Vivimancy

Soylent Green

2012-01-18T04:06:00.000-08:00

1970s dystopian science fictional noir. That's not a phrase that you run into every day, but Soylent Green fits it pretty nicely. (OK, there's some debate about the importance of the femme fatale or at the least, fille fatale, in a noir setting). Perhaps the best job I've ever seen Charlton Heston do in his acting ... he manages not to over-act, but instead manages to come across as a desperate cop intent on doing a good job so that he's not sacked and thrown into the masses.

The Great Escape

2011-04-12T20:46:00.000-07:00

It's surprising, given the near universal admiration for it, that I hadn't seen The Great Escape yet, but so it was until this week. It's interesting having seen it in the context of movies like Inglorious Basterds that assume familiarity with the genre of WW2 adventure movies; that said, I think The Great Escape is justifiably a movie people should watch.

The surprising thing about it was the grim nature. This is definitely no Hogan's Heroes.

[OK, ok, this is a lame post. It's been in my draft folder forever, so I thought I'd just clear the queue and try to write something better]

Avatar

2011-01-10T04:33:00.000-08:00

Wow, it really is Pocohontas

The Spirit

2010-08-17T06:59:00.000-07:00

I've never read the Eisner comic book; my only exposure to the franchise has been the movie, directed by Frank Miller. Like his Sin City, it is very heavily stylized, almost a parody of the entire thing. Still, he mostly makes it work. The acting doesn't live up to the appearance of the film, sadly; while Miller does a good job of positioning beautiful women, both Floss and Sand Serif felt decidedly lacking.

Samuel Jackson's Octopus was supervillainous in every traditional way. He may not be breaking new ground, but he can chew scenery and monologue with the best of them. His set pieces were also amusing ... appearing as a Nazi, as a mad scientist, as a tycoon, and as a gangster, he managed to fit every inch of evil category, in case people didn't realize: he's evil. He even does in a kitten just to laugh. The fiend!

The Spirit himself was overpowered. He not only was not particularly inspiring -- in this world, the octopus is the one who did all the hard work -- but his story was uninteresting and his heroics decidedly lacking. The movie should have, in all justice , been The Octopus's.

Still, it was enjoyable, and very very pretty.

Gloomy Sunday

2010-08-02T05:37:00.000-07:00

Who wouldn't like a movie about a song so sad it drives listeners to commit suicide, set against a backdrop of German occupation of Hungary during World War 2? Not me, that's sure. It's quite a good movie, although it's not enormously novel. The song ("Gloomy Sunday") is a real song with a real-world reputation for driving people to commit suicide, although apparently that reputation was played up as an intentional marketing exercise(!); its origins are thoroughly fictionalized in this film, however. (You can listen to a Billie Holliday cover of it here; it's been covered by a large number of other artists).

It's an interesting case of polyamoury amidst war; it's an interesting case of Jews under occupation. It's an interesting case of strained friendship with people drunk with power (in this case, the German lieutenant colonel who runs Budapest). I give this movie 4.5 stars out of 5.

Iorich by Steven Brust

2010-02-16T09:52:00.000-08:00

Iorich by Steven Brust

This was a big disappointment. The early Vlad novels were really, amazingly good; I have re-read Jhereg, Dragon, and Athyra all many times since the first, but in recent years I've been enjoying Brust's work significantly less. In part this is because Vlad has evolved, becoming a much more passive, thoughtful character; this reflects somewhat badly on me and my tastes, I suppose, but there is something fun about a wisecracking assassin that isn't present in a banged up fugitive.

So, Vlad's situation has complexified, even as his life has in some ways simplified. He's no longer an ambitious but short-lived easterner making his way in an alien world of long-lived elvenkind; he's content to simply stay alive, almost making more a travelogue of wandering through the Empire. But boring situations make bad novels, so Vlad keeps getting involved in major events, despite it making little sense in the novels. When he does get involved, he's had no new development in his life, so it basically turns into a situation of him visiting old friends, asking them for favors, and doing small amounts of investigation while avoiding capture.

Of course, one of the reasons I don't collect the novels any more is I feel like the author isn't really concerned with the series. Many fo the changes are explainable as the author being bored with the character and setting. Iorich has small temporal discontinuities for no apparent reason throughout the novel; for example, one chapter will be set immediately before the preceding one. I don't think there were any good structural reasons for it; instead, it distracts the reader, giving them an excuse to look for subtle clues about the chronology. If Brust doesn't believe I can just read the story, why should I believe in it?

(Witness also Brust's homages to the three musketeer stories, his messing around with the timeline in the series, his intentionally playing up the possibility of unreliable narration).

Best Picture Posters

2009-09-19T01:26:00.000-07:00

Best picture posters:
http://tinyurl.com/ys67p4 ( http://www.movieposteraddict.com/2008/02/21/79-years-of-best-picture-winners-in-posters/ )

Swingers

2009-09-15T04:42:00.000-07:00

So, quick summary of this movie: the most irritating characters EVER. It's good that I learned to appreciate Vince Vaughn before seeing this movie. Not much else to say about this; so I think I won't.

Wall-E

2009-07-15T03:03:00.001-07:00

Wall-E is a good, solid addition to the Pixar legend. Certainly better than the disappointing Cars, but not reaching the heights of the Toy Story franchise, Wall-E is an environmental epic that tries to drive home the lesson that man needs to take care of the Earth.
I wouldn't be surprised if this movie had the least dialog of any blockbuster within the past decade. The first half of it features only the eponymous wall-e bot silently at work rearranging the Earth's trash, silent souvenirs of a departed humanity. I know it's somewhat overly harsh, but this is one of the problems with the movie ... what purpose was it serving? Apparently the only thing that needed to be dealt with in regards to trash is moving it out of the way. What a concept.
One of the more interesting takes on the movie is one analyzing the gender roles of the movie. The names are probably gender-tinged (Eva being female, Wally being male), but for the most part I think the movie avoids assigning a gender to their behaviour.

Pineapple Express

2009-07-15T02:43:00.000-07:00

A stoner action movie: Seth Rogen went around the promotional circuit bragging it was the first of its kind. I'm not quite so confident of that claim, although it sounds quite plausible; but it is at least a very welcome change from the outworn "stoner comedy" setup.

Seth Rogen plays Dale Denton, a slacker process server with a girlfriend in high school and an irrepressible taste for marijuana. After procuring some incredibly rare weed (the titular Pineapple Express) from his dealer, he witnesses a murder -- but in fleeing the scene, manages to leave a clue betraying his identity. Thus the scene is set for a movie in which Denton will be forced to confront violent drug dealers and the wayward nature of his life.

The movie may be more an action movie than a comedy, but it's careful to keep to a tone of farcical amusement. The actors certainly don't want the audience to ever make the mistake of getting too invested in what's happening ... they routinely telegraph what's going to happen in advance, then distract themselves and the audience with a drug-heavy pause ... and then deliver what the audience knew was going to come. It's certainly not perfect; the humor scenes routinely go a bit too long, as is the way of these things; but it's a fun ride. 3 stars , and perfect for a combination comedy/action distraction.

After-school special

2009-07-15T02:38:00.000-07:00

Also released under the name Barely Legal, After-school Special is an American sex comedy about high school students who, in the interests of obtaining pocket money, decide to get into the pornography business and produce a film "for virgins, by virgins."

There's nothing distinctive about this movie; it's what you'd expect, given the summary. They make the film, discover self-confidence, get discovered by girls, and embarrass their enemies. It's an ideal movie for insomnia on Comedy Central (which is where I ran across it).

1.5 stars.

I Want Candy

2009-07-15T02:06:00.000-07:00

Who knew Carmen Electra could star in a tidy little flick about the fun of filmmaking? I certainly wouldn't have pictured it, but it seems to have been the case. I Want Candy is a British sex comedy in which film students -- desperate to prove themselves and their dreams of creating a movie -- dive into the world of creating erotica after finding a pornography producer the only one willing to finance the production.

The story isn't all that original by the standards of this sort of sex comedy; similar plots are explored in After-school Special and Zach and Miri make a Porno. Unlike those two, however, this manages to have a much bigger heart. The virtues of having older students helps enormously -- rather than producing the film to explore the mysteries of sex, these are students producing the film to explore the mysteries of film making. Their assigned final project -- a 2 minute short film -- is simply blown off , not meeting their standards. Their working class background (after all, what British film is not centred on class?) means they're on a shoe-string budget, but they set into their project with the determination of a heist film, managing to procure the services of the hottest American porno actress around, Candy Fiveways (Carmen Electra), the best student production crew at their school, and financing from a loathsome porn producer.

Other than that, though, it plays out as a British sex comedy. Innuendo, awkward misunderstandings, embarrassment, coming to a touching conclusion. I'll give it either 2.5 of 5 (3 if I'm feeling charitable) stars ; it's enjoyable if you're looking to pass the time, and it's better than the summary sounds.

Transformers 1

2009-07-11T05:19:00.000-07:00

I watched this in preparation for watching Transformers 2. In retrospect, this was better than the sequel ; pretty amazing, given how bad it is. Shia LeBoef is reasonably good on his own; when he's only talking to himself, he plays a convincing unknowing kid who gets in way over his head, and knows it.

The basic set up for the movie is that Shia's grandfather discovered something in the ice while exploring in the arctic north many years ago. He evidently wasn't able to turn this discovery into much financially, but does have a reputation that's worth something. Thus, when the kid needs some money to buy his first car, old relics go up on EBay in hopes of attracting a collector.

Without spoiling too much, the collectors that are interested in these items are more akin to EBay's servers than humanity. Somehow this all feeds into a showdown between the good guys and the bad guys, where Shia is drafted by the good guys into a showdown; the stakes prove planetary and the explosions many.

Bay has done this sort of movie before -- I am not an especial fan of his storytelling, but I can't recall ever seeing a movie of his that went this far off the track before. It's an awkward 3 act movie: shia is bumbling kid, they're trying to find the mcguffin, and they're trying to stop the decepticons from gaining ultimate power. The first and last bits feel strung out ... the director and/or writers wanted to have the story do X and Y, and forgot to string the scenes between them.

I've seen many critics complain that the fight scenes are confusing, since the robot characters are all chrome and jagged angles; I thought these concerns were ill-founded. The fights are pretty clear and, if there are brief instants where a photograph reveals confusion, the fights' momentum would reveal all to the diligent viewer. The main trouble is that Bay makes the robots too tough; no ranged weapon other than a particularly powerful one the US military has seems to make any impact on the machines, so these advanced robots end up punching each other. Somehow this does more damage than all the artillery they have at hand.

Transformers 2

2009-07-11T04:57:00.000-07:00

This movie is bad in so many ways that it basically defies description. The best attempt, I think, comes from topless robot, in the form of an awesome FAQ:

What good is he dead?!
Ah! Remember the shard? Sam uses it to bring Jetfire back to life!

Not Optimus?
No! This way, Sam can get the symbols translated... so he can, er... find the ancient machine... that can, uh... possibly bring Optimus back to life.
...
Why would a robot need to fart, pee, or vomit? And why would it need testicles?
Michael Bay does not understand what a robot is.

I would give spoiler warnings, but let's face it: this movie can't be spoiled.

Indiana Jones 4

2008-06-06T11:00:00.000-07:00

It was bad, with bad physics, implausible characters, and a retreaded plot. No need to say anything more.

Be Kind Rewind

2008-03-10T03:43:00.000-07:00

This is a hilarious, low-budget movie that teaches an appreciation for film-making. Jack Black has a natural charisma when playing amiable yet enthusiastic losers. This isn't a deep movie at all, but it's one I highly recommend to pass the time.

Trust

2008-02-10T03:01:00.000-08:00

All the oscar buzz surrounding Juno made me think that I should expand my abortion-related movie watching. As the reviews for Juno point out, it seems in recent years when Hollywood deals with the issue, they shy away from controversy by making it something that the woman does not want (so as not to confront either the pro-choice or anti-abortion camps). The only counterexample that I can think of is the classic Dirty Dancing.

So, at any rate, Trust. This is a Hal Hartley film starring Adrienne Shelly as Maria and Martin Donovan as Matthew, two complete misfits -- one a high school dropout who discovered she was pregnant, and one a disgruntled technician with serious anger-management issues. They both have screwed up relationships with their parents (in almost the opening scene, Maria slaps her father and he drops dead of a heart attack; but this is then used as an excuse by her mother to make Maria responsible for supporting her mother).

One of the things that's most eptly handled in this movie is their dysfunctions are not wiped away. The characters do grow and mature, but it's not as if love can wipe away their problems or habits. In fact, it's not clear that they do love each other; they talk through their emotions in an autistic dissection of what defines love, finally agreeing on a definition involving respect. As one might expect from a title like Trust, there are (apparent) betrayals and reluctant opening up; nothing is completely resolved, but there's a definite feeling that Matthew and Maria have made a connection that will end up changing themselves completely.

Coupling

2008-01-25T08:53:00.001-08:00

I raced through the 4 seasons of this BBC comedy in the space of just several days; this undoubtedly helped smooth through some of the weaker episodes, and give me an emotional attachment. The premise is horribly weak, but the show is consistently amusing, if not often uproarious. I accuse the premise of being horribly weak because it takes 6 people -- 3 men, 3 women -- and throws them together in the first episode; thereupon they become the only friends in each others' lives for the next 2 years (oh, also, many of the 6 are exes of others in the 6 -- that's bound to work out happily. Thankfully that happened in the background, so we weren't faced with Dawson's Creek style permutations of all possible matchups among the leads).

So, a comedy about the dating follies and amusing foibles of a group of friends. From this brave and innovative premise the British will stride into entirely new territories, giving a distinctive Euro take on events. Or ... not. It's slightly more explicit than Friends but not outrageously so... to its weakness. Particularly by the 3rd season, the cast was shying away from perfectly clear explanations in order to bring out tired innuendo. It has certainly never seemed to me practical that a group of women would shy around discussing what are essential biological facts involving, say, pregnancy -- but that's what the show would have you believe. And, of course, the show had a silly premise that involved the characters one and all deciding that any other friendships were irrelevant and could be tossed aside for these strangers they met in the pilot.

The 4th season was marred by one of the regulars leaving (the actor refused to come back, so the producers threw in a cousin oliver to try to fill his place on the show). The main relationship was wrapping up, as marriage proposal and a baby occur; the others begin to settle down. It was a good stopping point,but it probably should have come a season earlier. The first season or two are well-worth watching for relaxing when you don't want to think too much; but I recommend avoiding the 3rd and 4th.

Music and Lyrics

2008-01-25T07:54:00.000-08:00

I suppose I'm just in the mood for a little romance lately; first Mansfield Park and now Music and Lyrics. I liked M&L quite a bit more, however, although it shares many of the same "shallow romance" flaws. The basic concept is the same: you know from the minute the characters appear on screen what their ultimate fates will be, but it manages to do this in a much lighter tone with very likeable characters. There's nothing that stands out in this movie -- I doubt I'll ever seek it out again -- but it's worth watching, particularly on a date or if you're just wanting to be cheered up.

Hugh Grant is Alex Fletcher, a washed-up 80s has-been singing sensation. This is no Dickey Roberts character; the movie carefully avoids having Alex ever break into histrionics about his faded star. Hugh Grant, of course, is quite practiced at self-deprecation but he brings a maturity to this role that is much appreciated (none of that incredibly annoying stammer that put me off him for years!). He's going gently into that good night...he makes a living mining his reputation by singing past hits to aging fans. The only reason he takes any chances in the movie is that the audience for this is shrinking, and his agent warns him his career may be in jeopardy. Some mention is made of his former partner, who apparently betrayed Alex; but the partner never shows up in the movie, not being a focus of Alex's life.

Drew Barrymore is, as usual, cute and spunky. Here too the character is mature; she has a former lover who's written calumnies about her in a best-selling fictional novel. The movie shows her moving on with her life -- pained, but avoiding the sort of cheap resolution that so oten plague romance movies (e.g., she doesn't expose him as a philanderer, he doesn't become a focus of her life, he isn't revealed as an ugly lunatic). Instead, he shows up briefly, and is mentioned briefly at the end.

The movie's central theme is thus revealed as moving on. Not staying in a rut, not seeking revenge, but simply taking the skills one has and moving on. This is aided, of course, by finding true love and using the romantic ideals of the US's hottest pop sensation, but ... :) Said pop sensation, by the way, was similarly subdued. She sought out Alex because his music had helped her deal with her parent's divorce, so she wanted to use his music to help people move on. For all that she was used to poke fun at the celebrity culture and modern pop music, she delivered the best single speech in the movie, when she revealed how panicked she was to stay on top, and why she would accordingly twist songs to let her dance.

This is afun movie -- not deep, but fun and romantic.

Mansfield Park

2008-01-23T07:35:00.000-08:00

Mansfield Park is an adaptation of Jane Austen's most autobiographical film that is faithful except for the parts that aren't. Or may it isn't except for the parts that are. I have no idea, I've never read the book. (I quite enjoy Austen, but somehow this is one book in her oevre that I've never gotten around to). So I 'll have to judge the film on its own merits ... a tough job indeed, but I suppose I'll manage.

A quick summary of the story: Fanny is sent as a young girl from her poor household to live with her aunt and uncle. She's well-treated there, although is somewhat second class to her cousins. Eventually, after some years, they are all of marriageable age, and she (and her female cousins) begin to think of marriage. Fanny is torn between two men: one a clergy man (not interested in her), one a rake (interested in her). Eventually the rake's immorality shines through, and (his proposal having been spurned by Fanny) he seduces one of Fanny's cousins, recently married. He is exposed as a rake, the cousin cast into infamy, Fanny taken to prominence,and she marries her clergyman after all.

So, that's the summary. I think it's fairly clear why I'm dissatisfied with the movie: it's a shallow romance story. The wicked are punished, the main character emerges in triumph, and it all ends up as you'd expect. Some parts are mysteriously explained: why was Fanny taken and not her sisters? What caused the family schism? (Looking at wikipedia, the details of her parents' situation is explained, but I missed any of it in the movie itself). To go along with this , it's not particularly comedic ... Austen's forte is lighthearted romantic wit, and this movie is serious. You're confronted with the bad situation for women, the unlikeability of most of the family, the blindness of the romantic interest... I'd only really recommend it to completists or fans of period romances (although, I'll hasten to add, it's not a bad movie if you're in the mood for a romance movie).

Johnny Dangerously

2008-01-22T05:44:00.000-08:00

I randomly caught this flick when searching for something to distract me. It's not a serious film -- the theme was composed by Weird Al -- but it's fairly fun. Some breaking of the 4th wall, some anachronisms, and lots of in-genre gangster movie conventions. However, it's really fluff; the gunfights are about as realistic as those in Support your Local Sheriff, and the humor is telegraphed way in advance. And, Michael Keaton as the gangster Johnny Dangerously ... i suppose he can handle suave, but I was mostly trying to figure out whether he was wearing mascara and, if so, why?

Recommended as light semi-background entertainment.

Troy

2008-01-04T01:36:00.000-08:00

The movie Troy is much like its source story: it involved larger-than-life megastars, an ambitious storyteller, and a bit of controversy over who won (a Pyrrhic victory, or a defeat all around? Or even setting the stage for an even greater empire to arise, in the Aeneid). It received lukewarm critical reviews in the US and anecdotally is regarded as a failure at the box office (it didn't earn back production costs in domestic box office). However, it did very well internationally, and the only reason its $120 million domestic take didn't pay for the movie by itself was that it was tremendously expensive, $180 million.

The production money was put to good use. Rotten Tomatoes gives it an aggregate score of 55% approval, but I suspect many reviewers were looking for an epic truer to the classical Iliad. Witness Roger Ebert's review (well-written as usual, but in this case, wrong):

"Troy" is based on the epic poem The Iliad by Homer, according to the credits. Homer's estate should sue. The movie sidesteps the existence of the Greek gods, turns its heroes into action movie cliches and demonstrates that we're getting tired of computer-generated armies.

Many of the issues Ebert claims are the movie's failings are in fact the movie's strengths. I watched it 3.5 years after the hype surrounding it, and am happy to say I think it's a good movie. As Ebert suggests, it's not a movie that you could substitute for reading Homer if you had to write a book report due tomorrow (besides, at 3 hours long, it's not a movie you should watch under deadline). It discards many characters willy-nilly, simplifies motivations, and stays stubbornly natural.

This emphasis on cinematic veracity rather than literary fidelity pays off. The first 5/6 of the film moved quickly, unlike Jackson's Lord of the Ring; although it would have been nice to see some cultural favorites like Cassandra and her father, or more of Odysseus's plotting, this was not their movie. The director, Wolfgang Petersen, turns the siege of Troy into a dyadic relationship between Hector, the son of Troy, and Achilles, the invincible warrior.

This is a relationship that the characters themselves do not see; the only real encounters between the two are on the battlefield (the director, perhaps overcompensating, makes Achilles pointedly heterosexual and attracted to Hector's (female) cousin). But we see how the compact Trojan group deals with its champion, integrated in the royal council and listened to with respect, while comparing it to Achilles's pseudo-exile within the Greeks. Menelaus and Agamemnon dictate orders to their allied city-states, without consultation.

The modern nuance that Ebert decries lends an interesting view of Achilles. He's ironic and narcissistic, hypocritical and thoughtful, nihilistic and verve-filled. The sheer enthusiasm with which Pitt portrays Achilles's hypocrisy is startlingly fun -- from one minute a hardened warrior accustomed to death and seeking only glory, to the next an angered cousin shouting out in fury at the universe, "Why him!?" The essential humanity of this conflict is only highlighted.

Knowing (as I did) what would come, I found the final 1/6 of the movie unnecessarily slow. The director wanted us, presumably, to feel the dread and anticipation as he finally comes to pass, but it didn't work. I was left bored and a bit annoyed at how the characters jumped into their doom.

An Ideal Husband

2008-01-02T15:43:00.000-08:00

An Ideal Husband is a movie perhaps worth watching if you're prepared to suffer through its very real limitations. It's a cinematic adaptation of one of Oscar Wilde's plays -- Wikipedia informs me it was written when he was at the peak of his success, before he was arrested for public indecency. One might be tempted to read into it a pre-apologia for this arrest; but I'll skirt temptation, not knowing much about Wilde's actual biography.[TODO: make sure the semi-theory makes sense].

The apparent husband of discourse is a rich commoner who has risen from humble beginnings to a place of prominence in the House of Commons. He is happily married to a stern wife who idealizes her husband -- he seems to have a perfect life. However, a blackmailer appears upon the scene, threatening to reveal the secret origins of his fortune were he not to change his political position. This revelation would destroy his place in society, jeopardize his freedom, and worst of all, destroy the pedastal on which his wife views him.

Eventually a friend of the husband, an idle Lord Goring, is brought into the picture. The lord is a wit and a true friend, who thrusts himself into the picture and wagers his own life (well, hand in marriage) to defuse the blackmailer, in a literal gamble on whether the commoner values his current ideals over his ambitions and stature. And, at the end, the wife learns to be a little more forgiving.

There's a little bit of depth in the story, but not much ... it's a light comedy. Wilde certainly knew how to write those, but the movie makes the tremendous mistake of humanizing the characters. Dueling wits work really well in the movies (who hasn't dreamed of wordplay as fast and dynamic as in Sports Night or a coherent speech as in It's a Wonderful Life?) Dramas can have more realistic dialogue ... Veronica Mars or Buffy the Vampire Slayer got away with significant pauses and blurting out thoughts -- but the Wilde script doesn't survive. Inevitablyl,I was cringing when Lord Goring spoke, amazed at how clunky a Wilde wit could actually sound. it's the lesson action movies learned.. fast and furious lets people ignore the thin plot and necessary coincidences.

I don't really recommend the movie. It's not bad if you're looking for something fairly nonconfrontational,but in the end there's no real reason to seek it out or pay attention to it. Even for a light comedy, that's disappointing.

Testing

2007-02-07T14:30:00.000-08:00

asdfasdf