The Family Stone attempts to be a ensemble piece that is both melancholy and romantic and comedic all in one film. It pretty much fails on all levels. It aims for melancholy in the fact that a family member is dying. Of all the possible ways to make a holiday movie depressing, this to me seems the most generic and cliche.
Unfortunately the romantic comedy aspect isn't any better. From a premise of comically mismatched people getting together and the importance of finding "true" love, the film reaches its dramatic climax with such an absurd premise that I abandoned any interest in the film. Of course all the actors do wonders with the roles they have been given, but the roles they have been given are fairly one dimensional. The problems of the people are mostly petty and much dramatic conflict is drawn out of the uptight Meredith (Sarah Jessica Parker) and the absurdly bohemian family Stone.
Only one moment in the entire film actually intrigued me. In a series of montages, we view one of the daughters, Susannah (quite pregnant, and already having one child)talking on the phone with her husband who has apparently relayed the information that he won't be coming to Christmas until late. She accepts this and continues watching a late night movie Meet Me In St. Louis (1944). As the montage of different characters goes on, we see everyone in different states of depression, but only Susannah seemed interesting.
I wanted to know why she looked so sad. Why was her husband delayed? Was their marriage in trouble? The family Stone which is clearly obsessed with finding the right person for the right child surely would have weighed and measured Susannah's husband before the married. How could they make such a miscalculation? Of course in the end, the husband shows up and everything is actually fine. A cheap cop out for what could have been a powerful subplot.
In the end it was this scene that made me dislike the movie even more. So much could have been mined here for effect. Myth of Fingerprints (1997) is a great example of a holiday movie that is darkly tragic. But god forbid a Christmas movie not be cheerful. Wouldn't want to bring anyone down. The death of the sick character is only strongly alluded to. I had lost interest in the family fairly quickly and no amount of sweetness or slapstick could keep me entertained once that happened.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
It was beauty killed the beast
So ended the original King Kong (1933) a film that according to Peter Jackson inspired him to become a film maker. After the wild success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson decided to remake the film that inspired him. And in the end, his love for the original can not save his own version.
King Kong works in the broadest strokes. Unfortunately it already worked in the broadest strokes. The action sequences of the original were no less striking and amazing than the ones in Jackson's film, even if they were cruder and not digitally created. The major departure for Jackson, is to make the relationship of Kong and Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) more reciprocal. A nice attempt which I found fell short of impressing. Her use of acrobatics to impress his alpha male expressionism was cheesy and had me groaning.
In fact there was enough hints at Kong's savagery to make me not care what happened to him. Yes he is mesmerized by Ann, but what about the countless previous "sacrifices" who were torn from limb to limb. Not to mention all the New York women he mistakes for Ann and subsequently throws away when he recognizes his error. He is brutal, savage and in no way do I care if Ann feels anything for him. Ann and Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) do have a slightly more realistic attraction to each other than in the original, but even it felt artificial.
Most of the acting in the film felt wooden and uninspired. From the opening moments when they were establishing Naomi Watts' character, I just didn't buy into any of it. I had my reservations from the trailer about Jack Black in this movie and I feel those reservations were warranted as I could not stand his character. Admittedly his character is supposed to be sleazy, but it was Jack Black that I couldn't stand, not the character.
Equally I don't feel the concept works in 2005. When the original was made, there was still an exoticism and mystery to the world that could be exploited for the audience. I can recognize this of the film, but the remake although still set in thirties, can not capture that same spirit. At times destruction, particularly of New York City, even in an escapist film such as this, reminded me too much of recent events. When these things are combined with an uninteresting titular character and equally uninteresting protagonists, one gets bored quickly and at three hours plus that is the death blow for a film of such a length.
King Kong works in the broadest strokes. Unfortunately it already worked in the broadest strokes. The action sequences of the original were no less striking and amazing than the ones in Jackson's film, even if they were cruder and not digitally created. The major departure for Jackson, is to make the relationship of Kong and Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) more reciprocal. A nice attempt which I found fell short of impressing. Her use of acrobatics to impress his alpha male expressionism was cheesy and had me groaning.
In fact there was enough hints at Kong's savagery to make me not care what happened to him. Yes he is mesmerized by Ann, but what about the countless previous "sacrifices" who were torn from limb to limb. Not to mention all the New York women he mistakes for Ann and subsequently throws away when he recognizes his error. He is brutal, savage and in no way do I care if Ann feels anything for him. Ann and Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) do have a slightly more realistic attraction to each other than in the original, but even it felt artificial.
Most of the acting in the film felt wooden and uninspired. From the opening moments when they were establishing Naomi Watts' character, I just didn't buy into any of it. I had my reservations from the trailer about Jack Black in this movie and I feel those reservations were warranted as I could not stand his character. Admittedly his character is supposed to be sleazy, but it was Jack Black that I couldn't stand, not the character.
Equally I don't feel the concept works in 2005. When the original was made, there was still an exoticism and mystery to the world that could be exploited for the audience. I can recognize this of the film, but the remake although still set in thirties, can not capture that same spirit. At times destruction, particularly of New York City, even in an escapist film such as this, reminded me too much of recent events. When these things are combined with an uninteresting titular character and equally uninteresting protagonists, one gets bored quickly and at three hours plus that is the death blow for a film of such a length.
Hazy Shade of Winter
A number of people were shocked to learn I had never read The Chronicles of Narnia when I was a child. I can't recall what I was reading, but it was probably Stephen King. At this point, knowing all about the alleged allegory (try saying that five times fast) I can't bother with the books. Luckily I have Hollywood for such things. They'll make a movie out of anything as long as they think they can sell the tickets for it. So I am now able to experience The Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe on the big screen and no doubt countless sequels are on the way in the future.
Unfortunately, the movie just isn't very interesting. I've heard it debated whether C.S. Lewis intended for his books to be allegorical for Christianity or meant something else, but it seems clear that the director of the film fell firmly in the allegory category. Its blatant and unavoidable, which makes it quite dull. The White Witch (Tilda Swinton) was not particularly menacing and I found Swinton's performance in Constantine (2005) more intriguing than her performance in this movie. There are epic battles, but after seeing such things in the Lord of the Rings movies they fall short.
The creatures of the film were manufactured well. Liam Neeson's Aslan was real enough, but neither performance nor imagery rose above and beyond. Nor did I feel the threat all that menacing. I have read that Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, who were friends, had a bit of a rivalry about their respective works. Tolkien seems to have had the better books and thanks to Peter Jackson, he also has the better movies.
Unfortunately, the movie just isn't very interesting. I've heard it debated whether C.S. Lewis intended for his books to be allegorical for Christianity or meant something else, but it seems clear that the director of the film fell firmly in the allegory category. Its blatant and unavoidable, which makes it quite dull. The White Witch (Tilda Swinton) was not particularly menacing and I found Swinton's performance in Constantine (2005) more intriguing than her performance in this movie. There are epic battles, but after seeing such things in the Lord of the Rings movies they fall short.
The creatures of the film were manufactured well. Liam Neeson's Aslan was real enough, but neither performance nor imagery rose above and beyond. Nor did I feel the threat all that menacing. I have read that Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, who were friends, had a bit of a rivalry about their respective works. Tolkien seems to have had the better books and thanks to Peter Jackson, he also has the better movies.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
The Incrediblly Scary World of Oil
Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today.
-Ghandi
The new film Syriana is a frustrating film. It seems deliberately so. It is frustrating in that if even half the things suggested in the film are true (and I wouldn't doubt that they aren't), then the US is neck deep in so much sludge that not even prudent and pragmatic policy can pull us out. Written by Stephen Gaghan the scribe of Traffic (2000) and also with him in the director's chair. It follows a very similar formula to Traffic as we follow multiple characters on all sides of an issue.
In fact the film is a little too fractured. I don't think that the film becomes confusing as it switches back and forth between the plot lines but it takes us away from each character at times and in the end one gets no satisfactory character arc. This is made all the more frustrating by little bits of side story including a man's alcoholic father and the son of a CIA operative. I found myself more interested in what those scenes alluded to than some parts of the story. Those elements aside the point of a film like this is a message. And with Gaghan it seems to be a controversial one.
In Traffic, he tackled the US drug policy and all its aspects from the top to the bottom. In Syriana, the oil business gets the same treatment. In so far as it is just a retread of Traffic replacing drugs with oil, it isn't very satisfying. On one side is that it is hardly even handed, because how can you make your point if you actually show the positive arguments of your opposition.
All we are allowed to see are the greedy businessmen, the power hungry political leaders and the terrorists created by policy. A rant by Tim Blake Nelson's character Daniel Dalton sums up Gaghan's feelings about what the government is doing. The character quotes Milton Friedman, not suprising since Friedman also advocated legalizing drugs, which Gaghan seems to favor as well.
Syriana was well performed although at times stylistically frustrating. Its message is certainly confronational and thought provoking and for that reason is worth seeing. It isn't perfectly constructed and in terms of story I can't say it was very good, but it stayed on its message which seems to have been the only point it really wants to make
-Ghandi
The new film Syriana is a frustrating film. It seems deliberately so. It is frustrating in that if even half the things suggested in the film are true (and I wouldn't doubt that they aren't), then the US is neck deep in so much sludge that not even prudent and pragmatic policy can pull us out. Written by Stephen Gaghan the scribe of Traffic (2000) and also with him in the director's chair. It follows a very similar formula to Traffic as we follow multiple characters on all sides of an issue.
In fact the film is a little too fractured. I don't think that the film becomes confusing as it switches back and forth between the plot lines but it takes us away from each character at times and in the end one gets no satisfactory character arc. This is made all the more frustrating by little bits of side story including a man's alcoholic father and the son of a CIA operative. I found myself more interested in what those scenes alluded to than some parts of the story. Those elements aside the point of a film like this is a message. And with Gaghan it seems to be a controversial one.
In Traffic, he tackled the US drug policy and all its aspects from the top to the bottom. In Syriana, the oil business gets the same treatment. In so far as it is just a retread of Traffic replacing drugs with oil, it isn't very satisfying. On one side is that it is hardly even handed, because how can you make your point if you actually show the positive arguments of your opposition.
All we are allowed to see are the greedy businessmen, the power hungry political leaders and the terrorists created by policy. A rant by Tim Blake Nelson's character Daniel Dalton sums up Gaghan's feelings about what the government is doing. The character quotes Milton Friedman, not suprising since Friedman also advocated legalizing drugs, which Gaghan seems to favor as well.
Syriana was well performed although at times stylistically frustrating. Its message is certainly confronational and thought provoking and for that reason is worth seeing. It isn't perfectly constructed and in terms of story I can't say it was very good, but it stayed on its message which seems to have been the only point it really wants to make
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Acid Re-Flux
In theory, watching the preview of Aeon Flux should be enough to keep you far, far away from the auditorium where it is playing, but living in a city with delusions that it is grander than it actually is one quickly discovers that sometimes there are no other options. This past weekend had only one major release and most of the limited release films haven't made their way here yet if ever. So, I went to this movie assuming it would be not so good. True to Hollywood form, the filmmakers were actually able to fail to meet my meager expectations.
From the opening frames one is treated to both an irritating expositional voice over and images of a rather bland, boring city. Regardless of whether the city of the future is a utopia or a distopia, clever film makers are able to design something worth looking at. Here it just looks like any city but with some funky fashions thrown in to let you know it's the future. In case you were spacing out during the expositional voice over, which I confess I may have done.
We meet our titular hero and see her do badass things and complete here mission and afterwards she learns her sister was killed because of it. Or was she? Because in the end I found myself a bit confused. Regardless, as any good hero she seethes and plots revenge. What follows for the movie is fairly standard action stuff with romantic subplots and revelations about the "bad" guy and the real bad guy. It was delightful to see Johnny Lee Miller who gnashes his teeth and plots as all really generic bad guys do.
Other actors of higher quality suffer here. Pete Postlethwaite so brilliant as Kobayashi in The Usual Suspects (1995) and as Guiseppe Conlon in In the Name of the Father (1993) is here completely wasted. Even Charlize Theron fresh off her Oscar win for Monster (2003) is retched in this film.
This film in the end falls on a convention of cloning. What's a sci-fi film without some good natured cloning? It seems to want to delve the murky waters of genetic memory, but doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Don't worry though, messy philosophic questions won't interupt our expected character arcs. Will the former friend who is now ordered to kill Aeon go through with it? Will the "bad" guy and the hero become romantically involved?
If you don't know the answer to these questions, I still recommend you stay far, far away from Aeon Flux. In the end the film felt much like an acid reflux incident. Painful and reminding you why you don't ingest crude like that on a regular basis.
From the opening frames one is treated to both an irritating expositional voice over and images of a rather bland, boring city. Regardless of whether the city of the future is a utopia or a distopia, clever film makers are able to design something worth looking at. Here it just looks like any city but with some funky fashions thrown in to let you know it's the future. In case you were spacing out during the expositional voice over, which I confess I may have done.
We meet our titular hero and see her do badass things and complete here mission and afterwards she learns her sister was killed because of it. Or was she? Because in the end I found myself a bit confused. Regardless, as any good hero she seethes and plots revenge. What follows for the movie is fairly standard action stuff with romantic subplots and revelations about the "bad" guy and the real bad guy. It was delightful to see Johnny Lee Miller who gnashes his teeth and plots as all really generic bad guys do.
Other actors of higher quality suffer here. Pete Postlethwaite so brilliant as Kobayashi in The Usual Suspects (1995) and as Guiseppe Conlon in In the Name of the Father (1993) is here completely wasted. Even Charlize Theron fresh off her Oscar win for Monster (2003) is retched in this film.
This film in the end falls on a convention of cloning. What's a sci-fi film without some good natured cloning? It seems to want to delve the murky waters of genetic memory, but doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Don't worry though, messy philosophic questions won't interupt our expected character arcs. Will the former friend who is now ordered to kill Aeon go through with it? Will the "bad" guy and the hero become romantically involved?
If you don't know the answer to these questions, I still recommend you stay far, far away from Aeon Flux. In the end the film felt much like an acid reflux incident. Painful and reminding you why you don't ingest crude like that on a regular basis.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
There's a reason they call them Classics
I recently saw the newest version of Pride and Prejudice. Based on Jane Austen's novel and according to IMDB at least the 10th adaption of some form to be made. I have never read the novel or any Jane Austen in fact (I know forshame on me) and in truth went with very doubtful belief that I would enjoy the film. But it was something to do to fill one evening of my life. It was a well chosen film. I enjoyed it more than anything else I saw in the last month.
It was even more enjoyable by contrast to Shopgirl (2005) which I had seen the night before with such disappointment. Pride and Prejudice had my favorite character type of all as the lead role: The witty intelligent beautiful obstinate woman. Elizabeth Bennet (Keira Knightley) plays this role well. And of course I fell completely in love with her. I was rooting for her from almost her first words and she has a fantastic verbal contest with Mr. Darcy.
That she will, of course, fall in love with Darcy despite his stubbornness is foreseeable and that there will be some sort of misunderstanding and/or obstacle to their romance is a given. But the manor in which the actors approach this plot is done with aplomb. Darcy (Matthew MacFayden) is of course a fantastic match for Elizabeth (setting myself aside for obvious reasons) and the advancement to the inevitable conclusion is delightful.
The film is at times comic and serious. The are moments of joy and anger. There is a father's love for his daughter and putting that love above convention. In fact the whole movie is filled with all the classic (or cliched) themes you might be searching for and all done very well. I smiled for most of the movie and I've put the book on my list of things to read. That a movie inspired me to read the book might be shameful but I don't care.
It was even more enjoyable by contrast to Shopgirl (2005) which I had seen the night before with such disappointment. Pride and Prejudice had my favorite character type of all as the lead role: The witty intelligent beautiful obstinate woman. Elizabeth Bennet (Keira Knightley) plays this role well. And of course I fell completely in love with her. I was rooting for her from almost her first words and she has a fantastic verbal contest with Mr. Darcy.
That she will, of course, fall in love with Darcy despite his stubbornness is foreseeable and that there will be some sort of misunderstanding and/or obstacle to their romance is a given. But the manor in which the actors approach this plot is done with aplomb. Darcy (Matthew MacFayden) is of course a fantastic match for Elizabeth (setting myself aside for obvious reasons) and the advancement to the inevitable conclusion is delightful.
The film is at times comic and serious. The are moments of joy and anger. There is a father's love for his daughter and putting that love above convention. In fact the whole movie is filled with all the classic (or cliched) themes you might be searching for and all done very well. I smiled for most of the movie and I've put the book on my list of things to read. That a movie inspired me to read the book might be shameful but I don't care.
Shopgirl
Shopgirl is an adapting of Steve Martin's novella of the same title. I have not read it and can not say to what degree the movie remained faithful. Nor in truth do I really care if it was faithful. A movie should be judged on its own merits, not the book from which it was adapted. And based on judgment of the movie, I found Shopgirl to be disappointing.
The movie centers around the life of Mirabelle (Claire Danes) who is sort of lost in the hubbub of LA life, working at a Saks department store and just getting by. Suddenly two men come into her life. One an impoverished, artistic loser named Jeremy (Jason Schwartzman) and the other is a rich, sophisticated older gentleman named Ray Porter (Steve Martin). Mirabelle is quickly swept off her feet by Ray's sophistication and Jeremy takes off on a quest that eventually makes him a better man.
Mirabelle who suffers from depression and certainly has dreams of success in her art wants to believe that Ray will love her. This inspite of the fact that he tells her that he is not looking for a long term relationship. There is an odd scene after Ray states this feeling, in which he with his shrink attempts to convince, seemingly, himself that he made this fact clear to Mirabelle, while Mirabelle sits with friends deluding herself into the idea that the relationship might have a future.
It is from this delusion that tragedy will strike and I found myself unable to sympathize with Mirabelle. Not because I found her rationale unconvincing (no doubt there are women and men who rationalize what they have heard until it is what they wanted to hear) but because it was her choice to rationalize it and therefore her fault when it goes wrong. Eventually the relationship does turn sour, but Jeremy re emerges now a man worthy of Mirabelle and Mirabelle more able to recognize that he is worthy and so we have resolution seemingly.
Except that there is one final scene with Ray, in which I felt that the implication was Mirabelle had settled. Which is in and of itself maddening. Like when you see someone you think highly of make the worst decisions when it comes to relationships, the fact that Mirabelle still loves Ray Porter, when he is clearly an unhealthy match is distressing.
In addition to being dissatisfied with the story, I also found certain elements annoying. The most obvious being Steve Martin's voice overs which I found grating and irritating. But the scene that angered me most was one in which Mirabelle is back home to visit her parents. Mirabelle catches sight of her mother in one of those candid moments that seem only to occur in movies. Where the light hits a person just right and the espied person oblivious to observation shows a sadness or dissatisfaction with life. This scene allows our character to realize they don't want to wind up like one's mother or father. These scenes rarely if ever actually have a dialogue to determine whether the sadness is real or perceived. Is it impossible that one might have caught someone in a moment of weariness?
This "realization" propels Mirabelle forward and all I could think was, did she actually talk to her mom and see if she was really unhappy? Because other than that one scene, I couldn't determine if she was, the mother seemed content. Regardless of my dissatisfaction with the film, it was certainly well shot and acted. As a dissatisfying film it was still better than a lot of movies I have seen this year.
The movie centers around the life of Mirabelle (Claire Danes) who is sort of lost in the hubbub of LA life, working at a Saks department store and just getting by. Suddenly two men come into her life. One an impoverished, artistic loser named Jeremy (Jason Schwartzman) and the other is a rich, sophisticated older gentleman named Ray Porter (Steve Martin). Mirabelle is quickly swept off her feet by Ray's sophistication and Jeremy takes off on a quest that eventually makes him a better man.
Mirabelle who suffers from depression and certainly has dreams of success in her art wants to believe that Ray will love her. This inspite of the fact that he tells her that he is not looking for a long term relationship. There is an odd scene after Ray states this feeling, in which he with his shrink attempts to convince, seemingly, himself that he made this fact clear to Mirabelle, while Mirabelle sits with friends deluding herself into the idea that the relationship might have a future.
It is from this delusion that tragedy will strike and I found myself unable to sympathize with Mirabelle. Not because I found her rationale unconvincing (no doubt there are women and men who rationalize what they have heard until it is what they wanted to hear) but because it was her choice to rationalize it and therefore her fault when it goes wrong. Eventually the relationship does turn sour, but Jeremy re emerges now a man worthy of Mirabelle and Mirabelle more able to recognize that he is worthy and so we have resolution seemingly.
Except that there is one final scene with Ray, in which I felt that the implication was Mirabelle had settled. Which is in and of itself maddening. Like when you see someone you think highly of make the worst decisions when it comes to relationships, the fact that Mirabelle still loves Ray Porter, when he is clearly an unhealthy match is distressing.
In addition to being dissatisfied with the story, I also found certain elements annoying. The most obvious being Steve Martin's voice overs which I found grating and irritating. But the scene that angered me most was one in which Mirabelle is back home to visit her parents. Mirabelle catches sight of her mother in one of those candid moments that seem only to occur in movies. Where the light hits a person just right and the espied person oblivious to observation shows a sadness or dissatisfaction with life. This scene allows our character to realize they don't want to wind up like one's mother or father. These scenes rarely if ever actually have a dialogue to determine whether the sadness is real or perceived. Is it impossible that one might have caught someone in a moment of weariness?
This "realization" propels Mirabelle forward and all I could think was, did she actually talk to her mom and see if she was really unhappy? Because other than that one scene, I couldn't determine if she was, the mother seemed content. Regardless of my dissatisfaction with the film, it was certainly well shot and acted. As a dissatisfying film it was still better than a lot of movies I have seen this year.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Just Forgettable
Ryan Reynolds is trying hard not to be typecast. He's also failing hard. He tried to reinvent himself as an action star in Blade: Trinity (2004) and it didn't work. He tried reinventing himself as a horror film star in Amittyville Horror (2005) and it didn't work. And now with Just Friends he is trying to reinvent himself as a romantic comedy star and sadly I must report it doesn't work. I think he's running out of ways to reinvent himself.
Reynolds plays a formerly fat nerdy, now cool and thin, recording industry big wig who by accident ends up back in his hometown for Christmas discovering his old feelings for his high school friend played by Amy Smart. The problem is at no point do they seem even remotely compatible. I even questioned why they would have been friends in the first place. And when Reynolds returns and attempts to act as a jerk then a nice sensitive guy, I was more baffled.
And why Amy Smart's character ends up giving him a second chance is beyond my comprehension. I was racking my mind trying to figure out why she would have done that based on the character so far represented. The movie has all the stupid humor you might expect. Little kids beating up adults, taser jokes and fat guy jokes which all play to the lowest common denominator. But suprisingly it did have two stand outs.
The first was Anna Farris as a bubble gum pop princess. She plays the dumb weird "but I'm an artist" character to a t and it is funny most of the time she is on screen. Her best moment may be when they walk into a crowded New Jersey bar and she acts as if she is being ogled and hawked over even though not one person is actually looking at her. Scenes like that were some of the only redeemable moments in the entire film.
The other refreshing character was that played by Julie Hagerty of Airplane! (1980) fame, who played Reynold's characters mom. She isn't on screen very much but when she was I laughed and it made me want to go home and watch Airplane!. Chris Klein plays the competition who turns out to be scum because god forbid in a romance the competition actually be someone worthy of the girl. How would the hero win the day if he couldn't prove he was the better man by virtue of the fact that he proves to be right about the scumminess of the other guy. From setup to conclusion Just Friends was and is entirely forgettable except for a few memorable scenes with Anna Farris which were just filler anyway.
Reynolds plays a formerly fat nerdy, now cool and thin, recording industry big wig who by accident ends up back in his hometown for Christmas discovering his old feelings for his high school friend played by Amy Smart. The problem is at no point do they seem even remotely compatible. I even questioned why they would have been friends in the first place. And when Reynolds returns and attempts to act as a jerk then a nice sensitive guy, I was more baffled.
And why Amy Smart's character ends up giving him a second chance is beyond my comprehension. I was racking my mind trying to figure out why she would have done that based on the character so far represented. The movie has all the stupid humor you might expect. Little kids beating up adults, taser jokes and fat guy jokes which all play to the lowest common denominator. But suprisingly it did have two stand outs.
The first was Anna Farris as a bubble gum pop princess. She plays the dumb weird "but I'm an artist" character to a t and it is funny most of the time she is on screen. Her best moment may be when they walk into a crowded New Jersey bar and she acts as if she is being ogled and hawked over even though not one person is actually looking at her. Scenes like that were some of the only redeemable moments in the entire film.
The other refreshing character was that played by Julie Hagerty of Airplane! (1980) fame, who played Reynold's characters mom. She isn't on screen very much but when she was I laughed and it made me want to go home and watch Airplane!. Chris Klein plays the competition who turns out to be scum because god forbid in a romance the competition actually be someone worthy of the girl. How would the hero win the day if he couldn't prove he was the better man by virtue of the fact that he proves to be right about the scumminess of the other guy. From setup to conclusion Just Friends was and is entirely forgettable except for a few memorable scenes with Anna Farris which were just filler anyway.
30 Day Eviction Notice
I don't really like musicals and so I probably should have just avoided Rent altogether. But I didn't it and I suffered for it. Perhaps musicals work better on stage where despite all attempts to appear real, the confinement of the stage is recognizable. In a movie, however, filmed in a real city the very idea that a person would break into choreographed dance or staged song as they go about their day is absurd in the extreme. And from the first song as Anthony Rapp rides his bike along, I was stifling laughter at how absurd the film was truly going to be.
Under the guise of being about AIDS in the 90s, the film seems really to be about Bohemians. And I like hippies/bohemians about as much as I like musicals. Why must I watch a movie about a bunch of whiny generation x-ers who feel that reality is stifling their creativity? It seems a travesty to the people out there who really are homeless with no place to work, no family to turn to in need. Truly hungry and truly cold, these people seem almost mocked by the bohemian who rejects responsibility for no good reason.
What little background we get to why some of the characters have AIDS tend to point to drug use, which doesn't exactly earn sympathy points in my book. And of course the villain of the story is the guy who finally recognized he had to accept responsibility. Oh gosh no, evil reality we can't let that spoil our good times. The film has all the cliched roles you could dream for. There is the struggling musician (who had a name but all I can recall is that he reminded me of Bon Jovi) is struggling to find love again after having lost his true love. There is the struggling filmmaker striving not to sell out to the corporates while making what might possibly be the worst film ever made. There is the struggling performance artist, the struggling graduate student, and so on and so forth. None is particularly interesting and none ever rises above their generic template.
The film and perhaps the musical (I admit I have never seen it) doesn't even have the balls to end on a down note. God forbid anyone actually die or be sad. One hundred twenty eight minutes, how you measure the time I wasted watching this film.
Under the guise of being about AIDS in the 90s, the film seems really to be about Bohemians. And I like hippies/bohemians about as much as I like musicals. Why must I watch a movie about a bunch of whiny generation x-ers who feel that reality is stifling their creativity? It seems a travesty to the people out there who really are homeless with no place to work, no family to turn to in need. Truly hungry and truly cold, these people seem almost mocked by the bohemian who rejects responsibility for no good reason.
What little background we get to why some of the characters have AIDS tend to point to drug use, which doesn't exactly earn sympathy points in my book. And of course the villain of the story is the guy who finally recognized he had to accept responsibility. Oh gosh no, evil reality we can't let that spoil our good times. The film has all the cliched roles you could dream for. There is the struggling musician (who had a name but all I can recall is that he reminded me of Bon Jovi) is struggling to find love again after having lost his true love. There is the struggling filmmaker striving not to sell out to the corporates while making what might possibly be the worst film ever made. There is the struggling performance artist, the struggling graduate student, and so on and so forth. None is particularly interesting and none ever rises above their generic template.
The film and perhaps the musical (I admit I have never seen it) doesn't even have the balls to end on a down note. God forbid anyone actually die or be sad. One hundred twenty eight minutes, how you measure the time I wasted watching this film.
The Ice Harvest
In The Ice Harvest, it seems like every actor is having a good time. From Randy Quaid to Billy Bob Thorton, everyone relishes in their role and plays as if with tongue firmly in cheek. The problem is, just because everyone is having fun doesn't mean that a movie is good. Everyone seemed like they were having a good time in Ocean's Twelve (2004) as well and that film was a convoluted mess. But The Ice Harvest has an ace up its sleeve. It has John Cusack. Cusack is such an immensely likeable guy no matter what character he plays, that one ends up rooting for him. And it is one of the only reasons I found the movie tolerable.
Billy Bob Thorton plays that standard Billy Bob role as the guy who isn't trustworthy but hides under the auspices of being a friend. Connie Nielsen plays a sex pot femme fatale type character and for some reason I got the impression that in many of her scenes they were intentionally lighting her eyes which gave the scenes a pseudo-film noir look. I didn't care for either character. Thorton's because its the same one he always plays and I'm getting tired of it and Nielsen's because I just don't buy her performance. Randy Quaid and Mike Starr both do wonders with what they have, unfortunately what they have isn't very much and they're out of the film almost as soon as they came into it.
Other than Cusack only one actor was really enjoyable. Oliver Platt's drunk gets to ham it up to great effect from angry to idiotic to sincere. Of course in these scenes we also like Cusack more as he selflessly aids his friend. The caper as it were goes horribly wrong and obligatory scenes show up like clockwork. There are hostage situations and scenes were the partners plot to do the other in and even Cusack couldn't stop me from sighing in disappointment during these scenes.
Some of the transitional moments of the film were helped along by Ned Bellamy as a bartender with anger management issues. Despite this flaw we figure out quickly he is one of the good guys, if anyone can be considered such in this film. In the end the good guys are rewarded for their goodness, the evil guys are punished. Unfortunately there was also a flash back reveal segment as well. And I hate those segments. This is where a character comes upon a realization and recalls scenes in which as it turns out a character was actually there all along off in the shadows are something equally ridiculous. These things irritate me because most of the time they are shots you have never seen before and therefore there is no way for you to figure it out before the end because the clues weren't there.
In the end The Ice Harvest wasn't very good. But neither was Must Love Dogs (2005) and I went to see that. I always go see John Cusack movies because as I said, Cusack is always so damn likeable. But I do hope everyone making the film had as much fun as it would appear because then someone will have enjoyed the film.
Billy Bob Thorton plays that standard Billy Bob role as the guy who isn't trustworthy but hides under the auspices of being a friend. Connie Nielsen plays a sex pot femme fatale type character and for some reason I got the impression that in many of her scenes they were intentionally lighting her eyes which gave the scenes a pseudo-film noir look. I didn't care for either character. Thorton's because its the same one he always plays and I'm getting tired of it and Nielsen's because I just don't buy her performance. Randy Quaid and Mike Starr both do wonders with what they have, unfortunately what they have isn't very much and they're out of the film almost as soon as they came into it.
Other than Cusack only one actor was really enjoyable. Oliver Platt's drunk gets to ham it up to great effect from angry to idiotic to sincere. Of course in these scenes we also like Cusack more as he selflessly aids his friend. The caper as it were goes horribly wrong and obligatory scenes show up like clockwork. There are hostage situations and scenes were the partners plot to do the other in and even Cusack couldn't stop me from sighing in disappointment during these scenes.
Some of the transitional moments of the film were helped along by Ned Bellamy as a bartender with anger management issues. Despite this flaw we figure out quickly he is one of the good guys, if anyone can be considered such in this film. In the end the good guys are rewarded for their goodness, the evil guys are punished. Unfortunately there was also a flash back reveal segment as well. And I hate those segments. This is where a character comes upon a realization and recalls scenes in which as it turns out a character was actually there all along off in the shadows are something equally ridiculous. These things irritate me because most of the time they are shots you have never seen before and therefore there is no way for you to figure it out before the end because the clues weren't there.
In the end The Ice Harvest wasn't very good. But neither was Must Love Dogs (2005) and I went to see that. I always go see John Cusack movies because as I said, Cusack is always so damn likeable. But I do hope everyone making the film had as much fun as it would appear because then someone will have enjoyed the film.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Harry Potter and the land of me being creeped out
There isn't much one can say about the Harry Potter movies. You probably fall into one of three categories: 1) You loved the books and love the movies, 2) You loved the books and hate the movies or 3) You are often found to be saying "Harry Who?". I found myself enchanted by the early books and now sucked in like a heroin junkie, I can't escape no matter that the books just don't give me that same high that they once did. In truth even with a fix as it were, I am still irritable at how annoying the Harry Potter character truly is. And luckily for those who can't read or have no desire to read, we have Hollywood, ever ready to make a few hundred million from an established franchise.
The first two Potter films were faithfully adaptions that although I enjoyed wore down my patience awaiting the climax of the film. The third film took a less verbatim approach and had a darkness and humanism that I enjoyed very much. So now enter the fourth film Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Again, the filmmakers have decided not to show us everthing from the book. And for this I thank them immensely because at two and a half hours the film is already far to long. Because of a need to show all of the action filled scenes, the film has all but forgone any notion that these kids are in school. Which makes me wonder why it is exactly that Harry is considered so great a wizard. Unless luck is magic.
But what stuck with me most about this film and truly began to bother me is when the school dance was to take place. Suddenly 14 year old characters were being asked out by 17/18 year olds. I thought seniors dating freshman was creepy when i was in high school and here I find it no less creepy. Should age matter? For mature adults? No. For adulescents? Yes! Mike Newell, the new director, tries for the same sort of tone that Alfonso Cuaron so marvelously achieved in the previous film and failed. Whereas Cuaron seemed to understand kids, Newell seems uncomfortable and so almost all the scenes were uncomfortable.
So although I will no doubt read the last book in the series and see the remaining films that are made, I can not in any real way endorse this film as good. It was ultimately forgettable.
The first two Potter films were faithfully adaptions that although I enjoyed wore down my patience awaiting the climax of the film. The third film took a less verbatim approach and had a darkness and humanism that I enjoyed very much. So now enter the fourth film Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Again, the filmmakers have decided not to show us everthing from the book. And for this I thank them immensely because at two and a half hours the film is already far to long. Because of a need to show all of the action filled scenes, the film has all but forgone any notion that these kids are in school. Which makes me wonder why it is exactly that Harry is considered so great a wizard. Unless luck is magic.
But what stuck with me most about this film and truly began to bother me is when the school dance was to take place. Suddenly 14 year old characters were being asked out by 17/18 year olds. I thought seniors dating freshman was creepy when i was in high school and here I find it no less creepy. Should age matter? For mature adults? No. For adulescents? Yes! Mike Newell, the new director, tries for the same sort of tone that Alfonso Cuaron so marvelously achieved in the previous film and failed. Whereas Cuaron seemed to understand kids, Newell seems uncomfortable and so almost all the scenes were uncomfortable.
So although I will no doubt read the last book in the series and see the remaining films that are made, I can not in any real way endorse this film as good. It was ultimately forgettable.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Man in Black
Johnny Cash was one of the great singer/songwriters of the 20th century. I have several of his albums in my collection but on threat of torture I could not have told you much about him. The new film Walk The Line, therefore, is a pleasant biopic for the casual listener. It gives insight into his early inspirations and the sources of some of his most famous and best songs. I can not attest to which aspects of the story were streamlined or fictionalized for dramatic effect but one definately walks away from the film with a feel for who Johnny Cash was and why he was the Man in Black.
Joaquin Phoenix does an amazing job portraying Cash. From pining over June Carter (Reese Witherspoon) to being caught up in a drug enduced haze, Phoenix brings to life an amazing character. The film follows a fairly conventional path for a biopic but one that is nonetheless interesting. It was the small quiet moments that I enjoyed the most, such as Cash or Carter working out songs in their heads. To what extent a non Cash fan would enjoy the film is unknown by me. I found my foot tapping along right from the opening scene and anytime Phoenix was on stage singing.
Robert Patrick as Ray Cash, Johnny Cash's father also impressed me in the film. In the end I am glad I saw the film but there is little of the film that stuck with me even less than 24 hours latter. There was no particular scene are dialogue that impressed me fully except for the music which is all Johnny Cash. In some respect, I was even disappointed I didn't get to learn about some of my favorite songs or hear them, such as Man in Black or the Ballad Of Ira Hayes. In the end I wanted to go listen to my Cash albums more than anything. Something I encourage any reader to do as well, and if you are short on time instead of seeing the film.
Joaquin Phoenix does an amazing job portraying Cash. From pining over June Carter (Reese Witherspoon) to being caught up in a drug enduced haze, Phoenix brings to life an amazing character. The film follows a fairly conventional path for a biopic but one that is nonetheless interesting. It was the small quiet moments that I enjoyed the most, such as Cash or Carter working out songs in their heads. To what extent a non Cash fan would enjoy the film is unknown by me. I found my foot tapping along right from the opening scene and anytime Phoenix was on stage singing.
Robert Patrick as Ray Cash, Johnny Cash's father also impressed me in the film. In the end I am glad I saw the film but there is little of the film that stuck with me even less than 24 hours latter. There was no particular scene are dialogue that impressed me fully except for the music which is all Johnny Cash. In some respect, I was even disappointed I didn't get to learn about some of my favorite songs or hear them, such as Man in Black or the Ballad Of Ira Hayes. In the end I wanted to go listen to my Cash albums more than anything. Something I encourage any reader to do as well, and if you are short on time instead of seeing the film.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Good Night and Good Luck: Testament to debate
The most striking moments, for me, of George Clooney's film Good Night and Good Luck are the opening and closing of the film. The scene is a dinner in honor of journalist Edward R. Murrow. Murrow steps up to the podium and gives his speech. He prefaces that what he says may be controversial. The speech which Clooney has stated in interviews was verbatim regarded the future of television journalism. He made grim often polemical statements about what a misstep in journalistic integrity could lead to. It is striking because it closely resembles what much of news media has devolved into. That Murrow saw and warned against the dangers in 1958, is all the more remarkable.
From the middle of the speech, we jump back five years to the height of McCarthy era paranoia with a patronistic scrawl explaining fears of Communism that were prevalent at this time. I found my self for the only time in the film irritated. The text indicated an assumption that the average viewer doesn't have a basic idea of McCarthyism and needed such clarification. We are immediately drawn into the bustling news room at CBS, where Murrow's team are working out stories for his show. A general dislike among the newsmen for the fear mongering of Joe McCarthy is discernible but the news cast that is the catalyst for the movie has nothing to do with McCarthy. It was a tactful look at Communist fear that had resulted in a soldier being dismissed from the army.
It is addressed from the terms of civil and constitutional rights. This news cast leads to a head on battle between McCarthy and Murrow on much the same grounds. The use of archival footage to represent McCarthy is cleverly used to avoid modern criticism of misrepresentation on Clooney's part. The climax of the film comes in the senate investigation of McCarthy which resulted in censure and the fallout within CBS (lay off of workers, change of time and regularity of Murrow's program) implemented by the head of CBS. A friend put out the criticism that we don't see the fall of McCarthy, which to an extent is unfair because when considering the overall lasting implications of McCarthy, only truly happened with the collapse of the Iron Curtain. Recurrence of fear and mob mentality can be seen less than four years after McCarthy's censure in the uproar regarding Sputnik. Equally, Ronald Regan's terming the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire was much in a McCarthy spirit.
In as much as any movie, song, tv show or book is in some way a reflection of its times, Good Night and Good Luck is an indictment of modern journalism. To say it is a liberal take is intentionally pejorative. There are enough moments in the film which admittedly you have to pay attention for which indicate a bias in Murrow's argument but they are biases regarding persuasion not fact. There is also a clear repition of the theme of fair trial. The importance of that fundamental right, in fact the importance of all fundamental rights is the clearest message of the film.
Clooney has expressed in interviews regarding this movie that McCarthy wasn't completely wrong in his fears regarding communist spies, but that he was out of control and some opposition had to be raised. And the debate as it unfolded is what was important about Murrow's opposition not that either Murrow or McCarthy was right. In the end, with the return to Murrow's cautionary speech, one can't help but reflect on current journalism and consider what is happening. If nothing else the film should generate a much needed debate on modern journalism.
From the middle of the speech, we jump back five years to the height of McCarthy era paranoia with a patronistic scrawl explaining fears of Communism that were prevalent at this time. I found my self for the only time in the film irritated. The text indicated an assumption that the average viewer doesn't have a basic idea of McCarthyism and needed such clarification. We are immediately drawn into the bustling news room at CBS, where Murrow's team are working out stories for his show. A general dislike among the newsmen for the fear mongering of Joe McCarthy is discernible but the news cast that is the catalyst for the movie has nothing to do with McCarthy. It was a tactful look at Communist fear that had resulted in a soldier being dismissed from the army.
It is addressed from the terms of civil and constitutional rights. This news cast leads to a head on battle between McCarthy and Murrow on much the same grounds. The use of archival footage to represent McCarthy is cleverly used to avoid modern criticism of misrepresentation on Clooney's part. The climax of the film comes in the senate investigation of McCarthy which resulted in censure and the fallout within CBS (lay off of workers, change of time and regularity of Murrow's program) implemented by the head of CBS. A friend put out the criticism that we don't see the fall of McCarthy, which to an extent is unfair because when considering the overall lasting implications of McCarthy, only truly happened with the collapse of the Iron Curtain. Recurrence of fear and mob mentality can be seen less than four years after McCarthy's censure in the uproar regarding Sputnik. Equally, Ronald Regan's terming the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire was much in a McCarthy spirit.
In as much as any movie, song, tv show or book is in some way a reflection of its times, Good Night and Good Luck is an indictment of modern journalism. To say it is a liberal take is intentionally pejorative. There are enough moments in the film which admittedly you have to pay attention for which indicate a bias in Murrow's argument but they are biases regarding persuasion not fact. There is also a clear repition of the theme of fair trial. The importance of that fundamental right, in fact the importance of all fundamental rights is the clearest message of the film.
Clooney has expressed in interviews regarding this movie that McCarthy wasn't completely wrong in his fears regarding communist spies, but that he was out of control and some opposition had to be raised. And the debate as it unfolded is what was important about Murrow's opposition not that either Murrow or McCarthy was right. In the end, with the return to Murrow's cautionary speech, one can't help but reflect on current journalism and consider what is happening. If nothing else the film should generate a much needed debate on modern journalism.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Jarhead: War movies ain't what they used to be
Jarhead is a movie based on the memoirs of former Marine Anthony Swofford regarding his time in the Persian Gulf war (the first one). And it is probably the most interesting war movie I have ever seen. One of the primary failings of US war films is that they fall into one of two camps. The first: the US army as the ultimate weapon, an ode to American elitism (e.g. The Green Berets (1968)). The other: the horrors of war on the American solider...while he displays that he is the ultimate weapon and an ode to American elitism (e.g. Platoon (1986).
Jarhead manages something different. The army ideology is certainly there and a prime motivator in the first act as we follow Swofford through boot camp and elitism is the impetus to train hard. But once Swofford arrives in the Mid East, the devolution of this ideology begins. The criticisms are subtle: Harhness of military life on relationships, the stress of trained killers (for in truth that is what a soldier is) waiting, and even faulty equipment.
And when finally the war starts, our soldiers are ready to serve their country...only to discover that airstrikes and artillery have eliminated the resistance. And then the war is over and the soldiers have to go home. It would be hard to say that Swofford hates the military because I don't feel that he does at all, but it certainly changed him in a fundamental way. The opening voice over and the final voice over are virtually the same. A soldier learns to kill and hold a gun and even later in life, no matter what he is doing, he will always remember the gun.
This insight, that soldiers are emotionally altered by the army and it influences their lives is of course interesting but less so than Swofford's last line of the film "We are all still in the desert". It is this sentiment that one is left with. His life is not just fundamentally changed, he is in fact lost. To say you are still in the desert is to say that you can not successfully integrate back into "civilized" society.
Jarhead caused me to reflect in a way that only two other movies have ever caused me to reflect when thinking about war. The first film was All Quiet On The Western Front (1930) in which a character having returned from the trenches of WWI, feels isolated from his people back at home. He glimpses his old school master stirring students to join the army just as the master had done when he was a student and in the end the soldier re-enlists so that he can return to the only world he understands, despite the inevitable conclusion that he will die this time.
The second film is Deer Hunter (1978) in which Christopher Walken's character actually loses his mind and becomes a Russian Roulette player in Saigon. Walken's escape is death. Robert DeNiro's character who struggles equally with re-integrating himself only survive because his will is stronger. Which leads to the conclusion that the army trains soldiers to be warriors, killers but leaves no contingencies for the re-training of civilians.
Jarhead is a movie worth seeing for the questions it raises alone and the performances are varied but all enjoyable. Jake Gyllenhaal is amazing and his relationships with Peter Sarsgaard and Jamie Foxx are very well done.
Jarhead manages something different. The army ideology is certainly there and a prime motivator in the first act as we follow Swofford through boot camp and elitism is the impetus to train hard. But once Swofford arrives in the Mid East, the devolution of this ideology begins. The criticisms are subtle: Harhness of military life on relationships, the stress of trained killers (for in truth that is what a soldier is) waiting, and even faulty equipment.
And when finally the war starts, our soldiers are ready to serve their country...only to discover that airstrikes and artillery have eliminated the resistance. And then the war is over and the soldiers have to go home. It would be hard to say that Swofford hates the military because I don't feel that he does at all, but it certainly changed him in a fundamental way. The opening voice over and the final voice over are virtually the same. A soldier learns to kill and hold a gun and even later in life, no matter what he is doing, he will always remember the gun.
This insight, that soldiers are emotionally altered by the army and it influences their lives is of course interesting but less so than Swofford's last line of the film "We are all still in the desert". It is this sentiment that one is left with. His life is not just fundamentally changed, he is in fact lost. To say you are still in the desert is to say that you can not successfully integrate back into "civilized" society.
Jarhead caused me to reflect in a way that only two other movies have ever caused me to reflect when thinking about war. The first film was All Quiet On The Western Front (1930) in which a character having returned from the trenches of WWI, feels isolated from his people back at home. He glimpses his old school master stirring students to join the army just as the master had done when he was a student and in the end the soldier re-enlists so that he can return to the only world he understands, despite the inevitable conclusion that he will die this time.
The second film is Deer Hunter (1978) in which Christopher Walken's character actually loses his mind and becomes a Russian Roulette player in Saigon. Walken's escape is death. Robert DeNiro's character who struggles equally with re-integrating himself only survive because his will is stronger. Which leads to the conclusion that the army trains soldiers to be warriors, killers but leaves no contingencies for the re-training of civilians.
Jarhead is a movie worth seeing for the questions it raises alone and the performances are varied but all enjoyable. Jake Gyllenhaal is amazing and his relationships with Peter Sarsgaard and Jamie Foxx are very well done.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Legend of Zorro: or Ode to America
When I go to a movie like "The Legend of Zorro", I'm not asking for too much: an attractive love interest, an interesting villain, a fair amount of sword play. Martin Cambell delivers Catherine Zeta Jones, Rufus Sewell and a plethora of sword fighting. Unfortunately, it also delivers a healthy dose of USA A Okay ideology that made me feel like I was listening to a two hour lecture on the history of American Manifest Destiny as opposed to watching an action adventure film. This film touches on everything from the evil of the South to a conspiracy of Old Europe to destroy the US. It is also seems fairly liberal with its interpretation of history. California was a U.S. territory with a military governor, there would be nothing preventing US soldiers from arresting a dissident as the movie claims.
The film reinforces the most traditional American values: a democratic Christian nation. The enemy in this love poem to America? An illuminati-esque group known as "Orbis Unum", which is supposed to mean One World, but as a Classicist I can assure you actually would mean something like One of World, which is gibberish to me. I guess Orbis Una wouldn't sound as cool. I'll admit my furor at the misuse of Latin is petty of me. Regardless the reliance on such a cliche world controlling secret society seems pure laziness.
It is also a shame, because Rufus Sewell is such a good villain. Even if he hasn't always gotten the best roles, he does an amazing job with them. He was disturbing as an Occult leader in "Bless the Child" (2000), deliciously arrogant and sadistic as a lord in "Knight's Tale" (2001) and now he has done as much as he could with his role in the "Legend of Zorro". Sewell's Count Armand is the perfect amount of playful menace in the early scenes with Antonio Banderas' Alejandro/Zorro. Unfortunately by the last act of the movie, he is reduced to obligatory scenes where he must explain the evil plan to destroy America and scenes where he must fall set conventions such as leaving his enemy alive despite the incredible stupidity of such a decision.
In the end "The Legend of Zorro" fails because of its reliance on archetypal action film conventions, poor performances by much of the main cast (Sewell being an exception that makes the other performances even more conspiciously bad) and an overbearing moral ideology that plays to traditional values. The last being particularly odd since Zorro is an outsider, a vigilante who is supposed to stand for the oppressed, a modern day Robin Hood. He is not supposed to stand for the values of the elite.
The film reinforces the most traditional American values: a democratic Christian nation. The enemy in this love poem to America? An illuminati-esque group known as "Orbis Unum", which is supposed to mean One World, but as a Classicist I can assure you actually would mean something like One of World, which is gibberish to me. I guess Orbis Una wouldn't sound as cool. I'll admit my furor at the misuse of Latin is petty of me. Regardless the reliance on such a cliche world controlling secret society seems pure laziness.
It is also a shame, because Rufus Sewell is such a good villain. Even if he hasn't always gotten the best roles, he does an amazing job with them. He was disturbing as an Occult leader in "Bless the Child" (2000), deliciously arrogant and sadistic as a lord in "Knight's Tale" (2001) and now he has done as much as he could with his role in the "Legend of Zorro". Sewell's Count Armand is the perfect amount of playful menace in the early scenes with Antonio Banderas' Alejandro/Zorro. Unfortunately by the last act of the movie, he is reduced to obligatory scenes where he must explain the evil plan to destroy America and scenes where he must fall set conventions such as leaving his enemy alive despite the incredible stupidity of such a decision.
In the end "The Legend of Zorro" fails because of its reliance on archetypal action film conventions, poor performances by much of the main cast (Sewell being an exception that makes the other performances even more conspiciously bad) and an overbearing moral ideology that plays to traditional values. The last being particularly odd since Zorro is an outsider, a vigilante who is supposed to stand for the oppressed, a modern day Robin Hood. He is not supposed to stand for the values of the elite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)