Sunday, January 04, 2004
"BIG FISH"
To all the storytellers out there: the writers, the actors, the directors and those old men and women who sit on their front porches telling their grand children about their life when they were young -- this is the movie for you. It's a stylized love poem to the world of the storyteller, and the power that a fantastical story can have on the world.
This particular story tells of a young father-to-be who seeks the "truth" of his father's past. This proves to be difficult because his father is a famed spinner of seemingly tall tales regarding his life and all the people in it. Ewan McGregor plays the storytold version of the father, while Albert Finney plays the older. With a fantastic starring and supporting cast, these two blend into a fantastic movie that I wholly recommend.
It's not a perfect movie, as it sort of rambles from story to story, sometimes switching from one storyteller to the next. But, frankly, that is some of it's charm. Real stories have tangents, as this movie points out, and not every tale is told in one boring line. This is one of the best movies that Tim Burton has directed in a long time. It puts him back on the track of movies like Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Beetlejuice, and his producership in Nightmare Before Christmas. His somewhat skewed but always interesting visual and design ideas are perfect for this movie, which involves a large group of mythical beings, from a giant to a mermaid. Burton is fearless in using whatever means necessary, from CGI effects to makeup and costume to simple acting beats, to tell this beautiful tale within a tale.
What touched me most about this movie, and what makes me believe that every other storyteller should watch it, is that it further reiterated my belief that, without myth/legend/stories and art, life is dull and tasteless. Artists and the tales they tell are the driving force in life, for without us/them, life would be a mere slog from one meaningless moment to another. Also, this movie tells us that within each of us is a storyteller just waiting to be voiced. We have all had an experience of capturing the attention of everyone at the supper table, engaging everyone in the small adventures had going to the market, stepping on a priest's foot during the wedding, or how funny our daughter acted on the drive home back from her first day at school. We live vicariously through the tales told by others, and our own lives are enriched, taught, and strengthened by learning that we are the authors of our own stories. We can become the Big Fish, if we really want to.
My Rating? A
posted by Sierra Rein 1:18 AM
Sunday, October 26, 2003
AMERICAN SPLENDOR
My friend Paul was cool enough to get us in to see this unique movie for free at the Arclight Theater in Hollywood. I had only seen a few trailers for it, but it seemed to look very interesting. Weird movie for free? I'm there!
Directed by Shari Springer Berman, and featuring the acting talents of Paul Giamatti and Hope Davis as the odd couple of comic book writers, Harvey Pekar and Joyce Brabner. What makes this movie unique is it's narrative devices. It's half dramatic retelling, half documentary, and half a mix of both. There is 1 1/2 of movie in this one movie, I can do the math.
Giamatti and Davis are fantastic actors, especially when the movie takes an interesting turn and features interviews with the real Pekar and Brabner, heightening the audience's understanding that these are truly real people we are talking to. Combine that with narration by Pekar himself, sometimes commenting on the fact that Giamatti doesn't really look like him, and you have a wonderful mix of metatheatricallity that really hit my funny bone. That, with surreal shots of the actors hanging around with the real people, and you've got a winning narrative combination.
The movie also features the original artwork, and neatly designed scenes that combine reality and the comic book worlds together. One monologue by Giamatti, as Pekar, does this brilliantly, and may turn up in comedic auditions across Los Angeles soon. Most material has been directly extracted from his original comics, making the movie very personal and true to life.
The movie is so true to life that the actor who played "Genuine Nerd" Toby Radloff caused a bit of a surprise. My fiance, Pete, sat and wondered to himself "where do I know this person from?!?!" We almost thought the acting was over the top until the real Toby Radloff came onto the screen, sitting next to the real Pekar. Judah Friedlander, playing Radloff, did such a great job that Pete slapped his knee, remembering how the "Genuine Nerd" did MTV spots about his Cleveland Indian fan and nerd existence. He was spot on.
Go see this movie to learn the story of a difficult but very troubled, outspoken, intelligent, and unique man. I loved the fact that original David Letterman footage was used, and not recreated except for one final sequence. You got to see Harvey Pekar in true action.
I laughed wholeheartedly at this movie, and got as close an understanding as I'll ever have for Pekar's personality, barring reading his material and shaking his hand in person. It made me want to pick up an "American Splendor" compilation book, and if that's not a huge compliment to the movie, then I don't know what is.
My Rating? A+
posted by Sierra Rein 7:58 PM
Monday, October 06, 2003
From the Maori tribe in New Zealand, this tale of broken tradition and personal strengths touched my heart. Mythic and believeable at the same time, the story tells of a young girl, Paikea, born the second half of a set of twins to the son of a Maori chief. The baby boy, her brother, dies at birth, and with him the grandfather cheif's hopes that the traditional power of the future chief will be carried out by a male heir. The young girl continues to be second-rate in his eyes, despite her growing desire to learn the traditional chants and practices forbidden to her sex.
The acting is superb, and extremely realistic. Keisha Castle-Hughes, the young actress who plays Paikea, has a sad sweetness about her as well as an inner strength that fills the role to every nook and cranny, without overacting. The rest of the cast, as well, are believably subtle, as if we were indeed looking in on this small community with high-powered binoculars, instead of watching actors performing their craft.
And the story is not to fast, not too slow. A little sentimental at times, true, but so well done you don't mind getting pulled into it and feeling the lump in the throat. There are also some wonderfully funny but human moments, and nowhere is there a moment or sight gag just for humor's sake. The whale footage, the purpose of which becomes more and more apparent as the movie goes on, is breathtaking. As a lover of whales myself, I got a little teary-eyed at their involvement towards the end of the movie (you'll see why).
This movie, based on a book by Witi Ihimaera of the same name, reminded me of some young adult novels I read as a kid. It had a lovely sweetness to it, but dealt with true problems of growing up and being accepted, as well as how to be yourself and stick to your guns. The mythic elements as well were beautifully executed, so that there was no question in your mind as to who the true chief really should be. Breathtaking all around, I'd say. I saw it with my good friend Daniel and his friend Loren, and we sat watching the credits for a good 5 minutes without speaking as the other people left the theater. That's the mark of a movie that truly has an effect on people, which is why I've recommended this movie.
My Rating? A
posted by Sierra Rein 12:50 PM
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
MATRIX RELOADED
There is a line which I have taken from one of my favorite TV shows to describe my thoughts about "Matrix Reloaded." It's from "Mystery Science Theater 3000," and it goes something like this: "So, they took a little bit of movie and then put it in a box and filled it with a bunch of foam peanuts? See, this scene right here is a foam peanut."
This is how I felt about "Matrix Reloaded." The Wacko(wski) Brothers took a small amount of plot, stuck a lot of explanation dialogue in to pump it up and fill it like a tire to provide the bulk of the script, then filled the rest of the 1 1/2 hours of screen time with what I would consider "foam peanuts": action sequences that take place within the Matrix and usually involve sunglassed and leather-bound heroes unemotionally fighting against Black (and Albino) suited representations of computer software. Most of these scenes do not add to or advance the plot, and my thoughts after their ending usually went thus: "Herm...those were some interesting effects, now where did the plot leave off?"
I have spoken to my friends about this movie, and a few did like it. I'm not going to scream and yell at them and say "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING?!?!?" but respect that they had a fun time watching "Matrix Reloaded." It is eye candy, it entertains the action-based centers of the brain, and challenges you to conceive of the physics involved in not following gravity or time. I call it Spectacle Porn, where the movie is light on character, plot, or acting (like Sex Porn usually is) and fills the time with effects-laden spectacle. There's nothing wrong if that's what you believe millions of dollars, the art of film itself, and my time are worth.
Well, I think not. One co-worker said to me "Well, you can't go into The Matrix series expecting good acting, a good script, and oscar-winning direction." No, I don't expect that, especially if Keanu Reeves is in it, but I do expect a story to be engaging and the storytellers (actors, directors, writers) to tell it in a way that makes me care about the characters and what is happening to whom. "Matrix Reloaded" did nothing for me. The actors didn't convey any true emotion, and their eyes were so obscured by sunglasses that they seemed to be exactly like the machines they were defending against. Someone told me that was a choice on the part of the directors and I say NOT A STRONG CHOICE! It alienates us from them. It makes us not care. It was a choice, but it was not a very good one. I cared little that they survived each action sequence, making it hard for me to care what was going to happen after each action sequence, making it more difficult to want to listen to the next round of philosophically-inflated plot-driven dialogue, making it excrutiating to want to see the rest of the film...
I'll leave it at that. And stop telling me to relax and enjoy the special effects pornography. I am an actor. I am a singer. I encounter people (friends, strangers, and my writer/fiance Pete) with imagination, talent, and a heart-felt yearning to make film, art, television and theater that are filled with wonderful direction and acting, engaging characters, and stories that inspire both thrills, chills and intelligent thought. Until filmgoers begin to treat the such ultimately pointless films such as "Matrix Reloaded" with the B-movie grade it deserves, and allow the truly talented people to swing at the plate, I will not be satisfied with the slop that usually comes out during Summer Blockbuster season. It's not worth my artistic eye, my 2 1/2 hours, or my $10. Until foam peanuts are eradicated from the Earth, my voice will be heard.
[pretentious mode off]
My Rating? D
posted by Sierra Rein 6:44 PM
Monday, April 14, 2003
PHONE BOOTH
You ever go to a restaurant, see something that looks really good on the menu, order it, it arrives, you take a bite, and realize it just doesn't taste as good as you thought it would be? Then you ask the waiter to take it back and add more of this ingredient or less of that?
I sometimes wish movies were like that. "Phone Booth," starring Colin Farrel and Keifer Sutherland, was a movie rare and underdone, but with plenty of potential. I wanted to send the movie back to the kitchen, to have the same ingredients (a man hijacked in his phone booth by a faceless sharpshooter), and most of the same actors, mixed together differently by a different screenwriter and director.
Here were the reasons, in short: 1. unbelieveable characters who only do what they have to in order to keep the plot elements moving, not out of any innate character logic. [Spoiler Alert] What kind of hooker is that aggressive about a phone booth? And why didn't Stu (Farrel) give her his cell phone to use as she wanted? And what New Yorker gets that offended when they're told to "F*@K off"? And why wouldn't Stu simply hang up and leave the second after he heard Keifer's creepy voice on the line? Why? Because then there wouldn't be a movie. Those are weak parts of the script, in my opinion. 2. Keifer's voice over was waaaaaay too over the top and unconvincing. You can just know he's either crazy or a prank call as soon as Stu started talking to him. Why stay on with a creepy-voiced guy like that? He was too much into the stereotype of a crazy, gravely-voiced psycho, stilted laughing included. The better choice would be a much saner, even-toned voice-over choice who would sound very reasonable at the beginning (thus, more of an incentive for Stu to stay on the line), and get creepier towards the end. 3. Cheesy, metaphorical dialogue and a high and mighty moral message that turns us off from anyone except Forrest Whitaker's character. Stu is just one of the millions of people in this world who sleep with other people IN THEIR HEADS and not in the flesh. Thought-crime is not a crime in this world, so why should we feel like Stu deserves this kind of justice...even if it's only mental torture? He was one of those men who are only moderate jerks. The morals of the film were misplaced, and I just wanted to see the ending only to see how it physically turns out, not to see how the moral dillemma would come to a finish. 4. I knew the ending as soon as the cops started to close in on Keifer's character. Hands down. Easy to spot. Predictable. 5. The editing, and "window" in "window" form of displaying what was going on, while interesting, was a bit tiring. Plus, the camera angle with the rifle sights that supposedly came from the shooter's view kept changing angles, an impossiblitity in real life. And he cocked the gun 3 times without shooting, which made me think he either didn't have the gun loaded, he was playing a sound effect from his computer, or it was just the sound editor not thinking logically. All of this threw me out of the reality of the movie.
Thus, I want the same premise, but different writer and director. Send it back and re-do it boys. You can keep Farrel and Whittaker, they were great and dealt with what they had, but Keifer either has to go or tone it down.
My rating? C
posted by Sierra Rein 10:47 AM
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
DAREDEVIL
My fiance and I are great fans of comic book movies...sorry, "graphic novel" movies, mainly for Pete's extensive time reading them in his youth. I had never heard of Daredevil before the movie was announced, and Pete was glad to fill me in on the history and storyline of the character. I found the premise to be promising; a blind lawyer (first of all, a great role model for blind people everywhere to begin with...it'd be great to see a non-superhero role for blind people like this) with special sensory powers. He, Matt Murdock, must use both his skills and intelligence as a lawyer and his superhero senses to crack down on villains both legally and physically.
It's too bad that the recent movie with Ben Affleck failed to live up to any storyline or character expectations Pete and I had going in. The storyline was sketchy, the characters bland and overacted, and the very essences of the original book's plot elements were dumbed down and sometimes ignored. I'm not saying that every movie needs to be a carbon copy of the original author's intent, but when you are literally handed marvelous structure and characters, why change them? The original storyline elements of the comic bounced back and forth between Matt's trials as a lawyer, and then the Daredevil's exploits in trying to find furthur evidence against villains and for his clients. This movie only had one short unconnected trial scene, a throwaway that could have been written to be a major plot element of the rest of the film, had the writer thought of it. But no, we have to save the time for the special effects and fight sequences!
One sequence that immediately turned myself off to this movie occurs when we first see Daredevil in action. The trial mentioned above takes place, during which an obviously guilty man (because Matt can hear his heart skipping as he lies) gets aquitted of raping a woman. Daredevil hunts him down that night, chases him into a subway, and then watches coldheartedly as the man falls into the tracks and gets run over by a train. HUH?!?! Daredevil should not be a vigilante justice man. If he truly was, he'd get that man in jail and have him butt-raped by the inmates there. But death? Daredevil in the comic has never been about killing to punish the wrongdoers, but about USING THE DAMNED JUSTICE SYSTEM HE WORKS AT DURING THE DAY to bring the bad people to their righteous end. He has the same morals as Batman - tie them up, find the evidence against them, and let the police and judges put them in prison. Daredevil's MURDER of this rapist (murder is not the answer to rape victims...even I wouldn't want the death of them) is not the best way to endear the audience to the character. It's like writing in a scene where a woman kills her husband for sleeping with another woman; yes, his actions were wrong, but they do not merit his death. The filmwriter attempts to use this "am I wrong or not to kill?" inner struggle to show Murdock's darker subconscious, but it only becomes a footnote, mainly because I as an audience member can come to the conclusion pretty quickly: yes, it is wrong to kill. Bad choice for us to like the character!
Another change: Electra, Daredevil's girlfriend/trained assassin (played by Jennifer Garner) originally was a hard, tough, mature woman with a shady and dark past who finds love and caring within Matt Murdock's blind embrace. This movie dumbs her down to a model-pretty twenty-something year old daughter of a rich man who uses her previous martial arts training and becomes a killing machine (well, attempted) overnight when her father is killed, and Daredevil is blamed. Where's the maturity? Where's her history? Once again, a female role is reduced only to react to what the men around her are giving her. This is not a feminist tirade that I'm giving here, it's a structural analysis of how the character is built within the script. The writer took out everything that made the original Electra a unique and strong character, and gave her a very weak premise.
Going back to the idea of Electra as mature, we now have to look at the love story between her and Matt. I practically counted the minutes of their relationship. First of all, Electra walks into an egg and waffles restaurant, has a 5 minute banter with Matt, and then inexplicably walks out. What was she in the restaurant for?!?! The direction and the writing said "She walks in to play the scene," not to "have a cup of coffee" or "read the paper." The first questions an actor asks of his character is "what am I doing here?" "what's my motivation?" Bad, bad writing! So, that conversation lasts 5 minutes. Matt follows her out the door, and they have a rediculous fight/sexual tension/flirtatious/testing each other sequence in a children's playground that defies any believability. Electra's original character wouldn't stoop to using her skills in public, and who would believe Matt was really blind as this type of fighter. I'm not saying blind people can't be great fighters in martial arts, but they would move and react much differently than what Ben Affleck portrayed in the movie. But then, Matt has his special skills. But then, he'd be giving them away if he did it in public with a total stranger. On a side note, this is another problem. They let Matt use his skills in public waaaaaay to easily, so much that someone would look at him and think "This man is not blind, he can see as well as I" which is true. Matt's secret needed to be cloaked a bit more. Christopher Reeve hid his Superman skills behind a bumbling, weak and ineffectual Clark Kent. Matt Murdock in this movie does nothing to really hide the fact that, in essence, he is not blind at all. I guess the writer's thought that it's just not that interesting a dillemma for Matt to go through on a daily basis.
But back to the love story. So, we have a five minute conversation in a restaurant, a five minute sexual banter over fists, and then Matt is invited to Electra's father's house for a five minute dance. They then jump into bed together. WOAH !!!!! I thought we were supposed to think this relationship was mature, strong, and really about love. But no, we're supposed to believe that these characters really do care about each other. NO! WRONG! Fifteen minutes total of screen romance, without any really well written sign of WHY they love each other does not make a love story.
I could go into the horrid one-liners. The fact that Daredevil does not use sound (as they portrayed in the movie) to see, but with a radar sense that allows him to see around corners and should not make him freak out if there's a loud sound. I could mention that Kingpin, Daredevil's arch nemesis, is usually better captured in a courtroom by Matt Murdock. How Bullseye, the Kingpin's hired assassin, is a lot cleverer (why would he leave behind so many random corpses for the police to find!?!?) and less manic than portrayed in the movie. But these are all choices that the writer and actors chose, perhaps to beef up the visual effects or to have "more fun" with the characters.
The potential for a good movie were handed to the movie makers on a silver platter, and they wouldn't trust it. They turned it into the stereotype of a Comic Book Movie that so many filmmakers and audience members alike have shied away from for years. "X-Men" and "Spiderman" proved that - like "Superman" before them - comic book stories can be both adventurous, fun, inspiring, heartbreaking, and character-driven. Modern filmmakers between these movies would reject these storylines and relegate superheroes to afternoon cartoons for kids, not realizing the human drama potential underneath the latex masks. The real humanity of these heroes have a depth that is always ignored due to the societal "stain" of them being "comic book" heroes, as if their story is any less interesting than Harry Potter's or James Bond's.
Let's hope Hollywood treats the next X-Men and The Hulk with a little more respect.
My rating? D+
posted by Sierra Rein 9:54 AM
Monday, February 10, 2003
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: TWO TOWERS
Pete and I went this past Saturday (2/8/03) to catch this movie once again (for the 4th time) at the Fox Village in Westwood before it leaves the big screen venue forever. There were only about 9 people in an audience capacity of a few hundred, so Pete and I were very isolated in our row 5 center seats. It allowed us to comment on the movie through it without bothering anyone.
We loved this movie when it first premiered, just as we loved "The Fellowship of the Rings." It is classic storytelling, distinct and fully created characters, and beautifully crafted production designs that allow the spirit and intent of the original books to come to life. I'm always a fan of reading the books before the movie comes out, and in turn am always delighted and heartened when the movie at least goes with the same spirit that the book conveys. No movie can be exactly what the book is, especially for a J.R.R. Tolkein masterpiece.
So we watched it again, amazed by the Balrog scene in the beginning, rooting for the soldiers at Helm's Deep, and fascinated and TOUCHED by the Gollum. This is the first movie where I have been emotionally affected by a recorded voice combined with a bunch of pixels moved around in sequence. Gollum is an amazing feat of computer wizardry, but more importantly, the human element of body language and facial expression created a character that was funny, frightening, and hearftfelt. The creators of Jar-Jar binks did the same process of motion capture and voice characterization, but didn't really dig deep enough into the character to create any sense of reality. Then again, neither did Hayden Christensen, so maybe that's a moot point. The real point is that the computer animators of Gollum and the physicalization and voice of Andy Serkis (the man in the motion capture suit) should collectively get high artistic praise and perhaps a special Oscar nomination and category created for "Best Acting by a Digitally Created Character."
We walked out of the theater agreeing that when "The Return of the King" comes out in 2003, this trilogy will undoubtedly go into movie history as the best movie series ever. Even Pete, the Star Wars fan that he is, said it would artistically knock both of Lucas' trilogies out of the water. Peter Jackson right now is one of the best directors out there, and if any naysayers bring up the "oh, it's only fantasy and science fiction" argument, I'd ask them to put Martin Scorsese to the daunting task of susinctly and passionately bring the Lord of the Rings Trilogy to life sucessfully. To any director, it is a challenge, and Jackson is 2/3 of the way into doing it with finesse and genius.
My rating? A+
posted by Sierra Rein 12:01 PM
