Movie Review (Preliminary Thoughts): Snow White and the Huntsman
(These are my early “just got home from the movie” thoughts. They do not represent my final verdict on the film, which will come when I’ve had time to let things stew. That said, I don’t expect my opinion to change terribly much over time, as they did for The Happening, which I would now give a 1/5 if I were to review it again.) Here goes: A super great awesome movie? No. A terrible film, a la Rotten Tomatoes critics? No. There’s a lot of really interesting twists in this movie. They take the basic concept of Snow White that we are familiar with (Disney’s version, more or less) and completely flip it on its head. There are some unique plays on magic, the idea of balance in nature, and so on. In some ways, it reminds me of George Lucas’ Willow, but with a noticeably less campy tone. The film does suffer from lack of characterization for certain characters, a few pacing problems, and some icky cut scenes, but I absolutely loved how they tried to give us a look into the evil Queen (Theron) and her motivations. I even thought their attempt to make Snow White more than just some pretty chick who sings to birds and makes squirrels clean dishes and their attempt to challenge the traditional royalty marriage paradigm refreshing, even if they didn’t quite succeed at what they set out to do. (Also: Kristin Stewart actually shows emotion in this movie. Twilight has definitely wasted her…) So, it was a decent movie as far as fantasy flicks go and might be worth seeing as a matinee. My score after these early thoughts: 3.25/5 (not great, but far exceeded my expectations). Anyone else seen it who wants to offer their thoughts?
Semi Movie Review: Ironclad (Historical Revisionism of the Worst Sort)
Have you seen Ironclad? It stars Paul Giamatti as King John of England and James Purefoy as Thomas Marshall, a Templar Knight (Purefoy, by the way, seems to have had a role in at least 3/4ths of the medieval-era-ish film productions released in the last 6 or so years, which is impressive). If you haven’t, you’re probably not missing anything you didn’t see in Braveheart. It’s not a bad movie by itself, mind you. A little on the long side at two hours, sure. But as a film, it has a lot going for it. Decent acting, a plot that makes internal sense, and a narrative that balances between all out war (there will be blood!) and the rigors of attrition. If this were set in the mythical kingdom of Genland, with the plot centered on King Hojn’s use of Adnish mercenaries to reclaim his throne from the wicked barons who forced him to sign the Namga Artac, then it would be an interesting movie with lots of parallels to England’s medieval history. But that’s not what this film is about. You see, in this version of history, King John doesn’t successfully take Rochester Castle from an entrenched baronial force. Rather, the French magically show up and he’s forced to trudge out into the marshes of England trailing his treasure (which is mysteriously lost), after which he dies of dysentery. Thus the heroes are saved! Oh merciful heavens our surviving heroes can go on to live their lives in sin! Yes, sin. You know why? Because Thomas Marshall violates his religious codes of conduct as a Knight Templar by not only sleeping with a woman (abstinence!), but with a woman married to another man. This results in said woman explaining how important it is for Thomas to live life. Oh! He must live it by committing a cardinal sin! Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying sex out of wedlock or adultery is evil or even sinful in my mind. But we’re not talking about the world I live in. We’re talking about 13th century England. Now, I don’t want to suggest here that nobody was breaking religious law back then. I’m sure the Knights Templar were quite good and putting their willies where they shouldn’t (according to their religious rules). But we’re told in this story that these vows are supremely important to Thomas. Not just important, but so damned important that he spends the entire movie resisting temptation of one form or another, claiming the moral high ground alongside others with less strict religious rules. And all this is destroyed by a single woman. If any story could make it more clear to us that the serpent of the Bible lives in the loins of the female human, this is the one. But I suppose that’s me reading a lot into a movie within a film tradition in which religious “rules” really only mean a lot when it comes to who you marry and who you behead. The real problem with this movie is that it gets its history so terribly wrong as to be dangerous. Let’s toss aside the fact that somehow our hero has resisted wicked temptation his whole life, the criminal use of modern phrases, and the strange logical gap between the importance of Rochester Castle (it controls everything in London and is ever so crucial to King John’s campaign — this is actually true) and the suspicious absence of anything resembling a defensive force in the castle itself (you can count the number of soldiers/archers/defenders on your hands and feet and still have digits left over). Let’s just talk about the utter failure on the part of Jonathan English (ha!), Erick Kastel, and Stephen McDool to write a story that resembles the actual event. Let’s take, for a moment, the glorious inadequacy of these writers, shall we? The BBC website says the following of the battle Ironclad attempts to depict: King John lay siege to the castle in 1215 and took it after two long months. He finally undermined the south east tower and burned the props with the “fat of forty pigs” causing the tower to collapse. The city was well placed for raids on London and it also enabled them to devastate the lands of Kent, particularly those belonging to Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, who had crowned Rufus and was therefore Odo’s and the rebels’ enemy. Short, but sweet. The English Heritage website adds a few more details: In 1215, garrisoned by rebel barons, the castle endured an epic siege by King John. Having first undermined the outer wall, John used the fat of 40 pigs to fire a mine under the keep, bringing its southern corner crashing down. Even then the defenders held on, until they were eventually starved out after resisting for two months. What’s that? The French didn’t show up and send King John packing at Rochester Castle? Really? You mean our heroes lost by starvation, thus surrendering after an understandably brave months-long fight? The only thing Ironclad gets correct in the above description is that King John used the fat of forty pigs (sappers!) to cause the tower to collapse. But most everything else — the order of events, the players, etc. — falls apart when under simple scrutiny. There’s no city. No cathedral. No indication that anyone actually lives near Rochester Castle, which is unusual when you think about the film’s logic: this is such a strategic point for taking the country, and yet nobody seems to live in the bizarre wasteland around the castle (there’s no farmland either). Not for miles! And we’re given some beautiful shots of England countryside to prove this! Even Wiki-frakking-pedia points out where Ironclad fails miserably: William d’Aubigny commanded the garrison but contemporary chroniclers do not agree on how many men that was. Estimates range from 95 to 140 knights supported by crossbowmen, sergeants, and others.[9] John did take the castle, most of the higher nobles being imprisoned or banished; and the French
Quickie Review: Hanna
I got a chance to see Hanna with my brother and sister the other day and thought I would offer some short, but sweet thoughts. Plot: Living in the middle of nowhere, Hanna is raised by her father, Erik, to be a skilled soldier in order to assassinate the woman who killed her mother. When Hanna is ready, they activate a distress beacon and put a plan into action. But Hanna must venture out into the real world with all its luxuries and technologies — a world she knows little about. Pros: Hanna is an action-packed thriller which shows why Saoirse Ronan is one of the best young actresses in Hollywood. She is simply brilliant in this film (with her German accent and perfectly stunned expressions when she’s shown something her character has never seen). Cate Blanchett is equally amazing as the psychotic Melissa, and Tom Hollander (Beckett from Pirates of the Caribbean) puts on one of the creepiest performances I’ve ever seen. Cons: Honestly, I thought the soundtrack (by The Chemical Brothers) was lackluster and, at times, overbearing. Half of the background noise involved annoying groaning electronic noises with drum machine rhythms. The film really deserved a better soundtrack. I also thought that the ending left a lot to be desired. There’s a major twist towards the end, but it needed more development in the actual story. Likewise, some of the action involving Bana looked forced. Overall: The film is entertaining. The plot moves quickly, the characters are fascinating, and the concept is slightly science fictional — all good things for readers of this blog. Directing: 3/5 Cast: 5/5 Writing: 3/5 Visuals: 4/5 Adaptation: N/A Value: $6.50 Overall: 3.75/5
Movie (Mini) Review: Chocolate (Thai Martial Arts Flick of Awesome)
(I originally posted this mini-rant on Google+, but figured those of you who don’t bother with all that social networking B.S. would also be interested.) I just finished watching a martial arts movie called Chocolate. The movie itself is pretty awesome: it’s about girl whose autism allows her to learn fighting styles at a young age; her mother and father were part of a gang/Yakuza dispute in Thailand, which led to her father’s exile (before she was born). And when her mother contracts cancer and can’t afford the medicines, Zen (the girl) and her “cousin” Moom set out to try to collect on debts once owed to Zin (the mother). But things go terribly wrong, as you can imagine. Point is: touching little story with a whole bunch of amazing fight scenes a la Ong Bak (only, you know, with a seemingly pre-teen girl beating the crap out of fully grown men). But that’s not the amazing part. The really amazing part is when you get to the end and they start showing you the results of some of the fights. This stuff wouldn’t be allowed in the U.S., I imagine. All the actors do their own stunts, and they get stabbed, break ribs, get smacked in the face, fall badly, and so on and so forth. It adds a whole new dimension to the experience, because you start to realize that a lot of the things you see on the screen, while scripted, really do lead to the people getting effed up. And that’s, well, kinda awesome. In any case, if you haven’t seen Chocolate and you’re looking for a little magical realism in your martial arts obsession, this is one to check out. (Psst. It’s on Netflix stream!) (I should note that I’m well aware that injuries occur in martial arts films quite regularly — and probably with some regularity in other kinds of stunt-heavy films. We just don’t get an opportunity to see the carnage to the extent that you see in Chocolate. Everyone gets messed up in this film at some point or another — even the main actress.)
Movie Review: Contagion
I’ve been looking forward to Contagion ever since I saw the preview with Matt Damon. My friends know I have a soft spot for Damon; I honestly don’t know what it is about him. He’s a good actor, sure, but there are plenty of good actors I don’t get excited about when I see they are in a new movie. Damon, however…let’s just say I do a little dance when I see he has a new movie for me to watch. Maybe it’s because of the Bourne films… Moving on. Contagion is an interesting take on a cliche theme: that of the super infection which wreaks havoc on humanity while the government and society tries desperately to keep it under control. Rather than focusing on the post-infection world, such as in Carriers, or a single family trying to survive the early hours of the infection (Right at Your Door), Contagion tries to show the bigger picture: the family left behind by patient zero; the CDC director, field officers, and scientists trying to contain the infection, stifle panic, and find out where the infection came from and how it can be stopped; the government agents trying to paint the “right” picture; and the conspiracy theorist trying to uncover the truth. In many respects, Soderbergh’s germaphobic thriller resembles films like Love, Actually in its multiple characters and storylines. But while I loved Love, Actually, I think Contagion leaves a lot to be desired. The film follows the characters in chronological order, displaying the days since the first infection on the screen every time there is a shift. Of course, doing so presents problems, since the first focus character is also dead within five minutes (Gwyneth Paltrow); we never get to know who she is as a person, except through the activities of other characters, most of which result in destroying our sympathy for her (she turns out to have been cheating on her husband). And this is the primary problem with Contagion: not enough time is spent with any of the characters to give us a good sense of who they are. Their motivations are often strictly logical. The father (Mitch, played by Matt Damon) becomes survival guru in order to save his biological daughter, who may or may not be immune to the virus; the budding scientist, Dr. Ally Hextall (Jennifer Ehle), takes a shot in the dark because, as we’re told, getting the vaccine through human trials will take months (hooray for the bureaucratic process); and so on and so forth. There are too few surprises — except, perhaps, in the case of Alan Krunwiede (Jude Law), who starts as a conspiracy theorist with an anti-establishment bent, but then seems to become just as corrupt as the people he tries to depose. The only character who seemed to grow by the end of the movie was Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne), who begins as a somewhat warm-hearted figure, but concludes as a man who doesn’t care that doing what is right might also mean breaking the law. But the other characters? They’re empty. Some are almost like cardboard cutouts of people we’ve seen in other disaster movies. Too few characters show any development. The focus is not on them (on their motivations, lives, feelings, etc.). Rather, Contagion seems more focused on structural storytelling. On the one hand, I think this is clever, since the narrative jumps back and forth to show what an infection looks like from all angles (within a certain view, of course). Most films which deal with contagion do so by showing a small piece of a larger picture. Such narratives focus on small groups of characters, surviving together, rather than separately. But Contagion shows everyone, from the family man, to the lowly scientist, to the journalists and field scientists and government officials and so on and so forth. Doing so, however, means the film can’t focus. It constantly shifts perspective to present new information (most of which we need, but a good deal of which is presented to the audience as medical jargon). I guess what I’m getting at is that Contagion feels uneven. It spends so much time trying to get us invested in some of the characters and their struggles, but because the structure is focused on the processes of contagion and containment, the characters and emotional impact get lost. While I appreciated the style of Contagion, which sometimes takes the form of documentary and other times as a thriller, I couldn’t help feeling detached from what was going on. Hearing about all of the deaths isn’t the same as seeing them happen or feeling their impact on the screen. Numerous characters hear about the millions dying from the infection, but so few seem to have any connection to it or show distress. And without that connection, the narrative falls flat. If this is a serious infection, why can’t we see what it looks like? Yes, there are scenes which show us bodies being put in trenches, but these are few and far between. Once the ball gets rolling, the infection is relayed to us in dialogue: “it’s killed X.” The movie had a lot of potential, and many of the name actors do their best with what little is given to them. But my overall feeling is that of disappointment. This was not the thriller I was expecting. I want more than style in my movies. I want to feel something — to care about characters. Contagion just doesn’t do that for me, which is a shame when you consider what the film is about: people dying from an infection. Directing: 2/5 Cast: 3/5 (the cast is good, but they do so little on the screen it’s hard to give them more than 3 out of 5) Writing: 2/5 Visuals: 3/5 Adaptation: N/A Overall: 2.5/5 P.S.: I also think the film is ideologically confused. If you see it, pay attention to how women, pharmaceutical companies, and those who poke back at the government are
Movie Review: Tron: Legacy (Strange Horizons)
In case you missed it, the fine folks at Strange Horizons have published my review of Tron: Legacy. The review is focused on the worldbuilding, rather than the general quality of the film. Hopefully you all find it interesting. Do leave a comment there! You also might want to see my brief, general review of Tron: Legacy here (where I put my score of the film, which isn’t in my review at Strange Horizons). Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go jump up and down with excitement for an hour. P.S.: I don’t suspect you could have missed my review, since it went up today. But it’s fun to say “in case you missed it.”