Cinemaniac Reviews

Give five minutes. Save two hours.

Archive for the category “Fantasy”

Eraserhead

Review No. 500

In “Eraserhead”, everything is fine.

eraserhead_ver2

B

WRITTEN, PRODUCED & DIRECTED BY DAVID LYNCH. STARRING JOHN NANCE (HENRY SPENCER), CHARLOTTE STEWART (MARY X), ALLEN JOSEPH (MR. X), AND JEANNE BATES (MRS. X). ALSO STARRING JACK FISK, JUDITH ANNA ROBERTS, AND LAUREL NEAR. DISTRIBUTED BY LIBRA FILMS INTERNATIONAL ON MARCH 19, 1977. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 1 HOUR, 29 MINUTES. NOT RATED BY THE MPAA.

ERASERHEAD WAS WATCHED ON MAY 17, 2013.

“In Heaven, everything is fine.
In Heaven, everything is fine.
In Heaven, everything is fine.
You’ve got your good things, and I’ve got mine.
In Heaven, everything is fine.
In Heaven, everything is fine.
In Heaven, everything is fine.
You’ve got your good things, and you’ve got mine.
In Heaven, everything…is fine.”
–”In Heaven” by Peter Ivers

Almost every great director’s oeuvre is composed of films that are structurally similar, yet completely different. Almost every Woody Allen film, for example, is a comedic drama with heavy focus on the beauty of cities and the obnoxiousness of humanity; yet they all feel new and surprising. Martin Scorsese loves crime genre, graphic violence, fast pacing, and the city of New York; his films never get old. Mel Brooks began his career with genre spoofs, paused it on single-film spoofs, and apparently plans to resume with even more genre spoofs; his humor is something you can’t get enough of.

Perhaps David Lynch elevates our tolerance of a great director. His style is incredibly specific, and he uses it as a formula for every film, but it’s never boring. I’ve theorized that I know I’m watching a David Lynch film if the story is bizarre (understatement?), yet centered on everyday happenings; if there is an entr’acte or two that introduces a seemingly unrelated character so that he or she may perform onstage; if there is an object that is curious to the any human, and thus used as symbolism; if there are two universes, each one representing the other in its characters (and often times, the line is blurred to a mind-boggling “Who’s who?”)…I could go on, but I’m probably not making one bit of sense.

If I were to boil it down to something simple, Lynch has spent every hour since 1977 doused in his dreamlike atmosphere. It’s what makes his films both cinematic and realistic. As far as full-length features, Eraserhead marks his debut. If you can appreciate a filmmaker who is anything but mainstream, then please be my guest to this historically significant film. It tells a story with three, maybe four total events. It paces itself at a consistent speed that, for any other film, would feel hypnotically slow. The first word is not spoken until more than ten minutes have gone by. We don’t learn our main character’s name until almost twenty minutes through. And all the while, Lynch demands our undivided attention.

6441-eraserhead

Mesmerizing…

Eraserhead scopes in on a couple who comes in contact with extraterrestrial life and ends up delivering a baby that isn’t theirs. At first, the situation’s simply awful. They’re kept up all night, which prompts her to leave his apartment. While tending to the baby, as he suffers several hopeless hours of insomnia, he finds that the baby’s body temperature is about ten degrees below normal. He believes this explains why its eyes are where the ears are supposed to be, and why there are hives on its face. But it’s not until several more strange occurrences strike him that he realizes there’s a reason the baby wasn’t delivered stillborn.

Eraserhead is a tense “body horror” film. While it succeeds in its primary attempt–to disgust with sudden scenes of mutilation and the like–its quiet atmosphere builds up tension quite effectively. Perhaps the only difference between dreams/nightmares is this film won’t “erase” itself from one’s mind so swiftly. Although not any time too soon, I do think I’d enjoy revisiting the film. Stylistically, Eraserhead is brilliant, and substantially, it’s well written, original, and transfixing.

Eraserhead does fail miserably in one key aspect. The characters do nothing to move the story along. It just rides along with the story. There’s one true action taken by these lazy characters, but all in all, they’re just lazy. There’s not much that happens in this film, either. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. This is a good movie, but it’s nothing dynamic. With so many cult followers discussing this film around the clock, I have to wonder what about it they’re discussing, or if the discussions are ever recycled.

The Impossible

Enjoy my review? Please share it using one of the buttons below!

Spirited Away

Review No. 496

A movie for all ages, and for THE ages.

spirited_away

A

WRITTEN & DIRECTED BY HAYAO MIYAZAKI. PRODUCED BY TOSHIO SUZUKI. FEATURING THE VOICES OF RUMI HIIRAGI (CHIHIRO OGINO), MIYU IRINO (HAKU/SPIRIT OF THE KOHAKU RIVER), MARI NATSUKI (YUBABA / ZENIBA), TAKASHI NAITO (AKIHIKO OGINO), YASUKO SAWAGUCHI (YUMIKO OGINO), TSUNEHIKO KAMIJŌ (CHICHIYAKU), TAKEHIKO ONO (ANIYAKU), AND BUNTA SUGAWARA (KAMAJII). ALSO FEATURING THE VOICES OF YUMI TAMAI, RYUNOSUKE KAMIKI, AND AKIO NAKAMURA. ENGLISH DUBBING FEATURES THE VOICES OF DAVEIGH CHASE, JASON MARSDEN, SUZANNE PLESHETTE, MICHAEL CHIKLIS, LAUREN HOLLY, RODGER BUMPASS, JOHN RATZENBERGER, AND DAVID OGDEN STIERS; AS WELL AS THOSE OF SUSAN EGAN, TARA STRONG, AND BOB BERGEN. DISTRIBUTED BY WALT DISNEY PICTURES ON JULY 20, 2001. PRODUCED IN JAPANESE BY JAPAN. RUNS 2 HOURS, 4 MINUTES. RATED PG BY THE MPAA, FOR SOME SCARY MOMENTS.

SPIRITED AWAY WAS WATCHED ON JUNE 8, 2013.

“Once you do something, you never forget. Even if you can’t remember.” –Zeniba (Japanese: Mari Natsuki / English: Suzanne Pleshette)

There’s an adage that if something can go wrong, it will. Spirited Away is a tale that presents this perfectly. Young Chihiro is instinctive, but she’s also shy. She’s moving into a new house, and as soon as she opens the car door to get out, she’s petrified with fear. Her parents’ one mistake is in dismissing this as pure shyness. They proceed to an abandoned carnival, notice food, and eat it. They’ve been corrupted by their own greed so much that they don’t even notice how the food is so hot in a carnival so deserted. They are transformed into swine, and in order for them to change back, Chihiro is sent to work herself to the bone in a bathhouse, run by spirits who could care for nothing more than to get their grubby paws on some money. Chihiro is able to forgive her parents for betraying her, only because she is devoted to them. But is it possible that one little girl can use devotion as a weapon against greed, the single driving force that motivates the hundreds that now surround her?

spirited-away-large-picture-1

Miyazaki has an imagination, and he isn’t afraid to use it.

The ending is a dead giveaway. It’s in getting there that an unpredictable beauty takes over. Hayao Miyazaki’s Spirited Away is a brilliant “good vs. evil” fable. The story takes the fantasy genre and does it inside-out, similarly to how Guillermo del Toro constructed his Pan’s Labyrinth. This is, in fact, the exact opposite of Pan’s Labyrinth. That film featured a young girl who used her dream world as an escape from her father, a fascist World War II captain, and ended up getting the two worlds dangerously confused. Spirited Away concerns a girl whose reality becomes a world full of nightmares, which she must escape in order to return to her parents.

Spirited Away is either a wholesome film in the costume of a horror movie, or a horror movie in the costume of a completely wholesome film. I’m flummoxed as to which of the two it is, but I’m sure that this is a movie that has touches of both tameness and horror. Hayao Miyazaki proves flawlessly that it’s possible to craft reality out of a fantastical anime. The dangers Chihiro encounters aren’t accessible, but the one fear she has is one that every human has. You could say Spirited Away is more accessible to children who cannot afford to lose their parents, to which I’d argue that there’s someone, something, or some concept in your own life that you can’t possibly separate yourself from. I first watched Spirited Away when I was in the fifth grade, and it struck an emotional chord for me. Although the one this time was an emotional chord of a different pitch, it was just as strong.

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Enjoy my review? Please share it using one of the buttons below!

Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles

Review No. 469

So. Bloody. Boring.

20130428-194647.jpg

D-MINUS

DIRECTED BY NEIL JORDAN. WRITTEN BY ANNE RICE, BASED ON HER NOVEL “INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE”. STARRING TOM CRUISE (LESTAT DE LIONCOURT), BRAD PITT (LOUIS DE POINTE DU LAC), ANTONIO BANDERAS (ARMAND), STEPHEN REA (SANTIAGO), CHRISTIAN SLATER (DANIEL MOLLOY), AND KIRSTEN DUNST (CLAUDIA). ALSO STARRING DOMIZIANA GIORDANO, SARA STOCKBRIDGE, AND THANDIE NEWTON. DISTRIBUTED BY WARNER BROS. ON NOVEMBER 11, 1994. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 2 HOURS, 2 MINUTES. RATED R BY THE MPAA, FOR VAMPIRE VIOLENCE AND GORE, AND FOR SEXUALITY.

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE: THE VAMPIRE CHRONICLES WAS WATCHED ON APRIL 28, 2013.

“Please allow me to introduce myself
I’m a man of wealth and taste
I’ve been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man’s soul and faith…”
–”Sympathy for the Devil” by the Rolling Stones

I can just imagine the casting calls for Interview with the Vampire. Any takers to play a prostitute who has her wrist drained into Tom Cruise’s wine glass? What about a random passerby who has the honor of exsanguination straight into the gullet of Brad Pitt? Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.

Interview with the Vampire is a routine movie that acts as more of a TV miniseries. It seems to have one single intention: to disgust its audience. Sure, there’s a plot, but it’s thin; and as if that isn’t enough, it’s buried beneath a blood drinking here, a blood drinking there. There’s several moments when it gets so mindlessly graphic, you desperately want to turn it off. It manages to disgust quite well. It also manages to amuse, from poor writing, acting, and musical scoring. And believe it or don’t, that’s not all. You can hardly guess these people are vampires until they say so. How is it that a film’s visual department can be so polarized? I think the one thing that kept me awake here was the Victorian, Gothic look. Yet at the same time, the makeup on Brad Pitt’s face is clearly a falsity, and it’s all too obvious that Tom Cruise is wearing a wig.

The plot could have been interesting, but unfortunately, it shot itself in the face with a rifle loaded with cheese. Or corn. Either works. Anyway, we open with a man staring out the window. He looks about twenty-five, but we find out from an interviewer in the room that he’s actually a 200-year-old vampire. Well I’ll be goddamned. The funny thing is, we’re supposed to believe him as much as the interviewer is, despite the implausibility of what he’s claimed. Even after a two-hour rambling about his life as a vampire, though, we’re still convinced he’s Brad Pitt wearing multi-million-dollar makeup. (What a waste of money.)

Interview with the Vampire isn’t a bad movie. It’s amazingly bad. It’s almost as bloody awful as one could get. If it managed to blow my mind in any way, I guess I’m surprised that a film from 1994 can, in fact, be notably cheesier than 1922′s Nosferatu. Now Interview with the Vampire sells itself to us as a drama, not a horror, but I may say, that one statistic is scary.

Postscript: I saw Interview with the Vampire on TV. I, like most others, hate commercials in general, but the commercials in between scenes here were a blessing.

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Shutter Island

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Review No. 464

Filthy hobbitses, it tricked us into believing we would not enjoy “The Hobbit”! *gollum, gollum*

20130421-065435.jpg

B-MINUS

DIRECTED BY PETER JACKSON. SCREENPLAY BY FRAN WALSH, PHILIPPA BOYENS, JACKSON, AND GUILLERMO DEL TORO. BASED ON “THE HOBBIT, OR THERE AND BACK AGAIN” BY J.R.R. TOLKIEN. STARRING IAN MCKELLEN (GANDALF THE GREY), MARTIN FREEMAN (BILBO BAGGINS), RICHARD ARMITAGE (THORIN OAKENSHIELD), ANDY SERKIS (GOLLUM), AND BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH (THE NECROMANCER). ALSO STARRING BARRY HUMPHRIES, CATE BLANCHETT, CHRISTOPHER LEE, ELIJAH WOOD, GRAHAM MCTAVISH, HUGO WEAVING, IAN HOLM, JAMES NESBITT, KEN STOTT, LEE PACE, MANU BENNETT, AND SYLVESTER MCCOY. DISTRIBUTED BY WARNER BROS. PICTURES ON DECEMBER 14, 2012. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY NEW ZEALAND, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 2 HOURS, 49 MINUTES. RATED PG-13 BY THE MPAA, FOR EXTENDED SEQUENCES OF INTENSE FANTASY ACTION VIOLENCE, AND FRIGHTENING IMAGES.

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY WAS WATCHED ON APRIL 20, 2013.

“Alive without breath,
As cold as death;
Never thirsty, ever drinking,
All in mail never clinking.”

I am not a Lord of the Rings fan. Yes, I’ve read the Tolkien works and seen each of Peter Jackson’s film transformations. Although I absolutely love the classic world J.R.R. Tolkien created in print, I must say that I find the initial film trilogy overrated. And if there’s one movie that transforms Tolkien’s upbeat magic to the silver screen with majestic attitude, it’s this prequel. You’d have to be blind to deny the grandeur that skyrockets to unbelievable heights. I wish I hadn’t so strongly refused to see it in theaters, come to think of it.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is for The Lord of the Rings, what The Phantom Menace was for Star Wars, what TV’s Bates Motel is for Psycho, et cetera. It’s more childlike than the original story, much less stern, much more colorful. The story is as simple as pitching the original in a past generation. In The Fellowship of the Ring–2001′s opening act to the LOTR trilogy–Frodo Baggins set out on a quest for the One Ring. In An Unexpected Journey, Bilbo Baggins sets out on a quest where he discovers the One Ring.

The movie entertains, but it also drags. Each of the three Lord of the Rings films was based on a book longer than J.R.R. Tolkien’s prelude installment–The Hobbit, or There and Back Again. An Unexpected Journey is based on merely the first third of this work, and it runs almost three hours. You can forget what I said about wishing I’d seen it at the cinema. The tale is exquisite, but it can be overly elaborate. It’s just too easy to get distracted from the story so that you can start wondering when you won’t have to feel so numb in the ass. Whereas long epics such as Titanic completely numbed away my ass at the theater, but I was too involved to notice.

I must applaud the cast for their excellence. The Lord of the Rings has always been cheesy, but in a way that takes a purist approach to high fantasy. We hear an elongated “No!” in these movies and it’s different than hearing Daniel Day-Lewis say it. The vast majority of the cast doesn’t see a limit to having fun with such clichés. Specifically, I applaud Andy Serkis for his vocal work as Gollum. The Hobbit is a mostly forgettable experience, but I don’t think I’ll ever tear away from the famous “riddles” scene. Serkis nailed it in the rare, outstanding role that makes one wish the Oscars honored voice acting.

So here’s a riddle for you:

It minuses but does not subtract.
It is yellow but it does not shine on the act.
It does not speak strictly to one pole,
The many words above it make it whole.

[The answer to the riddle is the letter grade off to the right.]

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

The Fugitive

Oz the Great and Powerful

Review No. 448

Same wizard, same Oz, better visuals, new generation.

oz_the_great_and_powerful_ver5

Directed by: Sam Raimi
Screenplay by: David Lindsay-Abaire and Mitchell Kapner
Based on: the “Oz” series by L. Frank Baum
Oscar “Oz” Diggs: James Franco
Theodora: Mila Kunis
Evanora: Rachel Weisz
Glinda, the Good Witch of the South: Michelle Williams
Annie: Michelle Williams
Finley the Flying Monkey (voice): Zach Braff
Master Tinkerer: Bill Cobbs
China Girl (voice): Joey King
Also Starring: Abigail Spencer, Bruce Campbell, Ted Raimi, Tim Holmes

Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures on March 8, 2013. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 130 mins. Rated PG by the MPAA–scary moments, infrequent violence, infrequent/mild language.

Oz the Great and Powerful was watched on March 8, 2013.

“There’s no place like home; there’s no place like home; there’s no place like home…” –Dorothy Gail (Judy Garland) in The Wizard of Oz

It’s not really fitting to say that Oz the Great and Powerful is a useless prequel to 1939′s The Wizard of Oz. L. Frank Baum wrote fourteen “Oz” books between 1900 and 1919, and since then, countless others have expanded the universe dramatically. By this point, it’s surprising we haven’t had a direct Wizard of Oz lead-in already.

Sam Raimi’s movie, in fact, does what every prequel sets up to do: tell a story that gives more detail about the characters. The problem is, the Wizard of Oz is only a mentioned name until the last ten minutes of Victor Fleming’s 1939 classic. He enjoys a brief onscreen appearance, leading to an ending that is spoiled within the first three minutes of Oz the Great and Powerful.

We’re talking about a horse of a different color. Not just a prequel, but something of a quasi-remake feel. Oz is, as well, an update for children who cannot possibly sit through a melodrama like the one it precedes. It takes that story, imagines the Wizard in Dorothy’s place, removes any subtlety in the entire message (“be yourself and stay faithful to your friends”), and unknowingly adds frivolous humor left and right. If you ask me, it’s a pretty lazy attempt at screenwriting. I guarantee, however, that your little cousin would strongly beg to differ.

Oz makes passing nods to the timeless work from which it uproots. Oscar Diggs, known by his illusionist stage name “Oz the Great and Powerful,” is blown away in a tornado to a land he never would have dreamed of. There are three witches among the land–one good, the other two wicked. One of the wicked witches must be destroyed in order for the arrogant, egocentric Oz to be appointed king, and to prove that he has been sent to save the Emerald City. But when Oz left Kansas, he was known only as a conman. When that’s all the respect he has for himself, how is he going to earn the trust of an entire nation?

What saves Oz is the visuals. I wouldn’t recommend watching the movie. If I simply can’t convince you and you’re dying to see it in theaters, I’d suggest going for the most Oztentatious approach. The film is incredible in 3-D. Sometimes it can make a show of itself and it’s difficult to care. The film opens in black and white (an homage to the initial work, which commenced in sepia tone) in a 4:3 aspect ratio. When Oz reaches the Utopia, there is a stunning burst of color and a slow shift to standard widescreen.

I would call this sort of eye candy mind-blowing, but nothing else about Oz the Great and Powerful even comes close. All right, James Franco was sturdy in the title role. And the ending was acceptable. Mila Kunis isn’t half bad during the first half, though I’d rather not mention any offenses she threw at L. Frank Baum’s land after her transformation into the maniacal, green-faced witch.

My main problem, near the ending, was that I was beginning to fidget in my seat like a young child. I don’t know if it’s because I’ve seen The Wizard of Oz too many times and thus found this prequel predictable, or that the film was just poorly written. It’s easy to say that neither is a tolerable result.

C PLUS

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

My Left Foot

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2

Review No. 442

Good news: It’s over. Bad news: See below.

twilight_saga_breaking_dawn__part_two_ver7_xlg-690x1024

Directed by: Bill Condon
Screenplay by: Melissa Rosenberg and Stephenie Meyer
Based on: “Breaking Dawn” by Stephenie Meyer
Bella Swan: Kristen Stewart
Edward Cullen: Robert Pattinson
Jacob Black: Taylor Lautner
Also Starring: Ashley Greene, Billy Burke, Christopher Heyerdahl, Dakota Fanning, Elizabeth Reaser, Jackson Rathbone, Jamie Campbell Bower, Kellan Lutz, Mackenzie Foy, Maggie Grace, Michael Sheen, Nikki Reed, Peter Facinelli

Distributed by Summit Entertainment on November 16, 2012. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 115 mins. Rated PG-13 by the MPAA–violence, infrequent sexual situations, infrequent/brief nudity.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 was watched on March 3, 2013.

“About three things I was absolutely positive. First, Edward was a vampire. Second, there was a part of him-and I didn’t know how potent that part might be-that thirsted for my blood. And third, I was unconditionally and irrevocably in love with him.” –Twilight by Stephenie Meyer

The good news: the Twilight saga has earned its stars enough dough to retire right now. That means, perhaps these ex-vampires and ex-werewolves can stop lazily bleeding/drooling over Hollywood. That means, maybe the solitude of their own mansions would delight them just as much as their absence from the silver screen would delight us. The bad news: they won’t retire. Sorry to burst your bubble.

The idea of splitting Stephenie Meyer’s Breaking Dawn into two separate films seemed like a cash grab upon my viewing of Part 1, back in 2011. It’s interesting, for lack of a better word, to think that no one in the film industry would pick up the novel itself and realize how uneventfully everything plays out. It’s just an egregious soap opera with three back-to-back narrations. Whereas the first three books were huge elaborations on love, this one has three events, which can be labelled just as shallowly as they are explained/rambled about: marriage, pregnancy, protecting the offspring. The entire novel, as I recall it, could fit well into a ninety-minute feature film. But these producers, they just figure, it’s over seven-hundred pages, so why not split it in two? And now the book marks a total of almost four hours onscreen. Bad acting abounds to try and keep you awake, as does a screenwriter who rusts in so much cornball dialogue, it’s almost certain she hates the series.

Part 1 found Edward and Bella newlywed and unable to take their hands off each other. The interspecies mating (that is, vampire-to-human) causes Bella to become pregnant with a half-human-half-vampire breed. And now he must save her from some sort of strange, possessive, vampiric STD she has acquired. And that’s all there really is to any sort of plot.

In Part 2, Bella is a “newborn,” or a being who has recently endured a transformation from human to vampire. That’s all I can really say of the story, if there was one. Oh yeah, and Bella watches her baby Renesmée mature rapidly, as the Volturi try and kidnap the child.

Breaking Dawn – Part 2 is, under my impression, one of the most elongated ways to say “Life goes on.” Part 1 came so close to reaching the two-hour mark, which all of its predecessors had significantly succeeded.

Just on the way to getting there, Part 2 dies hard. The movie ends up with 115 minutes to use against its innocent audience. A disambiguation of this record short length brings several useless bits that makes the movie feel twice as long. A two-minute CGI opening credits sequence (which wasn’t that bad, but could have been spared). At least nine minutes of closing credits. A grotesquely extended finale that features a montage for the Twihards (still, I’d estimate about 60-70% of them would still be awake by this point). A routine, twenty-minute battle scene featuring the offings of several characters, if you can follow the hyperkinetic camerawork. And to top it all off, one of the most absurdly angled love scenes since the dreamlike one in Fight Club (which was computer generated, for that matter).

I’m not sure how well this follows the novel, since that has left my memory as well, but from what I’ve heard, there are several additives and alterations. All this delivered by “actors” and “actresses” who, although clearly stupid, know how to carry out one common but unpunished crime: that a typical Hollywood audience is the easiest bank to rob.

Proof: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 warranted the eighth largest opening weekend. During its 101 days plaguing the cinema, it managed to roll in nearly $850 million. That’s a lot of people begging for their money back. Worse, Lincoln opened the same day, and I’m not sure how many of those had time and money to fit in a viewing of that dozen-Oscar nominee.

Visuals aside (why is it that this is Hollywood’s easiest means of waking us all up, yet it’s so damn time-consuming a process?), there are two upsides to this production. One: it’s instantly forgettable. It’s so boring that you often forget you were watching it, and the easiest sequences to think back to are those that evoke laughter. For those who have not acquainted with the saga, there are quite a few.

Two (and this one’s slight!): the film’s producers can finally call themselves award-winners. In fact, I’m not sure why “MOVIE OF THE YEAR” hasn’t been branded across the Blu-Ray design. Probably because it hit home video before winning the Golden Raspberry for Worst Picture. Some films that garner that recognition are truly awful but easy to enjoy for their guilty pleasure. Not here. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2, like its title, is long, plodding, and a waste of time to try and finish.

D MINUS

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Undefeated

The Golden Compass

Review No. 441

I’ve got so many “Golden” puns…but none fit.

golden_compass

Directed by: Chris Weitz
Screenplay by: Chris Weitz
Based on: “Northern Lights” by Philip Pullman
Mrs. Coulter: Nicole Kidman
Lee Scoresby: Sam Elliott
Serafina Pekkala: Eva Green
Lyra Belacqua: Dakota Blue Richards
Lord Asriel: Daniel Craig
Featuring the Voices of: Freddie Highmore, Ian McKellen, Ian McShane, Kathy Bates, Kristin Scott Thomas
Also Starring: Ben Walker, Christopher Lee, Clare Higgins, Derek Jacobi, Edward de Souza, Jack Shepherd, Jim Carter, Magda Szubanski, Simon McBurney, Tom Courtenay

Distributed by New Line Cinema on December 7, 2007. Produced in English by the United Kingdom. Runs 113 mins. Rated PG-13 by the MPAA–violence.

The Golden Compass was watched on February 24, 2013.

“Then staid the fervid wheels, and in his hand
He took the golden compasses, prepared
In God’s eternal store, to circumscribe
This universe, and all created things:
One foot he centered, and the other turned
Round through the vast profundity obscure”
–Paradise Lost; book 7, lines 224-229

My first impressions of The Golden Compass were that it would be like C.S. Lewis’s “Chronicles of Narnia” as re-imagined by a bleeding-heart atheist (author Philip Pullman). I had decided that as far as characters, I could’ve been correct with my prediction. It just so happens that the two standout performances are from Nicole Kidman as Mrs. Coulter (a reminder of the White Witch) and Ian McKellen as the voice of Iorek Byrnison (an armored polar bear who almost precisely parallels Aslan the Lion). But other than this, I finished the viewing with no real certainty as to how correct my theory was.

From just about everything I’ve heard, Philip Pullman’s Northern Lights is a very complex read. I have no problem with a screenplay that simplifies jumbled material, if “jumbled” would be a fair word to use. But if writer-director Chris Weitz thinks this is what “simplification” looks like, I implore him to go to the library one day when he has time and check out the dictionary. Not that I endorse the “art” of mockery, but I think the man should feel very insulted if he knows that the credits began with “Screenplay by Chris Weitz.” I had to assure myself it wasn’t intended as a joke.

The Golden Compass is a visual CliffsNotes, except worse. Rather than giving key information to freshen the memory, it takes a random 75% of story and doesn’t explain much of it at all. Oh wait, there’s that one scene in the very beginning that gives us a brief rundown of what’s about to happen. It’s a very fleeting sequence and doesn’t manage to stay in one’s mind for more than five minutes; having never read the book, much of the film seemed to me like an inside joke.

I’m not saying The Golden Compass doesn’t have a good story. If it weren’t for my eleven-year-old sister, who had recently read the novel, I wouldn’t have gotten the story and known that it is, in fact, interesting. She paused 35 minutes through and took less than two minutes to explain every bit of necessary detail about what had happened and was happening at the moment. Hmm. Before sitting down in front of The Golden Compass, I could’ve sworn the film was at least two hours long. It’s not, but it should have been, and I would have taken it at that length in a heartbeat.

Our story concerns a young girl—Lyra, portrayed almost carelessly by Dakota Blue Richards—who is given a fascinating compass that “tells the truth.” With her cute animal companion, she delves into a deep, dark, forbidden secret known only as “Dust”…but the society is not allowed to speak even that name. I enjoyed the irony of it all. The title comes from John Milton’s Paradise Lost, and like that story, The Golden Compass features protagonists that are pure evil (a human in a pair with an animal sidekick is known as a “Daemon”); they prove consistently remiss to what we later discover to be “the good side”—the powerful, bright force known dubiously as “Dust.” I’m convinced this was all from Pullman’s novel, because if I know the name Chris Weitz as the one who went on to direct equally forgettable works The Twilight Saga: New Moon and A Better Life, he couldn’t dream of “pulling” off symbolism as dynamically as that. But this is aimed at younger audiences. Remove about forty seconds near the end and the film would fare for an easy and arguably mild PG rating. I’m not sure even the most astute child prodigy would pick up on something so subtle.

The Golden Compass is watchable for one minute reason: its visuals. These are dazzling, and I’m not afraid to say it. Sometimes it’s not too easy to tell how ADHD the plot is, because every setting—be it a metropolis, a ship, a ghost town, or the arctic—is beautifully designed and magnificently captured. I was very satisfied to see a polar bear earn at least half the movie because just that computer generation stole its scenes. As mentioned, Ian McKellen is memorable voicing him as well—but what happened to actual actors stealing their scenes?

At least two actors were there for clearly no other justification than a good old-fashioned cash grab: Daniel Craig, who had just been brought to maximum fame by Casino Royale, and superior movie veteran Christopher Lee. I kept waiting to see Craig do something useful, even if it wasn’t James Bond-esque, and I almost forgot he was there. Similarly, Christopher Lee should have had a huge name to this movie; both he and The Golden Compass have “dark” tattooed inside their veins. Maybe this was the root of my disappointment. Oh who am I kidding. It was a disappointment of equal contributions.

C

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2

Battlefield Earth

Day Eleven of the Two-Week Torturefest

Could switching to GEICO really save you 15% or more on car insurance? Could John Travolta star in a movie that even chloroform can’t take care of?

battlefield_earth_ver2

Directed by: Roger Christian
Written by: Corey Mandell and J.D. Shapiro
Based on: the novel “Battlefield Earth” by L. Ron Hubbard
Terl: John Travolta
Jonnie Goodboy Tyler: Barry Pepper
Ker: Forest Whitaker
Also Starring: Christian Tessier, Earl Pastko, Kelly Preston, Kim Coates, Michael Byrne, Richard Tyson, Sabine Karsenti

Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 118 minutes. Rated PG-13 by the MPAA–sci-fi violence, infrequent profanity.

Battlefield Earth was watched on January 1, 2013.

“Crap-lousy ceiling! I thought I told to get some man-animals in here and fix it.” –Terl (John Travolta)

It is the year 2000.

A college professor enters a lecture hall, forty-five minutes late for teaching a creative writing course at the Global University for Those who Will Undoubtedly Lack a Future.

“Sorry I’m late,” says the professor. He looks up and is met with a blank stare from his class, a flood of drug addicts, nymphomaniacs, and recent lobotomy patients.

“Okay then, let’s get started.”

Silence…broken by the faint sound of saliva hitting the floor.

The professor clears his throat. “Um, today, you will be writing a prompt.”

An uproar of expletives and death threats. The professor frowns slightly, recognizing that he experiences this on a daily basis. He writes a sentence on the board. The sound of his marker ricochets off the walls of the auditorium, and, in turn, off two snoring students in the back.

The professor turns around.

“Can everybody read this?”

A loud, unanimous groan of the drug addicts’ “Nuhhhh,” the nymphomaniacs’ “Nuhh…uhh…,” and the lobotomy patients’ “Could you please explain how to do what you just interrogateded…ededed me to do?”

The professor explained, “The board says–”

“No!” shouted someone from the audience, standing up powerfully. “The board does not say! The board is inanimate!”

“Whatever. The board reads: ‘Write as many questions as you can as you ponder over what Earth will be like in the year 3000. Be as creative as you want, because after all…this is creative writing.’”

“But I don’t wanna think about my future!”

“Not your future, the future!”

“I don’t wanna think about that either!”

Just do it!

For the next hour, the professor experienced blank, neurotic stares from the entire class. The stench of marijuana and rotting brain cells was murdering him. Finally, he asked, “Are you all too self-conscious for me to be here?”

The professor couldn’t tell if they’d nodded or just done “the wave,” but he wanted to get out, so he went with the former. As soon as he had left, there was a loud, “Coast is clear!”, followed by shuffling feet, followed by the incessant screaming of “What did you write down?” After this one’s over, thought the professor on his way home, I think I’ll flee this hellhole and accept that offer Harvard sent me a while back.

That night, the professor graded the responses. He noticed only one difference among them all: handwriting. Needless to say, the one response, whoever had originally written it, was abysmal:

- Will there be a planit called Psychlos, where its leeder trys to blackmail the earthlings?
- Will John Travolta be a hippie bad guy dood with dreadlocks?
- Will John Travolta’s best bad guy friend (“best bad guy”–alliterination, man, see what I did there?) have dreads, too?
- Will it be like after the end of the world type thing you know kind of like that movie with Harison Ford back from you childhood?
- Will the rich guys have long fingernales?
- Will hunter-gatherers reappear as the majorority?
- Will humanity be Earth’s minorority?
- Will there be no more Internet?
- Will shopping malls look like they do today?
- Will the rulin humanoids talk real smooth in their rockin Mel Gibson accents?
- Will there be any technology, like the kind that shines and you can touch it and make it do things for you?
- Will people know how to speak fluent Japanese, but only use it when reading radar?
- Will Earth be a battlefield? I’d like that, man.
- Will jail cells be green during the farawaycamerathingys and blue whenever we get to see that gy from that won dance movie back in your childhood?
- Will special effects be real? Sometimes, at least? Can they be like freakin awesome special effects? Can we ask Presidint Clinton if he can inishiate this change? What about Gor? He’ll definitly win the election this November, man.  Unless of course Rosevelt comes back for an ass-kickin reelection.
- Will people speak in echo?
- Will people be known as man-animals? Will they have cat-animals and dog-animals as pet-animals?
- Will we still have to worry about geometry?
- Will there be citys with like freakin awesome skyscrapers everywhere and like twenty Umpire State Bildings and like UFOs?
- Will there be horses instead of cars? That way I wouldn’t have to worry about losin my keys. By the way, coud you give me aride home today? Meye dad found the weed stash behind my closet door, so he took meye kees away. Ownly a proffesor could do such a kind deed.
- Will we get to say “no” with those extra “o”s, kindof like they do in the movies?
- Will we laff when we succeed, and then make people laf as that stair down at us you no?
- When we flie thru citys will we see vidio gaims in front of us?

This only grew stranger when the plot appeared in a film called Battlefield Earth, which was released just short of three weeks later, the entire class associated. The moral of the story is, when you feel tortured watching Battlefield Earth, a film where unnecessary visual effects makes it a slightly watchable experience, just think of the professor, who could have stopped it altogether.

Note: this is a work of fiction. If you are a college professor, and you teach students who disregard their future for “now,” and they know how to work a camera, don’t inspire them in the least bit. If need be, take evasive action.

D MINUS

One for the Money – not run for the money.

This review was brought to you by…
TWTF

The Last Airbender

Day Nine of the Two-Week Torturefest

I wanted this “Airbender” to asphyxiate me.

last_airbender_ver4

Directed by: M. Night Shyamalan
Written by: M. Night Shyamalan
Aang: Noah Ringer
Prince Zuko: Dev Patel
Katara: Nicola Peltz
Sokka: Jackson Rathbone
Uncle Iroh: Shaun Toub
Commander Zhao: Aasif Mandvi
Also Starring: Cliff Curtis, Damon Gupton, Francis Guinan, Katharine Houghton, Seychelle Gabriel, Summer Bishil

Distributed by Paramount Pictures on July 1, 2010. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 103 minutes. Rated PG by the MPAA–violence.

The Last Airbender was watched on Saturday, December 22, 2012.

“He was bending tiny stones at us from behind a tree. It really hurt!” –Morgan Spector as the Lead Fire Nation Soldier

The concept of The Last Airbender is entirely ridiculous. This is based on Avatar: The Last Airbender, a conventional anime that appeared on Nickelodeon in recent years…and passed on just as quickly. I enjoyed mild fandom of the series when it first aired; I was in third grade. But the more I think about it, the more ridiculous it seems.

This is the tale of a boy named Aang. Oops! I meant a man named Aang. He’s a hundred-year-old Airbender, the last one alive after the rest of the population died out. Now I know no story that presents the medium intends to be realistic, but it’s more fun to play that game than to try and watch normal frame of mind.

I have a number of questions regarding just the main character and his story:

One—Aang is a century old, but he’s trapped in the body of a seven- or eight-year-old boy. Ironically, the intended understanding is reached from the unintended audience. This is a parable of sorts about the Hindu beliefs of karma and reincarnation, but pre-adolescent would understand that. They’ll think he’s simply a midget.

Two—if he’s so old, why is he so juvenile? Is the tattoo on his forehead really a curse enclosing a sophomoric personality?

Three—this character lives in an ancient Asian civilization, so why does he speak like a young, rude, insolent American child? Was that a curse from his tattoo? It probably isn’t, but I’m sure anyone and everyone involved would use that slight excuse to their defense.

Four—did he get that tattoo out in south Philly? No? What about New York?

The script was written by its own director, M. Night Shyamalan. I’m very impressed that Mr. Shyamalan is currently 42 years old. He may be the only man in our history to age 35 years within two cycles around the sun. Oh wait, he debuted back in 1999…I’d like to report an identity theft: a seven-year-old claiming to be M. Night Shyamalan.

The mindset of The Last Airbender is catastrophically juvenile and anachronistic. A prime example of such makes its grand appearance in the very beginning, when the leading young lady gives a narration to open up the film. It’s totally cornay, and she sounds like a valley garl, if ya know what I’m sayin’. Even worse, his debut was The Sixth Sense. The great debate reaches its zenith here, as we wonder how such talent could starve itself of ideas. It’s what I like to call “anorexia cinematicus.”

One final note: The four countries in The Last Airbender are called the Fire Nation, the Earth Nation, the Water Nation, and the Air Nation. These are, as you might guess, because they were discovered, settled on, and founded by the Fire Tribe, the Earth Tribe, the Water Tribe, and the Air Tribe.

Honestly. This is the very definition of lazy. The Indus River Valley tribe’s settlement is currently known as India, not the Indus River Valley Nation. The Anglo civilization’s settlement is currently known as England, not the Anglo Nation. The Sioux tribe’s settlement is currently known as Sioux Falls, not the Sioux Nation.

How funny that I should mention the Sioux while reviewing a film so comparable to Dances with Wolves: tedious, naturalistic, and vacillating between boring and unintentionally funny. Except sometimes, you’re brought to wonder whether or not Shyamalan is trying to be funny. I guess that’s what happens when a director picks the first names he sees during pre-production; sits around snoring during production; and only activates ever so mildly during post-production, just to verify that CGI is intact.

D MINUS

Jack and Jill – Sandler vs. Sandler vs. your patience

This review was brought to you by…
TWTF

Wild Wild West

Day Five of the Two-Week Torturefest

As lame as that horse Mongo punched in the face in “Blazing Saddles”.

www

Directed by: Barry Sonnenfeld
Written by: S.S. Wilson and Brent Maddock & Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman
Based on: “The Wild Wild West” (1965-1969 TV series)
Captain James West: Will Smith
U.S. Marshal Artemus Gordon: Kevin Kline
Ulysses S. Grant: Kevin Kline
Dr. Arliss Loveless: Kenneth Branagh
Rita Escobar: Salma Hayek
Also Starring: Bai Ling, Frederique van der Wal, M. Emmet Walsh, Musetta Vander, Sofia Eng, Ted Levine

Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures on June 30, 1999. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 107 minutes. Rated PG-13 by the MPAA–western violence, sexual situations, infrequent/brief nudity.

Wild Wild West was watched on Sunday, December 23, 2012.

“Too many people spend money they haven’t earned to buy things they don’t want to impress people they don’t like.” –Will Smith
THE IMPLICATION: “Wild Wild West cost a hundred seventy million to make. Director didn’t like it, so instead of revising it, he released it to theaters, tortured theatergoers that way, and earned a profit.”

Poor Will Smith! He’s an increasingly talented actor, regardless of what genre is at hand. I have yet to see him fail, but on several occasions, he has been sorely miscast.

Wild Wild West is not such a case. Yes, Smith is the standout in this otherwise un-watchable film, especially for a role he, himself, picked out. He was initially offered the role of Neo in The Matrix, but turned that film—now considered a modern classic—down for a rather insulting rendition of classic television. Considering that, I guess Wild Wild West does offer one mildly genuine surprise: it didn’t liquidate Smith’s career.

In most cases, it’s pretty bad when a movie wants to be completely serious and ends up failing miserably. There’s essentially only one worse concept: a film that masquerades as a “comedy,” yet the few gags that evoke the most nervous of laughter are thanks to pure luck.

All too many times, Wild Wild West has the strange, pretentious idea that it is playing out humorously. One-liners, double entendres, puns, and sight gags are shot left and right in this highly forgettable excuse for a “steampunk western.” But the film’s frame of mind is so self-confident, it’s a wonder none of the four writers ever came to realize their script was only firing blanks. Occasionally, there’s a goofy joke that manages to crack a smile. But halfway through, the film has worn itself so abusively thin, gunfire has been used more frequently as a wakeup call.

Wild Wild West bears not one kind regard to the art of subtlety. It’s an overly straightforward, loudly exaggerated, completely recycled landfill protruding with tiresome anachronisms. To call this Mission: Impossible meets Blazing Saddles would be one of the most unlawful offenses one could ever commit at the expense of either film. During the 19th century, two men are sent by President Grant to track down a criminal from New Orleans. Something—perhaps everything—about that premise reeks in a lack of originality. Director Barry Sonnenfeld has baked a turducken, but he has forgotten both the chicken and the duck. Wild Wild West is a turkey.

Footnote: With regard to the “Bottom-of-the-Barrel Line,” I’m not sure if the horse in Blazing Saddles was lame. On the other hand, my eleven-year-old sister LOVES horses to death, so I’ll make an effort to have her leave a comment either affirming or negating that speculation.

D

Crossroads – it’s Britney, b__ch, and she’s valedictorian.

This review was brought to you by…
TWTF

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 792 other followers

%d bloggers like this: