well made and features a terrific and endearing performance by Keira Knightley. I don't know how good of an adaptation the film is, but on its own terms it's an entertaining and charming romantic story that's well worth watching. I'll have to now read the book to see how they compare...
I've never read...... hmm, yet another blog post starting off with an admission of not having read a famous or acclaimed book. In this case though, reading Jane Austen's 'Pride and Prejudice' was never that high on my 'to-read' list because it always struck me as a chick-book, but if this film adaptation is anything to go by, I was wrong. I was quite surprised by how much I enjoyed this period drama.
'Pride and Prejudice' takes place in turn of the 19th century England and tells the story of an intelligent, witty, and romantic young woman, Elizabeth Bennett (Keira Knightley), and events that take place around her that all relate to love and marriage. Elizabeth belongs to a fairly well off family that comprises her father (Donald Sutherland), mother (Brenda Blethyn), and her four sisters. The parents are intent on securing their daughters' futures by getting them married as soon as possible, in part because the family's assets will be inherited by Mr. Bennet's nephew Mr. Collins (Tom Hollander) and not by any of the girls. When a wealthy young man, Charles Bingley (Simon Woods), moves in to a nearby estate the Bennett's attempt to arrange for their eldest daughter Jane (Rosamund Pike) to marry him. During the course of various social events and visits, Elizabeth meets Mr. Bingley's very wealthy but sullen and unfriendly friend Mr. Darcy (Matthew Macfayden); the two are initially directly at odds, but it is evident from the outset that each also finds the other fascinating. Events subsequently occur that upset the delicate balance of Elizabeth's family and social circles, and that cause her to both loathe and be drawn to Darcy.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out where this story leads, but as they say its the journey that makes it worthwhile. Given the period setting and cultural norms of the time, this doesn't play out like a contemporary romantic comedy, and it hasn't been in any way modernized. The 'courtships', such as they are, take place in a very stiff and formal manner, with much of the interaction between Elizabeth and Darcy being limited to sharp, witty exchanges and a few subtle but intense moments. In some ways their relationship develops when the two of them aren't together, by way of events occurring off-screen and conversations with other characters. I found the whole thing to be a fascinating window into a time when the whole marriage dance was performed in such a ritualistic and contrived manner (in the Western world, that is. It's still done that way in plenty of other places). The film is full of formal and often verbose dialogue that again befits the setting (or at least, the perception of the setting), and this combined with the production design, lovely English countryside visuals, and music all create a believable period atmosphere.
Keira Knightley, being at the centre of the story, needed to deliver in order to really sell the film. I've always thought she was a good actress but I haven't particularly liked her in any of her films. So colour me surprised, I was impressed by her performance and really enjoyed her work in this; she channels her vivaciousness perfectly while also managing to convey her affections for Darcy and her conflicted feelings with subtlety. Matthew Macfayden isn't particularly great as Darcy, but his scenes with Knightley are, so overall he acquits himself well. Judi Dench appears as Lady Catherine, and once again demonstrates that she's really good at playing pompous, arrogant, and bitchy women in positions of power (that's not a criticism, it's true!). The rest of the cast are quite good, with Brenda Blethyn and Tom Hollander being great in the comic relief (ish) roles of Mrs. Bennett and Mr. Collins respectively.
'Pride and Prejudice' is a wonderful film; it's very well made and features a terrific and endearing performance by Keira Knightley. I don't know how good of an adaptation the film is, but on its own terms it's an entertaining and charming romantic story that's well worth watching. I'll have to now read the book to see how they compare...
Lady in the Water (2006)
Lady in the Water (2006)
M. Night Shyamalan continues his descent from studio, audience, and critic darling to film-making pariah with 'Lady in the Water', a film that was reviled by seemingly everybody. Being a fan of his earlier films (loved 'Unbreakable' & 'The Sixth Sense', enjoyed both 'Signs' and 'The Village'), I suppose I ought to play Devil's advocate and say 'I liked it though'. Well, I did kinda enjoy it, but it is by far my least favourite of his films, and I think it's his weakest effort yet.
The story goes like this: Cleveland Heap (Paul Giamatti), a man with a terrible past, is the caretaker of an apartment building. He goes about his mundane business maintaining the building and dealing with tenants' problems. We are introduced to the building's eclectic characters when Cleveland escorts a new tenant, film critic Harry Farber (Bob Balaban), through the building to his apartment. That night, Cleveland encounters a mysterious young woman (Bryce Dallas Howard) living in the swimming pool (!) who calls herself Story and claims to be a 'narf'. Turns out that narfs are part of a Korean bedtime story as recounted to Cleveland by one of the tenants (Cindy Cheung); Story has come from her world to 'inspire' an individual to help change the world of humans for the better. That individual turns out to be Vik Ran (Shyamalan himself), a writer working on a political book that will some day (according to Story) change the world for the better. After meeting Vik, Story attempts to go back to her world but something goes wrong - a wolf-like monster lurks outside the building and prevents her from leaving. Digging deeper into the Korean story, Cleveland discovers that he needs the help of specific tenants who have a special 'purpose' as described by the bedtime story, and who if brought together can help Story get back home.
As with all Shyamalan stories, you have to accept the conceit or the whole thing will seem ludicrous. The basic idea is interesting, but the film gets off to a sluggish start after an uninspiring prologue. There is initially no sense of suspense or mystery to events; the film only starts to become engaging once Cleveland begins to assemble his 'team' of chosen people. It becomes less serious and more whimsical as it turns into a fairy tale itself, with the characters all being elements of fairy tale logic. There's a genuine sense of excitement in the last half of the film which elevates it from poor to watchable. Thematically the story addresses the importance of storytelling and of self belief, but it doesn't really handle these themes with much subtlety or insightfulness. One aspect that was interesting though was the self-referential 'meta' nature of the story, whereby the film indirectly comments on its own story structure. There's also an attack on the critical establishment via the pompous critic character Farber that I found to be quite hilarious (and ironic given how much critics liked Shyamalan's earlier films - in fact they only really attacked 'The Village'!) - the film seems to imply that curmudgeonly critics are hell bent on tearing things down instead of embracing the spirit of storytelling.
The biggest negative in 'Lady in the Water' is the fact that it sells itself as a bedtime story without staying true to the trappings of such stories. I've touched on the mythology of the 'narf', but it's actually way, way more complicated than that. Too complicated, in fact. Are we to accept the idea that this insanely complex and random set of rules and characters is befitting of a bedtime story? The way the rules are meted out is silly and while I'm no expert on Korea I'm fairly certain that the made up terminology is about as Korean as the name Shyamalan! Putting aside the complexity factor, the mythology itself is, for lack of a better word, lame. It lacks any sense of imagination or wonder, like some kind of cheap artificial construct, which is a fundamental failing in a story that hinges on said mythology. Another irksome aspect is how easily everyone buys into this story with hardly a shred of evidence, though this becomes easier to swallow as the tone of the film becomes more and more whimsical. A side effect of this whimsical tone is that while the characters are distinctive (in a cliched way) and fairly memorable, the film lacks many of the relationships and quiet character moments that are a hallmark of Shyamalan's other films.
One factor that offsets the lack of strong characterization to an extent is the strength of the performances from the large ensemble cast. Giamatti was never going to fail in the role of a morose and tragic man going through the motions, but his portrayal of the subsequent change in the character and his determination to save Story are just as convincing. Howard doesn't have to show much variety in the role of Story and spends much of the film barely dressed and lying on shower floors, but she's very convincing as an ethereal being from another world. Bob Balaban is hilarious as the irate film critic. Shyamalan always appears in his films, and his roles keep getting bigger; this is the first time he's been a major character, and he acquits himself reasonably well though I wouldn't want to see him try and be a leading man just yet. The rest of the cast is good in their minor roles, with Jeffrey Wright in particular being memorable as a gifted solver of crossword puzzles.
Shyamalan is on song as a director in getting strong performances from his cast and his distinctive bag of stylistic and visual tricks is again on display, as are the strong production values and musical score that are par for the course in his films. The thing that really lets the film down is the writing - while Shyamalan once again utilizes an interesting idea, the way the story is written is flawed and in some ways downright awful. 'Lady in the Water' isn't as horrific as some of the reviews would have you believe, but it is not a film that can really be recommended either. Shyamalan fans will undoubtedly want to check it out. I'm not sure whether to consider myself one anymore, given that his output is adhering to the law of diminishing returns; let's see how his next film turns out, when he almost certainly won't have as much freedom (as he has purportedly had since The Sixth Sense) following the back to back financial failures of this and 'The Village'.
M. Night Shyamalan continues his descent from studio, audience, and critic darling to film-making pariah with 'Lady in the Water', a film that was reviled by seemingly everybody. Being a fan of his earlier films (loved 'Unbreakable' & 'The Sixth Sense', enjoyed both 'Signs' and 'The Village'), I suppose I ought to play Devil's advocate and say 'I liked it though'. Well, I did kinda enjoy it, but it is by far my least favourite of his films, and I think it's his weakest effort yet.
The story goes like this: Cleveland Heap (Paul Giamatti), a man with a terrible past, is the caretaker of an apartment building. He goes about his mundane business maintaining the building and dealing with tenants' problems. We are introduced to the building's eclectic characters when Cleveland escorts a new tenant, film critic Harry Farber (Bob Balaban), through the building to his apartment. That night, Cleveland encounters a mysterious young woman (Bryce Dallas Howard) living in the swimming pool (!) who calls herself Story and claims to be a 'narf'. Turns out that narfs are part of a Korean bedtime story as recounted to Cleveland by one of the tenants (Cindy Cheung); Story has come from her world to 'inspire' an individual to help change the world of humans for the better. That individual turns out to be Vik Ran (Shyamalan himself), a writer working on a political book that will some day (according to Story) change the world for the better. After meeting Vik, Story attempts to go back to her world but something goes wrong - a wolf-like monster lurks outside the building and prevents her from leaving. Digging deeper into the Korean story, Cleveland discovers that he needs the help of specific tenants who have a special 'purpose' as described by the bedtime story, and who if brought together can help Story get back home.
As with all Shyamalan stories, you have to accept the conceit or the whole thing will seem ludicrous. The basic idea is interesting, but the film gets off to a sluggish start after an uninspiring prologue. There is initially no sense of suspense or mystery to events; the film only starts to become engaging once Cleveland begins to assemble his 'team' of chosen people. It becomes less serious and more whimsical as it turns into a fairy tale itself, with the characters all being elements of fairy tale logic. There's a genuine sense of excitement in the last half of the film which elevates it from poor to watchable. Thematically the story addresses the importance of storytelling and of self belief, but it doesn't really handle these themes with much subtlety or insightfulness. One aspect that was interesting though was the self-referential 'meta' nature of the story, whereby the film indirectly comments on its own story structure. There's also an attack on the critical establishment via the pompous critic character Farber that I found to be quite hilarious (and ironic given how much critics liked Shyamalan's earlier films - in fact they only really attacked 'The Village'!) - the film seems to imply that curmudgeonly critics are hell bent on tearing things down instead of embracing the spirit of storytelling.
The biggest negative in 'Lady in the Water' is the fact that it sells itself as a bedtime story without staying true to the trappings of such stories. I've touched on the mythology of the 'narf', but it's actually way, way more complicated than that. Too complicated, in fact. Are we to accept the idea that this insanely complex and random set of rules and characters is befitting of a bedtime story? The way the rules are meted out is silly and while I'm no expert on Korea I'm fairly certain that the made up terminology is about as Korean as the name Shyamalan! Putting aside the complexity factor, the mythology itself is, for lack of a better word, lame. It lacks any sense of imagination or wonder, like some kind of cheap artificial construct, which is a fundamental failing in a story that hinges on said mythology. Another irksome aspect is how easily everyone buys into this story with hardly a shred of evidence, though this becomes easier to swallow as the tone of the film becomes more and more whimsical. A side effect of this whimsical tone is that while the characters are distinctive (in a cliched way) and fairly memorable, the film lacks many of the relationships and quiet character moments that are a hallmark of Shyamalan's other films.
One factor that offsets the lack of strong characterization to an extent is the strength of the performances from the large ensemble cast. Giamatti was never going to fail in the role of a morose and tragic man going through the motions, but his portrayal of the subsequent change in the character and his determination to save Story are just as convincing. Howard doesn't have to show much variety in the role of Story and spends much of the film barely dressed and lying on shower floors, but she's very convincing as an ethereal being from another world. Bob Balaban is hilarious as the irate film critic. Shyamalan always appears in his films, and his roles keep getting bigger; this is the first time he's been a major character, and he acquits himself reasonably well though I wouldn't want to see him try and be a leading man just yet. The rest of the cast is good in their minor roles, with Jeffrey Wright in particular being memorable as a gifted solver of crossword puzzles.
Shyamalan is on song as a director in getting strong performances from his cast and his distinctive bag of stylistic and visual tricks is again on display, as are the strong production values and musical score that are par for the course in his films. The thing that really lets the film down is the writing - while Shyamalan once again utilizes an interesting idea, the way the story is written is flawed and in some ways downright awful. 'Lady in the Water' isn't as horrific as some of the reviews would have you believe, but it is not a film that can really be recommended either. Shyamalan fans will undoubtedly want to check it out. I'm not sure whether to consider myself one anymore, given that his output is adhering to the law of diminishing returns; let's see how his next film turns out, when he almost certainly won't have as much freedom (as he has purportedly had since The Sixth Sense) following the back to back financial failures of this and 'The Village'.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Binary marble adding machine
For anyone who has a basic understanding of binary numbers and arithmetic, here's something cool... [it's a youtube video]
The creator's website has more details, and also features a bunch of other woodwork related content.
The creator's website has more details, and also features a bunch of other woodwork related content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)