Hereafter

I saw Hereafter this weekend. I liked it, but Jill didn't. She did say it was better than The American, but that can barely be considered an endorsement. Even though I liked it, it wasn't without it's problems:

• About 1/3 of the movie is subtitled. I know this is so uncultured of me, but sometimes I am just not in the mood for subtitles. I didn't mind them this time, but I wish I had been warned.
• The music is very heavy-handed and at times annoying.
• Plot advancements happen via google searches. This shouldn't bother me that much. It's 2010, and people really do base actions and decisions on google searches. But it feels like lazy writing. Maybe it's just forever tainted because it was used in Twilight.
• The dialogue is often awkward. In a moment of amazement, a character actually says, "Well I'll be."

Listing all of those weaknesses made me wonder why I think I liked it. Maybe I'm greatly underestimating the appeal of Matt Damon. The tsunami scene at the beginning is breathtakingly horrific. Not "I wish I could erase this from my brain" horrific (like some scenes in certain movies). The movie never again reaches the same power as that opening scene, but I thought it was an interesting meditation on what happens to us after we die.

The Easy Red Social Town

I've seen like a billion movies since I last updated. What gives? I'm lazy, that's what gives. I saw The Town, The Social Network, Easy A, and RED. See? A billion. So here are the reviews, from my least favorite to my most favorite.

Easy A
Likable protagonist, sometimes funny, but the movie is very overrated. I was expecting something like Clueless - silly contemporary literary adaptation but with Scarlet Letter instead of Emma. I left the theater very disappointed.

RED
I know a guy that refuses to watch movie trailers, because he feels they ruin the movie. I think that guy would like RED a lot more than I did. It was a perfectly fun fluff movie, but it felt like an extended version of the trailer. No surprises, no amazing chase scenes, no commentary on society. (Though there IS a lot of Karl Urban in a suit.) So you'll like the movie exactly as much as you liked the trailer. (Maybe a little more if you like looking at Karl Urban in a suit.)

Srsly, I'm wearing a suit.

The Town
I really liked this movie, but I left the theater disappointed with the scope of it. (Does that even make sense?) The premise, from the trailer, is that this small area of Boston is responsible for a disproportionately high number of bank robberies. That premise has a lot of promise. But it's just a regular bank robbery movie with a little bit of romance. I had a problem with Ben Affleck's character being characterized as the hero. He kills a lot of people breaks a lot of laws, and gets away with it. Am I supposed to be ok with that because of where he comes from? Because of his life circumstance? The movie isn't very clear with that. And Jon Hamm's character would have been a total waste of a character, were it not played by Jon Hamm. But it was, so no complaints. Overall, the movie was intense and entertaining, with great bank heist/car chase intensity.

The Social Network
Loved this movie. (Just pretend that it's not half fiction.) I like that it never really tells you what to think of Mark Zuckerburg. It makes judgments on all other characters (that scene with the twins and dean was AWESOME), but you never really feel comfortable coming to any conclusions about Mark. Is he good or is he evil? Mostly evil, right? He deals with his deep insecurity over being excluded and marginalized by society by creating his own society... and then using it to excluding and marginalize the people who were his actual friends. Very interesting movie. Great dialogue, excellent music and cinematography, and good pacing. I loved the actor that played the twins. They were my favorite characters.

The American

Jill and I saw The American last night, the spy movie with George Clooney. (George Clooney was with the movie, not Jill and me. In case anyone was confused.) I can't really spoil this movie, because there was NO PLOT. If anyone ever writes a screenplay that includes several long scenes of the male protagonist sitting alone in a room, thinking about his troubled past, that movie must star George Clooney. Jill broke the movie down into seven scenes: George Clooney sitting alone in a room thinking, George Clooney building a gun, George Clooney listening to a priest talk while he sits silently and thinks, George Clooney driving a car (all the while thinking), George Clooney with a beautiful woman, George Clooney walking in the dark thinking he's being followed, and George Clooney on the phone. Create about 5-6 variations of each of those scenes, shuffle them in random order, and you've got the very boring movie I saw last night.

Voldemort is not the bad guy

Yes, another post, but Harry Potter was slighted in my comments and I must avenge his honor! Not really, but a commenter presented an interesting observation about the Harry Potter saga that I think warrants interesting discussion. (I will mention some book 7 spoilers, if you care.)

Chad said:

The magic stuff and basic story elements are fine enough but the bad guy is terribly boring. He's like a villain from Captain Planet or something. "Blast, foiled again because I do not understand basic concepts of love, friendship and turning the water off while brushing my teeth!"

This comment is funny, but I think it misses the point. Voldemort is not the bad guy in Harry Potter, in my opinion. Voldemort is the personification of pure evil. The "bad guys" are the ones that are seduced by Voldemort's (evil's) promises of greatness and power. The worst offender is Bellatrix LeStrange. She is just about as cartoon-evil as Voldemort himself. But all other bad guys are varying shades of gray.

J.K. Rowling does some really interesting things with the concept of "bad guys" throughout her series. We first meet Voldemort in book 1 physically attached to Professor Quirrel. Our first introduction to the "bad guy" has him completely consuming one of his followers. I think this is significant. The true power of Voldemort is his influence over those that follow him.

We see him again in book 2 as Tom Riddle, before he became Voldemort. His "bad guy" status isn't readily apparent, but like in book 1, he only gains power when someone willingly opens up to him. Rowling shows us that even Ginny Weasley, who throughout the rest of the series is completely good (in an awesome, kick-ass kind of way), is vulnerable to Voldemort's power. Ginny's weakness was her insecurity and fear, and evil preys on our weakness. Book 1 shows us that the danger of Voldemort lies in his influence over people, and book 2 shows us how easy it is to allow that influence to consume you.

By the time Voldemort comes into full power, I think Rowling has presented a wide range of bad guys. The Dursleys, Gilderoy Lockhart, Sirius Black, Lucius Malfoy, Peter Pettigrew, Severus Snape, Draco Malfoy, Barty Crouch Jr., Cornelius Fudge... these are the bad guys. But even the worst bad guys have redeeming moments of love, friendship, and loyalty. One of my favorite moments in the series is in book 7, when Voldemort asks Narcissa to see if Harry Potter is alive. She lies. Not because she has any change of heart, but because she loves her son. As Sirius says in Order of the Phoenix, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters." He was talking about Dolores Umbridge, of course. A perfect example of how sometimes the very worst bad guys work for the "good" side.

There is no personification of good in the book. Lily Potter comes close. The power of her love goes head-to-head with the power of Voldemort, and I can't think of any character flaws. But besides Lily, all of the other good guys are just as imperfect as the bad guys. Even Dumbledore has his serious flaws and regrets, as we learn in book 7. The heroes of the book all have their less-than heroic moments: Ginny Weasley opens the chamber of secrets, James Potter severely bullies Snape, Remus Lupin nearly kills a bunch of people as a werewolf, Sirius Black almost causes Snape's death and is extremely cruel to his house elf, Ron Weasley abandons his friends in a fit of jealousy, and even Harry Potter gets so obsessed with the deathly hallows that his carelessness leads to the group's capture, Hermoine getting tortured, and Dobby getting killed. These aren't small mistakes, they are bad enough to make them the bad guys in small snapshots of the overall story.

One of the best things about Harry Potter, in my opinion, is that it blurs the line between good and evil. But it does it in a very subtle way. For the most part, you know the good guys and you know the bad guys. (Except for Snape, until the very end.) Voldemort is not a subtle or nuanced bad guy, but his affect on the bad guys and the good guys is subtle, ambiguous, and devastating. It's what drives the books. How do we deal with evil? What does it look like when we encounter it? Can we recognize it? Can we recognize it in ourselves?

(p.s. In Chad's defense, he's only judging Harry Potter by the movies. I'm sure if he read the books, he'd be totes bees.)

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Holy cow two posts in one day. After 20 days of no posts even. It's almost like I'm avoiding something I don't like doing... but I can't imagine what that would be, in the middle of a rainy Monday morning.

Movie review time! I saw Scott Pilgrim vs. the World on Saturday. I wanted to see this movie two weeks ago, but a return appearance of Tubes! (Jill's arch-nemesis) foiled those plans. SPOILERS AHEAD. BE YE WARNED.

The best part of this movie was Michael Cera's whiny pouting. And I even thought I was starting to get sick of him. I was wrong! He has emo-whiny pouting down to an art. I am trying to perfect his delivery of "but...it's haaaard," slouching halfway down a chair, wallowing in my own abject despair, complaining about my non-problems. I wallow in abject despair at my own non-problems ALL THE TIME, so it's very useful to learn how to do it properly. Today I've already used this new skill to whine about the following things: you can't seem to find long straight skirts at stores anymore, I'm not wearing a giant sombrero, people can see my face, Harry Potter isn't real and I'm not magic, I have a headache, people keep talking to me, it's not raining, it's raining, and the expectation from society that I take a shower every single day. These are very serious non-problems and I'm glad this movie has shown me how to effectively complain about them.

The worst part of this movie was the choice at the end. Scott has to choose between Knives and Ramona, and I don't know enough about why he liked either girl to really care much about which one he chose. But I still felt like he was picking the wrong girl, at least according to the movie. The most recent fight scene seemed to be saying that Scott and Knives were the best team, but then he goes off with Ramona? Like I said, I don't know enough about why Scott even liked Knives (other than the fact that she looked like an anime character... and I guess anime characters are hawt?) to care that he didn't chose her, but it did feel like the movie itself was pulling the Knives to prevail. And I didn't buy that she suddenly didn't care if Scott left her for Ramona.

Overall, good movie. It was really fun to watch, and very funny throughout. But there was something missing with character development. I enjoyed watching the characters, but didn't care much about what happened to them.

Aw man. It's raining again, but not raining enough. *pout* Why can't I just get exactly what I want every moment of every day? Is that too much to ask? Why is life so hard?

Inception

I saw this on opening day and have been mulling over my response to it. I've read a large variety of reactions to the movie. Some think it's the best movie ever and several internet-crazy fandoms (are there any other kind?) dedicated to this movie and its characters have sprung up over night. Some feel an overwhelming desire to notify everyone to the movie's mediocrity and document, in detail, their profound personal disappointment. I have difficulty figuring out my own opinion in the face of such conflicting impassioned opinions.

It's an excellent summer action movie, but even that doesn't quite describe it. Either (1) action movies have become so crappy and lame that when we get a genuinely good action movie, it feels like the best movie ever; or (2) it isn't accurate to describe this as an "action" movie, it's really more of a "thriller." (See, according to my arbitrary movie classification rules, thrillers can be and often are much better than action movies. Action movies = chick flick. Thriller = serious drama.) I'm leaning towards option 1. I think the backlash to the film was that it was advertised as a mind-bending thriller, when really it's a well-made movie with excellent action sequences, an original plot and good acting. Nothing was particularly mind-bending, and very little was emotionally involving.

This conclusion doesn't mean I didn't like it. I liked it a lot, actually. And I can recognize that it has that mysterious element that makes a movie, book, or comic book so much more susceptible to fan hysteria. Twilight has it. Harry Potter has it. The Matrix has it. Maybe it's the fantasy element? Thinking about it now, maybe it's the promise an alternate reality existing right in our backyard. All we have to do is fall asleep (or wake up, or get an owl-delivered letter, or make eye-contact with the hot vampire in the cafeteria), and endless possibilities are open to us.

I feel like I'm rambling aimlessly, so here's a list of things I particularly liked, and a few things I didn't. (Warning: Spoilers ahead!)

Liked:

• The movie elicits audience participation, it leaves a little room for debate. The ending with top just starting to wobble was great.
• Joseph Gordon-Levitt and that entire no-gravity fight sequence.
• I liked the time difference between dream levels.
• Tom Hardy. Who is he and why has he not been in more movies?
• This movie is not a remake, prequel, adaptation, or sequel. It's actually a unique story, and an interesting one.
• The movie expects you to pay attention. It doesn't recap or dumb down. If they've said it once, they're done and moving on.
• The movie was complex, but not too twisty. No sudden shockers that make you re-evaluate everything you've seen already. I like twists, but in a movie this complex, I appreciated that it was fairly straight-forward. (Though I did spend the entire movie trying to predict how the rug was going to be pulled out from under me. Was Cobb the one really being inceptioned? Was the entire heist an elaborate hoax to steal something from Cobb's mind?)
  

Didn't like:

• The snow action scene. Skiing and guns? Meh.
• The reason for the inception felt kind of weak. I get why Leonardo DiCaprio went through with it, but all of those other people? To prevent an energy monopoly? Lame.
• The characters were all pretty flat. Even Leo. This is the second movie in a row that he's been grieving a dead wife. Speaking of which, out of the five Chris Nolan movies I've seen, four have the main character grieving over a dead love interest. Memento, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, and now Inception. (Five out of five if you count Bruce Wayne grieving over the loss of his parents, in Batman Begins.) If I were Chris Nolan's wife, I'd be slightly concerned.
• There were a few logic fails that I haven't been able to reconcile. In dream level 1 (the city in the rain), the fall into the water is enough of a kick, but the van flipping over isn't? Shouldn't Joseph Gordon-Levitt at least wake up at that point? If no gravity in dream level 1 means no gravity in dream level 2 (hotel), then how is there gravity in all the deeper levels? It's not as if there really was no gravity; they were in the airplane the entire time and were just dreaming that there was no gravity. None of these were really enough to take me out of the story, but when I'm discussing it afterward (as this movie demands that you do), I prefer a movie where everything makes sense, no matter how complicated the story.

I always underestimate how incredibly fun a great action movie can be. I really enjoyed watching this movie. I felt the same way leaving the theater after watching the most recent James Bond movies. It was an exhilarating ride that was immensely entertaining. I look forward to seeing it again.

Movie Review Catch-up

Toy Story 3 - The Incredibles is my most favorite pixar movie, but The Toy Story Saga (shut up, Twilight, you don't own that word) is a very close second. Mr. Tortilla Head was hilarious and creepy. (What is the essence of a person, really? Is he just a collection of parts? Would he exist if just one detachable body part remained? Can Mr. Potato Head really be Mr. Potato Head without the potato?) This movie is just as good as the other two.

Twilight: Eclipse - So hey, I actually kinda liked this one. Where has Jasper been all this time? He needs his own movie. And no Edward flashback? Boo. About that engagement ring: Jill knew a woman that was Stephenie Meyer's cousin's wife (or something) who made wedding rings that she claimed Stephenie Meyer approved as the "official" Bella engagement ring. It looked nothing like that giant sparkly egg. The woman Jill knew had to stop making them, by order of Stephenie's lawyers. Producing and selling that ring were her and her husband's primary source of income. Seeing an ad for Bella's "official" engagement ring made me wonder how awkward those family reunions must be. Would that woman's customers all demand refunds? Has she gone bankrupt? It made me wonder what it really does to a family to have someone become extremely famous. How many extended relatives expect to leach off of your success? What is your obligation to a distant relative who makes a living off of your work?

Back to the movie, it was entertaining and not nearly as cringe-inducing as I anticipated. It was also much better than Last Airbender.

The Last Airbender - This movie got beat up pretty bad by critics, but it's not as bad as they say it is. It's not good, but I was entertained and somewhat intrigued. The acting was Star Wars: Episode 1-3 level bad, but the story is interesting. I hadn't watched the cartoon before, so I could easily get distracted by plot. And I don't know why the critics are calling the movie "ugly"... I thought it was very pretty. But then they probably had to watch it in 3D and this was yet another movie that outsourced their 3D after the movie was finished. Quit doing that Hollywood! No one wants to pay MORE money for an uglier movie. If you see this, definitely see it in 2D.

Prince of Persia and Karate Kid

I need to catch up on my movie reviews before I see Toy Story 3. (Yay! Toy Story 3!)

Prince of Persia - Imagine Pirates of the Caribbean without Johnny Depp. Sure, Jake Gyllenhaal is great (as is Orlando Bloom). But a movie like this really really needs a Johnny Depp (if not the Johnny Depp).Unsolicited spoilery feminist critique: Besides spectacularly failing the Bechdal-Wallace rule, any epiphany, experience, or character growth is stolen away from the only female character by the end of movie. Jake Gyllenhaal sands-of-times back to the beginning of the movie, and it ends with an arranged marriage planned between him and the only woman in all of Persia. The entire movie was spent showing that woman getting over her initial dislike and slowly falling in love with him. But none of that matters. She gets to marry a total stranger. Apparently, all that matters is that the man knows they were in love.

The Karate Kid - I have much less to say about this movie. It was predictable but cute. A tiny bit too long, but I enjoyed watching it.

The Joneses: Movie Review

Who can resist a movie where David Duchovny is being adorable?

This movie was just okay. The premise is that four salespeople pose as a family in an affluent neighborhood and "self-market" specific products. The movie set-up some really interesting discussion topics, but didn't really push the ideas far enough. The movie ended up turning into a basic "will they get together" plot, which was disappointing.

There were a couple of ideas I wish the movie had explored further. (Major spoilers ahead.)

David Duchovny's character (Steve) spends a lot of his energy marketing all of his new toys to his next door neighbor. Steve doesn't know that the neighbor is already in severe debt and can't afford to buy a rider lawn mower with a television attached. So the neighbor gets increasingly discouraged trying to keep up with Steve Jones and his infinite ability to buy expensive things. The neighbor refuses to talk to his wife about it, and eventually drives his fancy lawn mower into the pool and kills himself. A similar thing happens with the son's friend. She gets in a car accident after leaving a party drunk on the wine juice packs the son was trying to market.

The movie suggests that the suicide and the car accident are The Jones's fault. I think the whole idea of self-marketing is at best morally questionable, but what about personal responsibility? Whose fault is it really that people buy more than they can afford? Or succumb to peer pressure and get too drunk to drive? There's no discussion in the movie, it's the Jones's fault.

Another idea I liked was about living an authentic life. If you buy all the props of success and happiness, does that make you successful and happy? How much of our identity is defined by the things we buy? The Joneses aren't a real family biologically, but they end up coming together and functioning like a real family by the end. If you pretend something is real for long enough, does that make it real? Like the other idea, the movie just hints at this idea, but doesn't really delve into it enough to say anything interesting.

Even though the tone and style are completely different, this movie reminded me of the tv series Mad Men. Mad Men explores the ideas above, but in a much subtler and more powerful way. I think what ultimately disappointed me about this movie was that it had so much potential, but it couldn't rise to the challenge and deliver.

Also, the movie seemed to think its audience didn't know the premise going in. The premise that this was a fake family was clearly spelled out by the trailers, but they wasted the first quarter of the movie trying to freak the audience out, assuming they'd think it was a real family. Creepy things... like having the daughter hit on the dad. If I didn't know the premise going in, it would have been incredibly disturbing.

View the trailer on YouTube.

P.S. I did see Iron Man 2, but I'm really not going to review it. I enjoyed it, but it's exactly what you think it will be. I'm longing for a really good movie that exceeds expectations. I'm looking forward to Prince of Persia, Inception, and The Last Airbender (formally known as Avatar).

How to Train Your Dragon

No spoilers in this post.

I saw this in 2D. While I don't like paying more for 3D or wearing glasses for an entire 3D movie, there is something I do like about 3D. When a movie is designed in 3D, it feels like they pay more attention to movement. So even in 2D, the movie feels more exhilarating. This was definitely true in How to Train Your Dragon. This was a fantastic movie, probably the best one I've seen all year so far. The characters are endearing and you become invested in them right away. The plot is fairly conventional, but there were a few developments that I didn't expect. The best part of the movie are the emotional moments. Because you care about the characters and because the film is beautifully crafted, the moments of discovery or insight or betrayal are very compelling and powerful. I highly recommend this movie.

Ramona Quimby

They are making a movie based on the Ramona books. These are the first books I remember reading, ever. I wanted SO BADLY to be Ramona Quimby. In elementary school, my friends always told me I looked just like her, but I knew I was nowhere near that cool.

Things I remember from the books: Ramona turned the letter "Q" from "Quimby" into a cat. I tried to figure out a cute picture for the letter "S" from "Saunders" but snakes are not as cute as cats. I remember the part where her mom told her to leave for school at a "quarter after" the hour, and Ramona figured that must mean 25 minutes after, because a quarter is 25 cents. I remember her friend, the blonde boy with the curly hair. (Howie!) More than anything, I remember Ramona's frequent frustration with the world around her, and her desperate need to understand it and be accepted by it. When I read stories, more than anything, I read for character. Ramona Quimby was the first character I remember making friends with. I hope the movie does her justice.

Here's the trailer:

Alice in Wonderland

I saw this yesterday, in regular-old 2-D. I have been very unimpressed with 3-D, but then the only movies I've tried in 3-D were Up and Creature from the Black Lagoon. And that second one was the old red/blue glasses type 3-D, so maybe I should give it another shot sometime. Maybe with Clash of the Titans. So, this movie. I was really excited for it, then saw the luke-warm reviews, but had already bought tickets, and went in thinking it'd be kind of meh. I've realized with movies that expectations play a very large role in my enjoyment of the movie. If I see a movie because I'm bored and it was the only one that I thought I could stand (Push, Percy Jackson), or if I have no idea about the movie but am with someone that really really wants to see it (Quantum Solace, Slumdog Millionaire), then I usually really like the movie.

All of that set-up and still not to the actual movie. [Spoilers ahead.] I liked it. A lot more than I thought I would. But I get why people aren't liking it. It's weird, sometimes really weird, but that's expected. For all it's weirdness, it's still incredibly predictable. No plot points are surprising, and a few are so vague that they don't make sense. What exactly did the Red Queen do that was so bad? Blow stuff up and steal the crown? If the crown is so easily stolen, what power does it really even have? I couldn't help but feel a little sympathy for the Red Queen, even though it was clearly telegraphed that she was EVIL and supposed to lose. That tall creepy one-eyed Stayne was really intriguing, and I wanted to know more about where he came from. It seemed like a lot of the Underland kingdom was either "good" or "evil" depending on who was wearing the crown, but Stayne seemed to be an even more sinister evil than even the Queen of Hearts.

The movie has interesting implications (Victorian women trapped in the marriage path, becoming a different version of yourself), but never really figures out what it's saying with them. Alice takes an unexpected path in life, but isn't that really more a luxury of her class than a break-through for her gender? There's the dichotomy between the White Queen and the Red Queen: traditional delicate femininity, conventional beauty, and polite passiveness are considered good and worthy of love where the shouty, bossy, big-headed woman is banished to live a life with no companionship (not that she ever had any genuine companionship before). So that seems to work against the "woo! independent woman!" theme.

Overall: It's a very pretty eye-candy movie, predictable and a little unfocused, but not nearly as annoying as Avatar. I enjoyed watching it, and if you think you'll like it, you probably will.

The Lightning Thief and Oscar Nominated Shorts (And Bonus Basterds)

I'm getting behind on my saw-it-in-the-theater movie reviews! As usual, there are spoilers.

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief-
I have not read these books, so I went into the movie only knowing the basic premise: Harry Potter plus Greek mythology. I was not disappointed, this movie was a lot of fun and very entertaining. I have just enough knowledge about Greek mythology to have a bunch of fun "Oh! It's the lotus eaters!" moments, but not enough to get all well-I-never-nitpicky about inaccuracies. I'm kind of curious as to how Aphrodite has time to give birth to a full cheerleader's squad of daughters, though. I also don't understand why Percy's mom had to marry Mr. Stinky. And if she really had to marry someone stinky, were there really no nice stinky people? Heck, why doesn't SHE just get stinky? It's not hard: stop showering, eat lots of garlic, get several pet hamsters. People do it every day.

Oscar Nominated Shorts: Animated
My prediction is that Wallace and Gromit will win, but I hope it doesn't. 30 minutes is too long for a "short" film. These were not as good as last year.

Bonus: Inglorious Basterds
I didn't see this in the theater, because I wanted to be able to fast forward as needed. I rented this last weekend, and liked it a lot more than I thought I would. There's a relatively small amount of action, the most intense parts are the dialogue scenes. One slightly embarrassing tidbit: I didn't realize this was completely fictionalized. I mean completely completely. I knew it wasn't a true story, but I thought it was still going to fit in with actual historical events. So I kept waiting for the "Basterds" plot to be foiled, because we all know Hitler didn't die in a movie theater along with all the top officers of the Third Reich. So I was thoroughly surprised when they start pumping about 80 thousands bullets into Hitler's body and the building actually blows up. It's a cool concept. Tarantino imagined the war ending in a way that a film director would find the most awesome. More people should make movies like that.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Note:
There are spoilers in this post. It is less of a review and more a movie summary with some discussion. But don't worry! You can be told the entire plot of this movie and still not know what on earth is going on when/if you finally watch it for yourself. If you did see the movie (or just read the summary), feel free to comment. This movie was very unusual, and I wouldn't be surprised if I misunderstood the entire thing.

Summary:
The movie starts out 3 days before Dr. Parnassus's daughter, Valentina, turns 16. Dr. Parnassus is hundreds of years old. He "won" immortality from the Devil by promising him any offspring he fathered once they turned 16. Valentina doesn't know this, and Parnassus spends the first part of the movie in a drunken emo stupor over this sad fact. Guyliner and everything. The Devil decides to make another wager with Parnassus, to give him one more chance to keep his daughter. The first person to win five souls by the time Valentina turns 16 (by now it's only two days away), gets to keep Valentina.

My life sucks. :(

To win a soul, a person has to go inside the Imaginarium, and make the right choice. The Imaginarium gets "turned on" when Dr. Parnassus goes into a trance. The person walks through a broken mirror, and they are transported inside their own imagination. Eventually, they will come to a decision. One guy has to chose to either climb a giant mountain, or have drink in a pub. Another woman must chose between spending time in a motel room with Johnny Depp, or floating down a river to be awesome and dead like Princess Di. Four other guys have to chose between joining a violence-loving, cross-dressing police force or running home to mommy. It's weird. I don't quite get what it's supposed to be, but it seems like both decisions are based off of the same desire. One is just the easy way to get it, and the other is the hard way. It doesn't quite make sense, but one choice means Dr. Parnassus has won, and the other means the Devil has won. In the choices above, the "Dr. Parnassus" choice was climb the mountain, float down the river of death, and join the cross-dressing police force. If you choose the Devil's option, you explode inside the Imaginarium, and are presumably dead. If you chose the Dr. Parnassus choice, you get to come out of the Imaginarium on a leafy swing, feeling pure bliss, having been "reborn."

Choose the river of death or get blown up!

So right before the devil makes this new bet, the Dr. Parnassus crew (Valentina, a midget, and some other guy named Anton) "rescues" a guy named Tony - Heath Ledger's character. They find him hanging from a bridge. He claims to not know who he is, but he's lying. He tags along to help them get five more souls, though I'm not sure why. He says it's to repay them for saving his life, but I think he was just using them to hide out. He charms some women into the Imaginarium, and goes in with them to help them make the right "Dr. Parnassus" choice. He eventually gets recognized by the people that tried to kill him in the first place, and runs into the Imaginarium to hide. Inside his own imagination, he's amazed by what seems possible in there. He loses the four guys chasing him (they all run home to mommy and get blown up), but has to leave before he gets to make his choice.

Step inside. I swear I won't kill you.

It's finally Valentina's birthday. The Devil and Parnassus have each won four people when Valentina finally learns what's going on. She runs away in anger. Meanwhile, Tony offers to go into the Imaginarium to be the fifth soul Parnassus needs to win the bet. As he's about to go inside, Valentina returns, very very angry. Tony convinces her to go into his imagination with him, saying they can run away and just live there forever. She agrees, despite Anton's protests that Tony is a liar. (Oh yeah, Anton found a piece of newspaper that explained who Tony really was: the chairman of a charity that was selling orphans or something. I'm not exactly sure, I thought I heard "organs," but Jill insists he said "orphans." Either way, orphans were involved. I'm just not sure if they were being harvested for organs, or sold whole. Either way: Tony = bad guy.) While in the Imaginarium, Valentina finds out the truth about Tony. She runs away, meets the Devil and comes to her choice. Still mad at her dad, she chooses the Devil's choice out of spite.

I'm tricksy and false.

Parnassus is devastated. The Devil offers to make one more bet: if Parnassus can kill Tony, he'll give him his daughter back. Tony is being chased by an angry mob. Parnassus catches up with him, and finds out how he's survived the previous hanging- he put a pipe down his throat to prevent strangling. Tony tries to explain to Parnassus that the Devil was just tricking him, that Valentina couldn't count as the fifth soul since she was the prize, and if he helps him get away, he'll pick the correct "Dr. Parnassus" choice and Valentina will be saved. Dr. Parnassus doesn't listen and helps the mob finally succeed in killing him. The Devil shows up and tells Dr. Parnassus that he doesn't know where his daughter is. He says he never really had her in the first place.

It's many years later. Dr. Parnassus is sad, and still old. He's begging for money and someone that looks like Valentina drops some money in his cup. He follows her and sees she married Anton and has a daughter. He doesn't interfere, and with his midget friend, decides to sell puppet shows on the street. The end.

Not going to lie. This movie was little bit crazy pants.

Questions:
What was the Devil? He was clearly Parnassus's adversary, but he wasn't necessarily "evil." Jill thinks he was just indifference. I think he represented something closer to realism, or cynicism. A world without imagination, or faith, or story. The "Dr. Parnassus" choices (for the most part), seemed to involve a great sacrifice for something greater than yourself. For an ideal that you valued. And the "Devil" choice was the quick easy way to get a cheap imitation of that ideal.

What was Valentina's choice? Valentina chose the Devil in the end. Valentina's choice was between a door that said "his" and a door that said "hers." She clearly went through the Devil's door ("his"). When she went through, the Devil said, "Damn. I've won." But she wasn't blown up, and the Devil told Parnassus he never really had her. Did she not really make her choice? Did it not count? She left the world of Dr. Parnassus for the real world. But then, that real family-life always was her ideal dream, her imagination.

What was Health Ledger's character supposed to be? The movie played up his huge significance -- the cards don't lie, the hanging man, etc. -- but he ended up being largely inconsequential. He did help drive parts of the story, but he didn't mean anything to it. The story had nothing to do with him, he just happened to be there for most of it.

Overall impressions:
I think I liked it. It was beautifully made and well-acted, but I was never sure what was at stake, or why it was so important for Dr. Parnassus to win. It wasn't difficult to be entertained by what was happening, but it was hard to be really invested.

The Lovely Bones

NOTE: As long as you've seen the previews for this movie, this post contains no spoilers.

Movie #2 this year: The Lovely Bones. (Movie #1 was An Education. I'm going to try and write mini-review/reaction posts to the movies I see this year, but I probably won't write one for An Education. I really liked it. If I take too long to get my thoughts down about a movie, that's about all I can articulate.)

Anyway. Just got back from seeing this, and I was really unsure about what I thought about the whole thing. When I'm like that after seeing a movie, I like to go to rottentomatoes.com and read what other people thought about it. I was surprised, this movie has a pretty low overall rating: 37%. There's no doubt this film was beautifully made, and the acting was fantastic. This wasn't like Avatar (grossly overrated at 82%), I wasn't rolling my eyes and compulsively checking the time or anything. I was invested for the entire film. But I can't say I enjoyed it. Never before have I longed so intently to be able to fast forward like I did during this movie. I even turned to my sister during a particularly horrifying sequence and said, "I don't like this. This needs to end faster." One of the reviews I read better explains my reaction:

The same opening that's compelling on the page - "I was fourteen when I was murdered on December 6, 1973" - becomes the focus of dread for a movie audience, because we know, sooner or later, that we're going to be forced to sit through something we don't want to see. Even if director Peter Jackson ultimately chooses not to render the murder in graphic terms, actually seeing a young girl being tricked by a predator and gradually becoming terrified feels more than disturbing. It feels profane.

To be specific, it feels almost as if, by watching, we're violating her, too - not Susie Salmon, the central character, and not Saoirse Ronan, the brilliantly talented young actress who plays her - but all the real-life Susies. Even when presented with sensitivity, respect and taste, there's just something unsettling about public entertainment that's made from this particular variety of private suffering.

What is there to be gained from this, that we should feel worse? Or come to some false sense of understanding that makes us feel better about something we shouldn't feel better about?

For what it puts the audience through -- watching the scene where she is murdered -- I don't think the rest of the movie redeems itself. It isn't graphic in terms of gore and violence, but I felt like I just witnessed real evil. I can handle emotional movies, movies that explore the dark side of the human experience, but that emotional experience must have some element of truth.

I have this personal philosophy which partially involves what I call the stained-glass idea. When I was in England on study abroad, my class went to the Winchester Cathedral. In that cathedral, there is a stained glass window that was once shattered by Cromwell's armies. The parishioners of the cathedral gathered up the broken shards of glass and tried to rebuild the window. There are some parts where you can almost make out what the window might have looked like before, but most of it is a jumbled collage. I think there is an absolute Truth, but that it's like that window. It's shattered, and everyone has a few of the pieces. I don't think we have the ability to really see what pure Truth is, in this life. The best we can do is try to understand the pieces we have and to try and share them with others, to find out how our pieces of "truth" match together. And in the way they come together, try to see more truth. I think we do this best by sharing our stories through literature, music, film, and other forms of art. In order to get a better idea of the full window, I need to try to understand other people's pieces of truth. Other people's stories can be horrifying, but if I feel like I've seen a shred of real truth in them, that they are worth hearing.

I am having a difficult time seeing any truth in this movie, enough to justify the horror. I haven't read the book. I've heard it's really good. Many of the reviews claim that it's overall tone was much better than the movie. I may read it, but I'm going to have to get over the experience of seeing the movie first. If you loved the book and really want to see the movie, I recommend that you wait until you can rent it. Believe me, you'll be very grateful for that fast forward button.

Pure wild animal craziness

I just saw The Fantastic Mr. Fox last night. It looks very much like a Wes Anderson movie with the book cover title cards, the bright colors, and the dollhouse side views of elaborate sets. I couldn't help but compare it to Where the Wild Things Are, another child's book adaptation uniquely rendered and meant just as much for adults as children. Fantastic Mr. Fox was much better. Maybe partially because it didn't have all the hyped-up expectations, but I enjoyed watching it much more. A character will have a mid-life-crisis-like out loud pondering, and then tear into his food like a wild animal. This movie isn't going to make you cry, but it's full of poignant moments of authenticity alongside scenes of hilarious random absurdity. The kids in the audience seemed to like it just as much as the adults. Kids or no, you should check this movie out.

Team Mike

I saw New Moon on Friday. I've only ever read the first book in the Twilight saga, but I know the basic plot. With that limited background knowledge, I was expecting to come out of New Moon a Team Jacob fan. I know it's never going to happen, but from the first book, I liked Jacob a lot better than Edward. (Probably because he was barely in it.) Still, I thought Jacob was more of a real person; and since he wasn't a 100 year old man who wanted to kill her, that Jacob/Bella would be more of a healthy relationship. WRONG. Jacob is just as creepy and condescending (sorry... protective) as Edward. So I'm starting a new team: Team Mike. The dorky boy from school. The dorky normal boy who gets queasy at the sight of gore. The guy who expresses his interest in Bella by asking her on a date instead of abandoning her with no explanation "for her own good." Sure, he may not have a bazillion ab muscles, but I'm sure his nipples match. And if he wants to come into her room, he waits until he's invited and then USES THE DOOR.

Maybe I'll write that YA series. A young girl who likes reading books and cooking dinner for her dad discovers the existence of several supernatural creatures who all happen to be in love with her for no apparent reason. After much emo window-staring, she eventually falls in love with the nerdy kid from her 3rd period English class. The supernatural creatures all kill each other in an epic battle while she's on a date at Chili's. After much soul searching, she decides to order the steak fajitas.

Why you shouldn't think too hard about princess movies

I'm on a roll with this blogging thing lately. Just trying to keep Jill interested at work. :)

So last night, I re-watched The Swan Princess. Shut up, I was bored, and it was on-demand. Upon re-viewing, I couldn't help but notice just how STUPID Prince Derek is in that movie. He has to be one of, if not THE most stupid cartoon fairy tale princes EVER.

Besides the obvious in-story stupidity (the "what else is there" answer):

• He spends what looks like several months "practicing" saving Odette. However long it is, it's enough time for his mother (and the entire kingdom) to think he needs to just move on already.
• When not practicing, he is "studying" to better save Odette. His plan is to apparently read every book in the library, hoping to decode the cryptic message Odette's father left before he died.
• He interprets the message WAY wrong.
• He goes skipping out to the forest, thinking his genius interpretation is going to make him save Odette before the ball THE NEXT DAY. The interpretation? That the "great animal" could be anything. So his uber confidence comes from the fact that he's probably looking for any animal. What was his plan? Kill everything?
• The only thing he almost kills is Odette herself, accidentally. Because he is a dumb ass. (And another note: after all that amazing animal shooting practice...he can't hit a swan? Not just a swan, but a human being that only just recently turned into a swan?)
  
• Odette is being held captive in a place that he can WALK to from his house. A castle owned by a reclusive crazy wizard. Yet Derek had to study for months (at least long enough for Odette to become quite adept at the whole flying thing) to figure out where to start.

Blah blah blah, it ends happily ever after. It should have ended that Derek tripped down the stairs and accidentally killed himself with his own arrow. That would have at least been believable. Odette can just learn to live as a swan. She'd still be better off than her dad, who dies and no one seemed to care.

So what are your thoughts? Can you think of a stupider animated fairytale prince? They aren't the smartest lot of fictional characters, but I don't think anyone can be as dumb as Derek.

Sunshine

After watching Slumdog Millionaire and realizing that it was directed by the same guy that made 28 Days Later (Danny Boyle), I wanted to watch other movies he had made.

So I started with Trainspotting. My first mistake was trying to eat dinner while watching the movie. I'm trying to think of the least crude way to describe the point at which I decided to turn it off, but I can't. It involves poop, and it's about ten minutes into the movie. It may be the best film ever made, but I just don't have the stomach for it.

Next Danny Boyle movie on my Netflix queue: The Beach. I was a little wary of this one. I remember seeing it advertised when it was in theaters, and specifically remembering that it looked stupid. I figured that at the very least it had Leonardo DiCaprio, so watching it couldn't be a total loss. I got through the whole movie this time, but it really bothered me. DiCaprio's character (Richard), is this spoiled rich kid in search of "meaningful life experience," but he ends up completely destroying just about everything he comes in contact with. He never seems to come away with any kind epiphany. He is responsible for the death of several people, wrecks at least two relationships, and destroys an entire society that had existed for 5 years. And at the end of it all, he's sitting in some internet cafe looking at pictures from the whole experience as if he's reminiscing about summer camp. Maybe his character's toxic superficiality was the whole point, but it didn't feel like the movie was in on it--like Richard was still the unironic hero of the movie.

So then Sunshine came in the mail, and I let it sit on the shelf for a while. I wasn't sure I was up for another Danny Boyle movie. Jill and I finally watched it a couple of nights ago. It gets a little weird at the end, but we both loved it. I love sci-fi thrillers. There were a couple of plot points I wanted explained a little more; Jill and I worked some things out in our post-movie discussion, but I think I would have liked to know if we were right. I don't need a movie to spell out every little thing, but in this case I would have liked a few more pieces of the puzzle. I'm being vague on purpose, because if you haven't seen this movie, I think you should. At least watch the trailer.



Also: When I become ruler of universe, I will decree that every movie cast Cillian Murphy, preferably as the lead. And every movie trailer must incorporate that song, somehow.

The Half-Blood Prince

Movies in 15 minutes - Harry Potter: HBP recap is up at cleolinda's blog. If you didn't see the movie and want to know what happens, or if you did see the movie and want relive it again and again, or if you are bored and want to kill 15 minutes, I recommend reading it.

I've seen the movie twice, and there are a couple of things I'd change. I'm not going to write a list of how the book was different/better than the movie OMG, because I get that movies based on books are going to be different. Unless it's Watchmen, where the only difference is the addition of awkward sexy porno music.

The most egregious difference between the movie and book was probably the "1933- The Great Depression blah blah blah bankrobbers blah blah John Dillinger" text at the beginning and then the scene where Johnny Depp gets out of a car and shoots up a prison. But then the movie theater people realized they were playing Public Enemies and switched it back to Harry Potter. Not fast enough to anger a theater full of angry Mormon families whose children were no longer pure, having been exposed to 3 whole minutes of an R-rated movie. How crude.

The most annoying actual difference between the movie and the book, in my opinion, was the blah-ification of Ginny Weasley. She's awesome in the books. She's hilarious, smart, pretty, loyal, protective, and you totally get why Harry would like her. I am grateful that we never heard anything about that stupid "chest monster," but I didn't need to see superfluous shoe-tying scenes.

The only other difference that bugged me was replacing the electric Snape/Harry confrontation after Dumbledore's death with a night-time hiking trip through the woods that ends up getting a little tense. There was supposed to be shouting! Unforgivable curse attempts! Snape totally losing it after being called a coward! But nope. It's: "Oh btw I'm the half-blood prince, bbl!" I read somewhere that JK Rowling originally wanted Tim Roth to play Snape, and I think I would have liked him better. I think Alan Rickman totally looks like Snape, but I think his performance is always a little subdued. He's supposed to be this intense, angry, desperate, remorseful man and Alan Rickman's Snape seems so disinterested and tired.

Even with those complaints, I really liked this movie. It's the only Harry Potter I wanted to see in the theater more than once. The look of the movie is gorgeous and the three main kids have a lot of good interaction. Easily my favorite out of the entire film series so far.